note to Atkinson

[Robert Morein]

Make level-matching of loudspeakers a point of the debate.

It puts a spotlight on absurdity.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> Make level-matching of loudspeakers a point of the debate.
>
> It puts a spotlight on absurdity.

Nice idea, but there's a caveat: Krooger is notorious for not being able
to remember what he said last week, or even yesterday. He's also been
caught arguing with himself on several occasions. I suspect the latter
behavior results from mainlining "debating trade" elixir, otherwise known
as BorgSmugSnot.

[EddieM]

>Robert Morein wrote
>
>
>
>
> Make level-matching of loudspeakers a point of the debate.
>
> It puts a spotlight on absurdity.



Do you recommend level-matching when making subjective
comparison between source components, why or why not?

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
m...
>
> >Robert Morein wrote
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Make level-matching of loudspeakers a point of the debate.
> >
> > It puts a spotlight on absurdity.
>
>
>
> Do you recommend level-matching when making subjective
> comparison between source components, why or why not?
>
Keep a level head about you at all times.

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Make level-matching of loudspeakers a point of the debate.
>> >
>> > It puts a spotlight on absurdity.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you recommend level-matching when making subjective
>> comparison between source components, why or why not?
>>
> Keep a level head about you at all times.

So level-matching is better?

[Arny Krueger]

EddieM wrote:
>> Robert Morein wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Make level-matching of loudspeakers a point of the debate.
>>
>> It puts a spotlight on absurdity.
>
>
>
> Do you recommend level-matching when making subjective
> comparison between source components, why or why not?

I think that all components should *not* be level matched when they
are compared. That way they can be counted on to always sound
different. ;-)

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
m...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Make level-matching of loudspeakers a point of the debate.
> >> >
> >> > It puts a spotlight on absurdity.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you recommend level-matching when making subjective
> >> comparison between source components, why or why not?
> >>
> > Keep a level head about you at all times.
>
> So level-matching is better?
>
What do you think?

[Howard Ferstler]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> EddieM wrote:
> >> Robert Morein wrote

> >> Make level-matching of loudspeakers a point of the debate.
> >>
> >> It puts a spotlight on absurdity.

> > Do you recommend level-matching when making subjective
> > comparison between source components, why or why not?

> I think that all components should *not* be level matched when they
> are compared. That way they can be counted on to always sound
> different. ;-)

Every tweako audio salesman's ace in the hole. An ace in the
hole for subjective reviewers, too.

Howard Ferstler

[Arny Krueger]

Howard Ferstler wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> EddieM wrote:
>>>> Robert Morein wrote
>
>>>> Make level-matching of loudspeakers a point of the debate.
>>>>
>>>> It puts a spotlight on absurdity.
>
>>> Do you recommend level-matching when making subjective
>>> comparison between source components, why or why not?
>
>> I think that all components should *not* be level matched when they
>> are compared. That way they can be counted on to always sound
>> different. ;-)
>
> Every tweako audio salesman's ace in the hole. An ace in the
> hole for subjective reviewers, too.

Heck, even Stereophile brags about the good level matching they do
when they test components.

[Michael Conzo]

In article , "Howard Ferstler"
> wrote:

> Every tweako audio salesman's ace in the hole. An ace in the
> hole for subjective reviewers, too.

The "don't confuse me with the facts" crowd won't understand this statement,
Howard. Pity.

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Make level-matching of loudspeakers a point of the debate.
>> >> >
>> >> > It puts a spotlight on absurdity.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Do you recommend level-matching when making subjective
>> >> comparison between source components, why or why not?
>> >>
>> > Keep a level head about you at all times.
>>
>> So level-matching is better?
>>
> What do you think?



I don't think about level matching at all, do you?

If you do, what do you think happen when making subjective
comparison level-match?

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Make level-matching of loudspeakers a point of the debate.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It puts a spotlight on absurdity.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you recommend level-matching when making subjective
> >> >> comparison between source components, why or why not?
> >> >>
> >> > Keep a level head about you at all times.
> >>
> >> So level-matching is better?
> >>
> > What do you think?
>
>
>
> I don't think about level matching at all, do you?
>
> If you do, what do you think happen when making subjective
> comparison level-match?
>
When I listen to speakers, I never level-match.
I simply play with the volume until I find a spot I like.
I do this with each set of speakers.
The difficulty in speaker comparisons is that each speaker should be favored
with the particular positioning that is best for it. This has, on several
occasions, taken me the better part of a year to find.

[Robert Morein]

"Michael Conzo" > wrote in message
...
> In article , "Howard Ferstler"
> > wrote:
>
> > Every tweako audio salesman's ace in the hole. An ace in the
> > hole for subjective reviewers, too.
>
> The "don't confuse me with the facts" crowd won't understand this
statement,
> Howard. Pity.
>
"Michael Conzo" is actually Brian L. McCarty.
I advise everyone to avoid interaction with this person.
His history on usenet is unsavory, and involves harassment of others on
usenet by identity theft, as well as websites that may have been attempts at
investment fraud.

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Make level-matching of loudspeakers a point of the
>> >> >> > debate.
>> >> >> > It puts a spotlight on absurdity.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Do you recommend level-matching when making
>> >> >> subjective comparison between source components,
>> >> >> why or why not?
>> >> >>
>> >> > Keep a level head about you at all times.
>> >>
>> >> So level-matching is better?
>> >>
>> > What do you think?
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think about level matching at all, do you?
>>
>> If you do, what do you think happen when making subjective
>> comparison level-match?


> When I listen to speakers, I never level-match.
> I simply play with the volume until I find a spot I like.
> I do this with each set of speakers.


Under the scenario above and, with the output levels to all
components involved in signal line unmatch, how did you
determine (base from *your* past purchase) that the
differences you heard wasn't related to their levels unmatched?



Assume of course that the optimum position for your speakers
below had been reach.

> The difficulty in speaker comparisons is that each speaker
> should be favored with the particular positioning that is best for it.
> This has, on several occasions, taken me the better part of a year
> to find.

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Make level-matching of loudspeakers a point of the
> >> >> >> > debate.
> >> >> >> > It puts a spotlight on absurdity.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Do you recommend level-matching when making
> >> >> >> subjective comparison between source components,
> >> >> >> why or why not?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Keep a level head about you at all times.
> >> >>
> >> >> So level-matching is better?
> >> >>
> >> > What do you think?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't think about level matching at all, do you?
> >>
> >> If you do, what do you think happen when making subjective
> >> comparison level-match?
>
>
> > When I listen to speakers, I never level-match.
> > I simply play with the volume until I find a spot I like.
> > I do this with each set of speakers.
>
>
> Under the scenario above and, with the output levels to all
> components involved in signal line unmatch, how did you
> determine (base from *your* past purchase) that the
> differences you heard wasn't related to their levels unmatched?
>
>
>
> Assume of course that the optimum position for your speakers
> below had been reach.
>
> > The difficulty in speaker comparisons is that each speaker
> > should be favored with the particular positioning that is best for it.
> > This has, on several occasions, taken me the better part of a year
> > to find.
>
Eddie,
I'm happy. That's all that counts to me. Follow your own personal path
to happiness.

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Make level-matching of loudspeakers a point of the
>> >> >> >> > debate.
>> >> >> >> > It puts a spotlight on absurdity.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Do you recommend level-matching when making
>> >> >> >> subjective comparison between source components,
>> >> >> >> why or why not?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > Keep a level head about you at all times.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So level-matching is better?
>> >> >>
>> >> > What do you think?
>> >>
>> >> I don't think about level matching at all, do you?
>> >>
>> >> If you do, what do you think happen when making subjective
>> >> comparison level-match?
>>
>> > When I listen to speakers, I never level-match.
>> > I simply play with the volume until I find a spot I like.
>> > I do this with each set of speakers.
>>
>> Under the scenario above and, with the output levels to all
>> components involved in signal line unmatch, how did you
>> determine (base from *your* past purchase) that the
>> differences you heard wasn't related to their levels unmatched?
>>
>> Assume of course that the optimum position for your speakers
>> below had been reach.
>>
>> > The difficulty in speaker comparisons is that each speaker
>> > should be favored with the particular positioning that is best for it.
>> > This has, on several occasions, taken me the better part of a year
>> > to find.
>
>
> Eddie,
> I'm happy. That's all that counts to me. Follow your own personal
> path to happiness.


I'm sure that among your criterion towards a path to happiness
include not paying extra for such ambiguous, indistinguishable sound
differences when selecting to replace or upgrade any of your
components in the signal chain. You said that when your zeroing to
purchase a playback component(s), you simply play with the volume
until you find a spot you like. So how did you determine that the
differences you heard wasn't related to their levels being unmatched?

[Howard Ferstler]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:

> >> I think that all components should *not* be level matched when they
> >> are compared. That way they can be counted on to always sound
> >> different. ;-)

> > Every tweako audio salesman's ace in the hole. An ace in the
> > hole for subjective reviewers, too.

> Heck, even Stereophile brags about the good level matching they do
> when they test components.

And yet when comparing amps or comparing wires, or comparing
CD players I suppose they "hear" just enough differences to
keep impressionably readers on edges of their collective
seats (and writing checks to renew subscriptions), waiting
for the next review that will tell them even more about the
world of esoteric audio. If differences did not "exist,"
subscription rates would fall, and so we have mandated
differences that show up during comparisons.

You know, it has been months since I have even looked at a
paper edition of the magazine. Maybe I need to go down to
Barnes & Noble today and read the latest issue.

Not buy it; just read it.

Howard Ferstler

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Make level-matching of loudspeakers a point of the
> >> >> >> >> > debate.
> >> >> >> >> > It puts a spotlight on absurdity.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Do you recommend level-matching when making
> >> >> >> >> subjective comparison between source components,
> >> >> >> >> why or why not?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Keep a level head about you at all times.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So level-matching is better?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > What do you think?
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't think about level matching at all, do you?
> >> >>
> >> >> If you do, what do you think happen when making subjective
> >> >> comparison level-match?
> >>
> >> > When I listen to speakers, I never level-match.
> >> > I simply play with the volume until I find a spot I like.
> >> > I do this with each set of speakers.
> >>
> >> Under the scenario above and, with the output levels to all
> >> components involved in signal line unmatch, how did you
> >> determine (base from *your* past purchase) that the
> >> differences you heard wasn't related to their levels unmatched?
> >>
> >> Assume of course that the optimum position for your speakers
> >> below had been reach.
> >>
> >> > The difficulty in speaker comparisons is that each speaker
> >> > should be favored with the particular positioning that is best for
it.
> >> > This has, on several occasions, taken me the better part of a year
> >> > to find.
> >
> >
> > Eddie,
> > I'm happy. That's all that counts to me. Follow your own personal
> > path to happiness.
>
>
> I'm sure that among your criterion towards a path to happiness
> include not paying extra for such ambiguous, indistinguishable sound
> differences when selecting to replace or upgrade any of your
> components in the signal chain. You said that when your zeroing to
> purchase a playback component(s), you simply play with the volume
> until you find a spot you like. So how did you determine that the
> differences you heard wasn't related to their levels being unmatched?
>
My remarks are related only to speakers.

[Arny Krueger]

Howard Ferstler wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> Heck, even Stereophile brags about the good level matching they do
>> when they test components.

> And yet when comparing amps or comparing wires, or comparing
> CD players I suppose they "hear" just enough differences to
> keep impressionably readers on edges of their collective
> seats (and writing checks to renew subscriptions), waiting
> for the next review that will tell them even more about the
> world of esoteric audio. If differences did not "exist,"
> subscription rates would fall, and so we have mandated
> differences that show up during comparisons.

Hence their devotion to sighted evaluations.

[Howard Ferstler]

Robert Morein wrote:

> My remarks are related only to speakers.

If level matching is important when comparing amps, wires,
and electronics, it has to be important when comparing
speakers. The same phenomena are involved.

Howard Ferstler

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> EddieM wrote
>> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
>> >> >> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Make level-matching of loudspeakers a point of the
>> >> >> >> >> > debate.
>> >> >> >> >> > It puts a spotlight on absurdity.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Do you recommend level-matching when making
>> >> >> >> >> subjective comparison between source components,
>> >> >> >> >> why or why not?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Keep a level head about you at all times.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So level-matching is better?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > What do you think?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't think about level matching at all, do you?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you do, what do you think happen when making subjective
>> >> >> comparison level-match?
>> >>
>> >> > When I listen to speakers, I never level-match.
>> >> > I simply play with the volume until I find a spot I like.
>> >> > I do this with each set of speakers.
>> >>
>> >> Under the scenario above and, with the output levels to all
>> >> components involved in signal line unmatch, how did you
>> >> determine (base from *your* past purchase) that the
>> >> differences you heard wasn't related to their levels unmatched?
>> >>
>> >> Assume of course that the optimum position for your speakers
>> >> below had been reach.
>> >>
>> >> > The difficulty in speaker comparisons is that each speaker
>> >> > should be favored with the particular positioning that is best for it.
>> >> > This has, on several occasions, taken me the better part of a year
>> >> > to find.
>> >
>> > Eddie,
>> > I'm happy. That's all that counts to me. Follow your own personal
>> > path to happiness.
>>
>> I'm sure that among your criterion towards a path to happiness
>> include not paying extra for such ambiguous, indistinguishable sound
>> differences when selecting to replace or upgrade any of your
>> components in the signal chain. You said that when your zeroing to
>> purchase a playback component(s), you simply play with the volume
>> until you find a spot you like. So how did you determine that the
>> differences you heard wasn't related to their levels being unmatched?
>>
> My remarks are related only to speakers.

My comments relate to your advice about adhering to personal set
of rules and guidelines in order to, as you said, reach the path towards
happiness. I surmised that among the criteria is that you make your
subjective listening evaluation of components with their levels unmatch.
I assume that when selecting to replace or upgrade any of your components
in the signal chain that you make effort to disqualify audio gears having
ambiguous and indistinguishable sound difference. Thus, it avoid paying
extra on gears incidentally costing more. So base on your past purchases,
how did you determine that the differences you heard among components
wasn't related to their levels being unmatched?

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> Robert Morein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> My remarks are related only to speakers.
>
> If level matching is important when comparing amps, wires,
> and electronics, it has to be important when comparing
> speakers. The same phenomena are involved.

The only phenomena involved here is the continuous formulation
of insane ideas flowing out of your thick skull.



> Howard Ferstler

Btw, you've done wrong again.
You apparently couldn't tell what is fair and what is not.

What good is the study of philosopy?

[Howard Ferstler]

EddieM wrote:

> What good is the study of philosopy?

Anyone asking that question would not understand the answer.

Howard Ferstler

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> EddieM wrote:
>
>
>
>> What good is the study of philosopy?
>
> Anyone asking that question would not understand the answer.


You mean that if I study and learn about philosopy, I would know
something about copyrighted materials ?




> Howard Ferstler

[Lionel]

In >, EddieM wrote :

>
>> Howard Ferstler wrote
>>> EddieM wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> What good is the study of philosopy?
>>
>> Anyone asking that question would not understand the answer.
>
>
> You mean that if I study and learn about philosopy, I would know
> something about copyrighted materials ?

No you would know about their worthlessness. ;-)

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
m...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> EddieM wrote
> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> >> >> >> EddieM wrote
> >> >> >> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > Make level-matching of loudspeakers a point of the
> >> >> >> >> >> > debate.
> >> >> >> >> >> > It puts a spotlight on absurdity.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Do you recommend level-matching when making
> >> >> >> >> >> subjective comparison between source components,
> >> >> >> >> >> why or why not?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Keep a level head about you at all times.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> So level-matching is better?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > What do you think?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I don't think about level matching at all, do you?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If you do, what do you think happen when making subjective
> >> >> >> comparison level-match?
> >> >>
> >> >> > When I listen to speakers, I never level-match.
> >> >> > I simply play with the volume until I find a spot I like.
> >> >> > I do this with each set of speakers.
> >> >>
> >> >> Under the scenario above and, with the output levels to all
> >> >> components involved in signal line unmatch, how did you
> >> >> determine (base from *your* past purchase) that the
> >> >> differences you heard wasn't related to their levels unmatched?
> >> >>
> >> >> Assume of course that the optimum position for your speakers
> >> >> below had been reach.
> >> >>
> >> >> > The difficulty in speaker comparisons is that each speaker
> >> >> > should be favored with the particular positioning that is best for
it.
> >> >> > This has, on several occasions, taken me the better part of a
year
> >> >> > to find.
> >> >
> >> > Eddie,
> >> > I'm happy. That's all that counts to me. Follow your own personal
> >> > path to happiness.
> >>
> >> I'm sure that among your criterion towards a path to happiness
> >> include not paying extra for such ambiguous, indistinguishable sound
> >> differences when selecting to replace or upgrade any of your
> >> components in the signal chain. You said that when your zeroing to
> >> purchase a playback component(s), you simply play with the volume
> >> until you find a spot you like. So how did you determine that the
> >> differences you heard wasn't related to their levels being unmatched?
> >>
> > My remarks are related only to speakers.
>
> My comments relate to your advice about adhering to personal set
> of rules and guidelines in order to, as you said, reach the path towards
> happiness. I surmised that among the criteria is that you make your
> subjective listening evaluation of components with their levels unmatch.
> I assume that when selecting to replace or upgrade any of your components
> in the signal chain that you make effort to disqualify audio gears having
> ambiguous and indistinguishable sound difference. Thus, it avoid paying
> extra on gears incidentally costing more. So base on your past
purchases,
> how did you determine that the differences you heard among components
> wasn't related to their levels being unmatched?
>
Don't surmise so much, Eddie. I was only writing about speakers.

[EddieM]

> Lionel wrote
>> EddieM wrote :
>>> Howard Ferstler wrote
>>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> What good is the study of philosopy?
>>>
>>> Anyone asking that question would not understand the answer.
>>
>>
>> You mean that if I study and learn about philosopy, I would know
>> something about copyrighted materials ?
>
> No, you would know about their worthlessness. ;-)


You mean Ferstler decided to study philosopy to see how
worthless he could make himself to be ? (It's not a question)

[EddieM]

> Robert Morein wrote
>
>
>
>snip
>
>
> Don't surmise so much, Eddie. I was only writing about speakers.


I'm commenting about your advice, and to see if you follow your own advice
when buying components in the past. Aside from speakers, don't you buy
other things? Why don't you anwer, what do you have to lose ? Why all of the
sudden you have this tremendous love to write and talk only about goddamn
speakers. **** the speakers!

You are now like McKelvy, Ferstler....... etc...etc.....

[Lionel]

In >, EddieM wrote :

>
>> Lionel wrote
>>> EddieM wrote :
>>>> Howard Ferstler wrote
>>>>> EddieM wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What good is the study of philosopy?
>>>>
>>>> Anyone asking that question would not understand the answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> You mean that if I study and learn about philosopy, I would know
>>> something about copyrighted materials ?
>>
>> No, you would know about their worthlessness. ;-)
>
>
> You mean Ferstler decided to study philosopy to see how
> worthless he could make himself to be ?

Interesting philosophical exercise...

> (It's not a question)

What's a pity ! This was the first interesting thing I read from you. ;-)

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Robert Morein wrote
> >
> >
> >
> >snip
> >
> >
> > Don't surmise so much, Eddie. I was only writing about speakers.
>
>
> I'm commenting about your advice, and to see if you follow your own advice
> when buying components in the past. Aside from speakers, don't you buy
> other things? Why don't you anwer, what do you have to lose ? Why all of
the
> sudden you have this tremendous love to write and talk only about goddamn
> speakers. **** the speakers!
>
> You are now like McKelvy, Ferstler....... etc...etc.....
>
Boy! What a reaction.

Eddie,
I'm a pretty copacetic guy. I give myself the time to argue only with
people who I feel really damage the pleasure of hifi, in which I include
Arny, Howard, Mikey, Noussaine, and, I think, Oberlander. You, however, are
not in that category. I don't know what you believe, nor do I care, because
you're not spouting off. You don't advertise yourself as a big expert.

So, I'm sorry, but you don't qualify for a big argument. Even if you
choose to insult me personally, that's not enough reason to argue. For me,
it's about the subject of hifi.

As for what I do personally, if I feel the difference is close, I may
attempt to match levels. I have done this in the past with DACs. If I feel
I'm having trouble telling two equipments apart, and I'm sufficiently
interested, I may level match. A friend of mine does not bother to level
match, and he makes comparisons that I frequently find valid.

All these are personal methods that I'm not advising anyone else to use.

[Howard Ferstler]

Robert Morein wrote:

> Eddie,
> I'm a pretty copacetic guy.

That is not a real word.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace the Vocabulary Deprived whined:

> > I'm a pretty copacetic guy.

> That is not a real word.

Which word, Clerkie? Do you mean "I'm", "copacetic", or "guy"? How about
"gainfully employed", "rational", and "honorable" -- are those real words?

[Robert Morein]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
> > Eddie,
> > I'm a pretty copacetic guy.
>
> That is not a real word.
>
> Howard Ferstler

You'll find the answer to your ignorance in "Reference" : an English
language dictionary.

[EddieM]

> Howard Ferstler wrote
>> Robert Morein wrote:
>
>
>
>> Eddie,
>> I'm a pretty copacetic guy.
>
> That is not a real word.
>
> Howard Ferstler

You're one hapless dotard. Forget philosopy,
what you just said above is truly embarassing.
Go puff your ego somewhere else.