Ferstler On Amp Sound

[Howard Ferstler]

I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a
response to another post, but I was so happy with it that I
decided to post it again as a brand-new comment. It is not
really long, because I have to get back to my
home-improvment and shop-expansion work.

FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound (my
view being that "amps are pretty much amps," with good cheap
models able to sound as good as the best of the best
expensive jobs) then those who have spent big bucks on amps
may be able to justify the cash outlay. I mean, they will
have spent a LOT of money to get a very, very slight
improvement in sound reproduction that probably would go
unnoticed during typical, music-oriented listening. Only
during the most rigorous AB comparison could such
differences be notice. Yep, the big-spending crazies might
actually be able to crow about this, provided they have the
hearing acuity of a healthy 18 year old.

Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong, on the
other hand, the neighbor down the block who purchased the
cheaper amp will still not have to feel bad, because for a
fraction of the cash outlay they will get 99.9% of the
performance. Yep, he can be completely happy, and it is
likely that his big-spending buddy would not be able to hear
any differences between the two amps.

SECOND POINT. However, if I am CORRECT about amp sound then
those who have spent big bucks on amps will just have to
feel like idiots. (At least if they are thinking that the
money they spent gained them better sound and not just a
more solidly built unit.) I mean, they will be not getting
any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the
block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc.
receiver.

And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be
able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save
big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as
good as his big-spending neighbor down the street, but he
will also get a tuner and surround sound thrown in for free.

As far as I am concerned, most of the freaking out here that
happened when I mentioned that I think cheap amps can sound
as good as expensive ones is the result of many of you
having spent big bucks on amps. It must be killing some of
you to think that your pride and joy would sound the same as
a mainstream receiver in an AB comparison.

Howard Ferstler

[Rich.Andrews]

Howard Ferstler > wrote in
:

> I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a
> response to another post, but I was so happy with it that I
> decided to post it again as a brand-new comment. It is not
> really long, because I have to get back to my
> home-improvment and shop-expansion work.
>
> FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound (my
> view being that "amps are pretty much amps," with good cheap
> models able to sound as good as the best of the best
> expensive jobs) then those who have spent big bucks on amps
> may be able to justify the cash outlay. I mean, they will
> have spent a LOT of money to get a very, very slight
> improvement in sound reproduction that probably would go
> unnoticed during typical, music-oriented listening. Only
> during the most rigorous AB comparison could such
> differences be notice. Yep, the big-spending crazies might
> actually be able to crow about this, provided they have the
> hearing acuity of a healthy 18 year old.
>
> Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong, on the
> other hand, the neighbor down the block who purchased the
> cheaper amp will still not have to feel bad, because for a
> fraction of the cash outlay they will get 99.9% of the
> performance. Yep, he can be completely happy, and it is
> likely that his big-spending buddy would not be able to hear
> any differences between the two amps.
>
> SECOND POINT. However, if I am CORRECT about amp sound then
> those who have spent big bucks on amps will just have to
> feel like idiots. (At least if they are thinking that the
> money they spent gained them better sound and not just a
> more solidly built unit.) I mean, they will be not getting
> any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the
> block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc.
> receiver.
>
> And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be
> able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save
> big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as
> good as his big-spending neighbor down the street, but he
> will also get a tuner and surround sound thrown in for free.
>
> As far as I am concerned, most of the freaking out here that
> happened when I mentioned that I think cheap amps can sound
> as good as expensive ones is the result of many of you
> having spent big bucks on amps. It must be killing some of
> you to think that your pride and joy would sound the same as
> a mainstream receiver in an AB comparison.
>
> Howard Ferstler
>

Howard,

For the most part you are correct but there are a few other factors that
come into play when people purchase a high priced amplifier.

First is the relative performance of the amp. There are a few people who
can hear low levels of distortion. "Ewing Nunn... could hear it
[distortion] until we improved the system to where that was down to a
fraction of 1/100th of a percent." http://www.roger-russell.com/mcgg1.htm

The other factor is aesthetics. I have had some wonderfully performing
pieces that really looked bad for a variety of reasons. No matter how
good a given piece of equipment performs, people will not buy ugly
equipment. People will, for the most part, buy attractive looking crap.

Other factors are pride of ownership, resale value and longevity. Why
should I buy a piece of gear that is nearly junk in 7 or 8 years?
Wouldn't it make more sense to purchase something that will last nearly a
lifetime?

I wouldn't be so quick to slam the purchasers of high dollar amplifiers.
They may be the ones that end up using that equipment for many years for
free or at least very close to free.

The only other negative to the whole situation is the speaker systems. I
don't know anyone that has a $300.00 receiver driving $15,000 speakers.
Usually if the receiver is $300.00 the speakers are worth the same or less
and they sound like it too.



r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

[Robert Morein]

Howard delivers a Sunday Vermin on amplifier sound:

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a
> response to another post, but I was so happy with my night soil that I
> decided to post it again as a brand-new comment. It is not
> really long, because I have to get back to my
> home-improvment and shop-expansion work.

Read "replace toilet tank flush valve and replace laser cartridge".
>
> FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound
Howard, you are most definitely is WRONG.
>
> Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong,
Good assumption.
[snip]
>
> SECOND POINT. However, if I am CORRECT about amp sound then
Howard attempts to wrap his doggie-turds of wisdom in Greek syllogism.
> those who have spent big bucks on amps will just have to
> feel like idiots.
Howard, the absence of frontal cortex in your reptilian brain causes a
major lapse in logic. They can feel any way they like.

(At least if they are thinking that the
> money they spent gained them better sound and not just a
> more solidly built unit.) I mean,

Howard, you're proud of sentences that begin, "I mean,"?
Who are you trying to emulate? 8th grade english students, grappling with
verbs for the first time?

> they will be not getting
> any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the
> block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc.
> receiver.
>
Some of the brands you mention above have distinctly different sounds,
Howard.

> And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be
> able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save
> big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as
> good as his big-spending neighbor down the street, but he
> will also get a tuner and surround sound thrown in for free.

Howard, the common experience of group regulars is ownership of cheaper
gear, discarded when we experienced the ecstasy of really good sound.
>
> As far as I am concerned, most of the freaking out here that
> happened when I mentioned that I think cheap amps can sound
> as good as expensive ones is the result of many of you
> having spent big bucks on amps.

Wrong, Howard. We started cheap and worked up. But we wouldn't want any
neophyte lead down your soiled path, would we?

> It must be killing some of
> you to think that your pride and joy would sound the same as
> a mainstream receiver in an AB comparison.
>
Not at all, Howard. Here's a little syllogism for you: It's not killing us
because we're not thinking it.

> Abraham Lincoln

[Fella]

Howard Ferstler wrote:

> I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a
> response to another post, but I was so happy with it

Why?

>
> FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound (my
> view being that "amps are pretty much amps,"

If? .. There are HUGE, audible differences even between the budget
models you list below.

> spent a LOT of money to get a very, very slight
> improvement in sound reproduction

That happens after about 5.000 (between 5000 and 25000) euros, IMO..


> that probably would go
> unnoticed during typical, music-oriented listening.

Music oriented listening? So you actually sit down and listen to that
"pink noise" of yours for hours on end? ...

> Only
> during the most rigorous AB comparison could such
> differences be notice.

"differences be notice?"

> Yep, the big-spending crazies might
> actually be able to crow about this, provided they have the
> hearing acuity of a healthy 18 year old.

Could this be your trouble? Perhaps _you_ dont hear well, and _that's_
why you think ...

>
> Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong,


You see, there you have it, even "assumptions are _not_ pretty much
assumptions" ..

> I mean, they will be not getting
> any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the
> block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc.
> receiver.

I have a densen amp nowadays, I upgraded from an onkyo integra model.
The onkyo was a pretty good amp, almost a budget high-end thingy. It had
almost no "soundstage" to speak of but pretty much everything else was
there. But after about 5 years of listening the analog source selector
screwed up (perhaps becuase it was never really used) and just touching
it would make the left or right channel come on and off again. Now this
big buck(?) amp (1500) I got has a *lifetime* warranty against such
stuff. Eheh.


>
> And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be
> able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save
> big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as
> good as his big-spending neighbor down the street,


Oh yeah? Then why is it that his jaw falls when he hears some of his own
CD's on my system? One of the BEST friend comment I got was this "I am
listening to my stereos, you are listening to music" ... Hehehe.

> It must be killing some of
> you to think

It must be killing you to think that you _can't_ hear the difference. Go
to some doctor, nurse, whatever, have your ears checked. Buy some Q
tips, clean'em, etc.

Happy trolling.

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/11/2004 9:41 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a
>response to another post, but I was so happy with it that I
>decided to post it again as a brand-new comment.

You were happy with this? I cannot imagine anyone who fancies themself a writer
being happy with this mess.

It is not
>really long,

actually it is very long considering how small the content is.

because I have to get back to my
>home-improvment and shop-expansion work.

I hope you do that sort of thing better than you write.


>
>FIRST POINT.

You are off to a bad start. Why did you use all caps? Why did you start with an
incomplete sentence? That's just bad writing.

You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound (my
>view being that "amps are pretty much amps," with good cheap
>models able to sound as good as the best of the best
>expensive jobs) then those who have spent big bucks on amps
>may be able to justify the cash outlay.

This sentence is nothing short of a car wreck. You really like what you wrote?
Unfortunately your writing is so bad that it makes the meaning of the actual
content unclear. "amps are pretty much amps." What does that mean? Speakers are
pretty much speakers. Anything is pretty much what it is. Why do you use a
vague qualifer? "pretty much" can mean very differnt things to different
people. State your belief clearly and concisely.

I mean,

You have now started two sentences with "I mean." That's just ****ty writing.
You think this is good?

they will
>have spent a LOT of money to get a very, very slight
>improvement in sound reproduction that probably would go
>unnoticed during typical, music-oriented listening.

Unproven assertion. Your content is rejected as OSAF.

Only
>during the most rigorous AB comparison could such
>differences be notice.

Anothe OSAF. Not to mention more ****ty writing.

Yep, the big-spending crazies might
>actually be able to crow about this, provided they have the
>hearing acuity of a healthy 18 year old.

Now you are just reverting to silly name calling. That is rather pathetic
content. Your assertion is yet another OSAF. You have offered nothing to
support your position so far.Any arguments based on unsupported assertions are
worthless. You have nowhere to go from here.


>
>Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong, on the
>other hand,

How could anyone who thinks they are a writer allow this sentence get into
public with their name attached to it?

the neighbor down the block who purchased the
>cheaper amp will still not have to feel bad, because for a
>fraction of the cash outlay they will get 99.9% of the
>performance.

Your writing is simply panfully bad. Your content is meaningless. You are now
inventing neighbors and then talking about their feelings. Do you know how
silly it is to discuss the feelings of make believe people?

Yep, he can be completely happy,
Who can be completely happy? Oh yeah, the make believe person.

and it is
>likely that his big-spending buddy would not be able to hear
>any differences between the two amps.

What is the point of speculating about the hearing acuities of make believe
people? You offer some bizarre hand waving but your argument has no meaningful
content. no verifiable premisesand no logical arguments, nothing of merit.


>
>SECOND POINT.

second crappy begining to a paragraph. see above for details.

However, if I am CORRECT about amp sound then
>those who have spent big bucks on amps will just have to
>feel like idiots.

A silly assertion that is also vague. Why would said audiophiles *have* to feel
like idiots if you are right? Is it a law? Is it a matter of physics? What will
cause this feeling you assert with absolute certainty? Now lets look at your
failed logic. The fact is that many such real world audiophiles do not feel
like idiots. Does that mean you are wrong about amp sound or does it mean your
assertion that they will have to feel like idiots if you are right is a bogus
assertion?

(At least if they are thinking that the
>money they spent gained them better sound and not just a
>more solidly built unit.)

This qualification doesn't help your assertion. It is a well known fact that
many audiophiles do think this and do not feel like idiots as you predict. You
are simply wrong.

I mean,

Third time you start with this.

they will be not getting
>any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the
>block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc.
>receiver.

OSAF. You have yet to support a single assertion with logical argument built on
a verifiable premise


>
>And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be
>able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save
>big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as
>good as his big-spending neighbor down the street, but he
>will also get a tuner and surround sound thrown in for free.

More speculation on the feelings of make believe people. This is not a valid
argument for your beliefs. It is just bad story telling.


>
>As far as I am concerned, most of the freaking out here that
>happened when I mentioned that I think cheap amps can sound
>as good as expensive ones is the result of many of you
>having spent big bucks on amps.

It's hard to decipher this mangled sentence. But it seems you think your
opinion has caused people to freak out. Proof? Nope just more bad story
telling.

It must be killing some of
>you to think that your pride and joy would sound the same as
>a mainstream receiver in an AB comparison.

Silly speculation.

There, you have your rebuttal point by point. over all your writing sucks and
your content is totally speculative. You offer no verifiable premises and make
no logical arguments. You basically invent emotional responses of make believe
people to your views on audio. Kind of silly dont you think?
>
>Howard Ferstler
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Howard Ferstler]

Fella wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> > I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a
> > response to another post, but I was so happy with it
>
> Why?
>
> >
> > FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound (my
> > view being that "amps are pretty much amps,"

> If? .. There are HUGE, audible differences even between the budget
> models you list below.

You obviously have very good ears. You DID do your comparing
decently level matched, didn't you? If you still heard
differences then you should have adopted a blind or DBT
protocol, just to make sure.

> > spent a LOT of money to get a very, very slight
> > improvement in sound reproduction

> That happens after about 5.000 (between 5000 and 25000) euros, IMO..
>
> > that probably would go
> > unnoticed during typical, music-oriented listening.

> Music oriented listening? So you actually sit down and listen to that
> "pink noise" of yours for hours on end? ...

I mainly listen to music, except when doing some (but
certainly not all) of my product testing work. It is you
guys who purchase upscale gear and then listen to IT,
instead of the music.

> > Only
> > during the most rigorous AB comparison could such
> > differences be notice.

> "differences be notice?"

OK, so I cannot type perfectly. However, you claim to be
able to hear differences, and yet I seriously doubt you on
this. I think you are fantasizing, and possibly you have
purchased an expensive amp and are now looking for ways to
justify your cash expenditure. In other words, you are busy
rationalizing what you did and see me as the party pooper
who is wrecking your fun.

> > Yep, the big-spending crazies might
> > actually be able to crow about this, provided they have the
> > hearing acuity of a healthy 18 year old.

> Could this be your trouble? Perhaps _you_ dont hear well, and _that's_
> why you think ...

Well, at least I bothered to compare level matched. Now, I
do not begrudge you really sharp-eared guys maybe hearing
differences. However, for me (and this is all I have ever
said) the bottom line is what I hear and not what you hear.
However, if you are going to give us opinions about what YOU
hear I at least would like to have you do your comparing
carefully. My guess is that you listen to amps not level
matched and not with any kind of blind protocol. Because of
this, speculation runs the show.

> > Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong,

> You see, there you have it, even "assumptions are _not_ pretty much
> assumptions" ..
>
> > I mean, they will be not getting
> > any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the
> > block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc.
> > receiver.

> I have a densen amp nowadays, I upgraded from an onkyo integra model.
> The onkyo was a pretty good amp, almost a budget high-end thingy. It had
> almost no "soundstage" to speak of but pretty much everything else was
> there.

Your comments about soundstaging as it applies to amplifier
sound tells me that you are deluded.

> > And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be
> > able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save
> > big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as
> > good as his big-spending neighbor down the street,

> Oh yeah? Then why is it that his jaw falls when he hears some of his own
> CD's on my system?

He knows that it cost big bucks, and his built-in attitude
toward big bucks tells him that it MUST sound better. Like
you, he is deluded. Incidentally, a good listening room can
make even a budget-grade system sound pretty good, and so
what he may be mainly impressed by is a superior room. The
supposedly superior hardware in that room may be having no
impact at all.

> > It must be killing some of
> > you to think

> It must be killing you to think that you _can't_ hear the difference.

Not really. And my big advantage over you is that I do not
have to rationalize spending big bucks for an amplifier.

> Go
> to some doctor, nurse, whatever, have your ears checked. Buy some Q
> tips, clean'em, etc.

In a one issue of The Sensible Sound I reviewed an
interesting hearing check CD put out by an outfit in Canada.
Yep, my hearing is not perfect, but at least I am quite sure
of just how good it happens to be.

On the other hand, I would guess that you have never had a
hearing acuity check that went clear out to 20 kHz or
evaluated your hearing in the low-bass range. For guys like
you, a hearing acuity evaluation involves simply listening
to favored components and congratulating yourselves that you
can hear all those mysterious attributes.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:

> There, you have your rebuttal point by point. over all your writing sucks and
> your content is totally speculative. You offer no verifiable premises and make
> no logical arguments. You basically invent emotional responses of make believe
> people to your views on audio. Kind of silly dont you think?

My writing may "suck" by your infantile standards, but at
least I get my written material into print.

PS: You are a jerk.

Howard Ferstler

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
>
> (gibberish), but at
> least I (gibberish).
>

[Howard Ferstler]

"Rich.Andrews" wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler > wrote in
> :
>
> > I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a
> > response to another post, but I was so happy with it that I
> > decided to post it again as a brand-new comment. It is not
> > really long, because I have to get back to my
> > home-improvment and shop-expansion work.
> >
> > FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound (my
> > view being that "amps are pretty much amps," with good cheap
> > models able to sound as good as the best of the best
> > expensive jobs) then those who have spent big bucks on amps
> > may be able to justify the cash outlay. I mean, they will
> > have spent a LOT of money to get a very, very slight
> > improvement in sound reproduction that probably would go
> > unnoticed during typical, music-oriented listening. Only
> > during the most rigorous AB comparison could such
> > differences be notice. Yep, the big-spending crazies might
> > actually be able to crow about this, provided they have the
> > hearing acuity of a healthy 18 year old.
> >
> > Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong, on the
> > other hand, the neighbor down the block who purchased the
> > cheaper amp will still not have to feel bad, because for a
> > fraction of the cash outlay they will get 99.9% of the
> > performance. Yep, he can be completely happy, and it is
> > likely that his big-spending buddy would not be able to hear
> > any differences between the two amps.
> >
> > SECOND POINT. However, if I am CORRECT about amp sound then
> > those who have spent big bucks on amps will just have to
> > feel like idiots. (At least if they are thinking that the
> > money they spent gained them better sound and not just a
> > more solidly built unit.) I mean, they will be not getting
> > any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the
> > block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc.
> > receiver.
> >
> > And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be
> > able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save
> > big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as
> > good as his big-spending neighbor down the street, but he
> > will also get a tuner and surround sound thrown in for free.
> >
> > As far as I am concerned, most of the freaking out here that
> > happened when I mentioned that I think cheap amps can sound
> > as good as expensive ones is the result of many of you
> > having spent big bucks on amps. It must be killing some of
> > you to think that your pride and joy would sound the same as
> > a mainstream receiver in an AB comparison.
> >
> > Howard Ferstler

> Howard,

> For the most part you are correct

I appreciate the complement and support. Your comments are
quite in contrast to the others on this thread.

> but there are a few other factors that
> come into play when people purchase a high priced amplifier.

Probably. Remember, this was a fast-written post on amps in
general. My "formal" review of a high-end unit will be in an
upcoming issue of TSS (along with electrical analysis of the
unit by David Rich), and I am going out of my way with the
review to outline the rationale behind spending big bucks
for amps instead of spending much less and putting the money
saved into additional recordings.

> First is the relative performance of the amp. There are a few people who
> can hear low levels of distortion. "Ewing Nunn... could hear it
> [distortion] until we improved the system to where that was down to a
> fraction of 1/100th of a percent." http://www.roger-russell.com/mcgg1.htm

Generally, people who do this are listening in such a way
that the musical content eludes them. I rather think that if
someone can hear differences between an exotic and expensive
amp and a more mainstream model (not a budget job, but a
good mid-priced mainstream unit) the exotic probably has
problems. If they can hear differences between models that
bench check to high standards they are probably deluded.
This assumes that they are not doing the comparing DBT
style.

> The other factor is aesthetics. I have had some wonderfully performing
> pieces that really looked bad for a variety of reasons. No matter how
> good a given piece of equipment performs, people will not buy ugly
> equipment.

The unit I am reviewing is quite attractive, and was
engineered by one of the most notable amp designers in the
business. I must admit that having it currently installed in
my middle system (driving Dunlavy Cantatas) is an uplifting
experience. (This from Mr. Skeptic himself.) The amp sounds
like all my other amps, but it sure is fun to have it in
operation, and it has a certain romanticism about it that
cheaper amps would not have. Note that this does not mean I
would spend big money for the amp. For that kind of money I
would prefer to purchase more recordings, food, power tools
(for my almost expanded woodworking shop), and/or other
audio gear that makes a genuine difference.

> People will, for the most part, buy attractive looking crap.

Yes. One can tell that by looking at the ads in the tweako
magazines for tube gear that looks like machine art. That
stuff must be selling to somebody or they would not bother
to print the ads.

> Other factors are pride of ownership, resale value and longevity. Why
> should I buy a piece of gear that is nearly junk in 7 or 8 years?

A buddy of mine has a Yamaha receiver that is 15 years old
and still working fine. My old Carver M500 is over 20 years
old and still sounds as good as that upscale amp I am
reviewing.

> Wouldn't it make more sense to purchase something that will last nearly a
> lifetime?

Ironically, many tweakos spend big bucks for gear, love it
for a while, and then trade up when the new upgraded version
appears. Either that, or they change brands and go through
the same cycle all over again. These guys are equipment
junkies, not music enthusiasts. They do not compare with
precision, because they are into the hobby for factors
involving mysticism.

> I wouldn't be so quick to slam the purchasers of high dollar amplifiers.

Well, the published review will cut those guys some slack,
provided they can easily afford the amps. However, if they
have to scrimp and dig for the money they are jerks. Sorry,
but that is how I feel.

> They may be the ones that end up using that equipment for many years for
> free or at least very close to free.

For free? Those guys must have some pretty good connections
to get upscale amps for free or close to it. They must be
product reviewers for tweako magazines.

> The only other negative to the whole situation is the speaker systems. I
> don't know anyone that has a $300.00 receiver driving $15,000 speakers.

Admittedly, I am in agreement with you. However, I see no
problem with having a $600 receiver driving, say, $5000
speakers. Better yet, instead of a $5000 pair lets have a
$5000 6.1 speaker package and get us some surround sound.

> Usually if the receiver is $300.00 the speakers are worth the same or less
> and they sound like it too.

Actually, I have reviewed some speakers in that price
category that do very well, indeed, at least if they are
coupled with a good subwoofer. I would probably want to have
a receiver a bit more upscale than that $300 job, however.

Howard Ferstler

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/18/2004 6:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>
>> There, you have your rebuttal point by point. over all your writing sucks
>and
>> your content is totally speculative. You offer no verifiable premises and
>make
>> no logical arguments. You basically invent emotional responses of make
>believe
>> people to your views on audio. Kind of silly dont you think?
>
>My writing may "suck" by your infantile standards,

No, your writing sucks by any reasonable standards of writing.

but at
>least I get my written material into print.

So do many other hacks, so what?

>
>PS: You are a jerk.

Is this your rebuttal to my rebuttal? I take it as a concession to all my
points. Thank you.

P.S. You are a hack as well as a plagiarist and a fraud. But at least you are
published. But then so is Corey Greenberg. Haw Haw Haw. Get a life Slycke.

>Howard Ferstler
>
Who's that?

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> "Rich.Andrews" wrote:
>
>> Howard,
>
>> For the most part you are correct
>
> I appreciate the complement and support. Your comments are
> quite in contrast to the others on this thread.
>

I never knew that robots and clowns like to play together.

[Nousaine]

Howard Ferstler wrote:

>Fella wrote:

>> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>>

....snip...>> Music oriented listening? So you actually sit down and listen to
that
>> "pink noise" of yours for hours on end? ...
>
>I mainly listen to music, except when doing some (but
>certainly not all) of my product testing work. It is you
>guys who purchase upscale gear and then listen to IT,
>instead of the music.

One of the beauties about pink and other noise signals is that you DON'T have
to listen for extended periods to grab a good feel for the tonal balance and
spatial rendition qualities of a given system.

Howard is exactly right that the high-end trade is uniquely tied to the
up-grade phenomenon.There aren't that many people who are disadvantaged by
high-end audio ... they screw the same people over and over.

[Rich.Andrews]

Howard Ferstler > wrote in
:

> "Rich.Andrews" wrote:
>>
>> Howard Ferstler > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a
>> > response to another post, but I was so happy with it that I
>> > decided to post it again as a brand-new comment. It is not
>> > really long, because I have to get back to my
>> > home-improvment and shop-expansion work.
>> >
>> > FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound (my
>> > view being that "amps are pretty much amps," with good cheap
>> > models able to sound as good as the best of the best
>> > expensive jobs) then those who have spent big bucks on amps
>> > may be able to justify the cash outlay. I mean, they will
>> > have spent a LOT of money to get a very, very slight
>> > improvement in sound reproduction that probably would go
>> > unnoticed during typical, music-oriented listening. Only
>> > during the most rigorous AB comparison could such
>> > differences be notice. Yep, the big-spending crazies might
>> > actually be able to crow about this, provided they have the
>> > hearing acuity of a healthy 18 year old.
>> >
>> > Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong, on the
>> > other hand, the neighbor down the block who purchased the
>> > cheaper amp will still not have to feel bad, because for a
>> > fraction of the cash outlay they will get 99.9% of the
>> > performance. Yep, he can be completely happy, and it is
>> > likely that his big-spending buddy would not be able to hear
>> > any differences between the two amps.
>> >
>> > SECOND POINT. However, if I am CORRECT about amp sound then
>> > those who have spent big bucks on amps will just have to
>> > feel like idiots. (At least if they are thinking that the
>> > money they spent gained them better sound and not just a
>> > more solidly built unit.) I mean, they will be not getting
>> > any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the
>> > block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc.
>> > receiver.
>> >
>> > And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be
>> > able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save
>> > big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as
>> > good as his big-spending neighbor down the street, but he
>> > will also get a tuner and surround sound thrown in for free.
>> >
>> > As far as I am concerned, most of the freaking out here that
>> > happened when I mentioned that I think cheap amps can sound
>> > as good as expensive ones is the result of many of you
>> > having spent big bucks on amps. It must be killing some of
>> > you to think that your pride and joy would sound the same as
>> > a mainstream receiver in an AB comparison.
>> >
>> > Howard Ferstler
>
>> Howard,
>
>> For the most part you are correct
>
> I appreciate the complement and support. Your comments are
> quite in contrast to the others on this thread.
>
>> but there are a few other factors that
>> come into play when people purchase a high priced amplifier.
>
> Probably. Remember, this was a fast-written post on amps in
> general. My "formal" review of a high-end unit will be in an
> upcoming issue of TSS (along with electrical analysis of the
> unit by David Rich), and I am going out of my way with the
> review to outline the rationale behind spending big bucks
> for amps instead of spending much less and putting the money
> saved into additional recordings.
>
>> First is the relative performance of the amp. There are a few people
>> who can hear low levels of distortion. "Ewing Nunn... could hear it
>> [distortion] until we improved the system to where that was down to a
>> fraction of 1/100th of a percent."
>> http://www.roger-russell.com/mcgg1.htm
>
> Generally, people who do this are listening in such a way
> that the musical content eludes them. I rather think that if
> someone can hear differences between an exotic and expensive
> amp and a more mainstream model (not a budget job, but a
> good mid-priced mainstream unit) the exotic probably has
> problems. If they can hear differences between models that
> bench check to high standards they are probably deluded.
> This assumes that they are not doing the comparing DBT
> style.
>
>> The other factor is aesthetics. I have had some wonderfully performing
>> pieces that really looked bad for a variety of reasons. No matter how
>> good a given piece of equipment performs, people will not buy ugly
>> equipment.
>
> The unit I am reviewing is quite attractive, and was
> engineered by one of the most notable amp designers in the
> business. I must admit that having it currently installed in
> my middle system (driving Dunlavy Cantatas) is an uplifting
> experience. (This from Mr. Skeptic himself.) The amp sounds
> like all my other amps, but it sure is fun to have it in
> operation, and it has a certain romanticism about it that
> cheaper amps would not have. Note that this does not mean I
> would spend big money for the amp. For that kind of money I
> would prefer to purchase more recordings, food, power tools
> (for my almost expanded woodworking shop), and/or other
> audio gear that makes a genuine difference.
>
>> People will, for the most part, buy attractive looking crap.
>
> Yes. One can tell that by looking at the ads in the tweako
> magazines for tube gear that looks like machine art. That
> stuff must be selling to somebody or they would not bother
> to print the ads.
>
>> Other factors are pride of ownership, resale value and longevity. Why
>> should I buy a piece of gear that is nearly junk in 7 or 8 years?
>
> A buddy of mine has a Yamaha receiver that is 15 years old
> and still working fine. My old Carver M500 is over 20 years
> old and still sounds as good as that upscale amp I am
> reviewing.
>
>> Wouldn't it make more sense to purchase something that will last nearly
>> a lifetime?
>
> Ironically, many tweakos spend big bucks for gear, love it
> for a while, and then trade up when the new upgraded version
> appears. Either that, or they change brands and go through
> the same cycle all over again. These guys are equipment
> junkies, not music enthusiasts. They do not compare with
> precision, because they are into the hobby for factors
> involving mysticism.
>
>> I wouldn't be so quick to slam the purchasers of high dollar
>> amplifiers.
>
> Well, the published review will cut those guys some slack,
> provided they can easily afford the amps. However, if they
> have to scrimp and dig for the money they are jerks. Sorry,
> but that is how I feel.
>
>> They may be the ones that end up using that equipment for many years
>> for free or at least very close to free.
>
> For free? Those guys must have some pretty good connections
> to get upscale amps for free or close to it. They must be
> product reviewers for tweako magazines.
>
>> The only other negative to the whole situation is the speaker systems.
>> I don't know anyone that has a $300.00 receiver driving $15,000
>> speakers.
>
> Admittedly, I am in agreement with you. However, I see no
> problem with having a $600 receiver driving, say, $5000
> speakers. Better yet, instead of a $5000 pair lets have a
> $5000 6.1 speaker package and get us some surround sound.
>
>> Usually if the receiver is $300.00 the speakers are worth the same or
>> less and they sound like it too.
>
> Actually, I have reviewed some speakers in that price
> category that do very well, indeed, at least if they are
> coupled with a good subwoofer. I would probably want to have
> a receiver a bit more upscale than that $300 job, however.
>
> Howard Ferstler
>

Howard,

All of the speakers I have listened to that are in the $300 to $600 dollar
range certainly sound good considering their cost, but they certainly
don't sound like $10,000 speakers either. The problem with cheaper
speakers that they are cheap. You prety much get what you pay for. You
can add subs but they will still fall flat when asked to really perform at
lifelike (live) levels.

Even at the $600.00 receiver price level, I am not sure how many people
would have $5k speakers to go along with them. I would expect the number
of systems configured similarly to be quite small.

I you really want to see some interesting numbers, look at how much people
generally spend on the audio to go along with their new plasma
televisions. It is quite amazing. More often than not they spend $10,000
plus on the picture and then get the cheapest thing possible for the
audio.

Personally I see no problem with driving $10,000+ speakers with a $500.00
amp. I do have to ask the question of what will happen to the speakers
when or if the amp fails. I consider it poor value if the amp can wipe
out or seriously damage a significant investment in speakers.

r




--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

[Sander deWaal]

Howard Ferstler > said:

>My writing may "suck" by your infantile standards, but at
>least I get my written material into print.

So do John Atkinson and Steven Rochlin, just to name a few.
Oh, not to mention Harvey "Gizmo" Rosenberg.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Fella]

Howard Ferstler wrote:

>>Oh yeah? Then why is it that his jaw falls when he hears some of his own
>>CD's on my system?
>
>
> He knows that it cost big bucks,

Actually his onkyo integra surround amp costs 4 times as much as the
densen. :) And no, you do not need lab rat blind testing on "pink noise"
level matching to hear the difference between them. It hit's you almost
instantly when music starts to eminate from the densen. :)

Anyways.. Fester on, ferstler.

I think at this point I would rather agree to disagree with you as to
who is "deluded". Is it you, who carries the delusion that millions of
people around the world are deluded, or the rest of us, humanity?

[Fella]

Nousaine wrote:

>
> One of the beauties about pink and other noise signals is that you DON'T have
> to listen for extended periods to grab a good feel for the tonal balance and
> spatial rendition qualities of a given system.

Ok, happy listening then.

I know what I know: I put a bueno visto social club cd or a marty
ehrlich and the dark woods ensemble cd, for instance, in my cambridge
audio cd player (cost: 490euros) turn the volume knob of my densen beat
b 100 (cost: 1300 euros) and press play. Instantly the room *becomes*
music (souns faber concerto grand piano speakers) and after some 30-40
minutes I am relaxed, moved, involved, refreshed and ready to sleep.

Ok, and you know what you know, yes yes, this pink noise of yours sounds
the same, a sony walkman cd player connected through the headphones jack
to a yamaha receiver sounds the SAME, yup, OK, how nice. Enjoy!

[S888Wheel]

>From: (Nousaine)
>Date: 10/18/2004 8:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
>>Fella wrote:
>
>>> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>>>
>
>...snip...>> Music oriented listening? So you actually sit down and listen to
>that
>>> "pink noise" of yours for hours on end? ...
>>
>>I mainly listen to music, except when doing some (but
>>certainly not all) of my product testing work. It is you
>>guys who purchase upscale gear and then listen to IT,
>>instead of the music.
>
>One of the beauties about pink and other noise signals is that you DON'T have
>to listen for extended periods to grab a good feel for the tonal balance and
>spatial rendition qualities of a given system.

Lord knows we don't want to have to listen to music for extended periods of
time.


>
>Howard is exactly right that the high-end trade is uniquely tied to the
>up-grade phenomenon.There aren't that many people who are disadvantaged by
>high-end audio ... they screw the same people over and over.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Sander deWaal]

Fella > said:

>I know what I know: I put a bueno visto social club cd or a marty
>ehrlich and the dark woods ensemble cd, for instance, in my cambridge
>audio cd player (cost: 490euros) turn the volume knob of my densen beat
>b 100 (cost: 1300 euros) and press play. Instantly the room *becomes*
>music (souns faber concerto grand piano speakers) and after some 30-40
>minutes I am relaxed, moved, involved, refreshed and ready to sleep.

This can't be tolerated. You *must* be deluded.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sander deWaal wrote:


>George M. Middius > said:
>
>>> >I know what I know: I put a bueno visto social club cd or a marty
>>> >ehrlich and the dark woods ensemble cd, for instance, in my cambridge
>>> >audio cd player (cost: 490euros) turn the volume knob of my densen beat
>>> >b 100 (cost: 1300 euros) and press play. Instantly the room *becomes*
>>> >music (souns faber concerto grand piano speakers) and after some 30-40
>>> >minutes I am relaxed, moved, involved, refreshed and ready to sleep.
>
>>> This can't be tolerated. You *must* be deluded.
>
>>He may not believe in you, note.
>
>He obviously believes his own ears.
>Something I applaud, you will note.
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>
>
>
>
>

You do realize, of course, that individual preferences are totally forbidden
for Ferstler and his small band of windmill-tllters, don't you? LOT'S !






Bruce J. Richman

[Fella]

Sander deWaal wrote:
> Fella > said:
>
>
>>I know what I know: I put a bueno visto social club cd or a marty
>>ehrlich and the dark woods ensemble cd, for instance, in my cambridge
>>audio cd player (cost: 490euros) turn the volume knob of my densen beat
>>b 100 (cost: 1300 euros) and press play. Instantly the room *becomes*
>>music (souns faber concerto grand piano speakers) and after some 30-40
>>minutes I am relaxed, moved, involved, refreshed and ready to sleep.
>
>
> This can't be tolerated. You *must* be deluded.
>

Yes, I know, tis a crime. I should be doing double blind pink noise lab
tests, I should be then throwing the book at my "big buck" amps, cd
players, at the same time shouting "you all sound the same! I must be
deluded!" every 5 minutes. Preferavly howards books.

Well ok, maybe not.

Wonder if this howard looks like that "oukaay" teacher in south park?
Could be.

But seriously, what could this baffoon be aiming at? Drive high-end amp
makers out of business? All to use yamaha natural metallic sound
receivers? Resistance is futile?

[Bruce J. Richman]

Fella wrote:


>Sander deWaal wrote:
>> Fella > said:
>>
>>
>>>I know what I know: I put a bueno visto social club cd or a marty
>>>ehrlich and the dark woods ensemble cd, for instance, in my cambridge
>>>audio cd player (cost: 490euros) turn the volume knob of my densen beat
>>>b 100 (cost: 1300 euros) and press play. Instantly the room *becomes*
>>>music (souns faber concerto grand piano speakers) and after some 30-40
>>>minutes I am relaxed, moved, involved, refreshed and ready to sleep.
>>
>>
>> This can't be tolerated. You *must* be deluded.
>>
>
>Yes, I know, tis a crime. I should be doing double blind pink noise lab
>tests, I should be then throwing the book at my "big buck" amps, cd
>players, at the same time shouting "you all sound the same! I must be
>deluded!" every 5 minutes. Preferavly howards books.
>
>Well ok, maybe not.
>
>Wonder if this howard looks like that "oukaay" teacher in south park?
>Could be.
>
>But seriously, what could this baffoon be aiming at? Drive high-end amp
>makers out of business? All to use yamaha natural metallic sound
>receivers? Resistance is futile?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Catharsis for a mentally ill poster would be my educated opinion. No other
rational explanation for this irrational person seems to fit.








Bruce J. Richman

[Sander deWaal]

Fella > said:

>But seriously, what could this baffoon be aiming at? Drive high-end amp
>makers out of business? All to use yamaha natural metallic sound
>receivers? Resistance is futile?

He's just here to sell books so he can continue expanding his wood
tool shop.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[normanstrong]

> > Fella > said:
> >

> >>I know what I know: I put a bueno visto social club cd or a marty
> >>ehrlich and the dark woods ensemble cd, for instance, in my
cambridge
> >>audio cd player (cost: 490euros) turn the volume knob of my densen
beat
> >>b 100 (cost: 1300 euros) and press play. Instantly the room
*becomes*
> >>music (souns faber concerto grand piano speakers) and after some
30-40
> >>minutes I am relaxed, moved, involved, refreshed and ready to
sleep.

After spending that amount of money, I would certainly hope for that
much. Personally, I find that sex works at least as well and doesn't
cost anything.

Norm Strong

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Nousiane said:
>
> > One of the beauties about pink and other noise signals
>
> is you don't need a subwoofer because PINK NOISE HAS NO BASS!

Wrong.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Fella wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> >>Oh yeah? Then why is it that his jaw falls when he hears some of his own
> >>CD's on my system?

> > He knows that it cost big bucks,

> Actually his onkyo integra surround amp costs 4 times as much as the
> densen. :) And no, you do not need lab rat blind testing on "pink noise"
> level matching to hear the difference between them. It hit's you almost
> instantly when music starts to eminate from the densen. :)

My guess is that there is something wrong with the Densen.
Of course, there could be something wrong with both. Or, as
I noted before, room acoustics simply are so dominant that
your system simply sounds better for reasons that have
nothing to do with amplifiers.

In any case, if they do not sound alike on an absolute scale
one is either out of whack or was poorly designed. Most amps
these days have topologies similar to the original,
Bongiorno designed Marantz 15, by the way. They all work
pretty much the same. Those that truly do sound different
from a design approach are probably junk.

Hmmm, I mentioned it elsewhere, but I might as well mention
it again right here:

The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound that I helped to edit and
also contributed to is FINALLY in print.

I got my two-volume, 1200+ page, "editors" free copy
yesterday. I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"
which is kind of a surprise. I did review all the technical
articles and updated quite a large number of others that had
been in the earlier edition. I also wrote a few new ones,
and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of
audio big wigs, plus some company histories. However, I
think the people at Routledge did a heck of a lot more than
I did. Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was
written or modified by me.

Although many audio notables are in there, it is still
primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios
of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history. Your
bio sketch is in there, of course.

The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it
will definitely be an academic or technical library item.

And, no, the discussion of amplifiers it contains makes no
mention of decently built amps sounding different.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Sander deWaal said:
>
> > >> This can't be tolerated. You *must* be deluded.
> >
> > >He may not believe in you, note.
> >
> > He obviously believes his own ears.
> > Something I applaud, you will note.

> That makes you an apostate to Ferstlerianism. I hope you're happy.

Hi, Bruce,

I posted a similar message elsewhere, but I thought you
would like your own, personal copy. The Encyclopedia of
Recorded Sound that I helped to edit and also contributed to
is finally in print.

I got my two-volume, 1200+ page, "editors" free copy
yesterday. I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"
which is kind of a surprise. I did review all the technical
articles and updated quite a large number of others that had
been in the earlier edition. I also wrote a few new ones,
and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of
audio big wigs, plus some company histories. However, I
think the people at Routledge did a heck of a lot more than
I did. Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was
written or modified by me.

Although many audio notables are in there, it is still
primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios
of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history.

The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it
will definitely be an academic or technical library item. Of
course, I am sure you will run right out and purchase a
personal copy.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:

> P.S. You are a hack as well as a plagiarist and a fraud. But at least you are
> published. But then so is Corey Greenberg. Haw Haw Haw. Get a life Slycke.

Hey, Moron,

Would you believe that The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound
that I helped to edit and also contributed to is now in
print.

I got my two-volume, 1200+ page, "editors" free copy
yesterday. I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"
which is kind of a surprise. I did review all the technical
articles and updated quite a large number of others that had
been in the earlier edition. I also wrote a few new ones,
and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of
audio big wigs, plus some company histories. However, I
think the people at Routledge did a heck of a lot more than
I did. Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was
written or modified by me.

Although many audio notables are in there, it is still
primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios
of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history. Your
bio sketch is NOT in there, needless to say.

The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it
will definitely be an academic or technical library item.

That's five books for me (admitting that number five has me
as an editor/contributor and not sole author) and zero for
you, pinhead.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Sander deWaal wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler > said:
>
> >My writing may "suck" by your infantile standards, but at
> >least I get my written material into print.

> So do John Atkinson and Steven Rochlin, just to name a few.
> Oh, not to mention Harvey "Gizmo" Rosenberg.

Speaking of my writing, would you believe that The
Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound that I helped to edit and
also contributed to is now in print.

I got my two-volume, 1200+ page, "editors" free copy
yesterday. I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"
which is kind of a surprise. I did review all the technical
articles and updated quite a large number of others that had
been in the earlier edition. I also wrote a few new ones,
and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of
audio big wigs, plus some company histories. However, I
think the people at Routledge did a heck of a lot more than
I did. Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was
written or modified by me.

Although many audio notables are in there, it is still
primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios
of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history. Your
bio sketch is in there, of course.

The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it
will definitely be an academic or technical library item. I
am pretty sure that it is also available in Europe, since
Routledge is a member of the British Taylor & Francis
publishing group.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Harold the Dunce said:
>
> > I appreciate the complement
>
> Learn to write.

Hey, George:

Speaking of my writing, would you believe that The
Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound that I helped to edit and
also contributed to is FINALLY in print.

I got my two-volume, 1200+ page, "editors" free copy
yesterday. I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"
which is kind of a surprise. I did review all the technical
articles and updated quite a large number of others that had
been in the earlier edition. I also wrote a few new ones,
and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of
audio big wigs, plus some company histories. However, I
think the people at Routledge did a heck of a lot more than
I did. Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was
written or modified by me.

Although many audio notables are in there, it is still
primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios
of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history. Your
bio sketch is NOT in there, needless to say.

The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it
will definitely be an academic or technical library item.

That is five books for me (acknowledging that number five
has me as an editor and contributor and not sole author),
and zero for you, zero.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"Rich.Andrews" wrote:

> Howard,
>
> All of the speakers I have listened to that are in the $300 to $600 dollar
> range certainly sound good considering their cost, but they certainly
> don't sound like $10,000 speakers either.

Actually, a good pair of modestly priced satellites, when
combined with a really good subwoofer, should be able to
give even a very upscale pair of super speakers a serious
run for the sonic-accuracy money. I have reviewed several
systems of this type and was quite impressed. Of course,
when comparing such combinations it is a good idea to quite
literally put blindfolds on the participants so that they
will not be swayed by the super-duper cabinets, etc.

> The problem with cheaper
> speakers that they are cheap. You prety much get what you pay for.

Sometimes. Actually, some of those upscale jobs have pretty
cheap components inside, too. Indeed, most list for many,
many times what the internals cost.

> You
> can add subs but they will still fall flat when asked to really perform at
> lifelike (live) levels.

Actually, many floor-standing super speakers will have but
three drivers inside: a woofer, a midrange, and a tweeter. A
satellite pair will also have a midrange and a tweeter, and
with a subwoofer added you will often get bass capabilities
that eclipse what you get with a pair of standard woofers in
an upscale speaker system. There is really no reason why a
three-piece package of that type should be inferior to a
pair of big, standard speakers when it comes to lifelike
levels.

Of course, if you are talking about super systems that have
LOTS of drivers (I have systems like that, myself, in my
main installation) then of course you can achieve very high
levels. However, I have found that in most rooms even fairly
small satellites (when backed up by a good sub) can get
pretty loud, and do so quite cleanly. I have also heard some
pretty upscale "big-system" models that ran into problems at
higher levels, due to the nature of the crossover slopes.
Actually, the crossover order will have a LOT to do with the
power handling abilities of any system, be it a big
floor-standing job or a sub-sat arrangement.

> I you really want to see some interesting numbers, look at how much people
> generally spend on the audio to go along with their new plasma
> televisions. It is quite amazing. More often than not they spend $10,000
> plus on the picture and then get the cheapest thing possible for the
> audio.

Agreed. You can go into Best Buy and find sets that cost
nearly that much (well, at least six grand), and yet if you
go into their audio sections you will mostly find low-level
hardware, particularly the speaker hardware.

> Personally I see no problem with driving $10,000+ speakers with a $500.00
> amp. I do have to ask the question of what will happen to the speakers
> when or if the amp fails. I consider it poor value if the amp can wipe
> out or seriously damage a significant investment in speakers.

True. My main systems have built-in bistable resistors with
each section (tweeters, midranges, woofers) that limit
current if an amp decides to go off the deep end.

Howard Ferstler

[paul packer]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:48:12 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:
>Hey, George:
>
>Speaking of my writing, would you believe that The
>Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound that I helped to edit and
>also contributed to is FINALLY in print.
>
>I got my two-volume, 1200+ page, "editors" free copy
>yesterday. I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"
>which is kind of a surprise. I did review all the technical
>articles and updated quite a large number of others that had
>been in the earlier edition. I also wrote a few new ones,
>and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of
>audio big wigs, plus some company histories. However, I
>think the people at Routledge did a heck of a lot more than
>I did. Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was
>written or modified by me.
>
>Although many audio notables are in there, it is still
>primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios
>of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history. Your
>bio sketch is NOT in there, needless to say.
>
>The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it
>will definitely be an academic or technical library item.
>
>That is five books for me (acknowledging that number five
>has me as an editor and contributor and not sole author),
>and zero for you, zero.
>
>Howard Ferstler

That's telling them. Many, many times.

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Do you feel foolish yet, Clerkie? I'd like to remind you that I,
> personally, have urged you to consult a physician many times. Apparently
> you still have not done so. And this is the result. Sad.

But still published, goofball. Five books, now.

And, no, I do not feel foolish in the least. Book number
five (a two-volume set published by one of the world's major
publishers) is now in print. Look on the title page:

Howard Ferstler: Technical Editor.

Haw, haw, haw.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Brother Horace the Semiliterate chants one of his dogmatic prayers of
> futility.
>
> > > Harold the Dunce said:
>
> > > > I appreciate the complement
>
> > > Learn to write.
>
> > Hey, George:
>
> I'll interrupt you here to note that you got two words correct out of
> two. That's a 100% score, and you should be proud. Quite an achievement
> at your advanced age, and especially in light of your other handicaps.

.....advanced age, and published. Book number five just out
and ready for you to lament.

Howard Ferstler

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...


> > Howard Ferstler: Technical Editor.
>
> Haw, haw, haw.
>
I still can't stop laughing!

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/20/2004 6:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>
>> P.S. You are a hack as well as a plagiarist and a fraud. But at least you
>are
>> published. But then so is Corey Greenberg. Haw Haw Haw. Get a life Slycke.
>
>Hey, Moron,

Hey, moron. That is the correct way to write it. Idiot.


>
>Would you believe that The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound
>that I helped to edit and also contributed to is now in
>print.

How long was it delayed after the publishers were alerted to your plagiarism?


>
>I got my two-volume, 1200+ page, "editors" free copy
>yesterday.

Well, you can build a fire in your living room and do a cerimonial dance.

I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"

A step above getting your name in the phone book. Congradulations.


>which is kind of a surprise. I did review all the technical
>articles and updated quite a large number of others that had
>been in the earlier edition.

I bet nothing got by you.

I also wrote a few new ones,

Who wrote them?


>and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of
>audio big wigs,

No autobiography obviously.

plus some company histories.

Paraphrased from their promotional copy no doubt.

However, I
>think the people at Routledge did a heck of a lot more than
>I did.

No doubt. They probably are in the habbit of writing original material. That is
a lot more work.


Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was
>written or modified by me.

And you still refer to it as your book. Pathetic.We can surmise that at least
10% of it sucks.


>
>Although many audio notables are in there,

That would preclude you.

it is still
>primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios
>of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history. Your
>bio sketch is NOT in there, needless to say.

Of course not. I am not involved in audio as a proffessional. What is your
excuse?


>
>The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it
>will definitely be an academic or technical library item.

IOW a low volume seller.


>
>That's five books for me (admitting that number five has me
>as an editor/contributor and not sole author) and zero for
>you, pinhead.


5 POS to 0. You lose, again.

[Fella]

Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> Actually, a good pair of modestly priced satellites, when
> combined with a really good subwoofer, should be able to
> give even a very upscale pair of super speakers a serious
> run for the sonic-accuracy money.

Yes... using pink noise and careful "level matching" they'd even sound
the same! We the borg use pink noise for music, you will noud, duh.

[Fella]

normanstrong wrote:

>
> After spending that amount of money, I would certainly hope for that
> much.

Yes, one hopes that much and one indeed gets that much, slick, and at
times much muxh more.

> Personally, I find that sex works at least as well and doesn't
> cost anything.
>
> Norm Strong
>
>

Ok, so your only mode of recreation is that you **** around with your
hand like rabbits, Ok, nice. But then again, you should try a little
variety in your life sometimes, note.

[Fella]

Howard Ferstler wrote:


>
> My guess is that there is something wrong with the Densen.

Howard you *must* look like that "oukaay" teacher in southpark, say it,
say that you look like him. Say it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message

> "George M. Middius" wrote:
>>
>> Nousiane said:
>>
>>> One of the beauties about pink and other noise signals
>>
>> is you don't need a subwoofer because PINK NOISE HAS NO BASS!
>
> Wrong.

Agreed. Perhaps Middius' experience with subwoofers is highly limited.

[Sander deWaal]

Howard Ferstler > said:

>My guess is that there is something wrong with the Densen.
>Of course, there could be something wrong with both. Or, as
>I noted before, room acoustics simply are so dominant that
>your system simply sounds better for reasons that have
>nothing to do with amplifiers.
>
>In any case, if they do not sound alike on an absolute scale
>one is either out of whack or was poorly designed. Most amps
>these days have topologies similar to the original,
>Bongiorno designed Marantz 15, by the way. They all work
>pretty much the same. Those that truly do sound different
>from a design approach are probably junk.

Howard,

Did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" to your point of view?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

Howard Ferstler > said:

>> >My writing may "suck" by your infantile standards, but at
>> >least I get my written material into print.

>> So do John Atkinson and Steven Rochlin, just to name a few.
>> Oh, not to mention Harvey "Gizmo" Rosenberg.

>Speaking of my writing, would you believe that The
>Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound that I helped to edit and
>also contributed to is now in print.

Your point being?
And besides, did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" to your point
of view?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

Howard Ferstler > said:

>Would you believe that The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound
>that I helped to edit and also contributed to is now in
>print.

Howard,

Did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" into your point of view?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

Howard Ferstler > said:

>But still published, goofball. Five books, now.

Howard,

Did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" into your point of view?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sander deWaal wrote:


>Howard Ferstler > said:
>
>>> >My writing may "suck" by your infantile standards, but at
>>> >least I get my written material into print.
>
>>> So do John Atkinson and Steven Rochlin, just to name a few.
>>> Oh, not to mention Harvey "Gizmo" Rosenberg.
>
>>Speaking of my writing, would you believe that The
>>Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound that I helped to edit and
>>also contributed to is now in print.
>
>Your point being?
>And besides, did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" to your point
>of view?
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>

Sander, while I appreciate your efforts to expose this charlatan, it's sort of
like asking Bush to name 3 mistakes he's made during his presidency. (This
actually happened during the recent debates - and quite predictably, Bush
failed to give any relevant answer).



Bruce J. Richman

[Sander deWaal]

The Devil > said:

>>Your point being?
>>And besides, did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" to your point
>>of view?

>He converted me into a cucumber-hater.

That's nothing new.
How about fish and chips?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

The Devil > said:

>>Agreed. Perhaps Middius' experience with subwoofers is highly limited.

>This has to be the first time you've correctly placed an apostrophe.
>What happened in your life?

Someone at the SMWTMS finally wrote some working Krooware.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sander deWaal wrote:


(Bruce J. Richman) said:
>
>>Sander, while I appreciate your efforts to expose this charlatan, it's sort
>of
>>like asking Bush to name 3 mistakes he's made during his presidency. (This
>>actually happened during the recent debates - and quite predictably, Bush
>>failed to give any relevant answer).
>
>Well, obviously, he *couldn't* answer that question.
>Others made the mistakes in his name :-)

But when asked, said "they were just following orders". :)

I don't think Bush has published any books either. Therefore, he must be a
moron! :)

>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>



Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sander deWaal wrote:


>The Devil > said:
>
>>>Agreed. Perhaps Middius' experience with subwoofers is highly limited.
>
>>This has to be the first time you've correctly placed an apostrophe.
>>What happened in your life?
>
>Someone at the SMWTMS finally wrote some working Krooware.
>
>--

Maybe, but I wouldn't advise using it unless you have anti-virus protection.

>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>


Bruce J. Richman

[MINe 109]

In article >,
The Devil > wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:46:41 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >Agreed. Perhaps Middius' experience with subwoofers is highly limited.
>
> This has to be the first time you've correctly placed an apostrophe.
> What happened in your life?

Lionel wasn't using them...

Stephen

[Sander deWaal]

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

>>Someone at the SMWTMS finally wrote some working Krooware.

>Maybe, but I wouldn't advise using it unless you have anti-virus protection.

There's a Linux version available.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Arny Krueger]

"The Devil" > wrote in message
news:j12gn0dss4pe5s8rmffdgionlb18m2ieck@rdmzrnewst xt.nz
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:46:41 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> Agreed. Perhaps Middius' experience with subwoofers is highly
>> limited.
>
> This has to be the first time you've correctly placed an apostrophe.
> What happened in your life?

Shows that you're too brain-damaged to remember the last time I did it.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>Shows that you're too brain-damaged to remember the last time I did it.

This is not the place to discuss bedroom secrets, Arny.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Maybe Arnii finally persuaded his health insurance company that he really
> needed to have a chunk of concrete removed from his skull.
>

Was there anything left over?

[Lionel]

MINe 109 wrote:

> In article >,
> The Devil > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:46:41 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Agreed. Perhaps Middius' experience with subwoofers is highly limited.
>>
>> This has to be the first time you've correctly placed an apostrophe.
>> What happened in your life?
>
> Lionel wasn't using them...

Nor I need that you apostrophe me. ;-(

(According to my OneLook dictionary, it seems that this verb doesn't exist
in English. What's a pity.)


> Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Lionel > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > The Devil > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:46:41 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Agreed. Perhaps Middius' experience with subwoofers is highly limited.
> >>
> >> This has to be the first time you've correctly placed an apostrophe.
> >> What happened in your life?
> >
> > Lionel wasn't using them...
>
> Nor I need that you apostrophe me. ;-(
>
> (According to my OneLook dictionary, it seems that this verb doesn't exist
> in English. What's a pity.)

No, it doesn't. I had to use my Harrap's to find it.

This shows French grammar is more rigorous than English, or at least
that French punctuation marks are.

Stephen

[Lionel]

George M&M > wrote in message >...
> MINe 109 said:
>
> > > >> This has to be the first time you've correctly placed an apostrophe.
> > > >> What happened in your life?
> > > >
> > > > Lionel wasn't using them...
> > >
> > > Nor I need that you apostrophe me. ;-(
> > >
> > > (According to my OneLook dictionary, it seems that this verb doesn't exist
> > > in English. What's a pity.)
> >
> > No, it doesn't. I had to use my Harrap's to find it.
>
> We do have apostrophize, though.

George M&M is right, "apostrophize" has the same meaning than
"apostropher".

>
> > This shows French grammar is more rigorous than English, or at least
> > that French punctuation marks are.
>
> And more tolerant of the Sluttish dialect.

It seems that you better know your maternal language than the French
wines. Congratulations !!!

[MINe 109]

In article >,
(Lionel) wrote:

> George M&M > wrote in message
> >...
> > MINe 109 said:
> >
> > > > >> This has to be the first time you've correctly placed an apostrophe.
> > > > >> What happened in your life?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lionel wasn't using them...
> > > >
> > > > Nor I need that you apostrophe me. ;-(
> > > >
> > > > (According to my OneLook dictionary, it seems that this verb doesn't
> > > > exist
> > > > in English. What's a pity.)
> > >
> > > No, it doesn't. I had to use my Harrap's to find it.
> >
> > We do have apostrophize, though.
>
> George M&M is right, "apostrophize" has the same meaning than
> "apostropher".

Well, they're both verbs...

[Howard Ferstler]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>
> > "George M. Middius" wrote:
> >>
> >> Nousiane said:
> >>
> >>> One of the beauties about pink and other noise signals
> >>
> >> is you don't need a subwoofer because PINK NOISE HAS NO BASS!

> > Wrong.

> Agreed. Perhaps Middius' experience with subwoofers is highly limited.

The word "limited" defines him.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Fella wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> > My guess is that there is something wrong with the Densen.

> Howard you *must* look like that "oukaay" teacher in southpark, say it,
> say that you look like him. Say it.

There also appears to be something wrong with you as well.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Sander deWaal wrote:

> Did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" to your point of view?

Never. However, I believe that by showing them up for what
they are - psychologically misplaced crackpots and/or con
artists, or both - I can help otherwise rational individuals
avoid becoming audio crazies.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Brother Horace the Pinheaded lied:
>
> > > Do you feel foolish yet, Clerkie? I'd like to remind you that I,
> > > personally, have urged you to consult a physician many times. Apparently
> > > you still have not done so. And this is the result. Sad.
> >
> > And, no, I do not feel foolish in the least.
>
> Nor did you feel ashamed at getting caught stealing, nor even guilty for
> having done it in the first place. You don't feel anything. You are a
> wind-up toy clown.

And, Mr. George "nobody" Middius, I am again published - and
in a very big way this time.

Haw, haw, haw......

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Sander deWaal wrote:

> Did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" into your point of view?

Nope. However, I am pretty sure that by showing up the
crazies and con artists for what they are, I have helped
some otherwise rational individuals avoid becoming tweako
freakos.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:

> You do realize, of course, that individual preferences are totally forbidden
> for Ferstler and his small band of windmill-tllters, don't you? LOT'S !

Prefer what you want. However, know that rational people
will possibly be amused by your folly, and may also want to
keep your disease from spreading to others.

Howard "helped to publish an encyclopedia" Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >Date: 10/20/2004 6:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >

> I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"

> A step above getting your name in the phone book. Congradulations.

Hey, while being in the phone book may impress you, it does
not impress me. It takes a lot more work to get your name on
the title page of a book than it does to get into the phone
book, slick. Hope that does not shock you too much.

Incidentally, learn to spell.

> >and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of
> >audio big wigs,

> No autobiography obviously.

The encyclopedia has a vita section for all of the
contributors. I am in there, slick, but the autobiographical
info is rather sketchy. If you want more info about me,
check out the back cover of my fourth book.

> plus some company histories.

> Paraphrased from their promotional copy no doubt.

You can only guess, slick. The important thing is that I
have published way, way more about audio than you have or
ever will. The best you can do is fantasize about your
system and upscale gear.

> Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was
> >written or modified by me.

> And you still refer to it as your book. Pathetic.We can surmise that at least
> 10% of it sucks.

Well, there are two names on the title page: the primary
editor and me. The other contributors are listed elsewhere.

> >Although many audio notables are in there,

> That would preclude you.

I was too modest to put a formal article in there about me.
However, as I noted above there is a vita section that has
information about me.

> it is still
> >primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios
> >of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history. Your
> >bio sketch is NOT in there, needless to say.

> Of course not. I am not involved in audio as a proffessional.

You appear to not be very involved in audio at all, on any
meaningful level whatsoever. You are a deluded audio crank
who has not a clue about audio in general, and probably has
not a clue about the genuine good and bad characteristics of
his own system.

> >The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it
> >will definitely be an academic or technical library item.

> IOW a low volume seller.

Yep. That is the way it is with academic books, slick.

> >That's five books for me (admitting that number five has me
> >as an editor/contributor and not sole author) and zero for
> >you, pinhead.

> 5 POS to 0. You lose, again.

Only by the standards of a fact deprived, information
limited goofball like you.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Sander deWaal wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler > said:
>
> >Would you believe that The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound
> >that I helped to edit and also contributed to is now in
> >print.
>
> Howard,
>
> Did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" into your point of view?

Not hardly. However, by showing up the goofballs for what
they are, I would like to think that I have helped some
rational but previously uninformed (about audio) types avoid
being suckered.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Sander deWaal wrote:

> And besides, did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" to your point
> of view?

No, I have not. However, that is not my goal as an audio
writer. First, I want to inform those who have a rational
approach to the hobby. Second, I want to prevent those who
are new to the hobby from being suckered by the true
believers and the con artists.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:

> Sander, while I appreciate your efforts to expose this charlatan....

This is a scream. Routledge (a branch of Taylor & Francis,
one of the largest publishing houses in the world) has me
work for them as an article writer and editor (plus I have
published four other books for three other publishers), and
this goofball Richman says that I am a charlatan.

Yeah, and the moon is made of green cheese.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Sander deWaal wrote:

> Did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" into your point of view?

Not yet. But there is always hope.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Fella wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> >
> > Actually, a good pair of modestly priced satellites, when
> > combined with a really good subwoofer, should be able to
> > give even a very upscale pair of super speakers a serious
> > run for the sonic-accuracy money.

> Yes... using pink noise and careful "level matching" they'd even sound
> the same! We the borg use pink noise for music, you will noud, duh.

This shows that you misunderstand the usefulness of pink
noise as a testing tool, which, I might add, I do not use
all that much when reviewing audio products.

However, here is a nifty trick you might try.

First, place your two stereo speakers close side by side and
sit back from them about ten feet, and then do a musical AB
comparison with a mono source. (You can let your balance
control do the AB switching, and if your preamp has a mono
switch you can even use a stereo source.) If your speakers
are good ones, they will probably sound alike. (If not, you
have serious problems.)

Second, assuming they sound alike, do the same test all over
again with pink noise. I think you will be surprised at how
much different they sound this time.

This is because pink noise is analogous to a test-pattern
chart with video work and it will show up frequency-response
anomalies much better than any musical source ever could.

Yep, you will discover that your two otherwise musically
very good speakers are surprisingly different sounding from
each other with a demanding signal like pink noise.
Fortunately, those differences are not all that big a deal
if they are not too extreme, although they can definitely
cause imaging problems if they are serious.

By the way, I outlined the above procedure in detail
(showing how it can also help one to pinpoint malfunctions
in one speaker of a stereo pair and also evaluate analog
recording tape and tape recorders) a couple of decades back
in two different Stereo Review articles.

Howard Ferstler

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Brother Horace hides behind the Krooborg's well inspected genitals.
>
>> The word "limited" defines him.
>
> Are you afraid of me too, Clerkie?

What's for us to fear, Middius? You're just a made-up name that replaces
your real identity that you are afraid to reveal.

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/26/2004 5:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >Date: 10/20/2004 6:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>
>> I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"
>
>> A step above getting your name in the phone book. Congradulations.
>
>Hey, while being in the phone book may impress you, it does
>not impress me.

Right over your head slick. I'll explain it to you so that even a five year old
can get it. It was an insult. Your achievement is not much more impressive than
getting your name in the phone book which isn't impressive. Get this time?

It takes a lot more work to get your name on
>the title page of a book than it does to get into the phone
>book, slick.

If plagiarism and paraphrasing is a lot of work maybe so. But digging a ditch
can be a lot of work too.


Hope that does not shock you too much.
>
>Incidentally, learn to spell.

Learn to write.


>
>> >and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of
>> >audio big wigs,
>
>> No autobiography obviously.
>
>The encyclopedia has a vita section for all of the
>contributors. I am in there, slick, but the autobiographical
>info is rather sketchy.

They threw you a bone. Botton line is you don't rank to be in the book.

If you want more info about me,
>check out the back cover of my fourth book.

I have more than I want. I'd like to keep my diner down tonight.


>
>> plus some company histories.
>
>> Paraphrased from their promotional copy no doubt.
>
>You can only guess, slick.

Sounds like my guess is on target. You are transparent amoung other things.

The important thing is that I
>have published way, way more about audio than you have or
>ever will.

That is important? I suppose you ought to be kissing up to Harry Pearson and
John Atkinson. Pucker up dork.


The best you can do is fantasize about your
>system and upscale gear.

No, I own it. I listen to it. I enjoy it. It's sour grapes for you.


>
>> Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was
>> >written or modified by me.
>
>> And you still refer to it as your book. Pathetic.We can surmise that at
>least
>> 10% of it sucks.
>
>Well, there are two names on the title page: the primary
>editor and me. The other contributors are listed elsewhere.

I suspect that even bottle cap collectors have a pecking order.


>
>> >Although many audio notables are in there,
>
>> That would preclude you.
>
>I was too modest to put a formal article in there about me.

LOL.


>However, as I noted above there is a vita section that has
>information about me.
>
>> it is still
>> >primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios
>> >of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history. Your
>> >bio sketch is NOT in there, needless to say.
>
>> Of course not. I am not involved in audio as a proffessional.
>
>You appear to not be very involved in audio at all, on any
>meaningful level whatsoever.

I am a hobbyist like so many others. It must suck to have mere hobbyists like
me expose you as a fraud.

You are a deluded audio crank
>who has not a clue about audio in general, and probably has
>not a clue about the genuine good and bad characteristics of
>his own system.

Unlike you, My hearing is fine and I have no fear of live music.


>
>> >The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it
>> >will definitely be an academic or technical library item.
>
>> IOW a low volume seller.
>
>Yep. That is the way it is with academic books, slick.

So how do the sales stack up against the best selling acedemic books Clyde?
Still low eh? Let us know when sales hit double figures.


>
>> >That's five books for me (admitting that number five has me
>> >as an editor/contributor and not sole author) and zero for
>> >you, pinhead.
>
>> 5 POS to 0. You lose, again.
>
>Only by the standards of a fact deprived, information
>limited goofball like you.

Learn to write.

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/26/2004 5:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Sander deWaal wrote:
>>
>> Howard Ferstler > said:
>>
>> >Would you believe that The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound
>> >that I helped to edit and also contributed to is now in
>> >print.
>>
>> Howard,
>>
>> Did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" into your point of view?
>
>Not hardly. However, by showing up the goofballs for what
>they are, I would like to think that I have helped some
>rational but previously uninformed (about audio) types avoid
>being suckered.
>
This falls in line with a lot of your other stupid beliefs.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Brother Horace hides behind the Krooborg's well inspected genitals.
>
>> The word "limited" defines him.
>
> Are you afraid of me too, Clerkie? I thought your nemesis was dave
> weil. I wish you'd go to the doctor already. Get it over with.
>

Is he going to have his genitals checked?

[paul packer]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:03:26 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>However, here is a nifty trick you might try.
>
>First, place your two stereo speakers close side by side and
>sit back from them about ten feet, and then do a musical AB
>comparison with a mono source. (You can let your balance
>control do the AB switching, and if your preamp has a mono
>switch you can even use a stereo source.) If your speakers
>are good ones, they will probably sound alike. (If not, you
>have serious problems.)
>
>Second, assuming they sound alike, do the same test all over
>again with pink noise. I think you will be surprised at how
>much different they sound this time.
>
>This is because pink noise is analogous to a test-pattern
>chart with video work and it will show up frequency-response
>anomalies much better than any musical source ever could.
>
>Yep, you will discover that your two otherwise musically
>very good speakers are surprisingly different sounding from
>each other with a demanding signal like pink noise.
>Fortunately, those differences are not all that big a deal
>if they are not too extreme, although they can definitely
>cause imaging problems if they are serious.

>Howard Ferstler

Nothing new in any of this, Howard. I've been checking speakers this
way, both on music and white noise, for decades, and never found two
speakers to sound even vaguely alike. I've also tried it using
headphones and a balance control and again, the drivers sound
completely different. Why? I have no idea, but I'm just glad I don't
have pink noise--who needs it?

[Nousaine]

Howard Ferstler wrote:



>Sander deWaal wrote:
>
>> Did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" into your point of view?
>
>Nope. However, I am pretty sure that by showing up the
>crazies and con artists for what they are, I have helped
>some otherwise rational individuals avoid becoming tweako
>freakos.
>
>Howard Ferstler

Agreed; fighting terrorism isn't simply facing down current terrorists (they
will blow themselves up sooner or later, IF they are true believers) it's also
arming innocent bystanders so they won't accidentally get hit by flotsam from
the explosion.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Howard Ferstler wrote:

>"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>
>> Sander, while I appreciate your efforts to expose this charlatan....
>
>This is a scream. Routledge (a branch of Taylor & Francis,
>one of the largest publishing houses in the world) has me
>work for them as an article writer and editor (plus I have
>published four other books for three other publishers), and
>this goofball Richman says that I am a charlatan.
>
>Yeah, and the moon is made of green cheese.
>
>Howard Ferstler
>
>

Shall we count the ways, fraud? (1) False and libelous claims about people
without any facts to back them up. (2) Plagiarism of the works of others and
then sociopathic attempts to rationalize them and/or cover them up. (3)
Methodologically deceptive and fraudulent "double blind tests" in which you've
been proven to have deliberately manipulated the data to conform to
preconceived beliefs/

And I'm sure many more deceptive, false, and/or libelous practices too numerous
to mention. However, I'm sure you've succeeded in preventing newbies from
listening to the words of "true believers" and "tweako-freakos". Practically
all of them who come here and voice there opinions despise you! Mission
accomplished. !!! Good job !!!

ROFLMAO !!!!


Bruce J. Richman

[Fella]

Howard Ferstler wrote:

> Fella wrote:
>
>>Howard Ferstler wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My guess is that there is something wrong with the Densen.
>
>
>>Howard you *must* look like that "oukaay" teacher in southpark, say it,
>>say that you look like him. Say it.
>
>
> There also appears to be something wrong with you as well.
>

Just by saying that I hear the difference between a yamaha amp and an
onkyo amp I become "deluded", remember?


> Howard Ferstler

[Sander deWaal]

Howard Ferstler > said:

>And, Mr. George "nobody" Middius, I am again published - and
>in a very big way this time.
>
>Haw, haw, haw......

Earlier you said "it is not my book".

Well, well, well........

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

Howard Ferstler > said:

>Howard "helped to publish an encyclopedia" Ferstler

I "helped saving the world". No big deal.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>What's for us to fear, Middius? You're just a made-up name that replaces
>your real identity that you are afraid to reveal.

So who is he, and what is his occupation, Arnold?

Oh, and work on your grammar skills. Spell-checkers won't catch bad
grammar, you know.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[S888Wheel]

>From: (Nousaine)
>Date: 10/26/2004 10:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
>
>
>>Sander deWaal wrote:
>>
>>> Did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" into your point of view?
>>
>>Nope. However, I am pretty sure that by showing up the
>>crazies and con artists for what they are, I have helped
>>some otherwise rational individuals avoid becoming tweako
>>freakos.
>>
>>Howard Ferstler
>
>Agreed; fighting terrorism isn't simply facing down current terrorists (they
>will blow themselves up sooner or later, IF they are true believers) it's
>also
>arming innocent bystanders so they won't accidentally get hit by flotsam from
>the explosion.
>
How obsessed does one have to be with this "war" in audio to equate
subjectivism with terrorism? It is really sad that the unknown haunts you so
much. Are you afraid of the dark too?

[Sander deWaal]

(S888Wheel) said:

>How obsessed does one have to be with this "war" in audio to equate
>subjectivism with terrorism? It is really sad that the unknown haunts you so
>much. Are you afraid of the dark too?

That's why they do double blind tests, to overcome that fear.
Confrontation therapy, as dr. Richman would probably put it :-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[S888Wheel]

>From: Sander deWaal
>Date: 10/27/2004 8:15 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(S888Wheel) said:
>
>>How obsessed does one have to be with this "war" in audio to equate
>>subjectivism with terrorism? It is really sad that the unknown haunts you so
>>much. Are you afraid of the dark too?
>
>That's why they do double blind tests, to overcome that fear.
>Confrontation therapy, as dr. Richman would probably put it :-)
>
Can't really call it blind when they know what is being compared and already
believe they will not hear a difference.

[S888Wheel]

>From: The Devil
>Date: 10/27/2004 9:31 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 27 Oct 2004 16:28:09 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
>
>>Can't really call it blind when they know what is being compared and already
>>believe they will not hear a difference.
>
>Can you hear the difference between a duck egg and a chicken egg
>frying? Which one in particular do you prefer to lay?
>
>
>
You just layed another goose egg.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Scott Wheeler wrote:


>>From: Sander deWaal
>>Date: 10/27/2004 8:15 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
(S888Wheel) said:
>>
>>>How obsessed does one have to be with this "war" in audio to equate
>>>subjectivism with terrorism? It is really sad that the unknown haunts you
>so
>>>much. Are you afraid of the dark too?
>>
>>That's why they do double blind tests, to overcome that fear.
>>Confrontation therapy, as dr. Richman would probably put it :-)
>>
>Can't really call it blind when they know what is being compared and already
>believe they will not hear a difference.
>

The best names for it would be tunnel vision, rigidity and/or denial of
ego-alien ideas or facts.

Fears are actually well treated with Exposure Therapy, in which the phobic
person "confronts" the object of the fear, but in a gradual, stepwise set of
steps, while in a previously conditioned, relaxed status. The therapy
procedure is called Systematic Desensitization and has been around for several
decades. It has been used with many different types of phobias, including fear
of flying, social phobias, sexual disorders based on performance anxiety, etc.
Unfortunately for the objectivist propagandists, lack of motivation and closed
mindedness eliminates any possibility of change for this extremely small and
noneffective population.



Bruce J. Richman

[Sander deWaal]

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

>The therapy procedure is called Systematic Desensitization and has been around for several
>decades. It has been used with many different types of phobias, including fear
>of flying, social phobias, sexual disorders based on performance anxiety, etc.

We can now add audio to that list as well.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Marc Phillips]

Howard said:

>S888Wheel wrote:
>
>> P.S. You are a hack as well as a plagiarist and a fraud. But at least you
>are
>> published. But then so is Corey Greenberg. Haw Haw Haw. Get a life Slycke.
>
>Hey, Moron,
>
>Would you believe that The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound
>that I helped to edit and also contributed to is now in
>print.
>
>I got my two-volume, 1200+ page, "editors" free copy
>yesterday. I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"
>which is kind of a surprise. I did review all the technical
>articles and updated quite a large number of others that had
>been in the earlier edition. I also wrote a few new ones,
>and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of
>audio big wigs, plus some company histories. However, I
>think the people at Routledge did a heck of a lot more than
>I did. Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was
>written or modified by me.
>
>Although many audio notables are in there, it is still
>primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios
>of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history. Your
>bio sketch is NOT in there, needless to say.
>
>The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it
>will definitely be an academic or technical library item.

Hmmm. Isn't repeated spamming of a Usenet newsgroup like this grounds for
getting kicked off one's ISP, or something similar?

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Howard said:

>Hey, while being in the phone book may impress you, it does
>not impress me. It takes a lot more work to get your name on
>the title page of a book than it does to get into the phone
>book, slick.

The person you're talking to, Scott Wheeler, gets his name seen by millions of
people every year, you schmuck.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

The Devil said:

>>Your point being?
>>And besides, did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" to your point
>>of view?
>
>He converted me into a cucumber-hater.
>

And you converted me into a earwig muncher.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Howard said:

>Sander deWaal wrote:
>
>> Did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" into your point of view?
>
>Not yet. But there is always hope.
>

Howard has answered this three times so far, and I'll bet serious money that he
doesn't even realize it.

Boon

[Clyde Slick]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> Howard said:
>
>>Hey, while being in the phone book may impress you, it does
>>not impress me. It takes a lot more work to get your name on
>>the title page of a book than it does to get into the phone
>>book, slick.
>
> The person you're talking to, Scott Wheeler, gets his name seen by
> millions of
> people every year, you schmuck.
>

"Face" it Howie, you're skunked.

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

> Howard said:
>
>> Hey, while being in the phone book may impress you, it does
>> not impress me. It takes a lot more work to get your name on
>> the title page of a book than it does to get into the phone
>> book, slick.
>
> The person you're talking to, Scott Wheeler, gets his name seen by
> millions of people every year, you schmuck.

So does Charles Manson. What's your point?

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>
> I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"
>
> A step above getting your name in the phone book. Congradulations (sic).


An audio accomplishment you can't even reasonable dream of, Scott.

BTW Scott, why not tell the nice folks what your occupation is, that is if
you're not too embarrassed to admit it in public.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 10/27/2004 7:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>> Howard said:
>>
>>> Hey, while being in the phone book may impress you, it does
>>> not impress me. It takes a lot more work to get your name on
>>> the title page of a book than it does to get into the phone
>>> book, slick.
>>
>> The person you're talking to, Scott Wheeler, gets his name seen by
>> millions of people every year, you schmuck.
>
>So does Charles Manson. What's your point?
>

Well, lets give credit where it is due. At least both Charles Manson and Howard
are published.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>
>> Howard said:
>>
>>> Hey, while being in the phone book may impress you, it does
>>> not impress me. It takes a lot more work to get your name on
>>> the title page of a book than it does to get into the phone
>>> book, slick.
>>
>> The person you're talking to, Scott Wheeler, gets his name seen by
>> millions of people every year, you schmuck.
>
> So does Charles Manson. What's your point?


BTW, Ted Bundy is another mass murderer who is well known.
That makes two residents of Tallahassee big cheeses
in the eyes of the public.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"
>>
>> A step above getting your name in the phone book. Congradulations (sic).
>
>
> An audio accomplishment you can't even reasonable dream of, Scott.
>
> BTW Scott, why not tell the nice folks what your occupation is, that is if
> you're not too embarrassed to admit it in public.

I'm going to "out" Scott.
He examines genitals for a living.

[Clyde Slick]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Arny Krueger"
>>Date: 10/27/2004 7:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>

>>
>>So does Charles Manson. What's your point?
>>
>
> Well, lets give credit where it is due. At least both Charles Manson and
> Howard
> are published.
>

Not only that, Manson supposedly has "at least" some rudimentary
artistic talent. Has a "Ferstler" ever hung in your local fine arts gallery?

[Clyde Slick]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>Date: 10/27/2004 7:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>
>>>
>>>So does Charles Manson. What's your point?
>>>
>>
>> Well, lets give credit where it is due. At least both Charles Manson and
>> Howard
>> are published.
>>
>
> Not only that, Manson supposedly has "at least" some rudimentary
> artistic talent. Has a "Ferstler" ever hung in your local fine arts
> gallery?
>

"Ferstlers" should be hung anywhere they are found.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 10/27/2004 7:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>
>> I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"
>>
>> A step above getting your name in the phone book. Congradulations (sic).
>
>
>An audio accomplishment you can't even reasonable dream of, Scott.

How is writing about audio an "audio" acomplishment? It is, if anything, a
journalistic acomplishment. It is however just about the most entry level
acomplishment there is for a journalist. Howard has acomplished next to
nothing. He has achieved the bare minimum to even call himself a writer. But
what kind of a writer is he? One that shamelessly plagairizes advertising copy
and deliberately corrupts data in his published DBTs. Does it get any lower for
a journalist?


>
>BTW Scott, why not tell the nice folks what your occupation is, that is if
>you're not too embarrassed to admit it in public.

I have never been embarrassed about my occupation. I'm one of the lucky people
who does what I dreamed of doing since childhood. I will happily tell any
normal person who asks.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Clyde Slick"
>Date: 10/27/2004 7:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"
>>>
>>> A step above getting your name in the phone book. Congradulations (sic).
>>
>>
>> An audio accomplishment you can't even reasonable dream of, Scott.
>>
>> BTW Scott, why not tell the nice folks what your occupation is, that is if
>> you're not too embarrassed to admit it in public.
>
>I'm going to "out" Scott.
>He examines genitals for a living.
>
LOL. What's to out though? Who doesn't know my profession that is actually
genuinely curious?

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>> I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"

>> A step above getting your name in the phone book. Congradulations (sic).

>An audio accomplishment you can't even reasonable dream of, Scott.

>BTW Scott, why not tell the nice folks what your occupation is, that is if
>you're not too embarrassed to admit it in public.

Is your life so empty that you have to interfere in other people's
'fights", Arnold?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius > said:

>I just heard a door slam in Goose Pointe. Now a Villager's motor is
>turning over. What's that, Arnii? You're going to the doctor again?

A Voyager in the snow with pink noise on the radio.
How poetic.

Does anyone know if Arny is "published"?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Marc Phillips]

Howard said:

>But still published, goofball. Five books, now.
>

Bad writer, now.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>> Howard said:
>>
>>> Hey, while being in the phone book may impress you, it does
>>> not impress me. It takes a lot more work to get your name on
>>> the title page of a book than it does to get into the phone
>>> book, slick.
>>
>> The person you're talking to, Scott Wheeler, gets his name seen by
>> millions of people every year, you schmuck.
>
>So does Charles Manson. What's your point?

My point is that Scott Wheeler gets his name seen by millions of people every
year.

Thanks for playing, ****head.

Boon

[S888Wheel]

>From: (Marc Phillips)
>Date: 10/28/2004 5:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel said:
>
>>>> BTW Scott, why not tell the nice folks what your occupation is, that is
>if
>>
>>>> you're not too embarrassed to admit it in public.
>>>
>>>I'm going to "out" Scott.
>>>He examines genitals for a living.
>>>
>>LOL. What's to out though? Who doesn't know my profession that is actually
>>genuinely curious?
>
>It's just too funny that Arny is the only one who hasn't figured it out.

He finally did after about a year and dozens of obvious clues.


>(Well, Howard doesn't know either, but he doesn't know who he's talking to
>half
>of the time.)
>
>I bet Arny is used to the feeling of being the odd man out, so we shouldn't
>fret.
>
>Boon
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Brother Horace hides behind the Krooborg's well inspected genitals.
>
> > The word "limited" defines him.
>
> Are you afraid of me too, Clerkie? I thought your nemesis was dave
> weil. I wish you'd go to the doctor already. Get it over with.

You, George, are an RAO gasbag. Why on earth would anyone be
"afraid" of a piece of lint like you?

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Fella wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> > Fella wrote:
> >
> >>Howard Ferstler wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>My guess is that there is something wrong with the Densen.
> >
> >
> >>Howard you *must* look like that "oukaay" teacher in southpark, say it,
> >>say that you look like him. Say it.

> > There also appears to be something wrong with you as well.

> Just by saying that I hear the difference between a yamaha amp and an
> onkyo amp I become "deluded", remember?

Yep. Admittedly, you may simply have screwed up the level
matching, or one of the amps might be defective.

However, I prefer to believe that you are simply deluded.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Brother Donkey Clerk brayed:
>
> > > Nor did you feel ashamed at getting caught stealing, nor even guilty for
> > > having done it in the first place. You don't feel anything. You are a
> > > wind-up toy clown.
> >
> > And, Mr. George "nobody" Middius, I am again published - and
> > in a very big way this time.
>
> You just got done telling us it's "not your book". You're so desperate
> for approval.
>
> > Haw, haw, haw......
>
> Yes, quite. I hope you realize that no experienced audiophile would
> want the publishing credits you love to rack up. It probably escapes
> you completely. Here's an analogy: Would the person who refined
> McDonald's french-frying method try to pass himself off as a great
> cook? Would the designer of the Yugo call himself a great engineer?
> Does a kid with an ant farm call himself an eminent biologist?

Haw, haw, haw....

I win; you lose.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Sander deWaal wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler > said:
>
> >And, Mr. George "nobody" Middius, I am again published - and
> >in a very big way this time.
> >
> >Haw, haw, haw......
>
> Earlier you said "it is not my book".
>
> Well, well, well........

You obviously do not know much about encyclopedia-type
books, but typical audio freakos really do not "know" much
about anything, anyway.

I edited all the technical articles, and wrote many
additional ones. I also wrote all of the biographical
articles about audio notables, including recording
engineers, design engineers, and audio journalists, and also
wrote many of the manufacturer histories. The title page has
the primary editor and me listed, with the other
contributors listed elsewhere.

While I certainly did not write the majority of the
material, I would guess that out of the 1,200+ page total
perhaps 120 - 150 pages would be by me if you pulled all the
articles out and combined them into a single text.

Now that is really not a book-sized contribution,
particularly when you consider that my first four books were
each in the 250 to 450 page category. However, I discovered
that writing biographical sketches from data sheets
submitted by dozens of audio notables was more time
consuming than what I had to deal with when working on my
four previous books. Hence, the amount of research material
involved with this particular project added up to nearly as
much time as what I did with each of my four previous books.

So, while it is not "my" book the way the first four were,
it is certainly something that reflects my efforts.

Incidentally, doing all that biographical research on audio
notables allowed me to make contact with people you tweakos
can only dream of corresponding with.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Marc Phillips wrote:
>
> Howard said:
>
> >But still published, goofball. Five books, now.
> >
>
> Bad writer, now.
>
> Boon

Way, way ahead of you, gasbag.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:

> Your delusioinal rantings and ravings about those with individual preferences
> help all posters to see how delusional and out of touch with reality you are.
> Since you are mentally ill, your pathetic attempts to "diagnose" others are a
> joke.
>
> As is always the case, your pronouncements about others are completely bogus,
> and unsupported by any facts.
>
> Bruce J. Richman

But, Bruce, I am published (audio-book published) and you
are, well, just another RAO gasbag.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >Date: 10/26/2004 5:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >

> The best you can do is fantasize about your
> >system and upscale gear.

> No, I own it. I listen to it. I enjoy it. It's sour grapes for you.

I do not think so, Clyde. My guess is that you have some
good amps (no big deal there) and some fairly good speakers
poorly set up in a rather poor room. I also am pretty sure
that you are absolutely ignorant of the response linearity
of that system in that room. In addition, I am pretty sure
that you are not in any way going to do some proper
measurements, because you are afraid of what they might
reveal.

> I am a hobbyist like so many others. It must suck to have mere hobbyists like
> me expose you as a fraud.

Expose me as a fraud? Funny, I do not feel any heat. Just
where has your exposing job caused me any grief? You are as
deluded about exposing me as you are about audio gear. The
RAO crowd has about as much impact on audio as a pea shooter
would have on an M1A1 tank. You seriously overrate
yourselves.

> >> >The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it
> >> >will definitely be an academic or technical library item.

> >> IOW a low volume seller.
> >
> >Yep. That is the way it is with academic books, slick.

> So how do the sales stack up against the best selling acedemic books Clyde?
> Still low eh? Let us know when sales hit double figures.

The book has been out for a week. Give it time. I am sure
that Routledge knows how to market books.

The fact is that you tweakos have been trumped by a guy who
has published four books on audio and record reviewing and
has been importantly involved in the production of an
encyclopedia dealing with the history of recording. You have
a bunch of weird audio beliefs and having a seriously
published author make fun of you just has to have you guys
beside yourselves with frustration.

Good. That's the object.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Marc Phillips wrote:
>
> Howard said:
>
> >Hey, while being in the phone book may impress you, it does
> >not impress me. It takes a lot more work to get your name on
> >the title page of a book than it does to get into the phone
> >book, slick.

> The person you're talking to, Scott Wheeler, gets his name seen by millions of
> people every year, you schmuck.
>
> Boon

Who?

Gets his name seen by millions every year? What on earth are
you talking about?

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Marc Phillips wrote:

> My point is that Scott Wheeler gets his name seen by millions of people every
> year.
>
> Thanks for playing, ****head.
>
> Boon

"Gets his name seen." What in the hell is that supposed to
mean?

Howard Ferstler

[Bruce J. Richman]

Howard Ferstler wrote:


>"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>
>> Your delusioinal rantings and ravings about those with individual
>preferences
>> help all posters to see how delusional and out of touch with reality you
>are.
>> Since you are mentally ill, your pathetic attempts to "diagnose" others are
>a
>> joke.
>>
>> As is always the case, your pronouncements about others are completely
>bogus,
>> and unsupported by any facts.
>>
>> Bruce J. Richman
>
>But, Bruce, I am published (audio-book published) and you
>are, well, just another RAO gasbag.
>
>Howard Ferstler
>
>

Delusional ravings noted. The quite psychotic Marquis de Sade was also
"published", so you just join the list of severely psychotic individuals that
have had meaningless propaganda published.

Every post you right destroys your credibility even more. Excellent job !!!



Bruce J. Richman

[Typical Audio Freako©]

Howard Ferstler > said:

>You obviously do not know much about encyclopedia-type
>books, but typical audio freakos really do not "know" much
>about anything, anyway.

Am I your "typical audio freako"?

>Incidentally, doing all that biographical research on audio
>notables allowed me to make contact with people you tweakos
>can only dream of corresponding with.

Bragging again Howie?
Shall I bring you into contact with mr. Levinson, Johnson, Hawksford
or one of the many lesser gods?
Maybe you'd learn a bit about applied audio electronics then.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: "Arny Krueger"
> >Date: 10/27/2004 7:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>
> >>
> >> I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"
> >>
> >> A step above getting your name in the phone book. Congradulations (sic).
> >
> >
> >An audio accomplishment you can't even reasonable dream of, Scott.
>
> How is writing about audio an "audio" acomplishment? It is, if anything, a
> journalistic acomplishment. It is however just about the most entry level
> acomplishment there is for a journalist. Howard has acomplished next to
> nothing. He has achieved the bare minimum to even call himself a writer. But
> what kind of a writer is he? One that shamelessly plagairizes advertising copy
> and deliberately corrupts data in his published DBTs. Does it get any lower for
> a journalist?

If this is the case, gasbag, why am I still going strong? If
you have any clout at all you will do something about my bad
faith and get me out of the journalism business. Or are you
just another RAO gasbag?

> >BTW Scott, why not tell the nice folks what your occupation is, that is if
> >you're not too embarrassed to admit it in public.

> I have never been embarrassed about my occupation. I'm one of the lucky people
> who does what I dreamed of doing since childhood.

My god, you are a pimp??!!

> I will happily tell any
> normal person who asks.

I have read here that you get your "name" seen by millions
every year. What kind of weird job has that kind of perk?

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >Date: 10/26/2004 5:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Sander deWaal wrote:
> >>
> >> Howard Ferstler > said:
> >>
> >> >Would you believe that The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound
> >> >that I helped to edit and also contributed to is now in
> >> >print.
> >>
> >> Howard,
> >>
> >> Did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" into your point of view?
> >
> >Not hardly. However, by showing up the goofballs for what
> >they are, I would like to think that I have helped some
> >rational but previously uninformed (about audio) types avoid
> >being suckered.
> >
> This falls in line with a lot of your other stupid beliefs.

At least I am published, whereas you are just another RAO
gasbag.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Marc Phillips wrote:

> Hmmm. Isn't repeated spamming of a Usenet newsgroup like this grounds for
> getting kicked off one's ISP, or something similar?
>
> Boon

Get busy and complain. Or, are you just another RAO gasbag?

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> >"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
> >
> >> Sander, while I appreciate your efforts to expose this charlatan....
> >
> >This is a scream. Routledge (a branch of Taylor & Francis,
> >one of the largest publishing houses in the world) has me
> >work for them as an article writer and editor (plus I have
> >published four other books for three other publishers), and
> >this goofball Richman says that I am a charlatan.
> >
> >Yeah, and the moon is made of green cheese.
> >
> >Howard Ferstler

> Shall we count the ways, fraud? (1) False and libelous claims about people
> without any facts to back them up. (2) Plagiarism of the works of others and
> then sociopathic attempts to rationalize them and/or cover them up. (3)
> Methodologically deceptive and fraudulent "double blind tests" in which you've
> been proven to have deliberately manipulated the data to conform to
> preconceived beliefs/
>
> And I'm sure many more deceptive, false, and/or libelous practices too numerous
> to mention. However, I'm sure you've succeeded in preventing newbies from
> listening to the words of "true believers" and "tweako-freakos". Practically
> all of them who come here and voice there opinions despise you! Mission
> accomplished. !!! Good job !!!
>
> ROFLMAO !!!!
>
> Bruce J. Richman

Richman, you make a lot of sophomoric noise here on RAO. If
you are all that in a wad about what you claim I have done,
get busy and do something about it that means something.

Otherwise, I will continue to think of you as just another
RAO gasbag.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Marc Phillips wrote:
>
> Howard said:
>
> >Sander deWaal wrote:
> >
> >> Did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" into your point of view?
> >
> >Not yet. But there is always hope.
> >
>
> Howard has answered this three times so far, and I'll bet serious money that he
> doesn't even realize it.
>
> Boon

Different each time, please note.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Brother Fecklebeans the Misguided said:
>
> > This shows that you misunderstand the usefulness of pink
> > noise as a testing tool
>
> Tests are for 'borgs. Music is for Normals.

Test first to make sure things are up to snuff. Then move on
to music.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

paul packer wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:03:26 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> >However, here is a nifty trick you might try.
> >
> >First, place your two stereo speakers close side by side and
> >sit back from them about ten feet, and then do a musical AB
> >comparison with a mono source. (You can let your balance
> >control do the AB switching, and if your preamp has a mono
> >switch you can even use a stereo source.) If your speakers
> >are good ones, they will probably sound alike. (If not, you
> >have serious problems.)
> >
> >Second, assuming they sound alike, do the same test all over
> >again with pink noise. I think you will be surprised at how
> >much different they sound this time.
> >
> >This is because pink noise is analogous to a test-pattern
> >chart with video work and it will show up frequency-response
> >anomalies much better than any musical source ever could.
> >
> >Yep, you will discover that your two otherwise musically
> >very good speakers are surprisingly different sounding from
> >each other with a demanding signal like pink noise.
> >Fortunately, those differences are not all that big a deal
> >if they are not too extreme, although they can definitely
> >cause imaging problems if they are serious.
>
> >Howard Ferstler

> Nothing new in any of this, Howard.

I never said there was.

> I've been checking speakers this
> way, both on music and white noise, for decades, and never found two
> speakers to sound even vaguely alike. I've also tried it using
> headphones and a balance control and again, the drivers sound
> completely different. Why? I have no idea, but I'm just glad I don't
> have pink noise--who needs it?

The devices sound different because (1) they have slightly
different radiation patterns at the different listening
angles and (2) their frequency responses are not quite
identical at even the same angles.

The point was that pink noise can reveal anomalies that
music cannot reveal. At least some anomalies.

I first wrote about this sort of thing back in 1976.
Actually, I kind of stole the concept from what I read about
how Edgar Villchur had his technicians do a final check of
speaker drivers at AR back in the 1960s.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:

> Every post you right destroys your credibility even more. Excellent job !!!
>
> Bruce J. Richman

Every post I right??!! Haw, haw, haw.... What a goofball
you are, Richman.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"Typical Audio Freako©" wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler > said:

> >Incidentally, doing all that biographical research on audio
> >notables allowed me to make contact with people you tweakos
> >can only dream of corresponding with.

> Bragging again Howie?

Of course.

> Shall I bring you into contact with mr. Levinson, Johnson, Hawksford
> or one of the many lesser gods?

Don't try to impress me with those guys, pal.

> Maybe you'd learn a bit about applied audio electronics then.

Below is a list of some of the people I contacted and did
biographical sketches about. (Some were deceased, so I
obviously could not make direct contact with them, although
I often contacted their offspring.)

The various notables, in no particular order, since this is
a grab-bag cross section that I culled from a list, include
Ray Dolby, John Eargle, Frank Filipetti, Barry Blesser, Al
Schmitt, George Massenburg, David Hall, Henry Kloss, Floyd
Toole, Richard Pierce, Ivan Berger, Stanley Goodall, Ben
Connellan, John T. Mullin, John Dunlavy, Joe D'Appolito, Don
Keele, Michael Barron, Leo Beranek, Mark Davis, John Koss,
Keith O. Johnson, Phil Ramone, Poh Ser Hsu, Robert Moog,
Gordon Holt, Sean Olive, Bill Putnam, Teddy Riley, Edward
Canby, Gene Pitts, Jens Blauert, Jack Renner, Amar Bose,
Peter Aczel, James Lansing, Richard Snow, Arthur Davis,
Richard Greiner, Siegfried Linkwitz, Tom Nousaine, C.G.
McProud, Robert Fine, Harry Olson, Rudy Bozak, Nico
Franssen, Ken Kantor, Michael Gerzon, Stanley Shure, Duane
Cooper, Lincoln Walsh, Frederick Hunt, Georg Neumann, Victor
Brociner, Gilbert Briggs, Ben Bauer, Willi Studer, John
Bowers, John Mullin, Thomas Stockham, Jim Fosgate, George
Augspurger, Fred Plaut, Jim Johnston, J.P. Maxfield,
Christopher Jaffee, Raymond Cooke, Bert Whyte, Leonard
Feldman, Bart Locanthi, Arthur Janszen, John Frayne, George
Massenburg, Emory Cook, James Moorer, Richard Heyser, Harry
Olson, Arthur Keller, Stefan Kudelski, John Hilliard, Daniel
R. von Recklinghausen, Yoichi Ando, Tom Holman, Elliot
Scheiner, Michael Bishop, Amar Bose, Bob Katz, Wallace
Sabine, Walter Stanton, Alan Blumlein, Rupert Neve, Robert
Auger, Ken Pohlmann, Roy Allison, Michael Barron, John
Bowers, Saul Marantz, Mike Hatch, Heinrich Hertz, H. H.
Scott, Manfred Schroeder, Michael Riggs, Frank McIntosh,
Herman Helmholtz, Harold Beveridge, Avery Fisher, Craig
Dory, Fred Gaisberg, Georgio Moroder, Teddy Riley, Guglielmo
Marconi, Hietaro Nakajima, Sherman Fairchild, Reginald
Fessenden, Willi Studer, Tony Faulkner, Paul Klipsch, Ian
Masters, Peter Jensen, Edgar Villchur, Simon Eadon, A.N.
Thiele, Richard Small, Bill Schnee, Sidney Harman, and
Stanley Lip****z.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Horace Tinkler piddled:
>
> > > Brother Horace hides behind the Krooborg's well inspected genitals.
> > >
> > > > The word "limited" defines him.
> > >
> > > Are you afraid of me too, Clerkie? I thought your nemesis was dave
> > > weil. I wish you'd go to the doctor already. Get it over with.
> >
> > You, George, are.... a gasbag.

> There, there, Clerkie. I'm entirely sympathetic to your infirmities.
> If you were my neighbor, I'd be glad to drive you to the drugstore any
> time. Or to Wal-Mart when they have a sale on Depends.

At least I am not an RAO gasbag, Middius (or whatever your
name happens to be).

Howard Ferstler

[Sander deWaal]

Howard Ferstler > said:

>> Shall I bring you into contact with mr. Levinson, Johnson, Hawksford
>> or one of the many lesser gods?

>Don't try to impress me with those guys, pal.

Then why would I be impressed with your list below, which I snipped
(out of envy, of course)?

>Below is a list of some of the people I contacted and did
>biographical sketches about. (Some were deceased, so I
>obviously could not make direct contact with them, although
>I often contacted their offspring.)

Are you into seances now? How unscientific.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Marc Phillips]

Howard said:

>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: "Arny Krueger"
>> >Date: 10/27/2004 7:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>
>> >>
>> >> I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"
>> >>
>> >> A step above getting your name in the phone book. Congradulations (sic).
>> >
>> >
>> >An audio accomplishment you can't even reasonable dream of, Scott.
>>
>> How is writing about audio an "audio" acomplishment? It is, if anything, a
>> journalistic acomplishment. It is however just about the most entry level
>> acomplishment there is for a journalist. Howard has acomplished next to
>> nothing. He has achieved the bare minimum to even call himself a writer.
>But
>> what kind of a writer is he? One that shamelessly plagairizes advertising
>copy
>> and deliberately corrupts data in his published DBTs. Does it get any lower
>for
>> a journalist?
>
>If this is the case, gasbag, why am I still going strong? If
>you have any clout at all you will do something about my bad
>faith and get me out of the journalism business. Or are you
>just another RAO gasbag?
>
>> >BTW Scott, why not tell the nice folks what your occupation is, that is if
>> >you're not too embarrassed to admit it in public.
>
>> I have never been embarrassed about my occupation. I'm one of the lucky
>people
>> who does what I dreamed of doing since childhood.
>
>My god, you are a pimp??!!
>
>> I will happily tell any
>> normal person who asks.
>
>I have read here that you get your "name" seen by millions
>every year. What kind of weird job has that kind of perk?

If you had any sort of intelligence, you'd figure out what daily activity
includes the reading of other people's names, gasbag.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Howard said:

>Marc Phillips wrote:
>
>> My point is that Scott Wheeler gets his name seen by millions of people
>every
>> year.
>>
>> Thanks for playing, ****head.
>>
>> Boon
>
>"Gets his name seen." What in the hell is that supposed to
>mean?

Why, I just saw his name mentioned on television a few days ago, absolutely out
of the blue. It was kind of cool.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Howard said:

>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>
>> Howard said:
>>
>> >Hey, while being in the phone book may impress you, it does
>> >not impress me. It takes a lot more work to get your name on
>> >the title page of a book than it does to get into the phone
>> >book, slick.
>
>> The person you're talking to, Scott Wheeler, gets his name seen by millions
>of
>> people every year, you schmuck.
>>
>> Boon
>
>Who?
>
>Gets his name seen by millions every year? What on earth are
>you talking about?

This is the third time I've had to explain this to you. Are you a gasbag or
what?

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Howard said:

>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>
>> Howard said:
>>
>> >But still published, goofball. Five books, now.
>> >
>>
>> Bad writer, now.
>>
>> Boon
>
>Way, way ahead of you, gasbag.

Probably, since you've got twenty plus years on me, gasbag. I am, however,
getting ready to write my fiftieth column for Perfect Sound Forever. At my
age, you had "ZERO" books published. I've been getting things published since
I was nineteen.

Also, it helps that my yearly income is more than you and your wife's together,
and that has nothing to do with audio.

Boon

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> "George M. Middius" wrote:
>>
>> Brother Donkey Clerk brayed:
>>
>> > > Nor did you feel ashamed at getting caught stealing, nor even guilty
>> > > for
>> > > having done it in the first place. You don't feel anything. You are a
>> > > wind-up toy clown.
>> >
>> > And, Mr. George "nobody" Middius, I am again published - and
>> > in a very big way this time.
>>
>> You just got done telling us it's "not your book". You're so desperate
>> for approval.
>>
>> > Haw, haw, haw......
>>
>> Yes, quite. I hope you realize that no experienced audiophile would
>> want the publishing credits you love to rack up. It probably escapes
>> you completely. Here's an analogy: Would the person who refined
>> McDonald's french-frying method try to pass himself off as a great
>> cook? Would the designer of the Yugo call himself a great engineer?
>> Does a kid with an ant farm call himself an eminent biologist?
>
> Haw, haw, haw....
>
> I win; you lose.
>
Yes, you indeed are an eminent donkey.

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...


> Howard Ferstler

WHO?

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Marc Phillips wrote:
>
>> My point is that Scott Wheeler gets his name seen by millions of people
>> every
>> year.
>>
>> Thanks for playing, ****head.
>>
>> Boon
>
> "Gets his name seen." What in the hell is that supposed to
> mean?
>

Go figure it out.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Howard Ferstler wrote:


>"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>>
>> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>>
>> >"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sander, while I appreciate your efforts to expose this charlatan....
>> >
>> >This is a scream. Routledge (a branch of Taylor & Francis,
>> >one of the largest publishing houses in the world) has me
>> >work for them as an article writer and editor (plus I have
>> >published four other books for three other publishers), and
>> >this goofball Richman says that I am a charlatan.
>> >
>> >Yeah, and the moon is made of green cheese.
>> >
>> >Howard Ferstler
>
>> Shall we count the ways, fraud? (1) False and libelous claims about people
>> without any facts to back them up. (2) Plagiarism of the works of others
>and
>> then sociopathic attempts to rationalize them and/or cover them up. (3)
>> Methodologically deceptive and fraudulent "double blind tests" in which
>you've
>> been proven to have deliberately manipulated the data to conform to
>> preconceived beliefs/
>>
>> And I'm sure many more deceptive, false, and/or libelous practices too
>numerous
>> to mention. However, I'm sure you've succeeded in preventing newbies from
>> listening to the words of "true believers" and "tweako-freakos".
>Practically
>> all of them who come here and voice there opinions despise you! Mission
>> accomplished. !!! Good job !!!
>>
>> ROFLMAO !!!!
>>
>> Bruce J. Richman
>
>Richman, you make a lot of sophomoric noise here on RAO. If
>you are all that in a wad about what you claim I have done,
>get busy and do something about it that means something.

Ferstler, all you do is continue to engage in juvenile, delusional name
calling. The claims I've made have all been well deocumented in the Google
record. You've libeled me and others - and your bull**** about my professional
activities, credentials, etc. has been proven. You've been challenged to
make your claims in an American print publication and have failed to do so.
Are you afraid of being sued? If you were sure of your baloney, you wouldn't
be reluctant.

As for your plagiarism of the printed works of others, the Google record also
reflects that fact.

And Phil (name withheld by request) from California - unlike you, a *real*
scientist working as such - has convincingly exposed your methodological
dishonesty in presenting phony DBTs in which you've deoiberately manipulated
the results to meet your preconceived delusional beliefs about audio.

Neither I nor anybody else has to "get busy", Ferstler. You're a fraud as far
as the RAO readership is concerned and the verdict has been rendered by just
about everybody.

The mere fact that you keep desperately trying to plead your case here, while
ranting and raving about "gasbags", basically means you've lost the credibility
battle a long time ago.

Give it up, fraud and delusional libeler.
Almost nobody believes you, anyhow.





>Otherwise, I will continue to think of you as just another
>RAO gasbag.
>
>Howard Ferstler
>
>

Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Ferstler wrote:


>"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>
>> Every post you right destroys your credibility even more. Excellent job
>!!!
>>
>> Bruce J. Richman
>
>Every post I right??!! Haw, haw, haw.... What a goofball
>you are, Richman.
>
>Howard Ferstler
>

You're just a delusional donkey braying like a broken record, Ferstler. A
pathological liar with a total lack of insight.

Get professional psychological/psychiatric help for your problems.



Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Sander deWaal wrote:


>Howard Ferstler > said:
>
>>> Shall I bring you into contact with mr. Levinson, Johnson, Hawksford
>>> or one of the many lesser gods?
>
>>Don't try to impress me with those guys, pal.
>
>Then why would I be impressed with your list below, which I snipped
>(out of envy, of course)?
>
>>Below is a list of some of the people I contacted and did
>>biographical sketches about. (Some were deceased, so I
>>obviously could not make direct contact with them, although
>>I often contacted their offspring.)
>
>Are you into seances now? How unscientific.
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>

Those suffering from auditory hallucinations of a command type (as in "go forth
and battle the gasbags, tweako-freakos, and other members of the evil high end
establishment") are not constrained by reality like the rest of us. Ferstler's
been hearing voices for a long time. He better not go to France.
Remember what happened to Joan of Arc?



Bruce J. Richman

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/30/2004 3:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: "Arny Krueger"
>> >Date: 10/27/2004 7:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>
>> >>
>> >> I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"
>> >>
>> >> A step above getting your name in the phone book. Congradulations (sic).
>> >
>> >
>> >An audio accomplishment you can't even reasonable dream of, Scott.
>>
>> How is writing about audio an "audio" acomplishment? It is, if anything, a
>> journalistic acomplishment. It is however just about the most entry level
>> acomplishment there is for a journalist. Howard has acomplished next to
>> nothing. He has achieved the bare minimum to even call himself a writer.
>But
>> what kind of a writer is he? One that shamelessly plagairizes advertising
>copy
>> and deliberately corrupts data in his published DBTs. Does it get any lower
>for
>> a journalist?
>
>If this is the case, gasbag, why am I still going strong?

You never were going strong. You live at the bottom of the barrel. You are a
joke in a fringe industry.


If
>you have any clout at all you will do something about my bad
>faith and get me out of the journalism business.

You are barely in the business fart breath.

Or are you
>just another RAO gasbag?

You are a joke.


>
>> >BTW Scott, why not tell the nice folks what your occupation is, that is if
>> >you're not too embarrassed to admit it in public.
>
>> I have never been embarrassed about my occupation. I'm one of the lucky
>people
>> who does what I dreamed of doing since childhood.
>
>My god, you are a pimp??!!

Nope, neither a pimp nor a plagiarist. Interesting that you would see that as a
dream job. I guess it is a cut above yours in some ways.


>
>> I will happily tell any
>> normal person who asks.
>
>I have read here that you get your "name" seen by millions
>every year. What kind of weird job has that kind of perk?

Are you really so stupid that you cannot name any number of such jobs off the
top of your pointy little head? Does the idea blow your mind like the idea of
an income in excess of 78,000 dollars a year blew Krueger's mind?

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/30/2004 3:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >

>
>At least I am not an RAO gasbag,

LMAO.

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/30/2004 3:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >Date: 10/26/2004 5:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>
>> The best you can do is fantasize about your
>> >system and upscale gear.
>
>> No, I own it. I listen to it. I enjoy it. It's sour grapes for you.
>
>I do not think so,

No surprise. You are not very bright.


Clyde.

Dork.

My guess is that you have some
>good amps (no big deal there) and some fairly good speakers
>poorly set up in a rather poor room.

Your guess is as good as your room acoustics. Very bad but you are to stupid to
know it.


I also am pretty sure
>that you are absolutely ignorant of the response linearity
>of that system in that room. In addition, I am pretty sure
>that you are not in any way going to do some proper
>measurements, because you are afraid of what they might
>reveal.

What a dork. I don't need measurements to tell me what to like and not like.


>
>> I am a hobbyist like so many others. It must suck to have mere hobbyists
>like
>> me expose you as a fraud.
>
>Expose me as a fraud? Funny,

Yes it was funny. It still is funny.


I do not feel any heat.

That's because you are insignificant. You write for people who can't pay well
and are willing to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

Just
>where has your exposing job caused me any grief?

You feel no grief because you are shameless.

You are as
>deluded about exposing me as you are about audio gear.

Thank you. I guess that makes me quite a clear thinker on audio gear.

The
>RAO crowd has about as much impact on audio as a pea shooter
>would have on an M1A1 tank.

Much like it's resident publish proffessional clown. The thing is you are
trying to have an impact. I'm not.

You seriously overrate
>yourselves.

You are seriously living without a clue.


>
>> >> >The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it
>> >> >will definitely be an academic or technical library item.

At least it will be in your library.


>
>> >> IOW a low volume seller.

Aim low.


>> >
>> >Yep. That is the way it is with academic books, slick.
>
>> So how do the sales stack up against the best selling acedemic books Clyde?
>> Still low eh? Let us know when sales hit double figures.
>
>The book has been out for a week. Give it time. I am sure
>that Routledge knows how to market books.

Let us know when any are sold.


>
>The fact is that you tweakos have been trumped by a guy who
>has published four books on audio and record reviewing and
>has been importantly involved in the production of an
>encyclopedia dealing with the history of recording.

The fact that you think you have trumped anyone is ****ing hilarious.



You have
>a bunch of weird audio beliefs and having a seriously
>published author make fun of you just has to have you guys
>beside yourselves with frustration.

What seriously published aurthor is that? Last I recall John Atkinson, a
seriously published author on audio, was making fun of you. Well, no, he was
pointing out your plagiarism to your publisher.

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/30/2004 3:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >Date: 10/26/2004 5:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >Sander deWaal wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Howard Ferstler > said:
>> >>
>> >> >Would you believe that The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound
>> >> >that I helped to edit and also contributed to is now in
>> >> >print.
>> >>
>> >> Howard,
>> >>
>> >> Did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" into your point of view?
>> >
>> >Not hardly. However, by showing up the goofballs for what
>> >they are, I would like to think that I have helped some
>> >rational but previously uninformed (about audio) types avoid
>> >being suckered.
>> >
>> This falls in line with a lot of your other stupid beliefs.
>
>At least I am published,

And a plagiarist.

whereas you are just another RAO
>gasbag.

Projecting again.

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/30/2004 3:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"George M. Middius" wrote:
>>
>> Brother Donkey Clerk brayed:
>>
>> > > Nor did you feel ashamed at getting caught stealing, nor even guilty
>for
>> > > having done it in the first place. You don't feel anything. You are a
>> > > wind-up toy clown.
>> >
>> > And, Mr. George "nobody" Middius, I am again published - and
>> > in a very big way this time.
>>
>> You just got done telling us it's "not your book". You're so desperate
>> for approval.
>>
>> > Haw, haw, haw......
>>
>> Yes, quite. I hope you realize that no experienced audiophile would
>> want the publishing credits you love to rack up. It probably escapes
>> you completely. Here's an analogy: Would the person who refined
>> McDonald's french-frying method try to pass himself off as a great
>> cook? Would the designer of the Yugo call himself a great engineer?
>> Does a kid with an ant farm call himself an eminent biologist?
>
>Haw, haw, haw....
>
>I win; you lose.
>
>Howard Ferstler
>
>
>
>
>
>

So you have an ant farm too?

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/30/2004 3:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"George M. Middius" wrote:
>>
>> Brother Fecklebeans the Misguided said:
>>
>> > This shows that you misunderstand the usefulness of pink
>> > noise as a testing tool
>>
>> Tests are for 'borgs. Music is for Normals.
>
>Test first to make sure


You don't have to think for youself. The Ferstler method.

[Sigmund Freud]

Hawksford is too smart to talk to you.

Levinson is totally off the deep end, and can't talk to you.

Who is Johnson?






Typical Audio Freako© > wrote in message >...

> Bragging again Howie?
> Shall I bring you into contact with mr. Levinson, Johnson, Hawksford
> or one of the many lesser gods?
> Maybe you'd learn a bit about applied audio electronics then.

[Sander deWaal]

"Sigmund Freud" top-posted:

>Hawksford is too smart to talk to you.

Never noticed, note.

>Levinson is totally off the deep end, and can't talk to you.

He'll be interested in your opinion.

>Who is Johnson?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Funny, this.

Out sockpuppeting, Arnold?
Top-posting is rude, you know.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[UnionPac2004]

wrote:



>Hawksford is too smart to talk to you.
>
>Levinson is totally off the deep end, and can't talk to you.
>
>Who is Johnson?

Perhaps Dr. Lewis Johnson, of Conrad-Johnson Design?!

Jeff

[Howard Ferstler]

Sander deWaal wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler > said:
>
> >> Shall I bring you into contact with mr. Levinson, Johnson, Hawksford
> >> or one of the many lesser gods?
>
> >Don't try to impress me with those guys, pal.
>
> Then why would I be impressed with your list below, which I snipped
> (out of envy, of course)?

If you are not impressed with what some of the people on
that list have done you are either:

1) Ignorant of the history of audio.

2) Stupidly obsessed with what the goofballs in the industry
have done and not with what the real movers and shakers have
done.

Incidentally, The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound is now
listed on Amazon. My name is listed right along with that of
the main editor.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Marc Phillips wrote:
>
> Howard said:
>
> >Marc Phillips wrote:
> >>
> >> Howard said:
> >>
> >> >But still published, goofball. Five books, now.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Bad writer, now.
> >>
> >> Boon

> >Way, way ahead of you, gasbag.

> Probably, since you've got twenty plus years on me, gasbag. I am, however,
> getting ready to write my fiftieth column for Perfect Sound Forever.

This is a joke magazine, slick. Try a serious publication.

> At my
> age, you had "ZERO" books published.

I was a late bloomer. In any case, four books, with a fifth
big editing/writing job. I am way, way ahead of you, gasbag.

> I've been getting things published since
> I was nineteen.

Graffiti on restroom walls is not "published."

The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound is now listed on Amazon,
slick. Go check out the entry. No discount, however; still
$225.

> Also, it helps that my yearly income is more than you and your wife's together,
> and that has nothing to do with audio.

Pimping apparently pays well.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:

> You're just a delusional donkey braying like a broken record, Ferstler. A
> pathological liar with a total lack of insight.
>
> Get professional psychological/psychiatric help for your problems.
>
> Bruce J. Richman

I wish you would be a bit more creative when it comes to
name calling, Bruce. Oops, I guess I have already used all
the good names to refer to you and your goonish friends.

A reminder: four audio or audio related books in print, plus
a big, big book out there right now that includes scores of
my articles and for which I also did the technical editing.

It must be killing you clowns to realize that someone who
thinks you are deluded audio nitwits has published so much
about audio.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler

> I also am pretty sure
> >that you are absolutely ignorant of the response linearity
> >of that system in that room. In addition, I am pretty sure
> >that you are not in any way going to do some proper
> >measurements, because you are afraid of what they might
> >reveal.

> What a dork. I don't need measurements to tell me what to like and not like.

Ignorance is indeed bliss.

> >> I am a hobbyist like so many others. It must suck to have mere hobbyists
> >like
> >> me expose you as a fraud.

> >Expose me as a fraud? Funny,

> Yes it was funny. It still is funny.

> > I do not feel any heat.

> That's because you are insignificant. You write for people who can't pay well
> and are willing to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

You guys do nothing but make noise in your little RAO world.
I drop in from time to time to see how the inmates are
doing, and you screwballs are always as messed up as ever.
You rant and rant, as if you have some kind of influence on
the world of audio. However, the only influence any of you
have ends right at the gate to RAO.

> Just
> >where has your exposing job caused me any grief?

> You feel no grief because you are shameless.

By grief, I mean pressure from my editors, from
manufacturers, and from my print-publication readers. Your
influence on them has been zero. Nobody here has had any
negative impact on what I do.

> You are as
> >deluded about exposing me as you are about audio gear.

> Thank you. I guess that makes me quite a clear thinker on audio gear.

Clear thinker? Heck, you have admitted (rather proudly, by
the way) that you have no idea of just how well your own
audio system is working in your room. All you know is that
you like what you hear. OK, that is fine in moronland.
However, a REAL audio enthusiast wants to know what is going
on, and makes an attempt to find out.

You are not a real enthusiast at all. You are just an audio
goofball who grins when he turns on his esoteric gear and
thinks he has reached the peak of perfection.

> The
> >RAO crowd has about as much impact on audio as a pea shooter
> >would have on an M1A1 tank.

> Much like it's resident publish proffessional clown. The thing is you are
> trying to have an impact. I'm not.

Incidentally, The second edition of The Encyclopedia of
Recorded Sound is now listed on Amazon. Go take a look and
see my name listed. Read and weep, slick.

> You seriously overrate
> >yourselves.

> You are seriously living without a clue.

Four books published, plus the above-noted Encyclopedia
work. Not to mention regular magazine work that includes
playing with all sorts of audio gear. And of course, we
should not forget all the free recordings sent to me to
review.

Haw, haw, haw......

> You have
> >a bunch of weird audio beliefs and having a seriously
> >published author make fun of you just has to have you guys
> >beside yourselves with frustration.

> What seriously published aurthor is that? Last I recall John Atkinson, a
> seriously published author on audio, was making fun of you.

No books, though. John is basically a magazine salesman.

> Well, no, he was
> pointing out your plagiarism to your publisher.

Absolutely no impact, whatsoever.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler

> >Gets his name seen by millions every year? What on earth are
> >you talking about?

> The idea boggles your mind. LOL.

OK, now I get it. You get your name seen by millions every
year. Millions of what?

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler

> >"Gets his name seen." What in the hell is that supposed to
> >mean?

> You are amazingly stupid. Even with all single syllable words you still didn't
> understand. Sad.

I do not think you are the Scott Wheeler the RAO crowd
believes. In an interview with him the interviewer asked the
question below and he replied:

How do you spend your spare time (if there's any ;-) )?

Well, I actually have quite a few hobbies -- too many
probably. I love to travel; I'm planning on making it to 5
continents this
year. I also read quite a bit -- mostly history and
philosophy lately. I'm also kind of a music geek -- I play
(and once upon a
time taught) bass; a lot of why I enjoy working on JuK and
multimedia in general is because it's a way to combine two
of my
hobbies.

End of interview. I do not see any mention of upscale audio
systems in his response. You should not steal someone else's
name, pal.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler

> whereas you are just another RAO
> >gasbag.

> Projecting again.

An interview I read (after looking up the Scott Wheeler name
on Google) has the following concluding comments:

Interviewer:

How do you spend your spare time (if there's any ;-) )?

Wheeler:

Well, I actually have quite a few hobbies -- too many
probably. I love to travel; I'm planning on making it to 5
continents this
year. I also read quite a bit -- mostly history and
philosophy lately. I'm also kind of a music geek -- I play
(and once upon a
time taught) bass; a lot of why I enjoy working on JuK and
multimedia in general is because it's a way to combine two
of my
hobbies.

End of excerpt.

You are not this guy.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Marc Phillips wrote:
>
> Howard said:
>
> >Marc Phillips wrote:

> >> Hmmm. Isn't repeated spamming of a Usenet newsgroup like this grounds for
> >> getting kicked off one's ISP, or something similar?
> >>
> >> Boon

> >Get busy and complain. Or, are you just another RAO gasbag?

> Nope. I've actually told thousands about your plagiarism,

Told thousands? Delusions of grandeur.

Haw, haw, hawww....

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:

> >Richman, you make a lot of sophomoric noise here on RAO. If
> >you are all that in a wad about what you claim I have done,
> >get busy and do something about it that means something.

> Ferstler, all you do is continue to engage in juvenile, delusional name
> calling. The claims I've made have all been well deocumented in the Google
> record.

Documented in the Google record. You make it sound like
court proceedings. You are really, really overrating the
impact of the internet, Richman. If this is such a big deal,
put it to good use and do something productive with it.

> You've libeled me and others - and your bull**** about my professional
> activities, credentials, etc. has been proven.

All anyone has to do to see what kind of psychologist you
are is to read through your assorted RAO commentaries.

> You've been challenged to
> make your claims in an American print publication and have failed to do so.
> Are you afraid of being sued?

Sure. You guys are all crazy.

> If you were sure of your baloney, you wouldn't
> be reluctant.

You have to be careful when you get out into the real world
and call goofballs goofballs. They tend to be a bit touchy,
Richman. On the other hand, we can take the gloves off here
on RAO and have a bit of fun.

> As for your plagiarism of the printed works of others, the Google record also
> reflects that fact.

Unfortunately for you goofballs, this has had no impact on
my writing career whatsoever.

> And Phil (name withheld by request) from California - unlike you, a *real*
> scientist working as such - has convincingly exposed your methodological
> dishonesty in presenting phony DBTs in which you've deoiberately manipulated
> the results to meet your preconceived delusional beliefs about audio.

If this guy had any class he would post under his real name
and make his points clear. I think you have made him up.

> Neither I nor anybody else has to "get busy", Ferstler. You're a fraud as far
> as the RAO readership is concerned and the verdict has been rendered by just
> about everybody.

"Just about everybody?" You need to get out more, Richman.
You are as deluded as you claim I am.

> The mere fact that you keep desperately trying to plead your case here, while
> ranting and raving about "gasbags", basically means you've lost the credibility
> battle a long time ago.

Four books published, plus the work on the Encyclopedia. The
two-volume book is now listed on Amazon, by the way.

> Give it up, fraud and delusional libeler.
> Almost nobody believes you, anyhow.

"Almost nobody?" Four books published, plus the work on the
Encyclopedia. It is now listed on Amazon, by the way.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler

> >I have read here that you get your "name" seen by millions
> >every year. What kind of weird job has that kind of perk?

> Are you really so stupid that you cannot name any number of such jobs off the
> top of your pointy little head? Does the idea blow your mind like the idea of
> an income in excess of 78,000 dollars a year blew Krueger's mind?

You are a phony who is using another guy's name.
Incidentally, I read an interview with him and the end of it
went like this:

Interviewer:

How do you spend your spare time (if there's any ;-) )?

The real Scott Wheeler:

Well, I actually have quite a few hobbies -- too many
probably. I love to travel; I'm planning on making it to 5
continents this
year. I also read quite a bit -- mostly history and
philosophy lately. I'm also kind of a music geek -- I play
(and once upon a
time taught) bass; a lot of why I enjoy working on JuK and
multimedia in general is because it's a way to combine two
of my
hobbies.

End of interview. This guy ain't you.

Howard Ferstler

[Bruce J. Richman]

Howard Ferstler wrote:


>"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>
>> You're just a delusional donkey braying like a broken record, Ferstler. A
>> pathological liar with a total lack of insight.
>>
>> Get professional psychological/psychiatric help for your problems.
>>
>> Bruce J. Richman
>
>I wish you would be a bit more creative when it comes to
>name calling, Bruce. Oops, I guess I have already used all
>the good names to refer to you and your goonish friends.
>

Apparently, you're too obtunded to realize that a valid description of your
psychological status is not "name-calling". Name-calling is your habitual way
of responding to valid criticism of your many personal flaws.


>A reminder: four audio or audio related books in print, plus
>a big, big book out there right now that includes scores of
>my articles and for which I also did the technical editing.
>
>It must be killing you clowns to realize that someone who
>thinks you are deluded audio nitwits has published so much
>about audio.
>

Your repetitive shilling re. your publications, coupled with delusiional
speculations about others, are just further indications of your lack of contact
with reality. Despite your desperate attempts to try and gain credibility,
you've failed miserably.








>Howard Ferstler
>
>
>
>
>
>


Bruce J. Richman

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler

> >I have read here that you get your "name" seen by millions
> >every year. What kind of weird job has that kind of perk?

> Are you really so stupid that you cannot name any number of such jobs off the
> top of your pointy little head?

One that shows your name to people? What are you, some kind
of copying machine?

> Does the idea blow your mind like the idea of
> an income in excess of 78,000 dollars a year blew Krueger's mind?

One neat thing about the internet and these newsgroups is
that anybody can say anything about themselves - true or
made up.

I just checked on another Scott Wheeler (my god, there are a
lot of them out there), and you are not this guy, either:

Scott Wheeler (born Washington DC 24 Feb. 1952) American
composer and conductor. He studied at Amherst College, the
New England Conservatory and Brandeis University (PhD 1984);
his principal teachers included Arthur Berger, Lewis
Spratlan and Malcolm Peyton. He pursued further study at the
Tanglewood Music Center (with Olivier Messiaen), the
Dartington School (with Peter Maxwell Davies) and privately
with Virgil Thomson. In 1975 he co-founded Dinosaur Annex, a
chamber ensemble devoted to the performance of contemporary
music; he became the group's sole artistic director in
1982........

You are not this guy, either. Nope. You are just another RAO
gasbag. Incidentally, I also checked my copy of The
Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound and Scott Wheeler is not in
there, either.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:

> >A reminder: four audio or audio related books in print, plus
> >a big, big book out there right now that includes scores of
> >my articles and for which I also did the technical editing.
> >
> >It must be killing you clowns to realize that someone who
> >thinks you are deluded audio nitwits has published so much
> >about audio.

> Your repetitive shilling re. your publications, coupled with delusiional
> speculations about others, are just further indications of your lack of contact
> with reality. Despite your desperate attempts to try and gain credibility,
> you've failed miserably.

Richman, I am retired and when I have nothing much else to
do around the house or need to entertain myself I can rev up
my computer and go see what you idiots are doing.

On the other hand, you are supposed to be a professional man
who is busy during the day doing professional things.
However, I see that this response comes only 45 minutes
after I did my initial post.

You seem to have a lot of free time for a professional man,
Richman.

Howard Ferstler

[Bruce J. Richman]

Howard Ferstler wrote:


>"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>>
>> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
>> >Richman, you make a lot of sophomoric noise here on RAO. If
>> >you are all that in a wad about what you claim I have done,
>> >get busy and do something about it that means something.
>
>> Ferstler, all you do is continue to engage in juvenile, delusional name
>> calling. The claims I've made have all been well deocumented in the Google
>> record.
>
>Documented in the Google record. You make it sound like
>court proceedings. You are really, really overrating the
>impact of the internet, Richman. If this is such a big deal,
>put it to good use and do something productive with it.
>

I don't have to, Ferstler. You've destroyed any semblance of either sanity or
credibility you ever possessed by your chronic, delusional, false statements
about others.

Referring to the Google record is simply way of holding you accountable for the
libelous propaganda you constantly spew on RAO. As George Bush likes to say,
"you can run, but you can't hide".

>> You've libeled me and others - and your bull**** about my professional
>> activities, credentials, etc. has been proven.
>
>All anyone has to do to see what kind of psychologist you
>are is to read through your assorted RAO commentaries.
>

Your ignorance about the practice of psychology is noted. Since you've been
shown to engage in libelous, false statements about myself and many others,
your pronouncements about my abilities as a psychologist are just further proof
of your inability to tell the truth. You just can't recognize the fact that a
licensed psychologist has accurately evaluated your obvious psychological
problems. Lack of insight, lack of contact with reality, and a fixed
delusional system containing paranoid ideas about imagined conspiracies
involving auidiophiles, magazines, etc. are just a few of your numerous serious
emotional problems. Since you don't have the ability to objectively evaluate
yourself, it's no surprise that you are even more inept when it comes to
evaluating others.

But since you think RAO is representative of professional competence, then it's
fair for 99% of RAO to come to the conclusion that your history of plagiarism
and phony DBT results based on deliberately manipulated methodology mistakes
shows that you're a fraud as both a writer and a so-called audio authority.

>> You've been challenged to
>> make your claims in an American print publication and have failed to do so.
>> Are you afraid of being sued?
>
>Sure. You guys are all crazy.
>

Is that your professional opinion, Dr. Ferstler ? (snicker)

If we can't prove our case, you have nothing to worry about, do you? The fact
remains that you are afraid to put in print the libelous statements you've made
on RAO.


> If you were sure of your baloney, you wouldn't
>> be reluctant.
>
>You have to be careful when you get out into the real world
>and call goofballs goofballs. They tend to be a bit touchy,
>Richman. On the other hand, we can take the gloves off here
>on RAO and have a bit of fun.
>

There is a difference, Ferstler, between your juvenile namecalling, and
deliberate attempts to libel another person's professional credentials,
experience and activities.



>> As for your plagiarism of the printed works of others, the Google record
>also
>> reflects that fact.
>
>Unfortunately for you goofballs, this has had no impact on
>my writing career whatsoever.
>

Unfortunately for you, your credibility is zero, however, when it comes to
having any influence on either RAO regulars or newbies. You've been exposed as
a fraud.


>> And Phil (name withheld by request) from California - unlike you, a *real*
>> scientist working as such - has convincingly exposed your methodological
>> dishonesty in presenting phony DBTs in which you've deoiberately
>manipulated
>> the results to meet your preconceived delusional beliefs about audio.
>
>If this guy had any class he would post under his real name
>and make his points clear. I think you have made him up.
>

Than you are delusional once again. His posts are in the Google record and are
quite easy to comprehend by any person with an open mind. I know Phil's last
name, as do many other RAO posters, but have, at his request, not mentioned it
on RAO.


>> Neither I nor anybody else has to "get busy", Ferstler. You're a fraud as
>far
>> as the RAO readership is concerned and the verdict has been rendered by
>just
>> about everybody.
>
>"Just about everybody?" You need to get out more, Richman.
>You are as deluded as you claim I am.
>

Only in your diseased mind, Ferstler. Even a casual inspection of what most of
the posters on RAO have to say about you confirms that you're not taken
seriously by hardly anybody.

>> The mere fact that you keep desperately trying to plead your case here,
>while
>> ranting and raving about "gasbags", basically means you've lost the
>credibility
>> battle a long time ago.
>
>Four books published, plus the work on the Encyclopedia. The
>two-volume book is now listed on Amazon, by the way.
>
>> Give it up, fraud and delusional libeler.
>> Almost nobody believes you, anyhow.
>
>"Almost nobody?" Four books published, plus the work on the
>Encyclopedia. It is now listed on Amazon, by the way.
>
>Howard Ferstler
>



Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Howard Ferstler wrote:


>"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>>
>> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
>> >A reminder: four audio or audio related books in print, plus
>> >a big, big book out there right now that includes scores of
>> >my articles and for which I also did the technical editing.
>> >
>> >It must be killing you clowns to realize that someone who
>> >thinks you are deluded audio nitwits has published so much
>> >about audio.
>
>> Your repetitive shilling re. your publications, coupled with delusiional
>> speculations about others, are just further indications of your lack of
>contact
>> with reality. Despite your desperate attempts to try and gain credibility,
>> you've failed miserably.
>
>Richman, I am retired and when I have nothing much else to
>do around the house or need to entertain myself I can rev up
>my computer and go see what you idiots are doing.
>
>On the other hand, you are supposed to be a professional man
>who is busy during the day doing professional things.
>However, I see that this response comes only 45 minutes
>after I did my initial post.
>
>You seem to have a lot of free time for a professional man,
>Richman.
>
>Howard Ferstler
>

It seems that in addition to your other problems, you've also acquired the
habit of timing the response times of others.

Your ignorance of how and when psychologists practice is quite obvious. But
then again, you also think that what a psychologist says on an RAO newsgroup
can tell you what you need to know about his professional abilities.

Have you ever even heard of private practice, dummy? Has it ever occurred to
your delusion-filled "mind" that psychologists aren't seeing patients every
minute? (or that they might use compuiters for both professional and hobby
type activities).

And if you think you have any idea about how I spend my time, then your
delusions have become even more serious than most of us have realized.




Bruce J. Richman

[jak163]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 11:57:49 -0500, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>You guys do nothing but make noise in your little RAO world.
>I drop in from time to time to see how the inmates are
>doing, and you screwballs are always as messed up as ever.
>You rant and rant, as if you have some kind of influence on
>the world of audio. However, the only influence any of you
>have ends right at the gate to RAO.

So please, by all means, go away you pompous ass.

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Marc Phillips wrote:
>>
>> Also, it helps that my yearly income is more than you and your wife's
>> together,
>> and that has nothing to do with audio.
>
> Pimping apparently pays well.
>

His might, but yours certainly doesn't.

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>
>> whereas you are just another RAO
>> >gasbag.
>
>> Projecting again.
>
> An interview I read (after looking up the Scott Wheeler name
> on Google) has the following concluding comments:
>
> Interviewer:
>
> How do you spend your spare time (if there's any ;-) )?
>
> Wheeler:
>
> Well, I actually have quite a few hobbies -- too many
> probably. I love to travel; I'm planning on making it to 5
> continents this
> year. I also read quite a bit -- mostly history and
> philosophy lately. I'm also kind of a music geek -- I play
> (and once upon a
> time taught) bass; a lot of why I enjoy working on JuK and
> multimedia in general is because it's a way to combine two
> of my
> hobbies.
>
> End of excerpt.
>
> You are not this guy.
>

Actually, you are right. You found another Scott Wheeler.
Now go back to Google and find the correct one.
There are 4,789 others to chose from.

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>
>> >I have read here that you get your "name" seen by millions
>> >every year. What kind of weird job has that kind of perk?
>
>> Are you really so stupid that you cannot name any number of such jobs off
>> the
>> top of your pointy little head? Does the idea blow your mind like the
>> idea of
>> an income in excess of 78,000 dollars a year blew Krueger's mind?
>
> You are a phony who is using another guy's name.
> Incidentally, I read an interview with him and the end of it
> went like this:
>
> Interviewer:
>
> How do you spend your spare time (if there's any ;-) )?
>
> The real Scott Wheeler:
>
> Well, I actually have quite a few hobbies -- too many
> probably. I love to travel; I'm planning on making it to 5
> continents this
> year. I also read quite a bit -- mostly history and
> philosophy lately. I'm also kind of a music geek -- I play
> (and once upon a
> time taught) bass; a lot of why I enjoy working on JuK and
> multimedia in general is because it's a way to combine two
> of my
> hobbies.
>
> End of interview. This guy ain't you.
>

There are 4,789 other Google references.
He isn't 4,788 of them.

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
>
> I just checked on another Scott Wheeler (my god, there are a
> lot of them out there), and you are not this guy, either:
>
> Scott Wheeler (born Washington DC 24 Feb. 1952) American
> composer and conductor. He studied at Amherst College, the
> New England Conservatory and Brandeis University (PhD 1984);
> his principal teachers included Arthur Berger, Lewis
> Spratlan and Malcolm Peyton. He pursued further study at the
> Tanglewood Music Center (with Olivier Messiaen), the
> Dartington School (with Peter Maxwell Davies) and privately
> with Virgil Thomson. In 1975 he co-founded Dinosaur Annex, a
> chamber ensemble devoted to the performance of contemporary
> music; he became the group's sole artistic director in
> 1982........
>
> You are not this guy, either. Nope. You are just another RAO
> gasbag. Incidentally, I also checked my copy of The
> Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound and Scott Wheeler is not in
> there, either.
>
>

2 down, 4,878 to go

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 11/4/2004 9:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>
>> >I have read here that you get your "name" seen by millions
>> >every year. What kind of weird job has that kind of perk?
>
>> Are you really so stupid that you cannot name any number of such jobs off
>the
>> top of your pointy little head? Does the idea blow your mind like the idea
>of
>> an income in excess of 78,000 dollars a year blew Krueger's mind?
>
>You are a phony who is using another guy's name.
>Incidentally,

WOW. You really are that stupid. How do you manage to tie your shoes? Do they
make you wear a helmet around the house?

I read an interview with him and the end of it
>went like this:
>
>Interviewer:
>
>How do you spend your spare time (if there's any ;-) )?
>
>The real Scott Wheeler:

"The?" You think there is only one? Now I'm just feeling sorry for you.


>
>Well, I actually have quite a few hobbies -- too many
>probably. I love to travel; I'm planning on making it to 5
>continents this
>year. I also read quite a bit -- mostly history and
>philosophy lately. I'm also kind of a music geek -- I play
>(and once upon a
>time taught) bass; a lot of why I enjoy working on JuK and
>multimedia in general is because it's a way to combine two
>of my
>hobbies.
>
>End of interview. This guy ain't you.

No **** Sherlock. Now please try to convince me you are not a total moron in
need of special ed. Lets see if you can name an occupation that would lead to
one's name being read by millions of people. Then lets see if you can figure
out whether there just one Scott Wheeler in the world or perhaps more than one.

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 11/4/2004 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>
>> >I have read here that you get your "name" seen by millions
>> >every year. What kind of weird job has that kind of perk?
>
>> Are you really so stupid that you cannot name any number of such jobs off
>the
>> top of your pointy little head?
>
>One that shows your name to people? What are you, some kind
>of copying machine?
>
>> Does the idea blow your mind like the idea of
>> an income in excess of 78,000 dollars a year blew Krueger's mind?
>
>One neat thing about the internet and these newsgroups is
>that anybody can say anything about themselves - true or
>made up.

LOL. The idea that I might have an income in excess of 78,000 bothers you eh?
That's funny. At least you are published. Well, at most you are published.


>
>I just checked on another Scott Wheeler (my god, there are a
>lot of them out there),

You should have figured that out before making a complete fool of yourself with
the claim that I am impersonating "THE real Scott Wheeler." Clyde.

and you are not this guy, either:
>
>Scott Wheeler (born Washington DC 24 Feb. 1952) American
>composer and conductor. He studied at Amherst College, the
>New England Conservatory and Brandeis University (PhD 1984);
>his principal teachers included Arthur Berger, Lewis
>Spratlan and Malcolm Peyton. He pursued further study at the
>Tanglewood Music Center (with Olivier Messiaen), the
>Dartington School (with Peter Maxwell Davies) and privately
>with Virgil Thomson. In 1975 he co-founded Dinosaur Annex, a
>chamber ensemble devoted to the performance of contemporary
>music; he became the group's sole artistic director in
>1982........

2 down. Keep looking fool. You won't like the answer though.


>
>You are not this guy, either. Nope. You are just another RAO
>gasbag.

Still projecting.

Incidentally, I also checked my copy of The
>Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound and Scott Wheeler is not in
>there, either.

How are the sales? How many people are reading your name Howard?

Haw Haw Haw. Get a life.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message


> Does the idea blow your mind
> like the idea of an income in excess of 78,000 dollars a year blew
> Krueger's mind?

Not mind-blowing in the least, sockpuppet Wheel. You're a proven liar and
abuser of the legal system.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message


> Haw Haw Haw. Get a life.

Exactly what kind of life do you have sockpuppet wheel, when you can't bear
to mention your profession on this newsgroup for fear of embarassment and
humiliation?

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 11/4/2004 8:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>
>> I also am pretty sure
>> >that you are absolutely ignorant of the response linearity
>> >of that system in that room. In addition, I am pretty sure
>> >that you are not in any way going to do some proper
>> >measurements, because you are afraid of what they might
>> >reveal.
>
>> What a dork. I don't need measurements to tell me what to like and not
>like.
>
>Ignorance is indeed bliss.

Not having to think for yourself is safe. But then it makes sense if you are
suffering from such severe hearing impairment.


>
>> >> I am a hobbyist like so many others. It must suck to have mere hobbyists
>> >like
>> >> me expose you as a fraud.
>
>> >Expose me as a fraud? Funny,
>
>> Yes it was funny. It still is funny.
>
>> > I do not feel any heat.
>
>> That's because you are insignificant. You write for people who can't pay
>well
>> and are willing to scrape the bottom of the barrel.
>
>You guys do nothing but make noise in your little RAO world.

No, many of us actually have lives outside of RAO. This silly war is your life.
Being the last option for an audiophile rag with the lowest circulation is the
best you can do. No wonder you are so bitter. At least you are published
though. You rent that tux for the Pulitzer presentations yet? Haw haw haw.





>I drop in from time to time to see how the inmates are
>doing, and you screwballs are always as messed up as ever.
>You rant and rant, as if you have some kind of influence on
>the world of audio.

You keep projecting.

However, the only influence any of you
>have ends right at the gate to RAO.

Which is ironically one step above you. You have no influence even here as well
as anywhere else.


>
>> Just
>> >where has your exposing job caused me any grief?
>
>> You feel no grief because you are shameless.
>
>By grief, I mean pressure from my editors, from
>manufacturers, and from my print-publication readers.

That is stupid. You should learn what words mean before you use them. And you
call yourself a writer.

Your
>influence on them has been zero.

And visa versa. But they are trying to be influencial. I am not.

Nobody here has had any
>negative impact on what I do.

What you do has had no impact on audio except to give a few audiophiles
something to laugh at.


>
>> You are as
>> >deluded about exposing me as you are about audio gear.
>
>> Thank you. I guess that makes me quite a clear thinker on audio gear.
>
>Clear thinker?

Duh. That is what I said.

Heck, you have admitted (rather proudly, by
>the way) that you have no idea of just how well your own
>audio system is working in your room.

But you have admitted you cannot make a valid judgement with just your ears
and brain.

All you know is that
>you like what you hear.

Which is more than you can say. You need someone to tell you what you should
like.


OK, that is fine in moronland.

I suppose a fool like you would confuse a free thinker with a moron.


>However, a REAL audio enthusiast wants to know what is going
>on, and makes an attempt to find out.

Thanks for admitting you are not a real enthusiast, Slick.


>
>You are not a real enthusiast at all.

You are full of ****, what's new.

You are just an audio
>goofball who grins when he turns on his esoteric gear and
>thinks he has reached the peak of perfection.

Ah, sour grapes over equipment you can't afford. It always comes back to that.
You were pretty enamoured with a 3,000 dollar amp when you got to borrow one.
It's idiots like you that con themselves into thinking they have it all and
know it all. You are afraid of what you don't know and what you can't have.
Sour grapes everywhere you turn. No wonder high end audio scares you so much.
Do you throw rocks at the moon too?




>
>> The
>> >RAO crowd has about as much impact on audio as a pea shooter
>> >would have on an M1A1 tank.
>
>> Much like it's resident publish proffessional clown. The thing is you are
>> trying to have an impact. I'm not.
>
>Incidentally, The second edition of The Encyclopedia of
>Recorded Sound is now listed on Amazon.

How are the sales? Haw haw haw.

Go take a look and
>see my name listed. Read and weep, slick.

Tears of laughter, Clyde. Tears of laughter. So what are your chances of a
Pulitzer? Haw haw haw.


>
>> You seriously overrate
>> >yourselves.
>
>> You are seriously living without a clue.
>
>Four books published, plus the above-noted Encyclopedia
>work.

So have you rented the tux for the Pulitzer presentation? Haw haw haw. You are
a plagiarist, a fraud and a hack with no influence Howard, deal with it.


Not to mention regular magazine work that includes
>playing with all sorts of audio gear

as opposed to listening to it no doubt.


And of course, we
>should not forget all the free recordings sent to me to
>review.
>
>Haw, haw, haw......

Some of us can afford to buy them for ourselves. Haw haw haw. Note.


>
>> You have
>> >a bunch of weird audio beliefs and having a seriously
>> >published author make fun of you just has to have you guys
>> >beside yourselves with frustration.
>
>> What seriously published aurthor is that? Last I recall John Atkinson, a
>> seriously published author on audio, was making fun of you.
>
>No books, though. John is basically a magazine salesman.

His work is read by many audiophiles. that just kills you. Yours flies way
below the radar. You have no audience and no impact. Haw haw haw.


>
>> Well, no, he was
>> pointing out your plagiarism to your publisher.
>
>Absolutely no impact, whatsoever.

Right, the book was just delayed for a year by coincidence. You manage to be a
burden for thew most mundane of endevours. Pathertic. Keep us updated the race
for a Pulitzer. Haw haw haw. Get a life, Slick.

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 11/4/2004 9:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>
>> >"Gets his name seen." What in the hell is that supposed to
>> >mean?
>
>> You are amazingly stupid. Even with all single syllable words you still
>didn't
>> understand. Sad.
>
>I do not think you are the Scott Wheeler the RAO crowd
>believes.

You have a lot of wierd and stupid beliefs.


In an interview with him the interviewer asked the
>question below and he replied:
>
>How do you spend your spare time (if there's any ;-) )?
>
>Well, I actually have quite a few hobbies -- too many
>probably. I love to travel; I'm planning on making it to 5
>continents this
>year. I also read quite a bit -- mostly history and
>philosophy lately. I'm also kind of a music geek -- I play
>(and once upon a
>time taught) bass; a lot of why I enjoy working on JuK and
>multimedia in general is because it's a way to combine two
>of my
>hobbies.
>
>End of interview. I do not see any mention of upscale audio
>systems in his response.

An interxiew with "him?" Moron. There is more than one Scott Wheeler. Try to
use your head for a change.

You should not steal someone else's
>name, pal.

You should not parade your stupidity in public dork.

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 11/4/2004 8:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>
>> >Gets his name seen by millions every year? What on earth are
>> >you talking about?
>
>> The idea boggles your mind. LOL.
>
>OK, now I get it.

No you don't. It's simple but way over your pointy little head.

You get your name seen by millions every
>year. Millions of what?

People. You are an idiot. Note.

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 11/4/2004 9:10 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>
>> whereas you are just another RAO
>> >gasbag.
>
>> Projecting again.
>
>An interview I read (after looking up the Scott Wheeler name
>on Google) has the following concluding comments:
>
>Interviewer:
>
>How do you spend your spare time (if there's any ;-) )?
>
>Wheeler:
>
>Well, I actually have quite a few hobbies -- too many
>probably. I love to travel; I'm planning on making it to 5
>continents this
>year. I also read quite a bit -- mostly history and
>philosophy lately. I'm also kind of a music geek -- I play
>(and once upon a
>time taught) bass; a lot of why I enjoy working on JuK and
>multimedia in general is because it's a way to combine two
>of my
>hobbies.
>
>End of excerpt.
>
>You are not this guy.


I am amazed that you would choose to parade your stupidity with such tenacious
redundancy. Get a clue, Slick.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>> Haw Haw Haw. Get a life.

>Exactly what kind of life do you have sockpuppet wheel, when you can't bear
>to mention your profession on this newsgroup for fear of embarassment and
>humiliation?

Exactly what kind of life do you have arnold, when you keep butting in
other people's "fights" on this newsgroup?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius > said:

>Are you calling Arnii Krooger a hypocrite? He's a card-carrying Christian,
>fer chrissakes.

Aren't those two words synonymous?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

The Devil > said:

>And *another* pair of 57s for me on Monday or Tuesday. Is it the time
>of year, or has our government started lacing water supplies with the
>dumb-chemical that passed trial in the US this week?

Mundorf! Mundorf! Mundorf!

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 11/5/2004 7:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>
>> Does the idea blow your mind
>> like the idea of an income in excess of 78,000 dollars a year blew
>> Krueger's mind?
>
>Not mind-blowing in the least, sockpuppet Wheel.

It obviously blew your mind when Art mentioned his income. I think I remember
the number right. I am back to being a sockpuppet now? Good.

You're a proven liar and
>abuser of the legal system.

You are full of ****, as usual.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 11/5/2004 7:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>
>> Haw Haw Haw. Get a life.
>
>Exactly what kind of life do you have sockpuppet wheel,

It's quite nice thank you. I understand it may be a difficult concept for one
who has never excelled at anything. Sorry about your misery.


when you can't bear
>to mention your profession on this newsgroup for fear of embarassment and
>humiliation?


Making things up again eh Arny? Does it make you feel better about your own
mediocre existance?

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 11/5/2004 7:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Does the idea blow your mind
>>> like the idea of an income in excess of 78,000 dollars a year blew
>>> Krueger's mind?
>>
>> Not mind-blowing in the least, sockpuppet Wheel.
>
> It obviously blew your mind when Art mentioned his income.

The only thing mind-blowing was that Art thought $78K was something to brag
about.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 11/5/2004 11:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>> Date: 11/5/2004 7:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> Does the idea blow your mind
>>>> like the idea of an income in excess of 78,000 dollars a year blew
>>>> Krueger's mind?
>>>
>>> Not mind-blowing in the least, sockpuppet Wheel.
>>
>> It obviously blew your mind when Art mentioned his income.
>
>The only thing mind-blowing was that Art thought $78K was something to brag
>about.
>
>
Nice try. The posts speak for themselves. Your mind was blown at the idea.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 11/5/2004 11:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>> Date: 11/5/2004 7:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>
>>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Does the idea blow your mind
>>>>> like the idea of an income in excess of 78,000 dollars a year blew
>>>>> Krueger's mind?

>>>> Not mind-blowing in the least, sockpuppet Wheel.

>>> It obviously blew your mind when Art mentioned his income.

>> The only thing mind-blowing was that Art thought $78K was something
>> to brag about.

> Nice try. The posts speak for themselves.
]
No way! Quote 'em.

> Your mind was blown at the idea.

Balderdash. I'm no stranger to the six-figure adjusted annual gross income.

[Marc Phillips]

Howard said:

>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>
>> Howard said:
>>
>> >Marc Phillips wrote:
>
>> >> Hmmm. Isn't repeated spamming of a Usenet newsgroup like this grounds
>for
>> >> getting kicked off one's ISP, or something similar?
>> >>
>> >> Boon
>
>> >Get busy and complain. Or, are you just another RAO gasbag?
>
>> Nope. I've actually told thousands about your plagiarism,
>
>Told thousands? Delusions of grandeur.
>
>Haw, haw, hawww....

I even gave you the link the last time we discussed this.

Symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome.

Haw, haw, hawww...

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Howard said:

>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>
>> Howard said:
>>
>> >Marc Phillips wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Howard said:
>> >>
>> >> >But still published, goofball. Five books, now.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Bad writer, now.
>> >>
>> >> Boon
>
>> >Way, way ahead of you, gasbag.
>
>> Probably, since you've got twenty plus years on me, gasbag. I am, however,
>> getting ready to write my fiftieth column for Perfect Sound Forever.
>
>This is a joke magazine, slick. Try a serious publication.

Like The Audiophile Voice? Haw, haw hawww...

>
>> At my
>> age, you had "ZERO" books published.
>
>I was a late bloomer. In any case, four books, with a fifth
>big editing/writing job. I am way, way ahead of you, gasbag.

No, you're not. You're contradicting yourself.

We've already established that I make more money than you and your wife put
together, and I'm at least twenty years younger than you. So I'm way, way,
ahead of you, gasbag.

>
>> I've been getting things published since
>> I was nineteen.
>
>Graffiti on restroom walls is not "published."

You're right. But why bring that up now?

>
>The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound is now listed on Amazon,
>slick. Go check out the entry. No discount, however; still
>$225.

So how many have sold?

>
>> Also, it helps that my yearly income is more than you and your wife's
>together,
>> and that has nothing to do with audio.
>
>Pimping apparently pays well.

It does? I have no idea. But being a project manager for a telecommunications
firm does. I do have an idea about that, Clerkie.

Boon

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 11/5/2004 11:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>> Date: 11/5/2004 11:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> Date: 11/5/2004 7:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>
>>>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the idea blow your mind
>>>>>> like the idea of an income in excess of 78,000 dollars a year blew
>>>>>> Krueger's mind?
>
>>>>> Not mind-blowing in the least, sockpuppet Wheel.
>
>>>> It obviously blew your mind when Art mentioned his income.
>
>>> The only thing mind-blowing was that Art thought $78K was something
>>> to brag about.
>
>> Nice try. The posts speak for themselves.
>]
>No way! Quote 'em.

"Art said

$78,000, all from salary.
and you?

Arny said

$23,456,998.62. I can type numbers I make up, too."

>
>> Your mind was blown at the idea.
>
>Balderdash. I'm no stranger to the six-figure adjusted annual gross income.


Th above quote suggests otherwise. Art asked *you* what *your* income was after
telling you that his was 78,000. You clearly blew a fuse and gave an admittedly
nonsensical answer.

[S888Wheel]

>From: George M. Middius
>Date: 11/5/2004 12:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>
>S888Wheel said to Mr. Sack:
>
>> You are full of ****, as usual.
>
>Are you finally willing to recognize Krooger's greatest achievement? Good
>for you.


Finally? That is old news.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 11/5/2004 11:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>> Date: 11/5/2004 11:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>
>>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>> Date: 11/5/2004 7:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the idea blow your mind
>>>>>>> like the idea of an income in excess of 78,000 dollars a year
>>>>>>> blew Krueger's mind?
>>
>>>>>> Not mind-blowing in the least, sockpuppet Wheel.
>>
>>>>> It obviously blew your mind when Art mentioned his income.
>>
>>>> The only thing mind-blowing was that Art thought $78K was
>>>> something to brag about.
>>
>>> Nice try. The posts speak for themselves.
>> ]
>> No way! Quote 'em.
>
> "Art said
>
> $78,000, all from salary.
> and you?
>
> Arny said
>
> $23,456,998.62. I can type numbers I make up, too."

>>> Your mind was blown at the idea.

>> Balderdash. I'm no stranger to the six-figure adjusted annual gross
>> income.

> The above quote suggests otherwise.

So what?

Scott, anything imaginable could suggest anything to you that you wanted to
have suggested to you. For example Scott, your mind might suggest to you
that it would be a good thing to file a lawsuit against me in California
Superior Court. For another exmple Scott, your mind might suggest to you
that your occupation is so despicable that you can't bear to say what it is
on RAO.

> Art asked *you* what *your* income was after telling you that his was
> 78,000.

Speaks to the credibility of a person like "Art" who routinely lies about
who he is.

>You clearly blew a fuse and gave an admittedly nonsensical answer.

I clearly suggested that Art or whatever his name is today, could make
whatever claims he wanted to make. I simply replied in kind.

BTW, my income this year has slightly increased over last year. It is now
$23,456,998.63. ;-)

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 11/8/2004 7:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>> Date: 11/5/2004 11:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> Date: 11/5/2004 11:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>
>>>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>>> Date: 11/5/2004 7:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does the idea blow your mind
>>>>>>>> like the idea of an income in excess of 78,000 dollars a year
>>>>>>>> blew Krueger's mind?
>>>
>>>>>>> Not mind-blowing in the least, sockpuppet Wheel.
>>>
>>>>>> It obviously blew your mind when Art mentioned his income.
>>>
>>>>> The only thing mind-blowing was that Art thought $78K was
>>>>> something to brag about.
>>>
>>>> Nice try. The posts speak for themselves.
>>> ]
>>> No way! Quote 'em.
>>
>> "Art said
>>
>> $78,000, all from salary.
>> and you?
>>
>> Arny said
>>
>> $23,456,998.62. I can type numbers I make up, too."
>
>>>> Your mind was blown at the idea.
>
>>> Balderdash. I'm no stranger to the six-figure adjusted annual gross
>>> income.
>
>> The above quote suggests otherwise.
>
>So what?

Duh, so you were wrong.


>
>Scott, anything imaginable could suggest anything to you that you wanted to
>have suggested to you.

You are fantasizing.

For example Scott, your mind might suggest to you
>that it would be a good thing to file a lawsuit against me in California
>Superior Court.

My mind might suggest to me? Have you been sucking on the tailpipe of your car?

For another exmple Scott, your mind might suggest to you
>that your occupation is so despicable that you can't bear to say what it is
>on RAO.

That is your delusion Arny. There is nothing despicable about my occupation.


>
>> Art asked *you* what *your* income was after telling you that his was
>> 78,000.
>
>Speaks to the credibility of a person like "Art" who routinely lies about
>who he is.

Yep, you live in your own fantasy world Arny. I suppose it is the best cure for
the misery your mediocre life brings you every day.


>
>>You clearly blew a fuse and gave an admittedly nonsensical answer.
>
>I clearly suggested that Art or whatever his name is today, could make
>whatever claims he wanted to make. I simply replied in kind.

Nope. That isn't what you did.




>
>BTW, my income this year has slightly increased over last year. It is now
>$23,456,998.63. ;-)


That puts it all into perspective. Reality bites you in the ass again. It is
probably best that you continue to ignore it.

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >Date: 11/4/2004 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >

> Incidentally, I also checked my copy of The
> >Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound and Scott Wheeler is not in
> >there, either.

> How are the sales? How many people are reading your name Howard?
>
> Haw Haw Haw. Get a life.

I am back after six days of ignoring you idiots and you
continue to post over and over on RAO. Look who's talking.

PS: You are a phony.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:

> Making things up again eh Arny? Does it make you feel better about your own
> mediocre existance?

At least he is not a phony.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...

> > End of interview. This guy ain't you.

> There are 4,789 other Google references.
> He isn't 4,788 of them.

He picked a good name to use as a sockpuppet. My guess is
that, like you, this guy is a pimple-faced, no-girlfriend
goofball with a life that revolves around his audio system.
That's it.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >Date: 11/4/2004 9:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >

> >End of interview. This guy ain't you.

> No **** Sherlock. Now please try to convince me you are not a total moron in
> need of special ed. Lets see if you can name an occupation that would lead to
> one's name being read by millions of people. Then lets see if you can figure
> out whether there just one Scott Wheeler in the world or perhaps more than one.

OK, now I get it. Every time somebody does a Scott Wheeler
search on Google (because there are so many of them and some
of them appear to be accomplished individuals) they see that
name listed. No doubt, millions have done that search and so
millions have seen the name.

Unfortunately, that is still not your name. You are a phony,
spud, and that's a fact. You are also an audio ignoramus.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Marc Phillips wrote:
>
> Howard said:

> >I was a late bloomer. In any case, four books, with a fifth
> >big editing/writing job. I am way, way ahead of you, gasbag.

> No, you're not. You're contradicting yourself.

Talk is cheap, gasbag. Anyone can access Amazon or various
library databases to see what I have done. What can they do
to see what YOU have done, gasbag?

> We've already established that I make more money than you and your wife put
> together, and I'm at least twenty years younger than you. So I'm way, way,
> ahead of you, gasbag.

Talk is cheap. My guess is that you are an audio chain store
clerk with pimples and no girlfriend.

> >The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound is now listed on Amazon,
> >slick. Go check out the entry. No discount, however; still
> >$225.

> So how many have sold?

Actually, I checked a library database right after it showed
up and several libraries have obtained copies. It is a
scholarly book, which puts it out of your class, gasbag.

> >> Also, it helps that my yearly income is more than you and your wife's
> >together,
> >> and that has nothing to do with audio.

> >Pimping apparently pays well.

> It does? I have no idea.

My god, you cannot even do a proper job of pimping!

> But being a project manager for a telecommunications
> firm does. I do have an idea about that, Clerkie.

Phony claim. People can easily see what I have done when it
comes to books and articles, pal. In your case, all we have
are the claims of an RAO gasbag. Since you are a pimp,
perhaps we should access some police records to measure your
accomplishments.

PS: nobody with real technical knowledge believes about
audio gear as you do, unless you are just pimping for an
audio magazine.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:

> >Richman, I am retired and when I have nothing much else to
> >do around the house or need to entertain myself I can rev up
> >my computer and go see what you idiots are doing.
> >
> >On the other hand, you are supposed to be a professional man
> >who is busy during the day doing professional things.
> >However, I see that this response comes only 45 minutes
> >after I did my initial post.
> >
> >You seem to have a lot of free time for a professional man,
> >Richman.

> It seems that in addition to your other problems, you've also acquired the
> habit of timing the response times of others.

No big deal. Each message has the posting time and date
listed.

> Your ignorance of how and when psychologists practice is quite obvious.

Well, I know that good ones do not goof off nearly as much
as you do.

> But
> then again, you also think that what a psychologist says on an RAO newsgroup
> can tell you what you need to know about his professional abilities.

It certainly does tell me a lot about his mental stability.
You have the maturity of a twelve year old, Richman.

> Have you ever even heard of private practice, dummy? Has it ever occurred to
> your delusion-filled "mind" that psychologists aren't seeing patients every
> minute? (or that they might use compuiters for both professional and hobby
> type activities).

Rather than deal with your patients, you surf the internet
and hang around newsgroups. Some professional.

> And if you think you have any idea about how I spend my time, then your
> delusions have become even more serious than most of us have realized.

It has occurred to me that no rational person who claims to
be a psychologist would spend time here ranting and raving,
high-school sophomore style, about audio and people like me.

I have this theory that you are one of Dr. Richman's
patients and not the real Dr. Richman.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

jak163 wrote:
>
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 11:57:49 -0500, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> >You guys do nothing but make noise in your little RAO world.
> >I drop in from time to time to see how the inmates are
> >doing, and you screwballs are always as messed up as ever.
> >You rant and rant, as if you have some kind of influence on
> >the world of audio. However, the only influence any of you
> >have ends right at the gate to RAO.
>
> So please, by all means, go away you pompous ass.

Do I unsettle you, slick? Do my views on audio make the
hobby less fun for you?

I hope so.

Howard Ferstler

[Arny Krueger]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message


> It has occurred to me that no rational person who claims to
> be a psychologist would spend time here ranting and raving,
> high-school sophomore style, about audio and people like me.

Agreed.

> I have this theory that you are one of Dr. Richman's
> patients and not the real Dr. Richman.

Two cogent words about Dr. Richman: Senile Dementia.

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >Date: 11/4/2004 8:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >

> >You guys do nothing but make noise in your little RAO world.
>
> No, many of us actually have lives outside of RAO. This silly war is your life.
> Being the last option for an audiophile rag with the lowest circulation is the
> best you can do. No wonder you are so bitter. At least you are published
> though. You rent that tux for the Pulitzer presentations yet? Haw haw haw.

Hey, Dilbert, don't forget the books if you are going to
make comments about what I have published. Man, does it make
me happy to be someone who has published books and magazine
articles on audio that run counter to the goofy ideas you
morons have. The more you idiots fume, the better I feel. I
may not be able to change your minds, but I can still
unsettle them.

> However, the only influence any of you
> >have ends right at the gate to RAO.

> Which is ironically one step above you. You have no influence even here as well
> as anywhere else.

I have enough influence to pull your audio-mythology chains
and see the comical results. You guys are the very
definition of true-believing losers. Well, some of you are
probably sales clerks or tweako journalists who have vested
interest in goofball audio.

> >> Just
> >> >where has your exposing job caused me any grief?

> >> You feel no grief because you are shameless.

> >By grief, I mean pressure from my editors, from
> >manufacturers, and from my print-publication readers.

> That is stupid. You should learn what words mean before you use them. And you
> call yourself a writer.

Yep. Published, too.

> Your
> >influence on them has been zero.

> And visa versa. But they are trying to be influencial. I am not.

You have succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

> Nobody here has had any
> >negative impact on what I do.

> What you do has had no impact on audio except to give a few audiophiles
> something to laugh at.

And sweat over.

> Heck, you have admitted (rather proudly, by
> >the way) that you have no idea of just how well your own
> >audio system is working in your room.

> But you have admitted you cannot make a valid judgement with just your ears
> and brain.

The mind plays tricks at times. That is why it is important
to combine ear/brain usage with decent measurement work.
Just because an audio system makes you feel good does not
make it a fine high-fidelity device, by the way.

> All you know is that
> >you like what you hear.

> Which is more than you can say. You need someone to tell you what you should
> like.

Like so many audio goofballs, you turn ignorance into a
virtue.

> OK, that is fine in moronland.

> I suppose a fool like you would confuse a free thinker with a moron.

No, when I see a moron I recognize a moron. A free thinker
is not somebody who lets ignorance determine standards.

> >However, a REAL audio enthusiast wants to know what is going
> >on, and makes an attempt to find out.

> Thanks for admitting you are not a real enthusiast, Slick.

Four books published and one major editing job on a fifth.
Seems I am doing pretty good for someone who is not a "real
enthusiast."

> >You are not a real enthusiast at all.

> You are full of ****, what's new.

This is not a rebuttal, and you really are not a real
enthusiast.

> You are just an audio
> >goofball who grins when he turns on his esoteric gear and
> >thinks he has reached the peak of perfection.

> Ah, sour grapes over equipment you can't afford. It always comes back to that.
> You were pretty enamoured with a 3,000 dollar amp when you got to borrow one.

It looks cool and that would impress someone like you. It
sounds no better than (or different from) any number of much
cheaper units I have on hand. Now, to a rational person that
would be VERY GOOD NEWS, INDEED. However, to a goofball who
depends upon esoteric and expensive equipment to give his
life meaning, my comments are heretical statements.

> It's idiots like you that con themselves into thinking they have it all and
> know it all. You are afraid of what you don't know and what you can't have.
> Sour grapes everywhere you turn. No wonder high end audio scares you so much.
> Do you throw rocks at the moon too?

Too? Does this mean that you do that sort of thing? Well,
no, I do not. However, I do take the time to actually
discover what certain audio components can and cannot do.
Unlike you, I do not become demoralized when I discover that
expensive and esoteric hardware is nothing special (and
sometimes considerably less than special). Unlike you, I
have not turned audio into a pastime that gives my life
meaning. Well, writing does pay, so in a practical sense I
do get some meaning out of it.

> >> You seriously overrate
> >> >yourselves.

> >> You are seriously living without a clue.

> >Four books published, plus the above-noted Encyclopedia
> >work.

> So have you rented the tux for the Pulitzer presentation? Haw haw haw. You are
> a plagiarist, a fraud and a hack with no influence Howard, deal with it.

I certainly have influence with you, Dick. You scope for my
posts religiously.

> >> You have
> >> >a bunch of weird audio beliefs and having a seriously
> >> >published author make fun of you just has to have you guys
> >> >beside yourselves with frustration.

> >> What seriously published aurthor is that? Last I recall John Atkinson, a
> >> seriously published author on audio, was making fun of you.

> >No books, though. John is basically a magazine salesman.

> His work is read by many audiophiles. that just kills you.

Trust me on this: most serious audio engineers consider his
publication a joke. Yes, some of them (the ones who make
upscale products) play the game, because they need their
products auditioned and reviewed by somebody, and of course
they love it when superlatives are layered on, even if they
are aware that those are mostly poppycock. We all need to
make a living (well, I am retired, so I do not need to
really "make" a living), and so many intelligent people play
the audio game and the magazine capitalizes on the
phenomenon.

> Yours flies way
> below the radar. You have no audience and no impact. Haw haw haw.

Except with you, obviously.

> >> Well, no, he was
> >> pointing out your plagiarism to your publisher.

> >Absolutely no impact, whatsoever.

> Right, the book was just delayed for a year by coincidence. You manage to be a
> burden for thew most mundane of endevours. Pathertic. Keep us updated the race
> for a Pulitzer. Haw haw haw. Get a life, Slick.

If I was a problem, why am I listed as "technical editor" on
the title page? Believe me, if I had been a problem that
would not have happened.

Go hunt up a copy and see what you think. It will shrink
your ego down to the size of a gas molecule, gasbag.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >Date: 11/4/2004 8:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >S888Wheel wrote:
> >>
> >> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >
> >> >Gets his name seen by millions every year? What on earth are
> >> >you talking about?
> >
> >> The idea boggles your mind. LOL.
> >
> >OK, now I get it.
>
> No you don't. It's simple but way over your pointy little head.
>
> You get your name seen by millions every
> >year. Millions of what?
>
> People. You are an idiot. Note.

But unlike you, I am not a phony.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:

> An interxiew with "him?" Moron. There is more than one Scott Wheeler. Try to
> use your head for a change.
>
> You should not steal someone else's
> >name, pal.

> You should not parade your stupidity in public dork.

You are a phony, pure and simple.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...

> > You are not this guy.

> Actually, you are right. You found another Scott Wheeler.
> Now go back to Google and find the correct one.
> There are 4,789 others to chose from.

Obviously, picking a name of that kind allows a sockpuppet
to play all sorts of games.

They guy is both a phony and a nobody.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >Date: 11/4/2004 9:10 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >

> >You are not this guy.

> I am amazed that you would choose to parade your stupidity with such tenacious
> redundancy. Get a clue, Slick.

You are a phony and have stolen a name to give yourself some
kind of credibility.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Marc Phillips wrote:
>
> Howard said:

> >> >Get busy and complain. Or, are you just another RAO gasbag?

> >> Nope. I've actually told thousands about your plagiarism,

> >Told thousands? Delusions of grandeur.

> >Haw, haw, hawww....

> I even gave you the link the last time we discussed this.
>
> Symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome.
>
> Haw, haw, hawww...

Thousands? What a joke. Mr. Philips has had zero impact. You
should change your name to Mr. Zero.

Hey: four books published and a major editing job on a
fifth.

I win; you lose.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> >"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
> >>
> >> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> >
> >> >Richman, you make a lot of sophomoric noise here on RAO. If
> >> >you are all that in a wad about what you claim I have done,
> >> >get busy and do something about it that means something.
> >
> >> Ferstler, all you do is continue to engage in juvenile, delusional name
> >> calling. The claims I've made have all been well deocumented in the Google
> >> record.
> >
> >Documented in the Google record. You make it sound like
> >court proceedings. You are really, really overrating the
> >impact of the internet, Richman. If this is such a big deal,
> >put it to good use and do something productive with it.
> >
>
> I don't have to, Ferstler. You've destroyed any semblance of either sanity or
> credibility you ever possessed by your chronic, delusional, false statements
> about others.
>
> Referring to the Google record is simply way of holding you accountable for the
> libelous propaganda you constantly spew on RAO. As George Bush likes to say,
> "you can run, but you can't hide".
>
> >> You've libeled me and others - and your bull**** about my professional
> >> activities, credentials, etc. has been proven.
> >
> >All anyone has to do to see what kind of psychologist you
> >are is to read through your assorted RAO commentaries.
> >
>
> Your ignorance about the practice of psychology is noted. Since you've been
> shown to engage in libelous, false statements about myself and many others,
> your pronouncements about my abilities as a psychologist are just further proof
> of your inability to tell the truth. You just can't recognize the fact that a
> licensed psychologist has accurately evaluated your obvious psychological
> problems. Lack of insight, lack of contact with reality, and a fixed
> delusional system containing paranoid ideas about imagined conspiracies
> involving auidiophiles, magazines, etc. are just a few of your numerous serious
> emotional problems. Since you don't have the ability to objectively evaluate
> yourself, it's no surprise that you are even more inept when it comes to
> evaluating others.
>
> But since you think RAO is representative of professional competence, then it's
> fair for 99% of RAO to come to the conclusion that your history of plagiarism
> and phony DBT results based on deliberately manipulated methodology mistakes
> shows that you're a fraud as both a writer and a so-called audio authority.
>
> >> You've been challenged to
> >> make your claims in an American print publication and have failed to do so.
> >> Are you afraid of being sued?
> >
> >Sure. You guys are all crazy.
> >
>
> Is that your professional opinion, Dr. Ferstler ? (snicker)
>
> If we can't prove our case, you have nothing to worry about, do you? The fact
> remains that you are afraid to put in print the libelous statements you've made
> on RAO.
>
> > If you were sure of your baloney, you wouldn't
> >> be reluctant.
> >
> >You have to be careful when you get out into the real world
> >and call goofballs goofballs. They tend to be a bit touchy,
> >Richman. On the other hand, we can take the gloves off here
> >on RAO and have a bit of fun.
> >
>
> There is a difference, Ferstler, between your juvenile namecalling, and
> deliberate attempts to libel another person's professional credentials,
> experience and activities.
>
> >> As for your plagiarism of the printed works of others, the Google record
> >also
> >> reflects that fact.
> >
> >Unfortunately for you goofballs, this has had no impact on
> >my writing career whatsoever.
> >
>
> Unfortunately for you, your credibility is zero, however, when it comes to
> having any influence on either RAO regulars or newbies. You've been exposed as
> a fraud.
>
> >> And Phil (name withheld by request) from California - unlike you, a *real*
> >> scientist working as such - has convincingly exposed your methodological
> >> dishonesty in presenting phony DBTs in which you've deoiberately
> >manipulated
> >> the results to meet your preconceived delusional beliefs about audio.
> >
> >If this guy had any class he would post under his real name
> >and make his points clear. I think you have made him up.
> >
>
> Than you are delusional once again. His posts are in the Google record and are
> quite easy to comprehend by any person with an open mind. I know Phil's last
> name, as do many other RAO posters, but have, at his request, not mentioned it
> on RAO.
>
> >> Neither I nor anybody else has to "get busy", Ferstler. You're a fraud as
> >far
> >> as the RAO readership is concerned and the verdict has been rendered by
> >just
> >> about everybody.
> >
> >"Just about everybody?" You need to get out more, Richman.
> >You are as deluded as you claim I am.
> >
>
> Only in your diseased mind, Ferstler. Even a casual inspection of what most of
> the posters on RAO have to say about you confirms that you're not taken
> seriously by hardly anybody.
>
> >> The mere fact that you keep desperately trying to plead your case here,
> >while
> >> ranting and raving about "gasbags", basically means you've lost the
> >credibility
> >> battle a long time ago.
> >
> >Four books published, plus the work on the Encyclopedia. The
> >two-volume book is now listed on Amazon, by the way.
> >
> >> Give it up, fraud and delusional libeler.
> >> Almost nobody believes you, anyhow.
> >
> >"Almost nobody?" Four books published, plus the work on the
> >Encyclopedia. It is now listed on Amazon, by the way.
> >
> >Howard Ferstler
> >
>
> Bruce J. Richman

What a series of comments! You need to get a job, Richman.

Howard Ferstler

[Bruce J. Richman]

Howard Ferstler fantasized:


>"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>>
>> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
>> >Richman, I am retired and when I have nothing much else to
>> >do around the house or need to entertain myself I can rev up
>> >my computer and go see what you idiots are doing.
>> >
>> >On the other hand, you are supposed to be a professional man
>> >who is busy during the day doing professional things.
>> >However, I see that this response comes only 45 minutes
>> >after I did my initial post.
>> >
>> >You seem to have a lot of free time for a professional man,
>> >Richman.
>
>> It seems that in addition to your other problems, you've also acquired the
>> habit of timing the response times of others.
>
>No big deal. Each message has the posting time and date
>listed.
>

And you, olf course, given your obsession with babbling forever, spin your
wheels searching Usenet to make a fool of yourself with your many "fans". LOL
!!!

>> Your ignorance of how and when psychologists practice is quite obvious.
>
>Well, I know that good ones do not goof off nearly as much
>as you do.
>

Oh really, dunce? Have you been fortune telling again? Or let me put it
another way. Have you been having more delusions about how I spend my time on
various activities? No wonder just about everybody laughs at you. You don't
have a clue as to how I spend my time, but in your simple-minded arrogance, try
and make idiotic observations about it. This is the same type of "scientific
thinking" you've displayed in your previously discredited phony DBT's. I
recommend you get a new crystal ball for your further studies, fraud


>> But
>> then again, you also think that what a psychologist says on an RAO
>newsgroup
>> can tell you what you need to know about his professional abilities.
>
>It certainly does tell me a lot about his mental stability.

Since you've demonstrated you are suffering from delusions of grandeur and
incompetence, don't expect anybody to believe your "evaluations" of others.

>You have the maturity of a twelve year old, Richman.
>

Really? Just because your infantile name-calling, braying like a donkey (haw,
haw, haw) and other pitiful attempts to always get the last word are typical of
most 6 year olds, there's no need to project your obvious failings on to
others.

You're mentally ill and need psychiatric/psychological treatment, but you're
too obtuse and insight-deprived to realize it. Being in denial is your daily
albatross.


>> Have you ever even heard of private practice, dummy? Has it ever occurred
>to
>> your delusion-filled "mind" that psychologists aren't seeing patients every
>> minute? (or that they might use compuiters for both professional and hobby
>> type activities).
>
>Rather than deal with your patients, you surf the internet
>and hang around newsgroups. Some professional.
>

And you know this hoiw, pathological liar. You don't know what you're talking
about. As is the case with all your stupid pronouncements, there are no facts
to support them. Just a lot of delusional babbling which confirms your status
as RAO's resident imbecilic clown.


>> And if you think you have any idea about how I spend my time, then your
>> delusions have become even more serious than most of us have realized.
>
>It has occurred to me that no rational person who claims to
>be a psychologist would spend time here ranting and raving,

No rational person would believe anything you say, fortunately. And therefore,
your opinions about rationality are about as valid as your phony DBT's, i.e.
bogus in their entirety. In case you don't realize it, fraud, the "patients"
(that would be you) are not the ones that get to diagnose themselves.

>high-school sophomore style, about audio and people like me.

People like you should be hospitalized for their own protection and because
they are incapable of seeking treatment for themselves. You've clearly
demonstrated signs of severe paranoia and delusional thinking.

>
>I have this theory that you are one of Dr. Richman's
>patients and not the real Dr. Richman.
>

In your case, no theories are needed. You're psychotic and need treatment.

>Howard Ferstler
>



Bruce J. Richman

[Howard Ferstler]

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler:

> >I have this theory that you are one of Dr. Richman's
> >patients and not the real Dr. Richman.

> In your case, no theories are needed. You're psychotic and need treatment.

> Bruce J. Richman

Your lengthy response obviously took some time to compose
and was posted about a half hour after my initial comments.
You have too much free time, "Dr. Richman."

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>
> Arny Krueger lies again:
>
> >"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>
> >
> >> It has occurred to me that no rational person who claims to
> >> be a psychologist would spend time here ranting and raving,
> >> high-school sophomore style, about audio and people like me.
> >
> >Agreed.
> >
>
> Just a case of one sociopathic liar supportintg the delusional rantings of
> another.
>
> >> I have this theory that you are one of Dr. Richman's
> >> patients and not the real Dr. Richman.
> >
> >Two cogent words about Dr. Richman: Senile Dementia.
> >
> >
>
> Krueg'er mental illness is well known to just about all RAO participants. This
> pathological liar suffers from paranoia, delusional thinking, and severe
> thought disorder. He fits many of the diagnostic criteria for several DSM-IV
> diagnoses, including Paranoid Personality Disorder and Delusional Disorder. Of
> course, a face-to-face meeting would be necessary to confirm these hypotheses,
> but in the meantime, his psychotic, delusional ravings on RAO pretty much
> support these impressions, and have done so for at least 7 years.
>
> Bruce J. Richman

Yep, way too much free time.

Howard Ferstler

[Bruce J. Richman]

Arny Krueger lies again:


>"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message

>
>> It has occurred to me that no rational person who claims to
>> be a psychologist would spend time here ranting and raving,
>> high-school sophomore style, about audio and people like me.
>
>Agreed.
>

Just a case of one sociopathic liar supportintg the delusional rantings of
another.


>> I have this theory that you are one of Dr. Richman's
>> patients and not the real Dr. Richman.
>
>Two cogent words about Dr. Richman: Senile Dementia.
>
>

Krueg'er mental illness is well known to just about all RAO participants. This
pathological liar suffers from paranoia, delusional thinking, and severe
thought disorder. He fits many of the diagnostic criteria for several DSM-IV
diagnoses, including Paranoid Personality Disorder and Delusional Disorder. Of
course, a face-to-face meeting would be necessary to confirm these hypotheses,
but in the meantime, his psychotic, delusional ravings on RAO pretty much
support these impressions, and have done so for at least 7 years.



Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Howard Ferstler wrote:


>"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>>
>> Howard Ferstler:
>
>> >I have this theory that you are one of Dr. Richman's
>> >patients and not the real Dr. Richman.
>
>> In your case, no theories are needed. You're psychotic and need treatment.
>
>> Bruce J. Richman
>
>Your lengthy response obviously took some time to compose
>and was posted about a half hour after my initial comments.
>You have too much free time, "Dr. Richman."
>
>Howard Ferstler
>

Since your every word is predetermined by your mental illness and delusional
thinking, it takes practically no time at all to expose your demonstrations of
severe disturbance. Keep deluding yourself and the rest of us (except your
fellow sociopathic & delusional colleague, Krueger) will continue to laugh at
both of you.



Bruce J. Richman

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Brother Horace Ironicus muttered:

>> But unlike you, I am not a phony.

Agreed. Middius is a made-up name.

> You do admit to being a Professional Audio Clown. And nobody disputes
> it.

Delusions of omniscience noted.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 11/5/2004 7:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >


>> when you can't bear
>> to mention your profession on this newsgroup for fear of
>> embarrassment and humiliation?

> Making things up again eh Arny?

Not at all - facts are facts.

>Does it make you feel better about your own mediocre existence?

At least I can say what my work is on RAO without fear of humiliation. I'm a
computer consultant - what are you?

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 11/10/2004 8:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >Date: 11/4/2004 8:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>
>> >You guys do nothing but make noise in your little RAO world.
>>
>> No, many of us actually have lives outside of RAO. This silly war is your
>life.
>> Being the last option for an audiophile rag with the lowest circulation is
>the
>> best you can do. No wonder you are so bitter. At least you are published
>> though. You rent that tux for the Pulitzer presentations yet? Haw haw haw.
>
>Hey, Dilbert,

Oh a new name to call people. Who did you steal it from?


don't forget the books if you are going to
>make comments about what I have published.

Which one's were the pulitzer prize winners? I forget. Haw Haw Haw.


Man, does it make
>me happy to be someone who has published books and magazine
>articles on audio that run counter to the goofy ideas you
>morons have.

Simple pleasures for simple minds. But how do you find peace with all the
published writers whose opinions run contrary to yours? You know, the writers
whose works are actually being read and paid attention to.

The more you idiots fume, the better I feel.

Keep slayin those windmills Howie.

I
>may not be able to change your minds, but I can still
>unsettle them.

No, you can't. You are good for a laugh though.


>
>> However, the only influence any of you
>> >have ends right at the gate to RAO.
>
>> Which is ironically one step above you. You have no influence even here as
>well
>> as anywhere else.
>
>I have enough influence to pull your audio-mythology chains
>and see the comical results.

If you think it is funny to be laughed at you win.


You guys are the very
>definition of true-believing losers.

Projecting yet again. Boring.

Well, some of you are
>probably sales clerks or tweako journalists who have vested
>interest in goofball audio.

Still stuck on that old garbage. Old dog new tricks. Guess it's true what they
say.



>
>> >> Just
>> >> >where has your exposing job caused me any grief?
>
>> >> You feel no grief because you are shameless.
>
>> >By grief, I mean pressure from my editors, from
>> >manufacturers, and from my print-publication readers.
>
>> That is stupid. You should learn what words mean before you use them. And
>you
>> call yourself a writer.
>
>Yep. Published, too.

Don't forget plagiarist and fraud. We don't want to short change your list of
acomplishments.


>
>> Your
>> >influence on them has been zero.
>
>> And visa versa. But they are trying to be influencial. I am not.
>
>You have succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

That maybe true but how would you know. You still cant figure out what i do for
a living. Jeez, even Arny figured it out after a year. How does it feel to be
dumber than him?



>
>> Nobody here has had any
>> >negative impact on what I do.
>
>> What you do has had no impact on audio except to give a few audiophiles
>> something to laugh at.
>
>And sweat over.

I haven't laughed that hard at you .....yet.



>
>> Heck, you have admitted (rather proudly, by
>> >the way) that you have no idea of just how well your own
>> >audio system is working in your room.
>
>> But you have admitted you cannot make a valid judgement with just your
>ears
>> and brain.
>
>The mind plays tricks at times. That is why it is important
>to combine ear/brain usage with decent measurement work.

You can rationalize your fear of thinking for yourself all you want. You still
are afraid.


>Just because an audio system makes you feel good does not
>make it a fine high-fidelity device, by the way.

Indeed, you have proven that with your POS system in that ****ty listening room
of yours. Well, if your description is accurate. No telling considering your
writing skills and complete lack of credibility.


>
>> All you know is that
>> >you like what you hear.
>
>> Which is more than you can say. You need someone to tell you what you
>should
>> like.
>
>Like so many audio goofballs, you turn ignorance into a
>virtue.

Interesting that you would equate independent thought with ignorance.


>
>> OK, that is fine in moronland.
>
>> I suppose a fool like you would confuse a free thinker with a moron.
>
>No,

Yes. You just did it a second time.


when I see a moron I recognize a moron.

Wrong. If it were true you'd never show your face here or in public.

A free thinker
>is not somebody who lets ignorance determine standards.

You are just babbling now.


>
>> >However, a REAL audio enthusiast wants to know what is going
>> >on, and makes an attempt to find out.
>
>> Thanks for admitting you are not a real enthusiast, Slick.
>
>Four books published and one major editing job on a fifth.

What were the sales figures? Haw haw haw.


>Seems I am doing pretty good for someone who is not a "real
>enthusiast."

If one is willing to allow for such low standards. By your standards Harry
Pearson must be an audio god.


>
>> >You are not a real enthusiast at all.
>
>> You are full of ****, what's new.
>
>This is not a rebuttal, and you really are not a real
>enthusiast.


Your not a real enthusiast, you are just an ignorant goofball. Get a life,
Egbert.


>
>> You are just an audio
>> >goofball who grins when he turns on his esoteric gear and
>> >thinks he has reached the peak of perfection.
>
>> Ah, sour grapes over equipment you can't afford. It always comes back to
>that.
>> You were pretty enamoured with a 3,000 dollar amp when you got to borrow
>one.
>
>It looks cool and that would impress someone like you.

You were impressed. don't equate me with you. I probably wouldn't be satisfied
with it and I can afford it.

It
>sounds no better than (or different from) any number of much
>cheaper units I have on hand. Now, to a rational person that
>would be VERY GOOD NEWS, INDEED. However, to a goofball who
>depends upon esoteric and expensive equipment to give his
>life meaning, my comments are heretical statements.

Ah, the darkness creeps back as the reality of having to give the amp back
settles in. You were quite the braggart while you had the amp. Yep, sour
grapes.


>
>> It's idiots like you that con themselves into thinking they have it all and
>> know it all. You are afraid of what you don't know and what you can't have.
>> Sour grapes everywhere you turn. No wonder high end audio scares you so
>much.
>> Do you throw rocks at the moon too?
>
>Too? Does this mean that you do that sort of thing?

Struggling with the English language again? So much for your writing skills. Or
is it a severe case of ADS that prevents you from connecting two sentences in
logical order?

Well,
>no, I do not.


Riiiiiight.


However, I do take the time to actually
>discover what certain audio components can and cannot do.


Riiiiiight. Like you did with your ABX DBTs? Haw haw haw.



>Unlike you, I do not become demoralized when I discover that
>expensive and esoteric hardware is nothing special (and
>sometimes considerably less than special).

False premise. You have made no such discovery. It is your religious belief.
I'm not buyin your religion.


Unlike you, I
>have not turned audio into a pastime that gives my life
>meaning.

Are you dyslexic?


Well, writing does pay,

How much? Haw haw haw.

so in a practical sense I
>do get some meaning out of it.

You are confused again.


>
>> >> You seriously overrate
>> >> >yourselves.
>
>> >> You are seriously living without a clue.
>
>> >Four books published, plus the above-noted Encyclopedia
>> >work.
>
>> So have you rented the tux for the Pulitzer presentation? Haw haw haw. You
>are
>> a plagiarist, a fraud and a hack with no influence Howard, deal with it.
>
>I certainly have influence with you, Dick.

As do the Three Stooges. you both make me laugh.


You scope for my
>posts religiously.

Hardly.


>
>> >> You have
>> >> >a bunch of weird audio beliefs and having a seriously
>> >> >published author make fun of you just has to have you guys
>> >> >beside yourselves with frustration.
>
>> >> What seriously published aurthor is that? Last I recall John Atkinson, a
>> >> seriously published author on audio, was making fun of you.
>
>> >No books, though. John is basically a magazine salesman.
>
>> His work is read by many audiophiles. that just kills you.
>
>Trust me on this: most serious audio engineers consider his
>publication a joke.

No, I wont trust a plagiarist and a fraud.

Yes, some of them (the ones who make
>upscale products) play the game, because they need their
>products auditioned and reviewed by somebody, and of course
>they love it when superlatives are layered on, even if they
>are aware that those are mostly poppycock.

You see Howie. You are just making things up to suit your religious beliefs.

We all need to
>make a living (well, I am retired, so I do not need to
>really "make" a living),

How much was the inheritence Howie?


and so many intelligent people play
>the audio game and the magazine capitalizes on the
>phenomenon.

What would you know of the goings on amoungst inteligent people Howie? You
don't walk in those circles.


>
>> Yours flies way
>> below the radar. You have no audience and no impact. Haw haw haw.
>
>Except with you, obviously.

You can't face reality even when it bites you on the ass.


>
>> >> Well, no, he was
>> >> pointing out your plagiarism to your publisher.
>
>> >Absolutely no impact, whatsoever.
>
>> Right, the book was just delayed for a year by coincidence. You manage to
>be a
>> burden for thew most mundane of endevours. Pathertic. Keep us updated the
>race
>> for a Pulitzer. Haw haw haw. Get a life, Slick.
>
>If I was a problem, why am I listed as "technical editor" on
>the title page?

If it wasn't a problem why was the book delayed so long?

Believe me,

I don't. You are a plagiarist and a fraud. You have lost the privilidge of
trust.


if I had been a problem that
>would not have happened.

Prove it.


>
>Go hunt up a copy and see what you think. It will shrink
>your ego down to the size of a gas molecule, gasbag.

Now that's funny. How are the sales? You never answered my question. Did you
rent your tux yet? Haw haw haw.
>
>Howard Ferstler
>
>
>
>
>
>

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 11/10/2004 8:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>
>> An interxiew with "him?" Moron. There is more than one Scott Wheeler. Try
>to
>> use your head for a change.
>>
>> You should not steal someone else's
>> >name, pal.
>
>> You should not parade your stupidity in public dork.
>
>You are a phony, pure and simple.

You are an idiot, pure and simple. Very simple.

[S888Wheel]

>Sound
>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 11/10/2004 8:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >Date: 11/4/2004 8:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >S888Wheel wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >
>> >> >Gets his name seen by millions every year? What on earth are
>> >> >you talking about?
>> >
>> >> The idea boggles your mind. LOL.
>> >
>> >OK, now I get it.
>>
>> No you don't. It's simple but way over your pointy little head.
>>
>> You get your name seen by millions every
>> >year. Millions of what?
>>
>> People. You are an idiot. Note.
>
>But unlike you, I am not a phony.


Remind me again who the plagiarist is. Remind me again who published fraudualtn
ABX DBTs.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 11/10/2004 10:43 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

>> Brother Horace Ironicus muttered:
>
>>> But unlike you, I am not a phony.
>
>Agreed. Middius is a made-up name.

Arny, you might want to keep track of who is being talked about. You just made
an ass of yourself, again.

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 11/10/2004 8:49 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >Date: 11/4/2004 9:10 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>
>> >You are not this guy.
>
>> I am amazed that you would choose to parade your stupidity with such
>tenacious
>> redundancy. Get a clue, Slick.
>
>You are a phony and have stolen a name to give yourself some
>kind of credibility.
>

Do you have any idea how funny you are?

[S888Wheel]

>Sound
>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 11/10/2004 7:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>
>> Making things up again eh Arny? Does it make you feel better about your own
>> mediocre existance?
>
>At least he is not a phony.
>
>
>
>
At least he's a little bit smarter than you. He did eventually figure out what
I do for a living. I guess I should be flattered that you think I am
pretending to be me.

[S888Wheel]

>Sound
>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 11/10/2004 10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>> Date: 11/5/2004 7:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>
>
>>> when you can't bear
>>> to mention your profession on this newsgroup for fear of
>>> embarrassment and humiliation?
>
>> Making things up again eh Arny?
>
>Not at all - facts are facts.

Facts are facts but you are making things up again.


>
>>Does it make you feel better about your own mediocre existence?
>
>At least I can say what my work is on RAO without fear of humiliation.

actually you can't. Your lack of employment seems to be an endless source of
shame for you.

I'm a
>computer consultant

Yeah everybody is a consultant. Lets see some proof.

- what are you?

I thought you already knew. I am an award winning makeup artist.

[Bruce J. Richman]

s888wheel wrote:


>>From: "Arny Krueger"
>>Date: 11/10/2004 10:43 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

>>> Brother Horace Ironicus muttered:
>>
>>>> But unlike you, I am not a phony.
>>
>>Agreed. Middius is a made-up name.
>
>Arny, you might want to keep track of who is being talked about. You just
>made
>an ass of yourself, again.
>
>

He's just being himself.



Bruce J. Richman

[S888Wheel]

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 11/10/2004 7:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >Date: 11/4/2004 9:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>
>> >End of interview. This guy ain't you.
>
>> No **** Sherlock. Now please try to convince me you are not a total moron
>in
>> need of special ed. Lets see if you can name an occupation that would lead
>to
>> one's name being read by millions of people. Then lets see if you can
>figure
>> out whether there just one Scott Wheeler in the world or perhaps more than
>one.
>
>OK, now I get it. Every time somebody does a Scott Wheeler
>search on Google (because there are so many of them and some
>of them appear to be accomplished individuals) they see that
>name listed.

Nope, you still don't get it. Time to go back to the corner and put the cap
back on.

No doubt, millions have done that search and so
>millions have seen the name.

Just when I thought you hit rock bottom. Millions have done that search?


>
>Unfortunately, that is still not your name.

Fortunately you are still amusing.

You are a phony,

You are a dunce.



>spud, and that's a fact.

As valid as any of your other "facts"

You are also an audio ignoramus.

Another opinion of yours with the usuual levels of credibility.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>> Sound
>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 11/10/2004 10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>> Date: 11/5/2004 7:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>> Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>>> when you can't bear
>>>> to mention your profession on this newsgroup for fear of
>>>> embarrassment and humiliation?
>>
>>> Making things up again eh Arny?
>>
>> Not at all - facts are facts.

> Facts are facts but you are making things up again.

Prove it.

>>> Does it make you feel better about your own mediocre existence?

>> At least I can say what my work is on RAO without fear of
>> humiliation.

> actually you can't. Your lack of employment seems to be an endless
> source of shame for you.

You're delusional.

> I'm a

>> computer consultant

> Yeah everybody is a consultant. Lets see some proof.

What form might that proof take?


> - what are you?

> I thought you already knew.

I did.

>I am an award winning makeup artist.

Prove that you are in fact that well-known person.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 11/10/2004 1:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>> Sound
>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>> Date: 11/10/2004 10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> Date: 11/5/2004 7:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>>
>>>>> when you can't bear
>>>>> to mention your profession on this newsgroup for fear of
>>>>> embarrassment and humiliation?
>>>
>>>> Making things up again eh Arny?
>>>
>>> Not at all - facts are facts.
>
>> Facts are facts but you are making things up again.
>
>Prove it.

Asked and answered.


>
>>>> Does it make you feel better about your own mediocre existence?
>
>>> At least I can say what my work is on RAO without fear of
>>> humiliation.
>
>> actually you can't. Your lack of employment seems to be an endless
>> source of shame for you.
>
>You're delusional.

The truth hurts. Of course you can always prove me wrong by showing us you
actually have such a business. It is easy enough to cite a business licence or
show us some of your promotional material.


>
>> I'm a
>
>>> computer consultant
>
>> Yeah everybody is a consultant. Lets see some proof.
>
>What form might that proof take?

See above. Use your imagination. It isn't hard to prove an active business
exists if you own it and run it. Certainly a business licence will do the
trick.


>
>
>> - what are you?
>
>> I thought you already knew.
>
>I did.
>
>>I am an award winning makeup artist.
>
>Prove that you are in fact that well-known person.

LOL. I don't care if you believe me or not. I think it's funny if you don't.
Flattery will get you nowhere.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 11/10/2004 1:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> Sound
>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>> Date: 11/10/2004 10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>
>>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>> Date: 11/5/2004 7:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> when you can't bear
>>>>>> to mention your profession on this newsgroup for fear of
>>>>>> embarrassment and humiliation?
>>>>
>>>>> Making things up again eh Arny?
>>>>
>>>> Not at all - facts are facts.
>>
>>> Facts are facts but you are making things up again.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> Asked and answered.

Nope.

>>>>> Does it make you feel better about your own mediocre existence?
>>
>>>> At least I can say what my work is on RAO without fear of
>>>> humiliation.
>>
>>> actually you can't. Your lack of employment seems to be an endless
>>> source of shame for you.

>> You're delusional.

> The truth hurts.

The truth certainly hurts you when your lame lawsuit against me gets thrown
out of court, doesn't it?

> Of course you can always prove me wrong by showing
> us you actually have such a business.

Send me a check for $1,000 with my business's name on it. Since you were
able to serve me to sue me, you obviously know how to do that. Your bank
will shortly be able to provide you with legal proof that my bank accepted
the check from that legal entity and credited $1,000 to my business account.

>It is easy enough to cite a business licence or show us some of your
>promotional material.

Some of my promotional material is already where you can look at it any time
you wish.

>>> I'm a
>>
>>>> computer consultant
>>
>>> Yeah everybody is a consultant. Lets see some proof.
>>
>> What form might that proof take?

> See above.

Asked and answered.

> Use your imagination. It isn't hard to prove an active
> business exists if you own it and run it. Certainly a business
> licence will do the trick.

I don't need a business license for the kind of business that I have.

>>> - what are you?

>>> I thought you already knew.

>> I did.

>>> I am an award winning makeup artist.

>> Prove that you are in fact that well-known person.

> LOL.

Thanks for admitting that your claims to be that person are a joke.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Gheez.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 11/10/2004 2:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>> Date: 11/10/2004 1:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> Sound
>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> Date: 11/10/2004 10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>
>>>>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>>> Date: 11/5/2004 7:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> when you can't bear
>>>>>>> to mention your profession on this newsgroup for fear of
>>>>>>> embarrassment and humiliation?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Making things up again eh Arny?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all - facts are facts.
>>>
>>>> Facts are facts but you are making things up again.
>>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>> Asked and answered.
>
>Nope.

yep.


>
>>>>>> Does it make you feel better about your own mediocre existence?
>>>
>>>>> At least I can say what my work is on RAO without fear of
>>>>> humiliation.
>>>
>>>> actually you can't. Your lack of employment seems to be an endless
>>>> source of shame for you.
>
>>> You're delusional.
>
>> The truth hurts.
>
>The truth certainly hurts you when your lame lawsuit against me gets thrown
>out of court, doesn't it?

You are delusional.


>
>> Of course you can always prove me wrong by showing
>> us you actually have such a business.
>
>Send me a check for $1,000 with my business's name on it.

Begging for money? Sad, but not entirely unexpected.

Since you were
>able to serve me to sue me, you obviously know how to do that. Your bank
>will shortly be able to provide you with legal proof that my bank accepted
>the check from that legal entity and credited $1,000 to my business account.

You must be quite hard up for money.


>
>>It is easy enough to cite a business licence or show us some of your
>>promotional material.
>
>Some of my promotional material is already where you can look at it any time
>you wish.

That works for psychics. Not for me.


>
>>>> I'm a
>>>
>>>>> computer consultant
>>>
>>>> Yeah everybody is a consultant. Lets see some proof.
>>>
>>> What form might that proof take?
>
>> See above.
>
>Asked and answered.

No question was asked dim wit.


>
>> Use your imagination. It isn't hard to prove an active
>> business exists if you own it and run it. Certainly a business
>> licence will do the trick.
>
>I don't need a business license for the kind of business that I have.

If it's a hobby you don't. But your "business" is hardly employment or a means
to meaningful income if you are operating without a license. Looks like I was
right. No wonder you are begging for money.


>
>>>> - what are you?
>
>>>> I thought you already knew.
>
>>> I did.
>
>>>> I am an award winning makeup artist.
>
>>> Prove that you are in fact that well-known person.
>
>> LOL.
>
>Thanks for admitting that your claims to be that person are a joke.

Thanks for showing once again you are an idiot. But I am flattered that you the
truth so difficult to swallow.

[Marc Phillips]

Howard said:

>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>
>> Howard said:
>
>> >> >Get busy and complain. Or, are you just another RAO gasbag?
>
>> >> Nope. I've actually told thousands about your plagiarism,
>
>> >Told thousands? Delusions of grandeur.
>
>> >Haw, haw, hawww....
>
>> I even gave you the link the last time we discussed this.
>>
>> Symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome.
>>
>> Haw, haw, hawww...
>
>Thousands? What a joke. Mr. Philips has had zero impact.

I'm not sure who Mr. Philips is, so you may be right.

You
>should change your name to Mr. Zero.

Why? And what does this have to do with Mr. Philips?

>Hey: four books published and a major editing job on a
>fifth.
>
>I win; you lose.

I can still have sex.

I win; you lose.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Howard said:

>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>
>> Howard said:
>
>> >I was a late bloomer. In any case, four books, with a fifth
>> >big editing/writing job. I am way, way ahead of you, gasbag.
>
>> No, you're not. You're contradicting yourself.
>
>Talk is cheap, gasbag. Anyone can access Amazon or various
>library databases to see what I have done. What can they do
>to see what YOU have done, gasbag?

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinylanachronist.html

>
>> We've already established that I make more money than you and your wife put
>> together, and I'm at least twenty years younger than you. So I'm way, way,
>> ahead of you, gasbag.
>
>Talk is cheap. My guess is that you are an audio chain store
>clerk with pimples and no girlfriend.

Wrong.

>
>> >The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound is now listed on Amazon,
>> >slick. Go check out the entry. No discount, however; still
>> >$225.
>
>> So how many have sold?
>
>Actually, I checked a library database right after it showed
>up and several libraries have obtained copies.

To me, several means seven or so. Way to go!

It is a
>scholarly book, which puts it out of your class, gasbag.

Funny, I have a degree in literature, gasbag.

>
>> >> Also, it helps that my yearly income is more than you and your wife's
>> >together,
>> >> and that has nothing to do with audio.
>
>> >Pimping apparently pays well.
>
>> It does? I have no idea.
>
>My god, you cannot even do a proper job of pimping!

I never tried. But since your wife isn't seeing any action at home, are you
just putting feelers out?

>> But being a project manager for a telecommunications
>> firm does. I do have an idea about that, Clerkie.
>
>Phony claim. People can easily see what I have done when it
>comes to books and articles, pal. In your case, all we have
>are the claims of an RAO gasbag.

Maybe that's all YOU have. Then again, you never were any good at doing
research on the Internet.

Since you are a pimp,
>perhaps we should access some police records to measure your
>accomplishments.

Again with the pimping. Okay, send me a picture of your wife, and I'll give
you a fair evaluation of her worth on the open market.

>
>PS: nobody with real technical knowledge believes about
>audio gear as you do, unless you are just pimping for an
>audio magazine.

You honestly have no idea what I believe about audio gear. You don't even know
who you're talking to half of the time.

Boon

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >Date: 11/10/2004 8:49 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >

> >You are a phony and have stolen a name to give yourself some
> >kind of credibility.

> Do you have any idea how funny you are?

I am sure that chowderheads like you find me funny. I stand
by my previous statement.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >Sound
> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >Date: 11/10/2004 7:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >S888Wheel wrote:
> >
> >> Making things up again eh Arny? Does it make you feel better about your own
> >> mediocre existance?
> >
> >At least he is not a phony.

> At least he's a little bit smarter than you. He did eventually figure out what
> I do for a living. I guess I should be flattered that you think I am
> pretending to be me.

This is an audio discussion group. What you do for a living
has no meaning whatsoever, unless it involves audio.

Frankly, I simply do not care what you do for a living. I do
know that you are a rather stubborn and petulant audio
ignoramus, who would rather spend big bucks on mythology and
play word games here than understand the topic.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
> Gheez.

Hey, I only show up every few days to see what those who
seem addicted to this site are doing.

What they are always doing is pontificating about things
they know nothing much about at all.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Marc Phillips wrote:
>
> Howard said:

> >PS: nobody with real technical knowledge believes about
> >audio gear as you do, unless you are just pimping for an
> >audio magazine.

> You honestly have no idea what I believe about audio gear. You don't even know
> who you're talking to half of the time.

Given that this is a nest of freako sockpuppets, I can
certainly agree. You guys all read the same to me.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:

> >Your lengthy response obviously took some time to compose
> >and was posted about a half hour after my initial comments.
> >You have too much free time, "Dr. Richman."

> Since your every word is predetermined by your mental illness and delusional
> thinking, it takes practically no time at all to expose your demonstrations of
> severe disturbance. Keep deluding yourself and the rest of us (except your
> fellow sociopathic & delusional colleague, Krueger) will continue to laugh at
> both of you.
>
> Bruce J. Richman

Get a job.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >Date: 11/10/2004 8:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >

> >You are a phony, pure and simple.

> You are an idiot, pure and simple. Very simple.

You are a phony; a nobody who poses as somebody.

Howard Ferstler

[Bruce J. Richman]

Howard Ferstler wrote:

>"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>>
>> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
>> >Your lengthy response obviously took some time to compose
>> >and was posted about a half hour after my initial comments.
>> >You have too much free time, "Dr. Richman."
>
>> Since your every word is predetermined by your mental illness and
>delusional
>> thinking, it takes practically no time at all to expose your demonstrations
>of
>> severe disturbance. Keep deluding yourself and the rest of us (except your
>> fellow sociopathic & delusional colleague, Krueger) will continue to laugh
>at
>> both of you.
>>
>> Bruce J. Richman
>
>Get a job.
>
>Howard Ferstler
>
>

LOL !!!

See a psychiatrist or psychologist in your area for professional help.



Bruce J. Richman

[Howard Ferstler]

Marc Phillips wrote:

> I can still have sex.

With your hand.

Howard Ferstler

[Arny Krueger]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message

> S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>>> From: Howard Ferstler
>>> Date: 11/4/2004 9:10 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>
>>> You are not this guy.
>
>> I am amazed that you would choose to parade your stupidity with such
>> tenacious redundancy. Get a clue, Slick.
>
> You are a phony and have stolen a name to give yourself some
> kind of credibility.

Let's say that Scott is who he says he is. That makes him a makeup artist
who thinks he knows more about audio than degreed engineers and
widely-published audio experts. How pathetic is that?

[Arny Krueger]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message

> Marc Phillips wrote:
>
>> I can still have sex.
>
> With your hand.

....with a jar of raw sliced liver, as well.

[Marc Phillips]

Howard said:

>Marc Phillips wrote:
>
>> I can still have sex.
>
>With your hand.
>
>Howard Ferstler
>

Hand, wife, whatever's available. It's great!

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message

>> Marc Phillips wrote:
>>
>>> I can still have sex.
>>
>> With your hand.
>
>...with a jar of raw sliced liver, as well.

I've never heard of that. Perhaps you could tell more...as long as it doesn't
involve sex with children, of course.

Boon

[Marc Phillips]

Howard said:

>Marc Phillips wrote:
>>
>> Howard said:
>
>> >PS: nobody with real technical knowledge believes about
>> >audio gear as you do, unless you are just pimping for an
>> >audio magazine.
>
>> You honestly have no idea what I believe about audio gear. You don't even
>know
>> who you're talking to half of the time.
>
>Given that this is a nest of freako sockpuppets, I can
>certainly agree. You guys all read the same to me.

Then that defines you as an idiot. That's why we gladly line up to point it
out to you.

Boon

[Bruce J. Richman]

Mr. Phillips wrote:

>Arny said:
>
>>"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message

>>> Marc Phillips wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can still have sex.
>>>
>>> With your hand.
>>
>>...with a jar of raw sliced liver, as well.
>
>I've never heard of that. Perhaps you could tell more...as long as it
>doesn't
>involve sex with children, of course.
>
>Boon
>
>

Krueger's favorite song is "Fifty Ways to Leave Your Liver".



Bruce J. Richman

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is an audio discussion group. What you do for a living
> has no meaning whatsoever, unless it involves audio.
>

Of course, that's unless you were a library clerk

[Marc Phillips]

Dr. Richman said:

>Mr. Phillips wrote:
>
>>Arny said:
>>
>>>"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message

>>>> Marc Phillips wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I can still have sex.
>>>>
>>>> With your hand.
>>>
>>>...with a jar of raw sliced liver, as well.
>>
>>I've never heard of that. Perhaps you could tell more...as long as it
>>doesn't
>>involve sex with children, of course.
>>
>>Boon
>>
>>
>
>Krueger's favorite song is "Fifty Ways to Leave Your Liver".

Would Way #1 involve about twenty pounds of C4 in Arny's basement?

Boon

[Bruce J. Richman]

Mr. Phillips wrote:


>Dr. Richman said:
>
>>Mr. Phillips wrote:
>>
>>>Arny said:
>>>
>>>>"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message

>>>>> Marc Phillips wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I can still have sex.
>>>>>
>>>>> With your hand.
>>>>
>>>>...with a jar of raw sliced liver, as well.
>>>
>>>I've never heard of that. Perhaps you could tell more...as long as it
>>>doesn't
>>>involve sex with children, of course.
>>>
>>>Boon
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Krueger's favorite song is "Fifty Ways to Leave Your Liver".
>
>Would Way #1 involve about twenty pounds of C4 in Arny's basement?
>
>Boon
>
>

As somebody from Detroit far more truthful and in touch with reality than
Krueger once said........ "I Second the Emotion!"



Bruce J. Richman

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Let's say that Scott is who he says he is. That makes him a makeup artist
> who thinks he knows more about audio than degreed engineers and
> widely-published audio experts. How pathetic is that?
>

Not as pathetic as someone who earned his living
designing ashtrays for the Dodge Omni posing
as an audio know-it-all.

[Clyde Slick]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
> Mr. Phillips wrote:
>
>>Arny said:
>>
>>>"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message

>>>> Marc Phillips wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I can still have sex.
>>>>
>>>> With your hand.
>>>
>>>...with a jar of raw sliced liver, as well.
>>
>>I've never heard of that. Perhaps you could tell more...as long as it
>>doesn't
>>involve sex with children, of course.
>>
>>Boon
>>
>>
>
> Krueger's favorite song is "Fifty Ways to Leave Your Liver".
>
>
>

I think he loves his liver to much to leave it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Let's say that Scott is who he says he is. That makes him a makeup
>> artist who thinks he knows more about audio than degreed engineers
>> and widely-published audio experts. How pathetic is that?
>>
>
> Not as pathetic as someone who earned his living
> designing ashtrays for the Dodge Omni posing
> as an audio know-it-all.

I never did any interior design for any automobiles, ever. In the automotive
world they are often called "Design Fairies". Your kind of girlie-man, eh
Art?

[Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >Date: 11/10/2004 8:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>
>> >You are a phony, pure and simple.
>
>> You are an idiot, pure and simple. Very simple.
>
> You are a phony; a nobody who poses as somebody.
>
> Howard Ferstler

But he isn't an impotent little chihuahua like you.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Marc Phillips wrote:
>
>> I can still have sex.
>
> With your hand.

That's a hell of a lot better than you can muster, Mr. Noodle . You impotent
old fool!

Cheers,

Margaret

[Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>
>> Marc Phillips wrote:
>>
>>> I can still have sex.
>>
>> With your hand.
>
> ...with a jar of raw sliced liver, as well.
>

I hear that Detroit playgrounds are littered with empty jars...

Cheers,

MvBB

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Let's say that Scott is who he says he is. That makes him a makeup
>>> artist who thinks he knows more about audio than degreed engineers
>>> and widely-published audio experts. How pathetic is that?
>>>
>>
>> Not as pathetic as someone who earned his living
>> designing ashtrays for the Dodge Omni posing
>> as an audio know-it-all.
>
> I never did any interior design for any automobiles, ever. In the
> automotive world they are often called "Design Fairies". Your kind of
> girlie-man, eh Art?
>

You are assuming that all designers of Dodge Omni ashtrays are male.
At any rate, I never dated a designer of Dodge Omni ashtrays,
and I never will