Article draft from Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an
article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some
of you goofballs will be able to understand it. The rest of
you will carp and rant and say that it is unreadable,
boring, etc., because the topic it covers will be heading
right over your heads.

The draft:

Speaker-Room Suckout and Other Tidbits.

I've mentioned this before, but I will mention it again: in
typical home-listening rooms, spaced-apart woofer (or
subwoofer) systems will generate a cancellation notch at
some bass frequency that is dependent upon both the distance
between woofer (or subwoofer) driver centers and the
frequency.

Depending upon the spacing between the systems (between
woofer or subwoofer driver centers), at some bass frequency
the rarefaction wave from one woofer or subwoofer will reach
the other woofer or subwoofer just as it is generating a
pressure wave. (More on this up ahead.) The two cancel out
and you get a power-response notch.
There is no way to get away from this with spaced
woofer/subwoofer systems generating identical or
near-identical bass signals.

A similar thing happens with single woofers and subwoofers
interacting with stiff, large-area wall, floor, and ceiling
surfaces. The large surface area will reflect back the
signal to the radiating driver as if it were being radiated
by a second woofer or subwoofer at twice the distance from
the single driver's center to the boundary. The boundary
creates a mirror-image situation that mimics a second woofer
or subwoofer driver.

For example, a situation where you have two spaced woofers
or subwoofers 12 feet apart or another situation where you
have one woofer or subwoofer 6 feet from a large boundary
will each generate a suckout notch centered at 56.5 Hz. With
one system you have a boundary and with two systems you have
a faux boundary exactly between the two sound sources.

Note that this phenomenon is unrelated to standing waves,
which involve boundary/boundary interactions. The suckout
effect is quite different and involves either
woofer/boundary interactions or woofer/woofer interactions.
There is a formula to calculate this notching as it relates
to woofer/boundary interactions:

1130/d x 0.3

Here, "d" is the distance in feet from the woofer center
(measured by the shortest route possible) to the closest
part of the boundary, and 0.3 (three tenths) is the
multiplier that calculates the frequency of the dip.
Actually, the true quarter-wavelength multiplier should be
0.25 and not 0.3. However, because the boundary surface is
not equidistant over its entire surface from the driver
center, it has been found that 0.3 works better.

When calculating the suckout notch between woofer (or
subwoofer) centers you would use half the distance (1/2d)
between them as d. You would still use the .3 multiplier,
because the spaced woofers are generating a faux flat
boundary between them.

The big problem occurs when you have multiple boundary or
inter-woofer interactions. For example, if the woofer (or
subwoofer) centers are 10 feet apart and one or more of them
are also 5 feet from a large room boundary the suckout notch
will be augmented - in this case centered at 67.8 Hz. Note
that the distances do not have to be exact. Woofers ten feet
apart will still have additional attenuation applied if one
or more of them are, say, 4 foot 10 or 5 feet 2 inches from
a room boundary. The notching is not so abrupt that slightly
different distances do not count. The suckout slope will be
gradual enough for close fairly distances to still add to
the effect. Obviously, it is a good idea to get as much
asymmetry as possible when it comes to dealing with
bass-range cancellations.

Actually, at least with full-range systems placed in typical
locations, this suckout phenomenon is more likely to be a
problem in the middle bass, instead of in the low bass,
because the woofers in such systems tend to be fairly close
to room boundaries. "Fairly close" in this case means less
than, say, three feet. However, when woofer/subwoofer
systems are placed large distances apart (more than eight
feet) or large distances from room boundaries (more than
four feet) it can happen fairly far down in frequency, too.

With single subwoofers placed in corners, the issue does not
exist, because at such close distances any boundary-related
notching would be generated well above the operating range
of the system. Indeed, one of the advantages of
subwoofer/satellite systems that use only one subwoofer (at
least as it relates to suckout notches in the range below
middle bass) is that one can position the satellites so that
any potential suckout effects they would generate would be
below their crossover-controlled operating range. And as
noted, any that the corner-located subwoofer might generate
would be above its crossover-controlled operating range.

For example, if you have a sub/sat system with the sub
located in the corner it is likely that any three-boundary
suckout notches will be between 200 and 600 Hz. Obviously,
if you have the sub/sat crossover set at 80 Hz. these
artifacts will not be reproduced by the subwoofer. At the
same time, the potential inter-woofer and some (but not all)
of the woofer/boundary artifacts that would be generated by
the satellites will be in the 50 to 70 Hz range, which is
below the 80-Hz crossover point.
This situation still does not solve any middle-bass,
closer-boundary suckout problems with the satellites, but it
does eliminate any for them that would involve
longer-distance inter-woofer or woofer/boundary artifacts.

A lot of people are still confused about just what the
suckout effect (often called the Allison Effect, after Roy
Allison who documented its existence years ago) is all
about. Many people will mention "floor bounce" when
discussing cancellation effects and speaker measurements,
but the phenomenon happens with all large room boundaries
and not just the floor.

This cancellation artifact impacts the power response of the
system, whereas your typical floor-bounce artifact (where a
second, reflected signal arrives later than the original
after hitting the floor between the listener and the
speaker) involves first-arrival signals. While the frequency
of a floor-bounce notch will be effected somewhat by the
listener's location, the much more important power-response
suckout will be the same anywhere in the listening room.
Below is an explanation of why the effect happens at all
with woofer/boundary interactions, with my example primarily
dealing with the effect in the middle-bass region. As noted
above, at greater distances the suckout will happen at lower
frequencies.

Let's look at a typical box loudspeaker system positioned in
a room so that its woofer cone center is about two feet from
each of the three nearest room surfaces (floor and two
intersecting walls). When the speaker is radiating a very
low frequency the cone moves relatively slowly and over a
relatively long distance. If the radiated frequency is 40
Hz, for example, it takes 1/40 second (25 milliseconds) for
the cone to execute one complete forward-backward cycle.
Each half cycle takes 12.5 milliseconds (ms).

As the cone begins a forward movement it generates the start
of a
compression wave. This impulse travels at the speed of sound
(approximately 1130 feet per second at sea level) to those
nearby room boundaries and is reflected back toward the
woofer cone, arriving there some 3.5 ms after it left, while
the woofer is still generating the compression half of the
sound cycle. The reflected waves increase the instantaneous
pressure seen by the woofer and enable it to radiate more
power than it could in free space. This is why placing
woofers (or subwoofers) close to boundaries augments their
outputs.

However, as the woofer tries to radiate at higher,
middle-bass frequencies, it must reverse its motion more
quickly. For example, at 140 Hz. (the middle bass, for
sure), the cone reverses direction every 3.5 ms. It begins
its half-cycle of motion (attempting to create a
rarefaction) just as the compression-wave reflections from
those two-foot distant room boundaries begin to arrive back
at the woofer. In this case, the reflected signal is out of
phase with the cone motion, decreasing its radiation
efficiency. The result is a suckout notch in what would
otherwise be a flat woofer-output signal.

As I indicated before, this phenomenon will exist in all
parts of the room, since it deals with the actual power
input of the speaker to the room. That sets it apart from a
standing-wave artifact, as well as from your standard
floor-bounce anomaly. It is also much more influential than
the latter, because power response is a much larger
percentage of the total output than the direct response.

Howard Ferstler

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
>I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
> that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an
> article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some
> of you goofballs will be able to understand it. The rest of
> you will carp and rant and say that it is unreadable,
> boring, etc., because the topic it covers will be heading
> right over your heads.
>
> The draft:
>
> Speaker-Room Suckout and Other Tidbits.
>
> I've mentioned this before, but I will mention it again: in
> typical home-listening rooms, spaced-apart woofer (or
> subwoofer) systems will generate a cancellation notch at
> some bass frequency that is dependent upon both the distance
> between woofer (or subwoofer) driver centers and the
> frequency.
>
> Depending upon the spacing between the systems (between
> woofer or subwoofer driver centers), at some bass frequency
> the rarefaction wave from one woofer or subwoofer will reach
> the other woofer or subwoofer just as it is generating a
> pressure wave. (More on this up ahead.) The two cancel out
> and you get a power-response notch.
> There is no way to get away from this with spaced
> woofer/subwoofer systems generating identical or
> near-identical bass signals.
>
> A similar thing happens with single woofers and subwoofers
> interacting with stiff, large-area wall, floor, and ceiling
> surfaces. The large surface area will reflect back the
> signal to the radiating driver as if it were being radiated
> by a second woofer or subwoofer at twice the distance from
> the single driver's center to the boundary. The boundary
> creates a mirror-image situation that mimics a second woofer
> or subwoofer driver.
>
> For example, a situation where you have two spaced woofers
> or subwoofers 12 feet apart or another situation where you
> have one woofer or subwoofer 6 feet from a large boundary
> will each generate a suckout notch centered at 56.5 Hz. With
> one system you have a boundary and with two systems you have
> a faux boundary exactly between the two sound sources.
>
> Note that this phenomenon is unrelated to standing waves,
> which involve boundary/boundary interactions. The suckout
> effect is quite different and involves either
> woofer/boundary interactions or woofer/woofer interactions.
> There is a formula to calculate this notching as it relates
> to woofer/boundary interactions:
>
> 1130/d x 0.3
>
> Here, "d" is the distance in feet from the woofer center
> (measured by the shortest route possible) to the closest
> part of the boundary, and 0.3 (three tenths) is the
> multiplier that calculates the frequency of the dip.
> Actually, the true quarter-wavelength multiplier should be
> 0.25 and not 0.3. However, because the boundary surface is
> not equidistant over its entire surface from the driver
> center, it has been found that 0.3 works better.
>
> When calculating the suckout notch between woofer (or
> subwoofer) centers you would use half the distance (1/2d)
> between them as d. You would still use the .3 multiplier,
> because the spaced woofers are generating a faux flat
> boundary between them.
>
> The big problem occurs when you have multiple boundary or
> inter-woofer interactions. For example, if the woofer (or
> subwoofer) centers are 10 feet apart and one or more of them
> are also 5 feet from a large room boundary the suckout notch
> will be augmented - in this case centered at 67.8 Hz. Note
> that the distances do not have to be exact. Woofers ten feet
> apart will still have additional attenuation applied if one
> or more of them are, say, 4 foot 10 or 5 feet 2 inches from
> a room boundary. The notching is not so abrupt that slightly
> different distances do not count. The suckout slope will be
> gradual enough for close fairly distances to still add to
> the effect. Obviously, it is a good idea to get as much
> asymmetry as possible when it comes to dealing with
> bass-range cancellations.
>
> Actually, at least with full-range systems placed in typical
> locations, this suckout phenomenon is more likely to be a
> problem in the middle bass, instead of in the low bass,
> because the woofers in such systems tend to be fairly close
> to room boundaries. "Fairly close" in this case means less
> than, say, three feet. However, when woofer/subwoofer
> systems are placed large distances apart (more than eight
> feet) or large distances from room boundaries (more than
> four feet) it can happen fairly far down in frequency, too.
>
> With single subwoofers placed in corners, the issue does not
> exist, because at such close distances any boundary-related
> notching would be generated well above the operating range
> of the system. Indeed, one of the advantages of
> subwoofer/satellite systems that use only one subwoofer (at
> least as it relates to suckout notches in the range below
> middle bass) is that one can position the satellites so that
> any potential suckout effects they would generate would be
> below their crossover-controlled operating range. And as
> noted, any that the corner-located subwoofer might generate
> would be above its crossover-controlled operating range.
>
> For example, if you have a sub/sat system with the sub
> located in the corner it is likely that any three-boundary
> suckout notches will be between 200 and 600 Hz. Obviously,
> if you have the sub/sat crossover set at 80 Hz. these
> artifacts will not be reproduced by the subwoofer. At the
> same time, the potential inter-woofer and some (but not all)
> of the woofer/boundary artifacts that would be generated by
> the satellites will be in the 50 to 70 Hz range, which is
> below the 80-Hz crossover point.
> This situation still does not solve any middle-bass,
> closer-boundary suckout problems with the satellites, but it
> does eliminate any for them that would involve
> longer-distance inter-woofer or woofer/boundary artifacts.
>
> A lot of people are still confused about just what the
> suckout effect (often called the Allison Effect, after Roy
> Allison who documented its existence years ago) is all
> about. Many people will mention "floor bounce" when
> discussing cancellation effects and speaker measurements,
> but the phenomenon happens with all large room boundaries
> and not just the floor.
>
> This cancellation artifact impacts the power response of the
> system, whereas your typical floor-bounce artifact (where a
> second, reflected signal arrives later than the original
> after hitting the floor between the listener and the
> speaker) involves first-arrival signals. While the frequency
> of a floor-bounce notch will be effected somewhat by the
> listener's location, the much more important power-response
> suckout will be the same anywhere in the listening room.
> Below is an explanation of why the effect happens at all
> with woofer/boundary interactions, with my example primarily
> dealing with the effect in the middle-bass region. As noted
> above, at greater distances the suckout will happen at lower
> frequencies.
>
> Let's look at a typical box loudspeaker system positioned in
> a room so that its woofer cone center is about two feet from
> each of the three nearest room surfaces (floor and two
> intersecting walls). When the speaker is radiating a very
> low frequency the cone moves relatively slowly and over a
> relatively long distance. If the radiated frequency is 40
> Hz, for example, it takes 1/40 second (25 milliseconds) for
> the cone to execute one complete forward-backward cycle.
> Each half cycle takes 12.5 milliseconds (ms).
>
> As the cone begins a forward movement it generates the start
> of a
> compression wave. This impulse travels at the speed of sound
> (approximately 1130 feet per second at sea level) to those
> nearby room boundaries and is reflected back toward the
> woofer cone, arriving there some 3.5 ms after it left, while
> the woofer is still generating the compression half of the
> sound cycle. The reflected waves increase the instantaneous
> pressure seen by the woofer and enable it to radiate more
> power than it could in free space. This is why placing
> woofers (or subwoofers) close to boundaries augments their
> outputs.
>
> However, as the woofer tries to radiate at higher,
> middle-bass frequencies, it must reverse its motion more
> quickly. For example, at 140 Hz. (the middle bass, for
> sure), the cone reverses direction every 3.5 ms. It begins
> its half-cycle of motion (attempting to create a
> rarefaction) just as the compression-wave reflections from
> those two-foot distant room boundaries begin to arrive back
> at the woofer. In this case, the reflected signal is out of
> phase with the cone motion, decreasing its radiation
> efficiency. The result is a suckout notch in what would
> otherwise be a flat woofer-output signal.
>
> As I indicated before, this phenomenon will exist in all
> parts of the room, since it deals with the actual power
> input of the speaker to the room. That sets it apart from a
> standing-wave artifact, as well as from your standard
> floor-bounce anomaly. It is also much more influential than
> the latter, because power response is a much larger
> percentage of the total output than the direct response.
>
> Howard Ferstler

"At least' you only had one "at least".

[Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
>I decided

<garbage deleted>

Back to the drawing board.

Cheers,

Margaret

[New Geoff]

"Clyde Slick" reproduced all that waffle . . .

>
> "At least' you only had one "at least".
>

If only you'd snipped it . . .

As it is I can now see why nobody takes this guy seriously as an 'expert'.

I've seen better explainations by 'O' level students (that used to be at age
17, here in the UK).

_________
Geoff B

[Sander deWaal]

Howard Ferstler > said:

>I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
>that was sent to me to review.

What amp is that and how does it sound?

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

[Robert Morein]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
> that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an
> article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some
> of you goofballs will be able to understand it. The rest of
> you will carp and rant and say that it is unreadable,
> boring, etc., because the topic it covers will be heading
> right over your heads.
>
[snip]

Actually, it's rather lowbrow. Howard has chosen to enlighten the reader on
the consequences of the least favorable placement of a loudspeaker,
equidistant from three room boundaries, an exemplar of bad,bad,bad luck.

As is customary for Howard, he provides no citation of the quoted facts,
giving it a plagiaristic flavor. Since Howard is a librarian and not an
acoustician, he must be paraphrasing some written source. I wonder what it
is?

The style of writing is the simplistic take one usually finds in My Weekly
Reader, but without the elan of that publication.

And Howard even gets the speed of sound wrong. From
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0126.shtml,
the ASTM speed of sound is defined as 1,116.4 feet/second, not 1130.

My **** tickets make better reading. Who could I submit them to?

[Clyde Slick]

"New Geoff" <m.gjb SPHERICAL > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" reproduced all that waffle . . .
>
>>
>> "At least' you only had one "at least".
>>
>

I left it so you could check out my 'math'.

[Clyde Slick]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> Howard Ferstler > said:
>
>>I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
>>that was sent to me to review.
>
> What amp is that and how does it sound?
>

It sounds the same.

[Marc Phillips]

Howard said:

>I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
>that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an
>article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some
>of you goofballs

What the **** is wrong with you? I mean this sincerely...are you mentally
retarded?
Autistic? What?

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

> Howard said:
>
>> I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
>> that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an
>> article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some
>> of you goofballs
>
> What the **** is wrong with you? I mean this sincerely...are you
> mentally retarded?
> Autistic? What?

From the Marc Phillips school of *charm*....

LOL!

[Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>
>> Howard said:
>>
>>> I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
>>> that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an
>>> article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some
>>> of you goofballs
>>
>> What the **** is wrong with you? I mean this sincerely...are you
>> mentally retarded?
>> Autistic? What?
>
> From the Marc Phillips school of *charm*....
>

A person who:
1. shamelessly uses his own son's death to launch personal attacks on the
internet
2. shamelessly uses his own son's death to troll for sympathy on the
internet
3. loves to brag how he "outlives his opponents" in response to obituaries
and
4. whose name has become synonymous to child pornographer and pedophile
through several incidents some of which (by his own admission) have led to a
police investigation

should perhaps not make comments about *charm* in a public forum.

> LOL!

I bet your family and relatives aren't.

MvBB

[Sander deWaal]

"Robert Morein" > said:

>And Howard even gets the speed of sound wrong. From
>http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0126.shtml,
>the ASTM speed of sound is defined as 1,116.4 feet/second, not 1130.

Not with his "humidity control".

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

[Howard Ferstler]

New Geoff wrote:
>
> "Clyde Slick" reproduced all that waffle . . .
>
> >
> > "At least' you only had one "at least".
> >
>
> If only you'd snipped it . . .
>
> As it is I can now see why nobody takes this guy seriously as an 'expert'.
>
> I've seen better explainations by 'O' level students (that used to be at age
> 17, here in the UK).
>
> _________
> Geoff B

Right over your head.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I decided
>
> <garbage deleted>
>
> Back to the drawing board.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Margaret

Right over your head.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Sander deWaal wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler > said:
>
> >I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
> >that was sent to me to review.
>
> What amp is that and how does it sound?
>
> --
> Sander deWaal
> "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Read the review in a future issue of The Sensible Sound.
Good amp, though.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Howard Ferstler > said:
> >
> >>I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
> >>that was sent to me to review.
> >
> > What amp is that and how does it sound?
> >
>
> It sounds the same.

After carefully matching levels in each channel, you are
absolutely correct.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Robert Morein wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
> > that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an
> > article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some
> > of you goofballs will be able to understand it. The rest of
> > you will carp and rant and say that it is unreadable,
> > boring, etc., because the topic it covers will be heading
> > right over your heads.
> >
> [snip]
>
> Actually, it's rather lowbrow. Howard has chosen to enlighten the reader on
> the consequences of the least favorable placement of a loudspeaker,
> equidistant from three room boundaries, an exemplar of bad,bad,bad luck.
>
> As is customary for Howard, he provides no citation of the quoted facts,
> giving it a plagiaristic flavor. Since Howard is a librarian and not an
> acoustician, he must be paraphrasing some written source. I wonder what it
> is?
>
> The style of writing is the simplistic take one usually finds in My Weekly
> Reader, but without the elan of that publication.
>
> And Howard even gets the speed of sound wrong. From
> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0126.shtml,
> the ASTM speed of sound is defined as 1,116.4 feet/second, not 1130.

Depends upon altitude. Close enough for audio.

> My **** tickets make better reading. Who could I submit them to?

Right over your head.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Marc Phillips wrote:
>
> Howard said:
>
> >I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
> >that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an
> >article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some
> >of you goofballs
>
> What the **** is wrong with you? I mean this sincerely...are you mentally
> retarded?
> Autistic? What?
>
> Boon

Yep, it went right over your head.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Marc Phillips said:
>
> > >I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
> > >that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an
> > >article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some
> > >of you goofballs
> >
> > What the **** is wrong with you? I mean this sincerely...are you mentally
> > retarded?
> > Autistic? What?
>
> Harold's bloviations on Usenet are rehearsals. He's rehearsing the spiel
> he uses on certain low-end magazine editors. Not the ones who have
> already been co-opted into Hivethink. It's for the other ones, the ones
> who are Normal -- who appreciate having choices in the marketplace.
> Harold has to keep rehearsing his "it's over your head" shinola, and the
> simple rulebook approach he yaps about, and the wrecking ball and other
> tortured analogies. He has to keep rehearsing because, you know,
> sometimes he forgets his lines when he's performing, so to speak.

Went over your head, too. Not surprising.

Howard Ferstler

[Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >I decided
>>
>> <garbage deleted>
>>
>> Back to the drawing board.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Margaret
>
> Right over your head.
>
> Howard Ferstler

Dear Mr. Numbnuts,

It does not take a proctologist to identify *feces* and *the rectum* that
spews it. Much to *your* detriment.

Cheers,

MvBB

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Howard Ferstler > said:
>> >
>> >>I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
>> >>that was sent to me to review.
>> >
>> > What amp is that and how does it sound?
>> >
>>
>> It sounds the same.
>
> After carefully matching levels in each channel, you are
> absolutely correct.
>

AMAZING!
you don't even have to compare it to anything else
for you to say it sounds the same!
What a 'rigorous' analysis!
Sounds the same as WHAT, dunderhead?

[Marc Phillips]

Howard said:

>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>
>> Howard said:
>>
>> >I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
>> >that was sent to me to review and submit a draft of an
>> >article I published a while back. I figure that maybe some
>> >of you goofballs
>>
>> What the **** is wrong with you? I mean this sincerely...are you mentally
>> retarded?
>> Autistic? What?
>>
>> Boon
>
>Yep, it went right over your head.

Thanks for admitting to your autism. Now we can treat you appropriately.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Sander said:

>Howard Ferstler > said:
>
>>I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
>>that was sent to me to review.
>
>What amp is that and how does it sound?

You know, this is a perfectly valid question, one that I hoped Howard would
answer. He chose instead to write "it went over your head" repeatedly and
autistically to everyone who criticized him.

It's one thing that Howard doesn't seem to grasp the idea that no one wants to
pander to his obsessive need to be recognized as an expert in audio. It's
quite another that he ignores his one chance to actually engage in an actual
discussion of what he wrote.

Howard Ferstler is, and always will be, a fraud.

Boon

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 9/30/2004 5:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Sander deWaal wrote:
>>
>> Howard Ferstler > said:
>>
>> >I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
>> >that was sent to me to review.
>>
>> What amp is that and how does it sound?
>>
>> --
>> Sander deWaal
>> "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."
>
>Read the review in a future issue of The Sensible Sound.
>Good amp, though.
>

How is it good if it costs 3,000 dollars and sounds no better than an amp at
10th it's price?

[Sander deWaal]

Howard Ferstler > said:

>> What amp is that and how does it sound?

>Read the review in a future issue of The Sensible Sound.
>Good amp, though.

This magazine isn't sold locally here.
Oh well, sooner or later you'll quote yourself here.

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

[Sander deWaal]

(Marc Phillips) said:

>>>I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
>>>that was sent to me to review.

>>What amp is that and how does it sound?

>You know, this is a perfectly valid question, one that I hoped Howard would
>answer. He chose instead to write "it went over your head" repeatedly and
>autistically to everyone who criticized him.

He directed me to the next issue of TSS, which isn;t available here.
It's just a matter of time before Uncle Howie will quote himself on
this forum, though. I know he can't resist.

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

[S888Wheel]

>From: Sander deWaal
>Date: 10/1/2004 6:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Howard Ferstler > said:
>
>>> What amp is that and how does it sound?
>
>>Read the review in a future issue of The Sensible Sound.
>>Good amp, though.
>
>This magazine isn't sold locally here.
>Oh well, sooner or later you'll quote yourself here.
>
He may quote "himself" but we may never know who the true author is any time he
does so.

[New Geoff]

"Howard Ferstler" offered the balanced critical response of...

>
> Right over your head.
>

Uhm, no - it passed somewhere between ankle and knee height . . .

I'm quite aware of the supposed points you were trying to make, but they
were poorly presented with no suporting references or evidence.

Certainly in my degree (never mind Masters) work, such an article would have
been returned with a "Resubmit" notice.

I see from other posters that I am not alone in feeling that perhaps you are
batting out of your league and should consider toning down your
self-important "I know better than you" attitude. Perhaps we might actually
find something of note in your frequent postings.

_______
Geoff B

[Sander deWaal]

"New Geoff" <m.gjb SPHERICAL > said:

>I see from other posters that I am not alone in feeling that perhaps you are
>batting out of your league and should consider toning down your
>self-important "I know better than you" attitude. Perhaps we might actually
>find something of note in your frequent postings.

"Note" is actually one of his most used words, note.

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

[Robert Morein]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein wrote:
> >
[snip]
> >
> > And Howard even gets the speed of sound wrong. From
> > http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0126.shtml,
> > the ASTM speed of sound is defined as 1,116.4 feet/second, not 1130.
>
> Depends upon altitude. Close enough for audio.

Then why did you quote the wrong figure?

>
> > My **** tickets make better reading. Who could I submit them to?
>
> Right over your head.
>
> Howard Ferstler

May I have a list of editors who have accepted material from you?
OTOH, I could simply send them to you in a baggie, and you could
plagiarize.

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius > said:

>Sander deWaal said:

>> >Perhaps we might actually
>> >find something of note in your frequent postings.

>> "Note" is actually one of his most used words, note.

>Mr. De,will its like you, can go to Goggle for some evidents -- NOt! ;-)

And when was the last time one of you goofballs took a proper DBT,
slick?
At least the $3000 dollar amp that was dumped on my doorstep, gets a
thorough review, note.

Read all about it in the new issue of The Thenthible Thound, Clyde.

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

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius > said:

>Sander deWaal said:

>> >> >Perhaps we might actually
>> >> >find something of note in your frequent postings.

>> >> "Note" is actually one of his most used words, note.

>> >Mr. De,will its like you, can go to Goggle for some evidents -- NOt! ;-)

>> And when was the last time one of you goofballs took a proper DBT,
>> slick?

>Can you not see something so OBVIOUS? Are you calling me a LIAR, sir?
>Your extraordinary claims are ANTI-SCIENCE.


Rubbish! Music is art, audio is engineering.....................


>> At least the $3000 dollar amp that was dumped on my doorstep, gets a
>> thorough review, note.

>Your 'claims' are BIZARRE, sir. In the REAL world, the ear is most
>certainly probabilistic, and a very basic level, due to the fact that
>the CNS has to determine detectable changes in a pseudo-poisson
>distribution of neural firings. Can you DISPUTE that with FACTS or are
>you GOING TO LIE SOME MORE?


Absolute nonsense. Why do you think vinyl is obsolete?
I master my own CDs, and I have a Nagra to prove it..................


>> Read all about it in the new issue of The Thenthible Thound, Clyde.

>Stand and deliver!


My Krell sounds the same as any Yamaha, I just happen to like the
thick faceplate....................


--
Stewart Drinkalot

-Sometimes I fart, Audio is boring.

[Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sander deWaal said:
>
>> >> >Perhaps we might actually
>> >> >find something of note in your frequent postings.
>>
>> >> "Note" is actually one of his most used words, note.
>>
>> >Mr. De,will its like you, can go to Goggle for some evidents -- NOt! ;-)
>>
>> And when was the last time one of you goofballs took a proper DBT,
>> slick?
>
> Can you not see something so OBVIOUS? Are you calling me a LIAR, sir?
> Your extraordinary claims are ANTI-SCIENCE.
>
>> At least the $3000 dollar amp that was dumped on my doorstep, gets a
>> thorough review, note.
>
> Your 'claims' are BIZARRE, sir. In the REAL world, the ear is most
> certainly probabilistic, and a very basic level, due to the fact that
> the CNS has to determine detectable changes in a pseudo-poisson
> distribution of neural firings. Can you DISPUTE that with FACTS or are
> you GOING TO LIE SOME MORE?
>

Unfortunately in the REAL world AES white papers are often used as toilet
paper by people tricked by a Yamaha integrated amp that then become brown
papers. I know, I made the trip to Florida. Have amp, will travel. In my
professional capacity and due to my standing in the professional audio
community, standing in the professional audio community I can state on
behalf of the entire professional audio community that an entire basement
converted to a one giant subwoofer and a Corvette (0-60 in 3.5 seconds, 220
mph, 55 mpg, 1.7 G's, 47 Hsu subwoofers in the trunk, 155dB @ 6Hz) in the
garage will yield maximum return for your audio investment. Any incremental
performance will be judged against a Yamaha integrated amp and will be
proven to be an overkill with no audible benefits like happened in Florida
in the 90's. Unfortunately people often buy midranges and tweeters without
realizing that subwoofers have to be corner loaded or else you are wasting
your investment unless of course you fill the entire room with subwoofers in
which case not every subwoofer can be corner loaded but that's okay because
the other subwoofers will form artificial corners for the remaining
subwoofers and everything is OK and you can then start thinking about adding
a midrange and a tweeter to your system. Of course you you can always stick
a few *top-rated* Hsu TN subwoofers in the refrigerator first if you really
like bass. I reviewed them and they really are brilliantly designed.

If you are hard to convince, just drop me a note and I'll pack the Yamaha
integrated amp and proove that you need to learn to be critical of your
white papers before you wipe.

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius > said:

>> Absolute nonsense. Why do you think vinyl is obsolete?
>> I master my own CDs, and I have a Nagra to prove it..................

>I've conducted bias controlled listening tests where a system using a
>133-foot pair of networked high-end speaker cables in a room with
>pronounced 20 Hz "resonances" that would have to have at least one
>dimension on the order of 28 feet for a 1st mode excitation. Humans are
>not responsive to my own tests of pshychoacoustics. I am NOT a
>journalist. I am NOT a reporter. I am NOT on staff at any
>magazine. I have NEVER been on staff at any magazine.

Hah! My ****in' valve amps will destroy your frilly nylons in a
naosecond, you will note.

>> My Krell sounds the same as any Yamaha, I just happen to like the
>> thick faceplate....................

>I am interested in fiund what changes sound and what doesn't. It doesn't
>matter to me if it embarasses you. Oh Stu thtis is just ane xcuse. You
>know that you said prior that anuhting Isaid woulf be considered null
>and void but your enthisusumm for cars is unnevering. I'n not. Never
>was. Never will be.

My valve dealer left 23.000 boxes of KT88s in my dungeons, with which
me and Dr. Kernith will have a good time while smoking for 3000 quid
marihuana away. Nurse!

No ****in' lie, you clod.

--
td

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sanding the Wall rote:


>George M. Middius > said:
>
>>> Absolute nonsense. Why do you think vinyl is obsolete?
>>> I master my own CDs, and I have a Nagra to prove it..................
>
>>I've conducted bias controlled listening tests where a system using a
>>133-foot pair of networked high-end speaker cables in a room with
>>pronounced 20 Hz "resonances" that would have to have at least one
>>dimension on the order of 28 feet for a 1st mode excitation. Humans are
>>not responsive to my own tests of pshychoacoustics. I am NOT a
>>journalist. I am NOT a reporter. I am NOT on staff at any
>>magazine. I have NEVER been on staff at any magazine.
>
>Hah! My ****in' valve amps will destroy your frilly nylons in a
>naosecond, you will note.
>
>>> My Krell sounds the same as any Yamaha, I just happen to like the
>>> thick faceplate....................
>
>>I am interested in fiund what changes sound and what doesn't. It doesn't
>>matter to me if it embarasses you. Oh Stu thtis is just ane xcuse. You
>>know that you said prior that anuhting Isaid woulf be considered null
>>and void but your enthisusumm for cars is unnevering. I'n not. Never
>>was. Never will be.
>
>My valve dealer left 23.000 boxes of KT88s in my dungeons, with which
>me and Dr. Kernith will have a good time while smoking for 3000 quid
>marihuana away. Nurse!
>
>No ****in' lie, you clod.
>
>--
>td
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Bruce J. Richman

[Sander deWaal]

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

>Sanding the Wall rote:
>
>
>>George M. Middius > said:
>>
>>>> Absolute nonsense. Why do you think vinyl is obsolete?
>>>> I master my own CDs, and I have a Nagra to prove it..................
>>
>>>I've conducted bias controlled listening tests where a system using a
>>>133-foot pair of networked high-end speaker cables in a room with
>>>pronounced 20 Hz "resonances" that would have to have at least one
>>>dimension on the order of 28 feet for a 1st mode excitation. Humans are
>>>not responsive to my own tests of pshychoacoustics. I am NOT a
>>>journalist. I am NOT a reporter. I am NOT on staff at any
>>>magazine. I have NEVER been on staff at any magazine.
>>
>>Hah! My ****in' valve amps will destroy your frilly nylons in a
>>naosecond, you will note.
>>
>>>> My Krell sounds the same as any Yamaha, I just happen to like the
>>>> thick faceplate....................
>>
>>>I am interested in fiund what changes sound and what doesn't. It doesn't
>>>matter to me if it embarasses you. Oh Stu thtis is just ane xcuse. You
>>>know that you said prior that anuhting Isaid woulf be considered null
>>>and void but your enthisusumm for cars is unnevering. I'n not. Never
>>>was. Never will be.
>>
>>My valve dealer left 23.000 boxes of KT88s in my dungeons, with which
>>me and Dr. Kernith will have a good time while smoking for 3000 quid
>>marihuana away. Nurse!
>>
>>No ****in' lie, you clod.
>>
>>--
>>td
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Bruce J. Richman
>
>

Left you speechless, didn't I? ;-)

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

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sanding the Wall rote:




>George M. Middius > said:
>
>>> Absolute nonsense. Why do you think vinyl is obsolete?
>>> I master my own CDs, and I have a Nagra to prove it..................
>
>>I've conducted bias controlled listening tests where a system using a
>>133-foot pair of networked high-end speaker cables in a room with
>>pronounced 20 Hz "resonances" that would have to have at least one
>>dimension on the order of 28 feet for a 1st mode excitation. Humans are
>>not responsive to my own tests of pshychoacoustics. I am NOT a
>>journalist. I am NOT a reporter. I am NOT on staff at any
>>magazine. I have NEVER been on staff at any magazine.
>
>Hah! My ****in' valve amps will destroy your frilly nylons in a
>naosecond, you will note.
>
>>> My Krell sounds the same as any Yamaha, I just happen to like the
>>> thick faceplate....................
>
>>I am interested in fiund what changes sound and what doesn't. It doesn't
>>matter to me if it embarasses you. Oh Stu thtis is just ane xcuse. You
>>know that you said prior that anuhting Isaid woulf be considered null
>>and void but your enthisusumm for cars is unnevering. I'n not. Never
>>was. Never will be.
>
>My valve dealer left 23.000 boxes of KT88s in my dungeons, with which
>me and Dr. Kernith will have a good time while smoking for 3000 quid
>marihuana away. Nurse!
>
>No ****in' lie, you clod.
>
>--
>td
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Irrelevance and grammatical errors noted.

If iron knees killed!

I knew that stuff decades ago. LOT'S !
I'll soon be expanding my trailer complex to the tune of 100 Large! (and still
have plenty left over with which to wipe).

Prove it !


Nathan Detroit

[Howard Ferstler]

New Geoff wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" offered the balanced critical response of...
>
> >
> > Right over your head.

> Uhm, no - it passed somewhere between ankle and knee height . .
>
> I'm quite aware of the supposed points you were trying to make, but they
> were poorly presented with no suporting references or evidence.

It is typical for the goofball segment to critique my
writing style instead of the content. It is all they have to
work with. However, my editors feel that my style is just
fine, and so the opinions of the more dysfunctional types
who hang around here do not really mean much to me.

> Certainly in my degree (never mind Masters) work, such an article would have
> been returned with a "Resubmit" notice.

It was published in an audio "hobby" magazine, and was not
designed to hit the bulls eye at the JAES. I suppose that
your idea of a proper technical article would be something
one would find in Stereophile or The Absolute Sound.

> I see from other posters that I am not alone in feeling that perhaps you are
> batting out of your league and should consider toning down your
> self-important "I know better than you" attitude. Perhaps we might actually
> find something of note in your frequent postings.

I am sure that if there is something there "of note" you
will spot it in spite of any "I know better than you"
attitude I might have.

The problem the tweakos have is that they have been babied
by the mainstream for so long that they actually think they
have a leg to stand on. However, they do not, and it is high
time that someone came along and called the idiots just what
they are: idiots. I'll leave it to guys like you to handle
the nitwits with kid gloves.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:

> Dear Mr. Numbnuts,
>
> It does not take a proctologist to identify *feces* and *the rectum* that
> spews it. Much to *your* detriment.
>
> Cheers,
>
> MvBB

It is interesting how you nitwits are compelled to behave as
you do. You are either childish jerks who have to worship
your often overpriced and usually esoteric audio systems as
if they were attached to church alters, or else you are
con-artist sales clerks, tweako journalists, or slick
marketing people who have a vested interest in keeping
tweako audio buffs fully tweaked.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >Date: 9/30/2004 5:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >

> >Read the review in a future issue of The Sensible Sound.
> >Good amp, though.

> How is it good if it costs 3,000 dollars and sounds no better than an amp at
> 10th it's price?

Well, contrary to the beliefs entertained by a few, it is
possible for an expensive amp made by a small company to
still be good.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Sander deWaal wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler > said:
>
> >> What amp is that and how does it sound?
>
> >Read the review in a future issue of The Sensible Sound.
> >Good amp, though.
>
> This magazine isn't sold locally here.
> Oh well, sooner or later you'll quote yourself here.

Unfortunately, while I occasionally post old
commentary-column drafts, I never post product reviews. Some
of them have shown up on assorted web sites, however. I have
no idea how that happens.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Marc Phillips wrote:

> Howard Ferstler is, and always will be, a fraud.
>
> Boon

Only to the lunatic fringe.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>
> >> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Howard Ferstler > said:
> >> >
> >> >>I decided to take some time off from checking out the amp
> >> >>that was sent to me to review.
> >> >
> >> > What amp is that and how does it sound?
> >> >
> >>
> >> It sounds the same.
> >
> > After carefully matching levels in each channel, you are
> > absolutely correct.
> >
>
> AMAZING!
> you don't even have to compare it to anything else
> for you to say it sounds the same!
> What a 'rigorous' analysis!
> Sounds the same as WHAT, dunderhead?

Huh? I said that I compared it to another amp. They sounded
the same. Remember, a good comparison requires careful level
matching with each channel of each amp. My guess is that you
have never even attempted something like that. You may have
tried to do global matching with an SPL meter, and with both
sets of channels playing, but that is a goofy way to level
match for an amplifier comparison.

Incidentally, while some say that you MUST use a digital
volt meter to get the levels matched adequately, I have
found that using pink noise and adjusting the levels so that
they sound the same will do the trick. It is mandatory that
each channel be done independently, however.

I'll go over this in detail in the published review.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Sander deWaal wrote:

> He directed me to the next issue of TSS, which isn;t available here.
> It's just a matter of time before Uncle Howie will quote himself on
> this forum, though. I know he can't resist.

I never post drafts of my product reviews. Only commentary
columns, and then only after they have been in print for
some time. Some of my reviews have shown up on web sites,
but I have nothing to do with those.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Robert Morein wrote:

> May I have a list of editors who have accepted material from you?
> OTOH, I could simply send them to you in a baggie, and you could
> plagiarize.

I will name the companies. The editors come and go.

Books:

McFarland (two books, actually; they specialize in books for
libraries).

Schirmer Books (at that time a branch of Simon & Schuster,
Macmillan).

A-R Editions (specializes in music-related books for
academic and music libraries),

Routledge (specializes in books for academic libraries and a
branch of Taylor & Francis).

Magazines:

High Fidelity (years ago).
Stereo Review (years ago; now Sound & Vision).
Audio (some time ago).
Consumer's Digest (an excerpt from one of my books).
Fanfare (years ago, as a columnist).
The American Record Guide (years ago, as a columnist).
The Audiophile Voice (occasional).
The Sensible Sound (regular contributor).

Howard Ferstler

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:
>
>> Dear Mr. Numbnuts,
>>
>> It does not take a proctologist to identify *feces* and *the rectum* that
>> spews it. Much to *your* detriment.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> MvBB
>
> It is interesting how you nitwits are compelled to behave as
> you do. You are either childish jerks who have to worship
> your often overpriced and usually esoteric audio systems as
> if they were attached to church alters, or else you are
> con-artist sales clerks, tweako journalists, or slick
> marketing people who have a vested interest in keeping
> tweako audio buffs fully tweaked.
>
> Howard Ferstler

I have a three thousand dollar amplifier to play with.
Not only that, I got the box it came in!

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'll go over this in detail in the published review.
>
Who did you steal it from this time?

[Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:
>
>> Dear Mr. Numbnuts,
>>
>> It does not take a proctologist to identify *feces* and *the rectum* that
>> spews it. Much to *your* detriment.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> MvBB
>
> It is interesting how you nitwits are compelled to behave as
> you do. You are either childish jerks who have to worship
> your often overpriced and usually esoteric audio systems as
> if they were attached to church alters, or else you are
> con-artist sales clerks, tweako journalists, or slick
> marketing people who have a vested interest in keeping
> tweako audio buffs fully tweaked.
>
> Howard Ferstler

More feces from RAO's resident rectum.

MvBB

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/2/2004 3:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>New Geoff wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" offered the balanced critical response of...
>>
>> >
>> > Right over your head.
>
>> Uhm, no - it passed somewhere between ankle and knee height . .
>>
>> I'm quite aware of the supposed points you were trying to make, but they
>> were poorly presented with no suporting references or evidence.
>
>It is typical for the goofball segment to critique my
>writing style instead of the content.

Actually it is typical of any critique to critique both.Duh.

It is all they have to
>work with.

Nah. You have given us plenty of content to critique.

However, my editors feel that my style is just
>fine, and so the opinions of the more dysfunctional types
>who hang around here do not really mean much to me.

Either you are lying or your editors have very low standards for writing.


>
>> Certainly in my degree (never mind Masters) work, such an article would
>have
>> been returned with a "Resubmit" notice.
>
>It was published in an audio "hobby" magazine, and was not
>designed to hit the bulls eye at the JAES.

Something you will never do, but at least you have been published, note.

I suppose that
>your idea of a proper technical article would be something
>one would find in Stereophile or The Absolute Sound.

They have had them. But they went over your head.


>
>> I see from other posters that I am not alone in feeling that perhaps you
>are
>> batting out of your league and should consider toning down your
>> self-important "I know better than you" attitude. Perhaps we might
>actually
>> find something of note in your frequent postings.
>
>I am sure that if there is something there "of note" you
>will spot it in spite of any "I know better than you"
>attitude I might have.
>
>The problem the tweakos have is that they have been babied
>by the mainstream for so long that they actually think they
>have a leg to stand on.

What on earth are you babbling about? What exactly is this mainstream and how
have they babied anyone? Please explain the phantom leg upon which such
audiophiles think they stand upon.

However, they do not, and it is high
>time that someone came along and called the idiots just what
>they are: idiots.


You are an iIdiot. Happy now?


I'll leave it to guys like you to handle
>the nitwits with kid gloves.
>
>
What are your waepons? Oh yeah fraud and plagiarism.

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/2/2004 3:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:
>
>> Dear Mr. Numbnuts,
>>
>> It does not take a proctologist to identify *feces* and *the rectum* that
>> spews it. Much to *your* detriment.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> MvBB
>
>It is interesting how you nitwits are compelled to behave as
>you do. You are either childish jerks who have to worship
>your often overpriced and usually esoteric audio systems as
>if they were attached to church alters, or else you are
>con-artist sales clerks, tweako journalists, or slick
>marketing people who have a vested interest in keeping
>tweako audio buffs fully tweaked.
>
>Howard Ferstler
>
>
>
>
>
>

Keep slaying those windmills Clyde.

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/2/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >Date: 9/30/2004 5:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>
>> >Read the review in a future issue of The Sensible Sound.
>> >Good amp, though.
>
>> How is it good if it costs 3,000 dollars and sounds no better than an amp
>at
>> 10th it's price?
>
>Well, contrary to the beliefs entertained by a few, it is
>possible for an expensive amp made by a small company to
>still be good.
>

Sure it is. But if you think it sounds no better than an amp that costs far
less it isn't good because it is a waste of money that could be spent on things
that matter. Bottom line is you lack the backbone to give this amp a bad review
based on poor value. That makes you worse than Consumer Reports. Well you
already were worse, their writers haven't been caught publishing fraudulant
tests or plagairizing.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Scott Wheeler wrote:


>>From: Howard Ferstler
>>Date: 10/2/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>
>>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>>> >Date: 9/30/2004 5:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> >Message-id: >
>>
>>> >Read the review in a future issue of The Sensible Sound.
>>> >Good amp, though.
>>
>>> How is it good if it costs 3,000 dollars and sounds no better than an amp
>>at
>>> 10th it's price?
>>
>>Well, contrary to the beliefs entertained by a few, it is
>>possible for an expensive amp made by a small company to
>>still be good.
>>
>
>Sure it is. But if you think it sounds no better than an amp that costs far
>less it isn't good because it is a waste of money that could be spent on
>things
>that matter. Bottom line is you lack the backbone to give this amp a bad
>review
>based on poor value. That makes you worse than Consumer Reports. Well you
>already were worse, their writers haven't been caught publishing fraudulant
>tests or plagairizing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Nor have they been exposed for committing libel in a public Internet forum.



Bruce J. Richman

[dave weil]

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:56:04 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >Date: 9/30/2004 5:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>
>> >Read the review in a future issue of The Sensible Sound.
>> >Good amp, though.
>
>> How is it good if it costs 3,000 dollars and sounds no better than an amp at
>> 10th it's price?
>
>Well, contrary to the beliefs entertained by a few, it is
>possible for an expensive amp made by a small company to
>still be good.
>
>Howard Ferstler

This is certainly contrary to statements that you've made in the past,
so perhaps there's some growth going on. for that, I congratulate you.

Now, it's time for you to seek out some Quads and give *them* a fair
shake as well, especially with your beloved baroque music. In your new
"more forgiving" state of mind, you might be open enough to hear what
everyone has been talking about for over 40 years.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:56:04 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >Date: 9/30/2004 5:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>
>> >Read the review in a future issue of The Sensible Sound.
>> >Good amp, though.
>
>> How is it good if it costs 3,000 dollars and sounds no better than an amp at
>> 10th it's price?
>
>Well, contrary to the beliefs entertained by a few, it is
>possible for an expensive amp made by a small company to
>still be good.
>
>Howard Ferstler

This is certainly contrary to statements that you've made in the past,
so perhaps there's some growth going on. for that, I congratulate you.

Now, it's time for you to seek out some Quads and give *them* a fair
shake as well, especially with your beloved baroque music. In your new
"more forgiving" state of mind, you might be open enough to hear what
everyone has been talking about for over 40 years.

PS, I meant to add that hopefully, the days are now gone when you make
statements like this:

"Anyway, let's look at it this way. At least I am not doing
the tests to rationalize or justify the selling of
overpriced amps, wires, interconnects, and CD players",

because, by your formerly held convictions, this is surely an
"overpriced amp" that only a goofball would consider. The fact that
it's actually a relatively inexpensive "overpriced amp" isn't really
an issue.

[Marc Phillips]

The Devil said:

>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 15:22:29 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:
>
>>earwigs
>
>Hooooorayyyyyy!
>
>My favourite subject!
>
>Now, if only someone would see the wisdom of a fruity earwig, children
>everywhere would rejoice. Anyone here work for Haribo?

Back when I was the CEO of Haribo, I proposed the idea of the fruity earwig.
As you probably know, I no longer work for Haribo. Evidently it was a ****
idea.

Boon

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >Date: 10/2/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >

> >Well, contrary to the beliefs entertained by a few, it is
> >possible for an expensive amp made by a small company to
> >still be good.

> Sure it is. But if you think it sounds no better than an amp that costs far
> less it isn't good because it is a waste of money that could be spent on things
> that matter.

I suppose what matters is how much cash one has to play
with. If you are saving for your kid's education or your own
retirement down the line, then it seems idiotic to me to
invest in an upscale and expensive amp when something much
cheaper will do the job just fine.

On the other hand, if the kids are out of college and doing
fine and your IRA has expanded to large size, then if
spending big on a killer amp makes you feel good, go for it.
Just do not think you have an edge on the guy down the
street with lots of bills to pay and a cheaper amp.

> Bottom line is you lack the backbone to give this amp a bad review
> based on poor value.

How would you know? The review has not been published yet.
It has been written, however, and is now being looked over
by an electrical engineering faculty member friend of mine.

> That makes you worse than Consumer Reports.

Worse than? You make them sound like villains. I think they
are a pretty good group of people. Tweakos would obviously
consider that kind of brass-tacks-oriented, level-headed
organization as bad for audio freakism, for sure.

> Well you
> already were worse, their writers haven't been caught publishing fraudulant
> tests or plagairizing.

Note that nowhere, at any time, have I "published" anything
that was plagiarized. Note also that I have never, unlike
many (or even most) in the audio tweako journalism
establishment, published a review that would cause a reader
to spend big on something that was either sub par or
overkill.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:56:04 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:

> >Well, contrary to the beliefs entertained by a few, it is
> >possible for an expensive amp made by a small company to
> >still be good.

> This is certainly contrary to statements that you've made in the past,
> so perhaps there's some growth going on. for that, I congratulate you.

I do not believe that I ever said that small companies could
not produce good amps. While there are maybe only a handful
of really innovative amp designers working these days
(Carver and Bongiorno come to mind, as do the people at
Bryston), it is relatively easy for a decently talented
individual to use existing basic designs and build a good
amp. He may have to charge a lot for it, because he will not
be able to mass produce the thing, but it will still be a
good amp.

If someone with a lot of extra cash wants to purchase
something like that I have no problems - assuming the guy is
not shortchanging his kid's college education fund, of
course. I do roll my eyes when the guy starts rhapsodizing
about the amp's abilities to soundstage, image, focus,
generate depth, delineate deep ensemble detail, etc.

I still believe (based upon my own level-matched listening
comparisons) that somebody who purchases a good mid-level
(or better) Japanese receiver will be able to get amp sound
that is just as good. So the guy with the upscale amp should
not assume that his amp is giving him some kind of esoteric
edge when it comes to sound quality.

> Now, it's time for you to seek out some Quads and give *them* a fair
> shake as well, especially with your beloved baroque music. In your new
> "more forgiving" state of mind, you might be open enough to hear what
> everyone has been talking about for over 40 years.

Yes, I would love to review a pair. Unfortunately, their
price tends to put them above the purchasing range I usually
deal with for the magazine.

In any case, speakers can only be so good. Once a system
delivers a flat, clean waveform to the listener it is
unlikely that any so-called more advanced design would be
able to do much better, at least if we are talking about
those parameters. (I am here assuming that the Quads are
able to deliver a flat signal and do not emphasize the
midrange and roll off the bass to enhance clarity.) Now, for
me there are other parameters that are related to power
response and radiation pattern that will be very important,
indeed. Perhaps the Quads have an edge there, as well, but I
certainly have listened to some systems that had either a
wide controlled pattern or a narrow controlled one, and I am
certainly aware of the advantages of each. Both approaches
have validity, and I really cannot see what some other
system could do that would offer advantages that were
quantifiable.

Now, I also realize that when somebody plunks down a HUGE
amount of money for speakers they are going to have a
tendency to behave the same way that nearly anyone also does
when they pay big bucks for an amplifier. They will judge
that system's sound quality as superior, if only because of
the esoteric design and the high price.

Well, if it makes them feel good, why not?

> PS, I meant to add that hopefully, the days are now gone when you make
> statements like this:
>
> "Anyway, let's look at it this way. At least I am not doing
> the tests to rationalize or justify the selling of
> overpriced amps, wires, interconnects, and CD players",

You will have to read the finished review when it gets into
print. It will also have a companion review written by a
well-regarded electrical engineer. I will certainly make a
point of my inability to not hear differences. However, it
remains to be seen if any apologies I make for the amp will
either offend or satisfy the fringe elements.

> because, by your formerly held convictions, this is surely an
> "overpriced amp" that only a goofball would consider. The fact that
> it's actually a relatively inexpensive "overpriced amp" isn't really
> an issue.

I would only consider the owner to be a goofball if he swore
up and down that the amp sounded better than many other,
cheaper designs. Gad, I would think that you guys would be
overjoyed to discover that cheaper amps can sound as good as
expensive ones. Think of all the cash you would have left
over to purchase additional recordings.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Marc Phillips wrote:
>
> Howard said:
>
> >Marc Phillips wrote:
> >
> >> Howard Ferstler is, and always will be, a fraud.

> >Only to the lunatic fringe.

> Are you saying that only the lunatic fringe will read the Routledge book?
> That's the only way this comment will ever make sense.

I am sure that some of you nitwits will manage to scare up a
copy to critique. I can see some of you now, pouring over my
text in assorted attempts to spot plagiarisms. I wonder if
any of you will also read some of the material (even that
not written by me) to learn something.

Get a life.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I'll go over this in detail in the published review.

> Who did you steal it from this time?

Since it will be the first review of the amp that is
published I was forced to write an original article.

Gee, since you guys think that most of the remaining
erroneous material I write is plagiarized, why don't you
contact the people I steal from and criticize them?

Howard Ferstler

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/4/2004 5:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >Date: 10/2/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>
>> >Well, contrary to the beliefs entertained by a few, it is
>> >possible for an expensive amp made by a small company to
>> >still be good.
>
>> Sure it is. But if you think it sounds no better than an amp that costs far
>> less it isn't good because it is a waste of money that could be spent on
>things
>> that matter.
>
>I suppose what matters is how much cash one has to play
>with.

No, what matters is performance and value. If you can get the same performance
for less money that amp is a poor value period.

If you are saving for your kid's education or your own
>retirement down the line, then it seems idiotic to me to
>invest in an upscale and expensive amp when something much
>cheaper will do the job just fine.

It seems idiotic either way, if you believe they sound the same.


>
>On the other hand, if the kids are out of college and doing
>fine and your IRA has expanded to large size, then if
>spending big on a killer amp makes you feel good, go for it.
>Just do not think you have an edge on the guy down the
>street with lots of bills to pay and a cheaper amp.

Right. It is OK to spend a lot more for an amp so long as you don't believe you
are getting more for your extra money. That's pretty funny actually.


>
>> Bottom line is you lack the backbone to give this amp a bad review
>> based on poor value.
>
>How would you know?

You have admitted as much.


The review has not been published yet.

One doesn't have to be a psychic to know it will be a positive review that is
painfully boring.


>It has been written, however, and is now being looked over
>by an electrical engineering faculty member friend of mine.


Oooooh, that makes it legit.


>
>> That makes you worse than Consumer Reports.
>
>Worse than?

Did you not understand?

You make them sound like villains.

Is this your low self esteem showing itself? I said you a re worse than them.
If that makes them look like villains where does that place you? think about
it.

I think they
>are a pretty good group of people.

I never said they weren't

Tweakos would obviously
>consider that kind of brass-tacks-oriented, level-headed
>organization as bad for audio freakism, for sure.

They are champions of mediocrity. No wonder you look up to them. They are fine
for non-audiophiles who are just looking for something cheap.


>
>> Well you
>> already were worse, their writers haven't been caught publishing fraudulant
>> tests or plagairizing.
>
>Note that nowhere, at any time, have I "published" anything
>that was plagiarized.

Note that you are not a reliable source for an opinion on the subject. You were
the one who presented plagiarized work as an example of your best work.

Note also that I have never, unlike
>many (or even most) in the audio tweako journalism
>establishment, published a review that would cause a reader
>to spend big on something that was either sub par or
>overkill.

Your lack of influence is duly noted.

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > I'll go over this in detail in the published review.
>
>> Who did you steal it from this time?
>
> Since it will be the first review of the amp that is
> published I was forced to write an original article.
>

Just plagiarize a review of some other amp. Why not, they
all sound the same.

> Gee, since you guys think that most of the remaining
> erroneous material I write is plagiarized, why don't you
> contact the people I steal from and criticize them?
>

Maybe they were right, about the particular amp they were reviewing.
It might not necessarily be the same amp you
were supoosed to be reviewing.

[Marc Phillips]

The Devil said:

>On 04 Oct 2004 13:44:32 GMT, (Marc Phillips)
>wrote:
>
>>Back when I was the CEO of Haribo, I proposed the idea of the fruity earwig.
>
>>As you probably know, I no longer work for Haribo. Evidently it was a ****
>>idea.
>
>Oh, you again. Always turning up with your woe and doom, this time
>wrecking the dreams of children the world over. I bet you told your
>children Santa Claus got stuck in the wall cavity because you don't
>have a chimney, and you took pleasure in nailing up fifty pictures
>where his body is, just to make sure he was properly dead. You're a
>disgrace.
>

I have a chimney, Clyde. I discuss it in the upcoming Routeledge book. You'll
just have to buy a copy to find out where I put Santa's body. I have no such
delusions about that, unlike some jerks.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Howard said:

>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>
>> Howard said:
>>
>> >Marc Phillips wrote:
>> >
>> >> Howard Ferstler is, and always will be, a fraud.
>
>> >Only to the lunatic fringe.
>
>> Are you saying that only the lunatic fringe will read the Routledge book?
>> That's the only way this comment will ever make sense.
>
>I am sure that some of you nitwits will manage to scare up a
>copy to critique. I can see some of you now, pouring over my
>text in assorted attempts to spot plagiarisms. I wonder if
>any of you will also read some of the material (even that
>not written by me) to learn something.
>
>Get a life.

You always say that when you're backed into a corner, Clyde. People with
Asperger's Syndrome like to say the same things over and over and over.

Boon

[Lionel]

Marc Phillips wrote:
> Howard said:
>
>
>>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>
>>>Howard said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Howard Ferstler is, and always will be, a fraud.
>>
>>>>Only to the lunatic fringe.
>>
>>>Are you saying that only the lunatic fringe will read the Routledge book?
>>>That's the only way this comment will ever make sense.
>>
>>I am sure that some of you nitwits will manage to scare up a
>>copy to critique. I can see some of you now, pouring over my
>>text in assorted attempts to spot plagiarisms. I wonder if
>>any of you will also read some of the material (even that
>>not written by me) to learn something.
>>
>>Get a life.
>
>
> You always say that when you're backed into a corner, Clyde. People with
> Asperger's Syndrome like to say the same things over and over and over.
>
> Boon

IMHO "Get a life" is not really different from the "Internet geek" that
we use to read from an other well known RAO contributor.
Do you thing this one is also suffering of an Asperger's syndrome ? ;-)

[Lionel]

Marc Phillips wrote:
> Howard said:
>
>
>>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>
>>>Howard said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Howard Ferstler is, and always will be, a fraud.
>>
>>>>Only to the lunatic fringe.
>>
>>>Are you saying that only the lunatic fringe will read the Routledge book?
>>>That's the only way this comment will ever make sense.
>>
>>I am sure that some of you nitwits will manage to scare up a
>>copy to critique. I can see some of you now, pouring over my
>>text in assorted attempts to spot plagiarisms. I wonder if
>>any of you will also read some of the material (even that
>>not written by me) to learn something.
>>
>>Get a life.
>
>
> You always say that when you're backed into a corner, Clyde. People with
> Asperger's Syndrome like to say the same things over and over and over.
>
> Boon

"By definition, those with AS have a normal IQ and many individuals
(although not all), exhibit exceptional skill or talent in a specific
area. Because of their high degree of functionality and their naiveté,
those with AS are often viewed as eccentric or odd and can easily become
victims of teasing and bullying"

I note that if you are aware of the above you are a ****ing *******.
....Nothing new from the fat self-satisfied imbecile. :-(

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> IMHO "Get a life" is not really different from the "Internet geek" that we
> use to read from an other well known RAO contributor.
> Do you thing this one is also suffering of an Asperger's syndrome ? ;-)

Why don't you ask Arnie yourself?

[dave weil]

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:46:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>On the other hand, if the kids are out of college and doing
>fine and your IRA has expanded to large size, then if
>spending big on a killer amp makes you feel good, go for it.

Hmmmm, I said the same thing over and over to you in the old days, ad
you *still* called people like that "idiots" and "misguided". Amazing
what a $75,000 inheritence will do for someone's viewpoint. Well, that
and a free $3000 amp landed on someone's doorstep.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:46:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

> Note also that I have never, unlike
>many (or even most) in the audio tweako journalism
>establishment, published a review that would cause a reader
>to spend big on something that was either sub par or
>overkill.

I see. So we can expect you to use the word "overkill" in the review
of this unnamed amp that you're reviewing.

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>IMHO "Get a life" is not really different from the "Internet geek" that we
>>use to read from an other well known RAO contributor.
>>Do you thing this one is also suffering of an Asperger's syndrome ? ;-)
>
>
> Why don't you ask Arnie yourself?

Because he is statistically outperformed. :-)

"internet geek" :

Marc Phillips = 156
Arny Krueger = 42

[dave weil]

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:16:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>> >Well, contrary to the beliefs entertained by a few, it is
>> >possible for an expensive amp made by a small company to
>> >still be good.
>
>> This is certainly contrary to statements that you've made in the past,
>> so perhaps there's some growth going on. for that, I congratulate you.
>
>I do not believe that I ever said that small companies could
>not produce good amps.

That's not what you said. You said "good". Now let's parse this in
Ferstler language. In the old days, Ferstler would have railed against
someone spending $3000 on a STEREO amp for several reasons. In the old
days, "good" was almost an absolute. You couldn't spend more money
than a comparable product would cost, because the difference could be
spent on CDs for instance. For $3000, you could get a "stereo" amp
*and* a surround sound proecessor *and* the additional amps required
to do surround sound.

Well, now that you've just walked across the line in the sand, now,
spending $10,000 on a STEREO amp that sounds no worse than a $300 amp
is no problem either, as there is a small market of very rich people
for who spending $10,000 (or spending $60,000 for that matter) is no
different than spending $3000 for a stereo amp.

Welcome to the dark side, Howard. Be careful, be very careful. Please,
under NO circumstances visit any acquaintances with Quad speakers.
Remember what happened when you visited someone with Bose 901s. We
went, you heard, you liked, regardless of your preconceptions. Amazing
how that messing mind works, eh?

[dave weil]

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:16:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>> Now, it's time for you to seek out some Quads and give *them* a fair
>> shake as well, especially with your beloved baroque music. In your new
>> "more forgiving" state of mind, you might be open enough to hear what
>> everyone has been talking about for over 40 years.
>
>Yes, I would love to review a pair.

Well, *that* seems to be a change as well.

I'll have to say that you seem to be relaxing in your new-found
prosperity. Funny how that works.

If you were *really* interested, you would seek out a pair to listen
to. You might also listen to your baroque with some tube gear and see
if there's not something there after all...

[dave weil]

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:16:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>> "Anyway, let's look at it this way. At least I am not doing
>> the tests to rationalize or justify the selling of
>> overpriced amps, wires, interconnects, and CD players",
>
>You will have to read the finished review when it gets into
>print. It will also have a companion review written by a
>well-regarded electrical engineer. I will certainly make a
>point of my inability to not hear differences. However, it
>remains to be seen if any apologies I make for the amp will
>either offend or satisfy the fringe elements.

The question will be whether or not you will call it "overkill" as you
once would have.

[S888Wheel]

>From: Lionel
>Date: 10/5/2004 2:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Marc Phillips wrote:
>> Howard said:
>>
>>
>>>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>>
>>>>Howard said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Howard Ferstler is, and always will be, a fraud.
>>>
>>>>>Only to the lunatic fringe.
>>>
>>>>Are you saying that only the lunatic fringe will read the Routledge book?
>>>>That's the only way this comment will ever make sense.
>>>
>>>I am sure that some of you nitwits will manage to scare up a
>>>copy to critique. I can see some of you now, pouring over my
>>>text in assorted attempts to spot plagiarisms. I wonder if
>>>any of you will also read some of the material (even that
>>>not written by me) to learn something.
>>>
>>>Get a life.
>>
>>
>> You always say that when you're backed into a corner, Clyde. People with
>> Asperger's Syndrome like to say the same things over and over and over.
>>
>> Boon
>
>"By definition, those with AS have a normal IQ and many individuals
>(although not all), exhibit exceptional skill or talent in a specific
>area. Because of their high degree of functionality and their naiveté,
>those with AS are often viewed as eccentric or odd and can easily become
>victims of teasing and bullying"
>
>I note that if you are aware of the above you are a ****ing *******.
>...Nothing new from the fat self-satisfied imbecile. :-(
>
>
>
>
>
>

Normal IQ and exceptional skill? Guess that rules out Howard.

[Lionel]

S888Wheel wrote:
>>From: Lionel
>>Date: 10/5/2004 2:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>
>>>Howard said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Howard said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Howard Ferstler is, and always will be, a fraud.
>>>>
>>>>>>Only to the lunatic fringe.
>>>>
>>>>>Are you saying that only the lunatic fringe will read the Routledge book?
>>>>>That's the only way this comment will ever make sense.
>>>>
>>>>I am sure that some of you nitwits will manage to scare up a
>>>>copy to critique. I can see some of you now, pouring over my
>>>>text in assorted attempts to spot plagiarisms. I wonder if
>>>>any of you will also read some of the material (even that
>>>>not written by me) to learn something.
>>>>
>>>>Get a life.
>>>
>>>
>>>You always say that when you're backed into a corner, Clyde. People with
>>>Asperger's Syndrome like to say the same things over and over and over.
>>>
>>>Boon
>>
>>"By definition, those with AS have a normal IQ and many individuals
>>(although not all), exhibit exceptional skill or talent in a specific
>>area. Because of their high degree of functionality and their naiveté,
>>those with AS are often viewed as eccentric or odd and can easily become
>>victims of teasing and bullying"
>>
>>I note that if you are aware of the above you are a ****ing *******.
>>...Nothing new from the fat self-satisfied imbecile. :-(
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Normal IQ and exceptional skill? Guess that rules out Howard.

My quote was a little bit too large.

"Because of their high degree of functionality and their naiveté,
those with AS are often viewed as eccentric or odd and can easily become
victims of teasing and bullying"

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >Date: 10/4/2004 5:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >S888Wheel wrote:
> >>
> >> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >> >Date: 10/2/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >
> >> >Well, contrary to the beliefs entertained by a few, it is
> >> >possible for an expensive amp made by a small company to
> >> >still be good.
> >
> >> Sure it is. But if you think it sounds no better than an amp that costs far
> >> less it isn't good because it is a waste of money that could be spent on
> >things
> >> that matter.

> >I suppose what matters is how much cash one has to play
> >with.

> No, what matters is performance and value. If you can get the same performance
> for less money that amp is a poor value period.

Ah, but you guys will have to admit that there is very often
more to amps (and other components) than mere performance.
Other factors include style, durability, factory support,
and of course bragging rights. I suppose there is nothing
more satisfactory to an upscale-oriented audio buff than to
have someone visit their house and go "ooh and aah" when
they see that super-duper amp.

Hey, I have no problem with that. It is fun to have
super-duper gear that impresses the unwashed. However, if
all one wants is bang-for-buck performance that matches what
the upscale designs offer, then they can spend a lot less.

Your final sentence, above, tells me that you personally do
not have a super amp and are fully satisfied with the
cheaper version that you own. Good for you.

Hey, just kidding!

> If you are saving for your kid's education or your own
> >retirement down the line, then it seems idiotic to me to
> >invest in an upscale and expensive amp when something much
> >cheaper will do the job just fine.

> It seems idiotic either way, if you believe they sound the same.

Well, to my way of thinking it does. However, I will not
deny that some people really, really do want some kind of
super amp driving their speakers. Heck, I have a 21-year-old
Carver M500 driving my main-channel speakers in my main
system, and I fully recognize that it is twice as powerful
as what I need. Still, it is kind of fun to tell visitors
how powerful it is. The neighbor kids think I am some kind
of cool guy. If the amp eventually wears out I will get
something smaller and cheaper.

> >On the other hand, if the kids are out of college and doing
> >fine and your IRA has expanded to large size, then if
> >spending big on a killer amp makes you feel good, go for it.
> >Just do not think you have an edge on the guy down the
> >street with lots of bills to pay and a cheaper amp.

> Right. It is OK to spend a lot more for an amp so long as you don't believe you
> are getting more for your extra money. That's pretty funny actually.

Yep. However, there is no figuring human nature. I wonder
what is worse, a guy who purchases a super amp while knowing
that its only advantages are style, durability, factory
support, and bragging rights, or the guy who purchases the
same amp and thinks that it has some kind of esoteric and
mystical attributes that lifts it above the mainstream.

At least the first guy is honest with himself, and has his
feet firmly planted. The other guy is a goofball.

> >> Bottom line is you lack the backbone to give this amp a bad review
> >> based on poor value.

> >How would you know?

> You have admitted as much.

I guess you will have to just wait and read the review to
see what my final conclusions will be. I sure would not tell
you clowns now, for no charge.

> > The review has not been published yet.

> One doesn't have to be a psychic to know it will be a positive review that is
> painfully boring.

Only to the smaller minds out there.

> >It has been written, however, and is now being looked over
> >by an electrical engineering faculty member friend of mine.

> Oooooh, that makes it legit.

Certainly, it that will give it more credibility than what
we have with your typical, tweako-audio journal review.

> >> That makes you worse than Consumer Reports.

> >Worse than?

> Did you not understand?

> > You make them sound like villains.
>
> Is this your low self esteem showing itself? I said you are worse than them.
> If that makes them look like villains where does that place you? think about
> it.

The implication was that the magazine is bad and by me being
worse than them I must be really, really bad. However, I
think that Consumer Reports is a better guide to audio gear
for mainstream individuals than the typical tweako journal.
I would really, really love it if they decided to review
some esoteric high end gear. I think they would have a
product-trashing field day with the stuff.

> I think they
> >are a pretty good group of people.

> I never said they weren't

Learn to express yourself better.

> Tweakos would obviously
> >consider that kind of brass-tacks-oriented, level-headed
> >organization as bad for audio freakism, for sure.

> They are champions of mediocrity. No wonder you look up to them.

They poke philosophical holes in many overblown ideas and
products.

> They are fine
> for non-audiophiles who are just looking for something cheap.

Actually, they have reviewed some half-way upscale stuff in
the past and found some of it to be inferior to more mundane
versions. The problem with you guys is that you really,
really have this fixation on the supposedly elite nature of
certain audio products and certain audio-product categories.
That someone would consider such jewels as simply overpriced
appliances is offensive to you. Nobody likes people to make
fun of his toys, particularly when they cost a lot.

> >> Well you
> >> already were worse, their writers haven't been caught publishing fraudulant
> >> tests or plagairizing.

> >Note that nowhere, at any time, have I "published" anything
> >that was plagiarized.

> Note that you are not a reliable source for an opinion on the subject. You were
> the one who presented plagiarized work as an example of your best work.

Huh? All I did was post a draft of an article I did on Quad
for The upcoming edition of The Encyclopedia of Recorded
Sound. (The idea was to show that I did not have any kind of
ax to grind against the company.) Many manufacturers, when I
asked them to answer questions about their company's
history, simply referred me to their web sites. In every
case but one I took that info and distilled it down to what
I needed. In the case of the Quad site, I was in a hurry
(the deadline was fast approaching and after writing
hundreds of articles I was getting a bit winded) and edited
the web-page info slightly and thought that would work OK.

Thanks to you guys, I did a complete rewrite, and now the
published version will be cleanly original. This means that
nowhere is there any published evidence that I plagiarized
anything.

I hope this does not turn some of you into sore losers.

> Note also that I have never, unlike
> >many (or even most) in the audio tweako journalism
> >establishment, published a review that would cause a reader
> >to spend big on something that was either sub par or
> >overkill.

> Your lack of influence is duly noted.

Certainly, the tweako journalism crowd would consider
widespread bad advice as being as good as widespread good
advice, and they certainly would consider it superior to
limited coverage good advice. For them influence, product
perks, and fame within the asylum are more important than
integrity. The problem with you people is that you really,
really do not know the difference between good and evil.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:46:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:

> >On the other hand, if the kids are out of college and doing
> >fine and your IRA has expanded to large size, then if
> >spending big on a killer amp makes you feel good, go for it.

> Hmmmm, I said the same thing over and over to you in the old days, ad
> you *still* called people like that "idiots" and "misguided".

Only because they actually thought that the amps offered up
some kind of esoteric and mysterious sonic advantages over
more mundane versions. If they are aware of the fact that
amps are amps and are purchasing the things for reasons that
involve concrete factors (durability, factory service,
warranty, bragging rights among the unwashed) then I have no
problem with their purchases at all. It is only when they do
so for mumbo-jumbo reasons that I become uneasy. And of
course, I go well beyond uneasy when some shark-faced
product reviewer goes on a sound-quality rant about the
thing in a review.

> Amazing
> what a $75,000 inheritence will do for someone's viewpoint.

Seventy five grand? Man, do you think small.

> Well, that
> and a free $3000 amp landed on someone's doorstep.

The amp is going back to the manufacturer.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:46:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> > Note also that I have never, unlike
> >many (or even most) in the audio tweako journalism
> >establishment, published a review that would cause a reader
> >to spend big on something that was either sub par or
> >overkill.

> I see. So we can expect you to use the word "overkill" in the review
> of this unnamed amp that you're reviewing.

I am hoping that you purchase a copy of the magazine when
the review appears. At that time your curiosity will be
satisfied.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:16:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:

> >I do not believe that I ever said that small companies could
> >not produce good amps.

> That's not what you said. You said "good". Now let's parse this in
> Ferstler language. In the old days, Ferstler would have railed against
> someone spending $3000 on a STEREO amp for several reasons. In the old
> days, "good" was almost an absolute. You couldn't spend more money
> than a comparable product would cost, because the difference could be
> spent on CDs for instance. For $3000, you could get a "stereo" amp
> *and* a surround sound proecessor *and* the additional amps required
> to do surround sound.

Still believe that. I am sure you are on the edge of your
seat, waiting for the review to get into print. When it
does, I expect you to write a convoluted letter to the
editor.

> Well, now that you've just walked across the line in the sand, now,
> spending $10,000 on a STEREO amp that sounds no worse than a $300 amp
> is no problem either, as there is a small market of very rich people
> for who spending $10,000 (or spending $60,000 for that matter) is no
> different than spending $3000 for a stereo amp.

There is a point where insanity takes hold, even if one is
rolling in dough.

> Welcome to the dark side, Howard. Be careful, be very careful.

Man, you must be going crazy about this. I am tempted to
email you a copy of the review draft.

Hey, just kidding.

> Please,
> under NO circumstances visit any acquaintances with Quad speakers.
> Remember what happened when you visited someone with Bose 901s. We
> went, you heard, you liked, regardless of your preconceptions. Amazing
> how that messing mind works, eh?

Did you read the review I did of the Bose speakers? It
certainly does not seem that way.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:16:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:

> >> Now, it's time for you to seek out some Quads and give *them* a fair
> >> shake as well, especially with your beloved baroque music. In your new
> >> "more forgiving" state of mind, you might be open enough to hear what
> >> everyone has been talking about for over 40 years.

> >Yes, I would love to review a pair.

> Well, *that* seems to be a change as well.

I am open to reviewing just about anything that manages to
sound different from similar products. Obviously, this
should not include amps, but I now have one of those on hand
and so it is getting a review. With speakers, all bets are
off. I am happy to review any of them.

However, because the people who lionize Quad speakers often
also lionize upscale, esoteric amps because they supposedly
sound special, I do have problems when I hear all those Quad
plaudits.

Actually, speakers do not have all that much to do when it
comes to reproducing sound. That some people think that some
models figuratively can walk on water makes me a bit
suspicious. I have heard stereo pairs ranging from about
$200 a pair (with another $500 thrown in for a sub) on up to
$6800 a pair, and I am not particularly inclined to think
that super speakers are all that super.

> I'll have to say that you seem to be relaxing in your new-found
> prosperity. Funny how that works.
>
> If you were *really* interested, you would seek out a pair to listen
> to. You might also listen to your baroque with some tube gear and see
> if there's not something there after all...

Well, regarding "tube gear," some people do like certain
kinds of colorations.

Dave, are you really, really interested in high-fidelity
sound at all? You appear to have a peculiar fixation with
sub-hi-fi amplifiers and speakers that do wondrous things.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:16:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> >> "Anyway, let's look at it this way. At least I am not doing
> >> the tests to rationalize or justify the selling of
> >> overpriced amps, wires, interconnects, and CD players",

> >You will have to read the finished review when it gets into
> >print. It will also have a companion review written by a
> >well-regarded electrical engineer. I will certainly make a
> >point of my inability to not hear differences. However, it
> >remains to be seen if any apologies I make for the amp will
> >either offend or satisfy the fringe elements.

> The question will be whether or not you will call it "overkill" as you
> once would have.

Keep sitting on the edge of your seat. The review should be
out in a couple of months.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Well, Howie, you've tried bullying us, and that didn't work.

I agree. Most of you are too opaque to be successfully
bullied.

> You've tried
> hinting you were continuing to plagiarize, hoping that would tempt us with
> the possibility of busting you again, and that didn't work.

There is always hope.

> But this mock
> diffidence is utterly lame. Clearly you've retreated into your
> last-ditch-defense mode.

Not really. I am having quite a good time getting on all of
your nerves.

> Next will come the piteous approach: "I'm just a
> useless old fart but I still want to be relevant. PLEASE buy my books!"

I think that all of the first four are now out of print.
However, I am sure that you can scare up copies by checking
AddAll or some other internet used-book source.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Clerkie, is your conscience getting the better of you?
>
> > Gee, since you guys think that most of the remaining
> > erroneous material I write is plagiarized, why don't you
> > contact the people I steal from and criticize them?

> You're all twisted up and turned around, Harold. Maybe you should take a
> quick jaunt up to Detroit and hang around with Krooger and his Smarmy
> ******s' Club for a bit. That will take the edge off the pain for you.

I subscribe to their SMWTMS magazine, and they strike me as
a rather nice group of people.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>
> >> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > I'll go over this in detail in the published review.
> >
> >> Who did you steal it from this time?
> >
> > Since it will be the first review of the amp that is
> > published I was forced to write an original article.

> Just plagiarize a review of some other amp. Why not, they
> all sound the same.

The problem is that most such reviews talk about the sound
as if the amps do anything but sound the same. Well, I
suppose the reviewers have to say SOMETHING about the sound
to keep people like you entertained.

> > Gee, since you guys think that most of the remaining
> > erroneous material I write is plagiarized, why don't you
> > contact the people I steal from and criticize them?

> Maybe they were right, about the particular amp they were reviewing.
> It might not necessarily be the same amp you
> were supoosed to be reviewing.

Your main option will be to read my review when it appears
and then scour the remaining literature for the version I
copied from.

Howard Ferstler

[Clyde Slick]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>
> Welcome to the dark side, Howard. Be careful, be very careful. Please,
> under NO circumstances visit any acquaintances with Quad speakers.
> Remember what happened when you visited someone with Bose 901s. We
> went, you heard, you liked, regardless of your preconceptions. Amazing
> how that messing mind works, eh?
>

The "One" Ferstler review I would actually like to read
would be his review of the Quads. That would be interesting!

[Clyde Slick]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> >
>>
>
> Normal IQ and exceptional skill? Guess that rules out Howard.

I think Howard is of average intelligence, even more average
than average.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Somebody said:
>
>> Ah, but you guys will have to admit that there is very often
>> more to amps (and other components) than mere performance.
>> Other factors include style, durability, factory support,
>> and of course bragging rights.
>
> Who are you, and what have you done with our Howard?
>

Post of the month!

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...

> I subscribe to their SMWTMS magazine, and they strike me as
> a rather nice group of people.
>
Some people just don't know the difference between good and evil.

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
>>
> Your main option will be to read my review when it appears
> and then scour the remaining literature for the version I
> copied from.
>

75% chance it will be from the manufacturer's own literature,
25% chance it will be someone elses review of some other
company's amp that 'sounds exactly the same."

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> You've been hoping that for years, Clerkie. And you're still here on
> Usenet, the only medium where you can afford to advertise, trying
> desperately to shill your worthless religious tracts.
>
>
If I resist paying long enough, even the Jehovah's witnesses leave me a free
tract.

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/5/2004 3:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >

>
>Still believe that. I am sure you are on the edge of your
>seat, waiting for the review to get into print. When it
>does, I expect you to write a convoluted letter to the
>editor.

Nope. I certainly won't read it unless you post it here. then I will only
probably not read it.

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/5/2004 3:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >

>
>> Amazing
>> what a $75,000 inheritence will do for someone's viewpoint.
>
>Seventy five grand? Man, do you think small.

How much did you inherit?

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/5/2004 3:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >Date: 10/4/2004 5:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >S888Wheel wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >> >Date: 10/2/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >> >Well, contrary to the beliefs entertained by a few, it is
>> >> >possible for an expensive amp made by a small company to
>> >> >still be good.
>> >
>> >> Sure it is. But if you think it sounds no better than an amp that costs
>far
>> >> less it isn't good because it is a waste of money that could be spent on
>> >things
>> >> that matter.
>
>> >I suppose what matters is how much cash one has to play
>> >with.
>
>> No, what matters is performance and value. If you can get the same
>performance
>> for less money that amp is a poor value period.
>
>Ah, but you guys will have to admit that there is very often
>more to amps (and other components) than mere performance.
>Other factors include style, durability, factory support,
>and of course bragging rights.

Bragging rights? Have you been corupted after getting some loose change from an
inheritence? Are you now interested in keeping up with the Jones due to some
luck?

I suppose there is nothing
>more satisfactory to an upscale-oriented audio buff than to
>have someone visit their house and go "ooh and aah" when
>they see that super-duper amp.

The thought of listening to a system to invoke such a reaction never entered
your mind did it?


>
>Hey, I have no problem with that. It is fun to have
>super-duper gear that impresses the unwashed.

You think? When you couldn't afford it you loathed the idea.

However, if
>all one wants is bang-for-buck performance that matches what
>the upscale designs offer, then they can spend a lot less.

Provided they share your hearing impairment.


>
>Your final sentence, above, tells me that you personally do
>not have a super amp and are fully satisfied with the
>cheaper version that you own.

And your sentence above reconfirms your amazing lack of logic.

Good for you.
>
>Hey, just kidding!

Nah, just full of ****, as usual.


>
>> If you are saving for your kid's education or your own
>> >retirement down the line, then it seems idiotic to me to
>> >invest in an upscale and expensive amp when something much
>> >cheaper will do the job just fine.
>
>> It seems idiotic either way, if you believe they sound the same.
>
>Well, to my way of thinking it does. However, I will not
>deny that some people really, really do want some kind of
>super amp driving their speakers. Heck, I have a 21-year-old
>Carver M500 driving my main-channel speakers in my main
>system, and I fully recognize that it is twice as powerful
>as what I need. Still, it is kind of fun to tell visitors
>how powerful it is. The neighbor kids think I am some kind
>of cool guy. If the amp eventually wears out I will get
>something smaller and cheaper.

You get more pathetic by the day.


>
>> >On the other hand, if the kids are out of college and doing
>> >fine and your IRA has expanded to large size, then if
>> >spending big on a killer amp makes you feel good, go for it.
>> >Just do not think you have an edge on the guy down the
>> >street with lots of bills to pay and a cheaper amp.
>
>> Right. It is OK to spend a lot more for an amp so long as you don't believe
>you
>> are getting more for your extra money. That's pretty funny actually.
>
>Yep. However, there is no figuring human nature.

Nah, you are pretty transparent.

I wonder
>what is worse, a guy who purchases a super amp while knowing
>that its only advantages are style, durability, factory
>support, and bragging rights, or the guy who purchases the
>same amp and thinks that it has some kind of esoteric and
>mystical attributes that lifts it above the mainstream.

I'd say the guy who is in it for bragging rights. That would be you.


>
>At least the first guy is honest with himself, and has his
>feet firmly planted. The other guy is a goofball.

See, you relate to the first guy. The guy you used to hate before falling into
some money.


>
>> >> Bottom line is you lack the backbone to give this amp a bad review
>> >> based on poor value.
>
>> >How would you know?
>
>> You have admitted as much.
>
>I guess you will have to just wait and read the review to
>see what my final conclusions will be.

To busy living life Clyde. You should get out and try it some time. before it's
too late.

I sure would not tell
>you clowns now, for no charge.

You would have to pay me to read it.


>
>> > The review has not been published yet.
>
>> One doesn't have to be a psychic to know it will be a positive review that
>is
>> painfully boring.
>
>Only to the smaller minds out there.

You bored yourself?


>
>> >It has been written, however, and is now being looked over
>> >by an electrical engineering faculty member friend of mine.
>
>> Oooooh, that makes it legit.
>
>Certainly, it that will give it more credibility than what
>we have with your typical, tweako-audio journal review.

Nah. You have no credibility.


>
>> >> That makes you worse than Consumer Reports.
>
>> >Worse than?
>
>> Did you not understand?
>
>> > You make them sound like villains.
>>
>> Is this your low self esteem showing itself? I said you are worse than
>them.
>> If that makes them look like villains where does that place you? think
>about
>> it.
>
>The implication was that the magazine is bad and by me being
>worse than them I must be really, really bad. However, I
>think that Consumer Reports is a better guide to audio gear
>for mainstream individuals than the typical tweako journal.
>I would really, really love it if they decided to review
>some esoteric high end gear. I think they would have a
>product-trashing field day with the stuff.

Given their dislike for excellence no doubt. You used to hate it too when you
were living off your own wages. Remeber?


>
>> I think they
>> >are a pretty good group of people.
>
>> I never said they weren't
>
>Learn to express yourself better.

Learn to read better.


>
>> Tweakos would obviously
>> >consider that kind of brass-tacks-oriented, level-headed
>> >organization as bad for audio freakism, for sure.
>
>> They are champions of mediocrity. No wonder you look up to them.
>
>They poke philosophical holes in many overblown ideas and
>products.

No. They just look for products to work and cost a s little as possible. They
have no appreciation for style or quality. I'm sure they would judge a
masterpiece by the cost of the paint and canvas. They are of no use to real
enthusiasts.


>
>> They are fine
>> for non-audiophiles who are just looking for something cheap.
>
>Actually, they have reviewed some half-way upscale stuff in
>the past and found some of it to be inferior to more mundane
>versions.

They have no taste. That is a given.

The problem with you guys is that you really,
>really have this fixation on the supposedly elite nature of
>certain audio products and certain audio-product categories.

That has become your problem. You are the one looking for bragging rights now
that you have some expendable cash. The problem is that even that won't buy you
an appreciation for excellence.


>That someone would consider such jewels as simply overpriced
>appliances is offensive to you. Nobody likes people to make
>fun of his toys, particularly when they cost a lot.
>
>> >> Well you
>> >> already were worse, their writers haven't been caught publishing
>fraudulant
>> >> tests or plagairizing.
>
>> >Note that nowhere, at any time, have I "published" anything
>> >that was plagiarized.
>
>> Note that you are not a reliable source for an opinion on the subject. You
>were
>> the one who presented plagiarized work as an example of your best work.
>
>Huh? All I did was post a draft of an article I did on Quad
>for The upcoming edition of The Encyclopedia of Recorded
>Sound.

And it was plagiarized. You still don't even know what plagiarism is do you?
Hint, it does not require publication to be plagiarism.

(The idea was to show that I did not have any kind of
>ax to grind against the company.) Many manufacturers, when I
>asked them to answer questions about their company's
>history, simply referred me to their web sites.

And you copied they literature and represented it as your own. that is both
lazy and dishonest. You live at the bottom of the proverbial barrel.

In every
>case but one I took that info and distilled it down to what
>I needed.

You mean parphrased it. Still plagiarism.

In the case of the Quad site, I was in a hurry
>(the deadline was fast approaching and after writing
>hundreds of articles I was getting a bit winded) and edited
>the web-page info slightly and thought that would work OK.

You try to rationalize your plagiarism by citing your lazyness. that is
sooooooo pathetic.


>
>Thanks to you guys, I did a complete rewrite, and now the
>published version will be cleanly original. This means that
>nowhere is there any published evidence that I plagiarized
>anything.

No it means you haven't been cuaght a second time. You remain a plagiarist
though. you have been caught once.


>
>I hope this does not turn some of you into sore losers.

Your delusions make you the only loser, Slick. Note.


>
>> Note also that I have never, unlike
>> >many (or even most) in the audio tweako journalism
>> >establishment, published a review that would cause a reader
>> >to spend big on something that was either sub par or
>> >overkill.
>
>> Your lack of influence is duly noted.
>
>Certainly, the tweako journalism crowd would consider
>widespread bad advice as being as good as widespread good
>advice, and they certainly would consider it superior to
>limited coverage good advice. For them influence, product
>perks, and fame within the asylum are more important than
>integrity. The problem with you people is that you really,
>really do not know the difference between good and evil.

Your lack of influence is again noted, note.