Question about Jupiter

[ScottW]

Sold any speakers yet?

I'm guessing you might not even have the resources to retrieve the
pair you sent to Dave until your next unemployment check arrives.

ScottW

[Lionel]

ScottW wrote:

> Sold any speakers yet?
>
> I'm guessing you might not even have the resources to retrieve the
> pair you sent to Dave until your next unemployment check arrives.
>
> ScottW

I sincerely thought that they was Dave's property now.
After all he has done more work than Gregory Singh. ;-)

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
om...
> Sold any speakers yet?
>
> I'm guessing you might not even have the resources to retrieve the
> pair you sent to Dave until your next unemployment check arrives.
>
> ScottW

They are too delicate to ship.
Some detail of the cabinet construction, note.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
om

> Sold any speakers yet?

> I'm guessing you might not even have the resources to retrieve the
> pair you sent to Dave until your next unemployment check arrives.

Note post:

http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=k9-dnbo45960AOOiU-KYvg%40comcast.com

I asked for the UPS tracking number for the shipment from Singh to Weil.

No answer.

Meaningful?

It seems like either Singh or Weil could come up with a valid one in 3 days,
if it existed...

Bottom line seems to be that imaginary speakers don't need to be shipped
back!

[dave weil]

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:17:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"ScottW" > wrote in message
om
>
>> Sold any speakers yet?
>
>> I'm guessing you might not even have the resources to retrieve the
>> pair you sent to Dave until your next unemployment check arrives.
>
>Note post:
>
>http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=k9-dnbo45960AOOiU-KYvg%40comcast.com
>
>I asked for the UPS tracking number for the shipment from Singh to Weil.
>
>No answer.
>
>Meaningful?

Yes, it means that I don't jump when you say jump. Also, you might
want to keep reading.

>It seems like either Singh or Weil could come up with a valid one in 3 days,
>if it existed...

Yes, we could. If someone more reasonable had asked, I might have
provided the information. If I thought that you *really* believed that
there was no speaker shopped to me, I might be willing to provide the
info. However, I know that you are simply being yourself and are
making charges that you don't even really believe. Am I "mind
reading"? Perhaps. But the alternative is that you are just dumb.

Hey wait, maybe I'm wrong about your "agenda". Maybe you *are* really
dumb enough to believe that Greg and I are running some sort of scam.

>Bottom line seems to be that imaginary speakers don't need to be shipped
>back!

Yes, I can see how you would envision this whole thing as a scam.
Problem is, it's a scam only worthy of someone like you, because it's
a scam with no benefit to *any* party.

Oh, PS, no, there's no UPS tracking number. And yet speakers were
shipped and there is proof of that available to genuine interested
parties. Maybe you can figure out why, doofus.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:17:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> om
>>
>>> Sold any speakers yet?
>>
>>> I'm guessing you might not even have the resources to retrieve the
>>> pair you sent to Dave until your next unemployment check arrives.
>>
>> Note post:
>>
>> http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=k9-dnbo45960AOOiU-KYvg%40comcast.com
>>
>> I asked for the UPS tracking number for the shipment from Singh to
>> Weil.
>>
>> No answer.
>>
>> Meaningful?
>
> Yes, it means that I don't jump when you say jump. Also, you might
> want to keep reading.

Non-performance and promise of future non-performance on a critical is
point noted. I'll let people reach whatever conclusions they want to.

End of discussion - plenty of evidence that there were never any speakers.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:00:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:17:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>> om
>>>
>>>> Sold any speakers yet?
>>>
>>>> I'm guessing you might not even have the resources to retrieve the
>>>> pair you sent to Dave until your next unemployment check arrives.
>>>
>>> Note post:
>>>
>>> http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=k9-dnbo45960AOOiU-KYvg%40comcast.com
>>>
>>> I asked for the UPS tracking number for the shipment from Singh to
>>> Weil.
>>>
>>> No answer.
>>>
>>> Meaningful?
>>
>> Yes, it means that I don't jump when you say jump. Also, you might
>> want to keep reading.
>
>Non-performance and promise of future non-performance on a critical is
>point noted. I'll let people reach whatever conclusions they want to.

Yes, let us. I doubt that even guys like Joe or Mike think that I
didn't have the speakers in hand (or *still* have the speakers in hand
for that matter).

>End of discussion - plenty of evidence that there were never any speakers.

No evidence of the contrary of course.

And fixating on a "UPS tracking number from Singh to Weil" is rather
stupid for two reasons.

One reason is the fact, clearly stated on RAO that the speakers
weren't shipped from Singh, but from someone else (in California) who
had them for evaluation. Soooo, failure to read duly noted.

I'll leave the other reason up to the dullest knife in the drawer to
figure out for himself. I've got a week or two to kill...

Arnold is the only mouse that I know of who thinks he's a cat. Of
course, it keeps him off the street and out of harm's way, so i
suppose there's an upside to it.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:00:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:17:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>> om
>>>>
>>>>> Sold any speakers yet?
>>>>
>>>>> I'm guessing you might not even have the resources to retrieve the
>>>>> pair you sent to Dave until your next unemployment check arrives.
>>>>
>>>> Note post:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=k9-dnbo45960AOOiU-KYvg%40comcast.com
>>>>
>>>> I asked for the UPS tracking number for the shipment from Singh to
>>>> Weil.
>>>>
>>>> No answer.
>>>>
>>>> Meaningful?
>>>
>>> Yes, it means that I don't jump when you say jump. Also, you might
>>> want to keep reading.
>>
>> Non-performance and promise of future non-performance on a critical
>> is point noted. I'll let people reach whatever conclusions they want
>> to.
>
> Yes, let us. I doubt that even guys like Joe or Mike think that I
> didn't have the speakers in hand (or *still* have the speakers in hand
> for that matter).
>
>> End of discussion - plenty of evidence that there were never any
>> speakers.
>
> No evidence of the contrary of course.

Just dismissal and massive obfuscation every time the issue is raised.

> And fixating on a "UPS tracking number from Singh to Weil" is rather
> stupid for two reasons.

> One reason is the fact, clearly stated on RAO that the speakers
> weren't shipped from Singh, but from someone else (in California) who
> had them for evaluation. Soooo, failure to read duly noted.

Weil's inability to comprehend the concept of reasonable answer with
explanation, duly noted.

> I'll leave the other reason up to the dullest knife in the drawer to
> figure out for himself. I've got a week or two to kill...
>
> Arnold is the only mouse that I know of who thinks he's a cat. Of
> course, it keeps him off the street and out of harm's way, so i
> suppose there's an upside to it.

Continued posturing, name-calling and obfuscation duly noted.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:27:03 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:00:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:17:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>>> om
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sold any speakers yet?
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm guessing you might not even have the resources to retrieve the
>>>>>> pair you sent to Dave until your next unemployment check arrives.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note post:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=k9-dnbo45960AOOiU-KYvg%40comcast.com
>>>>>
>>>>> I asked for the UPS tracking number for the shipment from Singh to
>>>>> Weil.
>>>>>
>>>>> No answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meaningful?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it means that I don't jump when you say jump. Also, you might
>>>> want to keep reading.
>>>
>>> Non-performance and promise of future non-performance on a critical
>>> is point noted. I'll let people reach whatever conclusions they want
>>> to.
>>
>> Yes, let us. I doubt that even guys like Joe or Mike think that I
>> didn't have the speakers in hand (or *still* have the speakers in hand
>> for that matter).
>>
>>> End of discussion - plenty of evidence that there were never any
>>> speakers.
>>
>> No evidence of the contrary of course.
>
>Just dismissal and massive obfuscation every time the issue is raised.
>
>> And fixating on a "UPS tracking number from Singh to Weil" is rather
>> stupid for two reasons.
>
>> One reason is the fact, clearly stated on RAO that the speakers
>> weren't shipped from Singh, but from someone else (in California) who
>> had them for evaluation. Soooo, failure to read duly noted.
>
>Weil's inability to comprehend the concept of reasonable answer with
>explanation, duly noted.
>
>> I'll leave the other reason up to the dullest knife in the drawer to
>> figure out for himself. I've got a week or two to kill...
>>
>> Arnold is the only mouse that I know of who thinks he's a cat. Of
>> course, it keeps him off the street and out of harm's way, so i
>> suppose there's an upside to it.
>
>Continued posturing, name-calling and obfuscation duly noted.

Yes, and I wish you'd stop it.

You can't even ask a diret question, can you?

It's that ole debating trade technique at work.

At least it keeps you off the streets and out of unsuspecting
dentists' offices.

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> om
>
>
>>Sold any speakers yet?
>
>
>>I'm guessing you might not even have the resources to retrieve the
>>pair you sent to Dave until your next unemployment check arrives.
>
>
> Note post:
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=k9-dnbo45960AOOiU-KYvg%40comcast.com
>
> I asked for the UPS tracking number for the shipment from Singh to Weil.
>
> No answer.
>
> Meaningful?
>
> It seems like either Singh or Weil could come up with a valid one in 3 days,
> if it existed...
>
> Bottom line seems to be that imaginary speakers don't need to be shipped
> back!


That's odd, because I just called Fedex to arrange for a pickup five
minutes ago.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:55:35 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> om
>>
>>
>>>Sold any speakers yet?
>>
>>
>>>I'm guessing you might not even have the resources to retrieve the
>>>pair you sent to Dave until your next unemployment check arrives.
>>
>>
>> Note post:
>>
>> http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=k9-dnbo45960AOOiU-KYvg%40comcast.com
>>
>> I asked for the UPS tracking number for the shipment from Singh to Weil.
>>
>> No answer.
>>
>> Meaningful?
>>
>> It seems like either Singh or Weil could come up with a valid one in 3 days,
>> if it existed...
>>
>> Bottom line seems to be that imaginary speakers don't need to be shipped
>> back!
>
>
>That's odd, because I just called Fedex to arrange for a pickup five
>minutes ago.

So you *can't* provide a UPS tracking number. According to Arnold,
this means that the speakers don't exist.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:55:35 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>"ScottW" > wrote in message
om
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sold any speakers yet?
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm guessing you might not even have the resources to retrieve the
>>>>pair you sent to Dave until your next unemployment check arrives.
>>>
>>>
>>>Note post:
>>>
>>>http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=k9-dnbo45960AOOiU-KYvg%40comcast.com
>>>
>>>I asked for the UPS tracking number for the shipment from Singh to Weil.
>>>
>>>No answer.
>>>
>>>Meaningful?
>>>
>>>It seems like either Singh or Weil could come up with a valid one in 3 days,
>>>if it existed...
>>>
>>>Bottom line seems to be that imaginary speakers don't need to be shipped
>>>back!
>>
>>
>>That's odd, because I just called Fedex to arrange for a pickup five
>>minutes ago.
>
>
> So you *can't* provide a UPS tracking number. According to Arnold,
> this means that the speakers don't exist.



I've got tracking no.'s: 045792273595583
045792273595590

I doubt Arny is smart enough to realize that these are Fedex tracking
no.'s, and not UPS tracking no.'s. Perhaps Fedex is more conducive to
helping with conspiracies.

[The Devil]

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 22:52:13 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>no.'s, and not UPS tracking no.'s.

What of no's are you speakering, mammy?

--
td

[Lionel]

trotsky wrote:

> I've got tracking no.'s: 045792273595583
> 045792273595590
>
If I was you (LOL!) I would play this tracking numbers to the lottery...
It's your last chance. ;o)

[trotsky]

The Devil wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 22:52:13 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>no.'s, and not UPS tracking no.'s.
>
>
> What of no's are you speakering, mammy?



I can smell the alcoholic haze from here.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> >>no.'s, and not UPS tracking no.'s.

> > What of no's are you speakering, mammy?

> I can smell the alcoholic haze from here.

Can you gibber in any other languages, Mr. World-Class Mother****ing
Language Expert?

[The Devil]

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:43:45 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>I can smell the alcoholic haze from here.

I bet it costs more to get this ****ed than you'll be making from your
Madisound kits, mommy's boy.

--
td

[trotsky]

The Devil wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:43:45 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>I can smell the alcoholic haze from here.
>
>
> I bet it costs more to get this ****ed than you'll be making from your
> Madisound kits, mommy's boy.



At least you agreed with me that you're (a) drunk.

[Lionel]

trotsky wrote:

>
>
> The Devil wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:43:45 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I can smell the alcoholic haze from here.
>>
>>
>>
>> I bet it costs more to get this ****ed than you'll be making from your
>> Madisound kits, mommy's boy.
>
>
>
>
> At least you agreed with me that you're (a) drunk.
>
Only if you admit that you are (a) Mommy****er...

[The Devil]

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:58:33 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>The Devil wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:43:45 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I can smell the alcoholic haze from here.
>>
>>
>> I bet it costs more to get this ****ed than you'll be making from your
>> Madisound kits, mommy's boy.
>
>
>
>At least you agreed with me that you're (a) drunk.

At this exact moment I am not, but I have been known to imbibe, oh
yes. 'Drunk' depends on how much I have consumed, of course, but I
will confirm that I am indeed susceptible to the effects of alcohol.
How clever of you to smoke those admissions out of me at the cost of
ruining your speaker business. You're a mother****ing genius.

--
td

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message

> dave weil wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:55:35 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>> om
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sold any speakers yet?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm guessing you might not even have the resources to retrieve the
>>>>> pair you sent to Dave until your next unemployment check arrives.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note post:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=k9-dnbo45960AOOiU-KYvg%40comcast.com
>>>>
>>>> I asked for the UPS tracking number for the shipment from Singh to
>>>> Weil.
>>>>
>>>> No answer.
>>>>
>>>> Meaningful?
>>>>
>>>> It seems like either Singh or Weil could come up with a valid one
>>>> in 3 days, if it existed...
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line seems to be that imaginary speakers don't need to be
>>>> shipped back!
>>>
>>>
>>> That's odd, because I just called Fedex to arrange for a pickup five
>>> minutes ago.

>> So you *can't* provide a UPS tracking number. According to Arnold,
>> this means that the speakers don't exist.

My mistake. I confused Weil's incompetence and unending fulminating
obfuscation with a real cover-up.

> I've got tracking no.'s: 045792273595583
> 045792273595590

Burbank -> Nashville, natch.

> I doubt Arny is smart enough to realize that these are Fedex tracking
> no.'s, and not UPS tracking no.'s.

Obviously Singh never heard of checksums.

> Perhaps Fedex is more conducive to helping with conspiracies.

In this case it's quite clear that Singh can rise to factual challenges far
better than Weil.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:22:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> Perhaps Fedex is more conducive to helping with conspiracies.
>
>In this case it's quite clear that Singh can rise to factual challenges far
>better than Weil.

That's because he's a submissive.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Lionel wrote:


>> At least you agreed with me that you're (a) drunk.
>>
> Only if you admit that you are (a) Mommy****er...
>

Heh. If I was to choose the lamest term Ive heard used
as an insult on Usenet in over a decade, "mommy****er"
would be in the top ten.

Come on. At least TRY to not make a fool of yourself.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Arny Krueger wrote:


>>I've got tracking no.'s: 045792273595583
>>045792273595590
>
>
> Burbank -> Nashville, natch.

Burbank? Is that where the speakers are now? Dang - I live ten minutes
from there.

[Lionel]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Lionel wrote:
>
>
>>> At least you agreed with me that you're (a) drunk.
>>>
>> Only if you admit that you are (a) Mommy****er...
>>
>
> Heh. If I was to choose the lamest term Ive heard used
> as an insult on Usenet in over a decade, "mommy****er"
> would be in the top ten.
>
> Come on. At least TRY to not make a fool of yourself.
>
Thank you for the tip. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
nk.net
> Arny Krueger wrote:

>>> I've got tracking no.'s: 045792273595583
>>> 045792273595590

>> Burbank -> Nashville, natch.

> Burbank? Is that where the speakers are now? Dang - I live ten
> minutes from there.

No, that's where they came from.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:22:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps Fedex is more conducive to helping with conspiracies.
>>
>> In this case it's quite clear that Singh can rise to factual
>> challenges far better than Weil.
>
> That's because he's a submissive.
>
> Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

Interesting, but slightly chilling peek into the Weil world view.

[trotsky]

The Devil wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:58:33 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>The Devil wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:43:45 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I can smell the alcoholic haze from here.
>>>
>>>
>>>I bet it costs more to get this ****ed than you'll be making from your
>>>Madisound kits, mommy's boy.
>>
>>
>>
>>At least you agreed with me that you're (a) drunk.
>
>
> At this exact moment I am not, but I have been known to imbibe, oh
> yes. 'Drunk' depends on how much I have consumed, of course, but I
> will confirm that I am indeed susceptible to the effects of alcohol.


Not good enough. Have you or have you not been treated for alcoholism?
This is the court of public opinion, and I'm calling your credibility
into question. Take as much time as you need to answer.

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>
>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:55:35 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"ScottW" > wrote in message
om
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Sold any speakers yet?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm guessing you might not even have the resources to retrieve the
>>>>>>pair you sent to Dave until your next unemployment check arrives.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Note post:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=k9-dnbo45960AOOiU-KYvg%40comcast.com
>>>>>
>>>>>I asked for the UPS tracking number for the shipment from Singh to
>>>>>Weil.
>>>>>
>>>>>No answer.
>>>>>
>>>>>Meaningful?
>>>>>
>>>>>It seems like either Singh or Weil could come up with a valid one
>>>>>in 3 days, if it existed...
>>>>>
>>>>>Bottom line seems to be that imaginary speakers don't need to be
>>>>>shipped back!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's odd, because I just called Fedex to arrange for a pickup five
>>>>minutes ago.
>>>
>
>>>So you *can't* provide a UPS tracking number. According to Arnold,
>>>this means that the speakers don't exist.
>>
>
> My mistake. I confused Weil's incompetence and unending fulminating
> obfuscation with a real cover-up.
>
>
>>I've got tracking no.'s: 045792273595583
>>045792273595590
>
>
> Burbank -> Nashville, natch.


Do you think weil is the only possible person who could've evaluated
them for me? How small minded are you, Arny?


>>I doubt Arny is smart enough to realize that these are Fedex tracking
>>no.'s, and not UPS tracking no.'s.
>
>
> Obviously Singh never heard of checksums.


I've heard of them, but have no idea what they mean. Why not be a good
Christian and tell us.


>>Perhaps Fedex is more conducive to helping with conspiracies.
>
>
> In this case it's quite clear that Singh can rise to factual challenges far
> better than Weil.


That's pretty lame, Arny, even by your super-low standards. You
shouldn't try to think for yourself, it's already injured your brain.

[The Devil]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 11:40:51 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>Not good enough. Have you or have you not been treated for alcoholism?

ROTFLMAO!

My God, man.

> This is the court of public opinion, and I'm calling your credibility
>into question. Take as much time as you need to answer.

It took a second or two. For one, it's a really stupid question that
has nothing to do with either you or your speaker scam. And for two, I
find it hilarious that you simply expect people to kowtow to your
random, idiotic demands, just like Krooger expects it. If you don't
answer immediately, you're lying, hiding something, or in some other
way demonstrating a deception.

You're a total ****ing nutcase, Greg.

--
td

And the answer is no, anyway. Now move on to ask about marriage
counselling, drug counselling, etc., etc., etc.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:22:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Perhaps Fedex is more conducive to helping with conspiracies.
>>
>>In this case it's quite clear that Singh can rise to factual challenges far
>>better than Weil.
>
>
> That's because he's a submissive.
>
> Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.


You and Middius must have more of a relationship than I thought.

[trotsky]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>>> I've got tracking no.'s: 045792273595583
>>> 045792273595590
>>
>>
>>
>> Burbank -> Nashville, natch.
>
>
> Burbank? Is that where the speakers are now? Dang - I live ten minutes
> from there.


Joe, you're amazing! You're so ****ing stupid that you can't even tell
what direction an arrow is pointing! Choke on any pretzels lately?

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
> nk.net
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>>>>I've got tracking no.'s: 045792273595583
>>>>045792273595590
>>>
>
>>>Burbank -> Nashville, natch.
>>
>
>>Burbank? Is that where the speakers are now? Dang - I live ten
>>minutes from there.
>
>
> No, that's where they came from.



Amazing! It's like a contest to see who can look like more of an idiot!
Don't worry, Arny, Joe has pulled well into the lead on this one. But
Bob Morion, Lord of the Idiots, is trying to make a play to pass both of
you, so watch out.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
> nk.net
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>>>>I've got tracking no.'s: 045792273595583
>>>>045792273595590
>
>
>>>Burbank -> Nashville, natch.
>
>
>>Burbank? Is that where the speakers are now? Dang - I live ten
>>minutes from there.
>
>
> No, that's where they came from.

Oh. Humm - that means I can go look at them if he starts selling
them on consignment/etc - because he'll go to a local audio store
or two first. It would actually be interesting to hear them.

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:


> Amazing! It's like a contest to see who can look like more of an idiot!
> Don't worry, Arny, Joe has pulled well into the lead on this one. But
> Bob Morion, Lord of the Idiots, is trying to make a play to pass both of
> you, so watch out.

I *was* talking about it because I might ctually like to get a look at them
sometime if you manage to get a local audio store to carry them.

I bet I've even run into you once or twice in audio stores over the years
if you are local to me. Which one did/do you work in?

[trotsky]

The Devil wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 11:40:51 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>Not good enough. Have you or have you not been treated for alcoholism?
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
> My God, man.


So you're not going to answer the question? Have you been "on the
wagon"? What were the circumstances?


>> This is the court of public opinion, and I'm calling your credibility
>>into question. Take as much time as you need to answer.
>
>
> It took a second or two. For one, it's a really stupid question that
> has nothing to do with either you or your speaker scam.


It looks like I've hit home again. Man, the words "the court of public
opinion" must've burned through your brain like a magnifying glass
through an ant. (Now that's an apt analogy!) This is your big chance,
Dev: clearly you want people to believe you are credible, and you refuse
to expound on that. What's the problem, buddy?

[Arny Krueger]

"The Devil" > wrote in message
news:8ju7ov0h3qmk3k2r075n8u8o5a16rtgikn@rdmzrnewst xt.nz
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 11:40:51 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>> Not good enough. Have you or have you not been treated for
>> alcoholism?
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
> My God, man.
>
>> This is the court of public opinion, and I'm calling your
>> credibility into question. Take as much time as you need to answer.
>
> It took a second or two. For one, it's a really stupid question that
> has nothing to do with either you or your speaker scam. And for two, I
> find it hilarious that you simply expect people to kowtow to your
> random, idiotic demands, just like Krooger expects it.

We know that in your book Graham, "random, idiotic, demand" often means
merely expecting you to be accountable and honest. You are accountable
and/or honest so infrequently, those instances have to be mistakes on your
part.

>If you don't
> answer immediately, you're lying, hiding something, or in some other
> way demonstrating a deception.

This logic just worked fine with Weil. Since the two of you are
birds-of-a-feather and long-term co-conspirators, why shouldn't it work with
you, Graham or whatever your name is?

> You're a total ****ing nutcase, Greg.

If irony killed, we'd all...

[The Devil]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:40:24 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>The Devil wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 11:40:51 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Not good enough. Have you or have you not been treated for alcoholism?
>>
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!
>>
>> My God, man.
>
>
>So you're not going to answer the question? Have you been "on the
>wagon"? What were the circumstances?
>
>
>>> This is the court of public opinion, and I'm calling your credibility
>>>into question. Take as much time as you need to answer.
>>
>>
>> It took a second or two. For one, it's a really stupid question that
>> has nothing to do with either you or your speaker scam.
>
>
>It looks like I've hit home again. Man, the words "the court of public
>opinion" must've burned through your brain like a magnifying glass
>through an ant. (Now that's an apt analogy!) This is your big chance,
>Dev: clearly you want people to believe you are credible, and you refuse
>to expound on that. What's the problem, buddy?

Is it just me, or does this make no sense at all?

--
td

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> If irony killed, we'd all...

I'm not ironic.

Stephen

[The Devil]

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 08:47:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>We

How many times until you learn, paedo? I might skim-read one in twenty
of your posts. Don't bother talking to me. I don't read what you
write.

--
td

[The Devil]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 13:09:54 GMT, MiNE 109 >
wrote:

>> If irony killed, we'd all...
>
>I'm not ironic.

Now that was ironic.

--
td

[Arny Krueger]

"The Devil" > wrote in message
news:pi38ovk78v7ufqtkrhqfmeci629kouoe34@rdmzrnewst xt.nz
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 08:47:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> We
>
> How many times until you learn, paedo? I might skim-read one in twenty
> of your posts. Don't bother talking to me. I don't read what you
> write.

Do you seriously think that I write replies to your posts just for you to
read, Graham?

Hey boys, we've got another one that just fell off the turnip truck!

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:27:03 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:00:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:17:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>>>> om
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sold any speakers yet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm guessing you might not even have the resources to retrieve
>>>>>>> the pair you sent to Dave until your next unemployment check
>>>>>>> arrives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note post:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=k9-dnbo45960AOOiU-KYvg%40comcast.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I asked for the UPS tracking number for the shipment from Singh
>>>>>> to Weil.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meaningful?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it means that I don't jump when you say jump. Also, you might
>>>>> want to keep reading.
>>>>
>>>> Non-performance and promise of future non-performance on a
>>>> critical is point noted. I'll let people reach whatever
>>>> conclusions they want to.
>>>
>>> Yes, let us. I doubt that even guys like Joe or Mike think that I
>>> didn't have the speakers in hand (or *still* have the speakers in
>>> hand for that matter).
>>>
>>>> End of discussion - plenty of evidence that there were never any
>>>> speakers.
>>>
>>> No evidence of the contrary of course.
>>
>> Just dismissal and massive obfuscation every time the issue is
>> raised.
>>
>>> And fixating on a "UPS tracking number from Singh to Weil" is rather
>>> stupid for two reasons.
>>
>>> One reason is the fact, clearly stated on RAO that the speakers
>>> weren't shipped from Singh, but from someone else (in California)
>>> who had them for evaluation. Soooo, failure to read duly noted.
>>
>> Weil's inability to comprehend the concept of reasonable answer with
>> explanation, duly noted.

>>> I'll leave the other reason up to the dullest knife in the drawer to
>>> figure out for himself. I've got a week or two to kill...

>>> Arnold is the only mouse that I know of who thinks he's a cat. Of
>>> course, it keeps him off the street and out of harm's way, so i
>>> suppose there's an upside to it.

>> Continued posturing, name-calling and obfuscation duly noted.

> Yes, and I wish you'd stop it.

Obfuscation.

> You can't even ask a diret question, can you?

I don't know what a "diret" question might be.

> It's that ole debating trade technique at work.

See where your dominatrix act got you, Singh? Singh ponied up the true facts
and made you look like an even bigger idiot than you already had made of
yourself.

> At least it keeps you off the streets and out of unsuspecting dentists'
offices.

Whatever that means.

[trotsky]

The Devil wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:40:24 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>The Devil wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 11:40:51 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Not good enough. Have you or have you not been treated for alcoholism?
>>>
>>>
>>>ROTFLMAO!
>>>
>>>My God, man.
>>
>>
>>So you're not going to answer the question? Have you been "on the
>>wagon"? What were the circumstances?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>This is the court of public opinion, and I'm calling your credibility
>>>>into question. Take as much time as you need to answer.
>>>
>>>
>>>It took a second or two. For one, it's a really stupid question that
>>>has nothing to do with either you or your speaker scam.
>>
>>
>>It looks like I've hit home again. Man, the words "the court of public
>>opinion" must've burned through your brain like a magnifying glass
>>through an ant. (Now that's an apt analogy!) This is your big chance,
>>Dev: clearly you want people to believe you are credible, and you refuse
>>to expound on that. What's the problem, buddy?
>
>
> Is it just me, or does this make no sense at all?


You mean you don't want credibility? You're certainly on the right track!

[dave weil]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:00:32 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:22:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Perhaps Fedex is more conducive to helping with conspiracies.
>>>
>>>In this case it's quite clear that Singh can rise to factual challenges far
>>>better than Weil.
>>
>>
>> That's because he's a submissive.
>>
>> Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
>
>
>You and Middius must have more of a relationship than I thought.

I doubt it. You actually have more of a relationship with him than I
do, since money has actually changed hands between you.

Arnold says jump and you say, "How high"? That's pretty submissive...

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message


> Arnold says jump and you say, "How high"? That's pretty submissive...

Nahh, it's just that Singh finally figured out that one way to make me drop
an issue is to give me a believable answer.

OTOH Weil, you want to play dominatrix to the bitter end. So be it!

[dave weil]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:31:52 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> wrote:

>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
>> nk.net
>>
>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>I've got tracking no.'s: 045792273595583
>>>>>045792273595590
>>
>>
>>>>Burbank -> Nashville, natch.
>>
>>
>>>Burbank? Is that where the speakers are now? Dang - I live ten
>>>minutes from there.
>>
>>
>> No, that's where they came from.
>
>Oh. Humm - that means I can go look at them if he starts selling
>them on consignment/etc - because he'll go to a local audio store
>or two first. It would actually be interesting to hear them.

It *is* interesting to hear them. I think it's rather important to
hear them before commenting on them. Because, despite what Arnold and
Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT mediocre
speakers in the least. They do FAR more things right than they do
wrong. And that puts them ahead of many commercial designs.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:51:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> It's that ole debating trade technique at work.
>
>See where your dominatrix act got you, Singh? Singh ponied up the true facts
>and made you look like an even bigger idiot than you already had made of
>yourself.

Terminally confused again, I see.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:47:58 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>
>> Arnold says jump and you say, "How high"? That's pretty submissive...
>
>Nahh, it's just that Singh finally figured out that one way to make me drop
>an issue is to give me a believable answer.
>
>OTOH Weil, you want to play dominatrix to the bitter end. So be it!

You seem fixated on sexual dominance and submission. Is this a clue to
your personality? Because, submission has more than just sexual
connotations, you know. Or maybe youdon't.

Thanks for the window into your soul.

BTW, I'm surprised that you accepted the tracking numbers of proof
that speakers were sent to me. Normally, you'd whine about the fact
that there doesn't seem to be a product description. Heck, he could
have sent me 60 lbs of refrigerator magnets.

Good boy, Arnold. Sit.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:31:52 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> > wrote:
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in
>>> message nk.net
>>>
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> I've got tracking no.'s: 045792273595583
>>>>>> 045792273595590
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Burbank -> Nashville, natch.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Burbank? Is that where the speakers are now? Dang - I live ten
>>>> minutes from there.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, that's where they came from.
>>
>> Oh. Humm - that means I can go look at them if he starts selling
>> them on consignment/etc - because he'll go to a local audio store
>> or two first. It would actually be interesting to hear them.
>
> It *is* interesting to hear them. I think it's rather important to
> hear them before commenting on them. Because, despite what Arnold and
> Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT mediocre
> speakers in the least.

That would depend on whether one's baseline is say Klipsch Cornwalls or
something a little more modern...

>They do FAR more things right than they do wrong.

In the opinion of someone seems to who think that Klipsch Cornwalls are a
SOTA speaker...

>And that puts them ahead of many commercial designs.

I don't doubt that, there's some real crap out there. But most of it sells
for less than $300 a pair.

[tor b]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 10/8/2003 11:10 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >

<snipped>

dave weil wrote:

>> It *is* interesting to hear them [Jupiter Audio Europas]. I think it's
rather important to
>> hear them before commenting on them. Because, despite what Arnold and
>> Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT mediocre
>> speakers in the least.

Arny Krueger:





>That would depend on whether one's baseline is say Klipsch Cornwalls or
>something a little more modern...

What a joke! weil is comparing Singh's 'lil' ****boxes to Cornwalls (straight
out of the 1950s), some 20+ year old Allisons and his recollection of
recordings played long ago in a different room through a pair of now-deceased
speakers. :-(

>>They do FAR more things right than they do wrong.
>
>In the opinion of someone seems to who think that Klipsch Cornwalls are a
>SOTA speaker...

Not SOTA anytime after, say, 1958. At least in the real world. ;-)

[ScottW]

dave weil > wrote in message >...

> If I thought that you *really* believed that
> there was no speaker shopped to me, I might be willing to provide the
> info.

Trots,
Were really shopping your speakers to Weil? Is this some new marketing concept?

ScottW

[ScottW]

dave weil > wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:22:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >> Perhaps Fedex is more conducive to helping with conspiracies.
> >
> >In this case it's quite clear that Singh can rise to factual challenges far
> >better than Weil.
>
> That's because he's a submissive.
>
> Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

Now you're gonna have all the crazy's dropping by your house, Dave
since Trots as good as published a link to your address.
Nice unauthorized disclosure of personal info there Trots. You let
Kreuger play you.

What were the speakers doing in Burbank?

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:10:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>That would depend on whether one's baseline is say Klipsch Cornwalls or
>something a little more modern...

You mean like the speakers that you own from the last millenium?

I'm just surprised to find you bashing Klipsches, especially
time-proven designs like the Cornwalls.

The proof of their value is far more documented than, say, an
anonymous pair of Boston Acoustics speakers that rest in one of your
listening rooms.

If you choose not to like horn systems, that's fine. But to see you
turn on one of the true pioneers of audio is pretty out of character.
It just shows how petty you can be when the onlyreason you're trashing
these speakers is because *I* happen to own a pair.

[dave weil]

On 08 Oct 2003 16:22:18 GMT, (tor b) wrote:

>>From: "Arny Krueger"
>>Date: 10/8/2003 11:10 AM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>
><snipped>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>
>>> It *is* interesting to hear them [Jupiter Audio Europas]. I think it's
>rather important to
>>> hear them before commenting on them. Because, despite what Arnold and
>>> Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT mediocre
>>> speakers in the least.
>
>Arny Krueger:
>
>
>
>
>
>>That would depend on whether one's baseline is say Klipsch Cornwalls or
>>something a little more modern...
>
>What a joke! weil is comparing Singh's 'lil' ****boxes to Cornwalls (straight
>out of the 1950s), some 20+ year old Allisons

Wrong again.

> and his recollection of recordings played long ago in a different room through a pair of now-deceased
>speakers. :-(
>
>>>They do FAR more things right than they do wrong.
>>
>>In the opinion of someone seems to who think that Klipsch Cornwalls are a
>>SOTA speaker...
>
>Not SOTA anytime after, say, 1958. At least in the real world. ;-)

Well, at least I *have* equipment.

You, on the other hand...

....do you really have anything substantial to contribute? Other than
stealing a *real* creative writer's moniker?

[dave weil]

On 8 Oct 2003 10:01:17 -0700, (ScottW) wrote:

>dave weil > wrote in message >...
>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:22:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Perhaps Fedex is more conducive to helping with conspiracies.
>> >
>> >In this case it's quite clear that Singh can rise to factual challenges far
>> >better than Weil.
>>
>> That's because he's a submissive.
>>
>> Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
>
> Now you're gonna have all the crazy's dropping by your house, Dave
>since Trots as good as published a link to your address.

Well, they've always been able to figure that out simply by looking up
my name in a people search. I've never hidden my identity, place of
residence, etc. I have a listed phone number and everything. That has
never stopped Mr. Krueger from claiming all sorts of things about my
veracity though. That's his stock-in-trade.

I *still* believe that this was his intent from the beginning - that
he didn't really believe that the speakers were fictional. He can deny
it 'till the cows come home...

> Nice unauthorized disclosure of personal info there Trots. You let
>Kreuger play you.

Well, that's true. I think it was wrong for him to post that
information. But it doesn't really bother me all that much. I can take
care of myself, and, unlike some of the cowards in this group, I'd be
happy to debate anyone on my front porch face to face.

Still, he should apologize because I never authorized him to release
any personal information about me. I forgive him though, because he's
apparently not able to think that far ahead.

> What were the speakers doing in Burbank?

Haven't you been paying attention.

[The Devil]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 10:51:31 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>It *is* interesting to hear them. I think it's rather important to
>hear them before commenting on them. Because, despite what Arnold and
>Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT mediocre

Ah, ah, now. I didn't say that. I said the drivers are pretty
mediocre, which they are. I have no opinion about how the speakers
sound. I cannot know that, of course, without hearing them. I may just
buy the drivers and crossover from Madisound and make a pair to find
out.

Part of what I find interesting is how much Greg is expecting people
to pay to have him put a Madisound kit together for them. All of the
qualities Greg says must inhabit a speaker to meet his world-class
performance benchmark . . . well? How did he design the speakers to
posses those qualities? According to Greg, it was just a matter of
doing a week's worth of research, settling on some relatively unknown
drivers just because people won't be familiar with them (feeeel the
buuuuzzzzzz), calling Madisound and asking them for a crossover
schematic, getting the polarity right on the tweeters, and then
fiddling around with the stuffing until he could feel some air
movement around the bass port. Oh, and no neoprene gasket, natch.

What a load of bull****. It's a total con. He hasn't designed
anything. There is no Gregness in these speakers. I bet he doesn't
even have the first idea how they work.

>speakers in the least. They do FAR more things right than they do
>wrong. And that puts them ahead of many commercial designs.

Maybe. Potential customers will be glad to know they can buy all the
parts from Madisound and have a decent cabinet made all for a fraction
of the cost Greg is charging. It will be their own judgement call of
course whether doing ten minutes soldering and sticking a few drivers
in a box is worth a grand to them.

--
td

[Donky]

rfgf
"The Devil" > schreef in bericht
news:ks18ov0joe598jgnkhe0df4gt0eim0sqhq@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:40:24 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
> >The Devil wrote:
> >> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 11:40:51 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Not good enough. Have you or have you not been treated for alcoholism?
> >>
> >>
> >> ROTFLMAO!
> >>
> >> My God, man.
> >
> >
> >So you're not going to answer the question? Have you been "on the
> >wagon"? What were the circumstances?
> >
> >
> >>> This is the court of public opinion, and I'm calling your credibility
> >>>into question. Take as much time as you need to answer.
> >>
> >>
> >> It took a second or two. For one, it's a really stupid question that
> >> has nothing to do with either you or your speaker scam.
> >
> >
> >It looks like I've hit home again. Man, the words "the court of public
> >opinion" must've burned through your brain like a magnifying glass
> >through an ant. (Now that's an apt analogy!) This is your big chance,
> >Dev: clearly you want people to believe you are credible, and you refuse
> >to expound on that. What's the problem, buddy?
>
> Is it just me, or does this make no sense at all?
>
> --
> td

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>

> > It *is* interesting to hear them. I think it's rather important to
> > hear them before commenting on them. Because, despite what Arnold and
> > Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT mediocre
> > speakers in the least.
>
> That would depend on whether one's baseline is say Klipsch Cornwalls or
> something a little more modern...

Dev, remind me: why do they call Quad ESLs "63s"?

Stephen

[Max Holubitsky]

MiNE 109 wrote:

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "dave weil" > wrote in message
> >
>
> > > It *is* interesting to hear them. I think it's rather important to
> > > hear them before commenting on them. Because, despite what Arnold and
> > > Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT mediocre
> > > speakers in the least.
> >
> > That would depend on whether one's baseline is say Klipsch Cornwalls or
> > something a little more modern...
>
> Dev, remind me: why do they call Quad ESLs "63s"?
>
> Stephen

Development of that model started in 1963
the original one is called the 57, because it came out in 1957
Max

[MiNE 109]

In article >, Max Holubitsky >
wrote:

> MiNE 109 wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > "dave weil" > wrote in message
> > >
> >
> > > > It *is* interesting to hear them. I think it's rather important to
> > > > hear them before commenting on them. Because, despite what Arnold and
> > > > Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT mediocre
> > > > speakers in the least.
> > >
> > > That would depend on whether one's baseline is say Klipsch Cornwalls or
> > > something a little more modern...
> >
> > Dev, remind me: why do they call Quad ESLs "63s"?

> Development of that model started in 1963
> the original one is called the 57, because it came out in 1957

State of the art for midrange is arguably 45 years old, then. I guess
modernity isn't the only standard.

Stephen

[The Devil]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:21:36 GMT, MiNE 109 >
wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>
>> > It *is* interesting to hear them. I think it's rather important to
>> > hear them before commenting on them. Because, despite what Arnold and
>> > Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT mediocre
>> > speakers in the least.
>>
>> That would depend on whether one's baseline is say Klipsch Cornwalls or
>> something a little more modern...
>
>Dev, remind me: why do they call Quad ESLs "63s"?

Oooh, lemme guess, lemme guess. Is it some secret measure of how good
they sound? Could there be a Mother****ing 63 and a Stainless Steel 63
and an Effete 63 for girlie music? What about a Toilet Paper 63 for
test tones?

--
td

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
The Devil > wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:21:36 GMT, MiNE 109 >
> wrote:
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> >>
> >
> >> > It *is* interesting to hear them. I think it's rather important to
> >> > hear them before commenting on them. Because, despite what Arnold and
> >> > Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT mediocre
> >> > speakers in the least.
> >>
> >> That would depend on whether one's baseline is say Klipsch Cornwalls or
> >> something a little more modern...
> >
> >Dev, remind me: why do they call Quad ESLs "63s"?
>
> Oooh, lemme guess, lemme guess. Is it some secret measure of how good
> they sound? Could there be a Mother****ing 63 and a Stainless Steel 63
> and an Effete 63 for girlie music? What about a Toilet Paper 63 for
> test tones?

Oh, like Heinz 57 varieties, except it's 63, unless you have Quad 57s.

Stephen

[The Devil]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 20:10:31 GMT, MiNe 109
> wrote:

>> Oooh, lemme guess, lemme guess. Is it some secret measure of how good
>> they sound? Could there be a Mother****ing 63 and a Stainless Steel 63
>> and an Effete 63 for girlie music? What about a Toilet Paper 63 for
>> test tones?
>
>Oh, like Heinz 57 varieties, except it's 63, unless you have Quad 57s.

Any minute now we're going to be accused of being gay.

Where's my dentist when I need him . . .

--
td

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
The Devil > wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 20:10:31 GMT, MiNe 109
> > wrote:
>
> >> Oooh, lemme guess, lemme guess. Is it some secret measure of how good
> >> they sound? Could there be a Mother****ing 63 and a Stainless Steel 63
> >> and an Effete 63 for girlie music? What about a Toilet Paper 63 for
> >> test tones?
> >
> >Oh, like Heinz 57 varieties, except it's 63, unless you have Quad 57s.
>
> Any minute now we're going to be accused of being gay.

Or being a geek:

http://www.themightygeek.com/mtarchives/000130.php

> Where's my dentist when I need him . . .

Dentist or Dentist 2?

http://members.fortunecity.com/roogulator/horror/dentist2.htm

Stephen

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:00:32 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:22:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Perhaps Fedex is more conducive to helping with conspiracies.
>>>>
>>>>In this case it's quite clear that Singh can rise to factual challenges far
>>>>better than Weil.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's because he's a submissive.
>>>
>>>Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
>>
>>
>>You and Middius must have more of a relationship than I thought.
>
>
> I doubt it. You actually have more of a relationship with him than I
> do, since money has actually changed hands between you.
>
> Arnold says jump and you say, "How high"? That's pretty submissive...



Yeah, that's believable: I'm at Arny's beck and call all the time. Are
you grounded in reality on any topic, dave?

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On 8 Oct 2003 10:01:17 -0700, (ScottW) wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil > wrote in message >...
>>
>>>On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:22:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Perhaps Fedex is more conducive to helping with conspiracies.
>>>>
>>>>In this case it's quite clear that Singh can rise to factual challenges far
>>>>better than Weil.
>>>
>>>That's because he's a submissive.
>>>
>>>Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
>>
>>Now you're gonna have all the crazy's dropping by your house, Dave
>>since Trots as good as published a link to your address.
>
>
> Well, they've always been able to figure that out simply by looking up
> my name in a people search. I've never hidden my identity, place of
> residence, etc. I have a listed phone number and everything. That has
> never stopped Mr. Krueger from claiming all sorts of things about my
> veracity though. That's his stock-in-trade.


dave, can you tell me how you determine someone's address from Fedex
tracking no.'s? TIA.

[trotsky]

The Devil wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 10:51:31 -0500, dave weil >
> wrote:
>
>
>>It *is* interesting to hear them. I think it's rather important to
>>hear them before commenting on them. Because, despite what Arnold and
>>Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT mediocre
>
>
> Ah, ah, now. I didn't say that. I said the drivers are pretty
> mediocre, which they are.


You're talking out of your arse, Dev. (What new?) Can you give us a
ranking of some of the "really good" drivers? There's a dear. Don't
forget to take "Xmax" into account!


I have no opinion about how the speakers
> sound. I cannot know that, of course, without hearing them. I may just
> buy the drivers and crossover from Madisound and make a pair to find
> out.


Why not? You've been stealing my intellectual property for years.


> Part of what I find interesting is how much Greg is expecting people
> to pay to have him put a Madisound kit together for them. All of the
> qualities Greg says must inhabit a speaker to meet his world-class
> performance benchmark . . . well? How did he design the speakers to
> posses those qualities? According to Greg, it was just a matter of
> doing a week's worth of research, settling on some relatively unknown
> drivers just because people won't be familiar with them (feeeel the
> buuuuzzzzzz), calling Madisound and asking them for a crossover
> schematic, getting the polarity right on the tweeters, and then
> fiddling around with the stuffing until he could feel some air
> movement around the bass port. Oh, and no neoprene gasket, natch.


Dev, you're starting to sound desperate, just because dave weil wouldn't
propagate the lie you were complicit in. Like a puppet on a string,
really. Does Jiminy Cricket do a good job controlling those strings?


> What a load of bull****. It's a total con. He hasn't designed
> anything. There is no Gregness in these speakers. I bet he doesn't
> even have the first idea how they work.


You're not making sense, Dev: are you saying every product on the market
has to have specific design work done by the owner of the company to not
be a con? Did you hear that Trump Tower WASN'T designed by Donald
Trump? The horror! Thanks of the laugh, anyway.


>>speakers in the least. They do FAR more things right than they do
>>wrong. And that puts them ahead of many commercial designs.
>
>
> Maybe. Potential customers will be glad to know they can buy all the
> parts from Madisound and have a decent cabinet made all for a fraction
> of the cost Greg is charging. It will be their own judgement call of
> course whether doing ten minutes soldering and sticking a few drivers
> in a box is worth a grand to them.


Right, which compares to the work that you do how, exactly? Oh, that's
right, you lack the necessary ******** to have an actual identity.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> You've been stealing my intellectual property for years.

Shouldn't that be "my mother****ing intellectual property"?

[The Devil]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:08:29 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>You're

I wasn't talking to you, Looper.

--
td

[dave weil]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:59:15 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On 8 Oct 2003 10:01:17 -0700, (ScottW) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dave weil > wrote in message >...
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:22:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps Fedex is more conducive to helping with conspiracies.
>>>>>
>>>>>In this case it's quite clear that Singh can rise to factual challenges far
>>>>>better than Weil.
>>>>
>>>>That's because he's a submissive.
>>>>
>>>>Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
>>>
>>>Now you're gonna have all the crazy's dropping by your house, Dave
>>>since Trots as good as published a link to your address.
>>
>>
>> Well, they've always been able to figure that out simply by looking up
>> my name in a people search. I've never hidden my identity, place of
>> residence, etc. I have a listed phone number and everything. That has
>> never stopped Mr. Krueger from claiming all sorts of things about my
>> veracity though. That's his stock-in-trade.
>
>
>dave, can you tell me how you determine someone's address from Fedex
>tracking no.'s? TIA.

Yes, after you track it, you click on signature proof and then click
on continue. On that page you'll find the delivery address.

You're welcome.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >dave, can you tell me how you determine someone's address from Fedex
> >tracking no.'s? TIA.
>
> Yes, after you track it, you click on signature proof and then click
> on continue. On that page you'll find the delivery address.
>
> You're welcome.

Let's hope those instructions are too complex for Krooger. It says
"Signature Service Not Requested". More fodder for Mr. ****'s
"debating trade" games.

Unless your secret identity is "METCUSTOMER", of course.....

[Lionel]

trotsky wrote:

>
> Why not? You've been stealing my intellectual property for years.
>
I don't know who you are accusing here but if it's true I'm sure that he
has many remorses... ;-)

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:59:15 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On 8 Oct 2003 10:01:17 -0700, (ScottW) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dave weil > wrote in message >...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:22:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Perhaps Fedex is more conducive to helping with conspiracies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In this case it's quite clear that Singh can rise to factual challenges far
>>>>>>better than Weil.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's because he's a submissive.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
>>>>
>>>>Now you're gonna have all the crazy's dropping by your house, Dave
>>>>since Trots as good as published a link to your address.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, they've always been able to figure that out simply by looking up
>>>my name in a people search. I've never hidden my identity, place of
>>>residence, etc. I have a listed phone number and everything. That has
>>>never stopped Mr. Krueger from claiming all sorts of things about my
>>>veracity though. That's his stock-in-trade.
>>
>>
>>dave, can you tell me how you determine someone's address from Fedex
>>tracking no.'s? TIA.
>
>
> Yes, after you track it, you click on signature proof and then click
> on continue. On that page you'll find the delivery address.
>
> You're welcome.


In that case my apologies--Krueger had no business being privy to this
info. unless you specifically said so.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:42:07 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>dave weil said:
>
>> >dave, can you tell me how you determine someone's address from Fedex
>> >tracking no.'s? TIA.
>>
>> Yes, after you track it, you click on signature proof and then click
>> on continue. On that page you'll find the delivery address.
>>
>> You're welcome.
>
>Let's hope those instructions are too complex for Krooger. It says
>"Signature Service Not Requested". More fodder for Mr. ****'s
>"debating trade" games.
>
>Unless your secret identity is "METCUSTOMER", of course.....

Well, there's *that* too. Why he's not screaming that the FedEx
software is in cahoots with the Grand Conspiracy is a mystery.

Maybe he thinks it's just lying to him.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:07:04 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:59:15 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>dave weil wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 8 Oct 2003 10:01:17 -0700, (ScottW) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dave weil > wrote in message >...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:22:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Perhaps Fedex is more conducive to helping with conspiracies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In this case it's quite clear that Singh can rise to factual challenges far
>>>>>>>better than Weil.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's because he's a submissive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now you're gonna have all the crazy's dropping by your house, Dave
>>>>>since Trots as good as published a link to your address.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, they've always been able to figure that out simply by looking up
>>>>my name in a people search. I've never hidden my identity, place of
>>>>residence, etc. I have a listed phone number and everything. That has
>>>>never stopped Mr. Krueger from claiming all sorts of things about my
>>>>veracity though. That's his stock-in-trade.
>>>
>>>
>>>dave, can you tell me how you determine someone's address from Fedex
>>>tracking no.'s? TIA.
>>
>>
>> Yes, after you track it, you click on signature proof and then click
>> on continue. On that page you'll find the delivery address.
>>
>> You're welcome.
>
>
>In that case my apologies--Krueger had no business being privy to this
>info. unless you specifically said so.

Thanks. I appreciate that. No harm done really.

[Bruce J. Richman]

George M. Middius wrote:


>trotsky said:
>
>> You've been stealing my intellectual property for years.
>
>Shouldn't that be "my mother****ing intellectual property"?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The theft of Singh's intellectual property has been officially recognized by
the US Armed Forces. It can be found under Job Descriptions for Latrine Duty.




Bruce J. Richman

[The Devil]

On 09 Oct 2003 00:12:22 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman)
wrote:

>>> You've been stealing my intellectual property for years.

>>Shouldn't that be "my mother****ing intellectual property"?

>The theft of Singh's intellectual property has been officially recognized by
>the US Armed Forces. It can be found under Job Descriptions for Latrine Duty.

I find it fascinating that he would actually say that in response to
my post--I did clearly indicate I was going to purchase the kit from
*Madisound*.

And in any case, Greg does not have any intellectual property in the
Europa speaker.

I wonder if on Tuesdays he thinks he's a bag of onions.

--
td

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:31:52 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> > wrote:
> >
> >Oh. Humm - that means I can go look at them if he starts
selling
> >them on consignment/etc - because he'll go to a local audio
store
> >or two first. It would actually be interesting to hear them.
>
> It *is* interesting to hear them. I think it's rather important
to
> hear them before commenting on them.

Normally, I would agree. But since Trots doesn't think it is
important, why should anybody else?
He has a history of doing just that.
His marketing plan is to get people to buy them based upon a web
page.

> Because, despite what Arnold and
> Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT mediocre
> speakers in the least. They do FAR more things right than they
do
> wrong. And that puts them ahead of many commercial designs.

Name some comparably priced speakers currently on the market
that you think are inferior to the Jupiters, please.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message

> dave weil wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:00:32 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> dave weil wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:22:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps Fedex is more conducive to helping with conspiracies.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case it's quite clear that Singh can rise to factual
>>>>> challenges far better than Weil.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's because he's a submissive.
>>>>
>>>> Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
>>>
>>>
>>> You and Middius must have more of a relationship than I thought.
>>
>>
>> I doubt it. You actually have more of a relationship with him than I
>> do, since money has actually changed hands between you.
>>
>> Arnold says jump and you say, "How high"? That's pretty submissive...

> Yeah, that's believable: I'm at Arny's beck and call all the time.

Indeed. It seems like Weil is trying to move ahead in RAO's race to total
insanity.

> Are you grounded in reality on any topic, dave?

In Weil world, being reasonably agreeable tags you as a "submissive".

[tor 2 u]

Arny Krueger wrote in message >:

> > How many times until you learn, paedo? I might skim-read one in twenty
> > of your posts. Don't bother talking to me. I don't read what you
> > write.
>
> Do you seriously think that I write replies to your posts just for you to
> read, Graham?
>
> Hey boys, we've got another one that just fell off the turnip truck!
>


Arny, please don't talk like that. Who are those boys? When can I see you
without those boys? Please, Arny......



Arny is My Kroo-Daddy

[tor 2 u]

Arny Krueger wrote in message >:

> > You can't even ask a diret question, can you?
>
> I don't know what a "diret" question might be.

Arny, I think he made a typo. Do you ever make typos?


> > It's that ole debating trade technique at work.
>
> See where your dominatrix act got you, Singh? Singh ponied up the true facts
> and made you look like an even bigger idiot than you already had made of
> yourself.
>

What is this game Arny? This post is from Dave. I know he doesn't like you, and
Singh doesn't like you, but I always thought they are two different peoples. How
did you figure out they are the same person? Please explain it to me Arny. I'm
not smart like you but I want to understand everything the way you do.




Arny is My Kroo-Daddy

[dave weil]

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 22:06:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"trotsky" > wrote in message

>> dave weil wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:00:32 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> dave weil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:22:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps Fedex is more conducive to helping with conspiracies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case it's quite clear that Singh can rise to factual
>>>>>> challenges far better than Weil.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's because he's a submissive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You and Middius must have more of a relationship than I thought.
>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt it. You actually have more of a relationship with him than I
>>> do, since money has actually changed hands between you.
>>>
>>> Arnold says jump and you say, "How high"? That's pretty submissive...
>
>> Yeah, that's believable: I'm at Arny's beck and call all the time.
>
>Indeed. It seems like Weil is trying to move ahead in RAO's race to total
>insanity.
>
>> Are you grounded in reality on any topic, dave?
>
>In Weil world, being reasonably agreeable tags you as a "submissive".

Now *this* is worlds being turned upside down.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:36:34 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>> Because, despite what Arnold and
>> Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT mediocre
>> speakers in the least. They do FAR more things right than they
>do
>> wrong. And that puts them ahead of many commercial designs.
>
> Name some comparably priced speakers currently on the market
>that you think are inferior to the Jupiters, please.

I didn't mention price.

[trotsky]

The Devil wrote:
> On 09 Oct 2003 00:12:22 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman)
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>You've been stealing my intellectual property for years.
>>>
>
>>>Shouldn't that be "my mother****ing intellectual property"?
>>
>
>>The theft of Singh's intellectual property has been officially recognized by
>>the US Armed Forces. It can be found under Job Descriptions for Latrine Duty.
>
>
> I find it fascinating that he would actually say that in response to
> my post--I did clearly indicate I was going to purchase the kit from
> *Madisound*.


There is no "kit", Dev. That is a construct of your alcohol soaked
mind. What usually happens in these skirmishes is that I adhere to the
facts, and you guys go down the toilet in a downward spiral of lies.
Hence what you've said here. It's getting boring, really: I don't care
if a hundred guys jump on the ****** pile, you all resort to lying
eventually. Bruce Richman can probably explain this better than me.


> And in any case, Greg does not have any intellectual property in the
> Europa speaker.
>
> I wonder if on Tuesdays he thinks he's a bag of onions.


Zzzzz.

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>
>
> In Weil world, being reasonably agreeable tags you as a "submissive".


I wasn't reasonable, Arny--"ScottW" and dave weil pointed out a gaffe
that I made with respect to personal information. You asked a ****ty
question and don't even realize it.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 03:06:57 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> In Weil world, being reasonably agreeable tags you as a "submissive".
>
>
>I wasn't reasonable, Arny--"ScottW" and dave weil pointed out a gaffe
>that I made with respect to personal information. You asked a ****ty
>question and don't even realize it.

Ohhhh, I think he did. I think he was fishing for personal
information. That's why I didn't comply.

[Joseph Oberlander]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> trotsky said:
>
>
>>You've been stealing my intellectual property for years.
>
>
> Shouldn't that be "my mother****ing intellectual property"?

Q: is it really stealing when the copy is so bad that it's
barely functional?

[George M. Middius]

Obie Wanna Clue said:

> >>You've been stealing my intellectual property for years.

> > Shouldn't that be "my mother****ing intellectual property"?

> Q: is it really stealing when the copy is so bad that it's
> barely functional?

It's getting pretty tedious reading your "what are you guys talking
about?" posts. Can't you please educate yourself instead of acting
like a Krooger klone?

[Lionel]

trotsky wrote:

>
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> In Weil world, being reasonably agreeable tags you as a "submissive".
>
>
>
> I wasn't reasonable, Arny--"ScottW" and dave weil pointed out a gaffe
> that I made with respect to personal information. You asked a ****ty
> question and don't even realize it.
>
>
As you use to transform all "interesting questions" in "****ty
questions" some of us prefer to take the shortcut...

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:FY2hb.16964$gi2.1996@fed1read01
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:31:52 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh. Humm - that means I can go look at them if he starts selling
>>> them on consignment/etc - because he'll go to a local audio store
>>> or two first. It would actually be interesting to hear them.
>>
>> It *is* interesting to hear them. I think it's rather important to
>> hear them before commenting on them.
>
> Normally, I would agree. But since Trots doesn't think it is
> important, why should anybody else?
> He has a history of doing just that.
> His marketing plan is to get people to buy them based upon a web
> page.
>
>> Because, despite what Arnold and
>> Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT mediocre
>> speakers in the least. They do FAR more things right than they do
>> wrong. And that puts them ahead of many commercial designs.
>
> Name some comparably priced speakers currently on the market
> that you think are inferior to the Jupiters, please.

Wonderful question!

LOL!

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:FY2hb.16964$gi2.1996@fed1read01

> >
> > Name some comparably priced speakers currently on the market
> > that you think are inferior to the Jupiters, please.
>
> Wonderful question!
>
> LOL!
>
>


"At least" they are not as bad as Bose.
But that is supposition, as I have never heard Jupiter.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 03:06:57 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>In Weil world, being reasonably agreeable tags you as a "submissive".
>>
>>
>>I wasn't reasonable, Arny--"ScottW" and dave weil pointed out a gaffe
>>that I made with respect to personal information. You asked a ****ty
>>question and don't even realize it.
>
>
> Ohhhh, I think he did. I think he was fishing for personal
> information. That's why I didn't comply.


Well, again, my mistake.

[Lionel]

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"ScottW" > wrote in message
>>news:FY2hb.16964$gi2.1996@fed1read01
>
>
>>> Name some comparably priced speakers currently on the market
>>>that you think are inferior to the Jupiters, please.
>>
>>Wonderful question!
>>
>>LOL!
>>
>>
>
> "At least" they are not as bad as Bose.
> But that is supposition, as I have never heard Jupiter.
>
>
Pimpon - pimpon - pimpon - pimpon - pimpon(*) !

(*)this is the french onomatopoeia for ambulances... ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message

> dave weil wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 03:06:57 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In Weil world, being reasonably agreeable tags you as a
>>>> "submissive".
>>>
>>>
>>> I wasn't reasonable, Arny--"ScottW" and dave weil pointed out a
>>> gaffe that I made with respect to personal information. You asked
>>> a ****ty question and don't even realize it.

The question about tracking number was conceived of for the obvious purpose
of getting a reality check from an impartial source.

>> Ohhhh, I think he did. I think he was fishing for personal
>> information. That's why I didn't comply.

The personal information was an "Easter Egg"

> Well, again, my mistake.

Nahh Singh, you did the right thing and you cleared some air. At worst it
just was a step towards evening up the personal information score between
Weil and I. Your comment also unintentionally elicited Weil's wonderfully
self-revelatory "submissive" comment, which goes far to explain his years
of egregious behavior on RAO quite nicely. Thank You!

[trotsky]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
>>
>> trotsky said:
>>
>>
>>> You've been stealing my intellectual property for years.
>>
>>
>>
>> Shouldn't that be "my mother****ing intellectual property"?
>
>
> Q: is it really stealing when the copy is so bad that it's
> barely functional?


I think "the Devil" can do better than that. Or were you talking about
yourself?

P.S. You still need to figure out which way the arrow is pointing.

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>
>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 03:06:57 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In Weil world, being reasonably agreeable tags you as a
>>>>>"submissive".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I wasn't reasonable, Arny--"ScottW" and dave weil pointed out a
>>>>gaffe that I made with respect to personal information. You asked
>>>>a ****ty question and don't even realize it.
>>>
>
> The question about tracking number was conceived of for the obvious purpose
> of getting a reality check from an impartial source.


Arny, why on Earth would anyone believe you? Your reputation as a
Christian?


>>>Ohhhh, I think he did. I think he was fishing for personal
>>>information. That's why I didn't comply.
>>
>
> The personal information was an "Easter Egg"
>
>
>>Well, again, my mistake.
>
>
> Nahh Singh, you did the right thing and you cleared some air. At worst it
> just was a step towards evening up the personal information score between
> Weil and I. Your comment also unintentionally elicited Weil's wonderfully
> self-revelatory "submissive" comment, which goes far to explain his years
> of egregious behavior on RAO quite nicely. Thank You!


See above.

[Lionel]

trotsky wrote:

>
> Why not? You've been stealing my intellectual property for years.
>
>
Trotsky, this could a crime if you don't write "intellectual"...
....the way you write it it's a joke !

[ScottW]

dave weil > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:36:34 -0700, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> >> Because, despite what Arnold and
> >> Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT mediocre
> >> speakers in the least. They do FAR more things right than they
> do
> >> wrong. And that puts them ahead of many commercial designs.
> >
> > Name some comparably priced speakers currently on the market
> >that you think are inferior to the Jupiters, please.
>
> I didn't mention price.


Ok, so they're better than a pair of free PC speakers they give
away.
That says a lot.

You're refusal to address this aspect, are they a good value or are
they not, is a clear implication they are not. The fact that you won't
just come out and say it also implies that you're afraid of Trotsky.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On 9 Oct 2003 10:48:28 -0700, (ScottW) wrote:

>dave weil > wrote in message >...
>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:36:34 -0700, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Because, despite what Arnold and
>> >> Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT mediocre
>> >> speakers in the least. They do FAR more things right than they
>> do
>> >> wrong. And that puts them ahead of many commercial designs.
>> >
>> > Name some comparably priced speakers currently on the market
>> >that you think are inferior to the Jupiters, please.
>>
>> I didn't mention price.
>
>
> Ok, so they're better than a pair of free PC speakers they give
>away.
> That says a lot.
>
> You're refusal to address this aspect, are they a good value or are
>they not, is a clear implication they are not. The fact that you won't
>just come out and say it also implies that you're afraid of Trotsky.

No, I'm waiting for you to reframe the question in the context in
which I made the original statement.

[George M. Middius]

Scottieborg gurgled:

> You're refusal

Gregipus, aren't you appalled that Scottie is supporting your
"opinions" about language abuse?

[Bruce J. Richman]

ScottW48 wrote:


>dave weil > wrote in message
>...
>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:36:34 -0700, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Because, despite what Arnold and
>> >> Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT mediocre
>> >> speakers in the least. They do FAR more things right than they
>> do
>> >> wrong. And that puts them ahead of many commercial designs.
>> >
>> > Name some comparably priced speakers currently on the market
>> >that you think are inferior to the Jupiters, please.
>>
>> I didn't mention price.
>
>
> Ok, so they're better than a pair of free PC speakers they give
>away.
> That says a lot.
>
> You're refusal to address this aspect, are they a good value or are
>they not, is a clear implication they are not. The fact that you won't
>just come out and say it also implies that you're afraid of Trotsky.
>
>ScottW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Aw, c'mon :). How could anybody be afraid of an irrational shill like trotsky?
Singh is just trying to use RAO to defraud the public.



Bruce J. Richman

[trotsky]

ScottW wrote:
> dave weil > wrote in message >...
>
>>On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:36:34 -0700, "ScottW" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Because, despite what Arnold and
>>>>Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT mediocre
>>>>speakers in the least. They do FAR more things right than they
>>>
>> do
>>
>>>>wrong. And that puts them ahead of many commercial designs.
>>>
>>>Name some comparably priced speakers currently on the market
>>>that you think are inferior to the Jupiters, please.
>>
>>I didn't mention price.
>
>
> Ok, so they're better than a pair of free PC speakers they give
> away.
> That says a lot.
>
> You're refusal to address this aspect, are they a good value or are
> they not, is a clear implication they are not. The fact that you won't
> just come out and say it also implies that you're afraid of Trotsky.


That's pretty lame, Scottie, even by your ultra-low standards.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Scottieborg gurgled:
>
>
>> You're refusal
>
>
> Gregipus, aren't you appalled that Scottie is supporting your
> "opinions" about language abuse?


You're making progress, George: at least you're not trying to discuss
audio anymore.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> > Gregipus, aren't you appalled that Scottie is supporting your
> > "opinions" about language abuse?

> You're

Inability to answer the question noted. Correct use of apostrophe
noted. Lack of abatement in irrational impulse-response behavior
noted.

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 9 Oct 2003 10:48:28 -0700, (ScottW)
wrote:
>
> >dave weil > wrote in message
>...
> >> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:36:34 -0700, "ScottW"
>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Because, despite what Arnold and
> >> >> Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT
mediocre
> >> >> speakers in the least. They do FAR more things right than
they
> >> do
> >> >> wrong. And that puts them ahead of many commercial
designs.
> >> >
> >> > Name some comparably priced speakers currently on the
market
> >> >that you think are inferior to the Jupiters, please.
> >>
> >> I didn't mention price.
> >
> >
> > Ok, so they're better than a pair of free PC speakers they
give
> >away.
> > That says a lot.
> >
> > You're refusal to address this aspect, are they a good value
or are
> >they not, is a clear implication they are not. The fact that
you won't
> >just come out and say it also implies that you're afraid of
Trotsky.
>
> No, I'm waiting for you to reframe the question in the context
in
> which I made the original statement.

Name a current commercial design they are "ahead of".
What are their retail price?
Name a current commercial design they are not "ahead of"?
What are their retail price?

Honestly Dave, you're coming out of this looking like you're
afraid Trots is going to pull his advertising dollars from your
budding audio publication.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 15:27:09 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On 9 Oct 2003 10:48:28 -0700, (ScottW)
>wrote:
>>
>> >dave weil > wrote in message
>...
>> >> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:36:34 -0700, "ScottW"
>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Because, despite what Arnold and
>> >> >> Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT
>mediocre
>> >> >> speakers in the least. They do FAR more things right than
>they
>> >> do
>> >> >> wrong. And that puts them ahead of many commercial
>designs.
>> >> >
>> >> > Name some comparably priced speakers currently on the
>market
>> >> >that you think are inferior to the Jupiters, please.
>> >>
>> >> I didn't mention price.
>> >
>> >
>> > Ok, so they're better than a pair of free PC speakers they
>give
>> >away.
>> > That says a lot.
>> >
>> > You're refusal to address this aspect, are they a good value
>or are
>> >they not, is a clear implication they are not. The fact that
>you won't
>> >just come out and say it also implies that you're afraid of
>Trotsky.
>>
>> No, I'm waiting for you to reframe the question in the context
>in
>> which I made the original statement.
>
> Name a current commercial design they are "ahead of".
> What are their retail price?

Ahead of. That's an interesting twist on what I said. Why? Because of
the subjective nature of speakers. What I find "wrong" in a speaker
might not be as important to someone else. For instance, we all know
that some people prize midrange above everything. Others need deep
bass. others are willing to compromise a single swatch of bandwidth
attain a more "benign" "balanced" (if you will) approach.

So, I will comment with those caveats, knowing of course that you
aren't really all that interested in what I have to say.

Some speakers I have recently heard that I think do things "more
wrong" than the Europas are:

Infinity Alpha 20s, 40s. Don't know the prices.

PSB Alpha T Price? Dunno.

Some huge DynAudio Speakers that cost DM100,000. Don't know the model
number. they had "bigger bass" though (chuckle)

The old Kappa Series of Infinity (haven't heard the new series).

Magnapan MMGs and 1.6s.

Those are a few speakers that I've heard recently that would take a
back seat to the Europas.

If you don't think that I could walk into a Best Buy or Circuit City
and find *anything* that was as pleasing as the Europas, I think
you're just nuts. That's a whole range of stuff, right?

I'm sorry if I didn't mention pet favorites like Splendor and Harbeth
and Tannoy, but I haven't heard any of those (Tannoy I haven't heard
in years).

From my days with Mission and other British speakers (which I had
exposure to in the late 80s because of AR marketing a "British/Euro"
series called the Spirits and i was repping them on the German market)
I wasn't all that impressed with smaller British monitors for the most
part.

A small speaker that sadly isn't available anymore that I thought
would probably be somewhat close in "not doing things wrong" would be
a little speaker that Denon marketed at the end of the 80s and
marketed in Europe. It was a two way system and was actually made by
the German company HECO. A remarkable little speaker that cost
something like DM450 a pr (or about $200 or so). I don't know what
made that speaker so darned good, but it was nice. It dwouldn't go
that deep in the bass either.

I doubt that this commentary will satisfy you, but there you go.

> Name a current commercial design they are not "ahead of"?
> What are their retail price?
>
> Honestly Dave, you're coming out of this looking like you're
>afraid Trots is going to pull his advertising dollars from your
>budding audio publication.

Honestly Scott, you pose a question that suddenly imposes condtions
that I didn't address and you're surprised that I don't answer?

Keep your snideness to yourself next time. Honestly, I hope that
you're not this way when Marc and Art come to visit.

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 15:27:09 -0700, "ScottW"
>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 9 Oct 2003 10:48:28 -0700, (ScottW)
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> >dave weil > wrote in message
> >...
> >> >> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:36:34 -0700, "ScottW"
> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Because, despite what Arnold and
> >> >> >> Mike have said (and yes, even the Devil), they ARE NOT
> >mediocre
> >> >> >> speakers in the least. They do FAR more things right
than
> >they
> >> >> do
> >> >> >> wrong. And that puts them ahead of many commercial
> >designs.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Name some comparably priced speakers currently on the
> >market
> >> >> >that you think are inferior to the Jupiters, please.
> >> >>
> >> >> I didn't mention price.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Ok, so they're better than a pair of free PC speakers
they
> >give
> >> >away.
> >> > That says a lot.
> >> >
> >> > You're refusal to address this aspect, are they a good
value
> >or are
> >> >they not, is a clear implication they are not. The fact
that
> >you won't
> >> >just come out and say it also implies that you're afraid of
> >Trotsky.
> >>
> >> No, I'm waiting for you to reframe the question in the
context
> >in
> >> which I made the original statement.
> >
> > Name a current commercial design they are "ahead of".
> > What are their retail price?
>
> Ahead of.

They were your specific words.

> That's an interesting twist on what I said. Why? Because of
> the subjective nature of speakers. What I find "wrong" in a
speaker
> might not be as important to someone else. For instance, we all
know
> that some people prize midrange above everything. Others need
deep
> bass. others are willing to compromise a single swatch of
bandwidth
> attain a more "benign" "balanced" (if you will) approach.
>
> So, I will comment with those caveats, knowing of course that
you
> aren't really all that interested in what I have to say.
>
> Some speakers I have recently heard that I think do things
"more
> wrong" than the Europas are:
>
> Infinity Alpha 20s, 40s. Don't know the prices.

20s are <350/pr and 40s are <500/pr according to Infinity
>
> PSB Alpha T Price? Dunno.

192/pr
>
> Some huge DynAudio Speakers that cost DM100,000. Don't know the
model
> number. they had "bigger bass" though (chuckle)
>
> The old Kappa Series of Infinity (haven't heard the new
series).

The whole series? The 600s are 3 way floorstanders. The others
are far less expensive.
>
> Magnapan MMGs and 1.6s.

MMGs are 550. Are you sure about 1.6s?
Those do some things pretty well.

>
> Those are a few speakers that I've heard recently that would
take a
> back seat to the Europas.
>
> If you don't think that I could walk into a Best Buy or Circuit
City
> and find *anything* that was as pleasing as the Europas, I
think
> you're just nuts. That's a whole range of stuff, right?

Hmmm..... So Best Buy and Circuit City have competitive stuff.
I'm sure you just made Trots day.

>
> I'm sorry if I didn't mention pet favorites like Splendor and
Harbeth
> and Tannoy, but I haven't heard any of those (Tannoy I haven't
heard
> in years).
>
> From my days with Mission and other British speakers (which I
had
> exposure to in the late 80s because of AR marketing a
"British/Euro"
> series called the Spirits and i was repping them on the German
market)
> I wasn't all that impressed with smaller British monitors for
the most
> part.
>
> A small speaker that sadly isn't available anymore that I
thought
> would probably be somewhat close in "not doing things wrong"
would be
> a little speaker that Denon marketed at the end of the 80s and
> marketed in Europe. It was a two way system and was actually
made by
> the German company HECO. A remarkable little speaker that cost
> something like DM450 a pr (or about $200 or so). I don't know
what
> made that speaker so darned good, but it was nice. It dwouldn't
go
> that deep in the bass either.
>
> I doubt that this commentary will satisfy you, but there you
go.
>
> > Name a current commercial design they are not "ahead of"?
> > What are their retail price?
> >
> > Honestly Dave, you're coming out of this looking like you're
> >afraid Trots is going to pull his advertising dollars from
your
> >budding audio publication.
>
> Honestly Scott, you pose a question that suddenly imposes
condtions
> that I didn't address and you're surprised that I don't answer?
>
> Keep your snideness to yourself next time.

Why? You sure don't.

> Honestly, I hope that
> you're not this way when Marc and Art come to visit.

You're not Marc or Art. But if you showed up on my door, I
would show you some hospitality. Even if I still had to tell you
things you don't like hearing - like the truth or my opinion.
Deal with it.

[The Devil]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 18:03:23 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>Magnapan MMGs and 1.6s.

Are you sure about the 1.6s? I would be genuinely amazed if you
actually meant to say that model.

--
td

[George M. Middius]

The Devil said:

> >Magnapan MMGs and 1.6s.
>
> Are you sure about the 1.6s? I would be genuinely amazed if you
> actually meant to say that model.

Gregipus says your -- er, you're -- wrists are limp.

[trotsky]

The Devil wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 18:03:23 -0500, dave weil >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Magnapan MMGs and 1.6s.
>
>
> Are you sure about the 1.6s? I would be genuinely amazed if you
> actually meant to say that model.



Trouble in paradise, Dev?

[The Devil]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 20:30:55 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>> >Magnapan MMGs and 1.6s.
>>
>> Are you sure about the 1.6s? I would be genuinely amazed if you
>> actually meant to say that model.
>
>Gregipus says your -- er, you're -- wrists are limp.

They are when I'm asleep.

--
td

[The Devil]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:33:17 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>> Are you sure about the 1.6s? I would be genuinely amazed if you
>> actually meant to say that model.

>Trouble in paradise, Dev?

Not at all. If these speakers really do stack up against the 1.6s, I
would be inclined to think that was a genuinely magnificent
achievement on the part of Madisound. And to think that they
accomplished that sort of performance for just $400. Marvelous!

--
td

[dave weil]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:43:15 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>Are you sure about 1.6s?
> Those do some things pretty well.

Yes. Your second statement shows that you aren't asking the right
questions.

Most speakers do "some" things pretty well.

Hell, even your Quads are bested in a few areas by far cheaper
speakers. That doesn't mean that the cheaper speakers are 'better".

The fact that you don't get this speaks volumes.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 01:13:12 +0100, The Devil > wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 18:03:23 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>Magnapan MMGs and 1.6s.
>
>Are you sure about the 1.6s? I would be genuinely amazed if you
>actually meant to say that model.

Nope. I meant to say that model.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:43:15 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>> > Name a current commercial design they are "ahead of".
>> > What are their retail price?
>>
>> Ahead of.
>
> They were your specific words.

Yes, without the context.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:43:15 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

> You're not Marc or Art. But if you showed up on my door, I
>would show you some hospitality. Even if I still had to tell you
>things you don't like hearing - like the truth or my opinion.

Two mutually exclusive things, right?

Seriously, I doubt that you'd have the discourtesy to "tell me things
I don't like hearing". I'm quite sure that you're far more puffed up
here than you are in real life.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:43:15 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>> If you don't think that I could walk into a Best Buy or Circuit
>City
>> and find *anything* that was as pleasing as the Europas, I
>think
>> you're just nuts. That's a whole range of stuff, right?
>
> Hmmm..... So Best Buy and Circuit City have competitive stuff.
> I'm sure you just made Trots day.

Is there any reason for you to be deceptive?

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> Seriously, I doubt that you'd have the discourtesy to "tell me things
> I don't like hearing". I'm quite sure that you're far more puffed up
> here than you are in real life.

So Scottie is acting out his resentment against his boss? Or maybe
his mommy.....

[The Devil]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:49:40 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>>>Magnapan MMGs and 1.6s.
>>
>>Are you sure about the 1.6s? I would be genuinely amazed if you
>>actually meant to say that model.
>
>Nope. I meant to say that model.

Interesting. What do the Madisound speakers do better than the 1.6s?

--
td

[trotsky]

The Devil wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:33:17 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>>Are you sure about the 1.6s? I would be genuinely amazed if you
>>>actually meant to say that model.
>>
>
>>Trouble in paradise, Dev?
>
>
> Not at all. If these speakers really do stack up against the 1.6s, I
> would be inclined to think that was a genuinely magnificent
> achievement on the part of Madisound. And to think that they
> accomplished that sort of performance for just $400. Marvelous!


Horse**** opinion duly noted.

[trotsky]

The Devil wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:49:40 -0500, dave weil >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Magnapan MMGs and 1.6s.
>>>
>>>Are you sure about the 1.6s? I would be genuinely amazed if you
>>>actually meant to say that model.
>>
>>Nope. I meant to say that model.
>
>
> Interesting. What do the Madisound speakers do better than the 1.6s?


Dev, aren't you deviating from your "ignorance is bliss" mantra?

[dave weil]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 02:07:51 +0100, The Devil > wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:49:40 -0500, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>>>Magnapan MMGs and 1.6s.
>>>
>>>Are you sure about the 1.6s? I would be genuinely amazed if you
>>>actually meant to say that model.
>>
>>Nope. I meant to say that model.
>
>Interesting. What do the Madisound speakers do better than the 1.6s?

I liked the bass better on the Europas, believe it or not. Even though
they go a little deeper, the Europas seems a little more "palpable",
if that makes any sense. The Maggies seemed a little leaner (there's
that word again). The Europas seemed a little Punchier within their
range. The other thing that has always disturbed me a little about
Maggies of all stripes is the slightly larger-than-life soundstage
that they generally offer.

Note that saying that the Europas seemed a little more "right" to me
doesn't disparage the Maggie 1.6s, although I'll say that the MMGs are
certainly not nearly as good because they've always seems anemic to
me.

hope this makes sense.

[The Devil]

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 20:54:52 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>>>>Are you sure about the 1.6s? I would be genuinely amazed if you
>>>>actually meant to say that model.
>>>
>>>Nope. I meant to say that model.
>>
>>Interesting. What do the Madisound speakers do better than the 1.6s?
>
>I liked the bass better on the Europas, believe it or not. Even though
>they go a little deeper, the Europas seems a little more "palpable",
>if that makes any sense. The Maggies seemed a little leaner (there's
>that word again). The Europas seemed a little Punchier within their
>range. The other thing that has always disturbed me a little about
>Maggies of all stripes is the slightly larger-than-life soundstage
>that they generally offer.
>
>Note that saying that the Europas seemed a little more "right" to me
>doesn't disparage the Maggie 1.6s, although I'll say that the MMGs are
>certainly not nearly as good because they've always seems anemic to
>me.
>
>hope this makes sense.

It does. And I share your feelings about the MMG. Thanks.

--
td

[Michael Mckelvy]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The Devil wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:58:33 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>The Devil wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:43:45 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I can smell the alcoholic haze from here.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I bet it costs more to get this ****ed than you'll be making from your
> >>>Madisound kits, mommy's boy.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>At least you agreed with me that you're (a) drunk.
> >
> >
> > At this exact moment I am not, but I have been known to imbibe, oh
> > yes. 'Drunk' depends on how much I have consumed, of course, but I
> > will confirm that I am indeed susceptible to the effects of alcohol.
>
>
> Not good enough. Have you or have you not been treated for alcoholism?
> This is the court of public opinion, and I'm calling your credibility
> into question. Take as much time as you need to answer.
>
In the court of public opinion, you've already been convicted of fraud and
perjury. **** off.

[The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 01:30:32 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>Dev,

Excuse me. I'm just designing a special beverage. It's made from
coffee beans. I have orchestrated a plan to roast the beans, grind
them up and introduce the resulting brown powder to a device I came
across that's called a 'coffee maker'. This is a dumb mother****ing
name for a device that doesn't make coffee--the coffee is made in
Columbia--but we just won't go there. I'll just say I'm afraid I have
some bad news for you if you believe what Krups say on their website,
and leave it at that.

I did a week of research at the supermarkets but, dissatisfied with
what was on offer, I just had to say 'ho-hum' and settle on some green
unroasted beans I already had in my possession. I ma'de a mistake at
first. I tried to roast the beans in my clothe's dryer, but when I
read the instruction booklet that came with my Hearthware coffee
roaster, I realised the writing was different to the writing in the
instruction book for my Hotpoint clothes dryer. Duh!

--
Thine Boobie Orchestra (Stainless Steel Remix).

[dave weil]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:25:44 +0100, The Devil > wrote:

>I liked the bass better on the Europas, believe it or not. Even though
>>they go a little deeper, the Europas seems a little more "palpable",
>>if that makes any sense.

This might have seemed confusing to some (Dev seemed tto know what I
meant but...). It was confusing to me when I read it back...

Even though *they* go a little deeper actually refers to the Maggies.

[The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 08:34:12 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:25:44 +0100, The Devil > wrote:
>
>>I liked the bass better on the Europas, believe it or not. Even though
>>>they go a little deeper, the Europas seems a little more "palpable",
>>>if that makes any sense.
>
>This might have seemed confusing to some (Dev seemed tto know what I
>meant but...). It was confusing to me when I read it back...
>
>Even though *they* go a little deeper actually refers to the Maggies.

I understood what you meant.

--
td

[trotsky]

The Devil wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 20:54:52 -0500, dave weil >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Are you sure about the 1.6s? I would be genuinely amazed if you
>>>>>actually meant to say that model.
>>>>
>>>>Nope. I meant to say that model.
>>>
>>>Interesting. What do the Madisound speakers do better than the 1.6s?
>>
>>I liked the bass better on the Europas, believe it or not. Even though
>>they go a little deeper, the Europas seems a little more "palpable",
>>if that makes any sense. The Maggies seemed a little leaner (there's
>>that word again). The Europas seemed a little Punchier within their
>>range. The other thing that has always disturbed me a little about
>>Maggies of all stripes is the slightly larger-than-life soundstage
>>that they generally offer.
>>
>>Note that saying that the Europas seemed a little more "right" to me
>>doesn't disparage the Maggie 1.6s, although I'll say that the MMGs are
>>certainly not nearly as good because they've always seems anemic to
>>me.
>>
>>hope this makes sense.
>
>
> It does. And I share your feelings about the MMG. Thanks.



Will it take an MD to get that foot out of your mouth, Dev?

[dave weil]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:03:21 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>The Devil wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 20:54:52 -0500, dave weil >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>Are you sure about the 1.6s? I would be genuinely amazed if you
>>>>>>actually meant to say that model.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope. I meant to say that model.
>>>>
>>>>Interesting. What do the Madisound speakers do better than the 1.6s?
>>>
>>>I liked the bass better on the Europas, believe it or not. Even though
>>>they go a little deeper, the Europas seems a little more "palpable",
>>>if that makes any sense. The Maggies seemed a little leaner (there's
>>>that word again). The Europas seemed a little Punchier within their
>>>range. The other thing that has always disturbed me a little about
>>>Maggies of all stripes is the slightly larger-than-life soundstage
>>>that they generally offer.
>>>
>>>Note that saying that the Europas seemed a little more "right" to me
>>>doesn't disparage the Maggie 1.6s, although I'll say that the MMGs are
>>>certainly not nearly as good because they've always seems anemic to
>>>me.
>>>
>>>hope this makes sense.
>>
>>
>> It does. And I share your feelings about the MMG. Thanks.
>
>
>
>Will it take an MD to get that foot out of your mouth, Dev?

Why would you say this, Greg? He genuinely wanted to know how I
prefered the Europas over the 1.6s. He didn't diss me or call me crazy
or confused, like certain people have.

I notice that *you* should probably remove your foot from *your* mouth
now that you are falling all over yourself to align yourself with me
again...

Of course, it looks like he might actually build one of your speakers
for two or three hundred dollars...or a little more if he uses an even
more robust PVC pipe...

[trotsky]

Michael Mckelvy wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>The Devil wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:58:33 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Devil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:43:45 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I can smell the alcoholic haze from here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I bet it costs more to get this ****ed than you'll be making from your
>>>>>Madisound kits, mommy's boy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At least you agreed with me that you're (a) drunk.
>>>
>>>
>>>At this exact moment I am not, but I have been known to imbibe, oh
>>>yes. 'Drunk' depends on how much I have consumed, of course, but I
>>>will confirm that I am indeed susceptible to the effects of alcohol.
>>
>>
>>Not good enough. Have you or have you not been treated for alcoholism?
>> This is the court of public opinion, and I'm calling your credibility
>>into question. Take as much time as you need to answer.
>>
>
> In the court of public opinion, you've already been convicted of fraud and
> perjury. **** off.


Score!

[trotsky]

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 01:30:32 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>Dev,
>
>
> Excuse me. I'm just designing a special beverage.


I wish you nimrods would admit when you've stuck your feet so far in
your mouths that they are now sticking out your arses. I know, if
wishes were horses...

[dave weil]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:12:38 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 01:30:32 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dev,
>>
>>
>> Excuse me. I'm just designing a special beverage.
>
>
>I wish you nimrods would admit when you've stuck your feet so far in
>your mouths that they are now sticking out your arses. I know, if
>wishes were horses...

Why are you quoting Bryan Adams? Have you sunk *that* low?

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said to Gregipus:

> Why are you quoting Bryan Adams? Have you sunk *that* low?

Sometimes you just can't get a guy out of your mind.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:03:21 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>The Devil wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 20:54:52 -0500, dave weil >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>Are you sure about the 1.6s? I would be genuinely amazed if you
>>>>>>>actually meant to say that model.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nope. I meant to say that model.
>>>>>
>>>>>Interesting. What do the Madisound speakers do better than the 1.6s?
>>>>
>>>>I liked the bass better on the Europas, believe it or not. Even though
>>>>they go a little deeper, the Europas seems a little more "palpable",
>>>>if that makes any sense. The Maggies seemed a little leaner (there's
>>>>that word again). The Europas seemed a little Punchier within their
>>>>range. The other thing that has always disturbed me a little about
>>>>Maggies of all stripes is the slightly larger-than-life soundstage
>>>>that they generally offer.
>>>>
>>>>Note that saying that the Europas seemed a little more "right" to me
>>>>doesn't disparage the Maggie 1.6s, although I'll say that the MMGs are
>>>>certainly not nearly as good because they've always seems anemic to
>>>>me.
>>>>
>>>>hope this makes sense.
>>>
>>>
>>>It does. And I share your feelings about the MMG. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>>Will it take an MD to get that foot out of your mouth, Dev?
>
>
> Why would you say this, Greg?


Why would you ask this, dave? The ****er claimed I didn't do any
serious designing, and lied by saying I was using "kits" from Madisound.
Thankfully, you decided to go the high road and tell the truth, but
that doesn't mean that "Devil" doesn't deserve to be figuratively beaten
with a stick over and over and over again. Then when he all bloody
about the head and shoulders, you give him a couple kicks in the groin,
or words to that effect. The way the game is played is you take the guy
that has somehow managed to position himself at the top of the food
chain and make a thorough example of him. I've done this several times
with "Devil", and he's left the group "permanently" each time. You'd
think he'd have learned the first time, but no.


He genuinely wanted to know how I
> prefered the Europas over the 1.6s. He didn't diss me or call me crazy
> or confused, like certain people have.


I *never* denounced your opinions, just your ability to communicate
them. I kind of got the impression you liked the speakers, but after
the "first three" parts of you review most of the guys on the group got
the impression you thought they were a joke. "Devil" was one of the
last to chime in, but still deserves to be verbally abused the most.


> I notice that *you* should probably remove your foot from *your* mouth
> now that you are falling all over yourself to align yourself with me
> again...


I haven't changed my stance one iota. You are free to like or dislike
the speakers as you see fit--it's up to you to be open minded about what
good sound is, unless like the rest of the worthless *******s on this
group. I put you in a position to say something that everybody had to
prick up their ears and take notice of, all at my expense. To be
honest, I don't know why you don't show me more gratitude.


> Of course, it looks like he might actually build one of your speakers
> for two or three hundred dollars...or a little more if he uses an even
> more robust PVC pipe...


That's how life works--some guys are always stuck in the following
position. BTW, could you explain what a "more robust PVC pipe" means?
I think your communication skills are breaking down again. I have yet
to see you say something about how truly excellent the build quality of
the Europas is.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:12:38 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 01:30:32 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dev,
>>>
>>>
>>>Excuse me. I'm just designing a special beverage.
>>
>>
>>I wish you nimrods would admit when you've stuck your feet so far in
>>your mouths that they are now sticking out your arses. I know, if
>>wishes were horses...
>
>
> Why are you quoting Bryan Adams? Have you sunk *that* low?


Bryan Adams originated that expression? Who knew?

[dave weil]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:55:56 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:03:21 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>The Devil wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 20:54:52 -0500, dave weil >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Are you sure about the 1.6s? I would be genuinely amazed if you
>>>>>>>>actually meant to say that model.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nope. I meant to say that model.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Interesting. What do the Madisound speakers do better than the 1.6s?
>>>>>
>>>>>I liked the bass better on the Europas, believe it or not. Even though
>>>>>they go a little deeper, the Europas seems a little more "palpable",
>>>>>if that makes any sense. The Maggies seemed a little leaner (there's
>>>>>that word again). The Europas seemed a little Punchier within their
>>>>>range. The other thing that has always disturbed me a little about
>>>>>Maggies of all stripes is the slightly larger-than-life soundstage
>>>>>that they generally offer.
>>>>>
>>>>>Note that saying that the Europas seemed a little more "right" to me
>>>>>doesn't disparage the Maggie 1.6s, although I'll say that the MMGs are
>>>>>certainly not nearly as good because they've always seems anemic to
>>>>>me.
>>>>>
>>>>>hope this makes sense.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It does. And I share your feelings about the MMG. Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Will it take an MD to get that foot out of your mouth, Dev?
>>
>>
>> Why would you say this, Greg?
>
>
>Why would you ask this, dave? The ****er claimed I didn't do any
>serious designing, and lied by saying I was using "kits" from Madisound.

Frankly, I took your comment as referring to the fact that he was
surprised that I'd favorably compare your speaker to the 1.6, SINCE
THAT'S WHAT YOU RESPONDED TO.

> Thankfully, you decided to go the high road and tell the truth,

Unless I'm poking at someone, I do.

>but that doesn't mean that "Devil" doesn't deserve to be figuratively beaten
>with a stick over and over and over again. Then when he all bloody
>about the head and shoulders, you give him a couple kicks in the groin,
>or words to that effect.

No I didn't. I simply told him my impressions. I'm sure that he was
surprised that I compared them favorably with the 1.6s and he asked
for clarification. I gave it to him.

> The way the game is played is you take the guy
>that has somehow managed to position himself at the top of the food
>chain and make a thorough example of him. I've done this several times
>with "Devil", and he's left the group "permanently" each time. You'd
>think he'd have learned the first time, but no.
>
>
> He genuinely wanted to know how I
>> prefered the Europas over the 1.6s. He didn't diss me or call me crazy
>> or confused, like certain people have.
>
>
>I *never* denounced your opinions, just your ability to communicate
>them.

Unfortunately, you never let me wrap them up. Yeah, it was *my*
mistake for trying to be far more thorough than you'd find in a 500
word review. It was my mistake for trying not to take the standard
magazine template and doing a half-assed job of description...

> I kind of got the impression you liked the speakers, but after
>the "first three" parts of you review most of the guys on the group got
>the impression you thought they were a joke.

C'mon Greg, the only ones chiming in were the very people who had been
harassing you since BEFORE you sent me the speakers. And they were
going to harass you EVEN MORE if i had proclaimed them the best thing
since sliced bread, because they hate me as well.

Besides, I don't think anyone has accused me of "thinking they were a
joke". You're pretty confused at this point. If anything, I got the
impression that they thought I was kow-towing to you.

> "Devil" was one of the last to chime in, but still deserves to be verbally abused the most.
>
>
>> I notice that *you* should probably remove your foot from *your* mouth
>> now that you are falling all over yourself to align yourself with me
>> again...
>
>
>I haven't changed my stance one iota. You are free to like or dislike
>the speakers as you see fit--it's up to you to be open minded about what
>good sound is, unless like the rest of the worthless *******s on this
>group. I put you in a position to say something that everybody had to
>prick up their ears and take notice of, all at my expense. To be
>honest, I don't know why you don't show me more gratitude.

Why should *I* be grateful? I was doing *you* a favor.

I was being totally fair with my evaluation and it was *me* who was
putting myself in the position of being attacked from all sides.

>> Of course, it looks like he might actually build one of your speakers
>> for two or three hundred dollars...or a little more if he uses an even
>> more robust PVC pipe...
>
>
>That's how life works--some guys are always stuck in the following
>position. BTW, could you explain what a "more robust PVC pipe" means?

It means a joke. I know that your sense of humor fails you when you're
the subject, but, oh well...

>I think your communication skills are breaking down again. I have yet
>to see you say something about how truly excellent the build quality of
>the Europas is.

There's not much to comment on. I can't comment on the finish very
much, since it was a cabinet painted black. I already mentioned that
the grain seemed matched, but black paint covers up a lot, doesn't it?
There were no obvious glue globs or poorly matched seams, but that's
nothing extraordinary. Having stuffing coming out of the port ws a bit
disconcerting, in terms of build quality though. I think I commented
already on the fact that you lined up your screws properly. Beyond
that, I'm not sure what else can be said about the "build quality".

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:

> That's how life works--some guys are always stuck in the following
> position. BTW, could you explain what a "more robust PVC pipe" means? I
> think your communication skills are breaking down again. I have yet to
> see you say something about how truly excellent the build quality of the
> Europas is.

You know, Davew, you never did go into build quality.

Maybe you should.

[ScottW]

dave weil > wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:43:15 -0700, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> > You're not Marc or Art. But if you showed up on my door, I
> >would show you some hospitality. Even if I still had to tell you
> >things you don't like hearing - like the truth or my opinion.
>
> Two mutually exclusive things, right?

Not at all. If we are engaging in conversation am I restricted
opinions you support? Boring.
>
> Seriously, I doubt that you'd have the discourtesy to "tell me things
> I don't like hearing". I'm quite sure that you're far more puffed up
> here than you are in real life.

Puffed up? Why do I need to be puffed up? If your trying to imply
that I would have something to fear from your reaction to my comments
in a face to face encounter and should therefore "restrain" myself,
that says more about your irrational response and inability to
maintain that it does me. Though I suspect the most I risk is you
leaving disappointed and unhappy that I refused to accept your points
of view. Not much to lose IMO.

ScottW

[ScottW]

dave weil > wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:43:15 -0700, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> >> If you don't think that I could walk into a Best Buy or Circuit
> City
> >> and find *anything* that was as pleasing as the Europas, I
> think
> >> you're just nuts. That's a whole range of stuff, right?
> >
> > Hmmm..... So Best Buy and Circuit City have competitive stuff.
> > I'm sure you just made Trots day.
>
> Is there any reason for you to be deceptive?

It is your writing. Do you stand by your actual words are do you
want us to decipher your intended meaning? Personally, I would prefer
you actually wrote what you meant so we wouldn't have to obfuscate
about what we think you mean.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On 10 Oct 2003 13:00:07 -0700, (ScottW) wrote:

>dave weil > wrote in message >...
>> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:43:15 -0700, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > You're not Marc or Art. But if you showed up on my door, I
>> >would show you some hospitality. Even if I still had to tell you
>> >things you don't like hearing - like the truth or my opinion.
>>
>> Two mutually exclusive things, right?
>
>Not at all. If we are engaging in conversation am I restricted
>opinions you support? Boring.

Talk about boring. I make a joke based on something you said and you
then expound on it as if it were a statement of fact. *That's* boring!

>> Seriously, I doubt that you'd have the discourtesy to "tell me things
>> I don't like hearing". I'm quite sure that you're far more puffed up
>> here than you are in real life.
>
> Puffed up? Why do I need to be puffed up?

Ya got me...

> If your trying to imply
>that I would have something to fear from your reaction to my comments
>in a face to face encounter and should therefore "restrain" myself,
>that says more about your irrational response and inability to
>maintain that it does me.

What it says about you is that you have a bizarre way of reading
things. Therefore, I wouldn't be interested in sitting and talking to
you for more than about 30 seconds, because I'd be afraid that you
couldn't even have a civil (or lucid) conversation.

> Though I suspect the most I risk is you
>leaving disappointed and unhappy that I refused to accept your points
>of view. Not much to lose IMO.

I suspect that you aren't much of a host if you're going to get all
bent out of shape challenging your guests' views. I doubt that you do
it to Art and Marc...

You really *are* a snitty person, you know. I just hope you aren't
that way in person...

[ScottW]

trotsky > wrote in message >...
> The Devil wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:33:17 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Are you sure about the 1.6s? I would be genuinely amazed if you
> >>>actually meant to say that model.
> >>
>
> >>Trouble in paradise, Dev?
> >
> >
> > Not at all. If these speakers really do stack up against the 1.6s, I
> > would be inclined to think that was a genuinely magnificent
> > achievement on the part of Madisound. And to think that they
> > accomplished that sort of performance for just $400. Marvelous!
>
>
> Horse**** opinion duly noted.

So Greg, what do you think of Dave's list of inferior speakers?
One nonspecific Dynaudio model, Maggie 1.6's and a few far less
expensive retail price models. Should we ask for the opposite side of
the coin, a list of superior speakers?

Then there is this statement which I paste here for you to interpret:

Dave says, "If you don't think that I could walk into a Best Buy or
Circuit City
and find *anything* that was as pleasing as the Europas, I think
you're just nuts. That's a whole range of stuff, right?"

What do you think Dave is trying to say about your speakers?

ScottW

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> dave weil said to Gregipus:
>
>
>>Why are you quoting Bryan Adams? Have you sunk *that* low?
>
>
> Sometimes you just can't get a guy out of your mind.



How romantic.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> >>Why are you quoting Bryan Adams? Have you sunk *that* low?

> > Sometimes you just can't get a guy out of your mind.

> How romantic.

You're revolting when you talk about yourself. But at least you're
beginning to emerge from the closet.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:55:56 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:03:21 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Devil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 20:54:52 -0500, dave weil >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Are you sure about the 1.6s? I would be genuinely amazed if you
>>>>>>>>>actually meant to say that model.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Nope. I meant to say that model.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Interesting. What do the Madisound speakers do better than the 1.6s?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I liked the bass better on the Europas, believe it or not. Even though
>>>>>>they go a little deeper, the Europas seems a little more "palpable",
>>>>>>if that makes any sense. The Maggies seemed a little leaner (there's
>>>>>>that word again). The Europas seemed a little Punchier within their
>>>>>>range. The other thing that has always disturbed me a little about
>>>>>>Maggies of all stripes is the slightly larger-than-life soundstage
>>>>>>that they generally offer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Note that saying that the Europas seemed a little more "right" to me
>>>>>>doesn't disparage the Maggie 1.6s, although I'll say that the MMGs are
>>>>>>certainly not nearly as good because they've always seems anemic to
>>>>>>me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>hope this makes sense.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It does. And I share your feelings about the MMG. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Will it take an MD to get that foot out of your mouth, Dev?
>>>
>>>
>>>Why would you say this, Greg?
>>
>>
>>Why would you ask this, dave? The ****er claimed I didn't do any
>>serious designing, and lied by saying I was using "kits" from Madisound.
>
>
> Frankly, I took your comment as referring to the fact that he was
> surprised that I'd favorably compare your speaker to the 1.6, SINCE
> THAT'S WHAT YOU RESPONDED TO.


dave, he L I E D about the speakers, calling them "Madisound kits."
Why are you sticking up for the ****ing *******?


>> Thankfully, you decided to go the high road and tell the truth,
>
>
> Unless I'm poking at someone, I do.
>
>
>>but that doesn't mean that "Devil" doesn't deserve to be figuratively beaten
>>with a stick over and over and over again. Then when he's all bloody
>>about the head and shoulders, you give him a couple kicks in the groin,
>>or words to that effect.
>
>
> No I didn't.


I wasn't speaking about you specifically, I was outlining instructions
on how he deserves to be treated for his behavior in this matter.


I simply told him my impressions. I'm sure that he was
> surprised that I compared them favorably with the 1.6s and he asked
> for clarification. I gave it to him.


See above.


>>The way the game is played is you take the guy
>>that has somehow managed to position himself at the top of the food
>>chain and make a thorough example of him. I've done this several times
>>with "Devil", and he's left the group "permanently" each time. You'd
>>think he'd have learned the first time, but no.
>>
>>
>> He genuinely wanted to know how I
>>
>>>prefered the Europas over the 1.6s. He didn't diss me or call me crazy
>>>or confused, like certain people have.
>>
>>
>>I *never* denounced your opinions, just your ability to communicate
>>them.
>
>
> Unfortunately, you never let me wrap them up.


That's a lie and you know it. I never told you to send them back at
that point in time.



Yeah, it was *my*
> mistake for trying to be far more thorough than you'd find in a 500
> word review. It was my mistake for trying not to take the standard
> magazine template and doing a half-assed job of description...


I did find your description inadequate, on several key points.


>>I kind of got the impression you liked the speakers, but after
>>the "first three" parts of you review most of the guys on the group got
>>the impression you thought they were a joke.
>
>
> C'mon Greg, the only ones chiming in were the very people who had been
> harassing you since BEFORE you sent me the speakers. And they were
> going to harass you EVEN MORE if i had proclaimed them the best thing
> since sliced bread, because they hate me as well.


I don't think that's an accurate description of what happened. Middius
could provide one, because he hangs on every word (no pun intended), but
I think he's way too far gone to be unbiased here.


> Besides, I don't think anyone has accused me of "thinking they were a
> joke". You're pretty confused at this point. If anything, I got the
> impression that they thought I was kow-towing to you.


dave, please. If we took some college placement test for reading
comprehension, my score would be at least 20% higher than yours. You
are able to write sentences pretty well, but I don't think you can pick
up on some of the nuances contained in what's being said. Just my
opinion, of course.


>> "Devil" was one of the last to chime in, but still deserves to be verbally abused the most.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I notice that *you* should probably remove your foot from *your* mouth
>>>now that you are falling all over yourself to align yourself with me
>>>again...
>>
>>
>>I haven't changed my stance one iota. You are free to like or dislike
>>the speakers as you see fit--it's up to you to be open minded about what
>>good sound is, unless like the rest of the worthless *******s on this
>>group. I put you in a position to say something that everybody had to
>>prick up their ears and take notice of, all at my expense. To be
>>honest, I don't know why you don't show me more gratitude.
>
>
> Why should *I* be grateful? I was doing *you* a favor.
>
> I was being totally fair with my evaluation and it was *me* who was
> putting myself in the position of being attacked from all sides.


dave, now you're in the realm of being a horse's ass. You're claiming
that YOU were attacked? And you're saying this to me? We've already
been over this, buddy: we're probably pushing 3000 "Lord of the Flies"
type posts, all directed at ME. I don't see how you can be this clueless.


>>>Of course, it looks like he might actually build one of your speakers
>>>for two or three hundred dollars...or a little more if he uses an even
>>>more robust PVC pipe...
>>
>>
>>That's how life works--some guys are always stuck in the following
>>position. BTW, could you explain what a "more robust PVC pipe" means?
>
>
> It means a joke. I know that your sense of humor fails you when you're
> the subject, but, oh well...


The joke's on you, dave. You were *woefully* inadequate in discussing
the excellent construction quality of the speaker, particularly given
its modest price.


>>I think your communication skills are breaking down again. I have yet
>>to see you say something about how truly excellent the build quality of
>>the Europas is.
>
>
> There's not much to comment on. I can't comment on the finish very
> much, since it was a cabinet painted black. I already mentioned that
> the grain seemed matched, but black paint covers up a lot, doesn't it?
> There were no obvious glue globs or poorly matched seams, but that's
> nothing extraordinary. Having stuffing coming out of the port ws a bit
> disconcerting, in terms of build quality though. I think I commented
> already on the fact that you lined up your screws properly. Beyond
> that, I'm not sure what else can be said about the "build quality".


I see. There is no excuse for the stuffing coming out, btw.
Thankfully, I've come across the joys of spray glue, so I'm reasonably
sure this won't happen again. You must've been playing them pretty loud
for that to happen, but there's nothing wrong with that.

That said, compared to the Cornwalls, which are plain birch plywood
cabinets that look as if they've been finished in a high school wood
shop, the Europas stack up pretty well. I haven't seen Merlins in a
long time, but I would imagine for the price the *finish* is better than
mine, but not the cabinet quality. The Europas have a solid, good
sounding cabinet that passes the audiophile test: they sound cool when
you rap your knuckles on them. Also, although that pair, a prototype,
doesn't look quite as good as subsequent pairs, the black lacquer finish
isn't very common in audio, and you disparage it by simply calling it
"black paint."

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said to dave:

> I did find your description inadequate, on several key points.

Gee, dave, did Greg give you some previously undisclosed instructions
on how to make your description adequate? There certainly weren't any
posted on Group.

OTOH, maybe Greg is just baiting Krooger here. After all, the cover
story is that you volunteered to evaluate the speakers, to the best of
your ability, with no expectation of compensation. Only Krooger
imagined that you were actually shilling. Greg's accusation that your
shilling was "inadequate" will only feed Turdborg's paranoia.


> > C'mon Greg, the only ones chiming in were the very people who had been
> > harassing you since BEFORE you sent me the speakers. And they were
> > going to harass you EVEN MORE if i had proclaimed them the best thing
> > since sliced bread, because they hate me as well.

> I don't think that's an accurate description of what happened. Middius
> could provide one, because he hangs on every word (no pun intended), but
> I think he's way too far gone to be unbiased here.

You want me to provide "an accurate description"? OK, here it is: dave
volunteered to try out the speakers and post his opinions. You sent
dave the speakers. He played around with them and played a lot of
different music through them. He started -- but did not finish --
posting his impressions and opinions. Before he could finish, you
attacked him with your usual loony accusations and imperious
chest-thumping. dave then terminated his efforts on your behalf
because of your unpleasantness, and told you to have the speakers
picked up.

Others see the events here the same way. Few will say so to your face,
though, because there's no upside to arguing with you. As Bobo
observed, you're as impossible as Krooger is when it comes to rational
conversations.


> dave, please. If we took some college placement test for reading
> comprehension, my score would be at least 20% higher than yours.

And yet you're the one everyone thinks is crazy. Ironic, ain't it?

How about you both take some online IQ test. dave will give his true
score and you can inflate yours by 20%. That's fair, isn't it?

> > Why should *I* be grateful? I was doing *you* a favor.

> > I was being totally fair with my evaluation and it was *me* who was
> > putting myself in the position of being attacked from all sides.

> dave, now you're in the realm of being a horse's ass. You're claiming
> that YOU were attacked? And you're saying this to me? We've already
> been over this, buddy: we're probably pushing 3000 "Lord of the Flies"
> type posts, all directed at ME. I don't see how you can be this clueless.

Why did you ask my opinion? Oh well, too late for second thoughts.

Of course you attacked him. And the reason you gave was that you
didn't like his review of your kit-built speakers. This is a fact. Go
suck a douchebag.


> The joke's on you, dave. You were *woefully* inadequate in discussing
> the excellent construction quality of the speaker, particularly given
> its modest price.

Aha! The secret instructions for the review. What else didn't you tell
dave that you would require after the fact?


BTW, since you brought up movies, do you remember this little lecture?

"You've pointed out, numerous times, your opinion of Ian's character.
You've also lobbed insults at him in countless posts. One would think
that you could manage to refrain from personal attacks in *one* post
in the hopes of appearing unbiased, but you can't even manage that."

"I don't have a problem with his writing, but I do have a problem with
your "criticisms" of it. I also had a problem how you kept making new
posts attempting to flaunt your "unchallenged" post, acting like a
four year old bouncing up and down, screaming for attention."


Astonishing how you provoke the same reactions in people on other
groups as on RAO, isn't it? Considering how smart and literate and
well-informed you are, I mean.

[trotsky]

ScottW wrote:
> trotsky > wrote in message >...
>
>>The Devil wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:33:17 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Are you sure about the 1.6s? I would be genuinely amazed if you
>>>>>actually meant to say that model.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>Trouble in paradise, Dev?
>>>
>>>
>>>Not at all. If these speakers really do stack up against the 1.6s, I
>>>would be inclined to think that was a genuinely magnificent
>>>achievement on the part of Madisound. And to think that they
>>>accomplished that sort of performance for just $400. Marvelous!
>>
>>
>>Horse**** opinion duly noted.
>
>
> So Greg, what do you think of Dave's list of inferior speakers?


My speakers are very good, and dave has finally gotten around to making
that clear.


> One nonspecific Dynaudio model, Maggie 1.6's and a few far less
> expensive retail price models. Should we ask for the opposite side of
> the coin, a list of superior speakers?


That will be a lot harder. dave's essentially going about it the right
way, compiling a balance sheet in his head of speakers' relative
strengths and weaknesses. It's easier to dismiss the ones that don't
make the grade than it is to say which ones do enough things as good or
better to make it a better speaker than the one you already like. (I'm
assuming using the word "like" isn't too presumptuous.)


> Then there is this statement which I paste here for you to interpret:
>
> Dave says, "If you don't think that I could walk into a Best Buy or
> Circuit City
> and find *anything* that was as pleasing as the Europas, I think
> you're just nuts. That's a whole range of stuff, right?"
>
> What do you think Dave is trying to say about your speakers?


No idea. Sometimes dave's thoughts are clear and sometimes they're not.
Strength and weaknesses--catch the wave. I'm still trying to figure
out a single thing that's good about your posts, for example.

[Lionel]

Le Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:56:05 GMT, trotsky >,
> a écrit :

Ok Dave I have been a bad boy but please tell them that my speakers
are the best you've never heard.
Please Dave I will never say again that you are a crappy poet !
Dave you know all this happens because they are nasty boys. They was
sending me about 3000 mails a day, I have exploded my Google score but
I was so nervous...
Dave if you pardon me I say that your Cornwalls are nearly as good as
my Europa.
Dave I will take my medecament every day I will be more quiet but
please make nice phrases, verses and rimes.
Dave please be my herald.

[MiNE 109]

In article >, trotsky >
wrote:

> The Europas have a solid, good
> sounding cabinet that passes the audiophile test: they sound cool when
> you rap your knuckles on them.

Some of the best speakers in the world fail the rap test miserably.

Stephen

[trotsky]

MiNE 109 wrote:
> In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>The Europas have a solid, good
>>sounding cabinet that passes the audiophile test: they sound cool when
>>you rap your knuckles on them.
>
>
> Some of the best speakers in the world fail the rap test miserably.


Was that in the abstract, or can you actually name some specific models?

[MiNE 109]

In article >, trotsky >
wrote:

> MiNE 109 wrote:
> > In article >, trotsky > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The Europas have a solid, good
> >>sounding cabinet that passes the audiophile test: they sound cool when
> >>you rap your knuckles on them.
> >
> >
> > Some of the best speakers in the world fail the rap test miserably.
>
>
> Was that in the abstract, or can you actually name some specific models?

Vandersteen, Quad, Maggies, ML, Cornwalls.

Just kidding about that last one, although I've enjoyed LaScalas.

Stephen

[Lionel]

Le Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:36:45 GMT, trotsky >,
> a écrit :

>
>
>MiNE 109 wrote:
>> In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Europas have a solid, good
>>>sounding cabinet that passes the audiophile test: they sound cool when
>>>you rap your knuckles on them.
>>
>>
>> Some of the best speakers in the world fail the rap test miserably.
>
>
>Was that in the abstract, or can you actually name some specific models?
>

Have you note that Dave Weil doesn't sound good when you rap him on
the knuckles ?
Can we deduct that he is not the best listener in the world ? ;-)

[George M. Middius]

MiNE 109 said:

> Some of the best speakers in the world fail the rap test miserably.

Any good speaker should recoil in horror at the thought of
reproducing rap.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNE 109" > wrote in message

> In article >, trotsky >
> wrote:
>
>> The Europas have a solid, good
>> sounding cabinet that passes the audiophile test: they sound cool
>> when you rap your knuckles on them.
>
> Some of the best speakers in the world fail the rap test miserably.

Then they aren't the best speakers in the world for people who play rap.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message


> MiNE 109 said:

>> Some of the best speakers in the world fail the rap test miserably.

> Any good speaker should recoil in horror at the thought of
> reproducing rap.

Maryland contributed quite a bit to the Confederacy, didn't it?

[Lionel]

Le Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:00:47 -0400, George M. Middius
>,
> a écrit :

>
>
>MiNE 109 said:
>
>> Some of the best speakers in the world fail the rap test miserably.
>
>Any good speaker should recoil in horror at the thought of
>reproducing rap.
>
I note that this one is good.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>
>
> > MiNE 109 said:
>
> >> Some of the best speakers in the world fail the rap test miserably.
>
> > Any good speaker should recoil in horror at the thought of
> > reproducing rap.
>
> Maryland contributed quite a bit to the Confederacy, didn't it?
>
>

Though technically in the Union, it was split pretty close down the middle.
Southern Maryland (tocacco growing country) tilted quite heavily to the
south.
This is from mid Prince George's County on south and east.

The north and west was highly favorable to the Union, example, Barbara
Fritchie of Frederick.

There is a border between two basic soils types that runs just about where
US Route 1 and the B&O, now CSX tracks run. To the north and west is
suitable for corn, beans etc. The soil to the south and east is best for
tobacco.
So, southern Maryland and the Eastern shore were more akin to Virginia and
North Carolina, economically and socially.

Remeber that Mary Surratt housed, and maybe Dr. Mudd treated, John Wilkes
Booth in Clinton, in Southern Prince George's County.

The County seat is named Upper Marlboro, and the cigarette is named after
the town.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Bruce J. Richman]

George M. Middius wrote:


>trotsky said to dave:
>
>> I did find your description inadequate, on several key points.
>
>Gee, dave, did Greg give you some previously undisclosed instructions
>on how to make your description adequate? There certainly weren't any
>posted on Group.
>
>OTOH, maybe Greg is just baiting Krooger here. After all, the cover
>story is that you volunteered to evaluate the speakers, to the best of
>your ability, with no expectation of compensation. Only Krooger
>imagined that you were actually shilling. Greg's accusation that your
>shilling was "inadequate" will only feed Turdborg's paranoia.
>
>

C-l-K's latest paranoid conspiracy theory apparently is based on the belief
that Singh is paying off folks with Jupiter Audio stock in return for favorable
reviews - of both his mental status and his speakers.e
Krueger now wants some of this stock as a backup substitute in case he runs out
of $ 1000 bills for wiping his main communication device.

>> > C'mon Greg, the only ones chiming in were the very people who had been
>> > harassing you since BEFORE you sent me the speakers. And they were
>> > going to harass you EVEN MORE if i had proclaimed them the best thing
>> > since sliced bread, because they hate me as well.
>
>> I don't think that's an accurate description of what happened. Middius
>> could provide one, because he hangs on every word (no pun intended), but
>> I think he's way too far gone to be unbiased here.
>
>You want me to provide "an accurate description"? OK, here it is: dave
>volunteered to try out the speakers and post his opinions. You sent
>dave the speakers. He played around with them and played a lot of
>different music through them. He started -- but did not finish --
>posting his impressions and opinions. Before he could finish, you
>attacked him with your usual loony accusations and imperious
>chest-thumping. dave then terminated his efforts on your behalf
>because of your unpleasantness, and told you to have the speakers
>picked up.
>
>Others see the events here the same way. Few will say so to your face,
>though, because there's no upside to arguing with you. As Bobo
>observed, you're as impossible as Krooger is when it comes to rational
>conversations.
>

Agreed. But they sure do understand and empathize with each other. Perhaps
some inbreeding is involved.

>
>> dave, please. If we took some college placement test for reading
>> comprehension, my score would be at least 20% higher than yours.
>
>And yet you're the one everyone thinks is crazy. Ironic, ain't it?
>
>How about you both take some online IQ test. dave will give his true
>score and you can inflate yours by 20%. That's fair, isn't it?
>




>> > Why should *I* be grateful? I was doing *you* a favor.
>
>> > I was being totally fair with my evaluation and it was *me* who was
>> > putting myself in the position of being attacked from all sides.
>
>> dave, now you're in the realm of being a horse's ass. You're claiming
>> that YOU were attacked? And you're saying this to me? We've already
>> been over this, buddy: we're probably pushing 3000 "Lord of the Flies"
>> type posts, all directed at ME. I don't see how you can be this clueless.
>
>Why did you ask my opinion? Oh well, too late for second thoughts.
>
>Of course you attacked him. And the reason you gave was that you
>didn't like his review of your kit-built speakers. This is a fact. Go
>suck a douchebag.
>
>
>> The joke's on you, dave. You were *woefully* inadequate in discussing
>> the excellent construction quality of the speaker, particularly given
>> its modest price.
>
>Aha! The secret instructions for the review. What else didn't you tell
>dave that you would require after the fact?
>
>
>BTW, since you brought up movies, do you remember this little lecture?
>
>"You've pointed out, numerous times, your opinion of Ian's character.
>You've also lobbed insults at him in countless posts. One would think
>that you could manage to refrain from personal attacks in *one* post
>in the hopes of appearing unbiased, but you can't even manage that."
>
>"I don't have a problem with his writing, but I do have a problem with
>your "criticisms" of it. I also had a problem how you kept making new
>posts attempting to flaunt your "unchallenged" post, acting like a
>four year old bouncing up and down, screaming for attention."
>
>
>Astonishing how you provoke the same reactions in people on other
>groups as on RAO, isn't it? Considering how smart and literate and
>well-informed you are, I mean.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Bruce J. Richman

[dave weil]

On 10 Oct 2003 13:08:43 -0700, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>dave weil > wrote in message >...
>> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:43:15 -0700, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> If you don't think that I could walk into a Best Buy or Circuit
>> City
>> >> and find *anything* that was as pleasing as the Europas, I
>> think
>> >> you're just nuts. That's a whole range of stuff, right?
>> >
>> > Hmmm..... So Best Buy and Circuit City have competitive stuff.
>> > I'm sure you just made Trots day.
>>
>> Is there any reason for you to be deceptive?
>
> It is your writing. Do you stand by your actual words are do you
>want us to decipher your intended meaning? Personally, I would prefer
>you actually wrote what you meant so we wouldn't have to obfuscate
>about what we think you mean.
>
>ScottW

I'm sorry, you're correct. I wrote "don't think" when I meant "think".

My apologies. Totally my fault. I didn't catch it until I reread it
just now.

[dave weil]

On 10 Oct 2003 13:20:47 -0700, (ScottW) wrote:

>trotsky > wrote in message >...
>> The Devil wrote:
>> > On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:33:17 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>>Are you sure about the 1.6s? I would be genuinely amazed if you
>> >>>actually meant to say that model.
>> >>
>>
>> >>Trouble in paradise, Dev?
>> >
>> >
>> > Not at all. If these speakers really do stack up against the 1.6s, I
>> > would be inclined to think that was a genuinely magnificent
>> > achievement on the part of Madisound. And to think that they
>> > accomplished that sort of performance for just $400. Marvelous!
>>
>>
>> Horse**** opinion duly noted.
>
> So Greg, what do you think of Dave's list of inferior speakers?
> One nonspecific Dynaudio model, Maggie 1.6's and a few far less
>expensive retail price models. Should we ask for the opposite side of
>the coin, a list of superior speakers?

> Then there is this statement which I paste here for you to interpret:
>
>Dave says, "If you don't think that I could walk into a Best Buy or
>Circuit City
>and find *anything* that was as pleasing as the Europas, I think
>you're just nuts. That's a whole range of stuff, right?"
>
> What do you think Dave is trying to say about your speakers?

As I said earlier, I misspoke.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:56:05 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>That said, compared to the Cornwalls, which are plain birch plywood
>cabinets that look as if they've been finished in a high school wood
>shop

Sorry - high quality walnut veneer. At least I can actually see the
wood.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:56:05 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>the black lacquer finish
>isn't very common in audio, and you disparage it by simply calling it
>"black paint."

Exactly the same as my Allisons, even down to the oak underneath. I
*did* give your speakers props for having a tighter grain though.

It's certainly a "plain lacquer" black finish, not a high gloss piano
lacquer finish, ifthat's what you're trying to insinuate.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:24:25 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>> Then there is this statement which I paste here for you to interpret:
>>
>> Dave says, "If you don't think that I could walk into a Best Buy or
>> Circuit City
>> and find *anything* that was as pleasing as the Europas, I think
>> you're just nuts. That's a whole range of stuff, right?"
>>
>> What do you think Dave is trying to say about your speakers?
>
>
>No idea. Sometimes dave's thoughts are clear and sometimes they're not.

As previously noted, I inserted a "don't" when I shouldn't have.

That should have read:

"If you think that I could walk into a Best Buy or Circuit City and
find *anything* that was as pleasing as the Europas, I think you're
just nuts. That's a whole range of stuff, right?"

....the point being that there are tons of speakers, even at Best Buy
and Circuit City's top prices, that aren't as good as the Europas in
most areas. And though it sounds like I'm damning with faint praise,
I'm not. You people have been hounding me about my statements about
the number of speakers that the Europas are better than.

And no Greg, "all" (in your words) of the "3000" negatives posts have
*not* been aimed at you. You haven't been paying attention as I've
gotten more than my share of **** from the cheap seats.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:33:16 GMT, MiNE 109 >
wrote:

>In article >, trotsky >
>wrote:
>
>> The Europas have a solid, good
>> sounding cabinet that passes the audiophile test: they sound cool when
>> you rap your knuckles on them.
>
>Some of the best speakers in the world fail the rap test miserably.

Yeah, I imagine that the Europas sound pretty anemic with NWA.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:36:45 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>MiNE 109 wrote:
>> In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Europas have a solid, good
>>>sounding cabinet that passes the audiophile test: they sound cool when
>>>you rap your knuckles on them.
>>
>>
>> Some of the best speakers in the world fail the rap test miserably.
>
>
>Was that in the abstract, or can you actually name some specific models?

Yeah, Quads.

(don't get ****y Greg, this is *not* meant as a literal statement)

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> trotsky said:
>
>
>>>>Why are you quoting Bryan Adams? Have you sunk *that* low?
>>>
>
>>>Sometimes you just can't get a guy out of your mind.
>>
>
>
>>How romantic.
>
>
> You're revolting when you talk about yourself. But at least you're
> beginning to emerge from the closet.


Lack of self awareness duly noted.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:56:05 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>That said, compared to the Cornwalls, which are plain birch plywood
>>cabinets that look as if they've been finished in a high school wood
>>shop
>
>
> Sorry - high quality walnut veneer. At least I can actually see the
> wood.


Veneer is veneer, dave. Do you know what wood the veneer goes over?

Ironically, Klipsch is one of the few companies I can name that has made
a lacquer finish as an *option.* Regardless, if you find their veneer
to be of "high quality" there isn't much left to discuss.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:56:05 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>the black lacquer finish
>>isn't very common in audio, and you disparage it by simply calling it
>>"black paint."
>
>
> Exactly the same as my Allisons, even down to the oak underneath. I
> *did* give your speakers props for having a tighter grain though.


I'd be surprised if your Allisons use lacquer as a finish. Lacquer is a
bitch because it takes about a week to dry. It has a much richer hue
than enamel, though.


> It's certainly a "plain lacquer" black finish, not a high gloss piano
> lacquer finish, ifthat's what you're trying to insinuate.


No, it's not.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:24:25 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>> Then there is this statement which I paste here for you to interpret:
>>>
>>>Dave says, "If you don't think that I could walk into a Best Buy or
>>>Circuit City
>>>and find *anything* that was as pleasing as the Europas, I think
>>>you're just nuts. That's a whole range of stuff, right?"
>>>
>>> What do you think Dave is trying to say about your speakers?
>>
>>
>>No idea. Sometimes dave's thoughts are clear and sometimes they're not.
>
>
> As previously noted, I inserted a "don't" when I shouldn't have.
>
> That should have read:
>
> "If you think that I could walk into a Best Buy or Circuit City and
> find *anything* that was as pleasing as the Europas, I think you're
> just nuts. That's a whole range of stuff, right?"


That should've been obvious from the context, but my brain didn't seem
up to the challenge on that one.


> ...the point being that there are tons of speakers, even at Best Buy
> and Circuit City's top prices, that aren't as good as the Europas in
> most areas. And though it sounds like I'm damning with faint praise,
> I'm not. You people have been hounding me about my statements about
> the number of speakers that the Europas are better than.


I think it's just Scott that's been whining about this.


> And no Greg, "all" (in your words) of the "3000" negatives posts have
> *not* been aimed at you. You haven't been paying attention as I've
> gotten more than my share of **** from the cheap seats.


I think if the situations were reversed you'd be singing a different
tune. I do agree that it's utter bull**** to hound a guy for offering
an opinion on "rec.audio.opinion", of course.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:33:16 GMT, MiNE 109 >
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Europas have a solid, good
>>>sounding cabinet that passes the audiophile test: they sound cool when
>>>you rap your knuckles on them.
>>
>>Some of the best speakers in the world fail the rap test miserably.
>
>
> Yeah, I imagine that the Europas sound pretty anemic with NWA.


I was jamming to Busta Rhymes' latest CD at one point and they sounded
phenomonal.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:36:45 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>MiNE 109 wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Europas have a solid, good
>>>>sounding cabinet that passes the audiophile test: they sound cool when
>>>>you rap your knuckles on them.
>>>
>>>
>>>Some of the best speakers in the world fail the rap test miserably.
>>
>>
>>Was that in the abstract, or can you actually name some specific models?
>
>
> Yeah, Quads.
>
> (don't get ****y Greg, this is *not* meant as a literal statement)


Quit cowering, dave--McElroy, who I usually have no qualms about jumping
on, looked like he was goofing around so I let him off the hook.
However, if he think Martin Logans belong on the list his ears may have
fallen off.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:57:47 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:56:05 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That said, compared to the Cornwalls, which are plain birch plywood
>>>cabinets that look as if they've been finished in a high school wood
>>>shop
>>
>>
>> Sorry - high quality walnut veneer. At least I can actually see the
>> wood.
>
>
>Veneer is veneer, dave. Do you know what wood the veneer goes over?

3/4 inch MDF is 3/4 inch MDF. 3/4 inch birch is 3/4 inch birch. I can
tell you which one *sounds* more expensive.

Still, looks like I've caught you out. You're backpedalling as fast as
you can.

>Ironically, Klipsch is one of the few companies I can name that has made
>a lacquer finish as an *option.*

And your point is?

> Regardless, if you find their veneer to be of "high quality" there isn't much left to discuss.

The walnut veneer on my Cornwalls are tighly grained, well-finished
*and* bookmatched on each surface. I've always thought that using oak
on speakers is a "cheap" looking out - it reminds me of an everyday
kitchen table (and it looks far better covered up in black). Your
mileage obviously varies. Walnut, to my eye, is a far more
"distinguished" looking wood, more befitting a fine speaker.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:59:40 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:56:05 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>the black lacquer finish
>>>isn't very common in audio, and you disparage it by simply calling it
>>>"black paint."
>>
>>
>> Exactly the same as my Allisons, even down to the oak underneath. I
>> *did* give your speakers props for having a tighter grain though.
>
>
>I'd be surprised if your Allisons use lacquer as a finish. Lacquer is a
>bitch because it takes about a week to dry. It has a much richer hue
>than enamel, though.

They looked virually the same to me. It's hard to get a "richer hue"
with black. I think the word your struggling for is "reflectivity".
And they looked virtually the same in that respect. I *did* note that
yours probably used a better quality oak though, because the grain was
tighter and it appeared to be bookmatched on at least the sides. But
there was a span of a few days that they were literally sitting on top
of the Allisons and they looked like an extention of them. Almost
exactly, espcially since they share the same width exactly. they
aren't as deep as the Allisons though.

>> It's certainly a "plain lacquer" black finish, not a high gloss piano
>> lacquer finish, if that's what you're trying to insinuate.
>
>
>No, it's not.

OK. I maintain that with a black speaker, lacquer isn't all *that* big
of a deal unless you're going for that Oriental high gloss look, which
you don't use with an open grained wood like oak anyway (unless you
shoot so many coats of black that the grain disappears).

Now, your finished wood speakers are a different story, but I can't
evaluate *them*.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:03:01 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:24:25 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Then there is this statement which I paste here for you to interpret:
>>>>
>>>>Dave says, "If you don't think that I could walk into a Best Buy or
>>>>Circuit City
>>>>and find *anything* that was as pleasing as the Europas, I think
>>>>you're just nuts. That's a whole range of stuff, right?"
>>>>
>>>> What do you think Dave is trying to say about your speakers?
>>>
>>>
>>>No idea. Sometimes dave's thoughts are clear and sometimes they're not.
>>
>>
>> As previously noted, I inserted a "don't" when I shouldn't have.
>>
>> That should have read:
>>
>> "If you think that I could walk into a Best Buy or Circuit City and
>> find *anything* that was as pleasing as the Europas, I think you're
>> just nuts. That's a whole range of stuff, right?"
>
>
>That should've been obvious from the context, but my brain didn't seem
>up to the challenge on that one.

Yes, I think Scott realized that as well. I don't mind him poking fun
at me about it though. What's good for the goose and ll that.

>> ...the point being that there are tons of speakers, even at Best Buy
>> and Circuit City's top prices, that aren't as good as the Europas in
>> most areas. And though it sounds like I'm damning with faint praise,
>> I'm not. You people have been hounding me about my statements about
>> the number of speakers that the Europas are better than.
>
>
>I think it's just Scott that's been whining about this.

Considering the amount of poking I do about language skills, it was
just payback.

>> And no Greg, "all" (in your words) of the "3000" negatives posts have
>> *not* been aimed at you. You haven't been paying attention as I've
>> gotten more than my share of **** from the cheap seats.
>
>
>I think if the situations were reversed you'd be singing a different
>tune. I do agree that it's utter bull**** to hound a guy for offering
>an opinion on "rec.audio.opinion", of course.

Especially one based on acutal listening and not theory.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:05:53 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>>>>Some of the best speakers in the world fail the rap test miserably.
>>>
>>>
>>>Was that in the abstract, or can you actually name some specific models?
>>
>>
>> Yeah, Quads.
>>
>> (don't get ****y Greg, this is *not* meant as a literal statement)
>
>
>Quit cowering, dave

You call this cowering?

I call sitting in the corner of a health club fuming about "racial
slurs" cowering.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 08:20:21 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>Especially one based on acutal listening and not theory.

....there them language skills again...

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> The walnut veneer on my Cornwalls are tighly grained, well-finished
> *and* bookmatched on each surface. I've always thought that using oak
> on speakers is a "cheap" looking out - it reminds me of an everyday
> kitchen table (and it looks far better covered up in black). Your
> mileage obviously varies. Walnut, to my eye, is a far more
> "distinguished" looking wood, more befitting a fine speaker.

I wonder how many styles of Cornwalls there are. The ones I've seen fit
Greg's description (and thumped like drums in the rap test).

Stephen

[dave weil]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:12:44 GMT, MiNE 109 >
wrote:

>In article >,
> dave weil > wrote:
>
>> The walnut veneer on my Cornwalls are tighly grained, well-finished
>> *and* bookmatched on each surface. I've always thought that using oak
>> on speakers is a "cheap" looking out - it reminds me of an everyday
>> kitchen table (and it looks far better covered up in black). Your
>> mileage obviously varies. Walnut, to my eye, is a far more
>> "distinguished" looking wood, more befitting a fine speaker.
>
>I wonder how many styles of Cornwalls there are. The ones I've seen fit
>Greg's description (and thumped like drums in the rap test).

I think that they come in Walnut, Oak, Raw Birch and Black.

Yes, they go for the "undamped" lively cabinet approach that Greg
seems to talk about on his web site but then eschews when he talks
about "rap tests". They sound like drums because the cabinets are
largly unbraced from side to side but are braced from front to back
with only minimum fabric damping material on the walls of the cabinet.

Maybe they were looking for the same goals as Greg describes: "I've
seen so many speakers use either stuff that is mushy or gooey, or
stuff that is way too inert like lead or concrete, in hopes of
cancelling or destroying resonances, but for some reason the designers
never realize they're destroying the fun factor of the speaker as
well". That's why I was a little surprised about his promoting the
"rap test" which is supposed to show an inert cabinet.

If you want to see the cabinet resonance plot, go here:

http://www.belgaudio.com/kcmeasurements4.htm

The walnut finish is *very* nice. I don't know what they're known for
now, but in the past, Klipsch was as well known for the quality of
their cabinetry (and choice of veneers), as anything else. The fact
that they offered a raw birch cabinet shouldn't be held against them.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> I call sitting in the corner of a health club fuming about "racial
> slurs" cowering.

Dot-heads unite! Rally to the n- - - -r pile!

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:57:47 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:56:05 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>That said, compared to the Cornwalls, which are plain birch plywood
>>>>cabinets that look as if they've been finished in a high school wood
>>>>shop
>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry - high quality walnut veneer. At least I can actually see the
>>>wood.
>>
>>
>>Veneer is veneer, dave. Do you know what wood the veneer goes over?
>
>
> 3/4 inch MDF is 3/4 inch MDF. 3/4 inch birch is 3/4 inch birch. I can
> tell you which one *sounds* more expensive.


"3/4 birch" is solid wood, dave. Cornwalls aren't made from solid wood,
they're made from birch plywood.



> Still, looks like I've caught you out. You're backpedalling as fast as
> you can.


Yeah, that's it: you can't tell the difference between solid wood,
veneer, plywood, enamel or lacquer, but you got me! Everytime I try and
give you the benefit of the doubt you shoot yourself in the weiner in
this manner.


>>Ironically, Klipsch is one of the few companies I can name that has made
>>a lacquer finish as an *option.*
>
>
> And your point is?


It's not a common finish.


>>Regardless, if you find their veneer to be of "high quality" there isn't much left to discuss.
>
>
> The walnut veneer on my Cornwalls are tighly grained, well-finished
> *and* bookmatched on each surface. I've always thought that using oak
> on speakers is a "cheap" looking out - it reminds me of an everyday
> kitchen table (and it looks far better covered up in black). Your
> mileage obviously varies. Walnut, to my eye, is a far more
> "distinguished" looking wood, more befitting a fine speaker.


Again, this is ignorance talking. Walnut made sense in the 70's, when
people had different decors and were less image concious. Now, though,
walnut is less desirable because (a) it's fairly expensive, and (b),
unless you have a house that has many antiques, it doesn't fit in with
popular decorums.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:59:40 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:56:05 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>the black lacquer finish
>>>>isn't very common in audio, and you disparage it by simply calling it
>>>>"black paint."
>>>
>>>
>>>Exactly the same as my Allisons, even down to the oak underneath. I
>>>*did* give your speakers props for having a tighter grain though.
>>
>>
>>I'd be surprised if your Allisons use lacquer as a finish. Lacquer is a
>>bitch because it takes about a week to dry. It has a much richer hue
>>than enamel, though.
>
>
> They looked virually the same to me. It's hard to get a "richer hue"
> with black. I think the word your struggling for is "reflectivity".
> And they looked virtually the same in that respect. I *did* note that
> yours probably used a better quality oak though, because the grain was
> tighter and it appeared to be bookmatched on at least the sides. But
> there was a span of a few days that they were literally sitting on top
> of the Allisons and they looked like an extention of them. Almost
> exactly, espcially since they share the same width exactly. they
> aren't as deep as the Allisons though.


It's possible that Allison used lacquer, then. Regardless, heretofore
you've made the finish a non-issue, even most people make it a point to
discuss this aspect of a speaker.


>>>It's certainly a "plain lacquer" black finish, not a high gloss piano
>>>lacquer finish, if that's what you're trying to insinuate.
>>
>>
>>No, it's not.
>
>
> OK. I maintain that with a black speaker, lacquer isn't all *that* big
> of a deal unless you're going for that Oriental high gloss look, which
> you don't use with an open grained wood like oak anyway (unless you
> shoot so many coats of black that the grain disappears).
>
> Now, your finished wood speakers are a different story, but I can't
> evaluate *them*.


That's immaterial. You make the finish sound like a utilitarian thing,
which it is not. It is well above the norm, especially when you take
the price point into consideration. The odd thing is that I'm much like
you, in that I don't take the finish into account that much, other than
the fact that it adds to the sound quality of the speaker. But others
do, and that's why it should've been discussed.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:03:01 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:24:25 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Then there is this statement which I paste here for you to interpret:
>>>>>
>>>>>Dave says, "If you don't think that I could walk into a Best Buy or
>>>>>Circuit City
>>>>>and find *anything* that was as pleasing as the Europas, I think
>>>>>you're just nuts. That's a whole range of stuff, right?"
>>>>>
>>>>>What do you think Dave is trying to say about your speakers?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No idea. Sometimes dave's thoughts are clear and sometimes they're not.
>>>
>>>
>>>As previously noted, I inserted a "don't" when I shouldn't have.
>>>
>>>That should have read:
>>>
>>> "If you think that I could walk into a Best Buy or Circuit City and
>>>find *anything* that was as pleasing as the Europas, I think you're
>>>just nuts. That's a whole range of stuff, right?"
>>
>>
>>That should've been obvious from the context, but my brain didn't seem
>>up to the challenge on that one.
>
>
> Yes, I think Scott realized that as well. I don't mind him poking fun
> at me about it though. What's good for the goose and ll that.


I think you're painting too rosy a picture. "ScottW" was trying to be a
dick, because apparently that's the only thing he's good at.


>>>...the point being that there are tons of speakers, even at Best Buy
>>>and Circuit City's top prices, that aren't as good as the Europas in
>>>most areas. And though it sounds like I'm damning with faint praise,
>>>I'm not. You people have been hounding me about my statements about
>>>the number of speakers that the Europas are better than.
>>
>>
>>I think it's just Scott that's been whining about this.
>
>
> Considering the amount of poking I do about language skills, it was
> just payback.


Whatever.


>>>And no Greg, "all" (in your words) of the "3000" negatives posts have
>>>*not* been aimed at you. You haven't been paying attention as I've
>>>gotten more than my share of **** from the cheap seats.
>>
>>
>>I think if the situations were reversed you'd be singing a different
>>tune. I do agree that it's utter bull**** to hound a guy for offering
>>an opinion on "rec.audio.opinion", of course.
>
>
> Especially one based on acutal listening and not theory.


Agreed.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:05:53 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Some of the best speakers in the world fail the rap test miserably.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Was that in the abstract, or can you actually name some specific models?
>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah, Quads.
>>>
>>>(don't get ****y Greg, this is *not* meant as a literal statement)
>>
>>
>>Quit cowering, dave
>
>
> You call this cowering?
>
> I call sitting in the corner of a health club fuming about "racial
> slurs" cowering.


Do you really think considering my physical stature that I can't take a
guy out one swift kick, or something like that? It's not worth going to
jail over, and besides that that would make me a massive hypocrite, as I
rely heavily on freedom of speech every day. You can either use your
brain and report the situation accurately, or you can be your usual self.

[trotsky]

MiNE 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> dave weil > wrote:
>
>
>>The walnut veneer on my Cornwalls are tighly grained, well-finished
>>*and* bookmatched on each surface. I've always thought that using oak
>>on speakers is a "cheap" looking out - it reminds me of an everyday
>>kitchen table (and it looks far better covered up in black). Your
>>mileage obviously varies. Walnut, to my eye, is a far more
>>"distinguished" looking wood, more befitting a fine speaker.
>
>
> I wonder how many styles of Cornwalls there are. The ones I've seen fit
> Greg's description (and thumped like drums in the rap test).


Klipsch is weird, because their finishes have varied from excellent to
looking like they were finished in one of Joe Oberlander's favorite high
school woodshops. dave may have a pair that looks good, but thus far it
doesn't sound like commenting on the quality of finishes is something
he's particularly adept at.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:12:44 GMT, MiNE 109 >
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>>dave weil > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The walnut veneer on my Cornwalls are tighly grained, well-finished
>>>*and* bookmatched on each surface. I've always thought that using oak
>>>on speakers is a "cheap" looking out - it reminds me of an everyday
>>>kitchen table (and it looks far better covered up in black). Your
>>>mileage obviously varies. Walnut, to my eye, is a far more
>>>"distinguished" looking wood, more befitting a fine speaker.
>>
>>I wonder how many styles of Cornwalls there are. The ones I've seen fit
>>Greg's description (and thumped like drums in the rap test).
>
>
> I think that they come in Walnut, Oak, Raw Birch and Black.


Try Walnut in both oiled and lacquered versions, Oak in oak clear,
medium oak, and probably some variation of oak lacquer too, and black in
both regular and lacquered versions. The lacquer used to be an extra
charge--I have no idea if they still offer it.


> Yes, they go for the "undamped" lively cabinet approach that Greg
> seems to talk about on his web site but then eschews when he talks
> about "rap tests". They sound like drums because the cabinets are
> largly unbraced from side to side but are braced from front to back
> with only minimum fabric damping material on the walls of the cabinet.


I have never said anything negative about the sound quality of the
Cornwalls' cabinets. That's simply a misrepresentation of the truth.


> Maybe they were looking for the same goals as Greg describes: "I've
> seen so many speakers use either stuff that is mushy or gooey, or
> stuff that is way too inert like lead or concrete, in hopes of
> cancelling or destroying resonances, but for some reason the designers
> never realize they're destroying the fun factor of the speaker as
> well". That's why I was a little surprised about his promoting the
> "rap test" which is supposed to show an inert cabinet.


Maybe you should ask somebody who knows what they are talking about
before you go off half-cocked. When you have as much real estate on a
cabinet as the big Klipschs do, you have to do something to prevent the
cabinets from resonating significantly and coloring the sound
appreciably. It *is* possible for a clever designer to work with the
gestalt of the sound the speaker produces, but nobody in their right
mind would say that's happened in Klipschs case. I'm sure people
steeped in Klipsch lore have an explanation as to why they used plywood,
but I'm guessing it's simply because the same cabinet made with MDF
would be disgustingly heavy.

[ScottW]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
...

> I do agree that it's utter bull**** to hound a guy for offering
> an opinion on "rec.audio.opinion", of course.
>

Blatant hypocrisy duly noted.

ScottW

[Bruce J. Richman]

ScottW wrote:


>"trotsky" > wrote in message
...
>
>> I do agree that it's utter bull**** to hound a guy for offering
>> an opinion on "rec.audio.opinion", of course.
>>
>
>Blatant hypocrisy duly noted.
>
> ScottW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Agreed. Nobody is quicker than Singh to smear people and lie about them
because they don't meet his need for approval.



Bruce J. Richman

[ScottW]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...

> Agreed. Nobody is quicker than Singh to smear people and lie
about them
> because they don't meet his need for approval.

Hey doc, I'm thinking about kludging together a record vacuum to
help my cleaning project.
I don't like the amount of lint left behind by either the tissue
or the terrycloth recommended by disc doc.
Dry brush cleaning doesn't get it all, I end up needing a wet
brush to get it to pick up. I'm back to a Discwasher to get the
lint off my cleaned records.

I'm thinking a simple 1/2 PVC pipe drilled with small holes in
the side and covered with a thin layer of open cell foam and
covering that with velvet cloth ( I got a piece of Rayon/silk
short nap velvet cloth.). It will be about 5" long to cover half
the area. I'll just use a shop vac as a vacuum source and a hole
in the end of the pipe (finger covered) to regulate vacuum.

What do you think?

So far, my results are sort of mixed. Some are improved in pops
and tics, some are still noisy. I think there is an overall
subtle improvement in clarity and soundstage but disc doctor says
I need multiple plays before judging and I haven't had that yet.
Anyway, I stopped cleaning until I can rig up a vacuum.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:31:00 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:57:47 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>dave weil wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:56:05 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That said, compared to the Cornwalls, which are plain birch plywood
>>>>>cabinets that look as if they've been finished in a high school wood
>>>>>shop
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sorry - high quality walnut veneer. At least I can actually see the
>>>>wood.
>>>
>>>
>>>Veneer is veneer, dave. Do you know what wood the veneer goes over?
>>
>>
>> 3/4 inch MDF is 3/4 inch MDF. 3/4 inch birch is 3/4 inch birch. I can
>> tell you which one *sounds* more expensive.
>
>
>"3/4 birch" is solid wood, dave. Cornwalls aren't made from solid wood,
>they're made from birch plywood.

Dodging the question, Greg. Which do you think is more expensive, MDF
or birch *oplywood*, since you're into your anal mode?

>> Still, looks like I've caught you out. You're backpedalling as fast as
>> you can.
>
>
>Yeah, that's it: you can't tell the difference between solid wood,
>veneer, plywood, enamel or lacquer, but you got me! Everytime I try and
>give you the benefit of the doubt you shoot yourself in the weiner in
>this manner.

Answer the question, Greg.

>>>Ironically, Klipsch is one of the few companies I can name that has made
>>>a lacquer finish as an *option.*
>>
>>
>> And your point is?
>
>
>It's not a common finish.

So? Are you now proclaiming how great the Cornwall cabinet finish is?

>>>Regardless, if you find their veneer to be of "high quality" there isn't much left to discuss.
>>
>>
>> The walnut veneer on my Cornwalls are tighly grained, well-finished
>> *and* bookmatched on each surface. I've always thought that using oak
>> on speakers is a "cheap" looking out - it reminds me of an everyday
>> kitchen table (and it looks far better covered up in black). Your
>> mileage obviously varies. Walnut, to my eye, is a far more
>> "distinguished" looking wood, more befitting a fine speaker.
>
>
>Again, this is ignorance talking. Walnut made sense in the 70's,

Except that my speakers were made in 1985.

Ignorance seems to be your strong suit there, cower boy.

> when people had different decors and were less image concious.

I guess these are those superior English skills talking.

> Now, though, walnut is less desirable because (a) it's fairly expensive,

Ohhhhh, now the Cornwalls have a "fairly expensive" finish. OK. I'll
buy that.

> and (b), unless you have a house that has many antiques, it doesn't fit in with
>popular decorums.

What horse****. If you're saying that most people have cheap oak
furniture, well then, I can't speak to your circle of acquaintances.
If you're saying that oak is timeless, you can say the same thing
about walnut.

Quit making style proclamations like a gay interior designer (that
one's for George).

[dave weil]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:35:42 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:59:40 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>dave weil wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:56:05 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>the black lacquer finish
>>>>>isn't very common in audio, and you disparage it by simply calling it
>>>>>"black paint."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Exactly the same as my Allisons, even down to the oak underneath. I
>>>>*did* give your speakers props for having a tighter grain though.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'd be surprised if your Allisons use lacquer as a finish. Lacquer is a
>>>bitch because it takes about a week to dry. It has a much richer hue
>>>than enamel, though.
>>
>>
>> They looked virually the same to me. It's hard to get a "richer hue"
>> with black. I think the word your struggling for is "reflectivity".
>> And they looked virtually the same in that respect. I *did* note that
>> yours probably used a better quality oak though, because the grain was
>> tighter and it appeared to be bookmatched on at least the sides. But
>> there was a span of a few days that they were literally sitting on top
>> of the Allisons and they looked like an extention of them. Almost
>> exactly, espcially since they share the same width exactly. they
>> aren't as deep as the Allisons though.
>
>
>It's possible that Allison used lacquer, then. Regardless, heretofore
>you've made the finish a non-issue, even most people make it a point to
>discuss this aspect of a speaker.
>
You ****, I commented on as much as you can comment about the finish
in my original post. What do you want me to say, something like a
Spinal Tap-like "It's BLACKKKKK. It's Blacker than BLACKKKKK. It
couldn't be ANY more BLAAAAACK." I mentioned the grain pattern, I
mentioned the blookmatching, I mentioned the tight construction. WHAT
IN THE **** ELSE do you want me to say about the fit and finish?

Had you sent me an unpainted and lacquered finish speaker, I could
have commented on the quality of the finish and been more specific
about the grain *and* commented on how nice (or not) it looked.
Frankly, there's just not a lot to say about a totally black speaker
above what I said originally.

>>>>It's certainly a "plain lacquer" black finish, not a high gloss piano
>>>>lacquer finish, if that's what you're trying to insinuate.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, it's not.
>>
>>
>> OK. I maintain that with a black speaker, lacquer isn't all *that* big
>> of a deal unless you're going for that Oriental high gloss look, which
>> you don't use with an open grained wood like oak anyway (unless you
>> shoot so many coats of black that the grain disappears).
>>
>> Now, your finished wood speakers are a different story, but I can't
>> evaluate *them*.
>
>
>That's immaterial. You make the finish sound like a utilitarian thing,
>which it is not. It is well above the norm, especially when you take
>the price point into consideration. The odd thing is that I'm much like
>you, in that I don't take the finish into account that much, other than
>the fact that it adds to the sound quality of the speaker. But others
>do, and that's why it should've been discussed.

That's why I *did* discuss it. I'm sorry that I couldn't borrow any
more "audio magazine language" to stretch it to epic proportions.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:37:45 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>> Yes, I think Scott realized that as well. I don't mind him poking fun
>> at me about it though. What's good for the goose and ll that.
>
>
>I think you're painting too rosy a picture. "ScottW" was trying to be a
>dick, because apparently that's the only thing he's good at.

Of course he was. So? Aren't we all wehn we diss others on this forum?

That's your problem, you can't take it when someone gets you in their
sights, although you just LOVE trashing people yourself. Grow a
thicker skin or something. You're going to need it in your new career.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:40:00 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:05:53 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>Some of the best speakers in the world fail the rap test miserably.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Was that in the abstract, or can you actually name some specific models?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, Quads.
>>>>
>>>>(don't get ****y Greg, this is *not* meant as a literal statement)
>>>
>>>
>>>Quit cowering, dave
>>
>>
>> You call this cowering?
>>
>> I call sitting in the corner of a health club fuming about "racial
>> slurs" cowering.
>
>
>Do you really think considering my physical stature that I can't take a
>guy out one swift kick,

No I don't. First ofall, I'm doubtful that you could get your leg high
enough up to do anything but catch them in the shin. Second, I think
you're just a paper tiger. And third, who says you have to resort
toviolence to put someone in their place? *You're* the one who claimed
that the reason you were afraid was that the guy looked like a truck
driver.

> or something like that? It's not worth going to
>jail over, and besides that that would make me a massive hypocrite, as I
>rely heavily on freedom of speech every day. You can either use your
>brain and report the situation accurately, or you can be your usual self.

Then you shouldn't have bothered moaning about it in the first place.
You should have just known your place. Oh wait, I guess you did.

[Bruce J. Richman]

ScottW wrote:


>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Agreed. Nobody is quicker than Singh to smear people and lie
>about them
>> because they don't meet his need for approval.
>
> Hey doc, I'm thinking about kludging together a record vacuum to
>help my cleaning project.
> I don't like the amount of lint left behind by either the tissue
>or the terrycloth recommended by disc doc.
>Dry brush cleaning doesn't get it all, I end up needing a wet
>brush to get it to pick up. I'm back to a Discwasher to get the
>lint off my cleaned records.
>
> I'm thinking a simple 1/2 PVC pipe drilled with small holes in
>the side and covered with a thin layer of open cell foam and
>covering that with velvet cloth ( I got a piece of Rayon/silk
>short nap velvet cloth.). It will be about 5" long to cover half
>the area. I'll just use a shop vac as a vacuum source and a hole
>in the end of the pipe (finger covered) to regulate vacuum.
>
> What do you think?
>
> So far, my results are sort of mixed. Some are improved in pops
>and tics, some are still noisy. I think there is an overall
>subtle improvement in clarity and soundstage but disc doctor says
>I need multiple plays before judging and I haven't had that yet.
>Anyway, I stopped cleaning until I can rig up a vacuum.
>
>ScottW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well, Scott, I use the Disc Doctor liquid and brushes for cleaning and then use
a VPI 16.5 machine for vacuuming off the liquid residue (for both cleaning and
rinse stages). This procedure, although a PITA, seems to work well for me, so
I think your idea of using a vacuum for the drying is a good one.

If you are still getting ticks and pops on some discs after one cleaning/vacuum
process, I would speculate there are 2 possible causes - (1) some of the noisy
discs may have groove damage that you just can't see with the naked eye, or (2)
static buildup (although I would guess this would not be an issue on repeated
plays).

I haven't found that repeated plays are necessary to see the benefits from the
Disc Doctor process. Usually, if there is going to be an improvement (and IME,
there usually is), it happens on the first play after cleaning.

Here's my process - which is admittedly compulsive, but seems to work pretty
well for me:

(1) Clean record with Disc Doctor brush and liquid.

(2) Dry off DD liquid with vaccum from VPI RCM.

(3) Using 2nd DD brush, apply distilled water and brush/rinse.

(4) Dry off distilled water with vacuum from VPI RCM ( I use a separate felt
vacuum wand for this step).

(5) Let air dry briefly before playing (the vacuum pretty much totally dries
the records, however).

(6) Use AudioQuest carbon fibre brush on cleaned record just before playing it.

If you aren't already doing so, I would suggest using a carbon-fibre brush
before playing to get rid of any surface dust, and perhaps, more importantly,
to "destaticize" (is this a word - lol?) the record before playing.

Of course, I'm a big fan of the VPI 16.5 machine and recommend it highly - I've
had mine now for about 10 years, and aside from replacing the turntable mat on
it, I've never had any maintenance problems with it - it's built like a tank.
I also see VPI RCM's occasionally up for auction on eBay, so I'd keep my eyes
open there for a good price on one. It works very well in conjunction with the
DD cleaning process - and Dr. Goldman sells felt replacements for the vacuum
wands used with this machine.

Oh yes, this is probably obvious, but I also use a stylus cleaner before every
LP play - either LAST Stylus Cleaner or the Disc Doctor stylus cleaner.


Vacuum drying is definitely worth the time and trouble IMHO.



Bruce J. Richman

[dave weil]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:50:24 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:12:44 GMT, MiNE 109 >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>dave weil > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The walnut veneer on my Cornwalls are tighly grained, well-finished
>>>>*and* bookmatched on each surface. I've always thought that using oak
>>>>on speakers is a "cheap" looking out - it reminds me of an everyday
>>>>kitchen table (and it looks far better covered up in black). Your
>>>>mileage obviously varies. Walnut, to my eye, is a far more
>>>>"distinguished" looking wood, more befitting a fine speaker.
>>>
>>>I wonder how many styles of Cornwalls there are. The ones I've seen fit
>>>Greg's description (and thumped like drums in the rap test).
>>
>>
>> I think that they come in Walnut, Oak, Raw Birch and Black.
>
>
>Try Walnut in both oiled and lacquered versions, Oak in oak clear,
>medium oak, and probably some variation of oak lacquer too, and black in
>both regular and lacquered versions. The lacquer used to be an extra
>charge--I have no idea if they still offer it.

We're both "wrong". Here are the various finishes for the Cornwalls:

Walnut, Rose, Teak Oil, Oak, Cherry Lacquer, Natural, Mahogany, Maple,
Raw, Black Birch

Also, it turns out that it's likely that only the unfinished birch
plywood was 9 ply birch plywood. The rest of the finishes was lumber
core plywood.

So, I guess you aren't the Klipsch espert that you thought you were
(espcially since you didn't jump in to correct me on "birch" - at
least the correct way). Therefore, I think we can discount your
comments about the QC level of cabinetry that Klipsch offered.

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:
>
>
> dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:56:05 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> the black lacquer finish isn't very common in audio, and you
>>> disparage it by simply calling it "black paint."
>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly the same as my Allisons, even down to the oak underneath. I
>> *did* give your speakers props for having a tighter grain though.
>
>
>
> I'd be surprised if your Allisons use lacquer as a finish. Lacquer is a
> bitch because it takes about a week to dry. It has a much richer hue
> than enamel, though.

There are new formulations that only take about 24-248 hours to dry.
Like MDF, what we had 10-15 years ago is nothing like the stuff technology
is providing us.

[Joseph Oberlander]

dave weil wrote:


> I think that they come in Walnut, Oak, Raw Birch and Black.

I always wondered why they all seem to chose colors/types like
this. Mahagony wasn't a dime more expensive than Black Walnut or
Cherry when I called around yesterday. Of course, there are others
as well like Pecan and if you really want to get tricky, Redwood.

Yes, Redwood if carefully selected looks great, though you have
to get 1/8 plywood and manually finish it.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Dave Weil wrote:


>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:31:00 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:57:47 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>dave weil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:56:05 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>That said, compared to the Cornwalls, which are plain birch plywood
>>>>>>cabinets that look as if they've been finished in a high school wood
>>>>>>shop
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry - high quality walnut veneer. At least I can actually see the
>>>>>wood.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Veneer is veneer, dave. Do you know what wood the veneer goes over?
>>>
>>>
>>> 3/4 inch MDF is 3/4 inch MDF. 3/4 inch birch is 3/4 inch birch. I can
>>> tell you which one *sounds* more expensive.
>>
>>
>>"3/4 birch" is solid wood, dave. Cornwalls aren't made from solid wood,
>>they're made from birch plywood.
>
>Dodging the question, Greg. Which do you think is more expensive, MDF
>or birch *oplywood*, since you're into your anal mode?
>
>>> Still, looks like I've caught you out. You're backpedalling as fast as
>>> you can.
>>
>>
>>Yeah, that's it: you can't tell the difference between solid wood,
>>veneer, plywood, enamel or lacquer, but you got me! Everytime I try and
>>give you the benefit of the doubt you shoot yourself in the weiner in
>>this manner.
>
>Answer the question, Greg.
>
>>>>Ironically, Klipsch is one of the few companies I can name that has made
>>>>a lacquer finish as an *option.*
>>>
>>>
>>> And your point is?
>>
>>
>>It's not a common finish.
>
>So? Are you now proclaiming how great the Cornwall cabinet finish is?
>
>>>>Regardless, if you find their veneer to be of "high quality" there isn't
>much left to discuss.
>>>
>>>
>>> The walnut veneer on my Cornwalls are tighly grained, well-finished
>>> *and* bookmatched on each surface. I've always thought that using oak
>>> on speakers is a "cheap" looking out - it reminds me of an everyday
>>> kitchen table (and it looks far better covered up in black). Your
>>> mileage obviously varies. Walnut, to my eye, is a far more
>>> "distinguished" looking wood, more befitting a fine speaker.
>>
>>
>>Again, this is ignorance talking. Walnut made sense in the 70's,
>
>Except that my speakers were made in 1985.
>
>Ignorance seems to be your strong suit there, cower boy.
>
>> when people had different decors and were less image concious.
>
>I guess these are those superior English skills talking.
>
>> Now, though, walnut is less desirable because (a) it's fairly expensive,
>
>Ohhhhh, now the Cornwalls have a "fairly expensive" finish. OK. I'll
>buy that.
>
>> and (b), unless you have a house that has many antiques, it doesn't fit in
>with
>>popular decorums.
>

LOL! English vocabulary expert Singh is now talking about "popular decorums"?
Perhaps he should consult with this typography expert and buddy, C-l-K, about
when a phrase such as "popular decors" might be used. I just love it when his
anger and raging narcissism generates even more mumbling and stumbling.



>What horse****. If you're saying that most people have cheap oak
>furniture, well then, I can't speak to your circle of acquaintances.
>If you're saying that oak is timeless, you can say the same thing
>about walnut.
>
>Quit making style proclamations like a gay interior designer (that
>one's for George).
>
>
>

Singh also liikes to compare other peoples' audio systems with "limp dicks".
Draw your own conclusioins - lol.



Bruce J. Richman

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:


> Again, this is ignorance talking. Walnut made sense in the 70's, when
> people had different decors and were less image concious. Now, though,
> walnut is less desirable because (a) it's fairly expensive, and (b),
> unless you have a house that has many antiques, it doesn't fit in with
> popular decorums.

There's always English Walnut.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:31:00 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:57:47 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dave weil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:56:05 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>That said, compared to the Cornwalls, which are plain birch plywood
>>>>>>cabinets that look as if they've been finished in a high school wood
>>>>>>shop
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry - high quality walnut veneer. At least I can actually see the
>>>>>wood.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Veneer is veneer, dave. Do you know what wood the veneer goes over?
>>>
>>>
>>>3/4 inch MDF is 3/4 inch MDF. 3/4 inch birch is 3/4 inch birch. I can
>>>tell you which one *sounds* more expensive.
>>
>>
>>"3/4 birch" is solid wood, dave. Cornwalls aren't made from solid wood,
>>they're made from birch plywood.
>
>
> Dodging the question, Greg.


You didn't ask a question, dave.


Which do you think is more expensive, MDF
> or birch *oplywood*, since you're into your anal mode?


I've never compared them. They're probably similar in cost. Do you
mean to tell me that if you see a speaker cabinet constructed from
plywood that leads you to believe the cabinet costs more to make than
other materials? This is tedious, dave. You think up is down and
backwards is forward. Normal people see the Klipsch cabinets and think
that they are industrial looking, not expensive looking.


>>>Still, looks like I've caught you out. You're backpedalling as fast as
>>>you can.
>>
>>
>>Yeah, that's it: you can't tell the difference between solid wood,
>>veneer, plywood, enamel or lacquer, but you got me! Everytime I try and
>>give you the benefit of the doubt you shoot yourself in the weiner in
>>this manner.
>
>
> Answer the question, Greg.


The first time you asked a question was in this post--are you charging
me with not being able to predict the future now?


>>>>Ironically, Klipsch is one of the few companies I can name that has made
>>>>a lacquer finish as an *option.*
>>>
>>>
>>>And your point is?
>>
>>
>>It's not a common finish.
>
>
> So? Are you now proclaiming how great the Cornwall cabinet finish is?


LOL! Are you telling me you know if you have oiled Walnut or lacquered
Walnut?


>>>>Regardless, if you find their veneer to be of "high quality" there isn't much left to discuss.
>>>
>>>
>>>The walnut veneer on my Cornwalls are tighly grained, well-finished
>>>*and* bookmatched on each surface. I've always thought that using oak
>>>on speakers is a "cheap" looking out - it reminds me of an everyday
>>>kitchen table (and it looks far better covered up in black). Your
>>>mileage obviously varies. Walnut, to my eye, is a far more
>>>"distinguished" looking wood, more befitting a fine speaker.
>>
>>
>>Again, this is ignorance talking. Walnut made sense in the 70's,
>
>
> Except that my speakers were made in 1985.


Case in point.


> Ignorance seems to be your strong suit there, cower boy.


My mistake, I thought you were interested in discussing the topic,
rather than just simple trolling in a Joe Oberlander fashion.


>>when people had different decors and were less image concious.
>
>
> I guess these are those superior English skills talking.


Your trolling again, dave, and doing a bad job of it.


>> Now, though, walnut is less desirable because (a) it's fairly expensive,
>
>
> Ohhhhh, now the Cornwalls have a "fairly expensive" finish. OK. I'll
> buy that.


What part of "now" confused you, dave. Hint: the Cornwalls have long
since been discontinued.


>>and (b), unless you have a house that has many antiques, it doesn't fit in with
>>popular decorums.
>
>
> What horse****. If you're saying that most people have cheap oak
> furniture,


Is that the only choice? All furniture constructed of oak or of a wood
that is close to the color of oak is cheap?


well then, I can't speak to your circle of acquaintances.
> If you're saying that oak is timeless,


dave, again, I think your brain has probably been destroyed by drugs.
How do get "timeless" from a comparison of "then" and "now"?


you can say the same thing
> about walnut.
>
> Quit making style proclamations like a gay interior designer (that
> one's for George).


Whatever, dave. You'd think 14 years in audio retail would help me
recognize trends like this, but hey, if you want to trash my work
experience I'll have no trouble trashing yours in return.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:35:42 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:59:40 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dave weil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:56:05 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>the black lacquer finish
>>>>>>isn't very common in audio, and you disparage it by simply calling it
>>>>>>"black paint."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Exactly the same as my Allisons, even down to the oak underneath. I
>>>>>*did* give your speakers props for having a tighter grain though.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'd be surprised if your Allisons use lacquer as a finish. Lacquer is a
>>>>bitch because it takes about a week to dry. It has a much richer hue
>>>>than enamel, though.
>>>
>>>
>>>They looked virually the same to me. It's hard to get a "richer hue"
>>>with black. I think the word your struggling for is "reflectivity".
>>>And they looked virtually the same in that respect. I *did* note that
>>>yours probably used a better quality oak though, because the grain was
>>>tighter and it appeared to be bookmatched on at least the sides. But
>>>there was a span of a few days that they were literally sitting on top
>>>of the Allisons and they looked like an extention of them. Almost
>>>exactly, espcially since they share the same width exactly. they
>>>aren't as deep as the Allisons though.
>>
>>
>>It's possible that Allison used lacquer, then. Regardless, heretofore
>>you've made the finish a non-issue, even most people make it a point to
>>discuss this aspect of a speaker.
>>
>
> You ****, I commented on as much as you can comment about the finish
> in my original post. What do you want me to say, something like a
> Spinal Tap-like "It's BLACKKKKK. It's Blacker than BLACKKKKK. It
> couldn't be ANY more BLAAAAACK." I mentioned the grain pattern, I
> mentioned the blookmatching, I mentioned the tight construction. WHAT
> IN THE **** ELSE do you want me to say about the fit and finish?


Let me get this straight: all finishes on black speakers since the dawn
of time look the same? Does this include vinyl laminates? (Are the
Allisons vinyl veneered, btw?) You sound like a reject from an ABX
test. Oh, btw, the norm would be to comment on cabinet quality *and*
finish, so let me get you your scorecard: no initial comment on the
cabinet quality, but subsequent posts show that you think a Klipsch
plywood cabinet looks more "expensive" than a nicely veneered MDF
cabinet, and no initial comment on the finish quality, but we find out
in subsequent posts you feel all black finishes look the same. And if
*I* say anything about this *I'm* the *******. God, this is a strange
newsgroup.


> Had you sent me an unpainted and lacquered finish speaker, I could
> have commented on the quality of the finish and been more specific
> about the grain *and* commented on how nice (or not) it looked.
> Frankly, there's just not a lot to say about a totally black speaker
> above what I said originally.


Hey, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to say how poorly
informed it is.


<snip>

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:37:45 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>>Yes, I think Scott realized that as well. I don't mind him poking fun
>>>at me about it though. What's good for the goose and ll that.
>>
>>
>>I think you're painting too rosy a picture. "ScottW" was trying to be a
>>dick, because apparently that's the only thing he's good at.
>
>
> Of course he was. So? Aren't we all wehn we diss others on this forum?
>
> That's your problem, you can't take it when someone gets you in their
> sights, although you just LOVE trashing people yourself.


Let's see, I'm comment on "Scott" being a dick toward *you*, but somehow
this is about *me*. Can you explain how you arrived at this conclusion,
dave?

[Lionel]

trotsky wrote:

> God, this is a strange newsgroup.
>

LOL !

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:40:00 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:05:53 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>Some of the best speakers in the world fail the rap test miserably.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Was that in the abstract, or can you actually name some specific models?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, Quads.
>>>>>
>>>>>(don't get ****y Greg, this is *not* meant as a literal statement)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Quit cowering, dave
>>>
>>>
>>>You call this cowering?
>>>
>>>I call sitting in the corner of a health club fuming about "racial
>>>slurs" cowering.
>>
>>
>>Do you really think considering my physical stature that I can't take a
>>guy out one swift kick,
>
>
> No I don't. First ofall, I'm doubtful that you could get your leg high
> enough up to do anything but catch them in the shin. Second, I think
> you're just a paper tiger. And third, who says you have to resort
> toviolence to put someone in their place? *You're* the one who claimed
> that the reason you were afraid was that the guy looked like a truck
> driver.


dave, it sounds like you lack the gray matter to think through what the
consequences of your actions might be. If I say something to the guy,
and he throws the first punch, there's a pretty good chance I'll still
get arrested if I defend myself. Hence the expression "discretion is
the better part of valor." But we've already been through this before.
You're just trolling.


>>or something like that? It's not worth going to
>>jail over, and besides that that would make me a massive hypocrite, as I
>>rely heavily on freedom of speech every day. You can either use your
>>brain and report the situation accurately, or you can be your usual self.
>
>
> Then you shouldn't have bothered moaning about it in the first place.
> You should have just known your place. Oh wait, I guess you did.


My fault for venting. And for providing the group a near infinite set
of discussion topics.

[Lionel]

trotsky wrote:

>
>
> dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:37:45 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Yes, I think Scott realized that as well. I don't mind him poking fun
>>>> at me about it though. What's good for the goose and ll that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you're painting too rosy a picture. "ScottW" was trying to
>>> be a dick, because apparently that's the only thing he's good at.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course he was. So? Aren't we all wehn we diss others on this forum?
>>
>> That's your problem, you can't take it when someone gets you in their
>> sights, although you just LOVE trashing people yourself.
>
>
>
> Let's see, I'm comment on "Scott" being a dick toward *you*, but somehow
> this is about *me*. Can you explain how you arrived at this conclusion,
> dave?
>

What a quiproquo !
Dave are you sure that you have reviewed Trotsky speakers ?

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:50:24 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:12:44 GMT, MiNE 109 >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>>dave weil > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The walnut veneer on my Cornwalls are tighly grained, well-finished
>>>>>*and* bookmatched on each surface. I've always thought that using oak
>>>>>on speakers is a "cheap" looking out - it reminds me of an everyday
>>>>>kitchen table (and it looks far better covered up in black). Your
>>>>>mileage obviously varies. Walnut, to my eye, is a far more
>>>>>"distinguished" looking wood, more befitting a fine speaker.
>>>>
>>>>I wonder how many styles of Cornwalls there are. The ones I've seen fit
>>>>Greg's description (and thumped like drums in the rap test).
>>>
>>>
>>>I think that they come in Walnut, Oak, Raw Birch and Black.
>>
>>
>>Try Walnut in both oiled and lacquered versions, Oak in oak clear,
>>medium oak, and probably some variation of oak lacquer too, and black in
>>both regular and lacquered versions. The lacquer used to be an extra
>>charge--I have no idea if they still offer it.
>
>
> We're both "wrong". Here are the various finishes for the Cornwalls:
>
> Walnut, Rose, Teak Oil, Oak, Cherry Lacquer, Natural, Mahogany, Maple,
> Raw, Black Birch
>
> Also, it turns out that it's likely that only the unfinished birch
> plywood was 9 ply birch plywood. The rest of the finishes was lumber
> core plywood.
>
> So, I guess you aren't the Klipsch espert that you thought you were
> (espcially since you didn't jump in to correct me on "birch" - at
> least the correct way). Therefore, I think we can discount your
> comments about the QC level of cabinetry that Klipsch offered.


Whatever gets you through the night, dave. I guess when I've seen
Klipsch price sheets showing lacquered finishes as an option, I was
dreaming it.

[trotsky]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> trotsky wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> dave weil wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:56:05 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> the black lacquer finish isn't very common in audio, and you
>>>> disparage it by simply calling it "black paint."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly the same as my Allisons, even down to the oak underneath. I
>>> *did* give your speakers props for having a tighter grain though.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd be surprised if your Allisons use lacquer as a finish. Lacquer is
>> a bitch because it takes about a week to dry. It has a much richer
>> hue than enamel, though.
>
>
> There are new formulations that only take about 24-248 hours to dry.


That much I didn't know, but I've found that "dry to the touch" and dry
are two different things.

[Lionel]

trotsky wrote:

> dave, it sounds like you lack the gray matter to think through what the
> consequences of your actions might be. If I say something to the guy,
> and he throws the first punch, there's a pretty good chance I'll still
> get arrested if I defend myself. Hence the expression "discretion is
> the better part of valor."

Is someone need a good definition of surrealist ?

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message


> I think if the situations were reversed you'd be singing a different
> tune. I do agree that it's utter bull**** to hound a guy for offering
> an opinion on "rec.audio.opinion", of course.

....not to mention suing a guy who offered an opinion on "rec.audio.opinion".

[Arny Krueger]

"Lionel" > wrote in message

> trotsky wrote:
>
>> God, this is a strange newsgroup.
>>
>
> LOL !

Agreed. It got stranger when Singh returned.

[ScottW]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>
> Well, Scott, I use the Disc Doctor liquid and brushes for
cleaning and then use
> a VPI 16.5 machine for vacuuming off the liquid residue (for
both cleaning and
> rinse stages). This procedure, although a PITA, seems to work
well for me, so
> I think your idea of using a vacuum for the drying is a good
one.

Ok, sounds good. One comment and I picked this up when talking
to 'em on the phone when I place my order.
He said don't remove all the cleaning solution before rinsing.
It is necessary to have enough left to break the surface tension
of the rinse water to penetrate the depth of the groove. He said
you still want the rinse water to "wet" the record. If it beads
or pulls back, you are rinsing deep into the grooves. I have
noticed that I can use my wash brush and just by squeegy the
cleaner out of it, I can soak up enough cleaner to prevent to
rinse water from adequately wetting the record to start.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your experience. I am still working on
it. So little time. Spent half a day repairing a valve on the
pool filter and then busted the creeper trying to put new feet on
it.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

****-for-Brains reverts to nasty self. Oops, I misspoke -- no
reversion necessary. It's an always-on situation.

> ...not to mention suing a guy who offered an opinion on "rec.audio.opinion".

Did I call it or did I call it?

So it's your "opinion" that Mister Wheeler is a pedophile? Try that on
the judge, fool.

[George M. Middius]

****-for-Brains reverts to his nasty self. Oops, I misspoke -- no
reversion necessary. It's an always-on situation.

> ...not to mention suing a guy who offered an opinion on "rec.audio.opinion".

Did I call it or did I call it?

So it's your "opinion" that Mister Wheeler is a pedophile? Try that on
the judge, fool.

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:

> That much I didn't know, but I've found that "dry to the touch" and dry
> are two different things.

It's actually a laquer hybrid, so it looks the same and dries "dry to the
touch" in 24-48 hours in the proper environment. Really neat stuff, though
still will give you headaches unless you have lots of air movement.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>
>
> > I think if the situations were reversed you'd be singing a different
> > tune. I do agree that it's utter bull**** to hound a guy for offering
> > an opinion on "rec.audio.opinion", of course.
>
> ...not to mention suing a guy who offered an opinion on
"rec.audio.opinion".
>

nice backtrack, Arny




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[dave weil]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:18:37 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

> Which do you think is more expensive, MDF
>> or birch *plywood*, since you're into your anal mode?
>
>
>I've never compared them. They're probably similar in cost.

They're not. Birch plywood is about 3 times more expensive. However,
as we've discovered, it's not birch plywood that we should be talking
about so it's probably only *double* the price of MDF. If you call
that "similar", then so be it.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:18:37 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>> So? Are you now proclaiming how great the Cornwall cabinet finish is?
>
>
>LOL! Are you telling me you know if you have oiled Walnut or lacquered
>Walnut?

I'm pretty sure it's oiled walnut.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:18:37 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>> Ohhhhh, now the Cornwalls have a "fairly expensive" finish. OK. I'll
>> buy that.
>
>
>What part of "now" confused you, dave. Hint: the Cornwalls have long
>since been discontinued.

So? The *finish* has not been discontinued.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:18:37 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>Whatever, dave. You'd think 14 years in audio retail would help me
>recognize trends like this, but hey, if you want to trash my work
>experience I'll have no trouble trashing yours in return.

You'd think. so why are you so off? You seem to think that black is a
hot new trend in speakers that has suddenly come in style. I've got
news for you - black was big back in the 80s as well. Very "Euro". Of
course, if your timeline is to be believed, you barely dipped your toe
in the retail in the 80s.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:28:57 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>> You ****, I commented on as much as you can comment about the finish
>> in my original post. What do you want me to say, something like a
>> Spinal Tap-like "It's BLACKKKKK. It's Blacker than BLACKKKKK. It
>> couldn't be ANY more BLAAAAACK." I mentioned the grain pattern, I
>> mentioned the blookmatching, I mentioned the tight construction. WHAT
>> IN THE **** ELSE do you want me to say about the fit and finish?
>
>
>Let me get this straight: all finishes on black speakers since the dawn
>of time look the same?

I can tell you this - all reaonably made black pained oak cabinets
*pretty much* look alike, with the exception of the grain. Black
covers a lot of flaws as well. However, I already commented on the
grain situation - positively, I might add.

> Does this include vinyl laminates? (Are the
>Allisons vinyl veneered, btw?)

Nope. Who was talking about vinyl laminates in the first place? Why,
you suddenly are.

> You sound like a reject from an ABX test. Oh, btw, the norm would
>be to comment on cabinet quality *and*
>finish, so let me get you your scorecard: no initial comment on the
>cabinet quality, but subsequent posts show that you think a Klipsch
>plywood cabinet looks more "expensive" than a nicely veneered MDF
>cabinet,

I think that a *nicely veneered* plywood cabinet looks "more
expensive" than a BLACK PAINTED MDF cabinet - yes I do. Especially
when it's walnut vs. oak. Sue me, but oak just looks "ordinary" on a
speaker. And I know because my Merlins have honey oak top and bottom
caps (the rest of the tower is wrapped in black cloth all the way
around, with the exception of a matching oak retaining strip on the
back side.

> and no initial comment on the finish quality, but we find out
>in subsequent posts you feel all black finishes look the same.

Jesus - yes they do (in this case). Frankly, I'd be far more impressed
with a nice Chinese lacquer piano finish, because, A. it looks
mirrorlike when done properly and B. a lot more work goes into it.

> And if *I* say anything about this *I'm* the *******. God, this is a strange
>newsgroup.

Well, yes you are because you have a highly inflated view of what yur
ordinary black painted oak speaker looks like vis a vis the
competition (in this case, the humble Allison).

[dave weil]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:28:57 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>> Had you sent me an unpainted and lacquered finish speaker, I could
>> have commented on the quality of the finish and been more specific
>> about the grain *and* commented on how nice (or not) it looked.
>> Frankly, there's just not a lot to say about a totally black speaker
>> above what I said originally.
>
>
>Hey, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to say how poorly
>informed it is.

Of course you are. I assume that you think my comments about the
Maggies vs. your speakers is uninformed as well.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:40:02 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>Whatever gets you through the night, dave. I guess when I've seen
>Klipsch price sheets showing lacquered finishes as an option, I was
>dreaming it.

When did you ever sell Cornwalls? When did you ever see a Klipsch
price sheet that included a Cornwall?

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:40:02 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>> Whatever gets you through the night, dave. I guess when I've seen
>> Klipsch price sheets showing lacquered finishes as an option, I was
>> dreaming it.

> When did you ever sell Cornwalls? When did you ever see a Klipsch
> price sheet that included a Cornwall?

Back in the 60's when they were merely mediocre. Probably before Weil they
started trying to teach Weil to read...

[Arny Krueger]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message

> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:40:02 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>>> Whatever gets you through the night, dave. I guess when I've seen
>>> Klipsch price sheets showing lacquered finishes as an option, I was
>>> dreaming it.
>
>> When did you ever sell Cornwalls? When did you ever see a Klipsch
>> price sheet that included a Cornwall?

Correction, so Weil won't spazz out on a typo:

> Back in the 60's when they were merely mediocre. Probably before
> they started trying to teach Weil to read...

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:18:37 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>> Which do you think is more expensive, MDF
>>
>>>or birch *plywood*, since you're into your anal mode?
>>
>>
>>I've never compared them. They're probably similar in cost.
>
>
> They're not. Birch plywood is about 3 times more expensive.


That's kind of academic, since the pre-veneered MDF I use is more than
three times more expensive than standard MDF too.


However,
> as we've discovered, it's not birch plywood that we should be talking
> about so it's probably only *double* the price of MDF. If you call
> that "similar", then so be it.


????

[Lionel]

trotsky wrote:
>
>
> dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:18:37 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Which do you think is more expensive, MDF
>>>
>>>> or birch *plywood*, since you're into your anal mode?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've never compared them. They're probably similar in cost.
>>
>>
>>
>> They're not. Birch plywood is about 3 times more expensive.
>
>
>
> That's kind of academic, since the pre-veneered MDF I use is more than
> three times more expensive than standard MDF too.
>
>
> However,
>
>> as we've discovered, it's not birch plywood that we should be talking
>> about so it's probably only *double* the price of MDF. If you call
>> that "similar", then so be it.
>
>
>
> ????
>
Prove it ! Copies of invoices, please.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:18:37 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>>Ohhhhh, now the Cornwalls have a "fairly expensive" finish. OK. I'll
>>>buy that.
>>
>>
>>What part of "now" confused you, dave. Hint: the Cornwalls have long
>>since been discontinued.
>
>
> So? The *finish* has not been discontinued.



At one point Klipsch didn't offer Walnut as a finish. They might offer
it now that they've reintroduced the Klipshorns, but I can't remember.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:18:37 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>Whatever, dave. You'd think 14 years in audio retail would help me
>>recognize trends like this, but hey, if you want to trash my work
>>experience I'll have no trouble trashing yours in return.
>
>
> You'd think. so why are you so off?


That's funny. You simply don't have a clue about stuff like this.
Hell, you think all black finishes look the same.


You seem to think that black is a
> hot new trend in speakers that has suddenly come in style.


Yeah, since the majority of Klipsch line is only available in black, for
example.


I've got
> news for you - black was big back in the 80s as well. Very "Euro". Of
> course, if your timeline is to be believed, you barely dipped your toe
> in the retail in the 80s.


That's super, dave, but the comparison that was being made was strictly
between Walnut as a speaker finish and Oak as a speaker finish.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:28:57 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>>You ****, I commented on as much as you can comment about the finish
>>>in my original post. What do you want me to say, something like a
>>>Spinal Tap-like "It's BLACKKKKK. It's Blacker than BLACKKKKK. It
>>>couldn't be ANY more BLAAAAACK." I mentioned the grain pattern, I
>>>mentioned the blookmatching, I mentioned the tight construction. WHAT
>>>IN THE **** ELSE do you want me to say about the fit and finish?
>>
>>
>>Let me get this straight: all finishes on black speakers since the dawn
>>of time look the same?
>
>
> I can tell you this - all reaonably made black pained oak cabinets
> *pretty much* look alike, with the exception of the grain. Black
> covers a lot of flaws as well. However, I already commented on the
> grain situation - positively, I might add.
>
>
>> Does this include vinyl laminates? (Are the
>>Allisons vinyl veneered, btw?)
>
>
> Nope. Who was talking about vinyl laminates in the first place? Why,
> you suddenly are.


I'm reasonably sure from what you've said here that you wouldn't be able
to tell the difference between a black painted wood finish and a black
vinyl laminate finish with the same grain pattern. Also, Allisons
aren't that expensive, so it stands to reason that they could or would
use a vinyl laminate finish.


>> You sound like a reject from an ABX test. Oh, btw, the norm would
>>be to comment on cabinet quality *and*
>>finish, so let me get you your scorecard: no initial comment on the
>>cabinet quality, but subsequent posts show that you think a Klipsch
>>plywood cabinet looks more "expensive" than a nicely veneered MDF
>>cabinet,
>
>
> I think that a *nicely veneered* plywood cabinet looks "more
> expensive" than a BLACK PAINTED MDF cabinet - yes I do. Especially
> when it's walnut vs. oak. Sue me, but oak just looks "ordinary" on a
> speaker. And I know because my Merlins have honey oak top and bottom
> caps (the rest of the tower is wrapped in black cloth all the way
> around, with the exception of a matching oak retaining strip on the
> back side.


Right, and you think "lean bass" isn't a disparaging remark.


>>and no initial comment on the finish quality, but we find out
>>in subsequent posts you feel all black finishes look the same.
>
>
> Jesus - yes they do (in this case). Frankly, I'd be far more impressed
> with a nice Chinese lacquer piano finish, because, A. it looks
> mirrorlike when done properly and B. a lot more work goes into it.


There's no question that a piano black finish looks good, and it's more
expensive to make. However, when you were describing the speakers and
you decided to say "all black finishes look the same to me", do you
think that would reflect well on your ability to describe the cabinet
quality and finish of the speaker? Hint: it makes you sound like a nimrod.


>> And if *I* say anything about this *I'm* the *******. God, this is a strange
>>newsgroup.
>
>
> Well, yes you are because you have a highly inflated view of what yur
> ordinary black painted oak speaker looks like vis a vis the
> competition (in this case, the humble Allison).


See above.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:28:57 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>>Had you sent me an unpainted and lacquered finish speaker, I could
>>>have commented on the quality of the finish and been more specific
>>>about the grain *and* commented on how nice (or not) it looked.
>>>Frankly, there's just not a lot to say about a totally black speaker
>>>above what I said originally.
>>
>>
>>Hey, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to say how poorly
>>informed it is.
>
>
> Of course you are. I assume that you think my comments about the
> Maggies vs. your speakers is uninformed as well.


That's an issue. It's up to the individual to decide if your lack of
credibility in the area of describing the finish of a speaker carries
over to your ability to describe the sound of the speaker. I think that
they are two completely different things. That said, you haven't done
too good in that dept. either, thinking that "lean bass" isn't a
disparaging remark, and thinking that for a speaker to be "neutral" it
has to be the size of a refrigerator. The only thing that has to be
left alone is preference, so when you say that you prefer the sound of
the Europa to a Maggie or whatever, who can argue with that?

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:40:02 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>Whatever gets you through the night, dave. I guess when I've seen
>>Klipsch price sheets showing lacquered finishes as an option, I was
>>dreaming it.
>
>
> When did you ever sell Cornwalls? When did you ever see a Klipsch
> price sheet that included a Cornwall?


Simply Stereo has been a Klipsch dealer since '85, and has all the price
sheets since then. Also, the Blue Book more or less makes this
information available.

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> now that they've reintroduced the Klipshorns, but I can't remember.

No such speaker as "Klipshorn".

[Joseph Oberlander]

trotsky wrote:


> That's kind of academic, since the pre-veneered MDF I use is more than
> three times more expensive than standard MDF too.

Except you don't use it - the speaker manufacturer does.
Note that they are using 2-sided stuff when the inside of the
box is meaningless as far as looks goes. That just costs you more
in the end.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 05:14:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:40:02 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>>> Whatever gets you through the night, dave. I guess when I've seen
>>> Klipsch price sheets showing lacquered finishes as an option, I was
>>> dreaming it.
>
>> When did you ever sell Cornwalls? When did you ever see a Klipsch
>> price sheet that included a Cornwall?
>
>Back in the 60's when they were merely mediocre. Probably before Weil they
>started trying to teach Weil to read...

I believe that Greg was in grade school during the 60s.

BTW, I'm trying to figure out what the last sentence means.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 05:45:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message

>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:40:02 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>>> Whatever gets you through the night, dave. I guess when I've seen
>>>> Klipsch price sheets showing lacquered finishes as an option, I was
>>>> dreaming it.
>>
>>> When did you ever sell Cornwalls? When did you ever see a Klipsch
>>> price sheet that included a Cornwall?
>
>Correction, so Weil won't spazz out on a typo:
>
>> Back in the 60's when they were merely mediocre. Probably before
>> they started trying to teach Weil to read...

Thank you. I wasn't sure what you were trying to say.

Now if you could only figure out who I was addressing (in the 2000s
when Arnold is *still* trying to learn to read).

[dave weil]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:25:41 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:18:37 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Which do you think is more expensive, MDF
>>>
>>>>or birch *plywood*, since you're into your anal mode?
>>>
>>>
>>>I've never compared them. They're probably similar in cost.
>>
>>
>> They're not. Birch plywood is about 3 times more expensive.
>
>
>That's kind of academic, since the pre-veneered MDF I use is more than
>three times more expensive than standard MDF too.

It's not acedemic because if you add the high quality walnut veneer to
the birch plywood, it will maintain that rough ratio, if not a higher
ratio.

> However,
>> as we've discovered, it's not birch plywood that we should be talking
>> about so it's probably only *double* the price of MDF. If you call
>> that "similar", then so be it.
>
>
>????

I pointed out that my Cornwalls have lumber core plywood, not birch
plywood, so I was being fair to a real world comparison.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:27:37 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:18:37 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Ohhhhh, now the Cornwalls have a "fairly expensive" finish. OK. I'll
>>>>buy that.
>>>
>>>
>>>What part of "now" confused you, dave. Hint: the Cornwalls have long
>>>since been discontinued.
>>
>>
>> So? The *finish* has not been discontinued.
>
>
>
>At one point Klipsch didn't offer Walnut as a finish. They might offer
>it now that they've reintroduced the Klipshorns, but I can't remember.

They do - as a lacquer finish, which the Cornwall apparently didn't.

And as far as I know, they've been in continual production so I don't
know what you mean by "reintroduced".

I think that you're wrong about them not offering walnut as a finish.
I think the Heresy has always offered one as well. I *could* be wrong,
but I doubt it.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:30:23 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>That's super, dave, but the comparison that was being made was strictly
>between Walnut as a speaker finish and Oak as a speaker finish.

No, you introduced the topic of black being the new big thing for
modern decors.

Oh wait, you said decorums

<s******>

[dave weil]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:40:23 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>I'm reasonably sure from what you've said here that you wouldn't be able
>to tell the difference between a black painted wood finish and a black
>vinyl laminate finish with the same grain pattern. Also, Allisons
>aren't that expensive, so it stands to reason that they could or would
>use a vinyl laminate finish.

You'd be wrong.

And you *were* wrong about the Allisons, weren't you?

BTW, the Allisons were about $800 in 1988 dollars. This equates to
just about what your selling *your* speakers for at the moment.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:40:23 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>There's no question that a piano black finish looks good, and it's more
>expensive to make. However, when you were describing the speakers and
>you decided to say "all black finishes look the same to me", do you
>think that would reflect well on your ability to describe the cabinet
>quality and finish of the speaker? Hint: it makes you sound like a nimrod.

I was pretty clear. About the only think that you are going to be able
to distinguish between the finishes of two cabinets of black oak is
the nature of the grain. Sure, I guess you might find a speaker maker
that would release a poorly painted cabinet (or lacquer that wasn't
finish sanded or something grossly incompetent like that, so, if you
*are* able to find such a speaker, yours would be superior.

<shrug>

[dave weil]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:50:19 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>That said, you haven't done
>too good in that dept. either, thinking that "lean bass" isn't a
>disparaging remark, and thinking that for a speaker to be "neutral" it
>has to be the size of a refrigerator.

the former *isn't* necessarily a disparaging remark and I never said
the second.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:52:29 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:40:02 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Whatever gets you through the night, dave. I guess when I've seen
>>>Klipsch price sheets showing lacquered finishes as an option, I was
>>>dreaming it.
>>
>>
>> When did you ever sell Cornwalls? When did you ever see a Klipsch
>> price sheet that included a Cornwall?
>
>
>Simply Stereo has been a Klipsch dealer since '85, and has all the price
>sheets since then. Also, the Blue Book more or less makes this
>information available.

Are you sure that this was a global option?

Keep in mind that Klipsch has general been specific about a finish
being lacquered, *as well* as the fact that *anything* was optional
through special order even if it wasn't a normally available finish -
for instance, the Cornwall was never "made available" with Zebrawood,
but I'm sure that you could have ordered that way through the factory.

[S888Wheel]

>
>> ...not to mention suing a guy who offered an opinion on
>"rec.audio.opinion".

Arny is going to be going to the school of hard knocks on this one. Lesson 1,
what is an opinion and what is a libelous accusation and what is the
difference.

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> trotsky said:
>
>
>>now that they've reintroduced the Klipshorns, but I can't remember.
>
>
> No such speaker as "Klipshorn".


Agreed.

[trotsky]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> trotsky wrote:
>
>
>> That's kind of academic, since the pre-veneered MDF I use is more than
>> three times more expensive than standard MDF too.
>
>
> Except you don't use it - the speaker manufacturer does.


What language are you speaking, Joe?


> Note that they are using 2-sided stuff when the inside of the
> box is meaningless as far as looks goes. That just costs you more
> in the end.


Who are "they", Joe?

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:25:41 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:18:37 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Which do you think is more expensive, MDF
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>or birch *plywood*, since you're into your anal mode?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I've never compared them. They're probably similar in cost.
>>>
>>>
>>>They're not. Birch plywood is about 3 times more expensive.
>>
>>
>>That's kind of academic, since the pre-veneered MDF I use is more than
>>three times more expensive than standard MDF too.
>
>
> It's not acedemic because if you add the high quality walnut veneer to
> the birch plywood, it will maintain that rough ratio, if not a higher
> ratio.


You've got a straw man there, dave. We originally started this
discussion with the subjective look of the cabinets, my experience
telling me that plywood cabinets look cheap and industrial to the
average consumer no matter what finish you put on it. You've already
made it eminently clear that any discussion of speaker finishes will be
skewed by your rather different outlook.


>> However,
>>
>>>as we've discovered, it's not birch plywood that we should be talking
>>>about so it's probably only *double* the price of MDF. If you call
>>>that "similar", then so be it.
>>
>>
>>????
>
>
> I pointed out that my Cornwalls have lumber core plywood, not birch
> plywood, so I was being fair to a real world comparison.


Very few consumers will ever make that distinction. Unless you're
secretly breeding an army of Joe Oberlanders.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:27:37 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>dave weil wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:18:37 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Ohhhhh, now the Cornwalls have a "fairly expensive" finish. OK. I'll
>>>>>buy that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What part of "now" confused you, dave. Hint: the Cornwalls have long
>>>>since been discontinued.
>>>
>>>
>>>So? The *finish* has not been discontinued.
>>
>>
>>
>>At one point Klipsch didn't offer Walnut as a finish. They might offer
>>it now that they've reintroduced the Klipshorns, but I can't remember.
>
>
> They do - as a lacquer finish, which the Cornwall apparently didn't.
>
> And as far as I know, they've been in continual production so I don't
> know what you mean by "reintroduced".


They were off the market for approx. 2 years and then reintroduced with
a completely different midrange, tweeter, and crossover, at about a 50%
increase in price. Maybe now you'll know.


> I think that you're wrong about them not offering walnut as a finish.
> I think the Heresy has always offered one as well. I *could* be wrong,
> but I doubt it.


No, Klipsch floundered quite a bit when it came to available finishes
for the Heritage speakers. Even their availability was suspect--one guy
ordered a single Heresy for a center channel and had to wait more than
four months.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:30:23 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>That's super, dave, but the comparison that was being made was strictly
>>between Walnut as a speaker finish and Oak as a speaker finish.
>
>
> No, you introduced the topic of black being the new big thing for
> modern decors.
>
> Oh wait, you said decorums
>
> <s******>


Are you laughing at yourself, dave? When did you become so at odds with
the English language?

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:40:23 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>I'm reasonably sure from what you've said here that you wouldn't be able
>>to tell the difference between a black painted wood finish and a black
>>vinyl laminate finish with the same grain pattern. Also, Allisons
>>aren't that expensive, so it stands to reason that they could or would
>>use a vinyl laminate finish.
>
>
> You'd be wrong.
>
> And you *were* wrong about the Allisons, weren't you?


What, that they are speakers? Can you be more specific, please?


> BTW, the Allisons were about $800 in 1988 dollars. This equates to
> just about what your selling *your* speakers for at the moment.


I agree that that would be a comparable price. Your point?

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:40:23 GMT, trotsky > wrote:
>
>
>>There's no question that a piano black finish looks good, and it's more
>>expensive to make. However, when you were describing the speakers and
>>you decided to say "all black finishes look the same to me", do you
>>think that would reflect well on your ability to describe the cabinet
>>quality and finish of the speaker? Hint: it makes you sound like a nimrod.
>
>
> I was pretty clear.


I think we need to define our terms here: do you consider mud to be clear?


About the only think that you are going to be able
> to distinguish between the finishes of two cabinets of black oak is
> the nature of the grain. Sure, I guess you might find a speaker maker
> that would release a poorly painted cabinet (or lacquer that wasn't
> finish sanded or something grossly incompetent like that, so, if you
> *are* able to find such a speaker, yours would be superior.
>
> <shrug>


As stated previously, you're entitled to your opinion.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 18:13:30 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>> It's not acedemic because if you add the high quality walnut veneer to
>> the birch plywood, it will maintain that rough ratio, if not a higher
>> ratio.
>
>
>You've got a straw man there, dave. We originally started this
>discussion with the subjective look of the cabinets, my experience
>telling me that plywood cabinets look cheap and industrial to the
>average consumer no matter what finish you put on it.

Then your experience is betraying you. I guess Reynaud can't make up
their mind, since they seem to use both approaches. Are you saying
that their non-MDF cabinets look "cheap and industrial"? And are you
saying that plywood cabinets look "cheap and industrial" regardless of
how they're finished? I would guess that you could say the same thing
about MDF if you exclude the veneer from the conversation.

> You've already
>made it eminently clear that any discussion of speaker finishes will be
>skewed by your rather different outlook.

Frankly, I couldn't tell whether your speaker was made of MDF *or*
plywood, short of taking it apart. And I doubt anyone else could
either.