Amazing FREE Audio Tweak No. 2! For Advanced Audiophiles Only!

[[email protected]]

Biogeometry teaches us that shapes and symbols can have special meaning
to us, and friendly ones can have beneficial effects on our
environments, and as I have discovered in my long and wondrous journey
as an audiophile, on our senses as well. For today's excercise, we'll
be drawing special shapes on objects to improve the sound we hear from
our audio systems. To this end, I'd like to introduce you to the
"L-Shape". So-called because it looks like an "L", with the corner
curved inward. Here's what I mean:

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/amartherus/album?.dir=f3e6&.src=ph&store=&prodid=&.done=http%3a//pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/amartherus/my_photos%3E

This special shape chosen out of thousands of possible figures, has
proven to have remarkable properties, and is said to include the
ability to reduce EMI. We'll be using it on CD's today. I will suggest
two methods, one for advanced audiophiles, and one for those who's
listening skills do not reach the advanced stage, but who are
nonetheless interested in improving the sound of their hifi systems for
nothing. (I believe the latter will best apply to most and probably all
RAO regulars, judging by the results of the last free tweak I
published).

// THE ADVANCED METHOD //

This is the easier method, but I call it "advanced", because it
requires you have an aural memory longer than 3 seconds. And if you
consider yourself or others consider you a so-called "objectivist",
then it's a guarantee you won't. Ok, let's begin. Draw the shape on the
label side of your CD, preferably at around 3 o'clock on the label,
over top of the "Compact Disc" logo, if there is one. Draw it with a
good, fresh black marker, about a 1/4" thick ("fresh" because the
darker the better). Try to keep the edges and corners as straight as
possible, and the curve well defined, as in the picture.

n.b. You can use the example in one of the pictures exactly as shown if
you wish, but I prefer to draw the symbol this way, as I feel it is a
more "authentic" L-shape: The corner of the shape is geared towards the
right (so that it looks like a "T" with the top right line chopped
off). The vertical leg (going down) is slightly longer than the
horizontal top line (going across). About 15-20% longer. And the entire
shape is not drawn straight, but at an angle tilted a few degrees
toward the left.

// THE "RAO REGULAR" METHOD //

If the above method didn't work for you, it simply means your listening
skills are not up to snuff, and you should use this method. This
requires you have two exact or similar copies of the same CD. Yes, I
realize that two commercial pressings of the same CD are unlikely to
sound identical even with the same stamper no., and that making an
exact sounding copy of a CD on CD-R is impossible (at least I've never
been able to accomplish it...). However, this test is still valid,
because the L-shape done correctly, should produce a difference greater
than the inherent differences between the CDs.

Once you've made your CD copy or gotten a hold of two identical CDs,
listen to them carefully a few times, to be sure you know the
differences between them. Then draw the shape on one of them as
described above, then compare the two. (I do not suggest you compare
them blind at first, as blind tests have been proven to introduce
unnatural stresses that interfere with our neurological processes).

If you don't hear a difference:

Then it doesn't work for you, that's okay. Don't worry, it doesn't mean
your stereo sucks. It just means your listening acuity requires further
refinement. This can be achieved by simply doing such test comparisons
more often, until you get better at identifying differences in shorter
periods of time. I promise this will help you in the end, to enjoy a
superior level of music reproductionin the end. If you think you hear a
difference, but are not sure (people often deny differences if their
prejudicial mind tells them there can't be any), then try adding more
such L-shapes around the disc to the one you already drew. This can
compound the effect a bit, but is not necessarily better to the sound
than to simply draw one symbol. (Due to the "odd-even" rule).

If you do hear a difference:

Congratulations, you've learned something new about the strange and
magical world we live in. And if you're actually brave enough to post
here that you have heard a difference, knowing you may be subjected to
mockery and ridicule by grown men whose minds never graduated from the
fifth-grade, and who spend their lives on audio groups deriving great
pleasure from mocking, deriding and ridiculing others with beliefs they
don't share or understand, then heartier congratulations are in order.
Ridicule is nothing to be scared of. Plus, it shows you're not sheep.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Biogeometry teaches us that shapes and symbols can have special meaning
> to us, and friendly ones can have beneficial effects on our
> environments, and as I have discovered in my long and wondrous journey
> as an audiophile, on our senses as well. For today's excercise, we'll
> be drawing special shapes on objects to improve the sound we hear from
> our audio systems. To this end, I'd like to introduce you to the
> "L-Shape". So-called because it looks like an "L", with the corner
> curved inward. Here's what I mean:
>
Have you tried pentagrams?

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Biogeometry teaches us that shapes and symbols can have special meaning
>> > to us, and friendly ones can have beneficial effects on our
>> > environments, and as I have discovered in my long and wondrous journey
>> > as an audiophile, on our senses as well. For today's excercise, we'll
>> > be drawing special shapes on objects to improve the sound we hear from
>> > our audio systems. To this end, I'd like to introduce you to the
>> > "L-Shape". So-called because it looks like an "L", with the corner
>> > curved inward. Here's what I mean:
>> >
>> Have you tried pentagrams?
>
>
> No, have you?
>
No, I put Jewish stars and StuffBack stickers on mine.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Biogeometry teaches us that shapes and symbols can have special meaning
> >> > to us, and friendly ones can have beneficial effects on our
> >> > environments, and as I have discovered in my long and wondrous journey
> >> > as an audiophile, on our senses as well. For today's excercise, we'll
> >> > be drawing special shapes on objects to improve the sound we hear from
> >> > our audio systems. To this end, I'd like to introduce you to the
> >> > "L-Shape". So-called because it looks like an "L", with the corner
> >> > curved inward. Here's what I mean:
> >> >
> >> Have you tried pentagrams?
> >
> >
> > No, have you?
> >
> No, I put Jewish stars and StuffBack stickers on mine.


"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Biogeometry teaches us that shapes and symbols can have special meaning
> >> > to us, and friendly ones can have beneficial effects on our
> >> > environments, and as I have discovered in my long and wondrous journey
> >> > as an audiophile, on our senses as well. For today's excercise, we'll
> >> > be drawing special shapes on objects to improve the sound we hear from
> >> > our audio systems. To this end, I'd like to introduce you to the
> >> > "L-Shape". So-called because it looks like an "L", with the corner
> >> > curved inward. Here's what I mean:
> >> >
> >> Have you tried pentagrams?
> >
> >
> > No, have you?
> >
> No, I put Jewish stars and StuffBack stickers on mine.

Have you tried the L-shape?

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Robert Morein wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Biogeometry teaches us that shapes and symbols can have special
>> >> > meaning
>> >> > to us, and friendly ones can have beneficial effects on our
>> >> > environments, and as I have discovered in my long and wondrous
>> >> > journey
>> >> > as an audiophile, on our senses as well. For today's excercise,
>> >> > we'll
>> >> > be drawing special shapes on objects to improve the sound we hear
>> >> > from
>> >> > our audio systems. To this end, I'd like to introduce you to the
>> >> > "L-Shape". So-called because it looks like an "L", with the corner
>> >> > curved inward. Here's what I mean:
>> >> >
>> >> Have you tried pentagrams?
>> >
>> >
>> > No, have you?
>> >
>> No, I put Jewish stars and StuffBack stickers on mine.
>
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Robert Morein wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Biogeometry teaches us that shapes and symbols can have special
>> >> > meaning
>> >> > to us, and friendly ones can have beneficial effects on our
>> >> > environments, and as I have discovered in my long and wondrous
>> >> > journey
>> >> > as an audiophile, on our senses as well. For today's excercise,
>> >> > we'll
>> >> > be drawing special shapes on objects to improve the sound we hear
>> >> > from
>> >> > our audio systems. To this end, I'd like to introduce you to the
>> >> > "L-Shape". So-called because it looks like an "L", with the corner
>> >> > curved inward. Here's what I mean:
>> >> >
>> >> Have you tried pentagrams?
>> >
>> >
>> > No, have you?
>> >
>> No, I put Jewish stars and StuffBack stickers on mine.
>
> Have you tried the L-shape?
>
The L-shape has a chronosynclastic discontinuity at the ends that, IMHO,
interferes with adiabatic dissipation.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Biogeometry teaches us that shapes and symbols can have special
> >> >> > meaning
> >> >> > to us, and friendly ones can have beneficial effects on our
> >> >> > environments, and as I have discovered in my long and wondrous
> >> >> > journey
> >> >> > as an audiophile, on our senses as well. For today's excercise,
> >> >> > we'll
> >> >> > be drawing special shapes on objects to improve the sound we hear
> >> >> > from
> >> >> > our audio systems. To this end, I'd like to introduce you to the
> >> >> > "L-Shape". So-called because it looks like an "L", with the corner
> >> >> > curved inward. Here's what I mean:
> >> >> >
> >> >> Have you tried pentagrams?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > No, have you?
> >> >
> >> No, I put Jewish stars and StuffBack stickers on mine.
> >
> >
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Biogeometry teaches us that shapes and symbols can have special
> >> >> > meaning
> >> >> > to us, and friendly ones can have beneficial effects on our
> >> >> > environments, and as I have discovered in my long and wondrous
> >> >> > journey
> >> >> > as an audiophile, on our senses as well. For today's excercise,
> >> >> > we'll
> >> >> > be drawing special shapes on objects to improve the sound we hear
> >> >> > from
> >> >> > our audio systems. To this end, I'd like to introduce you to the
> >> >> > "L-Shape". So-called because it looks like an "L", with the corner
> >> >> > curved inward. Here's what I mean:
> >> >> >
> >> >> Have you tried pentagrams?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > No, have you?
> >> >
> >> No, I put Jewish stars and StuffBack stickers on mine.
> >
> > Have you tried the L-shape?
> >
> The L-shape has a chronosynclastic discontinuity at the ends that, IMHO,
> interferes with adiabatic dissipation.

Of course. That's the key to its success. So, back to the question
then: Have you tried it on your CDs?

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > Robert Morein wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Robert Morein wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Biogeometry teaches us that shapes and symbols can have special
>> >> >> > meaning
>> >> >> > to us, and friendly ones can have beneficial effects on our
>> >> >> > environments, and as I have discovered in my long and wondrous
>> >> >> > journey
>> >> >> > as an audiophile, on our senses as well. For today's excercise,
>> >> >> > we'll
>> >> >> > be drawing special shapes on objects to improve the sound we hear
>> >> >> > from
>> >> >> > our audio systems. To this end, I'd like to introduce you to the
>> >> >> > "L-Shape". So-called because it looks like an "L", with the
>> >> >> > corner
>> >> >> > curved inward. Here's what I mean:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Have you tried pentagrams?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > No, have you?
>> >> >
>> >> No, I put Jewish stars and StuffBack stickers on mine.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Robert Morein wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Biogeometry teaches us that shapes and symbols can have special
>> >> >> > meaning
>> >> >> > to us, and friendly ones can have beneficial effects on our
>> >> >> > environments, and as I have discovered in my long and wondrous
>> >> >> > journey
>> >> >> > as an audiophile, on our senses as well. For today's excercise,
>> >> >> > we'll
>> >> >> > be drawing special shapes on objects to improve the sound we hear
>> >> >> > from
>> >> >> > our audio systems. To this end, I'd like to introduce you to the
>> >> >> > "L-Shape". So-called because it looks like an "L", with the
>> >> >> > corner
>> >> >> > curved inward. Here's what I mean:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Have you tried pentagrams?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > No, have you?
>> >> >
>> >> No, I put Jewish stars and StuffBack stickers on mine.
>> >
>> > Have you tried the L-shape?
>> >
>> The L-shape has a chronosynclastic discontinuity at the ends that, IMHO,
>> interferes with adiabatic dissipation.
>
> Of course. That's the key to its success.
No, it is not. It is key to the failure of the process.

So, back to the question
> then: Have you tried it on your CDs?
>
A waste of ink.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Biogeometry teaches us that shapes and symbols can have special
> >> >> >> > meaning
> >> >> >> > to us, and friendly ones can have beneficial effects on our
> >> >> >> > environments, and as I have discovered in my long and wondrous
> >> >> >> > journey
> >> >> >> > as an audiophile, on our senses as well. For today's excercise,
> >> >> >> > we'll
> >> >> >> > be drawing special shapes on objects to improve the sound we hear
> >> >> >> > from
> >> >> >> > our audio systems. To this end, I'd like to introduce you to the
> >> >> >> > "L-Shape". So-called because it looks like an "L", with the
> >> >> >> > corner
> >> >> >> > curved inward. Here's what I mean:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Have you tried pentagrams?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, have you?
> >> >> >
> >> >> No, I put Jewish stars and StuffBack stickers on mine.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Biogeometry teaches us that shapes and symbols can have special
> >> >> >> > meaning
> >> >> >> > to us, and friendly ones can have beneficial effects on our
> >> >> >> > environments, and as I have discovered in my long and wondrous
> >> >> >> > journey
> >> >> >> > as an audiophile, on our senses as well. For today's excercise,
> >> >> >> > we'll
> >> >> >> > be drawing special shapes on objects to improve the sound we hear
> >> >> >> > from
> >> >> >> > our audio systems. To this end, I'd like to introduce you to the
> >> >> >> > "L-Shape". So-called because it looks like an "L", with the
> >> >> >> > corner
> >> >> >> > curved inward. Here's what I mean:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Have you tried pentagrams?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, have you?
> >> >> >
> >> >> No, I put Jewish stars and StuffBack stickers on mine.
> >> >
> >> > Have you tried the L-shape?
> >> >
> >> The L-shape has a chronosynclastic discontinuity at the ends that, IMHO,
> >> interferes with adiabatic dissipation.
> >
> > Of course. That's the key to its success.
> No, it is not. It is key to the failure of the process.


So do you mean you've tried this tweak, or you're just presuming it
doesn't work because you really think you've found some brilliant
theory that discounts it, making a trial unnecessary?

Are you even an audiophile, Mr. Morein? Do you care at all about sound
quality, or are you like "Krueger", "Pinkerton", Mike McKelvy,
Westpace, Steve Sullivan, ScottW and the rest of the self-professed
"objectivists" who think that everything in audio sounds the same, no
worries mate?


> So, back to the question
> > then: Have you tried it on your CDs?
> >
> A waste of ink.

Are you that poor that you can't afford to take the risk that the ink
would be wasted, and no sonic improvement heard? If so, email me your
home address, and I will send you a black marker.

Maybe then you'll have no more excuses to prevent you from opening your
mind.

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Are you even an audiophile, Mr. Morein? Do you care at all about sound
> quality, or are you like "Krueger", "Pinkerton", Mike McKelvy,
> Westpace, Steve Sullivan, ScottW and the rest of the self-professed
> "objectivists" who think that everything in audio sounds the same, no
> worries mate?

Why would you use an L when you obviously can't read?

ScottW

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On 5 Mar 2006 21:13:43 -0800, wrote:

>
>Biogeometry teaches us that shapes and symbols can have special meaning
>to us, and friendly ones can have beneficial effects on our
>environments, and as I have discovered in my long and wondrous journey
>as an audiophile, on our senses as well. For today's excercise, we'll
>be drawing special shapes on objects to improve the sound we hear from
>our audio systems. To this end, I'd like to introduce you to the
>"L-Shape". So-called because it looks like an "L", with the corner
>curved inward. Here's what I mean:
>
http://www.lovehoney.co.uk/bigpicture.cfm?id=1955&c=ponduyys

There's not much demand for nincompoops, note.

[George M. Middius]

A couple years ago, Goofy said:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/ba97f8ff91dda23f?hl=en&

Now he tells us this:
http://www.lovehoney.co.uk/product.cfm?id=5509


It all makes sense now.

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Are you even an audiophile, Mr. Morein? Do you care at all about sound
> > quality, or are you like "Krueger", "Pinkerton", Mike McKelvy,
> > Westpace, Steve Sullivan, ScottW and the rest of the self-professed
> > "objectivists" who think that everything in audio sounds the same, no
> > worries mate?
>
> Why would you use an L when you obviously can't read?
>
> ScottW

LOL! Nice try at defining irony. You and your spec-head mates are
always making a lot of demands for "evidence", but you've not supplied
any to support your groundless claim that I can't read. However, I've
just proven that you can't read. You ask "Why would I use an L-shape",
and that was answered in my first post: to improve sound quality.
What's obvious here, is you're the one who can't read. You've also
shown that you can't think much either.

BTW, is this how you show you're not a troll, how you "take the high
road" and have a lot of "class"? By responding to my post which is one
of the few here that attempts to stay on the subject of audio, with ad
hominem attacks and personal insults?

I hope I don't ever see you whine about others doing that to you.

[[email protected]]

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

> On 5 Mar 2006 21:13:43 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >Biogeometry teaches us that shapes and symbols can have special meaning
> >to us, and friendly ones can have beneficial effects on our
> >environments, and as I have discovered in my long and wondrous journey
> >as an audiophile, on our senses as well. For today's excercise, we'll
> >be drawing special shapes on objects to improve the sound we hear from
> >our audio systems. To this end, I'd like to introduce you to the
> >"L-Shape". So-called because it looks like an "L", with the corner
> >curved inward. Here's what I mean:
> >
> http://www.lovehoney.co.uk/bigpicture.cfm?id=1955&c=ponduyys
>
> There's not much demand for nincompoops, note.

Is that why you're out of a job? I'm sorry for you, then. Keep a stiff
upper lip, I'm sure something will give.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:20:04 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>
>A couple years ago, Goofy said:
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/ba97f8ff91dda23f?hl=en&
>
>Now he tells us this:
>http://www.lovehoney.co.uk/product.cfm?id=5509


Well I never! What will they think of next.


>
>It all makes sense now.
>
>

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On 7 Mar 2006 22:01:43 -0800, wrote:

>
>Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
>
>> On 5 Mar 2006 21:13:43 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Biogeometry teaches us that shapes and symbols can have special meaning
>> >to us, and friendly ones can have beneficial effects on our
>> >environments, and as I have discovered in my long and wondrous journey
>> >as an audiophile, on our senses as well. For today's excercise, we'll
>> >be drawing special shapes on objects to improve the sound we hear from
>> >our audio systems. To this end, I'd like to introduce you to the
>> >"L-Shape". So-called because it looks like an "L", with the corner
>> >curved inward. Here's what I mean:
>> >
>> http://www.lovehoney.co.uk/bigpicture.cfm?id=1955&c=ponduyys
>>
>> There's not much demand for nincompoops, note.
>
>Is that why you're out of a job? I'm sorry for you, then. Keep a stiff
>upper lip, I'm sure something will give.


You're just miffed because I don't fancy taking my brain out, putting
it through a mincer and stuffing it back in, so I can become a
tweako-freako crook.

[[email protected]]

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

> On 7 Mar 2006 22:01:43 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
> >
> >> On 5 Mar 2006 21:13:43 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Biogeometry teaches us that shapes and symbols can have special meaning
> >> >to us, and friendly ones can have beneficial effects on our
> >> >environments, and as I have discovered in my long and wondrous journey
> >> >as an audiophile, on our senses as well. For today's excercise, we'll
> >> >be drawing special shapes on objects to improve the sound we hear from
> >> >our audio systems. To this end, I'd like to introduce you to the
> >> >"L-Shape". So-called because it looks like an "L", with the corner
> >> >curved inward. Here's what I mean:
> >> >
> >> http://www.lovehoney.co.uk/bigpicture.cfm?id=1955&c=ponduyys
> >>
> >> There's not much demand for nincompoops, note.
> >
> >Is that why you're out of a job? I'm sorry for you, then. Keep a stiff
> >upper lip, I'm sure something will give.
>
>
> You're just miffed because I don't fancy taking my brain out, putting
> it through a mincer and stuffing it back in, so I can become a
> tweako-freako crook.

Excuse me? Are you talking to me, goofball? You seem to have some
"personal issues" that you need to resolve. All that anger can't be
helping your sound quality much. Where do you get off calling me a
"crook", when all of the tweaks I generously put up here, I didn't
charge anyone for, and they don't even cost a cent to execute? What
exactly are you doing to help audiophiles here improve their sound,
pray tell?

And are you sure you have a brain to take out? Have you checked in
there lately? Because if you think you need to remove your brain before
you attempt to improve your perception of sound with one of my tweaks,
then it doesn't sound like you had one to begin with.

BTW, I really do hope you get a job again at some point. Maybe when you
have a bit of money coming in, you won't be so paranoid, and everyone
around you won't appear to be a "crook", perhaps.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On 8 Mar 2006 12:57:36 -0800, wrote:

>
>Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
>
>> On 7 Mar 2006 22:01:43 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 5 Mar 2006 21:13:43 -0800, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Biogeometry teaches us that shapes and symbols can have special meaning
>> >> >to us, and friendly ones can have beneficial effects on our
>> >> >environments, and as I have discovered in my long and wondrous journey
>> >> >as an audiophile, on our senses as well. For today's excercise, we'll
>> >> >be drawing special shapes on objects to improve the sound we hear from
>> >> >our audio systems. To this end, I'd like to introduce you to the
>> >> >"L-Shape". So-called because it looks like an "L", with the corner
>> >> >curved inward. Here's what I mean:
>> >> >
>> >> http://www.lovehoney.co.uk/bigpicture.cfm?id=1955&c=ponduyys
>> >>
>> >> There's not much demand for nincompoops, note.
>> >
>> >Is that why you're out of a job? I'm sorry for you, then. Keep a stiff
>> >upper lip, I'm sure something will give.
>>
>>
>> You're just miffed because I don't fancy taking my brain out, putting
>> it through a mincer and stuffing it back in, so I can become a
>> tweako-freako crook.
>
>Excuse me? Are you talking to me, goofball? You seem to have some
>"personal issues" that you need to resolve. All that anger can't be
>helping your sound quality much. Where do you get off calling me a
>"crook", when all of the tweaks I generously put up here, I didn't
>charge anyone for, and they don't even cost a cent to execute? What
>exactly are you doing to help audiophiles here improve their sound,
>pray tell?
>
>And are you sure you have a brain to take out? Have you checked in
>there lately? Because if you think you need to remove your brain before
>you attempt to improve your perception of sound with one of my tweaks,
>then it doesn't sound like you had one to begin with.
>
>BTW, I really do hope you get a job again at some point. Maybe when you
>have a bit of money coming in, you won't be so paranoid, and everyone
>around you won't appear to be a "crook", perhaps.

I would not charge you for my car tweaks. You put two L plates on and
sure enough you learn to drive. If you put an asprin on the roof you
no longer have to hold the steering wheel ehile driving. You have to
be "open minded" for the second one to work but not for long.

Just as a matter of interest... Have you ever managed to sell one of
your silly tweaks?

[[email protected]]

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

> On 8 Mar 2006 12:57:36 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
> >
> >> On 7 Mar 2006 22:01:43 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 5 Mar 2006 21:13:43 -0800, wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Biogeometry teaches us that shapes and symbols can have special meaning
> >> >> >to us, and friendly ones can have beneficial effects on our
> >> >> >environments, and as I have discovered in my long and wondrous journey
> >> >> >as an audiophile, on our senses as well. For today's excercise, we'll
> >> >> >be drawing special shapes on objects to improve the sound we hear from
> >> >> >our audio systems. To this end, I'd like to introduce you to the
> >> >> >"L-Shape". So-called because it looks like an "L", with the corner
> >> >> >curved inward. Here's what I mean:
> >> >> >
> >> >> http://www.lovehoney.co.uk/bigpicture.cfm?id=1955&c=ponduyys
> >> >>
> >> >> There's not much demand for nincompoops, note.
> >> >
> >> >Is that why you're out of a job? I'm sorry for you, then. Keep a stiff
> >> >upper lip, I'm sure something will give.
> >>
> >>
> >> You're just miffed because I don't fancy taking my brain out, putting
> >> it through a mincer and stuffing it back in, so I can become a
> >> tweako-freako crook.
> >
> >Excuse me? Are you talking to me, goofball? You seem to have some
> >"personal issues" that you need to resolve. All that anger can't be
> >helping your sound quality much. Where do you get off calling me a
> >"crook", when all of the tweaks I generously put up here, I didn't
> >charge anyone for, and they don't even cost a cent to execute? What
> >exactly are you doing to help audiophiles here improve their sound,
> >pray tell?
> >
> >And are you sure you have a brain to take out? Have you checked in
> >there lately? Because if you think you need to remove your brain before
> >you attempt to improve your perception of sound with one of my tweaks,
> >then it doesn't sound like you had one to begin with.
> >
> >BTW, I really do hope you get a job again at some point. Maybe when you
> >have a bit of money coming in, you won't be so paranoid, and everyone
> >around you won't appear to be a "crook", perhaps.
>
> I would not charge you for my car tweaks. You put two L plates on and
> sure enough you learn to drive. If you put an asprin on the roof you
> no longer have to hold the steering wheel ehile driving. You have to
> be "open minded" for the second one to work but not for long.

Congratulations. You've proven you can be as stupid, if not stupider,
than everyone else. Happy now?

> Just as a matter of interest... Have you ever managed to sell one of
> your silly tweaks?

I understand you're out of a job, but that's no reason to be such a
rotten, cynical ******* as you are. Or maybe considering your hope of
getting one, it is?

Who said that I "sell silly tweaks"? Oh. You did. How stupid is that?
You also called me a "crook", and you never answered my question, as to
how I was a "crook". How stupid is that, to accuse someone of being a
"crook", when you can't even say how they robbed others? Or are you
assuming I "sell silly tweaks", and that must be how I "rob people"?
Since I never said anything about selling tweaks, especially "silly
tweaks", how stupid is that? And since you never tried any of my
tweaks, or offered any evidence to prove they don't work, then how
would you know they're not valid? How stupid is that? And since you are
a worthless bum who has done nothing to help audiophiles here, and
never say anything of note or merit about anything, how stupid do you
have to be to call me a "crook" for offering free tweaks to people?
With all these stupidities in your coner, more congratulations are in
order. You win the "idiot of the hour" award, "goofball". (At least you
got your name right.... LOL!).

[Robert Morein]

In article . com,
" > wrote:
> Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
>
>> On 8 Mar 2006 12:57:36 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7 Mar 2006 22:01:43 -0800, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2006 21:13:43 -0800, wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Biogeometry teaches us that shapes and symbols can have special meaning
>>>>>>> to us, and friendly ones can have beneficial effects on our
>>>>>>> environments, and as I have discovered in my long and wondrous journey
>>>>>>> as an audiophile, on our senses as well. For today's excercise, we'll
>>>>>>> be drawing special shapes on objects to improve the sound we hear from
>>>>>>> our audio systems. To this end, I'd like to introduce you to the
>>>>>>> "L-Shape". So-called because it looks like an "L", with the corner
>>>>>>> curved inward. Here's what I mean:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.lovehoney.co.uk/bigpicture.cfm?id=1955&c=ponduyys
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's not much demand for nincompoops, note.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that why you're out of a job? I'm sorry for you, then. Keep a stiff
>>>>> upper lip, I'm sure something will give.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're just miffed because I don't fancy taking my brain out, putting
>>>> it through a mincer and stuffing it back in, so I can become a
>>>> tweako-freako crook.
>>>
>>> Excuse me? Are you talking to me, goofball? You seem to have some
>>> "personal issues" that you need to resolve. All that anger can't be
>>> helping your sound quality much. Where do you get off calling me a
>>> "crook", when all of the tweaks I generously put up here, I didn't
>>> charge anyone for, and they don't even cost a cent to execute? What
>>> exactly are you doing to help audiophiles here improve their sound,
>>> pray tell?
>>>
>>> And are you sure you have a brain to take out? Have you checked in
>>> there lately? Because if you think you need to remove your brain before
>>> you attempt to improve your perception of sound with one of my tweaks,
>>> then it doesn't sound like you had one to begin with.
>>>
>>> BTW, I really do hope you get a job again at some point. Maybe when you
>>> have a bit of money coming in, you won't be so paranoid, and everyone
>>> around you won't appear to be a "crook", perhaps.
>>
>> I would not charge you for my car tweaks. You put two L plates on and
>> sure enough you learn to drive. If you put an asprin on the roof you
>> no longer have to hold the steering wheel ehile driving. You have to
>> be "open minded" for the second one to work but not for long.
>
> Congratulations. You've proven you can be as stupid, if not stupider,
> than everyone else. Happy now?
>
>> Just as a matter of interest... Have you ever managed to sell one of
>> your silly tweaks?
>
> I understand you're out of a job, but that's no reason to be such a
> rotten, cynical ******* as you are. Or maybe considering your hope of
> getting one, it is?
>
> Who said that I "sell silly tweaks"? Oh. You did. How stupid is that?
> You also called me a "crook", and you never answered my question, as to
> how I was a "crook". How stupid is that, to accuse someone of being a
> "crook", when you can't even say how they robbed others? Or are you
> assuming I "sell silly tweaks", and that must be how I "rob people"

You do "sell silly tweaks", that's what you've been trying to sell the
group. the fact you don't do it very well is irrelevant. And your silly
tweaks are crooked, so you're a crook, the fact you don't do it very well is
irrelevant. Your a horrible, evil man.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein went off his meds and wrote :

> In article . com,
> " > wrote:
> > Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
> >
> > Who said that I "sell silly tweaks"? Oh. You did. How stupid is that?
> > You also called me a "crook", and you never answered my question, as to
> > how I was a "crook". How stupid is that, to accuse someone of being a
> > "crook", when you can't even say how they robbed others? Or are you
> > assuming I "sell silly tweaks", and that must be how I "rob people"


Morein, I figure either this is your idea of a joke, or you just went
off your meds....

> You do "sell silly tweaks", that's what you've been trying to sell the
> group. the fact you don't do it very well is irrelevant.

Perhaps. But the fact that I don't _charge_ for the tweaks IS, you
moron. It means I'm not "selling" anything.

> And your silly tweaks are crooked, so you're a crook,

What did you do, inhabit the mind of Mike mckelvy? Just two hours ago,
I told you that you in email that I thought you were a smart man. I
obviously misjudged you. Apparently, I hadn't heard enough from you.
You show that your posession of logic is no better than that of a true
fool, like a mckelvy, a Kreuger or even a Westface. I'm gonna have some
fun showing you to be the fool I say you are, by tearing your infantile
logic argument apart:

1) Firstly, most, if not all the tweaks i shared with the group, are
not mine. So if they are not valid, that wouldnt make me a "crook", you
imbecile. It would merely make the tweaks invalid.

2) Secondly, even if they were invalid, it still wouldn't make me a
"crook" or make them "silly" or "crooked". It would simply mean YOU
can't hear the effect. And should I be surprised, since you _told_ me
you'd never be able to discern an effect?

3) Even if they were _my_ tweaks, and were invalid, which after about
600 messages and 1000 criticisms of me and the tweaks, absolutely NOT
ONE SINGLE PERSON HERE HAS EVER EVEN COME CLOSE TO PROVING, that
_still_ wouldn't make me a "crook". Guess why, Robert? Because I'm not
SELLING anything, you stupid git. As a matter of fact, I even offered
to GIVE you a free cd marker to try out one of the tweaks, because you
were too much of a cheap ******* to waste your ink in case it didnt
work. You certainly have no problem wasting your time though, do you?

4) Where is YOUR evidence that the tweaks are "silly" and "crooked"?
Are _you_ going to be the first out of a thousand respondents to prove
they are invalid? Go on. I dare you. I DOUBLE dare you. Prove your
claim that they're crooked or you'll have admitted you're an ignorant
liar. Not you or anyone on this newsgroup is intelligent enough to
successfully disprove any of them. All anyone has ever done is vigorous
assertions and ad hominem attacks against me, but when it comes to
proving their false claims about the tweaks, pure and utter silence.

> the fact you don't do it very well is irrelevant.

The fact that I don't do _what_ very well? Make a profit from the
tweaks I'm not selling, you blithering idiot?! LOL!

> Your a horrible, evil man.

For what, offering you a free cd marker to help you improve your sound,
or for posting free tweaks to help RAO members improve their sound for
free? Perhaps you think Im responsible for the hole in the ozone layer?
Tell me, is there something in the water that RAO members are drinking
which makes most respondents appear to be fearful, paranoid mental
patients? Maybe I should have listened more closely to all those
messages that were calling you a "crook" and your son a mental case. I
will now.

[Robert Morein]

In article . com,
" > wrote:
> Robert Morein went off his meds and wrote :
>
>> In article . com,
>> " > wrote:
>>> Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
>>>
>>> Who said that I "sell silly tweaks"? Oh. You did. How stupid is that?
>>> You also called me a "crook", and you never answered my question, as to
>>> how I was a "crook". How stupid is that, to accuse someone of being a
>>> "crook", when you can't even say how they robbed others? Or are you
>>> assuming I "sell silly tweaks", and that must be how I "rob people"
>
>
> Morein, I figure either this is your idea of a joke, or you just went
> off your meds....
>
>> You do "sell silly tweaks", that's what you've been trying to sell the
>> group. the fact you don't do it very well is irrelevant.
>
> Perhaps. But the fact that I don't _charge_ for the tweaks IS, you
> moron. It means I'm not "selling" anything.

Charge? People around the world routinely "sell" things without money
changing hands. In this case, you're trying to "sell" the group on your
nasty, nasty ideas about audio. Well, as you can see no one's buying.

>
>> And your silly tweaks are crooked, so you're a crook,
>
> What did you do, inhabit the mind of Mike mckelvy? Just two hours ago,
> I told you that you in email that I thought you were a smart man. I
> obviously misjudged you. Apparently, I hadn't heard enough from you.
> You show that your posession of logic is no better than that of a true
> fool, like a mckelvy, a Kreuger or even a Westface. I'm gonna have some
> fun showing you to be the fool I say you are, by tearing your infantile
> logic argument apart:
>
> 1) Firstly, most, if not all the tweaks i shared with the group, are
> not mine. So if they are not valid, that wouldnt make me a "crook", you
> imbecile. It would merely make the tweaks invalid.
>
> 2) Secondly, even if they were invalid, it still wouldn't make me a
> "crook" or make them "silly" or "crooked". It would simply mean YOU
> can't hear the effect. And should I be surprised, since you _told_ me
> you'd never be able to discern an effect?
>
> 3) Even if they were _my_ tweaks, and were invalid, which after about
> 600 messages and 1000 criticisms of me and the tweaks, absolutely NOT
> ONE SINGLE PERSON HERE HAS EVER EVEN COME CLOSE TO PROVING, that
> _still_ wouldn't make me a "crook". Guess why, Robert? Because I'm not
> SELLING anything, you stupid git. As a matter of fact, I even offered
> to GIVE you a free cd marker to try out one of the tweaks, because you
> were too much of a cheap ******* to waste your ink in case it didnt
> work. You certainly have no problem wasting your time though, do you?
>
> 4) Where is YOUR evidence that the tweaks are "silly" and "crooked"?
> Are _you_ going to be the first out of a thousand respondents to prove
> they are invalid? Go on. I dare you. I DOUBLE dare you. Prove your
> claim that they're crooked or you'll have admitted you're an ignorant
> liar. Not you or anyone on this newsgroup is intelligent enough to
> successfully disprove any of them. All anyone has ever done is vigorous
> assertions and ad hominem attacks against me, but when it comes to
> proving their false claims about the tweaks, pure and utter silence.
>
>> the fact you don't do it very well is irrelevant.
>
> The fact that I don't do _what_ very well? Make a profit from the
> tweaks I'm not selling, you blithering idiot?! LOL!
>
>> Your a horrible, evil man.
>
> For what, offering you a free cd marker to help you improve your sound,
> or for posting free tweaks to help RAO members improve their sound for
> free? Perhaps you think Im responsible for the hole in the ozone layer?
> Tell me, is there something in the water that RAO members are drinking
> which makes most respondents appear to be fearful, paranoid mental
> patients? Maybe I should have listened more closely to all those
> messages that were calling you a "crook" and your son a mental case. I
> will now.

I already have a marker. It doesn't' work. You don't have to "sell" me
another, you crook.

>

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein took his meds, and still managed to come up with
this bit of lunacy:

> In article . com,
> " > wrote:
> > Robert Morein went off his meds and wrote :
> >
> >> In article . com,
> >> " > wrote:
> >>> Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Who said that I "sell silly tweaks"? Oh. You did. How stupid is that?
> >>> You also called me a "crook", and you never answered my question, as to
> >>> how I was a "crook". How stupid is that, to accuse someone of being a
> >>> "crook", when you can't even say how they robbed others? Or are you
> >>> assuming I "sell silly tweaks", and that must be how I "rob people"
> >
> > Morein, I figure either this is your idea of a joke, or you just went
> > off your meds....
> >
> >> You do "sell silly tweaks", that's what you've been trying to sell the
> >> group. the fact you don't do it very well is irrelevant.
> >
> > Perhaps. But the fact that I don't _charge_ for the tweaks IS, you
> > moron. It means I'm not "selling" anything.
>
> Charge? People around the world routinely "sell" things without money
> changing hands.

That's called "giving", you stupid twit. Maybe you're unfamiliar with
the concept, because you're a cheap ******* who's even stingy with the
ink in his black marker. It would never occur to you to "give" anything
to anyone, much less to perfect strangers on a newsgroup. The fact that
you're a paranoid schizophrenic mental case, who thinks that people who
haven't sold anything to you and even offered to give you things are
trying to rip you off, doesn't help your situation.

> In this case, you're trying to "sell" the group on your
> nasty, nasty ideas about audio.

Iz dat so? Well let me see if I can assess the problem... after having
sold your last black marker to pay for internet porn, you can no longer
afford the medication you so require. So you've taken to mixing paint
thinner with expired capsules of contact C. Is that enough to explain
this idiotic response of yours, Morein? Or do you care to elaborate on
what these "nasty, nasty ideas" are?

> Well, as you can see no one's buying.

Oh gee, I'm absolutely heartbroken.... How the hell am I going to make
a living selling free tweaks, if no one will buy them?? Oh Lord, I
guess my family's going to have to go hungry another night..... Maybe
with my next free tweak, things will pick up, and I'll be able to buy
some dirt for my family to eat... D'ya think, you silly fruitcake?

> >Perhaps you think Im responsible for the hole in the ozone layer?
> > Tell me, is there something in the water that RAO members are drinking
> > which makes most respondents appear to be fearful, paranoid mental
> > patients? Maybe I should have listened more closely to all those
> > messages that were calling you a "crook" and your son a mental case. I
> > will now.
>
> I already have a marker. It doesn't' work.

Maybe if you pulled it out of your arse, it would work better. Just a
hunch.

> You don't have to "sell" me another, you crook.

Nice try. (Not). Robert, you're either a very bad troll, or a very
disturbed individual. Either way, you're not very good at this, and
looking more the fool by the minute. Well I hope its doing something
for you. I know its giving me a lot of laughs, and I'm not alone on
that. If you are (falsely) alleging now that I sold you a black marker,
why on earth would I ask you to email me and offer to give you one? Oh.
Sorry to introduce "logic" into this again. I realize you're not very
good with the "logic" thing.

Why did you run scared from these questions I asked you in the last
message? Got something to hide, frightened little Robert? Let's see if
this time you're man enough, or at least honest enough, to answer them:

1:

> >> Your a horrible, evil man.

For what, offering you a free cd marker to help you improve your sound,
or for posting free tweaks to help RAO members improve their sound for
free?


2:

Where is YOUR evidence that the tweaks are "silly" and "crooked"? Are
_you_ going to be the first out of a thousand respondents to prove they
are invalid? Go on. I dare you. I DOUBLE dare you.


3.

> >> the fact you don't do it very well is irrelevant.

The fact that I don't do _what_ very well? Make a profit from the
tweaks I'm not selling, you blithering idiot?! LOL!

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On 8 Mar 2006 20:20:55 -0800, wrote:
snipped

>> I would not charge you for my car tweaks. You put two L plates on and
>> sure enough you learn to drive. If you put an asprin on the roof you
>> no longer have to hold the steering wheel ehile driving. You have to
>> be "open minded" for the second one to work but not for long.
>
>Congratulations. You've proven you can be as stupid, if not stupider,
>than everyone else. Happy now?
>
Hardly "proof", boyo.

>> Just as a matter of interest... Have you ever managed to sell one of
>> your silly tweaks?
>
>I understand you're out of a job, but that's no reason to be such a
>rotten, cynical ******* as you are. Or maybe considering your hope of
>getting one, it is?
>

I have a job. I tweak things for peanuts.

>Who said that I "sell silly tweaks"? Oh. You did.

No I did not. I *asked* you and you have carefully avoided saying
whether you have any undeclared financial interest in things
audio/tweaky or not.

>How stupid is that?
>You also called me a "crook", and you never answered my question, as to
>how I was a "crook".

Just intuition. I did not call you a crook but I believe where there
are tweaks "crooks" are not far away. You have made a big effort to
"help" people for free. Perhaps you are a Rolling Stone type of
philanthropist. I think of all fringe audio belief people as "crooks".
Nothing personal, note, you just happen to be full of ****.

>How stupid is that, to accuse someone of being a
>"crook", when you can't even say how they robbed others? Or are you
>assuming I "sell silly tweaks", and that must be how I "rob people"?
>Since I never said anything about selling tweaks, especially "silly
>tweaks", how stupid is that? And since you never tried any of my
>tweaks, or offered any evidence to prove they don't work, then how
>would you know they're not valid? How stupid is that?

I have a hunch that you are not "open minded" enough to try *my*
tweak.. Shame on you.

And since you are
>a worthless bum who has done nothing to help audiophiles here,

They are largely beyond help, thanks to the efforts of people like
you. I can not imagine any scientific/technical field where so little
progress has been made in the last 50 years (and that is so ripe for
easy progress) or any group of enthusiasts who have such little
interest or knowledge (or at least knowledge of what "experts"
believe) of 'how it works'. I gave up any idea of selling or "giving
away" any innovations a long time ago. First, they (audiophools) would
have to reject abject ignorance and belief in your brand of bull****
and I don't see that happening anytime soon. It doesn't bother me any
more. I prefer to go sailing now to doing (amateur) audio 'research'
and just turn on '3D' sound when I want to listen to it and smirk..
You have no idea at all of just what is possible and how far off track
you all are, or what has already been achieved. You have no ambition
at all, trying to fiddle around the edges, using magic, distortion,
wires etc.. Tough ****! I tried to make some big leaps and did. I have
made quite a lot of progress since the reviews, kept it and stopped.
:-)

>and
>never say anything of note or merit about anything, how stupid do you
>have to be to call me a "crook" for offering free tweaks to people?
>With all these stupidities in your coner, more congratulations are in
>order. You win the "idiot of the hour" award, "goofball". (At least you
>got your name right.... LOL!).

At least you have a *pretentious* silly name. You sound familiar
though. Are you sure you have not used another name which was not
anonymised?

[ScottW]

wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > Are you even an audiophile, Mr. Morein? Do you care at all about sound
> > > quality, or are you like "Krueger", "Pinkerton", Mike McKelvy,
> > > Westpace, Steve Sullivan, ScottW and the rest of the self-professed
> > > "objectivists" who think that everything in audio sounds the same, no
> > > worries mate?
> >
> > Why would you use an L when you obviously can't read?
> >
> > ScottW
>
> LOL! Nice try at defining irony. You and your spec-head mates are
> always making a lot of demands for "evidence", but you've not supplied
> any to support your groundless claim that I can't read. However, I've
> just proven that you can't read. You ask "Why would I use an L-shape",
> and that was answered in my first post: to improve sound quality.
> What's obvious here, is you're the one who can't read. You've also
> shown that you can't think much either.
>
> BTW, is this how you show you're not a troll, how you "take the high
> road" and have a lot of "class"? By responding to my post which is one
> of the few here that attempts to stay on the subject of audio, with ad
> hominem attacks and personal insults?
>
> I hope I don't ever see you whine about others doing that to you.

No L in audio....L is for Looney.

ScottW

[paul packer]

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 16:04:26 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:


>The L-shape has a chronosynclastic discontinuity at the ends that, IMHO,
>interferes with adiabatic dissipation.

Only if your conospheric is perturbated.

[Robert Morein]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 16:04:26 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>The L-shape has a chronosynclastic discontinuity at the ends that, IMHO,
>>interferes with adiabatic dissipation.
>
> Only if your conospheric is perturbated.

Iconoclastic perturbation is homomorphic to some convex connected manifolds,
but only on the closed sets of some compact set. As for the conospheric
case, Cayley's theorem can be trivially used to show it is not true for
D<20.

[[email protected]]

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

> On 8 Mar 2006 20:20:55 -0800, wrote:
> snipped
>
> >> I would not charge you for my car tweaks. You put two L plates on and
> >> sure enough you learn to drive. If you put an asprin on the roof you
> >> no longer have to hold the steering wheel ehile driving. You have to
> >> be "open minded" for the second one to work but not for long.
> >
> >Congratulations. You've proven you can be as stupid, if not stupider,
> >than everyone else. Happy now?
> >
> Hardly "proof", boyo.

Okay Holmes. Show us what a smart "goofball" you are. Instead of
dismissing the tweak out of hand with dumb mockery, show proof that you
have a basis for doing that, besides your dimwitted ignorance. And
don't just say "its up to me to back up your ignorant claim".

> >> Just as a matter of interest... Have you ever managed to sell one of
> >> your silly tweaks?
> >
> >I understand you're out of a job, but that's no reason to be such a
> >rotten, cynical ******* as you are. Or maybe considering your hope of
> >getting one, it is?
> >
>
> I have a job. I tweak things for peanuts.


Oh. You mean you clean up the crap in the elephant cage? Don't the
elephants harass you for the peanuts?


> >Who said that I "sell silly tweaks"? Oh. You did.
>
> No I did not. I *asked* you and you have carefully avoided saying
> whether you have any undeclared financial interest in things
> audio/tweaky or not.

Uh no, Goofy, you didn't. I would have remembered that. Rather, you
presumed I had an interest in selling tweaks. But according to you, YOU
are the "crook" who sells tweaks for a living.

> >How stupid is that?
> >You also called me a "crook", and you never answered my question, as to
> >how I was a "crook".

> Just intuition.

News: You have none. It walked out on you long time ago.

> I did not call you a crook but I believe where there
> are tweaks "crooks" are not far away.

Do you have any more pearls of wisdom from a fearful, insecure paranoid
neurotic to share with us? You seem to enjoy making dumb, ignorant
statements, then backpeddling on them when your large red bulbous nose
is against the wall, you stupid clown. Here are your exact ignorant
words:

"You're just miffed because I don't fancy taking my brain out, putting
it through a mincer and stuffing it back in, so I can become a
tweako-freako crook."

You are implying I'm a "tweako freako crook", whatever the heck that
is. I'm still waiting for proof of that as well, you ignorant twit.


> You have made a big effort to "help" people for free.


That's about the first thing you said right. It's a hell of a bigger
effort than you have, goofball.


> I think of all fringe audio belief people as "crooks".

Based on entirely nothing but your complete and total pig-arse
ignorance. Either state your proof that "all fringe audio belief
people" as you so eloquently call them, are "crooks"... or you will be
admitting that statement is nothing but the opinion of an ignorant
****. And a true "goofball".

> Nothing personal, note, you just happen to be full of ****.

Ah, the prerequisite ad hominem "objectivist" attack. Well then don't
take it personally when I tell you quite sincerely, you're a lot dumber
than you think you are, and a _hell_ of a lot more ignorant. You've
actually PROVEN in these last messages that you're full of ****. But
what you and no one else here has _ever_ proved, is that I am. That
says it all right there.

> >How stupid is that, to accuse someone of being a
> >"crook", when you can't even say how they robbed others? Or are you
> >assuming I "sell silly tweaks", and that must be how I "rob people"?
> >Since I never said anything about selling tweaks, especially "silly
> >tweaks", how stupid is that? And since you never tried any of my
> >tweaks, or offered any evidence to prove they don't work, then how
> >would you know they're not valid? How stupid is that?
>
> I have a hunch that you are not "open minded" enough to try *my*
> tweak.. Shame on you.

Let me get this straight: I'm supposed to be ashamed for not trying a
tweak you never shared with anyone? Particularly when you've never
tried any of mine, which I -have- published? Obviously, you're nothing
but a silly arse, and I'm starting to understand your purpose on this
group. You're the half-time entertainment, aren't you?


> And since you are
> >a worthless bum who has done nothing to help audiophiles here,
>
> They are largely beyond help, thanks to the efforts of people like
> you.

Ha! Now your true prejudices start to come out.... According to what
many have told me, my efforts are completely wasted. Therefore, they
have no effect. The minds of the subjectivists on this group are as
constricted as the sphincters of the objectivists. And the minds of the
"objectivists" are a vacuous toxic waste field. So I believe, I have
again proved you wrong, Mr. Goofball. The people on this group are not
"beyond help" because of people like me. They're beyond help because
they have the same affliction many do, an affliction which you share:
they belong to a "herd mentality". Their belief systems are formed
largely by what they're told to think and believe, and not an
end-result derivative of their personal experiences. Each group battles
the other to defend "their" beliefs (which aren't really "theirs" but
what they've been spoon-fed), because basically, like you, they're
insecure people. Insecure people need to have their belief systems
validated. Either by grouping together with like-minded people, or
fighting unlike-minded people.

> I can not imagine any scientific/technical field where so little
> progress has been made in the last 50 years (and that is so ripe for
> easy progress) or any group of enthusiasts who have such little
> interest or knowledge (or at least knowledge of what "experts"
> believe) of 'how it works'.

You don't see you the way I see you. Because if you did, you'd realize
what an ignorant twerp you really are. You think you're a man of
science, as all your objectivist mates regard themselves. But you're
anything but. You remain willfully ignorant of scientific phenomenon
that you are currently ignorant of. Your "religion" requires you to
believe only in what you know, dismissing everything you don't. You've
not shown a single shred of scientific curiousity about any of my
tweaks, and damn it to hell, if I can find a single word from you on
the subject of AUDIO anywhere. Good God man, what the hell are you
doing here? Just to pop up and make insipid little comments in
someone's thread on random occasions? A rather inconsequential
contributor you are. But a scientist? Don't make me laugh! (tm). You're
a total non-thinker. So don't complain about how ignorant the
subjectivists are about audio. You're no less ignorant, simply because
you can tell an FFT from a DUT.

The only thing I agree with you is that little progress has been made
in audio, in a field that is so ripe for progress. But I blame people
like YOU for that problem. People with severely limited minds. Problem
being that they happen to be in controlling positions at audio
companies, in audio publications and audio organizations. This means
that those who are truly on the avant garde of our hobby and able to
push the envelope of progress, are often pushed back by ridicule from
those who are not on the same level as the pioneers, and audio advances
in baby steps. Yes, *exactly* as has been seen here with me on this
group, in the last couple of weeks (but I admit, on a much smaller,
more insignificant scale). What "experts" believe has no consequence,
since you do not hold the definition of what an audio "expert" is. And
the various people that can be called audio "experts" (including me, in
my own fashion), do NOT agree on what is and isn't relevant in audio.
Which is why you are a FOOL to trust "experts". Or at least, only one
"kind" of expert.

> I gave up any idea of selling or "giving
> away" any innovations a long time ago. First, they (audiophools) would
> have to reject abject ignorance and belief in your brand of bull****
> and I don't see that happening anytime soon. It doesn't bother me any
> more.

That's almost exactly what I've come to conclude, and unlike you, I was
never intent on selling anything to anybody. Not even in the figurative
form. Especially since most of the tweaks I mentioned here were not
developed by me. Listen carefully to what you said, but now imagine its
ME saying it to YOU: "First audiofools would have to reject abject
ignorance and believe in your brand of bull****, and I dont see that
happening anytime soon". The response to my tweaks shows why its not
going to happen any time soon (but then, its not anything I'm surprised
by either). Your definition of "audiofools" is only a subset of my
definition of "audiofools". That's because I see much farther and wider
than you do. If my tweaks do help to improve sound (not via placebo),
then we can both agree that they are being soundly rejected due to
"abject ignorance" on the part of "audiofools", right? And again, that
premise being correct, its obvious that its because of a belief in YOUR
"brand of bull****" that my tweaks are not even considered, although
they cost nothing, require no technical skill, and take about 20
seconds to execute, on average.

So I think I just proved you're a bitter hypocrite. I can see now why
you accused me of being a "crook". Because you failed at cheating
"audiofools" out of cold hard cash, and you figure I'm trying to do
what you did to screw audiophiles. But in fact, I never charged anyone
for any help or advice I ever gave. I figured they can' t get mad at me
if my advice or help isn't useful. But apparently, the paranoid
fear-controlled nutballs on RAO have proven they can. Without even
trying the advice to begin with! I've been called a "crook" by you, a
"horrible evil man" by another, and worse by others here, all because
of free tweaks that no one on this group has ever yet tried!


> I prefer to go sailing now to doing (amateur) audio 'research'
> and just turn on '3D' sound when I want to listen to it and smirk..

So that's why you're continually here, and not, say, on
rec.boats.sailing?

Because I have not invested half my life, or a cent of my money, it
does not bother in the slightest if people are not interested to try
the tweak ideas Ive presented. Contrary to popular opinion by some of
your ignorant friends. That's because I've seen no shortage of
closed-minded ignorant twits in my travels in the audio community, long
before I landed here. You all move in the very same predictable ways.
You all have the same reactions and say the same stupid things. I'm
good enough now to spot a closed-minded ignorant git from 50 yards
away, I think. But don't you find it ironic that even though you're the
closed-minded ignorant twit you think I am, my attitude in the end is
the same as yours. Which is that although I can say I tried to improve
people's lives for no compensation whatsoever, and their ignorance and
prejudice does not permit them to believe that the "gold" I put on the
table before them is for real, I don't need anyone here to believe me.
Like you, I know that I can turn on "3D" sound on my stereo, listen to
it and think about all the "silly things" I've done to produce the
sound I'm hearing, and smirk. I have no end of confidence that my $300
sound system sounds better or at least more musical than the audio
systems of most people here, with systems that cost ten times or more.
I've got speakers that disappear, bags of depth, microdynamic details,
flow, pace, tuneful bass, and a sound that captivates, no matter how
bad the recording. If anyone, its the true pioneers who developed the
ideas that made my humble little system into a giant killer, that I
feel bad for.







> You have no idea at all of just what is possible and how far off track
> you all are, or what has already been achieved. You have no ambition
> at all, trying to fiddle around the edges, using magic, distortion,
> wires etc.. Tough ****! I tried to make some big leaps and did.

Hilarious! Absolutely hilarious! Thanks for killing me with your irony.
You're saying pretty much *exactly* what I would, in talking about the
majority of audiophiles, and ALL audio enthusiasts on this group.
Listen carefully to your words, hypocrite: "You have NO idea what is
possible, and how far off track you are". "You have no ambition at all,
trying to fiddle around the edges, using magic, distortion, wires... ".
I dont know what your reason is for using those words, but I have a
valid proof for saying that. The proof is in the fact that neither you
nor anyone else tried any of the tweaks I just posted! That much is a
fact. Want another fact? No one even proved there wasn't a valid reason
not to try them! So if you expect me to have sympathy for you when
you're doing the same thing you criticize others of doing... "tough
****!", as you like to say.

....."I tried to make some big leaps, and I DID".



> I have made quite a lot of progress since the reviews, kept it and stopped.

WHAT reviews? Are you really the tweako freako crook you just accused
me of being?!

> >and
> >never say anything of note or merit about anything, how stupid do you
> >have to be to call me a "crook" for offering free tweaks to people?
> >With all these stupidities in your coner, more congratulations are in
> >order. You win the "idiot of the hour" award, "goofball". (At least you
> >got your name right.... LOL!).
>
> At least you have a *pretentious* silly name.

It's not at all silly or "pretentious* - but you are. It actually has a
very distinct and profound meaning, derived from principles of quantum
mechanics - and furthermore, I did not invent it. My "silly name" as
you call it, is in fact, a self-contained "tweak", that can improve the
sound you hear off your stereo system. But then, you're too much of an
ignorant goofball to know anything about that, aren't you? LOL!

> You sound familiar
> though. Are you sure you have not used another name which was not
> anonymised?

Who said my name was anonymized? More presumptions, Mr. Goofball? I
happened to be born with this name. We, the "Hasprioritys" have a long
family history. My parents named me "Sound", because that was the first
thing I reacted to.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein did NOT write:

> In article . com,
> " > wrote:
> > Robert Morein went off his meds and wrote :
> >
> >> In article . com,
> >> " > wrote:
> >>> Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Who said that I "sell silly tweaks"? Oh. You did. How stupid is that?
> >>> You also called me a "crook", and you never answered my question, as to
> >>> how I was a "crook". How stupid is that, to accuse someone of being a
> >>> "crook", when you can't even say how they robbed others? Or are you
> >>> assuming I "sell silly tweaks", and that must be how I "rob people"
> >
> >
> > Morein, I figure either this is your idea of a joke, or you just went
> > off your meds....

Okay, I think I answered my own question. These last few messages were
NOT from Robert Morein, but some little small-change loser who has ****
all better to do with his sorry life. I think I know who that loser is,
too.... but who really cares.

[[email protected]]

In message:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/9c2a5b43942eda6a?hl=en&


wrote:
That the tweaks he is sharing are not his.

In message:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/11e1076c6dba3c8e?hl=en&


He states that the tweaks are his and he is published.
Yet later he states that only some of the tweaks are his.
He has posted 2 tweaks.
So is it 100% or 50% or 0% truth?
No where on the internet have I been able to find
a journal article authored by Soundhaspriority.

Perhaps he would share with the group his
literary bibliography.
The only thing I've found of substance in print
are the rants of a narcissitic homophobic bigot.

[[email protected]]

ScottW had nothing to say, but wrote this anyway:

> wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> >
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Are you even an audiophile, Mr. Morein? Do you care at all about sound
> > > > quality, or are you like "Krueger", "Pinkerton", Mike McKelvy,
> > > > Westpace, Steve Sullivan, ScottW and the rest of the self-professed
> > > > "objectivists" who think that everything in audio sounds the same, no
> > > > worries mate?
> > >
> > > Why would you use an L when you obviously can't read?
> > >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > LOL! Nice try at defining irony. You and your spec-head mates are
> > always making a lot of demands for "evidence", but you've not supplied
> > any to support your groundless claim that I can't read. However, I've
> > just proven that you can't read. You ask "Why would I use an L-shape",
> > and that was answered in my first post: to improve sound quality.
> > What's obvious here, is you're the one who can't read. You've also
> > shown that you can't think much either.
> >
> > BTW, is this how you show you're not a troll, how you "take the high
> > road" and have a lot of "class"? By responding to my post which is one
> > of the few here that attempts to stay on the subject of audio, with ad
> > hominem attacks and personal insults?
> >
> > I hope I don't ever see you whine about others doing that to you.
>
> No L in audio....L is for Looney.
>
> ScottW

Yet another intelligent, profound and thought provoking response from
the self-professed "objectivist" point of view, with supporting
evidence and everything. Bravo!
You've shown us all how credible the self-described "objectivists" are.

(I'll bet the "W" stands for "******".)

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On 9 Mar 2006 22:08:14 -0800, wrote:

>
>Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
>
>> On 8 Mar 2006 20:20:55 -0800, wrote:
>> snipped
>>
>> >> I would not charge you for my car tweaks. You put two L plates on and
>> >> sure enough you learn to drive. If you put an asprin on the roof you
>> >> no longer have to hold the steering wheel ehile driving. You have to
>> >> be "open minded" for the second one to work but not for long.
>> >
>> >Congratulations. You've proven you can be as stupid, if not stupider,
>> >than everyone else. Happy now?
>> >
>> Hardly "proof", boyo.
>
>Okay Holmes. Show us what a smart "goofball" you are. Instead of
>dismissing the tweak out of hand with dumb mockery, show proof that you
>have a basis for doing that, besides your dimwitted ignorance. And
>don't just say "its up to me to back up your ignorant claim".
>
>> >> Just as a matter of interest... Have you ever managed to sell one of
>> >> your silly tweaks?
>> >
>> >I understand you're out of a job, but that's no reason to be such a
>> >rotten, cynical ******* as you are. Or maybe considering your hope of
>> >getting one, it is?
>> >
>>
>> I have a job. I tweak things for peanuts.
>
>
>Oh. You mean you clean up the crap in the elephant cage? Don't the
>elephants harass you for the peanuts?

No but it felt like a zoo today.
>
>
>> >Who said that I "sell silly tweaks"? Oh. You did.
>>
>> No I did not. I *asked* you and you have carefully avoided saying
>> whether you have any undeclared financial interest in things
>> audio/tweaky or not.
>
>Uh no, Goofy, you didn't. I would have remembered that. Rather, you
>presumed I had an interest in selling tweaks. But according to you, YOU
>are the "crook" who sells tweaks for a living.


I wrote: "Just as a matter of interest... Have you ever managed to
sell one of your silly tweaks?" The question mark is a dead give away
when it come to asking. All the huffing and puffing has not obscured
the fact that you have carefully avoided the questions about whether
or not you have any vested interest in promoting tweaks.

>
>> >How stupid is that?
>> >You also called me a "crook", and you never answered my question, as to
>> >how I was a "crook".
>
>> Just intuition.
>
>News: You have none. It walked out on you long time ago.
>
>> I did not call you a crook but I believe where there
>> are tweaks "crooks" are not far away.
>
>Do you have any more pearls of wisdom from a fearful, insecure paranoid
>neurotic to share with us? You seem to enjoy making dumb, ignorant
>statements, then backpeddling on them when your large red bulbous nose
>is against the wall, you stupid clown. Here are your exact ignorant
>words:
>
>"You're just miffed because I don't fancy taking my brain out, putting
>it through a mincer and stuffing it back in, so I can become a
>tweako-freako crook."
>
>You are implying I'm a "tweako freako crook", whatever the heck that
>is. I'm still waiting for proof of that as well, you ignorant twit.
>
I have no indication that you rob banks, just peddle the sort of
useless ideas that end up getting sold to audiophiles, such as CD
marker pens and the like.

>
>> You have made a big effort to "help" people for free.
>
>
>That's about the first thing you said right. It's a hell of a bigger
>effort than you have, goofball.
>
>
>> I think of all fringe audio belief people as "crooks".
>
>Based on entirely nothing but your complete and total pig-arse
>ignorance. Either state your proof that "all fringe audio belief
>people" as you so eloquently call them, are "crooks"... or you will be
>admitting that statement is nothing but the opinion of an ignorant
>****. And a true "goofball".
>

I don't need proof of my own beliefs

>> Nothing personal, note, you just happen to be full of ****.
>
>Ah, the prerequisite ad hominem "objectivist" attack. Well then don't
>take it personally when I tell you quite sincerely, you're a lot dumber
>than you think you are, and a _hell_ of a lot more ignorant. You've
>actually PROVEN in these last messages that you're full of ****. But
>what you and no one else here has _ever_ proved, is that I am. That
>says it all right there.

"ad hominem" Sorry I meant your so called tweaks were **** but you get
the general idea.



>
>> >How stupid is that, to accuse someone of being a
>> >"crook", when you can't even say how they robbed others? Or are you
>> >assuming I "sell silly tweaks", and that must be how I "rob people"?
>> >Since I never said anything about selling tweaks, especially "silly
>> >tweaks", how stupid is that? And since you never tried any of my
>> >tweaks, or offered any evidence to prove they don't work, then how
>> >would you know they're not valid? How stupid is that?
>>
>> I have a hunch that you are not "open minded" enough to try *my*
>> tweak.. Shame on you.
>
>Let me get this straight: I'm supposed to be ashamed for not trying a
>tweak you never shared with anyone? Particularly when you've never
>tried any of mine, which I -have- published? Obviously, you're nothing
>but a silly arse, and I'm starting to understand your purpose on this
>group. You're the half-time entertainment, aren't you?
>

Why aren't you "open minded" enough to believe me when I tell you that
if you place an asprin on the roof of your car, that your car's top
speed will double and the car will steer itself? Because
open-mindedness should end some time before abolute crap begins. There
is no need to try every insane idea and nobody does so.

>
>> And since you are
>> >a worthless bum who has done nothing to help audiophiles here,
>>
>> They are largely beyond help, thanks to the efforts of people like
>> you.
>
>Ha! Now your true prejudices start to come out.... According to what
>many have told me, my efforts are completely wasted. Therefore, they
>have no effect. The minds of the subjectivists on this group are as
>constricted as the sphincters of the objectivists. And the minds of the
>"objectivists" are a vacuous toxic waste field. So I believe, I have
>again proved you wrong, Mr. Goofball. The people on this group are not
>"beyond help" because of people like me. They're beyond help because
>they have the same affliction many do, an affliction which you share:
>they belong to a "herd mentality".

I am not part of any herd.

>Their belief systems are formed
>largely by what they're told to think and believe, and not an
>end-result derivative of their personal experiences. Each group battles
>the other to defend "their" beliefs (which aren't really "theirs" but
>what they've been spoon-fed), because basically, like you, they're
>insecure people. Insecure people need to have their belief systems
>validated. Either by grouping together with like-minded people, or
>fighting unlike-minded people.
>

Well, when I started thinking about how ears work, I made a point of
not educating myself by reading what others had published. That came
later to check what was missed and I did a LOT of homework then.
Neither do I claim to have behaved in a scientific way, nor do I think
it is always the best way. It is very slow, expensive and tedious and
I did not have the time or resources to do a 'proper job' and to get
as far as I wanted to go. If anyone wants me to do any science, they
can pay me. It is not always much fun and I can be as unscientific as
I choose in my own time.

>> I can not imagine any scientific/technical field where so little
>> progress has been made in the last 50 years (and that is so ripe for
>> easy progress) or any group of enthusiasts who have such little
>> interest or knowledge (or at least knowledge of what "experts"
>> believe) of 'how it works'.
>
>You don't see you the way I see you. Because if you did, you'd realize
>what an ignorant twerp you really are. You think you're a man of
>science, as all your objectivist mates regard themselves. But you're
>anything but. You remain willfully ignorant of scientific phenomenon
>that you are currently ignorant of. Your "religion" requires you to
>believe only in what you know, dismissing everything you don't. You've
>not shown a single shred of scientific curiousity about any of my
>tweaks, and damn it to hell, if I can find a single word from you on
>the subject of AUDIO anywhere. Good God man, what the hell are you
>doing here? Just to pop up and make insipid little comments in
>someone's thread on random occasions? A rather inconsequential
>contributor you are. But a scientist? Don't make me laugh! (tm). You're
>a total non-thinker. So don't complain about how ignorant the
>subjectivists are about audio. You're no less ignorant, simply because
>you can tell an FFT from a DUT.


Pure nonsensical conjecture.

>
>The only thing I agree with you is that little progress has been made
>in audio, in a field that is so ripe for progress. But I blame people
>like YOU for that problem. People with severely limited minds. Problem
>being that they happen to be in controlling positions at audio
>companies, in audio publications and audio organizations. This means
>that those who are truly on the avant garde of our hobby and able to
>push the envelope of progress, are often pushed back by ridicule from
>those who are not on the same level as the pioneers, and audio advances
>in baby steps. Yes, *exactly* as has been seen here with me on this
>group, in the last couple of weeks (but I admit, on a much smaller,
>more insignificant scale). What "experts" believe has no consequence,
>since you do not hold the definition of what an audio "expert" is. And
>the various people that can be called audio "experts" (including me, in
>my own fashion), do NOT agree on what is and isn't relevant in audio.
>Which is why you are a FOOL to trust "experts". Or at least, only one
>"kind" of expert.
>
>> I gave up any idea of selling or "giving
>> away" any innovations a long time ago. First, they (audiophools) would
>> have to reject abject ignorance and belief in your brand of bull****
>> and I don't see that happening anytime soon. It doesn't bother me any
>> more.
>
>That's almost exactly what I've come to conclude, and unlike you, I was
>never intent on selling anything to anybody. Not even in the figurative
>form. Especially since most of the tweaks I mentioned here were not
>developed by me. Listen carefully to what you said, but now imagine its
>ME saying it to YOU: "First audiofools would have to reject abject
>ignorance and believe in your brand of bull****, and I dont see that
>happening anytime soon". The response to my tweaks shows why its not
>going to happen any time soon (but then, its not anything I'm surprised
>by either). Your definition of "audiofools" is only a subset of my
>definition of "audiofools". That's because I see much farther and wider
>than you do. If my tweaks do help to improve sound (not via placebo),
>then we can both agree that they are being soundly rejected due to
>"abject ignorance" on the part of "audiofools", right? And again, that
>premise being correct, its obvious that its because of a belief in YOUR
>"brand of bull****" that my tweaks are not even considered, although
>they cost nothing, require no technical skill, and take about 20
>seconds to execute, on average.
>
>So I think I just proved you're a bitter hypocrite. I can see now why
>you accused me of being a "crook". Because you failed at cheating
>"audiofools" out of cold hard cash, and you figure I'm trying to do
>what you did to screw audiophiles. But in fact, I never charged anyone
>for any help or advice I ever gave. I figured they can' t get mad at me
>if my advice or help isn't useful. But apparently, the paranoid
>fear-controlled nutballs on RAO have proven they can. Without even
>trying the advice to begin with! I've been called a "crook" by you, a
>"horrible evil man" by another, and worse by others here, all because
>of free tweaks that no one on this group has ever yet tried!
>
Whatever..
>
>> I prefer to go sailing now to doing (amateur) audio 'research'
>> and just turn on '3D' sound when I want to listen to it and smirk..
>
>So that's why you're continually here, and not, say, on
>rec.boats.sailing?
>

I post a great deal less than you. I just get the odd urge to take the
**** these days. Sailing is more about doing than talking, for me.

>Because I have not invested half my life, or a cent of my money, it
>does not bother in the slightest if people are not interested to try
>the tweak ideas Ive presented. Contrary to popular opinion by some of
>your ignorant friends. That's because I've seen no shortage of
>closed-minded ignorant twits in my travels in the audio community, long
>before I landed here. You all move in the very same predictable ways.
>You all have the same reactions and say the same stupid things. I'm
>good enough now to spot a closed-minded ignorant git from 50 yards
>away, I think. But don't you find it ironic that even though you're the
>closed-minded ignorant twit you think I am, my attitude in the end is
>the same as yours. Which is that although I can say I tried to improve
>people's lives for no compensation whatsoever, and their ignorance and
>prejudice does not permit them to believe that the "gold" I put on the
>table before them is for real, I don't need anyone here to believe me.
>Like you, I know that I can turn on "3D" sound on my stereo, listen to
>it and think about all the "silly things" I've done to produce the
>sound I'm hearing, and smirk. I have no end of confidence that my $300
>sound system sounds better or at least more musical than the audio
>systems of most people here,

I've done one for nearer $3...

with systems that cost ten times or more.
>I've got speakers that disappear, bags of depth, microdynamic details,
>flow, pace, tuneful bass, and a sound that captivates, no matter how
>bad the recording. If anyone, its the true pioneers who developed the
>ideas that made my humble little system into a giant killer, that I
>feel bad for.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> You have no idea at all of just what is possible and how far off track
>> you all are, or what has already been achieved. You have no ambition
>> at all, trying to fiddle around the edges, using magic, distortion,
>> wires etc.. Tough ****! I tried to make some big leaps and did.
>
>Hilarious! Absolutely hilarious! Thanks for killing me with your irony.
>You're saying pretty much *exactly* what I would, in talking about the
>majority of audiophiles, and ALL audio enthusiasts on this group.
>Listen carefully to your words, hypocrite: "You have NO idea what is
>possible, and how far off track you are". "You have no ambition at all,
>trying to fiddle around the edges, using magic, distortion, wires... ".
>I dont know what your reason is for using those words, but I have a
>valid proof for saying that. The proof is in the fact that neither you
>nor anyone else tried any of the tweaks I just posted! That much is a
>fact. Want another fact? No one even proved there wasn't a valid reason
>not to try them! So if you expect me to have sympathy for you when
>you're doing the same thing you criticize others of doing... "tough
>****!", as you like to say.
>
>...."I tried to make some big leaps, and I DID".
>

Do you do much deliberate misquoting? I wrote "I tried to make some
big leaps and did"

>
>
>> I have made quite a lot of progress since the reviews, kept it and stopped.
>
>WHAT reviews? Are you really the tweako freako crook you just accused
>me of being?!

It was a long time ago but I could probably find an old mag with one
in it, if you insist. I only ever bought three. :-)

>
>> >and
>> >never say anything of note or merit about anything, how stupid do you
>> >have to be to call me a "crook" for offering free tweaks to people?
>> >With all these stupidities in your coner, more congratulations are in
>> >order. You win the "idiot of the hour" award, "goofball". (At least you
>> >got your name right.... LOL!).
>>
>> At least you have a *pretentious* silly name.
>
>It's not at all silly or "pretentious* - but you are. It actually has a
>very distinct and profound meaning, derived from principles of quantum
>mechanics - and furthermore, I did not invent it. My "silly name" as
>you call it, is in fact, a self-contained "tweak", that can improve the
>sound you hear off your stereo system. But then, you're too much of an
>ignorant goofball to know anything about that, aren't you? LOL!
>
>> You sound familiar
>> though. Are you sure you have not used another name which was not
>> anonymised?
>
>Who said my name was anonymized? More presumptions, Mr. Goofball? I
>happened to be born with this name. We, the "Hasprioritys" have a long
>family history. My parents named me "Sound", because that was the first
>thing I reacted to.

Fine. I come from the Howardsen ap flossy's and dad said "goofball"
when he saw me and it stuck.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On 9 Mar 2006 22:08:14 -0800, wrote:

>
>WHAT reviews? Are you really the tweako freako crook you just accused
>me of being?!

Not Hardly, LOL Lot's!

It was related to this:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/ac0b7915951dc28f?hl=en

I happen to know how these recordings were actually processed because
I did (some of) them.

[[email protected]]

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

> On 9 Mar 2006 22:08:14 -0800, wrote:
>
> >Uh no, Goofy, you didn't. I would have remembered that. Rather, you
> >presumed I had an interest in selling tweaks. But according to you, YOU
> >are the "crook" who sells tweaks for a living.
>
> I wrote: "Just as a matter of interest... Have you ever managed to
> sell one of your silly tweaks?" The question mark is a dead give away
> when it come to asking.

Is English your first langauge? Because you seem to have a problem
comprehending basic english. I didn't argue whether your stupid
presumption was in the form of a question or not. What I said was that
you presumed I had an interest in selling tweaks. Asking me if I tried
to sell one of my tweaks, makes two stupid presumptions. First, that
the "tweaks" are all mine, second, that I have an interest in selling
them. Beyond that, I don't know how I can dumb it down any further for
you. Translated, it all means: Stop making stupid presumptions. It's
stupid of you to do that. Understand now?

> All the huffing and puffing has not obscured
> the fact that you have carefully avoided the questions about whether
> or not you have any vested interest in promoting tweaks.

I've not carefully avoided anything. That's your paranoia talking. A
trait that seems to be shared by both objectivists and subejctivsts on
this group. I'll be glad to answer your questions, once you answer
mine.

> >"You're just miffed because I don't fancy taking my brain out, putting
> >it through a mincer and stuffing it back in, so I can become a
> >tweako-freako crook."
> >
> >You are implying I'm a "tweako freako crook", whatever the heck that
> >is. I'm still waiting for proof of that as well, you ignorant twit.
> >
> I have no indication that you rob banks, just peddle the sort of
> useless ideas that end up getting sold to audiophiles, such as CD
> marker pens and the like.

Now you've done it, you ignorant *******. Hokay, let's get down to
business: PROVE the CD marker pens don't work. If you can't, you've
proven you're an ignorant, lying SOB. And you've also proven that you
and ALL the objectivists on this group are hypocrites.

> >> You have made a big effort to "help" people for free.
> >
> >That's about the first thing you said right. It's a hell of a bigger
> >effort than you have, goofball.
> >
> >> I think of all fringe audio belief people as "crooks".
> >
> >Based on entirely nothing but your complete and total pig-arse
> >ignorance. Either state your proof that "all fringe audio belief
> >people" as you so eloquently call them, are "crooks"... or you will be
> >admitting that statement is nothing but the opinion of an ignorant
> >****. And a true "goofball".
> >
>
> I don't need proof of my own beliefs

Neither do I. But in not being able to prove any ridiculous claim you
make, such as "fringe audio belief people are all crooks",
"CD markers are a useless idea", "5-pinhole paper tweaks with aspirin
are a useless idea", etc, you have proven something. That you're an
ignorant bigot. And possibly a racist ******* as well.


> >> Nothing personal, note, you just happen to be full of ****.
> >
> >Ah, the prerequisite ad hominem "objectivist" attack. Well then don't
> >take it personally when I tell you quite sincerely, you're a lot dumber
> >than you think you are, and a _hell_ of a lot more ignorant. You've
> >actually PROVEN in these last messages that you're full of ****. But
> >what you and no one else here has _ever_ proved, is that I am. That
> >says it all right there.
>
> "ad hominem" Sorry I meant your so called tweaks were **** but you get
> the general idea.

Which so-called tweaks? You mean the so-called tweaks you never even
TRIED, you ignorant ****? How credible do you think it is to claim
something is worthless or useless when you've never seen it, never
tried it, and being the ignorant pig you are, know
nothing about it? You've just proven that you're the one who's full of
****. Maybe that's why you never got anywhere peddling your bull****
tweaks, tweakboy.

> Why aren't you "open minded" enough to believe me when I tell you that
> if you place an asprin on the roof of your car, that your car's top
> speed will double and the car will steer itself? Because
> open-mindedness should end some time before abolute crap begins. There
> is no need to try every insane idea and nobody does so.

You're wrong about that. I do. To improve the sound of my hifi system,
I put photos of myself in my freezer. I tie reef knots in my window
blinds. I keep glasses of holy water next to my stereo. I put special
stickers on the water tank. So don't you ****ing sit there on your high
horse and unilaterally "declare" to me that nobody tries every insane
idea out there. Because I've just proven you wrong again, you ignorant
pig. Surely, you must be getting tired of that?

Furthermore, the ideas I've posted are not "insane". They have a basis
in science, and they are as rational as changing your loudspeakers. Or
as rational as you are ignorant, if you prefer. As to your question,
I'll tell you why I'm not "open minded" enough to believe you when you
tell me that placing an aspirin on the roof of my car will make the car
steer itself and double in speed: "Because you're a dumb ignorant
*******", that's why. I'm not in the habit of following tweak ideas
from dumb ignorant *******s, particularly those who have failed in
peddling their tweak ideas. How do I know this? Well

a) Your stupid worthless idea is yet another dumb clicheed mockery of
one of my valid, intelligent and worthwhile ideas. You don't even have
the originality to come up with an original fake tweak idea, that's
what a dumb goof that you are.
b) You could not posit a scientific argument for your bogus tweak idea,
if I threatened to cut your limbs off
c) You have NO call to be accusing people of being closed-minded to
your bogus tweak ideas, when you never even tried any of mine.
Hypocrite.
d) The only thing you've proven in these conversations is that indeed
you _have_ taken your brain out, put it through the grinder, and
stuffed it back in.

The ideas I posted, on average, take about 30 seconds to execute, and
cost exactly NOTHING. I purport that they can improve the sound you are
hearing when you listen to your audio system. So if someone wants to
improve their sound for free, then that would be the "need" to try the
ideas. If they don't work, you've wasted about 30 seconds. Given some
of the RAO regulars, including you, have wasted literally YEARS posting
pointless nonsense on this group, you'd have a hard time convincing me
that you or any of the other mindless sheep here don't have 30 seconds
to spare. Therefore, we are left with only one conclusion: you and
everyone else who doesn't try them are closed-minded ignorant pigs.
Consider my tweaks a special kind of mirror: they are meant to reflect
your closed-minded hypocritical ignorance. And that of everyone who has
those 30 seconds to spare, wants to improve their sound for free, but
doesn't try them...... :-)

> >Ha! Now your true prejudices start to come out.... According to what
> >many have told me, my efforts are completely wasted. Therefore, they
> >have no effect. The minds of the subjectivists on this group are as
> >constricted as the sphincters of the objectivists. And the minds of the
> >"objectivists" are a vacuous toxic waste field. So I believe, I have
> >again proved you wrong, Mr. Goofball. The people on this group are not
> >"beyond help" because of people like me. They're beyond help because
> >they have the same affliction many do, an affliction which you share:
> >they belong to a "herd mentality".
>
> I am not part of any herd.

......said the sheep. Look in the mirror again, goofball. And tell us
all in your own words, why you won't try any of my tweaks?

Trust me, there's nothing you will say or can say I haven't heard
before. "They're bull****. They're insane. They're stupid. You're
stupid." etc. So long as you haven't tried any of the tweaks,
everything you say is ignorant bull****. The exact same ignorant
bull**** that prevented you from being able to make a living off your
tweaks. Even if your ideas were actually valid. Karma's a bitch, isn't
it?

> >Their belief systems are formed
> >largely by what they're told to think and believe, and not an
> >end-result derivative of their personal experiences. Each group battles
> >the other to defend "their" beliefs (which aren't really "theirs" but
> >what they've been spoon-fed), because basically, like you, they're
> >insecure people. Insecure people need to have their belief systems
> >validated. Either by grouping together with like-minded people, or
> >fighting unlike-minded people.
> >
>
> Well, when I started thinking about how ears work, I made a point of
> not educating myself by reading what others had published. That came
> later to check what was missed and I did a LOT of homework then.


Needless for me to say, you missed a hell of a LOT about how hearing
works.... You have a lot more homework to do.


> Neither do I claim to have behaved in a scientific way, nor do I think
> it is always the best way.

You don't think the scientific way is always the best way, and yet you
sweepingly dismiss my tweaks regardless of whether they have a
scientific basis or not. Follow the herd goofball, you're lagging
behind...

> >You don't see you the way I see you. Because if you did, you'd realize
> >what an ignorant twerp you really are. You think you're a man of
> >science, as all your objectivist mates regard themselves. But you're
> >anything but. You remain willfully ignorant of scientific phenomenon
> >that you are currently ignorant of. Your "religion" requires you to
> >believe only in what you know, dismissing everything you don't. You've
> >not shown a single shred of scientific curiousity about any of my
> >tweaks, and damn it to hell, if I can find a single word from you on
> >the subject of AUDIO anywhere. Good God man, what the hell are you
> >doing here? Just to pop up and make insipid little comments in
> >someone's thread on random occasions? A rather inconsequential
> >contributor you are. But a scientist? Don't make me laugh! (tm). You're
> >a total non-thinker. So don't complain about how ignorant the
> >subjectivists are about audio. You're no less ignorant, simply because
> >you can tell an FFT from a DUT.
>
>
> Pure nonsensical conjecture.

Pure bull**** response. Any time you're too ignorant to understand
something, you dismiss it as "nonsense". I used to know a guy that did
exactly the same thing as you. His name was "Archie Bunker". What I
just wrote above was pure fact, based upon your actual behavior here
and your actual words to me. If you believe otherwise, prove it. So
far, all you've done was spew bull**** all over the page. I dont know
what makes you think your worthless unfounded opinions are any more
valuable than anyone else's worthless unfounded opinions.

> >That's almost exactly what I've come to conclude, and unlike you, I was
> >never intent on selling anything to anybody. Not even in the figurative
> >form. Especially since most of the tweaks I mentioned here were not
> >developed by me. Listen carefully to what you said, but now imagine its
> >ME saying it to YOU: "First audiofools would have to reject abject
> >ignorance and believe in your brand of bull****, and I dont see that
> >happening anytime soon". The response to my tweaks shows why its not
> >going to happen any time soon (but then, its not anything I'm surprised
> >by either). Your definition of "audiofools" is only a subset of my
> >definition of "audiofools". That's because I see much farther and wider
> >than you do. If my tweaks do help to improve sound (not via placebo),
> >then we can both agree that they are being soundly rejected due to
> >"abject ignorance" on the part of "audiofools", right? And again, that
> >premise being correct, its obvious that its because of a belief in YOUR
> >"brand of bull****" that my tweaks are not even considered, although
> >they cost nothing, require no technical skill, and take about 20
> >seconds to execute, on average.
> >
> >So I think I just proved you're a bitter hypocrite. I can see now why
> >you accused me of being a "crook". Because you failed at cheating
> >"audiofools" out of cold hard cash, and you figure I'm trying to do
> >what you did to screw audiophiles. But in fact, I never charged anyone
> >for any help or advice I ever gave. I figured they can' t get mad at me
> >if my advice or help isn't useful. But apparently, the paranoid
> >fear-controlled nutballs on RAO have proven they can. Without even
> >trying the advice to begin with! I've been called a "crook" by you, a
> >"horrible evil man" by another, and worse by others here, all because
> >of free tweaks that no one on this group has ever yet tried!
> >
> Whatever..

How shocking! Another intelligent response from the would-be genius....

> I post a great deal less than you. I just get the odd urge to take the
> **** these days. Sailing is more about doing than talking, for me.

Audio is more about doing than talking for me. Wish I could say the
same for you and the rest of your tribe of ignorant sheep on this
group. Seems all you want to do is attack people, and spew ignorant
unsubstantiated bull**** in the form of personal opinions, that you
think somehow says something meaningful.

> >Because I have not invested half my life, or a cent of my money, it
> >does not bother in the slightest if people are not interested to try
> >the tweak ideas Ive presented. Contrary to popular opinion by some of
> >your ignorant friends. That's because I've seen no shortage of
> >closed-minded ignorant twits in my travels in the audio community, long
> >before I landed here. You all move in the very same predictable ways.
> >You all have the same reactions and say the same stupid things. I'm
> >good enough now to spot a closed-minded ignorant git from 50 yards
> >away, I think. But don't you find it ironic that even though you're the
> >closed-minded ignorant twit you think I am, my attitude in the end is
> >the same as yours. Which is that although I can say I tried to improve
> >people's lives for no compensation whatsoever, and their ignorance and
> >prejudice does not permit them to believe that the "gold" I put on the
> >table before them is for real, I don't need anyone here to believe me.
> >Like you, I know that I can turn on "3D" sound on my stereo, listen to
> >it and think about all the "silly things" I've done to produce the
> >sound I'm hearing, and smirk. I have no end of confidence that my $300
> >sound system sounds better or at least more musical than the audio
> >systems of most people here,
>
> I've done one for nearer $3...

No idea what you just said.

> >> I have made quite a lot of progress since the reviews, kept it and stopped.
> >
> >WHAT reviews? Are you really the tweako freako crook you just accused
> >me of being?!
>
> It was a long time ago but I could probably find an old mag with one
> in it, if you insist. I only ever bought three. :-)


No, that's okay. I'm sure that if your silly worthless tweaks never
sold, then I'll go with the popular opinion that they weren't worth
bothering with. If they weren't worth bothering with then, they
certainly are not worth bothering with now.

> Fine. I come from the Howardsen ap flossy's and dad said "goofball"
> when he saw me and it stuck.

No idea what you just said.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:02:35 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 16:04:26 -0500, "Robert Morein"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The L-shape has a chronosynclastic discontinuity at the ends that, IMHO,
>>>interferes with adiabatic dissipation.
>>
>> Only if your conospheric is perturbated.
>
>Iconoclastic perturbation is homomorphic to some convex connected manifolds,
>but only on the closed sets of some compact set. As for the conospheric
>case, Cayley's theorem can be trivially used to show it is not true for
>D<20.

That's what I would have assumed anyway. :-)

[Robert Morein]

The problem for you, now that you blew that little encomium I gave you into
the trash can, is that you have no credibility. You got MADE; you're a
troll.

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
>
>> On 9 Mar 2006 22:08:14 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >Uh no, Goofy, you didn't. I would have remembered that. Rather, you
>> >presumed I had an interest in selling tweaks. But according to you, YOU
>> >are the "crook" who sells tweaks for a living.
>>
>> I wrote: "Just as a matter of interest... Have you ever managed to
>> sell one of your silly tweaks?" The question mark is a dead give away
>> when it come to asking.
>
> Is English your first langauge? Because you seem to have a problem
> comprehending basic english.

You lied about what I said to you. Beneath that, comprehension of English is
a minor matter.

Take an entire bottle of aspirin, and call me in the morning. My phone
number is (215) 646-4894. I will delight in hearing your snakelike voice.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:

> The problem for you, now that you blew that little encomium I gave you into
> the trash can, is that you have no credibility.

Stop it Robert, you're getting hysterical, and going off on another
kook rant. You know what the doctor said about your heart condition...
take deep breaths... breath... that's it....

So is it worth me retrieving that little encomium you gave me from the
trash can? Can I get anything for it on eBay? If you say I have no
credibility now, then pray tell, what "credibility" did I have before
you supposedly just robbed me of my remaining "credibility"? LOL!
(Wait. I'm trying to keep a straight face here....). Because all the
posts ridiculing me for my tweaks and the fact that no one but you ever
tried them, kind of gave me another impression. Speaking of
impressions, where exactly did you find your evidence that I could
possibly care what "credibility" that I have, amongst the herd of RAO
regulars? From the trash can I threw your "encomium" into? LOL!! Do you
suppose my lack of credibility might harm the sales of my free tweaks,
you retard? LOL!!!

It shows that you can spend 15 years of your life obtaining degrees up
the yin yang, pouring $30,000 into your education, and -still- be too
stupid to get the basic premise of a situation: I put my tweaks out
there if audiophiles want to try them. They don't work on
"credibility", dufus. They work on trying them. So if people don't wish
to take advantage of them, it's *their* loss, not mine. Most are not
even my inventions, so you can't even argue that i have a personal
incentive to feel disappointed if droves of closed-minded sheep are not
trying the tweaks. I think the problem here is, sick neurotics on RAO,
who only know how to tear each other's throats out, simply do not know
what to make of someone who simply wishes to discuss audio, and give
free ideas away, that can help people improve their systems for free.
Gratuis. (That means: No charge).

And so the paranoid nutcases like you come out, concocting all kinds of
evil, dastardly motivations that I must have for generously sharing my
tweaks for free. What was that you called me? Oh yes, a "crook" and a
"horrible evil man" You sure do have some credibility there, Mr.
Objective! Speaking of "trolls", your name has been trashed over half
of usenet, and is associated with the phrase "pathological liar".
Oodles of credibility pour out of every orifice in your body......


> You got MADE; you're a troll.

Well make up your mind already will you? Which is it, am I now a
bonafide member of la cosa nostra, or should I find a thick rope and
hang myself, because a professional troll just called me a "troll"?

Oh Robert. You're a never ending source of amusement for many. Please
don't ever change. I know you would like to wave your magic hand and
have the will to "make people" whatever you think they should be made
into. Just thank the good Lord you don't have the powers you think you
do. Otherwise everyone would be depressed and on Percodans, just to
make you feel better about yourself.

Don't worry, be happy! This group is about audio, remember?

> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
> >
> >> On 9 Mar 2006 22:08:14 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >> >Uh no, Goofy, you didn't. I would have remembered that. Rather, you
> >> >presumed I had an interest in selling tweaks. But according to you, YOU
> >> >are the "crook" who sells tweaks for a living.
> >>
> >> I wrote: "Just as a matter of interest... Have you ever managed to
> >> sell one of your silly tweaks?" The question mark is a dead give away
> >> when it come to asking.
> >
> > Is English your first langauge? Because you seem to have a problem
> > comprehending basic english.
>
> You lied about what I said to you.

Hang on a sec, I'm still trying to see what this has to do with the
line you're responding to. Okay, so I guess the answer is "nothing".
Fine. Look Robert, you know very well that I did not lie about anything
you said to me. That would be ridiculous, I have no reason to do that.
I may have crossed a line by mentioning that you tried the L-shape
tweak and found it to be of benefit, but it was a line you never
clearly drew. If you'd have told me not to mention it even in passing,
you know that I wouldn't have.

I didn't realize you thought you'd die a horrible death in front of all
your virtual friends on RAO, if it was mentioned in passing, that you
tried the tweak. I find that very insecure of you to behave that way,
but who am I to judge, right? But calling me a "liar" when you're the
one trying to cover up what you said is going a little too far. You
called me a "horrible, evil man", a "crook" and other terrible things
in another public post of yours. The next day you're sending me emails
like we're best friends?? So like an idiot, I figure the "horrible evil
crook" posts must be a forged "Robert Morein", because your email
address is different than your posting address. And because you once
told me some guy named Brian Something was forging posts in your name,
all over the place. Then after I get more emails from you, I go and do
research on your posting address from 2002, and its exactly the same!
The day after that, you're calling me a "liar" when I mentioned,
without any disrespect, that you told me you had tried the tweak we
talked about and found that it really did improve things. So after all
this and reading posts where you are described as a pathological liar,
I'm starting to wonder about you.

Even though we did not necessarily agree on the origin or basis of the
tweaks, as I told you, I still respect your opinion and your right to
disagree. But I don't know what to make of you lying about having tried
the tweak, and calling me a liar on top of that. This, I can't respect.
If you didn't want me to say anything about it, you should have said so
in email.

> Beneath that, comprehension of English is a minor matter.

Perhaps, but it becomes more of a major issue WHEN YOU MAKE THE STUPID
MISTAKE OF RESPONDING TO A POST THAT DOESN'T ADDRESS YOU.

Sorry, did I embarass you again by pointing out that this post was a
response to Goofball, and not you? Are you so hysterical simply because
I mentioned to the group that you told me you had tried one of my
tweaks, and on such a rampage against me, that you're trying to find
anything I might have written to anyone, just to be able to attack me?
I think you need to come back down to earth, Bob.

> Take an entire bottle of aspirin, and call me in the morning.

Sorry, I'm 100% natural. I don't do drugs. So I think the appropriate
question is, what was written on the bottle of pills that _you_ took
today?

> My phone number is (215) 646-4894. I will delight in hearing your snakelike voice.

Come on... Are you really that lonely?! Do "snakelike voices" turn you
on?

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> wrote:
> > Furthermore, the ideas I've posted are not "insane".
>
> Wanna bet?

Bet what, that you could hear them? Is that supposed to be a joke?

Have you tried any of them?

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:

> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Furthermore, the ideas I've posted are not "insane".
> >
> > Wanna bet?

> Bet what, that you could hear them? Is that supposed to be a joke?

Yes. Yes it was. A shame you didn't get it.

> Have you tried any of them?

Tweaks proposed by an insane poster? Only that one with the
picture of the cat.

Have you ever tried any of your tweaks with elementary controls
in place?



--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > Furthermore, the ideas I've posted are not "insane".
> > >
> > > Wanna bet?
>
> > Bet what, that you could hear them? Is that supposed to be a joke?
>
> Yes. Yes it was. A shame you didn't get it.

No, I got it. And yes, I want to bet.

Prove that the ideas are "insane".

> > Have you tried any of them?
>
> Tweaks proposed by an insane poster?

Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane? Or is this yet
another personal attack and unsupported claim by the so-called
objectivists here? And assuming you're right, which I'm neither
confirming nor denying, what does that have to do with the validity of
the tweaks?

>Only that one with the picture of the cat.

How did you apply it and what we're your experiences?

> Have you ever tried any of your tweaks with elementary controls
> in place?

Yes. DBTs. Including the one with the picture of the cat. For the
tweaks that I did use this type of testing, I have always had a result
greater than the probability of chance.

However, I do not advocate you or anyone else test under these methods.
You need VERY good listening skills to pass DBTs. Most people don't
have the confidence to do that, under the stresses they create. And
there's no question that you don't have adequate listening skills, but
more than enough personal bias.

[Clyde Slick]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> > wrote:
>> > > Furthermore, the ideas I've posted are not "insane".
>> >
>> > Wanna bet?
>
>> Bet what, that you could hear them? Is that supposed to be a joke?
>
> Yes. Yes it was. A shame you didn't get it.
>
>> Have you tried any of them?
>
> Tweaks proposed by an insane poster? Only that one with the
> picture of the cat.
>
> Have you ever tried any of your tweaks with elementary controls
> in place?
>

Your detector unit needs adjustment.



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

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:

> Steven Sullivan wrote:

> > wrote:
> >
> > > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Furthermore, the ideas I've posted are not "insane".
> > > >
> > > > Wanna bet?
> >
> > > Bet what, that you could hear them? Is that supposed to be a joke?
> >
> > Yes. Yes it was. A shame you didn't get it.

> No, I got it. And yes, I want to bet.

> Prove that the ideas are "insane".

> > > Have you tried any of them?
> >
> > Tweaks proposed by an insane poster?

> Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?


Thank you for providing me with a new .sigfile.

> Yes. DBTs. Including the one with the picture of the cat. For the
> tweaks that I did use this type of testing, I have always had a result
> greater than the probability of chance.

Wanna bet?

> However, I do not advocate you or anyone else test under these methods.
> You need VERY good listening skills to pass DBTs.

No, you don't. You need large, real differences.



--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[George M. Middius]

Stupey Sillybot tries proselytizing to Shovels the Witch Doctor.

> > You need VERY good listening skills to pass DBTs.

> No, you don't. You need large, real differences.

How would you know, Stupey? You've never done a single DBT ever in your
entire life. Not a medical one, not a food-tasting one, not an audio one.
None. Zip. Nil. Nada. Zero.

Maybe I'll start calling you ZeroBorg. That would be apt, don't you think?

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Furthermore, the ideas I've posted are not "insane".
> > > > >
> > > > > Wanna bet?
> > >
> > > > Bet what, that you could hear them? Is that supposed to be a joke?
> > >
> > > Yes. Yes it was. A shame you didn't get it.
>
> > No, I got it. And yes, I want to bet.
>
> > Prove that the ideas are "insane".
>
> > > > Have you tried any of them?
> > >
> > > Tweaks proposed by an insane poster?
>
> > Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?
>
>
> Thank you for providing me with a new .sigfile.

Would you like it if I warned people about you being a child molester
in my sigfile?

I'll ask you again: what's your proof? If you think you can make claims
about things that have no foundation, and present them as fact, what
makes you think anyone should listen to you or your objectivist ilk
when you sputter on about how subjectivists should provide proof of
their claims?

You've just demonstrated once again, "The Hypocrisy Of The
Objectivists". And why that the objectivist argument falls flat on its
face, and no one should believe a word you people sputter about audio
or anyone or anything.

Not that the subjectivists are not hypocritical, mind you....

> > Yes. DBTs. Including the one with the picture of the cat. For the
> > tweaks that I did use this type of testing, I have always had a result
> > greater than the probability of chance.
>
> Wanna bet?

Did I stutter the first time, or what?


> > However, I do not advocate you or anyone else test under these methods.
> > You need VERY good listening skills to pass DBTs.
>
> No, you don't. You need large, real differences.

No you idiot. You don't _need_ a DBT if all you can test are devices
that produce "large real differences". You would be eliminating most of
the thousands of possible things in audio that can produce significant
audible changes, by following your stupid advice.

After having dealt with one idiot after another on this group, I can't
even tell you idiots apart, or if I've already had the experience of
you assaulting me with your stupidity.
So I'll ask you this to save time: Do you know _anything_ about audio
that you didn't read in a technical magazine or journal?

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>> wrote:

>>> However, I do not advocate you or anyone else test
>>> under these methods. You need VERY good listening
>>> skills to pass DBTs.

What does "pass a DBT" mean?

>> No, you don't. You need large, real differences.

Well, you need real differences, and not some kind of a false positive
generator, such as beloved by the golden ears.

> No you idiot.

Note that SHP has just been whining that Mike is too harsh. Hypocrisy,
anybody?

> You don't _need_ a DBT if all you can test
> are devices that produce "large real differences".

You still may need a DBT becuase of a real need to control bias.

>You would be eliminating most of the thousands of possible
> things in audio that can produce significant audible
> changes, by following your stupid advice.

Well SHP you need to look at George's propaganda and see the miniscule truth
that it contains. Not everything is a test. I did a 2-day recording gig
Fri-Sat and actually positioned the stereo mic without any DBTs. Why? Well
for one reason it wasn't a test of any piece of gear - it was a matter of
accepted knowlege by all involved that this was a test of the person setting
up and using the gear. It was stipulated that the gear involved was capable
of doing the job nicely enough.

> After having dealt with one idiot after another on this
> group, I can't even tell you idiots apart, or if I've
> already had the experience of you assaulting me with your
> stupidity.

Note that SHP has just been whining that Mike is too harsh. Hypocrisy,
anybody?

> So I'll ask you this to save time: Do you know _anything_
> about audio that you didn't read in a technical magazine
> or journal?

More to the point SHP - Do you know _anything_ about audio? Word has it
that in the real world, you're some kind of a shrink.

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius wrote:

> Stupey Sillybot tries proselytizing to Shovels the Witch Doctor.
>
> Maybe I'll start calling you ZeroBorg. That would be apt, don't you think?

You and your lame childish names. Oh, you're gonna call him a
"ZeroBorg". Heavens, what a merciless act. What's that going to do, do
you think? Make him shrivel up and die, or simply make you look more
like an impotent little paste-eating dweeb? You have to be at least 40
years old, Middius. Are you emotionally retarded? Grow up you idiot.

[George M. Middius]

Shovels whined:

> > > Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?

> > Thank you for providing me with a new .sigfile.

> I'll ask you again: what's your proof?

Most RAO regulars share the opinion that you're not playing with a full
deck. Even a hypocritical religious zealot like Sillybot was able to
realize that. And the only reason I say most and not all is because I
suspect a lot of people have killfiled you rather than contemplate just
how crazy you are.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> However, I do not advocate you or anyone else test
> >>> under these methods. You need VERY good listening
> >>> skills to pass DBTs.
>
> What does "pass a DBT" mean?

A statistical result that eliminates the probability of chance.

> >> No, you don't. You need large, real differences.
>
> Well, you need real differences, and not some kind of a false positive
> generator, such as beloved by the golden ears.

What is a "false positive generator" and does it require household
current?

> > No you idiot.
>
> Note that SHP has just been whining that Mike is too harsh. Hypocrisy,
> anybody?

Well I can see why you're offering, you certainly have plenty of
hypocrisy to give out, don't you Mr. Krueger? Did I ever say I wasn't
harsh with those who are harsh with me, and who launch personal attacks
on me?

> > You don't _need_ a DBT if all you can test
> > are devices that produce "large real differences".
>
> You still may need a DBT becuase of a real need to control bias.


Well I'm sorry to say, you can _not_ control everything under test, no
matter how hard you want and pray for it.


> >You would be eliminating most of the thousands of possible
> > things in audio that can produce significant audible
> > changes, by following your stupid advice.
>
> Well SHP you need to look at George's propaganda and see the miniscule truth
> that it contains. Not everything is a test. I did a 2-day recording gig
> Fri-Sat and actually positioned the stereo mic without any DBTs. Why? Well
> for one reason it wasn't a test of any piece of gear - it was a matter of
> accepted knowlege by all involved that this was a test of the person setting
> up and using the gear. It was stipulated that the gear involved was capable
> of doing the job nicely enough.

That wasn't Middiot that wrote the above "propaganda" you're responding
to, that was me. But thanks anyway for admitting it contained a
"miniscule of truth". And if that was "propaganda", what on earth do
you call the day-in day-out agenda of dispensing your ABX religion on
the groups for 10 years? Whether people want to hear your sermons or
not?

> > After having dealt with one idiot after another on this
> > group, I can't even tell you idiots apart, or if I've
> > already had the experience of you assaulting me with your
> > stupidity.
>
> Note that SHP has just been whining that Mike is too harsh. Hypocrisy,
> anybody?

Well I can see why you're offering, you certainly have plenty of
hypocrisy to give out, don't you Mr. Krueger? Did I ever say I wasn't
harsh with those who are harsh with me, and who launch personal attacks
on me?

> > So I'll ask you this to save time: Do you know _anything_
> > about audio that you didn't read in a technical magazine
> > or journal?
>
> More to the point SHP - Do you know _anything_ about audio?

I know that I know a lot more than you ever will, Krueger, about what
audio is capable of. Your knowledge is and will always be based on
principles over a hundred years old, that have seen much updating
since, and _extremely_ limited to what you can gain from a flawed test
methodology. Apart from the odd field recording and fiddly little PC
cards, both of which have no relevance to high definition music
reproduction, you have no active engagement in audio research.


> Word has it that in the real world, you're some kind of a shrink.

.....and a mathematician, and a researcher, and an amateur audio
hobbyist, and a father....

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:

> Steven Sullivan wrote:

> > wrote:
> >
> > > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Furthermore, the ideas I've posted are not "insane".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wanna bet?
> > > >
> > > > > Bet what, that you could hear them? Is that supposed to be a joke?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. Yes it was. A shame you didn't get it.
> >
> > > No, I got it. And yes, I want to bet.
> >
> > > Prove that the ideas are "insane".
> >
> > > > > Have you tried any of them?
> > > >
> > > > Tweaks proposed by an insane poster?
> >
> > > Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?
> >
> >
> > Thank you for providing me with a new .sigfile.

> Would you like it if I warned people about you being a child molester
> in my sigfile?


It wouldn't exactly be evidence for your sanity, now, would it?


> I'll ask you again: what's your proof? If you think you can make claims
> about things that have no foundation, and present them as fact, what
> makes you think anyone should listen to you or your objectivist ilk
> when you sputter on about how subjectivists should provide proof of
> their claims?

> You've just demonstrated once again, "The Hypocrisy Of The
> Objectivists". And why that the objectivist argument falls flat on its
> face, and no one should believe a word you people sputter about audio
> or anyone or anything.

> Not that the subjectivists are not hypocritical, mind you....


It's you against the world, sparkplug.

> > > Yes. DBTs. Including the one with the picture of the cat. For the
> > > tweaks that I did use this type of testing, I have always had a result
> > > greater than the probability of chance.
> >
> > Wanna bet?

> Did I stutter the first time, or what?

I'm afraid your word is not enough.


> > > However, I do not advocate you or anyone else test under these methods.
> > > You need VERY good listening skills to pass DBTs.
> >
> > No, you don't. You need large, real differences.

> No you idiot. You don't _need_ a DBT if all you can test are devices
> that produce "large real differences". You would be eliminating most of
> the thousands of possible things in audio that can produce significant
> audible changes, by following your stupid advice.


The question was what's required to pass a DBT, not under what conditions
a DBT is indicated. Well, to pass a properly-run DBT you do vastly increase
your chances by testing a *real* difference....and if you want virtually
*anyone* to pass the DBT, they'd best be large ones. I have passed ABX
tests of sound files and I make no special claims to hearing ability.


> After having dealt with one idiot after another on this group, I can't
> even tell you idiots apart, or if I've already had the experience of
> you assaulting me with your stupidity.


Perhaps your work here is done then, and it's time for you to ride
off into the sunset...on your unicorn.


> So I'll ask you this to save time: Do you know _anything_ about audio
> that you didn't read in a technical magazine or journal?

Well, to take one example, I wasn't *born* knowing what early reflections are,
if that's what you mean. But I've experienced them, experimented with
treating them, and read about them.
Who among us, after all, is born knowing *why* the things we experience,
are what they are?


Now a question for you: Do you recall a time when people did NOT point and
laugh at your antics, or is that so long ago that it's gotten lost?


___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>
>>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> However, I do not advocate you or anyone else test
>>>>> under these methods. You need VERY good listening
>>>>> skills to pass DBTs.
>>
>> What does "pass a DBT" mean?
>
> A statistical result that eliminates the probability of
> chance.
>
>>>> No, you don't. You need large, real differences.
>>
>> Well, you need real differences, and not some kind of a
>> false positive generator, such as beloved by the golden
>> ears.
>
> What is a "false positive generator" and does it require
> household current?

A sighted evaluation of something that is non-obvious can be a false
positive generator, and it need not take household current or battery power.

>>> No you idiot.
>>
>> Note that SHP has just been whining that Mike is too
>> harsh. Hypocrisy, anybody?

> Well I can see why you're offering, you certainly have
> plenty of hypocrisy to give out, don't you Mr. Krueger?
> Did I ever say I wasn't harsh with those who are harsh
> with me, and who launch personal attacks on me?

If I give the same defense, what does that make me?

>>> You don't _need_ a DBT if all you can test
>>> are devices that produce "large real differences".
>>
>> You still may need a DBT because of a real need to
>> control bias.

> Well I'm sorry to say, you can _not_ control everything
> under test, no matter how hard you want and pray for it.

Just 'cause you can't control *everything* does not mean that you shouldn't
ever try to control anything.

>>> You would be eliminating most of the thousands of
>>> possible things in audio that can produce significant
>>> audible changes, by following your stupid advice.

>> Well SHP you need to look at George's propaganda and see
>> the miniscule truth that it contains. Not everything is
>> a test. I did a 2-day recording gig Fri-Sat and
>> actually positioned the stereo mic without any DBTs.
>> Why? Well for one reason it wasn't a test of any piece
>> of gear - it was a matter of accepted knowlege by all
>> involved that this was a test of the person setting up
>> and using the gear. It was stipulated that the gear
>> involved was capable of doing the job nicely enough.

> That wasn't Middiot that wrote the above "propaganda"
> you're responding to, that was me. But thanks anyway for
> admitting it contained a "miniscule of truth". And if
> that was "propaganda", what on earth do you call the
> day-in day-out agenda of dispensing your ABX religion on
> the groups for 10 years? Whether people want to hear your
> sermons or not?

What ABX religion might that be?

>>> After having dealt with one idiot after another on this
>>> group, I can't even tell you idiots apart, or if I've
>>> already had the experience of you assaulting me with
>>> your stupidity.

>> Note that SHP has just been whining that Mike is too
>> harsh. Hypocrisy, anybody?

> Well I can see why you're offering, you certainly have
> plenty of hypocrisy to give out, don't you Mr. Krueger?
> Did I ever say I wasn't harsh with those who are harsh
> with me, and who launch personal attacks on me?

The point is SHP that your frequency of assaults seems to be up there.

>>> So I'll ask you this to save time: Do you know
>>> _anything_ about audio that you didn't read in a
>>> technical magazine or journal?

>> More to the point SHP - Do you know _anything_ about
>> audio?

> I know that I know a lot more than you ever will,
> Krueger, about what audio is capable of.

Cheap claim.

> Your knowledge
> is and will always be based on principles over a hundred
> years old, that have seen much updating since, and
> _extremely_ limited to what you can gain from a flawed
> test methodology.

False claim.

> Apart from the odd field recording and
> fiddly little PC cards, both of which have no relevance
> to high definition music reproduction, you have no active
> engagement in audio research.

Given what you seem to characterize as serious audio research Mr. SHP I'm
prone to agree with you.

OTOH I don't think there are many well-informed people who would call what
you do "serious audio research".

>> Word has it that in the real world, you're some kind of
>> a shrink.

> ....and a mathematician, and a researcher, and an amateur
> audio hobbyist, and a father....

Did the know-it-all's licence come with the PhD or the psychology courses?

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:

> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com
> >
> > > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> >
> > >>> However, I do not advocate you or anyone else test
> > >>> under these methods. You need VERY good listening
> > >>> skills to pass DBTs.
> >
> > What does "pass a DBT" mean?

> A statistical result that eliminates the probability of chance.

Well, *eliminating* it would be a rather tough standard to apply...
getting it down below p=0.05 satisfies most scientists.


> > >> No, you don't. You need large, real differences.
> >
> > Well, you need real differences, and not some kind of a false positive
> > generator, such as beloved by the golden ears.

> What is a "false positive generator" and does it require household
> current?

Sighted comparison will do the job nicely.


> > > You don't _need_ a DBT if all you can test
> > > are devices that produce "large real differences".
> >
> > You still may need a DBT becuase of a real need to control bias.


> Well I'm sorry to say, you can _not_ control everything under test, no
> matter how hard you want and pray for it.

True, but it's a wonder that science has progessed as far as it has,
even with that handicap, no?


> > More to the point SHP - Do you know _anything_ about audio?

> I know that I know a lot more than you ever will, Krueger, about what
> audio is capable of.


Then again, you've also compared yourself favorably to Dick Pierce,
who has forgotten more about audio than you'll probably ever know in
two lifetimes. So forgive me if I find your cock-a-hoop strutting more
amusing than convincing.


> Your knowledge is and will always be based on
> principles over a hundred years old, that have seen much updating
> since, and _extremely_ limited to what you can gain from a flawed test
> methodology. Apart from the odd field recording and fiddly little PC
> cards, both of which have no relevance to high definition music
> reproduction, you have no active engagement in audio research.


> > Word has it that in the real world, you're some kind of a shrink.

> ....and a mathematician, and a researcher, and an amateur audio
> hobbyist, and a father....


...and a *super* genius.


___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

[Clyde Slick]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
>
>> However, I do not advocate you or anyone else test under these methods.
>> You need VERY good listening skills to pass DBTs.
>
> No, you don't. You need large, real differences.
>

Thanks for admitting that small differences get obliterated by DBt's!!



--
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
...


> Word has it that in the real world, you're some kind of a shrink.
>

Will he offer you a discount?



--
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
. ..



>
> Did the know-it-all's licence come with the PhD or the psychology courses?
>

Good question, Arny. You can get int trouble for practicing without one.



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

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:


> If so, one has to wonder what it is about that profession, that produces
> the pit-bull-like SHPs and Fremers of the audio world.

One has to wonder what it is about the relgion of usenet audio
objectivist extremists that produces insecure, ignorant twits like
yourself. All I've seen from you is worthless unsubstantiated opinions,
that aren't worth more than used toilet paper. Go home, you're done.

___
-SHP
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I have mental problems?"
- Steven Sullivan

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> Just 'cause you can't control *everything* does not mean that you shouldn't
> ever try to control anything.

Sure it does. But you're a control freak, so you're not one to submit
an objective view on that, are you?

> > That wasn't Middiot that wrote the above "propaganda"
> > you're responding to, that was me. But thanks anyway for
> > admitting it contained a "miniscule of truth". And if
> > that was "propaganda", what on earth do you call the
> > day-in day-out agenda of dispensing your ABX religion on
> > the groups for 10 years? Whether people want to hear your
> > sermons or not?
>
> What ABX religion might that be?


Your ABX religion. Your faith in your flawed methodology which you
mistake for science. It's no different than the religion of the
subjectivists. However, for 10 years, you have insisted that people
follow YOUR audio religion, and stop practicing THEIR audio religion.


> > Well I can see why you're offering, you certainly have
> > plenty of hypocrisy to give out, don't you Mr. Krueger?
> > Did I ever say I wasn't harsh with those who are harsh
> > with me, and who launch personal attacks on me?
>
> The point is SHP that your frequency of assaults seems to be up there.

It is more in line with the number of assaults against me. But isn't
that why we're here, Mr. Krueger? For the fun of bashing each other
over the head. Are you REALLY gonna start whining to me about personal
attacks now, when you have attacked people here every day for ten years
straight?

> > I know that I know a lot more than you ever will,
> > Krueger, about what audio is capable of.
>
> Cheap claim.

.....but true, actually.

Here's the proof: you haven't yet tried any of the tweaks.


> > Your knowledge
> > is and will always be based on principles over a hundred
> > years old, that have seen much updating since, and
> > _extremely_ limited to what you can gain from a flawed
> > test methodology.
>
> False claim.


True claim.



> > Apart from the odd field recording and
> > fiddly little PC cards, both of which have no relevance
> > to high definition music reproduction, you have no active
> > engagement in audio research.
>
> Given what you seem to characterize as serious audio research Mr. SHP I'm
> prone to agree with you.
>
> OTOH I don't think there are many well-informed people who would call what
> you do "serious audio research".

That's because you don't know many well informed people, Mr. Kreuger.
Those who don't feel my tweaks are the foundation of serious audio
research are ignorant foolish people. Not "well informed" at all. You
should know, you're one of them. Like Steve Sullivan or Clyde Slick,
and other such fools on this group, whatever you don't understand, you
dismiss. That's called "being an idiot" where I come from.

> Did the know-it-all's licence come with the PhD or the psychology courses?

I had to pay 50 quid to a man in a gabardine on Kent Street for the
paper, but I assure you, it's all legit. So where did you obtain YOUR
"know it all" license from, Mr. Kreuger?

[[email protected]]

Congratulations soundhaspriority on recently becoming
a father.
Just a few posts ago you were childless.
Enjoy the quiet moment, celebrate life and the
wonders of the universe.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Congratulations soundhaspriority on recently becoming
> a father.
> Just a few posts ago you were childless.
> Enjoy the quiet moment, celebrate life and the
> wonders of the universe.

I think we've seen two big hints that SHP is a poster we've got a lot of
experience with from several years ago.

[Anon E Mouse]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Steven Sullivan wrote:

> wrote:
>
>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Furthermore, the ideas I've posted are not "insane".
>>>>>
>>>>> Wanna bet?
>>>
>>>> Bet what, that you could hear them? Is that supposed to be a joke?
>>>
>>> Yes. Yes it was. A shame you didn't get it.
>
>> No, I got it. And yes, I want to bet.
>
>> Prove that the ideas are "insane".
>
>>>> Have you tried any of them?
>>>
>>> Tweaks proposed by an insane poster?
>
>> Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?
>
>
> Thank you for providing me with a new .sigfile.
>
>> Yes. DBTs. Including the one with the picture of the cat. For the
>> tweaks that I did use this type of testing, I have always had a result
>> greater than the probability of chance.
>
> Wanna bet?
>
>> However, I do not advocate you or anyone else test under these methods.
>> You need VERY good listening skills to pass DBTs.
>
> No, you don't. You need large, real differences.

Perhaps he meant you need better and better training (acquired skills) as
sonic differences between DUTs reach the statistical threshold of trained
listeners. Trying to diagnose the Golden Ear syndrome without proper
examination (i.e., having him/her sit and listen blind) will only serve the
subjectivists' cause. Let's have the Nousaine/Maki tandem visit him/her
some day. Just like in the good ol' days... It will be 10 years in
August since the Sunshine Trials. What a nice way to commemorate the
event and its testee, the late Steven Zipser. (Que Dieu ait son âme)

--
Anon E. Mouse

[the14thdisciple]

er - Shouldn't you be locked-up or Somthing ...?

14
http://www.littleboxes.nl/the14thdisciple

[Steven Sullivan]

Anon E Mouse > wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Steven Sullivan wrote:

> > wrote:
> >
> >> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Furthermore, the ideas I've posted are not "insane".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wanna bet?
> >>>
> >>>> Bet what, that you could hear them? Is that supposed to be a joke?
> >>>
> >>> Yes. Yes it was. A shame you didn't get it.
> >
> >> No, I got it. And yes, I want to bet.
> >
> >> Prove that the ideas are "insane".
> >
> >>>> Have you tried any of them?
> >>>
> >>> Tweaks proposed by an insane poster?
> >
> >> Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?
> >
> >
> > Thank you for providing me with a new .sigfile.
> >
> >> Yes. DBTs. Including the one with the picture of the cat. For the
> >> tweaks that I did use this type of testing, I have always had a result
> >> greater than the probability of chance.
> >
> > Wanna bet?
> >
> >> However, I do not advocate you or anyone else test under these methods.
> >> You need VERY good listening skills to pass DBTs.
> >
> > No, you don't. You need large, real differences.

> Perhaps he meant you need better and better training (acquired skills) as
> sonic differences between DUTs reach the statistical threshold of trained
> listeners. Trying to diagnose the Golden Ear syndrome without proper
> examination (i.e., having him/her sit and listen blind) will only serve the
> subjectivists' cause.


Well, it's one thing to test the proposition
that there is *any* audible difference.

It's another thing to test a difference the listener *already* claims to hear.
In that case, I think it's acceptable for the comparison to simply be repeated
blind.

Most audiophile claims fall into the latter category...some blowhard
like Art Dudley or Michael Fremer reporting a distinct sonic improvement
between A and B (see this month's Stereophile) from a sighted comparison
(often not even time-proximate).

Thoe those, all that's required is that blowhard can still 'hear' that difference
during the 'sighted' part of a DBT/ABX. If he fails the DBT, you can then ask whether
maybe there's still a real difference, but blowhard was just too undiscriminating to hear it.
You can then subject him (or a new listener) to a graded training series, and see if he
passes the DBT afterwards.

Of course, given the mewling and weaseling that audiophiles often resort to when
they fail a DBT, it's probably best to just run a training series first,
to remove one possible weasel.


>
Let's have the Nousaine/Maki tandem visit him/her > some day. Just like in the good ol' days... It will be 10 years
in > August since the Sunshine Trials. What a nice way to commemorate the > event and its testee, the late Steven
Zipser. (Que Dieu ait son ?me)


That would be amusing.


--

___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority