Re: sound card recommendation [Archive]

Arny Krueger

August 24th 03, 09:27 PM

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message

> Laurence Payne wrote:

>>> All the higher-end models either have digital coax out or RCA jacks
>>> at a minimum. THey assume you are going to connect them to an
>>> amplifier.

>> That's higher-end as compared to really-nasty-consumer-end. :-)

Agreed.

>> Up a few more notches you start seeing balanced connections.

Right.

> Well, yeah - but considering the OP was looking for an under $400
> solution...

Echo Mia - under $200 with TRS in and out. I believe the excellent Card
Deluxe is still going for $399. Again, TRS in and out.

http://www.digitalaudio.com/

http://digitalaudioworks.com/manufacturers-d-n-digital-audio-labs.html

BTW, I notice that this Card Deluxe review site is down...

www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?280

There's TRS I/O on the Midiman Delta 44 (ca. $230) and Delta 66 (ca. $280).

drummer

August 25th 03, 03:23 AM

so is cardeluxe considered one of the best?

i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
finding something a tad cheaper.

Joseph Oberlander

August 25th 03, 04:31 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:

>
> Echo Mia - under $200 with TRS in and out. I believe the excellent Card
> Deluxe is still going for $399. Again, TRS in and out.

(snip)

Nice. :) $200 is affordable. Q: how good is the Mia?

Arny Krueger

August 25th 03, 10:16 AM

"drummer" > wrote in message
om

> so is cardeluxe considered one of the best?

It is a very good card. One of the best would be the LynxTWO.

> i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
> sound card like that?

Well, the Card Deluxe is only a 2-track card so if you want to record or
play back more than 2 channels at a time, there's no comparison.

> it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
> finding something a tad cheaper.

Echo MIA...

Arny Krueger

August 25th 03, 10:17 AM

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> Echo Mia - under $200 with TRS in and out. I believe the excellent
>> Card Deluxe is still going for $399. Again, TRS in and out.

> (snip)

> Nice. :) $200 is affordable. Q: how good is the Mia?

A lot closer to the Card Deluxe than DAL might find comfortable. Up to 24/48
the two are nearly indistinguishable. The DAL card has stronger analog
interfaces, if that matters.

John Atkinson

August 25th 03, 12:04 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
> BTW, I notice that this Card Deluxe review site is down...
> www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?280

Incorrect. The link works fine; the review is on-line as usual.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

drummer

August 25th 03, 01:41 PM

>
> > i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
> > sound card like that?
>
> Well, the Card Deluxe is only a 2-track card so if you want to record or
> play back more than 2 channels at a time, there's no comparison.

i thought the playback was just 2 outs for stereo, and you could
listen to all the tracks you mwant to at the same time.

dave weil

August 25th 03, 01:48 PM

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:13:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
m...
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >...
>> > BTW, I notice that this Card Deluxe review site is down...
>> > www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?280
>>
>> Incorrect. The link works fine; the review is on-line as usual.
>
>Atkinson again shows that he thinks he's omniscient. He obviously can't
>comprehend the idea that a link would be down at one time, and restored at
>another.
>
You don't seem to acknowledge that it could have been a problem on
your end. I seem to remember you saying the same thing about *my*
connection when I claimed that a link was down on *your* site.

<shrug>

dave weil

August 25th 03, 02:31 PM

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 09:04:58 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:13:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> m...
>
>> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >> >...
>
>> >> > BTW, I notice that this Card Deluxe review site is down...
>> >> > www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?280
>
>> >> Incorrect. The link works fine; the review is on-line as usual.
>
>> >Atkinson again shows that he thinks he's omniscient. He obviously can't
>> >comprehend the idea that a link would be down at one time, and restored
>at
>> >another.
>
>> You don't seem to acknowledge that it could have been a problem on
>> your end.
>
>Or someplace along the way...

Fair enough.

>For the record I sucessfully visited the site
>maybe an hour later. At the time I wrote the post I had no idea of the full
>domain or total duration of the problem, but I wanted to prepare people for
>the possibility that the link might be down when they tried it.

That's fair as well.

>>I seem to remember you saying the same thing about *my*
>> connection when I claimed that a link was down on *your* site.
>
>That's quite a different thing than saying that the report was incorrect.
>Your report was correct, but the problem was obviously someplace between
>your site and my web site as I checked and knew that my site was
>continuously up during that time.
>
>I'd bet money that Atkinson never personally checked his site's web logs
>before he made his angry little post.

Here's the deal. You see it as an angry little post, but it seemed a
rather disspasionate reporting that there wasn't a problem with the
link. He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.
He simply said that your report was incorrect and that there wasn't a
problem with the link. He didn't make a personal ad hominem comment
about you at all as you did toward him. If there's any anger in the
two posts, it seems to have come from your end.

> I'd bet that he lacks the interest
>and/or ability to do so. But I could be wrong about this.

I wouldn't know one way or another. But I think it's just as likely
that the first thing he might do as an interested party is to have
checked the link to make sure that something hadn't gotten corrupted.

Arny Krueger

August 25th 03, 02:47 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> I'd bet money that Atkinson never personally checked his site's web
>> logs before he made his angry little post.

> Here's the deal. You see it as an angry little post, but it seemed a
> rather disspasionate reporting that there wasn't a problem with the
> link.

Weil just to refresh your memory, your bias in any matter involving me is
like a metaphorical telephone pole in your eye.

> He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.

Sure he did. One word: "Wrong".

> He simply said that your report was incorrect and that there wasn't a
> problem with the link.

But my report was correct as stated. Atkinson said straight out that my
report was wrong. Yet without omniscience, he really has no way of knowing
whether my report was right or wrong.

>He didn't make a personal ad hominem comment
> about you at all as you did toward him.

Weil, I'm sure that in your personal dream world you have no comprehension
of the fact that Atkinson and I have what is known as "history".

>If there's any anger in the
> two posts, it seems to have come from your end.

I can come up with a hundred ways that Atkinson could have treated the
matter more factually and provoked zero heat.

What Atkinson could know at best is that there were no interruptions of
service at the server.

However, I'd bet that he didn't ever bother to check that. He simply tested
the link when he saw it and globally pronounced my earlier report wrong
without further investigation. This is BTW a common personality flaw of
his - he tends to make global pronouncements based on inadequate evidence.
The bad news is that Atkinson has made a profitable business out of making
global pronouncements based on inadequate evidence. Large segments of the
audio business suffer with this kind of bad logic.

Nailing shallow-thinking bozos like Atkinson on the grounds of claimed
omniscience is so easy that it has almost stopped being fun.

>> I'd bet that he lacks the interest
>> and/or ability to do so. But I could be wrong about this.

> I wouldn't know one way or another. But I think it's just as likely
> that the first thing he might do as an interested party is to have
> checked the link to make sure that something hadn't gotten corrupted.

....and as an interested party I checked the link several times over a period
of several minutes and found that it was broken, but that every other part
of the web that I tested was working just fine.

John Atkinson

August 25th 03, 03:35 PM

(drummer) wrote in message >...
> i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
> sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
> finding something a tad cheaper.

Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT Lightpipe
protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have recorded 8
channels on my PC using this card and digital input via LightPipe.

You can find Stereophile's review of the RME Digi96/8 PAD at
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?541 and its predecessor, the
Digi96/8 PRO at http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?299 .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

George M. Middius

August 25th 03, 05:43 PM

Girth said to **** of ****s:

> >Weil, I'm sure that in your personal dream world you have no comprehension
> >of the fact that Atkinson and I have what is known as "history".
>
> Only in your "mind". You would love there to be a "history" between
> you and John Atkinson, because you are a nobody and Mr Atkinson is a
> successful guy working in the audio business - so like a limpet you
> attach yourself to him in the hope that some of the magic rubs off. In
> actuality, the only dealings John Atkinson has had with you involves
> him defending himself from libelous and repugnant comments you have
> directed at both himself and the magazine he edits - Stereophile. So,
> in essence, the "history" you speak of, is you stalking John Atkinson.

Well said. This delusion of Krooger's ranks right up there with his
wacky belief that the disgust and loathing he inspires on Usenet is
the result of his so-called "audio opinions". Many other people who
are not insane have similar opinions to what Krooger professes, and
none of them is regularly equated with a pile of stinking doo-doo.

Don't get me started on the Beast's shrill and self-righteous whining
about his "family" being besmirched either. Krooger is the only
"person" most of us would ever hope to meet who is so vile as to
boast about his alleged wife's sexual stamina and use the death of
his child as troll bait, and then complain when he is mocked for his
own words.

George M. Middius

August 25th 03, 07:45 PM

dave weil said:

> At www.dictionary.com "bear fruit" is considered an idiom:
>
> bear fruit: To come to a satisfactory conclusion or to fruition.

It doesn't give the Krooglish definition? Just as well, I suppose --
the english language can only stand so much torment.

MiNE 109

August 25th 03, 08:01 PM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> dave weil said:
>
> > At www.dictionary.com "bear fruit" is considered an idiom:
> >
> > bear fruit: To come to a satisfactory conclusion or to fruition.
>
>
> It doesn't give the Krooglish definition? Just as well, I suppose --
> the english language can only stand so much torment.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030802

John Atkinson

August 25th 03, 08:24 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>
> > He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.
>
> Sure he did. One word: "Wrong".

I didn't use that word, Mr. Krueger. I said that your statement that the
link to Stereophile's review of the CardDeluxe was not working was
"incorrect." I said this because, to the best of my knowledge, there were
no interruptions of service and the link was working both when I checked
it first thing this morning and the last time I acessed the review, which
was over the weekend.

I felt it important to reasure those wanting to access Stereophile's
on-line archives that the link was working.

> > If there's any anger in the two posts, it seems to have come from your
> > end.
>
> I can come up with a hundred ways that Atkinson could have treated the
> matter more factually and provoked zero heat.

My posting was about as dispassionate as it was possible to make it, Mr.
Krueger. Yes, my single word "incorrect" was on the blunt side, but it
was not intended to belittle you.

> Nailing shallow-thinking bozos like Atkinson on the grounds of claimed
> omniscience is so easy that it has almost stopped being fun.

And, as usual, the obligatory parting insult is thrown my way :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

August 25th 03, 08:36 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >...
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>

>>> He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.

>> Sure he did. One word: "Wrong".

> I didn't use that word, Mr. Krueger. I said that your statement that
> the link to Stereophile's review of the CardDeluxe was not working was
> "incorrect."

Agreed.

> I said this because, to the best of my knowledge, there
> were no interruptions of service and the link was working both when I
> checked it first thing this morning and the last time I acessed the
> review, which was over the weekend.

"The best of my knowledge" admits no knowledge whatsoever at the time and
place I mentioned the interruption of service, doesn't it Atkinson? No
doubt, that was your situation. Nice deceptive way to make it seem that you
knew something that you didn't know!

> I felt it important to reasure those wanting to access Stereophile's
> on-line archives that the link was working.

You could have said that you just checked it and it was working at that time
and at your place.

My statement was correct at the time and place I made it, which makes your
claim that it was false totally incorrect, Atkinson.

>>> If there's any anger in the two posts, it seems to have come from
>>> your end.

>> I can come up with a hundred ways that Atkinson could have treated
>> the matter more factually and provoked zero heat.

> My posting was about as dispassionate as it was possible to make it,
> Mr. Krueger.

LOL!

>Yes, my single word "incorrect" was on the blunt side,
> but it was not intended to belittle you.

It was a false claim. Why would you possibly start trying to be truthful at
this late date, Atkinson?
>
>> Nailing shallow-thinking bozos like Atkinson on the grounds of
>> claimed omniscience is so easy that it has almost stopped being fun.
>
> And, as usual, the obligatory parting insult is thrown my way :-)
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

dave weil

August 25th 03, 08:48 PM

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:36:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >...
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>
>>>> He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.
>
>>> Sure he did. One word: "Wrong".
>
>> I didn't use that word, Mr. Krueger. I said that your statement that
>> the link to Stereophile's review of the CardDeluxe was not working was
>> "incorrect."
>
>Agreed.
>
>> I said this because, to the best of my knowledge, there
>> were no interruptions of service and the link was working both when I
>> checked it first thing this morning and the last time I acessed the
>> review, which was over the weekend.
>
>"The best of my knowledge" admits no knowledge whatsoever at the time and
>place I mentioned the interruption of service, doesn't it Atkinson? No
>doubt, that was your situation. Nice deceptive way to make it seem that you
>knew something that you didn't know!
>
>> I felt it important to reasure those wanting to access Stereophile's
>> on-line archives that the link was working.
>
>You could have said that you just checked it and it was working at that time
>and at your place.
>
>My statement was correct at the time and place I made it, which makes your
>claim that it was false totally incorrect, Atkinson.
>
>>>> If there's any anger in the two posts, it seems to have come from
>>>> your end.
>
>>> I can come up with a hundred ways that Atkinson could have treated
>>> the matter more factually and provoked zero heat.
>
>> My posting was about as dispassionate as it was possible to make it,
>> Mr. Krueger.
>
>LOL!
>
>>Yes, my single word "incorrect" was on the blunt side,
>> but it was not intended to belittle you.
>
>It was a false claim. Why would you possibly start trying to be truthful at
>this late date, Atkinson?
>>
>>> Nailing shallow-thinking bozos like Atkinson on the grounds of
>>> claimed omniscience is so easy that it has almost stopped being fun.
>>
>> And, as usual, the obligatory parting insult is thrown my way :-)
>>
>> John Atkinson
>> Editor, Stereophile

Unbelievable!

Mr. Krueger is obviously out to pick a fight however he can...

dave weil

August 25th 03, 08:51 PM

On 25 Aug 2003 12:24:59 -0700, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>> > He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.
>>
>> Sure he did. One word: "Wrong".
>
>I didn't use that word, Mr. Krueger. I said that your statement that the
>link to Stereophile's review of the CardDeluxe was not working was
>"incorrect." I said this because, to the best of my knowledge, there were
>no interruptions of service and the link was working both when I checked
>it first thing this morning and the last time I acessed the review, which
>was over the weekend.
>
>I felt it important to reasure those wanting to access Stereophile's
>on-line archives that the link was working.
>
>> > If there's any anger in the two posts, it seems to have come from your
>> > end.
>>
>> I can come up with a hundred ways that Atkinson could have treated the
>> matter more factually and provoked zero heat.
>
>My posting was about as dispassionate as it was possible to make it, Mr.
>Krueger. Yes, my single word "incorrect" was on the blunt side, but it
>was not intended to belittle you.

Notice how he tired to make it seem even *more* plunt by originally
accusing you of saying "Wrong"? At least he's admitted that he was
incorrect, but I think that this goes to the issue that he is hellbent
to pick a fight with you - so hellbent that his reality actually
warps. He seemed to actually have read "Wrong" (which would have been
an even more "blunt" form of address) in your post.

>> Nailing shallow-thinking bozos like Atkinson on the grounds of claimed
>> omniscience is so easy that it has almost stopped being fun.
>
>And, as usual, the obligatory parting insult is thrown my way :-)

Yep. He can surely make a mountain out of a molehill and toss a few
grenades while he's at it...

dave weil

August 25th 03, 08:55 PM

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:51:41 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On 25 Aug 2003 12:24:59 -0700, (John
>Atkinson) wrote:
>
>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> > He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.
>>>
>>> Sure he did. One word: "Wrong".
>>
>>I didn't use that word, Mr. Krueger. I said that your statement that the
>>link to Stereophile's review of the CardDeluxe was not working was
>>"incorrect." I said this because, to the best of my knowledge, there were
>>no interruptions of service and the link was working both when I checked
>>it first thing this morning and the last time I acessed the review, which
>>was over the weekend.
>>
>>I felt it important to reasure those wanting to access Stereophile's
>>on-line archives that the link was working.
>>
>>> > If there's any anger in the two posts, it seems to have come from your
>>> > end.
>>>
>>> I can come up with a hundred ways that Atkinson could have treated the
>>> matter more factually and provoked zero heat.
>>
>>My posting was about as dispassionate as it was possible to make it, Mr.
>>Krueger. Yes, my single word "incorrect" was on the blunt side, but it
>>was not intended to belittle you.
>
>Notice how he tired to make it seem even *more* plunt

Or "blunt" even...

> by originally
>accusing you of saying "Wrong"? At least he's admitted that he was
>incorrect, but I think that this goes to the issue that he is hellbent
>to pick a fight with you - so hellbent that his reality actually
>warps. He seemed to actually have read "Wrong" (which would have been
>an even more "blunt" form of address) in your post.
>
>>> Nailing shallow-thinking bozos like Atkinson on the grounds of claimed
>>> omniscience is so easy that it has almost stopped being fun.
>>
>>And, as usual, the obligatory parting insult is thrown my way :-)
>
>Yep. He can surely make a mountain out of a molehill and toss a few
>grenades while he's at it...

George M. Middius

August 25th 03, 09:13 PM

dave weil said:

> >"The best of my knowledge" admits no knowledge whatsoever at the time and
> >place I mentioned the interruption of service, doesn't it Atkinson? No
> >doubt, that was your situation. Nice deceptive way to make it seem that you
> >knew something that you didn't know!

> >My statement was correct at the time and place I made it, which makes your
> >claim that it was false totally incorrect, Atkinson.

> >LOL!

> >It was a false claim. Why would you possibly start trying to be truthful at
> >this late date, Atkinson?

> Unbelievable!

Surely not. Only a newbie might think that.

> Mr. Krueger is obviously out to pick a fight however he can...

Yes, the borganoia seems to have metastasized beyond projections.
Perhaps an encounter with some randy bears is in order for the Kroo.

George M. Middius

August 25th 03, 09:18 PM

MiNE 109 said:

> > > bear fruit: To come to a satisfactory conclusion or to fruition.

> > It doesn't give the Krooglish definition? Just as well, I suppose --
> > the english language can only stand so much torment.

> http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030802

Very perspicacious of you. "It's not really about hunting, is it?"

George M. Middius

August 25th 03, 10:19 PM

MiNE 109 said:

> > > > > bear fruit: To come to a satisfactory conclusion or to fruition.
> >
> > > > It doesn't give the Krooglish definition? Just as well, I suppose --
> > > > the english language can only stand so much torment.
> >
> > > http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030802
> >
> > Very perspicacious of you. "It's not really about hunting, is it?"
>
> Not always, no. Sometimes it's about Steve Fromholz.
>
> Can a trend be "trend-spotted" if it's been on "The Simpsons"?

Homer dated a bear? Or was fruit barely borne by a bear? The
possibilities are endless...........

MiNE 109

August 26th 03, 12:10 AM

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:52:51 GMT, MiNE 109 >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > George M. Middius > wrote:
> >
> >> MiNE 109 said:
> >>
> >> > > > bear fruit: To come to a satisfactory conclusion or to fruition.
> >>
> >> > > It doesn't give the Krooglish definition? Just as well, I suppose --
> >> > > the english language can only stand so much torment.
> >>
> >> > http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030802
> >>
> >> Very perspicacious of you. "It's not really about hunting, is it?"
> >
> >Not always, no. Sometimes it's about Steve Fromholz.
>
> Ahhhh, a sly David Allen Coe reference.
>
> Well met, McDuff.

And Lyle.

Stephen

MiNE 109

August 26th 03, 12:27 AM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNE 109 said:
>
> > > > > > bear fruit: To come to a satisfactory conclusion or to fruition.
> > >
> > > > > It doesn't give the Krooglish definition? Just as well, I suppose --
> > > > > the english language can only stand so much torment.
> > >
> > > > http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030802
> > >
> > > Very perspicacious of you. "It's not really about hunting, is it?"
> >
> > Not always, no. Sometimes it's about Steve Fromholz.
> >
> > Can a trend be "trend-spotted" if it's been on "The Simpsons"?
>
>
> Homer dated a bear? Or was fruit barely borne by a bear? The
> possibilities are endless...........

He did fight a bear once...

Stephen

George M. Middius

August 26th 03, 01:31 AM

dave weil said:

> >> >Not always, no. Sometimes it's about Steve Fromholz.
> >>
> >> Ahhhh, a sly David Allen Coe reference.
> >>
> >> Well met, McDuff.
> >
> >And Lyle.
>
> Gotta Lovett.

But don't bear it.

Laurence Payne

August 26th 03, 01:36 AM

>> Well, the Card Deluxe is only a 2-track card so if you want to record or
>> play back more than 2 channels at a time, there's no comparison.
>
>i thought the playback was just 2 outs for stereo, and you could
>listen to all the tracks you mwant to at the same time.

Yup.

Nick H (UK)

August 26th 03, 01:53 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> (drummer) wrote in message >...
>
>>i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
>>sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
>>finding something a tad cheaper.
>
>
> Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
> optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT Lightpipe
> protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have recorded 8
> channels on my PC using this card and digital input via LightPipe.
>

Very much an inexpert in this field, but just bought the RME Digi96/8
PST. My aim was to get better stereo output sound into my hifi, and I
was more than delighted by the results on that score.

The one snag with the card is that there is no level control for
analogue input, so I had to invest in a small mixer to control the level
going to the card.

Nick H (UK)

> You can find Stereophile's review of the RME Digi96/8 PAD at
> http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?541 and its predecessor, the
> Digi96/8 PRO at http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?299 .
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

August 26th 03, 02:11 PM

"Nick H (UK)" > wrote in message

> John Atkinson wrote:
>> (drummer) wrote in message
>> >...
>>
>>> i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
>>> sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
>>> finding something a tad cheaper.
>>
>>
>> Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
>> optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT
>> Lightpipe protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have
>> recorded 8 channels on my PC using this card and digital input via
>> LightPipe.

> Very much an inexpert in this field, but just bought the RME Digi96/8
> PST. My aim was to get better stereo output sound into my hifi, and I
> was more than delighted by the results on that score.

Most people cut their teeth in PC audio with either SoundBlaster cards or
on-motherboard sound facilities. Both can be pretty substandard compared to
a modern CD or DVD player. The SoundBlaster Audigy was the first Creative
Labs card that had a chance of holding a candle performance-wise to even a
$100 CD or DVD player.

> The one snag with the card is that there is no level control for
> analogue input, so I had to invest in a small mixer to control the
> level going to the card.

Very few modern sound cards have any kind of analog input level control
other than a coarse sensitivity setting (-10/+4). This is because there are
no reasonably-priced computer controlled analog attenuators that would not
degrade the card's input. Such fine level controls as one finds are
generally implemented digitally, which leaves the card susceptible to analog
clipping in its input buffers. Of course, it's pretty hard (without trying)
to clip the analog input of a +4 device that has reasonable (10-12 dB)
headroom (takes more than 6 volts RMS).

The *last* analog level control chip that found general use as a sound card
analog input attenuator was the Crystal CS 3310 which was a pretty good
match for 16 bits, but would appreciably degrade any halfways-decent 24 bit
input.

Ironically, this same CS 3310 chip is used in some high end analog gear that
is used and prized by analog bigots and digiphobes. It doesn't have good
enough performance for general use in modern audio production computer
interface cards, but it does seem to have good enough performance for
digiphobes and analog bigots. Go figure.

dave weil

August 26th 03, 02:38 PM

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:11:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Nick H (UK)" > wrote in message

>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>> (drummer) wrote in message
>>> >...
>>>
>>>> i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
>>>> sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
>>>> finding something a tad cheaper.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
>>> optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT
>>> Lightpipe protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have
>>> recorded 8 channels on my PC using this card and digital input via
>>> LightPipe.
>
>> Very much an inexpert in this field, but just bought the RME Digi96/8
>> PST. My aim was to get better stereo output sound into my hifi, and I
>> was more than delighted by the results on that score.
>
>Most people cut their teeth in PC audio with either SoundBlaster cards or
>on-motherboard sound facilities. Both can be pretty substandard compared to
>a modern CD or DVD player. The SoundBlaster Audigy was the first Creative
>Labs card that had a chance of holding a candle performance-wise to even a
>$100 CD or DVD player.
>
>> The one snag with the card is that there is no level control for
>> analogue input, so I had to invest in a small mixer to control the
>> level going to the card.
>
>Very few modern sound cards have any kind of analog input level control
>other than a coarse sensitivity setting (-10/+4). This is because there are
>no reasonably-priced computer controlled analog attenuators that would not
>degrade the card's input. Such fine level controls as one finds are
>generally implemented digitally, which leaves the card susceptible to analog
>clipping in its input buffers. Of course, it's pretty hard (without trying)
>to clip the analog input of a +4 device that has reasonable (10-12 dB)
>headroom (takes more than 6 volts RMS).
>
>The *last* analog level control chip that found general use as a sound card
>analog input attenuator was the Crystal CS 3310 which was a pretty good
>match for 16 bits, but would appreciably degrade any halfways-decent 24 bit
>input.
>
>Ironically, this same CS 3310 chip is used in some high end analog gear that
>is used and prized by analog bigots and digiphobes. It doesn't have good
>enough performance for general use in modern audio production computer
>interface cards, but it does seem to have good enough performance for
>digiphobes and analog bigots. Go figure.

You just can't keep from bashing, can you?

John Atkinson

August 26th 03, 03:31 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> om
> > to the best of my knowledge, there were no interruptions of service and
> > the link was working both when I checked it first thing this morning
> > and the last time I acessed the review, which was over the weekend.
>
> "The best of my knowledge" admits no knowledge whatsoever at the time and
> place I mentioned the interruption of service, doesn't it Atkinson? No
> doubt, that was your situation. Nice deceptive way to make it seem that
> you knew something that you didn't know!

I really fail to understand your anger, Mr. Krueger. You had difficulty
accessing a review in Stereophile's on-line archives. As I could access
this review both at the weekend and on Monday morning and the website
server didn't appear to have gone down between those two times, then it
is probable that there was another reason for your problem.

> My statement was correct at the time and place I made it, which makes
> your claim that it was false totally incorrect, Atkinson.

I do wish you would observe the usual social niceties, Mr. Krueger. You
claim that you are not angry, yet calling me "Atkinson" rather than "Mr.
Atkinson" or even "John" gives the lie to that claim.

Back to the matter at hand. I had assumed from the time of your posting
that the problem you had accessing www.stereophile.com was on Sunday
evening or Monday morning. Yes our server could have been down, as you
have claimed, but as I have said, that doesn't appear to be the case.
My saying so is _not_ a criticism of you in any way, nor is it a claim
of omniscience on my part, merely a suggestion that something else must
have gone wrong.

Perhaps you typed an incorrect URL. It can happen. But if, indeed, you
were trying to access Stereophile's on-line archives on Monday morning,
then that is when we get a huge increase in traffic due to the new news
postings. The associated increased demand for archived reviews slows the
server down significantly and if, rather than getting a "404" error, you
didn't get any response at all other than a creeping "site loading"
display, it is possible that this was the reason.

Whatever the cause, I do appreciaate people letting me know when they
have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
Krueger.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

drummer

August 26th 03, 03:53 PM

so the card deluxe seems to be the best for the money...

will using this card make my alesis lx20 adat usless? cause i wanted
to bounce 8 tracks to comp, then add on, cause i like the feel the
adat gives. do you think that would be a waste of time?

Richard Crowley

August 26th 03, 04:04 PM

"John Atkinson" wrote ...
....
> Whatever the cause, I do appreciaate people letting me know when they
> have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
> Krueger.

Several sections of the website are currently so sluggish they
are nearly indistinguishable from broken. 30-90 seconds to just
reply to a page request indicates that something is wrong here.

Arny Krueger

August 26th 03, 04:11 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om...
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >...
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> > om
> > > to the best of my knowledge, there were no interruptions of service
and
> > > the link was working both when I checked it first thing this morning
> > > and the last time I accessed the review, which was over the weekend.
> >
> > "The best of my knowledge" admits no knowledge whatsoever at the time
and
> > place I mentioned the interruption of service, doesn't it Atkinson? No
> > doubt, that was your situation. Nice deceptive way to make it seem that
> > you knew something that you didn't know!
>
> I really fail to understand your anger, Mr. Krueger.

What anger? I was merely making light of your diminished mental and ethical
state, Atkinson.

>You had difficulty
> accessing a review in Stereophile's on-line archives. As I could access
> this review both at the weekend and on Monday morning and the website
> server didn't appear to have gone down between those two times, then it
> is probable that there was another reason for your problem.

"didn't appear to have gone donw" admits no knowledge whatsoever at the
time and
place I mentioned the interruption of service, doesn't it Atkinson? No
doubt, that was your situation. Nice deceptive way to make it seem that
you knew something that you didn't know!

> > My statement was correct at the time and place I made it, which makes
> > your claim that it was false totally incorrect, Atkinson.

> I do wish you would observe the usual social niceties, Mr. Krueger.

IMO, if you observed the usual social niceties you'd shut your lying
ragazine down, Atkinson. So what do social niceties have to do with any
discussion involving you and your ragazine, Atkinson?

> You claim that you are not angry, yet calling me "Atkinson" rather than
"Mr.
> Atkinson" or even "John" gives the lie to that claim.

Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that I refer to people by their last
name, friend, foe and neutral party alike.

> Back to the matter at hand. I had assumed from the time of your posting
> that the problem you had accessing www.stereophile.com was on Sunday
> evening or Monday morning.

Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that posts are associated with a
particular time and date.

>Yes our server could have been down, as you
> have claimed, but as I have said, that doesn't appear to be the case.

Rather than belaboring this issue Atkinson, why not admit that anybody with
a modicum of social grace would have simply said that you just checked the
file in question and had no problem accessing it at that time?

> My saying so is _not_ a criticism of you in any way, nor is it a claim
> of omniscience on my part, merely a suggestion that something else must
> have gone wrong.

In which alternative universe, Atkinson?

> Perhaps you typed an incorrect URL.

Like anybody with a brain, I cut-pasted the URL from my browsers address
line to the post. Furthermore I didn't type the URL but rather picked it up
from another web site. I then ran a test using just the name of your site
www.stereophile.com. etc., etc., etc.

> It can happen. But if, indeed, you
> were trying to access Stereophile's on-line archives on Monday morning,
> then that is when we get a huge increase in traffic due to the new news
> postings.

Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that posts are associated with a
particular time and date. The time and date associated with my post was not
on Monday morning but rather on Sunday afternoon.

>The associated increased demand for archived reviews slows the
> server down significantly and if, rather than getting a "404" error, you
> didn't get any response at all other than a creeping "site loading"
> display, it is possible that this was the reason.

Irrelevant, as anybody who inspects
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=xsWdnRUuGJE4gtSiXTWJiA%40comcast.com can
see.

> Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
> have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
> Krueger.

Too bad this is a veneer of congeniality of wisdom and good taste and not
the substance of the man.

Arny Krueger

August 26th 03, 04:12 PM

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> "John Atkinson" wrote ...
> ...
> > Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
> > have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
> > Krueger.
>
> Several sections of the website are currently so sluggish they
> are nearly indistinguishable from broken. 30-90 seconds to just
> reply to a page request indicates that something is wrong here.

Agreed.

dave weil

August 26th 03, 04:20 PM

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 08:04:08 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>"John Atkinson" wrote ...
>...
>> Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
>> have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
>> Krueger.
>
>Several sections of the website are currently so sluggish they
>are nearly indistinguishable from broken. 30-90 seconds to just
>reply to a page request indicates that something is wrong here.

I went to the web site to see if this was indeed a problem with my
connection and there *is* a definite slowness to some of the review
links. It takes a LONG time to get into the review sections although
once you get there, the individual reviews seem to come up quickly.

A long time seems to fit the time frame expressed by Mr. Crowley.

Perhaps this was Mr. Krueger's problem (since he didn't say for sure
whether he got an actual error message, it's hard to tell)

dave weil

August 26th 03, 04:26 PM

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:11:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> You claim that you are not angry, yet calling me "Atkinson" rather than
>"Mr.
>> Atkinson" or even "John" gives the lie to that claim.
>
>Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that I refer to people by their last
>name, friend, foe and neutral party alike.

Not true:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Tom+group:rec.audio.opinion+author:arnyk% 40hotpop.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=zM0n7.2937%24qZ6.831997067%40newssvr16.news.p rodigy.com&rnum=6>

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Tom+group:rec.audio.opinion+author:arnyk% 40hotpop.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=L0bX9.472%24oB2.56%40newssvr16.news.prodigy.c om&rnum=9>

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Tom+group:rec.audio.opinion+author:arnyk% 40hotpop.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=OqS39.334%24hA7.23812413%40newssvr15.news.pro digy.com&rnum=11>

Nousaine wrote:
> (John Atkinson) wrote:
>> (Nousaine) wrote in message
>> >...
>>> OK, do you believe that nominally competent amplifiers and
>>> wires have an acoustical sound of their own.
>> As literally expressed, Tom, no I do not believe wires "have an
>> acoustical sound of their own," nor amplifiers unless they have
>> an AC transformer that buzzes. If you are asking whether the
>> choice of an amplifier or wire can affect the sound of someone's
>> system, then the only correct answer is "yes," as has been shown
>> not just in Stereophile but even in the magazines for which you
>> write, Tom, and has even been expressed here on r.a.o. by your
>> friend Arny Krueger.
> OK I would guess then that you really do endorse, even the
> ridiculous, items that are published in your magazine. I just
> wanted a clear statement of such. I just didn't think that this
> could be possibly true.

If you look at what was written by the Stereophile Editor Tom, it's
really hard to figure what the Stereophile Editor really does
endorse. We're talking about someone who is in deep evasion mode.

For example Tom, your phrase "acoustical sound of their own" has been
turned into a discussion of incidental mechanical sounds that an
amplifier might make, such as transformer buzz.

Then Tom, your phrase "nominally competent amplifiers" has been
expanded to include amplifiers which you and I would say aren't
really competently designed, and my name has even been gratuitously
attached to the discussion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, you lose.

Again.

Arny Krueger

August 26th 03, 04:49 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...

> >Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that I refer to people by their last
> >name, friend, foe and neutral party alike.

Even a blithering idiot like you Weil should know that a few exceptions
don't make or break a rule.

This post:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Y1vWa.28604%24cF.10921%40rwcrnsc53

refers to Tom Nousaine as "Nousaine" and is far more recent than the one you
cited Weil, namely

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=OqS39.334%24hA7.23812413%40newssvr15.n e
ws.prodigy.com

So much for cherry-picked posts and stupid attempts to disprove a rule by
citing an exception or three.

Really lame, Weil. Grow a brain, will you?

George M. Middius

August 26th 03, 04:49 PM

dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:

> >Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that I refer to people by their last
> >name, friend, foe and neutral party alike.

> Not true:
[snip]
> If you look at what was written by the Stereophile Editor Tom,
[snip]
> For example Tom,
[snip]
> Then Tom,
[snip]

> Sorry, you lose.
> Again.

You've only scratched the surface. There are hundreds of instances of
Turdborg affixing the polite "Mr." to people's names. One example:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=K89K6.76%245M6.38692885%40newssvr16.ne ws.prodigy.com
This particular post is loaded with inadvertent humor, as
****-for-Brains puts his imponderable concreteness on display.

Here's another in which he directly addresses one of his tormentors
by first name only:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Oi2p9.1898%242M7.1341%40newssvr19.news .prodigy.com
This post is also pretty funny, as it shows Krooger wailing about the
unjustness of the persecutions he receives in response to his vile
behavior.

And another feeble attempt to shunt well-deserved criticism of his
****ful self onto the same Normal guy:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ENecnZIuKtjuEduiXTWJkA%40comcast.com
The "sensitive tank" behavior continues unabated in this post.

Here's Turdborg building a web of verbal feces on the tenuous pylon
of illogic offered by the mentally challenged Booby Wumpkins:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=6HT69.3221%24TQ5.66014280%40newssvr15.news.pr odigy.com
As usual, only first-name address is appropriate for this truckload
of Kroo-lies.

There is an ocean of examples for anybody to find. Krooger recently
adopted the viewpoint that using silly honorifics like Mr. is a sign
of weakness. I figure he dropped them to reinforce his own pathetic
self-image as a schoolyard bully. Constantly "working over" his
antagonists the way he does, it's no wonder he considers himself
invincible in the "debating trade".

BTW, here's a trivia question: Who first introduced the phrase
"debating trade" to RAO? ;-)

Rob Adelman

August 26th 03, 04:52 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>>Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that I refer to people by their last
>>>name, friend, foe and neutral party alike.
>
>
> Even a blithering idiot like you Weil should know that a few exceptions
> don't make or break a rule.

Umm, oh never mind..

Arny Krueger

August 26th 03, 05:49 PM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:49:25 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...

> >> >Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that I refer to people by their
last
> >> >name, friend, foe and neutral party alike.

> >Even a blithering idiot like you Weil should know that a few exceptions
> >don't make or break a rule.

> Oh, it's now a RULE that you refer to people by their last name.

Gratuitous use of capitals noted.

> OK. Seems like a petty rule, especially since you didn't used to have
> that rule. I remember when you used to refer to me as Mr. Weil.
> However, all that changed when you finally noticed that I stopped
> referring to you as Arny (which WAS deliberate since I didn't think
> that you deserved the "cute" nickname). Suddenly you dropped the
> honorific (in some bizarre backwards retaliation). Then you extended
> it to everyone you disliked. While it's rather gratifying to know that
> I exert a powerful influence on your family and behavior, it's a
> little disturbing in a way.

You're delusional, Weil.

> >This post:
> >
> >http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Y1vWa.28604%24cF.10921%40rwcrnsc53
> >
> >refers to Tom Nousaine as "Nousaine" and is far more recent than the one
you
> >cited Weil, namely

> But you weren't addressing him, were you?

Who else would I address as "Nousaine"?

> That's the point that we're talking about, right?

You're delusional, Weil.

> Maybe you could find an example of you responding directly to Tom by
> addressing him as Nousaine. I'm just curious if it's ever happened...

You're delusional, Weil.

>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=OqS39.334%24hA7.23812413%40newssvr15.n
ews.prodigy.com

> >So much for cherry-picked posts and stupid attempts to disprove a rule by
> >citing an exception or three.

> >Really lame, Weil. Grow a brain, will you?

> This spin is far lamer than anything I've ever posted.

I agree Weil, you're descending to even lower levels of lameness than I ever
thought could exist.

> Basically, you're just a rather nasty piece of work and this sort of
> behavior simply underscores it.

Weil, as if your gratuitous introduction of yourself, your bile, your
madness, and your crap into what was once a technical audio thread isn't a
nasty piece of work.

You're delusional, Weil.

dave weil

August 26th 03, 06:02 PM

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 12:49:58 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:49:25 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>> >> >Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that I refer to people by their
>last
>> >> >name, friend, foe and neutral party alike.
>
>> >Even a blithering idiot like you Weil should know that a few exceptions
>> >don't make or break a rule.
>
>> Oh, it's now a RULE that you refer to people by their last name.
>
>Gratuitous use of capitals noted.

It wasn't gratuitous - it was a deliberate use of EMPHASIS.

>> OK. Seems like a petty rule, especially since you didn't used to have
>> that rule. I remember when you used to refer to me as Mr. Weil.
>> However, all that changed when you finally noticed that I stopped
>> referring to you as Arny (which WAS deliberate since I didn't think
>> that you deserved the "cute" nickname). Suddenly you dropped the
>> honorific (in some bizarre backwards retaliation). Then you extended
>> it to everyone you disliked. While it's rather gratifying to know that
>> I exert a powerful influence on your family and behavior, it's a
>> little disturbing in a way.
>
>You're delusional, Weil.

Nope.

You've already admitted how much influence I wield over your family,
you know.

>> >This post:
>> >
>> >http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Y1vWa.28604%24cF.10921%40rwcrnsc53
>> >
>> >refers to Tom Nousaine as "Nousaine" and is far more recent than the one
>you
>> >cited Weil, namely
>
>> But you weren't addressing him, were you?
>
>Who else would I address as "Nousaine"?

You weren't addressing him. You were talking *about* him.

Here's who you were addressing: "Therefore we can see that Mr.
Lavo..."

>> That's the point that we're talking about, right?
>
>You're delusional, Weil.

You seem to be stuck for a real answer. The point of Mr. Atkinson
bringing it up was to show that you use someone's last name to be
dismissive and derisive. This occurs when you address someone.

>> Maybe you could find an example of you responding directly to Tom by
>> addressing him as Nousaine. I'm just curious if it's ever happened...
>
>You're delusional, Weil.

I note that you refuse to respond to my comment in a substantial way.

>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=OqS39.334%24hA7.23812413%40newssvr15.n ews.prodigy.com
>
>> >So much for cherry-picked posts and stupid attempts to disprove a rule by
>> >citing an exception or three.
>
>> >Really lame, Weil. Grow a brain, will you?
>
>> This spin is far lamer than anything I've ever posted.
>
>I agree Weil, you're descending to even lower levels of lameness than I ever
>thought could exist.

Now who's delusional?

>> Basically, you're just a rather nasty piece of work and this sort of
>> behavior simply underscores it.
>
>Weil, as if your gratuitous introduction of yourself, your bile, your
>madness, and your crap into what was once a technical audio thread isn't a
>nasty piece of work.

Bile from you noted.

>You're delusional, Weil.

Loopiness noted.

BTW, I think it's hilarious that you can be prompted into the vilest
sort of namecalling without any effort from certain people. It should
really give you pause.

Leon North

August 26th 03, 06:20 PM

dave weil wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:49:25 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >> >Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that I refer to people by their last
> >> >name, friend, foe and neutral party alike.
> >
> >Even a blithering idiot like you Weil should know that a few exceptions
> >don't make or break a rule.
>
> Oh, it's now a RULE that you refer to people by their last name.
>
> OK. Seems like a petty rule, especially since you didn't used to have
> that rule. I remember when you used to refer to me as Mr. Weil.
> However, all that changed when you finally noticed that I stopped
> referring to you as Arny (which WAS deliberate since I didn't think
> that you deserved the "cute" nickname). Suddenly you dropped the
> honorific (in some bizarre backwards retaliation). Then you extended
> it to everyone you disliked. While it's rather gratifying to know that
> I exert a powerful influence on your family and behavior, it's a
> little disturbing in a way.
>
> >This post:
> >
> >http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Y1vWa.28604%24cF.10921%40rwcrnsc53
> >
> >refers to Tom Nousaine as "Nousaine" and is far more recent than the one you
> >cited Weil, namely
>
> But you weren't addressing him, were you?
>
> That's the point that we're talking about, right?
>
> Maybe you could find an example of you responding directly to Tom by
> addressing him as Nousaine. I'm just curious if it's ever happened...
>
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=OqS39.334%24hA7.23812413%40newssvr15.n ews.prodigy.com
> >
> >So much for cherry-picked posts and stupid attempts to disprove a rule by
> >citing an exception or three.
> >
> >Really lame, Weil. Grow a brain, will you?
>
> This spin is far lamer than anything I've ever posted.
>
> Basically, you're just a rather nasty piece of work and this sort of
> behavior simply underscores it.
>
> <shrug>

Here's a blast from the past where S-f-B is taken to task for this practice. BTW, it's on
RAP, a group that Turdy claims is so sweet to him and where he's accepted like a bro. <guffaw>

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=last+name,+Arny+group:rec.audio.pro&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=1&as_miny=2003&as_maxd=26&as_maxm=8&as_maxy=2003&selm=3EA96D7C.45484A7B%40arcanemethods.com&rnum=2

This chiding was rewarded with a temporary damming of the borg snot splashing all over the
place. TurdBorg was even polite (shudder) for a while. Guess he's terrified of being
ostracized by a group to which he so desperately wants to belong. A check of that NG today
shows that S-f-B is treading on thin ice over there, again. Even Scott Dorsey has scolded
Turdy for his lack of social graces. When Dorsey comments on it you can rest assured that
it's gotten beyond tedious.

The TurdBorg's cranium must surely contain a maelstrom of feces, fear and raging snot. Not a
pretty sight.

LN

--
"The discussion is what I meant, not what I said." A. Dimbulb Kroooger

dave weil

August 26th 03, 06:37 PM

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:20:57 -0700, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>Here's a blast from the past where S-f-B is taken to task for this practice. BTW, it's on
>RAP, a group that Turdy claims is so sweet to him and where he's accepted like a bro. <guffaw>
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=last+name,+Arny+group:rec.audio.pro&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=1&as_miny=2003&as_maxd=26&as_maxm=8&as_maxy=2003&selm=3EA96D7C.45484A7B%40arcanemethods.com&rnum=2
>
>This chiding was rewarded with a temporary damming of the borg snot splashing all over the
>place. TurdBorg was even polite (shudder) for a while. Guess he's terrified of being
>ostracized by a group to which he so desperately wants to belong. A check of that NG today
>shows that S-f-B is treading on thin ice over there, again. Even Scott Dorsey has scolded
>Turdy for his lack of social graces. When Dorsey comments on it you can rest assured that
>it's gotten beyond tedious.
>
>The TurdBorg's cranium must surely contain a maelstrom of feces, fear and raging snot. Not a
>pretty sight.
>
>LN
>
>--
>"The discussion is what I meant, not what I said." A. Dimbulb Kroooger
--------------------
"Bob Cain" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>> Arny, repetitively addressing someone by their last name is rude,
>>> insulting and provocative. It casts your words in an ad hominem
>>> vein that strips them of being worthy of further consideration. As
>>> a debating strategy, it is self defeating.
>>
>> It's also the only strategy I know of for addressing comments to
>> exactly one person.
>>
>> If you've got a better one, I'm all ears.
> First name?

I've been in too many situations where there is more than one person
involved with the same or a similar first name.
------------------------

Amazing. He'll do *anything* to circle around the way that most people
address others and that's with a Mr. or Mrs.

Seems like people from across the USENET universe are tiring of his
tactics...

Arny Krueger

August 26th 03, 07:23 PM

"Leon North" > wrote in message
...

So sockpuppet "North", why can't you provide me with that information I need
to see about your $100,000+ bank account?

Not able to show good faith?

Oh, I get it, you're another anonymous internet no-show sockpuppet.

Leon North

August 26th 03, 07:45 PM

Turdy "Skidmark of the borg" Krooogles is felled by wimplash:

> "Leon North" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> So sockpuppet "North", why can't you provide me with that information I need
> to see about your $100,000+ bank account?

It will cost you the same, Pussyborg. Koff up and we'll dance.

> Not able to show good faith?

Just showed it. You show me that you can see the wager and I'm right there
with the dough. It will go into an escrow account for a specified period of
time during which you will perform your idea of what can be done. The point is
that it +can't+ be done and you know it. Ergo, I don't expect you to comply
but to just sit there cutting and pasting your same lame reply in hopes that
this will go away. I'm laughing at you.

> Oh, I get it, you're another anonymous internet no-show sockpuppet.

It's showing right in your rodentious face, Turdy. You are the no-show here.
Snip, snip, cut, paste is your thing. No there there, is there?
<chuckle-snicker-guffaw>

You are a gigantic pussy. QED

And,

You remain ineffably stupid.*

I remain,

The Shadow

*more variety

--
"The discussion is what I meant, not what I said." A. Dimbulb Kroooger

Lived EHT

August 26th 03, 08:30 PM

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:20:02 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>>> Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
>>> have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
>>> Krueger.
>>
>>Several sections of the website are currently so sluggish they
>>are nearly indistinguishable from broken. 30-90 seconds to just
>>reply to a page request indicates that something is wrong here.
>
>I went to the web site to see if this was indeed a problem with my
>connection and there *is* a definite slowness to some of the review
>links. It takes a LONG time to get into the review sections although
>once you get there, the individual reviews seem to come up quickly.
>
>A long time seems to fit the time frame expressed by Mr. Crowley.
>
>Perhaps this was Mr. Krueger's problem (since he didn't say for sure
>whether he got an actual error message, it's hard to tell)

Much as it galls me to concur with Arnii about anything, I have to
agree on this one. On the occasions that I've visited the Stereophile
website, the browsing process has not been a pleasant one. The
searches take an age. I have often just given up trying to find what I
was looking for.

Of course, Arnii's hideous assemblages of broken links, cheesy 90s
clipart and infant-level language 'shedding light by the means of the
combustion of snake oil' do not sport a search feature. Maybe for the
same reason that most people don't have a magnifying glass fitted to
their toilet.

--
Thine

Bruce J. Richman

August 26th 03, 09:16 PM

Lived EHT wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:20:02 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>>> Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
>>>> have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
>>>> Krueger.
>>>
>>>Several sections of the website are currently so sluggish they
>>>are nearly indistinguishable from broken. 30-90 seconds to just
>>>reply to a page request indicates that something is wrong here.
>>
>>I went to the web site to see if this was indeed a problem with my
>>connection and there *is* a definite slowness to some of the review
>>links. It takes a LONG time to get into the review sections although
>>once you get there, the individual reviews seem to come up quickly.
>>
>>A long time seems to fit the time frame expressed by Mr. Crowley.
>>
>>Perhaps this was Mr. Krueger's problem (since he didn't say for sure
>>whether he got an actual error message, it's hard to tell)
>
>Much as it galls me to concur with Arnii about anything, I have to
>agree on this one. On the occasions that I've visited the Stereophile
>website, the browsing process has not been a pleasant one. The
>searches take an age. I have often just given up trying to find what I
>was looking for.
>
>Of course, Arnii's hideous assemblages of broken links, cheesy 90s
>clipart and infant-level language 'shedding light by the means of the
>combustion of snake oil' do not sport a search feature. Maybe for the
>same reason that most people don't have a magnifying glass fitted to
>their toilet.
>
>--
>Thine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

LOL!

But in C-L-K's Ministry of Disinformation, such visual aids may be required to
see the $ 1000 bills he regularly uses.

Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

Arny Krueger

August 26th 03, 09:18 PM

"Lived EHT" > wrote in message
n.net...

> Of course, Arnii's hideous assemblages of broken links, cheesy 90s
> clipart and infant-level language 'shedding light by the means of the
> combustion of snake oil' do not sport a search feature.

Since I haven't tried to assemble a collection of articles from the last 20
years of Stereophile online, why would I need one?

> Maybe for the
> same reason that most people don't have a magnifying glass fitted to
> their toilet.

Oh come on now Graham. We hear tell that you have a magnifying glass fitted
to your toilet to use every time you try to take a pee!

Nick H (UK)

August 26th 03, 10:21 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Nick H (UK)" > wrote in message
>
>
>>John Atkinson wrote:
>>
(drummer) wrote in message
>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
>>>>sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
>>>>finding something a tad cheaper.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
>>>optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT
>>>Lightpipe protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have
>>>recorded 8 channels on my PC using this card and digital input via
>>>LightPipe.
>>
>
>>Very much an inexpert in this field, but just bought the RME Digi96/8
>>PST. My aim was to get better stereo output sound into my hifi, and I
>>was more than delighted by the results on that score.
>
>
> Most people cut their teeth in PC audio with either SoundBlaster cards or
> on-motherboard sound facilities. Both can be pretty substandard compared to
> a modern CD or DVD player. The SoundBlaster Audigy was the first Creative
> Labs card that had a chance of holding a candle performance-wise to even a
> $100 CD or DVD player.
>
>
I had already 'upgraded' from a an old, cheap Soundblaster card to a
ST-Audio card at about $100. It gave me digital I/O and very reasonable
results when burned to CD, but sound quality from the PC was dire.
My RME card now seriously rivals my Cyrus CD player which was around
$600 IIRC.

>>The one snag with the card is that there is no level control for
>>analogue input, so I had to invest in a small mixer to control the
>>level going to the card.
>
>
> Very few modern sound cards have any kind of analog input level control
> other than a coarse sensitivity setting (-10/+4). This is because there are
> no reasonably-priced computer controlled analog attenuators that would not
> degrade the card's input. Such fine level controls as one finds are
> generally implemented digitally, which leaves the card susceptible to analog
> clipping in its input buffers. Of course, it's pretty hard (without trying)
> to clip the analog input of a +4 device that has reasonable (10-12 dB)
> headroom (takes more than 6 volts RMS).
>

Are you saying that my analogue input would not have been too high
without being 'turned down' externally? It was pushing the CoolEdit
meter into the red.

> The *last* analog level control chip that found general use as a sound card
> analog input attenuator was the Crystal CS 3310 which was a pretty good
> match for 16 bits, but would appreciably degrade any halfways-decent 24 bit
> input.
>
> Ironically, this same CS 3310 chip is used in some high end analog gear that
> is used and prized by analog bigots and digiphobes. It doesn't have good
> enough performance for general use in modern audio production computer
> interface cards, but it does seem to have good enough performance for
> digiphobes and analog bigots. Go figure.
>
>

John Atkinson

August 26th 03, 10:49 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> om...
> > My saying so is _not_ a criticism of you in any way, nor is it a claim
> > of omniscience on my part, merely a suggestion that something else must
> > have gone wrong.
>
> In which alternative universe, Atkinson?

I fail to understand your point, Mr. Krueger. It seems a matter of logic:
IF you couldn't access the review; AND IF our server was working correctly;
THEN something other than a server problem was at fault.

> > Perhaps you typed an incorrect URL.
>
> Like anybody with a brain, I cut-pasted the URL from my browsers address
> line to the post. Furthermore I didn't type the URL but rather picked it
> up from another web site. I then ran a test using just the name of your
> site www.stereophile.com. etc., etc., etc.

Okay, I was just making plausible suggestions as to what had happened.
Typing incorrect URLs can happen.

> > But if, indeed, you were trying to access Stereophile's on-line
> > archives on Monday morning, then that is when we get a huge increase
> > in traffic due to the new news postings.
>
> Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that posts are associated with a
> particular time and date. The time and date associated with my post was
> not on Monday morning but rather on Sunday afternoon.

Okay, your message didn't appear on the Google server I use until early
Monday morning, which is why I assumed you had had the problem around that
time. If you now say it happened on Sunday afternoon, I know that heavy
traffic wasn't the problem. However, as we work almost continually on the
website preparing Monday's new content on Sunday afternoons and evenings,
I can vouch for the fact that our web server was working normally at that
time.

> > The associated increased demand for archived reviews slows the
> > server down significantly and if, rather than getting a "404" error,
> > you didn't get any response at all other than a creeping "site loading"
> > display, it is possible that this was the reason.
>
> Irrelevant, as anybody who inspects
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=xsWdnRUuGJE4gtSiXTWJiA%40comcast.com
> can see.

Why is it irrelevant? This message merely gives the URL of the archived
review. Clicking on it retrieves the review, just as I have claimed
(though it does rather longer to appear than I expected). It doesn't prove
that doing so didn't retrieve the review on Sunday afternoon, as you
claimed. If you had answered my question -- did you get a "404" or did you
merely get a very slow download? -- I would have a better idea of what had
gone wrong.

> > Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
> > have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
> > Krueger.
>
> Too bad this is a veneer of congeniality of wisdom and good taste and
> not the substance of the man.

And again the anger and the inevitable insult. I fail to grasp why you
are so determined to pick a fight, Mr. Krueger. As I said, my pointing
out that the link appears to working correctly is _not_ a criticism of
you in any way, nor is it a claim of omniscience on my part.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Bruce J. Richman

August 27th 03, 01:19 AM

John Atkinson wrote:

>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > My saying so is _not_ a criticism of you in any way, nor is it a claim
>> > of omniscience on my part, merely a suggestion that something else must
>> > have gone wrong.
>>
>> In which alternative universe, Atkinson?
>
>I fail to understand your point, Mr. Krueger. It seems a matter of logic:
>IF you couldn't access the review; AND IF our server was working correctly;
>THEN something other than a server problem was at fault.
>
>> > Perhaps you typed an incorrect URL.
>>
>> Like anybody with a brain, I cut-pasted the URL from my browsers address
>> line to the post. Furthermore I didn't type the URL but rather picked it
>> up from another web site. I then ran a test using just the name of your
>> site www.stereophile.com. etc., etc., etc.
>
>Okay, I was just making plausible suggestions as to what had happened.
>Typing incorrect URLs can happen.
>
>> > But if, indeed, you were trying to access Stereophile's on-line
>> > archives on Monday morning, then that is when we get a huge increase
>> > in traffic due to the new news postings.
>>
>> Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that posts are associated with a
>> particular time and date. The time and date associated with my post was
>> not on Monday morning but rather on Sunday afternoon.
>
>Okay, your message didn't appear on the Google server I use until early
>Monday morning, which is why I assumed you had had the problem around that
>time. If you now say it happened on Sunday afternoon, I know that heavy
>traffic wasn't the problem. However, as we work almost continually on the
>website preparing Monday's new content on Sunday afternoons and evenings,
>I can vouch for the fact that our web server was working normally at that
>time.
>
>> > The associated increased demand for archived reviews slows the
>> > server down significantly and if, rather than getting a "404" error,
>> > you didn't get any response at all other than a creeping "site loading"
>> > display, it is possible that this was the reason.
>>
>> Irrelevant, as anybody who inspects
>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=xsWdnRUuGJE4gtSiXTWJiA%40comcast.com
>> can see.
>
>Why is it irrelevant? This message merely gives the URL of the archived
>review. Clicking on it retrieves the review, just as I have claimed
>(though it does rather longer to appear than I expected). It doesn't prove
>that doing so didn't retrieve the review on Sunday afternoon, as you
>claimed. If you had answered my question -- did you get a "404" or did you
>merely get a very slow download? -- I would have a better idea of what had
>gone wrong.
>
>> > Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
>> > have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
>> > Krueger.
>>
>> Too bad this is a veneer of congeniality of wisdom and good taste and
>> not the substance of the man.
>
>And again the anger and the inevitable insult. I fail to grasp why you
>are so determined to pick a fight, Mr. Krueger. As I said, my pointing
>out that the link appears to working correctly is _not_ a criticism of
>you in any way, nor is it a claim of omniscience on my part.
>

Many of us have observed the same phenomenon re. Krueger's inability to
interact with people in a socially acceptable, rational manner. Sadly, his
RAO posting history is full of unprovoked personal attacks on others, As you
correctly observe, he doesn't need any logical reason to pick a fight. He just
compulsively insults people, concocts conspiracy theories with a markedly
paranoid flavor to justify his aggression, and as I have pointed out elsewhere,
meets many of the criteria associated with a diagnosis of Paranoid Personality
Disorder, a relatively chronic, highly rigid pattern of behavioral trtaits that
have been established over a long period of time.

>John Atkinson
>Editor, Stereophile
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D/
Licensed Psychologist

Arny Krueger

August 27th 03, 10:11 AM

"Robbie Noake" > wrote in message
om

> Just to throw my ha'penny worth into the fray...................

> The esteemed JA, ed of stereophile, comes out the winner in this
> thread, having at least the ability and good grace not to resort to
> the awful snideness that is only too prevalent with most regular
> posters.

Au contraire. Atkinson added his usual dollop of snideness in several forms.
If you can't see them, well then whatever.

Atkinson did actually add one idea that related to the topic, and its the
following:

"As I wrote in another posting, if you want to bounce tracks from your ADAT
to your computer and back, the RME Digi96/8 PAD is ideal for this, though
it is more expensive than the CardDeluxe. There is also a TDIF interface
available for the RME cards, for those with Tascam MDMs."

But to say that Atkinson avoided snideness in numerous other posts is to
ignore his many reprehensible and laughable deceptions. Not only did he deny
reality, but he tried to perpetrate some really homogenous lies, such as the
idea that posts aren't properly time-stamped in the google archive.

>You regular posters need to use the google archive to check
> out your posts, some of you do know your audio
> but as one poster recently brutally pointed out, some of you can be
> very pompous

This thread started with the usual good intentions and a number of good
posts, but as usual the RAO trolls like Weil, Middius, Dormer, North,
Richman, Graham etc. worked their *magic* on it.

Scott Dorsey

August 27th 03, 03:19 PM

In article >,
Robbie Noake > wrote:
>Just to throw my ha'penny worth into the fray...................
>The esteemed JA, ed of stereophile, comes out the winner in this
>thread, having at least the ability and good grace not to resort to
>the awful snideness that is only too prevelent with most regular
>posters. You regular posters need to use the google archive to check
>out your posts, some of you do know your audio
>but as one poster recently brutally pointed out, some of you can be
>very pompous

When stuff gets crossposted from rec.audio.opinion into other newsgroups,
NOBODY wins.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

John Atkinson

August 27th 03, 04:14 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
> Atkinson did actually add one idea that related to the topic...

Thank you Mr. Krueger.

> to say that Atkinson avoided snideness in numerous other posts is to
> ignore his many reprehensible and laughable deceptions. Not only did
> he deny reality, but he tried to perpetrate some really homogenous lies,
> such as the idea that posts aren't properly time-stamped in the google
> archive.

For goodness sake Mr. Krueger, your reasoning behind these statements
escapes me. In what message or messages am I supposed to have "lied"
about the timestamping of messages in the Google archives? Discussions
such as this would be a loss less confrontational if posters stuck to
what had actually happened instead of what they think happened.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

George M. Middius

August 27th 03, 04:37 PM

John Atkinson said:

> > he tried to perpetrate some really homogenous lies, such as the idea
> > that posts aren't properly time-stamped in the google archive.

> For goodness sake Mr. Krueger, your reasoning behind these statements
> escapes me. In what message or messages am I supposed to have "lied"
> about the timestamping of messages in the Google archives? Discussions
> such as this would be a loss less confrontational if posters stuck to
> what had actually happened instead of what they think happened.

I'd like to know how you made your lies "really homogenous".
I prefer mine pied in colors, or of mixed extraction, or blended
like a Moon Glow on the rocks.

Forget the timestamping and let's variegate those lies.

John Atkinson

August 27th 03, 04:49 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> m
> > I fail to understand your point, Mr. Krueger.
>
> You probably do, Atkinson but it would be more ego-satisfying for you
> to lie and say you don't,
> ...
> That logic Atkinson seemed to have escaped you for several days since
> my post last Sunday afternoon.
> ...
> it's an insult. Anybody with a brain knows that mistyping URLs is one
> of those things that happens. By suggesting that this cause went
> unconsidered and undetected Atkinson, you're basically saying that I
> don't have a brain.
> ...
> Stereophile editors growing a brain could happen.
> ...
> Try another dumb claim, Atkinson.
> ...
> Atkinson, why don't you learn how to read obvious things like time and
> date off of google web pages?
> ...
> What I take exception to is your false claim that my report of no web
> access was and I quote: "Incorrect".
> ...
> Atkinson, the URL I cited also has some other content that you seem to
> want to deny exists.
> ...
> Atkinson, most logical human beings could interpret my comments as being
> other than slow response. Of course you just mistakenly claimed that my
> post was composed of only a URL and anybody who cares to look can see
> that this is a false claim. So what good are you?
> ...
> Atkinson...I feel no anger towards you at this time, merely pity. The
> pity is based on your inability to deal logically and honestly with the
> fact that you made a mistake last Monday morning. But after all these
> years of experience with you Atkinson, I really feel almost no emotion
> towards you at all. You are like a large rock in the middle of a desert
> that will remain useless and unchanged for the foreseeable future. Does
> one feel much emotion towards such a rock? No! It just is.
> ...
> Obviously you have forgotten what it is like to fight with me, Atkinson.
> ...
> Regrettably, you are neither omniscient Atkinson, nor are you capable of
> undoing a mistake that you are incapable of admitting that you made.

I read these words with you with sadness, Mr. Krueger. You claim that you
are not angry, yet your words imply otherwise. So rather than me address
each of your points, let us just put this matter to rest: you had
difficulty accessing the Stereophive archives last Sunday for any number
of possible reasons. However, the www.stereophile.com server is working
(albeit slowly at high traffic times), and the link you quoted --
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?280 -- continues to function as
it should. I fail to grasp why my pointing this out is a "mistake" on my
part. But that the link does continue to work is really all that matters,
surely? No hurt, no foul on either of our parts.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

dave weil

August 27th 03, 04:59 PM

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:53:07 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >...
>>> Atkinson did actually add one idea that related to the topic...
>>
>> Thank you Mr. Krueger.
>>
>>> to say that Atkinson avoided snideness in numerous other posts is to
>>> ignore his many reprehensible and laughable deceptions. Not only did
>>> he deny reality, but he tried to perpetrate some really homogenous
>>> lies, such as the idea that posts aren't properly time-stamped in
>>> the google archive.
>
>> For goodness sake Mr. Krueger, your reasoning behind these statements
>> escapes me. In what message or messages am I supposed to have "lied"
>> about the timestamping of messages in the Google archives?
>
>Atkinson, you implicity claimed that the timestamping didn't exist when you
>baldly stated that you could only determine when I sent the email by when
>you first saw it at the google web site.
>
>>Discussions
>> such as this would be a loss less confrontational if posters stuck to
>> what had actually happened instead of what they think happened.
>
>I know what happened Atkinson - you were either clueless or deceptive. Which
>was it?

Actually, it's you just being your typical self. Nasty as usual.

Please get help.

Now.

George M. Middius

August 27th 03, 05:14 PM

dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:

> Actually, it's you just being your typical self. Nasty as usual.
> Please get help.
> Now.

Yes, Arnii, do see if the Kroobitch's health insurance policy will
cover some therapy for you. I'd suggest a psychiatrist rather than
just a clinician, since the ability to prescribe from the full range
of antipsychotic medications may be necessary.

Bruce J. Richman

August 27th 03, 05:17 PM

Dave Weil wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:53:07 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>wrote:
>
>>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> >...
>>>> Atkinson did actually add one idea that related to the topic...
>>>
>>> Thank you Mr. Krueger.
>>>
>>>> to say that Atkinson avoided snideness in numerous other posts is to
>>>> ignore his many reprehensible and laughable deceptions. Not only did
>>>> he deny reality, but he tried to perpetrate some really homogenous
>>>> lies, such as the idea that posts aren't properly time-stamped in
>>>> the google archive.
>>
>>> For goodness sake Mr. Krueger, your reasoning behind these statements
>>> escapes me. In what message or messages am I supposed to have "lied"
>>> about the timestamping of messages in the Google archives?
>>
>>Atkinson, you implicity claimed that the timestamping didn't exist when you
>>baldly stated that you could only determine when I sent the email by when
>>you first saw it at the google web site.
>>
>>>Discussions
>>> such as this would be a loss less confrontational if posters stuck to
>>> what had actually happened instead of what they think happened.
>>
>>I know what happened Atkinson - you were either clueless or deceptive. Which
>>was it?
>
>Actually, it's you just being your typical self. Nasty as usual.
>
>Please get help.
>
>Now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Krueger's increasingly abnormal and disturbed behavior is obvious to all but
him.

Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

Bruce J. Richman

August 27th 03, 05:33 PM

George M. Middius wrote:

>dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:
>
>> Actually, it's you just being your typical self. Nasty as usual.
>> Please get help.
>> Now.
>
>Yes, Arnii, do see if the Kroobitch's health insurance policy will
>cover some therapy for you. I'd suggest a psychiatrist rather than
>just a clinician, since the ability to prescribe from the full range
>of antipsychotic medications may be necessary.
>
>
>
>
>

I agree that prescription of antipsychotic medication may well be required.
However, that, in and of itself, will potentially do nothing more than perhaps
ameliorate some of Krueger's confused and delusional thinking. I might add
that it would also be worth exploring the possible use of psychotropic agents
frequently used for unprovoked rage reactions like the ones that Krueger
frequently displays on RAO. Mentions of certain words such as "vinyl" and
"tubes" appear to be particularly troublesome for him and likely to elicit
irrational rage reactions. Drugs such as Tegretol have sometimes been found
to be helpful in this regard.

As a matter of correction, health insurance plans covering psychiatric services
also cover mental health services provided by licensed psychologists, so that
in practically all cases, the patient does not have to choose one or the other,
but can use both.. It is quite common for psychologists to refer their
patients to a psychiatrist for appropriate medication as part of a
comprehensive and appropriate treatment package. It is also increasingly
common for psychiatrists, most of whom focus purely on biological treatment
modalities, to refer their patients to psychologists for various types of
psychotherapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy.

I might add that in New Mexico, and hopefully in other states in the near
future, psychologists, after an appropriate training program and state
examination, may also prescribe psychotropic medications.

Brucde J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
Bruce J. Richman

Lived EHT

August 27th 03, 10:47 PM

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:53:07 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Atkinson, you implicity claimed that the timestamping didn't exist when you
>baldly stated that you could only determine when I sent the email by when
>you first saw it at the google web site.

>I know what happened Atkinson - you were either clueless or deceptive. Which
>was it?

Stunning. Just stunning.

I *honestly* don't know whether you really are this stupid or whether
this stems from your fathomless malevolence. Or both. Both, I think.

Still, it's stunning.

--
Thine

John Atkinson

August 27th 03, 10:50 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> om
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> to say that Atkinson avoided snideness in numerous other posts is to
> >> ignore his many reprehensible and laughable deceptions. Not only did
> >> he deny reality, but he tried to perpetrate some really homogenous
> >> lies, such as the idea that posts aren't properly time-stamped in
> >> the google archive.
>
> > For goodness sake Mr. Krueger, your reasoning behind these statements
> > escapes me. In what message or messages am I supposed to have "lied"
> > about the timestamping of messages in the Google archives?
>
> Atkinson, you implicity claimed that the timestamping didn't exist when
> you baldly stated that you could only determine when I sent the email by
> when you first saw it at the google web site...
>
> I know what happened Atkinson - you were either clueless or deceptive.
> Which was it?

Neither, Mr. Krueger. I am saddened that your connection with reality is
demonstrably tenuous. But as I said in another recent posting, the crux of
the matter is that while, for whatever reason, you couldn't access an
archived review at www.stereophile.com last Sunday, our website server
does appear to be working properly (if slowly). Which to me is what matters.

I am sorry you feel my explanantions to be "snide" and "lies," but to be
brutally frank, it does appear that you have been trying to pick a fight
with me over something that is really of little consequence. This is my last
word on the subject.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

August 28th 03, 10:23 AM

"tor b" > wrote in message
om
> (Bruce J. Richman) wrote in message
> >...
>>
> <nasty, tedious babble snipped>
>>
>>
>> Brucde J. Richman, Ph.D.
>> Licensed Psychologist
>> Bruce J. Richman
>
> Very impressive, "doc".

He's quite a literate guy, isn't he? With a little help he might even learn
how to properly write his first name. Then he could graduate from
kindergarten!

Arny Krueger

August 28th 03, 10:24 AM

"Girth" > wrote in message

> George M. Middius > wrote:
>
>> Mark D. Zacharias Shelleyed:

>>> I agree. RAO is a sewer.

>> And you are a floater.

> LOL!

You are a sinker, Dormer.

Bruce J. Richman

August 28th 03, 05:16 PM

Arny Krueger displays his stupidity:

>"tor b" > wrote in message
om
>> (Bruce J. Richman) wrote in message
>> >...
>>>
>> <nasty, tedious babble snipped>
>>>
>>>
>>> Brucde J. Richman, Ph.D.
>>> Licensed Psychologist
>>> Bruce J. Richman
>>
>> Very impressive, "doc".
>
>He's quite a literate guy, isn't he? With a little help he might even learn
>how to properly write his first name. Then he could graduate from
>kindergarten!
>
>

How droll! This sterling comment comes from RAO's Most Widely Despised and
Hated Poster. A frequency count of the number of typographical errors,
misspellings, incomprehensible attempts at sentences, and just plain idiotic
neologisms produced by RAO's resident retard, Krueger, easily shows that this
hypocrite is basically illiterate.

We can always tell when the incompetent, compulsive liar Krueger is getting his
head handed to him by his many intellectual superiors. He desperately starts
looking around for typographical errors to attack. What's so funny about this
is that he makes more than most of the people here, so he just shows himself to
be a flaming hypocrite. C-L-K (aka "Freddy") doesn't even have the smarts to
realize that he just makes a fool of himself whenever he does this.

As usual, the lies just keep coming from this paranoid, stupid and seriously
disturbed cretin.

LOL!

Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

Kurt Albershardt

September 3rd 03, 02:20 AM

John Atkinson wrote:

> (drummer) wrote in message >...
>
>>i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
>>sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
>>finding something a tad cheaper.
>
>
> Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
> optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT Lightpipe
> protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have recorded 8
> channels on my PC using this card and digital input via LightPipe.
>
> You can find Stereophile's review of the RME Digi96/8 PAD at
> http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?541 and its predecessor, the
> Digi96/8 PRO at http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?299 .
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock circuitry,
and nearly the same price.)
http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm

Nick H (UK)

September 3rd 03, 11:28 AM

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>
>> Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock circuitry,
>> and nearly the same price.)
>> http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm
>
>
> Looks spiffy. I like the use of the serial port connector to
> a multi-jack dongle. Nice feature, IMO.
>
> Q: how does it do on playback or is it purely for recording?
>

My experience with RME (the Digi96/PST) is that playback through my hifi
is *better* than my Cirus CD player! :-)). As I bought it looking for
better playback quality (I ahd all the i/o I needed previously) I was
well pleased.

Nick H

>
>

Joseph Oberlander

September 3rd 03, 12:22 PM

Nick H (UK) wrote:
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>>
>>> Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock circuitry,
>>> and nearly the same price.)
>>> http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> Looks spiffy. I like the use of the serial port connector to
>> a multi-jack dongle. Nice feature, IMO.
>>
>> Q: how does it do on playback or is it purely for recording?
>>
>
> My experience with RME (the Digi96/PST) is that playback through my hifi
> is *better* than my Cirus CD player! :-)). As I bought it looking for
> better playback quality (I ahd all the i/o I needed previously) I was
> well pleased.

How much does it cost? I'm in the market for a good sound card
and want to also play games and such with it as well as do surround
sound. Partially to take the 20% load off of my CPU - too high
for serious gaming - but also to act like a nice 4-track mixer
and/or midi port - so I can run decent sequencer package.

I can't stand Creative's kludgy drivers or second-rate processors
and sound libraries/sample sets. Ensoniq's and Turtle Beach's always
sounded better anyways - and they weren't high-end cards.

Creative is like Microsoft - acceptable programs. Bland, soul-less,
hopelessly adequate implimentations of other technologies. I want
a better alternative that isn't a fortune.

Nick H (UK)

September 3rd 03, 06:50 PM

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Nick H (UK) wrote:
>
>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>
>>> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock
>>>> circuitry, and nearly the same price.)
>>>> http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looks spiffy. I like the use of the serial port connector to
>>> a multi-jack dongle. Nice feature, IMO.
>>>
>>> Q: how does it do on playback or is it purely for recording?
>>>
>>
>> My experience with RME (the Digi96/PST) is that playback through my hifi
>> is *better* than my Cirus CD player! :-)). As I bought it looking for
>> better playback quality (I ahd all the i/o I needed previously) I was
>> well pleased.
>
>
> How much does it cost? I'm in the market for a good sound card
> and want to also play games and such with it as well as do surround
> sound. Partially to take the 20% load off of my CPU - too high
> for serious gaming - but also to act like a nice 4-track mixer
> and/or midi port - so I can run decent sequencer package.
>
> I can't stand Creative's kludgy drivers or second-rate processors
> and sound libraries/sample sets. Ensoniq's and Turtle Beach's always
> sounded better anyways - and they weren't high-end cards.
>
> Creative is like Microsoft - acceptable programs. Bland, soul-less,
> hopelessly adequate implimentations of other technologies. I want
> a better alternative that isn't a fortune.
>

Check RME's site carefully; I don't think it does midi, but could be
wrong. My digi96 certainly does not. You can see the specs on the
site, of course, but they also have the manuals up for rerading. I
always think the product manual is a much better way of finding out what
it does that sales spiel;-)

Nick H

Kurt Albershardt

September 3rd 03, 07:28 PM

Nick H (UK) wrote:
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>>>> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock
>>>>> circuitry, and nearly the same price.)
>>>>> http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm
>
> Check RME's site carefully; I don't think it does midi, but could be
> wrong. My digi96 certainly does not. You can see the specs on the
> site, of course, but they also have the manuals up for rerading. I
> always think the product manual is a much better way of finding out what
> it does that sales spiel;-)

"1 MIDI I/O with 16 channels of hi-speed MIDI via breakout cable"

Nick H (UK)

September 3rd 03, 11:05 PM

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
> Nick H (UK) wrote:
>
>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>
>>>>> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock
>>>>>> circuitry, and nearly the same price.)
>>>>>> http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm
>>>>>
>>
>> Check RME's site carefully; I don't think it does midi, but could be
>> wrong. My digi96 certainly does not. You can see the specs on the
>> site, of course, but they also have the manuals up for rerading. I
>> always think the product manual is a much better way of finding out
>> what it does that sales spiel;-)
>
>
> "1 MIDI I/O with 16 channels of hi-speed MIDI via breakout cable"
>

Woops, sorry, wrong again. That's been happening *all* day ! ;-)
Nick H

>

Kurt Albershardt

September 4th 03, 12:15 AM

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>
>> Nick H (UK) wrote:
>>
>>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock
>>>>>>> circuitry, and nearly the same price.)
>>>>>>> http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> Check RME's site carefully; I don't think it does midi, but could be
>>> wrong. My digi96 certainly does not. You can see the specs on the
>>> site, of course, but they also have the manuals up for rerading. I
>>> always think the product manual is a much better way of finding out
>>> what it does that sales spiel;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> "1 MIDI I/O with 16 channels of hi-speed MIDI via breakout cable"
>
>
> Neat - so how does it do in games and such(Direct-X)

It doesn't since it's a pro soundcard. ASIO and MME drivers only at
this point.

> what does it cost?(probably way more than my budget - lol)

See my reply earlier.

Joseph Oberlander

September 4th 03, 05:28 AM

Bubba wrote:
> Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
> http://www.m-audio.net/products/consumer/revolution_page1.php
> This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
> This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
> Has had great reviews.
> Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.

Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
confusing to say the least.

Les Cargill

September 4th 03, 05:39 AM

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
> Bubba wrote:
> > Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
> > http://www.m-audio.net/products/consumer/revolution_page1.php
> > This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
> > This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
> > Has had great reviews.
> > Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.
>
> Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
> option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
> confusing to say the least.

FWIW, I have a Soundblaster and a hgher end card in the same machine.
Works good.

What I have noticed is that some games have
*ugly* "dll hell" issues with DAW software, and therefore,
only old DOS games on the DAW machine.

--
Les Cargill

Arny Krueger

September 4th 03, 01:05 PM

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message

> Bubba wrote:
>> Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
>> http://www.m-audio.net/products/consumer/revolution_page1.php
>> This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
>> This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
>> Has had great reviews.
>> Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.

> Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
> option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
> confusing to say the least.

You've never heard that saying about having your cake and eating it, too?

Joseph Oberlander

September 4th 03, 04:59 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>>Bubba wrote:
>>
>>>Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
>>>http://www.m-audio.net/products/consumer/revolution_page1.php
>>>This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
>>>This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
>>>Has had great reviews.
>>>Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.
>>
>
>>Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
>>option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
>>confusing to say the least.
>
>
> You've never heard that saying about having your cake and eating it, too?

Hey! It's the new millenium. I'll take the German Chocolate
with sprinkles and a scoop of ice cream right now!

;)

Give me a good 24/96 option for gaming and general use other
than the Audigy II.

Joseph Oberlander

September 4th 03, 05:00 PM

Girth wrote:
> Joseph Oberlander > wrote:
>
>
>>>Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
>>>http://www.m-audio.net/products/consumer/revolution_page1.php
>>>This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
>>>This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
>>>Has had great reviews.
>>>Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.
>>
>>Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
>>option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
>>confusing to say the least.
>
>
> No it's simple.
>
> Buy a professional grade card.
> Buy a compatible game card.
>
> Put them in the same machine, just like I told you yesterday!

That can be done I guess. What is the option for game cards
other than the Audigy II? I hate Creative - always mess things
up and are impossibly hard to configure.

Arny Krueger

September 4th 03, 05:52 PM

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> Bubba wrote:
>>>
>>>> Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
>>>> http://www.m-audio.net/products/consumer/revolution_page1.php
>>>> This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
>>>> This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
>>>> Has had great reviews.
>>>> Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.
>>>
>>
>>> Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
>>> option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
>>> confusing to say the least.
>>
>>
>> You've never heard that saying about having your cake and eating it,
>> too?
>
> Hey! It's the new millenium. I'll take the German Chocolate
> with sprinkles and a scoop of ice cream right now!
>
> ;)
>
> Give me a good 24/96 option for gaming and general use other
> than the Audigy II.

"other than the Audigy II"?????

I suspect most people who have a foot in each world run an Audigy for games
and a pro card for serious quality audio. They generally cohabit well.