Time for the 'borgs to admit the truth

[George M. Middius]

Let's start with the obvious. Consumer audio is rife with high-priced
stuff. A lot of it is "overpriced" if you define that to mean "priced out
of proportion to its utility", where the baseline for value is set by the
lowest-priced stuff.

Now we've established that simple fact, let's get to what's wrong with you
'borgs. Of course you can't afford the expensive stuff. Neither can most
people. Guess what? $10,000 amps and $30,000 speakers aren't marketed to
the likes of you. You don't want that stuff and the people who sell it
don't want you as customers. (It's true you don't want it, right?)

We know you can't afford it. Tough. We also know you don't understand the
luxury goods market. All you understand about value is how much something
costs. All your bleating about "tests" and "proof" and "claims" is a
smokescreen. Yes, we know marketing talk is largely BS. But it's you
'borgs who can't accept that the same hype happens in audio as in every
other luxury category.

Best Buy, as an example, sells hundreds of low-priced boxes out of each
store each week. A high-end salon sells a few boxes each week. "Amps is
amps!" shriek the 'borgs. Then how do you explain the fact that high-end
salons have a steady stream of customers, many of them repeat customers?
"Ripoff!" intone the 'borgs, showing their abysmal ignorance.

You 'borgs don't get it. You're clueless. You're completely lost. You
believe with all your metronic hearts that audio should be utilitarian.
Well, guess what -- it's not. As long as there's a segment of the market
that will pay for fancy nameplates and toadying service, some suppliers
will go into business to satisfy that demand.

The high end is not for you. Turn around and go shop where you're wanted.

[Ayn Marx]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Let's start with the obvious.

I wish your English expression were more obvious. Wading through the
verbiage I think what it is you are trying to say is:-
1. People will always pay for status symbols.
2. It's no use 'borgs' complaining about people getting ripped-off as
those being ripped-off have more money than sense.
3. Amongst all the overpriced junk some items do give big value for big
money (this last point is far from clear though)
4. You spend far too much time reading posts on newsgroups written by
borgs.
5. You should return to adult education English expression classes.

Kissy Kissy Ayn M

PS: On one point I think we'd agree. To achieve decent outcomes in
something like analogue engineering processes, such as the design and
manufacture of say, a turntable/arm/cartridge that's state of the art,
large amounts of money must be spent.

[[email protected]]

Ayn Marx wrote:
> George M. Middius wrote:
> > Let's start with the obvious.
>
> I wish your English expression were more obvious. Wading through the
> verbiage I think what it is you are trying to say is:-
> 1. People will always pay for status symbols.
> 2. It's no use 'borgs' complaining about people getting ripped-off as
> those being ripped-off have more money than sense.
> 3. Amongst all the overpriced junk some items do give big value for big
> money (this last point is far from clear though)
> 4. You spend far too much time reading posts on newsgroups written by
> borgs.
> 5. You should return to adult education English expression classes.
>
> Kissy Kissy Ayn M
>
> PS: On one point I think we'd agree. To achieve decent outcomes in
> something like analogue engineering processes, such as the design and
> manufacture of say, a turntable/arm/cartridge that's state of the art,
> large amounts of money must be spent.

Dear Mr. Marx,
English being my second language I'm always eager for
instruction. I gather you disapprove of Middius prose. Could you.
please, contribute a few of your favourite literary examples of good
"Englih expression".
Incidentally, I find this use of the noun "expression" somewhat
unusual. A few citations supporting your usage would be welcome.
Yours, eager to save money on night schooling
Ludovic Mirabel

[Steve Batt]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Ayn Marx wrote:
>> George M. Middius wrote:
>> > Let's start with the obvious.
>>
>> I wish your English expression were more obvious. Wading through the
>> verbiage I think what it is you are trying to say is:-
>> 1. People will always pay for status symbols.
>> 2. It's no use 'borgs' complaining about people getting ripped-off as
>> those being ripped-off have more money than sense.
>> 3. Amongst all the overpriced junk some items do give big value for big
>> money (this last point is far from clear though)
>> 4. You spend far too much time reading posts on newsgroups written by
>> borgs.
>> 5. You should return to adult education English expression classes.
>>
>> Kissy Kissy Ayn M
>>
>> PS: On one point I think we'd agree. To achieve decent outcomes in
>> something like analogue engineering processes, such as the design and
>> manufacture of say, a turntable/arm/cartridge that's state of the art,
>> large amounts of money must be spent.
>
> Dear Mr. Marx,
> English being my second language I'm always eager for
> instruction. I gather you disapprove of Middius prose. Could you.
> please, contribute a few of your favourite literary examples of good
> "Englih expression".
> Incidentally, I find this use of the noun "expression" somewhat
> unusual. A few citations supporting your usage would be welcome.
> Yours, eager to save money on night schooling
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
try Ms Marx instead of Mr.

Steve

[Bret Ludwig]

Ayn Marx wrote:
> George M. Middius wrote:

<<snip>>

>
> PS: On one point I think we'd agree. To achieve decent outcomes in
> something like analogue engineering processes, such as the design and
> manufacture of say, a turntable/arm/cartridge that's state of the art,
> large amounts of money must be spent.

The engineering per se is not expensive. It has long, long since been
reduced to practice, documented, discussed. There is nothing
proprietary or radical about it. The best example is the Linn Sondek,
essentially a uprated, better made version of the JFK/MM era AR
turntable. Any patents ran out decades ago.

The price is high because the market is inversely-price-sensitive, the
units are built in small quantities, and because there is a fair bit of
skilled hand labor involved at Western salaries (though I'd venture to
say that if there's a Ferrari in Linn's parking lot it does not belong
to any of the assemblers or technicians.)

Given a positively-price-sensitive market condition, substantially
higher quantities of product (leading to increased automation, design
to use more precise techniques on automated bases, etc.) and the use of
less expensive assembly labor-although that's a nominal part of the
whole package-it is absolutely and conclusively certain that the exact
quality of a current Linn table-arm-cartridge combination could be
reduced, probably drastically. However, arguably, a small specialist
firm like Linn could _then_ build a product yet better than the one
they currently do for more money than the mass produced version.

There will always be "more", a "higher end". However there have to be
objective standards or the "higher end" will be "higher" only in the
minds of the buyer, who will be a laughingstock in the eyes of others.

[Robert Morein]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
[snip]
>
> Given a positively-price-sensitive market condition, substantially
> higher quantities of product (leading to increased automation, design
> to use more precise techniques on automated bases, etc.) and the use of
> less expensive assembly labor-although that's a nominal part of the
> whole package-it is absolutely and conclusively certain that the exact
> quality of a current Linn table-arm-cartridge combination could be
> reduced, probably drastically.

Bret, do you have a German-schtick you feel compelled to adhere to? Why do
you force the reader to wade through seven line sentences, with word counts
of fifty-one? It is extremely hard to read.

I actually read your bloated sentence. It contains interesting thoughts. But
you need to cut it into digestible pieces. Let's do that now:

"Lowering the price of a high-end product would result in substantially
greater sales. Increased automation would allow more precision of assembly,
with lower labor cost. I am absolutely positive that the quality of a
current Linn table-arm combination could be drastically reduced."

As we discover the meaning of this bloated monstrosity, further paraphrase
becomes possible:

"With the substitution of automation for human skill, assembly of a Linn
table-arm combination could be accomplished in a Chinese sweatshop, with
drastic reduction in quality."

[George M. Middius]

Steve Batt said:

> try Ms Marx instead of Mr.

Or Anonytroll, if you want to be as accurate as possible.

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...

> Yes, we know marketing talk is largely BS. But it's you
> 'borgs who can't accept that the same hype happens in audio as in every
> other luxury category.
>
Really... lets take jewelry. For more money one usually gets either
a higher grade, a fancier cut, or simply a bigger diamond.
How about cars... one usually gets more horse power and a plethora
of useless options.
How about fashion... what does one get for big bucks in fashion?
Is audio like luxury fashion? No wonder I like hand me downs.

ScottW

[atec]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

> Ayn Marx wrote:
>
>>George M. Middius wrote:
>
>
> <<snip>>
>
>>PS: On one point I think we'd agree. To achieve decent outcomes in
>>something like analogue engineering processes, such as the design and
>>manufacture of say, a turntable/arm/cartridge that's state of the art,
>>large amounts of money must be spent.
>
>
> The engineering per se is not expensive. It has long, long since been
> reduced to practice, documented, discussed. There is nothing
> proprietary or radical about it. The best example is the Linn Sondek,
> essentially a uprated, better made version of the JFK/MM era AR
> turntable. Any patents ran out decades ago.
>
> The price is high because the market is inversely-price-sensitive, the
> units are built in small quantities, and because there is a fair bit of
> skilled hand labor involved at Western salaries (though I'd venture to
> say that if there's a Ferrari in Linn's parking lot it does not belong
> to any of the assemblers or technicians.)
>
> Given a positively-price-sensitive market condition, substantially
> higher quantities of product (leading to increased automation, design
> to use more precise techniques on automated bases, etc.) and the use of
> less expensive assembly labor-although that's a nominal part of the
> whole package-it is absolutely and conclusively certain that the exact
> quality of a current Linn table-arm-cartridge combination could be
> reduced, probably drastically. However, arguably, a small specialist
> firm like Linn could _then_ build a product yet better than the one
> they currently do for more money than the mass produced version.
>
> There will always be "more", a "higher end". However there have to be
> objective standards or the "higher end" will be "higher" only in the
> minds of the buyer, who will be a laughingstock in the eyes of others.
>
Translation please in 10 words or less ?

[ScottW]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> Given a positively-price-sensitive market condition, substantially
>> higher quantities of product (leading to increased automation, design
>> to use more precise techniques on automated bases, etc.) and the use of
>> less expensive assembly labor-although that's a nominal part of the
>> whole package-it is absolutely and conclusively certain that the exact
>> quality of a current Linn table-arm-cartridge combination could be
>> reduced, probably drastically.
>
> Bret, do you have a German-schtick you feel compelled to adhere to? Why do
> you force the reader to wade through seven line sentences, with word
> counts
> of fifty-one? It is extremely hard to read.
>
> I actually read your bloated sentence. It contains interesting thoughts.
> But
> you need to cut it into digestible pieces. Let's do that now:
>
> "Lowering the price of a high-end product would result in substantially
> greater sales. Increased automation would allow more precision of
> assembly,
> with lower labor cost. I am absolutely positive that the quality of a
> current Linn table-arm combination could be drastically reduced."
>
> As we discover the meaning of this bloated monstrosity, further paraphrase
> becomes possible:
>
> "With the substitution of automation for human skill, assembly of a Linn
> table-arm combination could be accomplished in a Chinese sweatshop, with
> drastic reduction in quality."

I think he really meant a reduction in cost.
Chinese quality varies from the worst in the world to the best.
We're now getting mobile
KU-band satellite transceivers out of Chinese factories of equal or
better quality than our US factory. National Semiconductor's president
recently went on a rant in Electronic News about US manufacturing
and pointed out that the perception of the Chinese sweatshop is
flat out wrong in todays day and age. If you want to see the worlds
most advanced state of the art manufacturing ("dark" factories, so
fully automated that no lighting is needed for human operators)
you have to go to China to see it.

ScottW

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:Gu3Ze.121097$Ep.6930@lakeread02...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >>
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> Given a positively-price-sensitive market condition, substantially
> >> higher quantities of product (leading to increased automation, design
> >> to use more precise techniques on automated bases, etc.) and the use of
> >> less expensive assembly labor-although that's a nominal part of the
> >> whole package-it is absolutely and conclusively certain that the exact
> >> quality of a current Linn table-arm-cartridge combination could be
> >> reduced, probably drastically.
> >
> > Bret, do you have a German-schtick you feel compelled to adhere to? Why
do
> > you force the reader to wade through seven line sentences, with word
> > counts
> > of fifty-one? It is extremely hard to read.
> >
> > I actually read your bloated sentence. It contains interesting thoughts.
> > But
> > you need to cut it into digestible pieces. Let's do that now:
> >
> > "Lowering the price of a high-end product would result in substantially
> > greater sales. Increased automation would allow more precision of
> > assembly,
> > with lower labor cost. I am absolutely positive that the quality of a
> > current Linn table-arm combination could be drastically reduced."
> >
> > As we discover the meaning of this bloated monstrosity, further
paraphrase
> > becomes possible:
> >
> > "With the substitution of automation for human skill, assembly of a Linn
> > table-arm combination could be accomplished in a Chinese sweatshop, with
> > drastic reduction in quality."
>
> I think he really meant a reduction in cost.
> Chinese quality varies from the worst in the world to the best.
> We're now getting mobile
> KU-band satellite transceivers out of Chinese factories of equal or
> better quality than our US factory. National Semiconductor's president
> recently went on a rant in Electronic News about US manufacturing
> and pointed out that the perception of the Chinese sweatshop is
> flat out wrong in todays day and age. If you want to see the worlds
> most advanced state of the art manufacturing ("dark" factories, so
> fully automated that no lighting is needed for human operators)
> you have to go to China to see it.
>
> ScottW
>
Scott, you're right, of course. I made the reference as an element of
sarcasm.
Chinese manufacturing technology is scarily good, a challenge to the future
of our nation, a challenge I think we will lose.

[[email protected]]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Let's start with the obvious. Consumer audio is rife with high-priced
> stuff. A lot of it is "overpriced" if you define that to mean "priced out
> of proportion to its utility", where the baseline for value is set by the
> lowest-priced stuff.
>
> Now we've established that simple fact, let's get to what's wrong with you
> 'borgs. Of course you can't afford the expensive stuff.

How many of them have you met?

Neither can most
> people. Guess what? $10,000 amps and $30,000 speakers aren't marketed to
> the likes of you.

So therefor we have no right to assess their value as equipment or to
determine if they do ANYTHING different than cost more?

You don't want that stuff and the people who sell it
> don't want you as customers. (It's true you don't want it, right?)
>
I don't want tobe patronized and lied to about how much better my better my
system will sound if I buy $100.00 per ft, cable. I don't want some
ignorant schlub to try and convince me that things that aren't capable of
happening are possible with the newest tweak.

> We know you can't afford it. Tough.

Irrelevant to the stuff being as advertised.

We also know you don't understand the
> luxury goods market.

When you buy something considered a luxury, it has things that can
objectively be considered better than the plain vanilla version. A more
comfortable chair, a longer lasting engine, whatever, it means improvement
other than cosmetic.

All you understand about value is how much something
> costs.

The people who engineer and record music want and expect that their work
will be given the courtesy of playback on equipment that will accurately
reproduce it. To that end, audiophiles try to get equipment that doesn't
audibly distort. Once you have a device that achieves that end, anything
more is not luxury, it's window drressing. While some may think it nice to
have gear that looks as good as it sounds, for most of us the sound comes
first.

All your bleating about "tests" and "proof" and "claims" is a
> smokescreen. Yes, we know marketing talk is largely BS. But it's you
> 'borgs who can't accept that the same hype happens in audio as in every
> other luxury category.
>
Which other luxury categories market things that can't do what they are
claimed to be able to do?

> Best Buy, as an example, sells hundreds of low-priced boxes out of each
> store each week. A high-end salon sells a few boxes each week. "Amps is
> amps!" shriek the 'borgs. Then how do you explain the fact that high-end
> salons have a steady stream of customers, many of them repeat customers?
> "Ripoff!" intone the 'borgs, showing their abysmal ignorance.

And the evidence to the contrary is where? Aside from the possiblity of
better quality speakers, what besides the better digs is there to recomend?

>
> You 'borgs don't get it. You're clueless. You're completely lost. You
> believe with all your metronic hearts that audio should be utilitarian.

Bull****, we beleive it should do what it advertises it can do. If it can't
do that they shouldn't claim it does. If it can, it's worth then becomes
something to consider.

> Well, guess what -- it's not. As long as there's a segment of the market
> that will pay for fancy nameplates and toadying service, some suppliers
> will go into business to satisfy that demand.
>

Nothing wrong with excellent coustomer service, it's the bull****
advertising that's the problem and the belief that things that cost more
sound better when they only look better. Most people are smart enough to
know that if they buy expensive cologne, it doesn't mean they get to sleep
with a supermodel. If audio companies want to adverstise sex appeal as a
reason to buy their stuff so what? When they say it sounds better or
different, then they ought to be willing and able to demonstrate it.


> The high end is not for you.

The high end is almost completely the province of loudspeaker design, since
(assuming sound quality is the main goal), so any other claims aobut high
end are really confined to looks and features. I don't know anybody who
thinks you shouldn't be able to spend asa much as you want on your stereo,
but you should be aware, and lots of people seem not to be, that it doesn't
buy better performance.

Turn around and go shop where you're wanted.
>
>
So the audio salons should maybe put up signs: NO TECHNICALLY COMPETENT
PEOPLE ALLOWED?

**** you, snob.

[Lionel]

George M. Middius a écrit :
>
> Let's start with the obvious. Consumer audio is rife with high-priced
> stuff. A lot of it is "overpriced" if you define that to mean "priced out
> of proportion to its utility", where the baseline for value is set by the
> lowest-priced stuff.
>
> Now we've established that simple fact, let's get to what's wrong with you
> 'borgs. Of course you can't afford the expensive stuff. Neither can most
> people. Guess what? $10,000 amps and $30,000 speakers aren't marketed to
> the likes of you. You don't want that stuff and the people who sell it
> don't want you as customers. (It's true you don't want it, right?)
>
> We know you can't afford it. Tough. We also know you don't understand the
> luxury goods market. All you understand about value is how much something
> costs. All your bleating about "tests" and "proof" and "claims" is a
> smokescreen. Yes, we know marketing talk is largely BS. But it's you
> 'borgs who can't accept that the same hype happens in audio as in every
> other luxury category.
>
> Best Buy, as an example, sells hundreds of low-priced boxes out of each
> store each week. A high-end salon sells a few boxes each week. "Amps is
> amps!" shriek the 'borgs. Then how do you explain the fact that high-end
> salons have a steady stream of customers, many of them repeat customers?
> "Ripoff!" intone the 'borgs, showing their abysmal ignorance.
>
> You 'borgs don't get it. You're clueless. You're completely lost. You
> believe with all your metronic hearts that audio should be utilitarian.
> Well, guess what -- it's not. As long as there's a segment of the market
> that will pay for fancy nameplates and toadying service, some suppliers
> will go into business to satisfy that demand.
>
> The high end is not for you. Turn around and go shop where you're wanted.

George you have already written that more than 1,000 times
on RAO. Why don't you try to be a little bit more imaginative ?
Now you just look like these old pop-stars who endlessly try
to recycle the gimmicks which have brought them a little
success long time ago. Pathetic no ?

I suggest you to stop posting on RAO during a few years and
to profit of this retirement to feed your indigent thought.
I'm sure that this is necessary in order for the "Normals"
to recover their hero and to make you the triumph that you
deserve.

All my best...

[Ayn Marx]

wrote:

>
> Dear Mr. Marx,
> English being my second language I'm always eager for
> instruction. I gather you disapprove of Middius prose. Could you.
> please, contribute a few of your favourite literary examples of good
> "Englih expression".
> Incidentally, I find this use of the noun "expression" somewhat
> unusual. A few citations supporting your usage would be welcome.
> Yours, eager to save money on night schooling
> Ludovic Mirabel

Thanks for giving me yet another sex change.
'English expression' is common usage. It stands for the skill, or
lack, facility in expressing oneself in English. I hope that's
sufficiently unambiguous.

Examples of good English expression? (how come you know how to use that
phrase when finding it somewhat unusual?}
1. G.E.Moore 'Principia Ethica' Publ' 1971 Cambridge University Press
2. Mark Mason ' The Christian Holocaust' 1981 Markwell Press Hong Kong
3. Rudolf Arnheim 'Visual Thinking' 1969 University of Californa Press
4. Gail Bell ' The Worried Well' Quarterly Essays 2005 Issue 18 Black
Inc Melbourne
5. William Boyd 'The History of Western Education' (Revised Edition)
1966 A. & C. Black Ltd Bristol.
6. Louis Breger 'Freud: Darkness in The Midst of Vision' 2000 John
Wiley & Sons New York.
7. John Passmore ' A Hundred Years of Philosophy' 1966 Penguin. UK.
8. Bertrand Russell ' The Problems of Philosophy' 1974 Oxford
University Press.
9. Jean Seznec 'The Survival of The Pagan Gods: The Mythological
Tradition and It's Place in Renaissance Humanism and Art' (translated
from the French into cogent English by Barbara F Sessions) 1961 Harper
Torchbooks New York.
10. Dale Spender 'Women of Ideas and what Men have Done to them' 1982
Ark Paperbacks London.

That should keep you going for a while petal.

[Ayn Marx]

wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Marx,
> English being my second language I'm always eager for
> instruction. I gather you disapprove of Middius prose. Could you.
> please, contribute a few of your favourite literary examples of good
> "Englih expression".
> Incidentally, I find this use of the noun "expression" somewhat
> unusual. A few citations supporting your usage would be welcome.
> Yours, eager to save money on night schooling
> Ludovic Mirabel

Dearest Ludivic, thanks for giving me yet another sex change.
'English expression' is common usage. It stands for skill, or
lack off, facility in expressing oneself in English. I hope that's
sufficiently unambiguous.

Examples of good English expression? (how come you know how to use that

phrase when finding it somewhat unusual?}
1. G.E.Moore 'Principia Ethica' Publ' 1971 Cambridge University Press
2. Mark Mason ' The Christian Holocaust' 1981 Markwell Press Hong Kong

3. Rudolf Arnheim 'Visual Thinking' 1969 University of Californa Press

4. Gail Bell ' The Worried Well' Quarterly Essays 2005 Issue 18 Black
Inc Melbourne
5. William Boyd 'The History of Western Education' (Revised Edition)
1966 A. & C. Black Ltd Bristol.
6. Louis Breger 'Freud: Darkness in The Midst of Vision' 2000 John
Wiley & Sons New York.
7. John Passmore ' A Hundred Years of Philosophy' 1966 Penguin. UK.
8. Bertrand Russell ' The Problems of Philosophy' 1974 Oxford
University Press.
9. Jean Seznec 'The Survival of The Pagan Gods: The Mythological
Tradition and It's Place in Renaissance Humanism and Art' (translated
from the French into cogent English by Barbara F Sessions) 1961 Harper

Torchbooks New York.
10. Dale Spender 'Women of Ideas and what Men have Done to them' 1982
Ark Paperbacks London.


That should keep you going for a while petal.

[Ayn Marx]

wrote:

>
> Dear Mr. Marx,
> English being my second language I'm always eager for
> instruction. I gather you disapprove of Middius prose. Could you.
> please, contribute a few of your favourite literary examples of good
> "Englih expression".
> Incidentally, I find this use of the noun "expression" somewhat
> unusual. A few citations supporting your usage would be welcome.
> Yours, eager to save money on night schooling
> Ludovic Mirabel

Dearest Ludivic, thanks for giving me yet another sex change.
'English expression' is common usage. It stands for skill & clarity
, or
lack off, in expressing oneself in English. I hope that's
sufficiently unambiguous.

Examples of good English expression? (how come you know how to use that

phrase so appropriately when finding it somewhat unusual?}

1. G.E.Moore 'Principia Ethica' Publ' 1971 Cambridge University Press

2. Mark Mason ' The Christian Holocaust' 1981 Markwell Press Hong
Kong
3. Rudolf Arnheim 'Visual Thinking' 1969 University of Californa
Press
4. Gail Bell ' The Worried Well' Quarterly Essays 2005 Issue 18 Black

Inc Melbourne
5. William Boyd 'The History of Western Education' (Revised Edition)

1966 A. & C. Black Ltd Bristol.
6. Louis Breger 'Freud: Darkness in The Midst of Vision' 2000 John
Wiley & Sons New York.
7. John Passmore ' A Hundred Years of Philosophy' 1966 Penguin. UK.
8. Bertrand Russell ' The Problems of Philosophy' 1974 Oxford
University Press.
9. Jean Seznec 'The Survival of The Pagan Gods: The Mythological
Tradition and It's Place in Renaissance Humanism and Art'
(translated
from the French into cogent English by Barbara F Sessions) 1961
Harper Torchbooks New York.
10. Dale Spender 'Women of Ideas and what Men have Done to them'
1982
Ark Paperbacks London.


That should keep you going for a while petal.

[Fred At Home]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Ayn Marx wrote:
>> George M. Middius wrote:
>> > Let's start with the obvious.
>>
>> I wish your English expression were more obvious. Wading through the
>> verbiage I think what it is you are trying to say is:-
>> 1. People will always pay for status symbols.
>> 2. It's no use 'borgs' complaining about people getting ripped-off as
>> those being ripped-off have more money than sense.
>> 3. Amongst all the overpriced junk some items do give big value for big
>> money (this last point is far from clear though)
>> 4. You spend far too much time reading posts on newsgroups written by
>> borgs.
>> 5. You should return to adult education English expression classes.
>>
>> Kissy Kissy Ayn M
>>
>> PS: On one point I think we'd agree. To achieve decent outcomes in
>> something like analogue engineering processes, such as the design and
>> manufacture of say, a turntable/arm/cartridge that's state of the art,
>> large amounts of money must be spent.
>
> Dear Mr. Marx,
> English being my second language I'm always eager for
> instruction. I gather you disapprove of Middius prose. Could you.
> please, contribute a few of your favourite literary examples of good
> "Englih expression".
> Incidentally, I find this use of the noun "expression" somewhat
> unusual. A few citations supporting your usage would be welcome.
> Yours, eager to save money on night schooling
> Ludovic Mirabel
>

Just ignore her as she is a stupid posturing old woman who should know
better.

[Fred At Home]

"Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear Mr. Marx,
>> English being my second language I'm always eager for
>> instruction. I gather you disapprove of Middius prose. Could you.
>> please, contribute a few of your favourite literary examples of good
>> "Englih expression".
>> Incidentally, I find this use of the noun "expression" somewhat
>> unusual. A few citations supporting your usage would be welcome.
>> Yours, eager to save money on night schooling
>> Ludovic Mirabel
>
> Thanks for giving me yet another sex change.
> 'English expression' is common usage. It stands for the skill, or
> lack, facility in expressing oneself in English. I hope that's
> sufficiently unambiguous.
>
> Examples of good English expression? (how come you know how to use that
> phrase when finding it somewhat unusual?}
> 1. G.E.Moore 'Principia Ethica' Publ' 1971 Cambridge University Press
> 2. Mark Mason ' The Christian Holocaust' 1981 Markwell Press Hong Kong
> 3. Rudolf Arnheim 'Visual Thinking' 1969 University of Californa Press
> 4. Gail Bell ' The Worried Well' Quarterly Essays 2005 Issue 18 Black
> Inc Melbourne
> 5. William Boyd 'The History of Western Education' (Revised Edition)
> 1966 A. & C. Black Ltd Bristol.
> 6. Louis Breger 'Freud: Darkness in The Midst of Vision' 2000 John
> Wiley & Sons New York.
> 7. John Passmore ' A Hundred Years of Philosophy' 1966 Penguin. UK.
> 8. Bertrand Russell ' The Problems of Philosophy' 1974 Oxford
> University Press.
> 9. Jean Seznec 'The Survival of The Pagan Gods: The Mythological
> Tradition and It's Place in Renaissance Humanism and Art' (translated
> from the French into cogent English by Barbara F Sessions) 1961 Harper
> Torchbooks New York.
> 10. Dale Spender 'Women of Ideas and what Men have Done to them' 1982
> Ark Paperbacks London.
>
> That should keep you going for a while petal.

"English Expression" was in common usage about 50 years ago.

[SmakDaddy]

| Neither can most
| > people. Guess what? $10,000 amps and $30,000 speakers aren't marketed to
| > the likes of you.
|
| So therefor we have no right to assess their value as equipment or to
| determine if they do ANYTHING different than cost more?

I think what the original ****tard poster doesn't get, is that its the
people he refers to as 'borgs' who delelop, manufacture, and repair the
stuff in the first place. Its some bull**** corporate unit and some bull****
deluded retailer who crank the price up to make 1000%+ profit. I am not
saying a $10000 amp is equal to some dodgey $80 jobbo, but no human senses
could tell the differnece between a $1500 amp and a $10000 amp, especially
when they all use the same made-in-korea semiconductors within.

[Doug Flynn]

and build your own high-end stuff. You can build amps for about 10% of the
cost of the crap you find in shops. Doug

[Ayn Marx]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> > PS: On one point I think we'd agree. To achieve decent outcomes in
> > something like analogue engineering processes, such as the design and
> > manufacture of say, a turntable/arm/cartridge that's state of the art,
> > large amounts of money must be spent.
>
> The engineering per se is not expensive. It has long, long since been
> reduced to practice, documented, discussed. There is nothing
> proprietary or radical about it. The best example is the Linn Sondek,
> essentially a uprated, better made version of the JFK/MM era AR
> turntable. Any patents ran out decades ago.
>
If you are implying here that Linn's turntables are still state of the
art I'd suggest you are behind the times.

[George M. Middius]

Yapper barked:

> > Yes, we know marketing talk is largely BS. But it's you
> > 'borgs who can't accept that the same hype happens in audio as in every
> > other luxury category.

> Really... lets[sic] take jewelry. For more money one usually gets either
> a higher grade, a fancier cut, or simply a bigger diamond.

What's your dorkiness rating today, Scottie? I'm betting you've
experienced a surge recently.

I'll observe in passing that your analogy is inapt. I won't dwell on how
stupid a person would have to be not to see that. Bye.

[George M. Middius]

SmakDaddy said:

> I think what the original ****tard

<blush>

>poster doesn't get, is that its the
> people he refers to as 'borgs' who delelop, manufacture, and repair the
> stuff in the first place.

Oopsie. Your cluelessness runneth over.

You don't know what 'borgs are. You just do not know anything.

Now hush up and go choke your chicken some more.

[George M. Middius]

Fred At Home said:

> "English Expression" was in common usage about 50 years ago.

Now we got rap myoozik. So much better!

[dave weil]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:57:15 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
>in message ...
>
>> Yes, we know marketing talk is largely BS. But it's you
>> 'borgs who can't accept that the same hype happens in audio as in every
>> other luxury category.
>>
> Really... lets take jewelry. For more money one usually gets either
>a higher grade, a fancier cut, or simply a bigger diamond.

Usually they get a "better name". Like Tiffany.

>How about cars... one usually gets more horse power and a plethora
>of useless options.

Or a "fancier name". Like Eddie Bauer.

>How about fashion... what does one get for big bucks in fashion?

A "big name". Like Gauthier.

> Is audio like luxury fashion? No wonder I like hand me downs.

Naw, you've just got a Goodwill mentality in a 6 figure income.

[SmakDaddy]

| You don't know what 'borgs are. You just do not know anything.

Wrong again, little one

Heres a little secret just for you - I dont care what you think about
anything.

from Smak :)

[paul packer]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 08:26:51 GMT, "Doug Flynn" >
wrote:

>and build your own high-end stuff. You can build amps for about 10% of the
>cost of the crap you find in shops. Doug

Yes. Only to have it go bang in your face.

[George M. Middius]

SmakDaddy said:

> > You don't know what 'borgs are. You just do not know anything.

> Wrong again, little one

Stop lying. You said:

> people he refers to as 'borgs' who delelop[sic], manufacture, and repair the
> stuff in the first place.

This shows your ignorance. 'Borgs do none of those things. If they did,
they would not be 'borgs. You so stupid, yo' mama filed to get your genome
reassembled.

Also, fix your newsreader, imbecile.

[Robert Morein]

"SmakDaddy" > wrote in message
...
> | Neither can most
> | > people. Guess what? $10,000 amps and $30,000 speakers aren't marketed
to
> | > the likes of you.
> |
> | So therefor we have no right to assess their value as equipment or to
> | determine if they do ANYTHING different than cost more?
>
> I think what the original ****tard poster doesn't get, is that its the
> people he refers to as 'borgs' who delelop, manufacture, and repair the
> stuff in the first place. Its some bull**** corporate unit and some
bull****
> deluded retailer who crank the price up to make 1000%+ profit. I am not
> saying a $10000 amp is equal to some dodgey $80 jobbo, but no human senses
> could tell the differnece between a $1500 amp and a $10000 amp, especially
> when they all use the same made-in-korea semiconductors within.
>
1000% is an exaggeration of an unfortunate situation.
But the argument that the country of origin for semiconductors makes diverse
amplifiers equal is a bad one. Amplifiers vary widely in sound, but not
necessarily on the basis of price. I find that MOSFETs sound different from
bipolars, and IGFETs. The way MOSFETs are driven is yet a further division.
And high bias bipolar amps sound different from low bias designs.

So, I take it, to you, a Halcro sounds the same as a Parasound?

The "borgs" are not the makers. The "borgs" are users, not of equipment, but
of other human beings.

[Sander deWaal]

"Bret Ludwig" > said:

>(though I'd venture to
>say that if there's a Ferrari in Linn's parking lot it does not belong
>to any of the assemblers or technicians.)


There are no Ferraris in Linn's parking lot (The Aston belongs to
Ivor) .

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Alan Rutlidge]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 08:26:51 GMT, "Doug Flynn" >
> wrote:
>
>>and build your own high-end stuff. You can build amps for about 10% of
>>the
>>cost of the crap you find in shops. Doug
>
> Yes. Only to have it go bang in your face.

No necessarily. I've built plenty of SS amplifiers including pre-amps and
power amps to in excess of 300W RMS per channel with no problems. Sure in a
lot of cases you can save money by DYI but I doubt it would be as high as
90% unless the manufactured amplifier is way over the top in the rip-off
stakes.

A decent solid case (chassis), heatsinks and a capable power supply are
generally the expensive parts in a high powered amplifier unless you are
using particularly exotic or expensive semiconductors. I haven't built any
valve gear in years, but gauging on the costs of valves and no readily
available off the shelf components (output and power transformers, smoothing
chokes, etc) I suspect a valve project is a somewhat expensive one?

Cheers,
Alan

[Patrick Turner]

Alan Rutlidge wrote:

> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 08:26:51 GMT, "Doug Flynn" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>and build your own high-end stuff. You can build amps for about 10% of
> >>the
> >>cost of the crap you find in shops. Doug
> >
> > Yes. Only to have it go bang in your face.
>
> No necessarily. I've built plenty of SS amplifiers including pre-amps and
> power amps to in excess of 300W RMS per channel with no problems. Sure in a
> lot of cases you can save money by DYI but I doubt it would be as high as
> 90% unless the manufactured amplifier is way over the top in the rip-off
> stakes.
>
> A decent solid case (chassis), heatsinks and a capable power supply are
> generally the expensive parts in a high powered amplifier unless you are
> using particularly exotic or expensive semiconductors. I haven't built any
> valve gear in years, but gauging on the costs of valves and no readily
> available off the shelf components (output and power transformers, smoothing
> chokes, etc) I suspect a valve project is a somewhat expensive one?
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

The cost of the labour intensive output transformers and strong chassis
required to support the transformers will always make building
a tube amp far more expensive $$per watt project than any SS design.

But DIYers are never solely cost conscious ppl.
For a variety of other reasons tube amps are a DIYer's delight to build
and listen to.

But very few DIYers wind their own transformers and chokes.

One hasn't really built a tube amp unless one has wound all the
trannies though.....

Patrick Turner.

[[email protected]]

Ayn Marx wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Dear Mr. Marx,
> > English being my second language I'm always eager for
> > instruction. I gather you disapprove of Middius prose. Could you.
> > please, contribute a few of your favourite literary examples of good
> > "Englih expression".
> > Incidentally, I find this use of the noun "expression" somewhat
> > unusual. A few citations supporting your usage would be welcome.
> > Yours, eager to save money on night schooling
> > Ludovic Mirabel
>
> Dearest Ludivic, thanks for giving me yet another sex change.
> 'English expression' is common usage. It stands for skill & clarity
> , or
> lack off, in expressing oneself in English. I hope that's
> sufficiently unambiguous.
>
> Examples of good English expression? (how come you know how to use that
>
> phrase so appropriately when finding it somewhat unusual?}
>
> 1. G.E.Moore 'Principia Ethica' Publ' 1971 Cambridge University Press
>
> 2. Mark Mason ' The Christian Holocaust' 1981 Markwell Press Hong
> Kong
> 3. Rudolf Arnheim 'Visual Thinking' 1969 University of Californa
> Press
> 4. Gail Bell ' The Worried Well' Quarterly Essays 2005 Issue 18 Black
>
> Inc Melbourne
> 5. William Boyd 'The History of Western Education' (Revised Edition)
>
> 1966 A. & C. Black Ltd Bristol.
> 6. Louis Breger 'Freud: Darkness in The Midst of Vision' 2000 John
> Wiley & Sons New York.
> 7. John Passmore ' A Hundred Years of Philosophy' 1966 Penguin. UK.
> 8. Bertrand Russell ' The Problems of Philosophy' 1974 Oxford
> University Press.
> 9. Jean Seznec 'The Survival of The Pagan Gods: The Mythological
> Tradition and It's Place in Renaissance Humanism and Art'
> (translated
> from the French into cogent English by Barbara F Sessions) 1961
> Harper Torchbooks New York.
> 10. Dale Spender 'Women of Ideas and what Men have Done to them'
> 1982
> Ark Paperbacks London.
>
>
> That should keep you going for a while petal.

Dear MS. Marx,
apologies for the insulting "Mr" in my first posting to you and
for giving me another opportunity to iomprove my English.
I have not yet got to your erudite reading list but your Nr. 10
sounds particularly fascinating and cogent. > 10. Dale Spender 'Women
of Ideas and what Men have Done to them' >

I'd guess there's a chapter there about low IQ men calling
superior women Mr. rather than Miss, Mrs., Madame or Frau.
Unforgivable!
I must say I was hoping you would make it all less
painful and just give a few simple QUOTES confirming that these eminent
writers used your "English expression" where I in my simplicity thought
just plain "English" would do. On which page(s) am I to find the
suitable examples of the correctness of your usage? You're giving ME
the assignment to dig and dig trying desperately to find the examples
confirming YOUR ideas. .
For instance you said to Middius: "> I wish your English
expression were more obvious.>. Or >You should return to adult
education English expression classes.>
I thought that you meant he should return to adult
English (period!) classes and that as a result his English (period!)
would be clearer rather than "more obvious". What's there to be obvious
about? Obvious to you or to me?
Again I thought that "expression" fitted best phrases such
as "This kind of expressions is inappropriate " or "Her face bore a
pained expression" and was redundant, pedantic ergo stylistically wrong
added to "English". For instance do you like this sentence "My English
expresion is better than your English expression"?
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. While we're at it could you give me a good English expression to
match "hutzpah"?

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ups.com...

> P.S. While we're at it could you give me a good English expression to
> match "hutzpah"?
>

Lionel, insisting, that the only proper spelling is "Chutzpah".
Not that Chutzpah is even an English word
Not that Lionel can even write proper simple English

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:57:15 -0700, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>>wrote
>>in message ...
>>
>>> Yes, we know marketing talk is largely BS. But it's you
>>> 'borgs who can't accept that the same hype happens in audio as in every
>>> other luxury category.
>>>
>> Really... lets take jewelry. For more money one usually gets either
>>a higher grade, a fancier cut, or simply a bigger diamond.
>
> Usually they get a "better name". Like Tiffany.
>
>>How about cars... one usually gets more horse power and a plethora
>>of useless options.
>
> Or a "fancier name". Like Eddie Bauer.

Which happens to come with a specific option package.

>
>>How about fashion... what does one get for big bucks in fashion?
>
> A "big name". Like Gauthier.

Too bad the big audio names seem to come into and out of fashion
with the whims of reviewers, the budgets of advertisement, or the addition
of, "gasp", a consumer retail outlet.
>
>> Is audio like luxury fashion? No wonder I like hand me downs.
>
> Naw, you've just got a Goodwill mentality in a 6 figure income.

Yes, I am blessed and must have sympathy for those suffering the internal
conflicts and insecurities brought by longings of luxury with never a hope
(save the lotto) of acquiring.

ScottW

[Sander deWaal]

"ScottW" > said:

> Too bad the big audio names seem to come into and out of fashion
>with the whims of reviewers, the budgets of advertisement, or the addition
>of, "gasp", a consumer retail outlet.


Please note that second-hand quality audio gear seems to hold up its
value pretty well.

A used Krell, Mark Levinson, Rowland, Audio Research, yes even Quad or
Radford can't be had for a bargain.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "SmakDaddy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> | Neither can most
>> | > people. Guess what? $10,000 amps and $30,000 speakers aren't marketed
> to
>> | > the likes of you.
>> |
>> | So therefor we have no right to assess their value as equipment or to
>> | determine if they do ANYTHING different than cost more?
>>
>> I think what the original ****tard poster doesn't get, is that its the
>> people he refers to as 'borgs' who delelop, manufacture, and repair the
>> stuff in the first place. Its some bull**** corporate unit and some
> bull****
>> deluded retailer who crank the price up to make 1000%+ profit. I am not
>> saying a $10000 amp is equal to some dodgey $80 jobbo, but no human
>> senses
>> could tell the differnece between a $1500 amp and a $10000 amp,
>> especially
>> when they all use the same made-in-korea semiconductors within.
>>
> 1000% is an exaggeration of an unfortunate situation.
> But the argument that the country of origin for semiconductors makes
> diverse
> amplifiers equal is a bad one. Amplifiers vary widely in sound, but not
> necessarily on the basis of price.

And your evidence of this is where?

I find that MOSFETs sound different from
> bipolars, and IGFETs.

But only in sighted listening so the comment ios useless.

The way MOSFETs are driven is yet a further division.

Another worthless anecdote.

> And high bias bipolar amps sound different from low bias designs.
>
More unscientific crapola.

> So, I take it, to you, a Halcro sounds the same as a Parasound?
>
You have a DBT that shows otherwise?

> The "borgs" are not the makers. The "borgs" are users, not of equipment,
> but
> of other human beings.
>
More nonsense. The ones being called Borgs by ididots like Middius and you
are the people who understand that measurements have actual meanbing and
that when two devices meansure similarly enough, they sound the same.

[[email protected]]

"Doug Flynn" > wrote in message
...
> and build your own high-end stuff. You can build amps for about 10% of
> the
> cost of the crap you find in shops. Doug
>
10%! Not likely. If you choose to not use the overweight faceplates and
such, you can save money, but the components themselves are more expensive
for the DIYer than for the mass producer. There are some DIY groups that
pool their money to get better pricing on projects they have interest in,
but overall you can't build an amp or preamp for substantially less than a
competently designed one that's mass produced. Naturally they will sound
indistinguishable from each other, again assuming competent design.

[[email protected]]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > said:
>
>> Too bad the big audio names seem to come into and out of fashion
>>with the whims of reviewers, the budgets of advertisement, or the addition
>>of, "gasp", a consumer retail outlet.
>
>
> Please note that second-hand quality audio gear seems to hold up its
> value pretty well.
>
> A used Krell, Mark Levinson, Rowland, Audio Research, yes even Quad or
> Radford can't be had for a bargain.
>
But products from lesser known names that soound identical can be.

[[email protected]]

"Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>> > PS: On one point I think we'd agree. To achieve decent outcomes in
>> > something like analogue engineering processes, such as the design and
>> > manufacture of say, a turntable/arm/cartridge that's state of the art,
>> > large amounts of money must be spent.
>>
>> The engineering per se is not expensive. It has long, long since been
>> reduced to practice, documented, discussed. There is nothing
>> proprietary or radical about it. The best example is the Linn Sondek,
>> essentially a uprated, better made version of the JFK/MM era AR
>> turntable. Any patents ran out decades ago.
>>
> If you are implying here that Linn's turntables are still state of the
> art I'd suggest you are behind the times.
>
Isn't state of the art and turntable an oxymoron?

[Rod Crawford]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Ayn Marx wrote:
> > George M. Middius wrote:
>
> <<snip>>
>
> >
> > PS: On one point I think we'd agree. To achieve decent outcomes in
> > something like analogue engineering processes, such as the design and
> > manufacture of say, a turntable/arm/cartridge that's state of the art,
> > large amounts of money must be spent.
>
> The engineering per se is not expensive. It has long, long since been
> reduced to practice, documented, discussed. There is nothing
> proprietary or radical about it. The best example is the Linn Sondek,
> essentially a uprated, better made version of the JFK/MM era AR
> turntable. Any patents ran out decades ago.
>

The Sondek was also based on Thorens turntables of the time. I don't think
there were any patents involved.

> The price is high because the market is inversely-price-sensitive, the
> units are built in small quantities, and because there is a fair bit of
> skilled hand labor involved at Western salaries (though I'd venture to
> say that if there's a Ferrari in Linn's parking lot it does not belong
> to any of the assemblers or technicians.)
>

In the 1970s and 1980s, when it was at its prime relative to the rest of the
market, the Sondek was actually not bad value for money. The machining of
the bearings to better than 5 microns was quite expensive, requiring
tempertaure controlled lathes etc. Linn's Glaswegian workers were paid f.a.
and the company was heavily subsidised by EU money - Ivor had a mere Jaguar
XJ 12.

> Given a positively-price-sensitive market condition, substantially
> higher quantities of product (leading to increased automation, design
> to use more precise techniques on automated bases, etc.) and the use of
> less expensive assembly labor-although that's a nominal part of the
> whole package-it is absolutely and conclusively certain that the exact
> quality of a current Linn table-arm-cartridge combination could be
> reduced, probably drastically. However, arguably, a small specialist
> firm like Linn could _then_ build a product yet better than the one
> they currently do for more money than the mass produced version.

As Ayn points out below, the Sondek has not been up with the pack for some
time. Initially this was due to political considerations inside Linn. I
suspect now it is more due to a realisation that tLPs are at best a medium
resolution system and they have concentrated more on SACD players which can
outperform any turntable.

>
> There will always be "more", a "higher end". However there have to be
> objective standards or the "higher end" will be "higher" only in the
> minds of the buyer, who will be a laughingstock in the eyes of others.
>

In a British trade magazine, Ken Kessler continually makes the point that
hifi high-end will only survive if it can model itself on the high-end car,
watch etc trades where people buy things as much for status, looks etc as
for engineering utility - and are marketed by much more sophisticated means
than hifi. Very few hifi companies, including hi-end ones, make much money
these days. I think consumers in there eagerness to get things at the lowest
prices often forget the other half of the equation, producers who may love
their chosen field but also have to eat.

Rod

(Dr) Rod Crawford
for Legend Acoustics
www.legendspeakers.com.au

[[email protected]]

"Then how do you explain the fact that high-end salons have a steady
stream of customers, many of them repeat customers?"

For the same reason astrologers and fortune tellers have a steady
stream of customers. High-end folk sell image and hope that the marketing
pitch is really true and all the perceptions the brain can conjure tell
them it is true, as the choir of their peers and the audio mags cheer them
on, just like believers in astrology and esp.

[George M. Middius]

Rod Crawford said:

> I think consumers in there eagerness to get things at the lowest
> prices often forget the other half of the equation, producers who may love
> their chosen field but also have to eat.

This is an excellent illumination of the divide between Real Audio Guys
and 'borgs. Feeding a 'borg is simplicity itself.

[George M. Middius]

said:

> "Then how do you explain the fact that high-end salons have a steady
> stream of customers, many of them repeat customers?"
>
> For the same reason astrologers and fortune tellers have a steady
> stream of customers.

I'll bet you're posting from aus.hifi, right? Your group seems to have a
major 'borg infestation.

"If only they knew about science, like we do. We know it all. Resistance
is futile."

You're as clueless as the rest of the 'borgs. Fortune tellers is the limit
of your understanding. How feeble.

[ScottW]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > said:
>
>> Too bad the big audio names seem to come into and out of fashion
>>with the whims of reviewers, the budgets of advertisement, or the addition
>>of, "gasp", a consumer retail outlet.
>
>
> Please note that second-hand quality audio gear seems to hold up its
> value pretty well.
>
> A used Krell, Mark Levinson, Rowland, Audio Research, yes even Quad or
> Radford can't be had for a bargain.

Very true... I listened long and hard at Quad 988s at 6K vs used ESL-63s at
less than a third of that. Frankly, the difference wasn't very noticeable
especially with a sub. The 63's was an easy choice.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Rod Crawford said:
>
>> I think consumers in there eagerness to get things at the lowest
>> prices often forget the other half of the equation, producers who may
>> love
>> their chosen field but also have to eat.
>
> This is an excellent illumination of the divide between Real Audio Guys
> and 'borgs. Feeding a 'borg is simplicity itself.

Why do you get so bent on such a subtle difference.
You yourself say, "Yes, we know marketing talk is largely BS. But it's you
'borgs who can't accept that the same hype happens in audio as in every
other luxury category."

So in your view high-end isn't about audio performance.. its about glitz,
glamour and status.
You say thats OK and give the marketing BS a
pass. The "borgs" say No, marketing BS is not ok.

But where does that leave the folks who believe the hype and think
there is something to be had in terms of superior performance?

George, you're more borg than you realize.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:9pkZe.121365$Ep.28553@lakeread02...
>
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > said:
>>
>>> Too bad the big audio names seem to come into and out of fashion
>>>with the whims of reviewers, the budgets of advertisement, or the
>>>addition
>>>of, "gasp", a consumer retail outlet.
>>
>>
>> Please note that second-hand quality audio gear seems to hold up its
>> value pretty well.
>>
>> A used Krell, Mark Levinson, Rowland, Audio Research, yes even Quad or
>> Radford can't be had for a bargain.
>
> Very true... I listened long and hard at Quad 988s at 6K vs used ESL-63s
> at less than a third of that. Frankly, the difference wasn't very
> noticeable especially with a sub. The 63's was an easy choice.

Ooops.... I missed the can't. I thought all of my used purchases were a
bargain
compared to the new price.. except maybe that Arcam :).

ScottW

[Robert Morein]

Mikey, you have an inferior mind. In order to remind you of your mental
deficit, we examine your post, with both an eye to the bad grammar and
punctuation contained within. We continue with the accepted definition of
"luxury", which shows that you do not correctly understand the meaning of
this word.

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
[snip]
>
> determine if they do ANYTHING different than cost more?
>
> I don't want tobe things

Nobody is asking you "tobe" anything other than a lungfish.

>things that aren't capable of happening
"Things", as in "events that happen" have no capability. Only devices and
people possessed of the active principle have "capability".

> When you buy something considered a luxury, it has things that can
> objectively be considered better than the plain vanilla version.

Actually, this is not true. According to the definition of luxury as given
by Hyperdictionary,
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=luxury
1.. [n] something that is an indulgence rather than a necessity
2.. [n] the quality possessed by something that is excessively expensive
3.. [n] wealth as evidenced by sumptuous living
According to the definition, objective characteristics play no part.

> A more comfortable chair
is a subjective quality.

>a longer lasting engine,
is a utilititarian characteristic, not a characteristic of luxury.

> whatever, it means improvement
> other than cosmetic.

Mikey, cosmetics are part of luxury, as subsumed by definition [3]: wealth
as evidenced by sumptuous living. A person can choose to live luxuriously by
possession of cosmetically attractive items.
>
> All you understand about value is how much something
> > costs.
>
>To that end, audiophiles try to get equipment that doesn't audibly
distort.
Mikey, some do, and some don't.
> Once you have a device that achieves that end, anything
> more is not luxury, it's window drressing.

Not "drressing", you fool. "Dressing". You are soooo stupid.
According to Definition 1, luxury is "something that is an indulgence
rather than a necessity".

> While some may think it nice to
> have gear that looks as good as it sounds, for most of us the sound comes
> first.

You wouldn't know, Mikey. Your mind is too weak. And I'm quite sure you have
little money to spend, so your experience is quite limited. You have never
had the benefit of exposure to the many delights of the high end.
>
> Which other luxury categories market things that can't do what they are
> claimed to be able to do?

Mikey, "categories" is not a company that markets things. Your sentence is
meaningless.
>
> > Best Buy, as an example, sells hundreds of low-priced boxes out of each
> > store each week. A high-end salon sells a few boxes each week. "Amps is
> > amps!" shriek the 'borgs. Then how do you explain the fact that high-end
> > salons have a steady stream of customers, many of them repeat customers?
> > "Ripoff!" intone the 'borgs, showing their abysmal ignorance.
>
> And the evidence to the contrary is where? Aside from the possiblity of
> better quality speakers, what besides the better digs is there to
recomend?
>
Your mind is too weak to perceive, Mikey. You are the dumbest, least
intelligent member of this group. Your mind is a muddle. Did you do drugs as
a teenager? Or do you simply have bad genes?
>
> Bull****, we beleive it should do what it advertises it can do.
Mikey, "beleive" is not a word. Perchance do you mean "believe" ?

>If it can't do that they shouldn't claim it does.
Mikey, a device does not advertise. A company may.

>If it can, it's worth then becomes something to consider.
"It's worth then becomes" ? What kind of drivel is this?

> **** you, snob.
>
The mckelviphibian finishes with an obscenity.
Mikey, you are, beyond a doubt, the least intelligent participant in
rec.audio.opinion.
I'm sorry, Mikey, but your brain is on the low end of the evolutionary
scale.

[George M. Middius]

Yapper tries to attain a moment of lucidity....

> > This is an excellent illumination of the divide between Real Audio Guys
> > and 'borgs. Feeding a 'borg is simplicity itself.

> So in your view high-end isn't about audio performance.. its about glitz,
> glamour and status.

..... and he falls flat on his face.

Scottie, do me a favor and tell me you were deliberately "debating
trading" just to yank my chain.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
> Mikey, you have an inferior mind. In order to remind you of your mental
> deficit, we examine your post, with both an eye to the bad grammar and
> punctuation contained within.

Naturally, since you can't refute the truth of what I said, you nitpick.

We continue with the accepted definition of
> "luxury", which shows that you do not correctly understand the meaning of
> this word.
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> determine if they do ANYTHING different than cost more?
>>
>> I don't want tobe things
>
> Nobody is asking you "tobe" anything other than a lungfish.
>
Nobody asked you to be the grammar police either.

> >things that aren't capable of happening
> "Things", as in "events that happen" have no capability. Only devices and
> people possessed of the active principle have "capability".
>
So, you're not capable of discussing the topic, got it.

>> When you buy something considered a luxury, it has things that can
>> objectively be considered better than the plain vanilla version.
>
> Actually, this is not true. According to the definition of luxury as
> given
> by Hyperdictionary,
> http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=luxury
> 1.. [n] something that is an indulgence rather than a necessity
> 2.. [n] the quality possessed by something that is excessively expensive
> 3.. [n] wealth as evidenced by sumptuous living
> According to the definition, objective characteristics play no part.
>

Yet there are few luxury items I know of that don't offer something more
than you would find in the plain vanilla version.

>> A more comfortable chair
> is a subjective quality.
>
>>a longer lasting engine,
> is a utilititarian characteristic, not a characteristic of luxury.
>
>> whatever, it means improvement
>> other than cosmetic.
>
> Mikey, cosmetics are part of luxury, as subsumed by definition [3]: wealth
> as evidenced by sumptuous living. A person can choose to live luxuriously
> by
> possession of cosmetically attractive items.
>>
>> All you understand about value is how much something
>> > costs.
>>
Wrong again moose breath. Audio gear that sounds like other audio gear but
costs more because it is heavier, or has heavier construction, does qualify
for your definititon of luxury, but it still sounds just the same (usually)
as the plain vanilla.

If you want to buy expensivestuff that doesn't sound any different than
lesser priced gear be my guest. I'd rather spend the money on more CD's.

>>To that end, audiophiles try to get equipment that doesn't audibly
> distort.
> Mikey, some do, and some don't.

Most don't.

>> Once you have a device that achieves that end, anything
>> more is not luxury, it's window drressing.
>
> Not "drressing", you fool. "Dressing". You are soooo stupid.
> According to Definition 1, luxury is "something that is an indulgence
> rather than a necessity".
>
That's not how high end audio is marketed though, it's supposed to provide
better quality sound.

>> While some may think it nice to
>> have gear that looks as good as it sounds, for most of us the sound comes
>> first.
>
> You wouldn't know, Mikey. Your mind is too weak. And I'm quite sure you
> have
> little money to spend, so your experience is quite limited.

You have no idea how much I have to spend or have spent.


You have never
> had the benefit of exposure to the many delights of the high end.
>>

Complete bull****. I used to sell the stuff.

>> Which other luxury categories market things that can't do what they are
>> claimed to be able to do?
>
> Mikey, "categories" is not a company that markets things. Your sentence is
> meaningless.
>>

As is your critique.

>> > Best Buy, as an example, sells hundreds of low-priced boxes out of each
>> > store each week. A high-end salon sells a few boxes each week. "Amps is
>> > amps!" shriek the 'borgs. Then how do you explain the fact that
>> > high-end
>> > salons have a steady stream of customers, many of them repeat
>> > customers?
>> > "Ripoff!" intone the 'borgs, showing their abysmal ignorance.
>>
>> And the evidence to the contrary is where? Aside from the possiblity of
>> better quality speakers, what besides the better digs is there to
> recomend?
>>
>>
>> Bull****, we beleive it should do what it advertises it can do.
> Mikey, "beleive" is not a word. Perchance do you mean "believe" ?
>
>>If it can't do that they shouldn't claim it does.
> Mikey, a device does not advertise. A company may.
>
Who do you suppose "they" are, you twit?

> >If it can, it's worth then becomes something to consider.
> "It's worth then becomes" ? What kind of drivel is this?
>
>> **** you, snob.
>>
> The mckelviphibian finishes with an obscenity.

I was responding to one.

> Mikey, you are, beyond a doubt, the least intelligent participant in
> rec.audio.opinion.
> I'm sorry, Mikey, but your brain is on the low end of the evolutionary
> scale.
>
I'll have to post more then so I can keep you busy correcting things, maybe
then you'll stop blathering about things you know nothing about.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
[snip].
> >
> > Actually, this is not true. According to the definition of luxury as
> > given
> > by Hyperdictionary,
> > http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=luxury
> > 1.. [n] something that is an indulgence rather than a necessity
> > 2.. [n] the quality possessed by something that is excessively
expensive
> > 3.. [n] wealth as evidenced by sumptuous living
> > According to the definition, objective characteristics play no part.
> >
>
> Yet there are few luxury items I know of that don't offer something more
> than you would find in the plain vanilla version.
>
Mikey, you can't argue with the dictionary. What you "don't know of" is the
consequence of being a profoundly stupid person.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
...
> "Then how do you explain the fact that high-end salons have a steady
> stream of customers, many of them repeat customers?"
>
> For the same reason astrologers and fortune tellers have a steady
> stream of customers. High-end folk sell image and hope that the marketing
> pitch is really true and all the perceptions the brain can conjure tell
> them it is true, as the choir of their peers and the audio mags cheer them
> on, just like believers in astrology and esp.

What you say is partly true. I see no point in assessing the percentage. But
the high end also includes components of great merit.
In an argument, the middle ground gets lost.

Do you believe there is no middle ground?

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
[snip]

>ididots like Middius and you
> are the people who understand that measurements have actual meanbing and
> that when two devices meansure similarly enough, they sound the same.
>
Mikey, if you ever find an "ididot" with "meanbing" and similar "meansure",
let me know.

You realize, don't you, that your inferior mind is the cause of these
mistakes?

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Yapper tries to attain a moment of lucidity....
>
>> > This is an excellent illumination of the divide between Real Audio Guys
>> > and 'borgs. Feeding a 'borg is simplicity itself.
>
>> So in your view high-end isn't about audio performance.. its about glitz,
>> glamour and status.
>
> .... and he falls flat on his face.
>
> Scottie, do me a favor and tell me you were deliberately "debating
> trading" just to yank my chain.

Which just happens to be a choker on George the closet borg.
Why don't you tell us why you lack the balls to leave your own
quotes in place?

ScottW

[dualtone]

Rod Crawford wrote:
>
> As Ayn points out below, the Sondek has not been up with the pack for some
> time. Initially this was due to political considerations inside Linn. I
> suspect now it is more due to a realisation that tLPs are at best a medium
> resolution system and they have concentrated more on SACD players which can
> outperform any turntable.
>

Well they don't seem to be getting very far...my LP12/Graham/Lyra still
outperforms my Unidisk by a large margin.

[paul packer]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 00:59:02 +0800, "Alan Rutlidge"
> wrote:


>> Yes. Only to have it go bang in your face.
>
>No necessarily.

Are you Scottish, Alan?

> I've built plenty of SS amplifiers including pre-amps and
>power amps to in excess of 300W RMS per channel with no problems.

No doubt. I really meant if I were to build it. :-)

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "SmakDaddy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> | Neither can most
> >> | > people. Guess what? $10,000 amps and $30,000 speakers aren't marketed
> > to
> >> | > the likes of you.
> >> |
> >> | So therefor we have no right to assess their value as equipment or to
> >> | determine if they do ANYTHING different than cost more?
> >>
> >> I think what the original ****tard poster doesn't get, is that its the
> >> people he refers to as 'borgs' who delelop, manufacture, and repair the
> >> stuff in the first place. Its some bull**** corporate unit and some
> > bull****
> >> deluded retailer who crank the price up to make 1000%+ profit. I am not
> >> saying a $10000 amp is equal to some dodgey $80 jobbo, but no human
> >> senses
> >> could tell the differnece between a $1500 amp and a $10000 amp,
> >> especially
> >> when they all use the same made-in-korea semiconductors within.
> >>
> > 1000% is an exaggeration of an unfortunate situation.
> > But the argument that the country of origin for semiconductors makes
> > diverse
> > amplifiers equal is a bad one. Amplifiers vary widely in sound, but not
> > necessarily on the basis of price.
>
> And your evidence of this is where?
>
> I find that MOSFETs sound different from
> > bipolars, and IGFETs.
>
> But only in sighted listening so the comment ios useless.
>
> The way MOSFETs are driven is yet a further division.
>
> Another worthless anecdote.
>
> > And high bias bipolar amps sound different from low bias designs.
> >
> More unscientific crapola.
>
> > So, I take it, to you, a Halcro sounds the same as a Parasound?
> >
> You have a DBT that shows otherwise?
>
> > The "borgs" are not the makers. The "borgs" are users, not of equipment,
> > but
> > of other human beings.
> >
> More nonsense. The ones being called Borgs by ididots like Middius and you
> are the people who understand that measurements have actual meanbing and
> that when two devices meansure similarly enough, they sound the same.

You ask Mr. Morein :" You have a DBT that shows otherwise?"
Just to remind you that so far no one, and you least of all, referenced
a DBT that shows anything other thasn "It all sounds the same".
Whatever in audio is being compared.
Timje to reach for an argument from another barrel. Any in
sight?
Ludovic Mirabel

[paul packer]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 20:24:52 GMT, "
> wrote:

>> If you are implying here that Linn's turntables are still state of the
>> art I'd suggest you are behind the times.
>>
>Isn't state of the art and turntable an oxymoron?

Isn't an oxymoron an idiot with a blowtorch?

That aside, I agree with you. It beggars belief that people are still
subjecting themselves to the nightmare that is LP reproduction---a
nightmare I thankfully awoke from many years ago. It's like those
people who self-mutilate because they secretly hate themselves. Could
that be the case here?

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:vomZe.121374$Ep.49612@lakeread02...
>
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote
> in message ...
> >
> >
> > Yapper tries to attain a moment of lucidity....
> >
> >> > This is an excellent illumination of the divide between Real Audio
Guys
> >> > and 'borgs. Feeding a 'borg is simplicity itself.
> >
> >> So in your view high-end isn't about audio performance.. its about
glitz,
> >> glamour and status.
> >
> > .... and he falls flat on his face.
> >
> > Scottie, do me a favor and tell me you were deliberately "debating
> > trading" just to yank my chain.
>
> Which just happens to be a choker on George the closet borg.
> Why don't you tell us why you lack the balls to leave your own
> quotes in place?
>
Actually, Scott prefers to write like this:
"Why don't you tell us... why you lack the balls to leave... your own quotes
in place?"

because he thinks it looks sophisticated!
Have you tried drinking absinthe, Scott? Real sophisticates do, you know.

[paul packer]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:56:32 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>> For the same reason astrologers and fortune tellers have a steady
>> stream of customers.
>
>I'll bet you're posting from aus.hifi, right?

Well, you did post to aus.hi-fi, George.

> Your group seems to have a
>major 'borg infestation.

Yes. However, he does have a valid point which your reply failed to
address.

[Rod Crawford]

"dualtone" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Rod Crawford wrote:
> >
> > As Ayn points out below, the Sondek has not been up with the pack for
some
> > time. Initially this was due to political considerations inside Linn. I
> > suspect now it is more due to a realisation that tLPs are at best a
medium
> > resolution system and they have concentrated more on SACD players which
can
> > outperform any turntable.
> >
>
> Well they don't seem to be getting very far...my LP12/Graham/Lyra still
> outperforms my Unidisk by a large margin.
>

In the Oct 05 Stereophile only one turntable is rated A+ Rockport at
US$75k) yet 4 SACD or DVD-A players are rated as A+ including the UniDisk
(US$10k) and the Sony SCD-9000ES (US$3k) that I own - I also own a Lingo
Sondek which now gets only a B rating. IMHO both the latter 2 ratings are
right.

Rod

[ScottW]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:vomZe.121374$Ep.49612@lakeread02...
>>
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> wrote
>> in message ...
>> >
>> >
>> > Yapper tries to attain a moment of lucidity....
>> >
>> >> > This is an excellent illumination of the divide between Real Audio
> Guys
>> >> > and 'borgs. Feeding a 'borg is simplicity itself.
>> >
>> >> So in your view high-end isn't about audio performance.. its about
> glitz,
>> >> glamour and status.
>> >
>> > .... and he falls flat on his face.
>> >
>> > Scottie, do me a favor and tell me you were deliberately "debating
>> > trading" just to yank my chain.
>>
>> Which just happens to be a choker on George the closet borg.
>> Why don't you tell us why you lack the balls to leave your own
>> quotes in place?
>>
> Actually, Scott prefers to write like this:
> "Why don't you tell us... why you lack the balls to leave... your own
> quotes
> in place?"
>
> because he thinks it looks sophisticated!
> Have you tried drinking absinthe, Scott? Real sophisticates do, you know.

I'll defer to your superior knowledge of "real sophisticates" there Bob.
Not the kind of crowd I like to party with.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> > Your group seems to have a
> >major 'borg infestation.

> Yes. However, he does have a valid point which your reply failed to
> address.

Sorry, I disagree. His "point" was a mindless rant that explains nothing.
Probably because he/she/it understands nothing.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> Have you tried drinking absinthe, Scott? Real sophisticates do, you know.

Scooter drank turpentine when he was a young redneck.

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:wkoZe.121383$Ep.52249@lakeread02...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > news:vomZe.121374$Ep.49612@lakeread02...
> >>
> >> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> > wrote
> >> in message ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Yapper tries to attain a moment of lucidity....
> >> >
> >> >> > This is an excellent illumination of the divide between Real Audio
> > Guys
> >> >> > and 'borgs. Feeding a 'borg is simplicity itself.
> >> >
> >> >> So in your view high-end isn't about audio performance.. its about
> > glitz,
> >> >> glamour and status.
> >> >
> >> > .... and he falls flat on his face.
> >> >
> >> > Scottie, do me a favor and tell me you were deliberately "debating
> >> > trading" just to yank my chain.
> >>
> >> Which just happens to be a choker on George the closet borg.
> >> Why don't you tell us why you lack the balls to leave your own
> >> quotes in place?
> >>
> > Actually, Scott prefers to write like this:
> > "Why don't you tell us... why you lack the balls to leave... your own
> > quotes
> > in place?"
> >
> > because he thinks it looks sophisticated!
> > Have you tried drinking absinthe, Scott? Real sophisticates do, you
know.
>
> I'll defer to your superior knowledge of "real sophisticates" there Bob.
> Not the kind of crowd I like to party with.
>
> ScottW
>
I know, Scott. You and Mikey can search for beer together. What's your
favorite brand? Lowbrow?

[Robert Morein]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 20:24:52 GMT, "
> > wrote:
>
> >> If you are implying here that Linn's turntables are still state of the
> >> art I'd suggest you are behind the times.
> >>
> >Isn't state of the art and turntable an oxymoron?
>
> Isn't an oxymoron an idiot with a blowtorch?
>
> That aside, I agree with you. It beggars belief that people are still
> subjecting themselves to the nightmare that is LP reproduction---a
> nightmare I thankfully awoke from many years ago. It's like those
> people who self-mutilate because they secretly hate themselves. Could
> that be the case here?

Back in the day, I had an AR turntable and a Dynaco PAS-3X turntable, and
some college-special amplifier, and I was in love with it. Then, after a ten
year hiatus, I was reintroduced to hifi with the CD. A few years more, and I
gave records a brief spin.

I could not stand what I heard. Vinyl was awful. What had changed?

Clearly, all tastes are acquired, and forgotten. In Norway and Sweden,
people eat rotten whale blubber snacks. In other countries, it's stake
tartare, or sheep eyeballs.

There is no accounting for taste.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > Have you tried drinking absinthe, Scott? Real sophisticates do, you
know.
>
> Scooter drank turpentine when he was a young redneck.
>
Thank you. This explains much.
The active ingredient in absinthe, thujone, is a terpene, similar in
structure to turpentine.

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 20:24:52 GMT, "
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> If you are implying here that Linn's turntables are still state of the
>> >> art I'd suggest you are behind the times.
>> >>
>> >Isn't state of the art and turntable an oxymoron?
>>
>> Isn't an oxymoron an idiot with a blowtorch?
>>
>> That aside, I agree with you. It beggars belief that people are still
>> subjecting themselves to the nightmare that is LP reproduction---a
>> nightmare I thankfully awoke from many years ago. It's like those
>> people who self-mutilate because they secretly hate themselves. Could
>> that be the case here?
>
> Back in the day, I had an AR turntable and a Dynaco PAS-3X turntable, and
> some college-special amplifier, and I was in love with it. Then, after a
> ten
> year hiatus, I was reintroduced to hifi with the CD. A few years more, and
> I
> gave records a brief spin.
>
> I could not stand what I heard. Vinyl was awful. What had changed?
>
> Clearly, all tastes are acquired, and forgotten. In Norway and Sweden,
> people eat rotten whale blubber snacks. In other countries, it's stake
> tartare, or sheep eyeballs.
>
> There is no accounting for taste.
>


You've got soft pretzels, "at least" here we get.....steamed crabs.

[SmakDaddy]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
rabbled on in a normal display of inbred bull**** in message
...
|
|
| SmakDaddy said:
|
| > > You don't know what 'borgs are. You just do not know anything.
|
| > Wrong again, little one
|
| Stop lying. You said:
|
| > people he refers to as 'borgs' who delelop[sic], manufacture, and repair
the
| > stuff in the first place.
|
| This shows your ignorance. 'Borgs do none of those things. If they did,
| they would not be 'borgs. You so stupid, yo' mama filed to get your genome
| reassembled.
|
| Also, fix your newsreader, imbecile.

Wrong again, little one.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 19:55:19 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>> because he thinks it looks sophisticated!
>> Have you tried drinking absinthe, Scott? Real sophisticates do, you know.
>
>I'll defer to your superior knowledge of "real sophisticates" there Bob.
>Not the kind of crowd I like to party with.

Time for Scott to break out another Pabst's to go with his Rotel.

[Arny Krueger]

"Rod Crawford" > wrote in message


> In a British trade magazine, Ken Kessler continually
> makes the point that hifi high-end will only survive if
> it can model itself on the high-end car, watch etc trades
> where people buy things as much for status, looks etc as
> for engineering utility - and are marketed by much more
> sophisticated means than hifi. Very few hifi companies,
> including hi-end ones, make much money these days. I
> think consumers in there eagerness to get things at the
> lowest prices often forget the other half of the
> equation, producers who may love their chosen field but
> also have to eat.

I think Kessler's point is well taken, but perhaps with
inadequate emphasis on high performance.

Most really expensive cars provide at least above average
performance. AFAIK a Rolls will do 0-60 in less than 6
seconds. And, the fastest production passenger cars in the
world are generally way over $100,000, one exception being
the Ariel Atom.

This compares with the very popular self-defeatment segment
of high end audio, complete with $10,000's power amplifiers
with miniscule power output and ludicrously high amounts of
distortion of all kinds.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> Time for Scott to break out another Pabst's to go with his Rotel.

I may have to trade in my Rotel if they all have the stink of Scottie on
them.

[Sander deWaal]

" > said:

>>> Too bad the big audio names seem to come into and out of fashion
>>>with the whims of reviewers, the budgets of advertisement, or the addition
>>>of, "gasp", a consumer retail outlet.


>> Please note that second-hand quality audio gear seems to hold up its
>> value pretty well.

>> A used Krell, Mark Levinson, Rowland, Audio Research, yes even Quad or
>> Radford can't be had for a bargain.


>But products from lesser known names that soound identical can be.


That may be true, but with the brands mentioned above, it's not just
about sonical performance IMO.

The comment was directed at Robert, who stated that "the big audio
names seem to come in and out of fashion", with which statement I
disagree, at least where it concerns well-known brand names that are
with us for several decades now.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Sander deWaal]

"ScottW" > said:

>>>> Too bad the big audio names seem to come into and out of fashion
>>>>with the whims of reviewers, the budgets of advertisement, or the
>>>>addition
>>>>of, "gasp", a consumer retail outlet.


>>> Please note that second-hand quality audio gear seems to hold up its
>>> value pretty well.

>>> A used Krell, Mark Levinson, Rowland, Audio Research, yes even Quad or
>>> Radford can't be had for a bargain.

>> Very true... I listened long and hard at Quad 988s at 6K vs used ESL-63s
>> at less than a third of that. Frankly, the difference wasn't very
>> noticeable especially with a sub. The 63's was an easy choice.

>Ooops.... I missed the can't. I thought all of my used purchases were a
>bargain
>compared to the new price.. except maybe that Arcam :).


I was thinking about amplifiers specifically, but think about what a
10-year old second-hand Bose speaker will sell for... :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Sander deWaal]

" > said:

>10%! Not likely. If you choose to not use the overweight faceplates and
>such, you can save money, but the components themselves are more expensive
>for the DIYer than for the mass producer. There are some DIY groups that
>pool their money to get better pricing on projects they have interest in,
>but overall you can't build an amp or preamp for substantially less than a
>competently designed one that's mass produced. Naturally they will sound
>indistinguishable from each other, again assuming competent design.


I think I can build a Wavac for less than 10% retail :-)

Come to think of it, the parts cost of a Levinson or Krell is probably
about 10...20% of retail.
Schematics are available on the net, if you're not able to design one
yourself.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Ayn Marx]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> in message ...
> >
> >
> > Robert Morein said:
> >
> > > Have you tried drinking absinthe, Scott? Real sophisticates do, you
> know.
> >
> > Scooter drank turpentine when he was a young redneck.
> >
> Thank you. This explains much.
> The active ingredient in absinthe, thujone, is a terpene, similar in
> structure to turpentine.

You know something about aromatic terpinols?
OOOOOOOH! Can I play with your HPLC & make some Tetrahydrocannabinolic
Acid Synthase?

[George M. Middius]

Missy Anonytroll squealed:

> You know something about aromatic terpinols?
> OOOOOOOH! Can I play with your HPLC & make some Tetrahydrocannabinolic
> Acid Synthase?

Girls don't win ****ing contests. paulie will explain this to you in case
you're the dried-up old hag they say you are.

[ScottW]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > said:
>
>>>>> Too bad the big audio names seem to come into and out of fashion
>>>>>with the whims of reviewers, the budgets of advertisement, or the
>>>>>addition
>>>>>of, "gasp", a consumer retail outlet.
>
>
>>>> Please note that second-hand quality audio gear seems to hold up its
>>>> value pretty well.
>
>>>> A used Krell, Mark Levinson, Rowland, Audio Research, yes even Quad or
>>>> Radford can't be had for a bargain.
>
>>> Very true... I listened long and hard at Quad 988s at 6K vs used ESL-63s
>>> at less than a third of that. Frankly, the difference wasn't very
>>> noticeable especially with a sub. The 63's was an easy choice.
>
>>Ooops.... I missed the can't. I thought all of my used purchases were a
>>bargain
>>compared to the new price.. except maybe that Arcam :).
>
>
> I was thinking about amplifiers specifically, but think about what a
> 10-year old second-hand Bose speaker will sell for... :-)

I see new 901's are 1400. E-bay has quite a few in $500 range.
They seem comparable to my used 63's.

ScottW
>
> --
>
> "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
> - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[dave weil]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 08:06:17 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>dave weil said:
>
>> Time for Scott to break out another Pabst's to go with his Rotel.
>
>I may have to trade in my Rotel if they all have the stink of Scottie on
>them.

Does it smell like Velveeta?

[Alan Rutlidge]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 00:59:02 +0800, "Alan Rutlidge"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>> Yes. Only to have it go bang in your face.
>>
>>No necessarily.
>
> Are you Scottish, Alan?

Nee laddie, I naught be Scottish. But what has that got to do with the cost
of DIY amplifiers?

>
>> I've built plenty of SS amplifiers including pre-amps and
>>power amps to in excess of 300W RMS per channel with no problems.
>
> No doubt. I really meant if I were to build it. :-)

Kit amplifiers require a reasonable degree of soldering skill (assuming you
want it to last), basic hand tools such as diagonal wire cutters, small
pliers and an assortment of screwdrivers. To get the average SS power amp
up and running requires only a multimeter as basic test equipment. Testing
for performance is usually beyond the average home constructor because of
the test equipment required (low distortion oscillator, N&D set, a CRO and
dummy loads). You'd be surprised just how simple to can be. Gee even Phil
can assemble kit speakers. :)

Cheers,
Alan

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 08:06:17 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>dave weil said:
>>
>>> Time for Scott to break out another Pabst's to go with his Rotel.
>>
>>I may have to trade in my Rotel if they all have the stink of Scottie on
>>them.
>
> Does it smell like Velveeta?

As George says... you guys have a need for posturing in these groups.

But do you really think imitating the evil bitch clique in a teen movie is
effective posturing? I'm almost embarrassed at how lame your insults
are.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Yapper has a confession to make.


> >>I may have to trade in my Rotel if they all have the stink of Scottie on them.

> > Does it smell like Velveeta?

> As George[sic] says... you guys have a need for posturing in these groups.

Only one other RAOer is so feeble-minded that he can't tell who's talking
down to him.

> I'm almost embarrassed at how lame your insults are.

Translation: Velveeta's out in Scottieland. The new cuisine for him
features Cheez Whiz.

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Yapper has a confession to make.
>
>
>> >>I may have to trade in my Rotel if they all have the stink of Scottie
>> >>on them.
>
>> > Does it smell like Velveeta?
>
>> As George[sic] says... you guys have a need for posturing in these
>> groups.
>
> Only one other RAOer is so feeble-minded that he can't tell who's talking
> down to him.

It's the feeble minded who do the talking down.

>
>> I'm almost embarrassed at how lame your insults are.
>
> Translation: Velveeta's out in Scottieland. The new cuisine for him
> features Cheez Whiz.

Can you get that in a feta flavor?

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 09:05:54 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>I'm almost embarrassed

Actually, you should be COMPLETELY embarassed.

Your moral compass is waaaay off BTW. Maybe you need a Shakti Stone.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 12:41:51 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>Yapper has a confession to make.
>
>
>> >>I may have to trade in my Rotel if they all have the stink of Scottie on them.
>
>> > Does it smell like Velveeta?
>
>> As George[sic] says... you guys have a need for posturing in these groups.
>
>Only one other RAOer is so feeble-minded that he can't tell who's talking
>down to him.
>
>> I'm almost embarrassed at how lame your insults are.
>
>Translation: Velveeta's out in Scottieland. The new cuisine for him
>features Cheez Whiz.

And he's been spending most of his free time trying to cram Rotel down
the spray spout.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
> [snip]
>
>>ididots like Middius and you
>> are the people who understand that measurements have actual meanbing and
>> that when two devices meansure similarly enough, they sound the same.
>>
> Mikey, if you ever find an "ididot" with "meanbing" and similar
> "meansure",
> let me know.
>
> You realize, don't you, that your inferior mind is the cause of these
> mistakes?
>
>
I realize that my typing skills and my forgetting to use the spell check
feature allow such mistakes to get through. I also realize that you claim
to believe that makes me somehow your inferior. The problem of course, is
how little you seem to understand about your own failings and what a putz
you appear to be when you dwell on my problems while turning a blind eye to
so many more important problems.

Do continue though, it can only weaken your standing (assuming that's still
possible) to constantly reveal how petty you are.

[[email protected]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>>
> You ask Mr. Morein :" You have a DBT that shows otherwise?"
> Just to remind you that so far no one, and you least of all, referenced
> a DBT that shows anything other thasn "It all sounds the same".
> Whatever in audio is being compared.
> Timje to reach for an argument from another barrel. Any in
> sight?
> Ludovic Mirabel
>

You are a liar, and the fact that you yourself referenced a DBT where a
difference was recorded just points up how big an idiot you are.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
> [snip].
>> >
>> > Actually, this is not true. According to the definition of luxury as
>> > given
>> > by Hyperdictionary,
>> > http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=luxury
>> > 1.. [n] something that is an indulgence rather than a necessity
>> > 2.. [n] the quality possessed by something that is excessively
> expensive
>> > 3.. [n] wealth as evidenced by sumptuous living
>> > According to the definition, objective characteristics play no part.
>> >
>>
>> Yet there are few luxury items I know of that don't offer something more
>> than you would find in the plain vanilla version.
>>
> Mikey, you can't argue with the dictionary. What you "don't know of" is
> the
> consequence of being a profoundly stupid person.
>
If irony killed.

[[email protected]]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> " > said:
>
>>10%! Not likely. If you choose to not use the overweight faceplates and
>>such, you can save money, but the components themselves are more expensive
>>for the DIYer than for the mass producer. There are some DIY groups that
>>pool their money to get better pricing on projects they have interest in,
>>but overall you can't build an amp or preamp for substantially less than a
>>competently designed one that's mass produced. Naturally they will sound
>>indistinguishable from each other, again assuming competent design.
>
>
> I think I can build a Wavac for less than 10% retail :-)
>

I stand corrected, but that begs the question: Who would want one?

> Come to think of it, the parts cost of a Levinson or Krell is probably
> about 10...20% of retail.
> Schematics are available on the net, if you're not able to design one
> yourself.
>
>
>
Sorry I tend to think in terms of stuff that puts function ahead of form.

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 09:05:54 -0700, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>I'm almost embarrassed
>
> Actually, you should be COMPLETELY embarassed.
>
> Your moral compass is waaaay off BTW. Maybe you need a Shakti Stone.

A double IKYA... way to go Dave! Keep that superior culture and intellect
flowing.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Then how do you explain the fact that high-end salons have a steady
>> stream of customers, many of them repeat customers?"
>>
>> For the same reason astrologers and fortune tellers have a steady
>> stream of customers. High-end folk sell image and hope that the
>> marketing
>> pitch is really true and all the perceptions the brain can conjure tell
>> them it is true, as the choir of their peers and the audio mags cheer
>> them
>> on, just like believers in astrology and esp.
>
> What you say is partly true. I see no point in assessing the percentage.
> But
> the high end also includes components of great merit.
> In an argument, the middle ground gets lost.
>
> Do you believe there is no middle ground?
>
The real High in high end is still almost exclusively speakers. While it
may be possible to find gear that has some problems passing a signal that
sounds different from the source being fed to it, it is more difficult than
finding speakers that sound different.

[Rod Crawford]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Rod Crawford" > wrote in message
>
>
> > In a British trade magazine, Ken Kessler continually
> > makes the point that hifi high-end will only survive if
> > it can model itself on the high-end car, watch etc trades
> > where people buy things as much for status, looks etc as
> > for engineering utility - and are marketed by much more
> > sophisticated means than hifi. Very few hifi companies,
> > including hi-end ones, make much money these days. I
> > think consumers in there eagerness to get things at the
> > lowest prices often forget the other half of the
> > equation, producers who may love their chosen field but
> > also have to eat.
>
> I think Kessler's point is well taken, but perhaps with
> inadequate emphasis on high performance.
>
> Most really expensive cars provide at least above average
> performance. AFAIK a Rolls will do 0-60 in less than 6
> seconds. And, the fastest production passenger cars in the
> world are generally way over $100,000, one exception being
> the Ariel Atom.
>
> This compares with the very popular self-defeatment segment
> of high end audio, complete with $10,000's power amplifiers
> with miniscule power output and ludicrously high amounts of
> distortion of all kinds.
>

Very true. At Linn in the late 1980s I used BMW (as well as B&W) as my
role model (by that time Jaguar, my childhood fantasy, particularly the
E-type, had gone astray in quality). Good performance and good styling are
not contradictory - and I agree are necessary if hifi hi-end manufacturers
are to survive - something recently taken on board by Classe amps since they
were taken over by B&W.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> I realize that my gruuunnt typing skills urrghh and my forgetting to use
greeek the spell check
> feature allow gruuunttsuch mistakes to urrrgh get greeeek through.

You need a brain check.
Start with a CAT scan, and go from there.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> > [snip].
> >> >
> >> > Actually, this is not true. According to the definition of luxury as
> >> > given
> >> > by Hyperdictionary,
> >> > http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=luxury
> >> > 1.. [n] something that is an indulgence rather than a necessity
> >> > 2.. [n] the quality possessed by something that is excessively
> > expensive
> >> > 3.. [n] wealth as evidenced by sumptuous living
> >> > According to the definition, objective characteristics play no part.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yet there are few luxury items I know of that don't offer something
more
> >> than you would find in the plain vanilla version.
> >>
> > Mikey, you can't argue with the dictionary. What you "don't know of" is
> > the
> > consequence of being a profoundly stupid person.
> >
> If irony killed.
>
So the best you can come up with is a plagiarism, a clear sign of an
inferior mind.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Then how do you explain the fact that high-end salons have a steady
> >> stream of customers, many of them repeat customers?"
> >>
> >> For the same reason astrologers and fortune tellers have a steady
> >> stream of customers. High-end folk sell image and hope that the
> >> marketing
> >> pitch is really true and all the perceptions the brain can conjure tell
> >> them it is true, as the choir of their peers and the audio mags cheer
> >> them
> >> on, just like believers in astrology and esp.
> >
> > What you say is partly true. I see no point in assessing the percentage.
> > But
> > the high end also includes components of great merit.
> > In an argument, the middle ground gets lost.
> >
> > Do you believe there is no middle ground?
> >
> The real High in high end is still almost exclusively speakers. While it
> may be possible to find gear that has some problems passing a signal that
> sounds different from the source being fed to it, it is more difficult
than
> finding speakers that sound different.
>
Then you must be a real high end piece, Mikey, as you are a perfect parrot
of Arny Krueger.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> > finding speakers that sound different.

> Then you must be a real high end piece, Mikey, as you are a perfect parrot
> of Arny Krueger.

I agree (of course) with your main point, i.e. that duh-Mikey is an idiot.
However, in this particular you've oversimplified the case. Mickey has a
long way to go in imitating the Krooglebeast. He's a mere acolyte in terms
of torturing logic. His ability to re-process others' words into
incoherent nonsense is barely nascent next to the Krooborg's. He is
confused about the meanings of "truth" and "lie", but whereas Mr. **** has
the two terms utterly conflated, Mickey's understanding is a shade on the
dodgy side of normative.

Mickey has indeed learned to parrot a few of the Krooborg's pet phrases.
You've probably noticed that every one of them is a copout or intellectual
surrender of some sort. Beyond that, however, Mickey is still the moron to
Krooger's krazy kat.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>ididots like Middius and you
>>> are the people who understand that measurements have actual meanbing and
>>> that when two devices meansure similarly enough, they sound the same.
>>>
>> Mikey, if you ever find an "ididot" with "meanbing" and similar
>> "meansure",
>> let me know.
>>
>> You realize, don't you, that your inferior mind is the cause of these
>> mistakes?
>>
>>
> I realize that my typing skills and my forgetting to use the spell check
> feature allow such mistakes to get through. I also realize that you claim
> to believe that makes me somehow your inferior. The problem of course, is
> how little you seem to understand about your own failings and what a putz
> you appear to be when you dwell on my problems while turning a blind eye
> to so many more important problems.
>
> Do continue though, it can only weaken your standing (assuming that's
> still possible) to constantly reveal how petty you are.
>

I more or less ignore your typos, I make a lot of them
myself. You are an idiot because everything you think is
filtered through several unworkable dogmas.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>> [snip].
>>> >
>>> > Actually, this is not true. According to the definition of luxury as
>>> > given
>>> > by Hyperdictionary,
>>> > http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=luxury
>>> > 1.. [n] something that is an indulgence rather than a necessity
>>> > 2.. [n] the quality possessed by something that is excessively
>> expensive
>>> > 3.. [n] wealth as evidenced by sumptuous living
>>> > According to the definition, objective characteristics play no part.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Yet there are few luxury items I know of that don't offer something more
>>> than you would find in the plain vanilla version.
>>>
>> Mikey, you can't argue with the dictionary. What you "don't know of" is
>> the
>> consequence of being a profoundly stupid person.
>>
> If irony killed.

Who was it the said that? Let me see, was it Ayn Rand? No, wait,
let me think, hmmm, I do know its not original.
Oh well, its an opinion you get to have.

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> " > wrote in message
> >> ink.net...
> >>>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>>ididots like Middius and you
> >>> are the people who understand that measurements have actual meanbing
and
> >>> that when two devices meansure similarly enough, they sound the same.
> >>>
> >> Mikey, if you ever find an "ididot" with "meanbing" and similar
> >> "meansure",
> >> let me know.
> >>
> >> You realize, don't you, that your inferior mind is the cause of these
> >> mistakes?
> >>
> >>
> > I realize that my typing skills and my forgetting to use the spell check
> > feature allow such mistakes to get through. I also realize that you
claim
> > to believe that makes me somehow your inferior. The problem of course,
is
> > how little you seem to understand about your own failings and what a
putz
> > you appear to be when you dwell on my problems while turning a blind eye
> > to so many more important problems.
> >
> > Do continue though, it can only weaken your standing (assuming that's
> > still possible) to constantly reveal how petty you are.
> >
>
> I more or less ignore your typos, I make a lot of them
> myself. You are an idiot because everything you think is
> filtered through several unworkable dogmas.
>
This is true. You work on the idiocy of the position; I'll work on the
idiocy of the idiot.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > > finding speakers that sound different.
>
> > Then you must be a real high end piece, Mikey, as you are a perfect
parrot
> > of Arny Krueger.
>
> I agree (of course) with your main point, i.e. that duh-Mikey is an idiot.
> However, in this particular you've oversimplified the case. Mickey has a
> long way to go in imitating the Krooglebeast. He's a mere acolyte in terms
> of torturing logic. His ability to re-process others' words into
> incoherent nonsense is barely nascent next to the Krooborg's. He is
> confused about the meanings of "truth" and "lie", but whereas Mr. **** has
> the two terms utterly conflated, Mickey's understanding is a shade on the
> dodgy side of normative.
>
> Mickey has indeed learned to parrot a few of the Krooborg's pet phrases.
> You've probably noticed that every one of them is a copout or intellectual
> surrender of some sort. Beyond that, however, Mickey is still the moron to
> Krooger's krazy kat.
>
I see what you mean. In an asylum run by the inmates, Krueger is chairman of
the board, while Mikey is just a wavering trustee.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:09:32 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 09:05:54 -0700, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm almost embarrassed
>>
>> Actually, you should be COMPLETELY embarassed.
>>
>> Your moral compass is waaaay off BTW. Maybe you need a Shakti Stone.
>
> A double IKYA...

You really ARE an idiot.

Try again.

No wait...please don't.

>way to go Dave! Keep that superior culture and intellect
>flowing.

And keep your second-hand business alive.

[Iain M Churches]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 00:59:02 +0800, "Alan Rutlidge"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>> Yes. Only to have it go bang in your face.
>>
>>No necessarily.
>
> Are you Scottish, Alan?
>
>> I've built plenty of SS amplifiers including pre-amps and
>>power amps to in excess of 300W RMS per channel with no problems.
>
> No doubt. I really meant if I were to build it. :-)

Then you should start with a kit., Paul. It's a good and very safe
way to take the first step.


Iain

[Mr.T]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
> Chinese manufacturing technology is scarily good, a challenge to the
future
> of our nation, a challenge I think we will lose.

Will lose?
Already lost more likely.
But eventually the Chinese people will catch up, just like Japan did, then
it will probably be Africa's turn.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Alan Rutlidge" > wrote in message
...
>Testing
> for performance is usually beyond the average home constructor because of
> the test equipment required (low distortion oscillator, N&D set, a CRO and
> dummy loads).

Or a computer and decent sound card.
Maybe the average constructor does have those after all, and a couple of
cheap jug elements.

MrT.

[Alan Rutlidge]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
...
>
> "Alan Rutlidge" > wrote in message
> ...
>>Testing
>> for performance is usually beyond the average home constructor because of
>> the test equipment required (low distortion oscillator, N&D set, a CRO
>> and
>> dummy loads).
>
> Or a computer and decent sound card.
> Maybe the average constructor does have those after all, and a couple of
> cheap jug elements.
>
> MrT.

Yes, I'm sure they do. With a SS BTL bridged power amplifier, reading the
output might be problematical with a nice solid earth on one leg.

Jug elements - hmmmmm... nice constant resistance when they warm up? Does
it work just as effectively with toasters? Never really thought of them but
I assume you've tested them (jug elements that is) for suitability and
stability. Personally I find the average PC soundcard has a bit too much
residual background noise of meaningful noise measurements in high
performance gear, but once again these may only be the limitations of my PC
and not necessarily yours.

Cheers,
Alan

[paul packer]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 08:06:17 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>dave weil said:
>
>> Time for Scott to break out another Pabst's to go with his Rotel.
>
>I may have to trade in my Rotel if they all have the stink of Scottie on
>them.

By George, George, I think that's the first time I've even gotten a
whiff of your system. Care to go into detail?

[paul packer]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:15:58 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>Missy Anonytroll squealed:
>
>> You know something about aromatic terpinols?
>> OOOOOOOH! Can I play with your HPLC & make some Tetrahydrocannabinolic
>> Acid Synthase?
>
>Girls don't win ****ing contests.

These days they do.

>paulie will explain this to you in case
>you're the dried-up old hag they say you are.

In our collective aus.hi-fi imagination Ayn is a beautiful young
seductress. :-)

[paul packer]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 09:56:52 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
> wrote:


>> No doubt. I really meant if I were to build it. :-)
>
>Then you should start with a kit., Paul. It's a good and very safe
>way to take the first step.

To be honest, Iain, I have built small kit headphone amps etc over the
years, but my eyes just won't allow it anymore. I'm flat out seeing
the circuit board these days, let alone being let loose with a
soldering iron.

[paul packer]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:19:50 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:


>I could not stand what I heard. Vinyl was awful. What had changed?

Well, I was always very intolerant of surface noise. Having not had to
suffer it for many years, I'm even more intolerant. Vinyl is
definitely never coming back into my life

[Iain M Churches]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 09:56:52 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>> No doubt. I really meant if I were to build it. :-)
>>
>>Then you should start with a kit., Paul. It's a good and very safe
>>way to take the first step.
>
> To be honest, Iain, I have built small kit headphone amps etc over the
> years, but my eyes just won't allow it anymore. I'm flat out seeing
> the circuit board these days, let alone being let loose with a
> soldering iron.'


Understood. I wear a magnifier glass on a headband when wiring.
It's only x2. My pal has one with a light, and a x4 lens:-)

Soldering is something that you can learn in ten minutes. Just
work slowly, and in short periods.

Those things should not prevent you from building something.
It's a great thrill to fire up an amp that you have built yourself.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches/Pics/C50_010.jpg





Cordially,

Iain
http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches/

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >I may have to trade in my Rotel if they all have the stink of Scottie on
> >them.

> By George, George, I think that's the first time I've even gotten a
> whiff of your system. Care to go into detail?

It's a multichannel power amp. It works.

[paul packer]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:32:29 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >I may have to trade in my Rotel if they all have the stink of Scottie on
>> >them.
>
>> By George, George, I think that's the first time I've even gotten a
>> whiff of your system. Care to go into detail?
>
>It's a multichannel power amp. It works.

Not too much now!!

[paul packer]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:06:14 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
> wrote:


>It's a great thrill to fire up an amp that you have built yourself.

Not if it blows up in....oh never mind. :-)

[Iain M Churches]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:06:14 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>It's a great thrill to fire up an amp that you have built yourself.
>
> Not if it blows up in....oh never mind. :-)


Oh Ye of little faith:-))


Iain

[Jenn]

In article >,
(paul packer) wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:19:50 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >I could not stand what I heard. Vinyl was awful. What had changed?
>
> Well, I was always very intolerant of surface noise. Having not had to
> suffer it for many years, I'm even more intolerant. Vinyl is
> definitely never coming back into my life

Different strokes, of course. I'm all charged up about vinyl again.

[Sander deWaal]

"Iain M Churches" > said:

>Soldering is something that you can learn in ten minutes. Just
>work slowly, and in short periods.


I strongly disagree.
Creating a good solder joint is somewhat like art.

Some people do get it right (whether or not in 10 minutes), others
never learn.

Believe me, I've seen kits that will give you the willies, joint-wise.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Iain M Churches]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Iain M Churches" > said:
>
>>Soldering is something that you can learn in ten minutes. Just
>>work slowly, and in short periods.
>
>
> I strongly disagree.
> Creating a good solder joint is somewhat like art.
>
> Some people do get it right (whether or not in 10 minutes), others
> never learn.

Perhaps it depends who is teaching them, Sander.
One needs to be shown how to do it, and recognise the
difference between a good and a bad (dry) joint.
But it's not difficult.

Iain

[[email protected]]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> " > said:
>
>>>> Too bad the big audio names seem to come into and out of fashion
>>>>with the whims of reviewers, the budgets of advertisement, or the
>>>>addition
>>>>of, "gasp", a consumer retail outlet.
>
>
>>> Please note that second-hand quality audio gear seems to hold up its
>>> value pretty well.
>
>>> A used Krell, Mark Levinson, Rowland, Audio Research, yes even Quad or
>>> Radford can't be had for a bargain.
>
>
>>But products from lesser known names that sound identical can be.
>
>
> That may be true, but with the brands mentioned above, it's not just
> about sonical performance IMO.
>
That's pretty much been my point for some time. If you pay more for an amp,
CD player, or whatever, you don't get better sound, you get bragging rights.
Once you achieve flat response without any form of audible distortion or
noise, and the ability to drive difficult loads, you have a perfect piece of
equipment. Adding heavy faceplates or designer caps, and coils, doesn't
really get you better sound, but it might get you a longer product life.

Nothing wrong with spending whatever someone wants for their gear, but
people should be aware of the fact that it doesn't get them better sound as
the manufacturers and SP type reviewers would like us to believe.

> The comment was directed at Robert, who stated that "the big audio
> names seem to come in and out of fashion", with which statement I
> disagree, at least where it concerns well-known brand names that are
> with us for several decades now.
>
> --
>
> "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
> - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>ididots like Middius and you
>>>> are the people who understand that measurements have actual meanbing
>>>> and
>>>> that when two devices meansure similarly enough, they sound the same.
>>>>
>>> Mikey, if you ever find an "ididot" with "meanbing" and similar
>>> "meansure",
>>> let me know.
>>>
>>> You realize, don't you, that your inferior mind is the cause of these
>>> mistakes?
>>>
>>>
>> I realize that my typing skills and my forgetting to use the spell check
>> feature allow such mistakes to get through. I also realize that you
>> claim to believe that makes me somehow your inferior. The problem of
>> course, is how little you seem to understand about your own failings and
>> what a putz you appear to be when you dwell on my problems while turning
>> a blind eye to so many more important problems.
>>
>> Do continue though, it can only weaken your standing (assuming that's
>> still possible) to constantly reveal how petty you are.
>>
>
> I more or less ignore your typos, I make a lot of them
> myself. You are an idiot because everything you think is
> filtered through several unworkable dogmas.
I am completely un-dogmatic. I update my ideas and beliefs when there is a
reason to do so.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >
>> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> " > wrote in message
>> >> ink.net...
>> >>>
>> >> [snip]
>> >>
>> >>>ididots like Middius and you
>> >>> are the people who understand that measurements have actual meanbing
> and
>> >>> that when two devices meansure similarly enough, they sound the same.
>> >>>
>> >> Mikey, if you ever find an "ididot" with "meanbing" and similar
>> >> "meansure",
>> >> let me know.
>> >>
>> >> You realize, don't you, that your inferior mind is the cause of these
>> >> mistakes?
>> >>
>> >>
>> > I realize that my typing skills and my forgetting to use the spell
>> > check
>> > feature allow such mistakes to get through. I also realize that you
> claim
>> > to believe that makes me somehow your inferior. The problem of course,
> is
>> > how little you seem to understand about your own failings and what a
> putz
>> > you appear to be when you dwell on my problems while turning a blind
>> > eye
>> > to so many more important problems.
>> >
>> > Do continue though, it can only weaken your standing (assuming that's
>> > still possible) to constantly reveal how petty you are.
>> >
>>
>> I more or less ignore your typos, I make a lot of them
>> myself. You are an idiot because everything you think is
>> filtered through several unworkable dogmas.
>>
> This is true. You work on the idiocy of the position; I'll work on the
> idiocy of the idiot.
>
Why not work on being less of an idiot yourself.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> "Then how do you explain the fact that high-end salons have a steady
>> >> stream of customers, many of them repeat customers?"
>> >>
>> >> For the same reason astrologers and fortune tellers have a steady
>> >> stream of customers. High-end folk sell image and hope that the
>> >> marketing
>> >> pitch is really true and all the perceptions the brain can conjure
>> >> tell
>> >> them it is true, as the choir of their peers and the audio mags cheer
>> >> them
>> >> on, just like believers in astrology and esp.
>> >
>> > What you say is partly true. I see no point in assessing the
>> > percentage.
>> > But
>> > the high end also includes components of great merit.
>> > In an argument, the middle ground gets lost.
>> >
>> > Do you believe there is no middle ground?
>> >
>> The real High in high end is still almost exclusively speakers. While it
>> may be possible to find gear that has some problems passing a signal that
>> sounds different from the source being fed to it, it is more difficult
> than
>> finding speakers that sound different.
>>
> Then you must be a real high end piece, Mikey, as you are a perfect parrot
> of Arny Krueger.
>
So, by your reckoning, it's bad to reapeat the truth? What diffference does
it make who said it, as long as it is the truth?

[George Middius]

Mikey Bug-Eater eyes a snack. Oops, too slow. He stirs again. Will he make the
grab this time?

>Nothing wrong with spending whatever someone wants for their gear, but

Except when you know about it.

>people should be aware of the fact that it doesn't get them better sound as
>the manufacturers and SP type reviewers would like us to believe.

Nobody wants you to believe anything. All they want is for you to buy their
stuff.

Apparently you believe nobody can enjoy their stereo unless they've been
brainwashed. Too bad your brain is too pickled to respond to ordinary stimuli.

[George Middius]

Mikey casts a spell of Concentrated Irony.

>I am completely un-dogmatic. I update my ideas and beliefs when there is a
>reason to do so.

bwahahahaha! LOL! ROTFL! etc.

For you, "update" apparently means "buy into whacko loony crackpot fringe
crapola". You do that with great frequency.

[George Middius]

Mickey, thank you for correcting my error.

>> Then you must be a real high end piece, Mikey, as you are a perfect parrot
>> of Arny Krueger.

>So, by your reckoning, it's bad to reapeat the truth? What diffference does
>it make who said it, as long as it is the truth?

I just got finished telling Robert you do generally know the difference between
truth and lies. Now you go and prove me wrong. Oh well. Have fun in the Hive!

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>

..
> I am completely un-dogmatic. I update my ideas and beliefs when there is
> a reason to do so.
>

Never mind that they don't work.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>>>
>> Then you must be a real high end piece, Mikey, as you are a perfect
>> parrot
>> of Arny Krueger.
>>
> So, by your reckoning, it's bad to reapeat the truth? What diffference
> does it make who said it, as long as it is the truth?
>

Was Arnie telling the truth when he accused Atkinson of emailing him
kiddie porn, or was Arnie telling the truth when he accused George Middius
of emailing him kiddie pron, or was Arnie telling the truth when he accused
Dave Weil of emailing him kiddie porn, or Was Arnie telling the truth when
he accused Scot Wheeler of emailing him kiddie porn, or was Arnie telling
the
truth when he accused me of emailing him kiddie porn. Was Arnie telling
the truth that ANYBODY sent him kiddie porn. Didn't Arny later say that a
MSP
investigator told him it was not kiddie porn? Wouldn't it make
sense that one would not make such hideous accusations if
it weren't obvious that the porn in question was kiddie porn?

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> Wouldn't it make
> sense that one would not make such hideous accusations if
> it weren't obvious that the porn in question was kiddie porn?

If somebody did email Mr. **** kiddie porn, and he thought it was one of
his RAO tormentors, what stopped him from turning in whoever it was?
Nothing, I suspect, other than the FACT there was no porn.

[Ayn Marx]

Clyde Slick wrote:

Any relation to Grace?

[Alan Rutlidge]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 09:56:52 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>> No doubt. I really meant if I were to build it. :-)
>>
>>Then you should start with a kit., Paul. It's a good and very safe
>>way to take the first step.
>
> To be honest, Iain, I have built small kit headphone amps etc over the
> years, but my eyes just won't allow it anymore. I'm flat out seeing
> the circuit board these days, let alone being let loose with a
> soldering iron.

A pair of magnifying specs from the $2 shop may open up a whole new world
for you Paul.
Take a postage stamp with you when you try them out. Get a pair that
reveals the level of detail you require. Of course, point to point wiring
in a valve amp might not be so challenging on the sight. :)
Good bright lighting helps. An articulated lamp from Ikea won't break the
piggy bank and fitted with one of those 20W fluoro bulbs, they throw out
surprisingly bright light and are cool at the same time.

Cheers,
Alan

[Clyde Slick]

"Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> Any relation to Grace?
>

Here's some fodder for the cannon!
There is no Grace in my family.

[Robert Morein]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Chinese manufacturing technology is scarily good, a challenge to the
> future
> > of our nation, a challenge I think we will lose.
>
> Will lose?
> Already lost more likely.
> But eventually the Chinese people will catch up, just like Japan did, then
> it will probably be Africa's turn.
>
> MrT.
>
The Chinese have too large a potential labor pool. This will keep labor
costs low for a much longer period of time than the American economy can
tolerate.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >>
> >> " > wrote in message
> >> ink.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> " > wrote in message
> >> >> ink.net...
> >> >>>
> >> >> [snip]
> >> >>
> >> >>>ididots like Middius and you
> >> >>> are the people who understand that measurements have actual
meanbing
> > and
> >> >>> that when two devices meansure similarly enough, they sound the
same.
> >> >>>
> >> >> Mikey, if you ever find an "ididot" with "meanbing" and similar
> >> >> "meansure",
> >> >> let me know.
> >> >>
> >> >> You realize, don't you, that your inferior mind is the cause of
these
> >> >> mistakes?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > I realize that my typing skills and my forgetting to use the spell
> >> > check
> >> > feature allow such mistakes to get through. I also realize that you
> > claim
> >> > to believe that makes me somehow your inferior. The problem of
course,
> > is
> >> > how little you seem to understand about your own failings and what a
> > putz
> >> > you appear to be when you dwell on my problems while turning a blind
> >> > eye
> >> > to so many more important problems.
> >> >
> >> > Do continue though, it can only weaken your standing (assuming that's
> >> > still possible) to constantly reveal how petty you are.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I more or less ignore your typos, I make a lot of them
> >> myself. You are an idiot because everything you think is
> >> filtered through several unworkable dogmas.
> >>
> > This is true. You work on the idiocy of the position; I'll work on the
> > idiocy of the idiot.
> >
> Why not gruuunnt work on urrrrghhh being less greeeeek of an idiot gruuunt
yourself.
>
Do you understand the meaning and use of the question mark?

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
>
> .
> > I am completely un-dogmatic. I update my ideas and beliefs when there
is
> > a reason to do so.
> >
>
> Never mind that they don't work.
>
His brain obviously isn't running Genuine Windows.

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Clyde Slick wrote:
> >
> > Any relation to Grace?
> >
>
> Here's some fodder for the cannon!
> There is no Grace in my family.
>
Is there an Oil?

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > Clyde Slick wrote:
>> >
>> > Any relation to Grace?
>> >
>>
>> Here's some fodder for the cannon!
>> There is no Grace in my family.
>>
> Is there an Oil?
>
>

Does Earl from the Bronx count?

[paul packer]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:59:46 GMT, Jenn >
wrote:

>I'm all charged up about vinyl

Careful you don't charge the vinyl--it'll attract dust.

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Clyde Slick wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Any relation to Grace?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Here's some fodder for the cannon!
> >> There is no Grace in my family.
> >>
> > Is there an Oil?
> >
> >
>
> Does Earl from the Bronx count?
>
Of course. I was giving the just-off-the-boat pronounciation.

[paul packer]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:30:26 GMT, "
> wrote:


>That's pretty much been my point for some time. If you pay more for an amp,
>CD player, or whatever, you don't get better sound, you get bragging rights.
>Once you achieve flat response without any form of audible distortion or
>noise, and the ability to drive difficult loads, you have a perfect piece of
>equipment. Adding heavy faceplates or designer caps, and coils, doesn't
>really get you better sound, but it might get you a longer product life.

So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
difficult loads? Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
assertion means nothing.

[Jenn]

In article >,
(paul packer) wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:59:46 GMT, Jenn >
> wrote:
>
> >I'm all charged up about vinyl
>
> Careful you don't charge the vinyl--it'll attract dust.

Of course! :-)

[[email protected]]

paul packer wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:30:26 GMT, "
> > wrote:
>
>
> >That's pretty much been my point for some time. If you pay more for an amp,
> >CD player, or whatever, you don't get better sound, you get bragging rights.
> >Once you achieve flat response without any form of audible distortion or
> >noise, and the ability to drive difficult loads, you have a perfect piece of
> >equipment. Adding heavy faceplates or designer caps, and coils, doesn't
> >really get you better sound, but it might get you a longer product life.
>
> So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
> better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
> difficult loads? Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
> yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
> assertion means nothing.

I can predict the answer. It will say something about ABXing
"proving" his beliefs. Except, of course, that so far (mere 40 years
of ABX history) every published report, on everything in audio,
resulted in "It all sounds the same" outcome- as long as ABX was the
test protocol. ("Published" means at least accepted by a mag. if not by
a peer reviewed journal. Web free=for=all does not qualify)

Since they continue to promote it one must assume that indeed to
those true believers everything does sound the same.
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mikey Bug-Eater eyes a snack. Oops, too slow. He stirs again. Will he make
> the
> grab this time?
>
>>Nothing wrong with spending whatever someone wants for their gear, but
>
> Except when you know about it.
>
>>people should be aware of the fact that it doesn't get them better sound
>>as
>>the manufacturers and SP type reviewers would like us to believe.
>
> Nobody wants you to believe anything. All they want is for you to buy
> their
> stuff.
>
Then why all the agitprop about better sound?


> Apparently you believe nobody can enjoy their stereo unless they've been
> brainwashed. Too bad your brain is too pickled to respond to ordinary
> stimuli.
>
Wrong again, so far you're batting a thousand.

I think people should be informed, after that whatever decision they make is
on them.

The problem is that they are being told by reviewers that stuff sounds
different when it can't actually be demonstrated that is so. Worse, is they
are being told that snake oil devices can improve the sound. I just don't
believe reviewers should be involved in helping to commit fraud. They
should subject all tweaks to some kind of testing to see if does anything,
since any improvement would include a FR variation, or some other measurable
effect. That's part of the normal purview of hobby magazines, testing for
the advertised effects.

[Mr.T]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
> The Chinese have too large a potential labor pool. This will keep labor
> costs low for a much longer period of time than the American economy can
> tolerate.

What do you mean tolerate? Like Australia, the USA has already given up on
most low skill manufacturing AFAIK. All the growth is in service industries.
Meanwhile we enjoy very low cost clothes, electronics etc.

MrT.

[[email protected]]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:30:26 GMT, "
> > wrote:
>
>
>>That's pretty much been my point for some time. If you pay more for an
>>amp,
>>CD player, or whatever, you don't get better sound, you get bragging
>>rights.
>>Once you achieve flat response without any form of audible distortion or
>>noise, and the ability to drive difficult loads, you have a perfect piece
>>of
>>equipment. Adding heavy faceplates or designer caps, and coils, doesn't
>>really get you better sound, but it might get you a longer product life.
>
> So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
> better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
> difficult loads?

If they measure within .1 dB of each other, it's likely they will sound
idnetical.

Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
> yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
> assertion means nothing.

I have not but I have seen some of the research and that's the consensenus.
I'm satisfied that fropm my own experience, an audiophile approved power amp
like the Acoustat 120, doesn't sound audibly different than a Pioneer
reciever, or Scott integrated amp.

If 2 amps sound different there are reasons, clipping, inabilty to drive
difficult loads, or design problems. Sind it's so incredibly easy and
inexpensive to build an amp that has flat FR and inaudible distortion,
there's very little motivation to do otherwise.

[[email protected]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> paul packer wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:30:26 GMT, "
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >That's pretty much been my point for some time. If you pay more for an
>> >amp,
>> >CD player, or whatever, you don't get better sound, you get bragging
>> >rights.
>> >Once you achieve flat response without any form of audible distortion or
>> >noise, and the ability to drive difficult loads, you have a perfect
>> >piece of
>> >equipment. Adding heavy faceplates or designer caps, and coils, doesn't
>> >really get you better sound, but it might get you a longer product life.
>>
>> So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
>> better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
>> difficult loads? Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
>> yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
>> assertion means nothing.
>
> I can predict the answer. It will say something about ABXing
> "proving" his beliefs. Except, of course, that so far (mere 40 years
> of ABX history) every published report, on everything in audio,
> resulted in "It all sounds the same" outcome- as long as ABX was the
> test protocol. ("Published" means at least accepted by a mag. if not by
> a peer reviewed journal. Web free=for=all does not qualify)
>

Why do you contiue this lie, even after you posted the evidence that refutes
it?

> Since they continue to promote it one must assume that indeed to
> those true believers everything does sound the same.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
One must conclude that the truth bothers you so much that you are willing to
keep repeating the same lie over and over. Why is that?

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> " > wrote in message
>> >> ink.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> " > wrote in message
>> >> >> ink.net...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >> [snip]
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>ididots like Middius and you
>> >> >>> are the people who understand that measurements have actual
> meanbing
>> > and
>> >> >>> that when two devices meansure similarly enough, they sound the
> same.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >> Mikey, if you ever find an "ididot" with "meanbing" and similar
>> >> >> "meansure",
>> >> >> let me know.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You realize, don't you, that your inferior mind is the cause of
> these
>> >> >> mistakes?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> > I realize that my typing skills and my forgetting to use the spell
>> >> > check
>> >> > feature allow such mistakes to get through. I also realize that you
>> > claim
>> >> > to believe that makes me somehow your inferior. The problem of
> course,
>> > is
>> >> > how little you seem to understand about your own failings and what a
>> > putz
>> >> > you appear to be when you dwell on my problems while turning a blind
>> >> > eye
>> >> > to so many more important problems.
>> >> >
>> >> > Do continue though, it can only weaken your standing (assuming
>> >> > that's
>> >> > still possible) to constantly reveal how petty you are.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I more or less ignore your typos, I make a lot of them
>> >> myself. You are an idiot because everything you think is
>> >> filtered through several unworkable dogmas.
>> >>
>> > This is true. You work on the idiocy of the position; I'll work on the
>> > idiocy of the idiot.
>> >
>> Why not gruuunnt work on urrrrghhh being less greeeeek of an idiot
>> gruuunt
> yourself.
>>
> Do you understand the meaning and use of the question mark?
>
Yes?

[[email protected]]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mikey casts a spell of Concentrated Irony.
>
>>I am completely un-dogmatic. I update my ideas and beliefs when there is
>>a
>>reason to do so.
>
> bwahahahaha! LOL! ROTFL! etc.
>
> For you, "update" apparently means "buy into whacko loony crackpot fringe
> crapola". You do that with great frequency.
>
If irony killed.

[Mr.T]

"Alan Rutlidge" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, I'm sure they do. With a SS BTL bridged power amplifier, reading the
> output might be problematical with a nice solid earth on one leg.

You have already heard of transformer coupling I assume, if you are using
bottles.

> Jug elements - hmmmmm... nice constant resistance when they warm up?

Just like wire wound speakers.

>Does it work just as effectively with toasters?

Quite possibly, but I've never tried.

>Never really thought of them but
> I assume you've tested them (jug elements that is) for suitability and
> stability. Personally I find the average PC soundcard has a bit too much
> residual background noise of meaningful noise measurements in high
> performance gear, but once again these may only be the limitations of my
PC
> and not necessarily yours.

Exactly!!

(I did say *decent* sound card. Try
http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/Audiophile192-main.html for a
relatively inexpensive example)

MrT.

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>>>>
>>> Then you must be a real high end piece, Mikey, as you are a perfect
>>> parrot
>>> of Arny Krueger.
>>>
>> So, by your reckoning, it's bad to reapeat the truth? What diffference
>> does it make who said it, as long as it is the truth?
>>
>
> Was Arnie telling the truth when he accused Atkinson of emailing him
> kiddie porn, or was Arnie telling the truth when he accused George Middius
> of emailing him kiddie pron, or was Arnie telling the truth when he
> accused
> Dave Weil of emailing him kiddie porn, or Was Arnie telling the truth when
> he accused Scot Wheeler of emailing him kiddie porn, or was Arnie telling
> the
> truth when he accused me of emailing him kiddie porn. Was Arnie telling
> the truth that ANYBODY sent him kiddie porn. Didn't Arny later say that a
> MSP
> investigator told him it was not kiddie porn? Wouldn't it make
> sense that one would not make such hideous accusations if
> it weren't obvious that the porn in question was kiddie porn?
Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were absoultely no reason due to anything
that happened on RAO, could make Arny think someone would be despicable
enough to do such a thing?

The fact is that there are people like George, for whom such behavior seems
quite likely.

[S Roby]

In article >, "Doug Flynn" > wrote:
>and build your own high-end stuff. You can build amps for about 10% of the
>cost of the crap you find in shops. Doug
>
>
If you (wanted to) build a gaincard/gainclone you will save more than 90%

[Alan Rutlidge]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Alan Rutlidge" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Yes, I'm sure they do. With a SS BTL bridged power amplifier, reading
>> the
>> output might be problematical with a nice solid earth on one leg.
>
> You have already heard of transformer coupling I assume, if you are using
> bottles.

Actually if you read back a few lines I was actually referring to bridged
solid state (SS) amplifiers.
Obviously valve amps with transformer coupled outputs present no problem in
this case, nor would a normal single ended (non-bridged) output SS
amplifier.

How do you go about determining the maximum output at the onset of clipping
with a soundcard? Surely most soundcards alone would not be able to accepts
input voltages of more than a few volts without some form of attenuator at
the front end to prevent overloading? Would this not involve additional
components?

I notice that the Audiophile 192 soundcard you provided the link to (thanks)
does have a maximum input voltage limitation of 4 volts RMS, which across an
8 ohm load only amounts to 2 watts RMS - not a particularly powerful
amplifier. Whereas my AWA F242A N&D set will accept up to 30 volts RMS
without the need for external attenuators allowing amplifiers of just over
100 watts RMS (assuming an 8 ohm load) to be evaluated for power output,
distortion and noise performance. Still need a suitable dummy load though.

>
>> Jug elements - hmmmmm... nice constant resistance when they warm up?
>
> Just like wire wound speakers.

I'm curious about this. Just based on reading a conventional kettle
element, the hot and cold resistances aren't the same. Typical readings are
58.2 ohms cold resistance; 24.2 ohms hot resistance (water boiled). Would
this temperature co-efficient characteristic not be similar in a jug element
and would it need to be immersed in water for cooling if measuring the
output an amplifier with several hundred watts output at or close to full
power?
As a matter of interest what is the typical resistance of a jug element?
Cold =,? hot = ?. Could be a lot cheaper alternative to a 300W wirewound
resistor mounted o a ruddy great heatsink. :)

>
>>Does it work just as effectively with toasters?
>
> Quite possibly, but I've never tried.

Actually I thought Phil might be able answer that one. :P

Cheers,
Alan

>
>>Never really thought of them but
>> I assume you've tested them (jug elements that is) for suitability and
>> stability. Personally I find the average PC soundcard has a bit too much
>> residual background noise of meaningful noise measurements in high
>> performance gear, but once again these may only be the limitations of my
> PC
>> and not necessarily yours.
>
> Exactly!!
>
> (I did say *decent* sound card. Try
> http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/Audiophile192-main.html for a
> relatively inexpensive example)
>
> MrT.
>
>

[Mr.T]

"S Roby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Doug
Flynn" > wrote:
> >and build your own high-end stuff. You can build amps for about 10% of
the
> >cost of the crap you find in shops. Doug
> >
> >
> If you (wanted to) build a gaincard/gainclone you will save more than 90%

"Save" is a misnomer though. Nobody in their right mind would buy a
Gaincard. Building a gainclone saves you little on buying a similar
commercial amp with the same IC amp stage.
At least they are easy to build though, and perform quite well with easy to
drive speakers.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Alan Rutlidge" > wrote in message
...
> Actually if you read back a few lines I was actually referring to bridged
> solid state (SS) amplifiers.

Yes, sorry.

> Obviously valve amps with transformer coupled outputs present no problem
in
> this case, nor would a normal single ended (non-bridged) output SS
> amplifier.

Nor would using a coupling transfromer to feed the souncard when measuring a
BTL SS amp.
A suitably high quality transformer does add to the cost though. However
many such amps are two single ended stages that are bridged and fed
anti-phase. One can then measure each single ended output individually
without a coupling transformer.

> How do you go about determining the maximum output at the onset of
clipping
> with a soundcard? Surely most soundcards alone would not be able to
accepts
> input voltages of more than a few volts without some form of attenuator at
> the front end to prevent overloading? Would this not involve additional
> components?

Yes, a couple of cheap resistors.

> I notice that the Audiophile 192 soundcard you provided the link to
(thanks)
> does have a maximum input voltage limitation of 4 volts RMS, which across
an
> 8 ohm load only amounts to 2 watts RMS - not a particularly powerful
> amplifier. Whereas my AWA F242A N&D set will accept up to 30 volts RMS
> without the need for external attenuators allowing amplifiers of just over
> 100 watts RMS (assuming an 8 ohm load) to be evaluated for power output,
> distortion and noise performance.

So what, an external attenuator is no big deal. It doesn't have to handle
full load power since the soundcard impedance is relatively high.
(BTW, if using a coupling transformer, it can also be chosen to provide a
suitable step down voltage.)

> Still need a suitable dummy load though.

Only for full power measurements. Many usefull measurements can be made at
one watt with only a small 4 or 8 ohm load resistor, and no input
attenuation.

> >> Jug elements - hmmmmm... nice constant resistance when they warm up?
> >
> > Just like wire wound speakers.
>
> I'm curious about this. Just based on reading a conventional kettle
> element, the hot and cold resistances aren't the same. Typical readings
are
> 58.2 ohms cold resistance; 24.2 ohms hot resistance (water boiled).

Your jug has a negative temp coeff?

>Would
> this temperature co-efficient characteristic not be similar in a jug
element
> and would it need to be immersed in water for cooling if measuring the
> output an amplifier with several hundred watts output at or close to full
> power?

They are usually pos temp coeff , but yes they need to be cooled or will
burn out rapidly.

> As a matter of interest what is the typical resistance of a jug element?
> Cold =,? hot = ?. Could be a lot cheaper alternative to a 300W wirewound
> resistor mounted o a ruddy great heatsink. :)

Exactly, but the big WW resistor on a heatsink with fan, would probably be
better if you plan on doing this sort of thing regularly.
You need to parallel up a few turns and /or parallel up a few elements to
get the right resistance though. Alternatively wind your own.

MrT.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said to Mickey McMickey:

> Do you understand the meaning and use of the question mark?

I guess you haven't seen his jammies.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "George Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Mikey Bug-Eater eyes a snack. Oops, too slow. He stirs again. Will he
>> make the
>> grab this time?
>>
>>>Nothing wrong with spending whatever someone wants for their gear, but
>>
>> Except when you know about it.
>>
>>>people should be aware of the fact that it doesn't get them better sound
>>>as
>>>the manufacturers and SP type reviewers would like us to believe.
>>
>> Nobody wants you to believe anything. All they want is for you to buy
>> their
>> stuff.
>>
> Then why all the agitprop about better sound?
>
>
>> Apparently you believe nobody can enjoy their stereo unless they've been
>> brainwashed. Too bad your brain is too pickled to respond to ordinary
>> stimuli.
>>
> Wrong again, so far you're batting a thousand.
>
> I think people should be informed, after that whatever decision they make
> is on them.
>
> The problem is that they are being told by reviewers that stuff sounds
> different when it can't actually be demonstrated that is so. Worse, is
> they are being told that snake oil devices can improve the sound. I just
> don't believe reviewers should be involved in helping to commit fraud.
> They should subject all tweaks to some kind of testing to see if does
> anything, since any improvement would include a FR variation, or some
> other measurable effect. That's part of the normal purview of hobby
> magazines, testing for the advertised effects.
>

Any advertiser comments as to sound should be taken at face value. Like
adds for food or beer, (tastes best, less filling, etc.). Any fool
knows that. Well, evidently there is "at least" one fool named duh...Mikey
who doesn't.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Then you must be a real high end piece, Mikey, as you are a perfect
>>>> parrot
>>>> of Arny Krueger.
>>>>
>>> So, by your reckoning, it's bad to reapeat the truth? What diffference
>>> does it make who said it, as long as it is the truth?
>>>
>>
>> Was Arnie telling the truth when he accused Atkinson of emailing him
>> kiddie porn, or was Arnie telling the truth when he accused George
>> Middius
>> of emailing him kiddie pron, or was Arnie telling the truth when he
>> accused
>> Dave Weil of emailing him kiddie porn, or Was Arnie telling the truth
>> when
>> he accused Scot Wheeler of emailing him kiddie porn, or was Arnie telling
>> the
>> truth when he accused me of emailing him kiddie porn. Was Arnie telling
>> the truth that ANYBODY sent him kiddie porn. Didn't Arny later say that a
>> MSP
>> investigator told him it was not kiddie porn? Wouldn't it make
>> sense that one would not make such hideous accusations if
>> it weren't obvious that the porn in question was kiddie porn?
> Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were absoultely no reason due to
> anything that happened on RAO, could make Arny think someone would be
> despicable enough to do such a thing?
>
> The fact is that there are people like George, for whom such behavior
> seems quite likely.
>

So, you are excusing Arny for making groundless
accusations about sending kiddie porn just because he 'thinks' someone
'might' do it.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said to Mickey McMickey:
>
>> Do you understand the meaning and use of the question mark?
>
> I guess you haven't seen his jammies.
>

Is it true that duh...Mikey is Matthew Lesko's
stand in?

[George Middius]

Where's Forrest Gump when we need him? ;-)

>> Nobody wants you to believe anything. All they want is for you to buy
>> their stuff.

>Then why all the agitprop about better sound?

Who taught you that word, Mickey? Robert has been trying to school you in
avoiding these explosions of language abuse.

In your persistent delusional state, you believe that marketing is theology. In
reality, it's entirely mundane. Grow up.


>> Apparently you believe nobody can enjoy their stereo unless they've been
>> brainwashed. Too bad your brain is too pickled to respond to ordinary
>> stimuli.

>Wrong again, so far you're batting a thousand.

No, I'm quite right. Your patent inability to distinguish marketing from
proselytizing proves my point.

>I think people should be informed, after that whatever decision they make is
>on them.

If they want to be informed, that's their choice. It's not up to marketers to
inform buyers. Their role is to inflame buyers' interest in their products.

>The problem is that they are being told by reviewers that stuff sounds
>different when it can't actually be demonstrated that is so.

You're just plain dumb. No two ways about that.



..
..
..
..
..

[George Middius]

Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:

>> The fact is that there are people like George, for whom such behavior
>> seems quite likely.

Now Mickey, just because I humiliate you several times a week doesn't mean I
have a ready stock of filthy porn. It wasn't me who gave you swirlies in junior
high, it wasn't me who gave you wedgies in gym class, and it wasn't me who
ratted you out for sniffing propellant in the boys' room.

>So, you are excusing Arny for making groundless
>accusations about sending kiddie porn just because he 'thinks' someone
>'might' do it.

As we sit here making fun of the Bug Eater, Mickey is preparing for Saint
Arnii's canonization. His assignment is very important -- he has to expunge all
of Arnii's arrest records, reverse all the restraining orders, and get 3
different doctors to declare Arnii fully sane.

[Robert Morein]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The Chinese have too large a potential labor pool. This will keep labor
>> costs low for a much longer period of time than the American economy can
>> tolerate.
>
> What do you mean tolerate? Like Australia, the USA has already given up on
> most low skill manufacturing AFAIK. All the growth is in service
> industries.
> Meanwhile we enjoy very low cost clothes, electronics etc.
>
> MrT.
>
We have a huge balance of payments deficit. Eventually, American currency
will fall. Henry Kaufman, a well known authority on interest rates, has
written an essay on why American currency valuation remains high. The one
precarious reason is that the dollar remains the dominant reserve currency.
Eventually, it will be replaced by other currencies. Then, inflow of money
into American economic interests will reverse.

Over the long term, floating currencies seek values that are stable.
Stability is possible only if the amount of the currency in circulation is
stable, or increases at a sufficiently slow rate as to represent an
acceptable rate of inflation. The current model of the American economy,
which is very weak in the value of manufactured exports, does not allow
this.

The fallacy of the "service economy" is the assumption that it represents
something indispensable to the global economy. All spheres of an economy are
subject to international competitive pressures. Domestic employment in high
tech sectors of the service economy is already eroding to India. This is not
going to stop.

The weakness of our ability to support the value of the dollar is masked by
two things: the status of the dollar as the primary reserve currency, and
the willingness of the Asian rim to fuel their own prosperity with
manufactured exports that buy them dollars. By 2020, however, China's
domestic bank deposits will exceed ours. At that point, fifteen years from
now, the shadow of the eclipse will begin to cover America. The realization
that China has acceeded to global economic dominance will cause the
attraction of the dollar as a reserve currency to rapidly fade. But there
will be a huge dollar denominated debt that must be repaid. The traditional
manner to deal with such debt is to repay it in cheaper money. Cheaper money
is achieved by massive inflation.

Sadly, our politicians are willing to mortage our future in return for the
privilege of driving fancy, gas guzzling SUVs. There is also the further
issue, more difficult to deal with, of job export. Within a few years, the
numbers of the dispossessed may grow to a significant political movement.

[Ayn Marx]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> u...
> >
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> The Chinese have too large a potential labor pool. This will keep labor
> >> costs low for a much longer period of time than the American economy can
> >> tolerate.
> >
> > What do you mean tolerate? Like Australia, the USA has already given up on
> > most low skill manufacturing AFAIK. All the growth is in service
> > industries.
> > Meanwhile we enjoy very low cost clothes, electronics etc.
> >
> > MrT.
> >
> We have a huge balance of payments deficit. Eventually, American currency
> will fall. Henry Kaufman, a well known authority on interest rates, has
> written an essay on why American currency valuation remains high. The one
> precarious reason is that the dollar remains the dominant reserve currency.
> Eventually, it will be replaced by other currencies. Then, inflow of money
> into American economic interests will reverse.
>
> Over the long term, floating currencies seek values that are stable.
> Stability is possible only if the amount of the currency in circulation is
> stable, or increases at a sufficiently slow rate as to represent an
> acceptable rate of inflation. The current model of the American economy,
> which is very weak in the value of manufactured exports, does not allow
> this.
>
> The fallacy of the "service economy" is the assumption that it represents
> something indispensable to the global economy. All spheres of an economy are
> subject to international competitive pressures. Domestic employment in high
> tech sectors of the service economy is already eroding to India. This is not
> going to stop.
>
> The weakness of our ability to support the value of the dollar is masked by
> two things: the status of the dollar as the primary reserve currency, and
> the willingness of the Asian rim to fuel their own prosperity with
> manufactured exports that buy them dollars. By 2020, however, China's
> domestic bank deposits will exceed ours. At that point, fifteen years from
> now, the shadow of the eclipse will begin to cover America. The realization
> that China has acceeded to global economic dominance will cause the
> attraction of the dollar as a reserve currency to rapidly fade. But there
> will be a huge dollar denominated debt that must be repaid. The traditional
> manner to deal with such debt is to repay it in cheaper money. Cheaper money
> is achieved by massive inflation.
>
> Sadly, our politicians are willing to mortage our future in return for the
> privilege of driving fancy, gas guzzling SUVs. There is also the further
> issue, more difficult to deal with, of job export. Within a few years, the
> numbers of the dispossessed may grow to a significant political movement.

Mr M. I pressume you are an American, If so congratulations in being
one of the very few I've encountered willing to be honest when
discussing the US economy. Thank You.

[Clyde Slick]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> Now Mickey, just because I humiliate you several times a week doesn't mean
> I
> have a ready stock of filthy porn. It wasn't me who gave you swirlies in
> junior
> high, it wasn't me who gave you wedgies in gym class, and it wasn't me who
> ratted you out for sniffing propellant in the boys' room.
>

but it 'could have been you'; therefore, Mikey is justified
in comitting all sorts of atrocities upon you.

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Mikey Bug-Eater eyes a snack. Oops, too slow. He stirs again. Will he
>>> make the
>>> grab this time?
>>>
>>>>Nothing wrong with spending whatever someone wants for their gear, but
>>>
>>> Except when you know about it.
>>>
>>>>people should be aware of the fact that it doesn't get them better sound
>>>>as
>>>>the manufacturers and SP type reviewers would like us to believe.
>>>
>>> Nobody wants you to believe anything. All they want is for you to buy
>>> their
>>> stuff.
>>>
>> Then why all the agitprop about better sound?
>>
>>
>>> Apparently you believe nobody can enjoy their stereo unless they've been
>>> brainwashed. Too bad your brain is too pickled to respond to ordinary
>>> stimuli.
>>>
>> Wrong again, so far you're batting a thousand.
>>
>> I think people should be informed, after that whatever decision they make
>> is on them.
>>
>> The problem is that they are being told by reviewers that stuff sounds
>> different when it can't actually be demonstrated that is so. Worse, is
>> they are being told that snake oil devices can improve the sound. I just
>> don't believe reviewers should be involved in helping to commit fraud.
>> They should subject all tweaks to some kind of testing to see if does
>> anything, since any improvement would include a FR variation, or some
>> other measurable effect. That's part of the normal purview of hobby
>> magazines, testing for the advertised effects.
>>
>
> Any advertiser comments as to sound should be taken at face value. Like
> adds for food or beer, (tastes best, less filling, etc.). Any fool
> knows that. Well, evidently there is "at least" one fool named duh...Mikey
> who doesn't.
Your view of the role of hobby magazines is different than mine. I expect
ads to be less than structly honest. I expect magazines that review any
kind of technology, to subject the things they critique, to some basic
testing to let their readers know what usefulness a given device may have.

Praising something without testing to dertermine that the device can
actually do anything, is not only a disservice, but it is aiding and
abetting fraud.

[[email protected]]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> Where's Forrest Gump when we need him? ;-)
>
>>> Nobody wants you to believe anything. All they want is for you to buy
>>> their stuff.
>
>>Then why all the agitprop about better sound?
>
> Who taught you that word, Mickey? Robert has been trying to school you in
> avoiding these explosions of language abuse.
>
> In your persistent delusional state, you believe that marketing is
> theology. In
> reality, it's entirely mundane. Grow up.
>
>
Marketing is about selling, reviewing is about showing the efficacy or lack
of for the device being reviewed. I don't expect reviewers to be part of
the marketing.

>>> Apparently you believe nobody can enjoy their stereo unless they've been
>>> brainwashed. Too bad your brain is too pickled to respond to ordinary
>>> stimuli.
>
>>Wrong again, so far you're batting a thousand.
>
> No, I'm quite right. Your patent inability to distinguish marketing from
> proselytizing proves my point.
>

Marketing is what the advertisers pay for. Reviews are supposed to be
independent of that.

>>I think people should be informed, after that whatever decision they make
>>is
>>on them.
>
> If they want to be informed, that's their choice. It's not up to marketers
> to
> inform buyers. Their role is to inflame buyers' interest in their
> products.
>
Reviewers aren't supposed to be part of the marketing.

>>The problem is that they are being told by reviewers that stuff sounds
>>different when it can't actually be demonstrated that is so.
>
> You're just plain dumb. No two ways about that.
>
>
Nasty comments from you are a badge of honor for me George, since you have
not a clue about audio technology, and have made your sole purpose on RAO
one of name calling an attacks against any sort of discussion of the
technical merits of audio gear.

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>
> .
>> I am completely un-dogmatic. I update my ideas and beliefs when there is
>> a reason to do so.
>>
>
> Never mind that they don't work.
>
Are you saying I should call them "Moreins?"

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Then you must be a real high end piece, Mikey, as you are a perfect
>>>>> parrot
>>>>> of Arny Krueger.
>>>>>
>>>> So, by your reckoning, it's bad to reapeat the truth? What diffference
>>>> does it make who said it, as long as it is the truth?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Was Arnie telling the truth when he accused Atkinson of emailing him
>>> kiddie porn, or was Arnie telling the truth when he accused George
>>> Middius
>>> of emailing him kiddie pron, or was Arnie telling the truth when he
>>> accused
>>> Dave Weil of emailing him kiddie porn, or Was Arnie telling the truth
>>> when
>>> he accused Scot Wheeler of emailing him kiddie porn, or was Arnie
>>> telling the
>>> truth when he accused me of emailing him kiddie porn. Was Arnie telling
>>> the truth that ANYBODY sent him kiddie porn. Didn't Arny later say that
>>> a MSP
>>> investigator told him it was not kiddie porn? Wouldn't it make
>>> sense that one would not make such hideous accusations if
>>> it weren't obvious that the porn in question was kiddie porn?
>> Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were absoultely no reason due to
>> anything that happened on RAO, could make Arny think someone would be
>> despicable enough to do such a thing?
>>
>> The fact is that there are people like George, for whom such behavior
>> seems quite likely.
>>
>
> So, you are excusing Arny for making groundless
> accusations about sending kiddie porn just because he 'thinks' someone
> 'might' do it.
I am saying that such things must be viewed in their entire context.

[[email protected]]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
>
> Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:
>
>>> The fact is that there are people like George, for whom such behavior
>>> seems quite likely.
>
> Now Mickey, just because I humiliate you several times a week doesn't mean
> I
> have a ready stock of filthy porn.

I'm sure you would never share.

It wasn't me who gave you swirlies in junior
> high, it wasn't me who gave you wedgies in gym class, and it wasn't me who
> ratted you out for sniffing propellant in the boys' room.
>

Nice to know you had no part in things thst never happened.

>>So, you are excusing Arny for making groundless
>>accusations about sending kiddie porn just because he 'thinks' someone
>>'might' do it.
>
> As we sit here making fun of the Bug Eater, Mickey is preparing for Saint
> Arnii's canonization. His assignment is very important -- he has to
> expunge all
> of Arnii's arrest records, reverse all the restraining orders, and get 3
> different doctors to declare Arnii fully sane.
>

Arnii? Who the **** is Arnii?

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mikey Bug-Eater eyes a snack. Oops, too slow. He stirs again. Will he
>>>> make the
>>>> grab this time?
>>>>
>>>>>Nothing wrong with spending whatever someone wants for their gear, but
>>>>
>>>> Except when you know about it.
>>>>
>>>>>people should be aware of the fact that it doesn't get them better
>>>>>sound as
>>>>>the manufacturers and SP type reviewers would like us to believe.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody wants you to believe anything. All they want is for you to buy
>>>> their
>>>> stuff.
>>>>
>>> Then why all the agitprop about better sound?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Apparently you believe nobody can enjoy their stereo unless they've
>>>> been
>>>> brainwashed. Too bad your brain is too pickled to respond to ordinary
>>>> stimuli.
>>>>
>>> Wrong again, so far you're batting a thousand.
>>>
>>> I think people should be informed, after that whatever decision they
>>> make is on them.
>>>
>>> The problem is that they are being told by reviewers that stuff sounds
>>> different when it can't actually be demonstrated that is so. Worse, is
>>> they are being told that snake oil devices can improve the sound. I
>>> just don't believe reviewers should be involved in helping to commit
>>> fraud. They should subject all tweaks to some kind of testing to see if
>>> does anything, since any improvement would include a FR variation, or
>>> some other measurable effect. That's part of the normal purview of
>>> hobby magazines, testing for the advertised effects.
>>>
>>
>> Any advertiser comments as to sound should be taken at face value. Like
>> adds for food or beer, (tastes best, less filling, etc.). Any fool
>> knows that. Well, evidently there is "at least" one fool named
>> duh...Mikey who doesn't.
> Your view of the role of hobby magazines is different than mine. I expect
> ads to be less than structly honest. I expect magazines that review any
> kind of technology, to subject the things they critique, to some basic
> testing to let their readers know what usefulness a given device may have.
>
> Praising something without testing to dertermine that the device can
> actually do anything, is not only a disservice, but it is aiding and
> abetting fraud.

The high end industry is mere pocket change. It's time for you
to hit the big boys. Go after food, drink, cosmetics, perfumes,
aand most of all, especially toothpaste.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>
>> .
>>> I am completely un-dogmatic. I update my ideas and beliefs when there
>>> is a reason to do so.
>>>
>>
>> Never mind that they don't work.
>>
> Are you saying I should call them "Moreins?"

You should call them moronic. The rest of us do.

[Ayn Marx]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> >
> > .
> > > I am completely un-dogmatic. I update my ideas and beliefs when there
> is
> > > a reason to do so.
> > >
> >
> > Never mind that they don't work.
> >
> His brain obviously isn't running Genuine Windows.

Why would you want to be unconscious half the time and make yourself
vulnerable to viruses?

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you must be a real high end piece, Mikey, as you are a perfect
>>>>>> parrot
>>>>>> of Arny Krueger.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So, by your reckoning, it's bad to reapeat the truth? What
>>>>> diffference does it make who said it, as long as it is the truth?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Was Arnie telling the truth when he accused Atkinson of emailing him
>>>> kiddie porn, or was Arnie telling the truth when he accused George
>>>> Middius
>>>> of emailing him kiddie pron, or was Arnie telling the truth when he
>>>> accused
>>>> Dave Weil of emailing him kiddie porn, or Was Arnie telling the truth
>>>> when
>>>> he accused Scot Wheeler of emailing him kiddie porn, or was Arnie
>>>> telling the
>>>> truth when he accused me of emailing him kiddie porn. Was Arnie telling
>>>> the truth that ANYBODY sent him kiddie porn. Didn't Arny later say that
>>>> a MSP
>>>> investigator told him it was not kiddie porn? Wouldn't it make
>>>> sense that one would not make such hideous accusations if
>>>> it weren't obvious that the porn in question was kiddie porn?
>>> Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were absoultely no reason due to
>>> anything that happened on RAO, could make Arny think someone would be
>>> despicable enough to do such a thing?
>>>
>>> The fact is that there are people like George, for whom such behavior
>>> seems quite likely.
>>>
>>
>> So, you are excusing Arny for making groundless
>> accusations about sending kiddie porn just because he 'thinks' someone
>> 'might' do it.
> I am saying that such things must be viewed in their entire context.

Tell us your excuse(s) that justify such behavior by Arny.
I will note, in your defense, that you are giving tacit acknowledgement
that Arny willingly and knowingly made multiple false
charges in this regard. The issue is now whether Arny had some
excuse(s) that justify willful false charges of disseminating kiddie porn.
Well, "at least" its a start for you, a step in the right direction.

[Robert Morein]

"Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>> u...
>> >
>> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> The Chinese have too large a potential labor pool. This will keep
>> >> labor
>> >> costs low for a much longer period of time than the American economy
>> >> can
>> >> tolerate.
>> >
>> > What do you mean tolerate? Like Australia, the USA has already given up
>> > on
>> > most low skill manufacturing AFAIK. All the growth is in service
>> > industries.
>> > Meanwhile we enjoy very low cost clothes, electronics etc.
>> >
>> > MrT.
>> >
>> We have a huge balance of payments deficit. Eventually, American currency
>> will fall. Henry Kaufman, a well known authority on interest rates, has
>> written an essay on why American currency valuation remains high. The one
>> precarious reason is that the dollar remains the dominant reserve
>> currency.
>> Eventually, it will be replaced by other currencies. Then, inflow of
>> money
>> into American economic interests will reverse.
>>
>> Over the long term, floating currencies seek values that are stable.
>> Stability is possible only if the amount of the currency in circulation
>> is
>> stable, or increases at a sufficiently slow rate as to represent an
>> acceptable rate of inflation. The current model of the American economy,
>> which is very weak in the value of manufactured exports, does not allow
>> this.
>>
>> The fallacy of the "service economy" is the assumption that it represents
>> something indispensable to the global economy. All spheres of an economy
>> are
>> subject to international competitive pressures. Domestic employment in
>> high
>> tech sectors of the service economy is already eroding to India. This is
>> not
>> going to stop.
>>
>> The weakness of our ability to support the value of the dollar is masked
>> by
>> two things: the status of the dollar as the primary reserve currency, and
>> the willingness of the Asian rim to fuel their own prosperity with
>> manufactured exports that buy them dollars. By 2020, however, China's
>> domestic bank deposits will exceed ours. At that point, fifteen years
>> from
>> now, the shadow of the eclipse will begin to cover America. The
>> realization
>> that China has acceeded to global economic dominance will cause the
>> attraction of the dollar as a reserve currency to rapidly fade. But there
>> will be a huge dollar denominated debt that must be repaid. The
>> traditional
>> manner to deal with such debt is to repay it in cheaper money. Cheaper
>> money
>> is achieved by massive inflation.
>>
>> Sadly, our politicians are willing to mortage our future in return for
>> the
>> privilege of driving fancy, gas guzzling SUVs. There is also the further
>> issue, more difficult to deal with, of job export. Within a few years,
>> the
>> numbers of the dispossessed may grow to a significant political movement.
>
> Mr M. I pressume you are an American, If so congratulations in being
> one of the very few I've encountered willing to be honest when
> discussing the US economy. Thank You.
>
I am American.
The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that there is a
lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that self-delusion is
not solely the province of Americans. Take China, for example. That country
has the opportunity to build an economy from the ground up that would not be
oil based. But it's not doing that. Driven by the desires of the newly rich
and the pressure from below to improve the incredibly poor living conditions
of the peasantry, China embraces oil.

The deeper problem seems independent of political systems. We are on the
threshold of a wretched future, mandated by the world's greed for energy and
insatiable desire to procreate.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > paul packer wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:30:26 GMT, "
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >That's pretty much been my point for some time. If you pay more for an
> >> >amp,
> >> >CD player, or whatever, you don't get better sound, you get bragging
> >> >rights.
> >> >Once you achieve flat response without any form of audible distortion or
> >> >noise, and the ability to drive difficult loads, you have a perfect
> >> >piece of
> >> >equipment. Adding heavy faceplates or designer caps, and coils, doesn't
> >> >really get you better sound, but it might get you a longer product life.
> >>
> >> So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
> >> better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
> >> difficult loads? Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
> >> yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
> >> assertion means nothing.
> >
> > I can predict the answer. It will say something about ABXing
> > "proving" his beliefs. Except, of course, that so far (mere 40 years
> > of ABX history) every published report, on everything in audio,
> > resulted in "It all sounds the same" outcome- as long as ABX was the
> > test protocol. ("Published" means at least accepted by a mag. if not by
> > a peer reviewed journal. Web free=for=all does not qualify)
> >
>
> Why do you contiue this lie, even after you posted the evidence that refutes
> it?
>
> > Since they continue to promote it one must assume that indeed to
> > those true believers everything does sound the same.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> One must conclude that the truth bothers you so much that you are willing to
> keep repeating the same lie over and over. Why is that?
__________________________________________________ _____
You're under notice . I'll repeat my "lie" every time you
bring up your ABX "test" as your final, clinching argument.
Your taking the leaf out of the vocabulary of the RAO thugs
will not deter me.
What would do it is one single REFERENCE to a published
(web gossip does not apply) ABX test with a panel of 10 or more
listeners comparing any roughly comparable audio components whatsover
with a positive outcome:."Postive" means "Yes there was a difference"
as a statistically valid verdict by the majority of panelists. Take
loudspeakers or cartridges if you want..
Once you give such a reference you will not need to
shout "lie". You'll have a convert. I'll get busy ABXing .
Till then Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. Look up "reference" in your Webster or Oxford

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
[snip]
>>> So, you are excusing Arny for making groundless
>>> accusations about sending kiddie porn just because he 'thinks' someone
>>> 'might' do it.
>> I am saying that such things must be viewed in their entire context.
>
> Tell us your excuse(s) that justify such behavior by Arny.
> I will note, in your defense, that you are giving tacit acknowledgement
> that Arny willingly and knowingly made multiple false
> charges in this regard. The issue is now whether Arny had some
> excuse(s) that justify willful false charges of disseminating kiddie porn.
> Well, "at least" its a start for you, a step in the right direction.
There can be NO EXCUSE for Arny Krueger's reprehensible behavior, or for
that of his evil stooge, Mike McKelvy, a.k.a. the "mckelviphibian".

[ScottW]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> Robert Morein wrote:
>>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>>> u...
>>> >
>>> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>>> >> The Chinese have too large a potential labor pool. This will keep
>>> >> labor
>>> >> costs low for a much longer period of time than the American economy
>>> >> can
>>> >> tolerate.
>>> >
>>> > What do you mean tolerate? Like Australia, the USA has already given
>>> > up on
>>> > most low skill manufacturing AFAIK. All the growth is in service
>>> > industries.
>>> > Meanwhile we enjoy very low cost clothes, electronics etc.
>>> >
>>> > MrT.
>>> >
>>> We have a huge balance of payments deficit. Eventually, American
>>> currency
>>> will fall. Henry Kaufman, a well known authority on interest rates, has
>>> written an essay on why American currency valuation remains high. The
>>> one
>>> precarious reason is that the dollar remains the dominant reserve
>>> currency.
>>> Eventually, it will be replaced by other currencies. Then, inflow of
>>> money
>>> into American economic interests will reverse.
>>>
>>> Over the long term, floating currencies seek values that are stable.
>>> Stability is possible only if the amount of the currency in circulation
>>> is
>>> stable, or increases at a sufficiently slow rate as to represent an
>>> acceptable rate of inflation. The current model of the American economy,
>>> which is very weak in the value of manufactured exports, does not allow
>>> this.
>>>
>>> The fallacy of the "service economy" is the assumption that it
>>> represents
>>> something indispensable to the global economy. All spheres of an economy
>>> are
>>> subject to international competitive pressures. Domestic employment in
>>> high
>>> tech sectors of the service economy is already eroding to India. This is
>>> not
>>> going to stop.
>>>
>>> The weakness of our ability to support the value of the dollar is masked
>>> by
>>> two things: the status of the dollar as the primary reserve currency,
>>> and
>>> the willingness of the Asian rim to fuel their own prosperity with
>>> manufactured exports that buy them dollars. By 2020, however, China's
>>> domestic bank deposits will exceed ours. At that point, fifteen years
>>> from
>>> now, the shadow of the eclipse will begin to cover America. The
>>> realization
>>> that China has acceeded to global economic dominance will cause the
>>> attraction of the dollar as a reserve currency to rapidly fade. But
>>> there
>>> will be a huge dollar denominated debt that must be repaid. The
>>> traditional
>>> manner to deal with such debt is to repay it in cheaper money. Cheaper
>>> money
>>> is achieved by massive inflation.
>>>
>>> Sadly, our politicians are willing to mortage our future in return for
>>> the
>>> privilege of driving fancy, gas guzzling SUVs. There is also the further
>>> issue, more difficult to deal with, of job export. Within a few years,
>>> the
>>> numbers of the dispossessed may grow to a significant political
>>> movement.
>>
>> Mr M. I pressume you are an American, If so congratulations in being
>> one of the very few I've encountered willing to be honest when
>> discussing the US economy. Thank You.
>>
> I am American.
> The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
> country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that there is
> a lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that self-delusion
> is not solely the province of Americans. Take China, for example. That
> country has the opportunity to build an economy from the ground up that
> would not be oil based. But it's not doing that. Driven by the desires of
> the newly rich and the pressure from below to improve the incredibly poor
> living conditions of the peasantry, China embraces oil.
>
> The deeper problem seems independent of political systems. We are on the
> threshold of a wretched future, mandated by the world's greed for energy
> and insatiable desire to procreate.

I agree with you on this 100%

ScottW

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:2Fn_e.123019$Ep.28259@lakeread02...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>>
>>> Robert Morein wrote:
>>>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>>>> u...
>>>> >
>>>> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>>> > ...
>>>> >> The Chinese have too large a potential labor pool. This will keep
>>>> >> labor
>>>> >> costs low for a much longer period of time than the American economy
>>>> >> can
>>>> >> tolerate.
>>>> >
>>>> > What do you mean tolerate? Like Australia, the USA has already given
>>>> > up on
>>>> > most low skill manufacturing AFAIK. All the growth is in service
>>>> > industries.
>>>> > Meanwhile we enjoy very low cost clothes, electronics etc.
>>>> >
>>>> > MrT.
>>>> >
>>>> We have a huge balance of payments deficit. Eventually, American
>>>> currency
>>>> will fall. Henry Kaufman, a well known authority on interest rates, has
>>>> written an essay on why American currency valuation remains high. The
>>>> one
>>>> precarious reason is that the dollar remains the dominant reserve
>>>> currency.
>>>> Eventually, it will be replaced by other currencies. Then, inflow of
>>>> money
>>>> into American economic interests will reverse.
>>>>
>>>> Over the long term, floating currencies seek values that are stable.
>>>> Stability is possible only if the amount of the currency in circulation
>>>> is
>>>> stable, or increases at a sufficiently slow rate as to represent an
>>>> acceptable rate of inflation. The current model of the American
>>>> economy,
>>>> which is very weak in the value of manufactured exports, does not allow
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> The fallacy of the "service economy" is the assumption that it
>>>> represents
>>>> something indispensable to the global economy. All spheres of an
>>>> economy are
>>>> subject to international competitive pressures. Domestic employment in
>>>> high
>>>> tech sectors of the service economy is already eroding to India. This
>>>> is not
>>>> going to stop.
>>>>
>>>> The weakness of our ability to support the value of the dollar is
>>>> masked by
>>>> two things: the status of the dollar as the primary reserve currency,
>>>> and
>>>> the willingness of the Asian rim to fuel their own prosperity with
>>>> manufactured exports that buy them dollars. By 2020, however, China's
>>>> domestic bank deposits will exceed ours. At that point, fifteen years
>>>> from
>>>> now, the shadow of the eclipse will begin to cover America. The
>>>> realization
>>>> that China has acceeded to global economic dominance will cause the
>>>> attraction of the dollar as a reserve currency to rapidly fade. But
>>>> there
>>>> will be a huge dollar denominated debt that must be repaid. The
>>>> traditional
>>>> manner to deal with such debt is to repay it in cheaper money. Cheaper
>>>> money
>>>> is achieved by massive inflation.
>>>>
>>>> Sadly, our politicians are willing to mortage our future in return for
>>>> the
>>>> privilege of driving fancy, gas guzzling SUVs. There is also the
>>>> further
>>>> issue, more difficult to deal with, of job export. Within a few years,
>>>> the
>>>> numbers of the dispossessed may grow to a significant political
>>>> movement.
>>>
>>> Mr M. I pressume you are an American, If so congratulations in being
>>> one of the very few I've encountered willing to be honest when
>>> discussing the US economy. Thank You.
>>>
>> I am American.
>> The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
>> country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that there is
>> a lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that self-delusion
>> is not solely the province of Americans. Take China, for example. That
>> country has the opportunity to build an economy from the ground up that
>> would not be oil based. But it's not doing that. Driven by the desires of
>> the newly rich and the pressure from below to improve the incredibly poor
>> living conditions of the peasantry, China embraces oil.
>>
>> The deeper problem seems independent of political systems. We are on the
>> threshold of a wretched future, mandated by the world's greed for energy
>> and insatiable desire to procreate.
>
> I agree with you on this 100%
>
> ScottW
Alright, Scott! Slap me Five!

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
> [snip]
>>>> So, you are excusing Arny for making groundless
>>>> accusations about sending kiddie porn just because he 'thinks' someone
>>>> 'might' do it.
>>> I am saying that such things must be viewed in their entire context.
>>
>> Tell us your excuse(s) that justify such behavior by Arny.
>> I will note, in your defense, that you are giving tacit acknowledgement
>> that Arny willingly and knowingly made multiple false
>> charges in this regard. The issue is now whether Arny had some
>> excuse(s) that justify willful false charges of disseminating kiddie
>> porn.
>> Well, "at least" its a start for you, a step in the right direction.
> There can be NO EXCUSE for Arny Krueger's reprehensible behavior, or for
> that of his evil stooge, Mike McKelvy, a.k.a. the "mckelviphibian".
Or yours, ****head.

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>> I am completely un-dogmatic. I update my ideas and beliefs when there
>>>> is a reason to do so.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Never mind that they don't work.
>>>
>> Are you saying I should call them "Moreins?"
>
> You should call them moronic. The rest of us do.
Only when they differ from your own ideas which some here also consider
moronic.

[Robert Morein]

"Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
ups.com wrote:

> We are on the
> threshold of a wretched future, mandated by the world's greed for energy and
> insatiable desire to procreate.

I've never had a desire to procreate at all. That's why I prefer to take it
up the ass.

[Robert Morein]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
> ups.com wrote:
>
>> We are on the
>> threshold of a wretched future, mandated by the world's greed for energy
>> and
>> insatiable desire to procreate.
>
> I've never had a desire to procreate at all. That's why I prefer to take
> it
> up the ass.
>
Brian, is that an expression of your own tendencies?

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>>>
>> You ask Mr. Morein :" You have a DBT that shows otherwise?"
>> Just to remind you that so far no one, and you least of all, referenced
>> a DBT that shows anything other thasn "It all sounds the same".
>> Whatever in audio is being compared.
>> Timje to reach for an argument from another barrel. Any in
>> sight?
>> Ludovic Mirabel
>>
>
> You are a gruunnt liar urrrghh, and the greeeek fact that you gruuuunt
> yourself urrrghhh referenced greeeek a DBT where a difference gruuunt was
> recorded urrrrgh just points greeeeek up how big an gruuunt idiot urrrrgh
> you are greeeek.
>
Mikey, you are a mere amphibian, and you do not have a brain with higher
centers of thought. It would be impossible for you to know the difference
between truth and falsehood.

[//////////@//////////.com]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:15:08 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
.. .
>> "Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
>> ups.com wrote:
>>
>>> We are on the
>>> threshold of a wretched future, mandated by the world's greed for energy
>>> and
>>> insatiable desire to procreate.
>>
>> I've never had a desire to procreate at all. That's why I prefer to take
>> it
>> up the ass.
>>
>Brian, is that an expression of your own tendencies?
>

Interesting expressions...but how do they relate to audio?

[//////////@//////////.com]

........MESSAGE RE-POSTED TO APPROPRIATE NEWSGROUP........
.................................................. .................................................. .............

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:15:08 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
.. .
>> "Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
>> ups.com wrote:
>>
>>> We are on the
>>> threshold of a wretched future, mandated by the world's greed for energy
>>> and
>>> insatiable desire to procreate.
>>
>> I've never had a desire to procreate at all. That's why I prefer to take
>> it
>> up the ass.
>>
>Brian, is that an expression of your own tendencies?
>

[//////////@//////////.com]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:59:03 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:


>
>At least China has a one child policy, so is doing something to stop it.

Forced abortions on Chinese women including late term abortions past
30 weeks is murder.

> In
>Australia we not only encourage higher levels of procreation, our women's
>lobby complains loudly about China oppressing the right of women

so should you it's disgusting what China is doing.


> to have as
>many children as they can drop in their lifetime.

and Australia's population growth without immigration is.....-ve


>MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
> The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant.

Some are both.

>It's simply that the
> country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that there is
a
> lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that self-delusion is
> not solely the province of Americans.

Quite true, most countries seem to be just as bad.

>Take China, for example. That country
> has the opportunity to build an economy from the ground up that would not
be
> oil based. But it's not doing that. Driven by the desires of the newly
rich
> and the pressure from below to improve the incredibly poor living
conditions
> of the peasantry, China embraces oil.
>
> The deeper problem seems independent of political systems. We are on the
> threshold of a wretched future, mandated by the world's greed for energy
and
> insatiable desire to procreate.

At least China has a one child policy, so is doing something to stop it. In
Australia we not only encourage higher levels of procreation, our women's
lobby complains loudly about China oppressing the right of women to have as
many children as they can drop in their lifetime.

MrT.

[//////////@//////////.com]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:36:36 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> >At least China has a one child policy, so is doing something to stop it.
>>
>> Forced abortions on Chinese women including late term abortions past
>> 30 weeks is murder.
>
>Only go past 30 weeks when the woman tries to hide the fact. They have the
>option of actually obeying the law. Sterialisation after the first child is
>free.

so you agree with State sanctioned murder of inncocent babies..


>So you'd prefer a few Billion more Chinese? What are *you* prepared to give
>up for them?

so you agree with State sanctioned murder of inncocent babies....
after all they're only Chinese!!
Kill them before they can kill us!!


>> > to have as
>> >many children as they can drop in their lifetime.
>>
>> and Australia's population growth without immigration is.....-ve
>
>Which would be great! If the rest of the world was the same, the planet
>might have some hope. With six billion and growing, it doesn't.

so you agree with State sanctioned murder of inncocent babies..
and no immigration..

MR T = White Australia Racist Nazi Bigot.

Got a dvd of "Triumph of the Will"???




>MrT.
>

[Mr.T]

> wrote in message
...
> >At least China has a one child policy, so is doing something to stop it.
>
> Forced abortions on Chinese women including late term abortions past
> 30 weeks is murder.

Only go past 30 weeks when the woman tries to hide the fact. They have the
option of actually obeying the law. Sterialisation after the first child is
free.

> > In
> >Australia we not only encourage higher levels of procreation, our women's
> >lobby complains loudly about China oppressing the right of women
>
> so should you it's disgusting what China is doing.

So you'd prefer a few Billion more Chinese? What are *you* prepared to give
up for them?

> > to have as
> >many children as they can drop in their lifetime.
>
> and Australia's population growth without immigration is.....-ve

Which would be great! If the rest of the world was the same, the planet
might have some hope. With six billion and growing, it doesn't.

MrT.

[Geoff]

> One hasn't really built a tube amp unless one has wound all the
> trannies though.....

What about digging iron ore out of the ground and melting it over a fire
to make the transformer core!! :)

[Robert Morein]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
Mr. T.,
I respectfully suggest that it would not be in your interest, or anybody
else's to have a discussion with the notorious Brian L. McCarty, who posts
here as ", and under various other pseudonyms,
such as "OFFICIAL RAM BLUEBOOK VALUATION", and a wide variety of other
identities. He is a pest on rec.audio.marketplace, where he accuses innocent
sellers of variousmisdeeds. He appears to be a pathological liar, with
unknown motivations.

McCarty is the owner of websites http://www.coralseastudios.com, and
http://www.worldjazz.com, both of which have used fraudulent advertising in
attempts to attract investors. Both have been unsuccessful.

McCarty is an American expatriate, originally from the Chicago area, then LA
where he worked as a sound mixer, currently living in Cairns Australia,
where he manages the Baskin-Robbins
ice cream franchise located at
Shop G6, 59 The Esplanade
Cairns QLD 4870
07 4051 4034

McCarty lives in the Coral Sands apartment complex at 65 Vasey Esplanade,
Trinity beach, a bit north of metropolitan Cairns.

Baskin-Robbins Australia may be contacted at
.

[George M. Middius]

Geoff said:

> > One hasn't really built a tube amp unless one has wound all the
> > trannies though.....

> What about digging iron ore out of the ground and melting it over a fire
> to make the transformer core!! :)

Not just iron ore. Aren't the best copper mines in South America? Nice
vacation.

[Lionel]

Robert Morein wrote:

> I am American.
> The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
> country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that there is a
> lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that self-delusion is
> not solely the province of Americans. Take China, for example. That country
> has the opportunity to build an economy from the ground up that would not be
> oil based.

How ?
Do you know exactly how many *billions* dollars USA have
invested in Chinese industry and infrastructure ?
I bet that more than 80% of the US money invested in China
are the money of your future pensions...
Why the US investors (and the others...) haven't chosen an
other type of energy ?
Ask Scott "The Môron" if he is ready to gamble his pension
on an hypothetic chinese development based on an hypothetic
source of energy different than oil.

> But it's not doing that. Driven by the desires of the newly rich
> and the pressure from below to improve the incredibly poor living conditions
> of the peasantry, China embraces oil.

It's easy to say when you know that 300 millions of
Americans are consuming *25%* of the energy consumed in the
world

> The deeper problem seems independent of political systems. We are on the
> threshold of a wretched future, mandated by the world's greed for energy and
> insatiable desire to procreate.

It's even not an organizational problem... It's just your
personal weakness multiply by 6 billions. ;-)

[Lionel]

ScottW "The Môron" wrote:

> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message

>>I am American.
>>The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
>>country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that there is
>>a lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that self-delusion
>>is not solely the province of Americans. Take China, for example. That
>>country has the opportunity to build an economy from the ground up that
>>would not be oil based. But it's not doing that. Driven by the desires of
>>the newly rich and the pressure from below to improve the incredibly poor
>>living conditions of the peasantry, China embraces oil.
>>
>>The deeper problem seems independent of political systems. We are on the
>>threshold of a wretched future, mandated by the world's greed for energy
>>and insatiable desire to procreate.
>
>
> I agree with you on this 100%

Are you looking for some help for your children euthanasia ?

[Lionel]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
> ups.com wrote:
>
>
>>We are on the
>>threshold of a wretched future, mandated by the world's greed for energy and
>>insatiable desire to procreate.
>
>
> I've never had a desire to procreate at all. That's why I prefer to take it
> up the ass.

George ?

[George Middius]

duh-Mikey takes a bath with Oil of Irony.

>> You're just plain dumb. No two ways about that.

>Nasty comments from you are a badge of honor for me George, since you have
>not a clue about audio technology,

If you say so. Bear in mind <G> that the subject at hand is not technology but
marketing, and the auxiliary issue is how dumb you are.

>and have made your sole purpose on RAO
>one of name calling an attacks against any sort of discussion of the
>technical merits of audio gear.

Is that what you believe, Mickey? You also believe that Arnii Krooger is an
exceedingly honest individual, that the aBXism religion is real science, and
that everything sounds the same. Nobody should be worried about your "thinking"
process overturning accepted wisdom in any area of human endeavor. ;-)

[George Middius]

The Hive is losing its cohesion, and Mickey is coming unglued.

>Arnii? Who the **** is Arnii?

I thought bugs provided the protein needed by humans for moderately efficient
brain activity. Are you on some kind of protein-blocking medication, Mickey?

[dave weil]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:58:03 -0700, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>> I am American.
>> The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
>> country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that there is
>> a lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that self-delusion
>> is not solely the province of Americans. Take China, for example. That
>> country has the opportunity to build an economy from the ground up that
>> would not be oil based. But it's not doing that. Driven by the desires of
>> the newly rich and the pressure from below to improve the incredibly poor
>> living conditions of the peasantry, China embraces oil.
>>
>> The deeper problem seems independent of political systems. We are on the
>> threshold of a wretched future, mandated by the world's greed for energy
>> and insatiable desire to procreate.
>
> I agree with you on this 100%
>
>ScottW

How's the SUV running? Or am I mistaken about your vehicle?

[George Middius]

Robert Morein said:

>> The issue is now whether Arny had some
>> excuse(s) that justify willful false charges of disseminating kiddie porn.

>There can be NO EXCUSE for Arny Krueger's reprehensible behavior, or for
>that of his evil stooge, Mike McKelvy, a.k.a. the "mckelviphibian".


If Mickey were a hair smarter, he'd point out that Arnii is mentally ill and
appeal to the Normals' compassion when judging Mr. ****'s behavior.

[George Middius]

The Bug Eater quickly abandons his principled stand against invective.

>> There can be NO EXCUSE for Arny Krueger's reprehensible behavior, or for
>> that of his evil stooge, Mike McKelvy, a.k.a. the "mckelviphibian".

>Or yours, ****head.

Mickey, I just read another of your posts in which you whined about my "name
calling". Is your version of name-calling more socially acceptable than mind?
Please explain this so that I might begin to emulate your high standards.

[George Middius]

Sluttie is in need of a dose of degradation.

>George ?

Last time you asked me to drill you, I asked a couple of simple questions about
your proclivities. Do you like it doggie-style or spread-eagled? If your ass is
too hairy, I may require you to shave before you bend over. And no condom --
you're not worth it.

[Lionel]

George Minus Middius wrote:

> ...And no condom --
> you're not worth it.

Whaoooo ! You remember me James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause".
OTOH tri-therapy is widely available in, USA so...

[Robert Morein]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
>> I am American.
>> The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
>> country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that there is
>> a lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that self-delusion
>> is not solely the province of Americans. Take China, for example. That
>> country has the opportunity to build an economy from the ground up that
>> would not be oil based.
>
> How ?
> Do you know exactly how many *billions* dollars USA have invested in
> Chinese industry and infrastructure ?
> I bet that more than 80% of the US money invested in China are the money
> of your future pensions...
> Why the US investors (and the others...) haven't chosen an other type of
> energy ?

Lionel, I'm not excusing what individual industrialists do, but this is an
issue where governments must set national policy. You might think that
industrialists are always against energy conservation, but this is not
always true. For example, Henry Ford has publicly advocated a high gasoline
tax, because it would enable his company to sell energy efficient vehicles.

Also, please do not think that becaue I mentioned China, that I am trying to
dilute the responsibility of the U.S. I, for one, am ashamed that the U.S.
has not signed the Kyoto accords.

Furthermore, I pointed out the dire consequences for the U.S. of current
energy policy, for the U.S. itself. Whatever fault I find in China's policy
does not change the consequences for the U.S. of our own policy.

The Chinese government still has substantial central planning power. They
choose to allow a rapid expansion in their automobile fleet, because they
are worried about political stability. They feel forced to buy the loyalty
of each class on whatever terms they can get.

[Lionel]

In >, Robert Morein wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Robert Morein wrote:
>>
>>> I am American.
>>> The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
>>> country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that there
>>> is a lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that
>>> self-delusion is not solely the province of Americans. Take China, for
>>> example. That country has the opportunity to build an economy from the
>>> ground up that would not be oil based.
>>
>> How ?
>> Do you know exactly how many *billions* dollars USA have invested in
>> Chinese industry and infrastructure ?
>> I bet that more than 80% of the US money invested in China are the money
>> of your future pensions...
>> Why the US investors (and the others...) haven't chosen an other type of
>> energy ?
>
> Lionel, I'm not excusing what individual industrialists do, but this is an
> issue where governments must set national policy. You might think that
> industrialists are always against energy conservation, but this is not
> always true.

Obviously.

> For example, Henry Ford has publicly advocated a high
> gasoline tax, because it would enable his company to sell energy efficient
> vehicles.

It's time no ?
The ratio power/motor volume is usually ridicule in the common US
engine production.

> Also, please do not think that becaue I mentioned China, that I am trying
> to dilute the responsibility of the U.S. I, for one, am ashamed that the
> U.S. has not signed the Kyoto accords.

USA are today world economical leaders. If this situation is full of
advantages today it is also full of responsabilities. IMHO it is the
responsability of all highly developped democratic countries.

> Furthermore, I pointed out the dire consequences for the U.S. of current
> energy policy, for the U.S. itself. Whatever fault I find in China's
> policy does not change the consequences for the U.S. of our own policy.
>
> The Chinese government still has substantial central planning power. They
> choose to allow a rapid expansion in their automobile fleet, because they
> are worried about political stability. They feel forced to buy the loyalty
> of each class on whatever terms they can get.

They simply have no choice. There's 1.5 billion inhabitants in China.
Who can guarantee today to 1.5 billions people that the economical
competition will be suspended since they will have built a strong
economical model based on "soft" energy ? ;-)

Moreover it is well known that today high priced energy penalizes more the
countries with high economical growth than the others. Compare economical
growth of USA with China or India and you will better understand today US
energical policy...
Why do you think that US army is in Iraq today ?

[Robert Morein]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In >, Robert Morein wrote :
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Robert Morein wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am American.
>>>> The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
>>>> country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that there
>>>> is a lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that
>>>> self-delusion is not solely the province of Americans. Take China, for
>>>> example. That country has the opportunity to build an economy from the
>>>> ground up that would not be oil based.
>>>
>>> How ?
>>> Do you know exactly how many *billions* dollars USA have invested in
>>> Chinese industry and infrastructure ?
>>> I bet that more than 80% of the US money invested in China are the money
>>> of your future pensions...
>>> Why the US investors (and the others...) haven't chosen an other type of
>>> energy ?
>>
>> Lionel, I'm not excusing what individual industrialists do, but this is
>> an
>> issue where governments must set national policy. You might think that
>> industrialists are always against energy conservation, but this is not
>> always true.
>
> Obviously.
>
>> For example, Henry Ford has publicly advocated a high
>> gasoline tax, because it would enable his company to sell energy
>> efficient
>> vehicles.
>
> It's time no ?
> The ratio power/motor volume is usually ridicule in the common US
> engine production.
>
>> Also, please do not think that becaue I mentioned China, that I am trying
>> to dilute the responsibility of the U.S. I, for one, am ashamed that the
>> U.S. has not signed the Kyoto accords.
>
> USA are today world economical leaders. If this situation is full of
> advantages today it is also full of responsabilities. IMHO it is the
> responsability of all highly developped democratic countries.
>
>> Furthermore, I pointed out the dire consequences for the U.S. of current
>> energy policy, for the U.S. itself. Whatever fault I find in China's
>> policy does not change the consequences for the U.S. of our own policy.
>>
>> The Chinese government still has substantial central planning power. They
>> choose to allow a rapid expansion in their automobile fleet, because they
>> are worried about political stability. They feel forced to buy the
>> loyalty
>> of each class on whatever terms they can get.
>
> They simply have no choice. There's 1.5 billion inhabitants in China.
> Who can guarantee today to 1.5 billions people that the economical
> competition will be suspended since they will have built a strong
> economical model based on "soft" energy ? ;-)
>
> Moreover it is well known that today high priced energy penalizes more the
> countries with high economical growth than the others. Compare economical
> growth of USA with China or India and you will better understand today US
> energical policy...
> Why do you think that US army is in Iraq today ?
>
Lionel,
You are debating the wrong guy. I agree with you :):):)

[Robert Morein]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
>>> The issue is now whether Arny had some
>>> excuse(s) that justify willful false charges of disseminating kiddie
>>> porn.
>
>>There can be NO EXCUSE for Arny Krueger's reprehensible behavior, or for
>>that of his evil stooge, Mike McKelvy, a.k.a. the "mckelviphibian".
>
>
> If Mickey were a hair smarter, he'd point out that Arnii is mentally ill
> and
> appeal to the Normals' compassion when judging Mr. ****'s behavior.
>
Amphibians do not pontificate on morality. They croak.

[Robert Morein]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> The Hive is losing its cohesion, and Mickey is coming unglued.
>
>>Arnii? Who the **** is Arnii?
>
> I thought bugs provided the protein needed by humans for moderately
> efficient
> brain activity. Are you on some kind of protein-blocking medication,
> Mickey?
>
It's not the food, it's the temperature. As we move into autumn, his species
becomes lethargic.

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:

> wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > paul packer wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:30:26 GMT, "
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >That's pretty much been my point for some time. If you pay more for an
> > >> >amp,
> > >> >CD player, or whatever, you don't get better sound, you get bragging
> > >> >rights.
> > >> >Once you achieve flat response without any form of audible distortion or
> > >> >noise, and the ability to drive difficult loads, you have a perfect
> > >> >piece of
> > >> >equipment. Adding heavy faceplates or designer caps, and coils, doesn't
> > >> >really get you better sound, but it might get you a longer product life.
> > >>
> > >> So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
> > >> better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
> > >> difficult loads? Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
> > >> yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
> > >> assertion means nothing.
> > >
> > > I can predict the answer. It will say something about ABXing
> > > "proving" his beliefs. Except, of course, that so far (mere 40 years
> > > of ABX history) every published report, on everything in audio,
> > > resulted in "It all sounds the same" outcome- as long as ABX was the
> > > test protocol. ("Published" means at least accepted by a mag. if not by
> > > a peer reviewed journal. Web free=for=all does not qualify)
> > >
> >
> > Why do you contiue this lie, even after you posted the evidence that refutes
> > it?
> >
> > > Since they continue to promote it one must assume that indeed to
> > > those true believers everything does sound the same.
> > > Ludovic Mirabel
> > >
> > One must conclude that the truth bothers you so much that you are willing to
> > keep repeating the same lie over and over. Why is that?
> __________________________________________________ _____
> You're under notice . I'll repeat my "lie" every time you
> bring up your ABX "test" as your final, clinching argument.
> Your taking the leaf out of the vocabulary of the RAO thugs
> will not deter me.
> What would do it is one single REFERENCE to a published
> (web gossip does not apply) ABX test with a panel of 10 or more
> listeners comparing any roughly comparable audio components whatsover
> with a positive outcome:."Postive" means "Yes there was a difference"
> as a statistically valid verdict by the majority of panelists. Take
> loudspeakers or cartridges if you want..

Sean Olive's speaker comparison tests would appear to suffice.

Olive, S.E.
Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained versus Untrained Listeners in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study
Volume 51 Number 9 pp. 806-825; September 2003

Of course, hearing a real difference between *speakers* in
an ABX test is not much of a challenge. Olive's tests
were in fact about comparing speaker *preference* of
trained versus untrained listeners.

But you did say 'any roughly comparable audio components'
And Olive did use Harman's ABX-type speaker comparator
setup. And the results were certainly positive for
*difference*.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> You are debating the wrong guy. I agree with you :):):)

Only about politics, right? Sluttie is now RAO's No. 2 Kroopologist. ;-)

[Lionel]

George Minus Middius wrote :

> Sluttie is now RAO's No. 2 Kroopologist. ;-)

What the **** are you speaking about ?

:o)

[Lionel]

In >, Robert Morein wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In >, Robert Morein wrote :
>>
>>>
>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Robert Morein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am American.
>>>>> The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
>>>>> country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that there
>>>>> is a lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that
>>>>> self-delusion is not solely the province of Americans. Take China, for
>>>>> example. That country has the opportunity to build an economy from the
>>>>> ground up that would not be oil based.
>>>>
>>>> How ?
>>>> Do you know exactly how many *billions* dollars USA have invested in
>>>> Chinese industry and infrastructure ?
>>>> I bet that more than 80% of the US money invested in China are the
>>>> money of your future pensions...
>>>> Why the US investors (and the others...) haven't chosen an other type
>>>> of energy ?
>>>
>>> Lionel, I'm not excusing what individual industrialists do, but this is
>>> an
>>> issue where governments must set national policy. You might think that
>>> industrialists are always against energy conservation, but this is not
>>> always true.
>>
>> Obviously.
>>
>>> For example, Henry Ford has publicly advocated a high
>>> gasoline tax, because it would enable his company to sell energy
>>> efficient
>>> vehicles.
>>
>> It's time no ?
>> The ratio power/motor volume is usually ridicule in the common US
>> engine production.
>>
>>> Also, please do not think that becaue I mentioned China, that I am
>>> trying to dilute the responsibility of the U.S. I, for one, am ashamed
>>> that the U.S. has not signed the Kyoto accords.
>>
>> USA are today world economical leaders. If this situation is full of
>> advantages today it is also full of responsabilities. IMHO it is the
>> responsability of all highly developped democratic countries.
>>
>>> Furthermore, I pointed out the dire consequences for the U.S. of current
>>> energy policy, for the U.S. itself. Whatever fault I find in China's
>>> policy does not change the consequences for the U.S. of our own policy.
>>>
>>> The Chinese government still has substantial central planning power.
>>> They choose to allow a rapid expansion in their automobile fleet,
>>> because they are worried about political stability. They feel forced to
>>> buy the loyalty
>>> of each class on whatever terms they can get.
>>
>> They simply have no choice. There's 1.5 billion inhabitants in China.
>> Who can guarantee today to 1.5 billions people that the economical
>> competition will be suspended since they will have built a strong
>> economical model based on "soft" energy ? ;-)
>>
>> Moreover it is well known that today high priced energy penalizes more
>> the countries with high economical growth than the others. Compare
>> economical growth of USA with China or India and you will better
>> understand today US energical policy...
>> Why do you think that US army is in Iraq today ?
>>
> Lionel,
> You are debating the wrong guy. I agree with you :):):)

I know, I wasn't debating "you". ;-)

[DaveW]

Lionel wrote:
> ScottW "The Môron" wrote:
>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
>>> I am American.
>>> The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
>>> country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that
>>> there is a lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that
>>> self-delusion is not solely the province of Americans. Take China,
>>> for example. That country has the opportunity to build an economy
>>> from the ground up that would not be oil based. But it's not doing
>>> that. Driven by the desires of the newly rich and the pressure from
>>> below to improve the incredibly poor living conditions of the
>>> peasantry, China embraces oil.
>>>
>>> The deeper problem seems independent of political systems. We are on
>>> the threshold of a wretched future, mandated by the world's greed for
>>> energy and insatiable desire to procreate.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with you on this 100%
>
>
> Are you looking for some help for your children euthanasia ?


The problem isn't euthanasia. It's Youth in Asia! (and what they get up
to when nobody is looking, that is.

Regards,

DAve

[George Middius]

Robert Morein said:

>> I thought bugs provided the protein needed by humans for moderately
>> efficient brain activity. Are you on some kind of protein-blocking
>> medication, Mickey?

>It's not the food, it's the temperature. As we move into autumn, his species
>becomes lethargic.

That's like saying a dead battery runs down in the cold.

[George Middius]

Gibberella gibberizes her comprehension ability.

>> Sluttie is now RAO's No. 2 Kroopologist. ;-)
>
>What the **** are you speaking about ?

Hairy or smooth, Slut?

[Lionel]

George Minus Middius wrote :


> Gibberella gibberizes her comprehension ability.
>
>>> Sluttie is now RAO's No. 2 Kroopologist. ;-)
>>
>>What the **** are you speaking about ?
>
> Hairy or smooth, Slut?

No more porn, George ?
The best is to come and check by yourself... My sweet little skinheads
hunter. :-)

[Lionel]

In <qTB_e.10537$kH3.2659@trnddc01>, DaveW wrote :

> Lionel wrote:
>> ScottW "The Môron" wrote:
>>
>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>> I am American.
>>>> The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
>>>> country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that
>>>> there is a lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that
>>>> self-delusion is not solely the province of Americans. Take China,
>>>> for example. That country has the opportunity to build an economy
>>>> from the ground up that would not be oil based. But it's not doing
>>>> that. Driven by the desires of the newly rich and the pressure from
>>>> below to improve the incredibly poor living conditions of the
>>>> peasantry, China embraces oil.
>>>>
>>>> The deeper problem seems independent of political systems. We are on
>>>> the threshold of a wretched future, mandated by the world's greed for
>>>> energy and insatiable desire to procreate.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with you on this 100%
>>
>>
>> Are you looking for some help for your children euthanasia ?
>
>
> The problem isn't euthanasia. It's Youth in Asia! (and what they get up
> to when nobody is looking, that is.

Sorry Dave but I'm not sure to understand you correctly. Can you please
elaborate a little bit ?

[///////@///////.com]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 06:25:25 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>>
>Mr. T.,
> I respectfully suggest that it would not be in your interest, or anybody
>else's to have a discussion with the notorious Brian L. McCarty, who posts
>here as ", and under various other pseudonyms,
>such as "OFFICIAL RAM BLUEBOOK VALUATION", and a wide variety of other
>identities. He is a pest on rec.audio.marketplace, where he accuses innocent
>sellers of variousmisdeeds. He appears to be a pathological liar, with
>unknown motivations.
>
>McCarty is the owner of websites http://www.coralseastudios.com, and
>http://www.worldjazz.com, both of which have used fraudulent advertising in
>attempts to attract investors. Both have been unsuccessful.
>
>McCarty is an American expatriate, originally from the Chicago area, then LA
>where he worked as a sound mixer, currently living in Cairns Australia,
>where he manages the Baskin-Robbins
>ice cream franchise located at
> Shop G6, 59 The Esplanade
> Cairns QLD 4870
> 07 4051 4034
>
>McCarty lives in the Coral Sands apartment complex at 65 Vasey Esplanade,
>Trinity beach, a bit north of metropolitan Cairns.
>
>Baskin-Robbins Australia may be contacted at
.
>

LOL !!

Bluebook value on Robert Morein's detective work

is minus $50....batting below zero.

Morein's Post Re-posted to the relevant newsgroup.

[DaveW]

Lionel wrote:
> In <qTB_e.10537$kH3.2659@trnddc01>, DaveW wrote :
>
>
>>Lionel wrote:
>>
>>>ScottW "The Môron" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I am American.
>>>>>The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
>>>>>country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that
>>>>>there is a lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that
>>>>>self-delusion is not solely the province of Americans. Take China,
>>>>>for example. That country has the opportunity to build an economy
>>>>>from the ground up that would not be oil based. But it's not doing
>>>>>that. Driven by the desires of the newly rich and the pressure from
>>>>>below to improve the incredibly poor living conditions of the
>>>>>peasantry, China embraces oil.
>>>>>
>>>>>The deeper problem seems independent of political systems. We are on
>>>>>the threshold of a wretched future, mandated by the world's greed for
>>>>>energy and insatiable desire to procreate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you on this 100%
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you looking for some help for your children euthanasia ?
>>
>>
>>The problem isn't euthanasia. It's Youth in Asia! (and what they get up
>>to when nobody is looking, that is.
>
>
> Sorry Dave but I'm not sure to understand you correctly. Can you please
> elaborate a little bit ?

Try pronouncing them.

euthanasia

Youth in Asia.

The former reduces the population, the latter increases it.

DAve

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Robert Morein wrote:
>>
>>> I am American.
>>> The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
>>> country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that there
>>> is a lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that
>>> self-delusion is not solely the province of Americans. Take China, for
>>> example. That country has the opportunity to build an economy from the
>>> ground up that would not be oil based.
>>
>> How ?
>> Do you know exactly how many *billions* dollars USA have invested in
>> Chinese industry and infrastructure ?
>> I bet that more than 80% of the US money invested in China are the money
>> of your future pensions...
>> Why the US investors (and the others...) haven't chosen an other type of
>> energy ?
>
> Lionel, I'm not excusing what individual industrialists do, but this is an
> issue where governments must set national policy. You might think that
> industrialists are always against energy conservation, but this is not
> always true. For example, Henry Ford has publicly advocated a high
> gasoline tax, because it would enable his company to sell energy efficient
> vehicles.
>
> Also, please do not think that becaue I mentioned China, that I am trying
> to dilute the responsibility of the U.S. I, for one, am ashamed that the
> U.S. has not signed the Kyoto accords.

What a surprise! Bob comes out in favor of junk science, again.
>
> Furthermore, I pointed out the dire consequences for the U.S. of current
> energy policy, for the U.S. itself. Whatever fault I find in China's
> policy does not change the consequences for the U.S. of our own policy.
>
The U.S. has ther strictest environmental laws in the world, and the
cleanest manufacturing.

There is no man made global warming.

The Kyoto Accords are a waste of paper.

> The Chinese government still has substantial central planning power. They
> choose to allow a rapid expansion in their automobile fleet, because they
> are worried about political stability. They feel forced to buy the loyalty
> of each class on whatever terms they can get.
>
>
They are trying to give people the things they want.

There is no shortage of oil, there is a shortage of profitability and a
shortage of capitalism for people who could be pumping more oil if they were
allowed.

[[email protected]]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> duh-Mikey takes a bath with Oil of Irony.
>
>>> You're just plain dumb. No two ways about that.
>
>>Nasty comments from you are a badge of honor for me George, since you have
>>not a clue about audio technology,
>
> If you say so. Bear in mind <G> that the subject at hand is not technology
> but
> marketing, and the auxiliary issue is how dumb you are.
>
>>and have made your sole purpose on RAO
>>one of name calling an attacks against any sort of discussion of the
>>technical merits of audio gear.
>
> Is that what you believe, Mickey? You also believe that Arnii Krooger is
> an
> exceedingly honest individual,

I don't know who that is. Arny Kruger is a guy who happens to be surly and
knowledgable about audio. He tends to share this temperment with Dick
Pierce who tends to agree with Arny on virtually every audio technology
issue.

that the aBXism religion is real science,

Becuase it is and because it is widely used by people doing audio research.

and
> that everything sounds the same.

Nope, I think LP sounds like **** compared to a CD.
I think SET's sound different than SS, in that SET's sound bad.
The tings that sound the same and the reasons they sound the same have been
stated many times.

Nobody should be worried about your "thinking"
> process overturning accepted wisdom in any area of human endeavor. ;-)
>
Like you'd know.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:27:13 GMT, "
> wrote:


>> So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
>> better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
>> difficult loads?

>If they measure within .1 dB of each other, it's likely they will sound
>idnetical.

They may sound idnetical, but will they sound the same?

> Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
>> yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
>> assertion means nothing.
>
>I have not but I have seen some of the research and that's the consensenus.
>I'm satisfied that fropm my own experience, an audiophile approved power amp
>like the Acoustat 120, doesn't sound audibly different than a Pioneer
>reciever, or Scott integrated amp.
>
>If 2 amps sound different there are reasons, clipping, inabilty to drive
>difficult loads, or design problems.

Well, it's not clipping because I can hear clear differences on
headphones. Likewise inability to drive difficult loads. Design
problems? I'm thinking of the differences I was able to hear between a
Rotel RA931 Mk11 and my current Marantz PM8200, so I don't think it's
design problems unless all amps at every level are afflicted with
design problems. Unless of course you mean that some designers are
better than others, or use better components, then I might agree with
you.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>> You ask Mr. Morein :" You have a DBT that shows otherwise?"
>>> Just to remind you that so far no one, and you least of all, referenced
>>> a DBT that shows anything other thasn "It all sounds the same".
>>> Whatever in audio is being compared.
>>> Timje to reach for an argument from another barrel. Any in
>>> sight?
>>> Ludovic Mirabel
>>>
>>
>> You are a gruunnt liar urrrghh, and the greeeek fact that you gruuuunt
>> yourself urrrghhh referenced greeeek a DBT where a difference gruuunt was
>> recorded urrrrgh just points greeeeek up how big an gruuunt idiot urrrrgh
>> you are greeeek.
>>
> Mikey, you are a mere amphibian, and you do not have a brain with higher
> centers of thought. It would be impossible for you to know the difference
> between truth and falsehood.
>
>
If irony killed.

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you must be a real high end piece, Mikey, as you are a perfect
>>>>>>> parrot
>>>>>>> of Arny Krueger.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, by your reckoning, it's bad to reapeat the truth? What
>>>>>> diffference does it make who said it, as long as it is the truth?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Was Arnie telling the truth when he accused Atkinson of emailing him
>>>>> kiddie porn, or was Arnie telling the truth when he accused George
>>>>> Middius
>>>>> of emailing him kiddie pron, or was Arnie telling the truth when he
>>>>> accused
>>>>> Dave Weil of emailing him kiddie porn, or Was Arnie telling the truth
>>>>> when
>>>>> he accused Scot Wheeler of emailing him kiddie porn, or was Arnie
>>>>> telling the
>>>>> truth when he accused me of emailing him kiddie porn. Was Arnie
>>>>> telling
>>>>> the truth that ANYBODY sent him kiddie porn. Didn't Arny later say
>>>>> that a MSP
>>>>> investigator told him it was not kiddie porn? Wouldn't it make
>>>>> sense that one would not make such hideous accusations if
>>>>> it weren't obvious that the porn in question was kiddie porn?
>>>> Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were absoultely no reason due to
>>>> anything that happened on RAO, could make Arny think someone would be
>>>> despicable enough to do such a thing?
>>>>
>>>> The fact is that there are people like George, for whom such behavior
>>>> seems quite likely.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you are excusing Arny for making groundless
>>> accusations about sending kiddie porn just because he 'thinks' someone
>>> 'might' do it.
>> I am saying that such things must be viewed in their entire context.
>
> Tell us your excuse(s) that justify such behavior by Arny.
> I will note, in your defense, that you are giving tacit acknowledgement
> that Arny willingly and knowingly made multiple false
> charges in this regard.

I always assumed they were not serious accusations, just his way of
retaliating against the twits who kept attacking him.

The issue is now whether Arny had some
> excuse(s) that justify willful false charges of disseminating kiddie porn.
> Well, "at least" its a start for you, a step in the right direction.
If you can't see that he was the victim of a smear campaign from day one,
because he dared to tell the truth about audio, and that people like Middius
and others are the real villains of this NG, then this subject is pointless
to discuss.

The worst of Arny's sins here is that he like every other EE I've ever
known, they don't suffer bull**** well.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:15:08 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
.. .
>> "Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
>> ups.com wrote:
>>
>>> We are on the
>>> threshold of a wretched future, mandated by the world's greed for energy
>>> and
>>> insatiable desire to procreate.
>>
>> I've never had a desire to procreate at all. That's why I prefer to take
>> it
>> up the ass.
>>
>Brian, is that an expression of your own tendencies?

Gee, Robert, for a moment there I thought you were being unhealthily
honest. And after all it was just Brian again. :-)

[Mr.T]

> wrote in message
...
> >> >At least China has a one child policy, so is doing something to stop
it.
> >>
> >> Forced abortions on Chinese women including late term abortions past
> >> 30 weeks is murder.
> >
> >Only go past 30 weeks when the woman tries to hide the fact. They have
the
> >option of actually obeying the law. Sterialisation after the first child
is
> >free.
>
> so you agree with State sanctioned murder of inncocent babies..

You think they should kill the mother instead?

> >So you'd prefer a few Billion more Chinese? What are *you* prepared to
give
> >up for them?
>
> so you agree with State sanctioned murder of inncocent babies....
> after all they're only Chinese!!

I note you do not answer my question.

MrT.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>>>
>> Mikey, you are a mere amphibian, and you do not have a brain with higher
>> centers of thought. ......
>>
>>
> If irony killed.
>

Yes, indeed!

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you must be a real high end piece, Mikey, as you are a perfect
>>>>>>>> parrot
>>>>>>>> of Arny Krueger.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, by your reckoning, it's bad to reapeat the truth? What
>>>>>>> diffference does it make who said it, as long as it is the truth?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was Arnie telling the truth when he accused Atkinson of emailing him
>>>>>> kiddie porn, or was Arnie telling the truth when he accused George
>>>>>> Middius
>>>>>> of emailing him kiddie pron, or was Arnie telling the truth when he
>>>>>> accused
>>>>>> Dave Weil of emailing him kiddie porn, or Was Arnie telling the truth
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> he accused Scot Wheeler of emailing him kiddie porn, or was Arnie
>>>>>> telling the
>>>>>> truth when he accused me of emailing him kiddie porn. Was Arnie
>>>>>> telling
>>>>>> the truth that ANYBODY sent him kiddie porn. Didn't Arny later say
>>>>>> that a MSP
>>>>>> investigator told him it was not kiddie porn? Wouldn't it make
>>>>>> sense that one would not make such hideous accusations if
>>>>>> it weren't obvious that the porn in question was kiddie porn?
>>>>> Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were absoultely no reason due to
>>>>> anything that happened on RAO, could make Arny think someone would be
>>>>> despicable enough to do such a thing?
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact is that there are people like George, for whom such behavior
>>>>> seems quite likely.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you are excusing Arny for making groundless
>>>> accusations about sending kiddie porn just because he 'thinks' someone
>>>> 'might' do it.
>>> I am saying that such things must be viewed in their entire context.
>>
>> Tell us your excuse(s) that justify such behavior by Arny.
>> I will note, in your defense, that you are giving tacit acknowledgement
>> that Arny willingly and knowingly made multiple false
>> charges in this regard.
>
> I always assumed they were not serious accusations, just his way of
> retaliating against the twits who kept attacking him.
>

Thanks for directly acknowledging that Arny is a liar!
There is nothing tacit about your acknowledgement now.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > I always assumed they were not serious accusations, just his way of
> > retaliating against the twits who kept attacking him.

> Thanks for directly acknowledging that Arny is a liar!
> There is nothing tacit about your acknowledgement now.

Mickey's mother doesn't wear army boots, but she often served them for
dinner.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> > I always assumed they were not serious accusations, just his way of
>> > retaliating against the twits who kept attacking him.
>
>> Thanks for directly acknowledging that Arny is a liar!
>> There is nothing tacit about your acknowledgement now.
>
> Mickey's mother doesn't wear army boots, but she often served them for
> dinner.
>

I didn't know you could buy them with food stamps.

[Ayn Marx]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> in message ...
> >
> >
> > Clyde Slick said:
> >
> >> > I always assumed they were not serious accusations, just his way of
> >> > retaliating against the twits who kept attacking him.
> >
> >> Thanks for directly acknowledging that Arny is a liar!
> >> There is nothing tacit about your acknowledgement now.
> >
> > Mickey's mother doesn't wear army boots, but she often served them for
> > dinner.
> >
>
> I didn't know you could buy them with food stamps

Please stop posting this dull, un-funny drivel on Aus.H-Fi.
Everyone at R.A.O may indeed find it fascinating so please keep it to
yourselves.
Thanking you all in anticipation.

[Sander deWaal]

" > said:

>The worst of Arny's sins here is that he like every other EE I've ever
>known, they don't suffer bull**** well.


I thought you knew that I'm an EE as well :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[ScottW]

Ayn Marx wrote:
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> > in message ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Clyde Slick said:
> > >
> > >> > I always assumed they were not serious accusations, just his way of
> > >> > retaliating against the twits who kept attacking him.
> > >
> > >> Thanks for directly acknowledging that Arny is a liar!
> > >> There is nothing tacit about your acknowledgement now.
> > >
> > > Mickey's mother doesn't wear army boots, but she often served them for
> > > dinner.
> > >
> >
> > I didn't know you could buy them with food stamps
>
> Please stop posting this dull, un-funny drivel on Aus.H-Fi.
> Everyone at R.A.O may indeed find it fascinating so please keep it to
> yourselves.
> Thanking you all in anticipation.

I think the real intent is to bore everyone to death...it's like a
filibuster.

ScottW

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion paul packer > wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:27:13 GMT, "
> > wrote:


> >> So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
> >> better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
> >> difficult loads?

> >If they measure within .1 dB of each other, it's likely they will sound
> >idnetical.

> They may sound idnetical, but will they sound the same?

> > Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
> >> yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
> >> assertion means nothing.
> >
> >I have not but I have seen some of the research and that's the consensenus.
> >I'm satisfied that fropm my own experience, an audiophile approved power amp
> >like the Acoustat 120, doesn't sound audibly different than a Pioneer
> >reciever, or Scott integrated amp.
> >
> >If 2 amps sound different there are reasons, clipping, inabilty to drive
> >difficult loads, or design problems.

> Well, it's not clipping because I can hear clear differences on
> headphones. Likewise inability to drive difficult loads. Design
> problems? I'm thinking of the differences I was able to hear between a
> Rotel RA931 Mk11 and my current Marantz PM8200, so I don't think it's
> design problems unless all amps at every level are afflicted with
> design problems. Unless of course you mean that some designers are
> better than others, or use better components, then I might agree with
> you.

How closely have you level matched them? And are you doing the
comparisons blind? Your amps *could* sound intrinsically different,
or they might really sound the same. How do you determine
which is actually the case?



--

-S

[Lionel]

ScottW "The Môron" wrote :


> I think the real intent is to bore everyone to death...it's like a
> filibuster.

Are you afraid of competition ?

[Sander deWaal]

Steven Sullivan > said:

>How closely have you level matched them? And are you doing the
>comparisons blind? Your amps *could* sound intrinsically different,
>or they might really sound the same. How do you determine
>which is actually the case?


<sigh>
Let me try to explain this just one more time.

The way hobbyists and music lovers listen at home, is *sighted* .
The way they determine differences in amps, DACs etc. is done sighted.

You see, it *doesn't matter* one whit if two amps sound the same in a
DBT; when there's a difference in listening sighted, that's all that
matters.
Listening sighted is the reality of everyday's life, the ideal
circumstances in a laboratory are *not*.

I'm an EE, I know amplifier topology, I know that most likely 99% of
all amps sound alike in a DBT, but *it simply doesn't matter* for the
consumer at home, since other biases can't be ignored when returning
to listening for pleasure.
One can't avoid looking at his amp, enjoying the thick faceplate, the
brand name, the gold-plated connectors or the huge heatsinks or tubes
sticking out.
Such things *have* to alter the perception.

Ignoring for this moment those amp topologies, where differences are
built into it *on purpose*.
It should be clear that those designs sound even more different :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Iain M Churches]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> Steven Sullivan > said:
>
>>How closely have you level matched them? And are you doing the
>>comparisons blind? Your amps *could* sound intrinsically different,
>>or they might really sound the same. How do you determine
>>which is actually the case?
>
>
> <sigh>
> Let me try to explain this just one more time.
>
> The way hobbyists and music lovers listen at home, is *sighted* .
> The way they determine differences in amps, DACs etc. is done sighted.
>
> You see, it *doesn't matter* one whit if two amps sound the same in a
> DBT; when there's a difference in listening sighted, that's all that
> matters.
> Listening sighted is the reality of everyday's life, the ideal
> circumstances in a laboratory are *not*.
>
> I'm an EE, I know amplifier topology, I know that most likely 99% of
> all amps sound alike in a DBT, but *it simply doesn't matter* for the
> consumer at home, since other biases can't be ignored when returning
> to listening for pleasure.
> One can't avoid looking at his amp, enjoying the thick faceplate, the
> brand name, the gold-plated connectors or the huge heatsinks or tubes
> sticking out.
> Such things *have* to alter the perception.
>
> Ignoring for this moment those amp topologies, where differences are
> built into it *on purpose*.
> It should be clear that those designs sound even more different :-)
>
Thanks Sander. Good, solid sensible Dutch logic. Now if you could
only convince the others:-)

Iain

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion Sander deWaal > wrote:
> Steven Sullivan > said:

> >How closely have you level matched them? And are you doing the
> >comparisons blind? Your amps *could* sound intrinsically different,
> >or they might really sound the same. How do you determine
> >which is actually the case?


> <sigh>
> Let me try to explain this just one more time.

<sigh> I know what's coming. A shame it comes from *you* Sander.


> The way hobbyists and music lovers listen at home, is *sighted* .
> The way they determine differences in amps, DACs etc. is done sighted.


Yes, and some people consult horoscopes to 'determine' how their day will
be. They aren't *really* doing anything of the sort, of course. A person
*believing* he's determining difference, doesn't mean he is 'determining'
anything in any substantive way -- that is, a way that is distinguishable
from a private delusion. A person anecdotally 'determining' that a
horoscope 'predicted' how his day will be, does not demonstrate the truth
of astrology.

And of course there are other hobbyists and music lovers who realize the
pitfalls of 'determining difference' this way, and simply adjust their
claims about difference accordingly. Or, if they are so motivated, they
arrange to compare amps in a more rigorous fashion.

I wonder if there's any other technically-oriented hobby where there's
such a strong strain of hostility towards objective verification of
truth-claims about the performance of the gear involved?


> You see, it *doesn't matter* one whit if two amps sound the same in a
> DBT; when there's a difference in listening sighted, that's all that
> matters.

You see, it doesn't matter one whit to me if that's 'all that matters' to
some audiophiles. In fact, if all they ever wrote was 'it sounds different
to me and that's all that matters', then you'd hardly ever see any
rebuttal. But they *don't* confine themselves to such limited
truth-claims about the real world, do they, Sander?


> Listening sighted is the reality of everyday's life, the ideal
> circumstances in a laboratory are *not*.

<sigh>
So, scientific fact and 'everyday' fact have no overlap?

*Of course* what is *true* about the physical world *matters*, Sander.
An industry does not exist in a vaccuum. An industry that encourages
consumers to believe what isn't true coupled wiht a consumer base that
doesn't think objective truth 'matters' isn't likely to be accountable
for its own claims.



> I'm an EE, I know amplifier topology, I know that most likely 99% of
> all amps sound alike in a DBT, but *it simply doesn't matter* for the
> consumer at home, since other biases can't be ignored when returning
> to listening for pleasure.

Who are you to say 'it simply doesn't matter to the consumer at home'? Are
consumers at home even being given the *choice* in the matter -- e.g. a
source of data from controlled listening tests? Do you assert it
wouldn't matter to *any* of them if magazines began conducting such tests?

I guarantee you that assertion would be wrong.

The success of endeavors like Consumer Reports indicates that a population
of consumers exists who *do* want accurate information about performance
of consumer products. Why would you believe that audio hobbyists aren't
among them?


> One can't avoid looking at his amp, enjoying the thick faceplate, the
> brand name, the gold-plated connectors or the huge heatsinks or tubes
> sticking out.
> Such things *have* to alter the perception.

Yes, the *perception*. But making claims about a *perception*, and making
claims about the *source*, are not the same thing, are they? It's quite
easy to make a badly-reasoned leap from cause to effect. The belief that
'perception is reality' leads inevitably to embarrassing 'emperor's new
clothes' paradoxes.


> Ignoring for this moment those amp topologies, where differences are
> built into it *on purpose*.
> It should be clear that those designs sound even more different :-)

Of course amps can be designed to 'sound different'; no one claims
otherwise.




--

-S

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> I wonder if there's any other technically-oriented hobby where there's
> such a strong strain of hostility towards objective verification of
> truth-claims about the performance of the gear involved?

Hot rodding?

Listening to music isn't "technically-oriented." High end is more like
golfing and fishing in that the gear can be an end to itself but is also
marketed with promises of improved "performance."

Stephen

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion Iain M Churches > wrote:

> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Steven Sullivan > said:
> >
> >>How closely have you level matched them? And are you doing the
> >>comparisons blind? Your amps *could* sound intrinsically different,
> >>or they might really sound the same. How do you determine
> >>which is actually the case?
> >
> >
> > <sigh>
> > Let me try to explain this just one more time.
> >
> > The way hobbyists and music lovers listen at home, is *sighted* .
> > The way they determine differences in amps, DACs etc. is done sighted.
> >
> > You see, it *doesn't matter* one whit if two amps sound the same in a
> > DBT; when there's a difference in listening sighted, that's all that
> > matters.
> > Listening sighted is the reality of everyday's life, the ideal
> > circumstances in a laboratory are *not*.
> >
> > I'm an EE, I know amplifier topology, I know that most likely 99% of
> > all amps sound alike in a DBT, but *it simply doesn't matter* for the
> > consumer at home, since other biases can't be ignored when returning
> > to listening for pleasure.
> > One can't avoid looking at his amp, enjoying the thick faceplate, the
> > brand name, the gold-plated connectors or the huge heatsinks or tubes
> > sticking out.
> > Such things *have* to alter the perception.
> >
> > Ignoring for this moment those amp topologies, where differences are
> > built into it *on purpose*.
> > It should be clear that those designs sound even more different :-)
> >
> Thanks Sander. Good, solid sensible Dutch logic. Now if you could
> only convince the others:-)

> Iain

Dutch logic says logic doesn't matter, only 'personal' logic does?

I hardly think so.

Truth doesn't matter to lots of people in lots of areas. I suspect
the Dutch don't generally laud them for that attitude.

And what about the 'reality' of everday life to someone who knows,
like Sander, that most amps under standard DBT conditions won't
sound different? If *he* hears a diffence, he can take comfort
in the possibility that it's not something about his amp at all,
(possibly requiring a new purchase) it's something, possibly
transitory, in his perception.

Accepting the validity of DBTs, and the fallibility of sighted
perception, hasn't notably impaired my enjoyment of music, *ever*.
And I'm certainly not fretting over whether my amp or cables
are performing well. That gievs me much more time to fret
over things that matter in a *demonstrable* way, like room
acoustics.





--

-S

[[email protected]]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:27:13 GMT, "
> > wrote:
>
>
>>> So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
>>> better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
>>> difficult loads?
>
>>If they measure within .1 dB of each other, it's likely they will sound
>>idnetical.
>


> They may sound idnetical, but will they sound the same?
>
If you can't tell them apart they are identical.

>> Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
>>> yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
>>> assertion means nothing.
>>
>>I have not but I have seen some of the research and that's the
>>consensenus.
>>I'm satisfied that from my own experience, an audiophile approved power
>>amp
>>like the Acoustat 120, doesn't sound audibly different than a Pioneer
>>reciever, or Scott integrated amp.
>>
>>If 2 amps sound different there are reasons, clipping, inabilty to drive
>>difficult loads, or design problems.
>
> Well, it's not clipping because I can hear clear differences on
> headphones. Likewise inability to drive difficult loads. Design
> problems? I'm thinking of the differences I was able to hear between a
> Rotel RA931 Mk11 and my current Marantz PM8200, so I don't think it's
> design problems unless all amps at every level are afflicted with
> design problems. Unless of course you mean that some designers are
> better than others, or use better components, then I might agree with
> you.
>
The criteria are as I explained, they need to measure within .1 dB of each
other. A difference of .1 dB or more is audible.

[[email protected]]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> Steven Sullivan > said:
>
>>How closely have you level matched them? And are you doing the
>>comparisons blind? Your amps *could* sound intrinsically different,
>>or they might really sound the same. How do you determine
>>which is actually the case?
>
>
> <sigh>
> Let me try to explain this just one more time.
>
> The way hobbyists and music lovers listen at home, is *sighted* .
> The way they determine differences in amps, DACs etc. is done sighted.
>
Which is known to be an unrelaible way to determine differences.

> You see, it *doesn't matter* one whit if two amps sound the same in a
> DBT; when there's a difference in listening sighted, that's all that
> matters.

It does matter if you care about how you spend your money, or if you simply
want to conduct the most reliable comparisons.

> Listening sighted is the reality of everyday's life, the ideal
> circumstances in a laboratory are *not*.
>
Which is why you don't do such comparisons except when making a buying
decision.
Once you've learned that differences exist or not, you just kick back and
relax.

> I'm an EE, I know amplifier topology, I know that most likely 99% of
> all amps sound alike in a DBT, but *it simply doesn't matter* for the
> consumer at home, since other biases can't be ignored when returning
> to listening for pleasure.

Exactly, it doesn't need to be done, since only a tiny minority of amps are
going to sound different, and of those that do, it will be that they are
less than flat.

> One can't avoid looking at his amp, enjoying the thick faceplate, the
> brand name, the gold-plated connectors or the huge heatsinks or tubes
> sticking out.
> Such things *have* to alter the perception.
>

But not the actual performance. Note that people can believe their amps
sound different depending on their mood.

> Ignoring for this moment those amp topologies, where differences are
> built into it *on purpose*.
> It should be clear that those designs sound even more different :-)
>
>
And it's only fair that people be made aware of what differences if any
there are and if those differences will be audible.

[[email protected]]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The Bug Eater quickly abandons his principled stand against invective.
>
>>> There can be NO EXCUSE for Arny Krueger's reprehensible behavior, or for
>>> that of his evil stooge, Mike McKelvy, a.k.a. the "mckelviphibian".
>
>>Or yours, ****head.
>
> Mickey, I just read another of your posts in which you whined about my
> "name
> calling". Is your version of name-calling more socially acceptable than
> mind?

When you have a near decade long history of name calling, why would you not
expect to have it thrown back at you?

> Please explain this so that I might begin to emulate your high standards.

It's clear to anybody who reads your posts, that you only standards are
smear, ad hominem attack, name calling and vitriol.

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " > wrote in message
>>>>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then you must be a real high end piece, Mikey, as you are a
>>>>>>>>> perfect parrot
>>>>>>>>> of Arny Krueger.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, by your reckoning, it's bad to reapeat the truth? What
>>>>>>>> diffference does it make who said it, as long as it is the truth?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was Arnie telling the truth when he accused Atkinson of emailing him
>>>>>>> kiddie porn, or was Arnie telling the truth when he accused George
>>>>>>> Middius
>>>>>>> of emailing him kiddie pron, or was Arnie telling the truth when he
>>>>>>> accused
>>>>>>> Dave Weil of emailing him kiddie porn, or Was Arnie telling the
>>>>>>> truth when
>>>>>>> he accused Scot Wheeler of emailing him kiddie porn, or was Arnie
>>>>>>> telling the
>>>>>>> truth when he accused me of emailing him kiddie porn. Was Arnie
>>>>>>> telling
>>>>>>> the truth that ANYBODY sent him kiddie porn. Didn't Arny later say
>>>>>>> that a MSP
>>>>>>> investigator told him it was not kiddie porn? Wouldn't it make
>>>>>>> sense that one would not make such hideous accusations if
>>>>>>> it weren't obvious that the porn in question was kiddie porn?
>>>>>> Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were absoultely no reason due to
>>>>>> anything that happened on RAO, could make Arny think someone would
>>>>>> be despicable enough to do such a thing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact is that there are people like George, for whom such behavior
>>>>>> seems quite likely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you are excusing Arny for making groundless
>>>>> accusations about sending kiddie porn just because he 'thinks'
>>>>> someone
>>>>> 'might' do it.
>>>> I am saying that such things must be viewed in their entire context.
>>>
>>> Tell us your excuse(s) that justify such behavior by Arny.
>>> I will note, in your defense, that you are giving tacit acknowledgement
>>> that Arny willingly and knowingly made multiple false
>>> charges in this regard.
>>
>> I always assumed they were not serious accusations, just his way of
>> retaliating against the twits who kept attacking him.
>>
>
> Thanks for directly acknowledging that Arny is a liar!

I made no such acknowledgement.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion MINe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
> Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> > I wonder if there's any other technically-oriented hobby where there's
> > such a strong strain of hostility towards objective verification of
> > truth-claims about the performance of the gear involved?

> Hot rodding?

No interest there in objective verification of truth claims about
performance?

> Listening to music isn't "technically-oriented." High end is more like
> golfing and fishing in that the gear can be an end to itself but is also
> marketed with promises of improved "performance."


Listening to music isnt' necessarily 'technically-oriented'. In fact,
unlike golf and fishing, you can do it without any 'gear' at all, by
attending a performance. But the hobby isn't just about listening to
music, of course. It's about the gear. Otherwise Stereophile et al would
simply run reviews of albums.

In fact, as far as music-making goes, the home audio hobby is more like
*watching* golfing or fishing, rather than *doing* them. You aren't
playing the instruments. You're listening to a recording of others playing
them.



--

-S

[[email protected]]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> " > said:
>
>>The worst of Arny's sins here is that he like every other EE I've ever
>>known, they don't suffer bull**** well.
>
>
> I thought you knew that I'm an EE as well :-)
>
> --
>
I stand corrected. I was speaking of EE's that I had met in person.

[Lionel]

Steven Sullivan wrote :


> Accepting the validity of DBTs, and the fallibility of sighted
> perception, hasn't notably impaired my enjoyment of music, *ever*.

How can you be sure of that ?
How can you compare your enjoyment of music to my enjoyment of music.
Perhaps that, compare to mine, your enjoyment of music is boorish, petty,
ridicule...
What authorizes you to compare your musical pleasure with *mine* ?

On which *objective* criteria are you evaluating my pleasure to be sure that
this amp will not bring me more pleasure than this one ? Which cerebral
investigation tool have you already used to compare your "level" of
pleasure with an other's one ?

As long as you don't have done this such validated experimentation (if
available) with each one of your interlocutors you will not be able to
quantify your *relative* pleasure.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> In rec.audio.opinion MINe 109 > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
> > > I wonder if there's any other technically-oriented hobby where there's
> > > such a strong strain of hostility towards objective verification of
> > > truth-claims about the performance of the gear involved?
>
> > Hot rodding?
>
> No interest there in objective verification of truth claims about
> performance?

Lotso' snake-oil and unsubstantiated claims: "200 MPG carburetors" etc.
I imagine those marketers are hostile towards objective verification.
And don't forget the automotive Shakti 'stone.'

> > Listening to music isn't "technically-oriented." High end is more like
> > golfing and fishing in that the gear can be an end to itself but is also
> > marketed with promises of improved "performance."
>
>
> Listening to music isnt' necessarily 'technically-oriented'.

Yes, as I said. Double quotes are fine.

> In fact,
> unlike golf and fishing, you can do it without any 'gear' at all, by
> attending a performance.

Fish tickling?

> But the hobby isn't just about listening to
> music, of course. It's about the gear. Otherwise Stereophile et al would
> simply run reviews of albums.

Yep, in general audiophiles like gear on which to listen to music. Some
record collectors don't care at all about sound quality. Some
audiophiles don't care about music.

> In fact, as far as music-making goes, the home audio hobby is more like
> *watching* golfing or fishing, rather than *doing* them. You aren't
> playing the instruments. You're listening to a recording of others playing
> them.

Nice change of subject, from "listening to music" to "music-making."

A couple of years back someone posted an article about high end golf
equipment and commented how much like high end audio were the attitudes
involved.

Sorry if high end audio isn't so unique as you wish.

Stephen

[Sander deWaal]

Steven Sullivan > said:

>> You see, it *doesn't matter* one whit if two amps sound the same in a
>> DBT; when there's a difference in listening sighted, that's all that
>> matters.

>You see, it doesn't matter one whit to me if that's 'all that matters' to
>some audiophiles. In fact, if all they ever wrote was 'it sounds different
>to me and that's all that matters', then you'd hardly ever see any
>rebuttal. But they *don't* confine themselves to such limited
>truth-claims about the real world, do they, Sander?


Am I naive to assume that when people claim something about an
amplifier/DAC/speaker, they do so on personal terms?
Of course a reviewer gives his personal impressions, colored by his
biases.

What else can he do?


>> Listening sighted is the reality of everyday's life, the ideal
>> circumstances in a laboratory are *not*.

><sigh>
>So, scientific fact and 'everyday' fact have no overlap?


Let me take myself as an example: I build my own amplifiers.
In the process, I do (single) blind tests to see if my design goals
are met.

After that, I haul the boxes into the living room, where they will
have to do their duty for perhaps 10 years or longer without looking
back.
(That's right, once a box is finished, it is finished. When I get the
urge to solder anything together again, it'll be an entirely new
design).

When the amp is put in place, all it has to do is sit there and
amplify what's fed into it.
I seem to listen differently then, I enjoy the tubes/heatsinks/current
capability/whatever, and listen to the music.

When I realize that i have built the thing myself, that it is capable
of delivering 20 Vtt in any impedance, ranging from 8 to 0.5 ohm, I
have fun and enjoy the music even more.

How much more can science and every day life merge?


>> I'm an EE, I know amplifier topology, I know that most likely 99% of
>> all amps sound alike in a DBT, but *it simply doesn't matter* for the
>> consumer at home, since other biases can't be ignored when returning
>> to listening for pleasure.

>Who are you to say 'it simply doesn't matter to the consumer at home'? Are
>consumers at home even being given the *choice* in the matter -- e.g. a
>source of data from controlled listening tests? Do you assert it
>wouldn't matter to *any* of them if magazines began conducting such tests?

>I guarantee you that assertion would be wrong.


Have you ever met someone without knowledge of electronics, worrying
about the possible claims of his amplifier/CD player?speaker
manufacturer? I haven't..............

With 'it simply doesn't matter", I don't mean they have no part in it,
but simply that they in almost all cases don't care.

If it sounds good, it is good.
Some people say that about their boombox :-)


>> One can't avoid looking at his amp, enjoying the thick faceplate, the
>> brand name, the gold-plated connectors or the huge heatsinks or tubes
>> sticking out.
>> Such things *have* to alter the perception.

>Yes, the *perception*. But making claims about a *perception*, and making
>claims about the *source*, are not the same thing, are they? It's quite
>easy to make a badly-reasoned leap from cause to effect. The belief that
>'perception is reality' leads inevitably to embarrassing 'emperor's new
>clothes' paradoxes.


What difference does it make to an end consumer who just wants (good)
sound in the house?
In this case, perception is all there is, and it is all that matters.

Very few people are aware that perception isn't the same as scientific
reality, and again, the majority probably doesn't care.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Sander deWaal]

Steven Sullivan > said:

>And what about the 'reality' of everday life to someone who knows,
>like Sander, that most amps under standard DBT conditions won't
>sound different? If *he* hears a diffence, he can take comfort
>in the possibility that it's not something about his amp at all,
>(possibly requiring a new purchase) it's something, possibly
>transitory, in his perception.


I know that, and I accept that.
I accept the validity of blind tests in the design stage, as an amp
designer, manufacturer or perhaps even a reviewer.
I use single blind tests in the design stage of my electronics.

As a consumer, I have no need for them.

The fact that I design, build and use my own electronics (including
DACs, turntables, amplifiers and hopefully soon also speakers) means
of course that my outlook probably and most likely differs from that
of an average consumer.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Sander deWaal]

" > said:

>> The way hobbyists and music lovers listen at home, is *sighted* .
>> The way they determine differences in amps, DACs etc. is done sighted.

>Which is known to be an unrelaible way to determine differences.


I *know* that!

Let me ask you a question: when listening to music, are you constantly
trying to determine differences?

Let me guess: that's a no.

And it's a no for probably all consumers.


>> You see, it *doesn't matter* one whit if two amps sound the same in a
>> DBT; when there's a difference in listening sighted, that's all that
>> matters.

>It does matter if you care about how you spend your money, or if you simply
>want to conduct the most reliable comparisons.


But how many end-consumers do that?
I mean, do you know *anyone* doing DBTs when shopping for a new
amplifier?

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Ayn Marx]

Sander deWaal wrote:
>
> But how many end-consumers do that?
> I mean, do you know *anyone* doing DBTs when shopping for a new
> amplifier?
>

Do you know any retailers who offer them?

[Clyde Slick]

"Ayn Marx" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>> wrote
>> in message ...
>> >
>> >
>> > Clyde Slick said:
>> >
>> >> > I always assumed they were not serious accusations, just his way of
>> >> > retaliating against the twits who kept attacking him.
>> >
>> >> Thanks for directly acknowledging that Arny is a liar!
>> >> There is nothing tacit about your acknowledgement now.
>> >
>> > Mickey's mother doesn't wear army boots, but she often served them for
>> > dinner.
>> >
>>
>> I didn't know you could buy them with food stamps
>
> Please stop posting this dull, un-funny drivel on Aus.H-Fi.
> Everyone at R.A.O may indeed find it fascinating so please keep it to
> yourselves.
> Thanking you all in anticipation.
>

Its an inside RAO joke relating to duh Mikey's family history.
Sorry that you have not been here long enough to
undertand the implications. Without knowing the inside
meaning, it would seem lame.

[Sander deWaal]

"Ayn Marx" > said:


>> But how many end-consumers do that?
>> I mean, do you know *anyone* doing DBTs when shopping for a new
>> amplifier?


>Do you know any retailers who offer them?


I haven't the faintest idea.
I don't care either, I roll my own.

But let me ask you a question in return:
What's the point in repeating ad nauseum that doing a DBT is the only
legitimate way to determine differences between amplifiers, *when the
end-consumer has no way of doing such a test under proper conditions*
, neither with his dealer nor in his home?

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005