S888wheel says: When cornered, I Just change my story!

[Arny Krueger]

Last week S888wheel got spanked for posting the following:

From: (S888Wheel)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:09:02 GMT
Message-ID: f7Ifc.433$gL1.21407@attbi_s54

"The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone) would
be utterly useless."

This week, he's in full-tilt revisionism mode:

From: (S888Wheel)
Date: 25 Apr 2004 16:03:16 GMT
Message-ID: >

"Please try to get your facts straight. I said a 6hz tone is useless in
highend."

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 4/25/2004 1:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Last week S888wheel got spanked for posting the following:
>
>From: (S888Wheel)
>Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:09:02 GMT
>Message-ID: f7Ifc.433$gL1.21407@attbi_s54
>
>"The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone) would
>be utterly useless."
>
>This week, he's in full-tilt revisionism mode:
>
>From: (S888Wheel)
>Date: 25 Apr 2004 16:03:16 GMT
>Message-ID: >
>
>"Please try to get your facts straight. I said a 6hz tone is useless in
>highend."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You could always post a comment about this in RAHE where these posts were made.
Oh, no you can't. You were banned from RAHE for being an asshole. How funny is
it that you lurk on a Usenet group from which you were banned? I'd say you
suffer from RAHE envy. I guess you and Tom share a common problem with numbers.
This is what Tom said that sparked my comment..."And here, Mr Wheeler says that
a 10 Hz subwoofer is "useless."

I guess this form of revisionism is OK with you since you love to do the same
thing.

So, clarification of context and the dropping of an adverb is revisionism to
you. But changing significant numbers is not.

Figures.

[S888Wheel]

>From: Lionel
>Date: 4/25/2004 2:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel - > - dimanche 25
>Avril 2004 23:12 wrote:
>
>[snip paranoid audio comment - cf RAHE] LOL !
>
>Don't you have a new audio gadget to show to Boon ?
>

Don't you have a therapy session to treat your obsession with me? You really
shouldn't blame me for the terrible things your looser father did to you.;-)

[Arny Krueger]

S888Wheel wrote:
>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 4/25/2004 1:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> Last week S888wheel got spanked for posting the following:
>>
>> From: (S888Wheel)
>> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:09:02 GMT
>> Message-ID: f7Ifc.433$gL1.21407@attbi_s54
>>
>> "The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
>> would be utterly useless."
>>
>> This week, he's in full-tilt revisionism mode:
>>
>> From: (S888Wheel)
>> Date: 25 Apr 2004 16:03:16 GMT
>> Message-ID: >
>>
>> "Please try to get your facts straight. I said a 6hz tone is useless
>> in highend."

> You could always post a comment about this in RAHE where these posts
> were made. Oh, no you can't. You were banned from RAHE for being an
> asshole. How funny is it that you lurk on a Usenet group from which
> you were banned?

So S888wheel, are you saying that my history with RAHE's moderators
justifies your dissembling?

> I'd say you suffer from RAHE envy.

I'd say that I know where to look to see you being your sweet self,
S888wheel.

> I guess you and
> Tom share a common problem with numbers. This is what Tom said that
> sparked my comment..."And here, Mr Wheeler says that a 10 Hz
> subwoofer is "useless."


> I guess this form of revisionism is OK with you since you love to do
> the same thing.

So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine justifies your
dissembling?

> So, clarification of context and the dropping of an adverb is revisionism
to you.

Wouldn't limiting the discussion to just the "highend" be a change of
context? BTW for your future reference S888wheel, you should know that
"highend" is actually two words.

Furthermore s888wheel, you need to explain why people in the high end should
be satisfied with lower quality reproduction than the best that is
reasonably possible.

> But changing significant numbers is not.

So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine justifies your
dissembling?

When s888wheel, are you going to start taking responsibility for your own
actions?

[Arny Krueger]

Lionel wrote:
> S888Wheel - > - dimanche
> 25 Avril 2004 23:37 wrote:
>
>>> From: Lionel
>>> Date: 4/25/2004 2:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> S888Wheel - > -
>>> dimanche 25 Avril 2004 23:12 wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip paranoid audio comment - cf RAHE] LOL !
>>>
>>> Don't you have a new audio gadget to show to Boon ?
>>>
>>
>> Don't you have a therapy session to treat your obsession with me?
>
> Obsession with *YOU* ?
> LOL, it seems that nobody have an obsession with you and that it's
> your main obsession. :o)

s888wheel is clearly a man obsessed.

Remember, s888wheel claims that he is the guy who is so obsessed with me
that he has sued me for libel over a single instance of a fairly common
insult, one that he has received from others many more times, and that I
have received on numerous occasions.

[Nousaine]

"Arny Krueger" wrote:



>S888Wheel wrote:
>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>> Date: 4/25/2004 1:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> Last week S888wheel got spanked for posting the following:
>>>
>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:09:02 GMT
>>> Message-ID: f7Ifc.433$gL1.21407@attbi_s54
>>>
>>> "The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
>>> would be utterly useless."
>>>
>>> This week, he's in full-tilt revisionism mode:
>>>
>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>> Date: 25 Apr 2004 16:03:16 GMT
>>> Message-ID: >
>>>
>>> "Please try to get your facts straight. I said a 6hz tone is useless
>>> in highend."
>
>> You could always post a comment about this in RAHE where these posts
>> were made. Oh, no you can't. You were banned from RAHE for being an
>> asshole. How funny is it that you lurk on a Usenet group from which
>> you were banned?
>
>So S888wheel, are you saying that my history with RAHE's moderators
>justifies your dissembling?
>
>> I'd say you suffer from RAHE envy.
>
>I'd say that I know where to look to see you being your sweet self,
>S888wheel.
>
>> I guess you and
>> Tom share a common problem with numbers. This is what Tom said that
>> sparked my comment..."And here, Mr Wheeler says that a 10 Hz
>> subwoofer is "useless."
>
>
>> I guess this form of revisionism is OK with you since you love to do
>> the same thing.
>
>So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine justifies your
>dissembling?
>
>> So, clarification of context and the dropping of an adverb is revisionism
>to you.
>
>Wouldn't limiting the discussion to just the "highend" be a change of
>context? BTW for your future reference S888wheel, you should know that
>"highend" is actually two words.
>
>Furthermore s888wheel, you need to explain why people in the high end should
>be satisfied with lower quality reproduction than the best that is
>reasonably possible.
>
>> But changing significant numbers is not.
>
>So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine justifies your
>dissembling?
>
>When s888wheel, are you going to start taking responsibility for your own
>actions?

I must aplogize to Mr. Wheel. I did not say that a 10 Hz signal was useless. He
said anything below 20 Hz was useless.

[S888Wheel]

>From: Lionel
>Date: 4/25/2004 2:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel - > - dimanche 25
>Avril 2004 23:37 wrote:
>
>>>From: Lionel
>>>Date: 4/25/2004 2:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>S888Wheel - > - dimanche 25
>>>Avril 2004 23:12 wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip paranoid audio comment - cf RAHE] LOL !
>>>
>>>Don't you have a new audio gadget to show to Boon ?
>>>
>>
>> Don't you have a therapy session to treat your obsession with me?
>
>Obsession with *YOU* ?
>LOL, it seems that nobody have an obsession with you and that it's your main
>obsession. :o)

getting past your denial is the first step to recovery. Maybe an intervention
is needed. Consider the following posts you have made.

Subject: SS-888-Wheel on RAHE
From: Lionel
Date: 4/14/2004 4:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: >


Subject: S888Wheel
From: Lionel
Date: 4/14/2004 6:27 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: >


Subject: Who is Scott Wheeler
From: Lionel
Date: 4/15/2004 2:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: >


Subject: Sunday recreation.
From: Lionel
Date: 4/18/2004 2:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: >


Subject: Elitism ?
From: Lionel
Date: 4/21/2004 10:07 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: >


Subject: Elitism ? II
From: Lionel
Date: 4/23/2004 1:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: >


All posts by you about me. You are obviously obsessed. You follow me on RAO
like a shadow. It might be creepy if you weren't some pathetic looser who is
hung up on his looser father's honor. Instead it is just sad.

[Nousaine]

Kreuger wrote:

>When s888wheel, are you going to start taking responsibility for your own
>actions?

Please acceptt my apology for the error in my last post. "Mr Wheel" said both
that anything below 20 Hz was useless. And that specifically 6 Hz was useless.
So that I was only guessing that 10 Hz was somewhere between 6 and 20 Hz.

But this is the high-end after all and specifics like that aren't subject to
the same laws of physics and acoustics and pshychoacoustics as humans.

[Arny Krueger]

Nousaine wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" wrote:
>
>
>
>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>> Date: 4/25/2004 1:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>
>>>> Last week S888wheel got spanked for posting the following:
>>>>
>>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>>> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:09:02 GMT
>>>> Message-ID: f7Ifc.433$gL1.21407@attbi_s54
>>>>
>>>> "The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
>>>> would be utterly useless."
>>>>
>>>> This week, he's in full-tilt revisionism mode:
>>>>
>>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>>> Date: 25 Apr 2004 16:03:16 GMT
>>>> Message-ID: >
>>>>
>>>> "Please try to get your facts straight. I said a 6hz tone is
>>>> useless in highend."
>>
>>> You could always post a comment about this in RAHE where these posts
>>> were made. Oh, no you can't. You were banned from RAHE for being an
>>> asshole. How funny is it that you lurk on a Usenet group from which
>>> you were banned?
>>
>> So S888wheel, are you saying that my history with RAHE's moderators
>> justifies your dissembling?
>>
>>> I'd say you suffer from RAHE envy.
>>
>> I'd say that I know where to look to see you being your sweet self,
>> S888wheel.
>>
>>> I guess you and
>>> Tom share a common problem with numbers. This is what Tom said that
>>> sparked my comment..."And here, Mr Wheeler says that a 10 Hz
>>> subwoofer is "useless."
>>
>>
>>> I guess this form of revisionism is OK with you since you love to do
>>> the same thing.
>>
>> So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine
>> justifies your dissembling?
>>
>>> So, clarification of context and the dropping of an adverb is
>>> revisionism
>> to you.
>>
>> Wouldn't limiting the discussion to just the "highend" be a change of
>> context? BTW for your future reference S888wheel, you should know
>> that "highend" is actually two words.
>>
>> Furthermore s888wheel, you need to explain why people in the high
>> end should be satisfied with lower quality reproduction than the
>> best that is reasonably possible.
>>
>>> But changing significant numbers is not.
>>
>> So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine
>> justifies your dissembling?
>>
>> When s888wheel, are you going to start taking responsibility for
>> your own actions?
>
> I must aplogize to Mr. Wheel. I did not say that a 10 Hz signal was
> useless. He said anything below 20 Hz was useless.

When I tried to pin s888wheel down to a specific frequency or range of
frequencies where the purported uselessness commenced, it became difficult
or impossible to get a straight answer from of him.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 4/25/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>> Date: 4/25/2004 1:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> Last week S888wheel got spanked for posting the following:
>>>
>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:09:02 GMT
>>> Message-ID: f7Ifc.433$gL1.21407@attbi_s54
>>>
>>> "The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
>>> would be utterly useless."
>>>
>>> This week, he's in full-tilt revisionism mode:
>>>
>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>> Date: 25 Apr 2004 16:03:16 GMT
>>> Message-ID: >
>>>
>>> "Please try to get your facts straight. I said a 6hz tone is useless
>>> in highend."
>
>> You could always post a comment about this in RAHE where these posts
>> were made. Oh, no you can't. You were banned from RAHE for being an
>> asshole. How funny is it that you lurk on a Usenet group from which
>> you were banned?
>
>So S888wheel, are you saying that my history with RAHE's moderators
>justifies your dissembling?

No I was making fun of the fact that you were kicked off of RAHE and you still
lurk there. I would think even someone who isn't the sharpest knife in the
drawer would get that much.
>
>> I'd say you suffer from RAHE envy.
>
>I'd say that I know where to look to see you being your sweet self,
>S888wheel.

Yeah, but you say a lot of stupid things.


>
>> I guess you and
>> Tom share a common problem with numbers. This is what Tom said that
>> sparked my comment..."And here, Mr Wheeler says that a 10 Hz
>> subwoofer is "useless."
>
>
>> I guess this form of revisionism is OK with you since you love to do
>> the same thing.
>
>So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine justifies your
>dissembling?

No. Why is this so hard to understand? Do you have trouble with comprehending
first , second and third persons?


>
>> So, clarification of context and the dropping of an adverb is revisionism
>to you.
>
>Wouldn't limiting the discussion to just the "highend" be a change of
>context?

No, given the fact that it was posted on RAHE. The HE stands for highend. But
after that post some people started talking about Sound effects and horror film
sound tracks. I clarified the context for their sake.

BTW for your future reference S888wheel, you should know that
>"highend" is actually two words.

"definately"


>
>Furthermore s888wheel, you need to explain why people in the high end should
>be satisfied with lower quality reproduction than the best that is
>reasonably possible.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should be satisfied with your system Arny. Why
burn this straw man?


>
>> But changing significant numbers is not.
>
>So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine justifies your
>dissembling?

I am sorry you find such a simple post so difficult to understand. but you are
not the sharpest knife in the drawer.


>
>When s888wheel, are you going to start taking responsibility for your own
>actions?
>
>
>
What do you know about taking responsibility?

[S888Wheel]

>From: (Nousaine)
>Date: 4/25/2004 3:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Arny Krueger" wrote:
>
>
>
>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>> Date: 4/25/2004 1:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>
>>>> Last week S888wheel got spanked for posting the following:
>>>>
>>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>>> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:09:02 GMT
>>>> Message-ID: f7Ifc.433$gL1.21407@attbi_s54
>>>>
>>>> "The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
>>>> would be utterly useless."
>>>>
>>>> This week, he's in full-tilt revisionism mode:
>>>>
>>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>>> Date: 25 Apr 2004 16:03:16 GMT
>>>> Message-ID: >
>>>>
>>>> "Please try to get your facts straight. I said a 6hz tone is useless
>>>> in highend."
>>
>>> You could always post a comment about this in RAHE where these posts
>>> were made. Oh, no you can't. You were banned from RAHE for being an
>>> asshole. How funny is it that you lurk on a Usenet group from which
>>> you were banned?
>>
>>So S888wheel, are you saying that my history with RAHE's moderators
>>justifies your dissembling?
>>
>>> I'd say you suffer from RAHE envy.
>>
>>I'd say that I know where to look to see you being your sweet self,
>>S888wheel.
>>
>>> I guess you and
>>> Tom share a common problem with numbers. This is what Tom said that
>>> sparked my comment..."And here, Mr Wheeler says that a 10 Hz
>>> subwoofer is "useless."
>>
>>
>>> I guess this form of revisionism is OK with you since you love to do
>>> the same thing.
>>
>>So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine justifies your
>>dissembling?
>>
>>> So, clarification of context and the dropping of an adverb is revisionism
>>to you.
>>
>>Wouldn't limiting the discussion to just the "highend" be a change of
>>context? BTW for your future reference S888wheel, you should know that
>>"highend" is actually two words.
>>
>>Furthermore s888wheel, you need to explain why people in the high end should
>>be satisfied with lower quality reproduction than the best that is
>>reasonably possible.
>>
>>> But changing significant numbers is not.
>>
>>So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine justifies your
>>dissembling?
>>
>>When s888wheel, are you going to start taking responsibility for your own
>>actions?
>
>I must aplogize to Mr. Wheel. I did not say that a 10 Hz signal was useless.
>He
>said anything below 20 Hz was useless.
>
>
>
>
>
>

You seem quite confused Tom. You did say that I said a 10 hz signal was
useless. I also never said anything below 20 hz was useless. Maybe you should
apologize one more time and try to get the facts straight once and for all.

[S888Wheel]

>cornered, I Just change my story!
>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 4/25/2004 3:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Nousaine wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> Date: 4/25/2004 1:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>
>>>>> Last week S888wheel got spanked for posting the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>>>> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:09:02 GMT
>>>>> Message-ID: f7Ifc.433$gL1.21407@attbi_s54
>>>>>
>>>>> "The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
>>>>> would be utterly useless."
>>>>>
>>>>> This week, he's in full-tilt revisionism mode:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>>>> Date: 25 Apr 2004 16:03:16 GMT
>>>>> Message-ID: >
>>>>>
>>>>> "Please try to get your facts straight. I said a 6hz tone is
>>>>> useless in highend."
>>>
>>>> You could always post a comment about this in RAHE where these posts
>>>> were made. Oh, no you can't. You were banned from RAHE for being an
>>>> asshole. How funny is it that you lurk on a Usenet group from which
>>>> you were banned?
>>>
>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that my history with RAHE's moderators
>>> justifies your dissembling?
>>>
>>>> I'd say you suffer from RAHE envy.
>>>
>>> I'd say that I know where to look to see you being your sweet self,
>>> S888wheel.
>>>
>>>> I guess you and
>>>> Tom share a common problem with numbers. This is what Tom said that
>>>> sparked my comment..."And here, Mr Wheeler says that a 10 Hz
>>>> subwoofer is "useless."
>>>
>>>
>>>> I guess this form of revisionism is OK with you since you love to do
>>>> the same thing.
>>>
>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine
>>> justifies your dissembling?
>>>
>>>> So, clarification of context and the dropping of an adverb is
>>>> revisionism
>>> to you.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't limiting the discussion to just the "highend" be a change of
>>> context? BTW for your future reference S888wheel, you should know
>>> that "highend" is actually two words.
>>>
>>> Furthermore s888wheel, you need to explain why people in the high
>>> end should be satisfied with lower quality reproduction than the
>>> best that is reasonably possible.
>>>
>>>> But changing significant numbers is not.
>>>
>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine
>>> justifies your dissembling?
>>>
>>> When s888wheel, are you going to start taking responsibility for
>>> your own actions?
>>
>> I must aplogize to Mr. Wheel. I did not say that a 10 Hz signal was
>> useless. He said anything below 20 Hz was useless.
>
>When I tried to pin s888wheel down to a specific frequency or range of
>frequencies where the purported uselessness commenced, it became difficult
>or impossible to get a straight answer from of him.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Actually it became impossible to get a straight question from Arny. But that
didn't stop him from inventing answer and then attacking it.

[S888Wheel]

>From: (Nousaine)
>Date: 4/25/2004 3:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Kreuger wrote:
>
>>When s888wheel, are you going to start taking responsibility for your own
>>actions?
>
>Please acceptt my apology for the error in my last post. "Mr Wheel" said both
>that anything below 20 Hz was useless. And that specifically 6 Hz was
>useless.

That is just a lie. i never said anything below 20 hz was useless. Do you show
the same disregard for the truth in all your endevours to promote your beliefs
in audio?


>So that I was only guessing that 10 Hz was somewhere between 6 and 20 Hz.

The facts clearly are not important to you.


>
>But this is the high-end after all and specifics like that aren't subject to
>the same laws of physics and acoustics and pshychoacoustics as humans.
>
>
Don't let the facts interfere with your agenda.

[Arny Krueger]

S888Wheel wrote:
>> cornered, I Just change my story!
>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 4/25/2004 3:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> Nousaine wrote:
>>> "Arny Krueger" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>> Date: 4/25/2004 1:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Last week S888wheel got spanked for posting the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>>>>> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:09:02 GMT
>>>>>> Message-ID: f7Ifc.433$gL1.21407@attbi_s54
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a
>>>>>> tone) would be utterly useless."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This week, he's in full-tilt revisionism mode:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>>>>> Date: 25 Apr 2004 16:03:16 GMT
>>>>>> Message-ID: >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Please try to get your facts straight. I said a 6hz tone is
>>>>>> useless in highend."
>>>>
>>>>> You could always post a comment about this in RAHE where these
>>>>> posts were made. Oh, no you can't. You were banned from RAHE for
>>>>> being an asshole. How funny is it that you lurk on a Usenet group
>>>>> from which you were banned?
>>>>
>>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that my history with RAHE's moderators
>>>> justifies your dissembling?
>>>>
>>>>> I'd say you suffer from RAHE envy.
>>>>
>>>> I'd say that I know where to look to see you being your sweet self,
>>>> S888wheel.
>>>>
>>>>> I guess you and
>>>>> Tom share a common problem with numbers. This is what Tom said
>>>>> that sparked my comment..."And here, Mr Wheeler says that a 10 Hz
>>>>> subwoofer is "useless."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I guess this form of revisionism is OK with you since you love to
>>>>> do the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine
>>>> justifies your dissembling?
>>>>
>>>>> So, clarification of context and the dropping of an adverb is
>>>>> revisionism
>>>> to you.
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't limiting the discussion to just the "highend" be a change
>>>> of context? BTW for your future reference S888wheel, you should
>>>> know that "highend" is actually two words.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore s888wheel, you need to explain why people in the high
>>>> end should be satisfied with lower quality reproduction than the
>>>> best that is reasonably possible.
>>>>
>>>>> But changing significant numbers is not.
>>>>
>>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine
>>>> justifies your dissembling?
>>>>
>>>> When s888wheel, are you going to start taking responsibility for
>>>> your own actions?
>>>
>>> I must aplogize to Mr. Wheel. I did not say that a 10 Hz signal was
>>> useless. He said anything below 20 Hz was useless.
>>
>> When I tried to pin s888wheel down to a specific frequency or range
>> of frequencies where the purported uselessness commenced, it became
>> difficult or impossible to get a straight answer from of him.

> Actually it became impossible to get a straight question from Arny.

This is ludicrous. When I asked for the frequency where you thought this
"uselessness" effect started, you refused to provide an answer.

> But that didn't stop him from inventing answer and then attacking it.

I'll give you a second chance s888wheel. At what frequency does further
extensions of bass response become useless?

[Arny Krueger]

S888Wheel wrote:
>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 4/25/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>> Date: 4/25/2004 1:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>
>>>> Last week S888wheel got spanked for posting the following:
>>>>
>>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>>> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:09:02 GMT
>>>> Message-ID: f7Ifc.433$gL1.21407@attbi_s54
>>>>
>>>> "The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
>>>> would be utterly useless."
>>>>
>>>> This week, he's in full-tilt revisionism mode:
>>>>
>>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>>> Date: 25 Apr 2004 16:03:16 GMT
>>>> Message-ID: >
>>>>
>>>> "Please try to get your facts straight. I said a 6hz tone is
>>>> useless in highend."
>>
>>> You could always post a comment about this in RAHE where these posts
>>> were made. Oh, no you can't. You were banned from RAHE for being an
>>> asshole. How funny is it that you lurk on a Usenet group from which
>>> you were banned?
>>
>> So S888wheel, are you saying that my history with RAHE's moderators
>> justifies your dissembling?
>
> No I was making fun of the fact that you were kicked off of RAHE and
> you still lurk there. I would think even someone who isn't the
> sharpest knife in the drawer would get that much.
>>
>>> I'd say you suffer from RAHE envy.
>>
>> I'd say that I know where to look to see you being your sweet self,
>> S888wheel.
>
> Yeah, but you say a lot of stupid things.
>
>
>>
>>> I guess you and
>>> Tom share a common problem with numbers. This is what Tom said that
>>> sparked my comment..."And here, Mr Wheeler says that a 10 Hz
>>> subwoofer is "useless."
>>
>>
>>> I guess this form of revisionism is OK with you since you love to do
>>> the same thing.
>>
>> So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine
>> justifies your dissembling?
>
> No. Why is this so hard to understand? Do you have trouble with
> comprehending first , second and third persons?
>
>
>>
>>> So, clarification of context and the dropping of an adverb is
>>> revisionism
>> to you.
>>
>> Wouldn't limiting the discussion to just the "highend" be a change of
>> context?
>
> No, given the fact that it was posted on RAHE. The HE stands for
> highend. But after that post some people started talking about Sound
> effects and horror film sound tracks. I clarified the context for
> their sake.
>
> BTW for your future reference S888wheel, you should know that
>> "highend" is actually two words.
>
> "definately"
>
>
>>
>> Furthermore s888wheel, you need to explain why people in the high
>> end should be satisfied with lower quality reproduction than the
>> best that is reasonably possible.

> I'm not suggesting that anyone should be satisfied with your system
> Arny. Why burn this straw man?

Since I did not mention my system, this would be a straw man argument. It
would appear that s888wheel is too stupid to recognize his own straw man
arguments.

>>> But changing significant numbers is not.

>> So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine
>> justifies your dissembling?
>
> I am sorry you find such a simple post so difficult to understand.

What difficutly?

> but you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

So S888wheel, are you saying that the fact that don't claim to be the
smartest person in world (an absolutley insane claim, were anybody to make
it) justifies your straw man augment and dissembling?

>> When s888wheel, are you going to start taking responsibility for
>> your own actions?

> What do you know about taking responsibility?

So S888wheel, are you saying that the fact that your negative beliefs about
me justify your dissembling and use of a straw man argument?

[Arny Krueger]

Lionel wrote:
> S888Wheel - > - lundi 26
> Avril 2004 00:07 wrote:
>
> I don't know what you are speaking about you seem too much obsessed.
> BTW your obsession for my father is really morbid.

It's something like Marc Phillips obsession with pedophilia.

> You are really disgusting.

S888wheel's dissembling and use of obvious straw man aguements is very
disgusting.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 4/25/2004 3:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>> cornered, I Just change my story!
>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>> Date: 4/25/2004 3:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> Nousaine wrote:
>>>> "Arny Krueger" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>>> Date: 4/25/2004 1:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Last week S888wheel got spanked for posting the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:09:02 GMT
>>>>>>> Message-ID: f7Ifc.433$gL1.21407@attbi_s54
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a
>>>>>>> tone) would be utterly useless."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This week, he's in full-tilt revisionism mode:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>>>>>> Date: 25 Apr 2004 16:03:16 GMT
>>>>>>> Message-ID: >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Please try to get your facts straight. I said a 6hz tone is
>>>>>>> useless in highend."
>>>>>
>>>>>> You could always post a comment about this in RAHE where these
>>>>>> posts were made. Oh, no you can't. You were banned from RAHE for
>>>>>> being an asshole. How funny is it that you lurk on a Usenet group
>>>>>> from which you were banned?
>>>>>
>>>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that my history with RAHE's moderators
>>>>> justifies your dissembling?
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd say you suffer from RAHE envy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd say that I know where to look to see you being your sweet self,
>>>>> S888wheel.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess you and
>>>>>> Tom share a common problem with numbers. This is what Tom said
>>>>>> that sparked my comment..."And here, Mr Wheeler says that a 10 Hz
>>>>>> subwoofer is "useless."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess this form of revisionism is OK with you since you love to
>>>>>> do the same thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine
>>>>> justifies your dissembling?
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, clarification of context and the dropping of an adverb is
>>>>>> revisionism
>>>>> to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't limiting the discussion to just the "highend" be a change
>>>>> of context? BTW for your future reference S888wheel, you should
>>>>> know that "highend" is actually two words.
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore s888wheel, you need to explain why people in the high
>>>>> end should be satisfied with lower quality reproduction than the
>>>>> best that is reasonably possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But changing significant numbers is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine
>>>>> justifies your dissembling?
>>>>>
>>>>> When s888wheel, are you going to start taking responsibility for
>>>>> your own actions?
>>>>
>>>> I must aplogize to Mr. Wheel. I did not say that a 10 Hz signal was
>>>> useless. He said anything below 20 Hz was useless.
>>>
>>> When I tried to pin s888wheel down to a specific frequency or range
>>> of frequencies where the purported uselessness commenced, it became
>>> difficult or impossible to get a straight answer from of him.
>
>> Actually it became impossible to get a straight question from Arny.
>
>This is ludicrous. When I asked for the frequency where you thought this
>"uselessness" effect started, you refused to provide an answer.

Cite the question that you think was a meaningful question.


>
>> But that didn't stop him from inventing answer and then attacking it.
>
>I'll give you a second chance s888wheel. At what frequency does further
>extensions of bass response become useless?
>
>
And I'll give you a second chance to clarify the question.

[Arny Krueger]

S888Wheel wrote:
>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 4/25/2004 3:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>> cornered, I Just change my story!
>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>> Date: 4/25/2004 3:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>
>>>> Nousaine wrote:
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>>>> Date: 4/25/2004 1:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Last week S888wheel got spanked for posting the following:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:09:02 GMT
>>>>>>>> Message-ID: f7Ifc.433$gL1.21407@attbi_s54
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a
>>>>>>>> tone) would be utterly useless."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This week, he's in full-tilt revisionism mode:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>>>>>>> Date: 25 Apr 2004 16:03:16 GMT
>>>>>>>> Message-ID: >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Please try to get your facts straight. I said a 6hz tone is
>>>>>>>> useless in highend."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You could always post a comment about this in RAHE where these
>>>>>>> posts were made. Oh, no you can't. You were banned from RAHE for
>>>>>>> being an asshole. How funny is it that you lurk on a Usenet
>>>>>>> group from which you were banned?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that my history with RAHE's
>>>>>> moderators justifies your dissembling?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd say you suffer from RAHE envy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd say that I know where to look to see you being your sweet
>>>>>> self, S888wheel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess you and
>>>>>>> Tom share a common problem with numbers. This is what Tom said
>>>>>>> that sparked my comment..."And here, Mr Wheeler says that a 10
>>>>>>> Hz subwoofer is "useless."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess this form of revisionism is OK with you since you love
>>>>>>> to do the same thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine
>>>>>> justifies your dissembling?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, clarification of context and the dropping of an adverb is
>>>>>>> revisionism
>>>>>> to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wouldn't limiting the discussion to just the "highend" be a
>>>>>> change of context? BTW for your future reference S888wheel, you
>>>>>> should know that "highend" is actually two words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Furthermore s888wheel, you need to explain why people in the high
>>>>>> end should be satisfied with lower quality reproduction than the
>>>>>> best that is reasonably possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But changing significant numbers is not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine
>>>>>> justifies your dissembling?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When s888wheel, are you going to start taking responsibility for
>>>>>> your own actions?
>>>>>
>>>>> I must aplogize to Mr. Wheel. I did not say that a 10 Hz signal
>>>>> was useless. He said anything below 20 Hz was useless.
>>>>
>>>> When I tried to pin s888wheel down to a specific frequency or range
>>>> of frequencies where the purported uselessness commenced, it
>>>> became difficult or impossible to get a straight answer from of
>>>> him.
>>
>>> Actually it became impossible to get a straight question from Arny.

>> This is ludicrous. When I asked for the frequency where you thought
>> this "uselessness" effect started, you refused to provide an answer.

> Cite the question that you think was a meaningful question.

No, in the face of all of your dissembling and straw man arguements
s888wheel, it's clear that you are incapable of a good faith discussion.
There's no need to cite anything if you lack good faith.

>>> But that didn't stop him from inventing answer and then attacking
>>> it.

>> I'll give you a second chance s888wheel. At what frequency does
>> further extensions of bass response become useless?

> And I'll give you a second chance to clarify the question.

I just asked a reasonable question s888wheel, one that you have found no
fault with, one that seems more than clear enough.

No, in the face of all of your continuing dissembling and recent straw man
arguements s888wheel, it's clear that you are incapable of a good faith
discussion.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 4/25/2004 3:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Lionel wrote:
>> S888Wheel - > - dimanche
>> 25 Avril 2004 23:37 wrote:
>>
>>>> From: Lionel
>>>> Date: 4/25/2004 2:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>
>>>> S888Wheel - > -
>>>> dimanche 25 Avril 2004 23:12 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip paranoid audio comment - cf RAHE] LOL !
>>>>
>>>> Don't you have a new audio gadget to show to Boon ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Don't you have a therapy session to treat your obsession with me?
>>
>> Obsession with *YOU* ?
>> LOL, it seems that nobody have an obsession with you and that it's
>> your main obsession. :o)
>
>s888wheel is clearly a man obsessed.
>
>Remember, s888wheel claims that he is the guy who is so obsessed with me
>that he has sued me for libel over a single instance of a fairly common
>insult,

Maybe in your twisted world on Usenet it is a common insult. In the real world
it is libel and something normal people do not do over loosing debates about
audio.


one that he has received from others many more times,

Just from your apprentice Lionel and one other unreachable anonymous poster
with a bug up his ass. You taught Lionel well. You guys make a great couple.

and that I
>have received on numerous occasions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[S888Wheel]

>From: Lionel
>Date: 4/25/2004 3:20 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel - > - lundi 26 Avril
>2004 00:07 wrote:
>
>I don't know what you are speaking about you seem too much obsessed.

Every day you become more and more like Arny. Now you are mimicing his complete
lack of originality. Good job.


>BTW your obsession for my father is really morbid.
>You are really disgusting.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Stop blaming me for your father's failures as a father. ;-)

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 4/25/2004 3:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>> Date: 4/25/2004 3:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>> cornered, I Just change my story!
>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> Date: 4/25/2004 3:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>
>>>>> Nousaine wrote:
>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>>>>> Date: 4/25/2004 1:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Last week S888wheel got spanked for posting the following:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:09:02 GMT
>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: f7Ifc.433$gL1.21407@attbi_s54
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a
>>>>>>>>> tone) would be utterly useless."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This week, he's in full-tilt revisionism mode:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>>>>>>>> Date: 25 Apr 2004 16:03:16 GMT
>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Please try to get your facts straight. I said a 6hz tone is
>>>>>>>>> useless in highend."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You could always post a comment about this in RAHE where these
>>>>>>>> posts were made. Oh, no you can't. You were banned from RAHE for
>>>>>>>> being an asshole. How funny is it that you lurk on a Usenet
>>>>>>>> group from which you were banned?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that my history with RAHE's
>>>>>>> moderators justifies your dissembling?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd say you suffer from RAHE envy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd say that I know where to look to see you being your sweet
>>>>>>> self, S888wheel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess you and
>>>>>>>> Tom share a common problem with numbers. This is what Tom said
>>>>>>>> that sparked my comment..."And here, Mr Wheeler says that a 10
>>>>>>>> Hz subwoofer is "useless."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess this form of revisionism is OK with you since you love
>>>>>>>> to do the same thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine
>>>>>>> justifies your dissembling?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, clarification of context and the dropping of an adverb is
>>>>>>>> revisionism
>>>>>>> to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wouldn't limiting the discussion to just the "highend" be a
>>>>>>> change of context? BTW for your future reference S888wheel, you
>>>>>>> should know that "highend" is actually two words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Furthermore s888wheel, you need to explain why people in the high
>>>>>>> end should be satisfied with lower quality reproduction than the
>>>>>>> best that is reasonably possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But changing significant numbers is not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine
>>>>>>> justifies your dissembling?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When s888wheel, are you going to start taking responsibility for
>>>>>>> your own actions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I must aplogize to Mr. Wheel. I did not say that a 10 Hz signal
>>>>>> was useless. He said anything below 20 Hz was useless.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I tried to pin s888wheel down to a specific frequency or range
>>>>> of frequencies where the purported uselessness commenced, it
>>>>> became difficult or impossible to get a straight answer from of
>>>>> him.
>>>
>>>> Actually it became impossible to get a straight question from Arny.
>
>>> This is ludicrous. When I asked for the frequency where you thought
>>> this "uselessness" effect started, you refused to provide an answer.
>
>> Cite the question that you think was a meaningful question.
>
>No, in the face of all of your dissembling and straw man arguements
>s888wheel, it's clear that you are incapable of a good faith discussion.
>There's no need to cite anything if you lack good faith.

Bottom line is you can't cite any such question.

>
>>>> But that didn't stop him from inventing answer and then attacking
>>>> it.
>
>>> I'll give you a second chance s888wheel. At what frequency does
>>> further extensions of bass response become useless?
>
>> And I'll give you a second chance to clarify the question.
>
>I just asked a reasonable question s888wheel,

Wrong.

one that you have found no
>fault with, Wrong again. I just didn'y cite the fault I find with it. I
thought I would show you a little respect and presume you could figure out what
the obvious fault was given the history of this topic. My bad for giving you
that respect and thinking you might be able to see the faults with your
question on your own.

one that seems more than clear enough.

Wrong again. I'll spell it out for you since you weren't able to see the
problem with your question. I made my claim about 6 hz with the assumption that
it would be taken within the context of high end audio and the recording and
playback of music. Clearly some people on RAHE find 6 hz tones useful for
things that exist outside of those parameters. Now if you wish to discuss the
topic of what I think is useful in the way of low frequency extension we must
establish the parameters of use.


>
>No, in the face of all of your continuing dissembling and recent straw man
>arguements s888wheel, it's clear that you are incapable of a good faith
>discussion.
>

Same old juggling act from RAO's resident clown. Good show.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 4/25/2004 3:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>> Date: 4/25/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> Date: 4/25/2004 1:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>
>>>>> Last week S888wheel got spanked for posting the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>>>> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:09:02 GMT
>>>>> Message-ID: f7Ifc.433$gL1.21407@attbi_s54
>>>>>
>>>>> "The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
>>>>> would be utterly useless."
>>>>>
>>>>> This week, he's in full-tilt revisionism mode:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>>>> Date: 25 Apr 2004 16:03:16 GMT
>>>>> Message-ID: >
>>>>>
>>>>> "Please try to get your facts straight. I said a 6hz tone is
>>>>> useless in highend."
>>>
>>>> You could always post a comment about this in RAHE where these posts
>>>> were made. Oh, no you can't. You were banned from RAHE for being an
>>>> asshole. How funny is it that you lurk on a Usenet group from which
>>>> you were banned?
>>>
>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that my history with RAHE's moderators
>>> justifies your dissembling?
>>
>> No I was making fun of the fact that you were kicked off of RAHE and
>> you still lurk there. I would think even someone who isn't the
>> sharpest knife in the drawer would get that much.
>>>
>>>> I'd say you suffer from RAHE envy.
>>>
>>> I'd say that I know where to look to see you being your sweet self,
>>> S888wheel.
>>
>> Yeah, but you say a lot of stupid things.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> I guess you and
>>>> Tom share a common problem with numbers. This is what Tom said that
>>>> sparked my comment..."And here, Mr Wheeler says that a 10 Hz
>>>> subwoofer is "useless."
>>>
>>>
>>>> I guess this form of revisionism is OK with you since you love to do
>>>> the same thing.
>>>
>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine
>>> justifies your dissembling?
>>
>> No. Why is this so hard to understand? Do you have trouble with
>> comprehending first , second and third persons?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> So, clarification of context and the dropping of an adverb is
>>>> revisionism
>>> to you.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't limiting the discussion to just the "highend" be a change of
>>> context?
>>
>> No, given the fact that it was posted on RAHE. The HE stands for
>> highend. But after that post some people started talking about Sound
>> effects and horror film sound tracks. I clarified the context for
>> their sake.
>>
>> BTW for your future reference S888wheel, you should know that
>>> "highend" is actually two words.
>>
>> "definately"
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Furthermore s888wheel, you need to explain why people in the high
>>> end should be satisfied with lower quality reproduction than the
>>> best that is reasonably possible.
>
>> I'm not suggesting that anyone should be satisfied with your system
>> Arny. Why burn this straw man?
>
>Since I did not mention my system, this would be a straw man argument. It
>would appear that s888wheel is too stupid to recognize his own straw man
>arguments.

Once again you are too stupid to know when someone is making fun of you.


>
>>>> But changing significant numbers is not.
>
>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine
>>> justifies your dissembling?
>>
>> I am sorry you find such a simple post so difficult to understand.
>
>What difficutly?

Asked and answered. You can't even figure that out?


>
>> but you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
>
>So S888wheel, are you saying that the fact that don't claim to be the
>smartest person in world (an absolutley insane claim, were anybody to make
>it) justifies your straw man augment and dissembling?


You still seem to be having trouble understanding the simple content of my
posts. sad


>
>>> When s888wheel, are you going to start taking responsibility for
>>> your own actions?
>
>> What do you know about taking responsibility?
>
>So S888wheel, are you saying that the fact that your negative beliefs about
>me justify your dissembling and use of a straw man argument?
>

No, I'm saying that you are the poster child for refusing to take
responsibility for your own actions. That makes you unqualified to pass
judgement on others when it comes to the subject IMO. Sorry my comment went
over your head, again.

[S888Wheel]

>From: Lionel
>Date: 4/25/2004 4:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Arny Krueger - > - lundi 26 Avril 2004
>00:45 wrote:
>
>> Lionel wrote:
>>> S888Wheel - > - lundi 26
>>> Avril 2004 00:07 wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know what you are speaking about you seem too much obsessed.
>>> BTW your obsession for my father is really morbid.
>>
>> It's something like Marc Phillips obsession with pedophilia.
>
>Marc Phillips is surely an interesting subject for S888Wheel's class-envy
>testing sessions.
>
>>> You are really disgusting.
>>
>> S888wheel's dissembling and use of obvious straw man aguements is very
>> disgusting.
>

My gosh, it is well past midnight on a Sunday and you are still steaming over
me. No, you're not obsessed. (For those to stupid to recognize it, that was
sarcasm.)

[Arny Krueger]

S888Wheel wrote:
>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 4/25/2004 3:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> Lionel wrote:
>>> S888Wheel - > -
>>> dimanche 25 Avril 2004 23:37 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> From: Lionel
>>>>> Date: 4/25/2004 2:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>
>>>>> S888Wheel - > -
>>>>> dimanche 25 Avril 2004 23:12 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip paranoid audio comment - cf RAHE] LOL !
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't you have a new audio gadget to show to Boon ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't you have a therapy session to treat your obsession with me?
>>>
>>> Obsession with *YOU* ?
>>> LOL, it seems that nobody have an obsession with you and that it's
>>> your main obsession. :o)
>>
>> s888wheel is clearly a man obsessed.
>>
>> Remember, s888wheel claims that he is the guy who is so obsessed
>> with me that he has sued me for libel over a single instance of a
>> fairly common insult,

> Maybe in your twisted world on Usenet it is a common insult.

Than s888wheel, you're saying that everybody who has insulted me this way
lives in a twisted world?


> In the real world it is libel and something normal people do not do over
> loosing debates about audio.

Noted that s888wheel can't distinguish between eh real world and Usenet.
Noted that s888wheel will sue everybody who insults him a certain common
way.

> one that he has received from others many more times,

> Just from your apprentice Lionel and one other unreachable anonymous
> poster with a bug up his ass. You taught Lionel well. You guys make a
> great couple.

Yet another straw man argument from s888wheel.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 4/25/2004 4:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>> Date: 4/25/2004 3:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> Lionel wrote:
>>>> S888Wheel - > -
>>>> dimanche 25 Avril 2004 23:37 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> From: Lionel
>>>>>> Date: 4/25/2004 2:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> S888Wheel - > -
>>>>>> dimanche 25 Avril 2004 23:12 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip paranoid audio comment - cf RAHE] LOL !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't you have a new audio gadget to show to Boon ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't you have a therapy session to treat your obsession with me?
>>>>
>>>> Obsession with *YOU* ?
>>>> LOL, it seems that nobody have an obsession with you and that it's
>>>> your main obsession. :o)
>>>
>>> s888wheel is clearly a man obsessed.
>>>
>>> Remember, s888wheel claims that he is the guy who is so obsessed
>>> with me that he has sued me for libel over a single instance of a
>>> fairly common insult,
>
>> Maybe in your twisted world on Usenet it is a common insult.
>
>Than s888wheel, you're saying that everybody who has insulted me this way
>lives in a twisted world?
>
>
Once again your stupidity amazes me. No Arny that isn't what I am saying. Can
you figure out why or do I need to spell it out for you?


>> In the real world it is libel and something normal people do not do over
>> loosing debates about audio.
>
>Noted that s888wheel can't distinguish between eh real world and Usenet.

That's funny since I distinguished them in the post in regards to accusations
of pedophilia. Arny, your disconnect with reason and reality are truely beyond
belief.


>Noted that s888wheel will sue everybody who insults him a certain common
>way.

I will sue anybody that I believe has libeled me on an archived forum and
refuses to retract the libel provided they live withing the United States of
America. Funny how this exercise of the law seems so wrong to some.

>
>> one that he has received from others many more times,
>
>> Just from your apprentice Lionel and one other unreachable anonymous
>> poster with a bug up his ass. You taught Lionel well. You guys make a
>> great couple.
>
>Yet another straw man argument from s888wheel.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
It isn't even an arguement didp****.

[S888Wheel]

>From: Lionel
>Date: 4/25/2004 4:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel - > - lundi 26 Avril
>2004 01:45 wrote:
>
>>>From: Lionel
>>>Date: 4/25/2004 4:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>Arny Krueger - > - lundi 26 Avril 2004
>>>00:45 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lionel wrote:
>>>>> S888Wheel - > - lundi 26
>>>>> Avril 2004 00:07 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know what you are speaking about you seem too much obsessed.
>>>>> BTW your obsession for my father is really morbid.
>>>>
>>>> It's something like Marc Phillips obsession with pedophilia.
>>>
>>>Marc Phillips is surely an interesting subject for S888Wheel's class-envy
>>>testing sessions.
>>>
>>>>> You are really disgusting.
>>>>
>>>> S888wheel's dissembling and use of obvious straw man aguements is very
>>>> disgusting.
>>>
>>
>> My gosh, it is well past midnight on a Sunday and you are still steaming
>> over me.
>
>And so it's a Sunday afternoon in California and you still answering to what
>you consider to be an obsessed guy.

Yeah, I'm feelin kind of sorry for you. Besides the Lakers already won. I'm
watching a movie later on. I will be in bed before midnight though. I have a
life to lead the next day.


>No interesting activity with your family Sir ?

Plenty. But even those activities have down time. Is this possibility over your
head?


>Stop make an ass of yourself.


So says the obsessed guy well past the midnight hour. LOL

[Arny Krueger]

S888Wheel wrote:
>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 4/25/2004 3:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>> Date: 4/25/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>
>>>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>> Date: 4/25/2004 1:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Last week S888wheel got spanked for posting the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>>>>> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:09:02 GMT
>>>>>> Message-ID: f7Ifc.433$gL1.21407@attbi_s54
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a
>>>>>> tone) would be utterly useless."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This week, he's in full-tilt revisionism mode:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: (S888Wheel)
>>>>>> Date: 25 Apr 2004 16:03:16 GMT
>>>>>> Message-ID: >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Please try to get your facts straight. I said a 6hz tone is
>>>>>> useless in highend."
>>>>
>>>>> You could always post a comment about this in RAHE where these
>>>>> posts were made. Oh, no you can't. You were banned from RAHE for
>>>>> being an asshole. How funny is it that you lurk on a Usenet group
>>>>> from which you were banned?
>>>>
>>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that my history with RAHE's moderators
>>>> justifies your dissembling?
>>>
>>> No I was making fun of the fact that you were kicked off of RAHE and
>>> you still lurk there. I would think even someone who isn't the
>>> sharpest knife in the drawer would get that much.
>>>>
>>>>> I'd say you suffer from RAHE envy.
>>>>
>>>> I'd say that I know where to look to see you being your sweet self,
>>>> S888wheel.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but you say a lot of stupid things.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I guess you and
>>>>> Tom share a common problem with numbers. This is what Tom said
>>>>> that sparked my comment..."And here, Mr Wheeler says that a 10 Hz
>>>>> subwoofer is "useless."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I guess this form of revisionism is OK with you since you love to
>>>>> do the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine
>>>> justifies your dissembling?
>>>
>>> No. Why is this so hard to understand? Do you have trouble with
>>> comprehending first , second and third persons?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So, clarification of context and the dropping of an adverb is
>>>>> revisionism
>>>> to you.
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't limiting the discussion to just the "highend" be a change
>>>> of context?
>>>
>>> No, given the fact that it was posted on RAHE. The HE stands for
>>> highend. But after that post some people started talking about Sound
>>> effects and horror film sound tracks. I clarified the context for
>>> their sake.
>>>
>>> BTW for your future reference S888wheel, you should know that
>>>> "highend" is actually two words.
>>>
>>> "definately"
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore s888wheel, you need to explain why people in the high
>>>> end should be satisfied with lower quality reproduction than the
>>>> best that is reasonably possible.
>>
>>> I'm not suggesting that anyone should be satisfied with your system
>>> Arny. Why burn this straw man?
>>
>> Since I did not mention my system, this would be a straw man
>> argument. It would appear that s888wheel is too stupid to recognize
>> his own straw man arguments.
>
> Once again you are too stupid to know when someone is making fun of
> you.
>
>
>>
>>>>> But changing significant numbers is not.
>>
>>>> So S888wheel, are you saying that your history with Nousaine
>>>> justifies your dissembling?
>>>
>>> I am sorry you find such a simple post so difficult to understand.
>>
>> What difficutly?
>
> Asked and answered. You can't even figure that out?
>
>
>>
>>> but you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
>>
>> So S888wheel, are you saying that the fact that don't claim to be the
>> smartest person in world (an absolutley insane claim, were anybody
>> to make it) justifies your straw man augment and dissembling?
>
>
> You still seem to be having trouble understanding the simple content
> of my posts. sad
>
>
>>
>>>> When s888wheel, are you going to start taking responsibility for
>>>> your own actions?
>>
>>> What do you know about taking responsibility?

>> So S888wheel, are you saying that the fact that your negative
>> beliefs about me justify your dissembling and use of a straw man
>> argument?

> No, I'm saying that you are the poster child for refusing to take
> responsibility for your own actions.

Eepetitive response noted. S888wheel is clearing turning in circles.

So then S888wheel you are claiming that your negative perceptions about me
justifiy your irrational behavior, right?

>That makes you unqualified to
> pass judgement on others when it comes to the subject IMO.

Nobody is ever qualitifed to pass judgement.

That would be very self-serving. Proof by personal authority.

> Sorry my comment went over your head, again.

When cornered, S888wheel finds that logic fails him, and he resorts to
insults.

[Arny Krueger]

S888Wheel wrote:
>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>> Date: 4/25/2004 4:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>> From: "Arny Krueger"
>>>> Date: 4/25/2004 3:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>
>>>> Lionel wrote:
>>>>> S888Wheel - > -
>>>>> dimanche 25 Avril 2004 23:37 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Lionel
>>>>>>> Date: 4/25/2004 2:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> S888Wheel - > -
>>>>>>> dimanche 25 Avril 2004 23:12 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip paranoid audio comment - cf RAHE] LOL !
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't you have a new audio gadget to show to Boon ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't you have a therapy session to treat your obsession with me?
>>>>>
>>>>> Obsession with *YOU* ?
>>>>> LOL, it seems that nobody have an obsession with you and that it's
>>>>> your main obsession. :o)
>>>>
>>>> s888wheel is clearly a man obsessed.
>>>>
>>>> Remember, s888wheel claims that he is the guy who is so obsessed
>>>> with me that he has sued me for libel over a single instance of a
>>>> fairly common insult,
>>
>>> Maybe in your twisted world on Usenet it is a common insult.
>>
>> Than s888wheel, you're saying that everybody who has insulted me
>> this way lives in a twisted world?
>
> Once again your stupidity amazes me. No Arny that isn't what I am
> saying. Can you figure out why or do I need to spell it out for you?

Spelling is not exactly one of your strengths, s888wheel.

>>> In the real world it is libel and something normal people do not
>>> do over loosing debates about audio.
>>
>> Noted that s888wheel can't distinguish between the real world and
>> Usenet.

> That's funny since I distinguished them in the post in regards to
> accusations of pedophilia.

Actually s888wgheel, you did not distinguish the real world from Usenet
unless that court you sued me in exists only in Usenet.

> Arny, your disconnect with reason and
> reality are truely beyond belief.

>> Noted that s888wheel will sue everybody who insults him a certain
>> common way.

> I will sue anybody that I believe has libeled me on an archived forum
> and refuses to retract the libel provided they live withing the
> United States of America. Funny how this exercise of the law seems so
> wrong to some.

>>> one that he has received from others many more times,

>>> Just from your apprentice Lionel and one other unreachable anonymous
>>> poster with a bug up his ass. You taught Lionel well. You guys make
>>> a great couple.

>> Yet another straw man argument from s888wheel.

> It isn't even an arguement didp****.

I never said it was an arguement, s888wheel.

BTW s888wheel, what is a didp****?

[Arny Krueger]

S888Wheel wrote:

> I made my claim about 6 hz with the
> assumption that it would be taken within the context of high end
> audio and the recording and playback of music.

So far so good.

>Clearly some people on
> RAHE find 6 hz tones useful for things that exist outside of those
> parameters.

The other, non-audio related uses of infrasonic sound are irrelevant. Just
another straw man argument.

Fourier analysis proves that any musical sound can be analyzed and found to
be a collection of tones.

http://music.arts.uci.edu/dobrian/digitalaudio.htm


High quality recordings of a number of musical works, both classical and
popular, have been analyzed and found to contain substantial content at
frequencies at or near 6 Hz, and lower.

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Sub-woofer-Set-Up/How-Low-2.html

Furthermore, it has been found that the means generally used to reduce or
eliminate 6 Hz tones from recordings have reliably audible effects on the
rest of the recording.

The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low Frequencies
Author(s): Fincham, L. R.
Publication: JAES Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985
Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low frequencies
due to the combined effects of all the components in the record/replay
chain, and in particular the analog recorder. Digital recorders now make it
practical to remove much of this group delay. It is discussed whether it is
worthwhile to produce a record/replay chain having uniform

High fidelity is about approaching the quality of the original sound that
was recorded, as closely as possible. Eliminating musical content, and/or
intentially making alterations that adversely affect sound quality seem to
be the opposite of high fidelity.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/High%20fidelity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity


> Now if you wish to discuss the topic of what I think is
> useful in the way of low frequency extension we must establish the
> parameters of use.

The stated context of high end audio and recording and playback of music
seems to be just fine.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 05:45:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>High quality recordings of a number of musical works, both classical and
>popular, have been analyzed and found to contain substantial content at
>frequencies at or near 6 Hz, and lower.
>
>http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Sub-woofer-Set-Up/How-Low-2.html

I wouldn't consider 5 recordings with content below 10 hz to be "a
number", as most people use the term. Also, the Flim and the BBs album
that's noted has exactly 1 second of 5 hz - 16 hz noted, the aptly
titles "Toxic Bass" album has 1 second of 8 - 20 hz. Two of the others
have a few cannon shots over a 5 - 10 minute of time.

This isn't my idea of "substantial content" at or near 6 hz.

So, I think that you're overstaing the 6 hz case quite a bit.

[Arny Krueger]

dave weil wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 05:45:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

>> High quality recordings of a number of musical works, both classical
>> and popular, have been analyzed and found to contain substantial
>> content at frequencies at or near 6 Hz, and lower.
>>
>> http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Sub-woofer-Set-Up/How-Low-2.html

> I wouldn't consider 5 recordings with content below 10 hz to be "a
> number", as most people use the term.

That would be 5 of 30 recordings listed, right? The list cited is neither
exhaustive nor is it up-to-date. Does anybody seriously think that the basic
list of 30 works formed an exhaustive list when it was made? Do they think
that no more recordings of this kind have ever been released?

>Also, the Flim and the BBs album
> that's noted has exactly 1 second of 5 hz - 16 hz noted, the aptly
> titles "Toxic Bass" album has 1 second of 8 - 20 hz. Two of the others
> have a few cannon shots over a 5 - 10 minute of time.

So, then it's resolved, there's absolutly no need to try to reproduce cannon
shots or any other sounds in the 5 Hz - 16 Hz range, even though they exist
in nature, even though they exist in live performances, even though they are
reliably perceptible and even though they exist as integral parts of
recordings. Right?

> This isn't my idea of "substantial content" at or near 6 hz.

That's a choice everybody gets to make. You can be happy with the lowest
fidelity you wish to listen to. It's your ears, your audio system, and your
enjoyment.

> So, I think that you're overstaing the 6 hz case quite a bit.

On top of everything else Weil, you took my claim out of context.

Here's some more context:

> Furthermore, it has been found that the means generally used to
> reduce or eliminate 6 Hz tones from recordings have reliably audible
> effects on the rest of the recording.

> The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low Frequencies
> Author(s): Fincham, L. R.
> Publication: JAES Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985
> Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low
> frequencies due to the combined effects of all the components in the
> record/replay chain, and in particular the analog recorder. Digital
> recorders now make it practical to remove much of this group delay.
> It is discussed whether it is worthwhile to produce a record/replay
> chain having uniform

Tube and vinyl bigots as well as many radical subjectivists are particuarly
irked by statements like these:

> High fidelity is about approaching the quality of the original sound
> that was recorded, as closely as possible. Eliminating musical
> content, and/or intentially making alterations that adversely affect
> sound quality seem to be the opposite of high fidelity.

> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/High%20fidelity

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity

Radical subjectivists don't seem to like talk like this, probably because
the concept of an "original sound" is way too much like some kind of
objective standard.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:42:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 05:45:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>
>>> High quality recordings of a number of musical works, both classical
>>> and popular, have been analyzed and found to contain substantial
>>> content at frequencies at or near 6 Hz, and lower.
>>>
>>> http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Sub-woofer-Set-Up/How-Low-2.html
>
>> I wouldn't consider 5 recordings with content below 10 hz to be "a
>> number", as most people use the term.
>
>That would be 5 of 30 recordings listed, right? The list cited is neither
>exhaustive nor is it up-to-date. Does anybody seriously think that the basic
>list of 30 works formed an exhaustive list when it was made? Do they think
>that no more recordings of this kind have ever been released?

That's irrelevant. You used this list as a basis for your argument. So
that's what we have to use.

>>Also, the Flim and the BBs album
>> that's noted has exactly 1 second of 5 hz - 16 hz noted, the aptly
>> titles "Toxic Bass" album has 1 second of 8 - 20 hz. Two of the others
>> have a few cannon shots over a 5 - 10 minute of time.
>
>So, then it's resolved, there's absolutly no need to try to reproduce cannon
>shots or any other sounds in the 5 Hz - 16 Hz range, even though they exist
>in nature, even though they exist in live performances, even though they are
>reliably perceptible and even though they exist as integral parts of
>recordings. Right?

Nope. My point is that it's not nearly as pervasive as you make it out
to be.

>> This isn't my idea of "substantial content" at or near 6 hz.
>
>That's a choice everybody gets to make. You can be happy with the lowest
>fidelity you wish to listen to. It's your ears, your audio system, and your
>enjoyment.

Your comment doesn't pertain to the previous statement.

>> So, I think that you're overstaing the 6 hz case quite a bit.
>
>On top of everything else Weil, you took my claim out of context.
>
>Here's some more context:
>
>> Furthermore, it has been found that the means generally used to
>> reduce or eliminate 6 Hz tones from recordings have reliably audible
>> effects on the rest of the recording.
>
>> The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low Frequencies
>> Author(s): Fincham, L. R.
>> Publication: JAES Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985
>> Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low
>> frequencies due to the combined effects of all the components in the
>> record/replay chain, and in particular the analog recorder. Digital
>> recorders now make it practical to remove much of this group delay.
>> It is discussed whether it is worthwhile to produce a record/replay
>> chain having uniform
>
>Tube and vinyl bigots as well as many radical subjectivists are particuarly
>irked by statements like these:
>
>> High fidelity is about approaching the quality of the original sound
>> that was recorded, as closely as possible. Eliminating musical
>> content, and/or intentially making alterations that adversely affect
>> sound quality seem to be the opposite of high fidelity.
>
>> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/High%20fidelity
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity
>
>Radical subjectivists don't seem to like talk like this, probably because
>the concept of an "original sound" is way too much like some kind of
>objective standard.

And the same has been said about brickwall filters used in CD players.

Still, you yourself haven't shown any *real* data that removing said
scontent is detectable in a real-world dbt. You've given your
opinions, which are fine, but they fall under the realm of
unsubstantiated opinion.

[Arny Krueger]

dave weil wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:42:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> dave weil wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 05:45:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> High quality recordings of a number of musical works, both
>>>> classical and popular, have been analyzed and found to contain
>>>> substantial content at frequencies at or near 6 Hz, and lower.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Sub-woofer-Set-Up/How-Low-2.html
>>
>>> I wouldn't consider 5 recordings with content below 10 hz to be "a
>>> number", as most people use the term.
>>
>> That would be 5 of 30 recordings listed, right? The list cited is
>> neither exhaustive nor is it up-to-date. Does anybody seriously
>> think that the basic list of 30 works formed an exhaustive list when
>> it was made? Do they think that no more recordings of this kind have
>> ever been released?
>
> That's irrelevant. You used this list as a basis for your argument. So
> that's what we have to use.

If you take that view, then deal with the fact that 17% of the recordings
listed had content below 10 Hz.

>>> Also, the Flim and the BBs album
>>> that's noted has exactly 1 second of 5 hz - 16 hz noted, the aptly
>>> titles "Toxic Bass" album has 1 second of 8 - 20 hz. Two of the
>>> others have a few cannon shots over a 5 - 10 minute of time.
>>
>> So, then it's resolved, there's absolutely no need to try to
>> reproduce cannon shots or any other sounds in the 5 Hz - 16 Hz
>> range, even though they exist in nature, even though they exist in
>> live performances, even though they are reliably perceptible and
>> even though they exist as integral parts of recordings. Right?

> Nope. My point is that it's not nearly as pervasive as you make it out
> to be.

How pervasive did I make it out to be. Are we going to duel to the death
over hedge words?

>>> This isn't my idea of "substantial content" at or near 6 hz.
>>
>> That's a choice everybody gets to make. You can be happy with the
>> lowest fidelity you wish to listen to. It's your ears, your audio
>> system, and your enjoyment.

> Your comment doesn't pertain to the previous statement.

Sure it does. The choice to not reproduce sounds below some frequency is a
day-in, day-out choice. People doing audio production do it all the time.
People make this choice implicitly when they make choices about their audio
system.

>>> So, I think that you're overstating the 6 hz case quite a bit.
>>
>> On top of everything else Weil, you took my claim out of context.

>> Here's some more context:

>>> Furthermore, it has been found that the means generally used to
>>> reduce or eliminate 6 Hz tones from recordings have reliably audible
>>> effects on the rest of the recording.
>>
>>> The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low Frequencies
>>> Author(s): Fincham, L. R.
>>> Publication: JAES Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985
>>> Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low
>>> frequencies due to the combined effects of all the components in the
>>> record/replay chain, and in particular the analog recorder. Digital
>>> recorders now make it practical to remove much of this group delay.
>>> It is discussed whether it is worthwhile to produce a record/replay
>>> chain having uniform
>>
>> Tube and vinyl bigots as well as many radical subjectivists are
>> particularly irked by statements like these:
>
>>> High fidelity is about approaching the quality of the original sound
>>> that was recorded, as closely as possible. Eliminating musical
>>> content, and/or intentionally making alterations that adversely affect
>>> sound quality seem to be the opposite of high fidelity.
>>
>>> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/High%20fidelity
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity
>>
>> Radical subjectivists don't seem to like talk like this, probably
>> because the concept of an "original sound" is way too much like some
>> kind of objective standard.

> And the same has been said about brickwall filters used in CD players.

Except for one little thing - evidence of reliable perception of the related
audio content is more than a little lacking. You rant about DBTs. Anybody
who wants to can do relevant DBTs that show that brickwall-type filters are
sonically innocuous down to about 16 KHz, even with musical and natural
sounds that are rich in ultrasonic content.

> Still, you yourself haven't shown any *real* data that removing said
> content is detectable in a real-world dbt.

Weil, if you want to duel to the death over hedge words, be my guest. I'm
not playing.

> You've given your
> opinions, which are fine, but they fall under the realm of
> unsubstantiated opinion.

Only because you Weil, have chosen to ignore 100% of the evidence that has
been presented to support it. Again, that's a choice you get to make. AES
papers apparently mean nothing to you. Compendiums of related facts from
independent sources apparently mean nothing to you. Relevant PCABX
listening tests that anybody can do for themselves apparently mean nothing
to do. You're the perfect nihilist!

[dave weil]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:08:09 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:42:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> dave weil wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 05:45:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> High quality recordings of a number of musical works, both
>>>>> classical and popular, have been analyzed and found to contain
>>>>> substantial content at frequencies at or near 6 Hz, and lower.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Sub-woofer-Set-Up/How-Low-2.html
>>>
>>>> I wouldn't consider 5 recordings with content below 10 hz to be "a
>>>> number", as most people use the term.
>>>
>>> That would be 5 of 30 recordings listed, right? The list cited is
>>> neither exhaustive nor is it up-to-date. Does anybody seriously
>>> think that the basic list of 30 works formed an exhaustive list when
>>> it was made? Do they think that no more recordings of this kind have
>>> ever been released?
>>
>> That's irrelevant. You used this list as a basis for your argument. So
>> that's what we have to use.
>
>If you take that view, then deal with the fact that 17% of the recordings
>listed had content below 10 Hz.

Yes. This is about .000000000001% of *all* recordings.

>>>> Also, the Flim and the BBs album
>>>> that's noted has exactly 1 second of 5 hz - 16 hz noted, the aptly
>>>> titles "Toxic Bass" album has 1 second of 8 - 20 hz. Two of the
>>>> others have a few cannon shots over a 5 - 10 minute of time.
>>>
>>> So, then it's resolved, there's absolutely no need to try to
>>> reproduce cannon shots or any other sounds in the 5 Hz - 16 Hz
>>> range, even though they exist in nature, even though they exist in
>>> live performances, even though they are reliably perceptible and
>>> even though they exist as integral parts of recordings. Right?
>
>> Nope. My point is that it's not nearly as pervasive as you make it out
>> to be.
>
>How pervasive did I make it out to be. Are we going to duel to the death
>over hedge words?

"number of musical works, both classical and popular, have been
analyzed and found to contain substantial content at frequencies at or
near 6 Hz, and lower".

To me, that sounds like a good quantity of recordings with A LOT of
close to 6 hz content.

>>>> This isn't my idea of "substantial content" at or near 6 hz.
>>>
>>> That's a choice everybody gets to make. You can be happy with the
>>> lowest fidelity you wish to listen to. It's your ears, your audio
>>> system, and your enjoyment.
>
>> Your comment doesn't pertain to the previous statement.
>
>Sure it does. The choice to not reproduce sounds below some frequency is a
>day-in, day-out choice. People doing audio production do it all the time.
>People make this choice implicitly when they make choices about their audio
>system.

That doesn't have anything to do with my statement that I didn't think
that your list offered "a number of works" which had "substantial
amounts" of near 6 hz content.

>>>> So, I think that you're overstating the 6 hz case quite a bit.
>>>
>>> On top of everything else Weil, you took my claim out of context.
>
>>> Here's some more context:
>
>>>> Furthermore, it has been found that the means generally used to
>>>> reduce or eliminate 6 Hz tones from recordings have reliably audible
>>>> effects on the rest of the recording.
>>>
>>>> The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low Frequencies
>>>> Author(s): Fincham, L. R.
>>>> Publication: JAES Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985
>>>> Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low
>>>> frequencies due to the combined effects of all the components in the
>>>> record/replay chain, and in particular the analog recorder. Digital
>>>> recorders now make it practical to remove much of this group delay.
>>>> It is discussed whether it is worthwhile to produce a record/replay
>>>> chain having uniform
>>>
>>> Tube and vinyl bigots as well as many radical subjectivists are
>>> particularly irked by statements like these:
>>
>>>> High fidelity is about approaching the quality of the original sound
>>>> that was recorded, as closely as possible. Eliminating musical
>>>> content, and/or intentionally making alterations that adversely affect
>>>> sound quality seem to be the opposite of high fidelity.
>>>
>>>> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/High%20fidelity
>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity
>>>
>>> Radical subjectivists don't seem to like talk like this, probably
>>> because the concept of an "original sound" is way too much like some
>>> kind of objective standard.
>
>> And the same has been said about brickwall filters used in CD players.
>
>Except for one little thing - evidence of reliable perception of the related
>audio content is more than a little lacking. You rant about DBTs. Anybody
>who wants to can do relevant DBTs that show that brickwall-type filters are
>sonically innocuous down to about 16 KHz, even with musical and natural
>sounds that are rich in ultrasonic content.

You still haven't posted *your* proof about what you say about the
audibility (or perceivability if you will) of the 6 hz range. And,
since many people can hear 16 kHz content, are you saying that *they*
shouldn't be allowed to hear unvarnished 16 kHz content?

>> Still, you yourself haven't shown any *real* data that removing said
>> content is detectable in a real-world dbt.
>
>Weil, if you want to duel to the death over hedge words, be my guest. I'm
>not playing.

I see. Dbts are now "hedges". OK. I fully expect you not to demand
them in the future then.

>> You've given your
>> opinions, which are fine, but they fall under the realm of
>> unsubstantiated opinion.
>
>Only because you Weil, have chosen to ignore 100% of the evidence that has
>been presented to support it. Again, that's a choice you get to make. AES
>papers apparently mean nothing to you.

Nothing you've posted from AES here addresses the issues that we're
discussing.

>Compendiums of related facts from independent sources apparently mean nothing to you.

Hey, just playing by the rules that you've established. There are
*plenty* of "related facts from independent sources" that talk about
the audibility of *all sorts* of things like cables, etc. It's
verifiability that's at issue here.

>Relevant PCABX
>listening tests that anybody can do for themselves apparently mean nothing
>to do. You're the perfect nihilist!

You haven't posted the results of *any* such tests of musical
recordings that feature close to 6 hz content.

[Arny Krueger]

dave weil wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:08:09 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> dave weil wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:42:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> dave weil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 05:45:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> High quality recordings of a number of musical works, both
>>>>>> classical and popular, have been analyzed and found to contain
>>>>>> substantial content at frequencies at or near 6 Hz, and lower.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Sub-woofer-Set-Up/How-Low-2.html
>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't consider 5 recordings with content below 10 hz to be "a
>>>>> number", as most people use the term.
>>>>
>>>> That would be 5 of 30 recordings listed, right? The list cited is
>>>> neither exhaustive nor is it up-to-date. Does anybody seriously
>>>> think that the basic list of 30 works formed an exhaustive list
>>>> when it was made? Do they think that no more recordings of this
>>>> kind have ever been released?
>>>
>>> That's irrelevant. You used this list as a basis for your argument.
>>> So that's what we have to use.
>>
>> If you take that view, then deal with the fact that 17% of the
>> recordings listed had content below 10 Hz.
>
> Yes. This is about .000000000001% of *all* recordings.

Straw man argument since no relevant statistics were provided.

>>>>> Also, the Flim and the BBs album
>>>>> that's noted has exactly 1 second of 5 hz - 16 hz noted, the aptly
>>>>> titles "Toxic Bass" album has 1 second of 8 - 20 hz. Two of the
>>>>> others have a few cannon shots over a 5 - 10 minute of time.
>>>>
>>>> So, then it's resolved, there's absolutely no need to try to
>>>> reproduce cannon shots or any other sounds in the 5 Hz - 16 Hz
>>>> range, even though they exist in nature, even though they exist in
>>>> live performances, even though they are reliably perceptible and
>>>> even though they exist as integral parts of recordings. Right?
>>
>>> Nope. My point is that it's not nearly as pervasive as you make it
>>> out to be.
>>
>> How pervasive did I make it out to be. Are we going to duel to the
>> death over hedge words?

> "number of musical works, both classical and popular, have been
> analyzed and found to contain substantial content at frequencies at or
> near 6 Hz, and lower".

Irrelevant since any judgement would be based on Weil's beliefs, not any
reasonble independent source.


> To me, that sounds like a good quantity of recordings with A LOT of
> close to 6 hz content.

Straw man argument.


>>>>> This isn't my idea of "substantial content" at or near 6 hz.
>>>>
>>>> That's a choice everybody gets to make. You can be happy with the
>>>> lowest fidelity you wish to listen to. It's your ears, your audio
>>>> system, and your enjoyment.
>>
>>> Your comment doesn't pertain to the previous statement.
>>
>> Sure it does. The choice to not reproduce sounds below some
>> frequency is a day-in, day-out choice. People doing audio production
>> do it all the time. People make this choice implicitly when they
>> make choices about their audio system.

> That doesn't have anything to do with my statement that I didn't think
> that your list offered "a number of works" which had "substantial
> amounts" of near 6 hz content.

Straw man argument since Weil's thoughts have not been shown to be relevant
or authoritative.

>>>>> So, I think that you're overstating the 6 hz case quite a bit.
>>>>
>>>> On top of everything else Weil, you took my claim out of context.
>>
>>>> Here's some more context:
>>
>>>>> Furthermore, it has been found that the means generally used to
>>>>> reduce or eliminate 6 Hz tones from recordings have reliably
>>>>> audible effects on the rest of the recording.
>>>>
>>>>> The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low
>>>>> Frequencies Author(s): Fincham, L. R.
>>>>> Publication: JAES Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985
>>>>> Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low
>>>>> frequencies due to the combined effects of all the components in
>>>>> the record/replay chain, and in particular the analog recorder.
>>>>> Digital recorders now make it practical to remove much of this
>>>>> group delay. It is discussed whether it is worthwhile to produce
>>>>> a record/replay chain having uniform
>>>>
>>>> Tube and vinyl bigots as well as many radical subjectivists are
>>>> particularly irked by statements like these:
>>>
>>>>> High fidelity is about approaching the quality of the original
>>>>> sound that was recorded, as closely as possible. Eliminating
>>>>> musical content, and/or intentionally making alterations that
>>>>> adversely affect sound quality seem to be the opposite of high
>>>>> fidelity.
>>>>
>>>>> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/High%20fidelity
>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity
>>>>
>>>> Radical subjectivists don't seem to like talk like this, probably
>>>> because the concept of an "original sound" is way too much like
>>>> some kind of objective standard.
>>
>>> And the same has been said about brickwall filters used in CD
>>> players.
>>
>> Except for one little thing - evidence of reliable perception of the
>> related audio content is more than a little lacking. You rant about
>> DBTs. Anybody who wants to can do relevant DBTs that show that
>> brickwall-type filters are sonically innocuous down to about 16 KHz,
>> even with musical and natural sounds that are rich in ultrasonic
>> content.

> You still haven't posted *your* proof about what you say about the
> audibility (or perceivability if you will) of the 6 hz range.

Straw man argument. Irrelevant to a point you yourself raised Weil, being
brickwall filters in CD players. Do try to keep your issues straight! BTW,
in this context, arguing about brickwall filters in CD players is itself a
straw man argument.

> And, since many people can hear 16 kHz content, are you saying that *they*
> shouldn't be allowed to hear unvarnished 16 kHz content?

Straw man argument since brickwall filters are not about what can be heard
above 16 KHz, but rather about the audible effects of removing content above
16 KHz.

>>> Still, you yourself haven't shown any *real* data that removing said
>>> content is detectable in a real-world dbt.
>>
>> Weil, if you want to duel to the death over hedge words, be my
>> guest. I'm not playing.

> I see. Dbts are now "hedges". OK. I fully expect you not to demand
> them in the future then.

Strawman argument since the discussion was about "hedge words" not DBTs.

>>> You've given your
>>> opinions, which are fine, but they fall under the realm of
>>> unsubstantiated opinion.
>>
>> Only because you Weil, have chosen to ignore 100% of the evidence
>> that has been presented to support it. Again, that's a choice you
>> get to make. AES papers apparently mean nothing to you.

> Nothing you've posted from AES here addresses the issues that we're
> discussing.

Inability to read JAES abstracts noted.

>> Compendiums of related facts from independent sources apparently
>> mean nothing to you.

> Hey, just playing by the rules that you've established.

Strawman argument since the discussion was not about alleged rules.


>There are
> *plenty* of "related facts from independent sources" that talk about
> the audibility of *all sorts* of things like cables, etc. It's
> verifiability that's at issue here.

Strawman argument since the discussion was not about cables.

>> Relevant PCABX
>> listening tests that anybody can do for themselves apparently mean
>> nothing to do. You're the perfect nihilist!

> You haven't posted the results of *any* such tests of musical
> recordings that feature close to 6 hz content.

Strawman argument since it is well known that PCABX is for people to use to
develop their own results.

[S888Wheel]

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 4/26/2004 2:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>
>> I made my claim about 6 hz with the
>> assumption that it would be taken within the context of high end
>> audio and the recording and playback of music.
>
>So far so good.
>
>>Clearly some people on
>> RAHE find 6 hz tones useful for things that exist outside of those
>> parameters.
>
>The other, non-audio related uses of infrasonic sound are irrelevant. Just
>another straw man argument.
>
It wasn't an argument. I was simpoly pointing out that some people are
interested in the use of 6 hz tones outside of high end audio and the recording
and playback of music. I thought in consideration of those other interests held
by other people that we should clearly define the parameters of usefulness for
this discussion. I will happily discuss it within the parameters of high end
audio, the recording and playback of music.


>Fourier analysis proves that any musical sound can be analyzed and found to
>be a collection of tones.
>
>http://music.arts.uci.edu/dobrian/digitalaudio.htm

Indeed it does. Your source also clearly indicates that the lowest tone any
instrument can produce is the fundimental tone. So the lowest tone needed to
reproduce any acoustical instrument in the real world is just above 16 hz.


>
>
>High quality recordings of a number of musical works, both classical and
>popular, have been analyzed and found to contain substantial content at
>frequencies at or near 6 Hz, and lower.
>
>http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Sub-woofer-Set-Up/How-Low-2.html

I have never said there are no CDs containing such content. I have said that
such content is of no use. Hopefully you will remember the context in which I
am making that claim. IMO it is unlikely that any of that content is anything
other than cheap effects and garbage, We can be pretty sure none of it is of
any acoustic musical instrument. If you can find the specifics of any such low
frequency content then we can discuss it's merits. For instance, I would be
very keen to know what microphone was used to record any of these low
frequencies. I would be curious to know the levels of such content as well. We
can then figure out if the content was or was not mangled to the point of pure
garbage at the point of recording and we can figure out whether or not there is
audible content or just enough energy to shake the listening room which is in
effect garbage because no such listening room was present at the recording.


>
>Furthermore, it has been found that the means generally used to reduce or
>eliminate 6 Hz tones from recordings have reliably audible effects on the
>rest of the recording.
>

This is a bit of a broad assertion. What are those means "generally used" that
you are refering to? What are other means used? What audible effects can we say
for sure these different means of attenuating low frequencies 6hz and below)
have on the recording and playback? Without an investigation of these questions
we cannot say that 6 hz tones are "useful" or not.


>The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low Frequencies
>Author(s): Fincham, L. R.
>Publication: JAES Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985
>Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low frequencies
>due to the combined effects of all the components in the record/replay
>chain, and in particular the analog recorder. Digital recorders now make it
>practical to remove much of this group delay. It is discussed whether it is
>worthwhile to produce a record/replay chain having uniform
>
>High fidelity is about approaching the quality of the original sound that
>was recorded, as closely as possible. Eliminating musical content, and/or
>intentially making alterations that adversely affect sound quality seem to
>be the opposite of high fidelity.
>
>http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/High%20fidelity
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity
>
>

I don't see any evidence of "musical" content at 6 hz. There are recordinbg
engineers that seem to think not filtering 6 hz tones and others in that region
will adversely affect the recording. If the mic can't relaibly record such
content without gross distortion that content is simply garbage that does harm
to the final recording if it does anything at all.


>> Now if you wish to discuss the topic of what I think is
>> useful in the way of low frequency extension we must establish the
>> parameters of use.
>
>The stated context of high end audio and recording and playback of music
>seems to be just fine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Excellent. Thank you for your post. My compliments for keeping it about audio.
>
>

[dave weil]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:09:50 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> And, since many people can hear 16 kHz content, are you saying that *they*
>> shouldn't be allowed to hear unvarnished 16 kHz content?
>
>Straw man argument since brickwall filters are not about what can be heard
>above 16 KHz, but rather about the audible effects of removing content above
>16 KHz.

That's what "unvarnished 16 kHz" content means.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Lionel > wrote:

> dave weil - > - lundi 26 Avril
> 2004 15:24 wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 05:45:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>High quality recordings of a number of musical works, both classical and
> >>popular, have been analyzed and found to contain substantial content at
> >>frequencies at or near 6 Hz, and lower.
> >>
> >>http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Sub-woofer-Set-Up/How-Low-2.html
> >
> > I wouldn't consider 5 recordings with content below 10 hz to be "a
> > number", as most people use the term. Also, the Flim and the BBs album
> > that's noted has exactly 1 second of 5 hz - 16 hz noted, the aptly
> > titles "Toxic Bass" album has 1 second of 8 - 20 hz. Two of the others
> > have a few cannon shots over a 5 - 10 minute of time.
> >
> > This isn't my idea of "substantial content" at or near 6 hz.
> >
> > So, I think that you're overstaing the 6 hz case quite a bit.
>
> Dave, do you know that some professional pianists *never* touch the lowest A
> of their instrument.
> I guess that this note is here for exercises purposes only !
> Or perhaps a question of design... ;-)

Bach, Beethoven and Mozart neglected to include it in their compositions.

Try Bolcom.

Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Lionel > wrote:

> MINe 109 - > - lundi
> 26 Avril 2004 18:21 wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Lionel > wrote:

> >> Dave, do you know that some professional pianists *never* touch the
> >> lowest A of their instrument.
> >> I guess that this note is here for exercises purposes only !
> >> Or perhaps a question of design... ;-)
> >
> > Bach, Beethoven and Mozart neglected to include it in their compositions.
> >
> > Try Bolcom.
>
> So what ? Less than 0.000001% of the music written for piano, right ?
> It's a very expensive note, if you ask me... ;-)

Worse still: he asks for the F below...

Stephen