View Full Version : Free Tweak #5 for True Audiophiles
Robert Morein
March 24th 06, 01:41 AM
If you wear glasses, they serve as secondary diffraction sources.
One of the early developments of wave theory, in the 16th century, by
Christian Huygens, sought to explain the phenomena of diffraction. Perhaps
you have seen ocean waves spread out past the end of an ocean breakwater.
Huygens provided a method of determining the geometry, though not the
magnitude, of wave propagation, with the observation that the edge of the
breakwater, as well as any other sharp boundary, appears to behave like a
point source of new wave propagation. Thus, when a wave, be it an ocean
wave, or sound wave, encounters the edge of an obstacle, new waves occur in
different directions from the original source.
Because glasses have edges, and the size of glasses is somewhat more than
the wavelength of sound above 3 kHz, the edges of the glasses serve as
secondary diffraction sources for these higher frequencies, interfering
with one of the mechanisms of sound localization. Thus, a wearer of glasses
loses a little bit of the opportunity to comprehend the sound field. This
applies to live perfomances as well as reproduction.
I find that removing my glasses makes things a little bit better. In the
case of a live performance, this deprives me of the opportunity to
completely witness the performance. But with reproduction, there is no such
drawback.
Trevor Wilson
March 24th 06, 02:35 AM
"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
> If you wear glasses, they serve as secondary diffraction sources.
>
> One of the early developments of wave theory, in the 16th century, by
> Christian Huygens, sought to explain the phenomena of diffraction. Perhaps
> you have seen ocean waves spread out past the end of an ocean breakwater.
> Huygens provided a method of determining the geometry, though not the
> magnitude, of wave propagation, with the observation that the edge of the
> breakwater, as well as any other sharp boundary, appears to behave like a
> point source of new wave propagation. Thus, when a wave, be it an ocean
> wave, or sound wave, encounters the edge of an obstacle, new waves occur
> in
> different directions from the original source.
>
> Because glasses have edges, and the size of glasses is somewhat more than
> the wavelength of sound above 3 kHz, the edges of the glasses serve as
> secondary diffraction sources for these higher frequencies, interfering
> with one of the mechanisms of sound localization. Thus, a wearer of
> glasses
> loses a little bit of the opportunity to comprehend the sound field. This
> applies to live perfomances as well as reproduction.
>
> I find that removing my glasses makes things a little bit better. In the
> case of a live performance, this deprives me of the opportunity to
> completely witness the performance. But with reproduction, there is no
> such
> drawback.
**Agreed.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Robert Morein wrote:
> If you wear glasses, they serve as secondary diffraction sources.
>
> One of the early developments of wave theory, in the 16th century, by
> Christian Huygens, sought to explain the phenomena of diffraction. Perhaps
> you have seen ocean waves spread out past the end of an ocean breakwater.
> Huygens provided a method of determining the geometry, though not the
> magnitude, of wave propagation, with the observation that the edge of the
> breakwater, as well as any other sharp boundary, appears to behave like a
> point source of new wave propagation. Thus, when a wave, be it an ocean
> wave, or sound wave, encounters the edge of an obstacle, new waves occur in
> different directions from the original source.
>
> Because glasses have edges, and the size of glasses is somewhat more than
> the wavelength of sound above 3 kHz, the edges of the glasses serve as
> secondary diffraction sources for these higher frequencies, interfering
> with one of the mechanisms of sound localization. Thus, a wearer of glasses
> loses a little bit of the opportunity to comprehend the sound field. This
> applies to live perfomances as well as reproduction.
>
> I find that removing my glasses makes things a little bit better. In the
> case of a live performance, this deprives me of the opportunity to
> completely witness the performance. But with reproduction, there is no such
> drawback.
A wearer of glasses loses a little bit of the opportunity to comprehend
the sound field for other reasons, which have to do with adverse energy
fields. All objects in the environment can generate such fields but
eyeglasses in particular, since they are worn on the person. Like your
tweak about going hungry to improve sound (pretty rad for an engineer,
I must say! thumbs up!), it just isn't practical to ask people to go
without their eyeglasses. I do have tweaks for glasses, including a
special cream that you apply to your eyeglasses to improve the sound
you hear from your audio system. It's not free though, and certainly
not cheap. And definitely not for the consumption of the ignorant
trailer trash on RAO, who know no better than to ridicule and dismiss
everything in the big scary world that these little piggies don't
understand. But I will say that tweaking your eyeglasses with the cream
no longer makes your eyeglasses a liability. Then, it becomes an asset,
and sound actually worsens when the eyeglasses are removed from the
listening environment. There are also similar products that can improve
the sound you hear during a live performance. But just having the
glasses treated has as much effect on a live performance as it does
during reproduction, so you don't have to go without your eyeglasses
at a live concert.
Mr. Sound reveals his class bias:
Franchise opportunities to follow, trailer trash need not apply.
Robert Morein
March 24th 06, 04:48 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
[snip]
it just isn't practical to ask people to go
> without their eyeglasses.
It's perfectly practical. I have 20/200 uncorrected vision; I have worn
eyeglasses all my life, and I love to take them off. All of my myopic
friends love to take their glasses off. My nose thanks me. My ears thank
me. My eyes thank me. It's not like asking me to go without a prosthetic
penis.
Robert Morein wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> it just isn't practical to ask people to go
> > without their eyeglasses.
>
> It's perfectly practical. I have 20/200 uncorrected vision; I have worn
> eyeglasses all my life, and I love to take them off. All of my myopic
> friends love to take their glasses off. My nose thanks me. My ears thank
> me. My eyes thank me. It's not like asking me to go without a prosthetic
> penis.
Your eyes don't thank you if you're straining them to see the live
performer from across the way. My point remains, that you don't have
to do this to avoid degrading the sound if your glasses are already
treated.
Robert Morein
March 24th 06, 02:10 PM
> wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Robert Morein wrote:
>> >
>> [snip]
>> it just isn't practical to ask people to go
>> > without their eyeglasses.
>>
>> It's perfectly practical. I have 20/200 uncorrected vision; I have worn
>> eyeglasses all my life, and I love to take them off. All of my myopic
>> friends love to take their glasses off. My nose thanks me. My ears thank
>> me. My eyes thank me. It's not like asking me to go without a prosthetic
>> penis.
>
> Your eyes don't thank you if you're straining them to see the live
> performer from across the way. My point remains, that you don't have
> to do this to avoid degrading the sound if your glasses are already
> treated.
>
Richard, up till now, we have happily coexisted; you with your alternative
methods, and me, with the physical universe. However, here our systems
collide. From the point of view of Western Rational Thought, I make the
following statements:
1. Diffraction of sound waves by glasses is a deterministic phenomena caused
by physics.
2. Diffraction of sound waves around glasses cannot be prevented or altered
by the application of a cream.
3. Very small spectacles, such as those used before the 18th century, would
minimize this. Certain wrapround sunglasses, where the edges of the glasses
actually fit flush with the skin of the face, would also do this.
Currently, these are very popular frame styles, widely available.
4. Removal of the glasses is optimal.
Because your cream solution goes against physics, I regret I must recommend
that the solutions listed above be used in preference.You are, of course,
free to claim an alternative mode of thought that contradicts that. But I
will have to contradict you on it.
Robert Morein wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> >
> >> [snip]
> >> it just isn't practical to ask people to go
> >> > without their eyeglasses.
> >>
> >> It's perfectly practical. I have 20/200 uncorrected vision; I have worn
> >> eyeglasses all my life, and I love to take them off. All of my myopic
> >> friends love to take their glasses off. My nose thanks me. My ears thank
> >> me. My eyes thank me. It's not like asking me to go without a prosthetic
> >> penis.
> >
> > Your eyes don't thank you if you're straining them to see the live
> > performer from across the way. My point remains, that you don't have
> > to do this to avoid degrading the sound if your glasses are already
> > treated.
> >
> Richard, up till now, we have happily coexisted; you with your alternative
> methods, and me, with the physical universe. However, here our systems
> collide. From the point of view of Western Rational Thought, I make the
> following statements:
>
> 1. Diffraction of sound waves by glasses is a deterministic phenomena caused
> by physics.
> 2. Diffraction of sound waves around glasses cannot be prevented or altered
> by the application of a cream.
> 3. Very small spectacles, such as those used before the 18th century, would
> minimize this. Certain wrapround sunglasses, where the edges of the glasses
> actually fit flush with the skin of the face, would also do this.
> Currently, these are very popular frame styles, widely available.
> 4. Removal of the glasses is optimal.
>
> Because your cream solution goes against physics, I regret I must recommend
> that the solutions listed above be used in preference.You are, of course,
> free to claim an alternative mode of thought that contradicts that. But I
> will have to contradict you on it.
Of course. And I will be compelled to contradict you contradicting the
contradiction. I am under contract to do so, as you well know. But let
me say, I think its a bit childish for you to change the thread title
to "DO NOT USE CREAM!", as though it were suicide to do so. I expected
that from the mindless trolls here, and you're a lot smarter than
them. So you can make that point in your post, without creating new
attack threads, that only add to the anarchy and chaos prevalent on
this child's newsgroup.
Now regarding what you say above, you're making the same mistake
typical of that which is almost always made engineers and the
"non-thinking sheep" you find across the breadth and width of this
children's audio newsgroup. Which is that things are either BLACK or
WHITE, and one rule is there to defeat another. Not at all the case. In
no place did I try to discount Newtonian laws, or Huygens on
diffraction. If they were valid before my comments, they are still
valid after my comments. Principles of diffraction are very well known
by speaker designers, and I would never try to contest that. In fact, I
use those principles in some of my audio experiments (such as when I
install tweeter dividers). I should, they work well for me! But other
ideas can work as well, if not better. What I said about the cream is
not that it changes the laws of diffraction; they'll still be in
place. It works entirely on different principles, not observed in the
time of Newton and Huygens; laws that are hundreds of years old and
which you base your entire understanding and views of audio upon. What
I'm trying to say is that science has developed since the time of
those archaic laws, and that doesn't make them obsolete, but that new
information should be taken into consideration, if you really have an
interest in understanding what sound reproduction is about. In the case
of the eyeglasses in the listening room, the different sciences
overlap.
Let's say there's a given deterioration of the sound when you are
wearing your eyeglasses (I don't think its much, but I could easily
test it and find out, though I haven't), and this is due to
diffraction. On an entirely different principle, the cream electret to
which I'm referring reduces adverse energy which has a benefit upon
the perception of sound (as does removing the eyeglasses completely,
due to diffraction effects). The effects observed by Huygens will still
be present, but so will the effects of creaming the eyeglasses, if you
are wearing them. What I'm suggesting is that the effects of treating
the eyeglasses to reduce adverse energies inherent in their physical
properties, could negate the detrimental effects due to diffraction of
sound waves, or if treated to a good enough degree, could make the
eyeglasses beneficial to have, despite whatever harm is being done by
diffraction. As I said, many eyeglass wearers have done just this and
found that you could reduce the harmful effects of wearing eyeglasses
while listening to music. The alternative method I described _is_ part
of the physical universe. It is physics, just another area of physics.
Just because you are ignorant about what the physical universe
comprises does not make your knowledge of the universe the boundaries
to which it must abide. It is _you_ that must change your understanding
of the universe in order to conform to its reality; not the other way
around.
dave weil
March 24th 06, 05:24 PM
On 24 Mar 2006 09:04:51 -0800, wrote:
>What I'm suggesting is that the effects of treating
>the eyeglasses to reduce adverse energies inherent in their physical
>properties, could negate the detrimental effects due to diffraction of
>sound waves, or if treated to a good enough degree, could make the
>eyeglasses beneficial to have, despite whatever harm is being done by
>diffraction.
Just cup your hands behind your ears and be done with it.
George M. Middius
March 24th 06, 05:27 PM
dave weil said:
> >What I'm suggesting is that the effects of treating
> >the eyeglasses to reduce adverse energies inherent ...
> Just cup your hands behind your ears and be done with it.
He could also try smearing them with day-old snot.
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Robert Morein
March 24th 06, 06:31 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>> > wrote in message
[snip]
>
> Let's say there's a given deterioration of the sound when you are
> wearing your eyeglasses (I don't think its much, but I could easily
> test it and find out, though I haven't), and this is due to
> diffraction. On an entirely different principle, the cream electret to
> which I'm referring reduces adverse energy which has a benefit upon
> the perception of sound (as does removing the eyeglasses completely,
> due to diffraction effects). The effects observed by Huygens will still
> be present, but so will the effects of creaming the eyeglasses, if you
> are wearing them. What I'm suggesting is that the effects of treating
> the eyeglasses to reduce adverse energies inherent in their physical
> properties, could negate the detrimental effects due to diffraction of
> sound waves, or if treated to a good enough degree, could make the
> eyeglasses beneficial to have, despite whatever harm is being done by
> diffraction. As I said, many eyeglass wearers have done just this and
> found that you could reduce the harmful effects of wearing eyeglasses
> while listening to music. The alternative method I described _is_ part
> of the physical universe. It is physics, just another area of physics.
> Just because you are ignorant about what the physical universe
> comprises does not make your knowledge of the universe the boundaries
> to which it must abide. It is _you_ that must change your understanding
> of the universe in order to conform to its reality; not the other way
> around.
>
Richard, I'm very current with modern physics. The mechanics of fluid motion
are governed by the Naiver-Stokes equation. I have worked on nonlinear
perturbation series expansion of this equation, with the calculation
organized using modified Feynman Diagrams with three vertices, in order to
account for the effect of Galilean invariance.
The behavior of an electret is governed by D=epilon_o*E + P, where E is the
permittivty of free space, E is the electric field, andP is the polarization
of the electret. Upon heating an electret in the presence of the an electret
field, the molecules polarize, causing a persistent charge density when the
electric field is removed. In the case of a thin electret sheet, the D field
= 0 internal to the electret. The magnitude of the surface charge is given
by P*n^, where n is a unit vector normal to the surface. However, electrets
are solid substances. Gels cannot exhibit electret poperties. But if you
feel they do, feel free to tie these equations into the boundary behavior of
a compressible fluid that happens to be air. If you prefer to work with the
microcanonical ensemble, you may wish to refer to the classical kinetic
theory of fluids.
I'm all ears.
Robert Morein wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> [snip]
>
> I'm all ears.
I hope so, because it would be hard to enjoy audio otherwise. Again,
you're rushing off to make a judgement, following a tangent that
you've created, based on your misinterpretations of what is said;
otherwise known as a "strawman" around here. You've latched on to the
word "electret" in the name of the product. But I only referred you to
the name, not necessarily to the properties of the product. Why it
contains the term in its name would only be a guess on my part, and
although it might make for some interesting posturing, I won't posit
an argument based upon a guess. Remember, it's not my product. As far
as I know, the exact chemical properties of the product are not
publicly known. I'd assume that if they were, it would compromise the
inventor's rights to its exclusive manufacture. So even if I knew
them (and I think that I do), I wouldn't tell you. (At least not
publicly, and you'd have to agree to a non-disclosure agreement for
me to reveal to you what I do know about the product in question,
privately). I realize that limits in part how effectively I can support
the contention, but understand that that's much less important to me
than that the inventor benefits from his lengthy research into the
effects that the product has on our perception of sound. I've already
told you how it works wrt the principles involved, and as with
anything, the best way to understand such products is to try them.
Which is moot point with you anyway, if what you told me is true.
Suffice to say, you aren't applying an electret to the device that
you apply the cream to; the effects of the cream work on wood or
plastics, as well as they work on metals, such as often found in
eyeglasses. But I would also like to stress that it isn't simply the
cream that can change the attributes of your eyeglasses and improve
your perception of sound. I know of many similar products and ideas
that can all help in this area. My point was, if you apply enough of
them, I believe you can reduce the perception of detrimental effects
introduced by the eyeglasses, to the point where wearing them is no
longer a drawback. Huygens and Newton notwithstanding.
p.s. I want to keep the original thread title that you chose. I won't
continue under an attack thread title. If you're going to employ the
tactics as used by the trailer trash boys on this newsgroup, then
you'll have to try have a serious audio debate with them, and see how
far you get.
Robert Morein
March 24th 06, 10:43 PM
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Robert Morein wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> [snip]
>
>>
>> I'm all ears.
>
> I hope so, because it would be hard to enjoy audio otherwise. Again,
> you're rushing off to make a judgement, following a tangent that
> you've created, based on your misinterpretations of what is said;
> otherwise known as a "strawman" around here.
It's not completely a strawman. The term "electret" is informative. If it is
used, I want to know why. While I would not expect you to tell me how the
cream works, you say, "It works entirely on different principles, not
observed in the
time of Newton and Huygens; laws that are hundreds of years old and
which you base your entire understanding and views of audio upon. "
I showed you that I am current with physics, and capable of understanding
any modality rooted in Modern Physics that would explain how it works. You
say there is an explanation. You say you cannot give me the explanation,
except in general handwaving terms. This is not acceptable from the point of
view of discussion.
If the cream were advertised as working in ways contrary to the laws of
physics, or outside the framework of modern physics, I would have little to
say in response. But the term "electret" is a physical term, with a physical
meaning: a surface charge density is retained in the absence of an electric
field. The use of the term "electret" is an invitation to think about how
electrets change the boundary properties of low viscosity fluids, such as
air. There are none.
I don't argue about your other tweaks, or the notion of "biogeometry",
because these do not inherently contradict physics. If they function, they
function in some other metaphysical realm. The use of the word "electret" is
an intrusion on physics, and bound to raise the curiousity and challenge of
any physicist reading this stuff. It so happens I am a physicist.
I do know this: it is impossible to alter the physical boundary properties
of a surface by application of a cream containing polar molecules that
happen to retain a particular orientation, if such a substance exists. Even
if a user applies the cream to his glasses, the diffraction effects will
remain. If you made the claim that the cream had nonphysical properties,
such as the way Holy Water is said to work, I would not argue with you.
However, you are promoting a product which you allege I do not understand
because my knowledge is out of date, and then you say you can't tell me how
it works anyway. Anybody who reads this is going to wonder about that. I
sure do.
dave weil
March 25th 06, 01:13 AM
On 24 Mar 2006 10:42:18 -0800, wrote:
>This conversation thread is an intelligent, on-topic debate between me
>and Mr. Morein.
Yeah, greasing or not greasing glasses is a great on-topic debate.
Feel free to continue "debating" something that even *you* don't think
makes much difference.
dave weil wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2006 10:42:18 -0800, wrote:
>
> >This conversation thread is an intelligent, on-topic debate between me
> >and Mr. Morein.
>
> Yeah, greasing or not greasing glasses is a great on-topic debate.
I'm sorry for you, that you're too stupid to follow the
conversation and realize that we are discussing ways to improve audio
here. What exactly is it that you do here, anyway, Weill? I realize you
have a netstalking obsession with me, but when two people are trying to
have a serious conversation about audio on an audio newsgroup, and all
you and Middius have to contribute is your pitiful demonstrations
about how plug-stupid you both are, that makes you one hell of a
dumbass lowlife in the view of any self-respecting man.
Unfortunately for the both of us, you little ankle-biting troll,
you're not a self-respecting man. Hell, you're not even a man. I
know very well you wouldn't have the courage to be such an annoying
little git, if you didn't have your fat can parked behind a computer.
I've already totally humiliated you over the fiasco that resulted
when you attempted to debate the basis of my tweaks. What more do you
think I can do to you, that you haven't already done to yourself?
> Feel free to continue "debating" something that even *you* don't think
> makes much difference.
Obviously, you're too stupid to understand a word I wrote, since I
never said that, and if you were telling the truth, you'd have proven
it. What I said was, YOU don't make much of a difference around here.
For all your talk about how smart you are, you've proven to be even
stupider than your little pal Georgie, the human mosquito. And that's
saying something.
Robert Morein wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> [snip]
> >
> >>
> >> I'm all ears.
> >
> > I hope so, because it would be hard to enjoy audio otherwise. Again,
> > you're rushing off to make a judgement, following a tangent that
> > you've created, based on your misinterpretations of what is said;
> > otherwise known as a "strawman" around here.
>
> It's not completely a strawman. The term "electret" is informative. If it is
> used, I want to know why. While I would not expect you to tell me how the
> cream works, you say, "It works entirely on different principles, not
> observed in the
> time of Newton and Huygens; laws that are hundreds of years old and
> which you base your entire understanding and views of audio upon. "
>
> I showed you that I am current with physics, and capable of understanding
> any modality rooted in Modern Physics that would explain how it works. You
> say there is an explanation. You say you cannot give me the explanation,
> except in general handwaving terms. This is not acceptable from the point of
> view of discussion.
>
> If the cream were advertised as working in ways contrary to the laws of
> physics, or outside the framework of modern physics, I would have little to
> say in response. But the term "electret" is a physical term, with a physical
> meaning: a surface charge density is retained in the absence of an electric
> field. The use of the term "electret" is an invitation to think about how
> electrets change the boundary properties of low viscosity fluids, such as
> air. There are none.
>
> I don't argue about your other tweaks, or the notion of "biogeometry",
> because these do not inherently contradict physics. If they function, they
> function in some other metaphysical realm. The use of the word "electret" is
> an intrusion on physics, and bound to raise the curiousity and challenge of
> any physicist reading this stuff. It so happens I am a physicist.
>
> I do know this: it is impossible to alter the physical boundary properties
> of a surface by application of a cream containing polar molecules that
> happen to retain a particular orientation, if such a substance exists. Even
> if a user applies the cream to his glasses, the diffraction effects will
> remain. If you made the claim that the cream had nonphysical properties,
> such as the way Holy Water is said to work, I would not argue with you.
> However, you are promoting a product which you allege I do not understand
> because my knowledge is out of date, and then you say you can't tell me how
> it works anyway. Anybody who reads this is going to wonder about that. I
> sure do.
You're a packet of nerves, Robert. No need to get so defensive. First
of all, let me say I'm not "promoting" a product as you allege. The
cream is simply something that I endorse, because I use it to great
effect, I know it works. If I were "promoting" it, I'd be a lot more
generous about what it is, who made it, and where you could get it. As
it is, I've said more than I want to say about it, around this hog
farm they're calling a newsgroup. Secondly, I'd be very foolish to
question your professional integrity or your training, and I wasn't.
You needn't convince me that you could write textbooks on Newtonian
physics. But I wasn't referring to that when I said the product does
work by principles of physics. I said it works by physics, just
"another area of physics". I was referring to quantum physics, not
Newtonian physics. The study of quantum physics came long after Newton
and Huygens, so that's why I alleged you do not understand it,
because you're looking at things through the scope of conventional
physics, according to all the explanations you were giving as to why
the cream could not work as alleged. It isn't that your personal
knowledge is "out of date", as you put it. Your knowledge of physics
and audio is still very much useful and effective. What I was saying is
that as science progresses, there is new information and new products
resulting from that, and this is the category where the cream fits
into. Because many people don't realize or believe that audio
knowledge has progressed beyond laws that were developed hundreds of
years ago. So they're still adhering to those conventions, and
dismissing out of hand anything that doesn't fit them. This is why I
always say it is better to demonstrate a product or concept to people,
than to try the Herculean task of rewriting everything they know and
trying to change their belief systems from the ground up. Understand
that that's more energy than I'm willing to put out, for a product
that I do not sell and did not invent. If you're that interested,
what I can do is try to better explain the product and its principles
to you in email, but I'm not gonna do that on this hog farm at this
point. Thanks to the actions of fleabag anklebiters like Dave Weill and
George Middius, this thread is already turning into an attack thread.
You didn't help to avoid hostilities by turning the thread title into
an attack thread title, so no further serious productive discussions
can be expected in the hostile environment you all created.
Robert Morein wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> [snip]
> >
> >>
> >> I'm all ears.
> >
> > I hope so, because it would be hard to enjoy audio otherwise. Again,
> > you're rushing off to make a judgement, following a tangent that
> > you've created, based on your misinterpretations of what is said;
> > otherwise known as a "strawman" around here.
>
> It's not completely a strawman. The term "electret" is informative. If it is
> used, I want to know why. While I would not expect you to tell me how the
> cream works, you say, "It works entirely on different principles, not
> observed in the
> time of Newton and Huygens; laws that are hundreds of years old and
> which you base your entire understanding and views of audio upon. "
>
> I showed you that I am current with physics, and capable of understanding
> any modality rooted in Modern Physics that would explain how it works. You
> say there is an explanation. You say you cannot give me the explanation,
> except in general handwaving terms. This is not acceptable from the point of
> view of discussion.
>
> If the cream were advertised as working in ways contrary to the laws of
> physics, or outside the framework of modern physics, I would have little to
> say in response. But the term "electret" is a physical term, with a physical
> meaning: a surface charge density is retained in the absence of an electric
> field. The use of the term "electret" is an invitation to think about how
> electrets change the boundary properties of low viscosity fluids, such as
> air. There are none.
>
> I don't argue about your other tweaks, or the notion of "biogeometry",
> because these do not inherently contradict physics. If they function, they
> function in some other metaphysical realm. The use of the word "electret" is
> an intrusion on physics, and bound to raise the curiousity and challenge of
> any physicist reading this stuff. It so happens I am a physicist.
>
> I do know this: it is impossible to alter the physical boundary properties
> of a surface by application of a cream containing polar molecules that
> happen to retain a particular orientation, if such a substance exists. Even
> if a user applies the cream to his glasses, the diffraction effects will
> remain. If you made the claim that the cream had nonphysical properties,
> such as the way Holy Water is said to work, I would not argue with you.
> However, you are promoting a product which you allege I do not understand
> because my knowledge is out of date, and then you say you can't tell me how
> it works anyway. Anybody who reads this is going to wonder about that. I
> sure do.
You're a packet of nerves, Robert. No need to get so defensive. First
of all, let me say I'm not "promoting" a product as you allege. The
cream is simply something that I endorse, because I use it to great
effect, I know it works. If I were "promoting" it, I'd be a lot more
generous about what it is, who made it, and where you could get it. As
it is, I've said more than I want to say about it, around this hog
farm they're calling a newsgroup. Secondly, I'd be very foolish to
question your professional integrity or your training, and I wasn't.
You needn't convince me that you could write textbooks on Newtonian
physics. But I wasn't referring to that when I said the product does
work by principles of physics. I said it works by physics, just
"another area of physics". I was referring to quantum physics, not
Newtonian physics. The study of quantum physics came long after Newton
and Huygens, so that's why I alleged you do not understand it,
because you're looking at things through the scope of conventional
physics, according to all the explanations you were giving as to why
the cream could not work as alleged. It isn't that your personal
knowledge is "out of date", as you put it. Your knowledge of physics
and audio is still very much useful and effective. What I was saying is
that as science progresses, there is new information and new products
resulting from that, and this is the category where the cream fits
into. Because many people don't realize or believe that audio
knowledge has progressed beyond laws that were developed hundreds of
years ago. So they're still adhering to those conventions, and
dismissing out of hand anything that doesn't fit them. This is why I
always say it is better to demonstrate a product or concept to people,
than to try the Herculean task of rewriting everything they know and
trying to change their belief systems from the ground up. Understand
that that's more energy than I'm willing to put out, for a product
that I do not sell and did not invent. If you're that interested,
what I can do is try to better explain the product and its principles
to you in email, but I'm not gonna do that on this hog farm at this
point. Thanks to the actions of fleabag anklebiters like Dave Weill and
George Middius, this thread is already turning into an attack thread.
You didn't help to avoid hostilities by turning the thread title into
an attack thread title, so no further serious productive discussions
can be expected in the hostile environment you all created.
Robert Morein
March 25th 06, 07:15 AM
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > Robert Morein wrote:
>> >
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Robert Morein wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> [snip]
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I'm all ears.
>> >
>> > I hope so, because it would be hard to enjoy audio otherwise. Again,
>> > you're rushing off to make a judgement, following a tangent that
>> > you've created, based on your misinterpretations of what is said;
>> > otherwise known as a "strawman" around here.
>>
>> It's not completely a strawman. The term "electret" is informative. If it
>> is
>> used, I want to know why. While I would not expect you to tell me how the
>> cream works, you say, "It works entirely on different principles, not
>> observed in the
>> time of Newton and Huygens; laws that are hundreds of years old and
>> which you base your entire understanding and views of audio upon. "
>>
>> I showed you that I am current with physics, and capable of understanding
>> any modality rooted in Modern Physics that would explain how it works.
>> You
>> say there is an explanation. You say you cannot give me the explanation,
>> except in general handwaving terms. This is not acceptable from the point
>> of
>> view of discussion.
>>
>> If the cream were advertised as working in ways contrary to the laws of
>> physics, or outside the framework of modern physics, I would have little
>> to
>> say in response. But the term "electret" is a physical term, with a
>> physical
>> meaning: a surface charge density is retained in the absence of an
>> electric
>> field. The use of the term "electret" is an invitation to think about how
>> electrets change the boundary properties of low viscosity fluids, such as
>> air. There are none.
>>
>> I don't argue about your other tweaks, or the notion of "biogeometry",
>> because these do not inherently contradict physics. If they function,
>> they
>> function in some other metaphysical realm. The use of the word "electret"
>> is
>> an intrusion on physics, and bound to raise the curiousity and challenge
>> of
>> any physicist reading this stuff. It so happens I am a physicist.
>>
>> I do know this: it is impossible to alter the physical boundary
>> properties
>> of a surface by application of a cream containing polar molecules that
>> happen to retain a particular orientation, if such a substance exists.
>> Even
>> if a user applies the cream to his glasses, the diffraction effects will
>> remain. If you made the claim that the cream had nonphysical properties,
>> such as the way Holy Water is said to work, I would not argue with you.
>> However, you are promoting a product which you allege I do not understand
>> because my knowledge is out of date, and then you say you can't tell me
>> how
>> it works anyway. Anybody who reads this is going to wonder about that. I
>> sure do.
>
> You're a packet of nerves, Robert. No need to get so defensive. First
> of all, let me say I'm not "promoting" a product as you allege. The
> cream is simply something that I endorse, because I use it to great
> effect, I know it works. If I were "promoting" it, I'd be a lot more
> generous about what it is, who made it, and where you could get it. As
> it is, I've said more than I want to say about it, around this hog
> farm they're calling a newsgroup. Secondly, I'd be very foolish to
> question your professional integrity or your training, and I wasn't.
> You needn't convince me that you could write textbooks on Newtonian
> physics. But I wasn't referring to that when I said the product does
> work by principles of physics. I said it works by physics, just
> "another area of physics". I was referring to quantum physics, not
> Newtonian physics.
Richard, I know quantum physics quite well. If you have anything to say
about it, say it now. I have all the leading graduate texts on qmech on my
bookshelf: Schiff, Merzbacher, both volumes of Messiah, and Dirac's landmark
work.
Let me hear it now.
paul packer
March 25th 06, 11:21 AM
On 24 Mar 2006 10:42:18 -0800, wrote:
>I know how you're both so obsessed over me that you can't bear the
>thought of me giving anyone else any attention, but don't worry about
>getting your quota of attention from me. If you look around in other
>threads, you'll see there is plenty from me addressed to the both of
>you flat-footed glue-eating cretins that you can have fun attacking.
Well, I did warn George that your ego was one of the great edifices of
the modern world. Maybe now he'll believe me.
dave weil
March 25th 06, 12:15 PM
On 24 Mar 2006 21:47:56 -0800, wrote:
>You didn't help to avoid hostilities by turning the thread title into
>an attack thread title, so no further serious productive discussions
>can be expected in the hostile environment you all created.
So much for the "serious discussion". The "Black Knight" strikes again
- without any appendages of course.
IOW, another tweak that can't be substantiated other than "please take
my word for it". And since not only is this guy totally hostile and
defensive, is anonymous *and* has the tendency to run off at the mouth
while being terribly short on details, well...he can be dismissed
pretty easily.
And when he tires of his little game, he'll be gone back to his little
hovel.
dave weil wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2006 21:47:56 -0800, wrote:
> >You didn't help to avoid hostilities by turning the thread title into
> >an attack thread title, so no further serious productive discussions
> >can be expected in the hostile environment you all created.
> So much for the "serious discussion". The "Black Knight" strikes again
> - without any appendages of course.
> IOW, another tweak that can't be substantiated other than "please take
> my word for it". And since not only is this guy totally hostile and
> defensive, is anonymous *and* has the tendency to run off at the mouth
> while being terribly short on details, well...he can be dismissed
> pretty easily.
> And when he tires of his little game, he'll be gone back to his little
> hovel.
I thought his behavior fit the description of AADD but the more he
writes ODD would be more accurate by the volume of posts he's
creating. He'll probably accuse me of making a quantum leap of
speculation once again.
dave weil
March 25th 06, 02:11 PM
On 24 Mar 2006 20:59:55 -0800, wrote:
>dave weil wrote:
>
>> On 24 Mar 2006 10:42:18 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >This conversation thread is an intelligent, on-topic debate between me
>> >and Mr. Morein.
>>
>> Yeah, greasing or not greasing glasses is a great on-topic debate.
>
>I'm sorry for you, that you're too stupid to follow the
>conversation and realize that we are discussing ways to improve audio
>here. What exactly is it that you do here, anyway, Weill? I realize you
>have a netstalking obsession with me, but when two people are trying to
>have a serious conversation about audio on an audio newsgroup, and all
>you and Middius have to contribute is your pitiful demonstrations
>about how plug-stupid you both are, that makes you one hell of a
>dumbass lowlife in the view of any self-respecting man.
I love the fact that all I have to do to get you to generate reams of
"material" is to post a few well-chosen words.
>Unfortunately for the both of us, you little ankle-biting troll,
>you're not a self-respecting man. Hell, you're not even a man. I
>know very well you wouldn't have the courage to be such an annoying
>little git, if you didn't have your fat can parked behind a computer.
and yet, who bothers to use their real name in any of these exchanges?
I'd posit that it's *you* who lacks courage, since you don't bother to
disclose your real name.
>I've already totally humiliated you over the fiasco that resulted
>when you attempted to debate the basis of my tweaks. What more do you
>think I can do to you, that you haven't already done to yourself?
Until you try MY tweak and "debunk" it, I feel no need to "debate"
your tweaks.
>> Feel free to continue "debating" something that even *you* don't think
>> makes much difference.
>
>Obviously, you're too stupid to understand a word I wrote, since I
>never said that, and if you were telling the truth, you'd have proven
>it.
Well, since you seem to demand it, here are YOUR words:
"Let's say there's a given deterioration of the sound when you are
wearing your eyeglasses (I don't think its much, but I could easily
test it and find out, though I haven't)".
>What I said was, YOU don't make much of a difference around here.
<shrug>
>For all your talk about how smart you are, you've proven to be even
>stupider than your little pal Georgie, the human mosquito. And that's
>saying something.
Tell us again how turntables don't have grounding straps, how you have
to take apart the base of the plinth to find such a strap and how you
actually had possession of a tonearm that HAD such a strap (and that
there's no plinth even involved). Perhaps you could fall back on
quantum mechanics to explain that one away.
dave weil
March 25th 06, 02:12 PM
On 24 Mar 2006 20:59:55 -0800, wrote:
>> Yeah, greasing or not greasing glasses is a great on-topic debate.
>
>I'm sorry for you, that you're too stupid to follow the
>conversation and realize that we are discussing ways to improve audio
>here.
Until you shut it down because Mr. Morein didn't hew to your party
line.
Oh well. You lose.
Again.
ScottW
March 25th 06, 06:19 PM
"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>
> I love the fact that all I have to do to get you to generate reams of
> "material" is to post a few well-chosen words.
>
Are you really that desperate for amusement?
He's like a yapping dog that never shuts up and when he finally does...
you kick 'em. Let sleeping dogs lie.
ScottW
dave weil
March 25th 06, 07:55 PM
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 10:19:19 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I love the fact that all I have to do to get you to generate reams of
>> "material" is to post a few well-chosen words.
>>
>
> Are you really that desperate for amusement?
>
>He's like a yapping dog that never shuts up and when he finally does...
>you kick 'em. Let sleeping dogs lie.
No.
George M. Middius
March 25th 06, 10:01 PM
Terrierborg took a step forward, but now it's at least half a step back.
> > I love the fact that all I have to do to get you to generate reams of
> > "material" is to post a few well-chosen words.
> He's like a yapping dog that never shuts up and when he finally does...
> you kick 'em. Let sleeping dogs lie.
I was the first to give you credit for renouncing your case of
Kroopologism, but now you're begging people to have mercy on Mr. ****. You
tried this puling on Jenn and now you're trying it on dave. Why do you
care how much people vent at Mr. ****? He deserves every bit of it.
Take a break from RAO, Scooter. You've lost perspective.
--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.
ScottW
March 26th 06, 02:29 AM
"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Terrierborg took a step forward, but now it's at least half a step back.
>
>> > I love the fact that all I have to do to get you to generate reams of
>> > "material" is to post a few well-chosen words.
>
>> He's like a yapping dog that never shuts up and when he finally does...
>> you kick 'em. Let sleeping dogs lie.
>
> I was the first to give you credit for renouncing your case of
> Kroopologism, but now you're begging people to have mercy on Mr. ****. You
> tried this puling on Jenn and now you're trying it on dave. Why do you
> care how much people vent at Mr. ****? He deserves every bit of it.
>
> Take a break from RAO, Scooter. You've lost perspective.
You're so bleeping myopic you don't know the difference
between Arny and SHP.
Are you sure you don't need a break...or at least a nap old man?
ScottW
Garbage Bag Boy wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2006 11:20:37 -0800, wrote:
>
> >I hope so, because it would be hard to enjoy audio otherwise. Again,
> >you're rushing off to make a judgement, following a tangent that
> >you've created, based on your misinterpretations of what is said;
> >otherwise known as a "strawman" around here. You've latched on to the
> >word "electret" in the name of the product. But I only referred you to
> >the name, not necessarily to the properties of the product. Why it
> >contains the term in its name would only be a guess on my part, and
> >although it might make for some interesting posturing, I won't posit
> >an argument based upon a guess. Remember, it's not my product. As far
> >as I know, the exact chemical properties of the product are not
> >publicly known. I'd assume that if they were, it would compromise the
> > inventor's rights to its exclusive manufacture. So even if I knew
> >them (and I think that I do), I wouldn't tell you. (At least not
> >publicly, and you'd have to agree to a non-disclosure agreement for
> >me to reveal to you what I do know about the product in question,
> >privately).
>
> IOW, total bumkum.
The word is "bunkum" you idiot. As you proved when I gave you the term
"morphic resonance", you probably don't know what "bunkum" means
either, but you should, since it describes every post you've ever
made on this newsgroup, including your response above.
You've already played your hand and you lost, Garbage Boy. Stop
crying about it. You claimed superior intellect and education, and
proved that you don't even understand the term, let alone the theory,
behind the tweak. I even invited you to debate, but all you are able to
do with that "classical education" you claimed you had, is make a
sweeping dismissal of a science you have absolutely no understanding
of, and never heard of before in your life. How smart do you think that
makes you to say "Yo man, that's bull****!"? You couldn't back up a
single thing you ever say if someone put a gun to your head. All
you've managed to prove is that your opinions are as worthless as
your trolling life. IOW, you're all talk, and no action. The only
thing you could possibly be proud of about yourself is to say "Look, I
managed to troll him!". And you're wrong about that as well. You're
one totally played card, garbage bag boy. Go home, your mother's
calling you. Oh sorry. You already ARE home. LOL!
Robert Morein
March 26th 06, 05:41 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Garbage Bag Boy wrote:
[snip]
>
> You've already played your hand and you lost, Garbage Boy. Stop
> crying about it. You claimed superior intellect and education, and
> proved that you don't even understand the term, let alone the theory,
> behind the tweak.
You've already told us you will not divulge the explanation of how the tweak
works. Thus, you withhold the theory from examination.
Robert Morein wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> [snip]
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm all ears.
> >> >
> >> > I hope so, because it would be hard to enjoy audio otherwise. Again,
> >> > you're rushing off to make a judgement, following a tangent that
> >> > you've created, based on your misinterpretations of what is said;
> >> > otherwise known as a "strawman" around here.
> >>
> >> It's not completely a strawman. The term "electret" is informative. If it
> >> is
> >> used, I want to know why. While I would not expect you to tell me how the
> >> cream works, you say, "It works entirely on different principles, not
> >> observed in the
> >> time of Newton and Huygens; laws that are hundreds of years old and
> >> which you base your entire understanding and views of audio upon. "
> >>
> >> I showed you that I am current with physics, and capable of understanding
> >> any modality rooted in Modern Physics that would explain how it works.
> >> You
> >> say there is an explanation. You say you cannot give me the explanation,
> >> except in general handwaving terms. This is not acceptable from the point
> >> of
> >> view of discussion.
> >>
> >> If the cream were advertised as working in ways contrary to the laws of
> >> physics, or outside the framework of modern physics, I would have little
> >> to
> >> say in response. But the term "electret" is a physical term, with a
> >> physical
> >> meaning: a surface charge density is retained in the absence of an
> >> electric
> >> field. The use of the term "electret" is an invitation to think about how
> >> electrets change the boundary properties of low viscosity fluids, such as
> >> air. There are none.
> >>
> >> I don't argue about your other tweaks, or the notion of "biogeometry",
> >> because these do not inherently contradict physics. If they function,
> >> they
> >> function in some other metaphysical realm. The use of the word "electret"
> >> is
> >> an intrusion on physics, and bound to raise the curiousity and challenge
> >> of
> >> any physicist reading this stuff. It so happens I am a physicist.
> >>
> >> I do know this: it is impossible to alter the physical boundary
> >> properties
> >> of a surface by application of a cream containing polar molecules that
> >> happen to retain a particular orientation, if such a substance exists.
> >> Even
> >> if a user applies the cream to his glasses, the diffraction effects will
> >> remain. If you made the claim that the cream had nonphysical properties,
> >> such as the way Holy Water is said to work, I would not argue with you.
> >> However, you are promoting a product which you allege I do not understand
> >> because my knowledge is out of date, and then you say you can't tell me
> >> how
> >> it works anyway. Anybody who reads this is going to wonder about that. I
> >> sure do.
> >
> > You're a packet of nerves, Robert. No need to get so defensive. First
> > of all, let me say I'm not "promoting" a product as you allege. The
> > cream is simply something that I endorse, because I use it to great
> > effect, I know it works. If I were "promoting" it, I'd be a lot more
> > generous about what it is, who made it, and where you could get it. As
> > it is, I've said more than I want to say about it, around this hog
> > farm they're calling a newsgroup. Secondly, I'd be very foolish to
> > question your professional integrity or your training, and I wasn't.
> > You needn't convince me that you could write textbooks on Newtonian
> > physics. But I wasn't referring to that when I said the product does
> > work by principles of physics. I said it works by physics, just
> > "another area of physics". I was referring to quantum physics, not
> > Newtonian physics.
>
> Richard, I know quantum physics quite well. If you have anything to say
> about it, say it now. I have all the leading graduate texts on qmech on my
> bookshelf: Schiff, Merzbacher, both volumes of Messiah, and Dirac's landmark
> work.
Great. Now since you missed it the first time, listen carefully Bob,
I'm not gonna say this again: Thanks to you and your friends Weill
and Middius for turning this into an attack thread, I'm not going to
attempt a serious discussion in an attack thread that you created. If
you want a serious discussion about this or any other subject you're
curious about, I will remain open to it in private email, for the time
being. If you insist on being obstinate and trying to troll me, I will
not extend the invitation.If you're not interested in furthering your
education, that's perfectly fine with me, no need to say more. This
is exactly what the rest of the group has already decided by way of
action. That proves for a fact that you were never serious about
understanding anything to begin with, and that you just want to start
another flame war. You'd have to be as stupid as your friend Garbage
Boy Weil to think that I'm going to believe you're really
interested in a serious discussion on advanced audio concepts, after
you turned the thread into an attack thread against me, completely
ignored the counterpoint that started this argument (which was that
there are MANY things you can do to reduce the harmful effects of
eyeglasses on sound reproduction, so that wearing eyeglasses does not
have to be detrimental to your listening pleasure, regardless of
diffraction effects), and are taking up a hostile position toward me,
with near threatening demands.
> Let me hear it now.
Don't make demands toward me. I don't respond well to that.
Garbage Bag Boy continues trolling on, and wondering what his life
would have been had he not dropped out of grade 7:
> On 24 Mar 2006 20:59:55 -0800, wrote:
>
> I love the fact that all I have to do to get you to generate reams of
> "material" is to post a few well-chosen words.
Not as much as I love generating the material. Wouldn't do it if I
didn't, silly troll. I know your ego tells you otherwise, but then,
you're an idiot. We've already established that about you. In fact,
you're such an idiot, that it never occurs to you that I might be the
one trolling you. And that whatever laughs you think you're getting,
are not half as great as the one's I'm having over you. Well, you
and your little chicken**** friend who's too scared to address me
directly these days.... What was that other ankle-biter's name? "Mork
from Middius" or something?
>
> >Unfortunately for the both of us, you little ankle-biting troll,
> >you're not a self-respecting man. Hell, you're not even a man. I
> >know very well you wouldn't have the courage to be such an annoying
> >little git, if you didn't have your fat can parked behind a computer.
>
> and yet, who bothers to use their real name in any of these exchanges?
Not you, apparently. Garbage Boy.
> I'd posit that it's *you* who lacks courage, since you don't bother to
> disclose your real name.
That's because you're confusing "courage" for "stupidity". I could
see where you can get those wires crossed, since you have plenty of
stupidity, and zero courage. Which means you have excess "stupidity"
where the "courage" should lie. You have no more courage than your
wimpy friend George. Had you even an ounce of courage or integrity,
you'd have backed up your bluster about defeating the grounds for my
tweak with hard scientific evidence, instead of running away from me
and hiding, when I asked you to prove me wrong. You're STILL hiding
from me, and only peeking out from under your chair to throw taunts at
me. You know, like the French in the Holy Grail movie (I knew you'd
get that, since you lack a classical education, Monty Python is the
highest cultural reference in your experience).
>
> >I've already totally humiliated you over the fiasco that resulted
> >when you attempted to debate the basis of my tweaks. What more do you
> >think I can do to you, that you haven't already done to yourself?
>
> Until you try MY tweak and "debunk" it, I feel no need to "debate"
> your tweaks.
And whom do you think you're impressing with this transparent
posturing? Your troll friend George? FACT: YOU are the one who
demanded that I reveal the basis for my tweaks. Then when I did, you
tucked tail and ran like the dumb little piggie you are, rather than
stay and try to debate me on it, knowing that it would make you look
even MORE like the fool I've proven you to be. After that, you start
posting some bogus joke tweak and demanded that I debunk it. And I even
agreed to do so, as soon as you "debunked" the basis for my tweak. You
couldn't, thereby admitting you are RAO's crown fool, as I always
said you were.
> >> Feel free to continue "debating" something that even *you* don't think
> >> makes much difference.
> >
> >Obviously, you're too stupid to understand a word I wrote, since I
> >never said that, and if you were telling the truth, you'd have proven
> >it.
>
> Well, since you seem to demand it, here are YOUR words:
>
> "Let's say there's a given deterioration of the sound when you are
> wearing your eyeglasses (I don't think its much, but I could easily
> test it and find out, though I haven't)".
That says I didn't think the deterioration effect was all that great,
not the effect of the cream I was talking about, you moron. Secondly, I
clearly said I hadn't tested the effect, which to someone with any
degree of cognitive skills, would understand the statement as being a
guess and not a factual statement. This must be the 20th time that you
have shown reading comprehension problems in people's conversations.
Geez, isn't there a remedial English class somewhere near the rathole
you live in, Garbage Bag Boy?
> >What I said was, YOU don't make much of a difference around here.
>
> <shrug>
>
> >For all your talk about how smart you are, you've proven to be even
> >stupider than your little pal Georgie, the human mosquito. And that's
> >saying something.
>
> Tell us again how turntables don't have grounding straps,
Lie no. 1 from Dave Weill
how you have
> to take apart the base of the plinth to find such a strap
Lie no. 2 from Dave Weill
and how you
> actually had possession of a tonearm that HAD such a strap (and that
> there's no plinth even involved).
Lie no. 3 from Dave Weill
Good show Dave! Thanks for proving that, not only are you one of the
group's biggest loudmouthed cretins, for having demanded that I
reveal the basis for my tweak and then found yourself out of your
league in trying to debunk it, but that you are one of the group's
biggest lying trolls, along with your little friend George the Greek.
"That pretty much says all we need to know about you".
> Perhaps you could fall back on quantum mechanics to explain that one away.
Admit it: when the prof told the class they'd be studying quantum
mechanics, you brought your ratchet wrench set to school, didn't you?
That's some "classical education" you've shown us, garbage boy!
Throw out another Monty Python reference why don't you! It makes you
even funnier to laugh at.
dave weil
March 26th 06, 09:17 AM
On 25 Mar 2006 21:23:23 -0800, wrote:
> (I knew you'd
>get that, since you lack a classical education, Monty Python is the
>highest cultural reference in your experience).
Since *my* classical reference went WAAAAY over your head, you lose.
Again.
dave weil
March 26th 06, 09:18 AM
On 25 Mar 2006 21:23:23 -0800, wrote:
>> >> Feel free to continue "debating" something that even *you* don't think
>> >> makes much difference.
>> >
>> >Obviously, you're too stupid to understand a word I wrote, since I
>> >never said that, and if you were telling the truth, you'd have proven
>> >it.
>>
>> Well, since you seem to demand it, here are YOUR words:
>>
>> "Let's say there's a given deterioration of the sound when you are
>> wearing your eyeglasses (I don't think its much, but I could easily
>> test it and find out, though I haven't)".
>
>That says I didn't think the deterioration effect was all that great,
>not the effect of the cream I was talking about, you moron.
Keep dancing on the head of a pin - it fits the shape of your head.
dave weil
March 26th 06, 09:20 AM
On 25 Mar 2006 21:23:23 -0800, wrote:
>Throw out another Monty Python reference why don't you! It makes you
>even funnier to laugh at.
Since you started with the whole Monty Python thing, the laugh is on
you, swifty.
dave weil
March 26th 06, 09:35 AM
On 25 Mar 2006 20:06:09 -0800, wrote:
>The word is "bunkum" you idiot.
You need a comma, dick.
Robert Morein
March 26th 06, 02:35 PM
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > Robert Morein wrote:
>> >
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> ups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Robert Morein wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote:
>> >> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> [snip]
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm all ears.
>> >> >
>> >> > I hope so, because it would be hard to enjoy audio otherwise. Again,
>> >> > you're rushing off to make a judgement, following a tangent that
>> >> > you've created, based on your misinterpretations of what is said;
>> >> > otherwise known as a "strawman" around here.
>> >>
>> >> It's not completely a strawman. The term "electret" is informative. If
>> >> it
>> >> is
>> >> used, I want to know why. While I would not expect you to tell me how
>> >> the
>> >> cream works, you say, "It works entirely on different principles, not
>> >> observed in the
>> >> time of Newton and Huygens; laws that are hundreds of years old and
>> >> which you base your entire understanding and views of audio upon. "
>> >>
>> >> I showed you that I am current with physics, and capable of
>> >> understanding
>> >> any modality rooted in Modern Physics that would explain how it works.
>> >> You
>> >> say there is an explanation. You say you cannot give me the
>> >> explanation,
>> >> except in general handwaving terms. This is not acceptable from the
>> >> point
>> >> of
>> >> view of discussion.
>> >>
>> >> If the cream were advertised as working in ways contrary to the laws
>> >> of
>> >> physics, or outside the framework of modern physics, I would have
>> >> little
>> >> to
>> >> say in response. But the term "electret" is a physical term, with a
>> >> physical
>> >> meaning: a surface charge density is retained in the absence of an
>> >> electric
>> >> field. The use of the term "electret" is an invitation to think about
>> >> how
>> >> electrets change the boundary properties of low viscosity fluids, such
>> >> as
>> >> air. There are none.
>> >>
>> >> I don't argue about your other tweaks, or the notion of "biogeometry",
>> >> because these do not inherently contradict physics. If they function,
>> >> they
>> >> function in some other metaphysical realm. The use of the word
>> >> "electret"
>> >> is
>> >> an intrusion on physics, and bound to raise the curiousity and
>> >> challenge
>> >> of
>> >> any physicist reading this stuff. It so happens I am a physicist.
>> >>
>> >> I do know this: it is impossible to alter the physical boundary
>> >> properties
>> >> of a surface by application of a cream containing polar molecules that
>> >> happen to retain a particular orientation, if such a substance exists.
>> >> Even
>> >> if a user applies the cream to his glasses, the diffraction effects
>> >> will
>> >> remain. If you made the claim that the cream had nonphysical
>> >> properties,
>> >> such as the way Holy Water is said to work, I would not argue with
>> >> you.
>> >> However, you are promoting a product which you allege I do not
>> >> understand
>> >> because my knowledge is out of date, and then you say you can't tell
>> >> me
>> >> how
>> >> it works anyway. Anybody who reads this is going to wonder about that.
>> >> I
>> >> sure do.
>> >
>> > You're a packet of nerves, Robert. No need to get so defensive. First
>> > of all, let me say I'm not "promoting" a product as you allege. The
>> > cream is simply something that I endorse, because I use it to great
>> > effect, I know it works. If I were "promoting" it, I'd be a lot more
>> > generous about what it is, who made it, and where you could get it. As
>> > it is, I've said more than I want to say about it, around this hog
>> > farm they're calling a newsgroup. Secondly, I'd be very foolish to
>> > question your professional integrity or your training, and I wasn't.
>> > You needn't convince me that you could write textbooks on Newtonian
>> > physics. But I wasn't referring to that when I said the product does
>> > work by principles of physics. I said it works by physics, just
>> > "another area of physics". I was referring to quantum physics, not
>> > Newtonian physics.
>>
>> Richard, I know quantum physics quite well. If you have anything to say
>> about it, say it now. I have all the leading graduate texts on qmech on
>> my
>> bookshelf: Schiff, Merzbacher, both volumes of Messiah, and Dirac's
>> landmark
>> work.
>
> Great. Now since you missed it the first time, listen carefully Bob,
> I'm not gonna say this again: Thanks to you and your friends Weill
> and Middius for turning this into an attack thread, I'm not going to
> attempt a serious discussion in an attack thread that you created.
Richard, you accused Dave of not understanding the theory. But you refuse to
present it.
George M. Middius
March 26th 06, 03:15 PM
Robert Morein said to Shovels:
> Richard, you accused Dave of not understanding the theory. But you refuse to
> present it.
Maybe we shouldn't disturb Shovels while she's hatching her nestlings. You
know how fierce a mother hen gets in defense of her nest if a predator comes
nosing around.
--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.
Robert Morein wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> ups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> [snip]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'm all ears.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I hope so, because it would be hard to enjoy audio otherwise. Again,
> >> >> > you're rushing off to make a judgement, following a tangent that
> >> >> > you've created, based on your misinterpretations of what is said;
> >> >> > otherwise known as a "strawman" around here.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's not completely a strawman. The term "electret" is informative. If
> >> >> it
> >> >> is
> >> >> used, I want to know why. While I would not expect you to tell me how
> >> >> the
> >> >> cream works, you say, "It works entirely on different principles, not
> >> >> observed in the
> >> >> time of Newton and Huygens; laws that are hundreds of years old and
> >> >> which you base your entire understanding and views of audio upon. "
> >> >>
> >> >> I showed you that I am current with physics, and capable of
> >> >> understanding
> >> >> any modality rooted in Modern Physics that would explain how it works.
> >> >> You
> >> >> say there is an explanation. You say you cannot give me the
> >> >> explanation,
> >> >> except in general handwaving terms. This is not acceptable from the
> >> >> point
> >> >> of
> >> >> view of discussion.
> >> >>
> >> >> If the cream were advertised as working in ways contrary to the laws
> >> >> of
> >> >> physics, or outside the framework of modern physics, I would have
> >> >> little
> >> >> to
> >> >> say in response. But the term "electret" is a physical term, with a
> >> >> physical
> >> >> meaning: a surface charge density is retained in the absence of an
> >> >> electric
> >> >> field. The use of the term "electret" is an invitation to think about
> >> >> how
> >> >> electrets change the boundary properties of low viscosity fluids, such
> >> >> as
> >> >> air. There are none.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't argue about your other tweaks, or the notion of "biogeometry",
> >> >> because these do not inherently contradict physics. If they function,
> >> >> they
> >> >> function in some other metaphysical realm. The use of the word
> >> >> "electret"
> >> >> is
> >> >> an intrusion on physics, and bound to raise the curiousity and
> >> >> challenge
> >> >> of
> >> >> any physicist reading this stuff. It so happens I am a physicist.
> >> >>
> >> >> I do know this: it is impossible to alter the physical boundary
> >> >> properties
> >> >> of a surface by application of a cream containing polar molecules that
> >> >> happen to retain a particular orientation, if such a substance exists.
> >> >> Even
> >> >> if a user applies the cream to his glasses, the diffraction effects
> >> >> will
> >> >> remain. If you made the claim that the cream had nonphysical
> >> >> properties,
> >> >> such as the way Holy Water is said to work, I would not argue with
> >> >> you.
> >> >> However, you are promoting a product which you allege I do not
> >> >> understand
> >> >> because my knowledge is out of date, and then you say you can't tell
> >> >> me
> >> >> how
> >> >> it works anyway. Anybody who reads this is going to wonder about that.
> >> >> I
> >> >> sure do.
> >> >
> >> > You're a packet of nerves, Robert. No need to get so defensive. First
> >> > of all, let me say I'm not "promoting" a product as you allege. The
> >> > cream is simply something that I endorse, because I use it to great
> >> > effect, I know it works. If I were "promoting" it, I'd be a lot more
> >> > generous about what it is, who made it, and where you could get it. As
> >> > it is, I've said more than I want to say about it, around this hog
> >> > farm they're calling a newsgroup. Secondly, I'd be very foolish to
> >> > question your professional integrity or your training, and I wasn't.
> >> > You needn't convince me that you could write textbooks on Newtonian
> >> > physics. But I wasn't referring to that when I said the product does
> >> > work by principles of physics. I said it works by physics, just
> >> > "another area of physics". I was referring to quantum physics, not
> >> > Newtonian physics.
> >>
> >> Richard, I know quantum physics quite well. If you have anything to say
> >> about it, say it now. I have all the leading graduate texts on qmech on
> >> my
> >> bookshelf: Schiff, Merzbacher, both volumes of Messiah, and Dirac's
> >> landmark
> >> work.
> >
> > Great. Now since you missed it the first time, listen carefully Bob,
> > I'm not gonna say this again: Thanks to you and your friends Weill
> > and Middius for turning this into an attack thread, I'm not going to
> > attempt a serious discussion in an attack thread that you created.
>
> Richard, you accused Dave of not understanding the theory. But you refuse to
> present it.
You're almost as confused as Doggie Dave is, Robert. You don't make any
better a spokesperson for him than he makes for George the Greek.
Garbage Bag Boy presents us more examples of his "classical education"
and "audio expertise":
> Tell us again how turntables don't have grounding straps
Okay, Garbage Boy. Turntables don't have grounding straps. Have you
ever SEEN a turntable, you imbecile? LOL! Too bad you have such a
masochistic desire to see yourself humiliated like this all the time.
You lose.
Again.
And by the way, making you my personal punching bag is getting a little
played. I've shown countless times what a liar you are, and countless
times what a stupid goof you are, who doesn't ever know what he's
blabbing about. How many times do you want me to make a fool out of
you? Take the advice from your manager: stay down for the count
already, ya dumbass loser!
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> From:
> Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 10:59 pm
> Email:
>
> >I'm sorry for you, that you're too stupid to follow the
> >conversation and realize that we are discussing ways to improve audio
> >here.
>
> You want to improve audio? Why didn't you just say so! Here's a free
> tweak for you. It's been passed from generation to generation. Rumor
> has it that it was actually developed in Thomas Edison's Menlo Park
> facility by the man himself. It's protoscience based on the Copernican
> system and phrenology. It's absolutely better and more effective than
> anything that you've posted to date:
>
> Move your speakers a few inches to the left or to the right. Maybe move
> them forward or back a bit. Make sure they are exactly level and on the
> same horizontal plane as the bar at the Buckhead Intercontinental Hotel
> in Atlanta, GA. The vertical plane should pass exactly through the
> center of the rotational axis of Arcturus.
>
> Once this is done buy one pound of confetti and hang exactly 4.3 ounces
> of confetti on each speaker. Not the cheap stuff, mind you, but only
> the good stuff. Use only Scotch-brand cellophane tape. Move the pieces
> around, and vary the sizes until you 'nail it.' I prefer red confetti,
> but other colors may work as well. You'll just have to try them. I use
> 1/2" tape, but others use 3/4" tape to good effect.
>
> After that, stand on one leg exactly 2.6" off axis. Raise one arm 3-4"
> above the level of your shoulder. You'll have to try both right and
> left sides to determine the best effect. It can vary from recording to
> recording. Just play with it.
>
> Once you have determined which side has a better effect, drink exactly
> 3 ounces of white glue out of a 12 ounce container. I use Borden's, but
> you can experiment. Other brands, or even wood glue, may work too. (One
> person told me that Portland cement works very well, particularly in
> the bass and low-mid regions, but I have not verified that.) Pour the
> remainder of the glue (or cement) container all over your computer
> keyboard and sprinkle it with the excess confetti. Work it in well.
> Then place a 6 mil poly bag over your head (wrapping it tightly about
> the neck with a high-grade duct tape) and stand in that position for
> exactly 35 minutes without breathing or moving.
>
> I have found this to give a very deep soundstage. All the veils drop
> away. There is so much inner detail exposed that sometimes you forget
> about the outer detail. It will also become readily apparent whether or
> not you have hooked up your speaker wires or interconnects backwards.
>
> The only drawback with this tweak is that I can never make it to the
> end of a song before I pass out. But believe me, it's worth it for
> those precious few seconds of audio nirvana.
>
> Give it a try, SHP, and report back. I'll be waiting anxiously until
> you do.
Well, you're a bit of a late comer, but I guess you want me to
register your name as well. Okay, fine. I am putting you in the column
marked "Fools of RAO who respond to serious tweaks that challenge their
insecurities, with dumb joke tweaks that provoke their simple minds to
excess laughter". Are you happy now, Shhhhhhhhhhhhh? I know you're
trying, but you're really not listening hard enough.
dave weil
March 28th 06, 10:38 PM
On 27 Mar 2006 22:33:46 -0800, wrote:
>Garbage Bag Boy presents us more examples of his "classical education"
>and "audio expertise":
>
>> Tell us again how turntables don't have grounding straps
>
>Okay, Garbage Boy. Turntables don't have grounding straps.
There ya go. anyone thinking of listening to anything audio from dick
should read and re-read this.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
March 28th 06, 11:11 PM
From:
Date: Tues, Mar 28 2006 1:53 pm
Email:
>Well, you're a bit of a late comer, but I guess you want me to
>register your name as well. Okay, fine. I am putting you in the column
>marked "Fools of RAO who respond to serious tweaks that challenge their
>insecurities, with dumb joke tweaks that provoke their simple minds to
>excess laughter". Are you happy now, Shhhhhhhhhhhhh? I know you're
>trying, but you're really not listening hard enough.
How dare you. I offer a tweak based on Edisonian principles, phrenology
and the Copernican system. You, being a closed-minded POS, dismiss it
out of hand. Have you even tried it? Of course not. You're too bottled
up in your preconceived notions. How can you say that this is a joke
and will not work if you haven't tried it?
Go back to your trailer-trash ways, SHP. You're clearly not serious
about making your system sound better.
ScottW
March 29th 06, 04:32 AM
"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 27 Mar 2006 22:33:46 -0800, wrote:
>
>>Garbage Bag Boy presents us more examples of his "classical education"
>>and "audio expertise":
>>
>>> Tell us again how turntables don't have grounding straps
>>
>>Okay, Garbage Boy. Turntables don't have grounding straps.
>
> There ya go. anyone thinking of listening to anything audio from dick
> should read and re-read this.
I think he's picking on the term "strap" which usually refers to
a heavy braided cable...often uninsulated.
The little ground wire on my TT doesn't qualify as a strap
IMO.
Heres a pic.
http://www.homaco.com/runway/groundstrap.htm
ScottW
George M. Middius
March 29th 06, 05:18 AM
Yapper said:
> I think he's picking on the term "strap"
You mean it's time for your walkies?
--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is a clever, original thinker who made
us all laugh with his funny and life-threatening tweak joke:
> From:
> Date: Tues, Mar 28 2006 1:53 pm
> Email:
>
> >Well, you're a bit of a late comer, but I guess you want me to
> >register your name as well. Okay, fine. I am putting you in the column
> >marked "Fools of RAO who respond to serious tweaks that challenge their
> >insecurities, with dumb joke tweaks that provoke their simple minds to
> >excess laughter". Are you happy now, Shhhhhhhhhhhhh? I know you're
> >trying, but you're really not listening hard enough.
>
> How dare you. I offer a tweak based on Edisonian principles, phrenology
> and the Copernican system. You, being a closed-minded POS, dismiss it
> out of hand. Have you even tried it? Of course not. You're too bottled
> up in your preconceived notions. How can you say that this is a joke
> and will not work if you haven't tried it?
>
> Go back to your trailer-trash ways, SHP. You're clearly not serious
> about making your system sound better.
Sorry, I know you're trying hard and all, but you're still not
funny. And you're sure as hell NOT original. You might be able to
make your simple-minded friends laugh with your dumb little tweak
jokes, but anyone above that level of mentality, and you'll have to
try a lot harder. Then again, I haven't ruled out the fact that you
may be serious. Perhaps you thought your dumb ideas would work, and you
stuck a plastic bag over your head and held your breath for 35 seconds,
thinking it would improve your audio sound. Then you suffered brain
damage. Then you had to be taught how to use a computer. And voila!
Here you are. Big as life, and dumb as a plank.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
March 29th 06, 06:12 AM
From:
Date: Tues, Mar 28 2006 11:02 pm
Email:
>Perhaps you thought your dumb ideas would work
Please prove that they don't work.
You can't, can you?
Well, there it is then.
BTW, for the effect to work, you need to hold your breath for 35
*minutes*, not 35 *seconds*. You have to pay the utmost attention to
detail with this (or any) tweak for it to work properly, which you are
clearly not capable of doing.
Anyone thinking of listening to anything audio from Garbage Boy Weil
should read,
re-read, and RE-read this:
Dave Weill wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2006 22:33:46 -0800, wrote:
>
> >Garbage Bag Boy presents us more examples of his "classical education"
> >and "audio expertise":
> >
> >> Tell us again how turntables don't have grounding straps
> >
> >Okay, Garbage Boy. Turntables don't have grounding straps.
>
> There ya go. anyone thinking of listening to anything audio from dick
> should read and re-read this.
.....Or read ScottW's post in this thread which follows, where he
confirms that Garbage Boy here doesn't know that turntables don't
have "grounding straps".
Thank you for this response, Dave. I'm gonna frame it and hang it on
my wall. Just to give me an easy laugh, whenever I need it.
Ever open a dictionary Garbage Bag Boy? Here's what a "strap" is
defined as:
"A thin flat metal or plastic band used for fastening or clamping
objects together or into position." -
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=strap
The ground/earth WIRE on any TT doesn't qualify as a "STRAP", you
bleeding moron. A "grounding STRAP" is not something that comes
standard on turntables. It would kind of be hard to connect it to your
amp's grounding screw if it did, you blithering idiot. A "grounding
STRAP" is something you buy that is generally used to protect sensitive
ICs and such, when you're working with computer equipment.
Isn't hypocrisy a bitch, Garbage Boy? Tell the truth: don't you
EVER get tired of looking like a dull-witted fool? I'll bet you've
been sorely regretting that you ever started messing with me!
LOL!
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
March 29th 06, 08:04 AM
From: ScottW
Date: Tues, Mar 28 2006 9:32 pm
Email: "ScottW" >
>I think he's picking on the term "strap" which usually refers to
>a heavy braided cable...often uninsulated.
>The little ground wire on my TT doesn't qualify as a strap
>IMO.
>Heres a pic.
>http://www.homaco.com/runway/groundstrap.htm
Although it seems to me that you are probably much more familiar with
this kind of strap:
http://www.libida.com/content/shop/video/item.php?view=video&product_id=002078&id=1293457451
dave weil
March 29th 06, 01:39 PM
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:32:09 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:
>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On 27 Mar 2006 22:33:46 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>>Garbage Bag Boy presents us more examples of his "classical education"
>>>and "audio expertise":
>>>
>>>> Tell us again how turntables don't have grounding straps
>>>
>>>Okay, Garbage Boy. Turntables don't have grounding straps.
>>
>> There ya go. anyone thinking of listening to anything audio from dick
>> should read and re-read this.
>
> I think he's picking on the term "strap" which usually refers to
>a heavy braided cable...often uninsulated.
So?
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue23/proscenium4.htm
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=turntable+ground+strap&hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-35,GGLG:en&sa=N&tab=ff&sa=X&oi=froogle&ct=title
Just two examples of the use of this term.
>The little ground wire on my TT doesn't qualify as a strap
>IMO.
Well, that's your opinion. It's a commonly used term that you don't
have to accept if you don't want to. Still doesn't make it true.
>Heres a pic.
>
>http://www.homaco.com/runway/groundstrap.htm
Yes, that's another type (one that you might even find IN YOUR
TURNTABLE if you take it apart. There are also ground straps that are
attached to the wrist and run to a workbench (obviously covered). Just
because THEY exist doesn't mean that the one that you picture isn't a
ground strap.
>
>ScottW
>
George M. Middius
March 29th 06, 03:32 PM
Shovels tries to gather the tattered shreds of his imaginary dignity.
> Sorry, I know you're trying hard and all, but you're still not funny.
Mocking you is so easy that he can't help but be funny. I'll bet even
Mikey could elicit some upward twitches of the lips if he made fun of you.
--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.
Garbage Boy spends a lot _more_ time scouring the net to find a
backpeddling excuse for his utter lack of knowledge about turntables:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:32:09 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 27 Mar 2006 22:33:46 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >>>Garbage Bag Boy presents us more examples of his "classical education"
> >>>and "audio expertise":
> >>>
> >>>> Tell us again how turntables don't have grounding straps
> >>>
> >>>Okay, Garbage Boy. Turntables don't have grounding straps.
> >>
> >> There ya go. anyone thinking of listening to anything audio from dick
> >> should read and re-read this.
> >
> > I think he's picking on the term "strap" which usually refers to
> >a heavy braided cable...often uninsulated.
>
> So?
>
> http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue23/proscenium4.htm
> http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=turntable+ground+strap&hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-35,GGLG:en&sa=N&tab=ff&sa=X&oi=froogle&ct=title
>
> Just two examples of the use of this term.
As you like to say..... So? Did someone say "grounding straps" don't
exist, nitwit?
> >The little ground wire on my TT doesn't qualify as a strap
> >IMO.
>
> Well, that's your opinion.
No, that's a FACT. No tt is sold with a grounding STRAP, moron.
They're not for tt use.
> It's a commonly used term that you don't
> have to accept if you don't want to.
But you DO have to accept it, even if you don't WANT to accept it,
because it is a FACT. Idiot.
> Still doesn't make it true.
>
> >Heres a pic.
> >
> >http://www.homaco.com/runway/groundstrap.htm
You are really one thick MF, aren't you? I'm gonna say this
hopefully for the last time: NO ONE SAID GROUNDING STRAPS DON'T
EXIST. Did you finally get that, you bumclot? All you just did was
showing a picture of a grounding strap on a pair of clamps. SO?!
Walt
March 30th 06, 10:47 PM
wrote:
<crap snipped>
: "Watching these guys post is like watching a bird
: trying to fly through the office window. First there's
: honest concern. Then there's amusement. Then pity.
: Then disgust (at one's own interest). And then it
: just gets annoying. THUD,THUD,THUD,THUD,THUD,THUD
: THUD,THUD,THUD, THUD,THUD,THUD,THUD,THUD,THUD,THUD,
: THUD,THUD,THUD, THUD,THUD,THUD,THUD,THUD,THUD,THUD,
: THUD,THUD,THUD, THUD,THUD,THUD,THUD,THUD,THUD,THUD,
: THUD,THUD,THUD, THUD,THUD,THUD,THUD,THUD,THUD,THUD..."
: -- D. Mann
//Walt
ScottW
March 31st 06, 03:22 AM
"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 19:32:09 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 27 Mar 2006 22:33:46 -0800, wrote:
>>>
>>>>Garbage Bag Boy presents us more examples of his "classical education"
>>>>and "audio expertise":
>>>>
>>>>> Tell us again how turntables don't have grounding straps
>>>>
>>>>Okay, Garbage Boy. Turntables don't have grounding straps.
>>>
>>> There ya go. anyone thinking of listening to anything audio from dick
>>> should read and re-read this.
>>
>> I think he's picking on the term "strap" which usually refers to
>>a heavy braided cable...often uninsulated.
>
> So?
>
> http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue23/proscenium4.htm
> http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=turntable+ground+strap&hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-35,GGLG:en&sa=N&tab=ff&sa=X&oi=froogle&ct=title
>
> Just two examples of the use of this term.
>
>>The little ground wire on my TT doesn't qualify as a strap
>>IMO.
>
> Well, that's your opinion. It's a commonly used term that you don't
> have to accept if you don't want to.
Commonly misused by technically ignorant people you mean.
> Still doesn't make it true.
>
>>Heres a pic.
>>
>>http://www.homaco.com/runway/groundstrap.htm
>
> Yes, that's another type (one that you might even find IN YOUR
> TURNTABLE if you take it apart.
I've been in my TT.. replacing a belt and a failed light used in an
optical
end of record detector. No "ground straps".
Theres a lot more to it than a Rega BTW.
>There are also ground straps that are
> attached to the wrist and run to a workbench (obviously covered).
Completely different, these are used for ESD protection.
Do you know for safety purposes the min impedance to ground
such a strap can offer?
Makes them particularly unsuitable for equipment grounding
or TT applications.
> Just
> because THEY exist doesn't mean that the one that you picture isn't a
> ground strap.
They're both types of ground straps.
In spite of what the TT guys say... their little silver wire isn't one.
Those buffoons were also lifting wires off the floor but then
taping them to walls. Are walls somehow immune to the dielectric
effects floors give?
ScottW
dave weil
March 31st 06, 07:38 AM
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:22:29 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:
>>There are also ground straps that are
>> attached to the wrist and run to a workbench (obviously covered).
>
>Completely different, these are used for ESD protection.
Physically NOT as you described how a strap MUST be. Which was my
point. Take off the wrist loop, replace the alligator clip with a
spade lug, and, VOILA! you have the equivalent of the wire you have
coming out of your turntable, complete with the insulation that you
claim doesn't come on ground straps.
If you want to keep pounding this molehill, you're welcome to.
ScottW
March 31st 06, 07:41 AM
"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:22:29 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>>There are also ground straps that are
>>> attached to the wrist and run to a workbench (obviously covered).
>>
>>Completely different, these are used for ESD protection.
>
> Physically NOT as you described how a strap MUST be. Which was my
> point. Take off the wrist loop, replace the alligator clip with a
> spade lug, and, VOILA! you have the equivalent of the wire you have
> coming out of your turntable, complete with the insulation that you
> claim doesn't come on ground straps.
>
> If you want to keep pounding this molehill, you're welcome to.
If you want to keep insisting on displaying your technological prowess....
ScottW
dave weil
March 31st 06, 08:54 AM
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:41:46 -0800, "ScottW" >
wrote:
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:22:29 -0800, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>There are also ground straps that are
>>>> attached to the wrist and run to a workbench (obviously covered).
>>>
>>>Completely different, these are used for ESD protection.
>>
>> Physically NOT as you described how a strap MUST be. Which was my
>> point. Take off the wrist loop, replace the alligator clip with a
>> spade lug, and, VOILA! you have the equivalent of the wire you have
>> coming out of your turntable, complete with the insulation that you
>> claim doesn't come on ground straps.
>>
>> If you want to keep pounding this molehill, you're welcome to.
>
>If you want to keep insisting on displaying your technological prowess....
I note that you can't refute what I've written...
dave weil wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:22:29 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> >>There are also ground straps that are
> >> attached to the wrist and run to a workbench (obviously covered).
> >
> >Completely different, these are used for ESD protection.
>
> Physically NOT as you described how a strap MUST be. Which was my
> point. Take off the wrist loop, replace the alligator clip with a
> spade lug, and, VOILA! you have the equivalent of the wire you have
> coming out of your turntable, complete with the insulation that you
> claim doesn't come on ground straps.
>
> If you want to keep pounding this molehill, you're welcome to.
I'll take over pounding you from Scott, if it's all right with you.
Why shouldn't kicking your stupid can all over the place be a shared
excercise? You're the one making a mountain out of a molehill here,
because you simply refuse to admit that you're an imbecile, and
don't understand how turntable grounding works. I mean sure you can
"make" a tt ground wire out of a strap, if you start modifying the hell
out of it. You can probably make a tt ground wire out of a freaking
toaster, if you're that desperate and dumb to do so. But the FACT
remains, you insolent cretin, that's not something a tt comes with,
nor is it suitable for a ground wire.
I think it's perhaps time to recap what you said again, don't you?:
Garbage Boy Dave: "Turntables have grounding STRAPS"
What you are so desperate to avoid hearing and understanding, is that
they DON'T come with grounding STRAPS, no matter how many face-saving
excuses and web sites you try to pull out of your fat ass to prove
otherwise. Admit you're an idiot and that you were WRONG about
turntables, you don't know anything about audio, and get on with your
sorry trolling life already.
Otherwise, you'll have proven that everything you said against me was
sheer stupidity and hypocrisy. And I'll NEVER let you forget that.
dave weil wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:41:46 -0800, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:22:29 -0800, "ScottW" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>There are also ground straps that are
> >>>> attached to the wrist and run to a workbench (obviously covered).
> >>>
> >>>Completely different, these are used for ESD protection.
> >>
> >> Physically NOT as you described how a strap MUST be. Which was my
> >> point. Take off the wrist loop, replace the alligator clip with a
> >> spade lug, and, VOILA! you have the equivalent of the wire you have
> >> coming out of your turntable, complete with the insulation that you
> >> claim doesn't come on ground straps.
> >>
> >> If you want to keep pounding this molehill, you're welcome to.
> >
> >If you want to keep insisting on displaying your technological prowess....
>
> I note that you can't refute what I've written...
I note that you're desperately seeking ways to wiggle out of this
debate on tt grounding against us, as Arny would try to do, because
you're losing it. And you're losing it in grand fashion, Garbage
Boy. One of those ways is to claim that Scott can't refute what
you've written, because he isn't going to keep beating you on the
head with the same refutations, and is instead pointing out the obvious
fact that you have not refuted anything. It's painfully clear that
you don't understand how turntable grounding works. You're trying
to fit a bunny ear on a horse and convince us that "some horses are
born with bunny ears". "And to prove that... here is a website that
sells bunny ears....". LOL!
I've already shown that you cultural references go over your head,
that you have no scientific education, and don't even have a
"classical education"... You criticized my understanding of audio and
claimed to be an audio expert.... You've shown that you don't
understand the difference between a ground STRAP and a ground WIRE. So
tell us Garbage Bag Boy... what exactly are your qualifications in
audio that you think you know more about it than me and Scott?
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.