Why...

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

....is it that most of the posters here suffer from RCD (Reading
Comprehension Disorder)?

A few things are obvious:

1. That most people seldom actually try to understand what another
poster is trying to say. They go off on little tangents and hissy fits,
frequently having little or nothing to do with what the message they
are responding to actually said. Or they find a niggling point that
they can expand into the theme of the discussion and that obfuscates
the original point. Or they change the meaning of a posters statements
to suit their agenda. Or...

2. That to many here, how the musical data are processed is more
important than what makes audio (and listening to music) more enjoyable
to an individual.

3. That to others, what makes listening to music enjoyable to them
supercedes how the musical data are processed.

4. That some define 'musicality' as 'accuracy,' which is what makes
them want to listen to music, and those people want things to be as
accurate to the original recording as possible.

5. That some others define 'musicality' as what they like, which is
what makes them want to listen to music, and those people do not seem
to care about ultimate accuracy to the recording.

6. That the group is called 'audio' and not 'fidelity.' Therefore, both
positions are valid as far as the individual that holds them.

7. That some people apparently have a problem differentiating
'preference' vs. 'scientific claim.'

8. It appears that since amplifiers, preamps, tuners, CD or DVD
players, other electronic components, wire and interconnects are
'solved' issues to some, discussing them for that group should not be
necessary.

9. It appears that since turntables, LPs, tonearms, cartridges and tape
are worthless legacy equipment for some people, discussing them for
that group should be irrelevant.

10. The only area that I see the two groups agreeing is that
differences can exist in speakers.

11. nob is an idiot. slick and scott are idiots too.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com
>
> 10. The only area that I see the two groups agreeing is
> that differences can exist in speakers.

I would have added rooms, but we've got some people who think that room
acoustics have no significance to sound quality.

[Fella]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

>
> 11. nob is an idiot.
>

You can say that again.

Give on to ceaser what belongs to him.. etc. Once, just *once* he made
me laugh. It was when he called you Shhhhhhhhit. :) Confess it now, come
clean, wasn't that funny? :)

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> ...is it that most of the posters here suffer from RCD (Reading
> Comprehension Disorder)?
>
> A few things are obvious:
>
> 1. That most people seldom actually try to understand what another
> poster is trying to say. They go off on little tangents and hissy fits,
> frequently having little or nothing to do with what the message they
> are responding to actually said. Or they find a niggling point that
> they can expand into the theme of the discussion and that obfuscates
> the original point. Or they change the meaning of a posters statements
> to suit their agenda. Or...
>
> 2. That to many here, how the musical data are processed is more
> important than what makes audio (and listening to music) more enjoyable
> to an individual.
>
> 3. That to others, what makes listening to music enjoyable to them
> supercedes how the musical data are processed.
>
> 4. That some define 'musicality' as 'accuracy,' which is what makes
> them want to listen to music, and those people want things to be as
> accurate to the original recording as possible.
>
> 5. That some others define 'musicality' as what they like, which is
> what makes them want to listen to music, and those people do not seem
> to care about ultimate accuracy to the recording.
>
> 6. That the group is called 'audio' and not 'fidelity.' Therefore, both
> positions are valid as far as the individual that holds them.
>
> 7. That some people apparently have a problem differentiating
> 'preference' vs. 'scientific claim.'
>
> 8. It appears that since amplifiers, preamps, tuners, CD or DVD
> players, other electronic components, wire and interconnects are
> 'solved' issues to some, discussing them for that group should not be
> necessary.
>
> 9. It appears that since turntables, LPs, tonearms, cartridges and tape
> are worthless legacy equipment for some people, discussing them for
> that group should be irrelevant.
>
> 10. The only area that I see the two groups agreeing is that
> differences can exist in speakers.
>
> 11. nob is an idiot. slick and scott are idiots too.
>

and you are an anonymous bull**** artist.



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>Once, just *once* he made
>me laugh. It was when he called you Shhhhhhhhit. :) Confess it now, come
>clean, wasn't that funny? :)

I didn't think it was funny, actually.

If he'd have said, for example, "Shhhhhhhhhhhazam, son, where did you
dream up *that* idea?" or "Don't you wiShhhhhhh!" or "Oh, Shhhhhhhhhure
you do." or "Looky here, sunShhhhhhhhine, you should Shhhhhhhare your
wisdom with me so that I don't look so stupid." it might have been
funny.

Shhhhhhhhit was just so predictable. The only funny thing about it was
how long it took poor nob, in his mentally addled state, to come up
with it. The poor incontinent *******...

[Fella]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:


>
> If he'd have said, for example, "Shhhhhhhhhhhazam, son, where did you
> dream up *that* idea?" or "Don't you wiShhhhhhh!" or "Oh, Shhhhhhhhhure
> you do." or "Looky here, sunShhhhhhhhine, you should Shhhhhhhare your
> wisdom with me so that I don't look so stupid." it might have been
> funny.

We're talking about mickeymickmickey here, you should be a bit more
reasonable with your expectations and be content with what you get given
the circumstances. The man is ultra concenrate stupid and he is
completely ignorant of that fact. Shhhhit is all you're ever going to
get out of him.

>
> Shhhhhhhhit was just so predictable.

I beg to disagree. Not true for duh!mikey. It was this mao style "great
leap forward" for him to display such relatively dazzling creativity.
Normaly he is barely able to write in English and copy-paste what crazy
google links he finds from delirious googling all day. It took me
completely by surprise that he was able to reach out so far as to play
with sounds and words that I burst into laughter. I was so sincerely
happy for the otherwise worthless, wretched little soul. You are
constantly asking him questions and ridiculing him as if it is somehow
necessary. Although I find it curious, I have to confess that you might
be doing him some good in the end.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 05:44:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>wrote in message
ups.com
>>
>> 10. The only area that I see the two groups agreeing is
>> that differences can exist in speakers.
>
>I would have added rooms, but we've got some people who think that room
>acoustics have no significance to sound quality.

Who would THAT be?

[dave weil]

On 22 Feb 2006 03:01:39 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:

>From: Arny Krueger
>Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 4:44 am
>Email: "Arny Krueger" >
>
>>> 10. The only area that I see the two groups agreeing is
>>> that differences can exist in speakers.
>
>>I would have added rooms, but we've got some people who think that room
>>acoustics have no significance to sound quality.
>
>Fair point. In my mind, that directly relates to (interaction with)
>speakers, so I didn't differentiate between the two.

Once again, who in this group have said that room acoustics have no
significance to sound quality?

I must have missed that...

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 6:43 am
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>and you are an anonymous bull**** artist.

I have an idea: Why don't you go take the military quiz I posted for
scott?

The one of you that gets the most right will receive a grade of
'idiot.' The one of you that gets the least right will receive a grade
of 'bigger idiot.'

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> ups.com
> >
> > 10. The only area that I see the two groups agreeing is
> > that differences can exist in speakers.
>
> I would have added rooms, but we've got some people who think that room
> acoustics have no significance to sound quality.

Hmmm, I certainly haven't seen anyone here who believes that. Perhaps
I'm wrong. Or perhaps you're making it up.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>> wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>>
>>> 10. The only area that I see the two groups agreeing is
>>> that differences can exist in speakers.
>>
>> I would have added rooms, but we've got some people who
>> think that room acoustics have no significance to sound
>> quality.
>
> Hmmm, I certainly haven't seen anyone here who believes
> that. Perhaps I'm wrong. Or perhaps you're making it up.


Spelling it out for Jenn:

You've said that LPs give you what you perceive to be the best reproduction
of violins, right?

Given how squirrelly and defensive you are Jenn, I'll wait for confirmation
of this before going on.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> >> wrote in message
> >> ups.com
> >>>
> >>> 10. The only area that I see the two groups agreeing is
> >>> that differences can exist in speakers.
> >>
> >> I would have added rooms, but we've got some people who
> >> think that room acoustics have no significance to sound
> >> quality.
> >
> > Hmmm, I certainly haven't seen anyone here who believes
> > that. Perhaps I'm wrong. Or perhaps you're making it up.
>
>
> Spelling it out for Jenn:
>
> You've said that LPs give you what you perceive to be the best reproduction
> of violins, right?

Not quite. I've said that the best LPs give what I perceive to be the
best reproduction of violins.
>
> Given how squirrelly and defensive you are Jenn, I'll wait for confirmation
> of this before going on.

LOL I'll let others decide who between us is more "squirrelly and
defensive."

[George Middius]

dave weil said to The Big ****:

>>but we've got some people who think that room
>>acoustics have no significance to sound quality.

>Who would THAT be?

Arnii already told us who he means when he used the Hivie "we". I'm sure you
recognize his catch-all nominative for the voices in his head. ;-)


..
..

[tubeguy]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> ...is it that most of the posters here suffer from RCD (Reading
> Comprehension Disorder)?
>
> A few things are obvious:
>
> 1. That most people seldom actually try to understand what another
> poster is trying to say. They go off on little tangents and hissy fits,
> frequently having little or nothing to do with what the message they
> are responding to actually said. Or they find a niggling point that
> they can expand into the theme of the discussion and that obfuscates
> the original point. Or they change the meaning of a posters statements
> to suit their agenda. Or...
>
> 2. That to many here, how the musical data are processed is more
> important than what makes audio (and listening to music) more enjoyable
> to an individual.
>
> 3. That to others, what makes listening to music enjoyable to them
> supercedes how the musical data are processed.
>
> 4. That some define 'musicality' as 'accuracy,' which is what makes
> them want to listen to music, and those people want things to be as
> accurate to the original recording as possible.
>
> 5. That some others define 'musicality' as what they like, which is
> what makes them want to listen to music, and those people do not seem
> to care about ultimate accuracy to the recording.
>
> 6. That the group is called 'audio' and not 'fidelity.' Therefore, both
> positions are valid as far as the individual that holds them.
>
> 7. That some people apparently have a problem differentiating
> 'preference' vs. 'scientific claim.'
>
> 8. It appears that since amplifiers, preamps, tuners, CD or DVD
> players, other electronic components, wire and interconnects are
> 'solved' issues to some, discussing them for that group should not be
> necessary.
>
> 9. It appears that since turntables, LPs, tonearms, cartridges and tape
> are worthless legacy equipment for some people, discussing them for
> that group should be irrelevant.
>
> 10. The only area that I see the two groups agreeing is that
> differences can exist in speakers.
>
> 11. nob is an idiot. slick and scott are idiots too.

You have mistaken people's ability to get online as intelligence. People are
pretty much dumb. Learn to live with it, you will be happier in the end.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> ...is it that most of the posters here suffer from RCD (Reading
> Comprehension Disorder)?
>
> A few things are obvious:
>
> 1. That most people seldom actually try to understand what another
> poster is trying to say. They go off on little tangents and hissy fits,
> frequently having little or nothing to do with what the message they
> are responding to actually said. Or they find a niggling point that
> they can expand into the theme of the discussion and that obfuscates
> the original point. Or they change the meaning of a posters statements
> to suit their agenda. Or...
>
> 2. That to many here, how the musical data are processed is more
> important than what makes audio (and listening to music) more enjoyable
> to an individual.
>
> 3. That to others, what makes listening to music enjoyable to them
> supercedes how the musical data are processed.
>
That's always my criteria. I must like the music, and if I do I don't care
how it was recorded, it's jsut that, generally speaking digital recordings
are better.

> 4. That some define 'musicality' as 'accuracy,' which is what makes
> them want to listen to music, and those people want things to be as
> accurate to the original recording as possible.
>
Accuracy is whatmakes me want to spend money on audio equipment.

> 5. That some others define 'musicality' as what they like, which is
> what makes them want to listen to music, and those people do not seem
> to care about ultimate accuracy to the recording.
>
> 6. That the group is called 'audio' and not 'fidelity.' Therefore, both
> positions are valid as far as the individual that holds them.
>
> 7. That some people apparently have a problem differentiating
> 'preference' vs. 'scientific claim.'
>
> 8. It appears that since amplifiers, preamps, tuners, CD or DVD
> players, other electronic components, wire and interconnects are
> 'solved' issues to some, discussing them for that group should not be
> necessary.
>
They are only worthy of discussing when bogus claims are made about them.

> 9. It appears that since turntables, LPs, tonearms, cartridges and tape
> are worthless legacy equipment for some people, discussing them for
> that group should be irrelevant.
>
They are worthy of discussing for people who like them and when bogus claims
are made about them.

> 10. The only area that I see the two groups agreeing is that
> differences can exist in speakers.
>
Because that is a certainty.

> 11. nob is an idiot. slick and scott are idiots too.
>
And you are an anonymous asshole, what's yer point?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ups.com
>>>>>
>>>>> 10. The only area that I see the two groups agreeing
>>>>> is that differences can exist in speakers.
>>>>
>>>> I would have added rooms, but we've got some people who
>>>> think that room acoustics have no significance to sound
>>>> quality.
>>>
>>> Hmmm, I certainly haven't seen anyone here who believes
>>> that. Perhaps I'm wrong. Or perhaps you're making it
>>> up.
>>
>>
>> Spelling it out for Jenn:
>>
>> You've said that LPs give you what you perceive to be
>> the best reproduction of violins, right?
>
> Not quite. I've said that the best LPs give what I
> perceive to be the best reproduction of violins.

Well then Jen i+s that percpetion completely imaginary on your part Jen, or
is it somehow related to the technical properties of the LP medium?

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 6:43 am
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
> >and you are an anonymous bull**** artist.
>
> I have an idea: Why don't you go take the military quiz I posted for
> scott?

How about I whip up an electronics quiz? When you fail... should
that invalidate your opinion of audio gear?

I don't have to know what each unit calls its grunt dishwashers to
discuss high level military/political strategies.

>
> The one of you that gets the most right will receive a grade of
> 'idiot.' The one of you that gets the least right will receive a grade
> of 'bigger idiot.'

Only idiot is the ex-grunt who thinks its relevant to the discussion.

ScottW

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>>> > wrote in message
> >>>> ups.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 10. The only area that I see the two groups agreeing
> >>>>> is that differences can exist in speakers.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would have added rooms, but we've got some people who
> >>>> think that room acoustics have no significance to sound
> >>>> quality.
> >>>
> >>> Hmmm, I certainly haven't seen anyone here who believes
> >>> that. Perhaps I'm wrong. Or perhaps you're making it
> >>> up.
> >>
> >>
> >> Spelling it out for Jenn:
> >>
> >> You've said that LPs give you what you perceive to be
> >> the best reproduction of violins, right?
> >
> > Not quite. I've said that the best LPs give what I
> > perceive to be the best reproduction of violins.
>
> Well then Jen i+s that percpetion completely imaginary on your part Jen, or
> is it somehow related to the technical properties of the LP medium?

Since my perception hasn't changed since 1982 and other people whose
ears I trust (for good reason) share those perceptions, I'd have to go
with the later.

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 6:43 am
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>and you are an anonymous bull**** artist.
>
> I have an idea: Why don't you go take the military quiz I posted for
> scott?
>
> The one of you that gets the most right will receive a grade of
> 'idiot.' The one of you that gets the least right will receive a grade
> of 'bigger idiot.'
>


why don't you tell us who you are, rather than coming up
with bull**** stories.



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

[dizzy]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

>A few things are obvious:

Well, let's face it: I'm the smartest guy here. 8)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: ScottW
Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 2:49 pm
Email: "ScottW" >

>> I have an idea: Why don't you go take the military quiz I posted for
>> scott?

>How about I whip up an electronics quiz? When you fail... should
>that invalidate your opinion of audio gear?

If you were a repair tech and I was telling you how to repair an
amplifier, that might even be a good analogy. A better one might be
that I am trying to tell Sony how to set up a service network with no
clue about business, Sony's capabilities *or* electronics.

>I don't have to know what each unit calls its grunt dishwashers to
>discuss high level military/political strategies.

No, but you need to have a basic grasp of small (and larger) unit
tactics, capabilities, equipment, how the planning process works and is
then transformed into an order, communicated and executed, among other
things.

That you clearly do not have even the lowest-level, simplest grasp of
any of these does not mean that you can't have an opinion. It just
means that opinion is not worth anything.

Why do you suppose generals are first second lieutenants? They don't
just take 'experts' like you and throw them into high-level military or
political strategic for very good reason.

>Only idiot is the ex-grunt who thinks its relevant to the discussion.

See above. That you *don't* see how it is relevant is absolute proof
that I am correct.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ups.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 10. The only area that I see the two groups agreeing
>>>>>>> is that differences can exist in speakers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would have added rooms, but we've got some people
>>>>>> who think that room acoustics have no significance
>>>>>> to sound quality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm, I certainly haven't seen anyone here who
>>>>> believes that. Perhaps I'm wrong. Or perhaps you're
>>>>> making it up.


>>>> Spelling it out for Jenn:

>>>> You've said that LPs give you what you perceive to be
>>>> the best reproduction of violins, right?

>>> Not quite. I've said that the best LPs give what I
>>> perceive to be the best reproduction of violins.

>> Well then Jen i+s that percpetion completely imaginary
>> on your part Jen, or is it somehow related to the
>> technical properties of the LP medium?

> Since my perception hasn't changed since 1982 and other
> people whose ears I trust (for good reason) share those
> perceptions, I'd have to go with the later.

Well the well-known technical properties of the LP medium is that it adds
random audible amounts of noise and distortion to the music. When I say
random, I mean that technically speaking the amount and character of the
noise and distoriton varies with the recoording, the playback equipment, the
room, and the music itself. There's simply no chance that *every* LP
recording, *every playback system*, *every room* and every piece of music
would consistently be altered in the direction of increased naturalness as
compared to CD playback.

Therefore Jenn, your perceptions and the perceptions of the miniscule
minority of others who have these perceptions are not perceiving situations
related to the technical properties of the LP medium.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: ScottW
> Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 2:49 pm
> Email: "ScottW" >
>
>>> I have an idea: Why don't you go take the military quiz I posted for
>>> scott?
>
>>How about I whip up an electronics quiz? When you fail... should
>>that invalidate your opinion of audio gear?
>
> If you were a repair tech and I was telling you how to repair an
> amplifier, that might even be a good analogy. A better one might be
> that I am trying to tell Sony how to set up a service network with no
> clue about business, Sony's capabilities *or* electronics.

Possble truth. Sony's venture in cell phones failed
in NA strictly due to their service.

>
>>I don't have to know what each unit calls its grunt dishwashers to
>>discuss high level military/political strategies.
>
> No, but you need to have a basic grasp of small (and larger) unit
> tactics, capabilities, equipment, how the planning process works and is
> then transformed into an order, communicated and executed, among other
> things.
>
> That you clearly do not have even the lowest-level, simplest grasp of
> any of these does not mean that you can't have an opinion. It just
> means that opinion is not worth anything.

An opinion you get to have. I'll stand by my opinion of
the political viability of sending troops back to Iraq if the
situation goes to hell.

>
> Why do you suppose generals are first second lieutenants? They don't
> just take 'experts' like you and throw them into high-level military or
> political strategic for very good reason.

Yet Clinton was a great CinC to most libs.
>
>>Only idiot is the ex-grunt who thinks its relevant to the discussion.
>
> See above. That you *don't* see how it is relevant is absolute proof
> that I am correct.

We're talking strategy and you're arguing tactics...
which as I recall you whined about when asked for details...like
troop strengths, insertion, and extraction. Now you're claiming
you can't even have a discussion without tactical details.
Spin spin spin....

So you really gave up a military
career just because Bush ****ed you off?
How'd you feel about Reagan in Lebanon or Clinton in Somalia?

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: ScottW
Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 10:38 pm
Email: "ScottW" >

>We're talking strategy and you're arguing tactics...

The two go hand in hand. Because you don't 'get it' is not my problem.
Ask a general to implement a strategy that is tactically impossible to
support. (I was kidding. Based on what I've seen you say, you might
actually try to do it.);-)

It is the military staff's job to analyze different COAs and to find
shortcomings, risks, and whether or not it is supportable by all of the
working parts. It is the leadership's job to choose the right COA to
implement, or to blend two or more COAs to get the desired results.

As an example: let's say bushie told General Casey he wanted the entire
military, all personnel and equipment, out of Iraq and into Kuwait
within 10 days. bushie has a new strategy he wants to employ on the
11th day. Having the military out of Iraq is critical before
implementing it.

General Casey goes to his staff and tells them to develop a plan (and
to consider at least three COAs). They do so. All of the staff
sections, with the exception of the poor logistician, say that they can
support the plan with at least one of the COAs. The loggy says that he
cannot get all the equipment moved out in that amount of time in any of
them. He (or she) estimates that they can only get 15% moved, meaning
that 85% would be left behind. That poor loggy gets to stand up at the
briefing and say, "Sir, for the following reasons I cannot support this
plan."

So you have a strategy that is tactically not possible to implement.

The discussion may indeed go on to, "What if we leave 85% of it behind,
and if we do, what is the most critical to get out?" And then bushie
gets to make a decision on whether the strategy's timeline, or the
equipment, is more important.

You want to debate a (possible) strategy without any understanding of
what is or is not tactically possible. You want to debate a (possible)
COA without a full analysis of it. That's just plain (dare I say it?)
stupid.

>which as I recall you whined about when asked for details...like
>troop strengths, insertion, and extraction. Now you're claiming
>you can't even have a discussion without tactical details.
>Spin spin spin....

You want to dismiss a (possible) strategy because you clearly do not
understand the process of analyzing it. If tactically a strategy is
impossible to implement, it should be discarded. If its risks are too
high and they cannot be mitigated, it should be discarded. You need to
understand tactically what is possible. You do not. That is not spin.
That is what I've said over and over.

You want to try to take a very small piece of the analysis process,
worst-case scenario it, and discard the entire (possible) strategy
without considering the whole of it. That is a low-level rookie
mistake. That is not valid. That is stupid. That is not spin. That is
what I've said over and over.

You want a complete operations order, including bases of operation,
equipment and troop strength without having first analyzed the concept.
You cannot do that, as you have not even begun to understand what you
would need to support a (possible) strategy tactically prior to a full
analysis. That is not spin. That is what I've said over and over.

You do not have even the basic knowledge, experience nor the expertise
to discuss this, regarding either the process of analysis, military
capabilities, tactics or strategy. You are simply pulling things out of
your ass. That is not spin. That is what I've said over and over.

You are a fearful little man and an idiot. That is not spin. That is
what I've said over and over.

>So you really gave up a military
>career just because Bush ****ed you off?

And I said that where?

By the way, 'retiring' is different than 'giving up,' just as 'having
served for 21 years' is different from 'never having served.';-)

>How'd you feel about Reagan in Lebanon or Clinton in Somalia?

Politically the thing that you have consistently overlooked is the
desire of the various factions in Iraq to make it work. If it's there,
it will work. If it's not, there's nothing that we can do, or anybody
else can do, to make it work. That is a far more fundamental and
critical point than whether we would have the political will to employ
an OTH force.

Somalia and Lebanon both prove this to be true.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 1:44 pm
Email: >

>> 9. It appears that since turntables, LPs, tonearms, cartridges and tape
>> are worthless legacy equipment for some people, discussing them for
>> that group should be irrelevant.

>They are worthy of discussing for people who like them and when bogus claims
>are made about them.

You recently made this post:
************************************************** ***********************************
> What does "how much about digital to analog is explained to (me)" have
> to do with it? I should change my opinion about what my ears tell me
> based on some kind of "information" that is offered?

You should make an effort to do some more meaningful comparisons, since
you
obviously are not hearing properly.
************************************************** ***********************************

Please point out the 'bogus claims' that Jenn has made which have
caused you to question her hearing. While I have seen posts that she
likes LPs (which is a preference and is therefore OK according to you)
I haven't seen any 'bogus claims' regarding them.

If you cannot do that, then you are (as is quite obvious anyway)
nothing but a liar.

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> From: ScottW
> Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 10:38 pm
> Email: "ScottW" >
>
> >We're talking strategy and you're arguing tactics...
>
> The two go hand in hand. Because you don't 'get it' is not my problem.
> Ask a general to implement a strategy that is tactically impossible to
> support. (I was kidding. Based on what I've seen you say, you might
> actually try to do it.);-)

I get it... we start out with strategies and then determine if they
are tactically feasible.... except you as military expert can't do your
part... so I... as CinC have to make some assumptions.
>
>
> You want to debate a (possible) strategy without any understanding of
> what is or is not tactically possible. You want to debate a (possible)
> COA without a full analysis of it. That's just plain (dare I say it?)
> stupid.

So Murtha's and the dem teams are idiots for bringing their strategy
into public debate without full analysis.... but I thought you
said we should consider their idea for analysis... how will
the body politic consider it without debate?

>
> >which as I recall you whined about when asked for details...like
> >troop strengths, insertion, and extraction. Now you're claiming
> >you can't even have a discussion without tactical details.
> >Spin spin spin....
>
> You want to dismiss a (possible) strategy because you clearly do not
> understand the process of analyzing it. If tactically a strategy is
> impossible to implement, it should be discarded. If its risks are too
> high and they cannot be mitigated, it should be discarded. You need to
> understand tactically what is possible. You do not. That is not spin.
> That is what I've said over and over.

Except the public debate has begun without the analysis you demand.
Nothing you can do about that.
>
> You want to try to take a very small piece of the analysis process,
> worst-case scenario it, and discard the entire (possible) strategy
> without considering the whole of it. That is a low-level rookie
> mistake. That is not valid. That is stupid. That is not spin. That is
> what I've said over and over.

Happens in politics all the time... look at the port debate.
90% of the people weighing in on that one don't have a clue
about port operations. Still they give their opinions and if the
voices are loud enough the keepers of the facts are forced to refute
them.
>
> >How'd you feel about Reagan in Lebanon or Clinton in Somalia?
>
> Politically the thing that you have consistently overlooked is the
> desire of the various factions in Iraq to make it work. If it's there,
> it will work. If it's not, there's nothing that we can do, or anybody
> else can do, to make it work. That is a far more fundamental and
> critical point than whether we would have the political will to employ
> an OTH force.
>
> Somalia and Lebanon both prove this to be true.

I think it was you that said Somalia is not Iraq. Clearly we made no
attempt to impose any order on Somalia on the scale of what we're
doing in Iraq. Same for Lebanon.

ScottW

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>
>>A few things are obvious:
>
> Well, let's face it: I'm the smartest guy here. 8)
>
But I am clearly the best looking. :-)

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: >
> Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 1:44 pm
> Email: >
>
>>> 9. It appears that since turntables, LPs, tonearms, cartridges and tape
>>> are worthless legacy equipment for some people, discussing them for
>>> that group should be irrelevant.
>
>>They are worthy of discussing for people who like them and when bogus
>>claims
>>are made about them.
>
> You recently made this post:
> ************************************************** ***********************************
>> What does "how much about digital to analog is explained to (me)" have
>> to do with it? I should change my opinion about what my ears tell me
>> based on some kind of "information" that is offered?
>
> You should make an effort to do some more meaningful comparisons, since
> you
> obviously are not hearing properly.
> ************************************************** ***********************************
>
> Please point out the 'bogus claims' that Jenn has made which have
> caused you to question her hearing.

That violins sound more real on LP. This is ridiculous given the limits of
LP.

Having more distortion, less frequeny response, less dynamic range, more
noise, on the vinyl, not to mention the differences between phono
cartridges, make this impossible. I have recognized her prefernce as
something she, like all audiophiles in entitled to, but to claim on the one
hand to be at the level of involvement she is with music, that an LP plas
back anything that sounds more real than from CD is flatly impossible.


While I have seen posts that she
> likes LPs (which is a preference and is therefore OK according to you)
> I haven't seen any 'bogus claims' regarding them.
>
I don't think she's trying to make a technical claim per se, I think she's
got a bias from somewhere that is clouding her judgement and preception.
Claiming that something sounds more real on LP is just not believable or
possible, and should be easily detected by ears that hear the instruments as
often as her occupation would indicate.

[Harry Lavo]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> From: >
>> Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 1:44 pm
>> Email: >
>>
>>>> 9. It appears that since turntables, LPs, tonearms, cartridges and tape
>>>> are worthless legacy equipment for some people, discussing them for
>>>> that group should be irrelevant.
>>
>>>They are worthy of discussing for people who like them and when bogus
>>>claims
>>>are made about them.
>>
>> You recently made this post:
>> ************************************************** ***********************************
>>> What does "how much about digital to analog is explained to (me)" have
>>> to do with it? I should change my opinion about what my ears tell me
>>> based on some kind of "information" that is offered?
>>
>> You should make an effort to do some more meaningful comparisons, since
>> you
>> obviously are not hearing properly.
>> ************************************************** ***********************************
>>
>> Please point out the 'bogus claims' that Jenn has made which have
>> caused you to question her hearing.
>
> That violins sound more real on LP. This is ridiculous given the limits
> of LP.
>
> Having more distortion, less frequeny response, less dynamic range, more
> noise, on the vinyl, not to mention the differences between phono
> cartridges, make this impossible. I have recognized her prefernce as
> something she, like all audiophiles in entitled to, but to claim on the
> one hand to be at the level of involvement she is with music, that an LP
> plas back anything that sounds more real than from CD is flatly
> impossible.
>
>
> While I have seen posts that she
>> likes LPs (which is a preference and is therefore OK according to you)
>> I haven't seen any 'bogus claims' regarding them.
>>
> I don't think she's trying to make a technical claim per se, I think she's
> got a bias from somewhere that is clouding her judgement and preception.
> Claiming that something sounds more real on LP is just not believable or
> possible, and should be easily detected by ears that hear the instruments
> as often as her occupation would indicate.
>

The beginning of real wisdom is to recognize the difference between "should"
and "does", not only in audio but in the world at large.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message


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

>> I don't think she's trying to make a technical claim per
>> se, I think she's got a bias from somewhere that is
>> clouding her judgement and preception.

She's saying: I'm a symphony conductor, my ears are better than yours.

>>Claiming that
>> something sounds more real on LP is just not believable
>> or possible,

Agreed. The LP format is incapable of the bandwidth and resolution required
for lifelike reproduction of a symphony orchestra. Lifelike reproduction
demands sonically transparency which the LP format is easy to show to be
incapable of.

>> and should be easily detected by ears that
>> hear the instruments as often as her occupation would
>> indicate.

Well, ears plus brain. The brain is the most powerful organ in the body. It
is capable of perceiving illusions and making other perception judgements
that are completely fallacious.

> The beginning of real wisdom is to recognize the
> difference between "should" and "does", not only in audio
> but in the world at large.

Harry would be a good example of this. He obviously believes that the LP
should sound better, despite its well-known obvious sonic failings. Since he
can't hear whats wrong with the LP format and whats right with the CD
format, its easy to understand why he quit recording.

[Jenn]

In article et>,
> wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > From: >
> > Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 1:44 pm
> > Email: >
> >
> >>> 9. It appears that since turntables, LPs, tonearms, cartridges and tape
> >>> are worthless legacy equipment for some people, discussing them for
> >>> that group should be irrelevant.
> >
> >>They are worthy of discussing for people who like them and when bogus
> >>claims
> >>are made about them.
> >
> > You recently made this post:
> > ************************************************** **************************
> > *********
> >> What does "how much about digital to analog is explained to (me)" have
> >> to do with it? I should change my opinion about what my ears tell me
> >> based on some kind of "information" that is offered?
> >
> > You should make an effort to do some more meaningful comparisons, since
> > you
> > obviously are not hearing properly.
> > ************************************************** **************************
> > *********
> >
> > Please point out the 'bogus claims' that Jenn has made which have
> > caused you to question her hearing.
>
> That violins sound more real on LP. This is ridiculous given the limits of
> LP.
>
> Having more distortion, less frequeny response, less dynamic range, more
> noise, on the vinyl, not to mention the differences between phono
> cartridges, make this impossible. I have recognized her prefernce as
> something she, like all audiophiles in entitled to, but to claim on the one
> hand to be at the level of involvement she is with music, that an LP plas
> back anything that sounds more real than from CD is flatly impossible.
>
>
> While I have seen posts that she
> > likes LPs (which is a preference and is therefore OK according to you)
> > I haven't seen any 'bogus claims' regarding them.
> >
> I don't think she's trying to make a technical claim per se, I think she's
> got a bias from somewhere that is clouding her judgement and preception.
> Claiming that something sounds more real on LP is just not believable or
> possible, and should be easily detected by ears that hear the instruments as
> often as her occupation would indicate.

Says a person who has been fooled into thinking that a real instrument
was in the room when it wasn't.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
> > > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
>
> >> I don't think she's trying to make a technical claim per
> >> se, I think she's got a bias from somewhere that is
> >> clouding her judgement and preception.
>
> She's saying: I'm a symphony conductor, my ears are better than yours.
<snip>

1. No, that's not what I'm saying.
2. However, that may well be true. I'm trained to listen and to hear
accurately. You are trained to, for example, measure electrical
signals, and I'm quite sure that you do that better than I do. What's
the difference?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article
> et>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> From: >
>>> Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 1:44 pm
>>> Email: >
>>>
>>>>> 9. It appears that since turntables, LPs, tonearms,
>>>>> cartridges and tape are worthless legacy equipment
>>>>> for some people, discussing them for that group
>>>>> should be irrelevant.
>>>
>>>> They are worthy of discussing for people who like them
>>>> and when bogus claims
>>>> are made about them.
>>>
>>> You recently made this post:
>>> ************************************************** **************************
>>> *********
>>>> What does "how much about digital to analog is
>>>> explained to (me)" have to do with it? I should
>>>> change my opinion about what my ears tell me based on
>>>> some kind of "information" that is offered?
>>>
>>> You should make an effort to do some more meaningful
>>> comparisons, since you
>>> obviously are not hearing properly.
>>> ************************************************** **************************
>>> *********
>>>
>>> Please point out the 'bogus claims' that Jenn has made
>>> which have caused you to question her hearing.
>>
>> That violins sound more real on LP. This is ridiculous
>> given the limits of LP.
>>
>> Having more distortion, less frequeny response, less
>> dynamic range, more noise, on the vinyl, not to mention
>> the differences between phono cartridges, make this
>> impossible. I have recognized her prefernce as
>> something she, like all audiophiles in entitled to, but
>> to claim on the one hand to be at the level of
>> involvement she is with music, that an LP plas back
>> anything that sounds more real than from CD is flatly
>> impossible.
>>
>>
>> While I have seen posts that she
>>> likes LPs (which is a preference and is therefore OK
>>> according to you) I haven't seen any 'bogus claims'
>>> regarding them.
>>>
>> I don't think she's trying to make a technical claim per
>> se, I think she's got a bias from somewhere that is
>> clouding her judgement and preception. Claiming that
>> something sounds more real on LP is just not believable
>> or possible, and should be easily detected by ears that
>> hear the instruments as often as her occupation would
>> indicate.
>
> Says a person who has been fooled into thinking that a
> real instrument was in the room when it wasn't.

In a similar vein...

Please Jenn help me straighten out Harry, who can't hear the difference
between a sine wave from a LP and a sine wave from a precison signal
generator.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article
> > et>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >>> From: >
> >>> Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 1:44 pm
> >>> Email: >
> >>>
> >>>>> 9. It appears that since turntables, LPs, tonearms,
> >>>>> cartridges and tape are worthless legacy equipment
> >>>>> for some people, discussing them for that group
> >>>>> should be irrelevant.
> >>>
> >>>> They are worthy of discussing for people who like them
> >>>> and when bogus claims
> >>>> are made about them.
> >>>
> >>> You recently made this post:
> >>> ************************************************** ************************
> >>> **
> >>> *********
> >>>> What does "how much about digital to analog is
> >>>> explained to (me)" have to do with it? I should
> >>>> change my opinion about what my ears tell me based on
> >>>> some kind of "information" that is offered?
> >>>
> >>> You should make an effort to do some more meaningful
> >>> comparisons, since you
> >>> obviously are not hearing properly.
> >>> ************************************************** ************************
> >>> **
> >>> *********
> >>>
> >>> Please point out the 'bogus claims' that Jenn has made
> >>> which have caused you to question her hearing.
> >>
> >> That violins sound more real on LP. This is ridiculous
> >> given the limits of LP.
> >>
> >> Having more distortion, less frequeny response, less
> >> dynamic range, more noise, on the vinyl, not to mention
> >> the differences between phono cartridges, make this
> >> impossible. I have recognized her prefernce as
> >> something she, like all audiophiles in entitled to, but
> >> to claim on the one hand to be at the level of
> >> involvement she is with music, that an LP plas back
> >> anything that sounds more real than from CD is flatly
> >> impossible.
> >>
> >>
> >> While I have seen posts that she
> >>> likes LPs (which is a preference and is therefore OK
> >>> according to you) I haven't seen any 'bogus claims'
> >>> regarding them.
> >>>
> >> I don't think she's trying to make a technical claim per
> >> se, I think she's got a bias from somewhere that is
> >> clouding her judgement and preception. Claiming that
> >> something sounds more real on LP is just not believable
> >> or possible, and should be easily detected by ears that
> >> hear the instruments as often as her occupation would
> >> indicate.
> >
> > Says a person who has been fooled into thinking that a
> > real instrument was in the room when it wasn't.
>
> In a similar vein...
>
> Please Jenn help me straighten out Harry, who can't hear the difference
> between a sine wave from a LP and a sine wave from a precison signal
> generator.

He didn't say that. You're making things up again.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said to duh-Mikey:

> > Claiming[sic] that something sounds more real on LP is just not believable or
> > possible, and should be easily detected by ears that hear the instruments as
> > often as her occupation would indicate.

> Says a person who has been fooled into thinking that a real instrument
> was in the room when it wasn't.

That's not the dumbest thing Mikey has said on RAO. Not by a long shot. He
has called Arnii Krooger a "leader", believe it or not. And if you really
want to get lost in the vortex of Mikeyness, check out some of his babbling
on the subject of politics and governance.

In that context, the intensity of his confusion about what's real and
what's recorded pales severely.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>
>>>> I don't think she's trying to make a technical claim
>>>> per se, I think she's got a bias from somewhere that is
>>>> clouding her judgement and preception.
>>
>> She's saying: I'm a symphony conductor, my ears are
>> better than yours. <snip>
>
> 1. No, that's not what I'm saying.

Other than between the lines.

> 2. However, that may well be true.

Thak you.

Wow, you salivate so well when I ring your bell, Jenn.

> I'm trained to listen and to hear accurately.

With a qualification Jenn - you're trained listen and to hear accurately in
the context of the innermost technicalities of music, not audio.

> You are trained to, for
> example, measure electrical signals, and I'm quite sure
> that you do that better than I do. What's the difference?

More to the point:

I'm mostly trained to listen and to hear accurately and reliably in the
context of the reproduction of sound, not in terms the innermost
technicalities of music. I only know a smattering of technicalities of
music.

My music director identifies frequencies he hears in terms of the first 7
letters of the alphabet and words like sharp and flat. I identify
frequencies I hear in terms of Hz. I know about first 7 letters of the
alphabet and words like sharp and flat but that's not what I think of first.

There are some points of intersection. My music director and get along and
communicate well. I translate from his description of frequencies into mine.
Adobe Audition reads out frequencies both ways.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> et>,
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com...
>>>>> From: >
>>>>> Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 1:44 pm
>>>>> Email: >
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 9. It appears that since turntables, LPs, tonearms,
>>>>>>> cartridges and tape are worthless legacy equipment
>>>>>>> for some people, discussing them for that group
>>>>>>> should be irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>>> They are worthy of discussing for people who like
>>>>>> them and when bogus claims
>>>>>> are made about them.
>>>>>
>>>>> You recently made this post:
>>>>> ************************************************** ************************
>>>>> **
>>>>> *********
>>>>>> What does "how much about digital to analog is
>>>>>> explained to (me)" have to do with it? I should
>>>>>> change my opinion about what my ears tell me based on
>>>>>> some kind of "information" that is offered?
>>>>>
>>>>> You should make an effort to do some more meaningful
>>>>> comparisons, since you
>>>>> obviously are not hearing properly.
>>>>> ************************************************** ************************
>>>>> **
>>>>> *********
>>>>>
>>>>> Please point out the 'bogus claims' that Jenn has made
>>>>> which have caused you to question her hearing.
>>>>
>>>> That violins sound more real on LP. This is ridiculous
>>>> given the limits of LP.
>>>>
>>>> Having more distortion, less frequeny response, less
>>>> dynamic range, more noise, on the vinyl, not to mention
>>>> the differences between phono cartridges, make this
>>>> impossible. I have recognized her prefernce as
>>>> something she, like all audiophiles in entitled to, but
>>>> to claim on the one hand to be at the level of
>>>> involvement she is with music, that an LP plas back
>>>> anything that sounds more real than from CD is flatly
>>>> impossible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While I have seen posts that she
>>>>> likes LPs (which is a preference and is therefore OK
>>>>> according to you) I haven't seen any 'bogus claims'
>>>>> regarding them.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't think she's trying to make a technical claim
>>>> per se, I think she's got a bias from somewhere that is
>>>> clouding her judgement and preception. Claiming that
>>>> something sounds more real on LP is just not believable
>>>> or possible, and should be easily detected by ears that
>>>> hear the instruments as often as her occupation would
>>>> indicate.
>>>
>>> Says a person who has been fooled into thinking that a
>>> real instrument was in the room when it wasn't.
>>
>> In a similar vein...
>>
>> Please Jenn help me straighten out Harry, who can't hear
>> the difference between a sine wave from a LP and a sine
>> wave from a precison signal generator.
>
> He didn't say that. You're making things up again.

I'm sure that both of you wish he hadn't said that, Jenn.

However, IME anybody with normal hearing can successfully ABX them all day
long.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> et>,
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>>> > wrote in message
> >>>> oups.com...
> >>>>> From: >
> >>>>> Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 1:44 pm
> >>>>> Email: >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> 9. It appears that since turntables, LPs, tonearms,
> >>>>>>> cartridges and tape are worthless legacy equipment
> >>>>>>> for some people, discussing them for that group
> >>>>>>> should be irrelevant.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> They are worthy of discussing for people who like
> >>>>>> them and when bogus claims
> >>>>>> are made about them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You recently made this post:
> >>>>> ************************************************** **********************
> >>>>> **
> >>>>> **
> >>>>> *********
> >>>>>> What does "how much about digital to analog is
> >>>>>> explained to (me)" have to do with it? I should
> >>>>>> change my opinion about what my ears tell me based on
> >>>>>> some kind of "information" that is offered?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You should make an effort to do some more meaningful
> >>>>> comparisons, since you
> >>>>> obviously are not hearing properly.
> >>>>> ************************************************** **********************
> >>>>> **
> >>>>> **
> >>>>> *********
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please point out the 'bogus claims' that Jenn has made
> >>>>> which have caused you to question her hearing.
> >>>>
> >>>> That violins sound more real on LP. This is ridiculous
> >>>> given the limits of LP.
> >>>>
> >>>> Having more distortion, less frequeny response, less
> >>>> dynamic range, more noise, on the vinyl, not to mention
> >>>> the differences between phono cartridges, make this
> >>>> impossible. I have recognized her prefernce as
> >>>> something she, like all audiophiles in entitled to, but
> >>>> to claim on the one hand to be at the level of
> >>>> involvement she is with music, that an LP plas back
> >>>> anything that sounds more real than from CD is flatly
> >>>> impossible.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> While I have seen posts that she
> >>>>> likes LPs (which is a preference and is therefore OK
> >>>>> according to you) I haven't seen any 'bogus claims'
> >>>>> regarding them.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I don't think she's trying to make a technical claim
> >>>> per se, I think she's got a bias from somewhere that is
> >>>> clouding her judgement and preception. Claiming that
> >>>> something sounds more real on LP is just not believable
> >>>> or possible, and should be easily detected by ears that
> >>>> hear the instruments as often as her occupation would
> >>>> indicate.
> >>>
> >>> Says a person who has been fooled into thinking that a
> >>> real instrument was in the room when it wasn't.
> >>
> >> In a similar vein...
> >>
> >> Please Jenn help me straighten out Harry, who can't hear
> >> the difference between a sine wave from a LP and a sine
> >> wave from a precison signal generator.
> >
> > He didn't say that. You're making things up again.
>
> I'm sure that both of you wish he hadn't said that, Jenn.

Cite?
>
> However, IME anybody with normal hearing can successfully ABX them all day
> long.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> et>,
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>> From: >
>>>>>> Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 1:44 pm
>>>>>> Email: >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 9. It appears that since turntables, LPs, tonearms,
>>>>>>>> cartridges and tape are worthless legacy equipment
>>>>>>>> for some people, discussing them for that group
>>>>>>>> should be irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are worthy of discussing for people who like
>>>>>>> them and when bogus claims
>>>>>>> are made about them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You recently made this post:
>>>>>> ************************************************** ************************
>>>>>> **
>>>>>> *********
>>>>>>> What does "how much about digital to analog is
>>>>>>> explained to (me)" have to do with it? I should
>>>>>>> change my opinion about what my ears tell me based on
>>>>>>> some kind of "information" that is offered?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You should make an effort to do some more meaningful
>>>>>> comparisons, since you
>>>>>> obviously are not hearing properly.
>>>>>> ************************************************** ************************
>>>>>> **
>>>>>> *********
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please point out the 'bogus claims' that Jenn has made
>>>>>> which have caused you to question her hearing.
>>>>>
>>>>> That violins sound more real on LP. This is ridiculous
>>>>> given the limits of LP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having more distortion, less frequeny response, less
>>>>> dynamic range, more noise, on the vinyl, not to mention
>>>>> the differences between phono cartridges, make this
>>>>> impossible. I have recognized her prefernce as
>>>>> something she, like all audiophiles in entitled to, but
>>>>> to claim on the one hand to be at the level of
>>>>> involvement she is with music, that an LP plas back
>>>>> anything that sounds more real than from CD is flatly
>>>>> impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> While I have seen posts that she
>>>>>> likes LPs (which is a preference and is therefore OK
>>>>>> according to you) I haven't seen any 'bogus claims'
>>>>>> regarding them.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think she's trying to make a technical claim
>>>>> per se, I think she's got a bias from somewhere that is
>>>>> clouding her judgement and preception. Claiming that
>>>>> something sounds more real on LP is just not believable
>>>>> or possible, and should be easily detected by ears that
>>>>> hear the instruments as often as her occupation would
>>>>> indicate.
>>>>
>>>> Says a person who has been fooled into thinking that a
>>>> real instrument was in the room when it wasn't.
>>>
>>> In a similar vein...
>>>
>>> Please Jenn help me straighten out Harry, who can't hear
>>> the difference between a sine wave from a LP and a sine
>>> wave from a precison signal generator.
>>
>> He didn't say that. You're making things up again.
>
> I'm sure that both of you wish he hadn't said that, Jenn.
>
> However, IME anybody with normal hearing can successfully ABX them all day
> long.

I'm sure both of us KNOW I didn't say that, you a*sh*l*. More importantly,
YOU know I didn't say that and yet you lie to suit your purposes. Wonderful
way to build an upstanding reputation fully comensurate with your christian
principles.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:03 am
Email: >

>I don't think she's trying to make a technical claim

Thank you for being honest.

The rationale that I've seen here is, "We will not trash preference,
but if somebody is trying to make a technical claim, then it is fair
game to attack that claim" (or words to that effect).

To any objective observer, Jenn has not made any technical claims, yet
the 'attack dogs' have formed and are hard at work. An attack on her
preference is under way. Her preference shows that "she's got a bias
from somewhere that is clouding her judgement and preception." Even if
that's the case, why should you care?

Mr. Krueger even thinks that Jenn is trying to promote LPs over the
dead body of CDs (or some such nonsense). He apparently thinks that
Jenn has claimed her hearing is better than his (again, an objective
observer would see that she has not). Maybe she's even under contract
from a company that wants to do away with digital audio! LOL!

I listen to LPs. I am well aware of their technical shortcomings
vis-a-vis CD. Part of the reason that I still listen to them is that I
have had a rather large collection of them since before the advent of
CD and do I not have a desire to spend the approximately $54,000 that
it would take to replace them all with CDs (assuming $12 each, even if
all of the recordings were available on CD, which they are not). Part
of the reason is that on many of the recordings that I have on both
formats the sound better to me on LP. Does that mean that I'm trying to
promote LPs over CDs?

All that I've said is let's call this what it really is: preference
bashing. And that's all this is. As I said, it's a free country. Just
try to be honest about what you're doing. Even given the extremely
weak, paranoid justification of some imaginary "technical claims" that
Mr. Krueger has said that Jenn has made.

So let's take it to its logical conclusion: rather than saying that you
do not bash preferences, you (and Mr. Krueger, and Mr. Sullivan, et al)
should also admit that you will attack any audio preference not
conforming with your own.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,

> > I'm trained to listen and to hear accurately.
>
> With a qualification Jenn - you're trained listen and to hear accurately in
> the context of the innermost technicalities of music, not audio.

Thanks for admitting that you don't know what conductors do. A good
part of what I do daily is adjusting "audio", i.e. balance, timbre,
volume, dynamic shadings, attacks (transients, if you will),
releases...all in the context of a rehearsal or performance space, from
the POV of both the musicians and the patrons.

>
> > You are trained to, for
> > example, measure electrical signals, and I'm quite sure
> > that you do that better than I do. What's the difference?
>
> More to the point:
>
> I'm mostly trained to listen and to hear accurately and reliably in the
> context of the reproduction of sound, not in terms the innermost
> technicalities of music. I only know a smattering of technicalities of
> music.

See above.

>
> My music director identifies frequencies he hears in terms of the first 7
> letters of the alphabet and words like sharp and flat. I identify
> frequencies I hear in terms of Hz. I know about first 7 letters of the
> alphabet and words like sharp and flat but that's not what I think of first.

Irrelevant. But I have a question: what is your threshold of hearing
vis-a-vis frequency changes, expressed in Hz?
>
> There are some points of intersection. My music director and get along and
> communicate well. I translate from his description of frequencies into mine.
> Adobe Audition reads out frequencies both ways.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >,
>
>>> I'm trained to listen and to hear accurately.

>> With a qualification Jenn - you're trained listen and to
>> hear accurately in the context of the innermost
>> technicalities of music, not audio.

> Thanks for admitting that you don't know what conductors do.

BTW, the following shows that you have no idea about what recordists do.

> A good part of what I do daily is adjusting "audio",
> i.e. balance, timbre, volume, dynamic shadings, attacks
> (transients, if you will), releases...all in the context
> of a rehearsal or performance space, from the POV of both
> the musicians and the patrons.

So Jenn, you care not whether the rght musicians play the right notes in the
right way at the right time? No, that can't be it, can it! In fact isn't
that what you primarily adjust and isn't that how you obtain the things you
list above?

>>> You are trained to, for
>>> example, measure electrical signals, and I'm quite sure
>>> that you do that better than I do. What's the
>>> difference?

>> More to the point:

>> I'm mostly trained to listen and to hear accurately
>> and reliably in the context of the reproduction of
>> sound, not in terms the innermost technicalities of
>> music. I only know a smattering of technicalities of
>> music.

> See above.

It's mostly irrelevant Jenn, and its not the most important thing you do.
You shaded your answer to deceptively make it look like your concept of what
a recordist does.

>> My music director identifies frequencies he hears in
>> terms of the first 7 letters of the alphabet and words
>> like sharp and flat. I identify frequencies I hear in
>> terms of Hz. I know about first 7 letters of the
>> alphabet and words like sharp and flat but that's not
>> what I think of first.

> Irrelevant.

So Jenn you have no concern for what notes people play and how and when?
LOL!

> But I have a question: what is your
> threshold of hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes,
> expressed in Hz?

If you knew anything about how human hearing works Jenn, you'd know that is
not a proper question because hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes varies
with the Hz of the sound.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> et>,
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>>> From: >
>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 1:44 pm
>>>>>>> Email: >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 9. It appears that since turntables, LPs,
>>>>>>>>> tonearms, cartridges and tape are worthless
>>>>>>>>> legacy equipment for some people, discussing them
>>>>>>>>> for that group should be irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They are worthy of discussing for people who like
>>>>>>>> them and when bogus claims
>>>>>>>> are made about them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You recently made this post:
>>>>>>> ************************************************** ************************
>>>>>>> **
>>>>>>> *********
>>>>>>>> What does "how much about digital to analog is
>>>>>>>> explained to (me)" have to do with it? I should
>>>>>>>> change my opinion about what my ears tell me based
>>>>>>>> on some kind of "information" that is offered?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You should make an effort to do some more meaningful
>>>>>>> comparisons, since you
>>>>>>> obviously are not hearing properly.
>>>>>>> ************************************************** ************************
>>>>>>> **
>>>>>>> *********
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please point out the 'bogus claims' that Jenn has
>>>>>>> made which have caused you to question her hearing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That violins sound more real on LP. This is
>>>>>> ridiculous given the limits of LP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Having more distortion, less frequeny response, less
>>>>>> dynamic range, more noise, on the vinyl, not to
>>>>>> mention the differences between phono cartridges,
>>>>>> make this impossible. I have recognized her
>>>>>> prefernce as something she, like all audiophiles in
>>>>>> entitled to, but to claim on the one hand to be at
>>>>>> the level of involvement she is with music, that an
>>>>>> LP plas back anything that sounds more real than
>>>>>> from CD is flatly impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I have seen posts that she
>>>>>>> likes LPs (which is a preference and is therefore OK
>>>>>>> according to you) I haven't seen any 'bogus claims'
>>>>>>> regarding them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think she's trying to make a technical claim
>>>>>> per se, I think she's got a bias from somewhere that
>>>>>> is clouding her judgement and preception. Claiming
>>>>>> that something sounds more real on LP is just not
>>>>>> believable or possible, and should be easily
>>>>>> detected by ears that hear the instruments as often
>>>>>> as her occupation would indicate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Says a person who has been fooled into thinking that a
>>>>> real instrument was in the room when it wasn't.
>>>>
>>>> In a similar vein...
>>>>
>>>> Please Jenn help me straighten out Harry, who can't
>>>> hear the difference between a sine wave from a LP and
>>>> a sine wave from a precison signal generator.
>>>
>>> He didn't say that. You're making things up again.
>>
>> I'm sure that both of you wish he hadn't said that, Jenn.
>>
>> However, IME anybody with normal hearing can
>> successfully ABX them all day long.
>
> I'm sure both of us KNOW I didn't say that, you a*sh*l*. More importantly,
> YOU know I didn't say that and yet you
> lie to suit your purposes. Wonderful way to build an
> upstanding reputation fully comensurate with your
> christian principles.

Harry gets really nasty when backed into a corner.

Well Harry, lets try this again.

Does a pure sine wave tone played off of a LP sound like a pure sine wave?

If a pure sine wave played off of a LP does not sound like a pure sine wave
how can a LP accurately reproduce more complex things, like music?

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com

> So let's take it to its logical conclusion: rather than
> saying that you do not bash preferences, you (and Mr.
> Krueger, and Mr. Sullivan, et al) should also admit that
> you will attack any audio preference not conforming with
> your own.

Not at all.

But, thanks for reciting a hymn from the book of RAO trolls with such
accuracy and vigor. It's good to know who is singing out of which hymnal, as
it were.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >,
> >
> >>> I'm trained to listen and to hear accurately.
>
> >> With a qualification Jenn - you're trained listen and to
> >> hear accurately in the context of the innermost
> >> technicalities of music, not audio.
>
> > Thanks for admitting that you don't know what conductors do.
>
> BTW, the following shows that you have no idea about what recordists do.

Not at all. YOU set up the parameters of what you do in relation to
what the conductor of your church choir does, not me.

>
> > A good part of what I do daily is adjusting "audio",
> > i.e. balance, timbre, volume, dynamic shadings, attacks
> > (transients, if you will), releases...all in the context
> > of a rehearsal or performance space, from the POV of both
> > the musicians and the patrons.
>
> So Jenn, you care not whether the rght musicians play the right notes in the
> right way at the right time?

Again, you misstate what I wrote. Do you understand what "a good part"
means?

> No, that can't be it, can it! In fact isn't
> that what you primarily adjust and isn't that how you obtain the things you
> list above?

No, Arny. As opposed to your church choir (I presume from your
question), my players have well over 90% of the notes right and know
when to play them before the first rehearsal. The rest are fixed at the
first rehearsal. Then on the college level, we have another 9 hours of
rehearsal or so for each concert.
>
> >>> You are trained to, for
> >>> example, measure electrical signals, and I'm quite sure
> >>> that you do that better than I do. What's the
> >>> difference?
>
> >> More to the point:
>
> >> I'm mostly trained to listen and to hear accurately
> >> and reliably in the context of the reproduction of
> >> sound, not in terms the innermost technicalities of
> >> music. I only know a smattering of technicalities of
> >> music.
>
> > See above.
>
> It's mostly irrelevant Jenn, and its not the most important thing you do.
> You shaded your answer to deceptively make it look like your concept of what
> a recordist does.

See above. I didn't "shade" anything.
>
> >> My music director identifies frequencies he hears in
> >> terms of the first 7 letters of the alphabet and words
> >> like sharp and flat. I identify frequencies I hear in
> >> terms of Hz. I know about first 7 letters of the
> >> alphabet and words like sharp and flat but that's not
> >> what I think of first.
>
> > Irrelevant.
>
> So Jenn you have no concern for what notes people play and how and when?
> LOL!

See above, and learn something.
>
> > But I have a question: what is your
> > threshold of hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes,
> > expressed in Hz?
>
> If you knew anything about how human hearing works Jenn, you'd know that is
> not a proper question because hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes varies
> with the Hz of the sound.

Of course. So let's say, at A440. What is your threshold of
discernment?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>Not at all.

Of course not. You are 'saving the world' from a world-wide coup by the
pro-LP militia... LOL!

>But, thanks for reciting a hymn from the book of RAO trolls with such
>accuracy and vigor. It's good to know who is singing out of which hymnal, as
>it were.

You are a pitiful little man. Why else would preference bashing be so
important?

(Still waiting for the 'technical claims' that Jenn has made...) LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>

>> BTW, the following shows that you have no idea about
>> what recordists do.

> Not at all. YOU set up the parameters of what you do in
> relation to what the conductor of your church choir does,
> not me.

Jenn the above paragraph shows that in fact you have no idea what a
recordists does. It's really a non-statement, a truism that is irrelevant to
the details of what a recordist does.

>>> A good part of what I do daily is adjusting "audio",
>>> i.e. balance, timbre, volume, dynamic shadings, attacks
>>> (transients, if you will), releases...all in the context
>>> of a rehearsal or performance space, from the POV of
>>> both the musicians and the patrons.

>> So Jenn, you care not whether the rght musicians play
>> the right notes in the right way at the right time?

> Again, you misstate what I wrote. Do you understand what
> "a good part" means?

"A good part" is in this case a hedge phrase, intentially chosen by you to
conceal meanings.

>> No, that can't be it, can it! In fact isn't
>> that what you primarily adjust and isn't that how you
>> obtain the things you list above?

> No, Arny. As opposed to your church choir (I presume
> from your question), my players have well over 90% of the
> notes right and know when to play them before the first
> rehearsal.

I don't think that my church choir is anywhere near that bad. Furthermore, I
do most of my work with a select group of musicians who operate at higher
skill levels than that.

> The rest are fixed at the first rehearsal.
> Then on the college level, we have another 9 hours of
> rehearsal or so for each concert.

>>> But I have a question: what is your
>>> threshold of hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes,
>>> expressed in Hz?

>> If you knew anything about how human hearing works Jenn,
>> you'd know that is not a proper question because hearing
>> vis-a-vis frequency changes varies with the Hz of the
>> sound.

> Of course.

> So let's say, at A440. What is your threshold of discernment?

Well it seems that my role here is to teach Jenn how to ask questions. ;-)

Jenn, your question is still improper because frequency changes themselves
have frequency.

If you knew anything about how human hearing works Jenn,
you'd know your question is not a proper question because hearing
vis-a-vis frequency changes varies with the Hz of the change in the Hz.

<And now with just 4 posts I may have given Jenn a hint about human
perception of two of the ways that LP technology butchers music: poor speed
accuracy and massive flutter and wow. Note that Harry denies that vinyl even
has flutter and wow.>

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com
>> Not at all.
>
> Of course not. You are 'saving the world' from a
> world-wide coup by the pro-LP militia... LOL!

No, I'm toying with ignorant and less intelligent people who are way puffed
up with their own pride. Along the way they may learn a little technology,
but they are mostly too defensive to learn anything.

Sue me, I'm a compulsive teacher. ;-)

>> But, thanks for reciting a hymn from the book of RAO
>> trolls with such accuracy and vigor. It's good to know
>> who is singing out of which hymnal, as it were.

> You are a pitiful little man.

A little frustrated, eh?

LOL!

> Why else would preference bashing be so important?

Preference bashing is unimportant to me.

> (Still waiting for the 'technical claims' that Jenn has made...) LOL!

Been there done that, but you're way to defensive to get it.

Enjoy your vinyl! ;-)

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: >
> Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:03 am
> Email: >
>
>>I don't think she's trying to make a technical claim
>
> Thank you for being honest.
>
> The rationale that I've seen here is, "We will not trash preference,
> but if somebody is trying to make a technical claim, then it is fair
> game to attack that claim" (or words to that effect).
>
> To any objective observer, Jenn has not made any technical claims, yet
> the 'attack dogs' have formed and are hard at work. An attack on her
> preference is under way. Her preference shows that "she's got a bias
> from somewhere that is clouding her judgement and preception." Even if
> that's the case, why should you care?
>
> Mr. Krueger even thinks that Jenn is trying to promote LPs over the
> dead body of CDs (or some such nonsense). He apparently thinks that
> Jenn has claimed her hearing is better than his (again, an objective
> observer would see that she has not). Maybe she's even under contract
> from a company that wants to do away with digital audio! LOL!
>
> I listen to LPs. I am well aware of their technical shortcomings
> vis-a-vis CD. Part of the reason that I still listen to them is that I
> have had a rather large collection of them since before the advent of
> CD and do I not have a desire to spend the approximately $54,000 that
> it would take to replace them all with CDs (assuming $12 each, even if
> all of the recordings were available on CD, which they are not). Part
> of the reason is that on many of the recordings that I have on both
> formats the sound better to me on LP. Does that mean that I'm trying to
> promote LPs over CDs?
>
> All that I've said is let's call this what it really is: preference
> bashing. And that's all this is. As I said, it's a free country. Just
> try to be honest about what you're doing. Even given the extremely
> weak, paranoid justification of some imaginary "technical claims" that
> Mr. Krueger has said that Jenn has made.
>
> So let's take it to its logical conclusion: rather than saying that you
> do not bash preferences, you (and Mr. Krueger, and Mr. Sullivan, et al)
> should also admit that you will attack any audio preference not
> conforming with your own.
>
I can't do that. I'm not attacking her preference, just her statement that
violins or any instruent sounds more real on LP, and mostly becuase as a
Conductor that makes even less sense than it would from an ordinary
civilian.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:20 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger" >

>Sue me, I'm a compulsive teacher. ;-)

Any objective objective observer might agree that you're a compusive
'something.' ;-)

Were you really kicked out of a moderated group for your 'compusive
teaching'?

LOL!

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> oups.com
> >> Not at all.
> >
> > Of course not. You are 'saving the world' from a
> > world-wide coup by the pro-LP militia... LOL!
>
> No, I'm toying with ignorant and less intelligent people who are way puffed
> up with their own pride.


<snip>

OMG! Pot, meet kettle.

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Jenn said to duh-Mikey:
>
>> > Claiming[sic] that something sounds more real on LP is just not
>> > believable or
>> > possible, and should be easily detected by ears that hear the
>> > instruments as
>> > often as her occupation would indicate.
>
>> Says a person who has been fooled into thinking that a real instrument
>> was in the room when it wasn't.
>
> That's not the dumbest thing Mikey has said on RAO. Not by a long shot. He
> has called Arnii Krooger a "leader", believe it or not. And if you really
> want to get lost in the vortex of Mikeyness, check out some of his
> babbling
> on the subject of politics and governance.
>
> In that context, the intensity of his confusion about what's real and
> what's recorded pales severely.
>
>
>
So, we have that in common.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
>
> >> BTW, the following shows that you have no idea about
> >> what recordists do.
>
> > Not at all. YOU set up the parameters of what you do in
> > relation to what the conductor of your church choir does,
> > not me.
>
> Jenn the above paragraph shows that in fact you have no idea what a
> recordists does. It's really a non-statement, a truism that is irrelevant to
> the details of what a recordist does.

You're not following the conversation, I guess. So tell me: how does
my paragraph show that?
>
> >>> A good part of what I do daily is adjusting "audio",
> >>> i.e. balance, timbre, volume, dynamic shadings, attacks
> >>> (transients, if you will), releases...all in the context
> >>> of a rehearsal or performance space, from the POV of
> >>> both the musicians and the patrons.
>
> >> So Jenn, you care not whether the rght musicians play
> >> the right notes in the right way at the right time?
>
> > Again, you misstate what I wrote. Do you understand what
> > "a good part" means?
>
> "A good part" is in this case a hedge phrase, intentially chosen by you to
> conceal meanings.

Good God. It's not a "hedge", it means exactly what it says. What do
you want, a percentage?

>
> >> No, that can't be it, can it! In fact isn't
> >> that what you primarily adjust and isn't that how you
> >> obtain the things you list above?
>
> > No, Arny. As opposed to your church choir (I presume
> > from your question), my players have well over 90% of the
> > notes right and know when to play them before the first
> > rehearsal.
>
> I don't think that my church choir is anywhere near that bad. Furthermore, I
> do most of my work with a select group of musicians who operate at higher
> skill levels than that.

If your church choir knows 90% of the notes before the first rehearsal,
then you know that the rest of the rehearsal time is spent adjusting
"audio".
>
> > The rest are fixed at the first rehearsal.
> > Then on the college level, we have another 9 hours of
> > rehearsal or so for each concert.
>
> >>> But I have a question: what is your
> >>> threshold of hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes,
> >>> expressed in Hz?
>
> >> If you knew anything about how human hearing works Jenn,
> >> you'd know that is not a proper question because hearing
> >> vis-a-vis frequency changes varies with the Hz of the
> >> sound.
>
> > Of course.
>
> > So let's say, at A440. What is your threshold of discernment?
>
> Well it seems that my role here is to teach Jenn how to ask questions. ;-)

And my role is to try to get you to answer questions asked.

With a fixed tone of A=400, what is your threshold of discernment?
>
> Jenn, your question is still improper because frequency changes themselves
> have frequency.
>
> If you knew anything about how human hearing works Jenn,
> you'd know your question is not a proper question because hearing
> vis-a-vis frequency changes varies with the Hz of the change in the Hz.
>
> <And now with just 4 posts I may have given Jenn a hint about human
> perception of two of the ways that LP technology butchers music: poor speed
> accuracy and massive flutter and wow. Note that Harry denies that vinyl even
> has flutter and wow.>

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ink.net

> I'm not attacking her preference, just
> her statement that violins or any instrument sounds more
> real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor that makes
> even less sense than it would from an ordinary civilian.

It's interesting how all these golden ears make global statements trashing
such a highly effective and succesful audio technology as digtal and then
hide behind their perferences when asked to explain themselves.

I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he created with his excessive
concern for preferences. The coward broke and ran away from here, leaving us
holding the bag! ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com
>> I can't do that. I'm not attacking her preference, just
>> her statement that violins or any instruent sounds more
>> real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor that makes
>> even less sense than it would from an ordinary civilian.
>
> LOL!
>
> Her statement has been, from what I've seen, that
> "violins or any instruent sounds more real on LP" to
> *her* and do not necessarily carry over to *you* or
> anybody else.

And then she says its related to technology and that her preferences should
influence us more than those of the average golden ear because she's a
conductor (part time).

Your inabilty to tell the whole truth is typical, Mr. Listening.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>
>>>> BTW, the following shows that you have no idea about
>>>> what recordists do.
>>
>>> Not at all. YOU set up the parameters of what you do in
>>> relation to what the conductor of your church choir
>>> does,
>>> not me.
>>
>> Jenn the above paragraph shows that in fact you have no
>> idea what a recordists does. It's really a
>> non-statement, a truism that is irrelevant to the
>> details of what a recordist does.
>
> You're not following the conversation, I guess. So tell
> me: how does my paragraph show that?
>>
>>>>> A good part of what I do daily is adjusting "audio",
>>>>> i.e. balance, timbre, volume, dynamic shadings,
>>>>> attacks (transients, if you will), releases...all in
>>>>> the context of a rehearsal or performance space, from
>>>>> the POV of both the musicians and the patrons.
>>
>>>> So Jenn, you care not whether the rght musicians play
>>>> the right notes in the right way at the right time?
>>
>>> Again, you misstate what I wrote. Do you understand
>>> what "a good part" means?
>>
>> "A good part" is in this case a hedge phrase,
>> intentially chosen by you to conceal meanings.
>
> Good God. It's not a "hedge", it means exactly what it
> says. What do you want, a percentage?
>
>>
>>>> No, that can't be it, can it! In fact isn't
>>>> that what you primarily adjust and isn't that how you
>>>> obtain the things you list above?
>>
>>> No, Arny. As opposed to your church choir (I presume
>>> from your question), my players have well over 90% of
>>> the notes right and know when to play them before the
>>> first rehearsal.
>>
>> I don't think that my church choir is anywhere near that
>> bad. Furthermore, I do most of my work with a select
>> group of musicians who operate at higher skill levels
>> than that.
>
> If your church choir knows 90% of the notes before the
> first rehearsal, then you know that the rest of the
> rehearsal time is spent adjusting "audio".
>>
>>> The rest are fixed at the first rehearsal.
>>> Then on the college level, we have another 9 hours of
>>> rehearsal or so for each concert.
>>
>>>>> But I have a question: what is your
>>>>> threshold of hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes,
>>>>> expressed in Hz?
>>
>>>> If you knew anything about how human hearing works
>>>> Jenn, you'd know that is not a proper question because
>>>> hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes varies with the Hz
>>>> of the sound.
>>
>>> Of course.
>>
>>> So let's say, at A440. What is your threshold of
>>> discernment?
>>
>> Well it seems that my role here is to teach Jenn how to
>> ask questions. ;-)
>
> And my role is to try to get you to answer questions
> asked.

It really helps to ask questions that are answerable, which you have again
failed to do, this time for a reason that I just explained to you.

> With a fixed tone of A=400, what is your threshold of
> discernment?

Discernment of what?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> oups.com
> >> I can't do that. I'm not attacking her preference, just
> >> her statement that violins or any instruent sounds more
> >> real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor that makes
> >> even less sense than it would from an ordinary civilian.
> >
> > LOL!
> >
> > Her statement has been, from what I've seen, that
> > "violins or any instruent sounds more real on LP" to
> > *her* and do not necessarily carry over to *you* or
> > anybody else.
>
> And then she says its related to technology

I've asked questions.

> and that her preferences should
> influence us more than those of the average golden ear because she's a
> conductor (part time).

Part time?? LOL You have no idea, Mr. Volunteer Recordist.
>
> Your inabilty to tell the whole truth is typical, Mr. Listening.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>
> >>>> BTW, the following shows that you have no idea about
> >>>> what recordists do.
> >>
> >>> Not at all. YOU set up the parameters of what you do in
> >>> relation to what the conductor of your church choir
> >>> does,
> >>> not me.
> >>
> >> Jenn the above paragraph shows that in fact you have no
> >> idea what a recordists does. It's really a
> >> non-statement, a truism that is irrelevant to the
> >> details of what a recordist does.
> >
> > You're not following the conversation, I guess. So tell
> > me: how does my paragraph show that?
> >>
> >>>>> A good part of what I do daily is adjusting "audio",
> >>>>> i.e. balance, timbre, volume, dynamic shadings,
> >>>>> attacks (transients, if you will), releases...all in
> >>>>> the context of a rehearsal or performance space, from
> >>>>> the POV of both the musicians and the patrons.
> >>
> >>>> So Jenn, you care not whether the rght musicians play
> >>>> the right notes in the right way at the right time?
> >>
> >>> Again, you misstate what I wrote. Do you understand
> >>> what "a good part" means?
> >>
> >> "A good part" is in this case a hedge phrase,
> >> intentially chosen by you to conceal meanings.
> >
> > Good God. It's not a "hedge", it means exactly what it
> > says. What do you want, a percentage?
> >
> >>
> >>>> No, that can't be it, can it! In fact isn't
> >>>> that what you primarily adjust and isn't that how you
> >>>> obtain the things you list above?
> >>
> >>> No, Arny. As opposed to your church choir (I presume
> >>> from your question), my players have well over 90% of
> >>> the notes right and know when to play them before the
> >>> first rehearsal.
> >>
> >> I don't think that my church choir is anywhere near that
> >> bad. Furthermore, I do most of my work with a select
> >> group of musicians who operate at higher skill levels
> >> than that.
> >
> > If your church choir knows 90% of the notes before the
> > first rehearsal, then you know that the rest of the
> > rehearsal time is spent adjusting "audio".
> >>
> >>> The rest are fixed at the first rehearsal.
> >>> Then on the college level, we have another 9 hours of
> >>> rehearsal or so for each concert.
> >>
> >>>>> But I have a question: what is your
> >>>>> threshold of hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes,
> >>>>> expressed in Hz?
> >>
> >>>> If you knew anything about how human hearing works
> >>>> Jenn, you'd know that is not a proper question because
> >>>> hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes varies with the Hz
> >>>> of the sound.
> >>
> >>> Of course.
> >>
> >>> So let's say, at A440. What is your threshold of
> >>> discernment?
> >>
> >> Well it seems that my role here is to teach Jenn how to
> >> ask questions. ;-)
> >
> > And my role is to try to get you to answer questions
> > asked.
>
> It really helps to ask questions that are answerable, which you have again
> failed to do, this time for a reason that I just explained to you.

Others understand my questions just fine.
>
> > With a fixed tone of A=400, what is your threshold of
> > discernment?
>
> Discernment of what?

See the original question above.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, the following shows that you have no idea about
>>>>>> what recordists do.
>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. YOU set up the parameters of what you do
>>>>> in relation to what the conductor of your church choir
>>>>> does,
>>>>> not me.
>>>>
>>>> Jenn the above paragraph shows that in fact you have no
>>>> idea what a recordists does. It's really a
>>>> non-statement, a truism that is irrelevant to the
>>>> details of what a recordist does.
>>>
>>> You're not following the conversation, I guess. So tell
>>> me: how does my paragraph show that?
>>>>
>>>>>>> A good part of what I do daily is adjusting "audio",
>>>>>>> i.e. balance, timbre, volume, dynamic shadings,
>>>>>>> attacks (transients, if you will), releases...all in
>>>>>>> the context of a rehearsal or performance space,
>>>>>>> from the POV of both the musicians and the patrons.
>>>>
>>>>>> So Jenn, you care not whether the rght musicians play
>>>>>> the right notes in the right way at the right time?
>>>>
>>>>> Again, you misstate what I wrote. Do you understand
>>>>> what "a good part" means?
>>>>
>>>> "A good part" is in this case a hedge phrase,
>>>> intentially chosen by you to conceal meanings.
>>>
>>> Good God. It's not a "hedge", it means exactly what it
>>> says. What do you want, a percentage?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> No, that can't be it, can it! In fact isn't
>>>>>> that what you primarily adjust and isn't that how you
>>>>>> obtain the things you list above?
>>>>
>>>>> No, Arny. As opposed to your church choir (I presume
>>>>> from your question), my players have well over 90% of
>>>>> the notes right and know when to play them before the
>>>>> first rehearsal.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that my church choir is anywhere near
>>>> that bad. Furthermore, I do most of my work with a
>>>> select group of musicians who operate at higher skill
>>>> levels than that.
>>>
>>> If your church choir knows 90% of the notes before the
>>> first rehearsal, then you know that the rest of the
>>> rehearsal time is spent adjusting "audio".
>>>>
>>>>> The rest are fixed at the first rehearsal.
>>>>> Then on the college level, we have another 9 hours of
>>>>> rehearsal or so for each concert.
>>>>
>>>>>>> But I have a question: what is your
>>>>>>> threshold of hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes,
>>>>>>> expressed in Hz?
>>>>
>>>>>> If you knew anything about how human hearing works
>>>>>> Jenn, you'd know that is not a proper question
>>>>>> because hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes varies
>>>>>> with the Hz of the sound.
>>>>
>>>>> Of course.
>>>>
>>>>> So let's say, at A440. What is your threshold of
>>>>> discernment?
>>>>
>>>> Well it seems that my role here is to teach Jenn how to
>>>> ask questions. ;-)
>
>>> And my role is to try to get you to answer questions
>>> asked.

Trouble is Jenn, you're so far out of your realm of understanding, you can't
even ask a proper question. Furhtermore, I've tried to help you understand
how to ask a proper question in this area, and you have still failed.

>> It really helps to ask questions that are answerable,
>> which you have again failed to do, this time for a
>> reason that I just explained to you.

> Others understand my questions just fine.

You're obivously outside of your area of useful knowlege when you try to ask
this question, Jenn. I'm beginning to understand why you believe the way you
do - you're just horrifically uninformed. Trouble is the golden eared
contingent have filled your head with their garbage anti-knowlege about
audio.

>>> With a fixed tone of A=400, what is your threshold of
>>> discernment?

>> Discernment of what?

> See the original question above.

It's still not a proper question. And now Jenn, you've obvously incorrectly
my perceived my instructions about how to ask the question properly.

<walking away, shaking head>

Well I do understand why these so-called objectivists think that so much of
what I say is nonsense - they lack the knowlege it takes to understand what
I'm saying. I could be talking Greek or Klingon for all they can understand!

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com
> From: Jenn
> Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:30 pm
> Email: Jenn >
>
> Mr. Krueger is a 'compusive teacher,' Jenn.
>
>> And my role is to try to get you to answer questions
>> asked.
>
> If you ask him questions, it disrupts his teaching plan.

Not at all.

> Please be considerate and stop asking him questions so
> that he can teach you properly.

No, the problem is that Jenn can't understand the issues well enough to even
ask answerable questions.

Her question about the audiblilty of frequency changes is like: "Why is the
blue?"

[Jenn]

In article om>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> From: Jenn
> Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:30 pm
> Email: Jenn >
>
> Mr. Krueger is a 'compusive teacher,' Jenn.

You're half right.
>
> >And my role is to try to get you to answer questions asked.
>
> If you ask him questions, it disrupts his teaching plan.
>
> Please be considerate and stop asking him questions so that he can
> teach you properly.

;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:33 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger" >

>And then she says its related to technology and that her preferences should
>influence us more than those of the average golden ear because she's a
>conductor (part time).

My apologies. Just like I missed the posts with the alleged 'technical
claims,' I missed the posts where she was trying to 'influence' you. I
applaud you, BTW, for your strength in avoiding the onslaught of the LP
militia. Lesser men may have cracked and thrown out all of their CDs.

>Your inabilty to tell the whole truth is typical, Mr. Listening.

The 'whole truth' is that, as I've said, I really do not care that you
are attacking preference, as you clearly are. I'm just asking that you
call it as such.

Why is that so hard?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> ups.com
> > From: Jenn
> > Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:30 pm
> > Email: Jenn >
> >
> > Mr. Krueger is a 'compusive teacher,' Jenn.
> >
> >> And my role is to try to get you to answer questions
> >> asked.
> >
> > If you ask him questions, it disrupts his teaching plan.
>
> Not at all.
>
> > Please be considerate and stop asking him questions so
> > that he can teach you properly.
>
> No, the problem is that Jenn can't understand the issues well enough to even
> ask answerable questions.
>
> Her question about the audiblilty of frequency changes is like: "Why is the
> blue?"

Bull****.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com
> From: Arny Krueger
> Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:33 pm
> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
>
>> And then she says its related to technology and that her
>> preferences should influence us more than those of the
>> average golden ear because she's a conductor (part time).
>
> My apologies. Just like I missed the posts with the
> alleged 'technical claims,' I missed the posts where she
> was trying to 'influence' you. I applaud you, BTW, for
> your strength in avoiding the onslaught of the LP
> militia. Lesser men may have cracked and thrown out all
> of their CDs.

Yawn.

>> Your inabilty to tell the whole truth is typical, Mr.
>> Listening.

> The 'whole truth' is that, as I've said, I really do not
> care that you are attacking preference, as you clearly
> are. I'm just asking that you call it as such.
>
> Why is that so hard?

Because its wrong.

Subjectivists play the preference card because its any port in a storm.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article >,
> >>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> BTW, the following shows that you have no idea about
> >>>>>> what recordists do.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Not at all. YOU set up the parameters of what you do
> >>>>> in relation to what the conductor of your church choir
> >>>>> does,
> >>>>> not me.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jenn the above paragraph shows that in fact you have no
> >>>> idea what a recordists does. It's really a
> >>>> non-statement, a truism that is irrelevant to the
> >>>> details of what a recordist does.
> >>>
> >>> You're not following the conversation, I guess. So tell
> >>> me: how does my paragraph show that?
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> A good part of what I do daily is adjusting "audio",
> >>>>>>> i.e. balance, timbre, volume, dynamic shadings,
> >>>>>>> attacks (transients, if you will), releases...all in
> >>>>>>> the context of a rehearsal or performance space,
> >>>>>>> from the POV of both the musicians and the patrons.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> So Jenn, you care not whether the rght musicians play
> >>>>>> the right notes in the right way at the right time?
> >>>>
> >>>>> Again, you misstate what I wrote. Do you understand
> >>>>> what "a good part" means?
> >>>>
> >>>> "A good part" is in this case a hedge phrase,
> >>>> intentially chosen by you to conceal meanings.
> >>>
> >>> Good God. It's not a "hedge", it means exactly what it
> >>> says. What do you want, a percentage?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> No, that can't be it, can it! In fact isn't
> >>>>>> that what you primarily adjust and isn't that how you
> >>>>>> obtain the things you list above?
> >>>>
> >>>>> No, Arny. As opposed to your church choir (I presume
> >>>>> from your question), my players have well over 90% of
> >>>>> the notes right and know when to play them before the
> >>>>> first rehearsal.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think that my church choir is anywhere near
> >>>> that bad. Furthermore, I do most of my work with a
> >>>> select group of musicians who operate at higher skill
> >>>> levels than that.
> >>>
> >>> If your church choir knows 90% of the notes before the
> >>> first rehearsal, then you know that the rest of the
> >>> rehearsal time is spent adjusting "audio".
> >>>>
> >>>>> The rest are fixed at the first rehearsal.
> >>>>> Then on the college level, we have another 9 hours of
> >>>>> rehearsal or so for each concert.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> But I have a question: what is your
> >>>>>>> threshold of hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes,
> >>>>>>> expressed in Hz?
> >>>>
> >>>>>> If you knew anything about how human hearing works
> >>>>>> Jenn, you'd know that is not a proper question
> >>>>>> because hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes varies
> >>>>>> with the Hz of the sound.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Of course.
> >>>>
> >>>>> So let's say, at A440. What is your threshold of
> >>>>> discernment?
> >>>>
> >>>> Well it seems that my role here is to teach Jenn how to
> >>>> ask questions. ;-)
> >
> >>> And my role is to try to get you to answer questions
> >>> asked.
>
> Trouble is Jenn, you're so far out of your realm of understanding, you can't
> even ask a proper question. Furhtermore, I've tried to help you understand
> how to ask a proper question in this area, and you have still failed.
>
> >> It really helps to ask questions that are answerable,
> >> which you have again failed to do, this time for a
> >> reason that I just explained to you.
>
> > Others understand my questions just fine.
>
> You're obivously outside of your area of useful knowlege when you try to ask
> this question, Jenn. I'm beginning to understand why you believe the way you
> do - you're just horrifically uninformed. Trouble is the golden eared
> contingent have filled your head with their garbage anti-knowlege about
> audio.
>
> >>> With a fixed tone of A=400, what is your threshold of
> >>> discernment?
>
> >> Discernment of what?
>
> > See the original question above.
>
> It's still not a proper question. And now Jenn, you've obvously incorrectly
> my perceived my instructions about how to ask the question properly.

Nope, it's a PERFECTLY asked question: With a fixed tome of A=440, what
is your threshold of discernment of frequency changes?
>
> <walking away, shaking head>

<Jenn, listening to Arny's head rattle>

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > I'm toying with ignorant and less intelligent people who are way puffed
> > up with their own pride.

> OMG! Pot, meet kettle.

Krooger's delusions about his worth are legendary. Try this one (it's long
but it's worth the time):
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/00c0a8db9f93cbbe?hl=en&

Here's another one, also kind of long, but also worth it:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/4fa3f268d2e6cd50


If you don't know who Glenn Zelniker is, he's the Z in Z-Systems
Engineering (http://www.z-sys.com/). Just mention his name to Krooger and
watch Mr. **** melt down. ;-)

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> oups.com
> > From: Arny Krueger
> > Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:33 pm
> > Email: "Arny Krueger" >
> >
> >> And then she says its related to technology and that her
> >> preferences should influence us more than those of the
> >> average golden ear because she's a conductor (part time).
> >
> > My apologies. Just like I missed the posts with the
> > alleged 'technical claims,' I missed the posts where she
> > was trying to 'influence' you. I applaud you, BTW, for
> > your strength in avoiding the onslaught of the LP
> > militia. Lesser men may have cracked and thrown out all
> > of their CDs.
>
> Yawn.No
>
> >> Your inabilty to tell the whole truth is typical, Mr.
> >> Listening.
>
> > The 'whole truth' is that, as I've said, I really do not
> > care that you are attacking preference, as you clearly
> > are. I'm just asking that you call it as such.
> >
> > Why is that so hard?
>
> Because its wrong.
>
> Subjectivists play the preference card because its any port in a storm.

No, because THAT'S WHAT THE ENJOYMENT OF MUSIC BOILS DOWN TO.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW, the following shows that you have no idea
>>>>>>>> about what recordists do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all. YOU set up the parameters of what you
>>>>>>> do in relation to what the conductor of your church
>>>>>>> choir does,
>>>>>>> not me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jenn the above paragraph shows that in fact you have
>>>>>> no idea what a recordists does. It's really a
>>>>>> non-statement, a truism that is irrelevant to the
>>>>>> details of what a recordist does.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're not following the conversation, I guess. So
>>>>> tell me: how does my paragraph show that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A good part of what I do daily is adjusting
>>>>>>>>> "audio", i.e. balance, timbre, volume, dynamic
>>>>>>>>> shadings, attacks (transients, if you will),
>>>>>>>>> releases...all in the context of a rehearsal or
>>>>>>>>> performance space, from the POV of both the
>>>>>>>>> musicians and the patrons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So Jenn, you care not whether the rght musicians
>>>>>>>> play the right notes in the right way at the right
>>>>>>>> time?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, you misstate what I wrote. Do you understand
>>>>>>> what "a good part" means?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "A good part" is in this case a hedge phrase,
>>>>>> intentially chosen by you to conceal meanings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good God. It's not a "hedge", it means exactly what
>>>>> it says. What do you want, a percentage?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, that can't be it, can it! In fact isn't
>>>>>>>> that what you primarily adjust and isn't that how
>>>>>>>> you obtain the things you list above?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, Arny. As opposed to your church choir (I
>>>>>>> presume from your question), my players have well
>>>>>>> over 90% of the notes right and know when to play
>>>>>>> them before the first rehearsal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think that my church choir is anywhere near
>>>>>> that bad. Furthermore, I do most of my work with a
>>>>>> select group of musicians who operate at higher skill
>>>>>> levels than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> If your church choir knows 90% of the notes before the
>>>>> first rehearsal, then you know that the rest of the
>>>>> rehearsal time is spent adjusting "audio".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The rest are fixed at the first rehearsal.
>>>>>>> Then on the college level, we have another 9 hours
>>>>>>> of rehearsal or so for each concert.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I have a question: what is your
>>>>>>>>> threshold of hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes,
>>>>>>>>> expressed in Hz?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you knew anything about how human hearing works
>>>>>>>> Jenn, you'd know that is not a proper question
>>>>>>>> because hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes varies
>>>>>>>> with the Hz of the sound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So let's say, at A440. What is your threshold of
>>>>>>> discernment?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well it seems that my role here is to teach Jenn how
>>>>>> to ask questions. ;-)
>>>
>>>>> And my role is to try to get you to answer questions
>>>>> asked.
>>
>> Trouble is Jenn, you're so far out of your realm of
>> understanding, you can't even ask a proper question.
>> Furhtermore, I've tried to help you understand how to
>> ask a proper question in this area, and you have still
>> failed.
>>
>>>> It really helps to ask questions that are answerable,
>>>> which you have again failed to do, this time for a
>>>> reason that I just explained to you.
>>
>>> Others understand my questions just fine.
>>
>> You're obivously outside of your area of useful knowlege
>> when you try to ask this question, Jenn. I'm beginning
>> to understand why you believe the way you do - you're
>> just horrifically uninformed. Trouble is the golden
>> eared contingent have filled your head with their
>> garbage anti-knowlege about audio.
>>
>>>>> With a fixed tone of A=400, what is your threshold of
>>>>> discernment?
>>
>>>> Discernment of what?
>>
>>> See the original question above.
>>
>> It's still not a proper question. And now Jenn, you've
>> obvously incorrectly my perceived my instructions about
>> how to ask the question properly.
>
> Nope, it's a PERFECTLY asked question: With a fixed tome
> of A=440, what is your threshold of discernment of
> frequency changes?


What kind of frequency changes?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>> wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>> From: Jenn
>>> Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:30 pm
>>> Email: Jenn >
>>>
>>> Mr. Krueger is a 'compusive teacher,' Jenn.
>>>
>>>> And my role is to try to get you to answer questions
>>>> asked.
>>>
>>> If you ask him questions, it disrupts his teaching plan.
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>>> Please be considerate and stop asking him questions so
>>> that he can teach you properly.
>>
>> No, the problem is that Jenn can't understand the issues
>> well enough to even ask answerable questions.
>>
>> Her question about the audiblilty of frequency changes
>> is like: "Why is the blue?"
>
> Bull****.

See where that attitude gets you, missy.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>> wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>> From: Arny Krueger
>>> Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:33 pm
>>> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
>>>
>>>> And then she says its related to technology and that
>>>> her preferences should influence us more than those of
>>>> the average golden ear because she's a conductor (part
>>>> time).
>>>
>>> My apologies. Just like I missed the posts with the
>>> alleged 'technical claims,' I missed the posts where she
>>> was trying to 'influence' you. I applaud you, BTW, for
>>> your strength in avoiding the onslaught of the LP
>>> militia. Lesser men may have cracked and thrown out all
>>> of their CDs.
>>
>> Yawn.No
>>
>>>> Your inabilty to tell the whole truth is typical, Mr.
>>>> Listening.
>>
>>> The 'whole truth' is that, as I've said, I really do not
>>> care that you are attacking preference, as you clearly
>>> are. I'm just asking that you call it as such.
>>>
>>> Why is that so hard?
>>
>> Because its wrong.
>>
>> Subjectivists play the preference card because its any
>> port in a storm.
>
> No, because THAT'S WHAT THE ENJOYMENT OF MUSIC BOILS DOWN
> TO.

That would be relevant in a group about listening to music for the pure
enjoyment of music, but this like RAHE is is an audio group.

And by the way, that's the other well-known escape act of subjectivists.
They try to turn audio groups into groups about listening to music for
enjoyment, musical artist fan clubs, etc.

People with interests like that should find a group with the name .music. in
it. I think there are over 1,000 of them. Apparently, not enough!

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article >,
> >>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article >,
> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> BTW, the following shows that you have no idea
> >>>>>>>> about what recordists do.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not at all. YOU set up the parameters of what you
> >>>>>>> do in relation to what the conductor of your church
> >>>>>>> choir does,
> >>>>>>> not me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jenn the above paragraph shows that in fact you have
> >>>>>> no idea what a recordists does. It's really a
> >>>>>> non-statement, a truism that is irrelevant to the
> >>>>>> details of what a recordist does.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You're not following the conversation, I guess. So
> >>>>> tell me: how does my paragraph show that?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A good part of what I do daily is adjusting
> >>>>>>>>> "audio", i.e. balance, timbre, volume, dynamic
> >>>>>>>>> shadings, attacks (transients, if you will),
> >>>>>>>>> releases...all in the context of a rehearsal or
> >>>>>>>>> performance space, from the POV of both the
> >>>>>>>>> musicians and the patrons.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So Jenn, you care not whether the rght musicians
> >>>>>>>> play the right notes in the right way at the right
> >>>>>>>> time?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Again, you misstate what I wrote. Do you understand
> >>>>>>> what "a good part" means?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "A good part" is in this case a hedge phrase,
> >>>>>> intentially chosen by you to conceal meanings.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Good God. It's not a "hedge", it means exactly what
> >>>>> it says. What do you want, a percentage?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No, that can't be it, can it! In fact isn't
> >>>>>>>> that what you primarily adjust and isn't that how
> >>>>>>>> you obtain the things you list above?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No, Arny. As opposed to your church choir (I
> >>>>>>> presume from your question), my players have well
> >>>>>>> over 90% of the notes right and know when to play
> >>>>>>> them before the first rehearsal.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't think that my church choir is anywhere near
> >>>>>> that bad. Furthermore, I do most of my work with a
> >>>>>> select group of musicians who operate at higher skill
> >>>>>> levels than that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If your church choir knows 90% of the notes before the
> >>>>> first rehearsal, then you know that the rest of the
> >>>>> rehearsal time is spent adjusting "audio".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The rest are fixed at the first rehearsal.
> >>>>>>> Then on the college level, we have another 9 hours
> >>>>>>> of rehearsal or so for each concert.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But I have a question: what is your
> >>>>>>>>> threshold of hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes,
> >>>>>>>>> expressed in Hz?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If you knew anything about how human hearing works
> >>>>>>>> Jenn, you'd know that is not a proper question
> >>>>>>>> because hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes varies
> >>>>>>>> with the Hz of the sound.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Of course.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So let's say, at A440. What is your threshold of
> >>>>>>> discernment?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well it seems that my role here is to teach Jenn how
> >>>>>> to ask questions. ;-)
> >>>
> >>>>> And my role is to try to get you to answer questions
> >>>>> asked.
> >>
> >> Trouble is Jenn, you're so far out of your realm of
> >> understanding, you can't even ask a proper question.
> >> Furhtermore, I've tried to help you understand how to
> >> ask a proper question in this area, and you have still
> >> failed.
> >>
> >>>> It really helps to ask questions that are answerable,
> >>>> which you have again failed to do, this time for a
> >>>> reason that I just explained to you.
> >>
> >>> Others understand my questions just fine.
> >>
> >> You're obivously outside of your area of useful knowlege
> >> when you try to ask this question, Jenn. I'm beginning
> >> to understand why you believe the way you do - you're
> >> just horrifically uninformed. Trouble is the golden
> >> eared contingent have filled your head with their
> >> garbage anti-knowlege about audio.
> >>
> >>>>> With a fixed tone of A=400, what is your threshold of
> >>>>> discernment?
> >>
> >>>> Discernment of what?
> >>
> >>> See the original question above.
> >>
> >> It's still not a proper question. And now Jenn, you've
> >> obvously incorrectly my perceived my instructions about
> >> how to ask the question properly.
> >
> > Nope, it's a PERFECTLY asked question: With a fixed tome
> > of A=440, what is your threshold of discernment of
> > frequency changes?
>
>
> What kind of frequency changes?

Arg. Can you tell the difference between 440 and, say 441?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the following shows that you have no idea
>>>>>>>>>> about what recordists do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not at all. YOU set up the parameters of what you
>>>>>>>>> do in relation to what the conductor of your
>>>>>>>>> church choir does,
>>>>>>>>> not me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jenn the above paragraph shows that in fact you
>>>>>>>> have no idea what a recordists does. It's really a
>>>>>>>> non-statement, a truism that is irrelevant to the
>>>>>>>> details of what a recordist does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're not following the conversation, I guess. So
>>>>>>> tell me: how does my paragraph show that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A good part of what I do daily is adjusting
>>>>>>>>>>> "audio", i.e. balance, timbre, volume, dynamic
>>>>>>>>>>> shadings, attacks (transients, if you will),
>>>>>>>>>>> releases...all in the context of a rehearsal or
>>>>>>>>>>> performance space, from the POV of both the
>>>>>>>>>>> musicians and the patrons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So Jenn, you care not whether the rght musicians
>>>>>>>>>> play the right notes in the right way at the
>>>>>>>>>> right time?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again, you misstate what I wrote. Do you
>>>>>>>>> understand what "a good part" means?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "A good part" is in this case a hedge phrase,
>>>>>>>> intentially chosen by you to conceal meanings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good God. It's not a "hedge", it means exactly what
>>>>>>> it says. What do you want, a percentage?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, that can't be it, can it! In fact isn't
>>>>>>>>>> that what you primarily adjust and isn't that how
>>>>>>>>>> you obtain the things you list above?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, Arny. As opposed to your church choir (I
>>>>>>>>> presume from your question), my players have well
>>>>>>>>> over 90% of the notes right and know when to play
>>>>>>>>> them before the first rehearsal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think that my church choir is anywhere near
>>>>>>>> that bad. Furthermore, I do most of my work with a
>>>>>>>> select group of musicians who operate at higher
>>>>>>>> skill levels than that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If your church choir knows 90% of the notes before
>>>>>>> the first rehearsal, then you know that the rest of
>>>>>>> the rehearsal time is spent adjusting "audio".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The rest are fixed at the first rehearsal.
>>>>>>>>> Then on the college level, we have another 9 hours
>>>>>>>>> of rehearsal or so for each concert.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But I have a question: what is your
>>>>>>>>>>> threshold of hearing vis-a-vis frequency
>>>>>>>>>>> changes, expressed in Hz?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you knew anything about how human hearing
>>>>>>>>>> works Jenn, you'd know that is not a proper
>>>>>>>>>> question because hearing vis-a-vis frequency
>>>>>>>>>> changes varies with the Hz of the sound.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So let's say, at A440. What is your threshold of
>>>>>>>>> discernment?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well it seems that my role here is to teach Jenn
>>>>>>>> how to ask questions. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And my role is to try to get you to answer questions
>>>>>>> asked.
>>>>
>>>> Trouble is Jenn, you're so far out of your realm of
>>>> understanding, you can't even ask a proper question.
>>>> Furhtermore, I've tried to help you understand how to
>>>> ask a proper question in this area, and you have still
>>>> failed.
>>>>
>>>>>> It really helps to ask questions that are answerable,
>>>>>> which you have again failed to do, this time for a
>>>>>> reason that I just explained to you.
>>>>
>>>>> Others understand my questions just fine.
>>>>
>>>> You're obivously outside of your area of useful
>>>> knowlege when you try to ask this question, Jenn. I'm
>>>> beginning to understand why you believe the way you do
>>>> - you're just horrifically uninformed. Trouble is the
>>>> golden eared contingent have filled your head with
>>>> their garbage anti-knowlege about audio.
>>>>
>>>>>>> With a fixed tone of A=400, what is your threshold
>>>>>>> of discernment?
>>>>
>>>>>> Discernment of what?
>>>>
>>>>> See the original question above.
>>>>
>>>> It's still not a proper question. And now Jenn, you've
>>>> obvously incorrectly my perceived my instructions about
>>>> how to ask the question properly.
>>>
>>> Nope, it's a PERFECTLY asked question: With a fixed
>>> tome of A=440, what is your threshold of discernment of
>>> frequency changes?
>>
>>
>> What kind of frequency changes?
>
> Arg. Can you tell the difference between 440 and, say
> 441?

Both steady state tones? I get to switch between them at will, as in ABX?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article >,
> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In article >,
> >>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>> message
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> m
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> BTW, the following shows that you have no idea
> >>>>>>>>>> about what recordists do.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Not at all. YOU set up the parameters of what you
> >>>>>>>>> do in relation to what the conductor of your
> >>>>>>>>> church choir does,
> >>>>>>>>> not me.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jenn the above paragraph shows that in fact you
> >>>>>>>> have no idea what a recordists does. It's really a
> >>>>>>>> non-statement, a truism that is irrelevant to the
> >>>>>>>> details of what a recordist does.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You're not following the conversation, I guess. So
> >>>>>>> tell me: how does my paragraph show that?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> A good part of what I do daily is adjusting
> >>>>>>>>>>> "audio", i.e. balance, timbre, volume, dynamic
> >>>>>>>>>>> shadings, attacks (transients, if you will),
> >>>>>>>>>>> releases...all in the context of a rehearsal or
> >>>>>>>>>>> performance space, from the POV of both the
> >>>>>>>>>>> musicians and the patrons.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So Jenn, you care not whether the rght musicians
> >>>>>>>>>> play the right notes in the right way at the
> >>>>>>>>>> right time?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Again, you misstate what I wrote. Do you
> >>>>>>>>> understand what "a good part" means?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "A good part" is in this case a hedge phrase,
> >>>>>>>> intentially chosen by you to conceal meanings.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Good God. It's not a "hedge", it means exactly what
> >>>>>>> it says. What do you want, a percentage?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> No, that can't be it, can it! In fact isn't
> >>>>>>>>>> that what you primarily adjust and isn't that how
> >>>>>>>>>> you obtain the things you list above?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No, Arny. As opposed to your church choir (I
> >>>>>>>>> presume from your question), my players have well
> >>>>>>>>> over 90% of the notes right and know when to play
> >>>>>>>>> them before the first rehearsal.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I don't think that my church choir is anywhere near
> >>>>>>>> that bad. Furthermore, I do most of my work with a
> >>>>>>>> select group of musicians who operate at higher
> >>>>>>>> skill levels than that.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If your church choir knows 90% of the notes before
> >>>>>>> the first rehearsal, then you know that the rest of
> >>>>>>> the rehearsal time is spent adjusting "audio".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The rest are fixed at the first rehearsal.
> >>>>>>>>> Then on the college level, we have another 9 hours
> >>>>>>>>> of rehearsal or so for each concert.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> But I have a question: what is your
> >>>>>>>>>>> threshold of hearing vis-a-vis frequency
> >>>>>>>>>>> changes, expressed in Hz?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If you knew anything about how human hearing
> >>>>>>>>>> works Jenn, you'd know that is not a proper
> >>>>>>>>>> question because hearing vis-a-vis frequency
> >>>>>>>>>> changes varies with the Hz of the sound.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Of course.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So let's say, at A440. What is your threshold of
> >>>>>>>>> discernment?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Well it seems that my role here is to teach Jenn
> >>>>>>>> how to ask questions. ;-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> And my role is to try to get you to answer questions
> >>>>>>> asked.
> >>>>
> >>>> Trouble is Jenn, you're so far out of your realm of
> >>>> understanding, you can't even ask a proper question.
> >>>> Furhtermore, I've tried to help you understand how to
> >>>> ask a proper question in this area, and you have still
> >>>> failed.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> It really helps to ask questions that are answerable,
> >>>>>> which you have again failed to do, this time for a
> >>>>>> reason that I just explained to you.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Others understand my questions just fine.
> >>>>
> >>>> You're obivously outside of your area of useful
> >>>> knowlege when you try to ask this question, Jenn. I'm
> >>>> beginning to understand why you believe the way you do
> >>>> - you're just horrifically uninformed. Trouble is the
> >>>> golden eared contingent have filled your head with
> >>>> their garbage anti-knowlege about audio.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> With a fixed tone of A=400, what is your threshold
> >>>>>>> of discernment?
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Discernment of what?
> >>>>
> >>>>> See the original question above.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's still not a proper question. And now Jenn, you've
> >>>> obvously incorrectly my perceived my instructions about
> >>>> how to ask the question properly.
> >>>
> >>> Nope, it's a PERFECTLY asked question: With a fixed
> >>> tome of A=440, what is your threshold of discernment of
> >>> frequency changes?
> >>
> >>
> >> What kind of frequency changes?
> >
> > Arg. Can you tell the difference between 440 and, say
> > 441?
>
> Both steady state tones?

Yep.

> I get to switch between them at will, as in ABX?

Nope, as is done in actual working conditions.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> m
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the following shows that you have no idea
>>>>>>>>>>>> about what recordists do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. YOU set up the parameters of what
>>>>>>>>>>> you do in relation to what the conductor of your
>>>>>>>>>>> church choir does,
>>>>>>>>>>> not me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jenn the above paragraph shows that in fact you
>>>>>>>>>> have no idea what a recordists does. It's really
>>>>>>>>>> a non-statement, a truism that is irrelevant to
>>>>>>>>>> the details of what a recordist does.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're not following the conversation, I guess.
>>>>>>>>> So tell me: how does my paragraph show that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A good part of what I do daily is adjusting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "audio", i.e. balance, timbre, volume, dynamic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shadings, attacks (transients, if you will),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases...all in the context of a rehearsal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or performance space, from the POV of both the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> musicians and the patrons.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So Jenn, you care not whether the rght
>>>>>>>>>>>> musicians play the right notes in the right
>>>>>>>>>>>> way at the right time?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again, you misstate what I wrote. Do you
>>>>>>>>>>> understand what "a good part" means?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "A good part" is in this case a hedge phrase,
>>>>>>>>>> intentially chosen by you to conceal meanings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Good God. It's not a "hedge", it means exactly
>>>>>>>>> what it says. What do you want, a percentage?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that can't be it, can it! In fact isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> that what you primarily adjust and isn't that
>>>>>>>>>>>> how you obtain the things you list above?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, Arny. As opposed to your church choir (I
>>>>>>>>>>> presume from your question), my players have
>>>>>>>>>>> well over 90% of the notes right and know when
>>>>>>>>>>> to play them before the first rehearsal.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that my church choir is anywhere
>>>>>>>>>> near that bad. Furthermore, I do most of my work
>>>>>>>>>> with a select group of musicians who operate at
>>>>>>>>>> higher skill levels than that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If your church choir knows 90% of the notes before
>>>>>>>>> the first rehearsal, then you know that the rest
>>>>>>>>> of the rehearsal time is spent adjusting "audio".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The rest are fixed at the first rehearsal.
>>>>>>>>>>> Then on the college level, we have another 9
>>>>>>>>>>> hours of rehearsal or so for each concert.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I have a question: what is your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> threshold of hearing vis-a-vis frequency
>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes, expressed in Hz?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you knew anything about how human hearing
>>>>>>>>>>>> works Jenn, you'd know that is not a proper
>>>>>>>>>>>> question because hearing vis-a-vis frequency
>>>>>>>>>>>> changes varies with the Hz of the sound.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So let's say, at A440. What is your threshold
>>>>>>>>>>> of discernment?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well it seems that my role here is to teach Jenn
>>>>>>>>>> how to ask questions. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And my role is to try to get you to answer
>>>>>>>>> questions asked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trouble is Jenn, you're so far out of your realm of
>>>>>> understanding, you can't even ask a proper question.
>>>>>> Furhtermore, I've tried to help you understand how to
>>>>>> ask a proper question in this area, and you have
>>>>>> still failed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It really helps to ask questions that are
>>>>>>>> answerable, which you have again failed to do,
>>>>>>>> this time for a reason that I just explained to
>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Others understand my questions just fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're obivously outside of your area of useful
>>>>>> knowlege when you try to ask this question, Jenn. I'm
>>>>>> beginning to understand why you believe the way you
>>>>>> do - you're just horrifically uninformed. Trouble is
>>>>>> the golden eared contingent have filled your head
>>>>>> with their garbage anti-knowlege about audio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With a fixed tone of A=400, what is your threshold
>>>>>>>>> of discernment?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Discernment of what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See the original question above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's still not a proper question. And now Jenn,
>>>>>> you've obvously incorrectly my perceived my
>>>>>> instructions about how to ask the question properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, it's a PERFECTLY asked question: With a fixed
>>>>> tome of A=440, what is your threshold of discernment
>>>>> of frequency changes?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What kind of frequency changes?
>>>
>>> Arg. Can you tell the difference between 440 and, say
>>> 441?
>>
>> Both steady state tones?
>
> Yep.
>
>> I get to switch between them at will, as in ABX?
>
> Nope, as is done in actual working conditions.

What would that be?

I *never* knowingly listen to 440 and 441 under working conditions. I guess
I would if I tuned a guitar with an electronic tuner, but i'm not a guitar
player.

BTW Jenn, do you know what the scientific answer to this question is?

I do, and I just confirmed it. But it wasn't under what I would call working
conditions, and it would make an interesting ABX test.

[Arny Krueger]

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

> Jenn said:
>
>>> I'm toying with ignorant and less intelligent people
>>> who are way puffed up with their own pride.
>
>> OMG! Pot, meet kettle.
>
> Krooger's delusions about his worth are legendary. Try
> this one (it's long but it's worth the time):
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/00c0a8db9f93cbbe?hl=en&
>
> Here's another one, also kind of long, but also worth it:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/4fa3f268d2e6cd50
>
>
> If you don't know who Glenn Zelniker is, he's the Z in
> Z-Systems Engineering (http://www.z-sys.com/). Just
> mention his name to Krooger and watch Mr. **** melt down.
> ;-)

Actually, watch me laugh.

The key phrase from above is:

"Sure, and Zelniker, Bamborough and Atkinson always try to turn from
technical issues to personal attacks because they know that they
don't stand a chance."


Note that the same thing just happened in a thread named:

"Scott The Litigious Rides Again"

None of the trolls here want to touch the audio substance which is 5 points,
clearly set forth.

So Middius and his ilk turned the thread into a bunch of stories about what
they are interested in - personalities.

Usual players, usual whining.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>>> Subjectivists play the preference card because its any
>>> port in a storm.

>> No, because THAT'S WHAT THE ENJOYMENT OF MUSIC BOILS DOWN
>> TO.

>That would be relevant in a group about listening to music for the pure
>enjoyment of music, but this like RAHE is is an audio group.

Were you really kicked out of r.a.h.e?

Why don't you go to rec.audio.trash.preference? LOL!

>And by the way, that's the other well-known escape act of subjectivists.
>They try to turn audio groups into groups about listening to music for
>enjoyment, musical artist fan clubs, etc.

Straw man argument. Nobody that I've seen in the threads about Jenn and
LPs has done that. That is one of your favorite escape acts: divert
attention away from how poorly you behave.

>People with interests like that should find a group with the name .music. in
>it. I think there are over 1,000 of them. Apparently, not enough!

Apprently, you should also frequent rec.audio.strawman.arguments. LOL!

If someone says, "My Boulder amps sound good to me" you would tell them
that they spent too much and could have gotten the same sound from QSC.
If someone says, "I like LPs" you would tell them, as you are here,
that technically CDs are far superior and that they should have their
hearing checked. If somebody says, "Violins on well-recorded LPs sound
more natural to me" you would say, as you are here, that it was
impossible for that to be the case.

All of these are statements of preference. All of these are valid audio
opinions (which IS the name of this group).

You apparently want to change it to
rec.audio.agree.with.arnys.opinions.or.else

That you won't simply admit that you're trashing preference, when you
even say that "Subjectivists play the preference card because its any
port in a storm" meaning that attacking preference is OK in your mind,
is hilarious.

And as I said, I really do not care that you do it. I just find it
laughable that you can't ADMIT that you do it.

Wrap yourself in the Cloaks of Righteousness. Go forth and teach the
ignorant masses. They apparently don't really know what they like. And
they can't figure it out without you. LOL!

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> > Nope, as is done in actual working conditions.
>
> What would that be?
>
> I *never* knowingly listen to 440 and 441 under working conditions.

I thought you recorded church choirs!

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com
>>>> Subjectivists play the preference card because its any
>>>> port in a storm.
>
>>> No, because THAT'S WHAT THE ENJOYMENT OF MUSIC BOILS
>>> DOWN TO.
>
>> That would be relevant in a group about listening to
>> music for the pure enjoyment of music, but this like
>> RAHE is is an audio group.
>
> Were you really kicked out of r.a.h.e?

Of course, how many times do you need to read that to believe it?

> Why don't you go to rec.audio.trash.preference? LOL!

Yawn.

>> And by the way, that's the other well-known escape act
>> of subjectivists. They try to turn audio groups into
>> groups about listening to music for enjoyment, musical
>> artist fan clubs, etc.

> Straw man argument. Nobody that I've seen in the threads
> about Jenn and LPs has done that.

You haven't been here long enough.

> That is one of your
> favorite escape acts: divert attention away from how
> poorly you behave.

Yawn. See what I mean about diverting attention away from the topic and into
playing personalities?

>> People with interests like that should find a group with
>> the name .music. in it. I think there are over 1,000 of
>> them. Apparently, not enough!

> Apprently, you should also frequent
> rec.audio.strawman.arguments. LOL!

Ditto.

> If someone says, "My Boulder amps sound good to me" you
> would tell them that they spent too much and could have
> gotten the same sound from QSC.

Try it, it will never happen.

>If someone says, "I like
> LPs" you would tell them, as you are here, that
> technically CDs are far superior and that they should
> have their hearing checked.

Nope, Jenn's hook is: I'm a symphony orchestra conductor and that makes my
opinion better than anybody else.

>If somebody says, "Violins on
> well-recorded LPs sound more natural to me" you would
> say, as you are here, that it was impossible for that to
> be the case.

It's been done and it passed, if presented exactly like that.

> All of these are statements of preference. All of these
> are valid audio opinions (which IS the name of this
> group).

In some sense there is no such thing as an invalid opinion.

So, if Jenn would play it straight, she would get a pass.

> You apparently want to change it to
> rec.audio.agree.with.arnys.opinions.or.else

More of the usual golden ear whining...

> That you won't simply admit that you're trashing
> preference, when you even say that "Subjectivists play
> the preference card because its any port in a storm"
> meaning that attacking preference is OK in your mind, is
> hilarious.

just expressing my opinion which is apparently invalid in your book, Mr.
Listener

> And as I said, I really do not care that you do it. I
> just find it laughable that you can't ADMIT that you do
> it.

I'm just expressing my preferences, what's wrong with that?

> Wrap yourself in the Cloaks of Righteousness. Go forth
> and teach the ignorant masses. They apparently don't
> really know what they like. And they can't figure it out
> without you. LOL!

Yawn. When will they update the current model of golden ear with brains?

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com
> From: Arny Krueger
> Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:31 pm
> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
>
>> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he created
>> with his excessive concern for preferences. The coward
>> broke and ran away from here, leaving us holding the
>> bag! ;-)
>
> This JJ sounds like he was one hell of a lot more
> intelligent that you are.

I would say that he suffers from some of the same weak-mindedness as you do.

>Why did the coward break ranks
> and run, anyway? Was it, perhance, the onslaught of the
> unstoppable masses of the LP militia, trudging endlessly
> over the dead body of the CD format?

Good question. You know where to find him - why not ask him?

> And why do the strains of 'Onward Christian Soldiers' pop
> into my head when I read this? LOL!

> I didn't realize how 'brave' you are. My bad.

Yawn.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>
>
>>> BTW, the following shows that you have no idea about
>>> what recordists do.
>
>> Not at all. YOU set up the parameters of what you do in
>> relation to what the conductor of your church choir does,
>> not me.
>
> Jenn the above paragraph shows that in fact you have no idea what a
> recordists does. It's really a non-statement, a truism that is irrelevant
> to the details of what a recordist does.
>
>>>> A good part of what I do daily is adjusting "audio",
>>>> i.e. balance, timbre, volume, dynamic shadings, attacks
>>>> (transients, if you will), releases...all in the context
>>>> of a rehearsal or performance space, from the POV of
>>>> both the musicians and the patrons.
>
>>> So Jenn, you care not whether the rght musicians play
>>> the right notes in the right way at the right time?
>
>> Again, you misstate what I wrote. Do you understand what
>> "a good part" means?
>
> "A good part" is in this case a hedge phrase, intentially chosen by you to
> conceal meanings.
>
>>> No, that can't be it, can it! In fact isn't
>>> that what you primarily adjust and isn't that how you
>>> obtain the things you list above?
>
>> No, Arny. As opposed to your church choir (I presume
>> from your question), my players have well over 90% of the
>> notes right and know when to play them before the first
>> rehearsal.
>
> I don't think that my church choir is anywhere near that bad. Furthermore,
> I do most of my work with a select group of musicians who operate at
> higher skill levels than that.
>
>> The rest are fixed at the first rehearsal.
>> Then on the college level, we have another 9 hours of
>> rehearsal or so for each concert.
>
>>>> But I have a question: what is your
>>>> threshold of hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes,
>>>> expressed in Hz?
>
>>> If you knew anything about how human hearing works Jenn,
>>> you'd know that is not a proper question because hearing
>>> vis-a-vis frequency changes varies with the Hz of the
>>> sound.
>
>> Of course.
>
>> So let's say, at A440. What is your threshold of discernment?
>
> Well it seems that my role here is to teach Jenn how to ask questions. ;-)
>
> Jenn, your question is still improper because frequency changes themselves
> have frequency.
>
> If you knew anything about how human hearing works Jenn,
> you'd know your question is not a proper question because hearing
> vis-a-vis frequency changes varies with the Hz of the change in the Hz.
>
> <And now with just 4 posts I may have given Jenn a hint about human
> perception of two of the ways that LP technology butchers music: poor
> speed accuracy and massive flutter and wow. Note that Harry denies that
> vinyl even has flutter and wow.>
>

What Harry actually said that with his turntable, arm, and cartridge
"audible" wow and flutter on music (including solo piano) had not been a
problem for the last 25 years.

Once again, Arny shows he is more interested in dealing with strawmen than
in discussing issues realistically.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

> What Harry actually said that with his turntable, arm,
> and cartridge "audible" wow and flutter on music
> (including solo piano) had not been a problem for the
> last 25 years.

Well, its not problem for someone who has a psychological need to ignore
them!

> Once again, Arny shows he is more interested in dealing
> with strawmen than in discussing issues realistically.

Your inabiilty to hear the obvious failings of the LP could make up a very
realistic discussion, Harry. Your hysterical damnation of the CD format is a
similar problem.

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > complosed in message
. ..

: Well then Jen i+s that percpetion completely imaginary on your part Jen, or
: is it somehow related to the technical properties of the LP medium?
:
I'd change the Kroobatteries at this time -
try some Sanyo Eneloop's - you do want to be 2006esh, eh?

your pwrdoc,
Rudy

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> ups.com
> >>>> Subjectivists play the preference card because its any
> >>>> port in a storm.
> >
> >>> No, because THAT'S WHAT THE ENJOYMENT OF MUSIC BOILS
> >>> DOWN TO.
> >
> >> That would be relevant in a group about listening to
> >> music for the pure enjoyment of music, but this like
> >> RAHE is is an audio group.
> >
> > Were you really kicked out of r.a.h.e?
>
> Of course, how many times do you need to read that to believe it?
>
> > Why don't you go to rec.audio.trash.preference? LOL!
>
> Yawn.
>
> >> And by the way, that's the other well-known escape act
> >> of subjectivists. They try to turn audio groups into
> >> groups about listening to music for enjoyment, musical
> >> artist fan clubs, etc.
>
> > Straw man argument. Nobody that I've seen in the threads
> > about Jenn and LPs has done that.
>
> You haven't been here long enough.
>
> > That is one of your
> > favorite escape acts: divert attention away from how
> > poorly you behave.
>
> Yawn. See what I mean about diverting attention away from the topic and into
> playing personalities?
>
> >> People with interests like that should find a group with
> >> the name .music. in it. I think there are over 1,000 of
> >> them. Apparently, not enough!
>
> > Apprently, you should also frequent
> > rec.audio.strawman.arguments. LOL!
>
> Ditto.
>
> > If someone says, "My Boulder amps sound good to me" you
> > would tell them that they spent too much and could have
> > gotten the same sound from QSC.
>
> Try it, it will never happen.
>
> >If someone says, "I like
> > LPs" you would tell them, as you are here, that
> > technically CDs are far superior and that they should
> > have their hearing checked.
>
> Nope, Jenn's hook is: I'm a symphony orchestra conductor and that makes my
> opinion better than anybody else.

Yet again, that's NOT what I've stated. I've stated that if we're
comparing sounds that are attempting to replicate the sound of live
instruments/voices, I'm well qualified to do that because I hear the
standard more than most people do and I'm trained to (and paid for)
hearing and listening very subtle differences in sound. I always find
it interesting when this argument is held against me that similar
arguments are not held against those who are trained to, for example,
diagnose vision problems. People don't go to the eye doctor and, when
told they need glasses, tell the doc, "I suppose you think your opinion
is better than mine!" Or a mason, or a mechanic, or... It's not
"bragging" when an auto mechanic claims to know cars better than I do.
He/she is trained and has experience in that field.
>
> >If somebody says, "Violins on
> > well-recorded LPs sound more natural to me" you would
> > say, as you are here, that it was impossible for that to
> > be the case.
>
> It's been done and it passed, if presented exactly like that.
>
> > All of these are statements of preference. All of these
> > are valid audio opinions (which IS the name of this
> > group).
>
> In some sense there is no such thing as an invalid opinion.
>
> So, if Jenn would play it straight, she would get a pass.

???
>
> > You apparently want to change it to
> > rec.audio.agree.with.arnys.opinions.or.else
>
> More of the usual golden ear whining...
>
> > That you won't simply admit that you're trashing
> > preference, when you even say that "Subjectivists play
> > the preference card because its any port in a storm"
> > meaning that attacking preference is OK in your mind, is
> > hilarious.
>
> just expressing my opinion which is apparently invalid in your book, Mr.
> Listener
>
> > And as I said, I really do not care that you do it. I
> > just find it laughable that you can't ADMIT that you do
> > it.
>
> I'm just expressing my preferences, what's wrong with that?
>
> > Wrap yourself in the Cloaks of Righteousness. Go forth
> > and teach the ignorant masses. They apparently don't
> > really know what they like. And they can't figure it out
> > without you. LOL!
>
> Yawn. When will they update the current model of golden ear with brains?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In article >,
> >>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>> message
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> m
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article >,
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> co
> >>>>>>>>>>>> m
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the following shows that you have no idea
> >>>>>>>>>>>> about what recordists do.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. YOU set up the parameters of what
> >>>>>>>>>>> you do in relation to what the conductor of your
> >>>>>>>>>>> church choir does,
> >>>>>>>>>>> not me.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Jenn the above paragraph shows that in fact you
> >>>>>>>>>> have no idea what a recordists does. It's really
> >>>>>>>>>> a non-statement, a truism that is irrelevant to
> >>>>>>>>>> the details of what a recordist does.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You're not following the conversation, I guess.
> >>>>>>>>> So tell me: how does my paragraph show that?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A good part of what I do daily is adjusting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "audio", i.e. balance, timbre, volume, dynamic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> shadings, attacks (transients, if you will),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> releases...all in the context of a rehearsal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> or performance space, from the POV of both the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> musicians and the patrons.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So Jenn, you care not whether the rght
> >>>>>>>>>>>> musicians play the right notes in the right
> >>>>>>>>>>>> way at the right time?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Again, you misstate what I wrote. Do you
> >>>>>>>>>>> understand what "a good part" means?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "A good part" is in this case a hedge phrase,
> >>>>>>>>>> intentially chosen by you to conceal meanings.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Good God. It's not a "hedge", it means exactly
> >>>>>>>>> what it says. What do you want, a percentage?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, that can't be it, can it! In fact isn't
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that what you primarily adjust and isn't that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> how you obtain the things you list above?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No, Arny. As opposed to your church choir (I
> >>>>>>>>>>> presume from your question), my players have
> >>>>>>>>>>> well over 90% of the notes right and know when
> >>>>>>>>>>> to play them before the first rehearsal.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think that my church choir is anywhere
> >>>>>>>>>> near that bad. Furthermore, I do most of my work
> >>>>>>>>>> with a select group of musicians who operate at
> >>>>>>>>>> higher skill levels than that.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If your church choir knows 90% of the notes before
> >>>>>>>>> the first rehearsal, then you know that the rest
> >>>>>>>>> of the rehearsal time is spent adjusting "audio".
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The rest are fixed at the first rehearsal.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Then on the college level, we have another 9
> >>>>>>>>>>> hours of rehearsal or so for each concert.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But I have a question: what is your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> threshold of hearing vis-a-vis frequency
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> changes, expressed in Hz?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you knew anything about how human hearing
> >>>>>>>>>>>> works Jenn, you'd know that is not a proper
> >>>>>>>>>>>> question because hearing vis-a-vis frequency
> >>>>>>>>>>>> changes varies with the Hz of the sound.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So let's say, at A440. What is your threshold
> >>>>>>>>>>> of discernment?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Well it seems that my role here is to teach Jenn
> >>>>>>>>>> how to ask questions. ;-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And my role is to try to get you to answer
> >>>>>>>>> questions asked.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Trouble is Jenn, you're so far out of your realm of
> >>>>>> understanding, you can't even ask a proper question.
> >>>>>> Furhtermore, I've tried to help you understand how to
> >>>>>> ask a proper question in this area, and you have
> >>>>>> still failed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It really helps to ask questions that are
> >>>>>>>> answerable, which you have again failed to do,
> >>>>>>>> this time for a reason that I just explained to
> >>>>>>>> you.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Others understand my questions just fine.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You're obivously outside of your area of useful
> >>>>>> knowlege when you try to ask this question, Jenn. I'm
> >>>>>> beginning to understand why you believe the way you
> >>>>>> do - you're just horrifically uninformed. Trouble is
> >>>>>> the golden eared contingent have filled your head
> >>>>>> with their garbage anti-knowlege about audio.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> With a fixed tone of A=400, what is your threshold
> >>>>>>>>> of discernment?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Discernment of what?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> See the original question above.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's still not a proper question. And now Jenn,
> >>>>>> you've obvously incorrectly my perceived my
> >>>>>> instructions about how to ask the question properly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nope, it's a PERFECTLY asked question: With a fixed
> >>>>> tome of A=440, what is your threshold of discernment
> >>>>> of frequency changes?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What kind of frequency changes?
> >>>
> >>> Arg. Can you tell the difference between 440 and, say
> >>> 441?
> >>
> >> Both steady state tones?
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> >> I get to switch between them at will, as in ABX?
> >
> > Nope, as is done in actual working conditions.
>
> What would that be?

If you don't know, the question is mute.

>
> I *never* knowingly listen to 440 and 441 under working conditions. I guess
> I would if I tuned a guitar with an electronic tuner, but i'm not a guitar
> player.
>
> BTW Jenn, do you know what the scientific answer to this question is?

Which question?
>
> I do, and I just confirmed it. But it wasn't under what I would call working
> conditions, and it would make an interesting ABX test.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> >> wrote in message
> >> oups.com
> >>> From: Arny Krueger
> >>> Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:33 pm
> >>> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
> >>>
> >>>> And then she says its related to technology and that
> >>>> her preferences should influence us more than those of
> >>>> the average golden ear because she's a conductor (part
> >>>> time).
> >>>
> >>> My apologies. Just like I missed the posts with the
> >>> alleged 'technical claims,' I missed the posts where she
> >>> was trying to 'influence' you. I applaud you, BTW, for
> >>> your strength in avoiding the onslaught of the LP
> >>> militia. Lesser men may have cracked and thrown out all
> >>> of their CDs.
> >>
> >> Yawn.No
> >>
> >>>> Your inabilty to tell the whole truth is typical, Mr.
> >>>> Listening.
> >>
> >>> The 'whole truth' is that, as I've said, I really do not
> >>> care that you are attacking preference, as you clearly
> >>> are. I'm just asking that you call it as such.
> >>>
> >>> Why is that so hard?
> >>
> >> Because its wrong.
> >>
> >> Subjectivists play the preference card because its any
> >> port in a storm.
> >
> > No, because THAT'S WHAT THE ENJOYMENT OF MUSIC BOILS DOWN
> > TO.
>
> That would be relevant in a group about listening to music for the pure
> enjoyment of music, but this like RAHE is is an audio group.

Incorrect. The enjoyment of music is what audio is about. Unless you
listen to pure tones only. Or if you don't listen at all.

>
> And by the way, that's the other well-known escape act of subjectivists.
> They try to turn audio groups into groups about listening to music for
> enjoyment,

GOOD GOD! Say it ain't so! Listening to music for enjoyment? Perish
the thought.

> musical artist fan clubs, etc.

I've never seen that in an audio group.
>
> People with interests like that should find a group with the name .music. in
> it. I think there are over 1,000 of them. Apparently, not enough!

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message



>> Nope, Jenn's hook is: I'm a symphony orchestra conductor
>> and that makes my opinion better than anybody else.

> Yet again, that's NOT what I've stated. I've stated that
> if we're comparing sounds that are attempting to
> replicate the sound of live instruments/voices, I'm well
> qualified to do that because I hear the standard more
> than most people do and I'm trained to (and paid for)
> hearing and listening very subtle differences in sound.

Subtle differences of a certain kind, Jenn.

Last night at a party attended by musicians, recordists, music reviewers,
equipment reviewers, and audio develpment engineers I posed the following
question:

"Is listening for differences in sound due to musical differences the same
or different from listening for differences in sound due to technical
differences."

They all agreed that listening for differences in sound due to musical
differences are different from listening for differences in sound due to
technical differences.

[Clyde Slick]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
>
> Incorrect. The enjoyment of music is what audio is about. Unless you
> listen to pure tones only.



Oh, yeah, you haven't met Tommie Pink Noise Saine yet!



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>>> Nope, Jenn's hook is: I'm a symphony orchestra conductor
>>> and that makes my opinion better than anybody else.
>
>> Yet again, that's NOT what I've stated. I've stated that
>> if we're comparing sounds that are attempting to
>> replicate the sound of live instruments/voices, I'm well
>> qualified to do that because I hear the standard more
>> than most people do and I'm trained to (and paid for)
>> hearing and listening very subtle differences in sound.
>
> Subtle differences of a certain kind, Jenn.
>
> Last night at a party attended by musicians, recordists, music reviewers,
> equipment reviewers, and audio develpment engineers I posed the following
> question:
>
> "Is listening for differences in sound due to musical differences the same
> or different from listening for differences in sound due to technical
> differences."
>
> They all agreed that listening for differences in sound due to musical
> differences are different from listening for differences in sound due to
> technical differences.
>

Arnie, why not act the gentleman and invite Jenn to your
next SWMWTMS meeting.



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

[ScottW]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> That would be relevant in a group about listening to music for the pure
>> enjoyment of music, but this like RAHE is is an audio group.
>
> Incorrect. The enjoyment of music is what audio is about. Unless you
> listen to pure tones only. Or if you don't listen at all.
>
I don't know about that....my kid is heavily into car audio and
for him and his buds its all about db level at 50 Hz. Nothing else
matters.... Some of them are even remixing music on their PCs
to create mega bass tracks.

Their is a small pro auto audio shop near my work... they specialize
in bass systems for show cars and trucks. No music involved there
I can assure you.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 5:45 am
Email: "Arny Krueger" >

>Last night at a party attended by musicians, recordists, music reviewers,
>equipment reviewers, and audio develpment engineers I posed the following
>question:

>"Is listening for differences in sound due to musical differences the same
>or different from listening for differences in sound due to technical
>differences."

>They all agreed that listening for differences in sound due to musical
>differences are different from listening for differences in sound due to
>technical differences.

Which shoots your argument in the foot, and validates everything that
Jenn has said.

And let me venture a guess: you won't be able to see why.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >> Nope, Jenn's hook is: I'm a symphony orchestra conductor
> >> and that makes my opinion better than anybody else.
>
> > Yet again, that's NOT what I've stated. I've stated that
> > if we're comparing sounds that are attempting to
> > replicate the sound of live instruments/voices, I'm well
> > qualified to do that because I hear the standard more
> > than most people do and I'm trained to (and paid for)
> > hearing and listening very subtle differences in sound.
>
> Subtle differences of a certain kind, Jenn.

In what way(s) are the subtle differences that I'm trained to hear and
that I have a great deal of experience with different than those that
recordists and the home consumer use?
>
> Last night at a party attended by musicians, recordists, music reviewers,
> equipment reviewers, and audio develpment engineers I posed the following
> question:
>
> "Is listening for differences in sound due to musical differences the same
> or different from listening for differences in sound due to technical
> differences."
>
> They all agreed that listening for differences in sound due to musical
> differences are different from listening for differences in sound due to
> technical differences.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Jenn
Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 9:09 pm
Email: Jenn >

>In what way(s) are the subtle differences that I'm trained to hear and
>that I have a great deal of experience with different than those that
>recordists and the home consumer use?

Home consumers, like Mr. Krueger, are trained to hear differences in
audio components.

You, unlike him, listen to music for enjoyment, and listen with a
musician's ear.

Therefore, your opinions about what sounds 'real' to you are not nearly
as valid as his.

You are herewith ordered to stop listening to LPs. You simply cannot
prefer them. CDs are the acceptable format here. OK?

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> From: Jenn
> Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 9:09 pm
> Email: Jenn >
>
> >In what way(s) are the subtle differences that I'm trained to hear and
> >that I have a great deal of experience with different than those that
> >recordists and the home consumer use?
>
> Home consumers, like Mr. Krueger, are trained to hear differences in
> audio components.
>
> You, unlike him, listen to music for enjoyment, and listen with a
> musician's ear.
>
> Therefore, your opinions about what sounds 'real' to you are not nearly
> as valid as his.
>
> You are herewith ordered to stop listening to LPs. You simply cannot
> prefer them. CDs are the acceptable format here. OK?

Oh, OK.
:-)

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> ink.net
>
>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
>> her statement that violins or any instrument sounds more
>> real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor that makes
>> even less sense than it would from an ordinary civilian.
>
> It's interesting how all these golden ears make global statements trashing
> such a highly effective and succesful audio technology as digtal and then
> hide behind their perferences when asked to explain themselves.
>
> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he created with his
> excessive concern for preferences. The coward broke and ran away from
> here, leaving us holding the bag! ;-)
Without giving away too much without his expressed permission, it is not
exactly as you might think.

There is no delaing with prefernce it has no rationality, no sense
whatsoever.
It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and statements on timbre that
has her in trouble.
It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at least not for me it isn't.

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> oups.com
>> From: Arny Krueger
>> Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:31 pm
>> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
>>
>>> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he created
>>> with his excessive concern for preferences. The coward
>>> broke and ran away from here, leaving us holding the
>>> bag! ;-)
>>
>> This JJ sounds like he was one hell of a lot more
>> intelligent that you are.
>
> I would say that he suffers from some of the same weak-mindedness as you
> do.
>
You say a lot of really stupid **** though, especially since you have zero
idea who JJ is.


>>Why did the coward break ranks
>> and run, anyway? Was it, perhance, the onslaught of the
>> unstoppable masses of the LP militia, trudging endlessly
>> over the dead body of the CD format?
>
> Good question. You know where to find him - why not ask him?
>
>> And why do the strains of 'Onward Christian Soldiers' pop
>> into my head when I read this? LOL!
>
>> I didn't realize how 'brave' you are. My bad.
>
> Yawn.
Braver than an anoymouse.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 12:29 am
Email: >

>>> This JJ sounds like he was one hell of a lot more
>>> intelligent that you are.

>> I would say that he suffers from some of the same weak-mindedness as you
>> do.

>You say a lot of really stupid **** though, especially since you have zero
>idea who JJ is.

But I DO know what Bell Labs and AT&T were/are, and it would seem that,
since he is now apparently working for Microsoft, and that the
President of Microsoft has been recently quoted in business magazines
as saying that 'hiring the best and smartest' is what he and they are
all about, this JJ must be a pretty sharp individual indeed.

He apparently didn't attack preference either, which reinforces my
position that you and Mr. Krueger are not as intelligent as he is. He
probably also actually has technical 'chops' (which I doubt that you
have).

Is this him? http://www.research.att.com/history/aac.html

It looks like he actually did research and stuff pertaining to audio
other than attacking preference.

Why are you so threatened by him? Why is he 'weak-minded'?

He seems smarter than both of you are.

>Braver than an anoymouse.

Oh my! So Mr. Krueger is brave (with no brains) and you're brave (with
no brains).

I'll take not brave (with brains) then. Is that OK with you?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

I can now see why you two are so threatened by this JJ. As I pedicted,
he has the background you two obviously lack:

************************************************** *********************************
"Mr. James D. Johnston (F) received the BSEE and MSEE degrees from
Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA in 1975 and 1976,
respectively. Mr. Johnston is currently working in the Codecs group at
Microsoft Corporation. He retired in 2002 but worked 26 years for AT&T
Bell Labs and its successor AT&T Labs Research. He was one of the first
investigators in the field of perceptual audio coding, one of the
inventors and standardizers of MPEG 1/2 Audio Layer 3 and MPEG-2 AAC,
as well as the AT&T Bell Labs or AT&T Labs-Research PXFM (perceptual
transform coding) and PAC (perceptual audio coding) and the ASPEC
algorithm that provided the best audio quality in the MPEG-1 audio
tests. Most recently, he has been working in the area of auditory
perception of soundfields, ways to capture soundfield cues and
represent them, and ways to expand the limited sense of realism
available in standard audio playback for both captured and synthetic
performances. Mr. Johnston is an IEEE Fellow, an AES Fellow, a NJ
Inventor of the Year, an AT&T Technical Medalist and Standards Awardee,
and a co-recipient of the IEEE Donald Fink Paper Award."

"Jim Johnston -- New Jersey Inventor of the Year

Jim Johnston is a pioneer and world recognized leader in the field of
audio coding. He is the 'father' of perceptually-based, high quality
(CD quality) audio coding within AT&T and is widely recognized outside
AT&T for his many seminal contributions within this field. Over the
past decade, Johnston has created several perceptually based audio
coders, each of which was the most technically advanced for its time.
Johnston's work has formed the basis for the audio coding component of
the MPEG (Motion Picture Experts Group) video coding standards, most
notably MPEG-1 and MPEG-2. Most recently, he has been the driving force
inside AT&T behind the MPEG Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) standard.

Johnston's original work in audio began by asking the following
fundamental question:

"what is the fewest number of bits needed to code only the perceptually
audible parts (i.e., what a human can actually hear) of any audio
signal?"
He proceeded to define the rate at which we could code a stereo audio
signal so that the resulting noise (or distortion) was perceptually
inaudible as the 'perceptual entropy' of the music signal. In order to
build real systems that could approach this perceptual entropy rate,
Johnston created an empirical model of human auditory masking, based on
the results of classical psychophysical auditory experiments. This
model became the basis behind Johnston's objective metric for
determining perceptual entropy. Once he had created this model, his
objective then was to incorporate it into the first perceptually-based
audio coder. Once this was accomplished, the goal was to continuously
improve the model and begin to approach the perceptual entropy rate.
Over the course of a decade, many more refinements to the perceptual
audio model have followed, such as techniques to take advantage of
stereo coding, temporal noise shaping, etc. Along the way, the central
theme has always been that the selection of components to quantize and
encode should be based strictly on perceptual criteria.

Over the course of the past decade, Johnston has participated regularly
in the ISO-MPEG audio standards group. Although Johnston's work has
been heavily represented in all the audio coding standards parts of
MPEG, most recently he has achieved the most important success to date,
the MPEG Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) standard. This modern standard
embodies all of the contributions that Johnston and his AT&T
colleagues, as well as co-workers in the field, have made. Recent
independent test results showed that the AAC coder achieved sound
quality superior to that of all other commonly used audio compression
standards.

In recognition of the inventions that made it possible to reduce the
bit rate needed for transmission or storage of high quality audio by a
factor of ten, or more, Jim Johnston was named a New Jersey Inventor of
the Year. "
************************************************** ***********

Now why would someone of his stature say this?

************************************************** ***********
"First, I'm astonished that someone is chastising the author for
preferring LP's over CD's. I'd also be astonished if someone was
criticizing someone going the other way. LP's are definitely less
clean, have much more distortion, a wee bit wider bandwidth, maybe, if
everyone and everbody was really careful, but you know what? IT IS HIS
PREFERENCE. Judging a preference is, well, silly to say the least.
Quite beyond that, LP's have several known distortion mechanisms that
are understood to sound good to listeners. The fact that some people
prefer this, therefore, is neither surprising nor an indictment of the
listener, who is simply stating his or her preference. I do say that
double-blind tests of some sort are absolutely and incontrovertably
requisite if one is trying to establish differences due ONLY TO
AUDITORY STIMULII. Note the 'if', it's very important. If you want to
know how you'll feel about it in your house and you think one unit is
mud-ugly you might want to NOT... "
************************************************** ************************

So, nob and Mr. Krueger, it would appear that this JJ (and please
correct me if this is not him. This was what came up for a Google
search of Jim Johnston and Bell Labs) has FAR more knowledge about
audio, audio testing and perception than you two nincompoops combined,
and understands that *preference* for LPs is not the Mortal Sin against
the Audio Gods that you two fools would like us all to think.

Have a nice day in that never never land where you two think that you
have answers to any meaningful questions...

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 12:27 am
Email: >

>It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and statements on timbre that
>has her in trouble.

Uh-oh, Jenn.

You are in trouble with nob, the Towering Intellect of r.a.o.

You'd better just give up now. Once nob sets his 'mind' on something,
there's no stopping him.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com
> From: Arny Krueger
> Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 5:45 am
> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
>
>> Last night at a party attended by musicians,
>> recordists, music reviewers, equipment reviewers, and
>> audio develpment engineers I posed the following
>> question:
>
>> "Is listening for differences in sound due to musical
>> differences the same or different from listening for
>> differences in sound due to technical differences."
>
>> They all agreed that listening for differences in sound
>> due to musical differences are different from listening
>> for differences in sound due to technical differences.
>
> Which shoots your argument in the foot, and validates
> everything that Jenn has said.
>
> And let me venture a guess: you won't be able to see why.

I'm sure that if you had anything useful to say Ssshhh!, you'd say it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Nope, Jenn's hook is: I'm a symphony orchestra
>>>> conductor and that makes my opinion better than
>>>> anybody else.
>>
>>> Yet again, that's NOT what I've stated. I've stated
>>> that if we're comparing sounds that are attempting to
>>> replicate the sound of live instruments/voices, I'm well
>>> qualified to do that because I hear the standard more
>>> than most people do and I'm trained to (and paid for)
>>> hearing and listening very subtle differences in sound.
>>
>> Subtle differences of a certain kind, Jenn.
>
> In what way(s) are the subtle differences that I'm
> trained to hear and that I have a great deal of
> experience with different than those that recordists and
> the home consumer use?

Compare and contrast:

http://www.good-ear.com/


and http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> You'd better just give up now. Once nob sets his 'mind' on something,
> there's no stopping him.

That's not strictly true. He can often be lured off his mission by, say, a
teeming nest of juicy ants, or a bag of crunchy grasshoppers.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com

> But I DO know what Bell Labs and AT&T were/are, and it
> would seem that, since he is now apparently working for
> Microsoft, and that the President of Microsoft has been
> recently quoted in business magazines as saying that
> 'hiring the best and smartest' is what he and they are
> all about, this JJ must be a pretty sharp individual
> indeed.

JJ was a very sharp guy, but he doesn't have the monopoly on brains.

> He apparently didn't attack preference either, which
> reinforces my position that you and Mr. Krueger are not
> as intelligent as he is.

I don't attack preferences either. But I do know that preferences is a place
that dissembling radical subjectivists like to go to in order to hide.

> He probably also actually has
> technical 'chops' (which I doubt that you have).

JJ had technical chops. But again that is not something that he has the
world monopoly on.

In AES JJ had lots of credibility, but many considered him to be a little
strange. Some thought him to be a closet golden ear.

I can quibble over whether JJ gave the golden ears too much rope, but in the
end the golden ears strangle themselves with that rope, anyway.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
nk.net
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net
>>
>>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
>>> her statement that violins or any instrument sounds more
>>> real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor that makes
>>> even less sense than it would from an ordinary civilian.
>>
>> It's interesting how all these golden ears make global
>> statements trashing such a highly effective and
>> succesful audio technology as digtal and then hide
>> behind their perferences when asked to explain
>> themselves.

>> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he created
>> with his excessive concern for preferences. The coward
>> broke and ran away from here, leaving us holding the
>> bag! ;-)

> Without giving away too much without his expressed
> permission, it is not exactly as you might think.

I don't have time to play that well-known children's game: "I have a
secret".

> There is no delaing with prefernce it has no
> rationality, no sense whatsoever.

Of course.

> It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and
> statements on timbre that has her in trouble.
> It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at least
> not for me it isn't.

The statements "I have great hearing acuity for technical differences" and
"I prefer LP playback" are mutually incompatible. There's no way that a
person with a modicom of ability to hear the effects of technical
difficuties on audio signals can have much good to say about the LP format,
except that it sounds remarkably good given how screwed up it actually is.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> nk.net
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ink.net
> >>
> >>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
> >>> her statement that violins or any instrument sounds more
> >>> real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor that makes
> >>> even less sense than it would from an ordinary civilian.
> >>
> >> It's interesting how all these golden ears make global
> >> statements trashing such a highly effective and
> >> succesful audio technology as digtal and then hide
> >> behind their perferences when asked to explain
> >> themselves.
>
> >> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he created
> >> with his excessive concern for preferences. The coward
> >> broke and ran away from here, leaving us holding the
> >> bag! ;-)
>
> > Without giving away too much without his expressed
> > permission, it is not exactly as you might think.
>
> I don't have time to play that well-known children's game: "I have a
> secret".
>
> > There is no delaing with prefernce it has no
> > rationality, no sense whatsoever.
>
> Of course.
>
> > It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and
> > statements on timbre that has her in trouble.
> > It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at least
> > not for me it isn't.
>
> The statements "I have great hearing acuity for technical differences" and
> "I prefer LP playback" are mutually incompatible.

Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.

> There's no way that a
> person with a modicom of ability to hear the effects of technical
> difficuties on audio signals can have much good to say about the LP format,
> except that it sounds remarkably good given how screwed up it actually is.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Jenn
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 8:58 am
Email: Jenn >

>> The statements "I have great hearing acuity for technical differences" and
>> "I prefer LP playback" are mutually incompatible.

>Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.

That would not matter. If Mr. Krueger *thinks* that you've said it,
therefore you have.

It's kind if like Descartes. Sort of.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Nope, Jenn's hook is: I'm a symphony orchestra
> >>>> conductor and that makes my opinion better than
> >>>> anybody else.
> >>
> >>> Yet again, that's NOT what I've stated. I've stated
> >>> that if we're comparing sounds that are attempting to
> >>> replicate the sound of live instruments/voices, I'm well
> >>> qualified to do that because I hear the standard more
> >>> than most people do and I'm trained to (and paid for)
> >>> hearing and listening very subtle differences in sound.
> >>
> >> Subtle differences of a certain kind, Jenn.
> >
> > In what way(s) are the subtle differences that I'm
> > trained to hear and that I have a great deal of
> > experience with different than those that recordists and
> > the home consumer use?
>
> Compare and contrast:
>
> http://www.good-ear.com/
>
>
> and http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm

LOL Are you stating that people who do what I do are not trained to
determine small differences in loudness, tone quality, articulation, etc?

[Jenn]

In article om>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> From: Jenn
> Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 8:58 am
> Email: Jenn >
>
> >> The statements "I have great hearing acuity for technical differences" and
> >> "I prefer LP playback" are mutually incompatible.
>
> >Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.
>
> That would not matter. If Mr. Krueger *thinks* that you've said it,
> therefore you have.
>
> It's kind if like Descartes. Sort of.

It happens daily. It must be part of that "debate trade" book, whatever
that is.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > If Mr. Krueger *thinks* that you've said it,
> > therefore you have.

> It happens daily. It must be part of that "debate trade" book, whatever
> that is.

Did you hear the recording of Krooger's mumbly, whiny "debate" with JA
in NYC? Apparently the "debating trade" doesn't translate well to real
life. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, Jenn's hook is: I'm a symphony orchestra
>>>>>> conductor and that makes my opinion better than
>>>>>> anybody else.
>>>>
>>>>> Yet again, that's NOT what I've stated. I've stated
>>>>> that if we're comparing sounds that are attempting to
>>>>> replicate the sound of live instruments/voices, I'm
>>>>> well qualified to do that because I hear the standard
>>>>> more than most people do and I'm trained to (and paid
>>>>> for) hearing and listening very subtle differences in
>>>>> sound.
>>>>
>>>> Subtle differences of a certain kind, Jenn.
>>>
>>> In what way(s) are the subtle differences that I'm
>>> trained to hear and that I have a great deal of
>>> experience with different than those that recordists and
>>> the home consumer use?
>>
>> Compare and contrast:
>>
>> http://www.good-ear.com/
>>
>>
>> and http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm
>
> LOL

You get to laugh by yourself, Jenn.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
>>>>> her statement that violins or any instrument sounds
>>>>> more real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor
>>>>> that makes even less sense than it would from an
>>>>> ordinary civilian.
>>>>
>>>> It's interesting how all these golden ears make global
>>>> statements trashing such a highly effective and
>>>> succesful audio technology as digtal and then hide
>>>> behind their perferences when asked to explain
>>>> themselves.
>>
>>>> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he
>>>> created with his excessive concern for preferences.
>>>> The coward broke and ran away from here, leaving us
>>>> holding the bag! ;-)
>>
>>> Without giving away too much without his expressed
>>> permission, it is not exactly as you might think.
>>
>> I don't have time to play that well-known children's
>> game: "I have a secret".
>>
>>> There is no delaing with prefernce it has no
>>> rationality, no sense whatsoever.
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>>> It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and
>>> statements on timbre that has her in trouble.
>>> It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at least
>>> not for me it isn't.
>>
>> The statements "I have great hearing acuity for
>> technical differences" and "I prefer LP playback" are
>> mutually incompatible.
>
> Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.

Well then Jenn if you have no abilities to hear technical differences, you
have disqualified yourself from commenting on sound quality as related to
any particular technology.

[vlad]

Jenn wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message
> > nk.net
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> > wrote in message
> > >> ink.net
> > >>
> > >>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
> > >>> her statement that violins or any instrument sounds more
> > >>> real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor that makes
> > >>> even less sense than it would from an ordinary civilian.
> > >>
> > >> It's interesting how all these golden ears make global
> > >> statements trashing such a highly effective and
> > >> succesful audio technology as digtal and then hide
> > >> behind their perferences when asked to explain
> > >> themselves.
> >
> > >> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he created
> > >> with his excessive concern for preferences. The coward
> > >> broke and ran away from here, leaving us holding the
> > >> bag! ;-)
> >
> > > Without giving away too much without his expressed
> > > permission, it is not exactly as you might think.
> >
> > I don't have time to play that well-known children's game: "I have a
> > secret".
> >
> > > There is no delaing with prefernce it has no
> > > rationality, no sense whatsoever.
> >
> > Of course.
> >
> > > It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and
> > > statements on timbre that has her in trouble.
> > > It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at least
> > > not for me it isn't.
> >
> > The statements "I have great hearing acuity for technical differences" and
> > "I prefer LP playback" are mutually incompatible.
>
> Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.
>

No, Jenn.

You spent enough bandwidth on RAHE, trying to prove that being a
conductor you have better hearing then us simple peasants.

All of this was to prove that LP's somehow mysteriously have better
timbre of violins. Of course because you have a preconceived bias
favoring LP's you "perception" of timbre is probably just an
argument made on the fly.

Do you want me do dig up archives for you? I think you don't want to
be embarrassed in front of this crowd.

vlad

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
"vlad" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > wrote in message
> > > nk.net
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >> > wrote in message
> > > >> ink.net
> > > >>
> > > >>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
> > > >>> her statement that violins or any instrument sounds more
> > > >>> real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor that makes
> > > >>> even less sense than it would from an ordinary civilian.
> > > >>
> > > >> It's interesting how all these golden ears make global
> > > >> statements trashing such a highly effective and
> > > >> succesful audio technology as digtal and then hide
> > > >> behind their perferences when asked to explain
> > > >> themselves.
> > >
> > > >> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he created
> > > >> with his excessive concern for preferences. The coward
> > > >> broke and ran away from here, leaving us holding the
> > > >> bag! ;-)
> > >
> > > > Without giving away too much without his expressed
> > > > permission, it is not exactly as you might think.
> > >
> > > I don't have time to play that well-known children's game: "I have a
> > > secret".
> > >
> > > > There is no delaing with prefernce it has no
> > > > rationality, no sense whatsoever.
> > >
> > > Of course.
> > >
> > > > It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and
> > > > statements on timbre that has her in trouble.
> > > > It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at least
> > > > not for me it isn't.
> > >
> > > The statements "I have great hearing acuity for technical differences" and
> > > "I prefer LP playback" are mutually incompatible.
> >
> > Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.
> >
>
> No, Jenn.
>
> You spent enough bandwidth on RAHE, trying to prove that being a
> conductor you have better hearing then us simple peasants.

Incorrect, of course. I've never once stated that I have better hearing
than anyone else does. In fact, I've gone out of my way to say that I
DON'T have better hearing.

>
> All of this was to prove that LP's somehow mysteriously have better
> timbre of violins. Of course because you have a preconceived bias
> favoring LP's you "perception" of timbre is probably just an
> argument made on the fly.

Ditto to you since you have a preconceived bias in favor of CD.
>
> Do you want me do dig up archives for you? I think you don't want to
> be embarrassed in front of this crowd.

You can do anything that you wish to, of course, but you won't find a
single post where I state that I have better hearing than anyone else.
Don't worry; I don't expect to hear back from you to admit that you are
wrong.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> nk.net
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> > wrote in message
> >>>> ink.net
> >>>>
> >>>>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
> >>>>> her statement that violins or any instrument sounds
> >>>>> more real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor
> >>>>> that makes even less sense than it would from an
> >>>>> ordinary civilian.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's interesting how all these golden ears make global
> >>>> statements trashing such a highly effective and
> >>>> succesful audio technology as digtal and then hide
> >>>> behind their perferences when asked to explain
> >>>> themselves.
> >>
> >>>> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he
> >>>> created with his excessive concern for preferences.
> >>>> The coward broke and ran away from here, leaving us
> >>>> holding the bag! ;-)
> >>
> >>> Without giving away too much without his expressed
> >>> permission, it is not exactly as you might think.
> >>
> >> I don't have time to play that well-known children's
> >> game: "I have a secret".
> >>
> >>> There is no delaing with prefernce it has no
> >>> rationality, no sense whatsoever.
> >>
> >> Of course.
> >>
> >>> It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and
> >>> statements on timbre that has her in trouble.
> >>> It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at least
> >>> not for me it isn't.
> >>
> >> The statements "I have great hearing acuity for
> >> technical differences" and "I prefer LP playback" are
> >> mutually incompatible.
> >
> > Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.
>
> Well then Jenn if you have no abilities to hear technical differences, you
> have disqualified yourself from commenting on sound quality as related to
> any particular technology.

Incorrect, but I don't expect you to understand why. I can hear
differences just fine, thank you. What I have little knowledge of is
what TECHNICAL differences are causing the differences in sound. That
is certainly not required in order to hear the differences.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Nope, Jenn's hook is: I'm a symphony orchestra
> >>>>>> conductor and that makes my opinion better than
> >>>>>> anybody else.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Yet again, that's NOT what I've stated. I've stated
> >>>>> that if we're comparing sounds that are attempting to
> >>>>> replicate the sound of live instruments/voices, I'm
> >>>>> well qualified to do that because I hear the standard
> >>>>> more than most people do and I'm trained to (and paid
> >>>>> for) hearing and listening very subtle differences in
> >>>>> sound.
> >>>>
> >>>> Subtle differences of a certain kind, Jenn.
> >>>
> >>> In what way(s) are the subtle differences that I'm
> >>> trained to hear and that I have a great deal of
> >>> experience with different than those that recordists and
> >>> the home consumer use?
> >>
> >> Compare and contrast:
> >>
> >> http://www.good-ear.com/
> >>
> >>
> >> and http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm
> >
> > LOL
>
> You get to laugh by yourself, Jenn.

Unattributed snipping and lack of meaningful response noted.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Nope, Jenn's hook is: I'm a symphony orchestra
> >>>>>> conductor and that makes my opinion better than
> >>>>>> anybody else.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Yet again, that's NOT what I've stated. I've stated
> >>>>> that if we're comparing sounds that are attempting to
> >>>>> replicate the sound of live instruments/voices, I'm
> >>>>> well qualified to do that because I hear the standard
> >>>>> more than most people do and I'm trained to (and paid
> >>>>> for) hearing and listening very subtle differences in
> >>>>> sound.
> >>>>
> >>>> Subtle differences of a certain kind, Jenn.
> >>>
> >>> In what way(s) are the subtle differences that I'm
> >>> trained to hear and that I have a great deal of
> >>> experience with different than those that recordists and
> >>> the home consumer use?
> >>
> >> Compare and contrast:
> >>
> >> http://www.good-ear.com/
> >>
> >>
> >> and http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm
> >
> > LOL
>
> You get to laugh by yourself, Jenn.

No, we're still laughing from the last time you posted the good-ear URL.

Pitches, chord quality, etc, are just the beginnings of what musicians
learn to hear.

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > Well then Jenn if you have no abilities to hear technical differences, you
> > have disqualified yourself from commenting on sound quality as related to
> > any particular technology.

> Incorrect, but I don't expect you to understand why. I can hear
> differences just fine, thank you. What I have little knowledge of is
> what TECHNICAL differences are causing the differences in sound. That
> is certainly not required in order to hear the differences.

Sorry to tell you but you must, perforce of the strictures of Kroologic, be
wrong. It's like this, see: All aspects of audio are sciciccnetttificic,
which is a synonym for tekknikkle, which is how the Krooborg tries to define
his pathetic existence. Which is to say that if you try to define a
phenomenon as "nontechnical", you trigger misfires in the Beast's neurons,
which in turn causes his nanites to rush to his extrusionary reproductive
control center, thereby unmanning him. So you see, Jenn, sincere though you
might be, your klaims of perceiving auditory phenomena without a tekknikkle
explanation therefor have quite a deleterious effect on the Krooborg's being.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> Well then Jenn if you have no abilities to hear
>> technical differences, you have disqualified yourself
>> from commenting on sound quality as related to any
>> particular technology.

> Incorrect, but I don't expect you to understand why.

Pomposity noted.


> I can hear differences just fine, thank you.

Oh, so you can hear any difference, Jenn?

Well Jenn, I guess we need to get you and Mirabel together for a good fight
because he seems to think that some differences can't be heard. I'm prone to
agree with him about that for some reason.

IOW, that was an ignorant thing for you to say!

> What I have
> little knowledge of is what TECHNICAL differences are
> causing the differences in sound.

It's kinda hard to avoid being awed to the point of speechlessness by
someone who thinks they can hear any and all differences. Here's a hint -
doing sighted evaluations is a good way to maintain that myth.

> That is certainly not
> required in order to hear the differences.

Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed ability to hear the
difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article
> . com>,
> "vlad" > wrote:
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> nk.net
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ink.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
>>>>>>> her statement that violins or any instrument sounds
>>>>>>> more real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor
>>>>>>> that makes even less sense than it would from an
>>>>>>> ordinary civilian.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's interesting how all these golden ears make
>>>>>> global statements trashing such a highly effective
>>>>>> and succesful audio technology as digtal and then
>>>>>> hide behind their perferences when asked to explain
>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he
>>>>>> created with his excessive concern for preferences.
>>>>>> The coward broke and ran away from here, leaving us
>>>>>> holding the bag! ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> Without giving away too much without his expressed
>>>>> permission, it is not exactly as you might think.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have time to play that well-known children's
>>>> game: "I have a secret".
>>>>
>>>>> There is no delaing with prefernce it has no
>>>>> rationality, no sense whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>> Of course.
>>>>
>>>>> It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and
>>>>> statements on timbre that has her in trouble.
>>>>> It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at
>>>>> least not for me it isn't.
>>>>
>>>> The statements "I have great hearing acuity for
>>>> technical differences" and "I prefer LP playback" are
>>>> mutually incompatible.
>>>
>>> Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.
>>>
>>
>> No, Jenn.
>>
>> You spent enough bandwidth on RAHE, trying to prove that
>> being a conductor you have better hearing then us simple
>> peasants.
>
> Incorrect, of course. I've never once stated that I have
> better hearing than anyone else does. In fact, I've gone
> out of my way to say that I DON'T have better hearing.

You've said that your preference for LPs is has a technical basis related to
sound quality, right?

>> All of this was to prove that LP's somehow mysteriously
>> have better timbre of violins. Of course because you
>> have a preconceived bias favoring LP's you "perception"
>> of timbre is probably just an argument made on the fly.

> Ditto to you since you have a preconceived bias in favor
> of CD.

One does not need to have a bias toward CD to favor it. All one needs is a
bias towards accurate reproduction.

Remember that it is impossible for a LP playback system to pass the usual
tests for sonic accuracy based on use of good listeners, while it is fairly
easy for a relatively inexpensive optical player to pass.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Jenn, Rather than listen to this blather, from a technical wannabe:

"Oh, so you can hear any difference, Jenn?"

"Pomposity noted."

"Well Jenn, I guess we need to get you and Mirabel together for a good
fight
because he seems to think that some differences can't be heard. I'm
prone to
agree with him about that for some reason."


"IOW, that was an ignorant thing for you to say!"

"It's kinda hard to avoid being awed to the point of speechlessness by
someone who thinks they can hear any and all differences. Here's a hint
-
doing sighted evaluations is a good way to maintain that myth."

"Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed ability to hear
the
difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?"

Listen to what the guy who apparently developed many of the CODECS used
in digital audio has to say:

"First, I'm astonished that someone is chastising the author for
preferring LP's over CD's. I'd also be astonished if someone was
criticizing someone going the other way. LP's are definitely less
clean, have much more distortion, a wee bit wider bandwidth, maybe, if
everyone and everbody was really careful, but you know what? IT IS HIS
PREFERENCE. Judging a preference is, well, silly to say the least.
Quite beyond that, LP's have several known distortion mechanisms that
are understood to sound good to listeners. The fact that some people
prefer this, therefore, is neither surprising nor an indictment of the
listener, who is simply stating his or her preference. I do say that
double-blind tests of some sort are absolutely and incontrovertably
requisite if one is trying to establish differences due ONLY TO
AUDITORY STIMULII. Note the 'if', it's very important. If you want to
know how you'll feel about it in your house and you think one unit is
mud-ugly you might want to NOT... "

Now Mr. Krueger HAS implied that perhaps this JJ was a "Super-secret
closet golden-ear" which is today's version, apparently, of what a
"Communist" was during the McCarthy years.

But I'd still put my money with someone (JJ) that has the chops, has
the background, has the training and education, and has the brains to
see the difference between preference, either sighted or no.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> But I'd still put my money with someone (JJ) that has the chops, has
> the background, has the training and education, and has the brains to
> see the difference between preference, either sighted or no.

I'm sure that's all true, but the biggest difference between Phoebe and the
Krooborg is the same as between everybody and the Krooborg: Arnii is crazy
and we're not.

(I realize that rubric doesn't fully explain Mikey Bug-Eater. I'll get back
to you when the theory is fully realized.)

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com


> But I'd still put my money with someone (JJ) that has the
> chops, has the background, has the training and
> education, and has the brains to see the difference
> between preference, either sighted or no.

I believe Mr. Shhh that you invested your money in vinyl before you read
JJ's post, right?

That means that you've been searching around for someone who will agree with
you that your investment was just all right, correct?

Well, you found him! I hope you're happy now. ;-)

[Jenn]

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote:

> Jenn said:
>
> > > Well then Jenn if you have no abilities to hear technical differences,
> > > you
> > > have disqualified yourself from commenting on sound quality as related to
> > > any particular technology.
>
> > Incorrect, but I don't expect you to understand why. I can hear
> > differences just fine, thank you. What I have little knowledge of is
> > what TECHNICAL differences are causing the differences in sound. That
> > is certainly not required in order to hear the differences.
>
> Sorry to tell you but you must, perforce of the strictures of Kroologic, be
> wrong. It's like this, see: All aspects of audio are sciciccnetttificic,
> which is a synonym for tekknikkle, which is how the Krooborg tries to define
> his pathetic existence. Which is to say that if you try to define a
> phenomenon as "nontechnical", you trigger misfires in the Beast's neurons,
> which in turn causes his nanites to rush to his extrusionary reproductive
> control center, thereby unmanning him. So you see, Jenn, sincere though you
> might be, your klaims of perceiving auditory phenomena without a tekknikkle
> explanation therefor have quite a deleterious effect on the Krooborg's being.

I see. Thanks for that.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com

> What I *have* said is that I've had a large LP collection
> from before CD was available. It gives satisfactory
> sound.

I guess that's a good thing.

>On some recordings where I have both formats, LP
> sounds better to me.

I've heard some CDs that were so badly mastered that they sounded harsher
than the corresponding LP.

> I do not see the need to spend the
> approximately $50,000+ dollars it would take to get the
> recordings that I have on CD. And many of the recordings
> are not available on CD.

Economic pressures are reasonable means to establish a course of action.

> I have also stated that you are
> attacking a preference, which is about as smart as eating
> somebody else's used food.

Say what you will and have a nice day!

> Now, that is what I've actually said. If you can find me
> saying anything different, please post it.

Not worth the trouble.

> But what I expect from you is more of your twisting and
> lying. Sadly, that seems to be an ingrained pattern with
> you. Take a small part of what is said, then add whatever
> it is you want in order to support whatever weak point
> that you want to make.

Feeling a little paranoid today?

> And I don't think that I mentioned the fact that I also
> own over 1500 CDs. That might put a small dent in my
> being dubbed a 'vinyl bigot' by you.

Whatever floats your boat... ;-)

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article
> > . com>,
> > "vlad" > wrote:
> >
> >> Jenn wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> > wrote in message
> >>>> nk.net
> >>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>>> ink.net
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
> >>>>>>> her statement that violins or any instrument sounds
> >>>>>>> more real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor
> >>>>>>> that makes even less sense than it would from an
> >>>>>>> ordinary civilian.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's interesting how all these golden ears make
> >>>>>> global statements trashing such a highly effective
> >>>>>> and succesful audio technology as digtal and then
> >>>>>> hide behind their perferences when asked to explain
> >>>>>> themselves.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he
> >>>>>> created with his excessive concern for preferences.
> >>>>>> The coward broke and ran away from here, leaving us
> >>>>>> holding the bag! ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>>> Without giving away too much without his expressed
> >>>>> permission, it is not exactly as you might think.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't have time to play that well-known children's
> >>>> game: "I have a secret".
> >>>>
> >>>>> There is no delaing with prefernce it has no
> >>>>> rationality, no sense whatsoever.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course.
> >>>>
> >>>>> It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and
> >>>>> statements on timbre that has her in trouble.
> >>>>> It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at
> >>>>> least not for me it isn't.
> >>>>
> >>>> The statements "I have great hearing acuity for
> >>>> technical differences" and "I prefer LP playback" are
> >>>> mutually incompatible.
> >>>
> >>> Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No, Jenn.
> >>
> >> You spent enough bandwidth on RAHE, trying to prove that
> >> being a conductor you have better hearing then us simple
> >> peasants.
> >
> > Incorrect, of course. I've never once stated that I have
> > better hearing than anyone else does. In fact, I've gone
> > out of my way to say that I DON'T have better hearing.
>
> You've said that your preference for LPs is has a technical basis related to
> sound quality, right?

1. My preference for LP is pretty much limited to the timbre aspects of
music.
2. I've said that given the choice you gave me that the differences
that I hear are either my imagination or based on some unknown technical
reasons, the answer is technical reasons. I don't claim to know what
those technical reasons are.

>
> >> All of this was to prove that LP's somehow mysteriously
> >> have better timbre of violins. Of course because you
> >> have a preconceived bias favoring LP's you "perception"
> >> of timbre is probably just an argument made on the fly.
>
> > Ditto to you since you have a preconceived bias in favor
> > of CD.
>
> One does not need to have a bias toward CD to favor it. All one needs is a
> bias towards accurate reproduction.

And all that one needs to like many LPs is a bias toward good sounding
string playing.
>
> Remember that it is impossible for a LP playback system to pass the usual
> tests for sonic accuracy based on use of good listeners, while it is fairly
> easy for a relatively inexpensive optical player to pass.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
> [dot] net> wrote:
>
>> Sorry to tell you but you must, perforce of the
>> strictures of Kroologic, be wrong. It's like this, see:
>> All aspects of audio are sciciccnetttificic, which is a
>> synonym for tekknikkle, which is how the Krooborg tries
>> to define his pathetic existence. Which is to say that
>> if you try to define a phenomenon as "nontechnical", you
>> trigger misfires in the Beast's neurons, which in turn
>> causes his nanites to rush to his extrusionary
>> reproductive control center, thereby unmanning him. So
>> you see, Jenn, sincere though you might be, your klaims
>> of perceiving auditory phenomena without a tekknikkle
>> explanation therefor have quite a deleterious effect on
>> the Krooborg's being.
>
> I see. Thanks for that.

Jenn is apparently the kind of girl who likes to incite others to fight.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> . com>,
>>> "vlad" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> nk.net
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ink.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
>>>>>>>>> her statement that violins or any instrument
>>>>>>>>> sounds more real on LP, and mostly becuase as a
>>>>>>>>> Conductor that makes even less sense than it
>>>>>>>>> would from an ordinary civilian.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's interesting how all these golden ears make
>>>>>>>> global statements trashing such a highly effective
>>>>>>>> and succesful audio technology as digtal and then
>>>>>>>> hide behind their perferences when asked to explain
>>>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he
>>>>>>>> created with his excessive concern for preferences.
>>>>>>>> The coward broke and ran away from here, leaving us
>>>>>>>> holding the bag! ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Without giving away too much without his expressed
>>>>>>> permission, it is not exactly as you might think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have time to play that well-known children's
>>>>>> game: "I have a secret".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no delaing with prefernce it has no
>>>>>>> rationality, no sense whatsoever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and
>>>>>>> statements on timbre that has her in trouble.
>>>>>>> It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at
>>>>>>> least not for me it isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The statements "I have great hearing acuity for
>>>>>> technical differences" and "I prefer LP playback" are
>>>>>> mutually incompatible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, Jenn.
>>>>
>>>> You spent enough bandwidth on RAHE, trying to prove
>>>> that being a conductor you have better hearing then us
>>>> simple peasants.
>>>
>>> Incorrect, of course. I've never once stated that I
>>> have better hearing than anyone else does. In fact,
>>> I've gone out of my way to say that I DON'T have better
>>> hearing.
>>
>> You've said that your preference for LPs is has a
>> technical basis related to sound quality, right?
>
> 1. My preference for LP is pretty much limited to the
> timbre aspects of music.
> 2. I've said that given the choice you gave me that the
> differences that I hear are either my imagination or
> based on some unknown technical reasons, the answer is
> technical reasons. I don't claim to know what those
> technical reasons are.
>
>>
>>>> All of this was to prove that LP's somehow mysteriously
>>>> have better timbre of violins. Of course because you
>>>> have a preconceived bias favoring LP's you "perception"
>>>> of timbre is probably just an argument made on the fly.

>>> Ditto to you since you have a preconceived bias in favor
>>> of CD.
>>
>> One does not need to have a bias toward CD to favor it.
>> All one needs is a bias towards accurate reproduction.

> And all that one needs to like many LPs is a bias toward
> good sounding string playing.

Well that would actually be: "Good sounding string playing overlaid by
numerous kinds of audible noises and distortions". But Jenn if you think
that randomly selected audible noise and distortion makes music sound better
to you, then enjoy!

>> Remember that it is impossible for a LP playback system
>> to pass the usual tests for sonic accuracy based on use
>> of good listeners, while it is fairly easy for a
>> relatively inexpensive optical player to pass.

Odd that Jenn just left this paragraph sitting here, given that it is
meaningless to her, I guess.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> Well then Jenn if you have no abilities to hear
> >> technical differences, you have disqualified yourself
> >> from commenting on sound quality as related to any
> >> particular technology.
>
> > Incorrect, but I don't expect you to understand why.
>
> Pomposity noted.

Not pompous at all; just the facts. You've made it very clear that all
you focus on are the technical aspects of audio. You've displayed no
interest in or understanding of how things sound.
>
>
> > I can hear differences just fine, thank you.
>
> Oh, so you can hear any difference, Jenn?

Of course I can hear the difference between CD and LP.

>
> Well Jenn, I guess we need to get you and Mirabel together for a good fight
> because he seems to think that some differences can't be heard. I'm prone to
> agree with him about that for some reason.

Yet another example of attempting to put words in my mouth. I never
said that I can hear all differences.
>
> IOW, that was an ignorant thing for you to say!

See above.

>
> > What I have
> > little knowledge of is what TECHNICAL differences are
> > causing the differences in sound.
>
> It's kinda hard to avoid being awed to the point of speechlessness

But that is certainly a worthwhile goal...

> by
> someone who thinks they can hear any and all differences.

I never said that, but that obviously won't stop you.

> Here's a hint -
> doing sighted evaluations is a good way to maintain that myth.
>
> > That is certainly not
> > required in order to hear the differences.
>
> Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed ability to hear the
> difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?

Yet ANOTHER example of putting words in my mouth. Why don't you just
try the truth? I've never said that I can tell the difference between
440 and 441.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> Jenn, Rather than listen to this blather, from a technical wannabe:
>
> "Oh, so you can hear any difference, Jenn?"
>
> "Pomposity noted."
>
> "Well Jenn, I guess we need to get you and Mirabel together for a good
> fight
> because he seems to think that some differences can't be heard. I'm
> prone to
> agree with him about that for some reason."
>
>
> "IOW, that was an ignorant thing for you to say!"
>
> "It's kinda hard to avoid being awed to the point of speechlessness by
> someone who thinks they can hear any and all differences. Here's a hint
> -
> doing sighted evaluations is a good way to maintain that myth."
>
> "Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed ability to hear
> the
> difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?"
>
> Listen to what the guy who apparently developed many of the CODECS used
> in digital audio has to say:
>
> "First, I'm astonished that someone is chastising the author for
> preferring LP's over CD's. I'd also be astonished if someone was
> criticizing someone going the other way. LP's are definitely less
> clean, have much more distortion, a wee bit wider bandwidth, maybe, if
> everyone and everbody was really careful, but you know what? IT IS HIS
> PREFERENCE. Judging a preference is, well, silly to say the least.
> Quite beyond that, LP's have several known distortion mechanisms that
> are understood to sound good to listeners. The fact that some people
> prefer this, therefore, is neither surprising nor an indictment of the
> listener, who is simply stating his or her preference. I do say that
> double-blind tests of some sort are absolutely and incontrovertably
> requisite if one is trying to establish differences due ONLY TO
> AUDITORY STIMULII. Note the 'if', it's very important. If you want to
> know how you'll feel about it in your house and you think one unit is
> mud-ugly you might want to NOT... "
>
> Now Mr. Krueger HAS implied that perhaps this JJ was a "Super-secret
> closet golden-ear" which is today's version, apparently, of what a
> "Communist" was during the McCarthy years.
>
> But I'd still put my money with someone (JJ) that has the chops, has
> the background, has the training and education, and has the brains to
> see the difference between preference, either sighted or no.

I'm going to read more of his posts; sounds like an interesting guy.
Thanks.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> nk.net
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
>>>>>> her statement that violins or any instrument sounds
>>>>>> more real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor
>>>>>> that makes even less sense than it would from an
>>>>>> ordinary civilian.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's interesting how all these golden ears make global
>>>>> statements trashing such a highly effective and
>>>>> succesful audio technology as digtal and then hide
>>>>> behind their perferences when asked to explain
>>>>> themselves.
>>>
>>>>> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he
>>>>> created with his excessive concern for preferences.
>>>>> The coward broke and ran away from here, leaving us
>>>>> holding the bag! ;-)
>>>
>>>> Without giving away too much without his expressed
>>>> permission, it is not exactly as you might think.
>>>
>>> I don't have time to play that well-known children's
>>> game: "I have a secret".
>>>
>>>> There is no delaing with prefernce it has no
>>>> rationality, no sense whatsoever.
>>>
>>> Of course.
>>>
>>>> It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and
>>>> statements on timbre that has her in trouble.
>>>> It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at least
>>>> not for me it isn't.
>>>
>>> The statements "I have great hearing acuity for
>>> technical differences" and "I prefer LP playback" are
>>> mutually incompatible.
>>
>> Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.
>
> Well then Jenn if you have no abilities to hear technical differences, you
> have disqualified yourself from commenting on sound quality as related to
> any particular technology.

Uh, yeah, kind like she can't judge the difference between ordinary TV and
HDTV because she doesn't know the scan line resolutions, right Arny?

[Harry Lavo]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jenn, Rather than listen to this blather, from a technical wannabe:
>
> "Oh, so you can hear any difference, Jenn?"
>
> "Pomposity noted."
>
> "Well Jenn, I guess we need to get you and Mirabel together for a good
> fight
> because he seems to think that some differences can't be heard. I'm
> prone to
> agree with him about that for some reason."
>
>
> "IOW, that was an ignorant thing for you to say!"
>
> "It's kinda hard to avoid being awed to the point of speechlessness by
> someone who thinks they can hear any and all differences. Here's a hint
> -
> doing sighted evaluations is a good way to maintain that myth."
>
> "Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed ability to hear
> the
> difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?"
>
> Listen to what the guy who apparently developed many of the CODECS used
> in digital audio has to say:
>
> "First, I'm astonished that someone is chastising the author for
> preferring LP's over CD's. I'd also be astonished if someone was
> criticizing someone going the other way. LP's are definitely less
> clean, have much more distortion, a wee bit wider bandwidth, maybe, if
> everyone and everbody was really careful, but you know what? IT IS HIS
> PREFERENCE. Judging a preference is, well, silly to say the least.
> Quite beyond that, LP's have several known distortion mechanisms that
> are understood to sound good to listeners. The fact that some people
> prefer this, therefore, is neither surprising nor an indictment of the
> listener, who is simply stating his or her preference. I do say that
> double-blind tests of some sort are absolutely and incontrovertably
> requisite if one is trying to establish differences due ONLY TO
> AUDITORY STIMULII. Note the 'if', it's very important. If you want to
> know how you'll feel about it in your house and you think one unit is
> mud-ugly you might want to NOT... "
>
> Now Mr. Krueger HAS implied that perhaps this JJ was a "Super-secret
> closet golden-ear" which is today's version, apparently, of what a
> "Communist" was during the McCarthy years.
>
> But I'd still put my money with someone (JJ) that has the chops, has
> the background, has the training and education, and has the brains to
> see the difference between preference, either sighted or no.
>

He also was a good recordist and understood live sound better than Arny.
Perhaps that is why he was not a digital dictator despite his expertise in
the subject.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message


> You've made it very
> clear that all you focus on are the technical aspects of
> audio. You've displayed no interest in or understanding
> of how things sound.

What makes you think that way, Jenn?

Is it:

All the live and recorded music that I listen to?

The time, money and effort I've spent to obtain good sound by various means?

The fact that I favor the pure sound of live music with minimal noise and
distortion?

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> nk.net
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ink.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
>>>>>>> her statement that violins or any instrument sounds
>>>>>>> more real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor
>>>>>>> that makes even less sense than it would from an
>>>>>>> ordinary civilian.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's interesting how all these golden ears make
>>>>>> global statements trashing such a highly effective
>>>>>> and succesful audio technology as digtal and then
>>>>>> hide behind their perferences when asked to explain
>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he
>>>>>> created with his excessive concern for preferences.
>>>>>> The coward broke and ran away from here, leaving us
>>>>>> holding the bag! ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> Without giving away too much without his expressed
>>>>> permission, it is not exactly as you might think.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have time to play that well-known children's
>>>> game: "I have a secret".
>>>>
>>>>> There is no delaing with prefernce it has no
>>>>> rationality, no sense whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>> Of course.
>>>>
>>>>> It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and
>>>>> statements on timbre that has her in trouble.
>>>>> It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at
>>>>> least not for me it isn't.
>>>>
>>>> The statements "I have great hearing acuity for
>>>> technical differences" and "I prefer LP playback" are
>>>> mutually incompatible.
>>>
>>> Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.
>>
>> Well then Jenn if you have no abilities to hear
>> technical differences, you have disqualified yourself
>> from commenting on sound quality as related to any
>> particular technology.

> Uh, yeah, kind like she can't judge the difference
> between ordinary TV and HDTV because she doesn't know the
> scan line resolutions, right Arny?

Can't read very well any more, can you Harry?

[Harry Lavo]

"vlad" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jenn wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>> > > wrote in message
>> > nk.net
>> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > >> > wrote in message
>> > >> ink.net
>> > >>
>> > >>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
>> > >>> her statement that violins or any instrument sounds more
>> > >>> real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor that makes
>> > >>> even less sense than it would from an ordinary civilian.
>> > >>
>> > >> It's interesting how all these golden ears make global
>> > >> statements trashing such a highly effective and
>> > >> succesful audio technology as digtal and then hide
>> > >> behind their perferences when asked to explain
>> > >> themselves.
>> >
>> > >> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he created
>> > >> with his excessive concern for preferences. The coward
>> > >> broke and ran away from here, leaving us holding the
>> > >> bag! ;-)
>> >
>> > > Without giving away too much without his expressed
>> > > permission, it is not exactly as you might think.
>> >
>> > I don't have time to play that well-known children's game: "I have a
>> > secret".
>> >
>> > > There is no delaing with prefernce it has no
>> > > rationality, no sense whatsoever.
>> >
>> > Of course.
>> >
>> > > It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and
>> > > statements on timbre that has her in trouble.
>> > > It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at least
>> > > not for me it isn't.
>> >
>> > The statements "I have great hearing acuity for technical differences"
>> > and
>> > "I prefer LP playback" are mutually incompatible.
>>
>> Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.
>>
>
> No, Jenn.
>
> You spent enough bandwidth on RAHE, trying to prove that being a
> conductor you have better hearing then us simple peasants.
>
> All of this was to prove that LP's somehow mysteriously have better
> timbre of violins. Of course because you have a preconceived bias
> favoring LP's you "perception" of timbre is probably just an
> argument made on the fly.
>
> Do you want me do dig up archives for you? I think you don't want to
> be embarrassed in front of this crowd.


Vlad, that's unfair to her.

She spent her time on RAHE asserting that she understood the sound of LIVE
MUSIC perhaps better than most audiophiles because she spent so much of her
time listening/adjusting/dealing with it. And when people attempted to
twist that as you j ust have, she corrected them.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Jenn, Rather than listen to this blather, from a
>> technical wannabe: "Oh, so you can hear any difference, Jenn?"
>>
>> "Pomposity noted."
>>
>> "Well Jenn, I guess we need to get you and Mirabel
>> together for a good fight
>> because he seems to think that some differences can't be
>> heard. I'm prone to
>> agree with him about that for some reason."
>>
>>
>> "IOW, that was an ignorant thing for you to say!"
>>
>> "It's kinda hard to avoid being awed to the point of
>> speechlessness by someone who thinks they can hear any
>> and all differences. Here's a hint -
>> doing sighted evaluations is a good way to maintain that
>> myth." "Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed
>> ability to hear the
>> difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?"
>>
>> Listen to what the guy who apparently developed many of
>> the CODECS used in digital audio has to say:
>>
>> "First, I'm astonished that someone is chastising the
>> author for preferring LP's over CD's. I'd also be
>> astonished if someone was criticizing someone going the
>> other way. LP's are definitely less clean, have much
>> more distortion, a wee bit wider bandwidth, maybe, if
>> everyone and everbody was really careful, but you know
>> what? IT IS HIS PREFERENCE. Judging a preference is,
>> well, silly to say the least. Quite beyond that, LP's
>> have several known distortion mechanisms that are
>> understood to sound good to listeners. The fact that
>> some people prefer this, therefore, is neither
>> surprising nor an indictment of the listener, who is
>> simply stating his or her preference. I do say that
>> double-blind tests of some sort are absolutely and
>> incontrovertably requisite if one is trying to establish
>> differences due ONLY TO AUDITORY STIMULII. Note the
>> 'if', it's very important. If you want to know how
>> you'll feel about it in your house and you think one
>> unit is mud-ugly you might want to NOT... " Now Mr. Krueger HAS
>> implied that perhaps this JJ was a
>> "Super-secret closet golden-ear" which is today's
>> version, apparently, of what a "Communist" was during
>> the McCarthy years. But I'd still put my money with someone (JJ) that has
>> the chops, has the background, has the training and
>> education, and has the brains to see the difference
>> between preference, either sighted or no.
>
> He also was a good recordist and understood live sound
> better than Arny.

How do you know that, Harry?

Ever been to an event where I set up or mixed the live sound?

> Perhaps that is why he was not a
> digital dictator despite his expertise in the subject.

So Harry, what's a "digital dictator"?

Trashing my preferences?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>> Now, that is what I've actually said. If you can find me
>> saying anything different, please post it.

>Not worth the trouble.

I'm sure it *is* easier just to make it up as you go along.

>> But what I expect from you is more of your twisting and
>> lying. Sadly, that seems to be an ingrained pattern with
>> you. Take a small part of what is said, then add whatever
>> it is you want in order to support whatever weak point
>> that you want to make.

>Feeling a little paranoid today?

Not at all. To find your lies, all I have to do is go up a couple of
posts...;-)

Watch the devious transformation from specualtion to 'truth.'

>That means that you've been searching around for someone who will agree with
>you that your investment was just all right, correct?

>Well, you found him! I hope you're happy now. ;-)

See how that works? Make a claim, then assert it as truth. When it is,
of course, a lie.

I think that you're a Karl Rove sockpuppet.;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "vlad" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Jenn wrote:
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> nk.net
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ink.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
>>>>>>> her statement that violins or any instrument sounds
>>>>>>> more real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor
>>>>>>> that makes even less sense than it would from an
>>>>>>> ordinary civilian.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's interesting how all these golden ears make
>>>>>> global statements trashing such a highly effective
>>>>>> and succesful audio technology as digtal and then
>>>>>> hide behind their perferences when asked to explain
>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he
>>>>>> created with his excessive concern for preferences.
>>>>>> The coward broke and ran away from here, leaving us
>>>>>> holding the bag! ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> Without giving away too much without his expressed
>>>>> permission, it is not exactly as you might think.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have time to play that well-known children's
>>>> game: "I have a secret".
>>>>
>>>>> There is no delaing with prefernce it has no
>>>>> rationality, no sense whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>> Of course.
>>>>
>>>>> It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and
>>>>> statements on timbre that has her in trouble.
>>>>> It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at
>>>>> least not for me it isn't.
>>>>
>>>> The statements "I have great hearing acuity for
>>>> technical differences" and
>>>> "I prefer LP playback" are mutually incompatible.
>>>
>>> Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.
>>>
>>
>> No, Jenn.
>>
>> You spent enough bandwidth on RAHE, trying to prove that
>> being a conductor you have better hearing then us simple
>> peasants. All of this was to prove that LP's somehow mysteriously
>> have better timbre of violins. Of course because you
>> have a preconceived bias favoring LP's you "perception"
>> of timbre is probably just an argument made on the fly.
>>
>> Do you want me do dig up archives for you? I think you
>> don't want to be embarrassed in front of this crowd.

> Vlad, that's unfair to her.

> She spent her time on RAHE asserting that she understood
> the sound of LIVE MUSIC perhaps better than most
> audiophiles because she spent so much of her time
> listening/adjusting/dealing with it.

Hey just when we need, confirmation of what Vlad just said!

Thank you very much, Harry.

What we know for sure is that some people have a preference for music with
excessive and randomly-chosen noise and distortion added. There's no known
correlation between occupation or education and this preferece - it just
exists.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
> > You've made it very
> > clear that all you focus on are the technical aspects of
> > audio. You've displayed no interest in or understanding
> > of how things sound.
>
> What makes you think that way, Jenn?
>
> Is it:
>
> All the live and recorded music that I listen to?
>
> The time, money and effort I've spent to obtain good sound by various means?
>
> The fact that I favor the pure sound of live music with minimal noise and
> distortion?

No, the fact that you rarely discuss the sound of actual music.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
> > "vlad" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >>
> >> Jenn wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>> > wrote in message
> >>>> nk.net
> >>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>>> ink.net
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
> >>>>>>> her statement that violins or any instrument sounds
> >>>>>>> more real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor
> >>>>>>> that makes even less sense than it would from an
> >>>>>>> ordinary civilian.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's interesting how all these golden ears make
> >>>>>> global statements trashing such a highly effective
> >>>>>> and succesful audio technology as digtal and then
> >>>>>> hide behind their perferences when asked to explain
> >>>>>> themselves.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he
> >>>>>> created with his excessive concern for preferences.
> >>>>>> The coward broke and ran away from here, leaving us
> >>>>>> holding the bag! ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>>> Without giving away too much without his expressed
> >>>>> permission, it is not exactly as you might think.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't have time to play that well-known children's
> >>>> game: "I have a secret".
> >>>>
> >>>>> There is no delaing with prefernce it has no
> >>>>> rationality, no sense whatsoever.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course.
> >>>>
> >>>>> It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and
> >>>>> statements on timbre that has her in trouble.
> >>>>> It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at
> >>>>> least not for me it isn't.
> >>>>
> >>>> The statements "I have great hearing acuity for
> >>>> technical differences" and
> >>>> "I prefer LP playback" are mutually incompatible.
> >>>
> >>> Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No, Jenn.
> >>
> >> You spent enough bandwidth on RAHE, trying to prove that
> >> being a conductor you have better hearing then us simple
> >> peasants. All of this was to prove that LP's somehow mysteriously
> >> have better timbre of violins. Of course because you
> >> have a preconceived bias favoring LP's you "perception"
> >> of timbre is probably just an argument made on the fly.
> >>
> >> Do you want me do dig up archives for you? I think you
> >> don't want to be embarrassed in front of this crowd.
>
> > Vlad, that's unfair to her.
>
> > She spent her time on RAHE asserting that she understood
> > the sound of LIVE MUSIC perhaps better than most
> > audiophiles because she spent so much of her time
> > listening/adjusting/dealing with it.
>
> Hey just when we need, confirmation of what Vlad just said!

Except that he didn't, Arny.
>
> Thank you very much, Harry.
>
> What we know for sure is that some people have a preference for music with
> excessive and randomly-chosen noise and distortion added. There's no known
> correlation between occupation or education and this preferece - it just
> exists.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: >
> Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 12:29 am
> Email: >
>
>>>> This JJ sounds like he was one hell of a lot more
>>>> intelligent that you are.
>
>>> I would say that he suffers from some of the same weak-mindedness as you
>>> do.
>
>>You say a lot of really stupid **** though, especially since you have zero
>>idea who JJ is.
>
> But I DO know what Bell Labs and AT&T were/are, and it would seem that,
> since he is now apparently working for Microsoft, and that the
> President of Microsoft has been recently quoted in business magazines
> as saying that 'hiring the best and smartest' is what he and they are
> all about, this JJ must be a pretty sharp individual indeed.
>
> He apparently didn't attack preference either, which reinforces my
> position that you and Mr. Krueger are not as intelligent as he is. He
> probably also actually has technical 'chops' (which I doubt that you
> have).
>

He also agreed with Arny on almost every single technical issue, even George
admits to this.

> Is this him? http://www.research.att.com/history/aac.html
>
Yes.

> It looks like he actually did research and stuff pertaining to audio
> other than attacking preference.
>

He wrote the book on AC3.

He, nor I, nor Arny attack preference.

> Why are you so threatened by him?

I'm not, I admire and respect him. I just recently exchanged cordial
e-mails with him.

Why is he 'weak-minded'?
>
I don't beleive he is. I think he got fed up with this group.

> He seems smarter than both of you are.
>
I wouldn't argue that at all.

>>Braver than an anoymouse.
>
> Oh my! So Mr. Krueger is brave (with no brains) and you're brave (with
> no brains).
>
> I'll take not brave (with brains) then. Is that OK with you?
>
Whatever you say, in the end you don't matter, you don't actually exist.

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>> In article
>> . com>,
>> "vlad" > wrote:
>>
>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> >, "Arny
>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> nk.net
>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ink.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
>>>>>>>> her statement that violins or any instrument sounds
>>>>>>>> more real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor
>>>>>>>> that makes even less sense than it would from an
>>>>>>>> ordinary civilian.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's interesting how all these golden ears make
>>>>>>> global statements trashing such a highly effective
>>>>>>> and succesful audio technology as digtal and then
>>>>>>> hide behind their perferences when asked to explain
>>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he
>>>>>>> created with his excessive concern for preferences.
>>>>>>> The coward broke and ran away from here, leaving us
>>>>>>> holding the bag! ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Without giving away too much without his expressed
>>>>>> permission, it is not exactly as you might think.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have time to play that well-known children's
>>>>> game: "I have a secret".
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no delaing with prefernce it has no
>>>>>> rationality, no sense whatsoever.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and
>>>>>> statements on timbre that has her in trouble.
>>>>>> It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at
>>>>>> least not for me it isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> The statements "I have great hearing acuity for
>>>>> technical differences" and "I prefer LP playback" are
>>>>> mutually incompatible.
>>>>
>>>> Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, Jenn.
>>>
>>> You spent enough bandwidth on RAHE, trying to prove that
>>> being a conductor you have better hearing then us simple
>>> peasants.
>>
>> Incorrect, of course. I've never once stated that I have
>> better hearing than anyone else does. In fact, I've gone
>> out of my way to say that I DON'T have better hearing.
>
> You've said that your preference for LPs is has a technical basis related
> to sound quality, right?
>
>>> All of this was to prove that LP's somehow mysteriously
>>> have better timbre of violins. Of course because you
>>> have a preconceived bias favoring LP's you "perception"
>>> of timbre is probably just an argument made on the fly.
>
>> Ditto to you since you have a preconceived bias in favor
>> of CD.
>
> One does not need to have a bias toward CD to favor it. All one needs is a
> bias towards accurate reproduction.
>
> Remember that it is impossible for a LP playback system to pass the usual
> tests for sonic accuracy based on use of good listeners, while it is
> fairly easy for a relatively inexpensive optical player to pass.
>
You might want to peruse the thread on RAHE started by Theporkygeorge titled
"The truth about accuracy of CDvs. LP.

[Clyde Slick]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
>> From: Jenn
>> Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 8:58 am
>> Email: Jenn >
>>
>> >> The statements "I have great hearing acuity for technical differences"
>> >> and
>> >> "I prefer LP playback" are mutually incompatible.
>>
>> >Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.
>>
>> That would not matter. If Mr. Krueger *thinks* that you've said it,
>> therefore you have.
>>
>> It's kind if like Descartes. Sort of.
>
> It happens daily. It must be part of that "debate trade" book, whatever
> that is.

Here is the manual, translated directly form German to Krooglish.

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/controversy/chapter3.html





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

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>> wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Jenn, Rather than listen to this blather, from a
>>> technical wannabe: "Oh, so you can hear any difference, Jenn?"
>>>
>>> "Pomposity noted."
>>>
>>> "Well Jenn, I guess we need to get you and Mirabel
>>> together for a good fight
>>> because he seems to think that some differences can't be
>>> heard. I'm prone to
>>> agree with him about that for some reason."
>>>
>>>
>>> "IOW, that was an ignorant thing for you to say!"
>>>
>>> "It's kinda hard to avoid being awed to the point of
>>> speechlessness by someone who thinks they can hear any
>>> and all differences. Here's a hint -
>>> doing sighted evaluations is a good way to maintain that
>>> myth." "Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed
>>> ability to hear the
>>> difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?"
>>>
>>> Listen to what the guy who apparently developed many of
>>> the CODECS used in digital audio has to say:
>>>
>>> "First, I'm astonished that someone is chastising the
>>> author for preferring LP's over CD's. I'd also be
>>> astonished if someone was criticizing someone going the
>>> other way. LP's are definitely less clean, have much
>>> more distortion, a wee bit wider bandwidth, maybe, if
>>> everyone and everbody was really careful, but you know
>>> what? IT IS HIS PREFERENCE. Judging a preference is,
>>> well, silly to say the least. Quite beyond that, LP's
>>> have several known distortion mechanisms that are
>>> understood to sound good to listeners. The fact that
>>> some people prefer this, therefore, is neither
>>> surprising nor an indictment of the listener, who is
>>> simply stating his or her preference. I do say that
>>> double-blind tests of some sort are absolutely and
>>> incontrovertably requisite if one is trying to establish
>>> differences due ONLY TO AUDITORY STIMULII. Note the
>>> 'if', it's very important. If you want to know how
>>> you'll feel about it in your house and you think one
>>> unit is mud-ugly you might want to NOT... " Now Mr. Krueger HAS
>>> implied that perhaps this JJ was a
>>> "Super-secret closet golden-ear" which is today's
>>> version, apparently, of what a "Communist" was during
>>> the McCarthy years. But I'd still put my money with someone (JJ) that
>>> has
>>> the chops, has the background, has the training and
>>> education, and has the brains to see the difference
>>> between preference, either sighted or no.
>>
>> He also was a good recordist and understood live sound
>> better than Arny.
>
> How do you know that, Harry?
>
> Ever been to an event where I set up or mixed the live sound?

No, but I watched your "emergence" on RAP and your choice of microphones
which you tried to justify initially as being "just as good" and I knew your
didn't know at that point what you were talking about.


>
>> Perhaps that is why he was not a
>> digital dictator despite his expertise in the subject.
>
> So Harry, what's a "digital dictator"?
>
> Trashing my preferences?
>

Nope, you can prefer digital all you want.

It's when you attack others' divergent preferences that you assume the role
of "digital dictator', as do others.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>> In article >,
>> George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
>> [dot] net> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry to tell you but you must, perforce of the
>>> strictures of Kroologic, be wrong. It's like this, see:
>>> All aspects of audio are sciciccnetttificic, which is a
>>> synonym for tekknikkle, which is how the Krooborg tries
>>> to define his pathetic existence. Which is to say that
>>> if you try to define a phenomenon as "nontechnical", you
>>> trigger misfires in the Beast's neurons, which in turn
>>> causes his nanites to rush to his extrusionary
>>> reproductive control center, thereby unmanning him. So
>>> you see, Jenn, sincere though you might be, your klaims
>>> of perceiving auditory phenomena without a tekknikkle
>>> explanation therefor have quite a deleterious effect on
>>> the Krooborg's being.
>>
>> I see. Thanks for that.
>
> Jenn is apparently the kind of girl who likes to incite others to fight.
>

The Kroologic escapes me.



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

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article om>,
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> >
> >> From: Jenn
> >> Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 8:58 am
> >> Email: Jenn >
> >>
> >> >> The statements "I have great hearing acuity for technical differences"
> >> >> and
> >> >> "I prefer LP playback" are mutually incompatible.
> >>
> >> >Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.
> >>
> >> That would not matter. If Mr. Krueger *thinks* that you've said it,
> >> therefore you have.
> >>
> >> It's kind if like Descartes. Sort of.
> >
> > It happens daily. It must be part of that "debate trade" book, whatever
> > that is.
>
> Here is the manual, translated directly form German to Krooglish.
>
> http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/controversy/chapter
> 3.html

Much of that does look familiar in its application here. Thanks.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>> > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>> Jenn, Rather than listen to this blather, from a
>>>> technical wannabe: "Oh, so you can hear any
>>>> difference, Jenn?" "Pomposity noted."
>>>>
>>>> "Well Jenn, I guess we need to get you and Mirabel
>>>> together for a good fight
>>>> because he seems to think that some differences can't
>>>> be heard. I'm prone to
>>>> agree with him about that for some reason."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "IOW, that was an ignorant thing for you to say!"
>>>>
>>>> "It's kinda hard to avoid being awed to the point of
>>>> speechlessness by someone who thinks they can hear any
>>>> and all differences. Here's a hint -
>>>> doing sighted evaluations is a good way to maintain
>>>> that myth." "Which differences? Are you speaking about your
>>>> claimed ability to hear the
>>>> difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?"
>>>>
>>>> Listen to what the guy who apparently developed many of
>>>> the CODECS used in digital audio has to say:
>>>>
>>>> "First, I'm astonished that someone is chastising the
>>>> author for preferring LP's over CD's. I'd also be
>>>> astonished if someone was criticizing someone going the
>>>> other way. LP's are definitely less clean, have much
>>>> more distortion, a wee bit wider bandwidth, maybe, if
>>>> everyone and everbody was really careful, but you know
>>>> what? IT IS HIS PREFERENCE. Judging a preference is,
>>>> well, silly to say the least. Quite beyond that, LP's
>>>> have several known distortion mechanisms that are
>>>> understood to sound good to listeners. The fact that
>>>> some people prefer this, therefore, is neither
>>>> surprising nor an indictment of the listener, who is
>>>> simply stating his or her preference. I do say that
>>>> double-blind tests of some sort are absolutely and
>>>> incontrovertably requisite if one is trying to
>>>> establish differences due ONLY TO AUDITORY STIMULII. Note the
>>>> 'if', it's very important. If you want to know how
>>>> you'll feel about it in your house and you think one
>>>> unit is mud-ugly you might want to NOT... " Now Mr.
>>>> Krueger HAS implied that perhaps this JJ was a
>>>> "Super-secret closet golden-ear" which is today's
>>>> version, apparently, of what a "Communist" was during
>>>> the McCarthy years. But I'd still put my money with
>>>> someone (JJ) that has
>>>> the chops, has the background, has the training and
>>>> education, and has the brains to see the difference
>>>> between preference, either sighted or no.
>>>
>>> He also was a good recordist and understood live sound
>>> better than Arny.
>>
>> How do you know that, Harry?
>>
>> Ever been to an event where I set up or mixed the live
>> sound?
>
> No, but I watched your "emergence" on RAP and your choice
> of microphones which you tried to justify initially as
> being "just as good" and I knew your didn't know at that
> point what you were talking about.
>
>>
>>> Perhaps that is why he was not a
>>> digital dictator despite his expertise in the subject.
>>
>> So Harry, what's a "digital dictator"?
>>
>> Trashing my preferences?
>>
>
> Nope, you can prefer digital all you want.
>
> It's when you attack others' divergent preferences that
> you assume the role of "digital dictator', as do others.

Where am I attacking yous and Jenn's preference for music with noise and
distortion gratuitously added? ;-)

If that's what you prefer, so be it!

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> You've made it very
>>> clear that all you focus on are the technical aspects of
>>> audio. You've displayed no interest in or understanding
>>> of how things sound.
>>
>> What makes you think that way, Jenn?
>>
>> Is it:
>>
>> All the live and recorded music that I listen to?
>>
>> The time, money and effort I've spent to obtain good
>> sound by various means?
>>
>> The fact that I favor the pure sound of live music with
>> minimal noise and distortion?
>
> No, the fact that you rarely discuss the sound of actual
> music.

Well you know Jenn I mixed and mastered almost 3 hours of recorded audio
today, Including over an hour of multitrack music. Talking about it seems
like a lot less than thrilling at the moment.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "vlad" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>>
>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> nk.net
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ink.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
>>>>>>>>> her statement that violins or any instrument
>>>>>>>>> sounds more real on LP, and mostly becuase as a
>>>>>>>>> Conductor that makes even less sense than it
>>>>>>>>> would from an ordinary civilian.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's interesting how all these golden ears make
>>>>>>>> global statements trashing such a highly effective
>>>>>>>> and succesful audio technology as digtal and then
>>>>>>>> hide behind their perferences when asked to explain
>>>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he
>>>>>>>> created with his excessive concern for preferences.
>>>>>>>> The coward broke and ran away from here, leaving us
>>>>>>>> holding the bag! ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Without giving away too much without his expressed
>>>>>>> permission, it is not exactly as you might think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have time to play that well-known children's
>>>>>> game: "I have a secret".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no delaing with prefernce it has no
>>>>>>> rationality, no sense whatsoever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and
>>>>>>> statements on timbre that has her in trouble.
>>>>>>> It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at
>>>>>>> least not for me it isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The statements "I have great hearing acuity for
>>>>>> technical differences" and
>>>>>> "I prefer LP playback" are mutually incompatible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, Jenn.
>>>>
>>>> You spent enough bandwidth on RAHE, trying to prove
>>>> that
>>>> being a conductor you have better hearing then us
>>>> simple peasants. All of this was to prove that LP's
>>>> somehow mysteriously have better timbre of violins. Of
>>>> course because you
>>>> have a preconceived bias favoring LP's you "perception"
>>>> of timbre is probably just an argument made on the fly.
>>>>
>>>> Do you want me do dig up archives for you? I think you
>>>> don't want to be embarrassed in front of this crowd.
>>
>>> Vlad, that's unfair to her.
>>
>>> She spent her time on RAHE asserting that she understood
>>> the sound of LIVE MUSIC perhaps better than most
>>> audiophiles because she spent so much of her time
>>> listening/adjusting/dealing with it.
>>
>> Hey just when we need, confirmation of what Vlad just
>> said!
>
> Except that he didn't, Arny.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

You can start splitting hairs any time, Jenn. ;-)

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> You've made it very
> >>> clear that all you focus on are the technical aspects of
> >>> audio. You've displayed no interest in or understanding
> >>> of how things sound.
> >>
> >> What makes you think that way, Jenn?
> >>
> >> Is it:
> >>
> >> All the live and recorded music that I listen to?
> >>
> >> The time, money and effort I've spent to obtain good
> >> sound by various means?
> >>
> >> The fact that I favor the pure sound of live music with
> >> minimal noise and distortion?
> >
> > No, the fact that you rarely discuss the sound of actual
> > music.
>
> Well you know Jenn I mixed and mastered almost 3 hours of recorded audio
> today, Including over an hour of multitrack music. Talking about it seems
> like a lot less than thrilling at the moment.

Well, I'd have to agree with you there. I had a 1 1/2 hour rehearsal
yesterday and another 2 hours today.... being with actual music is FAR
better than talking about it.

By the way, I was a guest today on the local NPR station, discussing two
upcoming concerts, my work with Frederick Fennell, etc. It was a good
time. Following up on your party conversation that you mentioned
earlier, I asked around the studio about the following:
"What is more important: How a device measures, or how it sounds?
Everyone (EE, other radio heads, n=5) answered the later.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> "vlad" > wrote in message
> >>> oups.com...
> >>>>
> >>>> Jenn wrote:
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>>> nk.net
> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> ink.net
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
> >>>>>>>>> her statement that violins or any instrument
> >>>>>>>>> sounds more real on LP, and mostly becuase as a
> >>>>>>>>> Conductor that makes even less sense than it
> >>>>>>>>> would from an ordinary civilian.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's interesting how all these golden ears make
> >>>>>>>> global statements trashing such a highly effective
> >>>>>>>> and succesful audio technology as digtal and then
> >>>>>>>> hide behind their perferences when asked to explain
> >>>>>>>> themselves.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he
> >>>>>>>> created with his excessive concern for preferences.
> >>>>>>>> The coward broke and ran away from here, leaving us
> >>>>>>>> holding the bag! ;-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Without giving away too much without his expressed
> >>>>>>> permission, it is not exactly as you might think.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't have time to play that well-known children's
> >>>>>> game: "I have a secret".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There is no delaing with prefernce it has no
> >>>>>>> rationality, no sense whatsoever.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Of course.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and
> >>>>>>> statements on timbre that has her in trouble.
> >>>>>>> It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at
> >>>>>>> least not for me it isn't.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The statements "I have great hearing acuity for
> >>>>>> technical differences" and
> >>>>>> "I prefer LP playback" are mutually incompatible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No, Jenn.
> >>>>
> >>>> You spent enough bandwidth on RAHE, trying to prove
> >>>> that
> >>>> being a conductor you have better hearing then us
> >>>> simple peasants. All of this was to prove that LP's
> >>>> somehow mysteriously have better timbre of violins. Of
> >>>> course because you
> >>>> have a preconceived bias favoring LP's you "perception"
> >>>> of timbre is probably just an argument made on the fly.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you want me do dig up archives for you? I think you
> >>>> don't want to be embarrassed in front of this crowd.
> >>
> >>> Vlad, that's unfair to her.
> >>
> >>> She spent her time on RAHE asserting that she understood
> >>> the sound of LIVE MUSIC perhaps better than most
> >>> audiophiles because she spent so much of her time
> >>> listening/adjusting/dealing with it.
> >>
> >> Hey just when we need, confirmation of what Vlad just
> >> said!
> >
> > Except that he didn't, Arny.
>
> Saying it doesn't make it so.

Saying it does doesn't make it so.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>> wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Jenn, Rather than listen to this blather, from a
>>> technical wannabe: "Oh, so you can hear any difference, Jenn?"
>>>
>>> "Pomposity noted."
>>>
>>> "Well Jenn, I guess we need to get you and Mirabel
>>> together for a good fight
>>> because he seems to think that some differences can't be
>>> heard. I'm prone to
>>> agree with him about that for some reason."
>>>
>>>
>>> "IOW, that was an ignorant thing for you to say!"
>>>
>>> "It's kinda hard to avoid being awed to the point of
>>> speechlessness by someone who thinks they can hear any
>>> and all differences. Here's a hint -
>>> doing sighted evaluations is a good way to maintain that
>>> myth." "Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed
>>> ability to hear the
>>> difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?"
>>>
>>> Listen to what the guy who apparently developed many of
>>> the CODECS used in digital audio has to say:
>>>
>>> "First, I'm astonished that someone is chastising the
>>> author for preferring LP's over CD's. I'd also be
>>> astonished if someone was criticizing someone going the
>>> other way. LP's are definitely less clean, have much
>>> more distortion, a wee bit wider bandwidth, maybe, if
>>> everyone and everbody was really careful, but you know
>>> what? IT IS HIS PREFERENCE. Judging a preference is,
>>> well, silly to say the least. Quite beyond that, LP's
>>> have several known distortion mechanisms that are
>>> understood to sound good to listeners. The fact that
>>> some people prefer this, therefore, is neither
>>> surprising nor an indictment of the listener, who is
>>> simply stating his or her preference. I do say that
>>> double-blind tests of some sort are absolutely and
>>> incontrovertably requisite if one is trying to establish
>>> differences due ONLY TO AUDITORY STIMULII. Note the
>>> 'if', it's very important. If you want to know how
>>> you'll feel about it in your house and you think one
>>> unit is mud-ugly you might want to NOT... " Now Mr. Krueger HAS
>>> implied that perhaps this JJ was a
>>> "Super-secret closet golden-ear" which is today's
>>> version, apparently, of what a "Communist" was during
>>> the McCarthy years. But I'd still put my money with someone (JJ) that
>>> has
>>> the chops, has the background, has the training and
>>> education, and has the brains to see the difference
>>> between preference, either sighted or no.
>>
>> He also was a good recordist and understood live sound
>> better than Arny.
>
> How do you know that, Harry?
>
> Ever been to an event where I set up or mixed the live sound?
>
>> Perhaps that is why he was not a
>> digital dictator despite his expertise in the subject.
>
> So Harry, what's a "digital dictator"?
>
> Trashing my preferences?
>

No, trashing your rotten personality.



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > You've made it very
>> > clear that all you focus on are the technical aspects of
>> > audio. You've displayed no interest in or understanding
>> > of how things sound.
>>
>> What makes you think that way, Jenn?
>>
>> Is it:
>>
>> All the live and recorded music that I listen to?
>>
>> The time, money and effort I've spent to obtain good sound by various
>> means?
>>
>> The fact that I favor the pure sound of live music with minimal noise and
>> distortion?
>
> No, the fact that you rarely discuss the sound of actual music.

he recently claimed he didn't want to attend a live event
at a good hall, because it was a waste of time.
He has an internet career to attend to, you know!



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

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >> > You've made it very
> >> > clear that all you focus on are the technical aspects of
> >> > audio. You've displayed no interest in or understanding
> >> > of how things sound.
> >>
> >> What makes you think that way, Jenn?
> >>
> >> Is it:
> >>
> >> All the live and recorded music that I listen to?
> >>
> >> The time, money and effort I've spent to obtain good sound by various
> >> means?
> >>
> >> The fact that I favor the pure sound of live music with minimal noise and
> >> distortion?
> >
> > No, the fact that you rarely discuss the sound of actual music.
>
> he recently claimed he didn't want to attend a live event
> at a good hall, because it was a waste of time.

Wow.

> He has an internet career to attend to, you know!

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You've made it very
>>>>> clear that all you focus on are the technical aspects
>>>>> of audio. You've displayed no interest in or
>>>>> understanding of how things sound.
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think that way, Jenn?
>>>>
>>>> Is it:
>>>>
>>>> All the live and recorded music that I listen to?
>>>>
>>>> The time, money and effort I've spent to obtain good
>>>> sound by various means?
>>>>
>>>> The fact that I favor the pure sound of live music with
>>>> minimal noise and distortion?
>>>
>>> No, the fact that you rarely discuss the sound of actual
>>> music.
>>
>> Well you know Jenn I mixed and mastered almost 3 hours
>> of recorded audio today, Including over an hour of
>> multitrack music. Talking about it seems like a lot less
>> than thrilling at the moment.

Total time involvement: about 8 hours.

> Well, I'd have to agree with you there. I had a 1 1/2
> hour rehearsal yesterday and another 2 hours today....
> being with actual music is FAR better than talking about
> it.

OK, the previous day I spent 1.5 hours rehearsing and 3 hours actual
hands-on mixing during live events. I also spent another 1.5 hours offline
mixing.

Note that both days I spent 2-3 times as much time as you did directly
involved with music making. And, I've already spent over an hour mixing
today and its still before noon.

All this Jenn, and you have the temerity to lecture me about listening to
music.

> By the way, I was a guest today on the local NPR station,
> discussing two upcoming concerts, my work with Frederick
> Fennell, etc. It was a good time. Following up on your
> party conversation that you mentioned earlier, I asked
> around the studio about the following: "What is more
> important: How a device measures, or how it sounds?
> Everyone (EE, other radio heads, n=5) answered the later.

Jenn I suspect you actually think that would be news to me.

Sad.

BTW Jenn, I agree with them.

Jenn, what amazes me about you is that given all your public primping and
preening about how much better you can hear than us ordinary mortals, is
that you apparently can't hear what's deadly wrong with vinyl when it comes
to doing a really good job reproducing the live sound of music.

Very sad.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You've made it very
>>>>> clear that all you focus on are the technical aspects
>>>>> of audio. You've displayed no interest in or
>>>>> understanding of how things sound.
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think that way, Jenn?
>>>>
>>>> Is it:
>>>>
>>>> All the live and recorded music that I listen to?
>>>>
>>>> The time, money and effort I've spent to obtain good
>>>> sound by various means?
>>>>
>>>> The fact that I favor the pure sound of live music
>>>> with minimal noise and distortion?
>>>
>>> No, the fact that you rarely discuss the sound of
>>> actual music.
>>
>> he recently claimed he didn't want to attend a live event
>> at a good hall, because it was a waste of time.
>
> Wow.

Here Jenn happily agrees with a highly deceptive comment about me.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> You've made it very
> >>>>> clear that all you focus on are the technical aspects
> >>>>> of audio. You've displayed no interest in or
> >>>>> understanding of how things sound.
> >>>>
> >>>> What makes you think that way, Jenn?
> >>>>
> >>>> Is it:
> >>>>
> >>>> All the live and recorded music that I listen to?
> >>>>
> >>>> The time, money and effort I've spent to obtain good
> >>>> sound by various means?
> >>>>
> >>>> The fact that I favor the pure sound of live music
> >>>> with minimal noise and distortion?
> >>>
> >>> No, the fact that you rarely discuss the sound of
> >>> actual music.
> >>
> >> he recently claimed he didn't want to attend a live event
> >> at a good hall, because it was a waste of time.
> >
> > Wow.
>
> Here Jenn happily agrees with a highly deceptive comment about me.

If true, the comment certainly deserves a "wow". If it is an incorrect
statement, show us.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> You've made it very
> >>>>> clear that all you focus on are the technical aspects
> >>>>> of audio. You've displayed no interest in or
> >>>>> understanding of how things sound.
> >>>>
> >>>> What makes you think that way, Jenn?
> >>>>
> >>>> Is it:
> >>>>
> >>>> All the live and recorded music that I listen to?
> >>>>
> >>>> The time, money and effort I've spent to obtain good
> >>>> sound by various means?
> >>>>
> >>>> The fact that I favor the pure sound of live music with
> >>>> minimal noise and distortion?
> >>>
> >>> No, the fact that you rarely discuss the sound of actual
> >>> music.
> >>
> >> Well you know Jenn I mixed and mastered almost 3 hours
> >> of recorded audio today, Including over an hour of
> >> multitrack music. Talking about it seems like a lot less
> >> than thrilling at the moment.
>
> Total time involvement: about 8 hours.
>
> > Well, I'd have to agree with you there. I had a 1 1/2
> > hour rehearsal yesterday and another 2 hours today....
> > being with actual music is FAR better than talking about
> > it.
>
> OK, the previous day I spent 1.5 hours rehearsing and 3 hours actual
> hands-on mixing during live events. I also spent another 1.5 hours offline
> mixing.
>
> Note that both days I spent 2-3 times as much time as you did directly
> involved with music making. And, I've already spent over an hour mixing
> today and its still before noon.
>
> All this Jenn, and you have the temerity to lecture me about listening to
> music.
>
> > By the way, I was a guest today on the local NPR station,
> > discussing two upcoming concerts, my work with Frederick
> > Fennell, etc. It was a good time. Following up on your
> > party conversation that you mentioned earlier, I asked
> > around the studio about the following: "What is more
> > important: How a device measures, or how it sounds?
> > Everyone (EE, other radio heads, n=5) answered the later.
>
> Jenn I suspect you actually think that would be news to me.
>
> Sad.
>
> BTW Jenn, I agree with them.
>
> Jenn, what amazes me about you is that given all your public primping and
> preening about how much better you can hear than us ordinary mortals, is
> that you apparently can't hear what's deadly wrong with vinyl when it comes
> to doing a really good job reproducing the live sound of music.
>
> Very sad.

I agree; your post here is very sad.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>> Wow.


>Here Jenn happily agrees with a highly deceptive comment about me.


Please note that "Wow!" actually is an expression of surprise,
impression and/or disbelief, not of agreement.

But not on planet Kreuger! ;-)

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> OK, the previous day I spent 1.5 hours rehearsing and 3 hours actual
> hands-on mixing during live events. I also spent another 1.5 hours offline
> mixing.


Must have all been betweeen 8:13AM and 12:51PM
What live event occurs at about 9
in the morning on a Monday?
you spent the rest of the time posting on RAO, and probably
on other groups as well.

>
> Note that both days I spent 2-3 times as much time as you did directly
> involved with music making. And, I've already spent over an hour mixing
> today and its still before noon.
>

Must have been betweeen 7:51AM and 10:17AM



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

[Fella]

Jenn wrote:

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>>
>>Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed ability to hear the
>>difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?
>
>
> Yet ANOTHER example of putting words in my mouth. Why don't you just
> try the truth? I've never said that I can tell the difference between
> 440 and 441.

She just gave that example so as to get her legit question through to
your thick skull. Arny, when you say to Jenn that : "Are you speaking
about your claimed ability to hear the difference between 440 Hz and 441
Hz?" you prove once and for all that you are a liar. There shouldn't be
a shred of a doubt on anyones mind after this exchange that you are one
mixed bag of beans, paranoid, crazy and a liar.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed
>> ability to hear the difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?

> Yet ANOTHER example of putting words in my mouth. Why
> don't you just try the truth? I've never said that I can
> tell the difference between 440 and 441.

Refresh my memory here Jenn. You did bring the issue of hearing that
difference up, didn't you?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed
> >> ability to hear the difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?
>
> > Yet ANOTHER example of putting words in my mouth. Why
> > don't you just try the truth? I've never said that I can
> > tell the difference between 440 and 441.
>
> Refresh my memory here Jenn. You did bring the issue of hearing that
> difference up, didn't you?

Yes I did, in the context of a discussion. But did I ever state that I
can hear that difference? No, you made that up. Why?

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > >> Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed
> > >> ability to hear the difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?
> >
> > > Yet ANOTHER example of putting words in my mouth. Why
> > > don't you just try the truth? I've never said that I can
> > > tell the difference between 440 and 441.
> >
> > Refresh my memory here Jenn. You did bring the issue of hearing that
> > difference up, didn't you?
>
> Yes I did, in the context of a discussion. But did I ever state that I
> can hear that difference? No, you made that up. Why?

That's a rhetorical question, right? <G>

[chung]

Jenn wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Jenn" > wrote in message

>>
>>>In article >,
>>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>>>Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed
>>>>ability to hear the difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?
>>
>>>Yet ANOTHER example of putting words in my mouth. Why
>>>don't you just try the truth? I've never said that I can
>>>tell the difference between 440 and 441.
>>
>>Refresh my memory here Jenn. You did bring the issue of hearing that
>>difference up, didn't you?
>
>
> Yes I did, in the context of a discussion. But did I ever state that I
> can hear that difference? No, you made that up. Why?

Jenn, here's what you wrote on 2/24, at 1:51 pm (GMT-8):
***
>>>What kind of frequency changes?
>>
>>> >
>>> > Arg. Can you tell the difference between 440 and, say
>>> > 441?
>
>>
>> Both steady state tones?


Yep.
***

You clearly stated that you could hear the difference.

Jenn, it seems like you spend a lot of time here (and on rahe) saying
that you didn't say some things that people thought you said. Have you
ever wondered why?

You accuse others of making things up, but clearly either you did say
those things, or implicitly said those things. For, oh, about 3 months
or so, you were trying to convince us at rahe that since you work with
live music, you are trainined to hear the kind of differences that show
up among audio gear. But then when called upon, you always denied that
you had any better listening ability above others. Now the questions I
have is this:

(a) Do you have better listening acuity for differences among audio gear?

(b) If the answer to (a) is yes, then why did you deny saying that just
a couple of days ago?

(c) If the answer to (a) is no, then why did you spend so much time
telling us how working with music trains you for the same differences in
audio reproduction? All that should be irrelevant in the context of
listening to audio reproduction, if that does not give you better
acuity, right?

You seem to want to appear as playing the role of the one who is always
misunderstood, but please, have some intellectual honesty. State your
position carefully and clearly, and then don't weasel out of it when you
realize it was not a good position to have stated.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>>> Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed
>>>> ability to hear the difference between 440 Hz and 441
>>>> Hz?
>>
>>> Yet ANOTHER example of putting words in my mouth. Why
>>> don't you just try the truth? I've never said that I
>>> can tell the difference between 440 and 441.
>>
>> Refresh my memory here Jenn. You did bring the issue of
>> hearing that difference up, didn't you?
>
> Yes I did, in the context of a discussion. But did I
> ever state that I can hear that difference? No, you made
> that up. Why?

Why did you bring up those two frequencies and ask whether I could hear the
difference between them?

[George M. Middius]

chungborg shows why he is so enamored of the Krooborg.

> > Yes I did, in the context of a discussion. But did I ever state that I
> > can hear that difference? No, you made that up. Why?

> Jenn, here's what you wrote on 2/24, at 1:51 pm (GMT-8):
> ***
> >>>What kind of frequency changes?

> >>> > Arg. Can you tell the difference between 440 and, say
> >>> > 441?

> >> Both steady state tones?

> Yep.
> ***

> You clearly stated that you could hear the difference.

You must be one of Arnii's pre-teen "trainees". Are you in 6th grade? No,
wait, I'll guess 4th grade.

BTW, if you're going to parade your stupidity and poor language skills on
RAO, you need to get a license from duh-Mikey.

> Jenn, it seems like you spend a lot of time here (and on rahe) saying
> that you didn't say some things that people thought you said. Have you
> ever wondered why?

That's not a very good question. It's a lot like asking why the sky is
green.

> You accuse others of making things up, but clearly either you did say
> those things, or implicitly said those things.

Or ... something else. Want to take a guess, Mr. borg?

[Arny Krueger]

"chung" > wrote in message
ervers.com

> Jenn, it seems like you spend a lot of time here (and on
> rahe) saying that you didn't say some things that people
> thought you said. Have you ever wondered why?

The reason why is pretty clear. It's a basic "debating trade" strategy.

Jenn's basic goal is to get her points out whule avoiding responding to
criticisms of what she just said.

One element of debate is responding to your opponent's last response. One
common way to do that it is to use parts of your opponent's last response as
part of your next statement. By demanding that this be done with absolute
perfection, it is possible to make the debate go so slowly that your
opponent finds it practically impossible to get anywhere.

A good text processing program could simulate Jenn's approach, as it is a
variation on an Eliza program.

Basically the AI program implementing Jenn's strategy checks the opponent's
response for the exact text of its previous statement. Failing to find that,
the program denounces its opponent for failing to correctly copy its last
statement Then the AI program adds on some other point that it needs to
make.

[MINe 109]

In article s.com>,
chung > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed
> >>>>ability to hear the difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?
> >>
> >>>Yet ANOTHER example of putting words in my mouth. Why
> >>>don't you just try the truth? I've never said that I can
> >>>tell the difference between 440 and 441.
> >>
> >>Refresh my memory here Jenn. You did bring the issue of hearing that
> >>difference up, didn't you?
> >
> >
> > Yes I did, in the context of a discussion. But did I ever state that I
> > can hear that difference? No, you made that up. Why?
>
> Jenn, here's what you wrote on 2/24, at 1:51 pm (GMT-8):
> ***
> >>>What kind of frequency changes?
> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > Arg. Can you tell the difference between 440 and, say
> >>> > 441?
> >
> >>
> >> Both steady state tones?
>
>
> Yep.
> ***
>
> You clearly stated that you could hear the difference.

Sorry to let the cat out of the bag, what with y'all being so
entertaining:

http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/9455/wholearticleenglish.html

Stephen

[Jenn]

chung wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed
> >>>>ability to hear the difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?
> >>
> >>>Yet ANOTHER example of putting words in my mouth. Why
> >>>don't you just try the truth? I've never said that I can
> >>>tell the difference between 440 and 441.
> >>
> >>Refresh my memory here Jenn. You did bring the issue of hearing that
> >>difference up, didn't you?
> >
> >
> > Yes I did, in the context of a discussion. But did I ever state that I
> > can hear that difference? No, you made that up. Why?
>
> Jenn, here's what you wrote on 2/24, at 1:51 pm (GMT-8):
> ***
> >>>What kind of frequency changes?
> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > Arg. Can you tell the difference between 440 and, say
> >>> > 441?
> >
> >>
> >> Both steady state tones?
>
>
> Yep.
> ***
>
> You clearly stated that you could hear the difference.

I did?? LOL In what sentence?

>
> Jenn, it seems like you spend a lot of time here (and on rahe) saying
> that you didn't say some things that people thought you said. Have you
> ever wondered why?

Sure I have. I haveno idea of the answer, other than the possibility
of people reading into somebody's words what they WANT to read.

>
> You accuse others of making things up, but clearly either you did say
> those things, or implicitly said those things.

Not at all. See the present example. In no way did I say nor did I
imply that I could hear 440 vs. 441.

> For, oh, about 3 months
> or so, you were trying to convince us at rahe that since you work with
> live music, you are trainined to hear the kind of differences that show
> up among audio gear. But then when called upon, you always denied that
> you had any better listening ability above others.

No, I've stated that I have no greater HEARING ability. Do you
understand the difference?

> Now the questions I
> have is this:
>
> (a) Do you have better listening acuity for differences among audio gear?

As such differnces relate to musical values (pitch, balance, timbre,
etc.) I would say that yes, my experience and training give me more
discernment in those areas than the average person.

>
> (b) If the answer to (a) is yes, then why did you deny saying that just
> a couple of days ago?

I didn't.

>
> (c) If the answer to (a) is no, then why did you spend so much time
> telling us how working with music trains you for the same differences in
> audio reproduction? All that should be irrelevant in the context of
> listening to audio reproduction, if that does not give you better
> acuity, right?
>
> You seem to want to appear as playing the role of the one who is always
> misunderstood, but please, have some intellectual honesty. State your
> position carefully and clearly, and then don't weasel out of it when you
> realize it was not a good position to have stated.

For those who can read, my words are quite clear indeed.

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed
> >>>> ability to hear the difference between 440 Hz and 441
> >>>> Hz?
> >>
> >>> Yet ANOTHER example of putting words in my mouth. Why
> >>> don't you just try the truth? I've never said that I
> >>> can tell the difference between 440 and 441.
> >>
> >> Refresh my memory here Jenn. You did bring the issue of
> >> hearing that difference up, didn't you?
> >
> > Yes I did, in the context of a discussion. But did I
> > ever state that I can hear that difference? No, you made
> > that up. Why?
>
> Why did you bring up those two frequencies and ask whether I could hear the
> difference between them?

You were comparing your work with that of your choir conductor
(expressing pitches in Hz vs. expressing them with letter names, etc.)
I asked what your threshold of hearing was, expressed in Hz.

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "chung" > wrote in message
> ervers.com
>
> > Jenn, it seems like you spend a lot of time here (and on
> > rahe) saying that you didn't say some things that people
> > thought you said. Have you ever wondered why?
>
> The reason why is pretty clear. It's a basic "debating trade" strategy.

LOL

>
> Jenn's basic goal is to get her points out whule avoiding responding to
> criticisms of what she just said.
>
> One element of debate is responding to your opponent's last response. One
> common way to do that it is to use parts of your opponent's last response as
> part of your next statement. By demanding that this be done with absolute
> perfection, it is possible to make the debate go so slowly that your
> opponent finds it practically impossible to get anywhere.
>
> A good text processing program could simulate Jenn's approach, as it is a
> variation on an Eliza program.
>
> Basically the AI program implementing Jenn's strategy checks the opponent's
> response for the exact text of its previous statement. Failing to find that,
> the program denounces its opponent for failing to correctly copy its last
> statement Then the AI program adds on some other point that it needs to
> make.

Do words have meaning or not, Arny? I've been very clear in my choice
of words. You can read them accurately, or not. It's your choice.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>Basically the AI program implementing Jenn's strategy checks the opponent's
>response for the exact text of its previous statement. Failing to find that,
>the program denounces its opponent for failing to correctly copy its last
>statement Then the AI program adds on some other point that it needs to
>make.


Such a program could be made even simpler, but less effective, by just
randomly responding with ' Yawn.', 'Prove it!', 'Inability to [insert
random text here] noted.' , etc.

Does this sound familiar to anyone? ;-)

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[Jenn]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article s.com>,
> chung > wrote:
>
> > Jenn wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>"Jenn" > wrote in message
> >
> > >>
> > >>>In article >,
> > >>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed
> > >>>>ability to hear the difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?
> > >>
> > >>>Yet ANOTHER example of putting words in my mouth. Why
> > >>>don't you just try the truth? I've never said that I can
> > >>>tell the difference between 440 and 441.
> > >>
> > >>Refresh my memory here Jenn. You did bring the issue of hearing that
> > >>difference up, didn't you?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes I did, in the context of a discussion. But did I ever state that I
> > > can hear that difference? No, you made that up. Why?
> >
> > Jenn, here's what you wrote on 2/24, at 1:51 pm (GMT-8):
> > ***
> > >>>What kind of frequency changes?
> > >>
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Arg. Can you tell the difference between 440 and, say
> > >>> > 441?
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Both steady state tones?
> >
> >
> > Yep.
> > ***
> >
> > You clearly stated that you could hear the difference.
>
> Sorry to let the cat out of the bag, what with y'all being so
> entertaining:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/9455/wholearticleenglish.html
>
> Stephen

It will be interesting to see what the reaction to your post is. As it
relates to this discussion, the vast majority of people, musical or
not, can't accurately tell the diference between 440 and 441 if the
pitches are played melodically. Harmonically, however, is a different
story. If one hears 440 and 441 played at the same time, a musician
BETTER be able to hear that one pitch is sharp to the other (or one is
flat to the other).

[Sander deWaal]

"Jenn" > said:


>> (c) If the answer to (a) is no, then why did you spend so much time
>> telling us how working with music trains you for the same differences in
>> audio reproduction? All that should be irrelevant in the context of
>> listening to audio reproduction, if that does not give you better
>> acuity, right?

>> You seem to want to appear as playing the role of the one who is always
>> misunderstood, but please, have some intellectual honesty. State your
>> position carefully and clearly, and then don't weasel out of it when you
>> realize it was not a good position to have stated.


>For those who can read, my words are quite clear indeed.


Were Von Karajan, Klemperer, Solti or any one of the other great
conductors still alive and present here, would they argue like this
with them as well? ;-)

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[chung]

Jenn wrote:
> chung wrote:
>> Jenn wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>"Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> >>
>> >>>In article >,
>> >>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed
>> >>>>ability to hear the difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?
>> >>
>> >>>Yet ANOTHER example of putting words in my mouth. Why
>> >>>don't you just try the truth? I've never said that I can
>> >>>tell the difference between 440 and 441.
>> >>
>> >>Refresh my memory here Jenn. You did bring the issue of hearing that
>> >>difference up, didn't you?
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes I did, in the context of a discussion. But did I ever state that I
>> > can hear that difference? No, you made that up. Why?
>>
>> Jenn, here's what you wrote on 2/24, at 1:51 pm (GMT-8):
>> ***
>> >>>What kind of frequency changes?
>> >>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Arg. Can you tell the difference between 440 and, say
>> >>> > 441?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Both steady state tones?
>>
>>
>> Yep.
>> ***
>>
>> You clearly stated that you could hear the difference.
>
> I did?? LOL In what sentence?

I apologize for having misread that thread. You are right, you did not
say you could. You just brought up 400 Hz and 401 Hz.
>
>>
>> Jenn, it seems like you spend a lot of time here (and on rahe) saying
>> that you didn't say some things that people thought you said. Have you
>> ever wondered why?
>
> Sure I have. I haveno idea of the answer, other than the possibility
> of people reading into somebody's words what they WANT to read.
>
>>
>> You accuse others of making things up, but clearly either you did say
>> those things, or implicitly said those things.
>
> Not at all. See the present example. In no way did I say nor did I
> imply that I could hear 440 vs. 441.
>
>> For, oh, about 3 months
>> or so, you were trying to convince us at rahe that since you work with
>> live music, you are trainined to hear the kind of differences that show
>> up among audio gear. But then when called upon, you always denied that
>> you had any better listening ability above others.
>
> No, I've stated that I have no greater HEARING ability. Do you
> understand the difference?

So your whole argument is that you said you have better listening
acuity, but not hearing acuity? Seems like you are splitting hairs here.

>
>> Now the questions I
>> have is this:
>>
>> (a) Do you have better listening acuity for differences among audio gear?
>
> As such differnces relate to musical values (pitch, balance, timbre,
> etc.) I would say that yes, my experience and training give me more
> discernment in those areas than the average person.

Which you tried to convince us are the same discernment skills needed to
differentiate audio gear. Do I have it right?

>
>>
>> (b) If the answer to (a) is yes, then why did you deny saying that just
>> a couple of days ago?
>
> I didn't.

So your point is that you have better listening acuity for those
differences, but not hearing acuity. Well actually, that's what we are
saying also, that you seem to indicate that being a musician/conductor,
you have superior listening acuity.

>
>>
>> (c) If the answer to (a) is no, then why did you spend so much time
>> telling us how working with music trains you for the same differences in
>> audio reproduction? All that should be irrelevant in the context of
>> listening to audio reproduction, if that does not give you better
>> acuity, right?
>>
>> You seem to want to appear as playing the role of the one who is always
>> misunderstood, but please, have some intellectual honesty. State your
>> position carefully and clearly, and then don't weasel out of it when you
>> realize it was not a good position to have stated.
>
> For those who can read, my words are quite clear indeed.
>

It seems like over at rahe and here, many different people are got the
same impression that I have.

[MINe 109]

In article .com>,
chung > wrote:

> So your point is that you have better listening acuity for those
> differences, but not hearing acuity. Well actually, that's what we are
> saying also, that you seem to indicate that being a musician/conductor,
> you have superior listening acuity.

That's an interesting idea. I wonder if anyone has studied this
proposition. Besides these guys, that is:

http://www1.wfubmc.edu/news/NewsArticle.htm?Articleid=1730

Stephen

[Jenn]

chung wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
> > chung wrote:
> >> Jenn wrote:
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>"Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>In article >,
> >> >>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>>Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed
> >> >>>>ability to hear the difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?
> >> >>
> >> >>>Yet ANOTHER example of putting words in my mouth. Why
> >> >>>don't you just try the truth? I've never said that I can
> >> >>>tell the difference between 440 and 441.
> >> >>
> >> >>Refresh my memory here Jenn. You did bring the issue of hearing that
> >> >>difference up, didn't you?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Yes I did, in the context of a discussion. But did I ever state that I
> >> > can hear that difference? No, you made that up. Why?
> >>
> >> Jenn, here's what you wrote on 2/24, at 1:51 pm (GMT-8):
> >> ***
> >> >>>What kind of frequency changes?
> >> >>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Arg. Can you tell the difference between 440 and, say
> >> >>> > 441?
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Both steady state tones?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep.
> >> ***
> >>
> >> You clearly stated that you could hear the difference.
> >
> > I did?? LOL In what sentence?
>
> I apologize for having misread that thread. You are right, you did not
> say you could. You just brought up 400 Hz and 401 Hz.

Thanks for the apology; you're a bigger person than others.

> >
> >>
> >> Jenn, it seems like you spend a lot of time here (and on rahe) saying
> >> that you didn't say some things that people thought you said. Have you
> >> ever wondered why?
> >
> > Sure I have. I haveno idea of the answer, other than the possibility
> > of people reading into somebody's words what they WANT to read.
> >
> >>
> >> You accuse others of making things up, but clearly either you did say
> >> those things, or implicitly said those things.
> >
> > Not at all. See the present example. In no way did I say nor did I
> > imply that I could hear 440 vs. 441.
> >
> >> For, oh, about 3 months
> >> or so, you were trying to convince us at rahe that since you work with
> >> live music, you are trainined to hear the kind of differences that show
> >> up among audio gear. But then when called upon, you always denied that
> >> you had any better listening ability above others.
> >
> > No, I've stated that I have no greater HEARING ability. Do you
> > understand the difference?
>
> So your whole argument is that you said you have better listening
> acuity, but not hearing acuity? Seems like you are splitting hairs here.

Not at all. "Heaing ability" would imply that my hearing mechanism is
somehow better, which I don't claim. "Listening" implies that I have
training and experience in discerning aspects of sound, which is clear.

>
> >
> >> Now the questions I
> >> have is this:
> >>
> >> (a) Do you have better listening acuity for differences among audio gear?
> >
> > As such differnces relate to musical values (pitch, balance, timbre,
> > etc.) I would say that yes, my experience and training give me more
> > discernment in those areas than the average person.
>
> Which you tried to convince us are the same discernment skills needed to
> differentiate audio gear. Do I have it right?

SOME of the skills needed, yes. Does the differentiation of gear
include aspects such as frequency, for example?

>
> >
> >>
> >> (b) If the answer to (a) is yes, then why did you deny saying that just
> >> a couple of days ago?
> >
> > I didn't.
>
> So your point is that you have better listening acuity for those
> differences, but not hearing acuity. Well actually, that's what we are
> saying also, that you seem to indicate that being a musician/conductor,
> you have superior listening acuity.

See above.

>
> >
> >>
> >> (c) If the answer to (a) is no, then why did you spend so much time
> >> telling us how working with music trains you for the same differences in
> >> audio reproduction? All that should be irrelevant in the context of
> >> listening to audio reproduction, if that does not give you better
> >> acuity, right?
> >>
> >> You seem to want to appear as playing the role of the one who is always
> >> misunderstood, but please, have some intellectual honesty. State your
> >> position carefully and clearly, and then don't weasel out of it when you
> >> realize it was not a good position to have stated.
> >
> > For those who can read, my words are quite clear indeed.
> >
>
> It seems like over at rahe and here, many different people are got the
> same impression that I have.

Well, one only needs to see how you misunderstood my statement, later
realizing that you misunderstood.

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article
> s.com>,
> chung > wrote:
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Which differences? Are you speaking about your
>>>>>> claimed ability to hear the difference between 440
>>>>>> Hz and 441 Hz?
>>>>
>>>>> Yet ANOTHER example of putting words in my mouth. Why
>>>>> don't you just try the truth? I've never said that I
>>>>> can tell the difference between 440 and 441.
>>>>
>>>> Refresh my memory here Jenn. You did bring the issue
>>>> of hearing that difference up, didn't you?
>
>>> Yes I did, in the context of a discussion. But did I
>>> ever state that I can hear that difference? No, you
>>> made that up. Why?

>> Jenn, here's what you wrote on 2/24, at 1:51 pm (GMT-8):

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/d29c870e0308ade0


>> >>>What kind of frequency changes?

>> >>> > Arg. Can you tell the difference between 440 and, say 441?

>> >> Both steady state tones?

>> >> Yep.

>> You clearly stated that you could hear the difference.

I beg to differ. In that post the "yep" was her agreement with my recitation
of a part of a question she was asking me.


> Sorry to let the cat out of the bag, what with y'all
> being so entertaining:

> http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/9455/wholearticleenglish.html

The article does not really say that anybody can hear the difference between
440 and 441 Hz.

It says that 440 and 441 Hz being played together at the same time sounds
different than just 440 Hz being played.

In fact people can hear the difference between 440 Hz and 440 Hz (i.e., the
identical same frequency) being played from 2 or more sources at the same
time if a certain nearly universal condition is met.

What is that condition?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>


>> Why did you bring up those two frequencies and ask
>> whether I could hear the difference between them?

> You were comparing your work with that of your choir
> conductor (expressing pitches in Hz vs. expressing them
> with letter names, etc.) I asked what your threshold of
> hearing was, expressed in Hz.

Well Jenn, can you hear the difference between 440 Hz 441 Hz played
seperately?

IOW 440 Hz being played for a while and then 441 Hz being played for a
while.

To make it easy the duration of each tone can be as you desire and the dead
time during the switch can be as you desire.

This is a different question than hearing the difference between 440 Hz
being played and then 440 Hz and 441 Hz being played at the same time.

[Harry Lavo]

"chung" > wrote in message
rvers.com...

>
> It seems like over at rahe and here, many different people are got the
> same impression that I have.

Not true. Both here and there she has been clear. In both places, attempts
were made to deliberately twist what she said into a strawman that could be
attacked.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "chung" > wrote in message
> rvers.com...
>
>>
>> It seems like over at rahe and here, many different
>> people are got the same impression that I have.
>
> Not true. Both here and there she has been clear. In
> both places, attempts were made to deliberately twist
> what she said into a strawman that could be attacked.

In both places, as well as some other forums where Jenn says she has posted,
she manages to produce a bad impression of herself.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "chung" > wrote in message
>> rvers.com...
>>
>>>
>>> It seems like over at rahe and here, many different
>>> people are got the same impression that I have.
>>
>> Not true. Both here and there she has been clear. In
>> both places, attempts were made to deliberately twist
>> what she said into a strawman that could be attacked.
>
> In both places, as well as some other forums where Jenn says she has
> posted, she manages to produce a bad impression of herself.

LOL!

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "chung" > wrote in message
> ervers.com
>
>> Jenn, it seems like you spend a lot of time here (and on
>> rahe) saying that you didn't say some things that people
>> thought you said. Have you ever wondered why?
>
> The reason why is pretty clear. It's a basic "debating trade" strategy.
>
> Jenn's basic goal is to get her points out whule avoiding responding to
> criticisms of what she just said.
>
> One element of debate is responding to your opponent's last response. One
> common way to do that it is to use parts of your opponent's last response
> as part of your next statement. By demanding that this be done with
> absolute perfection, it is possible to make the debate go so slowly that
> your opponent finds it practically impossible to get anywhere.
>
> A good text processing program could simulate Jenn's approach, as it is a
> variation on an Eliza program.
>
> Basically the AI program implementing Jenn's strategy checks the
> opponent's response for the exact text of its previous statement. Failing
> to find that, the program denounces its opponent for failing to correctly
> copy its last statement Then the AI program adds on some other point that
> it needs to make.
>


Sounds like a description of a Borg sockpuppet, to me



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

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article s.com>,
> chung > wrote:
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>"Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> >>
>> >>>In article >,
>> >>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed
>> >>>>ability to hear the difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?
>> >>
>> >>>Yet ANOTHER example of putting words in my mouth. Why
>> >>>don't you just try the truth? I've never said that I can
>> >>>tell the difference between 440 and 441.
>> >>
>> >>Refresh my memory here Jenn. You did bring the issue of hearing that
>> >>difference up, didn't you?
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes I did, in the context of a discussion. But did I ever state that I
>> > can hear that difference? No, you made that up. Why?
>>
>> Jenn, here's what you wrote on 2/24, at 1:51 pm (GMT-8):
>> ***
>> >>>What kind of frequency changes?
>> >>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Arg. Can you tell the difference between 440 and, say
>> >>> > 441?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Both steady state tones?
>>
>>
>> Yep.
>> ***
>>
>> You clearly stated that you could hear the difference.
>
> Sorry to let the cat out of the bag, what with y'all being so
> entertaining:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/9455/wholearticleenglish.html
>


and I can hear that difference, but better at a little lower frequency
Arny can hear it too, its not difficult.



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> MINe 109 wrote:
>> In article s.com>,
>> chung > wrote:
>>
>> > Jenn wrote:
>> > > In article >,
>> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >>"Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > >>
>> > >>>In article >,
>> > >>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>>>Which differences? Are you speaking about your claimed
>> > >>>>ability to hear the difference between 440 Hz and 441 Hz?
>> > >>
>> > >>>Yet ANOTHER example of putting words in my mouth. Why
>> > >>>don't you just try the truth? I've never said that I can
>> > >>>tell the difference between 440 and 441.
>> > >>
>> > >>Refresh my memory here Jenn. You did bring the issue of hearing that
>> > >>difference up, didn't you?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Yes I did, in the context of a discussion. But did I ever state that
>> > > I
>> > > can hear that difference? No, you made that up. Why?
>> >
>> > Jenn, here's what you wrote on 2/24, at 1:51 pm (GMT-8):
>> > ***
>> > >>>What kind of frequency changes?
>> > >>
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > Arg. Can you tell the difference between 440 and, say
>> > >>> > 441?
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> Both steady state tones?
>> >
>> >
>> > Yep.
>> > ***
>> >
>> > You clearly stated that you could hear the difference.
>>
>> Sorry to let the cat out of the bag, what with y'all being so
>> entertaining:
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/9455/wholearticleenglish.html
>>
>> Stephen
>
> It will be interesting to see what the reaction to your post is. As it
> relates to this discussion, the vast majority of people, musical or
> not, can't accurately tell the diference between 440 and 441 if the
> pitches are played melodically. Harmonically, however, is a different
> story. If one hears 440 and 441 played at the same time, a musician
> BETTER be able to hear that one pitch is sharp to the other (or one is
> flat to the other).
>

Melodically, I would have a hard time with that differential,
probably not that close



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

[Jenn]

wrote:
> Harry Lavo wrote:
> > "chung" > wrote in message
> > rvers.com...
> >
> > >
> > > It seems like over at rahe and here, many different people are got the
> > > same impression that I have.
> >
> > Not true.
>
> Yes it is.
>
> Both here and there she has been clear.
>
> She has been clear and she has been raked over the coals pretty well
> about her alleged hearing ability on RAHE and why a musican's hearing
> is not the same as an audiophile's heeraing. That they listen
> differently.

Of course, I've not said that at all. Please read the actual words.

>
> In both places, attempts
> > were made to deliberately twist what she said into a strawman that could be
> > attacked.
>
> Bull****.

[[email protected]]

Jenn wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "vlad" > wrote:
>
> > Jenn wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > nk.net
> > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > >> > wrote in message
> > > > >> ink.net
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
> > > > >>> her statement that violins or any instrument sounds more
> > > > >>> real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor that makes
> > > > >>> even less sense than it would from an ordinary civilian.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It's interesting how all these golden ears make global
> > > > >> statements trashing such a highly effective and
> > > > >> succesful audio technology as digtal and then hide
> > > > >> behind their perferences when asked to explain
> > > > >> themselves.
> > > >
> > > > >> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he created
> > > > >> with his excessive concern for preferences. The coward
> > > > >> broke and ran away from here, leaving us holding the
> > > > >> bag! ;-)
> > > >
> > > > > Without giving away too much without his expressed
> > > > > permission, it is not exactly as you might think.
> > > >
> > > > I don't have time to play that well-known children's game: "I have a
> > > > secret".
> > > >
> > > > > There is no delaing with prefernce it has no
> > > > > rationality, no sense whatsoever.
> > > >
> > > > Of course.
> > > >
> > > > > It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and
> > > > > statements on timbre that has her in trouble.
> > > > > It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at least
> > > > > not for me it isn't.
> > > >
> > > > The statements "I have great hearing acuity for technical differences" and
> > > > "I prefer LP playback" are mutually incompatible.
> > >
> > > Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.
> > >
> >
> > No, Jenn.
> >
> > You spent enough bandwidth on RAHE, trying to prove that being a
> > conductor you have better hearing then us simple peasants.
>
> Incorrect, of course. I've never once stated that I have better hearing
> than anyone else does. In fact, I've gone out of my way to say that I
> DON'T have better hearing.
>
> >
> > All of this was to prove that LP's somehow mysteriously have better
> > timbre of violins. Of course because you have a preconceived bias
> > favoring LP's you "perception" of timbre is probably just an
> > argument made on the fly.
>
> Ditto to you since you have a preconceived bias in favor of CD.
> >
It's not soi much bias, as the fact that a CD is an exact copy of a
master tape and that's what all music that we play in our homes and
cars or whatever comes from. Nothing else is more accurate, nothing
else can recreate that as well, nothing is quieter, having less noise
or distortion. It simply is a better way to record and paly music.
It's an even bigger difference in quality than the jump from Edison's
cylinders to LP. The change from LP to CD is many orders of magnitude
better. What you hear is what was recorded and mixed to the master
tape. If you had the master tape and copied it to a CD and compared
them, there would be no difference.


> > Do you want me do dig up archives for you? I think you don't want to
> > be embarrassed in front of this crowd.
>
> You can do anything that you wish to, of course, but you won't find a
> single post where I state that I have better hearing than anyone else.
> Don't worry; I don't expect to hear back from you to admit that you are
> wrong.

[[email protected]]

Jenn wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "vlad" > wrote:
>
> > Jenn wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > nk.net
> > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > >> > wrote in message
> > > > >> ink.net
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
> > > > >>> her statement that violins or any instrument sounds more
> > > > >>> real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor that makes
> > > > >>> even less sense than it would from an ordinary civilian.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It's interesting how all these golden ears make global
> > > > >> statements trashing such a highly effective and
> > > > >> succesful audio technology as digtal and then hide
> > > > >> behind their perferences when asked to explain
> > > > >> themselves.
> > > >
> > > > >> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he created
> > > > >> with his excessive concern for preferences. The coward
> > > > >> broke and ran away from here, leaving us holding the
> > > > >> bag! ;-)
> > > >
> > > > > Without giving away too much without his expressed
> > > > > permission, it is not exactly as you might think.
> > > >
> > > > I don't have time to play that well-known children's game: "I have a
> > > > secret".
> > > >
> > > > > There is no delaing with prefernce it has no
> > > > > rationality, no sense whatsoever.
> > > >
> > > > Of course.
> > > >
> > > > > It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and
> > > > > statements on timbre that has her in trouble.
> > > > > It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at least
> > > > > not for me it isn't.
> > > >
> > > > The statements "I have great hearing acuity for technical differences" and
> > > > "I prefer LP playback" are mutually incompatible.
> > >
> > > Then again, no one here has said that, AFAIK.
> > >
> >
> > No, Jenn.
> >
> > You spent enough bandwidth on RAHE, trying to prove that being a
> > conductor you have better hearing then us simple peasants.
>
> Incorrect, of course. I've never once stated that I have better hearing
> than anyone else does. In fact, I've gone out of my way to say that I
> DON'T have better hearing.
>
> >
> > All of this was to prove that LP's somehow mysteriously have better
> > timbre of violins. Of course because you have a preconceived bias
> > favoring LP's you "perception" of timbre is probably just an
> > argument made on the fly.
>
> Ditto to you since you have a preconceived bias in favor of CD.
> >
It's not soi much bias, as the fact that a CD is an exact copy of a
master tape and that's what all music that we play in our homes and
cars or whatever comes from. Nothing else is more accurate, nothing
else can recreate that as well, nothing is quieter, having less noise
or distortion. It simply is a better way to record and paly music.
It's an even bigger difference in quality than the jump from Edison's
cylinders to LP. The change from LP to CD is many orders of magnitude
better. What you hear is what was recorded and mixed to the master
tape. If you had the master tape and copied it to a CD and compared
them, there would be no difference.


> > Do you want me do dig up archives for you? I think you don't want to
> > be embarrassed in front of this crowd.
>
> You can do anything that you wish to, of course, but you won't find a
> single post where I state that I have better hearing than anyone else.
> Don't worry; I don't expect to hear back from you to admit that you are
> wrong.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said to duh-Mikey:

> > She has been clear and she has been raked over the coals pretty well
> > about her alleged hearing ability on RAHE and why a musican's hearing
> > is not the same as an audiophile's heeraing. That they listen
> > differently.

> Of course, I've not said that at all. Please read the actual words.

Mickey can't do that because it would interfere with his mindless loyalty to
Arnii "Debating Trade" Krooger.

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
>> In article
>> s.com>,
>> chung > wrote:
>>
>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> >, "Arny
>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which differences? Are you speaking about your
>>>>>>> claimed ability to hear the difference between 440
>>>>>>> Hz and 441 Hz?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet ANOTHER example of putting words in my mouth. Why
>>>>>> don't you just try the truth? I've never said that I
>>>>>> can tell the difference between 440 and 441.
>>>>>
>>>>> Refresh my memory here Jenn. You did bring the issue
>>>>> of hearing that difference up, didn't you?
>>
>>>> Yes I did, in the context of a discussion. But did I
>>>> ever state that I can hear that difference? No, you
>>>> made that up. Why?
>
>>> Jenn, here's what you wrote on 2/24, at 1:51 pm (GMT-8):
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/d29c870e0308ade0
>
>
>>> >>>What kind of frequency changes?
>
>>> >>> > Arg. Can you tell the difference between 440 and, say 441?
>
>>> >> Both steady state tones?
>
>>> >> Yep.
>
>>> You clearly stated that you could hear the difference.
>
> I beg to differ. In that post the "yep" was her agreement with my
> recitation of a part of a question she was asking me.
>
>
>> Sorry to let the cat out of the bag, what with y'all
>> being so entertaining:
>
>> http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/9455/wholearticleenglish.html
>
> The article does not really say that anybody can hear the difference
> between 440 and 441 Hz.
>
> It says that 440 and 441 Hz being played together at the same time sounds
> different than just 440 Hz being played.
>
> In fact people can hear the difference between 440 Hz and 440 Hz (i.e.,
> the identical same frequency) being played from 2 or more sources at the
> same time if a certain nearly universal condition is met.
>
> What is that condition?

OooH Oooh.... call me... my hand is up!

Ok...they can't be equidistant or in phase.

Is that it? What do I win?

ScottW


>
>

[ScottW]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>>
>> Well Jenn, can you hear the difference between 440 Hz 441 Hz played
>> seperately?
>
> Nope.
>

Wow... me neither. Well...now that that is settled... what other earth
shattering audio revelations should be pursued?

Pardon my sarcasm.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:pKtNf.134798$0G.133565@dukeread10...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> s.com>,
>>> chung > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which differences? Are you speaking about your
>>>>>>>> claimed ability to hear the difference between 440
>>>>>>>> Hz and 441 Hz?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet ANOTHER example of putting words in my mouth. Why
>>>>>>> don't you just try the truth? I've never said that I
>>>>>>> can tell the difference between 440 and 441.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Refresh my memory here Jenn. You did bring the issue
>>>>>> of hearing that difference up, didn't you?
>>>
>>>>> Yes I did, in the context of a discussion. But did I
>>>>> ever state that I can hear that difference? No, you
>>>>> made that up. Why?
>>
>>>> Jenn, here's what you wrote on 2/24, at 1:51 pm (GMT-8):
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/d29c870e0308ade0
>>
>>
>>>> >>>What kind of frequency changes?
>>
>>>> >>> > Arg. Can you tell the difference between 440 and, say 441?
>>
>>>> >> Both steady state tones?
>>
>>>> >> Yep.
>>
>>>> You clearly stated that you could hear the difference.
>>
>> I beg to differ. In that post the "yep" was her agreement with my
>> recitation of a part of a question she was asking me.
>>
>>
>>> Sorry to let the cat out of the bag, what with y'all
>>> being so entertaining:
>>
>>> http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/9455/wholearticleenglish.html
>>
>> The article does not really say that anybody can hear the difference
>> between 440 and 441 Hz.
>>
>> It says that 440 and 441 Hz being played together at the same time
>> sounds different than just 440 Hz being played.
>>
>> In fact people can hear the difference between 440 Hz and 440 Hz (i.e.,
>> the identical same frequency) being played from 2 or more sources at the
>> same time if a certain nearly universal condition is met.
>>
>> What is that condition?
>
> OooH Oooh.... call me... my hand is up!
>
> Ok...they can't be equidistant or in phase.
>
> Is that it? What do I win?
>
A double bonus.
One of Arny's used toilet seats and one of his obsolete sound cards.



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

[ScottW]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>> OooH Oooh.... call me... my hand is up!
>>
>> Ok...they can't be equidistant or in phase.
>>
>> Is that it? What do I win?
>>
> A double bonus.
> One of Arny's used toilet seats and one of his obsolete sound cards.

Oh.. well then... nevermind.

Here's an example of new technology sucking. I got a new computer at work
today with some NEC 19" LCD monitor. Thing looks great on graphics but it
can't render text to save its ass. Way to pixelly and slanted lines look
like stairs so they try this bleeding character effect.. one column every
other pixel before the pseudo solid character and it just makes 'em blurry
and gives me a splitting headache. Thankfully I wouldn't let 'em take my
old CRT until I tried the LCD. Support tech thought I was nuts but that
thing will make me blind if I have to read on it all day.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:HbuNf.134802$0G.107657@dukeread10...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>>> OooH Oooh.... call me... my hand is up!
>>>
>>> Ok...they can't be equidistant or in phase.
>>>
>>> Is that it? What do I win?
>>>
>> A double bonus.
>> One of Arny's used toilet seats and one of his obsolete sound cards.
>
> Oh.. well then... nevermind.
>
> Here's an example of new technology sucking. I got a new computer at work
> today with some NEC 19" LCD monitor. Thing looks great on graphics but
> it can't render text to save its ass. Way to pixelly and slanted lines
> look like stairs so they try this bleeding character effect.. one column
> every other pixel before the pseudo solid character and it just makes 'em
> blurry and gives me a splitting headache. Thankfully I wouldn't let 'em
> take my old CRT until I tried the LCD. Support tech thought I was nuts
> but that thing will make me blind if I have to read on it all day.
>
> ScottW


Don't beleive what your mother says. It won't
make you go blind.



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

[Harry Lavo]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:HbuNf.134802$0G.107657@dukeread10...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>>> OooH Oooh.... call me... my hand is up!
>>>
>>> Ok...they can't be equidistant or in phase.
>>>
>>> Is that it? What do I win?
>>>
>> A double bonus.
>> One of Arny's used toilet seats and one of his obsolete sound cards.
>
> Oh.. well then... nevermind.
>
> Here's an example of new technology sucking. I got a new computer at work
> today with some NEC 19" LCD monitor. Thing looks great on graphics but
> it can't render text to save its ass. Way to pixelly and slanted lines
> look like stairs so they try this bleeding character effect.. one column
> every other pixel before the pseudo solid character and it just makes 'em
> blurry and gives me a splitting headache. Thankfully I wouldn't let 'em
> take my old CRT until I tried the LCD. Support tech thought I was nuts
> but that thing will make me blind if I have to read on it all day.
>
> ScottW

Little known problem with LCD monitors. They only work well at their native
resolution.

So, 15" monitors do well with 1024 x 768.

So, 19" moniors do well with 1280 x 1024

17" monitors are the problem....they have to decrease pixel size, so when
you get the proper resolution, the test is too small to see (at least with
my eyesight).

And trying some other setting gives you the visual *******ization that you
noticed today. Bah, humbug! I'm writing on a glorious, color accurate 19"
cathode ray tube. It puts my 15" LCD on my DAW to shame.

[vlad]

ScottW wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> >> OooH Oooh.... call me... my hand is up!
> >>
> >> Ok...they can't be equidistant or in phase.
> >>
> >> Is that it? What do I win?
> >>
> > A double bonus.
> > One of Arny's used toilet seats and one of his obsolete sound cards.
>
> Oh.. well then... nevermind.
>
> Here's an example of new technology sucking. I got a new computer at work
> today with some NEC 19" LCD monitor. Thing looks great on graphics but it
> can't render text to save its ass. Way to pixelly and slanted lines look
> like stairs so they try this bleeding character effect.. one column every
> other pixel before the pseudo solid character and it just makes 'em blurry
> and gives me a splitting headache. Thankfully I wouldn't let 'em take my
> old CRT until I tried the LCD. Support tech thought I was nuts but that
> thing will make me blind if I have to read on it all day.
>
> ScottW


Scott,

It usually happens if your resolution setting is different from the
native resolution of the LCD monitor. Try to match both. Almost for
sure the resolution of your LCD monitor is 1024*1280. Your system
administrator will tell you. Just set the same resolution in properties
on your computer.

Then the letters and all pixels will be pristine and all lines even
slanted ones will look good.

No need to blame new technology.

Of course, if you are hard core high-ender then yes, CRT are kind of
analog devices.

vlad

[Fella]

chung wrote:


>
> Jenn, here's what you wrote on 2/24, at 1:51 pm (GMT-8):
> ***
> >>>What kind of frequency changes?
> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > Arg. Can you tell the difference between 440 and, say
> >>> > 441?
> >
> >>
> >> Both steady state tones?
>
>
> Yep.
> ***
>
> You clearly stated that you could hear the difference.
>

ChungggGGggGgg!!! clearly has his own chunglish to get by with. :)

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:HbuNf.134802$0G.107657@dukeread10


> Here's an example of new technology sucking. I got a new
> computer at work today with some NEC 19" LCD monitor. Thing looks great
> on graphics but it can't render text to
> save its ass. Way to pixelly and slanted lines look like
> stairs so they try this bleeding character effect.. one
> column every other pixel before the pseudo solid
> character and it just makes 'em blurry and gives me a
> splitting headache. Thankfully I wouldn't let 'em take
> my old CRT until I tried the LCD. Support tech thought I
> was nuts but that thing will make me blind if I have to
> read on it all day.

Check to make sure that the monitor is being driven with its native
resolution.

IOW if it is for example a 1920 x 1024 monitor, make sure that is how you
are driving it. CRTs can tolerate mismatches of this kind far better than
LCDs.

Also, go into display properties, appearance, effects and select "clear
type" edge filtering.

OTOH it may be an atypical piece of junk. I'm typing this on an Envison 19"
LCD, and its gorgeous, but it looked pretty nasty until I optimized my
display parameters for it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message


> Little known problem with LCD monitors. They only work
> well at their native resolution.

So far so good.

> So, 15" monitors do well with 1024 x 768.

> So, 19" moniors do well with 1280 x 1024

> 17" monitors are the problem....they have to decrease
> pixel size, so when you get the proper resolution, the
> text is too small to see (at least with my eyesight).

The 17" monitors I've worked with lately have been 1280 x 1024, just like
the 19's.

However Harry is exposing his ignornace at this point, again.

There are a number of ways to increase the size of text. one is

> And trying some other setting gives you the visual
> *******ization that you noticed today. Bah, humbug! I'm
> writing on a glorious, color accurate 19" cathode ray
> tube. It puts my 15" LCD on my DAW to shame.

I've never had an LCD display that was smaller than 17". Its obviouisly
because of my modest means. ;-)

One is Display Properties, Advanced, General, DPI setting.

The other is more complex to use but allows making more selective changes:

Display Properties, Appearance, Advanced, Item, etc...

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:pKtNf.134798$0G.133565@dukeread10
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> s.com>,
>>> chung > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which differences? Are you speaking about your
>>>>>>>> claimed ability to hear the difference between 440
>>>>>>>> Hz and 441 Hz?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet ANOTHER example of putting words in my mouth. Why don't you just
>>>>>>> try the truth? I've never said
>>>>>>> that I can tell the difference between 440 and 441.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Refresh my memory here Jenn. You did bring the issue
>>>>>> of hearing that difference up, didn't you?
>>>
>>>>> Yes I did, in the context of a discussion. But did I
>>>>> ever state that I can hear that difference? No, you
>>>>> made that up. Why?
>>
>>>> Jenn, here's what you wrote on 2/24, at 1:51 pm
>>>> (GMT-8):
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/d29c870e0308ade0
>>
>>
>>>> >>>What kind of frequency changes?
>>
>>>> >>> > Arg. Can you tell the difference between 440 and, say 441?
>>
>>>> >> Both steady state tones?
>>
>>>>>> Yep.
>>
>>>> You clearly stated that you could hear the difference.
>>
>> I beg to differ. In that post the "yep" was her
>> agreement with my recitation of a part of a question she
>> was asking me.
>>> Sorry to let the cat out of the bag, what with y'all
>>> being so entertaining:
>>
>>> http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/9455/wholearticleenglish.html
>>
>> The article does not really say that anybody can hear
>> the difference between 440 and 441 Hz.
>>
>> It says that 440 and 441 Hz being played together at
>> the same time sounds different than just 440 Hz being
>> played. In fact people can hear the difference between 440 Hz
>> and 440 Hz (i.e., the identical same frequency) being
>> played from 2 or more sources at the same time if a
>> certain nearly universal condition is met. What is that condition?
>
> OooH Oooh.... call me... my hand is up!
>
> Ok...they can't be equidistant or in phase.
>
> Is that it? What do I win?

Some potentially useful tips about how to optimize the appearance of your
new LCD.

One - several gave you, which involves matching your display settings to the
pixel configuration of the LCD. It's perfectly fine but a bit superficial
and creates other problems that are fortunately readily adressible for a
fine overall result.

Three others are things that nobody else mentioned:

One relates to the Cleartype option:

Display properties, appearance, effects and select "clear type" edge
filtering.

One is Display Properties, Advanced, General, DPI setting.

The other is more complex to use but allows making more selective changes:

Display Properties, Appearance, Advanced, Item, etc...

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> "chung" > wrote in message
>> rvers.com...
>>
>>>
>>> It seems like over at rahe and here, many different
>>> people are got the same impression that I have.
>>
>> Not true.
>
> Yes it is.
>
> Both here and there she has been clear.
>
> She has been clear and she has been raked over the coals
> pretty well about her alleged hearing ability on RAHE and
> why a musican's hearing is not the same as an
> audiophile's heeraing. That they listen differently.

While there is nothing that says that a musician can listen and be very
sensitive to technical values related to audio and failures in the
reproduction of sound in general, it is my experience that musicians tend to
listen more for musical values.

For example in audio, many sounds that are tough to reproduce are not
musical in nature. As far as audio goes, it doesn't matter what the pitch of
the source is, as long as the pitch is the same when reproduced. Musicians
tend to focus on pitch being correct, musically.

IME many musicians can be amazingly non-critical of sound that is badly
reproduced, as long as musical values are good.

[ScottW]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:HbuNf.134802$0G.107657@dukeread10...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>
>>>> OooH Oooh.... call me... my hand is up!
>>>>
>>>> Ok...they can't be equidistant or in phase.
>>>>
>>>> Is that it? What do I win?
>>>>
>>> A double bonus.
>>> One of Arny's used toilet seats and one of his obsolete sound cards.
>>
>> Oh.. well then... nevermind.
>>
>> Here's an example of new technology sucking. I got a new computer at
>> work today with some NEC 19" LCD monitor. Thing looks great on graphics
>> but it can't render text to save its ass. Way to pixelly and slanted
>> lines look like stairs so they try this bleeding character effect.. one
>> column every other pixel before the pseudo solid character and it just
>> makes 'em blurry and gives me a splitting headache. Thankfully I
>> wouldn't let 'em take my old CRT until I tried the LCD. Support tech
>> thought I was nuts but that thing will make me blind if I have to read on
>> it all day.
>>
>> ScottW
>
> Little known problem with LCD monitors. They only work well at their
> native resolution.

This monitor bitches at you if you try to set resolution
other than its native.... AFAIAC... that is exactly where text looks its
worst.

At some resolutions the damns thing can't even render complete characters.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Little known problem with LCD monitors. They only work
>> well at their native resolution.
>
> So far so good.
>
>> So, 15" monitors do well with 1024 x 768.
>
>> So, 19" moniors do well with 1280 x 1024
>
>> 17" monitors are the problem....they have to decrease
>> pixel size, so when you get the proper resolution, the
>> text is too small to see (at least with my eyesight).
>
> The 17" monitors I've worked with lately have been 1280 x 1024, just like
> the 19's.
>
> However Harry is exposing his ignornace at this point, again.
>
> There are a number of ways to increase the size of text. one is
>
>> And trying some other setting gives you the visual
>> *******ization that you noticed today. Bah, humbug! I'm
>> writing on a glorious, color accurate 19" cathode ray
>> tube. It puts my 15" LCD on my DAW to shame.
>
> I've never had an LCD display that was smaller than 17". Its obviouisly
> because of my modest means. ;-)
>
> One is Display Properties, Advanced, General, DPI setting.

Been there... you get 2 choices 90 or 120...
It gives mixed results...most text is enlarged...a couple of
web pages and stuff aren't... some fonts come out bold.

royal PIA.... starting at my old Viewsonic A90 at home is almost soothing
to my eyes :).

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:HbuNf.134802$0G.107657@dukeread10
>
>
>> Here's an example of new technology sucking. I got a new
>> computer at work today with some NEC 19" LCD monitor. Thing looks great
>> on graphics but it can't render text to
>> save its ass. Way to pixelly and slanted lines look like
>> stairs so they try this bleeding character effect.. one
>> column every other pixel before the pseudo solid
>> character and it just makes 'em blurry and gives me a
>> splitting headache. Thankfully I wouldn't let 'em take
>> my old CRT until I tried the LCD. Support tech thought I
>> was nuts but that thing will make me blind if I have to
>> read on it all day.
>
> Check to make sure that the monitor is being driven with its native
> resolution.

Can't avoid ...damn thing bitches constantly if you try to run
in anything but.

>
> IOW if it is for example a 1920 x 1024 monitor, make sure that is how you
> are driving it. CRTs can tolerate mismatches of this kind far better than
> LCDs.
>
> Also, go into display properties, appearance, effects and select "clear
> type" edge filtering.

Ok...haven't tried that.

>
> OTOH it may be an atypical piece of junk.

Maybe... I know it wasn't cheap.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

ScottW said:

> Been there... you get 2 choices 90 or 120...
> It gives mixed results...most text is enlarged...a couple of
> web pages and stuff aren't... some fonts come out bold.

Mine defaults to 96 dpi. Looks great. Maybe you just need a different
video card.

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> ScottW said:
>
>> Been there... you get 2 choices 90 or 120...
>> It gives mixed results...most text is enlarged...a couple of
>> web pages and stuff aren't... some fonts come out bold.
>
> Mine defaults to 96 dpi. Looks great. Maybe you just need a different
> video card.

96 is probably right... its a company machine with vid on the M/B
so adding hardware isn't an option.
Anyway... I've looked around at a numerous LCDs and I just
don't like the way they render text. They remind me of
dot matrix printers.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article .com>,
> chung > wrote:
>
> > So your point is that you have better listening acuity for those
> > differences, but not hearing acuity. Well actually, that's what we are
> > saying also, that you seem to indicate that being a musician/conductor,
> > you have superior listening acuity.
>
> That's an interesting idea. I wonder if anyone has studied this
> proposition. Besides these guys, that is:
>
> http://www1.wfubmc.edu/news/NewsArticle.htm?Articleid=1730
>
> Stephen


It is sheer waste of time arguing about art with people who
don't have a clue about difference between art and their tech. school
training.
They will talk about "hearing ability", about what most people prefer
most of the
time, about what "science" and manufacturers have to say.
Its talking to the blind about perspective. I wonder
why Jenn bothers.
Unless she just likes argument (like me).
I will now stick my neck out and repeat an anecdote from the
time when
U.K. was unashamedly elitist.
Lord Reith the first chairman of the BBC was told that many
complained
about uncompromisingly high standard of the BBC Radio 3. He said: (I'm
quoting
inexactly, from memory): "I don't care what they like. They'd better
learn to like
what we think is good for them
Ludovic Mirabel

[Jenn]

In article om>,
wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > chung > wrote:
> >
> > > So your point is that you have better listening acuity for those
> > > differences, but not hearing acuity. Well actually, that's what we are
> > > saying also, that you seem to indicate that being a musician/conductor,
> > > you have superior listening acuity.
> >
> > That's an interesting idea. I wonder if anyone has studied this
> > proposition. Besides these guys, that is:
> >
> > http://www1.wfubmc.edu/news/NewsArticle.htm?Articleid=1730
> >
> > Stephen
>
>
> It is sheer waste of time arguing about art with people who
> don't have a clue about difference between art and their tech. school
> training.
> They will talk about "hearing ability", about what most people prefer
> most of the
> time, about what "science" and manufacturers have to say.
> Its talking to the blind about perspective. I wonder
> why Jenn bothers.

Hope springs eternal. ;-)

[Harry Lavo]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:3kkOf.134990$0G.66521@dukeread10...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> news:HbuNf.134802$0G.107657@dukeread10
>>
>>
>>> Here's an example of new technology sucking. I got a new
>>> computer at work today with some NEC 19" LCD monitor. Thing looks great
>>> on graphics but it can't render text to
>>> save its ass. Way to pixelly and slanted lines look like
>>> stairs so they try this bleeding character effect.. one
>>> column every other pixel before the pseudo solid
>>> character and it just makes 'em blurry and gives me a
>>> splitting headache. Thankfully I wouldn't let 'em take
>>> my old CRT until I tried the LCD. Support tech thought I
>>> was nuts but that thing will make me blind if I have to
>>> read on it all day.
>>
>> Check to make sure that the monitor is being driven with its native
>> resolution.
>
> Can't avoid ...damn thing bitches constantly if you try to run
> in anything but.
>
>>
>> IOW if it is for example a 1920 x 1024 monitor, make sure that is how you
>> are driving it. CRTs can tolerate mismatches of this kind far better than
>> LCDs.
>>
>> Also, go into display properties, appearance, effects and select "clear
>> type" edge filtering.
>
> Ok...haven't tried that.
>
>>
>> OTOH it may be an atypical piece of junk.
>
> Maybe... I know it wasn't cheap.

Cleartype probably will help, Arny is right about that? Give it a try.

Harry

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:ChkOf.134989$0G.33964@dukeread10
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Little known problem with LCD monitors. They only work
>>> well at their native resolution.
>>
>> So far so good.
>>
>>> So, 15" monitors do well with 1024 x 768.
>>
>>> So, 19" moniors do well with 1280 x 1024
>>
>>> 17" monitors are the problem....they have to decrease
>>> pixel size, so when you get the proper resolution, the
>>> text is too small to see (at least with my eyesight).
>>
>> The 17" monitors I've worked with lately have been 1280
>> x 1024, just like the 19's.
>>
>> However Harry is exposing his ignornace at this point,
>> again. There are a number of ways to increase the size of text.
>> one is
>>> And trying some other setting gives you the visual
>>> *******ization that you noticed today. Bah, humbug! I'm writing on a
>>> glorious, color accurate 19" cathode
>>> ray tube. It puts my 15" LCD on my DAW to shame.
>>
>> I've never had an LCD display that was smaller than
>> 17". Its obviouisly because of my modest means. ;-)
>>
>> One is Display Properties, Advanced, General, DPI
>> setting.
>
> Been there... you get 2 choices 90 or 120...

Wrong again. Please see "Custom Setting" I've pushed this number up around
200 in some cases.

[ScottW]

Cleartype helps quite a bit....thanks for the tip Arny and Harry.

ScottW