Why The CD Largely Forced The CD From The Marketplace [Archive]

Arny Krueger

January 21st 05, 01:52 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

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

>> http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/engine90-crawford-NEW-PR
>> ODUCT-DEVELOPMENT-print.pdf

> This doc also cites Ex-Lax and Callaway golf clubs.

This is a problem?

Guess what Stephen, this is part of a general discussion of new product
development. Sue Brown University's Engineering department, cheapskate fools
that they are ;-), for thinking that the sun doesn't rise and set on just
audio.

>> starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that
>> reads:

>> Why CD?
>> Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
>> - market ready for innovation
>> - alliance of key industrial leaders
>> - superior product

>> This is the generally-accepted factual story, not the self-pitying
>> vinylphile conspiracy theory.

> The point I argued was the importance of bullet point #2 "alliance of
> key industrial leaders" in removing the competing medium from the
> marketplace.

The point you seem to have missed Stephen is that the CD was a sucessful
inovation in the judgement of an esteemed member of Brown University's
Engineering department (and most of the thinking, perceiving world) because:

(1) The market ready for innovation. IOW, they knew that the LP was a
practical and technological dead end. The world was waiting for something
without the intractable flaws of vinyl which are well-known and were
well-known before the CD hit the market. People had long known that we could
do better than the LP, and also that they despirately needed to do better.

The only question remaining before the CD was such a stunning artistic,
technical and commerical success; was *how* we were going to do better. We
had already had false starts with open reel analog tape and various kinds of
cassettes, terminating with the Elcassette. Note that analog tape for audio
production is now out of production, worldwide.

(2) Alliance of key industrial leaders. IOW Sony and Philips were big
enough together, to overcome the market's inertia (except for that of a tiny
noisy minority who are still flogging the now-stinking dead horse identified
in point 1, more than 20 years later).

(3) CD was and is a technically superior product to the LP.

Just because there was an alliance to promote the CD doesn't prove or even
suggest that there was a conspiracy to pull the LP from the marketplace in
the US before it was commercially and technically justified.

> Your original point was that lps disappeared because consumers
> abandoned lps as soon as they knew about the technical superiority of
> cd.

More or less. Besides sounding better, CDs are simply a more practical
product than LPs. It's more producable, more merchantahle, and more usable
in the hands of the consumer. LPs never achieved the producability and
reproducability of the CD, and there's really no way they could ever do so.
CD burners can produce fine-sounding copies and origionals in a few minutes
using inexpensive hardware and media that costs literally pennies a piece
with minimal skill requirements.

I think the cheapest new LP cutting lathe runs no faster than real time,
still costs $thousands and requires a lot of skill to get even barely
acceptable results.

BTW Stephen can you even find a public retail source of blank lacquer disks
for cutting lps with a published unit price?

> Not so simple as that.

It never is, but the idea that there was a conspiracy to pull the LP from
the marketplace in the US before it was commercially and technically
justified is still looking for factual support. That doesn't seem to keep it
from being a cherished belief of many vinyl bigots. It's just another one of
their illusions, like superior sound I guess.

dave weil

January 21st 05, 02:55 PM

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:18:23 -0500, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>Corrected formatting!

Well, maybe after about 10 tries, Arnold is finally going to stumble
upon a post that he's happy with.

>Please see:
>
>> http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/engine90-crawford-NEW-PRODUCT-DEVELOPMENT-print.pdf
>starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that reads:
>
>Why CD?
>Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
>- market ready for innovation
>- alliance of key industrial leaders
>- superior product
>
>
>This is the generally-accepted factual story, not the self-pitying
>vinylphile conspiracy theory.

Obviously we can discount this whole paper since it talks about the
alliance between van der Klugt and Morita and Arnold has already shot
down that theory. Therefore, according to Kroologic, this whole thing
must be suspect and can't be trusted.

Actually, I think Arnold was attracted by the 5th grade level cartoons
and Silly Putty.

Boy, I guess Brown is trying to attract middle-schoolers. They sure
reeled Arnold in, since he has the emotional age of about 12

[email protected]

January 21st 05, 03:55 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/engine90-crawford-NEW-PRODUCT-DEVELOPMENT-print.pdf
>
> starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that
reads:
>
> Why CD?
> Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
> - market ready for innovation
> - alliance of key industrial leaders
> - superior product
>
>
> This is the generally-accepted factual story, not the self-pitying
> vinylphile conspiracy theory.

I think that what is now lost in the mists of time and nostalgia is
that "in the day",
LPs were regarded as more or less a "necessary evil" with well known
weaknesses (lack of dynamic range, fragility, sample-to-sample
variability, not user-friendly, etc.) Once the price of CDs and CD
players came down, users abandoned the LP in droves.

MINe 109

January 21st 05, 04:33 PM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/engine90-crawford-NEW-P
> >> R
> >> ODUCT-DEVELOPMENT-print.pdf
>
> > This doc also cites Ex-Lax and Callaway golf clubs.
>
> This is a problem?

No, it's 'context'.

> Guess what Stephen, this is part of a general discussion of new product
> development. Sue Brown University's Engineering department, cheapskate fools
> that they are ;-), for thinking that the sun doesn't rise and set on just
> audio.

Piling on!

> >> starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that
> >> reads:
>
> >> Why CD?
> >> Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
> >> - market ready for innovation
> >> - alliance of key industrial leaders
> >> - superior product
>
> >> This is the generally-accepted factual story, not the self-pitying
> >> vinylphile conspiracy theory.
>
> > The point I argued was the importance of bullet point #2 "alliance of
> > key industrial leaders" in removing the competing medium from the
> > marketplace.
>
> The point you seem to have missed Stephen is that the CD was a sucessful
> inovation in the judgement of an esteemed member of Brown University's
> Engineering department (and most of the thinking, perceiving world) because:

We already know EEs tend to like cd for the pretty numbers. Heck, I like
cd done right.

> (1) The market ready for innovation. IOW, they knew that the LP was a
> practical and technological dead end. The world was waiting for something
> without the intractable flaws of vinyl which are well-known and were
> well-known before the CD hit the market. People had long known that we could
> do better than the LP, and also that they despirately needed to do better.

Sigh. Putting words in the mouth of a pdf...

Needed to do better, just like innovation drives automobile sales. Well,
with an exception for frame on body SUVs.

> The only question remaining before the CD was such a stunning artistic,
> technical and commerical success; was *how* we were going to do better. We
> had already had false starts with open reel analog tape and various kinds of
> cassettes, terminating with the Elcassette. Note that analog tape for audio
> production is now out of production, worldwide.

Temporarily.

> (2) Alliance of key industrial leaders. IOW Sony and Philips were big
> enough together, to overcome the market's inertia (except for that of a tiny
> noisy minority who are still flogging the now-stinking dead horse identified
> in point 1, more than 20 years later).

Yes, and sped things along by removing lp from the market when there was
still some demand for it.

> (3) CD was and is a technically superior product to the LP.
>
> Just because there was an alliance to promote the CD doesn't prove or even
> suggest that there was a conspiracy to pull the LP from the marketplace in
> the US before it was commercially and technically justified.

I would call it an "agreement," not a "conspiracy." And there's no
"technical justification" in the marketplace.

> > Your original point was that lps disappeared because consumers
> > abandoned lps as soon as they knew about the technical superiority of
> > cd.
>
> More or less. Besides sounding better, CDs are simply a more practical
> product than LPs. It's more producable, more merchantahle, and more usable
> in the hands of the consumer. LPs never achieved the producability and
> reproducability of the CD, and there's really no way they could ever do so.
> CD burners can produce fine-sounding copies and origionals in a few minutes
> using inexpensive hardware and media that costs literally pennies a piece
> with minimal skill requirements.

That's nice, but doesn't support your premise in any way. In fact, for
the sake of argument, let's pretend cd is better in every imaginable
way. That still doesn't change my position, which is entirely about
marketing.

> I think the cheapest new LP cutting lathe runs no faster than real time,
> still costs $thousands and requires a lot of skill to get even barely
> acceptable results.
>
> BTW Stephen can you even find a public retail source of blank lacquer disks
> for cutting lps with a published unit price?

What an odd request. If I wanted to have my own lps, I'd use a pressing
facility. Wouldn't lacquers be a wholesale item?

> > Not so simple as that.
>
> It never is, but the idea that there was a conspiracy to pull the LP from
> the marketplace in the US before it was commercially and technically
> justified is still looking for factual support. That doesn't seem to keep it
> from being a cherished belief of many vinyl bigots. It's just another one of
> their illusions, like superior sound I guess.

Take "technically justified" out of there. You argued that lps
disappeared so quickly because of cd superiority. Maybe you could
produce a magic curve just precipitous enough to confirm superiority,
but not so steep as to show the market was manipulated.

mick

January 21st 05, 07:19 PM

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:00:36 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

> http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/engine90-crawford-NEW-PRODUCT-DEVELOPMENT-print.pdf
>
> starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that
> reads:
>
> Why CD?
> Compact disk process around since the 1950's. - market ready for
> innovation
> - alliance of key industrial leaders
> - superior product
>
>
> This is the generally-accepted factual story, not the self-pitying
> vinylphile conspiracy theory.

Nope, its the generally-accepted factual story about the marketing view of
the introduction of the CD. Note that this has *nothing* to do with audio
quality in real-life situations.

The CD produces very good and consistant quality audio. That is a fact.
Whether that audio is better *in all respects* than that obtained from a
vinyl LP is the argued point!

The CD suffers from two major problems - it has a predictable, finite
limit to the audio quality which cannot be exceeded (you can't recreate
data that isn't there - just make a guess at what it may have been) and it
cannot be played on simple hardware. Vinyl starts off with apparently
lower audio quality but this is generally improved as the reproducing
hardware is improved. In its most basic form all you need to get
*something* off an LP is to turn it at the right speed and use an
accoustic pickup driving a diaphragm directly. The CD can *never* be
played on such simple equipment. For this reason alone I would far rather
entrust music archives to LP rather than CD, even though the LP is
(apparently) more fragile. Will current CDs still be playable on standard
reproducing equipment in 20 years time? What about material that has
only been released on CD? Got an Elcassette player?

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

Sander deWaal

January 21st 05, 08:01 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>Corrected formatting!
>
>Please see:
>
>> http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/engine90-crawford-NEW-PRODUCT-DEVELOPMENT-print.pdf
>starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that reads:
>
>Why CD?
>Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
>- market ready for innovation
>- alliance of key industrial leaders
>- superior product
>
>
>This is the generally-accepted factual story, not the self-pitying
>vinylphile conspiracy theory.

What do I see here?

"Philips president (Van der Klugt) and Sony CEO (Morita) were
buddies".

And:
"Record Industry reluctant, but creative and powerful marketing
overcame resistance because of strong customer and trade interest"

Earlier, you disnissed my story, based on the same facts.

Thanks for admitting you're the master of the "Debating Trade" , once
again.

BTW: "Compact Disc process around since the 1950s"?
On page 12, it says compact disc timeline starts in 1972.

Care to expand on that?

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

Ruud Broens

January 21st 05, 08:36 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Arny Krueger" > said:
:
: >Corrected formatting!
: >
: >Please see:
: >
: >>
http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/engine90-crawford-NEW-PRODUCT
-DEVELOPMENT-print.pdf
: >starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that reads:
: >
: >Why CD?
: >Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
: >- market ready for innovation
: >- alliance of key industrial leaders
: >- superior product
: >
: >
: >This is the generally-accepted factual story, not the self-pitying
: >vinylphile conspiracy theory.
:
: What do I see here?
:
: "Philips president (Van der Klugt) and Sony CEO (Morita) were
: buddies".
:
: And:
: "Record Industry reluctant, but creative and powerful marketing
: overcame resistance because of strong customer and trade interest"
:
:
: Earlier, you disnissed my story, based on the same facts.
:
: Thanks for admitting you're the master of the "Debating Trade" , once
: again.
:
:
: BTW: "Compact Disc process around since the 1950s"?
: On page 12, it says compact disc timeline starts in 1972.
:
: Care to expand on that?
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Well, you know of course of batteries being around in Babylonian times ?
Not hing is impossible, note history
Rudy

Sander deWaal

January 21st 05, 08:56 PM

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>: BTW: "Compact Disc process around since the 1950s"?
>: On page 12, it says compact disc timeline starts in 1972.

>: Care to expand on that?

>Well, you know of course of batteries being around in Babylonian times ?
> Not hing is impossible, note history

Of course, they ran on urine, if I recall correctly.

Something for a certain inhabitant of the middle region of the US, a
feces-powered Villager? ;-)

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

Ruud Broens

January 21st 05, 08:59 PM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
: ...
: : "Arny Krueger" > said:
: :
: : >Corrected formatting!
: : >
: : >Please see:
: : >
: : >>
:
http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/engine90-crawford-NEW-PRODUCT
: -DEVELOPMENT-print.pdf
: : >starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that reads:
: : >
: : >Why CD?
: : >Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
: : >- market ready for innovation
: : >- alliance of key industrial leaders
: : >- superior product
: : >
: : >
: : >This is the generally-accepted factual story, not the self-pitying
: : >vinylphile conspiracy theory.
: :
: : What do I see here?
: :
: : "Philips president (Van der Klugt) and Sony CEO (Morita) were
: : buddies".
: :
: : And:
: : "Record Industry reluctant, but creative and powerful marketing
: : overcame resistance because of strong customer and trade interest"
: :
: :
: : Earlier, you disnissed my story, based on the same facts.
: :
: : Thanks for admitting you're the master of the "Debating Trade" , once
: : again.
: :
: :
: : BTW: "Compact Disc process around since the 1950s"?
: : On page 12, it says compact disc timeline starts in 1972.
: :
: : Care to expand on that?
: :
: : --
: : Sander de Waal
: : " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
:
: Well, you know of course of batteries being around in Babylonian times ?
: Not hing is impossible, note history
: Rudy
:
The fifties were an amazing episode , von Neumann, Turing, Minsky, IBM, Eniac..
but thoughts about a Compact Disc arising in those days : as plausible
as Fleming coming up with communication satellites just after the triode
:-)
Rudy

Sander deWaal

January 21st 05, 09:04 PM

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>The fifties were an amazing episode , von Neumann, Turing, Minsky, IBM, Eniac..
> but thoughts about a Compact Disc arising in those days : as plausible
> as Fleming coming up with communication satellites just after the triode
>:-)
>Rudy

Careful there, rookie.

Hugo Gernsback predicted them in........1925!

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

Ruud Broens

January 21st 05, 09:07 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > said:
:
: >: BTW: "Compact Disc process around since the 1950s"?
: >: On page 12, it says compact disc timeline starts in 1972.
:
: >: Care to expand on that?
:
: >Well, you know of course of batteries being around in Babylonian times ?
: > Not hing is impossible, note history
:
: Of course, they ran on urine, if I recall correctly.
:
: Something for a certain inhabitant of the middle region of the US, a
: feces-powered Villager? ;-)
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

we all know that mr. de waal is recycling history or other thingies
for the benefit, of his own, selflishh intrests, as noted.
most RAO readers do not take note of such fabrications, note.
blue note,
Rudy

Sander deWaal

January 21st 05, 09:17 PM

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>no harpsichoerd,

Dat klinkt ook zo beroerd

Was meteen gevloerd

nog nooit zoiets gehoerd

meteen de mond gesnoerd

Â© @ yer service ;-)

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

Sander deWaal

January 21st 05, 09:19 PM

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>we all know that mr. de waal is recycling history or other thingies
>for the benefit, of his own, selflishh intrests, as noted.
>most RAO readers do not take note of such fabrications, note.
>blue note,
>Rudy

Thanks Rodney for admiotting you, don't know an ohm from a, volt if
its like, it hit you in the back on teh way out in on, LoT;"S! ;-)

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

Ruud Broens

January 21st 05, 09:24 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > said:
:
: >The fifties were an amazing episode , von Neumann, Turing, Minsky, IBM,
Eniac..
: > but thoughts about a Compact Disc arising in those days : as plausible
: > as Fleming coming up with communication satellites just after the
triode
: >:-)
: >Rudy
:
: Careful there, rookie.
:
: Hugo Gernsback predicted them in........1925!
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Google gernsback + cd : sure, nearly a thousand hits. what does this proof,
mr dewhaal ? as if, it is actually Gernsback *on* cd, instead of on-cd,
if you get my driift,
LOL,
Rudy

Sander deWaal

January 21st 05, 09:26 PM

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>
>"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
>: "Ruud Broens" > said:
>:
>: >The fifties were an amazing episode , von Neumann, Turing, Minsky, IBM,
>Eniac..
>: > but thoughts about a Compact Disc arising in those days : as plausible
>: > as Fleming coming up with communication satellites just after the
>triode
>: >:-)
>: >Rudy
>:
>: Careful there, rookie.
>:
>: Hugo Gernsback predicted them in........1925!
>:
>: --
>: Sander de Waal
>: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>Google gernsback + cd : sure, nearly a thousand hits. what does this proof,
>mr dewhaal ? as if, it is actually Gernsback *on* cd, instead of on-cd,
>if you get my driift,
>LOL,

Instead of festering on "usinet" ( google *that* one if you dare!),
you'd do good to read Ralph 124C 41+.

After you're done, you may come back here and offer your humble
apologies, as well as acknowledge that I was right, *again* .

TIA.

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

Ruud Broens

January 21st 05, 09:32 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > said:
:
: >we all know that mr. de waal is recycling history or other thingies
: >for the benefit, of his own, selflishh intrests, as noted.
: >most RAO readers do not take note of such fabrications, note.
: >blue note,
: >Rudy
:
: Thanks Rodney for admiotting you, don't know an ohm from a, volt if
: its like, it hit you in the back on teh way out in on, LoT;"S! ;-)
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Some mothers do'ave them :)

Sander deWaal

January 21st 05, 09:35 PM

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>: >we all know that mr. de waal is recycling history or other thingies
>: >for the benefit, of his own, selflishh intrests, as noted.
>: >most RAO readers do not take note of such fabrications, note.
>: >blue note,
>: >Rudy

>: Thanks Rodney for admiotting you, don't know an ohm from a, volt if
>: its like, it hit you in the back on teh way out in on, LoT;"S! ;-)

>Some mothers do'ave them :)

At least she loves me*, note.

* I think.

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

Ruud Broens

January 21st 05, 09:36 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > said:
:
: >
: >"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
: ...
: >: "Ruud Broens" > said:
: >:
: >: >The fifties were an amazing episode , von Neumann, Turing, Minsky, IBM,
: >Eniac..
: >: > but thoughts about a Compact Disc arising in those days : as
plausible
: >: > as Fleming coming up with communication satellites just after the
: >triode
: >: >:-)
: >: >Rudy
: >:
: >: Careful there, rookie.
: >:
: >: Hugo Gernsback predicted them in........1925!
: >:
: >: --
: >: Sander de Waal
: >: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
: >
: >Google gernsback + cd : sure, nearly a thousand hits. what does this proof,
: >mr dewhaal ? as if, it is actually Gernsback *on* cd, instead of on-cd,
: >if you get my driift,
: >LOL,
:
: Instead of festering on "usinet" ( google *that* one if you dare!),
: you'd do good to read Ralph 124C 41+.
:
: After you're done, you may come back here and offer your humble
: apologies, as well as acknowledge that I was right, *again* .
:
: TIA.
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

G.
....invented the Language Rectifier ...
****. born to late,
i'm afraid,
Rudy;)

Sander deWaal

January 21st 05, 09:41 PM

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>****. born to late,

Born to loathe?
Born to lathe?
Born to hate?
Born to skate?
Born to wait?
Born to aid?
Born to mate?
Born 2nd rate?

Bon Ton Mate!

>i'm afraid,

You'd better be!

>Rudy;)

Sandmaster, Of All Languages :-)

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

Bruce J. Richman

January 21st 05, 10:02 PM

Sander deWaal wrote:

>"Ruud Broens" > said:
>
>>: BTW: "Compact Disc process around since the 1950s"?
>>: On page 12, it says compact disc timeline starts in 1972.
>
>>: Care to expand on that?
>
>>Well, you know of course of batteries being around in Babylonian times ?
>> Not hing is impossible, note history
>
>Of course, they ran on urine, if I recall correctly.
>
>Something for a certain inhabitant of the middle region of the US, a
>feces-powered Villager? ;-)
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>

What makes you think that any of his "fuel" is left over after he posts on RAO?

Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman

January 21st 05, 10:08 PM

Sander deWaal wrote:

>"Ruud Broens" > said:
>
>>we all know that mr. de waal is recycling history or other thingies
>>for the benefit, of his own, selflishh intrests, as noted.
>>most RAO readers do not take note of such fabrications, note.
>>blue note,
>>Rudy
>
>Thanks Rodney for admiotting you, don't know an ohm from a, volt if
>its like, it hit you in the back on teh way out in on, LoT;"S! ;-)
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>

Thanks Sanded Walls for revising the herstory on Goggle. That's why it keeps
lying to me and revising history. We've asked and answered your egreeejius
false calims many times. You "Nomads" are all devotional and cycotic.

OLO !!!

Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman

January 21st 05, 10:11 PM

Sander deWaal wrote:

>
>"Ruud Broens" > said:
>
>>****. born to late,
>
>Born to loathe?
>Born to lathe?
>Born to hate?
>Born to skate?
>Born to wait?
>Born to aid?
>Born to mate?
>Born 2nd rate?
>
>Bon Ton Mate!
>
>>i'm afraid,
>
>You'd better be!
>
>>Rudy;)
>
>Sandmaster, Of All Languages :-)
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>

Bon Jovi.

Bruce J. Richman

Sander deWaal

January 21st 05, 10:12 PM

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

>>Something for a certain inhabitant of the middle region of the US, a
>>feces-powered Villager? ;-)

>What makes you think that any of his "fuel" is left over after he posts on RAO?

Not too modest, there's plenty left.

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

Sander deWaal

January 21st 05, 10:13 PM

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

>Bon Jovi.

Not my hair!

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

Bruce J. Richman

January 21st 05, 10:32 PM

Sander deWaal wrote:

(Bruce J. Richman) said:
>
>>>Something for a certain inhabitant of the middle region of the US, a
>>>feces-powered Villager? ;-)
>
>>What makes you think that any of his "fuel" is left over after he posts on
>RAO?
>
>Not too modest, there's plenty left.
>
>--
>Sander de Waal
>" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I realize that in case of temporary shortages, he can always get more shipped
in from France, Southern California, or sockpuppet land.

Bruce J. Richman

Ruud Broens

January 21st 05, 10:56 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: (Bruce J. Richman) said:
:
: >Bon Jovi.
:
: Not my hair!
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

ehh, u lost me, there :)
eR

Clyde Slick

January 21st 05, 11:40 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
> http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/engine90-crawford-NEW-PRODUCT-DEVELOPMENT-print.pdf
>>
>> starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that
> reads:
>>
>> Why CD?
>> Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
>> - market ready for innovation
>> - alliance of key industrial leaders
>> - superior product
>>
>>
>> This is the generally-accepted factual story, not the self-pitying
>> vinylphile conspiracy theory.
>
>
> I think that what is now lost in the mists of time and nostalgia is
> that "in the day",
> LPs were regarded as more or less a "necessary evil" with well known
> weaknesses (lack of dynamic range, fragility, sample-to-sample
> variability, not user-friendly, etc.) Once the price of CDs and CD
> players came down, users abandoned the LP in droves.
>

The price of cd's never came down

Ruud Broens

January 21st 05, 11:53 PM

"mick" > wrote in message
...
: On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:00:36 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:
: Mick
: (no M$ software on here... :-) ) proof it :-))) Rudy

Arny Krueger

January 22nd 05, 01:45 AM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>> Corrected formatting!
>>
>> Please see:
>>
>>> http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/engine90-crawford-NEW-PRODUCT-DEVELOPMENT-print.pdf
>> starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that
>> reads:
>>
>> Why CD?
>> Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
>> - market ready for innovation
>> - alliance of key industrial leaders
>> - superior product
>>
>>
>> This is the generally-accepted factual story, not the self-pitying
>> vinylphile conspiracy theory.
>
> What do I see here?
>
> "Philips president (Van der Klugt) and Sony CEO (Morita) were
> buddies".
>
> And:
> "Record Industry reluctant, but creative and powerful marketing
> overcame resistance because of strong customer and trade interest"
>
>
> Earlier, you disnissed my story, based on the same facts.

Wrong, and you know it. You presented different facts which happened to be
wrong. I pointed that out to you Sander, and you've been in a snit ever
since.

Yawn.

[email protected]

January 22nd 05, 03:17 AM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>
> >
http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/engine90-crawford-NEW-PRODUCT-DEVELOPMENT-print.pdf
> >>
> >> starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11
that
> > reads:
> >>
> >> Why CD?
> >> Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
> >> - market ready for innovation
> >> - alliance of key industrial leaders
> >> - superior product
> >>
> >>
> >> This is the generally-accepted factual story, not the self-pitying
> >> vinylphile conspiracy theory.
> >
> >
> > I think that what is now lost in the mists of time and nostalgia is
> > that "in the day",
> > LPs were regarded as more or less a "necessary evil" with well
known
> > weaknesses (lack of dynamic range, fragility, sample-to-sample
> > variability, not user-friendly, etc.) Once the price of CDs and CD
> > players came down, users abandoned the LP in droves.
> >
>
> The price of cd's never came down
>
>

What are you babbling about?

Arny Krueger

January 22nd 05, 04:41 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> The price of cd's never came down

The price of new LPs went up.

mick

January 22nd 05, 10:15 AM

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:53:24 +0100, Ruud Broens wrote:

>
> "mick" > wrote in message
> ...
> : On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:00:36 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote: Mick
> : (no M$ software on here... :-) ) proof it :-))) Rudy

erm.... well... yeah.....
What do they produce that will run under Suse 9.1?
<grin>

not easy to prove though... :-)

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

Clyde Slick

January 22nd 05, 10:27 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>> The price of cd's never came down
>
> The price of new LPs went up.
>

The point isn't the comparison, the point is the lies and manipulations of
the recording industry.
If you want to make comparisons, compare costs and markups when you compare
prices.
At any rate, one of my favorite lp providers is Sundazed, their lp's cost
60% of a cd's cost.

mick

January 22nd 05, 12:21 PM

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 05:27:07 -0500, Clyde Slick wrote:

>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> The price of cd's never came down
>>
>> The price of new LPs went up.
>>
>>
> The point isn't the comparison, the point is the lies and manipulations of
> the recording industry.
> If you want to make comparisons, compare costs and markups when you
> compare prices.
> At any rate, one of my favorite lp providers is Sundazed, their lp's cost
> 60% of a cd's cost.

Besides that, the retailers wanted CDs. They had had enough of providing
lots of storage space for LPs, together with the covers that needed
protecting from the grubby-fingered hordes. CDs were just what they needed
- irrespective of sound quality. If they took up less shelf space and
people would buy them then that was enough.

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

MINe 109

January 22nd 05, 01:54 PM

In article >,
mick > wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 05:27:07 -0500, Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> The price of cd's never came down
> >>
> >> The price of new LPs went up.
> >>
> >>
> > The point isn't the comparison, the point is the lies and manipulations of
> > the recording industry.
> > If you want to make comparisons, compare costs and markups when you
> > compare prices.
> > At any rate, one of my favorite lp providers is Sundazed, their lp's cost
> > 60% of a cd's cost.
>
> Besides that, the retailers wanted CDs. They had had enough of providing
> lots of storage space for LPs, together with the covers that needed
> protecting from the grubby-fingered hordes. CDs were just what they needed
> - irrespective of sound quality. If they took up less shelf space and
> people would buy them then that was enough.

The prospect of replacing shelves was not something retailers wanted.
Remember the longbox? Or those security devices jewel-boxes were clamped
into?

And cds don't take up less space on shelves...

Stephen

Arny Krueger

January 22nd 05, 05:02 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>

>>> The price of cd's never came down

>> The price of new LPs went up.

> The point isn't the comparison, the point is the lies and
> manipulations of the recording industry.

Which await adequate proof.

> If you want to make comparisons, compare costs and markups when you
> compare prices. At any rate, one of my favorite lp providers is Sundazed,
> their lp's
> cost 60% of a cd's cost.

Their home page has a great example of that pricing structure.
http://www.sundazed.com/store/index.html

Spirit - Model Shop Compact Disc: SC 6197 PRICE:: $13.98

Spirit - Model Shop 180 Gram Vinyl: LP 5180 PRICE:: $18.98

$13.98/18.98 = 74%

Sack-math? ;-)

dave weil

January 22nd 05, 05:57 PM

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:45:50 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> Earlier, you disnissed my story, based on the same facts.
>
>Wrong, and you know it. You presented different facts which happened to be
>wrong. I pointed that out to you Sander, and you've been in a snit ever
>since.
>
>Yawn.

LOL!

You've been in a snit with me since I proved you wrong. Fortunately
for me, it scared you dumb, so it was a win-win for me...

Fortunately for Sander, you proved his story fundamentally correct,
since it got the player correct, even if one of their titles was
incorrectly translated.

OFFICIAL RAM BLUEBOOK VALUATION

January 22nd 05, 07:22 PM

On 1/22/05 9:40, in article , "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

> The price of cd's never came down

Sure they did.

The price never went up; in real terms this was a long-term decline in
pricing by any economic measure.

LP's only went up and up over their price life.
--

mick

January 22nd 05, 09:15 PM

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:54:29 +0000, MINe 109 wrote:

<snip>
>
> The prospect of replacing shelves was not something retailers wanted.
> Remember the longbox? Or those security devices jewel-boxes were clamped
> into?
>
> And cds don't take up less space on shelves...
>

Well, that's what I was told by a friendly local dealer who had just had
his LP boxes ripped out & replaced by CD boxes... (I think his
distributor payed a large lump of the cost if he would switch over to
CDs completely). Mind you, they didn't use the CD clamps round here, just
took the CDs out and stored them behind the counter the same way that they
had always done with the LPs.

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

MINe 109

January 22nd 05, 09:26 PM

In article >,
mick > wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:54:29 +0000, MINe 109 wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > The prospect of replacing shelves was not something retailers wanted.
> > Remember the longbox? Or those security devices jewel-boxes were clamped
> > into?
> >
> > And cds don't take up less space on shelves...
> >
>
> Well, that's what I was told by a friendly local dealer who had just had
> his LP boxes ripped out & replaced by CD boxes... (I think his
> distributor payed a large lump of the cost if he would switch over to
> CDs completely). Mind you, they didn't use the CD clamps round here, just
> took the CDs out and stored them behind the counter the same way that they
> had always done with the LPs.

You mean the distributor *bribed* the retailer to eliminate lp?! :-)

Major labels and distributors had (have) many ways to impose their will
on retailers: payment for "returns"; coop advertising money; shelf-space
fees; display fees. Think of the fairly recent price "drop" announced by
a major label that had so many strings attached that independent
retailers couldn't afford to take the deal.

Stephen

mick

January 22nd 05, 10:17 PM

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:26:27 +0000, MINe 109 wrote:

<snip>
>
> You mean the distributor *bribed* the retailer to eliminate lp?! :-)
>

would *I* say a thing like that? ;-)
It certainly looked like it at the time... All the LPs out & replaced by
shiny new CDs on new shelving in one weekend - and a happy, smiling
shopkeeper on monday morning!

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

Arny Krueger

January 22nd 05, 10:45 PM

"mick" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:54:29 +0000, MINe 109 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>> The prospect of replacing shelves was not something retailers wanted.
>> Remember the longbox? Or those security devices jewel-boxes were
>> clamped into?
>>
>> And cds don't take up less space on shelves...
>>
>
> Well, that's what I was told by a friendly local dealer who had just
> had his LP boxes ripped out & replaced by CD boxes... (I think his
> distributor payed a large lump of the cost if he would switch over to
> CDs completely). Mind you, they didn't use the CD clamps round here,
> just took the CDs out and stored them behind the counter the same way
> that they had always done with the LPs.

It depends on how you do it.

You can put the CDs in nice little sleeves (tyvek or paper), and store a
whole bunch of them in not much space. It's been long known that the
traditional CD jewel box has at least twice as much volume as it needs to,
given that the office supply stores have been selling slim replacmeents for
years. Then, there are the common CD storage devices that essentially bind
plastic sleeves into a book.

For maximum storage density, store CDs on 250 GB hard drives. You can fit
about 500 popular CDs on one 250 GB hard drive with zero data compression,
more like 1,000 CDs if you want to use lossless compression. If you are
willing to convert the songs to MP3 lossy compression, you can inventory the
music on about 10,000 CDs on one 250 GB drive.

http://www.3btech.net/whlamadate25.html puts the retail delivered price of
a new 250 GB drive at less $115.

Of course, Dave Weil has an endless list of reasons why this is a horrible
idea. For one thing, thus hard drive technology didn't exist the year his
best high end speakers (Klipsch Cornwalls?) were built. Can't be done with
tubes. Can't buy the parts in a thrift store until late next year. The list
goes on and on!

Arny Krueger

January 22nd 05, 10:47 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> mick > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:54:29 +0000, MINe 109 wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> The prospect of replacing shelves was not something retailers
>>> wanted. Remember the longbox? Or those security devices jewel-boxes
>>> were clamped into?
>>>
>>> And cds don't take up less space on shelves...
>>>
>>
>> Well, that's what I was told by a friendly local dealer who had just
>> had his LP boxes ripped out & replaced by CD boxes... (I think his
>> distributor payed a large lump of the cost if he would switch over to
>> CDs completely). Mind you, they didn't use the CD clamps round here,
>> just took the CDs out and stored them behind the counter the same
>> way that they had always done with the LPs.
>
> You mean the distributor *bribed* the retailer to eliminate lp?! :-)

The new standard of radical subjectivist proof. "I think I was told some
years ago by a guy who is now out of business...

MINe 109

January 23rd 05, 01:03 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "mick" > wrote in message
>
> > On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:54:29 +0000, MINe 109 wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >>
> >> The prospect of replacing shelves was not something retailers wanted.
> >> Remember the longbox? Or those security devices jewel-boxes were
> >> clamped into?
> >>
> >> And cds don't take up less space on shelves...
> >>
> >
> > Well, that's what I was told by a friendly local dealer who had just
> > had his LP boxes ripped out & replaced by CD boxes... (I think his
> > distributor payed a large lump of the cost if he would switch over to
> > CDs completely). Mind you, they didn't use the CD clamps round here,
> > just took the CDs out and stored them behind the counter the same way
> > that they had always done with the LPs.
>
> It depends on how you do it.

You did notice we're talking about retail shelves?

> You can put the CDs in nice little sleeves (tyvek or paper), and store a
> whole bunch of them in not much space. It's been long known that the
> traditional CD jewel box has at least twice as much volume as it needs to,
> given that the office supply stores have been selling slim replacmeents for
> years. Then, there are the common CD storage devices that essentially bind
> plastic sleeves into a book.
>
> For maximum storage density, store CDs on 250 GB hard drives. You can fit
> about 500 popular CDs on one 250 GB hard drive with zero data compression,
> more like 1,000 CDs if you want to use lossless compression. If you are
> willing to convert the songs to MP3 lossy compression, you can inventory the
> music on about 10,000 CDs on one 250 GB drive.
>
> http://www.3btech.net/whlamadate25.html puts the retail delivered price of
> a new 250 GB drive at less $115.

Umm, I guess not.

> Of course, Dave Weil has an endless list of reasons why this is a horrible
> idea. For one thing, thus hard drive technology didn't exist the year his
> best high end speakers (Klipsch Cornwalls?) were built. Can't be done with
> tubes. Can't buy the parts in a thrift store until late next year. The list
> goes on and on!

Let dw get his own thread!

Stephen

[email protected]

January 23rd 05, 01:09 AM

ARNY>>It depends on how you do it.

You can put the CDs in nice little sleeves (tyvek or paper), and store
a
whole bunch of them in not much space. It's been long known that the
traditional CD jewel box has at least twice as much volume as it needs
to,
given that the office supply stores have been selling slim replacmeents
for
years. Then, there are the common CD storage devices that essentially
bind
plastic sleeves into a book.

For maximum storage density, store CDs on 250 GB hard drives. You can
fit
about 500 popular CDs on one 250 GB hard drive with zero data
compression,
more like 1,000 CDs if you want to use lossless compression. If you are

willing to convert the songs to MP3 lossy compression, you can
inventory the
music on about 10,000 CDs on one 250 GB drive.

http://www.3btech.net/whlamadate25.html puts the retail delivered price
of
a new 250 GB drive at less $115.

Of course, Dave Weil has an endless list of reasons why this is a
horrible
idea. For one thing, thus hard drive technology didn't exist the year
his
best high end speakers (Klipsch Cornwalls?) were built. Can't be done
with
tubes. Can't buy the parts in a thrift store until late next year. The
list
goes on and on! <<

This is a fallacious set of arguments even in the world of Krubarb.

First, neither the CD nor the hard drive constitutes archival storage,
as does the climate-controlled storage of LPs. The CD consists of a
sputtered layer of aluminum between two layers of Lexan polycarbonate.
Polycarbonate is a material not known for long term stability, worse,
the aluminum will form an oxide layer readily with exposure to oxygen
and become unreadable. Storage in a purely inert atmosphere may extend
its life, but there's no reliable evidence to suggest a CD may be
playable centuries hence even with the best storage. Burned CD's are a
dye process and their shelf life is expected to be shorter.

Hard drives are even more problematic because even if they survive-and
they are not known for colossal shelf life-their format and electrical
interface may not. There are many HDD standards used commonly 15-20
years ago that are no longer commonly supported: recovery becomes a
matter of sending the drive to a service facility, where if the data
isn't known to be important it won't justify the fee involved.

Don't tell us just to spit-swap the data continuously to newer
devices: that very definitely is not the meaning of archival. Archival
means the data may be buried, put in a cave, or otherwise put beyond
use for a long period of time. AFAIK the only truly archival digital
storage medium is punched Mylar ASCII or Baudot tape. The bit density
is abysmal, so much so that storing digital music-much less video-is
unfeasible this way.

Then Kroo brings up the MP3 compression format. MP3's are
significantly-very significantly-sub-CD quality.

These technologies, while having their purposes, are not wholly
suitable, in short, for reasons having nothing to do with the age of
Mr. Weil's speakers.

The germane issue overall is not that CD's are wholly good or wholly
bad, but that the CD was adopted for reasons primarily economic than
sonic, and that its design was less good for audio than the technology
of the time could have realized. Further, in adopting the CD, the
record industry set itself up for problems that it could and should
have foreseen. And thirdly, it has no one but itself to blame and
should be made to live with the consequences of its shortsighted
actions.

Arny Krueger

January 23rd 05, 01:49 AM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "mick" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:54:29 +0000, MINe 109 wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> The prospect of replacing shelves was not something retailers
>>>> wanted. Remember the longbox? Or those security devices
>>>> jewel-boxes were clamped into?
>>>>
>>>> And cds don't take up less space on shelves...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that's what I was told by a friendly local dealer who had just
>>> had his LP boxes ripped out & replaced by CD boxes... (I think his
>>> distributor payed a large lump of the cost if he would switch over
>>> to CDs completely). Mind you, they didn't use the CD clamps round
>>> here, just took the CDs out and stored them behind the counter the
>>> same way that they had always done with the LPs.

>> It depends on how you do it.

> You did notice we're talking about retail shelves?

Confusion between packaging and audio technology noted.

>> You can put the CDs in nice little sleeves (tyvek or paper), and
>> store a whole bunch of them in not much space. It's been long known
>> that the traditional CD jewel box has at least twice as much volume
>> as it needs to, given that the office supply stores have been
>> selling slim replacmeents for years. Then, there are the common CD
>> storage devices that essentially bind plastic sleeves into a book.

>> For maximum storage density, store CDs on 250 GB hard drives. You
>> can fit about 500 popular CDs on one 250 GB hard drive with zero
>> data compression, more like 1,000 CDs if you want to use lossless
>> compression. If you are willing to convert the songs to MP3 lossy
>> compression, you can inventory the music on about 10,000 CDs on one
>> 250 GB drive.

>> http://www.3btech.net/whlamadate25.html puts the retail delivered
>> price of a new 250 GB drive at less $115.

> Umm, I guess not.

Stephen so you're saying this is over your head? Figures.

>> Of course, Dave Weil has an endless list of reasons why this is a
>> horrible idea. For one thing, thus hard drive technology didn't
>> exist the year his best high end speakers (Klipsch Cornwalls?) were
>> built. Can't be done with tubes. Can't buy the parts in a thrift
>> store until late next year. The list goes on and on!

> Let dw get his own thread!

He keeps butting in with crap on threads that are obviously over his head,
as well. He's despirate to troll me.

Arny Krueger

January 23rd 05, 01:53 AM

> wrote in message
ups.com

> First, neither the CD nor the hard drive constitutes archival storage,
> as does the climate-controlled storage of LPs.

Wrong, given that climate-controlled storage of CDs constitutes archifal
storage.

As far as the hard drive goes, you can't dispose of the CDs because you need
to have proof of a legal license.

> The CD consists of a
> sputtered layer of aluminum between two layers of Lexan polycarbonate.
> Polycarbonate is a material not known for long term stability, worse,
> the aluminum will form an oxide layer readily with exposure to oxygen
> and become unreadable.

I've got the first CD I ever bought back in 1983, and it HASN'T been stored
in a climate-controlled environment. It still plays great.

> Storage in a purely inert atmosphere may extend
> its life, but there's no reliable evidence to suggest a CD may be
> playable centuries hence even with the best storage.

It exists Cal, but you apparently can't find it.

> Burned CD's are a
> dye process and their shelf life is expected to be shorter.

Here's one that I found in about 10 seconds:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/storage/pcd/techInfo/permanence5.jhtml?id=0.1.18.22.13.6.10&lc=en

> Hard drives are even more problematic because even if they survive-and
> they are not known for colossal shelf life-their format and electrical
> interface may not. There are many HDD standards used commonly 15-20
> years ago that are no longer commonly supported: recovery becomes a
> matter of sending the drive to a service facility, where if the data
> isn't known to be important it won't justify the fee involved.

Asked and answered.

MINe 109

January 23rd 05, 03:37 AM

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "mick" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:54:29 +0000, MINe 109 wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>> The prospect of replacing shelves was not something retailers
> >>>> wanted. Remember the longbox? Or those security devices
> >>>> jewel-boxes were clamped into?
> >>>>
> >>>> And cds don't take up less space on shelves...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Well, that's what I was told by a friendly local dealer who had just
> >>> had his LP boxes ripped out & replaced by CD boxes... (I think his
> >>> distributor payed a large lump of the cost if he would switch over
> >>> to CDs completely). Mind you, they didn't use the CD clamps round
> >>> here, just took the CDs out and stored them behind the counter the
> >>> same way that they had always done with the LPs.
>
> >> It depends on how you do it.
>
> > You did notice we're talking about retail shelves?
>
> Confusion between packaging and audio technology noted.

Yes, but it's your confusion.

> >> You can put the CDs in nice little sleeves (tyvek or paper), and
> >> store a whole bunch of them in not much space. It's been long known
> >> that the traditional CD jewel box has at least twice as much volume
> >> as it needs to, given that the office supply stores have been
> >> selling slim replacmeents for years. Then, there are the common CD
> >> storage devices that essentially bind plastic sleeves into a book.
>
> >> For maximum storage density, store CDs on 250 GB hard drives. You
> >> can fit about 500 popular CDs on one 250 GB hard drive with zero
> >> data compression, more like 1,000 CDs if you want to use lossless
> >> compression. If you are willing to convert the songs to MP3 lossy
> >> compression, you can inventory the music on about 10,000 CDs on one
> >> 250 GB drive.
>
> >> http://www.3btech.net/whlamadate25.html puts the retail delivered
> >> price of a new 250 GB drive at less $115.
>
> > Umm, I guess not.
>
> Stephen so you're saying this is over your head? Figures.

You didn't notice a connection between my two sentences? Or do you think
you can go to a music store and get a prepackaged cd from a hard drive?

> >> Of course, Dave Weil has an endless list of reasons why this is a
> >> horrible idea. For one thing, thus hard drive technology didn't
> >> exist the year his best high end speakers (Klipsch Cornwalls?) were
> >> built. Can't be done with tubes. Can't buy the parts in a thrift
> >> store until late next year. The list goes on and on!
>
> > Let dw get his own thread!
>
> He keeps butting in with crap on threads that are obviously over his head,
> as well. He's despirate to troll me.

I'll stand in this once (he can take of himself, obviously): record
shelves *had* been invented when Klipsch Cornwalls were built.

Stephen

PS Des Pirate?

[email protected]

January 23rd 05, 03:44 AM

Arny>I've got the first CD I ever bought back in 1983, and it HASN'T
been stored
in a climate-controlled environment. It still plays great.<

I'm glad, but others that old don't. Not all or even most, but some.
And you can't guarantee it will play in thirty or fifty more years. No
one can.

I am not saying the CD is worthless. It's cheap, convenient, compact,
relatively reliable, can be played an infinite number of times (within
its lifetime as determined elsewise) and so forth. But it's not
_absolutely_ superior to LP, or tape, or mag film, or for that matter
optical film, wax cylinder or Dictaphone belt. They all have
advantages, potentially, for certain possible applications.

The question should be, Was CD the best possible medium which could
have been developed for music recording sales at that time? And the
answer is ,probably not.

It was a camel, a horse designed by committee. The geeks said it has
to be the diameter of a 5 1/4" floppy or less, Karajan said it has to
play 72 minutes because that's the length of Beethoven's Ninth. (At
modern tempo, of course.) The sample rate was dictated by the ability
of the current tech-without getting into ECL power demands or GaAs
processes-to put that much data on there, and get it off, in that
space. They said back then that the brick wall was too close to the
limits of human hearing, 60 kHz sampling would have put the wall at 30
kHz and they could slowly start rolling off beforehand. Neve said it,
others said it. They were ignored. Had they come up with a 7" disc
with 60 khz sampling the PC industry would have developed their own
optical data disc, and in fact I still think Adolf Hitler Jobs (or his
SS commanders', derived from PARC and Symbolics just as Hitler emulated
Loyola) had the right idea with the opticartridge on the first NeXT
machines. We wouldn't have mass ripping CDs as we do today.

Of course, I am as happy to exploit this as anyone, I burn CDs from
the library all the time, especially from dead artists. But the fact
remains, the record industry made it too hard to resist. It's as if
carmakers refused to put locks on car doors or ignitions.

[email protected]

January 23rd 05, 03:46 AM

Oh yeah, I forgot.

P.S. **** Godwin. I want to say Hitler, I can say Hitler. Hitler Hitler
Hitler.

Arny Krueger

January 23rd 05, 03:57 AM

> wrote in message
ps.com

> Arny>

>I've got the first CD I ever bought back in 1983, and it HASN'T
> been stored
> in a climate-controlled environment. It still plays great.<

> I'm glad, but others that old don't.

Not stored in a proper archival environment.

Besides this is BS, How many LPs are stored in archival environments? LPs
fare generally fare far worse than CD, when stored in dusty or humid
environments.

>Not all or even most, but some.
> And you can't guarantee it will play in thirty or fifty more years. No
> one can.

Ditto for a LP.

> I am not saying the CD is worthless. It's cheap, convenient, compact,
> relatively reliable, can be played an infinite number of times (within
> its lifetime as determined elsewise) and so forth.

CDs also have far greater signal purity and when mastered reasonably well,
they sound a lot better than LP.

> But it's not _absolutely_ superior to LP, or tape, or mag film, or for
> that matter
> optical film, wax cylinder or Dictaphone belt. They all have
> advantages, potentially, for certain possible applications.

Potentially is a hedge word that can be used to justify redicuous claims and
arguments.

Name one thing that a LP does better than a CD other than filling up
landfills?

> The question should be, Was CD the best possible medium which could
> have been developed for music recording sales at that time? And the
> answer is ,probably not.

Best is another word that can be used to justify redicuous claims and
arguments, especially negative ones.

> It was a camel, a horse designed by committee. The geeks said it has
> to be the diameter of a 5 1/4" floppy or less,

Actually, they said that they wanted it to be pocket-sized. What's wrong
with that?

> Karajan said it has to play 72 minutes because that's the length of
> Beethoven's Ninth. (At
> modern tempo, of course.)

As compared to the purportedly superior LP that can't even do 36 minutes
without dynamic range compormises.

>The sample rate was dictated by the ability
> of the current tech-without getting into ECL power demands or GaAs
> processes-to put that much data on there, and get it off, in that
> space.

In fact, the sample rate is overkill. Audible effects due to sample rates
start becoming noticable some place around 36 KHz.

> They said back then that the brick wall was too close to the
> limits of human hearing,

"They said" is yet another phrase that can be used to justify redicuous
claims and arguments.

>60 kHz sampling would have put the wall at 30
> kHz and they could slowly start rolling off beforehand. Neve said it,
> others said it.

Neve has said a number of nutty things that he probably wouldn't have said
if he hadn't already have so many brain cells die off.

> They were ignored.

The people who ignored them are fairly easy to prove to be correct.

> Had they come up with a 7" disc
> with 60 khz sampling the PC industry would have developed their own
> optical data disc, and in fact I still think Adolf Hitler Jobs (or his
> SS commanders', derived from PARC and Symbolics just as Hitler
> emulated Loyola) had the right idea with the opticartridge on the
> first NeXT machines.

I seem to recall some industry analysts pointing out that there has never
been a sucessful mass-market medium that is based on a disk in a cartrdige.
This is a potential sticking point for the blu-ray DVD.

>We wouldn't have mass ripping CDs as we do today.

Why?

Clyde Slick

January 23rd 05, 04:41 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>>
> The new standard of radical subjectivist proof. "I think I was told some
> years ago by a guy who is now out of business...

As I am being told by a guy who runsa at least two businesses
and never earned a nickel, gross, at them.

1) pcabx
2) debating trade

Clyde Slick

January 23rd 05, 04:42 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

>. He's despirate to troll me.
>

I am dispirited that you haven't committed suicide yet.

dave weil

January 23rd 05, 07:04 AM

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:45:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Of course, Dave Weil has an endless list of reasons why this is a horrible
>idea. For one thing, thus hard drive technology didn't exist the year his
>best high end speakers (Klipsch Cornwalls?) were built.

Nope. My "best high end speakers" are the Merlin EXP IIIs. Hard drive
technology certainly *did* exist when they were built.

You can't even win when you gratuitiously mention me in such an
out-of-context way.

And the fact that I have over 2500 tracks on my computer belies your
point anyway.

dave weil

January 23rd 05, 07:10 AM

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:49:32 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"MINe 109" > wrote in message

>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> "mick" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:54:29 +0000, MINe 109 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> The prospect of replacing shelves was not something retailers
>>>>> wanted. Remember the longbox? Or those security devices
>>>>> jewel-boxes were clamped into?
>>>>>
>>>>> And cds don't take up less space on shelves...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, that's what I was told by a friendly local dealer who had just
>>>> had his LP boxes ripped out & replaced by CD boxes... (I think his
>>>> distributor payed a large lump of the cost if he would switch over
>>>> to CDs completely). Mind you, they didn't use the CD clamps round
>>>> here, just took the CDs out and stored them behind the counter the
>>>> same way that they had always done with the LPs.
>
>>> It depends on how you do it.
>
>> You did notice we're talking about retail shelves?
>
>Confusion between packaging and audio technology noted.

Good for you Arnold. Noting your confusion is the first step towards
self-awareness.

>>> You can put the CDs in nice little sleeves (tyvek or paper), and
>>> store a whole bunch of them in not much space. It's been long known
>>> that the traditional CD jewel box has at least twice as much volume
>>> as it needs to, given that the office supply stores have been
>>> selling slim replacmeents for years. Then, there are the common CD
>>> storage devices that essentially bind plastic sleeves into a book.
>
>>> For maximum storage density, store CDs on 250 GB hard drives. You
>>> can fit about 500 popular CDs on one 250 GB hard drive with zero
>>> data compression, more like 1,000 CDs if you want to use lossless
>>> compression. If you are willing to convert the songs to MP3 lossy
>>> compression, you can inventory the music on about 10,000 CDs on one
>>> 250 GB drive.
>
>>> http://www.3btech.net/whlamadate25.html puts the retail delivered
>>> price of a new 250 GB drive at less $115.
>
>> Umm, I guess not.
>
>Stephen so you're saying this is over your head? Figures.

It's obviously over *your* head, since the discussion is the retail
display of CDs and LPs.
>>> Of course, Dave Weil has an endless list of reasons why this is a
>>> horrible idea. For one thing, thus hard drive technology didn't
>>> exist the year his best high end speakers (Klipsch Cornwalls?) were
>>> built. Can't be done with tubes. Can't buy the parts in a thrift
>>> store until late next year. The list goes on and on!
>
>> Let dw get his own thread!
>
>He keeps butting in with crap on threads that are obviously over his head,
>as well. He's despirate to troll me.

Actually, I'm not "despirate" to do anything, but I have to note that
it's *you* who's trolling me here.

Arny Krueger

January 23rd 05, 10:13 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>> The new standard of radical subjectivist proof. "I think I was told
>> some years ago by a guy who is now out of business...
>
> As I am being told by a guy who runsa at least two businesses
> and never earned a nickel, gross, at them.
>
> 1) pcabx
> 2) debating trade

Inability to distinguish between businesses and hobbies, noted.

Arny Krueger

January 23rd 05, 10:14 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> . He's desperate to troll me.
>>
>
> I am dispirited that you haven't committed suicide yet.

Your loving concern for my welfare is appreciated.

Clyde Slick

January 23rd 05, 01:42 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>
>>> The new standard of radical subjectivist proof. "I think I was told
>>> some years ago by a guy who is now out of business...
>>
>> As I am being told by a guy who runsa at least two businesses
>> and never earned a nickel, gross, at them.
>>
>> 1) pcabx
>> 2) debating trade
>
> Inability to distinguish between businesses and hobbies, noted.
>

If irony smacked you in the forehead with a two by
four studded with rusty nails.

Clyde Slick

January 23rd 05, 01:44 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> . He's desperate to troll me.
>>>
>>
>> I am dispirited that you haven't committed suicide yet.
>
> Your loving concern for my welfare is appreciated.
>

I would be just as content if you merely slithered away into
the darkness, never to be heard from again.

Sander deWaal

January 23rd 05, 05:22 PM

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>: >Bon Jovi.

>: Not my hair!

> ehh, u lost me, there :)
>eR

John Bob Jovi....hair.....blown-up hairdryer........
'80s rock.......got it now?

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

Sander deWaal

January 23rd 05, 05:24 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>>> http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/engine90-crawford-NEW-PRODUCT-DEVELOPMENT-print.pdf
>>> starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that
>>> reads:

>>> Why CD?
>>> Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
>>> - market ready for innovation
>>> - alliance of key industrial leaders
>>> - superior product

>>> This is the generally-accepted factual story, not the self-pitying
>>> vinylphile conspiracy theory.

>> What do I see here?

>> "Philips president (Van der Klugt) and Sony CEO (Morita) were
>> buddies".

>> And:
>> "Record Industry reluctant, but creative and powerful marketing
>> overcame resistance because of strong customer and trade interest"

>> Earlier, you dismissed my story, based on the same facts.

>Wrong, and you know it. You presented different facts which happened to be
>wrong. I pointed that out to you Sander, and you've been in a snit ever
>since.

What facts were different?
I only mixed up "CEO" and "President".......

Woohoo......big deal!

God that I'm only here for "fun" ;-)

>Yawn.

Garbage on your lawn, anybody? ;-)

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

Arny Krueger

January 23rd 05, 05:56 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:

>>> Earlier, you dismissed my story, based on the same facts.

>> Wrong Sander, and you know it. You presented different facts which
>> happened
>> to be wrong. I pointed that out to you Sander, and you've been in a
>> snit ever since.

> What facts were different?

> I only mixed up "CEO" and "President"....

Wrong again. If you're not forthcoming with the truth, I really don't have
the time to waste on you Sander.

Arny Krueger

January 23rd 05, 05:57 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> . He's desperate to troll me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am dispirited that you haven't committed suicide yet.
>>
>> Your loving concern for my welfare is appreciated.
>>
>
> I would be just as content if you merely slithered away into
> the darkness, never to be heard from again.

I can tell you're just in it for the fun, Art.

Enjoy the snow! ;-)

Ruud Broens

January 23rd 05, 06:08 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > said:
:
: >: >Bon Jovi.
:
: >: Not my hair!
:
: > ehh, u lost me, there :)
: >eR
:
: John Bob Jovi....hair.....blown-up hairdryer........
: '80s rock.......got it now?
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

yeah...but my post didn't make it for more than 24h ;)
RB

Sander deWaal

January 23rd 05, 06:16 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>>> Earlier, you dismissed my story, based on the same facts.

>>> Wrong Sander, and you know it. You presented different facts which
>>> happened
>>> to be wrong. I pointed that out to you Sander, and you've been in a
>>> snit ever since.

>> What facts were different?

>> I only mixed up "CEO" and "President"....

>Wrong again. If you're not forthcoming with the truth, I really don't have
>the time to waste on you Sander.

I would not pretend to be worthy of any of your attention, Arnold.

Lack of self-awareness noted, note.

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

Sander deWaal

January 23rd 05, 06:16 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>I can tell you're just in it for the fun, Art.

Make that "fun ;-)", Arnold.

>Enjoy the snow! ;-)

What do you think when you're looking in a mirror? ;-)

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

Ruud Broens

January 23rd 05, 06:56 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Arny Krueger" > said:
:
: >I can tell you're just in it for the fun, Art.
:
: Make that "fun ;-)", Arnold.
:
: >Enjoy the snow! ;-)
:
: What do you think when you're looking in a mirror? ;-)
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

thank you for once again putting thoughts in my mirror.
as if, you could possibly know, i wannabee a space-man,
losts,
ok, for now, 'cocktails' will do
note, i have been there, in spirit, in space,
not done all that of cocktailin' ,
yet,
Arnru

Sander deWaal

January 23rd 05, 07:02 PM

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>: >I can tell you're just in it for the fun, Art.

>: Make that "fun ;-)", Arnold.

>: >Enjoy the snow! ;-)

>: What do you think when you're looking in a mirror? ;-)

>thank you for once again putting thoughts in my mirror.

Looking someone in the eyes is just as exciting Rudy-boy.
I can tell you're here for fun, for instance. Not both.

>as if, you could possibly know, i wannabee a space-man,

Wannabee would be a good description of your efforts here, Shoddy.
Space, the last frontier.
To baldly go where no barber has gone before.
Bon Jovi Revisited.

Is that a wig?

>losts,

Finders keeper's, looser's ;-) weepers!

>ok, for now, 'cocktails' will do

Cat's tails here.
Noblesse oblige, mon fils.

> note, i have been there, in spirit, in space,

When will you return?

> not done all that of cocktailin' ,

Legally? ;-)

>yet,

Its like, jet fighter's go "BOOM", mr. Bronski, NOT! ;-(

>Arnru

The ancient way of putting it.
On your lawn, that is.

ROTFLMEEEOOOOW!

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

Ruud Broens

January 23rd 05, 07:32 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > said:
:
: >: >I can tell you're just in it for the fun, Art.
:
: >: Make that "fun ;-)", Arnold.
:
: >: >Enjoy the snow! ;-)
:
: >: What do you think when you're looking in a mirror? ;-)
:
:
: >thank you for once again putting thoughts in my mirror.
:
: Looking someone in the eyes is just as exciting Rudy-boy.
: I can tell you're here for fun, for instance. Not both.
:
: >as if, you could possibly know, i wannabee a space-man,
:
: Wannabee would be a good description of your efforts here, Shoddy.
: Space, the last frontier.
: To baldly go where no barber has gone before.
: Bon Jovi Revisited.
:
: Is that a wig?
:
: >losts,
:
: Finders keeper's, looser's ;-) weepers!
:
: >ok, for now, 'cocktails' will do
:
: Cat's tails here.
: Noblesse oblige, mon fils.
:
: > note, i have been there, in spirit, in space,
:
: When will you return?
:
: > not done all that of cocktailin' ,
:
: Legally? ;-)
:
: >yet,
:
: Its like, jet fighter's go "BOOM", mr. Bronski, NOT! ;-(
:
: >Arnru
:
: The ancient way of putting it.
: On your lawn, that is.
:
: ROTFLMEEEOOOOW!
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

hmm. at least i'm not pretending to be the smart guy
in a, well known, brit.com.,
for insiders only, note,
Rudy

Sander deWaal

January 23rd 05, 07:37 PM

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>: >: >I can tell you're just in it for the fun, Art.

>: >: Make that "fun ;-)", Arnold.

>: >: >Enjoy the snow! ;-)

>: >: What do you think when you're looking in a mirror? ;-)

Note no relevant answer from mr. Raahdy.

>: >thank you for once again putting thoughts in my mirror.

>: Looking someone in the eyes is just as exciting Rudy-boy.
>: I can tell you're here for fun, for instance. Not both.

Note no relevant answer from mr. Raahdy.

>: >as if, you could possibly know, i wannabee a space-man,

>: Wannabee would be a good description of your efforts here, Shoddy.
>: Space, the last frontier.
>: To baldly go where no barber has gone before.
>: Bon Jovi Revisited.

>: Is that a wig?

Note no relevant answer from mr. Raahdy.

>: >losts,

>: Finders keeper's, looser's ;-) weepers!

Note no relevant answer from mr. Raahdy.

>: >ok, for now, 'cocktails' will do

>: Cat's tails here.
>: Noblesse oblige, mon fils.

Note no relevant answer from mr. Raahdy.

>: > note, i have been there, in spirit, in space,

>: When will you return?

Note no relevant answer from mr. Raahdy.

>: > not done all that of cocktailin' ,

>: Legally? ;-)

Note no relevant answer from mr. Raahdy.

>: >yet,

>: Its like, jet fighter's go "BOOM", mr. Bronski, NOT! ;-(

Note no relevant answer from mr. Raahdy.

>: >Arnru

>: The ancient way of putting it.
>: On your lawn, that is.

>: ROTFLMEEEOOOOW!

Note no relevant answer from mr. Raahdy.

>hmm. at least i'm not pretending to be the smart guy
>in a, well known, brit.com.,
>for insiders only, note,
>Rudy

Thanks mr. Deary for admitting you're pulling the string's of yet
another quagmire of sockpuppet's. MuCH ;-(

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

Ruud Broens

January 23rd 05, 07:50 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > said:
:
: >: >: >I can tell you're just in it for the fun, Art.
:
: >: >: Make that "fun ;-)", Arnold.
:
: >: >: >Enjoy the snow! ;-)
:
: >: >: What do you think when you're looking in a mirror? ;-)
:
: Note no relevant answer from mr. Raahdy.
:
: >: >thank you for once again putting thoughts in my mirror.
:
: >: Looking someone in the eyes is just as exciting Rudy-boy.
: >: I can tell you're here for fun, for instance. Not both.
:
: Note no relevant answer from mr. Raahdy.
:
: >: >as if, you could possibly know, i wannabee a space-man,
:
: >: Wannabee would be a good description of your efforts here, Shoddy.
: >: Space, the last frontier.
: >: To baldly go where no barber has gone before.
: >: Bon Jovi Revisited.
:
: >: Is that a wig?
:
: Note no relevant answer from mr. Raahdy.
:
: >: >losts,
:
: >: Finders keeper's, looser's ;-) weepers!
:
: Note no relevant answer from mr. Raahdy.
:
: >: >ok, for now, 'cocktails' will do
:
: >: Cat's tails here.
: >: Noblesse oblige, mon fils.
:
: Note no relevant answer from mr. Raahdy.
:
: >: > note, i have been there, in spirit, in space,
:
: >: When will you return?
:
: Note no relevant answer from mr. Raahdy.
:
: >: > not done all that of cocktailin' ,
:
: >: Legally? ;-)
:
: Note no relevant answer from mr. Raahdy.
:
: >: >yet,
:
: >: Its like, jet fighter's go "BOOM", mr. Bronski, NOT! ;-(
:
: Note no relevant answer from mr. Raahdy.
:
: >: >Arnru
:
: >: The ancient way of putting it.
: >: On your lawn, that is.
:
: >: ROTFLMEEEOOOOW!
:
: Note no relevant answer from mr. Raahdy.
:
: >hmm. at least i'm not pretending to be the smart guy
: >in a, well known, brit.com.,
: >for insiders only, note,
: >Rudy
:
: Thanks mr. Deary for admitting you're pulling the string's of yet
: another quagmire of sockpuppet's. MuCH ;-(
:
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Once again, Sander shows he doesn't understand the RAO way
as fi, relevance in posting, by itself, of itself, is relevant
let alone in the debating trade , or so
LOLO;
Rudy

Sander deWaal

January 23rd 05, 08:11 PM

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>Once again, Sander shows he doesn't understand the RAO way

Haw haw haw. Make me laugh, clown.
Doesn't understand the RAO way?
I *invented* it, rookie!

>as fi, relevance in posting, by itself, of itself, is relevant

If several thousand monkeys are typing away on Usenet, but they're all
in your killfile, will anyone recognize the occasional pearl of wisdom
that, statistically has to be among them?

Or, to rephrase: if an electron leaves the cathode in order to reach
the anode whilst controlled by the grid, and there's no speaker
connected, will there be anyone around hearing what design efforts
were made?

>let alone in the debating trade , or so

Such filth! Go wash out your mouth with snake oil, NOW!

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

Ruud Broens

January 23rd 05, 08:36 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > said:
:
: >Once again, Sander shows he doesn't understand the RAO way
:
: Haw haw haw. Make me laugh, clown.
: Doesn't understand the RAO way?
: I *invented* it, rookie!
:
: >as fi, relevance in posting, by itself, of itself, is relevant
:
: If several thousand monkeys are typing away on Usenet, but they're all
: in your killfile, will anyone recognize the occasional pearl of wisdom
: that, statistically has to be among them?
:
: Or, to rephrase: if an electron leaves the cathode in order to reach
: the anode whilst controlled by the grid, and there's no speaker
: connected, will there be anyone around hearing what design efforts
: were made?
:
: >let alone in the debating trade , or so
:
: Such filth! Go wash out your mouth with snake oil, NOW!
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

I'm listening to my guru. he's singing: no time to play
jazzmatazz !!
Rudy

Clyde Slick

January 23rd 05, 08:42 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> . He's desperate to troll me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am dispirited that you haven't committed suicide yet.
>>>
>>> Your loving concern for my welfare is appreciated.
>>>
>>
>> I would be just as content if you merely slithered away into
>> the darkness, never to be heard from again.
>
> I can tell you're just in it for the fun, Art.
>
> Enjoy the snow! ;-)
>

Clyde Slick

January 23rd 05, 08:43 PM

Clyde Slick

January 23rd 05, 08:43 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>>> Earlier, you dismissed my story, based on the same facts.
>
>>> Wrong Sander, and you know it. You presented different facts which
>>> happened
>>> to be wrong. I pointed that out to you Sander, and you've been in a
>>> snit ever since.
>
>> What facts were different?
>
>> I only mixed up "CEO" and "President"....
>
> Wrong again. If you're not forthcoming with the truth, I really don't have
> the time to waste on you Sander.
>
>

Clyde Slick

January 23rd 05, 08:44 PM

Sander deWaal

January 23rd 05, 08:47 PM

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>I'm listening to my guru. he's singing: no time to play
>jazzmatazz !!
>Rudy

Boring! Got 2 CDs by Guru, his voice just makes me feel like my
amplifier suddenly operates in class B.

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

Ruud Broens

January 23rd 05, 09:15 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > said:
:
: >I'm listening to my guru. he's singing: no time to play
: >jazzmatazz !!
: >Rudy
:
: Boring! Got 2 CDs by Guru, his voice just makes me feel like my
: amplifier suddenly operates in class B.
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

true. But this track issa da message, monsieur :-0

back when is was, in paris, traffic jammed, great, sunshine,
Seine et les filles, window down, playin
Marcus Miller - some live tracks , volume near max.
Sweeet Paris,
Rudy;)

Sander deWaal

January 23rd 05, 09:31 PM

"Ruud Broens" > said:

> Marcus Miller - some live tracks , volume near max.

Yep. My fav subwoofer test - Tales.

You're not assuming my stealth CX comes without an appropriate sound
system, are you? ;-)

A nice farewell to my soon-to-be-ex-neighbors: playing this one with
the trunk wide open!

BTW anything with Dennis Chambers is pretty OK as well.
I once attended a clinic from this guy......amazing!

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

[email protected]

January 23rd 05, 09:40 PM

Rupert Neve has a colossal track record of success in this business,
Arny. Not to be rude, you don't. I do not always agree with Neve, but
I can't ignore what he has to say. And his demo with a function
generator seems pretty valid to me, especially because others have
repeated the test with levels matched both for peak-to-peak (DC coupled
scope, 50X bandwidth available over measured), and for RMS voltage
measured with a thermocouple audio VTVM, which Fluke claims aside is
the last word on "true RMS" when properly calibrated. Since the same
meter was used consecutively the level matching has to be good.

LPs are themselves unaffected by humidity, unless a fungus attacks the
vinyl itself (although the label ,cover, and dust jacket may suffer)
and as long as it is not embedded by dirty play, dirt-they are
cleanable. Indeed, phono records recovered from the sunken cruiseliner
Andrea Doria-after nearly five decades in 250 feet of Atlantic
sal****er-are playable today. (If they weren't scratched by clumsy
recovery efforts.)

Humor me, Arny. Get a CD and play it to make sure it has no problems,
and then have a friend, if you have any, who has a sal****er fish tank
put the CD in the tank for one year. See if after you take it out and
wash it off, if it's still playable. One year at one foot is different
from 50 at 250 feet, of course, but let's start simple.

Finally, the LP is recyclable-it can be melted down to make other
products, although, hopefully, not other LPs (although that was done
extensively). They also have fuel value, when incinerated in a proper
oxidizing flame they are ecologically good fuel.

Ruud Broens

January 23rd 05, 09:45 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > said:
:
: > Marcus Miller - some live tracks , volume near max.
:
: Yep. My fav subwoofer test - Tales.
:
: You're not assuming my stealth CX comes without an appropriate sound
: system, are you? ;-)
:
: A nice farewell to my soon-to-be-ex-neighbors: playing this one with
: the trunk wide open!
:
: BTW anything with Dennis Chambers is pretty OK as well.
: I once attended a clinic from this guy......amazing!
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Wooohooo !! Tales :-))
(gonna check Dennis out:)
Rudy

Arny Krueger

January 23rd 05, 10:03 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com

> Rupert Neve has a colossal track record of success in this business,
> Arny. Not to be rude, you don't. > I do not always agree with Neve,

IOW you don't extend to me the right to disagree with Neve that you give
yourself, Cal. End of discussion, due to your obvious hypocracy.

Lionel

January 23rd 05, 10:06 PM

Ruud Broens a écrit :
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
> : "Ruud Broens" > said:
> :
> : > Marcus Miller - some live tracks , volume near max.
> :
> : Yep. My fav subwoofer test - Tales.
> :
> : You're not assuming my stealth CX comes without an appropriate sound
> : system, are you? ;-)
> :
> : A nice farewell to my soon-to-be-ex-neighbors: playing this one with
> : the trunk wide open!
> :
> : BTW anything with Dennis Chambers is pretty OK as well.
> : I once attended a clinic from this guy......amazing!
> :
> : --
> : Sander de Waal
> : " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "
>
> Wooohooo !! Tales :-))
> (gonna check Dennis out:)

....and Miroslav Vitous : Universal Syncopations.

Sander deWaal

January 23rd 05, 10:08 PM

Lionel > said:

>> (gonna check Dennis out:)

Dennis is awesome. Check out "Petite Blonde" for instance.

>...and Miroslav Vitous : Universal Syncopations.

Miroslav still around?
I know him only from early Weather Report.

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

[email protected]

January 23rd 05, 10:12 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> > Rupert Neve has a colossal track record of success in this
business,
> > Arny. Not to be rude, you don't. > I do not always agree with
Neve,
>
> IOW you don't extend to me the right to disagree with Neve that you
give
> yourself, Cal. End of discussion, due to your obvious hypocracy.

You didn't disagree with him: you dismissed him, stating that he had
lost a large number of brain cells.

Rupert Neve isn't young, to be sure, but I have seen or heard nothing
to indicate he is not still very much on the ball.

Arny Krueger

January 23rd 05, 10:13 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:

>> IOW you don't extend to me the right to disagree with Neve that you
>> give yourself, Cal. End of discussion, due to your obvious hypocracy.

> Like you "extend the right to me" to disagree with e.g. you.

You've just defeated yourself Sander, because you just disagreed with me.
Just because I disagree with your disagreement doesn't mean that I've
claimed that you have no right to disagree with me.

What Cal said is that I don't have the right to disagree with Neve, but that
he somehow does have the right to disagree with Neve.

Furthermore, its not like I made up all of the disagreements I have with
Neve. Lots of people see the fallicies, weaknesses and irrelevancy of many
of his claims.

> "Hypocrisy", anyone? ;-)

Still looking for relevance Sander, or just having fun contradicting
yourself, again?

Sander deWaal

January 23rd 05, 10:15 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>> IOW you don't extend to me the right to disagree with Neve that you
>>> give yourself, Cal. End of discussion, due to your obvious hypocracy.

^^^^^^^^
>> Like you "extend the right to me" to disagree with e.g. you.

>You've just defeated yourself Sander, because you just disagreed with me.
>Just because I disagree with your disagreement doesn't mean that I've
>claimed that you have no right to disagree with me.

>What Cal said is that I don't have the right to disagree with Neve, but that
>he somehow does have the right to disagree with Neve.

>Furthermore, its not like I made up all of the disagreements I have with
>Neve. Lots of people see the fallicies, weaknesses and irrelevancy of many
>of his claims.

You semantic clown, you! ;-)

>> "Hypocrisy", anyone? ;-)

That's not what I said.^Deceptive editing, anyone? ;-)

>Still looking for relevance Sander, or just having fun contradicting
>yourself, again?

Arnold, why didn't you correct your own "hypocracy" as well?
This is all very transparent, you know. ;-)

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

Lionel

January 23rd 05, 10:18 PM

Sander deWaal a écrit :
> Lionel > said:
>
>
>>>(gonna check Dennis out:)
>
>
> Dennis is awesome. Check out "Petite Blonde" for instance.
>
>
>>...and Miroslav Vitous : Universal Syncopations.
>
>
> Miroslav still around?
> I know him only from early Weather Report.

He's back with this album with very "nice" friends : Jan Garbarek, Chick
Corea, John McLaughlin, Jack DeJohnette.
It's one of the good things I had the chance to purchase last year.

Sander deWaal

January 23rd 05, 10:20 PM

Lionel > said:

>He's back with this album with very "nice" friends : Jan Garbarek, Chick
>Corea, John McLaughlin, Jack DeJohnette.
>It's one of the good things I had the chance to purchase last year.

Thanks, I'll take a look tomorrow!

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

Clyde Slick

January 23rd 05, 10:23 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
>
> BTW anything with Dennis Chambers is pretty OK as well.
> I once attended a clinic from this guy......amazing!
>

I got to play with him once, at a jam at a pub right up the street.
My band was the host band, our drummer was a friend of his,
and he showed up.
When he went into a 25 minute solo, the crowd including the bar staff
was mesmerized. You couldn't get a drink order in, the bartenders
didn't want to divert their attention away from him, not even for a second.

Clyde Slick

January 23rd 05, 10:26 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

...... due to your obvious hypocracy.
>

Be more tolerant, Arny, we live in a democricy.

Clyde Slick

January 23rd 05, 10:27 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Ruud Broens a écrit :

>
> ...and Miroslav Vitous : Universal Syncopations.

Yes! I preferred him over Jaco.

Sander deWaal

January 23rd 05, 10:29 PM

"Clyde Slick" > said:

>> ...and Miroslav Vitous : Universal Syncopations.

>Yes! I preferred him over Jaco.

Heresy! :-)

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

Clyde Slick

January 23rd 05, 10:31 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>> IOW you don't extend to me the right to disagree with Neve that you
>>> give yourself, Cal. End of discussion, due to your obvious hypocracy.
>
>> Like you "extend the right to me" to disagree with e.g. you.
>
> You've just defeated yourself Sander, because you just disagreed with me.
> Just because I disagree with your disagreement doesn't mean that I've
> claimed that you have no right to disagree with me.
>
> What Cal said is that I don't have the right to disagree with Neve, but
> that he somehow does have the right to disagree with Neve.
>
> Furthermore, its not like I made up all of the disagreements I have with
> Neve. Lots of people see the fallicies, weaknesses and irrelevancy of many
> of his claims.
>
>> "Hypocrisy", anyone? ;-)
>
> Still looking for relevance Sander, or just having fun contradicting
> yourself, again?
>

Clyde Slick

January 23rd 05, 10:32 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> You've just defeated yourself Sander, because you just disagreed with me.

Kroologic at its so-called best.

Ruud Broens

January 23rd 05, 10:48 PM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > BTW anything with Dennis Chambers is pretty OK as well.
: > I once attended a clinic from this guy......amazing!
: >
:
: I got to play with him once, at a jam at a pub right up the street.
: My band was the host band, our drummer was a friend of his,
: and he showed up.
: When he went into a 25 minute solo, the crowd including the bar staff
: was mesmerized. You couldn't get a drink order in, the bartenders
: didn't want to divert their attention away from him, not even for a second.
:
Great !!
Had a somewhat simular experience, once, in the 'melkweg' [Milky Way-A'dam].:-)
Incredible all-style bass guitarist - dunno his name, though :(
Rudy

Arny Krueger

January 23rd 05, 11:01 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com

> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com

>>> Rupert Neve has a colossal track record of success in this business,
>>> Arny. Not to be rude, you don't. > I do not always agree with
>>> Neve,

>> IOW you don't extend to me the right to disagree with Neve that you
>> give yourself, Cal. End of discussion, due to your obvious hypocracy.

> You didn't disagree with him: you dismissed him,

You dismsissed me with equal vigor, Cal.

BTW Cal this shows a lot about you. You don't realize that dismissing your
opponent at the beginning of a discussion isn't a real productive thing do
to, do you?

You really don't know what the buzz is about Neve, do you Cal?

People sometimes start losing it at some point in their lives. The smart
ones smile a lot and cut a low profile. I'm betting from your comments Cal
that this might even apply to you. How old are you?

> stating that he had lost a large number of brain cells.

Given Neve's age, that he has lost many brain cells is a scientific fact.

> Rupert Neve isn't young, to be sure, but I have seen or heard nothing
> to indicate he is not still very much on the ball.

Many of his recent comments speak for themselves, but not well. Besides you
don't get it, do you Cal? Heading up a technical business doesn't gurarantee
that you are on top of that business, technically.

Ruud Broens

January 23rd 05, 11:17 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
:
: Given Neve's age, that he has lost many brain cells is a scientific fact.

....but is it a scientific fact that: many brain cells, lost equals cognitive
abilities gone south ??
Rudy
sciencecontrb

[email protected]

January 23rd 05, 11:56 PM

I'm in my mid-40's, which is probably younger than you are, Arny.
Nonetheless I deal with old-sometimes really old- people that are far
more knowledgeable than I am on various subjects, usually things they
learned early on and use on a regular basis. I was discussing something
with a retired airline mechanic yesterday-whose age I could indirectly
infer as late 70's-who could accurately quote a P&W engine manual he
hadn't seen since JFK was president, and explained in detail how a
troubleshooting procedure was performed in the late 1950s before more
modern test equipment made it redundant. He knew where various
fittings and connectors were and how many bolts held a cover on, on an
engine that had been out of airline service since probably 1965. If
you are a tech history buff and talk to these old guys you will see
this. On other topics they may be totally full of ****, but on what
they did, repeatedly, they are usually very sharp, until dementia sets
in.

The fact is that a lot of very smart people in the field disagree
with your contentions about _many_ things, yet, you always point to
some allegedly scientific ABX test as making them fools. The fact is
that the history of audio engineering has been one in which the cranks
have historically been, if not inerrant, much more often than not shown
to have some basis for their ideas. The "scientific" lab people have
been wrong, and not once but repeatedly. Yet, you are out here pooping
on the lawn of every single thing you don't find congruent with some
test published that just happens to agree with your ideas.

In this business, change has always had good and bad aspects, because
the driving engine has always been cost cutting, cheapening, and
increasing profits. The mass merchandizers have attacked one end by
rampant cost cutting, equally rampant discounting, and making out on
the volume. The High End /boutique /salo(o)n operators have tried to
run up the sale price with cosmetics, flowery sales bull****, and (yes)
techno-nonsense while keeping build cost modest. The bottom line is
that there is no free lunch-excellent performance, reliability,
serviceability, and sound quality involve space, power draw, weight,
and quality materials and skilled labor.

There is mass market big box retail audio and then there is the
serious pursuit of sonic excellence, whether for home, recording
studio, or whatever, and whether by determined amateurs or competent
bona fide professionals. You can buy a packaged home system at Best Buy
or a real pair of speakers, amplifiers and sources: you can record on
an Amek or AMS Neve board or a Mackie. You tell me they are the same,
I'll tell you you are full of ****.

And you know I'm right.

Arny Krueger

January 24th 05, 12:56 AM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Given Neve's age, that he has lost many brain cells is a scientific
>> fact.

> ...but is it a scientific fact that: many brain cells, lost equals
> cognitive abilities gone south ??

There's some non-trivial relationship between the two. Tell you what Rudy,
why not volunteer for a reduction of your brain cells equal to that of an 80
year old man and report back with your opinions of the matter.

Arny Krueger

January 24th 05, 01:16 AM

> wrote in message
ups.com

> The fact is that a lot of very smart people in the field disagree
> with your contentions about _many_ things, yet, you always point to
> some allegedly scientific ABX test as making them fools.

There are also a ton of people who agree with my contentions about ABX
tests, most of whom have better things to do than try to educate people who
want to be educated, or at least won't pay for the experience.

>The fact is
> that the history of audio engineering has been one in which the cranks
> have historically been, if not inerrant, much more often than not
> shown to have some basis for their ideas.

"Some basis"often involves a giving a lot of undeserved credit, particularly
in audio.

For example, the Marsh and Jung capacitor dielectric absorbtion weirdness
has been published for 25 years, but the JAES and everybody with a brain
still isn't buying it.

>The "scientific" lab people
> have been wrong, and not once but repeatedly.

Unlike your typical Usenet posturing fool, so-called lab people are involved
in a self-correcting process called science. I think you're talking out the
back of your neck Rudy and can't cite one JAES article that has been
published by the so-called scientific lab people who get published in the
JAES over the last 25 years that has subsequently proven to be wrong.

> Yet, you are out here
> pooping on the lawn of every single thing you don't find congruent
> with some test published that just happens to agree with your ideas.

It only seems that way to you Cal. I only target well-known junk. Many of
the claims I make can be easily be verified by tests that people can confirm
for themselves. I don't live in an ivory tower. I do live sound, I record
music, I listen to music for enjoyment, I build audio gear, etc.

> The bottom
> line is that there is no free lunch-excellent performance,
> reliability, serviceability, and sound quality involve space, power
> draw, weight, and quality materials and skilled labor.

The bottom line is that situations like these improve as time marches on. It
didn't used to be that a $30 digital audio player measured better than
about half of the high end players reviewed by Stereophile, but its true
now.

> There is mass market big box retail audio and then there is the
> serious pursuit of sonic excellence, whether for home, recording
> studio, or whatever, and whether by determined amateurs or competent
> bona fide professionals.

A lot of the so-called bona fide professionals in audio's high end aren't
well-qualified to make the pronouncements and claims that they make.

>You can buy a packaged home system at Best
> Buy or a real pair of speakers, amplifiers and sources: you can
> record on an Amek or AMS Neve board or a Mackie. You tell me they are
> the same, I'll tell you you are full of ****.

Thanks Rudy for putting all these words in my mouth. I'm so tired of your
silly posturing that I won't bother to respond.

Fact is Rudy, you'll tell me I'm full of it no matter what I say as long as
I don't pat you on the head while you ride that little hobby horse.

> And you know I'm right.

RCal, I know that I've had a field day deconstructing your weirdness. You've
been one of the most out-of-touch people I've seen posting as if you were
some kind of expert, in years. You're good sport. So, thanks for playing.

Clyde Slick

January 24th 05, 01:18 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> oups.com
>
>>>> Rupert Neve has a colossal track record of success in this business,
>>>> Arny. Not to be rude, you don't. > I do not always agree with
>>>> Neve,
>
>>> IOW you don't extend to me the right to disagree with Neve that you
>>> give yourself, Cal. End of discussion, due to your obvious hypocracy.
>
>> You didn't disagree with him: you dismissed him,
>
> You dismsissed me with equal vigor, Cal.
>
> BTW Cal this shows a lot about you. You don't realize that dismissing your
> opponent at the beginning of a discussion isn't a real productive thing do
> to, do you?
>
> You really don't know what the buzz is about Neve, do you Cal?
>
> People sometimes start losing it at some point in their lives. The smart
> ones smile a lot and cut a low profile. I'm betting from your comments Cal
> that this might even apply to you. How old are you?
>
>> stating that he had lost a large number of brain cells.
>
> Given Neve's age, that he has lost many brain cells is a scientific fact.
>
>> Rupert Neve isn't young, to be sure, but I have seen or heard nothing
>> to indicate he is not still very much on the ball.
>
> Many of his recent comments speak for themselves, but not well. Besides
> you don't get it, do you Cal? Heading up a technical business doesn't
> gurarantee that you are on top of that business, technically.
>

Isn't it nice when you make new friends?

Clyde Slick

January 24th 05, 01:19 AM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'm in my mid-40's, which is probably younger than you are, Arny.
> Nonetheless I deal with old-sometimes really old- people that are far
> more knowledgeable than I am on various subjects, usually things they
> learned early on and use on a regular basis. I was discussing something
> with a retired airline mechanic yesterday-whose age I could indirectly
> infer as late 70's-who could accurately quote a P&W engine manual he
> hadn't seen since JFK was president, and explained in detail how a
> troubleshooting procedure was performed in the late 1950s before more
> modern test equipment made it redundant. He knew where various
> fittings and connectors were and how many bolts held a cover on, on an
> engine that had been out of airline service since probably 1965. If
> you are a tech history buff and talk to these old guys you will see
> this. On other topics they may be totally full of ****, but on what
> they did, repeatedly, they are usually very sharp, until dementia sets
> in.
>
> The fact is that a lot of very smart people in the field disagree
> with your contentions about _many_ things, yet, you always point to
> some allegedly scientific ABX test as making them fools. The fact is
> that the history of audio engineering has been one in which the cranks
> have historically been, if not inerrant, much more often than not shown
> to have some basis for their ideas. The "scientific" lab people have
> been wrong, and not once but repeatedly. Yet, you are out here pooping
> on the lawn of every single thing you don't find congruent with some
> test published that just happens to agree with your ideas.
>
> In this business, change has always had good and bad aspects, because
> the driving engine has always been cost cutting, cheapening, and
> increasing profits. The mass merchandizers have attacked one end by
> rampant cost cutting, equally rampant discounting, and making out on
> the volume. The High End /boutique /salo(o)n operators have tried to
> run up the sale price with cosmetics, flowery sales bull****, and (yes)
> techno-nonsense while keeping build cost modest. The bottom line is
> that there is no free lunch-excellent performance, reliability,
> serviceability, and sound quality involve space, power draw, weight,
> and quality materials and skilled labor.
>
> There is mass market big box retail audio and then there is the
> serious pursuit of sonic excellence, whether for home, recording
> studio, or whatever, and whether by determined amateurs or competent
> bona fide professionals. You can buy a packaged home system at Best Buy
> or a real pair of speakers, amplifiers and sources: you can record on
> an Amek or AMS Neve board or a Mackie. You tell me they are the same,
> I'll tell you you are full of ****.
>
> And you know I'm right.
>

Clyde Slick

January 24th 05, 01:20 AM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'm in my mid-40's, which is probably younger than you are, Arny.

Arny was last reported to be 58.

Clyde Slick

January 24th 05, 01:22 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Given Neve's age, that he has lost many brain cells is a scientific
>>> fact.
>
>> ...but is it a scientific fact that: many brain cells, lost equals
>> cognitive abilities gone south ??
>
> There's some non-trivial relationship between the two. Tell you what Rudy,
> why not volunteer for a reduction of your brain cells equal to that of an
> 80 year old man and report back with your opinions of the matter.
>

He probably would be able to do some high level thinking, though
he likely would forget where he put his glasses.

Robert Morein

January 24th 05, 01:43 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/engine90-crawford-NEW-PRODUCT-DEVELOPMENT-print.pdf
>
> starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that
reads:
>
> Why CD?
> Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
> - market ready for innovation
> - alliance of key industrial leaders
> - superior product
>
>
> This is the generally-accepted factual story, not the self-pitying
> vinylphile conspiracy theory.
>
>

Excellent Laxative (Ex-Lax)

Max Kiss, a druggist in NY, recognized

the future of over-the-counter medications

and mixed a known laxative into chocolate

that tasted good even to children (1905).

.. Combined two existing materials

to make a new product.

.. Insight into future of over-the-counter remedies

and market.

Why didn't I think of that,Freeman and Golden

Bruce J. Richman

January 24th 05, 01:53 AM

Ruud Broens wrote:

>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>:
>: Given Neve's age, that he has lost many brain cells is a scientific fact.
>
>...but is it a scientific fact that: many brain cells, lost equals
>cognitive
>abilities gone south ??
>Rudy
>sciencecontrb
>
>

Not in any meaningful sense for most older people. There are plenty of
examples of people in their 70's and 80's who are functioning at very high
cognitive levels. I've evaluated people who had the misfortune to be suffering
from Alzheimer's-type or multi-infarct dementia as early as in their 50's, but
I've also evaluated people in their 70's, 80's and even a few in their 90's who
were able to do quite well on a standardized mental status exam which measures
memory functions, knowledge of current events, basic math skills,
comprehension, etc.

s
Bruce J. Richman

Ruud Broens

January 24th 05, 01:54 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
:
:
: > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: > ...
: >
: >> Given Neve's age, that he has lost many brain cells is a scientific
: >> fact.
:
: > ...but is it a scientific fact that: many brain cells, lost equals
: > cognitive abilities gone south ??
:
: There's some non-trivial relationship between the two. Tell you what Rudy,
: why not volunteer for a reduction of your brain cells equal to that of an 80
: year old man and report back with your opinions of the matter.
:
inability to differentiate between *many* and *too many* noted.
deslusions of ability to correctly interpret highly specialites repoting noded.
jokin; arnii?
Rufy

Clyde Slick

January 24th 05, 02:00 AM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> jokin; arnii?
> Rufy
>

Arny never jokes, even when he's joking.

Ruud Broens

January 24th 05, 02:03 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: > wrote in message
: ups.com
:
: Unlike your typical Usenet posturing fool, so-called lab people are involved
: in a self-correcting process called science. I think you're talking out the
: back of your neck Rudy and can't cite one JAES article that has been
: published by the so-called scientific lab people who get published in the
: JAES over the last 25 years that has subsequently proven to be wrong.
:
:
:
: Thanks Rudy for putting all these words in my mouth. I'm so tired of your
: silly posturing that I won't bother to respond.
:
: Fact is Rudy, you'll tell me I'm full of it no matter what I say as long as
: I don't pat you on the head while you ride that little hobby horse.
:
: > And you know I'm right.
I've seen posting as if you were
: some kind of expert, in years. You're good sport. So, thanks for playing.
:
Eeerrr, Cal,
are you having as good a time as i am, here :-))) ?
just 4 fun,
Rudy

Ruud Broens

January 24th 05, 02:40 AM

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens wrote:
:
: >"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: ...
: >:
: >: Given Neve's age, that he has lost many brain cells is a scientific fact.
: >
: >...but is it a scientific fact that: many brain cells, lost equals
: >cognitive
: >abilities gone south ??
: >Rudy
: >sciencecontrb
: >
: >
:
: Not in any meaningful sense for most older people. There are plenty of
: examples of people in their 70's and 80's who are functioning at very high
: cognitive levels. I've evaluated people who had the misfortune to be suffering
: from Alzheimer's-type or multi-infarct dementia as early as in their 50's, but
: I've also evaluated people in their 70's, 80's and even a few in their 90's who
: were able to do quite well on a standardized mental status exam which measures
: memory functions, knowledge of current events, basic math skills,
: comprehension, etc.
:
:
: s
: Bruce J. Richman
:
Thank you Bruce, for showing your ability to immensely upgrade your posting,
quality lately :-)
yours,
Rudy

Nousaine

January 24th 05, 04:10 AM

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

>
>> The price of cd's never came down
>
>The price of new LPs went up.

Many people forget the pricing trends of Lps which had doubled from the late
70s by the early 80s and had shown no possibility of slowing .... until cd was
a reality. Further the price of cds was actually the same or lower than the
better quality and direct-cut lps at the time of cd introduction ($16 to $25
for Sheffield and stuff like the Crytal Clear 45s.)

Clyde Slick

January 24th 05, 04:22 AM

"Nousaine" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" wrote:
>
>
>>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

>>
>>> The price of cd's never came down
>>
>>The price of new LPs went up.
>
> Many people forget the pricing trends of Lps which had doubled from the
> late
> 70s by the early 80s and had shown no possibility of slowing .... until cd
> was
> a reality. Further the price of cds was actually the same or lower than
> the
> better quality and direct-cut lps at the time of cd introduction ($16 to
> $25
> for Sheffield and stuff like the Crytal Clear 45s.)

Early cd's REALLY sucked. At the time a standard lp was $7.99 and a standard
cd was $12.99

Bruce J. Richman

January 24th 05, 04:59 AM

Ruud Broens wrote:

> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
> ...
> : Ruud Broens wrote:
> :
> : >"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : >:
> : >: Given Neve's age, that he has lost many brain cells is a
scientific fact.
> : >
> : >...but is it a scientific fact that: many brain cells, lost
equals
> : >cognitive
> : >abilities gone south ??
> : >Rudy
> : >sciencecontrb
> : >
> : >
> :
> : Not in any meaningful sense for most older people. There are
plenty of
> : examples of people in their 70's and 80's who are functioning at
very high
> : cognitive levels. I've evaluated people who had the misfortune to
be suffering
> : from Alzheimer's-type or multi-infarct dementia as early as in
their 50's, but
> : I've also evaluated people in their 70's, 80's and even a few in
their 90's who
> : were able to do quite well on a standardized mental status exam
which measures
> : memory functions, knowledge of current events, basic math skills,
> : comprehension, etc.
> :
> :
> : s
> : Bruce J. Richman
> :
> Thank you Bruce, for showing your ability to immensely upgrade your
posting,
> quality lately :-)
> yours,
> Rudy

Does that mean you will also be condemning others for consistently
ignoring any semblance of quality in theirs? Somehow, amidst the
sarcasm, I must have missed your critical analysis of the posts of
others with whom you seem to agree, especially in the area of
personality assessment. (Even though they know nothing about it).

I shall look forward with anticipation to your objective assessment of
your "friends", especially those that pretend to know womething about
the personal and professional abilities of others. :)

Generally speaking, like most good therapists, I try to respond to
people in the way they respond to me. In other words, mmet them at
their "level". Sometimes that's high, and sometimes that's low. :)

Robert Morein

January 24th 05, 05:39 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Corrected formatting!
>
> Please see:
>
> >
http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/engine90-crawford-NEW-PRODUCT-DEVELOPMENT-print.pdf
> starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that
reads:
>
> Why CD?
> Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
> - market ready for innovation
> - alliance of key industrial leaders
> - superior product
>
>
> This is the generally-accepted factual story, not the self-pitying
> vinylphile conspiracy theory.
>
>
One note: I can believe that the concept of an optically read disk was
around since the 1950's, but there was no way to read the current geometry
without a laser, and no way to make it commercially viable without a solid
state laser.
Further, Reed-Solomon error correction could not be accomplished
economically till the advent of LSI.

Without intending to detract from the legitimacy of the example, it could be
better said that by the late 70's, the CD was "technologically pregnant",
meaning that all the elements were available.
From http://www.bell-labs.com/about/history/laser/contrib.html,
1976: First demonstration of a semiconductor laser operating continuously at
room temperature at a wavelength beyond 1 micron, the forerunner of sources
for long-wavelength lightwave systems.

1977: Solid-state laser with lifetime of 1 million hours, or 100 years,
overcoming initial short lifetimes.

ludovic mirabel

January 24th 05, 06:53 AM

> The fact is that a lot of very smart people in the field disagree
> with your contentions about _many_ things, yet, you always point to
> some allegedly scientific ABX test as making them fools

"Allegedly" is the operative word. A test aspiring to be "scientific" has to
be shown to work for its purpose. ABX has never been *validated* for showing
differences between components. On the contrary: all the reputably
published ABX comparisons show that when ABXing most people are deafened to
any difference between anything and anything else in audio- inluding
loudspeakers (see Sean Olive's latest JAES report).
For centuries believers screamed,, tortured, burnt at the stake in the name
of one sacred book or another. Shouting "scientific" is the modern
equivalent. Remember "scientific socialism" Stalin edition, or Christian
Science, or Scientology?
As for engineers , with all due respect, they may know how things are made.
But on how their product will affect the cortical auditory centres they
are no more experts than Mr. Stradivarius would be on what Vivaldi or Bach
would get from his violin.
It just flatters some people to believe that if they can not hear no one
else can either. But whenever they use examples they talk about canned,
electronically reproduced pop. Nothing wrong with that but electronics will
sound like electronics when reproduced electronically.
Some audiophiles (and some of the best, original, high-end
engineers designer, such as Meitner, D'Appolito etc.) want to come as close
as possible to the sound of musical instruments.
(though it will never be 100% right, alas)
Ludovic Mirabel
> wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'm in my mid-40's, which is probably younger than you are, Arny.
> Nonetheless I deal with old-sometimes really old- people that are far
> more knowledgeable than I am on various subjects, usually things they
> learned early on and use on a regular basis. I was discussing something
> with a retired airline mechanic yesterday-whose age I could indirectly
> infer as late 70's-who could accurately quote a P&W engine manual he
> hadn't seen since JFK was president, and explained in detail how a
> troubleshooting procedure was performed in the late 1950s before more
> modern test equipment made it redundant. He knew where various
> fittings and connectors were and how many bolts held a cover on, on an
> engine that had been out of airline service since probably 1965. If
> you are a tech history buff and talk to these old guys you will see
> this. On other topics they may be totally full of ****, but on what
> they did, repeatedly, they are usually very sharp, until dementia sets
> in.
>
> The fact is that a lot of very smart people in the field disagree
> with your contentions about _many_ things, yet, you always point to
> some allegedly scientific ABX test as making them fools. The fact is
> that the history of audio engineering has been one in which the cranks
> have historically been, if not inerrant, much more often than not shown
> to have some basis for their ideas. The "scientific" lab people have
> been wrong, and not once but repeatedly. Yet, you are out here pooping
> on the lawn of every single thing you don't find congruent with some
> test published that just happens to agree with your ideas.
>
> In this business, change has always had good and bad aspects, because
> the driving engine has always been cost cutting, cheapening, and
> increasing profits. The mass merchandizers have attacked one end by
> rampant cost cutting, equally rampant discounting, and making out on
> the volume. The High End /boutique /salo(o)n operators have tried to
> run up the sale price with cosmetics, flowery sales bull****, and (yes)
> techno-nonsense while keeping build cost modest. The bottom line is
> that there is no free lunch-excellent performance, reliability,
> serviceability, and sound quality involve space, power draw, weight,
> and quality materials and skilled labor.
>
> There is mass market big box retail audio and then there is the
> serious pursuit of sonic excellence, whether for home, recording
> studio, or whatever, and whether by determined amateurs or competent
> bona fide professionals. You can buy a packaged home system at Best Buy
> or a real pair of speakers, amplifiers and sources: you can record on
> an Amek or AMS Neve board or a Mackie. You tell me they are the same,
> I'll tell you you are full of ****.
>
> And you know I'm right.
>

JBorg

January 24th 05, 07:33 AM

> Clyde Slick wrote
>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>> Clyde Slick wrote
>>>> "Arny Krueger wrote
>
>
>
>
>>>> The new standard of radical subjectivist proof. "I think I was told
>>>> some years ago by a guy who is now out of business...
>>>
>>> As I am being told by a guy who runsa at least two businesses
>>> and never earned a nickel, gross, at them.
>>>
>>> 1) pcabx

2) debating trade

>>
>> Inability to distinguish between businesses and hobbies, noted.
>>
>
> If irony smacked you in the forehead with a two by
> four studded with rusty nails.

........... Arnii would come realize afterward that you are a terrible man
for not suggesting this to him much, mucchh sooner.

Robert Morein

January 24th 05, 08:48 AM

Robert Morein

January 24th 05, 08:52 AM

"OFFICIAL RAM BLUEBOOK VALUATION" > wrote in message
.. .
> On 1/22/05 9:40, in article , "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
> > The price of cd's never came down
>
> Sure they did.
>
> The price never went up; in real terms this was a long-term decline in
> pricing by any economic measure.
>
> LP's only went up and up over their price life.
> --
>
Readers should be forwarned that "OFFICIAL RAM BLUEBOOK VALUATION" is
actually Brian L. McCarty, who has been attempting to cause mayhem on
rec.audio.marketplace for a number of years.

Those of you who dare to disagree with him may coincidentally receive
viruses in their email and/or be subscribed to spam.

We should not welcome him into our midst.

Arny Krueger

January 24th 05, 11:24 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Corrected formatting!
>>
>> Please see:
>>
>>>
> http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/engine90-crawford-NEW-PRODUCT-DEVELOPMENT-print.pdf
>> starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that
> reads:
>>
>> Why CD?
>> Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
>> - market ready for innovation
>> - alliance of key industrial leaders
>> - superior product

>> This is the generally-accepted factual story, not the self-pitying
>> vinylphile conspiracy theory.

> One note: I can believe that the concept of an optically read disk was
> around since the 1950's, but there was no way to read the current
> geometry without a laser, and no way to make it commercially viable
> without a solid state laser.

Both points well taken.

> Further, Reed-Solomon error correction could not be accomplished
> economically till the advent of LSI.

Again agreed.

> Without intending to detract from the legitimacy of the example, it
> could be better said that by the late 70's, the CD was
> "technologically pregnant", meaning that all the elements were
> available. From
> http://www.bell-labs.com/about/history/laser/contrib.html, 1976:
> First demonstration of a semiconductor laser operating continuously
> at room temperature at a wavelength beyond 1 micron, the forerunner
> of sources for long-wavelength lightwave systems.

Interesting. It is kinda interesting that a mere 6 years later the solid
state laser was ready for use in domestic settings.

> 1977: Solid-state laser with lifetime of 1 million hours, or 100
> years, overcoming initial short lifetimes.

A weak laser was what ultimately killed my CDP 101. I played it to death,
and replaced it with a superior player for 1/8 the price.

Arny Krueger

January 24th 05, 11:27 AM

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

> Not in any meaningful sense for most older people.

Note the debating trade kick in.

> There are plenty of examples of people in their 70's and 80's who are
> functioning at
> very high cognitive levels.

"most" is stealthily repaced by "plenty of examples"

> I've evaluated people who had the
> misfortune to be suffering from Alzheimer's-type or multi-infarct
> dementia as early as in their 50's,

In the new weakened context Richman contradicts himself.

> but I've also evaluated people in
> their 70's, 80's and even a few in their 90's who were able to do
> quite well on a standardized mental status exam which measures memory
> functions, knowledge of current events, basic math skills,
> comprehension, etc.

"plenty of examples" is stealthily replaced by some unknown and unstated
number that is at least two or more.

Arny Krueger

January 24th 05, 11:34 AM

"ludovic mirabel" <elmir2m @pacificcoast.net> wrote in message

>> The fact is that a lot of very smart people in the field disagree
>> with your contentions about _many_ things, yet, you always point to
>> some allegedly scientific ABX test as making them fools
>
> "Allegedly" is the operative word. A test aspiring to be "scientific"
> has to be shown to work for its purpose. ABX has never been
> *validated* for showing differences between components.

In this case "validated" means hitting Ludovic's moveing-target standard for
validation.

> On the
> contrary: all the reputably published ABX comparisons show that when
> ABXing most people are deafened to any difference between anything
> and anything else in audio- inluding loudspeakers (see Sean Olive's
> latest JAES report).

Note grotesque distortion of what Sean Olive actually said.

> For centuries believers screamed,, tortured,
> burnt at the stake in the name of one sacred book or another.

Oh my goodness, we are going to get the history of science according to
Ludovic.

> Shouting "scientific" is the modern equivalent. Remember "scientific
> socialism" Stalin edition, or Christian Science, or Scientology?
> As for engineers , with all due respect, they may know how things are
> made. But on how their product will affect the cortical auditory
> centres they are no more experts than Mr. Stradivarius would be on
> what Vivaldi or Bach would get from his violin.

So much for Ludovic's gratuitous diversion into his personal la-la-land vis
Science.

> It just flatters some people to believe that if they can not hear no
> one else can either.

Delusions of mind reading noted.

> But whenever they use examples they talk about
> canned, electronically reproduced pop.

Simple false claim.

> Nothing wrong with that but
> electronics will sound like electronics when reproduced
> electronically.

Irrelevant claim since zillions of DBTs have been done using classical
recordings.

> Some audiophiles (and some of the best, original,
> high-end engineers designer, such as Meitner, D'Appolito etc.) want
> to come as close as possible to the sound of musical instruments.
> (though it will never be 100% right, alas)

Contrary to Ludovic's posturing, any recording that is made with microphones
is by definition a recording of acoustical events. If one tries to pursue
the idea that classical instruments somehow put out sounds that electronics
can't duplicate or exceed in terms of purity or diversity, one fails.

Arny Krueger

January 24th 05, 11:36 AM

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> Early cd's REALLY sucked.

Some did, a lot didn't. It was all about mastering, not the format.

> At the time a standard lp was $7.99 and a standard cd was $12.99

Which time?

Inability to stick to Nousaine's context, which was audiophile recordings,
noted.

Arny Krueger

January 24th 05, 11:38 AM

"****-for-Brains" > wrote in message

> Thank's for admitting Nousiane, that the real reason you are
> terrified of LPs is the high price that, you imagine is so high even
> though its not.

His examples seemed to be pretty factual, for the day.

> Thanks for admitting Nonsaine that you hung on to
> your vinyl collection and your cheesy cheapo turntable, until you
> could buy a CD palyer for less than the cost of a Corvette tire.

Inability to stay in context noted. BTW, why not tell us what Nousaine's
turntable was since you claim to know!

> Thanks for admitting Noisome, that its like you couldn't spot a
> trend, when your standing up to you're hips in ice cold water.

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

Clyde Slick

January 24th 05, 11:59 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Early cd's REALLY sucked.
>
> Some did, a lot didn't. It was all about mastering, not the format.
>
>> At the time a standard lp was $7.99 and a standard cd was $12.99
>
> Which time?
>
> Inability to stick to Nousaine's context, which was audiophile recordings,
> noted.
>

Early cd's REALLY sucked. Hardly audiophile.

Ruud Broens

January 24th 05, 03:01 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
:
: > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: > ...
: >> Corrected formatting!
: >>
: >> Please see:
: >>
: >>>
: >
http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/engine90-crawford-NEW-PRODUCT
-DEVELOPMENT-print.pdf
: >> starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that
: > reads:
: >>
: >> Why CD?
: >> Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
: >> - market ready for innovation
: >> - alliance of key industrial leaders
: >> - superior product
:
: >> This is the generally-accepted factual story, not the self-pitying
: >> vinylphile conspiracy theory.
:
: > One note: I can believe that the concept of an optically read disk was
: > around since the 1950's, but there was no way to read the current
: > geometry without a laser, and no way to make it commercially viable
: > without a solid state laser.
:
: Both points well taken.
:
: > Further, Reed-Solomon error correction could not be accomplished
: > economically till the advent of LSI.
:
: Again agreed.
:
: > Without intending to detract from the legitimacy of the example, it
: > could be better said that by the late 70's, the CD was
: > "technologically pregnant", meaning that all the elements were
: > available. From
: > http://www.bell-labs.com/about/history/laser/contrib.html, 1976:
: > First demonstration of a semiconductor laser operating continuously
: > at room temperature at a wavelength beyond 1 micron, the forerunner
: > of sources for long-wavelength lightwave systems.
:
: Interesting. It is kinda interesting that a mere 6 years later the solid
: state laser was ready for use in domestic settings.
:
: > 1977: Solid-state laser with lifetime of 1 million hours, or 100
: > years, overcoming initial short lifetimes.
:
: A weak laser was what ultimately killed my CDP 101. I played it to death,
: and replaced it with a superior player for 1/8 the price.
: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
So Arny, ready to admit that "1950's" was a less then accurate description
of the state of development concerning the CD ?
let's see,
Rudy

Ruud Broens

January 24th 05, 03:06 PM

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
: > :
: > : s
: > : Bruce J. Richman
: > :
: > Thank you Bruce, for showing your ability to immensely upgrade your
: posting,
: > quality lately :-)
: > yours,
: > Rudy
:
: Does that mean you will also be condemning others for consistently
: ignoring any semblance of quality in theirs? Somehow, amidst the
: sarcasm, I must have missed your critical analysis of the posts of
: others with whom you seem to agree, especially in the area of
: personality assessment. (Even though they know nothing about it).
:
: I shall look forward with anticipation to your objective assessment of
: your "friends", especially those that pretend to know womething about
: the personal and professional abilities of others. :)
:
:
: Generally speaking, like most good therapists, I try to respond to
: people in the way they respond to me. In other words, mmet them at
: their "level". Sometimes that's high, and sometimes that's low. :)

I don't condemn, Bruce, merely point out, sometimes with vigour,
always quite persistent - behaviour .. what someone shows
not *is*
:)
Rudy
lookaround

JBorg

January 24th 05, 03:28 PM

> Arny Krueger wrote
>> ludovic mirabel wrote
>
>
>
>> It just flatters some people to believe that if they can not hear no
>> one else can either.
>
> Delusions of mind reading noted.
>
>> But whenever they use examples they talk about
>> canned, electronically reproduced pop.
>
> Simple false claim.
>
>> Nothing wrong with that but
>> electronics will sound like electronics when reproduced
>> electronically.
>
> Irrelevant claim since zillions of DBTs have been done using classical
> recordings.

I like electronic pop but, classical recordings is so much more appealing
isn't it? I wonder what additional reasons above as to why it would be,
do you?

>> Some audiophiles (and some of the best, original,
>> high-end engineers designer, such as Meitner, D'Appolito etc.) want
>> to come as close as possible to the sound of musical instruments.
>> (though it will never be 100% right, alas)
>
> Contrary to Ludovic's posturing, any recording that is made with microphones is
> by definition a recording of acoustical events. If one tries to pursue the idea
> that classical instruments somehow put out sounds that electronics can't
> duplicate or exceed in terms of purity or diversity, one fails.

That would be so intoxicatingly exhilarating ?

Arny Krueger

January 24th 05, 05:18 PM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message

> So Arny, ready to admit that "1950's" was a less then accurate
> description of the state of development concerning the CD ?

FYI, Rudy I made the same post to a conference where relevant converstation
is much more the rule tha RAO (i.e., just about anyplace on Usenet). The
topic of the correctness of the 1950's date came up immediately. There was
little or no support for it. Typo? Could be.

Bruce J. Richman

January 24th 05, 06:06 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

>
>> Not in any meaningful sense for most older people.
>
>Note the debating trade kick in.
>

Note Krueger's projection of his own deceptive posting practices on to others.

>> There are plenty of examples of people in their 70's and 80's who are
>> functioning at
>> very high cognitive levels.
>
>"most" is stealthily repaced by "plenty of examples"
>

Notre Krueger's paranoia and underlying conspiracy theory mindset after having
his usual prejudiced and unscientific comments about older people challenged.

> I've evaluated people who had the
>> misfortune to be suffering from Alzheimer's-type or multi-infarct
>> dementia as early as in their 50's,
>
>In the new weakened context Richman contradicts himself.
>

Krueger persists in lying about what other people, including me, have actually
said. This is typical of his attempts to misrepresent and distort the content
of another person's posts.

Finding a few people with dementia at relatively young ages does not at all
contradict the general observation that most older Americans do *not* suffer
from this affliction. .

>> but I've also evaluated people in
>> their 70's, 80's and even a few in their 90's who were able to do
>> quite well on a standardized mental status exam which measures memory
>> functions, knowledge of current events, basic math skills,
>> comprehension, etc.
>
> "plenty of examples" is stealthily replaced by some unknown and unstated
>number that is at least two or more.
>

Krueger's attempts to smear the posts of those more knowledgable, more
objective and less prejudiced than himself is noted.
As is his habit, he makes unobjective, unscientific, and prejudiced comments
about older people, yet hypocritically attacks lack of data presented by
others.

Once again Krueger's inability to tell the truth has been exhibited. This is
all that can be expected from this individual who has made an

RAO career of distortions and fabrications about what others have actually
said and/or intended.

Bruce J. Richman

Ruud Broens

January 24th 05, 06:48 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
:
:
: > So Arny, ready to admit that "1950's" was a less then accurate
: > description of the state of development concerning the CD ?
:
: FYI, Rudy I made the same post to a conference where relevant converstation
: is much more the rule tha RAO (i.e., just about anyplace on Usenet). The
: topic of the correctness of the 1950's date came up immediately. There was
: little or no support for it. Typo? Could be.
:
.................................................. ................................
........
"Compact disk process around since the 1950's." *

"The topic of the correctness of the 1950's date came up immediately."

so what are you trying to sell us, here*, Arny ?
an opinion based on an unjustified belief ?
a statement of fact ??

xplain that
if ya can
Rudy

Sander deWaal

January 24th 05, 07:17 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>The "scientific" lab people
>> have been wrong, and not once but repeatedly.

>Unlike your typical Usenet posturing fool, so-called lab people are involved
>in a self-correcting process called science. I think you're talking out the
>back of your neck Rudy and can't cite one JAES article that has been
>published by the so-called scientific lab people who get published in the
>JAES over the last 25 years that has subsequently proven to be wrong.

I'll raise you 6 years.
R.O. Hamm, 1974.

Wiggle your way out of that one.

>It only seems that way to you Cal. I only target well-known junk.

We already knew that Arnold.

>The bottom line is that situations like these improve as time marches on. It
>didn't used to be that a $30 digital audio player measured better than
>about half of the high end players reviewed by Stereophile, but its true
>now.

Better measurements equal better sound?
Thanks for admitting this Arnold.

>A lot of the so-called bona fide professionals in audio's high end aren't
>well-qualified to make the pronouncements and claims that they make.

And a kompjooter eggsphurt who posts away like a thousand monkeys on
Usenet *is* well-qualified?
Why is it you're not in the audio business Arnold?

>Thanks Rudy for putting all these words in my mouth. I'm so tired of your
>silly posturing that I won't bother to respond.

>Fact is Rudy, you'll tell me I'm full of it no matter what I say as long as
>I don't pat you on the head while you ride that little hobby horse.

So Cal is Rudy's sockpuppet now, or is it vice versa?
"Just the facts, M'am!" ;-)

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

Sander deWaal

January 24th 05, 07:18 PM

"Robert Morein" > said:

>http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/engine90-crawford-NEW-PRODUCT-DEVELOPMENT-print.pdf
>> starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that
>reads:
>>
>> Why CD?
>> Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
>> - market ready for innovation
>> - alliance of key industrial leaders
>> - superior product
>>
>>
>> This is the generally-accepted factual story, not the self-pitying
>> vinylphile conspiracy theory.

>One note: I can believe that the concept of an optically read disk was
>around since the 1950's, but there was no way to read the current geometry
>without a laser, and no way to make it commercially viable without a solid
>state laser.
>Further, Reed-Solomon error correction could not be accomplished
>economically till the advent of LSI.

>Without intending to detract from the legitimacy of the example, it could be
>better said that by the late 70's, the CD was "technologically pregnant",
>meaning that all the elements were available.
>From http://www.bell-labs.com/about/history/laser/contrib.html,
>1976: First demonstration of a semiconductor laser operating continuously at
>room temperature at a wavelength beyond 1 micron, the forerunner of sources
>for long-wavelength lightwave systems.

>1977: Solid-state laser with lifetime of 1 million hours, or 100 years,
>overcoming initial short lifetimes.

Are you suggesting Arny is wrong?

C'mon now!

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

Sander deWaal

January 24th 05, 07:19 PM

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>
>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>:
>:
>: > So Arny, ready to admit that "1950's" was a less then accurate
>: > description of the state of development concerning the CD ?
>:
>: FYI, Rudy I made the same post to a conference where relevant converstation
>: is much more the rule tha RAO (i.e., just about anyplace on Usenet). The
>: topic of the correctness of the 1950's date came up immediately. There was
>: little or no support for it. Typo? Could be.
>:
>.................................................. ...............................
>.......
>"Compact disk process around since the 1950's." *
>
>"The topic of the correctness of the 1950's date came up immediately."
>
>so what are you trying to sell us, here*, Arny ?
>an opinion based on an unjustified belief ?
>a statement of fact ??
>
>xplain that
>if ya can
>Rudy

< Note Arnold butting out of this discussion for some imaginary
reason, like you might be right or sumtin'. >

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

Arny Krueger

January 24th 05, 07:59 PM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> So Arny, ready to admit that "1950's" was a less then accurate
>>> description of the state of development concerning the CD ?
>>
>> FYI, Rudy I made the same post to a conference where relevant
>> converstation is much more the rule tha RAO (i.e., just about
>> anyplace on Usenet). The topic of the correctness of the 1950's
>> date came up immediately. There was little or no support for it.
>> Typo? Could be.
>>
> .................................................. ...............................
> .......
> "Compact disk process around since the 1950's." *
>
> "The topic of the correctness of the 1950's date came up
> immediately."
>
> so what are you trying to sell us, here*, Arny ?
> an opinion based on an unjustified belief ?
> a statement of fact ??
>
> xplain that
> if ya can

Simple.

It was a quote from a cited document.

Arny Krueger

January 24th 05, 08:01 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>
>>> The "scientific" lab people
>>> have been wrong, and not once but repeatedly.
>
>> Unlike your typical Usenet posturing fool, so-called lab people are
>> involved in a self-correcting process called science. I think you're
>> talking out the back of your neck Rudy and can't cite one JAES
>> article that has been published by the so-called scientific lab
>> people who get published in the JAES over the last 25 years that has
>> subsequently proven to be wrong.

> I'll raise you 6 years.

Gracious offer declined.

> R.O. Hamm, 1974.

> Wiggle your way out of that one.

I did in advance, when I picked the number 25 years.

Back to the posturing board, Sander. ;-)

Sander deWaal

January 24th 05, 08:20 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>>> So Arny, ready to admit that "1950's" was a less then accurate
>>>> description of the state of development concerning the CD ?

>>> FYI, Rudy I made the same post to a conference where relevant
>>> converstation is much more the rule tha RAO (i.e., just about
>>> anyplace on Usenet). The topic of the correctness of the 1950's
>>> date came up immediately. There was little or no support for it.
>>> Typo? Could be.

.................................................. ................................

>> "Compact disk process around since the 1950's." *

>> "The topic of the correctness of the 1950's date came up
>> immediately."

>> so what are you trying to sell us, here*, Arny ?
>> an opinion based on an unjustified belief ?
>> a statement of fact ??

>> xplain that
>> if ya can

>Simple.

>It was a quote from a cited document.

A cited document that you supplied as "evidence" to support your
statements, in which you tried to prove me wrong.
Which I wasn't, because this document proved that I was right.

Simple, indeed.

xplain that
if ya can ;-)

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

Sander deWaal

January 24th 05, 08:21 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>>> The "scientific" lab people
>>>> have been wrong, and not once but repeatedly.

>>> Unlike your typical Usenet posturing fool, so-called lab people are
>>> involved in a self-correcting process called science. I think you're
>>> talking out the back of your neck Rudy and can't cite one JAES
>>> article that has been published by the so-called scientific lab
>>> people who get published in the JAES over the last 25 years that has
>>> subsequently proven to be wrong.

>> I'll raise you 6 years.

>Gracious offer declined.

;-)

>> R.O. Hamm, 1974.

>> Wiggle your way out of that one.

>I did in advance, when I picked the number 25 years.

>Back to the posturing board, Sander. ;-)

Good one, Arny!

Now, about that '50s CD........... ;-)

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

Ruud Broens

January 24th 05, 08:26 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

: > .......
: > "Compact disk process around since the 1950's." *
: >
: > "The topic of the correctness of the 1950's date came up
: > immediately."
: >
: > so what are you trying to sell us, here*, Arny ?
: > an opinion based on an unjustified belief ?
: > a statement of fact ??
: >
: > xplain that
: > if ya can
:
: Simple.
:
: It was a quote from a cited document.
: ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Aha. so, in future, we can quote u, this 'bjhooty' :
" Simple.
It was a quote from a cited document. "

thanks for giving anyone a definite edge when in the 'debating trade'
with ya :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))

Rudy

Arny Krueger

January 24th 05, 08:36 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

>> It was a quote from a cited document.

> A cited document that you supplied as "evidence" to support your
> statements, in which you tried to prove me wrong.

This would be a delusional belief of yours, Sander. I posted the quote as
the first post to a new thread, and did not mention your name.

Furthermore, the presence of a typo or other miinor error does not discredit
an entire document.

> Which I wasn't, because this document proved that I was right.

Thanks Sander for voluntarily placing yourself into the category of

"self-pitying (believers in the) vinylphile conspiracy theory".

I had nothing to do with that, you did it to yourself. ;-)

Sander deWaal

January 24th 05, 09:21 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

>
>>> It was a quote from a cited document.
>
>> A cited document that you supplied as "evidence" to support your
>> statements, in which you tried to prove me wrong.
>
>This would be a delusional belief of yours, Sander. I posted the quote as
>the first post to a new thread, and did not mention your name.
>
>Furthermore, the presence of a typo or other miinor error does not discredit
>an entire document.
>
>> Which I wasn't, because this document proved that I was right.
>
>Thanks Sander for voluntarily placing yourself into the category of
>
>"self-pitying (believers in the) vinylphile conspiracy theory".
>
>I had nothing to do with that, you did it to yourself. ;-)

So, according to this lttle exchange we had earlier, by admission,
you're placing yourself into the category of "self-pitying (believers
in the) vinylphile conspiracy theory", since your cited document
cooroberates what I wrote earlier.
By our own admission, this document can't be discredited:
>Furthermore, the presence of a typo or other miinor error does not discredit
>an entire document.

Begin quote:
__________________________________________________ _______________
>
"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>>> http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/engine90-crawford-NEW-PRODUCT-DEVELOPMENT-print.pdf
>>> starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that
>>> reads:

>>> Why CD?
>>> Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
>>> - market ready for innovation
>>> - alliance of key industrial leaders
>>> - superior product

>>> This is the generally-accepted factual story, not the self-pitying
>>> vinylphile conspiracy theory.

>> What do I see here?

>> "Philips president (Van der Klugt) and Sony CEO (Morita) were
>> buddies".

>> And:
>> "Record Industry reluctant, but creative and powerful marketing
>> overcame resistance because of strong customer and trade interest"

>> Earlier, you dismissed my story, based on the same facts.

>Wrong, and you know it. You presented different facts which happened to be
>wrong. I pointed that out to you Sander, and you've been in a snit ever
>since.

What facts were different?
I only mixed up "CEO" and "President".......

Woohoo......big deal!

God that I'm only here for "fun" ;-)

>Yawn.

Garbage on your lawn, anybody? ;-)
__________________________________________________ ______________

Thanks for admitting your defeat, once again Arnold. ;-)

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

Arny Krueger

January 24th 05, 11:06 PM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>> It was a quote from a cited document.
>>
>>> A cited document that you supplied as "evidence" to support your
>>> statements, in which you tried to prove me wrong.
>>
>> This would be a delusional belief of yours, Sander. I posted the
>> quote as the first post to a new thread, and did not mention your
>> name.
>>
>> Furthermore, the presence of a typo or other miinor error does not
>> discredit an entire document.
>>
>>> Which I wasn't, because this document proved that I was right.
>>
>> Thanks Sander for voluntarily placing yourself into the category of
>>
>> "self-pitying (believers in the) vinylphile conspiracy theory".
>>
>> I had nothing to do with that, you did it to yourself. ;-)
>
> So, according to this lttle exchange we had earlier, by admission,
> you're placing yourself into the category of "self-pitying (believers
> in the) vinylphile conspiracy theory", since your cited document
> cooroberates what I wrote earlier.

Intresting delusion you have going there, Sander. What else do the voices in
your head tell you?

> By our own admission, this document can't be discredited:
>> Furthermore, the presence of a typo or other miinor error does not
>> discredit an entire document.

> Begin quote:
> __________________________________________________ _______________
>>
> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>>>> http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/engine90-crawford-NEW-PRODUCT-DEVELOPMENT-print.pdf
>>>> starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11
>>>> that reads:
>
>>>> Why CD?
>>>> Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
>>>> - market ready for innovation
>>>> - alliance of key industrial leaders
>>>> - superior product

>>>> This is the generally-accepted factual story, not the self-pitying
>>>> vinylphile conspiracy theory.

>>> What do I see here?

>>> "Philips president (Van der Klugt) and Sony CEO (Morita) were
>>> buddies".

>>> And:
>>> "Record Industry reluctant, but creative and powerful marketing
>>> overcame resistance because of strong customer and trade interest"

>>> Earlier, you dismissed my story, based on the same facts.

>> Wrong, and you know it. You presented different facts which happened
>> to be wrong. I pointed that out to you Sander, and you've been in a
>> snit ever since.

> What facts were different?
> I only mixed up "CEO" and "President".......

> Woohoo......big deal!

> God that I'm only here for "fun" ;-)

>> Yawn.

> Garbage on your lawn, anybody? ;-)
> __________________________________________________ ______________
>
> Thanks for admitting your defeat, once again Arnold. ;-)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Ruud Broens

January 25th 05, 03:21 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: Contrary to Ludovic's posturing, any recording that is made with microphones
: is by definition a recording of acoustical events. If one tries to pursue
: the idea that classical instruments somehow put out sounds that electronics
: can't duplicate or exceed in terms of purity or diversity, one fails.

which electronics are we talking about, Arny ? Want to get into specifics
or prefer to leave this one alone ??
let's see,
once more,
Rudy

Fella

January 25th 05, 08:43 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>>So Arny, ready to admit that "1950's" was a less then accurate
>>description of the state of development concerning the CD ?
>
>
> FYI, Rudy I made the same post to a conference where relevant converstation
> is much more the rule tha RAO (i.e., just about anyplace on Usenet). The
> topic of the correctness of the 1950's date came up immediately. There was
> little or no support for it. Typo? Could be.
>
>

That's what I am sayin, ****borg, google cut-paste jobs'll get you
nowhere, but here. :)

JBorg

January 25th 05, 10:14 AM

Ruud Broens

January 25th 05, 05:14 PM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Arny Krueger" >
: : any recording that is made with microphones
: : is by definition a recording of acoustical events. If one tries to pursue
: : the idea that classical instruments somehow put out sounds that electronics
: : can't duplicate or exceed in terms of purity or diversity, one fails.
:
: which electronics are we talking about, Arny ? Want to get into specifics
: or prefer to leave this one alone ??
: let's see,
: once more,
: Rudy
:
.......thought so, silensio

(he might have come up with some walsh function generators, outputting
24/192 kHz signals, that'd be kinda interesting, but alas.........)
R.

Sander deWaal

January 25th 05, 06:17 PM

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>Intresting delusion you have going there, Sander. What else do the voices in
>your head tell you?

That you lost this argument, Arnold. ;-)

Lack of reasonable explanation as to why CD technology was known in
the '50s, noted. With pleasure ;-)

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

Michael McKelvy

January 25th 05, 06:43 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ludovic mirabel" <elmir2m @pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
>
>>> The fact is that a lot of very smart people in the field disagree
>>> with your contentions about _many_ things, yet, you always point to
>>> some allegedly scientific ABX test as making them fools
>>
>> "Allegedly" is the operative word. A test aspiring to be "scientific"
>> has to be shown to work for its purpose. ABX has never been
>> *validated* for showing differences between components.
>
> In this case "validated" means hitting Ludovic's moveing-target standard
> for validation.
>
>> On the
>> contrary: all the reputably published ABX comparisons show that when
>> ABXing most people are deafened to any difference between anything
>> and anything else in audio- inluding loudspeakers (see Sean Olive's
>> latest JAES report).
>
Lud needs to check into the BBC's DBT's of loudspeakers.

> Note grotesque distortion of what Sean Olive actually said.
>
How else can he make a point?

>> For centuries believers screamed,, tortured,
>> burnt at the stake in the name of one sacred book or another.
>
> Oh my goodness, we are going to get the history of science according to
> Ludovic.
>
>> Shouting "scientific" is the modern equivalent. Remember "scientific
>> socialism" Stalin edition, or Christian Science, or Scientology?
>> As for engineers , with all due respect, they may know how things are
>> made. But on how their product will affect the cortical auditory
>> centres they are no more experts than Mr. Stradivarius would be on
>> what Vivaldi or Bach would get from his violin.
>
> So much for Ludovic's gratuitous diversion into his personal la-la-land
> vis Science.
>

And he misses the point that the reason the word scientific was used was to
add legitimacy.

>> It just flatters some people to believe that if they can not hear no
>> one else can either.
>
> Delusions of mind reading noted.
>
>> But whenever they use examples they talk about
>> canned, electronically reproduced pop.
>
> Simple false claim.
>
>> Nothing wrong with that but
>> electronics will sound like electronics when reproduced
>> electronically.
>
> Irrelevant claim since zillions of DBTs have been done using classical
> recordings.
>
>> Some audiophiles (and some of the best, original,
>> high-end engineers designer, such as Meitner, D'Appolito etc.) want
>> to come as close as possible to the sound of musical instruments.
>> (though it will never be 100% right, alas)
>
> Contrary to Ludovic's posturing, any recording that is made with
> microphones is by definition a recording of acoustical events. If one
> tries to pursue the idea that classical instruments somehow put out sounds
> that electronics can't duplicate or exceed in terms of purity or
> diversity, one fails.
>
>
>

Arny Krueger

January 25th 05, 09:35 PM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Contrary to Ludovic's posturing, any recording that is made with
>> microphones is by definition a recording of acoustical events. If
>> one tries to pursue the idea that classical instruments somehow put
>> out sounds that electronics can't duplicate or exceed in terms of
>> purity or diversity, one fails.

> which electronics are we talking about, Arny ?

This is a reading comprehension test Rudy: You tell me.

Ruud Broens

January 25th 05, 10:29 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
:
: > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: > ...
: >> Contrary to Ludovic's posturing, any recording that is made with
: >> microphones is by definition a recording of acoustical events. If
: >> one tries to pursue the idea that classical instruments somehow put
: >> out sounds that electronics can't duplicate or exceed in terms of
: >> purity or diversity, one fails.
:
: > which electronics are we talking about, Arny ?
:
: This is a reading comprehension test Rudy: You tell me.
:

nope, *that* wood be another one of your 'psychic tests', Arny :)
Rudey

Arny Krueger

January 25th 05, 11:13 PM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Contrary to Ludovic's posturing, any recording that is made with
>>>> microphones is by definition a recording of acoustical events. If
>>>> one tries to pursue the idea that classical instruments somehow put
>>>> out sounds that electronics can't duplicate or exceed in terms of
>>>> purity or diversity, one fails.

>>> which electronics are we talking about, Arny ?

>> This is a reading comprehension test Rudy: You tell me.

> nope, *that* wood be another one of your 'psychic tests', Arny :)

Inability to engage in a productive conversation, noted.

Ruud Broens

January 25th 05, 11:55 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
:
: > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: > ...
: >> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: >>
: >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: >>> ...
: >>>> Contrary to Ludovic's posturing, any recording that is made with
: >>>> microphones is by definition a recording of acoustical events. If
: >>>> one tries to pursue the idea that classical instruments somehow put
: >>>> out sounds that electronics can't duplicate or exceed in terms of
: >>>> purity or diversity, one fails.
:
: >>> which electronics are we talking about, Arny ?
:
: >> This is a reading comprehension test Rudy: You tell me.
:
: > nope, *that* wood be another one of your 'psychic tests', Arny :)
:
: Inability to engage in a productive conversation, noted.
:
OK, let's give you a starter : 70 kHz range of several musical instruments,
you duplicate that aspect, exactly how ?
Rudy

Arny Krueger

January 26th 05, 12:47 AM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message

> OK, let's give you a starter : 70 kHz range of several musical
> instruments, you duplicate that aspect, exactly how ?

Ridy's ignorance of the functional range of audio electronics is noted.

[email protected]

January 26th 05, 01:20 AM

The fact is that both Hamm amd Marsh/Jung have been well accepted by
working designers of serious audio equipment, which is one reason why
solid state has improved as much as it has, and why everyone uses a
better grade of passives today than was the case in the seventies (and
in mass-fi equipment today).

Arny can't prove Hamm wrong, and has no desire to attempt the job,
because he knows that at best he'll just be proven wrong and could open
up a new can of worms. Hamm survives for the same reason people persist
in thinking OJ killed Nicole: despite his court acquittal, a mountain
of evidence points in that direction. Hamm is actually far more
defensible than many other JAES papers that Kru and other Objectivards
swallow whole.

I was just reading Jung last night in his TAA articles on upgrading
several popular units. Whatever the specifics of Marsh and Jung, no one
denies that better passives equals cleaner sound-not even the guitar
amp cottage builders who go to great lengths to get the old crappy
resistors and obsolete-dielectric caps because they believe that they
alter the sound in ways not duplicatable without them.

The simple fact is that Arny is wrong. History is showing that
statistically speaking your odds of achieving excellent sound
reproduction is better if you do the opposite of what he says instead
of what he recommends. As someone said, the biggest idiot saying the
sun is shining doesn't make it dark, and even the worst dictators had
some good ideas and qualities. But Arny is apparently wrong more than
he is right.

Arny Krueger

January 26th 05, 01:34 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com

> The fact is that both Hamm amd Marsh/Jung have been well accepted by
> working designers of serious audio equipment, which is one reason why
> solid state has improved as much as it has, and why everyone uses a
> better grade of passives today than was the case in the seventies (and
> in mass-fi equipment today).

There's no proof of that whatsever. Hamm's paper is based on test of SS
circuitry that was obsolete for years when his paper was first published in
the JAES. Marsh/Jung's ideas about DA have been debunked quite thoroughly by
Bob Pease of National Semiconductor. All kinds of high quality audio gear is
being sold that ignore Marsh/Jungs misapprehensions about the importance of
capacitor dielectrics.

> Arny can't prove Hamm wrong, and has no desire to attempt the job,
> because he knows that at best he'll just be proven wrong and could
> open up a new can of worms.

There's no new can of worms, Cal. Hamm's paper references SS circuits that
were not being used for top quality new equipment design years prior to the
publication of his paper. His comments on SS circuitry were obsolete on the
first day his paper was published.

> Hamm survives for the same reason people
> persist in thinking OJ killed Nicole: despite his court acquittal, a
> mountain of evidence points in that direction.

Bad metaphor, completely unsupported by the facts.

>Hamm is actually far
> more defensible than many other JAES papers that Kru and other
> Objectivards swallow whole.

Prove it.

> I was just reading Jung last night in his TAA articles on upgrading
> several popular units. Whatever the specifics of Marsh and Jung, no
> one denies that better passives equals cleaner sound-not even the
> guitar amp cottage builders who go to great lengths to get the old
> crappy resistors and obsolete-dielectric caps because they believe
> that they alter the sound in ways not duplicatable without them.

In fact neither Marsh nor Jung have shown that their theories can improve
the sound quality of well-designed audio equipment that ignores their
theories, as much does. Well-known manufacturers of professional grade audio
gear such as Ashley, DBX and Rane regularly design new equipment based on
parts choices that Marsh and Jung say are no-nos, for example.

> The simple fact is that Arny is wrong.

Where's the facts to support this claim?

>History is showing that
> statistically speaking your odds of achieving excellent sound
> reproduction is better if you do the opposite of what he says instead
> of what he recommends.

Here's some real-world history:

The *original* Marsh/Jung capacitor article was published in Audio
Magazine in March, 1980. Given the circulation and influence of Audio
in those days, there's no reason to think that most audio engineers
were unaware of what it had to say after it was published. The
article is reprinted at
<http://www.capacitors.com/pickcap/pickcap.htm> . The claims it makes
about Dielectric Absorption were effectively and expertly rebutted in
an article by Bob Pease

>http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=2461> . This
article tells even more of the story:
http://www.intusoft.com/nlhtm/nl65.htm . BTW, the Audio Magazine
article was based on articles that appeared in Audio Amateur in 1977
and 1978, so this story is even older than it may seem! Please see
http://www.capacitors.com/pickcap/pickref.jpg for earlier relevant
articles going back to 1958!

Nonesense. Sensible designers are still using parts in ways that Marsh and
Jung say cause bad sound. Film capacitors have not displaced electrolytic
coupling capacitors as a rule.

> As someone said, the biggest idiot saying the
> sun is shining doesn't make it dark, and even the worst dictators had
> some good ideas and qualities. But Arny is apparently wrong more than
> he is right.

Mere posturing without any relevant facts to support it.

[email protected]

January 26th 05, 02:07 AM

Off the top of my head, I don't know that great quantities of Ashly,
Rane, or DBX are being used by facilities known for first rate sound,
such as Sear Sound. Maybe they are, I didn't see them when I went on
the AES tour in '01. I tend to associate them with touring sound and
contractor installs.

Any equipment using lytics for coupling is not high-end, AFAIK. Most
of the new tube stuff uses either the better commercial grades of poly
or specialist hand-tweako stuff. Most of the solid state stuff does not
use capacitor coupling. or it's very limited.

Bob Pease is a nice guy who did a lot of important work at Philbrick
and NatSemi, but he's a non-audio guy who drives, in the
air-quality-challenged Bay Area yet, an ancient VW to work with its
original single barrel float bowl carb and point contact ignition. He
has no room to bitch at tube audio, seeing especially as putting
electronic ignition and a little better carb-or better, EFI-on the old
turkey would cut his fuel burn by 20% right off the bat.

Arny Krueger

January 26th 05, 02:42 AM

> wrote in message
ups.com
> Off the top of my head, I don't know that great quantities of Ashly,
> Rane, or DBX are being used by facilities known for first rate sound,
> such as Sear Sound. Maybe they are, I didn't see them when I went on
> the AES tour in '01. I tend to associate them with touring sound and
> contractor installs.

Abject ignorance of industry standards noted.

[email protected]

January 26th 05, 02:59 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:<snip>

>
> Abject ignorance of industry standards noted.

Your historical inability to differentiate, or propensity for
willfully conglomerating, best case practice operators-the serious guys
and the vendors they supply-with run of the mill mainstream facilities
serves you poorly here.
cf.Manley, Neve,et al.

Arny Krueger

January 26th 05, 03:46 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:<snip>
>
>>
>> Abject ignorance of industry standards noted.
>
> Your historical inability to differentiate, or propensity for
> willfully conglomerating, best case practice operators-the serious
> guys and the vendors they supply-with run of the mill mainstream
> facilities serves you poorly here.
> cf.Manley, Neve,et al.

Neve????

LOL!

Here's a schematic of a typical Neve console module:

http://www.danalexanderaudio.com/neveinfo/Neve3415Schem2T.jpg

This schematic shows 3 coupling capacitors C4, C5, and C9. All are clearly
marked as electrolytics.

http://www.danalexanderaudio.com/neveinfo/Neve3405schemT.jpg

This schematic shows 3 coupling capacitors C4, and C7. All are clearly
marked as electrolytics.

I can go down the list of Neve schematics and find electolytic coupling
capacitors all over the place.

So much for Neve's honoring of the teachings of Marsh and Jung!

Now, Manley is a clear debating trade red herring. Their equipment is
basically all vacuum tubes, and electrolyics are rarely used as coupling
caps in tubed equipment. Therefore the presence or absence of electrolytic
coupling capacitors is meaningless - they wouldn't have been there
regardless.

So you fail to make your point based on either of the vendors you mentioned,
Cal.

Better luck next time! ;-)

[email protected]

January 26th 05, 04:07 AM

When, Arny, did Neve design those modules? Late 60's/early 70's.

The first published capacitor sound articles were in TAA, I think,
around-by your own reckoning-'79.

Ruud Broens

January 26th 05, 10:40 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
:
: > OK, let's give you a starter : 70 kHz range of several musical
: > instruments, you duplicate that aspect, exactly how ?
:
: Ridy's ignorance of the functional range of audio electronics is noted.
:
right. 44 kHz sampling sure :-)
or did you mean electronically generated sounds ?
haha
Rudy

Arny Krueger

January 26th 05, 02:39 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com

> When, Arny, did Neve design those modules? Late 60's/early 70's.

I don't know. If you've got some conerns in that area, your work is cut out
for you.

> The first published capacitor sound articles were in TAA, I think,
> around-by your own reckoning-'79.

The point is Cal that you've got zero evidence that Neve are true believers
in the Marsh-Jung DA and electrolytic-paranoa dogma.

The worst you can say about the evidence I've presented is that it will
always be true that Neve made zillions of console modules that violated the
Marsh/Jung misapprehensions. Some modules may have been before publication
, some may have been made after Marsh/Jung published their bogus article.

Cal, you're the one who brought up Neve as someone who makes all their
products in accordance with the Marsh/Jung capacitor misapprehensions. I've
proven conclusively that you are at least partially wrong.

Also Cal, you have not addressed the Bob Pease National Semiconductor
articles that debunk Marsh/Jung quite explicitly.

Finaally, you've not addressed the absence of any information based on
reliable listening tests that anybody audibly improved the performance of
some moden piece of equipment from a fairly reputable source, by means of
capacitor upgrades. Every capacitor upgrade article I've read is based on
bogus sighted listening tests, provides no objective evidence of a
significant perofrmance improvement, and does no testing to show that the
parts replaced weren't simply defective.

For example, I have a Sony CD player that has audibly and measurably poor
bass via its analog output. If someone replaces the audio coupling
capacitors in it with new electrolytic caps, its perforamnce will be audibly
improved. If they replace the same caps with Marsh/Jung approved caps its
performace will be similarly or identically improved. If it were *upgraded*
in accordance with the Marsh/Jung capacitor misapprehensions and its sound
quality improved, there wouldstill be zero validation of the Marsh/Jung
misapprehensions, right?

Arny Krueger

January 26th 05, 02:40 PM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>
>>> OK, let's give you a starter : 70 kHz range of several musical
>>> instruments, you duplicate that aspect, exactly how ?
>>
>> Ridy's ignorance of the functional range of audio electronics is
>> noted.
>>
> right. 44 kHz sampling sure :-)
> or did you mean electronically generated sounds ?

Ignoranc of the fact that in these days $59 audio interfaces are capable of
properly reproducing the bandpass of 24/192 format digital data noted.

Ruud Broens

January 26th 05, 04:30 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
:
: > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: > ...
: >> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: >>
: >>> OK, let's give you a starter : 70 kHz range of several musical
: >>> instruments, you duplicate that aspect, exactly how ?
: >>
: >> Ridy's ignorance of the functional range of audio electronics is
: >> noted.
: >>
: > right. 44 kHz sampling sure :-)
: > or did you mean electronically generated sounds ?
:
: Ignoranc of the fact that in these days $59 audio interfaces are capable of
: properly reproducing the bandpass of 24/192 format digital data noted.
:
dodging again, are we ? no kruggy, you are the one propagating the tale that
the cd format is the end of all things, baby, better look up the format, seems
you didn't do enough goggling on this one, eh ?
cheers,
Rudy

Arny Krueger

January 26th 05, 04:39 PM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> OK, let's give you a starter : 70 kHz range of several musical
>>>>> instruments, you duplicate that aspect, exactly how ?
>>>>
>>>> Ridy's ignorance of the functional range of audio electronics is
>>>> noted.
>>>>
>>> right. 44 kHz sampling sure :-)
>>> or did you mean electronically generated sounds ?
>>
>> Ignoranc of the fact that in these days $59 audio interfaces are
>> capable of properly reproducing the bandpass of 24/192 format
>> digital data noted.
>>
> dodging again, are we ? no kruggy, you are the one propagating the
> tale that the cd format is the end of all things, baby, better look
> up the format, seems you didn't do enough goggling on this one, eh ?

You seem to be wandering off-topic again, Rudy. I thought you were talking
about the capabilities of audio gear. Now you've drifted out into a
different discussion, one that primarily relates to human perception and the
limitations of recording and listening rooms.

Ruud Broens

January 26th 05, 09:43 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
:: >>>>> OK, let's give you a starter : 70 kHz range of several musical
: >>>>> instruments, you duplicate that aspect, exactly how ?
: >>>>
: >>>> Ridy's ignorance of the functional range of audio electronics is
: >>>> noted.
: >>>>
: >>> right. 44 kHz sampling sure :-)
: >>> or did you mean electronically generated sounds ?
: >>
: >> Ignoranc of the fact that in these days $59 audio interfaces are
: >> capable of properly reproducing the bandpass of 24/192 format
: >> digital data noted.
: >>
: > dodging again, are we ? no kruggy, you are the one propagating the
: > tale that the cd format is the end of all things, baby, better look
: > up the format, seems you didn't do enough goggling on this one, eh ?
:
: You seem to be wandering off-topic again, Rudy. I thought you were talking
: about the capabilities of audio gear. Now you've drifted out into a
: different discussion, one that primarily relates to human perception and the
: limitations of recording and listening rooms.
:
Well, my memory ain't half bad, it tells me you record in 44.1 KHz /16 bits,
using SM57 microphones and such. Care to explain the wonderfull capturing
of the mentioned frequency range with that setup, Arnold ?
Rudy

Sander deWaal

January 26th 05, 10:19 PM

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>: I think you've got every parameter wrong, Rudy.

>Oki Doki:-)

<snip sound of toilet flushing>

>cheeeers,
>Rudy

Good sockpuppet! ;-)

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

Ruud Broens

January 27th 05, 12:24 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: > Oki Doki:-)
: >
: > jan 8
: > "For example, I am in the habit of mixing down 12 (twleve) 32/44,100
: > Hz sample rate channels down into two channels of 16/44,100 audio
: > (normal CD audio). "
:
: Thus Rudy your claim that I record 44/16 is incorrect. I record 44/32. I
: distribute 44/16. You apparenly can't tell the difference between a
: recording medium and a distribution medium. And, it seems that can't figure
: out why they might be different.
:
: > jan 26
: > "My portable rig is composed of a Nomad Jukebox 3 and a Behringer MXB
: > 1002 mixer, plus microphones. 20 GB capacity, all battery powered if
: > need be, 5 mic inputs, headphone jack, decent-sized controls, CD
: > quality uncompressed audio"
:
: Thus I make some compromises on those relatively rare occasions where I
: record in casual, and portable situations. The major compromise is that the
: recordings are only 2-track.
:
: BTW Rudy you forgot the debunk your claim that I use SM57s.
:
take all the bits you like, Arn, your nye queste won't get you
the 70 K
mistehrr,
Rudy:-)

Ruud Broens

January 27th 05, 02:24 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: BTW Rudy you forgot the debunk your claim that I use SM57s.
:
Sorry, my K decoder is still in the mail :(

not down my ally,
r'ally
Rudy

Arny about Arny: "I often forget exactly what I've written"
Arny about CD : "Compact disk process around since the 1950's"

hmmmm

Ruud Broens

January 27th 05, 01:57 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: > wrote in message
: ps.com
:
: In fact, the sample rate is overkill. Audible effects due to sample rates
: start becoming noticable some place around 36 KHz.

Utter nonsense. And besides, if we want a format, that captures as good as
possible the performance, you *need* 192 KHz sampling and at least 20 bits
coding.

Just take a look at the way libraries archive old works for scholars to study:
rather high resolution and colourdepth. What you are saying sounds like an
argument
" why do people _need_ 24 bits or more of colour coding
if their displays can only show 2 million or so different
pixel'triads' at a time "

good luck convincing those from the graphic arts :-))
Rudy

Arny Krueger

January 27th 05, 02:03 PM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > wrote in message
>> ps.com
>>
>> In fact, the sample rate is overkill. Audible effects due to sample
>> rates start becoming noticable some place around 36 KHz.
>
> Utter nonsense.

Unsupported opinion stated as fact.

> And besides, if we want a format, that captures as
> good as possible the performance, you *need* 192 KHz sampling and at
> least 20 bits coding.

Unsupported opinion stated as fact.

Ruud Broens

January 27th 05, 02:35 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
:
: > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: > ...
: >> > wrote in message
: >> ps.com
: >>
: >> In fact, the sample rate is overkill. Audible effects due to sample
: >> rates start becoming noticable some place around 36 KHz.
: >
: > Utter nonsense.
:
: Unsupported opinion stated as fact.

Now, just google around, sweetheart, i'm sure it's *out there*
as well as in here :-)
:
: > And besides, if we want a format, that captures as
: > good as possible the performance, you *need* 192 KHz sampling and at
: > least 20 bits coding.
:
: Unsupported opinion stated as fact.
:

Now, just google around, sweetheart, i'm sure it's *out there*
as well as in here :-)

;-)
:

Ruud Broens

January 27th 05, 04:16 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
:
: >>> And besides, if we want a format, that captures as
: >>> good as possible the performance, you *need* 192 KHz sampling and at
: >>> least 20 bits coding.
: >>
: >> Unsupported opinion stated as fact.
: >>
: >
: > Now, just google around, sweetheart, i'm sure it's *out there*
: > as well as in here :-)
:
: Posturing and non-responsive reply noted.
:
Unsupported 'fact' posturing as scientific fact noted.
Failure to understand that 70 kHz representation with 44.1 KHz sample rate
is impossible ......noted

o, well
Rudy

Ruud Broens

January 27th 05, 04:20 PM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: ...
: :
: : >>> And besides, if we want a format, that captures as
: : >>> good as possible the performance, you *need* 192 KHz sampling and at
: : >>> least 20 bits coding.
: : >>
: : >> Unsupported opinion stated as fact.
: : >>
: : >
: : > Now, just google around, sweetheart, i'm sure it's *out there*
: : > as well as in here :-)
: :
: : Posturing and non-responsive reply noted.
: :
: Unsupported 'fact' posturing as scientific fact noted.
: Failure to understand that 70 kHz representation with 44.1 KHz sample rate
: is impossible ......noted
:
: o, well
: Rudy
:
btw now playing Duke Ellington - Cotton Tail
u still 'play' RAO ?

Arny Krueger

January 27th 05, 04:29 PM

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>>>> And besides, if we want a format, that captures as
>>>>> good as possible the performance, you *need* 192 KHz sampling and
>>>>> at least 20 bits coding.

>>>> Unsupported opinion stated as fact.

>>> Now, just google around, sweetheart, i'm sure it's *out there*
>>> as well as in here :-)

>> Posturing and non-responsive reply noted.

> Unsupported 'fact' posturing as scientific fact noted.

> Failure to understand that 70 kHz representation with 44.1 KHz sample
> rate is impossible

Wrong, I understand that just fine.

Why worry about representing 70 KHz in an audio system?

Ruud Broens

January 27th 05, 04:48 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
:
: > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: > ...
: >>
: >>>>> And besides, if we want a format, that captures as
: >>>>> good as possible the performance, you *need* 192 KHz sampling and
: >>>>> at least 20 bits coding.
:
: >>>> Unsupported opinion stated as fact.
:
: >>> Now, just google around, sweetheart, i'm sure it's *out there*
: >>> as well as in here :-)
:
: >> Posturing and non-responsive reply noted.
:
: > Unsupported 'fact' posturing as scientific fact noted.
:
: > Failure to understand that 70 kHz representation with 44.1 KHz sample
: > rate is impossible
:
: Wrong, I understand that just fine.
:
: Why worry about representing 70 KHz in an audio system?
:
Who said anything about being worried ?
You seem to be warried with setting some "sensible limit"
care to explain why ?
Rudy

Sander deWaal

January 27th 05, 08:08 PM

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>Sorry, my K decoder is still in the mail :(

Why don't you tell the nice folks on RAO what really happened,
Roadie-Toadie?
You didn't show up at the pier, sonny.

>not down my ally,
>r'ally
>Rudy

Your ally bombrally is ever so tally and ho, Sir.

>Arny about Arny: "I often forget exactly what I've written"
>Arny about CD : "Compact disk process around since the 1950's"

Others about Arny: <FLUSH>

>hmmmm

Have some more!

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

Michael McKelvy

January 27th 05, 10:54 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> ps.com
>
>> Arny>
>
>>I've got the first CD I ever bought back in 1983, and it HASN'T
>> been stored
>> in a climate-controlled environment. It still plays great.<
>
>> I'm glad, but others that old don't.
>
> Not stored in a proper archival environment.
>
> Besides this is BS, How many LPs are stored in archival environments? LPs
> fare generally fare far worse than CD, when stored in dusty or humid
> environments.
>
>>Not all or even most, but some.
>> And you can't guarantee it will play in thirty or fifty more years. No
>> one can.
>
> Ditto for a LP.
>
>> I am not saying the CD is worthless. It's cheap, convenient, compact,
>> relatively reliable, can be played an infinite number of times (within
>> its lifetime as determined elsewise) and so forth.
>
> CDs also have far greater signal purity and when mastered reasonably
> well, they sound a lot better than LP.
>
>> But it's not _absolutely_ superior to LP, or tape, or mag film, or for
>> that matter
>> optical film, wax cylinder or Dictaphone belt. They all have
>> advantages, potentially, for certain possible applications.
>
> Potentially is a hedge word that can be used to justify redicuous claims
> and arguments.
>
> Name one thing that a LP does better than a CD other than filling up
> landfills?
>

Better for Frisbee. Easier for Vinyphilies to cut their throats with.

Michael McKelvy

January 27th 05, 10:55 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> The fact is that both Hamm amd Marsh/Jung have been well accepted by
> working designers of serious audio equipment, which is one reason why
> solid state has improved as much as it has, and why everyone uses a
> better grade of passives today than was the case in the seventies (and
> in mass-fi equipment today).
>
> Arny can't prove Hamm wrong, and has no desire to attempt the job,
> because he knows that at best he'll just be proven wrong and could open
> up a new can of worms. Hamm survives for the same reason people persist
> in thinking OJ killed Nicole: despite his court acquittal, a mountain
> of evidence points in that direction.

A mountain of evidence pointed to OJ as the killer, it was ignored by the
jury.

[email protected]

January 28th 05, 02:44 AM

First, I never stated any belief that Neve did or did not design in
compliance with, is or is not aware, or agrees or does not agree with
Jung and Marsh. I have no idea what he thinks on the subject, to be
honest, and now that it's been brought up would like to find out. My
point was that Rupert Neve is one of those guys that has always been
considered highly competent, as is David Manley, at the practical
design and construction of audio gear for the studio. However, to my
knowledge, all or at least the vast majority of the "classic" Neve
connsole plug ins were designed in the late sixties and very early
seventies. Nor would I argue that they are generally known for sonic
purity: in some cases they have a definite "sound" to them.

My contention that Marsh/Jung is at least partially valid is based on
my cobbling up of several audio units from scratch and the modification
of many other vintage pieces. They always seem to sound a lot better
with the "good" parts, not only to me, but to nontechnical listeners
who have heard them. A rigorous scientific study would involve the
construction of several each of a test group and a control group of
units, the control group being precisely blueprinted with components of
exactly the same electrical value as those of the test group except
using different dielectrics and resistive elements. It's more work than
I want to go through but if you want to do it, if you do it rigorously
enough, and prove Marsh/Jung wholly wrong, I would have to reluctantly
agree. My guess is that you will find Marsh/Jung valid to some extent.

As for Pease, he may be the Czar of bandgaps, but he's not the Pope.
He has no authority to speak infallibly, _ex cathedra_ or otherwise.
I have enjoyed reading him, and Jim Williams, and others, and commend
their books-far better than the dog**** put out by, say, Gerald
Weber-but they've been wrong before. He went to MIT....is MIT always
right? Are you typing on a LispM keyboard now???

Ruud Broens

January 28th 05, 04:08 AM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > said:
:
: >Sorry, my K decoder is still in the mail :(
:
:
: Why don't you tell the nice folks on RAO what really happened,
: Roadie-Toadie?
: You didn't show up at the pier, sonny.
:
:
: >not down my ally,
: >r'ally
: >Rudy
:
:
: Your ally bombrally is ever so tally and ho, Sir.
:
:
: >Arny about Arny: "I often forget exactly what I've written"
: >Arny about CD : "Compact disk process around since the 1950's"
:
:
: Others about Arny: <FLUSH>
:
:
: >hmmmm
:
:
: Have some more!

Well, since you insist
and i'm about done doing
the other stuff
...... i did send proxies to the pier. but they reported there
was only a very suspicious looking character, jumping in and out
of a black cx, playing his headlights and some really weird music
that couldn't have been you, eh ?

Rudy
sufficient Sanken stock to get the chips for free [Mk Knopfl]

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

Arny Krueger

January 28th 05, 01:11 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com

> First, I never stated any belief that Neve did or did not design in
> compliance with,

What a crock! Cal, you cited Neve as an example of a high end audio designer
in the context of a discsusion of the validity of the Marsh/Jung capacitor
misapprehensions.

> My contention that Marsh/Jung is at least partially valid is based on
> my cobbling up of several audio units from scratch and the
> modification of many other vintage pieces. They always seem to sound
> a lot better with the "good" parts, not only to me, but to
> nontechnical listeners who have heard them. A rigorous scientific
> study would involve the construction of several each of a test group
> and a control group of units, the control group being precisely
> blueprinted with components of exactly the same electrical value as
> those of the test group except using different dielectrics and
> resistive elements. It's more work than I want to go through but if
> you want to do it, if you do it rigorously enough, and prove
> Marsh/Jung wholly wrong, I would have to reluctantly agree. My guess
> is that you will find Marsh/Jung valid to some extent.

Marsh/Jung made a number of ordinary claims and other exceptional claims.
Their ordinary claims, being ordinary and based on generally accepted
practice, are valid. Their exceptional claims could have been made earlier,
and were based on known engineering concepts. Regretatably they had been
previously found to be invalid.

Not that many people bothered to carefuly and scientifically re-test Marsh
and Jung's exceptional claims, but those who did so in a rigorous fashion
found them to be wrong. I'm one such person.

> As for Pease, he may be the Czar of bandgaps, but he's not the Pope.

He's got a lot of credibility, and for a lot of good reasons.

> He has no authority to speak infallibly, _ex cathedra_ or otherwise.

What Peasesaid has passed the test of time. It was also scrutinized by a
critical audience of experts at the time he published it.

> I have enjoyed reading him, and Jim Williams, and others, and commend
> their books-far better than the dog**** put out by, say, Gerald
> Weber-but they've been wrong before. He went to MIT....is MIT always
> right? Are you typing on a LispM keyboard now???

Bogus argument dismissed.