"Classical performers hearing-damaged" - Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281

[Andre Jute]

Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:

>professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<

Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.

[Robert Morein]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:
>
>>professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely to
>>be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<
>
> Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.
>
More so than rockers? or intemperate mixers?

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
"Andre Jute" > wrote:

> Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:
>
> >professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely to be
> >hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<
>
> Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.

It's clearly a false statement.

[Pooh Bear]

Jenn wrote:

> In article . com>,
> "Andre Jute" > wrote:
>
> > Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:
> >
> > >professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely to be
> > >hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<
> >
> > Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.
>
> It's clearly a false statement.

Hearing impairment in orchestral musicians.

Ostri B, Eller N, Dahlin E, Skylv G.

Department of Audiology, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Symphony orchestra musicians from The Royal Danish Theatre (15 females and 80
males) aged 22 to 64 years were audiologically examined to elucidate the presence
and the frequency of noise-induced hearing loss among classical musicians.
Compared to a reference material (ISO 7029) the median hearing thresholds of the
musicians were increased for all age groups. When using hearing sensitivity in one
or both ears less than 20 dB HL as a criterion for normality, it was found the 58%
of the musicians had a hearing impairment. 50% of the males and 13% of the females
showed a typical audiogram with a notched curve at higher frequencies normally
attributed to occupational noise exposure. Furthermore, a significantly poorer
hearing on the left ear was found at higher frequencies among the violinists. It
is concluded that symphonic musicians suffer from hearing impairment and that the
impairment might be ascribed to symphonic music.

PMID: 2609103 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Graham

[George M. Middius]

Andre Jute said:

> Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:

The count might actually be higher, but never mind that now.

> > professional musicians, particularly classical performers,
> > are likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds

> Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.

Arnii knows this "fact" because professional musicians freely admit they do
not stuff feces in their ears. Without the feces stuffing, Arnii believes
ears are vulnerable to damage from music. He learned this lesson the hard
way, you know. ;-)

[Ruud Broens]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
:
:
: Jenn wrote:
:
: > In article . com>,
: > "Andre Jute" > wrote:
: >
: > > Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:
: > >
: > > >professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely to
be
: > > >hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<
: > >
: > > Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.
: >
: > It's clearly a false statement.
:
: Hearing impairment in orchestral musicians.
:
: Ostri B, Eller N, Dahlin E, Skylv G.
:
: Department of Audiology, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
:
: Symphony orchestra musicians from The Royal Danish Theatre (15 females and 80
: males) aged 22 to 64 years were audiologically examined to elucidate the
presence
: and the frequency of noise-induced hearing loss among classical musicians.
: Compared to a reference material (ISO 7029) the median hearing thresholds of
the
: musicians were increased for all age groups. When using hearing sensitivity in
one
: or both ears less than 20 dB HL as a criterion for normality, it was found the
58%
: of the musicians had a hearing impairment. 50% of the males and 13% of the
females
: showed a typical audiogram with a notched curve at higher frequencies normally
: attributed to occupational noise exposure. Furthermore, a significantly poorer
: hearing on the left ear was found at higher frequencies among the violinists.
It
: is concluded that symphonic musicians suffer from hearing impairment and that
the
: impairment might be ascribed to symphonic music.
:
: PMID: 2609103 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
:
:
: Graham
: :::::::::::::::::
It is a sad occupational hazard, that indeed the change of running into some
form of hearing problem is pretty high. From an posting of mine on RAO, feb 16th:

http://orkestengehoor.nl/achtergrond/downloads/r816_3_ra.pdf
is a dutch report from 2003 : brass section players are on average exposed to 88
dbA SPL dayly average over a 260 day working year .

K. Kähäri (Linholmen Development, Göteborg) reported in 2003 that
only 26 % of classical orchestra performers had no hearing impairements

within the remaining 74 %:
41 % suffered diminished hearing capabilities
43 % suffered tinnitus
39 % suffered hyperacuses
* * *
in reaction, "Bryan" > wrote in message

oups.com...

I can vouch for that. I'm not a professional musician and I only play
maybe once or twice a week. But when I played in a big band in front
of the trumpet section, I actually wore earplugs sometimes because it
hurt! I do have tinnitus (ringing in the ears), but it doesn't seem to
interfere with "normal" hearing ... yet.
* * *
Some recommendations are to put the trumpet section on a platform,
and a little further to the back - this will end up in regulations in the EU.
It appears orchestra's acoustical output has been going up by several dB
the last 20 years.

Rudy

[Andre Jute]

Andre Jute wrote:
> Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:
>
> >professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<
>
> Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.

While in this thread I'm glad to see Poopie do some work for a change
rather than just carp uselessly, the context of Krueger's lie was not
about orchestral performers.

In fact, Krueger doesn't know about which musicians he made this
blanket accusion of hearing damage because I never said which
performers I used.

That is why Krueger is being asked specifically to:

> Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.

Andre Jute
Precision is the first scientific virtue

[Arny Krueger]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:
>
>>professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely to
>>be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<
>
> Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.

http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com/disorders/hearing/hearing.html

"Musical instruments can generate considerable sound and thus can also cause
hearing loss. The most damaging type of sounds is in the high-frequencies.
The piccolo generates sound levels up to 112 dB.roughly equivalent to a
jackhammer at 30 feet.

"Violins and violas can be sufficiently loud to cause permanent hearing
loss. This is typically worse in the left ear which is nearer the
instrument. Unlike other instruments, the ability to hear the high-frequency
harmonics is crucial to these musicians. Mutes can be used while practicing
to reduce long term exposure. (Karlsson, Lundquist et al. 1983; Ostri, Eller
et al. 1989; Royster, Royster et al. 1991; Sataloff 1991; Palin 1994; Teie
1998; Obeling and Poulsen 1999; Hoppmann 2001; Kahari, Axelsson et al.
2001). In a study of rock/Jazz musicions, almost 3/4 had a hearing disorder,
with hearing loss, hyperacusis and tinnitus being the most common maladies.
(Kaharit, Zachau et al. 2003)

http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/hearingloss.htm

"But Furtwängler's story illustrates a downside. To fill the larger halls
with sufficient sound, the voices, instruments and ensembles had to crank up
to potentially ear-damaging levels. Countless violists, who sit right in
front of the brass, have been deafened as a result. And some veteran opera
singers, thanks to years of being screeched at by their fellow divas at
close range, have lost a good deal of hearing.

http://www.lhh.org/noise/facts/music.htm

Studies show that 37% of rock musicians and 52% of classical musicians have
a measurable hearing loss (Chasin, M., 1998).

And on, and on, and on...

[Andre Jute]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:
> >
> >>professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely to
> >>be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<
> >
> > Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.

Krueger, I know all that stuff below. But it is about orchestral
musicians and singers and jazzmen. They're not the musicians I used for
my tests. You rashly made a statement in a particular context about
musicians whose description you did not know. Now I'm asking you to
prove it. None of the stuff below is more than marginally relevant.
Stop wriggling and get on with your proof.

Andre Jute
Precision is the essential art of science

> http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com/disorders/hearing/hearing.html
>
> "Musical instruments can generate considerable sound and thus can also cause
> hearing loss. The most damaging type of sounds is in the high-frequencies.
> The piccolo generates sound levels up to 112 dB.roughly equivalent to a
> jackhammer at 30 feet.
>
> "Violins and violas can be sufficiently loud to cause permanent hearing
> loss. This is typically worse in the left ear which is nearer the
> instrument. Unlike other instruments, the ability to hear the high-frequency
> harmonics is crucial to these musicians. Mutes can be used while practicing
> to reduce long term exposure. (Karlsson, Lundquist et al. 1983; Ostri, Eller
> et al. 1989; Royster, Royster et al. 1991; Sataloff 1991; Palin 1994; Teie
> 1998; Obeling and Poulsen 1999; Hoppmann 2001; Kahari, Axelsson et al.
> 2001). In a study of rock/Jazz musicions, almost 3/4 had a hearing disorder,
> with hearing loss, hyperacusis and tinnitus being the most common maladies.
> (Kaharit, Zachau et al. 2003)
>
> http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/hearingloss.htm
>
> "But Furtwängler's story illustrates a downside. To fill the larger halls
> with sufficient sound, the voices, instruments and ensembles had to crankup
> to potentially ear-damaging levels. Countless violists, who sit right in
> front of the brass, have been deafened as a result. And some veteran opera
> singers, thanks to years of being screeched at by their fellow divas at
> close range, have lost a good deal of hearing.
>
> http://www.lhh.org/noise/facts/music.htm
>
> Studies show that 37% of rock musicians and 52% of classical musicians have
> a measurable hearing loss (Chasin, M., 1998).
>
> And on, and on, and on...

[Jenn]

In article >,
Pooh Bear > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > In article . com>,
> > "Andre Jute" > wrote:
> >
> > > Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:
> > >
> > > >professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely to
> > > >be
> > > >hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<
> > >
> > > Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.
> >
> > It's clearly a false statement.
>
> Hearing impairment in orchestral musicians.
>
> Ostri B, Eller N, Dahlin E, Skylv G.
>
> Department of Audiology, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
>
> Symphony orchestra musicians from The Royal Danish Theatre (15 females and 80
> males) aged 22 to 64 years were audiologically examined to elucidate the
> presence
> and the frequency of noise-induced hearing loss among classical musicians.
> Compared to a reference material (ISO 7029) the median hearing thresholds of
> the
> musicians were increased for all age groups. When using hearing sensitivity
> in one
> or both ears less than 20 dB HL as a criterion for normality, it was found
> the 58%
> of the musicians had a hearing impairment. 50% of the males and 13% of the
> females
> showed a typical audiogram with a notched curve at higher frequencies
> normally
> attributed to occupational noise exposure. Furthermore, a significantly
> poorer
> hearing on the left ear was found at higher frequencies among the violinists.
> It
> is concluded that symphonic musicians suffer from hearing impairment and that
> the
> impairment might be ascribed to symphonic music.
>
> PMID: 2609103 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>
>
> Graham

This is far less a concern now than in previous years due to efforts,
mostly from the AFofM, to prevent such damage. If you look at the stage
set-up of a great many professional orchestras, you will see individual
sonic barriers between the percussion and the back row of winds, often
attached to individual chairs. Many, many players use ear plugs while
on stage. The American Symphony Orchestra League has sponsored studies
in the past couple of years to test the effectiveness of such measures;
I'll try to dig them out of my library and post them here. In any case,
the statement that professional musicians are "likely" to have suffered
hearing damage is ridiculous. The majority of classical musicians don't
even perform in large ensembles.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:
> >
> >>professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely to
> >>be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<
> >
> > Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.
>
> http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com/disorders/hearing/hearing.html
>
> "Musical instruments can generate considerable sound and thus can also cause
> hearing loss. The most damaging type of sounds is in the high-frequencies.
> The piccolo generates sound levels up to 112 dB.roughly equivalent to a
> jackhammer at 30 feet.
>
> "Violins and violas can be sufficiently loud to cause permanent hearing
> loss. This is typically worse in the left ear which is nearer the
> instrument. Unlike other instruments, the ability to hear the high-frequency
> harmonics is crucial to these musicians. Mutes can be used while practicing
> to reduce long term exposure. (Karlsson, Lundquist et al. 1983; Ostri, Eller
> et al. 1989; Royster, Royster et al. 1991; Sataloff 1991; Palin 1994; Teie
> 1998; Obeling and Poulsen 1999; Hoppmann 2001; Kahari, Axelsson et al.
> 2001). In a study of rock/Jazz musicions, almost 3/4 had a hearing disorder,
> with hearing loss, hyperacusis and tinnitus being the most common maladies.
> (Kaharit, Zachau et al. 2003)
>
> http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/hearingloss.htm
>
> "But Furtwängler's story illustrates a downside. To fill the larger halls
> with sufficient sound, the voices, instruments and ensembles had to crank up
> to potentially ear-damaging levels. Countless violists, who sit right in
> front of the brass, have been deafened as a result.

1. The violinists don't sit "right in front of the brass".
2. The last sentence is obvious hyperbole. "Deafened"?

[RdM]

Jenn > commented in
>:

<snip> (that's why the reference is left there, folks ...)

> > http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/hearingloss.htm
> >
> > "But Furtwängler's story illustrates a downside. To fill the larger halls
> > with sufficient sound, the voices, instruments and ensembles had to crank up
> > to potentially ear-damaging levels. Countless violists, who sit right in
> > front of the brass, have been deafened as a result.
>
> 1. The violinists don't sit "right in front of the brass".

Uh, I read "violists". Typo? Or did he mean the viola players?
To the right, and in front of? "right in front of", as an approximation?

> 2. The last sentence is obvious hyperbole. "Deafened"?

Uh, 'made deaf(er)', I would think! (to what degree not defined)
--
RdM

"One thing you have probably wondered about for many years is why
musicians who sing rock'n'roll tend to be extremely thin, if not
actually dead, whereas those who sing, say, opera, tend to be
humongous wads of cellulite. The reason for this phenomenon,
scientists now believe, is that fat cells are actually destroyed by
stupid lyrics." - Dave Barry


"Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you
know they produce quarrels." - 2 Timothy 2:23

[Jenn]

In article >,
RdM > wrote:

> Jenn > commented in
>
> m>:
>
> <snip> (that's why the reference is left there, folks ...)
>
> > > http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/hearingloss.htm
> > >
> > > "But Furtwängler's story illustrates a downside. To fill the larger halls
> > > with sufficient sound, the voices, instruments and ensembles had to crank
> > > up
> > > to potentially ear-damaging levels. Countless violists, who sit right in
> > > front of the brass, have been deafened as a result.
> >
> > 1. The violinists don't sit "right in front of the brass".
>
> Uh, I read "violists". Typo? Or did he mean the viola players?
> To the right, and in front of? "right in front of", as an approximation?

My error.
>
> > 2. The last sentence is obvious hyperbole. "Deafened"?

>
> Uh, 'made deaf(er)', I would think! (to what degree not defined)

I use the term "deafened" like the first definition in my dictionary: to
cause (someone) to lose the power of hearing.

[Bret Ludwig]

If I am not mistaken they tested rock and orchestral players in a
study in the very late 70s and found that the orchestral types had more
hearing loss. However, they were on average 20 to 30 years older.

This is a question to be answered by legitimate testing and not
opinion and **** slinging. I just don't know where the latest test
results are.

[RdM]

Jenn > writes back in
>:

> > > 2. The last sentence is obvious hyperbole. "Deafened"?
>
> >
> > Uh, 'made deaf(er)', I would think! (to what degree not defined)
>
> I use the term "deafened" like the first definition in my dictionary: to
> cause (someone) to lose the power of hearing.

I tend to think of it as having a degree of degree. One can be deafened after
a loud noise nearby, albeit temporarily. Or crushed, in an argument.
Or flattened. It's a description of a process. It need not mean made
profoundly deaf finally and for good in an instant, I'd think, although
proximity to high explosives detonating may achieve that, I suppose ...

Even your definition "to lose ... "; but to what degree? Partial is included.

IMO. Thanks for your reply.
Best wishes.
--
RdM

[Lionel]

Dédé "McKelvy" Jute wrote :


> While in this thread I'm glad to see Poopie do some work for a change
> rather than just carp uselessly, the context of Krueger's lie was not
> about orchestral performers.


....LOL !!! Poor Dédé is too petty and conceited to recognize that he has
done an ass of himself.

In this story, *you* are the *LIAR*, Dédé, and in the end you sound 10 time
worst than the ones you criticize.

In French : http://www.french.press.hear-it.org/page.dsp?page=1838
In English : http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/yy_20040112a.shtml

Do you need more, eh Môron ?

[Lionel]

In >, Arny Krueger wrote :

>
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:
>>
>>>professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely to
>>>be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<
>>
>> Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.
>
> http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com/disorders/hearing/hearing.html
>
> "Musical instruments can generate considerable sound and thus can also
> cause hearing loss. The most damaging type of sounds is in the
> high-frequencies. The piccolo generates sound levels up to 112 dB.roughly
> equivalent to a jackhammer at 30 feet.
>
> "Violins and violas can be sufficiently loud to cause permanent hearing
> loss. This is typically worse in the left ear which is nearer the
> instrument. Unlike other instruments, the ability to hear the
> high-frequency harmonics is crucial to these musicians. Mutes can be used
> while practicing to reduce long term exposure. (Karlsson, Lundquist et al.
> 1983; Ostri, Eller et al. 1989; Royster, Royster et al. 1991; Sataloff
> 1991; Palin 1994; Teie 1998; Obeling and Poulsen 1999; Hoppmann 2001;
> Kahari, Axelsson et al. 2001). In a study of rock/Jazz musicions, almost
> 3/4 had a hearing disorder, with hearing loss, hyperacusis and tinnitus
> being the most common maladies. (Kaharit, Zachau et al. 2003)
>
> http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/hearingloss.htm
>
> "But Furtwängler's story illustrates a downside. To fill the larger halls
> with sufficient sound, the voices, instruments and ensembles had to crank
> up to potentially ear-damaging levels. Countless violists, who sit right
> in front of the brass, have been deafened as a result. And some veteran
> opera singers, thanks to years of being screeched at by their fellow divas
> at close range, have lost a good deal of hearing.
>
> http://www.lhh.org/noise/facts/music.htm
>
> Studies show that 37% of rock musicians and 52% of classical musicians
> have a measurable hearing loss (Chasin, M., 1998).
>
> And on, and on, and on...

--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Andre Jute]

Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:

>professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<

Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.

Lionel wrote:
> Dédé "McKelvy" Jute wrote :
>
>
> > While in this thread I'm glad to see Poopie do some work for a change
> > rather than just carp uselessly, the context of Krueger's lie was not
> > about orchestral performers.
>
>
> ...LOL !!! Poor Dédé is too petty and conceited to recognize that he has
> done an ass of himself.
>
> In this story, *you* are the *LIAR*, Dédé, and in the end you sound 10 time
> worst than the ones you criticize.
>
> In French : http://www.french.press.hear-it.org/page.dsp?page=1838
> In English : http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/yy_20040112a.shtml
>
> Do you need more, eh Môron ?

Perhaps you're having a linguistic misunderstanding, Lee-oooh-knell. I
couldn't have "done an ass of himself" because the performers involved
were not orchestral. Your reference is about orchestral performers. The
one who "done an ass of himself" is Arny Krueger because he said
performers, of what nature he knew not, were deaf. He didn't know, and
couldn't know, what sort of performers they were because I didn't tell
him. It was a deliberate trap. So I "done an ass of Krueger". Again. As
you are now "doing an as of Lee-ooooh-nelly".

I thought that you might have appreciated that sort of French
"diplomacy", which so infuriates Americans of Krueger's thick and
reckless stamp. Still, I suppose you *not getting it* accounts for
having to live in Saint-Etienne in the provinces rather than at the
centre of things in Paris.

Andre Jute

PS How can I be "he *LIAR*, Dédé", as you shout, when I am the only
who knows the facts, and Krueger is the telling made-up stories about
facts I very carefully did not tell him? Surely, an intelligent
Frenchman can grasp the subtlety of the deep, deep hole Krueger has
dived into face-first. No? Oh, well, I suppose Saint-Etienne is all
right in the spring. I'll shout if I need someone to dig holes with a
spade rather than his brain.

[Arny Krueger]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:
> >
> >>professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely to
> >>be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<
> >
> > Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.

Krueger, I know all that stuff below. But it is about orchestral
musicians and singers and jazzmen. They're not the musicians I used for
my tests. You rashly made a statement in a particular context about
musicians whose description you did not know. Now I'm asking you to
prove it. None of the stuff below is more than marginally relevant.
Stop wriggling and get on with your proof.

In fact Jute, the studies below even mention solo musicians, such as a
picolo player.

They also mention vocalists.

Did you exclude all vocalists from your study?

(Watch Jute try to twist and turn his way out of this!)

I found 100's if not 1,000's of studies involving all kinds of musicans,
ranging from solists, to small ensembles to large orchestras.

Jute, learn how to read, and quit changing your story!

>Andre Jute (proven liar)

>Precision is the essential art of science, (and Jute has no idea of how to
>be precise!)

> http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com/disorders/hearing/hearing.html
>
> "Musical instruments can generate considerable sound and thus can also
> cause
> hearing loss. The most damaging type of sounds is in the high-frequencies.
> The piccolo generates sound levels up to 112 dB.roughly equivalent to a
> jackhammer at 30 feet.
>
> "Violins and violas can be sufficiently loud to cause permanent hearing
> loss. This is typically worse in the left ear which is nearer the
> instrument. Unlike other instruments, the ability to hear the
> high-frequency
> harmonics is crucial to these musicians. Mutes can be used while
> practicing
> to reduce long term exposure. (Karlsson, Lundquist et al. 1983; Ostri,
> Eller
> et al. 1989; Royster, Royster et al. 1991; Sataloff 1991; Palin 1994; Teie
> 1998; Obeling and Poulsen 1999; Hoppmann 2001; Kahari, Axelsson et al.
> 2001). In a study of rock/Jazz musicions, almost 3/4 had a hearing
> disorder,
> with hearing loss, hyperacusis and tinnitus being the most common
> maladies.
> (Kaharit, Zachau et al. 2003)
>
> http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/hearingloss.htm
>
> "But Furtwängler's story illustrates a downside. To fill the larger halls
> with sufficient sound, the voices, instruments and ensembles had to crank
> up
> to potentially ear-damaging levels. Countless violists, who sit right in
> front of the brass, have been deafened as a result. And some veteran opera
> singers, thanks to years of being screeched at by their fellow divas at
> close range, have lost a good deal of hearing.
>
> http://www.lhh.org/noise/facts/music.htm
>
> Studies show that 37% of rock musicians and 52% of classical musicians
> have
> a measurable hearing loss (Chasin, M., 1998).
>
> And on, and on, and on...

[Andre Jute]

Same reply as before, below. I wasn't humiliated at all, Lionel. But
you're doing a good imitation of a dog, whose master was whipped,
yapping from a safe distance after it is over. Try the facts again,
slowly, and perhaps you will understand. Krueger lies because he does
not even know which performers he is talking about. I cannot lie
because I am the only one who knows the facts. Krueger cannot even find
out the facts until I tell him. Your hero is ****ed coming and going.
Neato! -

Andre Jute

PS I'm taking bets on how long it is before Krueger is again stupid
enough to try his luck on me. Would you care to make a wager, Lionel?
I'll give you sporting odds since it will be the first time you play.
I've already made over eight grand, European, on predicting what my
virtual motivational laboratory rat Arny will do next. Poor old Arny. I
am sure his church forbids gambling and now he is the object of a
betting ring. LOL.

And here is Lionel's earlier correspondence with me, in which I explain
how the shortcomings of his vicious character betrayed Arny Krueger
into telling a lie he cannot escape or explain away:

Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:

>professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<

Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.

Perhaps you're having a linguistic misunderstanding, Lee-oooh-knell. I
couldn't have "done an ass of himself" because the performers involved
were not orchestral. Your reference is about orchestral performers. The

one who "done an ass of himself" is Arny Krueger because he said
performers, of what nature he knew not, were deaf. He didn't know, and
couldn't know, what sort of performers they were because I didn't tell
him. It was a deliberate trap. So I "done an ass of Krueger". Again. As

you are now "doing an as of Lee-ooooh-nelly".

I thought that you might have appreciated that sort of French
"diplomacy", which so infuriates Americans of Krueger's thick and
reckless stamp. Still, I suppose you *not getting it* accounts for
having to live in Saint-Etienne in the provinces rather than at the
centre of things in Paris.

Andre Jute

PS How can I be "the *LIAR*, Dédé", as you shout, when I am the only
who knows the facts, and Krueger is the one telling made-up stories
about
facts I very carefully did not tell him? Surely, an intelligent
Frenchman can grasp the subtlety of the deep, deep hole Krueger has
dived into face-first. No? Oh, well, I suppose Saint-Etienne is all
right in the spring. I'll shout if I need someone to dig holes with a
spade rather than his brain.

[Lionel]

Dédé Jute a écrit :

> Perhaps you're having a linguistic misunderstanding, Lee-oooh-knell. I
> couldn't have "done an ass of himself" because the performers involved
> were not orchestral.


Prove it !!!
"Precision is the essential art of science"

PS : you can go to bed now, you will start to lie again in few hours. ;-)


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

Dédé Jute a écrit :

> Perhaps you're having a linguistic misunderstanding, Lee-oooh-knell. I
> couldn't have "done an ass of himself" because the performers involved
> were not orchestral.


So prove it !!!
"Precision is the essential art of science"


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Andre Jute]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message

> > > Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:
> > >
> > >>professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likelyto
> > >>be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<
> > >
> > > Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.

Krueger then sent a bunch of irrelevant quotations which Jute dismissed
with contempt:

> Krueger, I know all that stuff below. But it is about orchestral
> musicians and singers and jazzmen. They're not the musicians I used for
> my tests. You rashly made a statement in a particular context about
> musicians whose description you did not know. Now I'm asking you to
> prove it. None of the stuff below is more than marginally relevant.
> Stop wriggling and get on with your proof.

This thrilling mystery hunt continues with the villein of the piece,
Arny Krueger, speaking:

> In fact Jute, the studies below even mention solo musicians, such as a
> picolo player.

Nope. Not a picolo player either.

> They also mention vocalists.

Nope. Those that you condemn, without knowing what kind of musicians
they are, are not vocalists either.

> Did you exclude all vocalists from your study?

I'm asking the questions, Krueger. You are the one trying to distract
us with bull****. You said musicians, of whom I gave no description,
were suffering "endemic hearing damage".

> (Watch Jute try to twist and turn his way out of this!)

I'm sitting relaxed in an ergonomic chair of my own design, licensed
and paying royalties. You're the one twisting and turning because in
your "zeal to flame Andre" you told several lies about a group of
people you don't even know who they are.

We'll come to the rest of your lies when we finish with this one.

> I found 100's if not 1,000's of studies involving all kinds of musicans,
> ranging from solists, to small ensembles to large orchestras.

Yada, yada, yada. A scientist would have ascertained what he is talking
about before he shot off his wad over himself and three newsgroups.
Only a posturer would shoot off his wad first and then try to find out
what he shot it off about.

> Jute, learn how to read, and quit changing your story!

You're commenting in vacuo about a story I haven't told yet. You are
making up things about a fact you haven't heard because I didn't tell
it to you. This is your life, Arny Krueger, pretend expert.

> >Andre Jute (proven liar)

Really? You can sling **** all you like, Krueger, but this is one lie
you cannot wriggle out of, because in this letter you already admitted
you didn't know which musicians I was talking about.

You are a proven liar, Krueger.

> >Precision is the essential art of science, (and Jute has no idea of how to
> >be precise!)

Oh, I dug a very precise hole for you, two feet wide and five and a
half feet long, a nice grave-shape. You dived into it face first and
now you are scrambling to get out.

Sling all the insults you want. The fact remains: You didn't have the
facts, because I carefully refrained from giving you the crucial fact.
You spouted off without the facts. Now you spout off insults to cover
up your lies.

How can we ever again trust a single word you say?

With utmost contempt for the proven liar Krueger.

Andre Jute
Your mind is a precision instrument. Treat it with respect. -- Andre
Jute, graduation speech

Here's Krueger's ever more desperately inappropriate "research" to
prove he didn't tell a lie about a subject he didn't know the
particulars of (because I didn't tell them to him) and which he is now
trying to define -- after he told lies about it! And so on and so on
round and round the mulberry tree, because Krueger doesn't know which
musicians I'm talking about -- I never told him.

> > http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com/disorders/hearing/hearing.html
> >
> > "Musical instruments can generate considerable sound and thus can also
> > cause
> > hearing loss. The most damaging type of sounds is in the high-frequencies.
> > The piccolo generates sound levels up to 112 dB.roughly equivalent to a
> > jackhammer at 30 feet.
> >
> > "Violins and violas can be sufficiently loud to cause permanent hearing
> > loss. This is typically worse in the left ear which is nearer the
> > instrument. Unlike other instruments, the ability to hear the
> > high-frequency
> > harmonics is crucial to these musicians. Mutes can be used while
> > practicing
> > to reduce long term exposure. (Karlsson, Lundquist et al. 1983; Ostri,
> > Eller
> > et al. 1989; Royster, Royster et al. 1991; Sataloff 1991; Palin 1994; Teie
> > 1998; Obeling and Poulsen 1999; Hoppmann 2001; Kahari, Axelsson et al.
> > 2001). In a study of rock/Jazz musicions, almost 3/4 had a hearing
> > disorder,
> > with hearing loss, hyperacusis and tinnitus being the most common
> > maladies.
> > (Kaharit, Zachau et al. 2003)
> >
> > http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/hearingloss.htm
> >
> > "But Furtwängler's story illustrates a downside. To fill the larger halls
> > with sufficient sound, the voices, instruments and ensembles had to crank
> > up
> > to potentially ear-damaging levels. Countless violists, who sit right in
> > front of the brass, have been deafened as a result. And some veteran opera
> > singers, thanks to years of being screeched at by their fellow divas at
> > close range, have lost a good deal of hearing.
> >
> > http://www.lhh.org/noise/facts/music.htm
> >
> > Studies show that 37% of rock musicians and 52% of classical musicians
> > have
> > a measurable hearing loss (Chasin, M., 1998).
> >
> > And on, and on, and on...

And so on and so on round and round the mulberry tree, because Krueger
doesn't know which musicians I'm talking about -- I never told him.

[Andre Jute]

Lionel wrote:
> Dédé Jute a écrit :
>
> > Perhaps you're having a linguistic misunderstanding, Lee-oooh-knell. I
> > couldn't have "done an ass of himself" because the performers involved
> > were not orchestral.
>
>
> Prove it !!!

You're getting hysterical, Lionel.

Arny Kruger told a lie about performers without knowing who they are or
what they play or where. It is up to him to find out who they are and
what they play and where. Then it is up to him to prove his lie about
them.

I cannot imagine why you believe I should help slime like Arny Krueger
escape the consequences of his lies.

If Krueger were a decent human being, or a moral person, or a
Christian, he would admit he made a terrible mistake, apologise and
promise to improve his behaviour. Instead he's launched on a campaign
of name-calling.

> "Precision is the essential art of science"

Indeed, as I am demonstrating, in competent hands precision is a
rapier.
>
> PS : you can go to bed now, you will start to lie again in few hours. ;-)

The inane grimacing picon won't save your hero or you, you wretched
little piece of sewerage. The difference between you and me is that I
prove every point twice over. I have proved that Krueger is a wilful
liar. You can try to prove that I ever told a single lie or you can
apologise now for calling me a liar. One or the other or you're scum,
and I shall be reminding the world of it.

Unsigned out of contempt

[Arny Krueger]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...


Arny Kruger told a lie about performers without knowing who they are or
what they play or where. It is up to him to find out who they are and
what they play and where. Then it is up to him to prove his lie about
them.

Here, Jute shows that he is very weak about the meaning of words that he
uses.

The definition of a lie is knowingly telling a falsehood.

However, Jute accuses me of lying because I talked about musicians:

"...without knowing who they are or what they play or where."

Therefore, Jute has stipulated that I spoke in ignorance, not malice.

Therefore Jute is either ignorant of the meaning of simple English words or
is he himself lying.

[MINe 109]

In article
>,
Jenn > wrote:

> > http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/hearingloss.htm
> >
> > "But Furtwängler's story illustrates a downside. To fill the larger halls
> > with sufficient sound, the voices, instruments and ensembles had to crank
> > up
> > to potentially ear-damaging levels. Countless violists, who sit right in
> > front of the brass, have been deafened as a result.
>
> 1. The violinists don't sit "right in front of the brass".
> 2. The last sentence is obvious hyperbole. "Deafened"?

Careful! It says "violists."

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

Andre Jute said to La Sale Salope:

> I cannot imagine why you believe I should help slime like Arny Krueger
> escape the consequences of his lies.

You've touched on the central mystery of la phenomene de Lionella, as it's
sometimes known on RAO. Namely, why does poor Slut have such an unfettered
dedication to Mr. ****? She ignores all of the Beast's nastiness, all of its
lies, all of its empty-headed and ignorant posturing about technical
matters. At the same time, Slut lunges viciously at anybody who dares to
mock Turdborg, let alone embarass him with facts or logic, as you've done in
this particular thread.

Sluttie tells us she's not a Kroopologist. In truth, under the literal
meaning of the term, she probably isn't one. But her unthinking and
reflexive defenses of the Big ****, as predictable as Old Faithful, have
buried her inextricably in a state of extreme Kroofulness.

And nobody knows exactly why Lionella chooses to ally herself with this
odious and craven kreature.

[Andre Jute]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> Arny Kruger told a lie about performers without knowing who they are or
> what they play or where. It is up to him to find out who they are and
> what they play and where. Then it is up to him to prove his lie about
> them.
>
> Here, Jute shows that he is very weak about the meaning of words that he
> uses.

Keep up the personal abuse, Krueger. It makes you look smaller by the
minute.

> The definition of a lie is knowingly telling a falsehood.
>
> However, Jute accuses me of lying because I talked about musicians:
>
> "...without knowing who they are or what they play or where."
>
> Therefore, Jute has stipulated that I spoke in ignorance, not malice.

No, I didn't stipulate any such thing. Your malice is patent, Krueger,
and permanent, and clear for all to see.

We note that you now admit "I spoke in ignorance." You usually speak in
ignorance, Krueger, but it is an advance towards humanity for you to
admit it.

You might reflect on whether you also owe us an apology. If it is
forthcoming in a timely manner, I shall be happy to drop the rest of
this. Otherwise there are more of your lies for you to justify.

> Therefore Jute is either ignorant of the meaning of simple English words or
> is he himself lying.

More idiotic abuse from the pretend-expert Krueger.

You're such a contemptible little man, Krueger, that just the simple
human act of an apology will add six inches to your stature.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Andre Jute said to La Sale Salope:
>
> > I cannot imagine why you believe I should help slime like Arny Krueger
> > escape the consequences of his lies.
>
> You've touched on the central mystery of la phenomene de Lionella, as it's
> sometimes known on RAO. Namely, why does poor Slut have such an unfettered
> dedication to Mr. ****? She ignores all of the Beast's nastiness, all of its
> lies, all of its empty-headed and ignorant posturing about technical
> matters. At the same time, Slut lunges viciously at anybody who dares to
> mock Turdborg, let alone embarass him with facts or logic, as you've done in
> this particular thread.
>
> Sluttie tells us she's not a Kroopologist. In truth, under the literal
> meaning of the term, she probably isn't one. But her unthinking and
> reflexive defenses of the Big ****, as predictable as Old Faithful, have
> buried her inextricably in a state of extreme Kroofulness.
>
> And nobody knows exactly why Lionella chooses to ally herself with this
> odious and craven kreature.

There are three awful truths about the French which it is not
politically correct to mention:

1. They arrogantly think they have all the brains in the world.

2. They are bullies.

3. They are ineffably stupid, best seen in their self-laceration, of
which Lionel several times assualting me after I demonstrated on his
skin that I am not a victim, is a good example.

Andre Jute

PS Be kind to Arny now that he has admitted he made a gross error. He
needs your loving kindness, George, and that of Margaret von B.

[Patrick Turner]

Lionel wrote:

> Dédé "McKelvy" Jute wrote :
>
> > While in this thread I'm glad to see Poopie do some work for a change
> > rather than just carp uselessly, the context of Krueger's lie was not
> > about orchestral performers.
>
> ...LOL !!! Poor Dédé is too petty and conceited to recognize that he has
> done an ass of himself.
>
> In this story, *you* are the *LIAR*, Dédé, and in the end you sound 10 time
> worst than the ones you criticize.
>
> In French : http://www.french.press.hear-it.org/page.dsp?page=1838
> In English : http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/yy_20040112a.shtml
>
> Do you need more, eh Môron ?

We are not going to get any understanding if we keep on calling each other
morons.

The hearing of the general public including musicians isn't such a happy
picture, usually because of too much noise early in life and the
hours of exposure to noise all add up.

I worked as a builder for many years without religiously wearing ear muffs
and by 34 got slight tinnitus which came on suddenly and lasted 2 years
along with sensitive hearing.
I thought I was superman, able to take anything, stay out late in a disco,
hammer
boards on all day to clad a wall, then drive 80 miles with the window down
to bonk a sheila, and oops, my ears rebelled, bigtime.
I didn't enjoy any sound,
including music, especially live pop music gigs which I then avoided like a
social outcast.
I'd have the ear muffs on in the vehicle I drove.
I *never* went out without ear plugs.
I was still forced to earn a living, but with ear muffs I have gradually
improved,
and i don't believe any further damage has been done.
But many of my peers wore headphones with loud music, went to dreadful pop
concerts, liked all the noise they could hear, and are now a lot worse than I
am.

So whoever Andre may have gained opinions from with his amps may have
included some % of hearing impaired/damaged ppl.
Probably nobody could know the full extent of the hearing dysfunctions,
not even the professional music industry ppl concerned.

There isn't a single customer of mine over 40 who has the hearing they had at
20.
A side result is that older guys spend far more on sound gear than the young,
in an attempt to compensate for hearing that isn't quite what it was.
Similarly, ppl are buying huge plasma TV sets because their eyes cannot
enjoy the old 21 inch TV like they could when 20.
But despite the "rust in the microphones" what the brain does with what we hear

often becomes more refined and qualitative with age, and people in the music
industry
are supposed to know more because they hear the evidence of it daily.

Some ppl have much different hearing to others, and the differences can become
greater
with age; my oldest client of 92 hears well without ring or super sensitivity
out to at least 12 kHhz, and we prooved that one day when i ran test tones with
an old tweeter
he wanted me to fit to a box.
I played a vinyl record one day when the massed voices of a choir gave rise to
that
slightly buzzy sound that is either clipping or some other
phenomena in the recording process. He asked me what the buzzing was.
So he could hear a recording defect quite easily.
His wife of 96 is almost quite deaf, and she would have expereinced
much less noise in her life than he did. Love gets them through the day and
night.

So by a certain age, many of us just don't have the comfortable dynamic range
ability,
and like our eyesight, hearing fades or becomes noisy or changes
to less than the perfection we had at 20, and the perfection we probably
carelessly
spoiled with motor cycles, loud cars, electric saws, planers, violins, oboes,
walkmans,
trumpets, jack hammers, food blenders, ordinary hammering, screaming orgasmic
women,
and 1,001 ways to make a din
to get things done or have a good time.
So I prefer a sheila to shut up while she's cumming, and if anything is to
deafen
me I'd prefer it be something Bach or Motzart wrote.

But I now quite like to sit though an evening with a collection of records
to occupy my hearing, but if I went out to some of the loud movies
or other venues where there is lots of noise, I'd suffer, so I prefer quiet
movies
with meaning and without all the explosions and gunfire.
There is a cafe I go to where I play chess, and last week about 30 women
of about 25 turned up in a class or team re-union.
When they all roared with laughter together, oops, the sound hit the
"horrible" levels.
But if I'd been 25, such sound would have been music twice as loud.

Probably the best person to ask about an amp's sonic character
would be a blind man or woman since they often live quietly,
and depend much more on their hearing, and can thus hear a pin drop at 20 feet,

and discern much more from hearing than you or i do.

Audiologists around the world paint a dismal picture of the world's noisiness;
For example The dance-rave party craze will create thousands of cases of early
hearing dysfunctions; sound levels in nearly all venues where young ppl gather
is way up on what it was when i was a young man.
Its no good trying to talk to anyone in such places.
Perhaps we could consider what audiologists say about the matter rather than
argue with each other
to gain cheap points with spurious arguments, since we are here for the
triodes,
and civilised entertainment.


Patrick Turner.

[Andy Cowley]

Andre Jute wrote:


>
> Andre Jute
> Precision is the first scientific virtue
>

Second to honesty, but you wouldn't know about that.

It appears that your accusation about Arnie is in
fact Jute Lie No. 1.618 * 10^99. Orchestral
musicians _do_ indeed suffer from noise induced
hearing damage. Care to apologise?


Andy

[Andy Cowley]

Jenn wrote:

>>"But Furtwängler's story illustrates a downside. To fill the larger halls
>>with sufficient sound, the voices, instruments and ensembles had to crank up
>>to potentially ear-damaging levels. Countless violists, who sit right in
>>front of the brass, have been deafened as a result.

> 2. The last sentence is obvious hyperbole. "Deafened"?

Yes, deafened - having their hearing capabilities diminished.
Deafness is not an absolute but a whole spectrum of impairments.

Andy

[Andy Cowley]

Jenn wrote:

>>>2. The last sentence is obvious hyperbole. "Deafened"?
>
>
>>Uh, 'made deaf(er)', I would think! (to what degree not defined)
>
>
> I use the term "deafened" like the first definition in my dictionary: to
> cause (someone) to lose the power of hearing.

To what degree? Humans with even very profound auditory damage
can peceive some sounds by means other than the ears.

Deafness is not an absolute but a spectrum of impairment. It
is perfectly correct to use deafened for any loss of hearing.

Andy

[Iain Churches]

"Andy Cowley" > wrote in message
...
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Andre Jute
>> Precision is the first scientific virtue
>>
>
> Second to honesty, but you wouldn't know about that.
>
> It appears that your accusation about Arnie is in
> fact Jute Lie No. 1.618 * 10^99. Orchestral
> musicians _do_ indeed suffer from noise induced
> hearing damage. Care to apologise?
>
>
> Andy



Sorry to butt in, Andy, when you are all having such a good
time:-)

Just for the record, Arny said "classical performers" not
orchestral musicians. There is a huge difference as Jenn pointed
out. I work daily with classical performers who have never played
in a symphony orchestra, and are never likely to do so. I find their
levels of audio perception often quite astounding.

Just my 2 cents. Carry on:-)

Iain

[Iain Churches]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> Jenn > wrote:
>
>> > http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/hearingloss.htm
>> >
>> > "But Furtwängler's story illustrates a downside. To fill the larger
>> > halls
>> > with sufficient sound, the voices, instruments and ensembles had to
>> > crank
>> > up
>> > to potentially ear-damaging levels. Countless violists, who sit right
>> > in
>> > front of the brass, have been deafened as a result.
>>
>> 1. The violinists don't sit "right in front of the brass".
>> 2. The last sentence is obvious hyperbole. "Deafened"?
>
> Careful! It says "violists."
>
> Stephen


Was this Arny again? Maybe he has special information
relating to baroque (pre-classical) ensembles, where the
viol, with six strings, was indeed used.

But, there again, perhaps he just can't spell:-))

Iain

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Iain Churches" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article
> > >,
> > Jenn > wrote:
> >
> >> > http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/hearingloss.htm
> >> >
> >> > "... Countless violists, who sit right in
> >> > front of the brass, have been deafened as a result.
> >>
> >> 1. The violinists don't sit "right in front of the brass".
> >> 2. The last sentence is obvious hyperbole. "Deafened"?
> >
> > Careful! It says "violists."

> Was this Arny again? Maybe he has special information
> relating to baroque (pre-classical) ensembles, where the
> viol, with six strings, was indeed used.

Someone would have to hit you with one to damage your hearing!

> But, there again, perhaps he just can't spell:-))

That's proven, but it wasn't him in this case. Arny knows about
deafening musicians from his volunteer job running monitor mixes.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
...

> Just for the record, Arny said "classical performers" not
> orchestral musicians. There is a huge difference as Jenn pointed
> out.

It's just more defensive hair-splitting. Fact is that musical instruments
and voices can easily be loud enough that they will damage any ears that are
nearby, especially after protracted exposures.

Look, perfectly innocent and common experiences like cutting the grass can
damage your ears. Just because its done in the pursuit of art doesn't make
it perfectly safe.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:53:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Look, perfectly innocent and common experiences like cutting the grass can
>damage your ears. Just because its done in the pursuit of art doesn't make
>it perfectly safe.

I'd be interested in seeing someone cut the grass in the pursuit of
art.

BTW, thanks for admitting that you've damaged your hearing, since
you're on the record as having cut the grass without hearing
protection when growing up. and, since youa re in your 60s, 1/4 of
your peers have significant hearing loss. Couple that with all of that
live recording you claim to do and all of the work in the automotive
manufacturing business that you've done, it's a wonder that you can
even hear your chruch organ.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:07:32 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:53:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>wrote:
>
>>Look, perfectly innocent and common experiences like cutting the grass can
>>damage your ears. Just because its done in the pursuit of art doesn't make
>>it perfectly safe.
>
>I'd be interested in seeing someone cut the grass in the pursuit of
>art.
>
http://www.iger.bbsrc.ac.uk/Community/GrassArt.htm

You lose.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:12:48 +0000, Goofball_star_dot_etal
> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:07:32 -0600, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:53:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Look, perfectly innocent and common experiences like cutting the grass can
>>>damage your ears. Just because its done in the pursuit of art doesn't make
>>>it perfectly safe.
>>
>>I'd be interested in seeing someone cut the grass in the pursuit of
>>art.
>>
>http://www.iger.bbsrc.ac.uk/Community/GrassArt.htm
>
>You lose.

No, YOU lose, because there's nothing there about "cutting the grass".

BTW, I have no doubt that SOMEBODY has done it. People have certainly
done it with grain and corn and just about ANYTHING can be done in the
name of art (one artist designated a column of air above a certain
plot of land as "art"). Heck, artistic grass cutting is done at
American Football stadiums and baseball stadiums all the time.

I'm sure that Arnold thanks you for attempting to protect his mangling
of the English language though. Shame that you exposed your lack of
comprehension skills though.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:30:07 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:12:48 +0000, Goofball_star_dot_etal
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:07:32 -0600, dave weil >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:53:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Look, perfectly innocent and common experiences like cutting the grass can
>>>>damage your ears. Just because its done in the pursuit of art doesn't make
>>>>it perfectly safe.
>>>
>>>I'd be interested in seeing someone cut the grass in the pursuit of
>>>art.
>>>
>>http://www.iger.bbsrc.ac.uk/Community/GrassArt.htm
>>
>>You lose.
>
>No, YOU lose, because there's nothing there about "cutting the grass".

I've seen it, boyo. It was cut alright, mum knows her grass.. They
probably get some deaf sod like a classical performer to do it.

Have some more:
http://www.artsadmin.co.uk/artists/ah/photosynthesistext.html




>
>BTW, I have no doubt that SOMEBODY has done it. People have certainly
>done it with grain and corn and just about ANYTHING can be done in the
>name of art (one artist designated a column of air above a certain
>plot of land as "art"). Heck, artistic grass cutting is done at
>American Football stadiums and baseball stadiums all the time.
>
>I'm sure that Arnold thanks you for attempting to protect his mangling
>of the English language though.

Hardly

>Shame that you exposed your lack of
>comprehension skills though.

Better than your welsh, I think.

[Ruud Broens]

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message : Better than
your *welsh
, I think.
:
* so your real name could be Latte Tod Rats Labfoocgh ... interesting :-)
R.

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "Andre Jute" > wrote:
>
>> Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:
>>
>> >professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely to
>> >be
>> >hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<
>>
>> Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.
>
> It's clearly a false statement.

Bad bet. Arny doesn't post things like this if he doesn't have data to back
them up.

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Andre Jute wrote:
>> Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:
>>
>> >professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely to
>> >be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<
>>
>> Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.
>
> While in this thread I'm glad to see Poopie do some work for a change
> rather than just carp uselessly, the context of Krueger's lie was not
> about orchestral performers.
>
You're lying again. He specifically mentioned them.


> In fact, Krueger doesn't know about which musicians he made this
> blanket accusion of hearing damage because I never said which
> performers I used.
>
Actually you did in at least one post.


> That is why Krueger is being asked specifically to:
>
>> Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.
>
Get used to the fact that if it's about audio, Arny will have data to back
him up.


> Andre Jute
> Precision is the first scientific virtue
>
And one you don't seem to possess.

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:
> >
> >>professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely to
> >>be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<
> >
> > Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.

Krueger, I know all that stuff below. But it is about orchestral
musicians and singers and jazzmen. They're not the musicians I used for
my tests.

THEN WHAT KIND OF MUSICANS DID YOU USE?


You rashly made a statement in a particular context about
musicians whose description you did not know. Now I'm asking you to
prove it. None of the stuff below is more than marginally relevant.
Stop wriggling and get on with your proof.

STOP PLAYING GAMES AND GI E SPECIFICS ON THE KIND OF PEOPLE YOU USED AND
YOU'LL GET A SPECIFIC ANSWER

So far data has been provided on many diffferent kind of perormers, what did
you use? People who play the Zither? Ducimer? Autoharp? Harmonica? Stop
being such a **** and get on with it.

You want a specific answer give specific data.

Andre Jute
Precision is the essential art of science

> http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com/disorders/hearing/hearing.html
>
> "Musical instruments can generate considerable sound and thus can also
> cause
> hearing loss. The most damaging type of sounds is in the high-frequencies.
> The piccolo generates sound levels up to 112 dB.roughly equivalent to a
> jackhammer at 30 feet.
>
> "Violins and violas can be sufficiently loud to cause permanent hearing
> loss. This is typically worse in the left ear which is nearer the
> instrument. Unlike other instruments, the ability to hear the
> high-frequency
> harmonics is crucial to these musicians. Mutes can be used while
> practicing
> to reduce long term exposure. (Karlsson, Lundquist et al. 1983; Ostri,
> Eller
> et al. 1989; Royster, Royster et al. 1991; Sataloff 1991; Palin 1994; Teie
> 1998; Obeling and Poulsen 1999; Hoppmann 2001; Kahari, Axelsson et al.
> 2001). In a study of rock/Jazz musicions, almost 3/4 had a hearing
> disorder,
> with hearing loss, hyperacusis and tinnitus being the most common
> maladies.
> (Kaharit, Zachau et al. 2003)
>
> http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/hearingloss.htm
>
> "But Furtwängler's story illustrates a downside. To fill the larger halls
> with sufficient sound, the voices, instruments and ensembles had to crank
> up
> to potentially ear-damaging levels. Countless violists, who sit right in
> front of the brass, have been deafened as a result. And some veteran opera
> singers, thanks to years of being screeched at by their fellow divas at
> close range, have lost a good deal of hearing.
>
> http://www.lhh.org/noise/facts/music.htm
>
> Studies show that 37% of rock musicians and 52% of classical musicians
> have
> a measurable hearing loss (Chasin, M., 1998).
>
> And on, and on, and on...

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article . com>,
>> "Andre Jute" > wrote:
>>
>>> Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:
>>>
>>> >professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely
>>> >to be
>>> >hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<
>>>
>>> Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.
>>
>> It's clearly a false statement.
>
> Bad bet. Arny doesn't post things like this if he doesn't have data to
> back them up.

It definitely separated the posers from the players.

[Arny Krueger]

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:07:32 -0600, dave weil >
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:53:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Look, perfectly innocent and common experiences like cutting the grass
>>>can
>>>damage your ears. Just because its done in the pursuit of art doesn't
>>>make
>>>it perfectly safe.
>>
>>I'd be interested in seeing someone cut the grass in the pursuit of
>>art.
>>
> http://www.iger.bbsrc.ac.uk/Community/GrassArt.htm
>
> You lose.

Again. ;-)

[dave weil]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:50:45 +0000, Goofball_star_dot_etal
> wrote:

>>I'm sure that Arnold thanks you for attempting to protect his mangling
>>of the English language though.
>
>Hardly

OK, so he DOESN'T thank you.

Ungrateful sod.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:57:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>>>I'd be interested in seeing someone cut the grass in the pursuit of
>>>art.
>>>
>> http://www.iger.bbsrc.ac.uk/Community/GrassArt.htm
>>
>> You lose.
>
>Again. ;-)

As previously pointed out, nothing in there about cutting the grass.

So YOU lose.

Again.

[Lionel]

Andre Jute a écrit :
> Lionel wrote:
>
>>Dédé Jute a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>Perhaps you're having a linguistic misunderstanding, Lee-oooh-knell. I
>>>couldn't have "done an ass of himself" because the performers involved
>>>were not orchestral.
>>
>>
>>Prove it !!!
>
>
> You're getting hysterical, Lionel.
>
> Arny Kruger told a lie about performers without knowing who they are or
> what they play or where.

IMHO Arnold Krueger bring our attention on the fact that musicians are a
group of person "at risk" concerning hearing problems.
According to all the links posted it seems that musicians are more
subject than the rest of the population to "hearing problems".

>>"Precision is the essential art of science"

This is why I ask you to prove that in the panel of musicians you have
selected for your blind tests none of them were playing or have played
in large ensemble.
Moreover since you was *informed* that musicians are a population "at
risk" I suppose that you have requiered from them a recent *audiogram*
before engaging them in your test session.
Can you please confirm us these two points ?

If not your :

"In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes."

Is a big bull**** lie to which you can add your presomptuous :

"Precision is the essential art of science"

Obviously you can consider my questions with your usual contempt and
playing with my name up to the end of the night... You will remain a
sterile old braggart

Looking forward to hear from you... soon. ;-)



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

George M. Middius a écrit :
>
> Andre Jute said to La Sale Salope:
>
>
>>I cannot imagine why you believe I should help slime like Arny Krueger
>>escape the consequences of his lies.
>
>
> You've touched on the central mystery of la phenomene de Lionella, as it's
> sometimes known on RAO. Namely, why does poor Slut have such an unfettered
> dedication to Mr. ****? She ignores all of the Beast's nastiness, all of its
> lies, all of its empty-headed and ignorant posturing about technical
> matters. At the same time, Slut lunges viciously at anybody who dares to
> mock Turdborg, let alone embarass him with facts or logic, as you've done in
> this particular thread.
>
> Sluttie tells us she's not a Kroopologist.

I never pretend that. :-D


> In truth, under the literal
> meaning of the term, she probably isn't one. But her unthinking and
> reflexive defenses of the Big ****, as predictable as Old Faithful, have
> buried her inextricably in a state of extreme Kroofulness.
>
> And nobody knows exactly why Lionella chooses to ally herself with this
> odious and craven kreature.


RAO is my bistrot, my FoxNews.
Without Arnold Krueger on RAO no George M. Middius, no Dave Weil, no
Arthur Tsechmeister/Sackman, no André Jute... and obviously no Lionel
Chapuis.
I *never* read what Arnold Krueger write, I just like to read what
others answer him.

You and so many others are just like these insects flying around the
lamp on summer evening. Arnold Krueger *attract* you.
The more you write about Arnold Krueger the more your are his
sockpuppet.

The object of my contribution isn't Arnold Krueger since I am not
interested in what he use to write. I just like to watch the mores and
behaviour of all the fauna which gravitate around him.
He makes you tell so much interesting things... ;-)

For example, George, according to your nomenclature André Jute is a
"Krooborg" since he was proudly refering to blind test like a
scientifical evidence of tube amps superiority.

George M. Middius is bantering with a Krooborg... Funny no ?

When I say you that RAO is full of surprise...
When I say you that in the end Arnold Krueger make you doing exactly
what he wants you do ! :-D


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Schizoid Man]

Lionel wrote:

> Looking forward to hear from you... soon. ;-)

Isn't Jute one of Middius's sockpuppets?

[Lionel]

Arny Krueger a écrit :
> "Goofball_star_dot_etal" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:07:32 -0600, dave weil >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:53:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Look, perfectly innocent and common experiences like cutting the grass
>>>>can
>>>>damage your ears. Just because its done in the pursuit of art doesn't
>>>>make
>>>>it perfectly safe.
>>>
>>>I'd be interested in seeing someone cut the grass in the pursuit of
>>>art.
>>>
>>
>>http://www.iger.bbsrc.ac.uk/Community/GrassArt.htm
>>
>>You lose.
>
>
> Again. ;-)

Louder !!!
....He is deaf. :o)


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Margaret von B.]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> Lionel wrote:
>
>> Looking forward to hear from you... soon. ;-)
>
> Isn't Jute one of Middius's sockpuppets?

El Dot misses the target again. What a shame, he has so much potential....
<sigh>

[Lionel]

Dédé Jute a écrit :

> There are three awful truths about the French which it is not
> politically correct to mention:

First lie from Dédé.
It is worldwide known that "France bashing" is à la mode since Feb/March
2003.


> 1. They arrogantly think they have all the brains in the world.

Second lie from Dédé.
Which is obvioulsy wrong, the country is still open to the
immigration... ;-)


> 2. They are bullies.


That's true and moronic braggarts are our prefered victims.


> 3. They are ineffably stupid, best seen in their self-laceration, of
> which Lionel several times assualting me after I demonstrated on his
> skin that I am not a victim, is a good example.

Dédé Jute is not only a famous scriptwriter he is also a casting
director. Too bad that he is the only star he knows...


> Dédé Jute
>
> PS Be kind to Arny now that he has admitted he made a gross error. He
> needs your loving kindness, George, and that of Margaret von B.

Conclusion : Dédé is an asslicker.


Hey Dédé, if you decide again to cross France in your old GS make a stop
in Saint-Etienne, I will pay you a glass of St Joseph.



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[George M. Middius]

Iain Churches said:

> >> 1. The violinists

> > Careful! It says "violists."

> Was this Arny again? Maybe he has special information
> relating to baroque (pre-classical) ensembles, where the
> viol, with six strings, was indeed used.

> But, there again, perhaps he just can't spell:-))

Krooglish is the ideal dialect for whitewashing small differences. :-)

[Lionel]

In >, Schizoid Man wrote :

> Lionel wrote:
>
>> Looking forward to hear from you... soon. ;-)
>
> Isn't Jute one of Middius's sockpuppets?


Are you also giving attention to these paranoid considerations ?


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Andre Jute]

Are you the Andy Cowley who is ****ed off at me because I potted your
wife's countryman, the little Serbian fascist Choky?

Andy Cowley wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > Precision is the first scientific virtue
> >
>
> Second to honesty, but you wouldn't know about that.
>
> It appears that your accusation about Arnie is in
> fact Jute Lie No. 1.618 * 10^99. Orchestral
> musicians _do_ indeed suffer from noise induced
> hearing damage. Care to apologise?

Not at all. You see, your bumbuddy Krueger spouted off about a group of
people without discovering which group of people they were. I carefully
didn't tell him which class of performers I used for my tests. They
weren't orchestral musicians.

Now Krueger, who pretends to be a scientist, having spouted off on a
subject, is running around trying to discover what the subject was.
Neat little experiment to discover what Krueger is made of, don't you
think? He clearly has no understanding of scientific method, for a
start.

For another thing, if Krueger had any decency, he would have admitted
his error immediately and apologized. Instead he tries to cover up with
personal abuse.

You're idiot for trying to defend the indefensible, Cowley. You're a
hypocrite, Cowley, for defending indefensible scum like Krueger who is
caught out in a gross lie -- because you have some personal beef with
me.

> Andy

Unsigned out of contempt
Science is an impersonal art without room for personalities

[Andre Jute]

wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Andre Jute wrote:
> >> Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:
> >>
> >> >professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely to
> >> >be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<
> >>
> >> Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.
> >
> > While in this thread I'm glad to see Poopie do some work for a change
> > rather than just carp uselessly, the context of Krueger's lie was not
> > about orchestral performers.
> >
> You're lying again. He specifically mentioned them.
>
>
> > In fact, Krueger doesn't know about which musicians he made this
> > blanket accusion of hearing damage because I never said which
> > performers I used.
> >
> Actually you did in at least one post.

Really. Then why didn't Krueger talk about them? Why did Krueger talk
about a subject of which he knew nothing and then, when it was pointed
out to him, start trying to find out if the subject was orchestal
layers, piccolo players, singers, etc, etc, a whole long list.

Tell me Mr Mickey McMickey, does even a stage fool like you speak on a
subject you pulled out of the air, and give irrelevant references, and
abuse everyone else in the conversation, and then be forced to ask,
"Eh, what is the subject under discussion anyway?"

That is what Kruger did.

He doesn't know which performers I was talking about because I
carefully didn't tell him. It was a test I devised to discover if
Krueger honours the scienitific method. He clearly doesn't. Krueger has
no idea of scientific method. Krueger merely likes hearing the sound of
his own voice.

Krueger is a proven liar, and a clumsy oaf like you cannot prove
otherwise.

> > That is why Krueger is being asked specifically to:
> >
> >> Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.
> >
> Get used to the fact that if it's about audio, Arny will have data to back
> him up.

I've already proven that Krueger is a pretend-expert. Knowledgeable
people don't throw a lot of scare stories into the air and hope to hit
a target. They chose the target and then aim their information at it.
In this instance Krueger is still running around in circles like a dog
on bad dope, trying to find out the target.

You should know that I've already asked my professional associates to
look at Arnie's socalled ABX site. When their reports are in I shall,
if that site is still up, make and publish an analysis of Krueger's
gross misunderstandings and errors in placebo testing.

> > Andre Jute
> > Precision is the first scientific virtue
> >
> And one you don't seem to possess.

Oh, I'm demonstrating it to the satisfaction of all the better minds
than yours. That is why no one of any consequence tries to defend
Krueger. He has made an irretrievable error which displays at once his
ignorance and his lack of scientific rigour, his vicious character and
his deceitful debating method. I have a mailbox full of admiration from
my peers for another clever piece of work out of my online motivational
laboratory. I have won a lot of money in bets by predicting what
Krueger will do next.

You are blinded by love, Nyobe, Queen of Darkness.

Andre Jute

[Arny Krueger]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> You should know that I've already asked my professional associates to
> look at Arnie's socalled ABX site. When their reports are in I shall,
> if that site is still up, make and publish an analysis of Krueger's
> gross misunderstandings and errors in placebo testing.

I have no ABX site.

Jute, you lose!

[Andre Jute]

wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:
> > >
> > >>professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likelyto
> > >>be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<
> > >
> > > Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.
>
> Krueger, I know all that stuff below. But it is about orchestral
> musicians and singers and jazzmen. They're not the musicians I used for
> my tests.
>
> THEN WHAT KIND OF MUSICANS DID YOU USE?

At you're getting a glimmering, Mike. I knew that if we explained it to
you often enough, you'd
> You rashly made a statement in a particular context about
> musicians whose description you did not know. Now I'm asking you to
> prove it. None of the stuff below is more than marginally relevant.
> Stop wriggling and get on with your proof.
>
> STOP PLAYING GAMES AND GI E SPECIFICS ON THE KIND OF PEOPLE YOU USED AND
> YOU'LL GET A SPECIFIC ANSWER

After Krueger, spouting off without knowing the subject, has already
given a hundred wrong answers.

Is that how you do science in America these days, Mike?

Let's look at that again:

> STOP PLAYING GAMES AND GI E SPECIFICS ON THE KIND OF PEOPLE YOU USED AND
> YOU'LL GET A SPECIFIC ANSWER

Eh? After all these lies from Krueger on a subject even you now admit
he was igorant on, how do you expect us ever to believe him again?

In any event, I already have the answer and Krueger doesn't. He is
still trying to find out what the question is -- after he spouted off a
hundred wrong answers.

> So far data has been provided on many diffferent kind of perormers, what did
> you use? People who play the Zither? Ducimer? Autoharp? Harmonica? Stop
> being such a **** and get on with it.

Excuse me? I expose an abusive liar who postures as an expert -- and
you call me a ****?
>
> You want a specific answer give specific data.

Try again, Mickey. I already have the answer. Krueger doesn't even have
the question -- you're trying to help him get the question -- but he
lies about the answer to question he has never heard.

I don't need the help of a pretend-expert like Krueger. None of us do.
You don't either.

> Andre Jute
> Precision is the essential art of science

Below my signature is a listing of all the anwers Krueger gave to a
question even his loyal sidekicks now admit Krueger didn't know.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site" -- Hi-Fi News & Record Review

> > http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com/disorders/hearing/hearing.html
> >
> > "Musical instruments can generate considerable sound and thus can also
> > cause
> > hearing loss. The most damaging type of sounds is in the high-frequencies.
> > The piccolo generates sound levels up to 112 dB.roughly equivalent to a
> > jackhammer at 30 feet.
> >
> > "Violins and violas can be sufficiently loud to cause permanent hearing
> > loss. This is typically worse in the left ear which is nearer the
> > instrument. Unlike other instruments, the ability to hear the
> > high-frequency
> > harmonics is crucial to these musicians. Mutes can be used while
> > practicing
> > to reduce long term exposure. (Karlsson, Lundquist et al. 1983; Ostri,
> > Eller
> > et al. 1989; Royster, Royster et al. 1991; Sataloff 1991; Palin 1994; Teie
> > 1998; Obeling and Poulsen 1999; Hoppmann 2001; Kahari, Axelsson et al.
> > 2001). In a study of rock/Jazz musicions, almost 3/4 had a hearing
> > disorder,
> > with hearing loss, hyperacusis and tinnitus being the most common
> > maladies.
> > (Kaharit, Zachau et al. 2003)
> >
> > http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/hearingloss.htm
> >
> > "But Furtwängler's story illustrates a downside. To fill the larger halls
> > with sufficient sound, the voices, instruments and ensembles had to crank
> > up
> > to potentially ear-damaging levels. Countless violists, who sit right in
> > front of the brass, have been deafened as a result. And some veteran opera
> > singers, thanks to years of being screeched at by their fellow divas at
> > close range, have lost a good deal of hearing.
> >
> > http://www.lhh.org/noise/facts/music.htm
> >
> > Studies show that 37% of rock musicians and 52% of classical musicians
> > have
> > a measurable hearing loss (Chasin, M., 1998).
> >
> > And on, and on, and on...

Yup. And on and on and on irrelevantly drones Mr Arny Krueger,
pretend-expert

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...

Lionel wrote:
> Dédé Jute a écrit :
>
> > Perhaps you're having a linguistic misunderstanding, Lee-oooh-knell. I
> > couldn't have "done an ass of himself" because the performers involved
> > were not orchestral.
>
>
> Prove it !!!

You're getting hysterical, Lionel.

Arny Kruger told a lie about performers without knowing who they are or
what they play or where.

He didn't tell a lie you stupid ass. He gave data that was applicable to
many different kinds of musicans. That whatever people you claim to have
tested aren't on the list is not a lie.

It is up to him to find out who they are and
what they play and where. Then it is up to him to prove his lie about
them.

Provide the information about who they are.

I cannot imagine why you believe I should help slime like Arny Krueger
escape the consequences of his lies.

I can't imagine why you would not state what kind of musicans you are
talking about unless they don't exist or you already know there is data that
backs up his point.

If Krueger were a decent human being, or a moral person, or a
Christian, he would admit he made a terrible mistake, apologise and
promise to improve his behaviour. Instead he's launched on a campaign
of name-calling.

If you were a decnet human being you'd stop the stupid charade and state
what kind of people you tested. Your refusal to do casts you in a bad light
not him.

> "Precision is the essential art of science"

Indeed, as I am demonstrating, in competent hands precision is a
rapier.

And you're being cut to shreds.

>
> PS : you can go to bed now, you will start to lie again in few hours. ;-)

The inane grimacing picon won't save your hero or you, you wretched
little piece of sewerage. The difference between you and me is that I
prove every point twice over. I have proved that Krueger is a wilful
liar.

The only thing you proved is you are **** and von artist.

You can try to prove that I ever told a single lie or you can
apologise now for calling me a liar. One or the other or you're scum,
and I shall be reminding the world of it.

The only thing you're doing is proving once again what a scummy piece of
**** you are.

Unsigned out of contempt

You are contemptable that much is true.

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Andre Jute wrote:
>> >> Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:
>> >>
>> >> >professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely
>> >> >to
>> >> >be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<
>> >>
>> >> Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.
>> >
>> > While in this thread I'm glad to see Poopie do some work for a change
>> > rather than just carp uselessly, the context of Krueger's lie was not
>> > about orchestral performers.
>> >
>> You're lying again. He specifically mentioned them.
>>
>>
>> > In fact, Krueger doesn't know about which musicians he made this
>> > blanket accusion of hearing damage because I never said which
>> > performers I used.
>> >
>> Actually you did in at least one post.
>
> Really. Then why didn't Krueger talk about them? Why did Krueger talk
> about a subject of which he knew nothing and then, when it was pointed
> out to him, start trying to find out if the subject was orchestal
> layers, piccolo players, singers, etc, etc, a whole long list.
>
> Tell me Mr Mickey McMickey, does even a stage fool like you speak on a
> subject you pulled out of the air, and give irrelevant references, and
> abuse everyone else in the conversation, and then be forced to ask,
> "Eh, what is the subject under discussion anyway?"
>
> That is what Kruger did.
>
> He doesn't know which performers I was talking about because I
> carefully didn't tell him. It was a test I devised to discover if
> Krueger honours the scienitific method. He clearly doesn't. Krueger has
> no idea of scientific method. Krueger merely likes hearing the sound of
> his own voice.
>
> Krueger is a proven liar, and a clumsy oaf like you cannot prove
> otherwise.
>
>> > That is why Krueger is being asked specifically to:
>> >
>> >> Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.
>> >
>> Get used to the fact that if it's about audio, Arny will have data to
>> back
>> him up.
>
> I've already proven that Krueger is a pretend-expert. Knowledgeable
> people don't throw a lot of scare stories into the air and hope to hit
> a target. They chose the target and then aim their information at it.
> In this instance Krueger is still running around in circles like a dog
> on bad dope, trying to find out the target.
>
> You should know that I've already asked my professional associates to
> look at Arnie's socalled ABX site. When their reports are in I shall,
> if that site is still up, make and publish an analysis of Krueger's
> gross misunderstandings and errors in placebo testing.
>
>> > Andre Jute
>> > Precision is the first scientific virtue
>> >
>> And one you don't seem to possess.
>
> Oh, I'm demonstrating it to the satisfaction of all the better minds
> than yours. That is why no one of any consequence tries to defend
> Krueger. He has made an irretrievable error which displays at once his
> ignorance and his lack of scientific rigour, his vicious character and
> his deceitful debating method. I have a mailbox full of admiration from
> my peers for another clever piece of work out of my online motivational
> laboratory. I have won a lot of money in bets by predicting what
> Krueger will do next.
>
> You are blinded by love, Nyobe, Queen of Darkness.
>
> Andre Jute
>

You are demonstrating that you are a blustering ****head without as ****ing
clue aobut the scientific method or simple decency.

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> Lionel wrote:
>
>> Looking forward to hear from you... soon. ;-)
>
> Isn't Jute one of Middius's sockpuppets?

Most likely.

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Lionel wrote:
>>
>>> Looking forward to hear from you... soon. ;-)
>>
>> Isn't Jute one of Middius's sockpuppets?
>
> El Dot misses the target again. What a shame, he has so much potential....
> <sigh>
>
>
Said another sockpuppet.

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:
> > >
> > >>professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely
> > >>to
> > >>be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds<
> > >
> > > Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.
>
> Krueger, I know all that stuff below. But it is about orchestral
> musicians and singers and jazzmen. They're not the musicians I used for
> my tests.
>
> THEN WHAT KIND OF MUSICANS DID YOU USE?

At you're getting a glimmering, Mike. I knew that if we explained it to
you often enough, you'd
> You rashly made a statement in a particular context about
> musicians whose description you did not know. Now I'm asking you to
> prove it. None of the stuff below is more than marginally relevant.
> Stop wriggling and get on with your proof.
>
> STOP PLAYING GAMES AND GI E SPECIFICS ON THE KIND OF PEOPLE YOU USED AND
> YOU'LL GET A SPECIFIC ANSWER

After Krueger, spouting off without knowing the subject, has already
given a hundred wrong answers.

Is that how you do science in America these days, Mike?

Let's look at that again:

> STOP PLAYING GAMES AND GI E SPECIFICS ON THE KIND OF PEOPLE YOU USED AND
> YOU'LL GET A SPECIFIC ANSWER

Eh? After all these lies from Krueger on a subject even you now admit
he was igorant on, how do you expect us ever to believe him again?

In any event, I already have the answer and Krueger doesn't. He is
still trying to find out what the question is -- after he spouted off a
hundred wrong answers.

> So far data has been provided on many diffferent kind of perormers, what
> did
> you use? People who play the Zither? Ducimer? Autoharp? Harmonica? Stop
> being such a **** and get on with it.

Excuse me? I expose an abusive liar who postures as an expert -- and
you call me a ****?
>
> You want a specific answer give specific data.

Try again, Mickey. I already have the answer. Krueger doesn't even have
the question -- you're trying to help him get the question -- but he
lies about the answer to question he has never heard.

I don't need the help of a pretend-expert like Krueger. None of us do.
You don't either.

> Andre Jute
> Precision is the essential art of science

Below my signature is a listing of all the anwers Krueger gave to a
question even his loyal sidekicks now admit Krueger didn't know.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site" -- Hi-Fi News & Record Review

> > http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com/disorders/hearing/hearing.html
> >
> > "Musical instruments can generate considerable sound and thus can also
> > cause
> > hearing loss. The most damaging type of sounds is in the
> > high-frequencies.
> > The piccolo generates sound levels up to 112 dB.roughly equivalent to a
> > jackhammer at 30 feet.
> >
> > "Violins and violas can be sufficiently loud to cause permanent hearing
> > loss. This is typically worse in the left ear which is nearer the
> > instrument. Unlike other instruments, the ability to hear the
> > high-frequency
> > harmonics is crucial to these musicians. Mutes can be used while
> > practicing
> > to reduce long term exposure. (Karlsson, Lundquist et al. 1983; Ostri,
> > Eller
> > et al. 1989; Royster, Royster et al. 1991; Sataloff 1991; Palin 1994;
> > Teie
> > 1998; Obeling and Poulsen 1999; Hoppmann 2001; Kahari, Axelsson et al.
> > 2001). In a study of rock/Jazz musicions, almost 3/4 had a hearing
> > disorder,
> > with hearing loss, hyperacusis and tinnitus being the most common
> > maladies.
> > (Kaharit, Zachau et al. 2003)
> >
> > http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/hearingloss.htm
> >
> > "But Furtwängler's story illustrates a downside. To fill the larger
> > halls
> > with sufficient sound, the voices, instruments and ensembles had to
> > crank
> > up
> > to potentially ear-damaging levels. Countless violists, who sit right in
> > front of the brass, have been deafened as a result. And some veteran
> > opera
> > singers, thanks to years of being screeched at by their fellow divas at
> > close range, have lost a good deal of hearing.
> >
> > http://www.lhh.org/noise/facts/music.htm
> >
> > Studies show that 37% of rock musicians and 52% of classical musicians
> > have
> > a measurable hearing loss (Chasin, M., 1998).
> >
> > And on, and on, and on...

Yup. And on and on and on irrelevantly drones Mr Arny Krueger,
pretend-expert

So far he's demonstrated far more audio expertise than you have.

[George M. Middius]

Mickey, how many languages do you speak? I'll give you half-credit for
English as a starting point.

> > Isn't Jute one of Middius's sockpuppets?

> Most likely.

Is "Most likely" Tamil for "duh"?

[Andre Jute]

Krueger has admitted his guilt so stop wasting everyone's time with
your slothlike devotion to a proven charlatan. -- Andre Jute

wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> Lionel wrote:
> > Dédé Jute a écrit :
> >
> > > Perhaps you're having a linguistic misunderstanding, Lee-oooh-knell. I
> > > couldn't have "done an ass of himself" because the performers involved
> > > were not orchestral.
> >
> >
> > Prove it !!!
>
> You're getting hysterical, Lionel.
>
> Arny Kruger told a lie about performers without knowing who they are or
> what they play or where.
>
> He didn't tell a lie you stupid ass. He gave data that was applicable to
> many different kinds of musicans. That whatever people you claim to have
> tested aren't on the list is not a lie.
>
> It is up to him to find out who they are and
> what they play and where. Then it is up to him to prove his lie about
> them.
>
> Provide the information about who they are.
>
> I cannot imagine why you believe I should help slime like Arny Krueger
> escape the consequences of his lies.
>
> I can't imagine why you would not state what kind of musicans you are
> talking about unless they don't exist or you already know there is data that
> backs up his point.
>
> If Krueger were a decent human being, or a moral person, or a
> Christian, he would admit he made a terrible mistake, apologise and
> promise to improve his behaviour. Instead he's launched on a campaign
> of name-calling.
>
> If you were a decnet human being you'd stop the stupid charade and state
> what kind of people you tested. Your refusal to do casts you in a bad light
> not him.
>
> > "Precision is the essential art of science"
>
> Indeed, as I am demonstrating, in competent hands precision is a
> rapier.
>
> And you're being cut to shreds.
>
> >
> > PS : you can go to bed now, you will start to lie again in few hours. ;-)
>
> The inane grimacing picon won't save your hero or you, you wretched
> little piece of sewerage. The difference between you and me is that I
> prove every point twice over. I have proved that Krueger is a wilful
> liar.
>
> The only thing you proved is you are **** and von artist.
>
> You can try to prove that I ever told a single lie or you can
> apologise now for calling me a liar. One or the other or you're scum,
> and I shall be reminding the world of it.
>
> The only thing you're doing is proving once again what a scummy piece of
> **** you are.
>
> Unsigned out of contempt
>
> You are contemptable that much is true.

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Mickey, how many languages do you speak? I'll give you half-credit for
> English as a starting point.
>
>> > Isn't Jute one of Middius's sockpuppets?
>
>> Most likely.
>
> Is "Most likely" Tamil for "duh"?

Not likely.
>
It could be the same animator for the person who used to post as BJ
Quackenbush.
Not that you couldn't all be the same "person."

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
ups.com...
Krueger has admitted his guilt so stop wasting everyone's time with
your slothlike devotion to a proven charlatan. -- Andre Jute

Jute lie number 12,258. He admitted no such thing.


wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> Lionel wrote:
> > Dédé Jute a écrit :
> >
> > > Perhaps you're having a linguistic misunderstanding, Lee-oooh-knell. I
> > > couldn't have "done an ass of himself" because the performers involved
> > > were not orchestral.
> >
> >
> > Prove it !!!
>
> You're getting hysterical, Lionel.
>
> Arny Kruger told a lie about performers without knowing who they are or
> what they play or where.
>
> He didn't tell a lie you stupid ass. He gave data that was applicable to
> many different kinds of musicans. That whatever people you claim to have
> tested aren't on the list is not a lie.
>
> It is up to him to find out who they are and
> what they play and where. Then it is up to him to prove his lie about
> them.
>
> Provide the information about who they are.
>
> I cannot imagine why you believe I should help slime like Arny Krueger
> escape the consequences of his lies.
>
> I can't imagine why you would not state what kind of musicans you are
> talking about unless they don't exist or you already know there is data
> that
> backs up his point.
>
> If Krueger were a decent human being, or a moral person, or a
> Christian, he would admit he made a terrible mistake, apologise and
> promise to improve his behaviour. Instead he's launched on a campaign
> of name-calling.
>
> If you were a decnet human being you'd stop the stupid charade and state
> what kind of people you tested. Your refusal to do casts you in a bad
> light
> not him.
>
> > "Precision is the essential art of science"
>
> Indeed, as I am demonstrating, in competent hands precision is a
> rapier.
>
> And you're being cut to shreds.
>
> >
> > PS : you can go to bed now, you will start to lie again in few hours.
> > ;-)
>
> The inane grimacing picon won't save your hero or you, you wretched
> little piece of sewerage. The difference between you and me is that I
> prove every point twice over. I have proved that Krueger is a wilful
> liar.
>
> The only thing you proved is you are **** and von artist.
>
> You can try to prove that I ever told a single lie or you can
> apologise now for calling me a liar. One or the other or you're scum,
> and I shall be reminding the world of it.
>
> The only thing you're doing is proving once again what a scummy piece of
> **** you are.
>
> Unsigned out of contempt
>
> You are contemptable that much is true.

[paul packer]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:23:21 GMT, Patrick Turner
> wrote:

>drive 80 miles with the window down
>to bonk a sheila, and oops, my ears rebelled, bigtime.

Well, we won't ask what you were doing to this woman with your ears.
Patrick. Better not to know.

[paul packer]

On 15 Dec 2005 05:51:44 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:


>3. They are ineffably stupid, best seen in their self-laceration, of
>which Lionel several times assualting me after I demonstrated on his
>skin that I am not a victim, is a good example.

Is the misspelling "assualt" to check if we're reading the full text?

[Iain Churches]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Just for the record, Arny said "classical performers" not
>> orchestral musicians. There is a huge difference as Jenn pointed
>> out.
>
> It's just more defensive hair-splitting.

Nonsense, my dearArny. You are the one who is constantly
rattling on about precision, so please be precise.

> Fact is that musical instruments and voices can easily be loud enough that
> they will damage any ears that are nearby, especially after protracted
> exposures.

The same applies to motor cyle engines, car engines, cement mixers, or a
million other sources of noise at high level.
>
> Look, perfectly innocent and common experiences like cutting the grass can
> damage your ears. Just because its done in the pursuit of art doesn't make
> it perfectly safe.

Agreed.

Iain
>
>

[Iain Churches]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Iain Churches" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article
>> > >,
>> > Jenn > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/hearingloss.htm
>> >> >
>> >> > "... Countless violists, who sit right in
>> >> > front of the brass, have been deafened as a result.
>> >>
>> >> 1. The violinists don't sit "right in front of the brass".
>> >> 2. The last sentence is obvious hyperbole. "Deafened"?
>> >
>> > Careful! It says "violists."
>
>> Was this Arny again? Maybe he has special information
>> relating to baroque (pre-classical) ensembles, where the
>> viol, with six strings, was indeed used.
>
> Someone would have to hit you with one to damage your hearing!

Indeed.

Henry VIII referred to the viol as "The most gentle and pleasing
instrument of musicke"

Iain

[Lionel]

Dédé Jute a écrit :

> Krueger has admitted his guilt so stop wasting everyone's time with
> your slothlike devotion to a proven charlatan. -- Andre Jute

"Make sure you shout down and ridicule anyone who criticizes your
hypothesis (chuckle), your method, or your conclusion."


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

Iain Churches a écrit :
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>Just for the record, Arny said "classical performers" not
>>>orchestral musicians. There is a huge difference as Jenn pointed
>>>out.
>>
>>It's just more defensive hair-splitting.
>
>
> Nonsense, my dearArny. You are the one who is constantly
> rattling on about precision, so please be precise.


Just do like most of the contributors have done. The number of links and
example posted in this thread have clearly demonstrated that people on
RAO have the urgent *need* to kill what could be a dramatic a priori.

BTW you will note that the person at the origin of the statement :
"In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes."
prefers to not divulgate the *scientific* method which has allowed the
recruitment of his listening panel in a group of people recognized "at
risk" concerning hearing problem.


Did you request for precision ?
You are right : "Precision is the essential art of science"... :-D



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Andre Jute]

Iain Churches wrote:
> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Iain Churches" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article
> >> > >,
> >> > Jenn > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/hearingloss.htm
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "... Countless violists, who sit right in
> >> >> > front of the brass, have been deafened as a result.
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. The violinists don't sit "right in front of the brass".
> >> >> 2. The last sentence is obvious hyperbole. "Deafened"?
> >> >
> >> > Careful! It says "violists."

I dislike that word intensely. It conjures up all the wrong images. We
were talking about it once and Keith Pascoe of the Vanbrugh SQ said,
"Not me. I've had too much beer already."

> >> Was this Arny again? Maybe he has special information
> >> relating to baroque (pre-classical) ensembles, where the
> >> viol, with six strings, was indeed used.
> >
> > Someone would have to hit you with one to damage your hearing!
>
> Indeed.
>
> Henry VIII referred to the viol as "The most gentle and pleasing
> instrument of musicke"

I can just see Krueger, after a quick foray into Google, claiming those
were all viola da gamba, and misconcluding that *therefore* (his
favourite word of misdirection and miscomprehension) they were *big*
and *loud*. In fact, perhaps I should have waited for him to do so...
The name is misleading; at the time it applied to any viol played on
the lap or between the legs; none of them were the size of later the
instruments segueing (1) into the size we know today.

> Iain

Andre Jute

(1) Last month I was discussing a script with a film director. The word
segue is used for a particular kind of transition employing sound
overlap to establish location- or time-shift. In da moom pitchers it is
pronounced sea-gew. I asked him about it. He didn't know there is a
musical connotation or another pronunciation. "Those musicians steal
from everybody," he assured me earnestly. I invented a sudden
inspiration that could only be satisfied by an instant walk alone along
the beach where he couldn't hear me laugh.

[Patrick Turner]

Andy Cowley wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> >>"But Furtwängler's story illustrates a downside. To fill the larger halls
> >>with sufficient sound, the voices, instruments and ensembles had to crank up
> >>to potentially ear-damaging levels. Countless violists, who sit right in
> >>front of the brass, have been deafened as a result.
>
> > 2. The last sentence is obvious hyperbole. "Deafened"?
>
> Yes, deafened - having their hearing capabilities diminished.
> Deafness is not an absolute but a whole spectrum of impairments.

Yes, you just don't just go deaf, like some turning down the volume control.
Young people think that's how it happens, and there will
always be a volume control to turn up to compensate.

Ah no, ppl get all these noises in their ears, bad enough to send ppl crazy,
or destroy social life.
And perhaps slight noise becomes crashingly loud, so you can't even wash the
dishes
without thinking the clank of the plates is "deafening".

Being blinded means having one's sight removed,
usually blinded means just that, no sight, so we say partially blinded
or sight impaired, we should say the same about hearing....

Patrick Turner.

>
>
> Andy

[Lionel]

Andre Jute a écrit :


> Andre Jute
>
> (1) Last month I was discussing a script with a film director.

5. If people are watching just inflate a little bit more your ego and
use it as a screen.


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Andre Jute]

paul packer wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2005 05:51:44 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:
>
>
> >3. They are ineffably stupid, best seen in their self-laceration, of
> >which Lionel several times assualting me after I demonstrated on his
> >skin that I am not a victim, is a good example.
>
> Is the misspelling "assualt" to check if we're reading the full text?

Now, do I sound like the sort of fellow who would play a sly trick like
that?

Nah, I blame the French for that slip of the fingers. I was sitting
here thinking in French so that the froggie slut could understand me
clearly and not mistake kicks to the goolies for a light bitchslapping,
then translating back into English so as not to give the false
impression that French is still a world language. Think in French for a
minute or two and you will see where the spelling error arises.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site" -- Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Lionel]

Dédé Jute a écrit :

> paul packer wrote:
>
>>On 15 Dec 2005 05:51:44 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>3. They are ineffably stupid, best seen in their self-laceration, of
>>>which Lionel several times assualting me after I demonstrated on his
>>>skin that I am not a victim, is a good example.
>>
>>Is the misspelling "assualt" to check if we're reading the full text?
>
>
> Now, do I sound like the sort of fellow who would play a sly trick like
> that?
>
> Nah, I blame the French for that slip of the fingers. I was sitting
> here thinking in French so that the froggie slut could understand me
> clearly and not mistake kicks to the goolies for a light bitchslapping,
> then translating back into English so as not to give the false
> impression that French is still a world language. Think in French for a
> minute or two and you will see where the spelling error arises.


Oh, oh, Dédé feels oblige to answer me via a third party !!!

At least I know *one* coward Aussie now... ;-)




> Andre Jute
> Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
> "an unbelievably comprehensive web site" -- Hi-Fi News & Record Review
>


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Andy Cowley]

Iain Churches wrote:


>
> Sorry to butt in, Andy, when you are all having such a good
> time:-)

Any time Iain. :-)
>
> Just for the record, Arny said "classical performers" not
> orchestral musicians. There is a huge difference as Jenn pointed
> out. I work daily with classical performers who have never played
> in a symphony orchestra, and are never likely to do so. I find their
> levels of audio perception often quite astounding.
>
> Just my 2 cents. Carry on:-)

Other posters have pointed out that the probable cause of hearing
damage is their own instruments, as evidenced by the lateral assymetry
of the damage in violinists. Instruments which produce higher
frequencies are most damaging. Although the trained perceptions
of a skilled musician can probably distinguish subtleties most
of us are unaware of, this is likely to be the result of 'post
processing', i.e. brain activity, rather than superior hearing.
The studies that other posters have referred to seem to indicate
that they are not a good group to sample if you wish to get the
best ears. Young people from rural areas in less developed countries
would probably be the best.

"Valve amplifiers are favoured by middle aged men because the
colouration produced suits their normal hearing loss"

All listening tests are subjective and the results reflect at
least as much about the listener as the source.


best

Andy

[Andy Cowley]

dave weil wrote:


> I'd be interested in seeing someone cut the grass in the pursuit of
> art.
>
Google for Andy Goldsworthy ;-)

best

Andy

[dave weil]

On 16 Dec 2005 02:11:51 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:

>> Henry VIII referred to the viol as "The most gentle and pleasing
>> instrument of musicke"
>
>I can just see Krueger, after a quick foray into Google, claiming those
>were all viola da gamba

Yes, it's like Lionel trying to claim that the bandoleon isn't a form
of accordion.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. or, in this case, the tree
doesn't stand far from the fallen apple...

[George M. Middius]

Andy Cowley said:

> All listening tests are subjective and the results reflect at
> least as much about the listener as the source.

Oh god, now you've done it -- asserted the primacy of subjective sensory
impressions over the desiccated "facts" that crawl throughout the Hive.
Prepare for a torrent of BorgSmugSnot.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. or, in this case, the tree
> doesn't stand far from the fallen apple...

What wine goes with crabapple pie? <G>

[Andy Cowley]

Andre Jute wrote:

> Are you the Andy Cowley who is ****ed off at me because I potted your
> wife's countryman, the little Serbian fascist Choky?
>
No.
<snip>

>>It appears that your accusation about Arnie is in
>>fact Jute Lie No. 1.618 * 10^99. Orchestral
>>musicians _do_ indeed suffer from noise induced
>>hearing damage. Care to apologise?
>
>
> Not at all. You see, your bumbuddy Krueger spouted off about a group of
> people without discovering which group of people they were. I carefully
> didn't tell him which class of performers I used for my tests. They
> weren't orchestral musicians.
>
So what were they? Tightrope walkers? Tap dancers? or Musicians?
Other posters have given references to studies showing detectable
sound induced hearing loss in classical musicians due to their
own instruments so 'orchestras' are not part of the question.

> Now Krueger, who pretends to be a scientist, having spouted off on a
> subject, is running around trying to discover what the subject was.
> Neat little experiment to discover what Krueger is made of, don't you
> think? He clearly has no understanding of scientific method, for a
> start.
Your post hoc justification is feeble. It seems that for once Arny
got it right. An now you are flailing around blustering to cover up
your faux pas. Your understanding of scientific method is not evident
from any of your posts.

>
> For another thing, if Krueger had any decency, he would have admitted
> his error immediately and apologized. Instead he tries to cover up with
> personal abuse.

Which error was that?
>
> You're idiot for trying to defend the indefensible, Cowley. You're a
> hypocrite, Cowley, for defending indefensible scum like Krueger who is
> caught out in a gross lie

ROTFLMAO!
If Jute "had any decency, he would have admitted his error immediately
and apologized. Instead he tries to cover up with personal abuse."
Pots and kettles. Biter bit. Oh, what a fool you are! Almost charming
in your imbecility. Certainly very amusing. More please.


Don't have a cow.

Andy

[dave weil]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 08:31:53 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>dave weil said:
>
>> The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. or, in this case, the tree
>> doesn't stand far from the fallen apple...
>
>What wine goes with crabapple pie? <G>

Fat *******.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:34:44 GMT, Patrick Turner
> wrote:

>Being blinded means having one's sight removed,
>usually blinded means just that, no sight, so we say partially blinded
>or sight impaired, we should say the same about hearing....

MOST people do. They say hearing impared. To most people, if you say
someone is deaf, it means to them that you are talking about someone
who can't hear at all or so little that they must resort to sign
language, not their Uncle Fred, the one with the hearing aid who
sometimes had to lean into the conversation.

Then again, you've got Frenchmen who apply the term to their "enemies"
just to puff themselves up. <shrug> Probably projecting worries about
their ongoing decrepitude.

I just threw in the last bit to give the little poodle something to
gnaw on.

[Sander deWaal]

Lionel > said:

>Hey Dédé, if you decide again to cross France in your old GS make a stop
>in Saint-Etienne, I will pay you a glass of St Joseph.


You'd better beware, Lionel.
If ever you get a black CX in sight, RUN, don't walk :-)

--

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

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Andy Cowley said:
>
>> All listening tests are subjective and the results reflect at
>> least as much about the listener as the source.
>
> Oh god, now you've done it -- asserted the primacy of subjective sensory
> impressions over the desiccated "facts" that crawl throughout the Hive.
> Prepare for a torrent of BorgSmugSnot.
>
>
>
Why would anybody be upset about Mr. Cowley stating the truth?
Who has argued that any kind of listening test is anything other than
subjective?
The closest is that DBT's that consisitently show the same results, should
tell you something.
If for example, tests of amps that level matched and measure similarly
enough can't reliably be told apart in every test, then it's most likely
going to be true for more people than just those being tested. It wouldn't
be all that wierd to assme that it is probably true for most if not all
people with normal hearing.

I shall now don my anti-Middiot snot gear.

[Lionel]

Andy Cowley a écrit :
> Iain Churches wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Sorry to butt in, Andy, when you are all having such a good
>> time:-)
>
>
> Any time Iain. :-)
>
>>
>> Just for the record, Arny said "classical performers" not
>> orchestral musicians. There is a huge difference as Jenn pointed
>> out. I work daily with classical performers who have never played
>> in a symphony orchestra, and are never likely to do so. I find their
>> levels of audio perception often quite astounding.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents. Carry on:-)
>
>
> Other posters have pointed out that the probable cause of hearing
> damage is their own instruments, as evidenced by the lateral assymetry
> of the damage in violinists. Instruments which produce higher
> frequencies are most damaging. Although the trained perceptions
> of a skilled musician can probably distinguish subtleties most
> of us are unaware of, this is likely to be the result of 'post
> processing', i.e. brain activity, rather than superior hearing.
> The studies that other posters have referred to seem to indicate
> that they are not a good group to sample if you wish to get the
> best ears.

Very pertinent, IMHO.

> Young people from rural areas in less developed countries
> would probably be the best.


I must say *very*, very pertinent

> "Valve amplifiers are favoured by middle aged men because the
> colouration produced suits their normal hearing loss"
>
> All listening tests are subjective and the results reflect at
> least as much about the listener as the source.
>
>
> best
>
> Andy

Thank you Andy for this constructive participation.

[Lionel]

dave "deaf" weil a écrit :

> Yes, it's like Lionel trying to claim that the bandoleon isn't a form
> of accordion.

This is a lie...
I have wrote that bandoleon isn't the same insturment than an accordion.
Do you really want that I prove you are a liar ?

> The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. or, in this case, the tree
> doesn't stand far from the fallen apple...

Redneck philosophy ?

--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

Sander deWaal a écrit :
> Lionel > said:
>
>
>>Hey Dédé, if you decide again to cross France in your old GS make a stop
>>in Saint-Etienne, I will pay you a glass of St Joseph.
>
>
>
> You'd better beware, Lionel.
> If ever you get a black CX in sight, RUN, don't walk :-)


For you I'm ready to 3 glasses of St Joseph.


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Sander deWaal]

Lionel > said:

>> You'd better beware, Lionel.
>> If ever you get a black CX in sight, RUN, don't walk :-)


>For you I'm ready to 3 glasses of St Joseph.


You'll have to drink them yourself, I don't drink alcohol (I'm a bad
enough driver as it is already)..
Jus d' orange would be fine, though.

Anyway, be careful what you wish for, St. Etiënne ain't that far :-)

--

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

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Lionel > wrote:

> dave "deaf" weil a écrit :
>
> > Yes, it's like Lionel trying to claim that the bandoleon isn't a form
> > of accordion.
>
> This is a lie...
> I have wrote that bandoleon isn't the same insturment than an accordion.
> Do you really want that I prove you are a liar ?

Since I'm bored of this argument and have actually been exposed to
musical instrument taxonomy, I hope this settles the matter:

http://www.ksanti.net/free-reed/description/taxonomy.html

Both are hand-blown (don't get excited, everyone) framed-reed free-reed
free aerophones. After that, it's buttons vs. keyboards and there are
accordians with buttons and no keyboard.

Next topic, quiche vs pie.

Stephen

[Lionel]

MINe 109 a écrit :
> In article >,
> Lionel > wrote:
>
>
>>dave "deaf" weil a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>Yes, it's like Lionel trying to claim that the bandoleon isn't a form
>>>of accordion.
>>
>>This is a lie...
>>I have wrote that bandoleon isn't the same insturment than an accordion.
>>Do you really want that I prove you are a liar ?
>
>
> Since I'm bored of this argument and have actually been exposed to
> musical instrument taxonomy, I hope this settles the matter:
>
> http://www.ksanti.net/free-reed/description/taxonomy.html
>
> Both are hand-blown (don't get excited, everyone) framed-reed free-reed
> free aerophones. After that, it's buttons vs. keyboards and there are
> accordians with buttons and no keyboard.
>
> Next topic, quiche vs pie.

It's ok for me ! :-D

Thank you Stephen.


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Sander deWaal]

MINe 109 > said:

>Next topic, quiche vs pie.


http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=quiche&word2=pie

--

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

[Lionel]

In >, Sander deWaal wrote :

> Lionel > said:
>
>>> You'd better beware, Lionel.
>>> If ever you get a black CX in sight, RUN, don't walk :-)
>
>
>>For you I'm ready to 3 glasses of St Joseph.
>
>
> You'll have to drink them yourself,

Not a real problem for me. I have sens of sacrifice.

> I don't drink alcohol (I'm a bad
> enough driver as it is already)..
> Jus d' orange would be fine, though.
>
> Anyway, be careful what you wish for, St. Etiënne ain't that far :-)


When you want and with pleasure... I'm in the phone book.


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Lionel]

In >, Sander deWaal wrote :

> MINe 109 > said:
>
>>Next topic, quiche vs pie.
>
>
> http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=quiche&word2=pie


Peuh, doesn't prove anything !!!
It's just like organize a
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=acapulco+gold&word2=marlboro

[Sander deWaal]

Lionel > said:

>> Anyway, be careful what you wish for, St. Etiënne ain't that far :-)


>When you want and with pleasure... I'm in the phone book.


I'll bring Pat along, together with John Scofield :-)

--

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

[Lionel]

In >, Sander deWaal wrote :

> Lionel > said:
>
>>> Anyway, be careful what you wish for, St. Etiënne ain't that far :-)
>
>
>>When you want and with pleasure... I'm in the phone book.
>
>
> I'll bring Pat along, together with John Scofield :-)

Caution : I have only an old Sansui, a Philips CD 723 and some DIY spearkers
too listen them.

[Sander deWaal]

Lionel > said:

>Caution : I have only an old Sansui, a Philips CD 723 and some DIY spearkers
>too listen them.


Old is good.
DIY, too.

--

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

[Lionel]

In >, Sander deWaal wrote :

> Lionel > said:
>
>>Caution : I have only an old Sansui, a Philips CD 723 and some DIY
>>spearkers too listen them.
>
>
> Old is good.

Can you please repeat that too my sons ?

> DIY, too.

Thank you for your blind (deaf ?) support !!!!

[Sander deWaal]

Lionel > said:

>> Old is good.

>Can you please repeat that too my sons ?


Do they speak English?


>> DIY, too.

>Thank you for your blind (deaf ?) support !!!!


DIY must be good, there's love and commitment in them.

--

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

[Lionel]

In >, Sander deWaal wrote :

> Lionel > said:
>
>>> Old is good.
>
>>Can you please repeat that too my sons ?
>
>
> Do they speak English?

If it comes from outside parental authority I'm afraid they are ready to
understand anything. :-D

>>> DIY, too.
>
>>Thank you for your blind (deaf ?) support !!!!
>
>
> DIY must be good, there's love and commitment in them.


Commitment yes, love come later.

--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[dave weil]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:11:06 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>MINe 109 a écrit :
>> In article >,
>> Lionel > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dave "deaf" weil a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, it's like Lionel trying to claim that the bandoleon isn't a form
>>>>of accordion.
>>>
>>>This is a lie...
>>>I have wrote that bandoleon isn't the same insturment than an accordion.
>>>Do you really want that I prove you are a liar ?
>>
>>
>> Since I'm bored of this argument and have actually been exposed to
>> musical instrument taxonomy, I hope this settles the matter:
>>
>> http://www.ksanti.net/free-reed/description/taxonomy.html
>>
>> Both are hand-blown (don't get excited, everyone) framed-reed free-reed
>> free aerophones. After that, it's buttons vs. keyboards and there are
>> accordians with buttons and no keyboard.
>>
>> Next topic, quiche vs pie.
>
>It's ok for me ! :-D

Another view of the world. In fact, several contradictory views of the
world in the same link.

I can put up my own links, but because you're self-satisfied, I won't
destroy your self esteem.

[Lionel]

dave "deaf" weil a écrit :

> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:11:06 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>MINe 109 a écrit :
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Lionel > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dave "deaf" weil a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Yes, it's like Lionel trying to claim that the bandoleon isn't a form
>>>>>of accordion.
>>>>
>>>>This is a lie...
>>>>I have wrote that bandoleon isn't the same insturment than an accordion.
>>>>Do you really want that I prove you are a liar ?
>>>
>>>
>>>Since I'm bored of this argument and have actually been exposed to
>>>musical instrument taxonomy, I hope this settles the matter:
>>>
>>>http://www.ksanti.net/free-reed/description/taxonomy.html
>>>
>>>Both are hand-blown (don't get excited, everyone) framed-reed free-reed
>>>free aerophones. After that, it's buttons vs. keyboards and there are
>>>accordians with buttons and no keyboard.
>>>
>>>Next topic, quiche vs pie.
>>
>>It's ok for me ! :-D
>
>
> Another view of the world. In fact, several contradictory views of the
> world in the same link.
>
> I can put up my own links,

As I already told you 10s of time, *YOU* have built up all this *boring*
story of bandoleon/accordeon just to be able to place your famous :

"You lose

Again"

The best for you now is that you keep your links for your personal use
and read them again and again to help your weakening erection.
Poor Dave...

> but because you're self-satisfied,

This is not a matter which has brought me some satisfaction. But it's
the case of all the subjects that I have tried to *discuss* with you and
that you was only interested to *win*.

> I won't
> destroy your self esteem.

Unlike your hearing, you can't. :-D


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[YD]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:53:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Just for the record, Arny said "classical performers" not
>> orchestral musicians. There is a huge difference as Jenn pointed
>> out.
>
>It's just more defensive hair-splitting. [...]

Shouldn't that be ear-splitting? :-)

- YD.




--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:45:34 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>This is not a matter which has brought me some satisfaction. But it's
>the case of all the subjects that I have tried to *discuss* with you and
> that you was only interested to *win*.

Sounds like it's YOU who's only interested in the win.

In fact, it was YOU who started this whole thing anyway, going after
an off-handed comment I made about enjoying the sound of the
accordion.

You need to look in the mirror and see how your behavior is so
suspect.

[Lionel]

dave "deaf" weil a écrit :

> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:45:34 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>This is not a matter which has brought me some satisfaction. But it's
>>the case of all the subjects that I have tried to *discuss* with you and
>> that you was only interested to *win*.
>
>
> Sounds like it's YOU who's only interested in the win.

Not true.
BTW it would be impossible to "win" a discussion against you.
Your argumentation belongs to the McKelvy type.
Does someone already "win" a debate against McKelvy ?
You see it's not possible... ;-)


> In fact, it was YOU who started this whole thing anyway, going after
> an off-handed comment I made about enjoying the sound of the
> accordion.


Re-read the thread. Your memory is as weakening as your hearing.


> You need to look in the mirror and see how your behavior is so
> suspect.

I must leave now, so please study carefully again and again your links
and all your litterature concerning accordeons and bandoneons.
I suspect that it's not the last time that you are boringly bringing
back this subject to RAO.
Who knows, perhaps in the end you will finaly have a subject on which
you will be *really* performant... ;-)

Poor Stephen !!!

PS : if your familly and friends read RAO this should give them an idea
of present for your next birthday. :-D


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[dave weil]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:00:34 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>> In fact, it was YOU who started this whole thing anyway, going after
>> an off-handed comment I made about enjoying the sound of the
>> accordion.
>
>
>Re-read the thread. Your memory is as weakening as your hearing.

NO, YOU need to go back and read the original thread and see who made
this an issue in the first place.

I'm glad though that you are leaving for a while. I can only hope that
it's to spend some quality weekend time with your loved ones. if
that's the case, then you will WIN.

[Lionel]

dave "deaf" weil a écrit :

>
> NO, YOU need to go back and read the original thread and see who made
> this an issue in the first place.

Prove it....

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

dave "deaf" weil a écrit :


> I'm glad though that you are leaving for a while. I can only hope that
> it's to spend some quality weekend time with your loved ones. if
> that's the case, then you will WIN.

When our RAO addicted love victim, life casualty is trying to give some
lessons...
I cannot believe it Dave !!! Seems that you are trying to unload me all
the bull**** that you use discuss in your group therapy.... ;-)


It's RAO, Dave, not the "anonymous alcoholics" !!!! :-D


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[paul packer]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:11:06 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:


>> Next topic, quiche vs pie.

Real men don't eat quiche. Obviously pie wins by default.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:56:03 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>Dédé Jute a écrit :
>
>> paul packer wrote:
>>
>>>On 15 Dec 2005 05:51:44 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>3. They are ineffably stupid, best seen in their self-laceration, of
>>>>which Lionel several times assualting me after I demonstrated on his
>>>>skin that I am not a victim, is a good example.
>>>
>>>Is the misspelling "assualt" to check if we're reading the full text?
>>
>>
>> Now, do I sound like the sort of fellow who would play a sly trick like
>> that?
>>
>> Nah, I blame the French for that slip of the fingers. I was sitting
>> here thinking in French so that the froggie slut could understand me
>> clearly and not mistake kicks to the goolies for a light bitchslapping,
>> then translating back into English so as not to give the false
>> impression that French is still a world language. Think in French for a
>> minute or two and you will see where the spelling error arises.
>
>
>Oh, oh, Dédé feels oblige to answer me via a third party !!!
>
>At least I know *one* coward Aussie now... ;-)

Maybe you two should just insult each other in French and leave us out
of it.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:37:11 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave "deaf" weil a écrit :
>
>>
>> NO, YOU need to go back and read the original thread and see who made
>> this an issue in the first place.
>
>Prove it....

Thank you, Arnold.

I rest my case.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:43:12 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>It's RAO, Dave, not the "anonymous alcoholics" !!!!

Oh, is THAT your problem? Well, you need to attend more meetings,
Elephant Man. Your family will thank you.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >It's RAO, Dave, not the "anonymous alcoholics" !!!!

> Oh, is THAT your problem? Well, you need to attend more meetings,
> Elephant Man. Your family will thank you.

Maybe the reason Lionel is always apart from the alleged family is because
he keeps them chained up in the basement. Using "debating trade" rules, we
can assume that's the case unless and until he provides proof it's not.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:10:40 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>dave weil said:
>
>> >It's RAO, Dave, not the "anonymous alcoholics" !!!!
>
>> Oh, is THAT your problem? Well, you need to attend more meetings,
>> Elephant Man. Your family will thank you.
>
>Maybe the reason Lionel is always apart from the alleged family is because
>he keeps them chained up in the basement. Using "debating trade" rules, we
>can assume that's the case unless and until he provides proof it's not.

Or maybe it's the other way around...hence the Elephant Man reference.

[Lionel]

paul packer a écrit :
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:56:03 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Dédé Jute a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>paul packer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 15 Dec 2005 05:51:44 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>3. They are ineffably stupid, best seen in their self-laceration, of
>>>>>which Lionel several times assualting me after I demonstrated on his
>>>>>skin that I am not a victim, is a good example.
>>>>
>>>>Is the misspelling "assualt" to check if we're reading the full text?
>>>
>>>
>>>Now, do I sound like the sort of fellow who would play a sly trick like
>>>that?
>>>
>>>Nah, I blame the French for that slip of the fingers. I was sitting
>>>here thinking in French so that the froggie slut could understand me
>>>clearly and not mistake kicks to the goolies for a light bitchslapping,
>>>then translating back into English so as not to give the false
>>>impression that French is still a world language. Think in French for a
>>>minute or two and you will see where the spelling error arises.
>>
>>
>>Oh, oh, Dédé feels oblige to answer me via a third party !!!
>>
>>At least I know *one* coward Aussie now... ;-)
>
>
> Maybe you two should just insult each other in French and leave us out
> of it.


No that's not a great idea.

BTW according to my prediction Dédé Jute have deserted RAO.
George Minus Middius is reassured... he is recovering his status of RAO
first midinette. :-)


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

George Minus Middius a écrit :
>
> dave weil said:
>
>
>>>It's RAO, Dave, not the "anonymous alcoholics" !!!!
>
>
>>Oh, is THAT your problem? Well, you need to attend more meetings,
>>Elephant Man. Your family will thank you.
>
>
> Maybe the reason Lionel is always apart from the alleged family is because
> he keeps them chained up in the basement.

I will make you an answer "à la Dave Weil"

Oh, is this was your father done to you during your childhood ?
This explains your today behaviour...


> Using "debating trade" rules, we
> can assume that's the case unless and until he provides proof it's not.

How old was you when your father open the basement door ?

Minus you are arging with a guy who uses the weakest IKWYABWAI I've
never read on RAO and you are trying to teach him the art of the
"debating trade" ??????

What about your reputation, eh George ? :-D



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

In which Dave "deaf" Weil is ridding Middius' leg like a dog in heat. :-D


dave "deaf" weil a écrit :

> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:10:40 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>dave weil said:
>>
>>
>>>>It's RAO, Dave, not the "anonymous alcoholics" !!!!
>>
>>>Oh, is THAT your problem? Well, you need to attend more meetings,
>>>Elephant Man. Your family will thank you.
>>
>>Maybe the reason Lionel is always apart from the alleged family is because
>>he keeps them chained up in the basement. Using "debating trade" rules, we
>>can assume that's the case unless and until he provides proof it's not.
>
>
> Or maybe it's the other way around...hence the Elephant Man reference.


Eh George !!!!

"HENCE THE ELEPHANT MAN REFERENCE"

*E...LE...PHANT...MAN* !!! Hahaha !
You see what *I* mean, eh George ? <g>

Witty and cultured, no ?



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[dave weil]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:42:27 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>
>*E...LE...PHANT...MAN* !!! Hahaha !

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :

> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:42:27 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>*E...LE...PHANT...MAN* !!! Hahaha !


Good one, Dave. :-D


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[dave weil]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:35:17 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>Good one, Dave. :-D

[Lionel]

dave "deaf" weil wrote :







Congratulation Dave, you have done the good choice.
Since nobody read what you write the best solution is to refuse to write
anymore... :-D


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[dave weil]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:39:05 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>Congratulation Dave

This sudden flood of good tidings and acknowledgments has me a little
amused.

[Lionel]

dave "deaf" weil wrote :

> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:39:05 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>Congratulation Dave
>
> This sudden flood of good tidings and acknowledgments has me a little
> amused.

When I told you that I'm charitable, oldster.



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Iain Churches]

"Andy Cowley" > wrote in message
...
> Iain Churches wrote:

>> Sorry to butt in, Andy, when you are all having such a good
>> time:-)
>
> Any time Iain. :-)
>>
>> Just for the record, Arny said "classical performers" not
>> orchestral musicians. There is a huge difference as Jenn pointed
>> out. I work daily with classical performers who have never played
>> in a symphony orchestra, and are never likely to do so. I find their
>> levels of audio perception often quite astounding.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents. Carry on:-)
>
> Other posters have pointed out that the probable cause of hearing
> damage is their own instruments, as evidenced by the lateral assymetry
> of the damage in violinists. Instruments which produce higher
> frequencies are most damaging. Although the trained perceptions
> of a skilled musician can probably distinguish subtleties most
> of us are unaware of, this is likely to be the result of 'post
> processing', i.e. brain activity, rather than superior hearing.

Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess partly
as a natural talent, and partly as the result of their formal training
(this is not something rstricted solely to classical musicians)

> The studies that other posters have referred to seem to indicate
> that they are not a good group to sample if you wish to get the
> best ears. Young people from rural areas in less developed countries
> would probably be the best.

Good point. I have been involved in some interesting experiments,
in aural perception with three groups of people, professional
musicians/studio/concert personnel, audiophiles, and laypersons.
It is no surprise to find that the first group fare the best.
There is often little to choose between the second two.

The problem with young people from rural areas, is they lack totally
the expertise of a skilled listener. A "fresh" ear is no substitute for
an experienced ear.

About a year ago, we did a pitch changing experiment where a solo
clarinet track was gradually increased in pitch while the rest of the
ensemble was held constant. It was interesting to watch the reaction
of the different groups. At 4% all of the musicians were uncomfortable,
while many of the others perceived little or nothing out of the ordinay.

Another interesting listening experiment was a composite music track which
started with a ticking clock for eight bars. Then the music started -
drums,
bass, piano, ac guitar. After two instrumental choruses the vocal begain,
and the clock was a faded out. When questioned about it afterwards,
many people did not even notice the clock disappear. Few,other
than musicians seem to perform a "vertical scan" while listening:-)
>
> "Valve amplifiers are favoured by middle aged men because the
> colouration produced suits their normal hearing loss"

Or because they are the only people who can afford them:-)

It is not difficult to build a 50W PP valve amplifier with FR 10 Hz
to 35kHz, and PBW 10 Hz to 50kHz with THD at 0.1% at full
power. I cannot see how such an amplifier "produces colouration
to suit normal hearing loss".

I use a Crown power amp usually for monitoring my work, but
prefer my own, home brew valve system at home.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches/HomeSystem/homesystem.html

> All listening tests are subjective and the results reflect at
> least as much about the listener as the source.

Yes indeed.

Cheers

Iain

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:21:55 +0200, "Iain Churches"
> wrote:

>"Andy Cowley" > wrote in message
...
>> Iain Churches wrote:

>> The studies that other posters have referred to seem to indicate
>> that they are not a good group to sample if you wish to get the
>> best ears. Young people from rural areas in less developed countries
>> would probably be the best.
>
>Good point. I have been involved in some interesting experiments,
>in aural perception with three groups of people, professional
>musicians/studio/concert personnel, audiophiles, and laypersons.
>It is no surprise to find that the first group fare the best.
>There is often little to choose between the second two.
>
>The problem with young people from rural areas, is they lack totally
>the expertise of a skilled listener. A "fresh" ear is no substitute for
>an experienced ear.

His point is not that it's a 'fresh' ear, but that it's one which can
literally *hear* lots of things that you and I cannot.

Not a matter of training but of youth, and lack of damage from urban
noise pollution. Being from a small town in a largely farming
community, I'm well aware of this disparity.

>> "Valve amplifiers are favoured by middle aged men because the
>> colouration produced suits their normal hearing loss"
>
>Or because they are the only people who can afford them:-)
>
>It is not difficult to build a 50W PP valve amplifier with FR 10 Hz
>to 35kHz, and PBW 10 Hz to 50kHz with THD at 0.1% at full
>power. I cannot see how such an amplifier "produces colouration
>to suit normal hearing loss".

Agreed (although you have your FR and PBW figures switched, plus a PBW
of 10Hz is *very* unusual, and that 0.1% figure is only at 1kHz), but
the problem is that this is *not* the kind of amplifier favoured by
the 'tubies', since of course such an amp is entirely indistiguishable
from an equally good SS amp.

The real world difference is that the SS amp will cost about a quarter
as much to buy, and will maintain its 'as new' performance for about
twenty years with no gradual drop-off. With a tubed amp, you have to
consider just how bad the sound has to get before you renew the output
tubes every two or three years................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message


> Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess
> partly as a natural talent, and partly as the result of their
> formal training (this is not something rstricted solely
> to classical musicians)

Wrong.

"Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this context.

The correct term is "Musical Perception".

There *is* a difference.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess
>> partly as a natural talent, and partly as the result of their
>> formal training (this is not something rstricted solely
>> to classical musicians)
>
> Wrong.
>
> "Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this context.
>
> The correct term is "Musical Perception".
>
> There *is* a difference.
>
>

Wrong!
The two correct terms are
"Borg Perception"
and
"Music Perception"
You may pick and choose.
There *is* a difference.






--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Andre Jute]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess
> > partly as a natural talent, and partly as the result of their
> > formal training (this is not something rstricted solely
> > to classical musicians)
>
> Wrong.
>
> "Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this context.
>
> The correct term is "Musical Perception".
>
> There *is* a difference.

Do you ever listen to yourself, Arny "I spoke in ignorance" Krueger?

Mr Churches is talking about music. The music is all there is to it.
"Audio Perception", when used complete with pompous capitals, is merely
a phrase used by surplus "engineers", who couldn't get a job in
better-paid branch of electronics, to make themselves sound like
"experts". When Mr Churches uses the phrase modestly, without using the
screeching capitals, he means whether the recording sounds like the
original performance to those of innate musical perception, a
classification which clearly, by their own pronouncements, doesn't
include the self-declared "audio engineers" on RAT and RAO.

Here's the short version in soundbite sentences for mechanical minds:
The discussion is about whether the reproduced music sounds like the
original performance. Krueger is talking about mechanical linkages. The
proof of the pudding is in the eating. Krueger's pudding tastes like
disassembled robot.

I don't usually take a mechanic along for a drive in a fast car; I know
from experience that his conversation will be dull and irrelevant to
the driving pleasure. In my reckless youth I was often in the car on a
test track or the road with one or more of the engineers who designed
it. None of them ever talked about the grubby bits. All of them talked
about the driving experience. That defines the difference between an
engineer and an "engineer" (1), don't you think?

Andre Jute

(1) Nah, I'm not making a case that all auto engineers are men of
elegant mind while all audio engineers are ignorant and ungracious
trailer park trash. The top audio engineers I know off the board are
men of elegant mind and expression and gracious generosity quite equal
to the top auto engineers I knew when my interests were different. But
I cannot pretend I was not shocked when an auto-engineer of some
distinction (well-spoken of by men I've known for decades, though
admittedly I didn't find any who invited him to their home), who posted
on RAT as "dangerdave", turned out to be immoral slime precisely as the
audio "engineers" who have wrecked RAT and RAO are immoral slime.

[Arny Krueger]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess
>>> partly as a natural talent, and partly as the result of
>>> their formal training (this is not something rstricted
>>> solely
>>> to classical musicians)
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> "Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this context.
>>
>> The correct term is "Musical Perception".
>>
>> There *is* a difference.

<snip irrelevant BS>

[Andre Jute]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess
> >>> partly as a natural talent, and partly as the result of
> >>> their formal training (this is not something rstricted
> >>> solely
> >>> to classical musicians)
> >>
> >> Wrong.
> >>
> >> "Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this context.
> >>
> >> The correct term is "Musical Perception".
> >>
> >> There *is* a difference.
>
> <snip irrelevant BS>

Arny "I spoke in ignorance" Krueger can't stand the truth, so he
snipped my entire text. Run, rabbit, run.

Let's give everyone else a chance to decide for themselves how relevant
my remarks were and are:

**********
Mr Churches is talking about music. The music is all there is to it.
"Audio Perception", when used complete with pompous capitals, is merely

a phrase used by surplus "engineers", who couldn't get a job in
better-paid branch of electronics, to make themselves sound like
"experts". When Mr Churches uses the phrase modestly, without using the

screeching capitals, he means whether the recording sounds like the
original performance to those of innate musical perception, a
classification which clearly, by their own pronouncements, doesn't
include the self-declared "audio engineers" on RAT and RAO.

Here's the short version in soundbite sentences for mechanical minds:
The discussion is about whether the reproduced music sounds like the
original performance. Krueger is talking about mechanical linkages. The

proof of the pudding is in the eating. Krueger's pudding tastes like
disassembled robot.

I don't usually take a mechanic along for a drive in a fast car; I know

from experience that his conversation will be dull and irrelevant to
the driving pleasure. In my reckless youth I was often in the car on a
test track or the road with one or more of the engineers who designed
it. None of them ever talked about the grubby bits. All of them talked
about the driving experience. That defines the difference between an
engineer and an "engineer" (1), don't you think?

Andre Jute

(1) Nah, I'm not making a case that all auto engineers are men of
elegant mind while all audio engineers are ignorant and ungracious
trailer park trash. The top audio engineers I know off the board are
men of elegant mind and expression and gracious generosity quite equal
to the top auto engineers I knew when my interests were different. But
I cannot pretend I was not shocked when an auto-engineer of some
distinction (well-spoken of by men I've known for decades, though
admittedly I didn't find any who invited him to their home), who posted

on RAT as "dangerdave", turned out to be immoral slime precisely as the

audio "engineers" who have wrecked RAT and RAO are immoral slime.

***********

[Arny Krueger]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "Iain Churches" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> Audio perception is a skill which most musicians
>>>>> posess partly as a natural talent, and partly as the
>>>>> result of their formal training (this is not
>>>>> something rstricted solely
>>>>> to classical musicians)
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>> "Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this
>>>> context.
>>>>
>>>> The correct term is "Musical Perception".
>>>>
>>>> There *is* a difference.
>>
>> <snip irrelevant BS>
>
> Arny "I spoke in ignorance" Krueger can't stand the
> truth, so he snipped my entire text. Run, rabbit, run.

No, I'm just bored with your overwrought prose, Jute.

> Let's give everyone else a chance to decide for
> themselves how relevant my remarks were and are:

> **********
> Mr Churches is talking about music. The music is all
> there is to it. "Audio Perception", when used complete
> with pompous capitals, is merely
> a phrase used by surplus "engineers", who couldn't get a
> job in better-paid branch of electronics, to make
> themselves sound like "experts".

Yup, total losers like Zwicker and Fastl.

>When Mr Churches uses
> the phrase modestly, without using the
> screeching capitals, he means whether the recording
> sounds like the original performance to those of innate
> musical perception, a classification which clearly, by
> their own pronouncements, doesn't include the
> self-declared "audio engineers" on RAT and RAO.

Agreed that most of RAO and RAT have no real interest in whether the
recording they are playing sounds like the origional perforamnce. The people
on RAT tend to care more about whether the recording sounds like its being
played on equipment with TOOBs.

Almost all of the people on RAO are too interested in arguing and insulting
for the sake of arguing and insulting to worry about things like music and
sound.

> Here's the short version in soundbite sentences for
> mechanical minds: The discussion is about whether the
> reproduced music sounds like the original performance.

Agreed, except there is an open question as to which origional performance,
is being talked about.

Apparently in Jute's simplistic world, there is just one sound of a live
performance. IOW, as Jute walks around a concert hall, he hears identically
the same sound no matter where he is, whether the back row or right in front
of the conductor's lectern.


> Krueger is talking about mechanical linkages. The
> proof of the pudding is in the eating. Krueger's pudding
> tastes like disassembled robot.

Merely a childish personal attack, easily dismissed.

> I don't usually take a mechanic along for a drive in a
> fast car; I know
> from experience that his conversation will be dull and
> irrelevant to the driving pleasure. In my reckless youth
> I was often in the car on a test track or the road with
> one or more of the engineers who designed it. None of
> them ever talked about the grubby bits. All of them
> talked about the driving experience. That defines the
> difference between an engineer and an "engineer" (1),
> don't you think?

Yet another personal attack. This is obviously Jute's idea of audio
discussion in its highest form: False claims topped off with a few personal
attacks.

Yawn!

[Andre Jute]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> ups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com
> >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>> "Iain Churches" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>>> Audio perception is a skill which most musicians
> >>>>> posess partly as a natural talent, and partly as the
> >>>>> result of their formal training (this is not
> >>>>> something rstricted solely
> >>>>> to classical musicians)
> >>>>
> >>>> Wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this
> >>>> context.
> >>>>
> >>>> The correct term is "Musical Perception".
> >>>>
> >>>> There *is* a difference.
> >>
> >> <snip irrelevant BS>
> >
> > Arny "I spoke in ignorance" Krueger can't stand the
> > truth, so he snipped my entire text. Run, rabbit, run.
>
> No, I'm just bored with your overwrought prose, Jute.
>
> > Let's give everyone else a chance to decide for
> > themselves how relevant my remarks were and are:
>
> > **********
> > Mr Churches is talking about music. The music is all
> > there is to it. "Audio Perception", when used complete
> > with pompous capitals, is merely
> > a phrase used by surplus "engineers", who couldn't get a
> > job in better-paid branch of electronics, to make
> > themselves sound like "experts".
>
> Yup, total losers like Zwicker and Fastl.

I don't know them. I know you, Arny "I spoke in ignorance" Krueger. You
have zero credibility even with your own kind. You lie and you twist
and you cheat in order to "win" an argument that even McKelpie, your
loyal dog, knows you have lost.

> >When Mr Churches uses
> > the phrase modestly, without using the
> > screeching capitals, he means whether the recording
> > sounds like the original performance to those of innate
> > musical perception, a classification which clearly, by
> > their own pronouncements, doesn't include the
> > self-declared "audio engineers" on RAT and RAO.
>
> Agreed that most of RAO and RAT have no real interest in whether the
> recording they are playing sounds like the origional perforamnce. The people
> on RAT tend to care more about whether the recording sounds like its being
> played on equipment with TOOBs.

You've been told a hundred times that on RAT solid state amps enjoy the
same level playing field as tubes. You're the one giving solid state a
bad name by your brutish bullying. These debating trade tricks cut no
ice. Do have anything at all to contribute, Krueger?

> Almost all of the people on RAO are too interested in arguing and insulting
> for the sake of arguing and insulting to worry about things like music and
> sound.

That's just empty abuse of people who don't fall down and worship you.

> > Here's the short version in soundbite sentences for
> > mechanical minds: The discussion is about whether the
> > reproduced music sounds like the original performance.
>
> Agreed, except there is an open question as to which origional performance,
> is being talked about.

No, the question is no longer "open". The "engineers" had their turn
and ****ed up.

Nor is it a question of "which performance" but of "whose performance".
Guess who gave the performance. Here's a hint: not the techies. The
musicians gave the performance. They are qualified to judge the
recorded result.

> Apparently in Jute's simplistic world, there is just one sound of a live
> performance. IOW, as Jute walks around a concert hall, he hears identically
> the same sound no matter where he is, whether the back row or right in front
> of the conductor's lectern.

More debating trade crap trying to confuse us.

The best seats in most houses are half-a-dozen rows behind the
conductor. In any event, the musicians have decided what it is they
want the audience to hear. They are qualified to judge if the recording
and the replay apparatus delivers that vision.

> > Krueger is talking about mechanical linkages. The
> > proof of the pudding is in the eating. Krueger's pudding
> > tastes like disassembled robot.
>
> Merely a childish personal attack, easily dismissed.

Okay, fine, let's see you make an argument to dismiss my three
statements. Just shouting that you dismiss it doesn't cut any ice.

You're missing the key point, Krueger, either because you're stupid or
because you're losing it in another of your kindergarten debating trade
tricks.

This is precisely the point of who should be in charge, the
mechanically minded techies with their THD or the cultured musicians.
Civilized people think music is about culture, not grubby bits.

> > I don't usually take a mechanic along for a drive in a
> > fast car; I know
> > from experience that his conversation will be dull and
> > irrelevant to the driving pleasure. In my reckless youth
> > I was often in the car on a test track or the road with
> > one or more of the engineers who designed it. None of
> > them ever talked about the grubby bits. All of them
> > talked about the driving experience. That defines the
> > difference between an engineer and an "engineer" (1),
> > don't you think?
>
> Yet another personal attack.

Nope. Once more I'm demonstrating that your opinion isn't worth ****
because you have no culture. If you cannot grasp the analogy, what are
you doing on RAO and RAT and the other audio newsgroups? They are about
music, about culture, about joy, none of which you apparently possess.

>This is obviously Jute's idea of audio
> discussion in its highest form:

You're damn right it is a high form of audio discussion. We're talking
about recovering our music from incompetent wreckers like you, who
cannot even record his own church choir intelligibly. what can be more
important -- in your own control freak's very revealling choice of
word, "higher" -- than that?

>False claims

Prove a single lie.

>topped off with a few personal attacks.

When is a personal attack not a personal attack? When Arny "I spoke in
ignorance" Krueger makes it. He just in the same soundbite sentence
called me a liar and then accused me of arguing with personal attacks:

>False claims topped off with a few personal attacks.

You're an idiot, Krueger, to display so much contempt for the
intelligence of better men than you. The difference is that we daily
demonstrate our superiority while you snip our argument and proof and
then claim there was none. You're not only incompetent and ignorant and
crude, you're such a transparent liar.

> Yawn!

If you think music is boring, Arny "I spoke in ignorance" Krueger, what
are you doing on RAO and RAT and the other audio conferences?

We don't despise you, Krueger, because you are ignorant or too poor to
buy real hi-fi; we've all been there. We despise you because you are a
bully and deceitful.

Unsigned out of contempt

[Arny Krueger]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
ps.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>> "Iain Churches" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Audio perception is a skill which most musicians
>>>>>>> posess partly as a natural talent, and partly as the
>>>>>>> result of their formal training (this is not
>>>>>>> something rstricted solely
>>>>>>> to classical musicians)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this
>>>>>> context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The correct term is "Musical Perception".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There *is* a difference.
>>>>
>>>> <snip irrelevant BS>
>>>
>>> Arny "I spoke in ignorance" Krueger can't stand the
>>> truth, so he snipped my entire text. Run, rabbit, run.
>>
>> No, I'm just bored with your overwrought prose, Jute.
>>
>>> Let's give everyone else a chance to decide for
>>> themselves how relevant my remarks were and are:
>>
>>> **********
>>> Mr Churches is talking about music. The music is all
>>> there is to it. "Audio Perception", when used complete
>>> with pompous capitals, is merely
>>> a phrase used by surplus "engineers", who couldn't get a
>>> job in better-paid branch of electronics, to make
>>> themselves sound like "experts".
>>
>> Yup, total losers like Zwicker and Fastl.

> I don't know them.

You obviously didn't have the wits to google them, either.

> I know you, Arny "I spoke in
> ignorance" Krueger. You have zero credibility even with
> your own kind. You lie and you twist and you cheat in
> order to "win" an argument that even McKelpie, your loyal
> dog, knows you have lost.

Wow, a personal attack from Jute. Whoda thunk?

>>> When Mr Churches uses
>>> the phrase modestly, without using the
>>> screeching capitals, he means whether the recording
>>> sounds like the original performance to those of innate
>>> musical perception, a classification which clearly, by
>>> their own pronouncements, doesn't include the
>>> self-declared "audio engineers" on RAT and RAO.

>> Agreed that most of RAO and RAT have no real interest in
>> whether the recording they are playing sounds like the
>> origional perforamnce. The people on RAT tend to care
>> more about whether the recording sounds like its being
>> played on equipment with TOOBs.

> You've been told a hundred times that on RAT solid state
> amps enjoy the same level playing field as tubes.

Meaning exactly what?

> You're the one giving solid state a bad name by your brutish
> bullying. These debating trade tricks cut no ice. Do have
> anything at all to contribute, Krueger?

I didn't even mention SS did I?

>> Almost all of the people on RAO are too interested in
>> arguing and insulting for the sake of arguing and
>> insulting to worry about things like music and sound.

> That's just empty abuse of people who don't fall down and
> worship you.

LOL!

>>> Here's the short version in soundbite sentences for
>>> mechanical minds: The discussion is about whether the
>>> reproduced music sounds like the original performance.
>>
>> Agreed, except there is an open question as to which
>> origional performance, is being talked about.

> No, the question is no longer "open". The "engineers" had
> their turn and ****ed up.

Prove it.

> Nor is it a question of "which performance" but of "whose
> performance".

Wrong again, Jute. The performance sounds the same under identical
conditions, no matter who owns it.

> Guess who gave the performance. Here's a
> hint: not the techies.

Actually musos are a kind of technician, no?

> The musicians gave the
> performance. They are qualified to judge the recorded
> result.

Fact of the matter is that musos hear their instruments and performances
from a unique perspective that nobody seated in the audience can duplicate
live.

>> Apparently in Jute's simplistic world, there is just one
>> sound of a live performance. IOW, as Jute walks around a
>> concert hall, he hears identically the same sound no
>> matter where he is, whether the back row or right in
>> front of the conductor's lectern.

> More debating trade crap trying to confuse us.

Just the facts. Quit whining Jute and get down to the issues, if you can!

> The best seats in most houses are half-a-dozen rows
> behind the conductor. In any event, the musicians have
> decided what it is they want the audience to hear.

How can they, when they can never hear it for themselves. If they are
playing, they are always fully engaged someplace else other than the seats
behind the conductor.

>They are qualified to judge if the recording and the replay
> apparatus delivers that vision.

How can they do this right if they never hear it that way?

>>> Krueger is talking about mechanical linkages. The
>>> proof of the pudding is in the eating. Krueger's pudding
>>> tastes like disassembled robot.

>> Merely a childish personal attack, easily dismissed.

> Okay, fine, let's see you make an argument to dismiss my
> three statements. Just shouting that you dismiss it
> doesn't cut any ice.

Been there, done that with ease.

> You're missing the key point, Krueger, either because
> you're stupid or because you're losing it in another of
> your kindergarten debating trade tricks.

Merely another childish personal attack, easily dismissed.

> This is precisely the point of who should be in charge,
> the mechanically minded techies with their THD or the
> cultured musicians.

Who says that no techie no where can possibly appreciate the beauty of
music?

Apparently Jute. :-(

> Civilized people think music is about
> culture, not grubby bits.

I'd like to think that some music can transcend mere culture.

>>> I don't usually take a mechanic along for a drive in a
>>> fast car; I know
>>> from experience that his conversation will be dull and
>>> irrelevant to the driving pleasure. In my reckless youth
>>> I was often in the car on a test track or the road with
>>> one or more of the engineers who designed it. None of
>>> them ever talked about the grubby bits. All of them
>>> talked about the driving experience. That defines the
>>> difference between an engineer and an "engineer" (1),
>>> don't you think?

>> Yet another personal attack.

> Nope. Once more I'm demonstrating that your opinion isn't
> worth **** because you have no culture.

Yet another personal attack.

> If you cannot
> grasp the analogy, what are you doing on RAO and RAT and
> the other audio newsgroups?

I grasp that your so-called demonstration is a bald-faced personal attack,
Jute.

>They are about music, about
> culture, about joy, none of which you apparently possess.

Yet another childish personal attack from Jute.

>> This is obviously Jute's idea of audio
>> discussion in its highest form:

> You're damn right it is a high form of audio discussion.


What, all these personal attacks of yours, Jute?

Surely you jest!

> We're talking about recovering our music from incompetent
> wreckers like you, who cannot even record his own church
> choir intelligibly. what can be more important -- in your
> own control freak's very revealling choice of word,
> "higher" -- than that?

More childish personal attacks.

>> False claims

> Prove a single lie.

Asked and answered.

>> topped off with a few personal attacks.

> When is a personal attack not a personal attack? When
> Arny "I spoke in ignorance" Krueger makes it. He just in
> the same soundbite sentence called me a liar and then
> accused me of arguing with personal attacks:

Just the facts.

>> False claims topped off with a few personal attacks.

> You're an idiot, Krueger, to display so much contempt for
> the intelligence of better men than you.

Not a problem when I'm dealing with you Jute. You obviously have the
mentality of a spoilt child.

>The difference
> is that we daily demonstrate our superiority while you
> snip our argument and proof and then claim there was
> none. You're not only incompetent and ignorant and crude,
> you're such a transparent liar.

More personal attacks.

>> Yawn!

> If you think music is boring, Arny "I spoke in ignorance"
> Krueger, what are you doing on RAO and RAT and the other
> audio conferences?

Jute, its your stream of personal attacks that are boring me.

> We don't despise you, Krueger, because you are ignorant
> or too poor to buy real hi-fi; we've all been there. We
> despise you because you are a bully and deceitful.

Who is this "we" Jute? You and your multiple personalities?

> Unsigned out of contempt

...by Jute for Jute.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> Who is this "we" Jute? You and your multiple personalities?
>

Pretty much the rest of the world, except for Mikey and Pukey.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Who is this "we" Jute? You and your multiple
>> personalities?
>
> Pretty much the rest of the world, except for Mikey and
> Pukey.

How would you know, Art? You live in Middius world where guys like you are
the usual thing.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Who is this "we" Jute? You and your multiple
>>> personalities?
>>
>> Pretty much the rest of the world, except for Mikey and
>> Pukey.
>
> How would you know, Art? You live in Middius world where guys like you are
> the usual thing.
>

Zelniker, Weil, Packer, Sanders, De Waal, Sackman, Middius, Bambrough,
Dormer, Zipser, Wittenvongel, Wheeler, VonB., Steve, Ludwig, Jute, JJ, and
dozens more
don't like you.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[paul packer]

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:03:47 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>
>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Who is this "we" Jute? You and your multiple
>>>> personalities?
>>>
>>> Pretty much the rest of the world, except for Mikey and
>>> Pukey.
>>
>> How would you know, Art? You live in Middius world where guys like you are
>> the usual thing.
>>
>
>Zelniker, Weil, Packer, Sanders, De Waal, Sackman, Middius, Bambrough,
>Dormer, Zipser, Wittenvongel, Wheeler, VonB., Steve, Ludwig, Jute, JJ, and
>dozens more
>don't like you.

Hang on, I only dislike him when we talk minidisc. The rest of the
time I just find him an odd little fellow.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message


> Zelniker, Weil, Packer, Sanders, De Waal, Sackman,
> Middius, Bambrough, Dormer, Zipser, Wittenvongel,
> Wheeler, VonB., Steve, Ludwig, Jute, JJ, and dozens more
> don't like you.

Half of the people on that list haven't posted here in ages, or post so
infrequentely that it haldly matters. Some of them are just plain wrong.
Then there's the ones that are sockpuppets such as your sweet self. Parse
the list down to real people and you've got just a few soreheads.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Zelniker, Weil, Packer, Sanders, De Waal, Sackman,
>> Middius, Bambrough, Dormer, Zipser, Wittenvongel,
>> Wheeler, VonB., Steve, Ludwig, Jute, JJ, and dozens more
>> don't like you.
>
> Half of the people on that list haven't posted here in ages, or post so
> infrequentely that it haldly matters. Some of them are just plain wrong.
> Then there's the ones that are sockpuppets such as your sweet self. Parse
> the list down to real people and you've got just a few soreheads.
>

Am I Middius' or JA's sockpuppet this week? I forget.
I lost my schedule.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Zelniker, Weil, Packer, Sanders, De Waal, Sackman,
>>> Middius, Bambrough, Dormer, Zipser, Wittenvongel,
>>> Wheeler, VonB., Steve, Ludwig, Jute, JJ, and dozens more
>>> don't like you.
>>
>> Half of the people on that list haven't posted here in
>> ages, or post so infrequentely that it haldly matters.
>> Some of them are just plain wrong. Then there's the ones
>> that are sockpuppets such as your sweet self. Parse the
>> list down to real people and you've got just a few
>> soreheads.

> Am I Middius' or JA's sockpuppet this week? I forget.
> I lost my schedule.

Try a reasonable list of animators next time, Art.

Middius *is* a sockpuppet and JA's got his hands full just being JA. ;-)

[Iain Churches]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess
>> partly as a natural talent, and partly as the result of their
>> formal training (this is not something rstricted solely
>> to classical musicians)
>
> Wrong.
>
> "Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this context.
>
> The correct term is "Musical Perception".
>
> There *is* a difference.
>
Arny. Audio perception is the correct term, as used
by educational establishments that teach courses in
recording arts.

It was deliberately chosen to include all those involved
in recording, not just musicians.


It comes from the first person singular
"audio" of the Latin verb "audire" to hear. An accepted
alternative seems to be "Aural perception"


Iain

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess
>>> partly as a natural talent, and partly as the result of
>>> their formal training (this is not something rstricted
>>> solely to classical musicians)
>>
>> Wrong.

>> "Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this context.

>> The correct term is "Musical Perception".

>> There *is* a difference.

> Arny. Audio perception is the correct term, as used
> by educational establishments that teach courses in
> recording arts.

Then that is relevant to audio technical staff.

Recording arts - technicans

Musical arts - musicians

> It was deliberately chosen to include all those involved
> in recording, not just musicians.

You've contradicted yourself again, Iain.

> It comes from the first person singular
> "audio" of the Latin verb "audire" to hear. An accepted
> alternative seems to be "Aural perception"

Red herring, anybody?

[Andre Jute]

Iain Churches wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> >> Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess
> >> partly as a natural talent, and partly as the result of their
> >> formal training (this is not something rstricted solely
> >> to classical musicians)
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > "Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this context.
> >
> > The correct term is "Musical Perception".
> >
> > There *is* a difference.
> >
> Arny. Audio perception is the correct term, as used
> by educational establishments that teach courses in
> recording arts.
>
> It was deliberately chosen to include all those involved
> in recording, not just musicians.
>
>
> It comes from the first person singular
> "audio" of the Latin verb "audire" to hear. An accepted
> alternative seems to be "Aural perception"
>
>
> Iain

You're wasting your breath, Iain. Arny Krueger's obtuse attitude
towards these matters stem not from a desire for precision, a love of
music or any other reason than control of some tiny specialist corner
in which he can shine, or claim to shine, or pretend to shine. That is
why he wants entirely artificially to separate Audio Perception from
Musical Perception, so that he can control the smaller arena and claim
to be superior to those who create and perform the music. Krueger's
attempt to carve out a corner of superiority for himself, no matter how
false or artificial, arises from his fear and loathing of culture, and
his deepseated feelings of inferiority to those who are so obviously,
so abundantly more talented than he is (1). (Krueger is admitting the
same thing as another zero-kulturny's "audio is engineering, music is
art" sig, the implication of which is that the opinion of the dumbest
engineer should stand higher than that of the most accomplished
artist.)

It was Paul Johnson who first observed that the first target of the
enemies of society is always the plain everyday meaning of words,
because once they control the language, they can control thought, and
through though they control education, and through education they
control society. In the same way Arny Krueger, without doubt an arid
enemy of cultured society, wishes to control the language used in
recording as a trojan horse through which he may pretend to be superior
to those who generate joy, through superiority to control them, and
through control to reduce them to his own level of uselessness. Another
example is Krueger's ludicrous attempt by stretching the meaning of
words to beyond breaking point to make himself out a professional
recording engineer. (2)

Andre Jute

(1) There's a grand irony here. Arny Krueger is observably of such
rigid mentality that, were he to achieve his impossible dream of
becoming an artist, he would instantly break under the stress of that
uncertainty and doubt which dogs and drives every real creator.

(2) As I demonstrated in
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.audio.opinion/tree/browse_frm/thread/f908f913bc27ab43/f7ab2e5873e3e7a1rnum=1&q=How+I+became+a+professional+sound&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.audio.opinion%2Fbrowse_frm%2F thread%2Ff908f913bc27ab43%2Fae779b036836522d%3Fq%3 DHow+I+became+a+professional+sound%26rnum%3D1%26#d oc_f7ab2e5873e3e7a1
Krueger's claim to be a professional recording engineer is ludicrous:
if he can call himself a professional recording engineer, so can any
kid with recording studio toy. Others demonstrated on separate aspects
of Krueger's dumb wordplay that his claim is ludicrous.

[Andre Jute]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess
> >>> partly as a natural talent, and partly as the result of
> >>> their formal training (this is not something rstricted
> >>> solely to classical musicians)
> >>
> >> Wrong.
>
> >> "Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this context.
>
> >> The correct term is "Musical Perception".
>
> >> There *is* a difference.
>
> > Arny. Audio perception is the correct term, as used
> > by educational establishments that teach courses in
> > recording arts.
>
> Then that is relevant to audio technical staff.
>
> Recording arts - technicans
>
> Musical arts - musicians
>
> > It was deliberately chosen to include all those involved
> > in recording, not just musicians.
>
> You've contradicted yourself again, Iain.
>
> > It comes from the first person singular
> > "audio" of the Latin verb "audire" to hear. An accepted
> > alternative seems to be "Aural perception"
>
> Red herring, anybody?

Lovely. While I was writing my post below to explain Krueger's
motivation to Iain, Krueger himself jumped in to confirm every single
motivation I ascribed to his attempt artificially to separate technical
and musical sensibilities in recording:

> Recording arts - technicans
>
> Musical arts - musicians

And note that they are now in Krueger's mouth "recording *arts*" -- I
have no objection to the best professional recording engineers
describing what they do as an art, but Krueger is clearly neither a
professional recording engineer nor an artist; he is merely confirming
my analysis that he wants to be thought of an artist. Here is my
analysis (in reply to Iain's letter quoted above) which crossed with
Krueger's confirmation of every point I made:

********
Iain Churches wrote:
[snip, already quoted above]

You're wasting your breath, Iain. Arny Krueger's obtuse attitude
towards these matters stem not from a desire for precision, a love of
music or any other reason than control of some tiny specialist corner
in which he can shine, or claim to shine, or pretend to shine. That is
why he wants entirely artificially to separate Audio Perception from
Musical Perception, so that he can control the smaller arena and claim
to be superior to those who create and perform the music. Krueger's
attempt to carve out a corner of superiority for himself, no matter how
false or artificial, arises from his fear and loathing of culture, and
his deepseated feelings of inferiority to those who are so obviously,
so abundantly more talented than he is (1). (Krueger is admitting the
same thing as another zero-kulturny's "audio is engineering, music is
art" sig, the implication of which is that the opinion of the dumbest
engineer should stand higher than that of the most accomplished
artist.)

It was Paul Johnson who first observed that the first target of the
enemies of society is always the plain everyday meaning of words,
because once they control the language, they can control thought, and
through though they control education, and through education they
control society. In the same way Arny Krueger, without doubt an arid
enemy of cultured society, wishes to control the language used in
recording as a trojan horse through which he may pretend to be superior
to those who generate joy, through superiority to control them, and
through control to reduce them to his own level of uselessness. Another
example is Krueger's ludicrous attempt by stretching the meaning of
words to beyond breaking point to make himself out a professional
recording engineer. (2)

Andre Jute

(1) There's a grand irony here. Arny Krueger is observably of such
rigid mentality that, were he to achieve his impossible dream of
becoming an artist, he would instantly break under the stress of that
uncertainty and doubt which dogs and drives every real creator.

(2) As I demonstrated in
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.audio.opinion/tree/browse_frm/thread/f908f913bc27ab43/f7ab2e5873e3e7a1rnum=1&q=How+I+became+a+professional+sound&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.audio.opinion%2Fbrowse_frm%2F thread%2Ff908f913bc27ab43%2Fae779b036836522d%3Fq%3 DHow+I+became+a+professional+sound%26rnum%3D1%26#d oc_f7ab2e5873e3e7a1
Krueger's claim to be a professional recording engineer is ludicrous:
if he can call himself a professional recording engineer, so can any
kid with recording studio toy. Others demonstrated on separate aspects
of Krueger's dumb wordplay that his claim is ludicrous.

[[email protected]]

Mr. McCoy:

You may believe that "Precision is the first scientific virtue", God
knows you repeat it often enough (See: The Bellman's Proof). But
consider the analogy of the Two Thermometers in the Woods.

Little Thermometer A was a wonderful instrument. She could read to four
decimal places, Farenheit, Celcius, Kelvin and any scale imposed upon
her. She could show digits in Old and New Arabic numerals, Roman
Numerals, whatever was asked of her. She prided herself in her
precision. She lit up in the dark, and was polarized against sun glare.
Altogether a glamorous lady.

Little Thermometer B was a much less distinguished a lad. He could only
read in full degrees, and had only two scales printed on him, and could
not show digits at all, just a line against the printed scales. He
neither lit up, nor was shielded against glare. He had no language
other than Old Arabic, of course.

However, when called upon to actually perform as thermometers, it was
rapidly discovered that Ms. A was off the true temperature anywhere
from +9 to -6 degrees on any scale, and unpredictably so at that. And
the until-now disrespected little Mr. B was always dead-on true
temperature. All this only after some serious damage resulted from too
much trust in Ms. A... fooled by her glamorous precision.

So, precision without accuracy... your particular claim to fame and
observed general behavior... can be dangerously worse than useless.
Accuracy, even if not terribly precise is of far more value and, dare I
say it UTILITY.

You should be very careful of the words you use. For all those that you
fling about in your psuedo-literate frenzies, you do seem to have at
very best a dim sense of their meanings. Much as poor Ms A. above.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Andre Jute]

Nah, Wiecky, you got the cat by the tail again with your thumb up its
ass. Everyone except a johnnycomelately like you knows that Mr Jute is
big on leeway for educated taste in cultural matters. The guys you want
to accuse of spurious precision are Krueger, Pinkerton and Stevenson.

Hope this helps you not be such a public fool in future.

Andrew McCoy

Useless Wiecky wrote:
> Mr. McCoy:
>
> You may believe that "Precision is the first scientific virtue", God
> knows you repeat it often enough (See: The Bellman's Proof). But
> consider the analogy of the Two Thermometers in the Woods.
>
> Little Thermometer A was a wonderful instrument. She could read to four
> decimal places, Farenheit, Celcius, Kelvin and any scale imposed upon
> her. She could show digits in Old and New Arabic numerals, Roman
> Numerals, whatever was asked of her. She prided herself in her
> precision. She lit up in the dark, and was polarized against sun glare.
> Altogether a glamorous lady.
>
> Little Thermometer B was a much less distinguished a lad. He could only
> read in full degrees, and had only two scales printed on him, and could
> not show digits at all, just a line against the printed scales. He
> neither lit up, nor was shielded against glare. He had no language
> other than Old Arabic, of course.
>
> However, when called upon to actually perform as thermometers, it was
> rapidly discovered that Ms. A was off the true temperature anywhere
> from +9 to -6 degrees on any scale, and unpredictably so at that. And
> the until-now disrespected little Mr. B was always dead-on true
> temperature. All this only after some serious damage resulted from too
> much trust in Ms. A... fooled by her glamorous precision.
>
> So, precision without accuracy... your particular claim to fame and
> observed general behavior... can be dangerously worse than useless.
> Accuracy, even if not terribly precise is of far more value and, dare I
> say it UTILITY.
>
> You should be very careful of the words you use. For all those that you
> fling about in your psuedo-literate frenzies, you do seem to have at
> very best a dim sense of their meanings. Much as poor Ms A. above.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Wyncote, PA

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Recording arts - technicans
>
> Musical arts - musicians
>

Scatalogical arts - Arnie



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Iain Churches]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> Audio perception is a skill which most musicians posess
>>>> partly as a natural talent, and partly as the result of
>>>> their formal training (this is not something rstricted
>>>> solely to classical musicians)
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>
>>> "Audio Perception" is an incorrect term in this context.
>
>>> The correct term is "Musical Perception".
>
>>> There *is* a difference.
>
>> Arny. Audio perception is the correct term, as used
>> by educational establishments that teach courses in
>> recording arts.
>
> Then that is relevant to audio technical staff.
>
> Recording arts - technicans

My dear Arny,

The object of the training is to educate musicians,
and also would-be producers what actually goes on
in studios and at recording sessions, and what is
expected of them during the process. The courses
are supervised by senior preducers, and recording
engineers. Some junior recording staff also take part.

The problem is that recording a large project is so expensive
that few potentially good but inexperienced players or
producers get the opportunity to take part.

As a result one sees the same session players, particularly
drummers, bass players, pianists and guitar players dashing
from studio to studio, and broadcast to broadcast.

I know of one particularly good Swedish drummer who has
five drum kits, dotted around the various studios of the
capital.

For those not quite so good or experienced, it is a Catch 22
situation - no experience without work, no work without
experience.

>> It comes from the first person singular
>> "audio" of the Latin verb "audire" to hear. An accepted
>> alternative seems to be "Aural perception"
>
> Red herring, anybody?

Not at all, it's a direct quote from a college prospectus.


Iain

[Iain Churches]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>

> Lovely. While I was writing my post below to explain Krueger's
> motivation to Iain, Krueger himself jumped in to confirm every single
> motivation I ascribed to his attempt artificially to separate technical
> and musical sensibilities in recording:
>
>> Recording arts - technicans
>>
>> Musical arts - musicians
>
> And note that they are now in Krueger's mouth "recording *arts*" -- I
> have no objection to the best professional recording engineers
> describing what they do as an art, but Krueger is clearly neither a
> professional recording engineer nor an artist; he is merely confirming
> my analysis that he wants to be thought of an artist.

> Andre Jute


Andre. I am always interested in what Arny has to say
about testing procedures, but when he talks about recording -
I don't take him too seriously.Perhaps he he is just
trying to be obtuse for the sake of it.

But I am sure, despite all this, he is kind to his Mum:-)

Regards to all.

Iain

[Clyde Slick]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> But I am sure, despite all this, he is kind to his Mum:-)
>
not if she was a subjectivist



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access