Vinyl Maven Steve Hoffman On Eq

[Arny Krueger]

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/dhinterviews/HoffLesson1.htm


Q:
"While you certainly like your job and don't want to train your replacement
or give away your secrets.any tips for helping us improve the sound on our
on stereos-especially for those recordings DCC has not been able to license
and let you fix?"



A:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our playback systems, and we
use Parametric EQ's to tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a
good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
programs."

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> http://www.stevehoffman.tv/dhinterviews/HoffLesson1.htm
>
>
> Q:
> "While you certainly like your job and don't want to train your replacement
> or give away your secrets.any tips for helping us improve the sound on our
> on stereos-especially for those recordings DCC has not been able to license
> and let you fix?"
>
>
>
> A:
>
> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our playback systems, and we
> use Parametric EQ's to tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a
> good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
> programs."

Yes, Hoffman uses eq, although the settings I've seen were quite gentle.
He did make radical eq-choices for a Mamas & Pappas hits collection, but
that's rare in his output.

He is, of course, trying to replicate or sometimes reinterpret choices
made by others, so eq is a vital tool, along with, shudder, compression.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.stevehoffman.tv/dhinterviews/HoffLesson1.htm
> > >
> > > Q:
> > > "While you certainly like your job and don't want to train your replacement
> > > or give away your secrets.any tips for helping us improve the sound on our
> > > on stereos-especially for those recordings DCC has not been able to license
> > > and let you fix?"

> > > A:
> > >
> > > "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our playback systems, and we
> > > use Parametric EQ's to tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a
> > > good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
> > > programs."
>
> Everyone uses EQ all the time in the recording chain. What's your
> point?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Let's try and look into the spiritual depths of Arny's soul. I guess
that his point is : look - a "Vinyl maven" uses equalisers and you
argue with my advice to the audio listener that he should use it to
compensate for deficiences of his recordings.

As you say anyone can see the necessity for equalisers in recording to
compensate for the recording venue, equipment used etc. But Arny's
"mavens" don't get their equalisers at Radio Shack, while he
recommended equalisers, any equalisers, for home use.
It is true that judging by most of what passes for recorded music some
of the mavens, don't seem to know what they are doing - not just with
their "equalisers"- but indeed what are they doing recording music when
they should be sweeping the studio corridors.

The situation at home is quite different. As I said before I used quite
a few analogue equalisers including a professional one (Orban) and I
loathed them all. The first equaliser I'm familiar with that is
inobtrusive is a Behringer digital. I set it once to compensate for my
room etc. and never touched it since..

Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer tries to compensate
for deficiences of records he must end-up with an incredible mess.

Arny's advice is to put bluntly for the birds.
Ludovic Mirabel

[dizzy]

wrote:

>Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer tries to compensate
>for deficiences of records he must end-up with an incredible mess.

Incorrect.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> http://www.stevehoffman.tv/dhinterviews/HoffLesson1.htm
>
>
> Q:
> "While you certainly like your job and don't want to train your replacement
> or give away your secrets.any tips for helping us improve the sound on our
> on stereos-especially for those recordings DCC has not been able to license
> and let you fix?"
>
>
>
> A:
>
> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our playback systems, and we
> use Parametric EQ's to tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a
> good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
> programs."

I thought everybody agreed that EQ is used in production. Is this some
kind of revelation?

[[email protected]]

dizzy wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer tries to compensate
> >for deficiences of records he must end-up with an incredible mess.
>
> Incorrect.
===================

An invaluable contribution. Thanks.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > http://www.stevehoffman.tv/dhinterviews/HoffLesson1.htm
> >
> >
> > Q:
> > "While you certainly like your job and don't want to train your replacement
> > or give away your secrets.any tips for helping us improve the sound on our
> > on stereos-especially for those recordings DCC has not been able to license
> > and let you fix?"
> >
> >
> >
> > A:
> >
> > "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our playback systems, and we
> > use Parametric EQ's to tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a
> > good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
> > programs."

I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut (all quotes from the
article, so I'm not messing with quotation marks):

A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9
grand....

The first one is "everything in moderation". Just a touch will do.

The second one is "never add, just subtract what is there already".
Most of the CD's you will be trying to fix (especially the new post
1998 "remasters") will need to have stuff removed for them to sound
acceptable to your new Audiophile Ears.

On a 1/3 octave, it is pretty hard to remove harshness. The bands are
not broad enough.

So Arny quotes a guy advocating a 9K EQ, states that 1/3 band won't cut
it, and so on.

Welcome to the audiophile world, Arny! That EQ will cost more than many
people's systems. LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com

> Let's try and look into the spiritual depths of Arny's
> soul.

Delusions of grandeur noted.

> I guess that his point is : look - a "Vinyl maven"
> uses equalisers and you argue with my advice to the audio
> listener that he should use it to compensate for
> deficiences of his recordings.

Pretty close.

> As you say anyone can see the necessity for equalisers in
> recording to compensate for the recording venue,
> equipment used etc.

Hold that thought.

> But Arny's "mavens" don't get their
> equalisers at Radio Shack,

And neither does Arny.

And neither does Arny recommend common types of consumer equalizers. As a
matter of fact, I seem to recall that the last person to mention a
consumer-grade equalizer around here was one Paul Packer. It sounds like it
doesn't exactly make him happy.

> while he recommended
> equalisers, any equalisers, for home use.

Not at all.

> It is true that judging by most of what passes for
> recorded music some of the mavens, don't seem to know
> what they are doing - not just with their "equalisers"-
> but indeed what are they doing recording music when they
> should be sweeping the studio corridors.

Huh? Steve Hoffman doesn't do good enough work for you, Ludo?

> The situation at home is quite different. As I said
> before I used quite a few analogue equalisers including
> a professional one (Orban) and I loathed them all.

That settles it. If something is not to Ludo's total satisfaction, no
audiophile anywhere should ever give it even just the time of day.

> The first equaliser I'm familiar with that is inobtrusive is
> a Behringer digital. I set it once to compensate for my
> room etc. and never touched it since..

I had a Behringer digital equalizer that gave me about a decade of good
service and then died. It would be one of the equalizers that I might
recommend.

> Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer tries
> to compensate for deficiences of records he must end-up
> with an incredible mess.

That settles it. If Ludo can't do a certain thing to his total
satisfaction, no audiophile anywhere should ever give it even just the time
of day.

> Arny's advice is to put bluntly for the birds.

Even my past recommendations of the Berhinger digital equalizer?

[dizzy]

wrote:

>dizzy wrote:
>>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer tries to compensate
>> >for deficiences of records he must end-up with an incredible mess.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>
>An invaluable contribution.

You are stupid.

>Thanks.

You are welcome.

[paul packer]

On 3 Nov 2006 16:00:58 -0800, " >
wrote:


>Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer tries to compensate
>for deficiences of records he must end-up with an incredible mess.

Agreed.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com
>
> > Let's try and look into the spiritual depths of Arny's
> > soul.
>
> Delusions of grandeur noted.
>
> > I guess that his point is : look - a "Vinyl maven"
> > uses equalisers and you argue with my advice to the audio
> > listener that he should use it to compensate for
> > deficiences of his recordings.
>
> Pretty close.
>
> > As you say anyone can see the necessity for equalisers in
> > recording to compensate for the recording venue,
> > equipment used etc.
>
> Hold that thought.
>
> > But Arny's "mavens" don't get their
> > equalisers at Radio Shack,
>
> And neither does Arny.
>
> And neither does Arny recommend common types of consumer equalizers. As a
> matter of fact, I seem to recall that the last person to mention a
> consumer-grade equalizer around here was one Paul Packer. It sounds like it
> doesn't exactly make him happy.
>
> > while he recommended
> > equalisers, any equalisers, for home use.
>
> Not at all.
>
> > It is true that judging by most of what passes for
> > recorded music some of the mavens, don't seem to know
> > what they are doing - not just with their "equalisers"-
> > but indeed what are they doing recording music when they
> > should be sweeping the studio corridors.
>
> Huh? Steve Hoffman doesn't do good enough work for you, Ludo?
>
> > The situation at home is quite different. As I said
> > before I used quite a few analogue equalisers including
> > a professional one (Orban) and I loathed them all.
>
> That settles it. If something is not to Ludo's total satisfaction, no
> audiophile anywhere should ever give it even just the time of day.
>
> > The first equaliser I'm familiar with that is inobtrusive is
> > a Behringer digital. I set it once to compensate for my
> > room etc. and never touched it since..
>
> I had a Behringer digital equalizer that gave me about a decade of good
> service and then died. It would be one of the equalizers that I might
> recommend.
>
> > Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer tries
> > to compensate for deficiences of records he must end-up
> > with an incredible mess.
>
> That settles it. If Ludo can't do a certain thing to his total
> satisfaction, no audiophile anywhere should ever give it even just the time
> of day.
>
> > Arny's advice is to put bluntly for the birds.
>
> Even my past recommendations of the Berhinger digital equalizer?
==========================================

Late at night: Two points only:

> > Let's try and look into the spiritual depths of Arny's
> > soul.
>
> Delusions of grandeur noted.
>
Arny- is trying to look into your spiritual depths a delusion of
grandeur? You cant't really be so far gone as to believe that.

Two: equalisers- when recording when used by a consumer;

> > The situation at home is quite different. As I said
> > before I used quite a few analogue equalisers including
> > a professional one (Orban) and I loathed them all.
>
> That settles it. If something is not to Ludo's total satisfaction, no
> audiophile anywhere should ever give it even just the time of day.

Repeat: I loathed the unpleasant sound that I I I heard analog
equalisers injecting into the music. Whoever has different experience-
be my guest.

Just pointing out quietly that what an audio engineer does with his
professional equipment is not what a consumer does. And wriggle as you
may you DID NOT specify any equipment for a consumer to use. You just
said "equalisers".

Arny, things are getting to you. Don't let them..
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" > wrote in message

> wrote:
>
>> dizzy wrote:
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer
>>>> tries to compensate for deficiences of records he must
>>>> end-up with an incredible mess.
>>>
>>> Incorrect.
>>
>> An invaluable contribution.
>
> You are stupid.

My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> http://www.stevehoffman.tv/dhinterviews/HoffLesson1.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> Q:
>>> "While you certainly like your job and don't want to
>>> train your replacement or give away your secrets.any
>>> tips for helping us improve the sound on our on
>>> stereos-especially for those recordings DCC has not
>>> been able to license and let you fix?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A:
>>>
>>> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
>>> playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to tailor
>>> the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a good
>>> point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
>>> parametric EQ programs."
>
> I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut (all
> quotes from the article, so I'm not messing with
> quotation marks):
>
> A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can
> set you back 9 grand....

Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the context:

"So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our playback systems, and we
use Parametric EQ's to tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a
good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
programs. A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set you
back 9 grand.... "

Note that the following was intentionally and deceptively removed:

"Now, you have a good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
parametric EQ programs."

> The first one is "everything in moderation". Just a touch
> will do.

For commercial recordings, this should be true.

> The second one is "never add, just subtract what is there
> already". Most of the CD's you will be trying to fix
> (especially the new post 1998 "remasters") will need to
> have stuff removed for them to sound acceptable to your
> new Audiophile Ears.

Unfortunately it is difficult to remove the most egregious parts of these
recordings - the overbearing compression.

> On a 1/3 octave, it is pretty hard to remove harshness.
> The bands are not broad enough.

Agreed. How many times have I said "parametric eq" in the past few weeks?

> So Arny quotes a guy advocating a 9K EQ,

That's an intential deception, as a full in-context quote shows.

> states that 1/3 band won't cut it,

Which I've said here many times.

>and so on.

> Welcome to the audiophile world, Arny! That EQ will cost
> more than many people's systems. LOL!

No, it is your intentional deceptions that are costly.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >

> > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

> > I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut (all
> > quotes from the article, so I'm not messing with
> > quotation marks):
> >
> > A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can
> > set you back 9 grand....
>
> Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the context:
>
> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our playback systems, and we
> use Parametric EQ's to tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a
> good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
> programs. A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set you
> back 9 grand.... "
>
> Note that the following was intentionally and deceptively removed:
>
> "Now, you have a good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
> parametric EQ programs."

There was no deception, Arns.

Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a PC. So what good
would it do to 'download' EQ programs?

So you go to the hardware version for your home system, which according
to the article you quote would run about 9K for a good one.

> > The first one is "everything in moderation". Just a touch
> > will do.
>
> For commercial recordings, this should be true.
>
> > The second one is "never add, just subtract what is there
> > already". Most of the CD's you will be trying to fix
> > (especially the new post 1998 "remasters") will need to
> > have stuff removed for them to sound acceptable to your
> > new Audiophile Ears.
>
> Unfortunately it is difficult to remove the most egregious parts of these
> recordings - the overbearing compression.

So the EQ does no, or very little, good here.

> > On a 1/3 octave, it is pretty hard to remove harshness.
> > The bands are not broad enough.
>
> Agreed. How many times have I said "parametric eq" in the past few weeks?
>
> > So Arny quotes a guy advocating a 9K EQ,
>
> That's an intential deception, as a full in-context quote shows.

The full, in-text quote proves otherwise, Arns. While you may use your
PC as a stereo, as I said, most normal people do not.

I wonder how many people on RAO, for example, would benefit from a
software download.

If, OTOH, you are advocating that people download these programs to
create modified CDs on their computer, then (as I said in an earlier
post) we are back to using EQ in production. It's just that in this
case the production is done at home vs. at a studio. So we are back to
the already agreed upon point that EQ is used in production.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "dizzy" > wrote in message
>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> dizzy wrote:
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer
> >>>> tries to compensate for deficiences of records he must
> >>>> end-up with an incredible mess.
> >>>
> >>> Incorrect.
> >>
> >> An invaluable contribution.
> >
> > You are stupid.
>
> My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.

==================================
Krueger reaches for his truly convincing and elegant argument
> My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.

Not senile enough to forget that every time you're asked for a refernce
to your experiments with ABX, accepted and published in a professional
journal, you develop instant amnesia and quit the topic

Ludovic Mirabel.

[[email protected]]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>
> > > Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>
> > > I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut (all
> > > quotes from the article, so I'm not messing with
> > > quotation marks):
> > >
> > > A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can
> > > set you back 9 grand....
> >
> > Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the context:
> >
> > "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our playback systems, and we
> > use Parametric EQ's to tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a
> > good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
> > programs. A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set you
> > back 9 grand.... "
> >
> > Note that the following was intentionally and deceptively removed:
> >
> > "Now, you have a good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
> > parametric EQ programs."
>
> There was no deception, Arns.
>
> Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a PC. So what good
> would it do to 'download' EQ programs?
>
> So you go to the hardware version for your home system, which according
> to the article you quote would run about 9K for a good one.
>
> > > The first one is "everything in moderation". Just a touch
> > > will do.
> >
> > For commercial recordings, this should be true.
> >
> > > The second one is "never add, just subtract what is there
> > > already". Most of the CD's you will be trying to fix
> > > (especially the new post 1998 "remasters") will need to
> > > have stuff removed for them to sound acceptable to your
> > > new Audiophile Ears.
> >
> > Unfortunately it is difficult to remove the most egregious parts of these
> > recordings - the overbearing compression.
>
> So the EQ does no, or very little, good here.
>
> > > On a 1/3 octave, it is pretty hard to remove harshness.
> > > The bands are not broad enough.
> >
> > Agreed. How many times have I said "parametric eq" in the past few weeks?
> >
> > > So Arny quotes a guy advocating a 9K EQ,
> >
> > That's an intential deception, as a full in-context quote shows.
>
> The full, in-text quote proves otherwise, Arns. While you may use your
> PC as a stereo, as I said, most normal people do not.
>
> I wonder how many people on RAO, for example, would benefit from a
> software download.
>
> If, OTOH, you are advocating that people download these programs to
> create modified CDs on their computer, then (as I said in an earlier
> post) we are back to using EQ in production. It's just that in this
> case the production is done at home vs. at a studio. So we are back to
> the already agreed upon point that EQ is used in production.

===============================
You said:
> Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a PC. So what good
> would it do to 'download' EQ programs?

Arny does. More: he recommends it to others,. Presumably he assumes
that most humanity suffer from musical handicaps like his:

This is his advice in the "Sound card versus..." thread to a Mr. Zheng.

"At this time, a $30 sound card for example the SoundBlaster Live!
24-bit PCI
card (not the USB version which is a POS) outperforms just about any
loudspeaker system known to man"

Poor Mr. Zheng. He might take Arny's wooden ears as his hi-fi
standard..
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "dizzy" > wrote in message
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> dizzy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer
>>>>>> tries to compensate for deficiences of records he
>>>>>> must end-up with an incredible mess.
>>>>>
>>>>> Incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> An invaluable contribution.
>>>
>>> You are stupid.
>>
>> My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.
>
> ==================================
> Krueger reaches for his truly convincing and elegant
> argument
>> My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.
>
> Not senile enough to forget that every time you're asked
> for a refernce to your experiments with ABX, accepted and
> published in a professional journal, you develop instant
> amnesia and quit the topic

Boredom puts me to sleep.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg chomps on a fresh floater.

> > Not senile enough to forget that every time you're asked
> > for a refernce to your experiments with ABX, accepted and
> > published in a professional journal, you develop instant
> > amnesia and quit the topic

> Boredom puts me to sleep.

Arnii, after you die and go to that happy sewage plant in the sky, you can
bob for turds to your heart's content. But while you're still clanking
around among the humans, it would benefit you immensely to realize that
your obsession with finding "liars" is several miles outside the crazy
line for the rest of us.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ps.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>
>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>
>>> I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut (all
>>> quotes from the article, so I'm not messing with
>>> quotation marks):
>>>
>>> A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can
>>> set you back 9 grand....
>>
>> Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the context:
>>
>> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
>> playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to tailor
>> the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a good
>> point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
>> parametric EQ programs. A real live Sontec or Massenberg
>> Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9 grand.... "
>>
>> Note that the following was intentionally and
>> deceptively removed:
>>
>> "Now, you have a good point in which to start. Download
>> (if you can) some parametric EQ programs."
>
> There was no deception, Arns.
>
> Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a PC.

By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He specfically recommended
downloading EQ programs.

> So what good would it do to 'download' EQ programs?

False presumption noted.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> ps.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> >
> >>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >
> >>> I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut (all
> >>> quotes from the article, so I'm not messing with
> >>> quotation marks):
> >>>
> >>> A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can
> >>> set you back 9 grand....
> >>
> >> Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the context:
> >>
> >> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
> >> playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to tailor
> >> the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a good
> >> point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
> >> parametric EQ programs. A real live Sontec or Massenberg
> >> Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9 grand.... "
> >>
> >> Note that the following was intentionally and
> >> deceptively removed:
> >>
> >> "Now, you have a good point in which to start. Download
> >> (if you can) some parametric EQ programs."
> >
> > There was no deception, Arns.
> >
> > Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a PC.
>
> By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He specfically recommended
> downloading EQ programs.

Can't you read, Arns? Let's rewind the tape. It's so far up the thread
you may have missed it:

"So, we use *graphic EQ's* to tailor the sound of our *playback*
systems, and we
use *Parametric EQ's* to tailor the sound of our *music.* Right? Now,
you have a
good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
programs."

Graphic EQs for playback. Parametric EQs for music (i.e. source). Hm.
It seems you recently admitted that 1/3 band graphic EQs won't cut it
for playback. (How many times have you said "parametric EQs" in the
past week?) LOL!

So Hoffman does not imply, but specifically states, parametric EQs to
tailor the *music.* Now we're back at production EQ, as I've said
(three times now). I haven't seen anybody argue that EQ is not used in
production. I hate to tell you this (and I know you won't believe it
anyway) but you're talking out of both sides of your ass. Just admit
that you're wrong and move on. I won't even ask you for an apology, or
comment on what talking out of your ass does to your breath.

> > So what good would it do to 'download' EQ programs?
>
> False presumption noted.

LOL!

I don't have time to teach you to read, Arns.

[[email protected]]

dizzy wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >dizzy wrote:
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer tries to compensate
> >> >for deficiences of records he must end-up with an incredible mess.
> >>
> >> Incorrect.
> >
> >An invaluable contribution.
>
> You are stupid.
>
> >Thanks.
>
> You are welcome.


Bravo Mr. Dizzy. You understood that I was being sarcastic. That shows
that you have elementary comprehension of a straightforward text.

Pity that the remainder of your contribution never rises above that
modest level..
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "dizzy" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> dizzy wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer
> >>>>>> tries to compensate for deficiences of records he
> >>>>>> must end-up with an incredible mess.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Incorrect.
> >>>>
> >>>> An invaluable contribution.
> >>>
> >>> You are stupid.
> >>
> >> My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.
> >
> > ==================================
> > Krueger reaches for his truly convincing and elegant
> > argument
> >> My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.
> >
> > Not senile enough to forget that every time you're asked
> > for a refernce to your experiments with ABX, accepted and
> > published in a professional journal, you develop instant
> > amnesia and quit the topic
>
> Boredom puts me to sleep.
============================

Argument so far. Krueger about me:" > >> My money is on equal parts of
arrogant and senile."

I answered: > > Not senile enough to forget that every time you're
asked
> > for a refernce to your experiments with ABX, accepted and
> > published in a professional journal, you develop instant
> > amnesia and quit the topic

His replica: "> Boredom puts me to sleep.". Period.

Boredom is mutual but
it is audio website news that after all these years even the inventor
is bored with the topic of ABX as a tool for comparing audio
components.

Can we expect to see those your dentiments added tp the PCABX web site?


Can we also expect that you and your chapel members such as Sullivan et
al. will never again bother people to prove their preferences by an
"objective", "bias free", (and other such clever-clever cryptonyms)
"test"?
Ludovic Mirabel

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> ps.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> >
> >>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >
> >>> I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut (all
> >>> quotes from the article, so I'm not messing with
> >>> quotation marks):
> >>>
> >>> A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can
> >>> set you back 9 grand....
> >>
> >> Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the context:
> >>
> >> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
> >> playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to tailor
> >> the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a good
> >> point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
> >> parametric EQ programs. A real live Sontec or Massenberg
> >> Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9 grand.... "
> >>
> >> Note that the following was intentionally and
> >> deceptively removed:
> >>
> >> "Now, you have a good point in which to start. Download
> >> (if you can) some parametric EQ programs."
> >
> > There was no deception, Arns.
> >
> > Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a PC.
>
> By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He specfically recommended
> downloading EQ programs.

By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the computer to learn how
to tailor an eq, then use this new skill on the regular system.

The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects digital eqs.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> > wrote in message
> > ps.com
> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> > >
> > >>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > >
> > >>> I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut (all
> > >>> quotes from the article, so I'm not messing with
> > >>> quotation marks):
> > >>>
> > >>> A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can
> > >>> set you back 9 grand....
> > >>
> > >> Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the context:
> > >>
> > >> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
> > >> playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to tailor
> > >> the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a good
> > >> point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
> > >> parametric EQ programs. A real live Sontec or Massenberg
> > >> Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9 grand.... "
> > >>
> > >> Note that the following was intentionally and
> > >> deceptively removed:
> > >>
> > >> "Now, you have a good point in which to start. Download
> > >> (if you can) some parametric EQ programs."
> > >
> > > There was no deception, Arns.
> > >
> > > Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a PC.
> >
> > By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He specfically recommended
> > downloading EQ programs.
>
> By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the computer to learn how
> to tailor an eq, then use this new skill on the regular system.
>
> The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects digital eqs.

Oh, so that's the deal? That would explain the 'if you can' [i.e.
download] comment.

If that's the case, I have some really old articles where audio gurus
argue that push-pull triodes with negative feedback (vs. pentodes) are
the way to go. I think the article specifically mentioned the 2A3 or
the 6B4G as a good choice.

I wonder what Arns would say about that...

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "dizzy" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dizzy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer
>>>>>>>> tries to compensate for deficiences of records he
>>>>>>>> must end-up with an incredible mess.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An invaluable contribution.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are stupid.
>>>>
>>>> My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.
>>>
>>> ==================================
>>> Krueger reaches for his truly convincing and elegant
>>> argument
>>>> My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.
>>>
>>> Not senile enough to forget that every time you're asked
>>> for a refernce to your experiments with ABX, accepted
>>> and published in a professional journal, you develop
>>> instant amnesia and quit the topic
>>
>> Boredom puts me to sleep.
> ============================
>
> Argument so far. Krueger about me:" > >> My money is on
> equal parts of arrogant and senile."
>
> I answered: > > Not senile enough to forget that every
> time you're asked
>>> for a refernce to your experiments with ABX, accepted
>>> and published in a professional journal, you develop
>>> instant amnesia and quit the topic
>
> His replica: "> Boredom puts me to sleep.". Period.
>
> Boredom is mutual but
> it is audio website news that after all these years even
> the inventor is bored with the topic of ABX as a tool for
> comparing audio components.


Your problem Mirabel is the fact that your demands are totally unfair. You
want ABX to be certified with a specific kind of peer-reviewed paper,
completely ignoring the fact that no other kind of listening evaluation
methodology has similar certification.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot Mirabel - some years ago you suggested
a subjective testing methodology in Audio Amateur. Where is the
correspoinding peer-reviewed paper *certifying* your methodology? Hint:
there is none.

In fact it has been certifed by peer-reviewed papers that there are severe
and critical problems with sighted evaluations. So why aren't you making a
big point of that?

> Can we expect to see those your dentiments added tp the
> PCABX web site?

I guarantee you that dentiments will never be posted at www.pcabx.com.

However, if you are interested in my thoughts in the matter of subjective
testing, check www.pcabx.com for the "10 Requiments" sidebar.

> Can we also expect that you and your chapel members such
> as Sullivan et al. will never again bother people to
> prove their preferences by an "objective", "bias free",
> (and other such clever-clever cryptonyms) "test"?

As soon as you can show us a peer-reviewed paper supporting the subjective
testing methodology you published in Audio Amateur.

[Arny Krueger]

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

After again being caught up in his own web of lies and deceptions, Shhhh!
I'm Listening to Reason!" (****R) has finally admitted that this is what
Steve Hoffman wrote about equalization:

> "So, we use *graphic EQ's* to tailor the sound of our
> *playback* systems, and we
> use *Parametric EQ's* to tailor the sound of our *music.*
> Right? Now, you have a
> good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
> parametric EQ programs."

> Graphic EQs for playback. Parametric EQs for music (i.e. source).

> It seems you recently admitted that 1/3 band
> graphic EQs won't cut it for playback.

There was no such *admission*. I have forthrightly said all along that if
there is a one size fits all form of equalization, the form I prefer, it is
the multi-band parametric equalizer. The downside of parametric eq is that
it has a longer or steeper learning curve. The upside is that it can more
closely match a wider range of needs.

> (How many times
> have you said "parametric EQs" in the past week?)

Search google. I'm sure its count is at least representative.

>So Hoffman does not imply, but specifically states,
> parametric EQs to tailor the *music.* Now we're back at
> production EQ, as I've said (three times now).

I'm glad to see that you've finally admitted to a little truth, ****R

> I haven't seen anybody argue that EQ is not used in production.

Someone tried. I think it was Trevor. Sorry you missed the fun.

> I hate to tell you this (and I know you won't believe it
> anyway) but you're talking out of both sides of your ass.

Prove it, with in-context quotes if you can.


>>> So what good would it do to 'download' EQ programs?

>> False presumption noted.

<no substantiative answer from ****R, just more BS.>

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>> wrote in message
>> ps.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>> >
>>>
>>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut (all
>>>>> quotes from the article, so I'm not messing with
>>>>> quotation marks):
>>>>>
>>>>> A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit
>>>>> can set you back 9 grand....
>>>>
>>>> Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
>>>> context:
>>>>
>>>> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
>>>> playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to tailor
>>>> the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a good
>>>> point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
>>>> parametric EQ programs. A real live Sontec or
>>>> Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9
>>>> grand.... "
>>>>
>>>> Note that the following was intentionally and
>>>> deceptively removed:
>>>>
>>>> "Now, you have a good point in which to start. Download
>>>> (if you can) some parametric EQ programs."
>>>
>>> There was no deception, Arns.
>>>
>>> Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a
>>> PC.
>>
>> By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He specfically
>> recommended downloading EQ programs.
>
> By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
> computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this new
> skill on the regular system.

Works for me. I

> The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects digital eqs.

Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
> > It seems you recently admitted that 1/3 band
> > graphic EQs won't cut it for playback.
>
> There was no such *admission*.

Maybe you *mentioned* it.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> substantiative answer from ****R,

That should be S!ILTR.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> >> wrote in message
> >> ps.com
> >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>>> >
> >>>
> >>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut (all
> >>>>> quotes from the article, so I'm not messing with
> >>>>> quotation marks):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit
> >>>>> can set you back 9 grand....
> >>>>
> >>>> Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
> >>>> context:
> >>>>
> >>>> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
> >>>> playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to tailor
> >>>> the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have a good
> >>>> point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
> >>>> parametric EQ programs. A real live Sontec or
> >>>> Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9
> >>>> grand.... "
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that the following was intentionally and
> >>>> deceptively removed:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Now, you have a good point in which to start. Download
> >>>> (if you can) some parametric EQ programs."
> >>>
> >>> There was no deception, Arns.
> >>>
> >>> Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a
> >>> PC.
> >>
> >> By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He specfically
> >> recommended downloading EQ programs.
> >
> > By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
> > computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this new
> > skill on the regular system.
>
> Works for me. I

I just wish his "lift points" coincided with my ITunes eq.

> > The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects digital eqs.
>
> Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.

His living is predominantly digital mastering and is an enthusiatic
supporter of hi-rez formats.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ps.com
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut
>>>>>>> (all quotes from the article, so I'm not messing
>>>>>>> with quotation marks):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit
>>>>>>> can set you back 9 grand....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
>>>>>> context:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
>>>>>> playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to
>>>>>> tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have
>>>>>> a good point in which to start. Download (if you
>>>>>> can) some parametric EQ programs. A real live Sontec
>>>>>> or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9
>>>>>> grand.... "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that the following was intentionally and
>>>>>> deceptively removed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Now, you have a good point in which to start.
>>>>>> Download (if you can) some parametric EQ programs."
>>>>>
>>>>> There was no deception, Arns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a
>>>>> PC.
>>>>
>>>> By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He specfically
>>>> recommended downloading EQ programs.
>>>
>>> By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
>>> computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this new
>>> skill on the regular system.
>>
>> Works for me. I
>
> I just wish his "lift points" coincided with my ITunes eq.
>
>>> The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects
>>> digital eqs.
>>
>> Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.
>
> His living is predominantly digital mastering and is an
> enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.

IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that 44/16 has inherent
audible difficulties.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> ps.com
>
> After again being caught up in his own web of lies and deceptions, Shhhh!
> I'm Listening to Reason!" (****R) has finally admitted that this is what
> Steve Hoffman wrote about equalization:

I've never said anything else, Arns. If you'd quit stroking your pecker
and learn to read...

> > "So, we use *graphic EQ's* to tailor the sound of our
> > *playback* systems, and we
> > use *Parametric EQ's* to tailor the sound of our *music.*
> > Right? Now, you have a
> > good point in which to start. Download (if you can) some
> > parametric EQ programs."
>
> > Graphic EQs for playback. Parametric EQs for music (i.e. source).
>
> > It seems you recently admitted that 1/3 band
> > graphic EQs won't cut it for playback.
>
> There was no such *admission*.

**********
> On a 1/3 octave, it is pretty hard to remove harshness.
> The bands are not broad enough.

Agreed. How many times have I said "parametric eq" in the past few
weeks?

**********

Whatever, Arns. Slice it any way that floats your boat.

> I have forthrightly said all along that if
> there is a one size fits all form of equalization, the form I prefer, it is
> the multi-band parametric equalizer. The downside of parametric eq is that
> it has a longer or steeper learning curve. The upside is that it can more
> closely match a wider range of needs.
>
> > (How many times
> > have you said "parametric EQs" in the past week?)
>
> Search google. I'm sure its count is at least representative.

Why bother? The pertinent one is requoted above.

> >So Hoffman does not imply, but specifically states,
> > parametric EQs to tailor the *music.* Now we're back at
> > production EQ, as I've said (three times now).
>
> I'm glad to see that you've finally admitted to a little truth, ****R

LOL! So you caught it the third time around. Well, it could've been on
the fourth go around, so at least you eventually got it.

That doesn't, however, say much for your internal logic circuit or
computing power, Arns.

> > I haven't seen anybody argue that EQ is not used in production.
>
> Someone tried. I think it was Trevor. Sorry you missed the fun.

Whatever, Arns. I'm sure someone, somewhere, has. It was not in this
discussion.

Wait! I remember now! There was an article in Popular Electronics in
1965 where this guy argued against it too.

> > I hate to tell you this (and I know you won't believe it
> > anyway) but you're talking out of both sides of your ass.
>
> Prove it, with in-context quotes if you can.

Been there, done that. Asked and answered.

> >>> So what good would it do to 'download' EQ programs?
>
> >> False presumption noted.
>
> <no substantiative answer from ****R, just more BS.>

Uh-oh! Arns is stuck in 'attack mode' now.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > substantiative answer from ****R,
>
> That should be S!ILTR.

Thanks, Stephen, but from what I've gathered here, Arns has a scat
fetish.

I'm OK with his interpretation as long as there isn't a sexual
connotation to it.

[Arny Krueger]

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

> Uh-oh! Arns is stuck in 'attack mode' now.

Do you have any mode but "attack mode"?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>>> > wrote in message
> >>>> ps.com
> >>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut
> >>>>>>> (all quotes from the article, so I'm not messing
> >>>>>>> with quotation marks):
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit
> >>>>>>> can set you back 9 grand....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
> >>>>>> context:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
> >>>>>> playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to
> >>>>>> tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have
> >>>>>> a good point in which to start. Download (if you
> >>>>>> can) some parametric EQ programs. A real live Sontec
> >>>>>> or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9
> >>>>>> grand.... "
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note that the following was intentionally and
> >>>>>> deceptively removed:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Now, you have a good point in which to start.
> >>>>>> Download (if you can) some parametric EQ programs."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There was no deception, Arns.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a
> >>>>> PC.
> >>>>
> >>>> By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He specfically
> >>>> recommended downloading EQ programs.
> >>>
> >>> By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
> >>> computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this new
> >>> skill on the regular system.
> >>
> >> Works for me. I
> >
> > I just wish his "lift points" coincided with my ITunes eq.
> >
> >>> The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects
> >>> digital eqs.
> >>
> >> Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.
> >
> > His living is predominantly digital mastering and is an
> > enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.
>
> IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that 44/16 has inherent
> audible difficulties.

Arns, does people making money upset you for some reason?

You're not jealous, are you?;-)

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> >, "Arny
>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ps.com
>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut
>>>>>>>> (all quotes from the article, so I'm not messing
>>>>>>>> with quotation marks):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit
>>>>>>>> can set you back 9 grand....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
>>>>>>> context:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
>>>>>>> playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to
>>>>>>> tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have
>>>>>>> a good point in which to start. Download (if you
>>>>>>> can) some parametric EQ programs. A real live Sontec
>>>>>>> or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9
>>>>>>> grand.... "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that the following was intentionally and
>>>>>>> deceptively removed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Now, you have a good point in which to start.
>>>>>>> Download (if you can) some parametric EQ programs."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was no deception, Arns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a
>>>>>> PC.
>>>>>
>>>>> By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He specfically
>>>>> recommended downloading EQ programs.
>>>>
>>>> By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
>>>> computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this new
>>>> skill on the regular system.
>>>
>>> Works for me. I
>>
>> I just wish his "lift points" coincided with my ITunes eq.
>>
>>>> The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects
>>>> digital eqs.
>>>
>>> Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.
>>
>> His living is predominantly digital mastering and is an
>> enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.
>
> IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that 44/16 has inherent
> audible difficulties.

Yeah, that is why he is one of the pre-eminent CD masterers, right Arny?
Would help if you knew what you were talking about.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message

> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> >> His living is predominantly digital mastering and is an
> >> enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.
> >
> > IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that 44/16 has inherent
> > audible difficulties.
>
> Yeah, that is why he is one of the pre-eminent CD masterers, right Arny?
> Would help if you knew what you were talking about.

Arny quotes a guy as an expert to prove some point he's attempting to
make, screws the point up hopelessly, then tries to impeach the witness
he's just quoted as an expert.

He must be all agitated thinking about his new nickname for me. '****R'
must get him really wound up.

LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

"****R!" >
wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ""****R!"
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ps.com
>>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "****R!" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut
>>>>>>>>> (all quotes from the article, so I'm not messing
>>>>>>>>> with quotation marks):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ
>>>>>>>>> unit can set you back 9 grand....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
>>>>>>>> context:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
>>>>>>>> playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to
>>>>>>>> tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have
>>>>>>>> a good point in which to start. Download (if you
>>>>>>>> can) some parametric EQ programs. A real live
>>>>>>>> Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set
>>>>>>>> you back 9 grand.... "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note that the following was intentionally and
>>>>>>>> deceptively removed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Now, you have a good point in which to start.
>>>>>>>> Download (if you can) some parametric EQ programs."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was no deception, Arns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Normal people do not have their systems hooked into
>>>>>>> a PC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He
>>>>>> specfically recommended downloading EQ programs.
>>>>>
>>>>> By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
>>>>> computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this
>>>>> new skill on the regular system.
>>>>
>>>> Works for me. I
>>>
>>> I just wish his "lift points" coincided with my ITunes
>>> eq.

>>>>> The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects
>>>>> digital eqs.

>>>> Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.

>>> His living is predominantly digital mastering and is an
>>> enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.

>> IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that
>> 44/16 has inherent audible difficulties.

> Arns, does people making money upset you for some reason?

Being an avowed capitalist, I'm very much in favor of people making money by
honest means.

> You're not jealous, are you?;-)

Of course not. Why would you bring such a strange idea up?

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ps.com
>>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut
>>>>>>>>> (all quotes from the article, so I'm not messing
>>>>>>>>> with quotation marks):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ
>>>>>>>>> unit can set you back 9 grand....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
>>>>>>>> context:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
>>>>>>>> playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to
>>>>>>>> tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have
>>>>>>>> a good point in which to start. Download (if you
>>>>>>>> can) some parametric EQ programs. A real live
>>>>>>>> Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set
>>>>>>>> you back 9 grand.... "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note that the following was intentionally and
>>>>>>>> deceptively removed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Now, you have a good point in which to start.
>>>>>>>> Download (if you can) some parametric EQ programs."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was no deception, Arns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Normal people do not have their systems hooked into
>>>>>>> a PC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He
>>>>>> specfically recommended downloading EQ programs.
>>>>>
>>>>> By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
>>>>> computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this
>>>>> new skill on the regular system.
>>>>
>>>> Works for me. I
>>>
>>> I just wish his "lift points" coincided with my ITunes
>>> eq.
>>>>> The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects
>>>>> digital eqs.
>>>>
>>>> Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.
>>>
>>> His living is predominantly digital mastering and is an
>>> enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.
>>
>> IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that
>> 44/16 has inherent audible difficulties.
>
> Yeah, that is why he is one of the pre-eminent CD
> masterers, right Arny?

Think that Hoffman charges the same for mastering both CD and HiRez formats?
Think he faces similar competive pressures no matter which format the job
is?

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> > Yeah, that is why he is one of the pre-eminent CD masterers, right Arny?
> > Would help if you knew what you were talking about.

> Arny quotes a guy as an expert to prove some point he's attempting to
> make, screws the point up hopelessly, then tries to impeach the witness
> he's just quoted as an expert.

Arnii is a "master of the debating trade". Just for grins™, ask him to
expound on his kredentials.

> He must be all agitated thinking about his new nickname for me. '****R'
> must get him really wound up.

Well, of course. It's almost lunchtime.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "****R!" >

Wow. You went to the trouble of changing that, just for little old me?
LOL!

Arns, get over your poop thing, or at least try to keep it private.

> > Arny Krueger wrote:

> >> IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that
> >> 44/16 has inherent audible difficulties.
>
> > Arns, does people making money upset you for some reason?
>
> Being an avowed capitalist, I'm very much in favor of people making money by
> honest means.

Are you implying that Hoffman has done something dishonest?

> > You're not jealous, are you?;-)
>
> Of course not. Why would you bring such a strange idea up?

Because your justifications about audiophile companies always seem to
revolve around money.

But you knew that. You're just playing dumb.

You *are* playing, aren't you?

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
>>>> His living is predominantly digital mastering and is an
>>>> enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.
>>>
>>> IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that
>>> 44/16 has inherent audible difficulties.

>> Yeah, that is why he is one of the pre-eminent CD
>> masterers, right Arny?

Mastering CDs is a highly competitive business, and I doubt that there are
few who will pay Hoffman his going rate to master a CD. OTOH, there's a
ghost of a chance that he can catch a little premium priced business by
pandering to the vinyl, SACD, and DVD-A market.

> Arny quotes a guy as an expert to prove some point he's
> attempting to make, screws the point up hopelessly, then
> tries to impeach the witness he's just quoted as an
> expert.


More like, in an attempt to find an authority that says what vinyl bigots
want to hear, I could do no better than to find someone who is more than a
little bit unstable. Proceeding bravely, I found where, in what may be a
random fit of rationality, he said a sensible thing or two about the use of
equalizers.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> > Yeah, that is why he is one of the pre-eminent CD
> > masterers, right Arny?
>
> Think that Hoffman charges the same for mastering both CD and HiRez formats?
> Think he faces similar competive pressures no matter which format the job
> is?

Think Arns has one ounce of proof as to what Hoffman charges, or how
much competition he faces?

And again, we're back to money.

Arns, if you're not getting enough to eat there are food shelves or
government programs that can help you.

[George M. Middius]

PovertyBorg rails against the unfairness of human society.

> > Arns, does people making money upset you for some reason?

> Being an avowed capitalist, I'm very much in favor of people making money by
> honest means.

Are you lying, Arnii?

> > You're not jealous, are you?;-)

> Of course not. Why would you bring such a strange idea up?

Maybe because you've bitched about your poverty hundreds of times.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> ups.com
> > Harry Lavo wrote:
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >
> >>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >
> >>>> His living is predominantly digital mastering and is an
> >>>> enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.
> >>>
> >>> IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that
> >>> 44/16 has inherent audible difficulties.
>
> >> Yeah, that is why he is one of the pre-eminent CD
> >> masterers, right Arny?

Paragraph one: mastering CDs.

> Mastering CDs is a highly competitive business, and I doubt that there are
> few who will pay Hoffman his going rate to master a CD. OTOH, there's a
> ghost of a chance that he can catch a little premium priced business by
> pandering to the vinyl, SACD, and DVD-A market.
>
> > Arny quotes a guy as an expert to prove some point he's
> > attempting to make, screws the point up hopelessly, then
> > tries to impeach the witness he's just quoted as an
> > expert.

Paragraph two: "vinyl bigots."

> More like, in an attempt to find an authority that says what vinyl bigots
> want to hear, I could do no better than to find someone who is more than a
> little bit unstable. Proceeding bravely, I found where, in what may be a
> random fit of rationality, he said a sensible thing or two about the use of
> equalizers.

So are you talking about CDs, LPs, or don't you know WTF you are
talking about?

(I already know the answer to this one...)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> ups.com
>
> > Uh-oh! Arns is stuck in 'attack mode' now.
>
> Do you have any mode but "attack mode"?

Oh boy! Let's do this all day!

Do you, Arns?

[Sander deWaal]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > said:


>If that's the case, I have some really old articles where audio gurus
>argue that push-pull triodes with negative feedback (vs. pentodes) are
>the way to go. I think the article specifically mentioned the 2A3 or
>the 6B4G as a good choice.


They still say things like that today.

Heck, even I did recently ;-)
(excellent choice of tubes and circuit IMO)


>I wonder what Arns would say about that...


Ever since Arny "fixxed radar's in the snoww", he loathes tubes.

Goggle© agrees, asked and answered LOL! ;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>However, if you are interested in my thoughts in the matter of subjective
>testing, check www.pcabx.com for the "10 Requiments" sidebar.


I'm sorry, but I never got past the "Engineer's prayer".

That makes me laugh so hard, my belly aches every time I'm seeing that
page.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> >, "Arny
>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ps.com
>>>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut
>>>>>>>>>> (all quotes from the article, so I'm not messing
>>>>>>>>>> with quotation marks):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ
>>>>>>>>>> unit can set you back 9 grand....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
>>>>>>>>> context:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
>>>>>>>>> playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to
>>>>>>>>> tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have
>>>>>>>>> a good point in which to start. Download (if you
>>>>>>>>> can) some parametric EQ programs. A real live
>>>>>>>>> Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set
>>>>>>>>> you back 9 grand.... "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note that the following was intentionally and
>>>>>>>>> deceptively removed:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Now, you have a good point in which to start.
>>>>>>>>> Download (if you can) some parametric EQ programs."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was no deception, Arns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Normal people do not have their systems hooked into
>>>>>>>> a PC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He
>>>>>>> specfically recommended downloading EQ programs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
>>>>>> computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this
>>>>>> new skill on the regular system.
>>>>>
>>>>> Works for me. I
>>>>
>>>> I just wish his "lift points" coincided with my ITunes
>>>> eq.
>>>>>> The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects
>>>>>> digital eqs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.
>>>>
>>>> His living is predominantly digital mastering and is an
>>>> enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.
>>>
>>> IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that
>>> 44/16 has inherent audible difficulties.
>>
>> Yeah, that is why he is one of the pre-eminent CD
>> masterers, right Arny?
>
> Think that Hoffman charges the same for mastering both CD and HiRez
> formats? Think he faces similar competive pressures no matter which format
> the job is?

I think he is well paid for all his work. He has the reputation to achieve
it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>
>> However, if you are interested in my thoughts in the
>> matter of subjective testing, check www.pcabx.com for
>> the "10 Requiments" sidebar.
>
>
> I'm sorry, but I never got past the "Engineer's prayer".

No such thing exists on that site.

I'm sorry Sander but I never got past the fact that you can't seem to bring
up any relevant topics in audio, and can't properly respond to the ones that
are brought up by someone else. Typical of someone who has been caught
sleeping at the proverbial switch, way too many times.

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message

> On 5 Nov 2006 13:00:02 -0800, "
> > wrote:
>
>> This is his advice in the "Sound card versus..." thread
>> to a Mr. Zheng.
>>
>> "At this time, a $30 sound card for example the
>> SoundBlaster Live! 24-bit PCI
>> card (not the USB version which is a POS) outperforms
>> just about any loudspeaker system known to man"
>>
>> Poor Mr. Zheng. He might take Arny's wooden ears as his
>> hi-fi standard..
>> Ludovic Mirabel
>
> I don't actually see anything wrong with that statement.
> Loudspeaker systems are well-known to be a weak link in
> the recording/reproduction chain. They certainly exhibit
> more deviations from accuracy than a sound card like Arny
> mentions does.

Elmir and computer literacy never really met up and produced any kind of
synergistic combination. He throws a fit like this whenever one of his
betters mentions audio and computers in the same breath. Don't ask him what
happened when he tried to use one of the PCABX comparators - he saw a
standard file open menu for the first time, and just plain dead fainted
away.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ps.com
>>>>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut
>>>>>>>>>>> (all quotes from the article, so I'm not messing
>>>>>>>>>>> with quotation marks):
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ
>>>>>>>>>>> unit can set you back 9 grand....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
>>>>>>>>>> context:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of
>>>>>>>>>> our playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's
>>>>>>>>>> to tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now,
>>>>>>>>>> you have a good point in which to start.
>>>>>>>>>> Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
>>>>>>>>>> programs. A real live Sontec or Massenberg
>>>>>>>>>> Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9 grand.... "
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note that the following was intentionally and
>>>>>>>>>> deceptively removed:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Now, you have a good point in which to start.
>>>>>>>>>> Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
>>>>>>>>>> programs."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There was no deception, Arns.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Normal people do not have their systems hooked
>>>>>>>>> into a PC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He
>>>>>>>> specfically recommended downloading EQ programs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
>>>>>>> computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this
>>>>>>> new skill on the regular system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Works for me. I
>>>>>
>>>>> I just wish his "lift points" coincided with my ITunes
>>>>> eq.
>>>>>>> The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects
>>>>>>> digital eqs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.
>>>>>
>>>>> His living is predominantly digital mastering and is
>>>>> an enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.
>>>>
>>>> IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that
>>>> 44/16 has inherent audible difficulties.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that is why he is one of the pre-eminent CD
>>> masterers, right Arny?
>>
>> Think that Hoffman charges the same for mastering both
>> CD and HiRez formats? Think he faces similar competive
>> pressures no matter which format the job is?
>
> I think he is well paid for all his work. He has the
> reputation to achieve it.

I'm sure his mother agrees with you, Harry. BTW, you aren't his mother in
male drag, are you? ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

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

>> Being an avowed capitalist, I'm very much in favor of
>> people making money by honest means.

> Are you implying that Hoffman has done something
> dishonest?

I haven't thought about that very much. Why do you ask?

>>> You're not jealous, are you?;-)

>> Of course not. Why would you bring such a strange idea
>> up?

> Because your justifications about audiophile companies
> always seem to revolve around money.

The practice of business and engineering are closely related to
cost-effectiveness, which of course revolves around money. Are you saying
that anybody who is interested in business or engineering is jealous of
people who have or spend money?

<snip childish insults>

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message


> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 09:47:19 -0500, "Harry Lavo"
> > wrote:


>>> IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that
>>> 44/16 has inherent audible difficulties.

>> Yeah, that is why he is one of the pre-eminent CD
>> masterers, right Arny?

> I don't see these as being mutually exclusive things.

In some cases, convincing people that 44/16 is inherent audible difficulties
is a great sales pitch for a high-priced CD mastering guy. People need his
services in order to circumvent the audible difficulties, or so he might
want people to believe.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>>> However, if you are interested in my thoughts in the
>>> matter of subjective testing, check www.pcabx.com for
>>> the "10 Requiments" sidebar.


>> I'm sorry, but I never got past the "Engineer's prayer".


>No such thing exists on that site.


Thank God there isn't. Embarrassing, no?
But you're right, it's on some other piece of trash site
http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/index.htm.

Sorry.


>I'm sorry Sander but I never got past the fact that you can't seem to bring
>up any relevant topics in audio, and can't properly respond to the ones that
>are brought up by someone else. Typical of someone who has been caught
>sleeping at the proverbial switch, way too many times.


LoT;'S! ;-)
I only wake up when someone throws the switch.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[[email protected]]

Here in Ohio wrote:
> On 5 Nov 2006 13:00:02 -0800, " >
> wrote:
>
> >This is his advice in the "Sound card versus..." thread to a Mr. Zheng.
> >
> >"At this time, a $30 sound card for example the SoundBlaster Live!
> >24-bit PCI
> >card (not the USB version which is a POS) outperforms just about any
> >loudspeaker system known to man"
> >
> >Poor Mr. Zheng. He might take Arny's wooden ears as his hi-fi
> >standard..
> >Ludovic Mirabel
>
> I don't actually see anything wrong with that statement. Loudspeaker
> systems are well-known to be a weak link in the recording/reproduction
> chain. They certainly exhibit more deviations from accuracy than a
> sound card like Arny mentions does.

=====================================

The gentleman from Ohio says:
> I don't actually see anything wrong with that statement. Loudspeaker
> systems are well-known to be a weak link in the recording/reproduction
> chain. They certainly exhibit more deviations from accuracy than a
> sound card like Arny mentions does.

I know of several things more accurate than a loudspeaker and even than
the soundblaster card: a resistor, a cap, a piece of wire. Lots of
choices for advising Mr. Zheng how to replace a loudspeaker system.
Take your pick.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Here in Ohio wrote:

>> On 5 Nov 2006 13:00:02 -0800, "
>> > wrote:

>>> This is his advice in the "Sound card versus..." thread
>>> to a Mr. Zheng.

>>> "At this time, a $30 sound card for example the
>>> SoundBlaster Live! 24-bit PCI
>>> card (not the USB version which is a POS) outperforms
>>> just about any loudspeaker system known to man"

>>> Poor Mr. Zheng. He might take Arny's wooden ears as his
>>> hi-fi standard..

> The gentleman from Ohio says:
>> I don't actually see anything wrong with that statement.
>> Loudspeaker systems are well-known to be a weak link in
>> the recording/reproduction chain. They certainly exhibit
>> more deviations from accuracy than a sound card like
>> Arny mentions does.

> I know of several things more accurate than a loudspeaker
> and even than the soundblaster card: a resistor, a cap, a
> piece of wire. Lots of choices for advising Mr. Zheng how
> to replace a loudspeaker system. Take your pick.

Under some circumstances the sound card can outperform certain resistors,
capacitors, and certain pieces of wire.

Examples: An inductive wirewound resistor, an unbiased tantalum electrolytic
capacitor, and a piece of wire long enough for capacitive or inductive
effects to be measurable.

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:14:50 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 09:47:19 -0500, "Harry Lavo"
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that
>>>>> 44/16 has inherent audible difficulties.
>>
>>>> Yeah, that is why he is one of the pre-eminent CD
>>>> masterers, right Arny?
>>
>>> I don't see these as being mutually exclusive things.
>>
>> In some cases, convincing people that 44/16 is inherent
>> audible difficulties is a great sales pitch for a
>> high-priced CD mastering guy. People need his services
>> in order to circumvent the audible difficulties, or so
>> he might want people to believe.
>>
>
> Yes, but it doesn't preclude his being good at mastering
> CDs.

Agreed. Indeed, I have no doubt that Hoffman is very skilled at making
good-sounding CDs. God bless him! However, it would be cool if he would not
hurt his crediblity by all of his hooting and hollering that his job is like
mission impossible.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>>> > wrote in message
> >>>> ps.com
> >>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut
> >>>>>>> (all quotes from the article, so I'm not messing
> >>>>>>> with quotation marks):
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit
> >>>>>>> can set you back 9 grand....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
> >>>>>> context:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
> >>>>>> playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to
> >>>>>> tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have
> >>>>>> a good point in which to start. Download (if you
> >>>>>> can) some parametric EQ programs. A real live Sontec
> >>>>>> or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9
> >>>>>> grand.... "
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note that the following was intentionally and
> >>>>>> deceptively removed:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Now, you have a good point in which to start.
> >>>>>> Download (if you can) some parametric EQ programs."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There was no deception, Arns.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Normal people do not have their systems hooked into a
> >>>>> PC.
> >>>>
> >>>> By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He specfically
> >>>> recommended downloading EQ programs.
> >>>
> >>> By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
> >>> computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this new
> >>> skill on the regular system.
> >>
> >> Works for me. I
> >
> > I just wish his "lift points" coincided with my ITunes eq.
> >
> >>> The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects
> >>> digital eqs.
> >>
> >> Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.
> >
> > His living is predominantly digital mastering and is an
> > enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.
>
> IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that 44/16 has inherent
> audible difficulties.

Aside from a few lps, his current work is released on cd.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com
> >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>> "dizzy" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> dizzy wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer
> >>>>>>>> tries to compensate for deficiences of records he
> >>>>>>>> must end-up with an incredible mess.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Incorrect.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> An invaluable contribution.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are stupid.
> >>>>
> >>>> My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.
> >>>
> >>> ==================================
> >>> Krueger reaches for his truly convincing and elegant
> >>> argument
> >>>> My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.
> >>>
> >>> Not senile enough to forget that every time you're asked
> >>> for a refernce to your experiments with ABX, accepted
> >>> and published in a professional journal, you develop
> >>> instant amnesia and quit the topic
> >>
> >> Boredom puts me to sleep.
> > ============================
> >
> > Argument so far. Krueger about me:" > >> My money is on
> > equal parts of arrogant and senile."
> >
> > I answered: > > Not senile enough to forget that every
> > time you're asked
> >>> for a refernce to your experiments with ABX, accepted
> >>> and published in a professional journal, you develop
> >>> instant amnesia and quit the topic
> >
> > His replica: "> Boredom puts me to sleep.". Period.
> >
> > Boredom is mutual but
> > it is audio website news that after all these years even
> > the inventor is bored with the topic of ABX as a tool for
> > comparing audio components.
>
> Let's put the shoe on the other foot Mirabel - some years ago you suggested
> a subjective testing methodology in Audio Amateur. Where is the
> correspoinding peer-reviewed paper *certifying* your methodology? Hint:
> there is none.
>
> In fact it has been certifed by peer-reviewed papers that there are severe
> and critical problems with sighted evaluations. So why aren't you making a
> big point of that?
>
> > Can we expect to see those your dentiments added tp the
> > PCABX web site?
>
> I guarantee you that dentiments will never be posted at www.pcabx.com.
>
> However, if you are interested in my thoughts in the matter of subjective
> testing, check www.pcabx.com for the "10 Requiments" sidebar.
>
> > Can we also expect that you and your chapel members such
> > as Sullivan et al. will never again bother people to
> > prove their preferences by an "objective", "bias free",
> > (and other such clever-clever cryptonyms) "test"?
>
> As soon as you can show us a peer-reviewed paper supporting the subjective
> testing methodology you published in Audio Amateur.

=================================

Arny challenges

> Your problem Mirabel is the fact that your demands are totally unfair. You
> want ABX to be certified with a specific kind of peer-reviewed paper,
> completely ignoring the fact that no other kind of listening evaluation
> methodology has similar certification.

Thanks for acknowledging ( at last) that your "test" was never
validated by experimentation that would make it worthy of publication
in a professional journal.

Definition of *test* from Wikipedia:
"Test and experiment form parts of the scientific method, to verify or
falsify an expectation with an observation". A test is a part of
scientific method, scientifically validated by experimentation. It is
not something that you dream up one night, publish on the web and then
market a switch for performing it.

> ....completely ignoring the fact that no other kind of listening evaluation
> methodology has similar certification.

No Master Krueger,( the self-proclaimed Gulliver amongst Liliputians),
this time your usual squid ink release will not do. Name those other
audio "listening evaluations" for audio component comparing that have a
web site and a gadget for Tom, Dick and Harry consumers to use. Forget
"others" - just ONE will do.

Krueger now produces his last ditch argument an ad hominem body blow:

> Let's put the shoe on the other foot Mirabel - some years ago you suggested
> a subjective testing methodology in Audio Amateur. Where is the
> correspoinding peer-reviewed paper *certifying* your methodology? Hint:
> there is none

Thank you for acknowledging that neither you nor I have any scientific
basis for proclaiming a TEST.

Thanks for your honesty in acknowledging that it was devised to be a
SUBJECTIVE method.

But no thanks for trying next to obfusccate the difference.. From the
start and several times since I said I did not have a TEST. Explicitly,
clearly.
On Sept. 23 2003 I said in RAHE:

"I'll re-re-re repeat a disclaimer. I'm not proposing a "test" and
I'm not into research.... .
A true "test" must be repeatable by the population at which it is
aimed- in this case the "audiophile" motley crew: from the car-audio
to chamber music lovers. Such a "test" does not exist. DBT is not that
and I have not invented one.
I'm describing one of the ways of avoiding sighted bias that works
for me and some others but may not work for "us". ."

And after redescribing my left-right method for home use by listeners I
reemphasised:

"NB. This is not a universally applicable "test". It is a method
that suits me because it involves no memory feats that are beyond me
and many others. I have no universal "scientific" pretensions. I only
use it to reassure myself that I'm not a victim of delusionary bias."

The difference is between a precise outlining of the use AND THE
LIMITATIONS of a method and phony claims to a "scientific" magic bullet
with "objective", non-biased" validity.based on hot air.

For your delight since you insist on resurrecting a topic that I gave
up to a stirred hornets' nest I'll repeat it.and face the buzz once
once more.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> He throws a fit like this whenever one of his
> betters mentions audio and computers in the same breath.

ROTFLMAO!

Thank you, Arny, for conclusively showing the world that you have no
self-perception...

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Sander deWaal wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > said:
>
>
> >If that's the case, I have some really old articles where audio gurus
> >argue that push-pull triodes with negative feedback (vs. pentodes) are
> >the way to go. I think the article specifically mentioned the 2A3 or
> >the 6B4G as a good choice.

> They still say things like that today.
>
> Heck, even I did recently ;-)
> (excellent choice of tubes and circuit IMO)

Agreed. I've never heard a HV triode in PP, like a 211, have you? I'll
bet it's glorious. No whimpy 1w SE amps there...

> >I wonder what Arns would say about that...

> Ever since Arny "fixxed radar's in the snoww", he loathes tubes.

Why am I not surprised? He doesn't seem to like anything else that
sounds good either.

> Goggle© agrees, asked and answered LOL! ;-)

Perhaps he tested TWTs in-circuit by standing in a bathtub one too many
times LotS;!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Here in Ohio wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2006 08:00:59 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Because your justifications about audiophile companies always seem to
> >revolve around money.
> >
>
> I see nothing wrong with pointing out when an "audiophile" company
> says or does something that has no benefit for (or is actually
> detrimental to) the music, but is simply a source of extra profit.
>
> Expensive power cords are a sterling example. Anyone who sells these
> is enriching themselves at the expense of their neurotic customers and
> is quite simply a crook.

Is someone passing a collection plate at the local church equally as
guilty, IYO?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> >> Being an avowed capitalist, I'm very much in favor of
> >> people making money by honest means.
>
> > Are you implying that Hoffman has done something
> > dishonest?
>
> I haven't thought about that very much. Why do you ask?
>
> >>> You're not jealous, are you?;-)
>
> >> Of course not. Why would you bring such a strange idea
> >> up?
>
> > Because your justifications about audiophile companies
> > always seem to revolve around money.
>
> The practice of business and engineering are closely related to
> cost-effectiveness, which of course revolves around money. Are you saying
> that anybody who is interested in business or engineering is jealous of
> people who have or spend money?

I find it odd that someone would care what another business, or another
engineer, is doing with their money. Normal businesspeople do not care
what other businesses do with their money. The only time the engineers
that I know care what other engineers do is when it affects them.

Wouldn't you find an interest in what other businesses, or what other
engineers, do with their money somewhat odd, especially since they do
not affect you?

Normal people would too.

So we agree after all!

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com
> Here in Ohio wrote:
>> On 6 Nov 2006 08:00:59 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to
>> Reason!" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Because your justifications about audiophile companies
>>> always seem to revolve around money.
>>>
>>
>> I see nothing wrong with pointing out when an
>> "audiophile" company says or does something that has no
>> benefit for (or is actually detrimental to) the music,
>> but is simply a source of extra profit.
>>
>> Expensive power cords are a sterling example. Anyone who
>> sells these is enriching themselves at the expense of
>> their neurotic customers and is quite simply a crook.
>
> Is someone passing a collection plate at the local church
> equally as guilty, IYO?


I take it then that you are against fraternal organizations soliciting their
members for contributions?

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>> wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>
>>>> Being an avowed capitalist, I'm very much in favor of
>>>> people making money by honest means.
>>
>>> Are you implying that Hoffman has done something
>>> dishonest?
>>
>> I haven't thought about that very much. Why do you ask?
>>
>>>>> You're not jealous, are you?;-)
>>
>>>> Of course not. Why would you bring such a strange idea
>>>> up?
>>
>>> Because your justifications about audiophile companies
>>> always seem to revolve around money.
>>
>> The practice of business and engineering are closely
>> related to cost-effectiveness, which of course revolves
>> around money. Are you saying that anybody who is
>> interested in business or engineering is jealous of
>> people who have or spend money?
>
> I find it odd that someone would care what another
> business, or another engineer, is doing with their money.

Tell that to the Federal Government. Or, have you never filled out a tax
return?

> Normal businesspeople do not care what other businesses
> do with their money.

That's why business magazines publish summaries of financial results from a
wide range of busineses - nobody cares about what other businesses do with
their money? ****R are you really that stupid or do you merely totally
disrespect the intelligence of the people who read this forum?

> The only time the engineers that I
> know care what other engineers do is when it affects
> them.

Then you don't believe that there is such a thing as competition among
businesses?

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:05:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:14:50 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 09:47:19 -0500, "Harry Lavo"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people
>>>>>>> that 44/16 has inherent audible difficulties.
>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, that is why he is one of the pre-eminent CD
>>>>>> masterers, right Arny?
>>>>
>>>>> I don't see these as being mutually exclusive things.
>>>>
>>>> In some cases, convincing people that 44/16 is inherent
>>>> audible difficulties is a great sales pitch for a
>>>> high-priced CD mastering guy. People need his
>>>> services in order to circumvent the audible
>>>> difficulties, or so he might want people to believe.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but it doesn't preclude his being good at mastering
>>> CDs.
>>
>> Agreed. Indeed, I have no doubt that Hoffman is very
>> skilled at making good-sounding CDs. God bless him!
>> However, it would be cool if he would not hurt his
>> crediblity by all of his hooting and hollering that his
>> job is like mission impossible.

> Yes, although his technical credibility probably doesn't
> have much influence on whether he gets selected to master
> a CD or not.

Huh?

> It's probably good business to pretend you eff the ineffable.

Yes, its just a form of hype.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ps.com
>>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut
>>>>>>>>> (all quotes from the article, so I'm not messing
>>>>>>>>> with quotation marks):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ
>>>>>>>>> unit can set you back 9 grand....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
>>>>>>>> context:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
>>>>>>>> playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to
>>>>>>>> tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have
>>>>>>>> a good point in which to start. Download (if you
>>>>>>>> can) some parametric EQ programs. A real live
>>>>>>>> Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set
>>>>>>>> you back 9 grand.... "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note that the following was intentionally and
>>>>>>>> deceptively removed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Now, you have a good point in which to start.
>>>>>>>> Download (if you can) some parametric EQ programs."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was no deception, Arns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Normal people do not have their systems hooked into
>>>>>>> a PC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He
>>>>>> specfically recommended downloading EQ programs.
>>>>>
>>>>> By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
>>>>> computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this
>>>>> new skill on the regular system.
>>>>
>>>> Works for me. I
>>>
>>> I just wish his "lift points" coincided with my ITunes
>>> eq.
>>>
>>>>> The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects
>>>>> digital eqs.
>>>>
>>>> Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.
>>>
>>> His living is predominantly digital mastering and is an
>>> enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.
>>
>> IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that
>> 44/16 has inherent audible difficulties.
>
> Aside from a few lps, his current work is released on cd.

So his efforts to market himself to the SACD and DVD-A market is failing?

Or, are you just pointing out by implication that there is not a heck of a
lot of current work being released on SACD and DVD-A?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> ups.com
> > Here in Ohio wrote:
> >> On 6 Nov 2006 08:00:59 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to
> >> Reason!" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Because your justifications about audiophile companies
> >>> always seem to revolve around money.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I see nothing wrong with pointing out when an
> >> "audiophile" company says or does something that has no
> >> benefit for (or is actually detrimental to) the music,
> >> but is simply a source of extra profit.
> >>
> >> Expensive power cords are a sterling example. Anyone who
> >> sells these is enriching themselves at the expense of
> >> their neurotic customers and is quite simply a crook.
> >
> > Is someone passing a collection plate at the local church
> > equally as guilty, IYO?

> I take it then that you are against fraternal organizations soliciting their
> members for contributions?

Why would I be? Are fraternal organizations, like the church, selling
things of unproven or dubious value to their neurotic customers based
entirely (as in 100%) on nothing more than beliefs?

Or are you saying that your church is in reality nothing more than a
fraternal organization like the Fraternal Order of Eagles, a place to
go have a couple of beers after work? Would that make the minister
something like the Grand Poobah?

People give money to the church. It makes them feel better about
themselves. This is, I would suppose, OK with you.

Other people buy silver wire with 'hospital-grade' plugs. It makes them
feel better about themselves and their system. This is obviously *not*
OK with you.

Yet both are based on absolutely nothing more than beliefs that it
somehow helps.

You *are* going to heaven, aren't you, Arns? Angels and lyres and all?
You're going to beat that mean old devil down, aren't you? Hallelujah!

You've bought into a bigger hoax than the person who buys a $300 power
cord. It's ironic that you apparently can't see the comparison.

Or perhaps you really don't buy any of that salvation stuff. You could
just be in it for the networking, like a fraternal order. That's cool.
I don't buy it either.

But you do and believe as you do. I just don't see why (in your eyes)
they can't do and believe as they do. You do no more than the
equivalent of forcing your religious beliefs on others.

Which seems very hypocritical to me.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> >> wrote in message
> >> oups.com
> >>
> >>>> Being an avowed capitalist, I'm very much in favor of
> >>>> people making money by honest means.
> >>
> >>> Are you implying that Hoffman has done something
> >>> dishonest?
> >>
> >> I haven't thought about that very much. Why do you ask?
> >>
> >>>>> You're not jealous, are you?;-)
> >>
> >>>> Of course not. Why would you bring such a strange idea
> >>>> up?
> >>
> >>> Because your justifications about audiophile companies
> >>> always seem to revolve around money.
> >>
> >> The practice of business and engineering are closely
> >> related to cost-effectiveness, which of course revolves
> >> around money. Are you saying that anybody who is
> >> interested in business or engineering is jealous of
> >> people who have or spend money?
> >
> > I find it odd that someone would care what another
> > business, or another engineer, is doing with their money.
>
> Tell that to the Federal Government. Or, have you never filled out a tax
> return?

Irrelevant comparison noted.

Do you really think that HP cares what Dell does with its money? They
probably hope they don't do wise things with it.

> > Normal businesspeople do not care what other businesses
> > do with their money.
>
> That's why business magazines publish summaries of financial results from a
> wide range of busineses - nobody cares about what other businesses do with
> their money?

Please show where I said 'nobody.'

Are you trying to draw some whacked-out analogy between investors and
businesses? Investors care a great deal about how businesses spend
their money. That's one way they decide who to invest in. The
government only cares insofar as the legality of what they do with
their money and taxes. They do not care beyond that. And the government
and investors are not 'other businesses' or 'engineers' (except in your
mind maybe).

No wonder you come off confused most of the time: you are confused.

> ****R are you really that stupid or do you merely totally
> disrespect the intelligence of the people who read this forum?

LOL! Arns, you are as sharp as an antique brick.

Do you really think that Ford cares what Seagate does with its money?

> > The only time the engineers that I
> > know care what other engineers do is when it affects
> > them.
>
> Then you don't believe that there is such a thing as competition among
> businesses?

Where did you come up with that one, Arns? Please show your logic here,
as I can't see any.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>> wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>> Here in Ohio wrote:
>>>> On 6 Nov 2006 08:00:59 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to
>>>> Reason!" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because your justifications about audiophile companies
>>>>> always seem to revolve around money.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see nothing wrong with pointing out when an
>>>> "audiophile" company says or does something that has no
>>>> benefit for (or is actually detrimental to) the music,
>>>> but is simply a source of extra profit.
>>>>
>>>> Expensive power cords are a sterling example. Anyone
>>>> who sells these is enriching themselves at the expense
>>>> of their neurotic customers and is quite simply a
>>>> crook.
>>>
>>> Is someone passing a collection plate at the local
>>> church equally as guilty, IYO?
>
>> I take it then that you are against fraternal
>> organizations soliciting their members for contributions?
>
> Why would I be? Are fraternal organizations, like the
> church, selling things of unproven or dubious value to
> their neurotic customers based entirely (as in 100%) on
> nothing more than beliefs?

As a rule, neither churches nor fraternal organizations sell *things*, if
you're willing to overlook an occasional bake sale, dinner or life insurance
policy.

Typically, fraternal organizations sell things like fellowship, lifestyle,
belief systems, group charitiable efforts, etc. Those aren't things.

> Or are you saying that your church is in reality nothing
> more than a fraternal organization like the Fraternal
> Order of Eagles, a place to go have a couple of beers
> after work? Would that make the minister something like
> the Grand Poobah?

Shows what little you know about fraternal organizations. The role of a
Grand Poobah (if such a title actually exists) is more like that of the
chairman of the board of elders in a church.

> People give money to the church.

Right, and just about all of that money goes for acquisition and upkeep of
real estate, and wages for service providers.

> It makes them feel better about themselves.

In the long run, that would be common to the members of just about any
fraternal organization. You got something against the Lions, or the
Shriners? You want to compare and contrast the number of educational
organizations and hospitals that were founded and supported by say The
Catholic church versus the Masons? That would be missing the point.

> This is, I would suppose, OK with you.

It's possible that a person who has no lasting intimate social connections
such as yourself would have problems with others who do. I think you need to
look at yourself a little more critically and not be so critical of others
who have more normal behavior patterns.

> Other people buy silver wire with 'hospital-grade' plugs.

Products for which false technical claims are widely made. It is pretty
disingenous for a church or other fraternal orginization to make technical
claims, although some do. That speaks to the diversity of fraternal
organizations, and is not a fair characterizatin of them in general.

> It makes them feel better about themselves and their
> system. This is obviously *not* OK with you.

Something about the false claims. BTW I'm just as critical of phoney faith
healers. Don't get me started about Benny Hinn.

> Yet both are based on absolutely nothing more than
> beliefs that it somehow helps.

You don't know what you are talking about, as I've already shown.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> ups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> >> wrote in message
> >> ups.com
> >>> Here in Ohio wrote:
> >>>> On 6 Nov 2006 08:00:59 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to
> >>>> Reason!" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Because your justifications about audiophile companies
> >>>>> always seem to revolve around money.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I see nothing wrong with pointing out when an
> >>>> "audiophile" company says or does something that has no
> >>>> benefit for (or is actually detrimental to) the music,
> >>>> but is simply a source of extra profit.
> >>>>
> >>>> Expensive power cords are a sterling example. Anyone
> >>>> who sells these is enriching themselves at the expense
> >>>> of their neurotic customers and is quite simply a
> >>>> crook.
> >>>
> >>> Is someone passing a collection plate at the local
> >>> church equally as guilty, IYO?
> >
> >> I take it then that you are against fraternal
> >> organizations soliciting their members for contributions?
> >
> > Why would I be? Are fraternal organizations, like the
> > church, selling things of unproven or dubious value to
> > their neurotic customers based entirely (as in 100%) on
> > nothing more than beliefs?
>
> As a rule, neither churches nor fraternal organizations sell *things*, if
> you're willing to overlook an occasional bake sale, dinner or life insurance
> policy.
>
> Typically, fraternal organizations sell things like fellowship, lifestyle,
> belief systems, group charitiable efforts, etc. Those aren't things.

You prove my point: churches sell beliefs. A belief is a thing.
Otherwise, how could you believe or not believe in some*thing*?

> > Or are you saying that your church is in reality nothing
> > more than a fraternal organization like the Fraternal
> > Order of Eagles, a place to go have a couple of beers
> > after work? Would that make the minister something like
> > the Grand Poobah?
>
> Shows what little you know about fraternal organizations. The role of a
> Grand Poobah (if such a title actually exists) is more like that of the
> chairman of the board of elders in a church.

So the minister is more like the salesman. OK, I can live with that.

> > People give money to the church.
>
> Right, and just about all of that money goes for acquisition and upkeep of
> real estate, and wages for service providers.

Who cares where it goes?

> > It makes them feel better about themselves.
>
> In the long run, that would be common to the members of just about any
> fraternal organization. You got something against the Lions, or the
> Shriners? You want to compare and contrast the number of educational
> organizations and hospitals that were founded and supported by say The
> Catholic church versus the Masons? That would be missing the point.

The point was, and is, that it makes people feel better about
themselves. Do you disagree? Or do you want to ramble on some more?

> > This is, I would suppose, OK with you.
>
> It's possible that a person who has no lasting intimate social connections
> such as yourself would have problems with others who do. I think you need to
> look at yourself a little more critically and not be so critical of others
> who have more normal behavior patterns.

LOL!

Arns, you must be crazy to even bring up social connections.

> > Other people buy silver wire with 'hospital-grade' plugs.
>
> Products for which false technical claims are widely made. It is pretty
> disingenous for a church or other fraternal orginization to make technical
> claims, although some do. That speaks to the diversity of fraternal
> organizations, and is not a fair characterizatin of them in general.

It's all about belief, Arns. How often have you 'converted' somebody to
your belief system here? You can talk RLC until you're blue. If
somebody believes that power cord makes something better, you will not
convert them.

All you'll do is prove yourself to be an asshole. And we already have
enough proof about that.

> > It makes them feel better about themselves and their
> > system. This is obviously *not* OK with you.
>
> Something about the false claims. BTW I'm just as critical of phoney faith
> healers. Don't get me started about Benny Hinn.

Why should you care if somebody's path to heaven is through Benny Hinn,
Pat Robertson, or the Catholic or your Baptist church?

What makes your path better?

And you didn't answer: you *are* going to heaven, aren't you? That's
the goal, isn't it?

> > Yet both are based on absolutely nothing more than
> > beliefs that it somehow helps.
>
> You don't know what you are talking about, as I've already shown.

Where? LOL!

You need a new logic chip.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>> wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ups.com
>>>>> Here in Ohio wrote:
>>>>>> On 6 Nov 2006 08:00:59 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening
>>>>>> to Reason!" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because your justifications about audiophile
>>>>>>> companies always seem to revolve around money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see nothing wrong with pointing out when an
>>>>>> "audiophile" company says or does something that has
>>>>>> no benefit for (or is actually detrimental to) the
>>>>>> music, but is simply a source of extra profit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Expensive power cords are a sterling example. Anyone
>>>>>> who sells these is enriching themselves at the
>>>>>> expense of their neurotic customers and is quite
>>>>>> simply a crook.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is someone passing a collection plate at the local
>>>>> church equally as guilty, IYO?
>>>
>>>> I take it then that you are against fraternal
>>>> organizations soliciting their members for
>>>> contributions?
>>>
>>> Why would I be? Are fraternal organizations, like the
>>> church, selling things of unproven or dubious value to
>>> their neurotic customers based entirely (as in 100%) on
>>> nothing more than beliefs?
>>
>> As a rule, neither churches nor fraternal organizations
>> sell *things*, if you're willing to overlook an
>> occasional bake sale, dinner or life insurance policy.
>>
>> Typically, fraternal organizations sell things like
>> fellowship, lifestyle, belief systems, group charitiable
>> efforts, etc. Those aren't things.
>
> You prove my point: churches sell beliefs.

Just about everybody who sells anything first and foremost sells beliefs.

What's wrong with that?

> A belief is a thing. Otherwise, how could you believe or not believe in
> some*thing*?

OK, so now you have been trapped into using a very general definition for
thing.

The critical point that you now seem to have missed is the fact that you're
criticizing churches for doing something that is widely done by just about
everybody.

>>> Or are you saying that your church is in reality nothing
>>> more than a fraternal organization like the Fraternal
>>> Order of Eagles, a place to go have a couple of beers
>>> after work? Would that make the minister something like
>>> the Grand Poobah?

>> Shows what little you know about fraternal
>> organizations. The role of a Grand Poobah (if such a
>> title actually exists) is more like that of the chairman
>> of the board of elders in a church.

> So the minister is more like the salesman. OK, I can live
> with that.

Needless to say, in your ignorance and irrationality, you are grotesquely
abusing the usual lexicon of church-related terms. A minister is a person
who ministers. Anybody inside or outside a church can minister.

I suspect in your highly confused state, you are referring a paid staff
member who has a job title like "Senior Pastor".

It would be kinda neat if you first educated yourself as to how a modern
church works and exactly what are the functions and responsibilities of the
various staff and members of a modern church.

But, why ****R should you do this when your existence here is based on
exposing your ignornace of just about everything you write about?

>>> People give money to the church.
>>
>> Right, and just about all of that money goes for
>> acquisition and upkeep of real estate, and wages for
>> service providers.

> Who cares where it goes?

Anybody who wants to make a relevant critcism of what churches do?

>>> It makes them feel better about themselves.
>
>> In the long run, that would be common to the members of
>> just about any fraternal organization. You got
>> something against the Lions, or the Shriners? You want
>> to compare and contrast the number of educational
>> organizations and hospitals that were founded and
>> supported by say The Catholic church versus the Masons?
>> That would be missing the point.

> The point was, and is, that it makes people feel better
> about themselves. Do you disagree? Or do you want to
> ramble on some more?

What you have failed to do is somehow say something that is relevant and
somewhat unique to churches.

Going to the supermarket makes me feel better about myself because having
food that I like justifies the belief that I'm going to have something good
to eat in the near future. What's wrong with that?

>>> This is, I would suppose, OK with you.

>> It's possible that a person who has no lasting intimate
>> social connections such as yourself would have problems
>> with others who do. I think you need to look at yourself
>> a little more critically and not be so critical of
>> others who have more normal behavior patterns.
>
> LOL!

Dismissive attitude noted.

> Arns, you must be crazy to even bring up social
> connections.

Shows what little you know about my life. Why don't you give us a thumnaiil
sketch of your family, work, and social life?

>>> Other people buy silver wire with 'hospital-grade'
>>> plugs.

>> Products for which false technical claims are widely
>> made. It is pretty disingenous for a church or other
>> fraternal orginization to make technical claims,
>> although some do. That speaks to the diversity of
>> fraternal organizations, and is not a fair
>> characterizatin of them in general.

> It's all about belief, Arns.

How is that different from the rest of life?

At least if I go to the supermarket, there's a pretty fair chance that the
packages contain the products that they say they contain, and that those
contents are going to do what they promise in general terms to do. Every egg
I've bought has at least had some egg white inside the shell. Sometimes even
two yolks...

If someone buys "silver-whatever" or "golden-whatever" wire there's a good
chance that the wire has only a tiny amount of silver or gold in it, and
they are mostly copper or someother base metal.

> How often have you
> 'converted' somebody to your belief system here?

God knows.

Do you know what my belief system is?

Based on 100% of your posts, I'd say no.

> You can
> talk RLC until you're blue. If somebody believes that
> power cord makes something better, you will not convert
> them.

I disagree. I suspect that lots of people look here and see the many posts
from people of a technical bent who say that high-priced power cords are
mostly BS. Being risk-adverse they leave that crap in the store.

Yes, the few suckers who have actually invested the big bucks in golden
power cords are probably a bit ****ed-off at either themselves or the people
who implicily make fun of them. But they are a tiny minority. Not all of
them remain true believers.

> All you'll do is prove yourself to be an asshole. And we
> already have enough proof about that.

Childish name-calling noted.

>>> It makes them feel better about themselves and their
>>> system. This is obviously *not* OK with you.
>>
>> Something about the false claims. BTW I'm just as
>> critical of phoney faith healers. Don't get me started
>> about Benny Hinn.

> Why should you care if somebody's path to heaven is
> through Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson, or the Catholic or
> your Baptist church?

I could be wrong here, but some belief systems seem to work better for
people in general than others. I don't have nearly as much problem with the
Catholic church as Benny Hinn for example. As the cliche goes, some of my
best friends are devout Catholics, and a few of them have even been Catholic
clergy.

> What makes your path better?

It may not be better. There's a big dose of "of what works" in all of this.

> And you didn't answer: you *are* going to heaven, aren't
> you? That's the goal, isn't it?

I don't care that much about Heaven. I'm here on earth and I'm mostly
interested in here on earth. Heaven can take care of itself as long as I'm
here.

>>> Yet both are based on absolutely nothing more than
>>> beliefs that it somehow helps.

>> You don't know what you are talking about, as I've
>> already shown.

> Where?

Lack of self-awareness noted.

> LOL!

Dismissive attitude noted. If you want anybody to take your posts seriously,
you ought to at least feign serious intent.

> You need a new logic chip.

Don't personally have any old ones to replace, if you are referring to my
person.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:


> Shows what little you know about fraternal organizations. The role of a
> Grand Poobah (if such a title actually exists)

It's actually a character from the Gilbert and Sullivan "The Mikado".

[Jenn]

In article

om>,
Jenn > wrote:

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
> > Shows what little you know about fraternal organizations. The role of a
> > Grand Poobah (if such a title actually exists)
>
> It's actually a character from the Gilbert and Sullivan "The Mikado".

Sorry, that should have read: It's actually a character from the
Gilbert and Sullivan opera "The Mikado".

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>> Shows what little you know about fraternal
>> organizations. The role of a Grand Poobah (if such a
>> title actually exists)
>
> It's actually a character from the Gilbert and Sullivan
> "The Mikado".

Speaks to ****R's dismissive attitude. You two seem to have a lot in common.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Shows what little you know about fraternal
> >> organizations. The role of a Grand Poobah (if such a
> >> title actually exists)
> >
> > It's actually a character from the Gilbert and Sullivan
> > "The Mikado".
>
> Speaks to ****R's dismissive attitude. You two seem to have a lot in common.

You're welcome.

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Shows what little you know about fraternal
> >> organizations. The role of a Grand Poobah (if such a
> >> title actually exists)
> >
> > It's actually a character from the Gilbert and Sullivan
> > "The Mikado".
>
> Speaks to ****R's dismissive attitude. You two seem to have a lot in common.

"Poobah" is just one of several G&S words/phrases that have made their
way into common usage, in this case meaning "the person in charge".
Another example is G&S in common language is "let the punishment fit
the crime".

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > Shows what little you know about fraternal organizations. The role of a
> > Grand Poobah (if such a title actually exists)

> It's actually a character from the Gilbert and Sullivan "The Mikado".

Now you'll have to explain "figurative" to Krooger. Good luck!




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> "Poobah" is just one of several G&S words/phrases that have made their
> way into common usage, in this case meaning "the person in charge".
> Another example is G&S in common language is "let the punishment fit
> the crime".

If you'd spent any time around Goose Puke Baptist Church, you'd know that
"three little maids are we" is also big when they pass the plate.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>>> ps.com
> >>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut
> >>>>>>>>> (all quotes from the article, so I'm not messing
> >>>>>>>>> with quotation marks):
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ
> >>>>>>>>> unit can set you back 9 grand....
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
> >>>>>>>> context:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of our
> >>>>>>>> playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's to
> >>>>>>>> tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now, you have
> >>>>>>>> a good point in which to start. Download (if you
> >>>>>>>> can) some parametric EQ programs. A real live
> >>>>>>>> Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ unit can set
> >>>>>>>> you back 9 grand.... "
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Note that the following was intentionally and
> >>>>>>>> deceptively removed:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Now, you have a good point in which to start.
> >>>>>>>> Download (if you can) some parametric EQ programs."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There was no deception, Arns.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Normal people do not have their systems hooked into
> >>>>>>> a PC.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He
> >>>>>> specfically recommended downloading EQ programs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
> >>>>> computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this
> >>>>> new skill on the regular system.
> >>>>
> >>>> Works for me. I
> >>>
> >>> I just wish his "lift points" coincided with my ITunes
> >>> eq.
> >>>
> >>>>> The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects
> >>>>> digital eqs.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.
> >>>
> >>> His living is predominantly digital mastering and is an
> >>> enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.
> >>
> >> IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that
> >> 44/16 has inherent audible difficulties.
> >
> > Aside from a few lps, his current work is released on cd.
>
> So his efforts to market himself to the SACD and DVD-A market is failing?
>
> Or, are you just pointing out by implication that there is not a heck of a
> lot of current work being released on SACD and DVD-A?

No, that he's overcome any "hang-ups with digital."

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Shows what little you know about fraternal
> >> organizations. The role of a Grand Poobah (if such a
> >> title actually exists)
> >
> > It's actually a character from the Gilbert and Sullivan
> > "The Mikado".
>
> Speaks to ****R's dismissive attitude. You two seem to have a lot in common.

I think I'll call you Mr. Poopiepants, Arns, as you seem to have a
thing for anything for poop-related.

Hilarious from someone that continuously says, 'childish name-calling
noted...' ;-)

LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ps.com
>>>>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut
>>>>>>>>>>> (all quotes from the article, so I'm not messing
>>>>>>>>>>> with quotation marks):
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ
>>>>>>>>>>> unit can set you back 9 grand....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
>>>>>>>>>> context:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of
>>>>>>>>>> our playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's
>>>>>>>>>> to tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now,
>>>>>>>>>> you have a good point in which to start.
>>>>>>>>>> Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
>>>>>>>>>> programs. A real live Sontec or Massenberg
>>>>>>>>>> Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9 grand.... "
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note that the following was intentionally and
>>>>>>>>>> deceptively removed:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Now, you have a good point in which to start.
>>>>>>>>>> Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
>>>>>>>>>> programs."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There was no deception, Arns.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Normal people do not have their systems hooked
>>>>>>>>> into a PC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He
>>>>>>>> specfically recommended downloading EQ programs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
>>>>>>> computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this
>>>>>>> new skill on the regular system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Works for me. I
>>>>>
>>>>> I just wish his "lift points" coincided with my ITunes
>>>>> eq.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects
>>>>>>> digital eqs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.
>>>>>
>>>>> His living is predominantly digital mastering and is
>>>>> an enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.
>>>>
>>>> IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that
>>>> 44/16 has inherent audible difficulties.
>>>
>>> Aside from a few lps, his current work is released on
>>> cd.
>>
>> So his efforts to market himself to the SACD and DVD-A
>> market is failing?
>>
>> Or, are you just pointing out by implication that there
>> is not a heck of a lot of current work being released on
>> SACD and DVD-A?
>
> No, that he's overcome any "hang-ups with digital."

Given that he's said so many negative things about the CD format, doesn't
that make Hoffman a bit of a hypocrite?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> >> wrote in message
> >> ups.com
> >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>>> > wrote in message
> >>>> ups.com
> >>>>> Here in Ohio wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6 Nov 2006 08:00:59 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening
> >>>>>> to Reason!" > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Because your justifications about audiophile
> >>>>>>> companies always seem to revolve around money.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I see nothing wrong with pointing out when an
> >>>>>> "audiophile" company says or does something that has
> >>>>>> no benefit for (or is actually detrimental to) the
> >>>>>> music, but is simply a source of extra profit.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Expensive power cords are a sterling example. Anyone
> >>>>>> who sells these is enriching themselves at the
> >>>>>> expense of their neurotic customers and is quite
> >>>>>> simply a crook.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is someone passing a collection plate at the local
> >>>>> church equally as guilty, IYO?
> >>>
> >>>> I take it then that you are against fraternal
> >>>> organizations soliciting their members for
> >>>> contributions?
> >>>
> >>> Why would I be? Are fraternal organizations, like the
> >>> church, selling things of unproven or dubious value to
> >>> their neurotic customers based entirely (as in 100%) on
> >>> nothing more than beliefs?
> >>
> >> As a rule, neither churches nor fraternal organizations
> >> sell *things*, if you're willing to overlook an
> >> occasional bake sale, dinner or life insurance policy.
> >>
> >> Typically, fraternal organizations sell things like
> >> fellowship, lifestyle, belief systems, group charitiable
> >> efforts, etc. Those aren't things.
> >
> > You prove my point: churches sell beliefs.
>
> Just about everybody who sells anything first and foremost sells beliefs.

My point exactly. Thank you for admitting that I am correct.

> What's wrong with that?

Not a thing. We seem to be in agreement.

> > A belief is a thing. Otherwise, how could you believe or not believe in
> > some*thing*?
>
> OK, so now you have been trapped into using a very general definition for
> thing.
>
> The critical point that you now seem to have missed is the fact that you're
> criticizing churches for doing something that is widely done by just about
> everybody.

I'm not criticizing at all. Now that you've agreed that being sold a
belief in a church, or in a set of religious beliefs, is really not at
all different from being sold a set of beliefs in audio gear, I think
we can move on.

> >>> Or are you saying that your church is in reality nothing
> >>> more than a fraternal organization like the Fraternal
> >>> Order of Eagles, a place to go have a couple of beers
> >>> after work? Would that make the minister something like
> >>> the Grand Poobah?
>
> >> Shows what little you know about fraternal
> >> organizations. The role of a Grand Poobah (if such a
> >> title actually exists) is more like that of the chairman
> >> of the board of elders in a church.
>
> > So the minister is more like the salesman. OK, I can live
> > with that.
>
> Needless to say, in your ignorance and irrationality, you are grotesquely
> abusing the usual lexicon of church-related terms. A minister is a person
> who ministers. Anybody inside or outside a church can minister.
>
> I suspect in your highly confused state, you are referring a paid staff
> member who has a job title like "Senior Pastor".
>
> It would be kinda neat if you first educated yourself as to how a modern
> church works and exactly what are the functions and responsibilities of the
> various staff and members of a modern church.

Why get bogged down on those details, which I'm familiar with anyway?

That would be devolving from the point, like you are.

> But, why ****R should you do this when your existence here is based on
> exposing your ignornace of just about everything you write about?

Gosh, Mr. Poopiepants, since we're now in agreement, what does that say
about you?

> >>> People give money to the church.
> >>
> >> Right, and just about all of that money goes for
> >> acquisition and upkeep of real estate, and wages for
> >> service providers.
>
> > Who cares where it goes?
>
> Anybody who wants to make a relevant critcism of what churches do?

I'm not criticizing them. Just pointing out that being sold beliefs in
a church or in a set of religious beliefs is no different than being
sold belief in an audio product, as you pointed out above.

> >>> It makes them feel better about themselves.
> >
> >> In the long run, that would be common to the members of
> >> just about any fraternal organization. You got
> >> something against the Lions, or the Shriners? You want
> >> to compare and contrast the number of educational
> >> organizations and hospitals that were founded and
> >> supported by say The Catholic church versus the Masons?
> >> That would be missing the point.
>
> > The point was, and is, that it makes people feel better
> > about themselves. Do you disagree? Or do you want to
> > ramble on some more?
>
> What you have failed to do is somehow say something that is relevant and
> somewhat unique to churches.

LOL!

> Going to the supermarket makes me feel better about myself because having
> food that I like justifies the belief that I'm going to have something good
> to eat in the near future. What's wrong with that?

Not a thing. We're in total agreement, Mr. Poopiepants.

> >>> This is, I would suppose, OK with you.
>
> >> It's possible that a person who has no lasting intimate
> >> social connections such as yourself would have problems
> >> with others who do. I think you need to look at yourself
> >> a little more critically and not be so critical of
> >> others who have more normal behavior patterns.
> >
> > LOL!
>
> Dismissive attitude noted.

I think any rational person would look at your social skills and
dismiss you attempting to pass judgement on someone else's social
skills.

> > Arns, you must be crazy to even bring up social
> > connections.
>
> Shows what little you know about my life. Why don't you give us a thumnaiil
> sketch of your family, work, and social life?

Why would I do that? It isn't part of the discussion, no matter how
hard you try to deflect the fact that we're in total agreement.

> >>> Other people buy silver wire with 'hospital-grade'
> >>> plugs.
>
> >> Products for which false technical claims are widely
> >> made. It is pretty disingenous for a church or other
> >> fraternal orginization to make technical claims,
> >> although some do. That speaks to the diversity of
> >> fraternal organizations, and is not a fair
> >> characterizatin of them in general.
>
> > It's all about belief, Arns.
>
> How is that different from the rest of life?

It isn't, which is the point. Again we agree.

> At least if I go to the supermarket, there's a pretty fair chance that the
> packages contain the products that they say they contain, and that those
> contents are going to do what they promise in general terms to do. Every egg
> I've bought has at least had some egg white inside the shell. Sometimes even
> two yolks...

Goody.

> If someone buys "silver-whatever" or "golden-whatever" wire there's a good
> chance that the wire has only a tiny amount of silver or gold in it, and
> they are mostly copper or someother base metal.

So what? If it makes them happy, and they believe it makes a
difference, why should you care?

> > How often have you
> > 'converted' somebody to your belief system here?
>
> God knows.
>
> Do you know what my belief system is?
>
> Based on 100% of your posts, I'd say no.

Your belief system as far as this discussion is concerned is only too
apparent: if somebody believes something that you don't concerning
audio, you become a raging asshole about it.

> > You can
> > talk RLC until you're blue. If somebody believes that
> > power cord makes something better, you will not convert
> > them.
>
> I disagree. I suspect that lots of people look here and see the many posts
> from people of a technical bent who say that high-priced power cords are
> mostly BS. Being risk-adverse they leave that crap in the store.
>
> Yes, the few suckers who have actually invested the big bucks in golden
> power cords are probably a bit ****ed-off at either themselves or the people
> who implicily make fun of them. But they are a tiny minority. Not all of
> them remain true believers.

Any evidence to back up this technical claim?

> > All you'll do is prove yourself to be an asshole. And we
> > already have enough proof about that.
>
> Childish name-calling noted.

****R is very, very sorry. LOL!

> >>> It makes them feel better about themselves and their
> >>> system. This is obviously *not* OK with you.
> >>
> >> Something about the false claims. BTW I'm just as
> >> critical of phoney faith healers. Don't get me started
> >> about Benny Hinn.
>
> > Why should you care if somebody's path to heaven is
> > through Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson, or the Catholic or
> > your Baptist church?
>
> I could be wrong here, but some belief systems seem to work better for
> people in general than others. I don't have nearly as much problem with the
> Catholic church as Benny Hinn for example. As the cliche goes, some of my
> best friends are devout Catholics, and a few of them have even been Catholic
> clergy.

And that would be... ...your belief system.

What if somebody else's Benny Hinn belief system worked better for
them?

You've avoided that entirely. You've now stated that your belief system
works for 'people in general' with absolutely nothing to back it up
except your "I'm right, they're wrong' attitude.

Which is, of course, only so much bull****.

> > What makes your path better?
>
> It may not be better. There's a big dose of "of what works" in all of this.

For you. You need to add that.

> > And you didn't answer: you *are* going to heaven, aren't
> > you? That's the goal, isn't it?
>
> I don't care that much about Heaven. I'm here on earth and I'm mostly
> interested in here on earth. Heaven can take care of itself as long as I'm
> here.

I'm glad that your goal is not getting to heaven. The odds aren't with
you on that one.

> >>> Yet both are based on absolutely nothing more than
> >>> beliefs that it somehow helps.
>
> >> You don't know what you are talking about, as I've
> >> already shown.
>
> > Where?
>
> Lack of self-awareness noted.

LOL!

> > LOL!
>
> Dismissive attitude noted. If you want anybody to take your posts seriously,
> you ought to at least feign serious intent.

You were being serious?

****R is very, very sorry.

> > You need a new logic chip.
>
> Don't personally have any old ones to replace, if you are referring to my
> person.

No surprise there, Arns, as you haven't said anything logical.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in
> >>>>>> message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>>>>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> ps.com
> >>>>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I just read the article. Let's see what Arny cut
> >>>>>>>>>>> (all quotes from the article, so I'm not messing
> >>>>>>>>>>> with quotation marks):
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ
> >>>>>>>>>>> unit can set you back 9 grand....
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's the
> >>>>>>>>>> context:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of
> >>>>>>>>>> our playback systems, and we use Parametric EQ's
> >>>>>>>>>> to tailor the sound of our music. Right? Now,
> >>>>>>>>>> you have a good point in which to start.
> >>>>>>>>>> Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
> >>>>>>>>>> programs. A real live Sontec or Massenberg
> >>>>>>>>>> Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9 grand.... "
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Note that the following was intentionally and
> >>>>>>>>>> deceptively removed:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Now, you have a good point in which to start.
> >>>>>>>>>> Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
> >>>>>>>>>> programs."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> There was no deception, Arns.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Normal people do not have their systems hooked
> >>>>>>>>> into a PC.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He
> >>>>>>>> specfically recommended downloading EQ programs.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
> >>>>>>> computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use this
> >>>>>>> new skill on the regular system.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Works for me. I
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I just wish his "lift points" coincided with my ITunes
> >>>>> eq.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects
> >>>>>>> digital eqs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> His living is predominantly digital mastering and is
> >>>>> an enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.
> >>>>
> >>>> IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people that
> >>>> 44/16 has inherent audible difficulties.
> >>>
> >>> Aside from a few lps, his current work is released on
> >>> cd.
> >>
> >> So his efforts to market himself to the SACD and DVD-A
> >> market is failing?
> >>
> >> Or, are you just pointing out by implication that there
> >> is not a heck of a lot of current work being released on
> >> SACD and DVD-A?
> >
> > No, that he's overcome any "hang-ups with digital."
>
> Given that he's said so many negative things about the CD format, doesn't
> that make Hoffman a bit of a hypocrite?

How are you enjoying your Hoffman-mastered Arthur Lyman cd?

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in
>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ps.com
>>>>>>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just read the article. Let's see what Arny
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cut (all quotes from the article, so I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> messing with quotation marks):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A real live Sontec or Massenberg Parametric EQ
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unit can set you back 9 grand....
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Deceptive out-of context quote noted, Here's
>>>>>>>>>>>> the context:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "So, we use graphic EQ's to tailor the sound of
>>>>>>>>>>>> our playback systems, and we use Parametric
>>>>>>>>>>>> EQ's to tailor the sound of our music. Right?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, you have a good point in which to start.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
>>>>>>>>>>>> programs. A real live Sontec or Massenberg
>>>>>>>>>>>> Parametric EQ unit can set you back 9
>>>>>>>>>>>> grand.... "
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that the following was intentionally and
>>>>>>>>>>>> deceptively removed:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Now, you have a good point in which to start.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Download (if you can) some parametric EQ
>>>>>>>>>>>> programs."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There was no deception, Arns.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Normal people do not have their systems hooked
>>>>>>>>>>> into a PC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> By implication, Steve Hoffman disagrees. He
>>>>>>>>>> specfically recommended downloading EQ programs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By implication, Hoffman is suggesting one uses the
>>>>>>>>> computer to learn how to tailor an eq, then use
>>>>>>>>> this new skill on the regular system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Works for me. I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just wish his "lift points" coincided with my
>>>>>>> ITunes eq.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The interview must be rather old: Hoffman rejects
>>>>>>>>> digital eqs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's not get into Hoffman's hang-ups with digital.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His living is predominantly digital mastering and is
>>>>>>> an enthusiatic supporter of hi-rez formats.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IOW, Hoffman makes money when he convinces people
>>>>>> that 44/16 has inherent audible difficulties.
>>>>>
>>>>> Aside from a few lps, his current work is released on
>>>>> cd.
>>>>
>>>> So his efforts to market himself to the SACD and DVD-A
>>>> market is failing?
>>>>
>>>> Or, are you just pointing out by implication that there
>>>> is not a heck of a lot of current work being released
>>>> on SACD and DVD-A?
>>>
>>> No, that he's overcome any "hang-ups with digital."
>>
>> Given that he's said so many negative things about the
>> CD format, doesn't that make Hoffman a bit of a
>> hypocrite?
>
> How are you enjoying your Hoffman-mastered Arthur Lyman
> cd?

Huh?

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> >> Given that he's said so many negative things about the
> >> CD format, doesn't that make Hoffman a bit of a
> >> hypocrite?
> >
> > How are you enjoying your Hoffman-mastered Arthur Lyman
> > cd?
>
> Huh?

I gave you a link to dccblowout.com for an Arthur Lyman title you
mentioned. I believe it was the original source for his "Yellow Bird"
and was recorded in a natural amphitheater with a portable Ampex.
Anyway, the DCC reissue was most likely mastered by Hoffman.

Please visit the English String Music thread, especially if you have
some specific technical critiques, frequency response or whatever.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>>>> Given that he's said so many negative things about the
>>>> CD format, doesn't that make Hoffman a bit of a
>>>> hypocrite?
>>>
>>> How are you enjoying your Hoffman-mastered Arthur Lyman
>>> cd?
>>
>> Huh?

> I gave you a link to dccblowout.com for an Arthur Lyman
> title you mentioned.

Google finds such a link in a post from you in 2005, but it was not in a
reply to me.

>I believe it was the original source
> for his "Yellow Bird" and was recorded in a natural
> amphitheater with a portable Ampex. Anyway, the DCC
> reissue was most likely mastered by Hoffman.

OK, but certainly Hoffman has done something more recent and more relevant,
as if I were interested.

> Please visit the English String Music thread, especially
> if you have some specific technical critiques, frequency
> response or whatever.

Frankly, the string music that interests me most, is the string music I
record weekly.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >>>> Given that he's said so many negative things about the
> >>>> CD format, doesn't that make Hoffman a bit of a
> >>>> hypocrite?
> >>>
> >>> How are you enjoying your Hoffman-mastered Arthur Lyman
> >>> cd?
> >>
> >> Huh?
>
> > I gave you a link to dccblowout.com for an Arthur Lyman
> > title you mentioned.
>
> Google finds such a link in a post from you in 2005, but it was not in a
> reply to me.

LOL! The title of the post was Attn: Arny.

> >I believe it was the original source
> > for his "Yellow Bird" and was recorded in a natural
> > amphitheater with a portable Ampex. Anyway, the DCC
> > reissue was most likely mastered by Hoffman.
>
> OK, but certainly Hoffman has done something more recent and more relevant,
> as if I were interested.

You don't seem like a Bad Company fan, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers are
on lp.

> > Please visit the English String Music thread, especially
> > if you have some specific technical critiques, frequency
> > response or whatever.
>
> Frankly, the string music that interests me most, is the string music I
> record weekly.

I'm sure your recorded string group sounds little like Barbirolli's.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>> wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com
>>>>
>>>>>> Being an avowed capitalist, I'm very much in favor of
>>>>>> people making money by honest means.
>>>>
>>>>> Are you implying that Hoffman has done something
>>>>> dishonest?
>>>>
>>>> I haven't thought about that very much. Why do you ask?
>>>>
>>>>>>> You're not jealous, are you?;-)
>>>>
>>>>>> Of course not. Why would you bring such a strange
>>>>>> idea up?
>>>>
>>>>> Because your justifications about audiophile companies
>>>>> always seem to revolve around money.
>>>>
>>>> The practice of business and engineering are closely
>>>> related to cost-effectiveness, which of course revolves
>>>> around money. Are you saying that anybody who is
>>>> interested in business or engineering is jealous of
>>>> people who have or spend money?
>>>
>>> I find it odd that someone would care what another
>>> business, or another engineer, is doing with their
>>> money.
>>
>> Tell that to the Federal Government. Or, have you never
>> filled out a tax return?
>
> Irrelevant comparison noted.

Dismissive attitude noted.

> Do you really think that HP cares what Dell does with its
> money?

Absolutely. Every large company worth their salt studies the competition.

> They probably hope they don't do wise things with it.

But just in case...

>>> Normal businesspeople do not care what other businesses
>>> do with their money.
>>
>> That's why business magazines publish summaries of
>> financial results from a wide range of busineses -
>> nobody cares about what other businesses do with their
>> money?

> Please show where I said 'nobody.'

Hairsplitting noted. You said "Normal businesspeople do not care what other
bueinesses do with their money."

> Are you trying to draw some whacked-out analogy between
> investors and businesses?

Businesses are investors. I'll bet you never thought about it that deeply.

> Investors care a great deal
> about how businesses spend their money. That's one way
> they decide who to invest in.

Trivial truism noted.

> The government only cares
> insofar as the legality of what they do with their money
> and taxes.

You're the one who made the sweeping and false generality.

> They do not care beyond that.

Sure the government cares quite a bit beyond that, but how can I teach you
about how a good government works?

> And the
> government and investors are not 'other businesses' or
> 'engineers' (except in your mind maybe).

Except that investors are often other busineses.

> No wonder you come off confused most of the time: you are
> confused.

Gratuitous insult noted.

> ****R are you really that stupid or do you merely totally
>> disrespect the intelligence of the people who read this
>> forum?

> LOL! Arns, you are as sharp as an antique brick.


That would appear to be all it takes to be sharper than you, ****R.

> Do you really think that Ford cares what Seagate does
> with its money?

Excluded middle argument noted.

>>> The only time the engineers that I
>>> know care what other engineers do is when it affects
>>> them.

>> Then you don't believe that there is such a thing as
>> competition among businesses?

> Where did you come up with that one, Arns? Please show
> your logic here, as I can't see any.

Let's see if you can figure out the purpose of the companies behind these
web sites:

http://www.trendiq.com/CompLandscapes.htm

http://www.egideria.com/t_etudes.html

http://www.qualityworks.com/offer/co.studies.html

[Jenn]

In article >,
Here in Ohio > wrote:

> On 7 Nov 2006 07:45:12 -0800, "Jenn" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Shows what little you know about fraternal
> >> >> organizations. The role of a Grand Poobah (if such a
> >> >> title actually exists)
> >> >
> >> > It's actually a character from the Gilbert and Sullivan
> >> > "The Mikado".
> >>
> >> Speaks to ****R's dismissive attitude. You two seem to have a lot in
> >> common.
> >
> >"Poobah" is just one of several G&S words/phrases that have made their
> >way into common usage, in this case meaning "the person in charge".
> >Another example is G&S in common language is "let the punishment fit
> >the crime".
>
> I always enjoy those moments when you say, "Oh, so that's where that
> came from!" G&S provided some of those moments, so did Latin class,
> and I had a huge number when taking a Shakespeare course in college.
> :-)

Indeed!

[Harry Lavo]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 08:31:01 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Agreed. Indeed, I have no doubt that Hoffman is very
>>>> skilled at making good-sounding CDs. God bless him!
>>>> However, it would be cool if he would not hurt his
>>>> crediblity by all of his hooting and hollering that his
>>>> job is like mission impossible.
>>
>>> Yes, although his technical credibility probably doesn't
>>> have much influence on whether he gets selected to master
>>> a CD or not.
>>
>>Huh?
>
> The people making the decision to select him do not consider whether
> what he claims is technically possible or not. They use other criteria
> to make their decision.
>
> For instance, a huge part of selecting musicians, a band, a piece of
> music, a studio, a recording engineer, etc. all boils down to
> selecting for "luck."
>
> "So and so produced 3 platinum records, so we should choose him to
> produce ours."
>
> You choose what seems to have worked in the past and hope that some of
> the "luck" will rub off on you.
>
> I imagine very few people say that a recording studio has added
> isolators to give a 30 dB reduction in street noise that gets inside
> the studio and this will produce better recordings. Instead, they say
> that Band X did their top album there so it's got to be a great
> studio.

Actually, at the band level it is usually that "that studio has great
vibes".

At the major label level, it is usually the producer's personal choice,
sometimes for the same reason.

[[email protected]]

Here in Ohio wrote:
> On 7 Nov 2006 05:52:46 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Why would I be? Are fraternal organizations, like the church, selling
> >things of unproven or dubious value to their neurotic customers based
> >entirely (as in 100%) on nothing more than beliefs?
>
> For the most part. :-)
>
> >
> >Or are you saying that your church is in reality nothing more than a
> >fraternal organization like the Fraternal Order of Eagles, a place to
> >go have a couple of beers after work? Would that make the minister
> >something like the Grand Poobah?
>
> There _is_ generally a large measure of social networking and sense of
> community involved with a church.
>
> >
> >You *are* going to heaven, aren't you, Arns? Angels and lyres and all?
> >You're going to beat that mean old devil down, aren't you? Hallelujah!
> >
> >You've bought into a bigger hoax than the person who buys a $300 power
> >cord. It's ironic that you apparently can't see the comparison.
>
> The hoax is bigger, but the offered reward is also. :-) That doesn't
> excuse it, but it makes it more understandable.
>
> >But you do and believe as you do. I just don't see why (in your eyes)
> >they can't do and believe as they do. You do no more than the
> >equivalent of forcing your religious beliefs on others.
>
> Because it's bull**** and snake oil. It takes money away from
> designers, engineers, and companies that are actually doing worthwhile
> things - things that will benefit all music lovers.
==========================

You say:
"> Because it's bull**** and snake oil. It takes money away from
> designers, engineers, and companies that are actually doing worthwhile
> things - things that will benefit all music lovers..

Could you quote some of the activities in audio that "will benefit all
music lovers"

I'm not setting up traps. I would love to hear improvements in the
often abysmal recording standards for example.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com...


> Could you quote some of the activities in audio that "will benefit all
> music lovers"

> I'm not setting up traps. I would love to hear improvements in the
> often abysmal recording standards for example.

Just goes to show that Mirabel does not understand the difference between
art and science as applied to audio.

The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has nothing
at all to with any limitations of current recording and distribution
technology.

The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
everything to do with artistic choices.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
> > Could you quote some of the activities in audio that "will benefit all
> > music lovers"
>
> > I'm not setting up traps. I would love to hear improvements in the
> > often abysmal recording standards for example.
>
> Just goes to show that Mirabel does not understand the difference between
> art and science as applied to audio.
>
> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has nothing
> at all to with any limitations of current recording and distribution
> technology.
>
> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
> everything to do with artistic choices.

There goes Ohio's argument.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>> > Could you quote some of the activities in audio that "will benefit all
>> > music lovers"
>>
>> > I'm not setting up traps. I would love to hear improvements in the
>> > often abysmal recording standards for example.
>>
>> Just goes to show that Mirabel does not understand the difference between
>> art and science as applied to audio.
>>
>> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
>> nothing
>> at all to with any limitations of current recording and distribution
>> technology.
>>
>> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
>> everything to do with artistic choices.
>
> There goes Ohio's argument.

How so?

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> > Could you quote some of the activities in audio that "will benefit all
> >> > music lovers"
> >>
> >> > I'm not setting up traps. I would love to hear improvements in the
> >> > often abysmal recording standards for example.
> >>
> >> Just goes to show that Mirabel does not understand the difference between
> >> art and science as applied to audio.
> >>
> >> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
> >> nothing
> >> at all to with any limitations of current recording and distribution
> >> technology.
> >>
> >> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
> >> everything to do with artistic choices.
> >
> > There goes Ohio's argument.
>
> How so?

It's fun to see you undercut someone arguing your side, but you're
saying that "snake oil" products don't make any difference compared with
production choices, therefore, pace Ohio, the money couldn't be better
spent.

IMO, it doesn't matter how many magic hat-racks Hoffman has in his
monitoring room so long as his cds sound good (and they do).

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Could you quote some of the activities in audio that "will benefit
>> >> > all
>> >> > music lovers"
>> >>
>> >> > I'm not setting up traps. I would love to hear improvements in the
>> >> > often abysmal recording standards for example.
>> >>
>> >> Just goes to show that Mirabel does not understand the difference
>> >> between
>> >> art and science as applied to audio.
>> >>
>> >> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
>> >> nothing
>> >> at all to with any limitations of current recording and distribution
>> >> technology.
>> >>
>> >> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
>> >> everything to do with artistic choices.
>> >
>> > There goes Ohio's argument.
>>
>> How so?
>
> It's fun to see you undercut someone arguing your side, but you're
> saying that "snake oil" products don't make any difference compared with
> production choices, therefore, pace Ohio, the money couldn't be better
> spent.

As usual, you're biases are running away with your perceptions. I said
nothing about snake oil, and I meant nothing about snake oil. Furthermore,
I'm not undercutting Ohio, because he's arguing that money spent on snake
oil, to include DVD-A and SACD so-called "hi rez" snake oil, is wasted and I
agree with that.


> IMO, it doesn't matter how many magic hat-racks Hoffman has in his
> monitoring room so long as his cds sound good (and they do).

But if Hoffman's magic hat racks cost money, and/or if he uses them to
justifying paying him more, its money wasted. That compares with money spent
to obtain his straight-up production skills, which to a point is money
well-spent.

I know this is all pretty complex for you to follow, Stephen, but do try to
keep up. ;-)

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Could you quote some of the activities in audio that "will benefit
> >> >> > all
> >> >> > music lovers"
> >> >>
> >> >> > I'm not setting up traps. I would love to hear improvements in the
> >> >> > often abysmal recording standards for example.
> >> >>
> >> >> Just goes to show that Mirabel does not understand the difference
> >> >> between
> >> >> art and science as applied to audio.
> >> >>
> >> >> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
> >> >> nothing
> >> >> at all to with any limitations of current recording and distribution
> >> >> technology.
> >> >>
> >> >> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
> >> >> everything to do with artistic choices.
> >> >
> >> > There goes Ohio's argument.
> >>
> >> How so?
> >
> > It's fun to see you undercut someone arguing your side, but you're
> > saying that "snake oil" products don't make any difference compared with
> > production choices, therefore, pace Ohio, the money couldn't be better
> > spent.
>
> As usual, you're biases are running away with your perceptions. I said
> nothing about snake oil, and I meant nothing about snake oil. Furthermore,
> I'm not undercutting Ohio, because he's arguing that money spent on snake
> oil, to include DVD-A and SACD so-called "hi rez" snake oil, is wasted and I
> agree with that.

Ohio mentioned the snake oil products. You hold that today's sound
quality is due to artistic choices, not sound equipment, hence snake oil
is a dead issue.

> > IMO, it doesn't matter how many magic hat-racks Hoffman has in his
> > monitoring room so long as his cds sound good (and they do).
>
> But if Hoffman's magic hat racks cost money, and/or if he uses them to
> justifying paying him more, its money wasted. That compares with money spent
> to obtain his straight-up production skills, which to a point is money
> well-spent.

So what if the hat-racks cost money or are free or are simply part of
the cost of hiring a Hoffman? If it's what you want it can't be a waste.

> I know this is all pretty complex for you to follow, Stephen, but do try to
> keep up. ;-)

Says the man who can't tell "saying" from "said" and says the first post
in a thread called "Attn: Arny" isn't "in reply to him."

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Could you quote some of the activities in audio that "will
>> >> >> > benefit
>> >> >> > all
>> >> >> > music lovers"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I'm not setting up traps. I would love to hear improvements in
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > often abysmal recording standards for example.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Just goes to show that Mirabel does not understand the difference
>> >> >> between
>> >> >> art and science as applied to audio.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
>> >> >> nothing
>> >> >> at all to with any limitations of current recording and
>> >> >> distribution
>> >> >> technology.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
>> >> >> everything to do with artistic choices.
>> >> >
>> >> > There goes Ohio's argument.
>> >>
>> >> How so?
>> >
>> > It's fun to see you undercut someone arguing your side, but you're
>> > saying that "snake oil" products don't make any difference compared
>> > with
>> > production choices, therefore, pace Ohio, the money couldn't be better
>> > spent.
>>
>> As usual, you're biases are running away with your perceptions. I said
>> nothing about snake oil, and I meant nothing about snake oil.
>> Furthermore,
>> I'm not undercutting Ohio, because he's arguing that money spent on snake
>> oil, to include DVD-A and SACD so-called "hi rez" snake oil, is wasted
>> and I
>> agree with that.
>
> Ohio mentioned the snake oil products. You hold that today's sound
> quality is due to artistic choices, not sound equipment, hence snake oil
> is a dead issue.

Wrong, like Ohio said, snake oil still costs money.

>> > IMO, it doesn't matter how many magic hat-racks Hoffman has in his
>> > monitoring room so long as his cds sound good (and they do).
>>
>> But if Hoffman's magic hat racks cost money, and/or if he uses them to
>> justifying paying him more, its money wasted. That compares with money
>> spent
>> to obtain his straight-up production skills, which to a point is money
>> well-spent.

> So what if the hat-racks cost money or are free or are simply part of
> the cost of hiring a Hoffman? If it's what you want it can't be a waste.

If they are part of the cost of hiring Hoffman, then they are wasted money.
Hoffman's skills aren't totally unique. There are no doubt a lot of people
who do what he does, as well as he does, with a ton less pretense and
therefore lower costs. They may also be humbler and therefore a lot easier
to work with.

>> I know this is all pretty complex for you to follow, Stephen, but do try
>> to
>> keep up. ;-)

> Says the man who can't tell "saying" from "said" and says the first post
> in a thread called "Attn: Arny" isn't "in reply to him."

Picky, picky, picky. I wish I had the time to obsess over irrelevant details
like you do, Stephen.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Could you quote some of the activities in audio that "will
> >> >> >> > benefit
> >> >> >> > all
> >> >> >> > music lovers"
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > I'm not setting up traps. I would love to hear improvements in
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > often abysmal recording standards for example.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Just goes to show that Mirabel does not understand the difference
> >> >> >> between
> >> >> >> art and science as applied to audio.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
> >> >> >> nothing
> >> >> >> at all to with any limitations of current recording and
> >> >> >> distribution
> >> >> >> technology.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
> >> >> >> everything to do with artistic choices.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There goes Ohio's argument.
> >> >>
> >> >> How so?
> >> >
> >> > It's fun to see you undercut someone arguing your side, but you're
> >> > saying that "snake oil" products don't make any difference compared
> >> > with
> >> > production choices, therefore, pace Ohio, the money couldn't be better
> >> > spent.
> >>
> >> As usual, you're biases are running away with your perceptions. I said
> >> nothing about snake oil, and I meant nothing about snake oil.
> >> Furthermore,
> >> I'm not undercutting Ohio, because he's arguing that money spent on snake
> >> oil, to include DVD-A and SACD so-called "hi rez" snake oil, is wasted
> >> and I
> >> agree with that.
> >
> > Ohio mentioned the snake oil products. You hold that today's sound
> > quality is due to artistic choices, not sound equipment, hence snake oil
> > is a dead issue.
>
> Wrong, like Ohio said, snake oil still costs money.

Money isn't sound.

> >> > IMO, it doesn't matter how many magic hat-racks Hoffman has in his
> >> > monitoring room so long as his cds sound good (and they do).
> >>
> >> But if Hoffman's magic hat racks cost money, and/or if he uses them to
> >> justifying paying him more, its money wasted. That compares with money
> >> spent
> >> to obtain his straight-up production skills, which to a point is money
> >> well-spent.
>
> > So what if the hat-racks cost money or are free or are simply part of
> > the cost of hiring a Hoffman? If it's what you want it can't be a waste.
>
> If they are part of the cost of hiring Hoffman, then they are wasted money.
> Hoffman's skills aren't totally unique. There are no doubt a lot of people
> who do what he does, as well as he does, with a ton less pretense and
> therefore lower costs. They may also be humbler and therefore a lot easier
> to work with.

No, they're part of the cost of hiring Hoffman. There's no "no hat-rack"
discount.

You are free to hire mastering engineers who haven't established
themselves as a brand name.

> >> I know this is all pretty complex for you to follow, Stephen, but do try
> >> to
> >> keep up. ;-)
>
> > Says the man who can't tell "saying" from "said" and says the first post
> > in a thread called "Attn: Arny" isn't "in reply to him."
>
> Picky, picky, picky. I wish I had the time to obsess over irrelevant details
> like you do, Stephen.

Reduce your "output" and you'll have all the time you need. For
instance, you were happy to take the time to spew random crap on the
English String Music cd in an unrelated thread, but given the chance to
discuss it appropriately, you took a pass. Granted, substantive
discussion requires more time than random crap, but choosing the first
over the second reduces you to troll level.

Stephen

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,

>> > Says the man who can't tell "saying" from "said" and says the first
>> > post
>> > in a thread called "Attn: Arny" isn't "in reply to him."
>>
>> Picky, picky, picky. I wish I had the time to obsess over irrelevant
>> details
>> like you do, Stephen.
>
> Reduce your "output" and you'll have all the time you need.

I've got two choices - try to address all the weirdness that gets spewed out
here, or break my butt writing perfect prose to satisfy some OCD losers who
only bring up spelling, punctuation and the like when they are backed into
a corner.

> For instance, you were happy to take the time to spew random crap on the
> English String Music cd in an unrelated thread,

Random crap? I didn't know you got hurt that bad!

> but given the chance to
> discuss it appropriately, you took a pass.

That's you're side of the story.

> Granted, substantive
> discussion requires more time than random crap, but choosing the first
> over the second reduces you to troll level.

Just try to make sense and stay on topic Stephen. You've already admitted
that you have nothing cogent to say here.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > In article >,
>
>>> > Says the man who can't tell "saying" from "said" and says the first
>>> > post
>>> > in a thread called "Attn: Arny" isn't "in reply to him."
>>>
>>> Picky, picky, picky. I wish I had the time to obsess over irrelevant
>>> details
>>> like you do, Stephen.
>>
>> Reduce your "output" and you'll have all the time you need.
>
> I've got two choices - try to address all the weirdness that gets spewed
> out here, or break my butt writing perfect prose to satisfy some OCD
> losers who only bring up spelling, punctuation and the like when they are
> backed into a corner.

Besides that, my education didn't cover "spelling" or "grammar". Those were
for non-technical wimps, like English majors and social so-called
scientists.

>
>> For instance, you were happy to take the time to spew random crap on the
>> English String Music cd in an unrelated thread,
>
> Random crap? I didn't know you got hurt that bad!

It wasn't random to me. I "know" the sound of good violins. My
congregation has a twelve year old that plays one for us occassionally!

>
>> but given the chance to
>> discuss it appropriately, you took a pass.
>
> That's you're side of the story.

When you have nothing you *can* say in rebuttal........


>> Granted, substantive
>> discussion requires more time than random crap, but choosing the first
>> over the second reduces you to troll level.
>
> Just try to make sense and stay on topic Stephen. You've already admitted
> that you have nothing cogent to say here.

A prime example of a "cogent" reply, Steven.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > In article >,
>>
>>>> > Says the man who can't tell "saying" from "said" and says the first
>>>> > post
>>>> > in a thread called "Attn: Arny" isn't "in reply to him."
>>>>
>>>> Picky, picky, picky. I wish I had the time to obsess over irrelevant
>>>> details
>>>> like you do, Stephen.
>>>
>>> Reduce your "output" and you'll have all the time you need.
>>
>> I've got two choices - try to address all the weirdness that gets spewed
>> out here, or break my butt writing perfect prose to satisfy some OCD
>> losers who only bring up spelling, punctuation and the like when they
>> are backed into a corner.

> Besides that, my education didn't cover "spelling" or "grammar". Those
> were for non-technical wimps, like English majors and social so-called
> scientists.

Harry wants us to think this is strictly on-topic in an audio forum.

>>> For instance, you were happy to take the time to spew random crap on
>>> the
>>> English String Music cd in an unrelated thread,

>> Random crap? I didn't know you got hurt that bad!

> It wasn't random to me. I "know" the sound of good violins. My
> congregation has a twelve year old that plays one for us occassionally!

Such an embarassment of riches I have. At our church the string section
ranges from two (a 17 year-old and his dad) to four (add the concertmaster
of a local municipal orchestra and a 15 year old girl). ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arns, let's bring this back on point. The point is that your
justification for berating or otherwise belittling people's audio
choices is based on 'engineering' and/or 'business' concerns. My point
is that is a crock of ****, and that you are nothing more than a petty
asshole.

Now that the parameters have been reestablished, let's continue, shall
we?

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

> >>>>> Because your justifications about audiophile companies
> >>>>> always seem to revolve around money.
> >>>>
> >>>> The practice of business and engineering are closely
> >>>> related to cost-effectiveness, which of course revolves
> >>>> around money. Are you saying that anybody who is
> >>>> interested in business or engineering is jealous of
> >>>> people who have or spend money?
> >>>
> >>> I find it odd that someone would care what another
> >>> business, or another engineer, is doing with their
> >>> money.
> >>
> >> Tell that to the Federal Government. Or, have you never
> >> filled out a tax return?
> >
> > Irrelevant comparison noted.
>
> Dismissive attitude noted.

Please list examples of the Federal government interfering or
criticizing a business on how it chooses to spend its money that is not
concerned with the legality of that decision or with taxes.

They may care a great deal, but they are not stupid enough to publicly
comment.

> > Do you really think that HP cares what Dell does with its
> > money?
>
> Absolutely. Every large company worth their salt studies the competition.

'Studying the competition' and interfering with or commenting on how a
competitor spends its money are two vastly different things, Arns.

Even an incomeptent asshole like you would have to agree with that.

How about some examples of HP (or like companies) commenting on or
criticizing Dell (or like companies) on how they choose to spend their
money.

> > They probably hope they don't do wise things with it.
>
> But just in case...

Yes?

How about an example or two where the chairman of a company contacts
the chairman of another company and tells them that there are better
ways they can spend their money, increase margins, hire better people,
and so on?

Let's exclude any examples where a chairman calls and asks for advice
from another chairman, for example. And my concession to you will be to
exclude those throngs of people who have called or emailed you and
asked, "Arns, how should I spend my audio dollar?"

That will keep things equal.

> >>> Normal businesspeople do not care what other businesses
> >>> do with their money.
> >>
> >> That's why business magazines publish summaries of
> >> financial results from a wide range of busineses -
> >> nobody cares about what other businesses do with their
> >> money?
>
> > Please show where I said 'nobody.'
>
> Hairsplitting noted. You said "Normal businesspeople do not care what other
> bueinesses do with their money."

So now 'normal businesspeople' becomes 'nobody'? That becomes
'hairsplitting'? LOL!

Get a new thesaurus, Arns. Yours sounds like it was written by people
as incompetent as you are.

> > Are you trying to draw some whacked-out analogy between
> > investors and businesses?
>
> Businesses are investors. I'll bet you never thought about it that deeply.

How many shares of GM stock do you suppose Ford owns?

How many HP shares do you suppose that Michael Dell owns?

> > Investors care a great deal
> > about how businesses spend their money. That's one way
> > they decide who to invest in.
>
> Trivial truism noted.

That seems to be the 'point' you are trying to make that investors care
about how the companies they invest in spend their money.

If it helps, I'll agree that investors care a great deal about how the
companies they invest in spend their money.

> > The government only cares
> > insofar as the legality of what they do with their money
> > and taxes.
>
> You're the one who made the sweeping and false generality.
>
> > They do not care beyond that.
>
> Sure the government cares quite a bit beyond that, but how can I teach you
> about how a good government works?

Please show examples of the Federal government advising, unsolicited, a
business how to spend its money not concerned with legalities or taxes.

You see, Arns, if someone solicits your advice or approval that changes
things.

It's your unsolicited, unwanted advice that makes you a petty asshole.
Oh, and abnormal. I forgot abnormal.

> > And the
> > government and investors are not 'other businesses' or
> > 'engineers' (except in your mind maybe).
>
> Except that investors are often other busineses.

See above. Obfuscation of point noted.

> > No wonder you come off confused most of the time: you are
> > confused.
>
> Gratuitous insult noted.

But you *earn* (and deserve) the insults.;-)

> > ****R are you really that stupid or do you merely totally
> >> disrespect the intelligence of the people who read this
> >> forum?
>
> > LOL! Arns, you are as sharp as an antique brick.
>
> That would appear to be all it takes to be sharper than you, ****R.

Ah, so it's when you're losing the 'debating trade' that I become
'****R.' LMAO!

> > Do you really think that Ford cares what Seagate does
> > with its money?
>
> Excluded middle argument noted.

Please point out examples of that 'excluded middle,' Arns.

> >>> The only time the engineers that I
> >>> know care what other engineers do is when it affects
> >>> them.
>
> >> Then you don't believe that there is such a thing as
> >> competition among businesses?
>
> > Where did you come up with that one, Arns? Please show
> > your logic here, as I can't see any.
>
> Let's see if you can figure out the purpose of the companies behind these
> web sites:
>
> http://www.trendiq.com/CompLandscapes.htm

"TrendIQ is a leading competitive intelligence company focused on
providing marketing tools that help its clients build stronger
businesses."

So a company hires this company to help make internal decisions about
how to spend their money. I do not see where it says, "TrendIQ is a
leading competitive intelligence company focused on providing marketing
tools that help its clients build stronger businesses. Our clients then
advise their competitors on how to spend their money in order to
maximize their competitor's bottom line."

Therefore totally irrelevant and off-point.

> http://www.egideria.com/t_etudes.html

Again, an internal consulting company.

If it helps, I agree that business executives are very concerned with
how *their* business spends money.

> http://www.qualityworks.com/offer/co.studies.html

Once again, I do not see where any of these links advocate that one
business or a group of engineers interfere, comment upon, or criticize
the decisions of a competitor or another business.

Therefore, you cannot prove your 'point' that your abnormal interest in
how somebody other that you chooses to spend their money is a normal
event based upon your being a concerned engineer or business person and
leaves us with the fact that...

....you are nothing more than a petty and abnormal asshole.

Sorry, Arns: you provided the proof yourself.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Arns, let's bring this back on point. The point is that your
> justification for berating or otherwise belittling people's audio
> choices is based on 'engineering' and/or 'business' concerns. My point
> is that is a crock of ****, and that you are nothing more than a petty
> asshole.

Post dismissed on the grounds of being based on a false premise.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

I think old Arns is looking for an appointment to the new cabinet-level
Department of Audio Cost Analysis.

He'd never get confirmed though.

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> > Ohio mentioned the snake oil products. You hold that today's sound
> > quality is due to artistic choices, not sound equipment, hence snake oil
> > is a dead issue.
>
> Wrong, like Ohio said, snake oil still costs money.

But not yours. That's an important point, Arns.

> >> > IMO, it doesn't matter how many magic hat-racks Hoffman has in his
> >> > monitoring room so long as his cds sound good (and they do).
> >>
> >> But if Hoffman's magic hat racks cost money, and/or if he uses them to
> >> justifying paying him more, its money wasted. That compares with money
> >> spent
> >> to obtain his straight-up production skills, which to a point is money
> >> well-spent.
>
> > So what if the hat-racks cost money or are free or are simply part of
> > the cost of hiring a Hoffman? If it's what you want it can't be a waste.
>
> If they are part of the cost of hiring Hoffman, then they are wasted money.

You forgot 'IYO.' That's an important point, Arns.

> Hoffman's skills aren't totally unique. There are no doubt a lot of people
> who do what he does, as well as he does, with a ton less pretense and
> therefore lower costs. They may also be humbler and therefore a lot easier
> to work with.

Like you, for instance. LOL!

> >> I know this is all pretty complex for you to follow, Stephen, but do try
> >> to
> >> keep up. ;-)
>
> > Says the man who can't tell "saying" from "said" and says the first post
> > in a thread called "Attn: Arny" isn't "in reply to him."
>
> Picky, picky, picky. I wish I had the time to obsess over irrelevant details
> like you do, Stephen.

But you do, Arns. And apparently lots more than anyone else here.
LOtl;'s!;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Arns, let's bring this back on point. The point is that your
> > justification for berating or otherwise belittling people's audio
> > choices is based on 'engineering' and/or 'business' concerns. My point
> > is that is a crock of ****, and that you are nothing more than a petty
> > asshole.
>
> Post dismissed on the grounds of being based on a false premise.

LMAO!

It's the point that *you* made, Arns.

But I'll agree with you: it *was* a false premise.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Such an embarassment I am.

You're Jewish?

[Harry Lavo]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On 8 Nov 2006 12:19:44 -0800, " >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>You say:
>>"> Because it's bull**** and snake oil. It takes money away from
>>> designers, engineers, and companies that are actually doing worthwhile
>>> things - things that will benefit all music lovers..
>>
>>Could you quote some of the activities in audio that "will benefit all
>>music lovers"
>>
>>I'm not setting up traps. I would love to hear improvements in the
>>often abysmal recording standards for example.
>
>
> I tend to try to persuade people to put more money into 2 areas:
> speakers and recordings. I feel they will benefit by putting their
> money into these rather than all of the rather questionable items that
> some people get carried away with.
>
> For speakers, NHT's Xd speakers are a good example. They're on the
> forefront of a new way of designing speakers. Money spent on the Xd's
> today will help with other speakers tomorrow and will even help with
> the entire speaker industry.
>
> With recordings, purchases today of your favorite genre (and even your
> favorite media) will tend to spur more production of your favorites
> tomorrow.
>
> There are people working on creating even more accurate computer
> models of circuits. They do this so they will be able to design better
> products. I see this as beneficial, both for their products and the
> general state of the art in engineering.
>
> I'm not sure I buy into everything they say, but people like Nelson
> Pass and John Curl have done a lot for audio. Whoever it was that
> started looking at jitter back in the early '90s also benefited audio
> (although jitter is a solved problem in modern DACs). Roy Johnson,
> Earl Geddes, and Dennis Murphy are doing good things for speakers
> right now. There are plenty of others that employ knowledge and solid
> engineering to real problems and come up with worthwhile results.
>
> Note that this does not include the people who try to sell you
> "Electret Foil," an "Intelligent Chip," or "Quantum Electron
> Purifiers." :-)

No, but it does include those people who are bringing to market better tube
amps and better record playing mechanisms.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 8 Nov 2006 12:19:44 -0800, " >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>You say:
>>>"> Because it's bull**** and snake oil. It takes money away from
>>>> designers, engineers, and companies that are actually doing worthwhile
>>>> things - things that will benefit all music lovers..
>>>
>>>Could you quote some of the activities in audio that "will benefit all
>>>music lovers"
>>>
>>>I'm not setting up traps. I would love to hear improvements in the
>>>often abysmal recording standards for example.
>>
>>
>> I tend to try to persuade people to put more money into 2 areas:
>> speakers and recordings. I feel they will benefit by putting their
>> money into these rather than all of the rather questionable items that
>> some people get carried away with.
>>
>> For speakers, NHT's Xd speakers are a good example. They're on the
>> forefront of a new way of designing speakers. Money spent on the Xd's
>> today will help with other speakers tomorrow and will even help with
>> the entire speaker industry.
>>
>> With recordings, purchases today of your favorite genre (and even your
>> favorite media) will tend to spur more production of your favorites
>> tomorrow.
>>
>> There are people working on creating even more accurate computer
>> models of circuits. They do this so they will be able to design better
>> products. I see this as beneficial, both for their products and the
>> general state of the art in engineering.
>>
>> I'm not sure I buy into everything they say, but people like Nelson
>> Pass and John Curl have done a lot for audio. Whoever it was that
>> started looking at jitter back in the early '90s also benefited audio
>> (although jitter is a solved problem in modern DACs). Roy Johnson,
>> Earl Geddes, and Dennis Murphy are doing good things for speakers
>> right now. There are plenty of others that employ knowledge and solid
>> engineering to real problems and come up with worthwhile results.
>>
>> Note that this does not include the people who try to sell you
>> "Electret Foil," an "Intelligent Chip," or "Quantum Electron
>> Purifiers." :-)
>
> No, but it does include those people who are bringing to market better
> tube amps and better record playing mechanisms.

IOW legacy snake oil.

If you improve tubed amps to the level of the current SOTA you end up with
SS amps.

If you improve vinyl to the current SOTA you get digital.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> > Such an embarassment I am.

> You're Jewish?

I believe Arnii is actually ****tish.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Sander deWaal]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > said:


>Agreed. I've never heard a HV triode in PP, like a 211, have you? I'll
>bet it's glorious. No whimpy 1w SE amps there...


Not 211 PP, but 845 PP .

I must say, wonderful sound, but a bit too "macho" for me.

2A3PP or KT88 PP trioded are just fine with me.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Sander deWaal]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > said:


>I find it odd that someone would care what another business, or another
>engineer, is doing with their money. Normal businesspeople do not care
>what other businesses do with their money. The only time the engineers
>that I know care what other engineers do is when it affects them.


The expression is actually a bit different:

"The only thing 2 engineers will agree upon, is that the third one is
an idiot."

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Sander deWaal]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > said:


>Arns, you must be crazy to even bring up social connections.


As long as there are Neutrik connectors at the ends of said
connections, all is well, note.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > said:
>
>
>>I find it odd that someone would care what another business, or another
>>engineer, is doing with their money. Normal businesspeople do not care
>>what other businesses do with their money. The only time the engineers
>>that I know care what other engineers do is when it affects them.
>
>
> The expression is actually a bit different:
>
> "The only thing 2 engineers will agree upon, is that the third one is
> an idiot."

Only happens when your back is turned, Sander.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg is defeated after one round.

> > Arns, let's bring this back on point. The point is that your
> > justification for berating or otherwise belittling people's audio
> > choices is based on 'engineering' and/or 'business' concerns. My point
> > is that is a crock of ****, and that you are nothing more than a petty
> > asshole.

> Post dismissed on the grounds of being based on a false premise.

Arnii, I've never seen you fold this fast. Is something wrong? (Something
new, I mean.) Did Pastor Matt give you another excoriation session? Did
your butt-plug come loose? Did the Kroobitch try to increase her trade by
offering "hard drives" as a bonus to her usual services?

You can tell us, Arnii. We're your cyber-family. Remember how we were all
there for you when you posted news of your son's death on 50 newsgroups?
If there's a new problem that's got you disgruntled, I'm sure somebody
will be glad to help.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>>>I find it odd that someone would care what another business, or another
>>>engineer, is doing with their money. Normal businesspeople do not care
>>>what other businesses do with their money. The only time the engineers
>>>that I know care what other engineers do is when it affects them.


>> The expression is actually a bit different:

>> "The only thing 2 engineers will agree upon, is that the third one is
>> an idiot."


>Only happens when your back is turned, Sander.


;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[MiNe 109]

Arny's in the "attack thread title" phase of his mania.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> OCD losers

Interesting when Arny finds a new word or idea. I wonder why OCD is
suddenly on his mind.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Harry Lavo" > wrote:

AK:
> > Just try to make sense and stay on topic Stephen. You've already admitted
> > that you have nothing cogent to say here.
>
> A prime example of a "cogent" reply, Steven.

He reminds me of a late prof who would praise someone's "considerable
powers of persuasion" when he disagreed with him.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> OCD losers

> Interesting when Arny finds a new word or idea.

Only in your perceptions, Stephen.

> I wonder why OCD is suddenly on his mind.

Your behavior.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> Arny's in the "attack thread title" phase of his mania.

When does the 'disappear from RAO forever' phase kick in?:-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> MiNe 109 wrote:
>> Arny's in the "attack thread title" phase of his mania.
>
> When does the 'disappear from RAO forever' phase kick in?:-)

More to the point, when does your "disappear from ROA for 30 days" phase
kick in?

Next trip to rehab?

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

> Arny's in the "attack thread title" phase of his mania.

Please site™ bias-controlled tests to proove™ Krooger is attacking you.
Otherwise, it's Given™ that Arnii is only defending himself, albeit
preemptively.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

> > OCD losers

> Interesting when Arny finds a new word or idea. I wonder why OCD is
> suddenly on his mind.

You probably don't want to know. I'll bet it has something to do with that
sordid business at Goose Puke Baptist Chruch™.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Ayn Marx]

Maybe if you sat on a nice hot T 1610 for a few hours you'd finally see
the light?

What else do we have to do to convince you nobody on Aus. Hi-Fi
newsgroup gives a stuff about your boring little war with Dr ABX?
Please go away and stay away. We've got enough psychotrolls of our own.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> OCD losers
>
> > Interesting when Arny finds a new word or idea.
>
> Only in your perceptions, Stephen.
>
> > I wonder why OCD is suddenly on his mind.
>
> Your behavior.

Interesting. Am I prone to repetitive output or manic responses?

Stephen

PS IKYABWAI

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> >> Arny's in the "attack thread title" phase of his mania.
> >
> > When does the 'disappear from RAO forever' phase kick in?:-)
>
> More to the point, when does your "disappear from ROA for 30 days" phase
> kick in?

That reminds me: must go to REI.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > MiNe 109 wrote:
>> >> Arny's in the "attack thread title" phase of his mania.
>> >
>> > When does the 'disappear from RAO forever' phase kick in?:-)
>>
>> More to the point, when does your "disappear from RAO for 30 days" phase
>> kick in?
>
> That reminds me: must go to REI.

For what?

[Jenn]

In article >,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> Arny's in the "attack thread title" phase of his mania.
>
> Stephen

Which he's critical of others doing. He's even critical of others
POSTING to 'attack thread title" posts.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> MiNe 109 > wrote:
>
>> Arny's in the "attack thread title" phase of his mania.

>> Stephen

> Which he's critical of others doing. He's even critical of others
> POSTING to 'attack thread title" posts.

I learned that *technique* from Middius.

I detect some slight hint you actually take this seriously, even maybe a
tiny bit personally.

[Peter Wieck]

Ayn Marx wrote:
> Maybe if you sat on a nice hot T 1610 for a few hours you'd finally see
> the light?

Ayn:

The "commander" is only let out when the other two trolls' pseudopods
are tired. It is generally harmless as it is as mindless as it is
predictable. As it is powerless, it is best ignored.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > MiNe 109 > wrote:
> >
> >> Arny's in the "attack thread title" phase of his mania.
>
> >> Stephen
>
> > Which he's critical of others doing. He's even critical of others
> > POSTING to 'attack thread title" posts.
>
> I learned that *technique* from Middius.
>
> I detect some slight hint you actually take this seriously, even maybe a
> tiny bit personally.

I find hypocritical attitudes distasteful. If one bitches about a
behavior (at length) one shouldn't ape that behavior, in my view.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

I pull an Arny:

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> >> Arny's in the "attack thread title" phase of his mania.
> >
> > When does the 'disappear from RAO forever' phase kick in?:-)
>
> More to the point, when does your "disappear from ROA for 30 days" phase
> kick in?

I've never been to ROA, you your point is irrelevant. Excluded middle
noted.

Next!

> Next trip to rehab?

That the best you can do Arns?

You really are a POS.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> >> >> Arny's in the "attack thread title" phase of his mania.
> >> >
> >> > When does the 'disappear from RAO forever' phase kick in?:-)
> >>
> >> More to the point, when does your "disappear from RAO for 30 days" phase
> >> kick in?
> >
> > That reminds me: must go to REI.
>
> For what?

Ha! Busted! You fixed your typo!

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
Here in Ohio > wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 21:03:29 GMT, MiNe 109
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> >> >> Arny's in the "attack thread title" phase of his mania.
> >> >
> >> > When does the 'disappear from RAO forever' phase kick in?:-)
> >>
> >> More to the point, when does your "disappear from ROA for 30 days" phase
> >> kick in?
> >
> >That reminds me: must go to REI.
>
> Recreational Equipment?
>
> I wish there was a store near me, although they're not what they used
> to be. (Their prices went up and they started selling far more really
> expensive items. In essense, they became a boutique.)

They do have some up market stuff: Royal Robbins, etc. Still to big to
be a boutique and the sporting goods stores don't do as good a job with
the outdoorsy stuff.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

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

> I pull an Arny:
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > >> Arny's in the "attack thread title" phase of his mania.
> > >
> > > When does the 'disappear from RAO forever' phase kick in?:-)
> >
> > More to the point, when does your "disappear from ROA for 30 days" phase
> > kick in?
>
> I've never been to ROA, you your point is irrelevant. Excluded middle
> noted.
>
> Next!
>
> > Next trip to rehab?
>
> That the best you can do Arns?
>
> You really are a POS.

That's his SOP.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> > >> message
> > >> oups.com...
> > >> >
> > >> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > >> >> Arny's in the "attack thread title" phase of his mania.
> > >> >
> > >> > When does the 'disappear from RAO forever' phase kick in?:-)
> > >>
> > >> More to the point, when does your "disappear from RAO for 30 days" phase
> > >> kick in?
> > >
> > > That reminds me: must go to REI.
> >
> > For what?
>
> Ha! Busted! You fixed your typo!

Retroactive fixes don't count.

Arns owes the entire world an apology for dishonesty.

And then he should, like MacArthur, "just fade away."

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 21:03:29 GMT, MiNe 109
> > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>>> message
>>> oups.com...
>>> >
>>> > MiNe 109 wrote:
>>> >> Arny's in the "attack thread title" phase of his mania.
>>> >
>>> > When does the 'disappear from RAO forever' phase kick in?:-)
>>>
>>> More to the point, when does your "disappear from ROA for 30 days" phase
>>> kick in?
>>
>>That reminds me: must go to REI.
>
> Recreational Equipment?
>
> I wish there was a store near me, although they're not what they used
> to be. (Their prices went up and they started selling far more really
> expensive items. In essense, they became a boutique.)

We used to do a lot of business with REI but then MooseJaw opened a store
very close by.

http://ww2.moosejaw.com/moosejaw/

We're pretty well equipped, so most recent purchases have been for
expendables like Isobutane fuel.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > MiNe 109 > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Arny's in the "attack thread title" phase of his mania.
>>
>> >> Stephen
>>
>> > Which he's critical of others doing. He's even critical of others
>> > POSTING to 'attack thread title" posts.
>>
>> I learned that *technique* from Middius.
>>
>> I detect some slight hint you actually take this seriously, even maybe a
>> tiny bit personally.
>
> I find hypocritical attitudes distasteful. If one bitches about a
> behavior (at length) one shouldn't ape that behavior, in my view.

RAO is a game, Jenn. Taking it too seriously or taking it off Usenet are two
well-known ways to lose.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> RAO is a game, Jenn. Taking it too seriously or taking it off Usenet are two
> well-known ways to lose.

LOL!

Arns plays with himself on RAO... and loses! LMAO!

[Harry Lavo]

"Here in Ohio" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 11:25:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I buy into everything they say, but people like Nelson
>>>> Pass and John Curl have done a lot for audio. Whoever it was that
>>>> started looking at jitter back in the early '90s also benefited audio
>>>> (although jitter is a solved problem in modern DACs). Roy Johnson,
>>>> Earl Geddes, and Dennis Murphy are doing good things for speakers
>>>> right now. There are plenty of others that employ knowledge and solid
>>>> engineering to real problems and come up with worthwhile results.
>>>>
>>>> Note that this does not include the people who try to sell you
>>>> "Electret Foil," an "Intelligent Chip," or "Quantum Electron
>>>> Purifiers." :-)
>>>
>>> No, but it does include those people who are bringing to market better
>>> tube amps and better record playing mechanisms.
>>
>>IOW legacy snake oil.
>>
>>If you improve tubed amps to the level of the current SOTA you end up with
>>SS amps.
>>
>>If you improve vinyl to the current SOTA you get digital.
>>
>
> Well, I have heard tube equipment that sounded quite good indeed.
> Ditto for hybrid equipment. So I would say, as I have said before,
> that the best tube and the best SS equipment are converging on the
> same point.
>
> I prefer SS for a number of reasons, like lower cost, heat,
> maintainance, and more economically achievable high power output.
>
> However, I do respect tube equipment like that designed by David
> Manley. He had some very nice products, and they did what he said they
> did without fireworks or theatrics.
>
> With vinyl, I do feel you can only go so far before hitting the wall.
> Vinyl is limited in terms of accuracy and it probably doesn't make
> sense to devote a lot of effort to expensive turntables when
> moderately-priced turntables like the Goldring GR1.2 (at US$299) are
> better than the vinyl itself. I also see a Music Hall 'table at $629
> and a Thorens one at $600 that should also do a fine job.
>
> I don't feel that moving coil cartridges and the necessary phono
> frontends are sane.
>
> An inexpensive Grado cartridge is going to be more than adequate. As
> good as anything and far better than some.

Sorry. Not as good as anything. Not even as good as most. Moving coil
cartridges, that is.

And while there are extremely expensive mc preamps out there, there are also
reasonably priced ones that do just fine. And readily available preamps
with built-in phono preamps. And lots of decent used phono preamps on eBay.

If you really know what you are doing you can find a used Marcof PPA2,
modify it by adding capacitance and potting it, and have a DC battery-run
phono headamp with variable gain and variable loading that rivals the very
best in sound and transparency for the ungodly sum of......oh, about $150.
And you can buy a Dynavector DV17 or a Shelter 501 for a finished cartridge
system well under $1000 and have a phono sound that is damn near SOTA. Much
more important than the TT or the arm themselves, as important as they are.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Here in Ohio wrote:
> However, I do respect tube equipment like that designed by David
> Manley. He had some very nice products, and they did what he said they
> did without fireworks or theatrics.

Must not have been using Chinese output tubes.:-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Here in Ohio wrote:

> Wacky expensive power cords don't do anything but siphon money out of
> your wallet.

Actually, not out of mine. I wouldn't buy one either. I have a hard
time believing that miles of aluminum wire on a high-tension line
through industrial transformers and then a service drop and several
feet of plain old copper 12/2 or 14/2 Romex will get 'cleaned up' in
six feet. And I'm not sure what's so dirty that the PS can't handle it
to begin with.

But if somebody else wants to buy one, and they think it's important,
and they enjoy it, then more power to them. (No pun intended...). I
might even speak my piece on it as I did above.

Once.

Same for all other things audio: green pens, Mpingo disks, pizza
spacers, whatever.

Go on and on and on like Arns, belittling people, bashing their
preferences, as well as being a very large asshole, and you've lost me.


I guess that's just because I have no social skills.

Hey, maybe Arns should just put a FAQ together and post it every couple
of weeks. It could start, "You're a worthless dumb deceived lying bigot
if you like [insert audio item here]..." and finish, "You're really
smart, good-looking, and sane if you believe [insert audio topic] like
I do..."

But as it is, you're aligning with the biggest POS on the Usenet,
according to a recent survey I saw.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> .
> >> com
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > MiNe 109 > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Arny's in the "attack thread title" phase of his mania.
> >>
> >> >> Stephen
> >>
> >> > Which he's critical of others doing. He's even critical of others
> >> > POSTING to 'attack thread title" posts.
> >>
> >> I learned that *technique* from Middius.
> >>
> >> I detect some slight hint you actually take this seriously, even maybe a
> >> tiny bit personally.
> >
> > I find hypocritical attitudes distasteful. If one bitches about a
> > behavior (at length) one shouldn't ape that behavior, in my view.
>
> RAO is a game, Jenn. Taking it too seriously

I don't take it seriously, but I do find hypocritical behavior
distasteful wherever I find it.

> or taking it off Usenet are two
> well-known ways to lose.

Who's taking it off Usenet?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...

>> or taking it off Usenet are two
>> well-known ways to lose.

> Who's taking it off Usenet?

Robert Morein who wrote a hate letter to a leader in my local community
Marc Phillips who brags about stalking me and reporting me to the local
police as a pedophile
The Scott who sometimes posts here and RAHE and sued me in California
Superior Court

[Arny Krueger]

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

> But if somebody else wants to buy one, and they think it's important,
> and they enjoy it, then more power to them. (No pun intended...). I
> might even speak my piece on it as I did above.
>
> Once.
>
> Same for all other things audio: green pens, Mpingo disks, pizza
> spacers, whatever.

> Go on and on and on like Arns, belittling people, bashing their
> preferences, as well as being a very large asshole, and you've lost me.

I find it interesting that you think that aggressively bashing me for my
preferences, belittling me over and over again, and generally acting like a
prick is a good thing, and yet you fault me for it. Just goes to show that
you have minimum self-awareness and maximum hypocrisy. It's idiots like you
who made this place the craphole that it is well known to be.

Once upon a time people actually talked about audio around here, and they
still do it on other Usenet groups that I post on, but you would be shouted
off in an instant.

However, after the months of daily mega-posts from psycho-cases like Derrida
and Benchomol, a decade of irrelevant steady personal attacks from idiots
like Middius, maybe half a decade of over-the-top hype and profanity from
saleshacks like Singh and Zipser, this place is what it is.

You seem to like the status quo. Why should I worry about your personal
preferences, or take their negative results very seriously? Enjoy RAO, and
hope you come up with a shorter, more convenient handle the next time you
change it.

[George M. Middius]

VictimBorg wails in pain as his "enemies" gather up the pitchforks and
start building a bonfire.

> > Who's taking it off Usenet?

> Robert Morein who wrote a hate letter to a leader in my local community
> Marc Phillips who brags about stalking me and reporting me to the local
> police as a pedophile
> The Scott who sometimes posts here and RAHE and sued me in California
> Superior Court


All that happened to poor, innocent little you? But you've been saying for
years that I am practically the Devil incarnate, and nothing like that has
ever happened to me. Could it be there's something wrong with your moral
compass? ;-)


P.S. You forgot to include Ed Shain, who threatened to sue you if you
didn't shut up about his business affairs.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

The Big **** is on another of his epochal self-pity jags. Here he recounts
some of the highlights of his "Usenet career".

> Robert Morein who wrote a hate letter to a leader in my local community

It wasn't a hate letter, Mr. Compulsive Liar. It was a plea for
intercession to get you the help you need.

> Marc Phillips who brags about stalking me and reporting me to the local
> police as a pedophile

"Stalking" means driving by your house. As for the police report, why
don't you share the details of that incident? Never mind -- I'll do it.
You, Arnii F. Krooger, made several posts on RAO in which you claimed to
have sexually explicit pictures of "young boys" -- your words. You also
described an apparent sexual fantasy involving your deceased minor son.
These are what practitioners of psycho-sexual disorders call warning
signs. In short, the report to the police was fully justified by your
behavior.

> The Scott who sometimes posts here and RAHE and sued me in California
> Superior Court

He sued you because you refused to apologize for calling him a pedophile
without a shred of evidence. It was simply dumb luck for you that he
didn't win a judgment, since you didn't make the slightest effort to
defend yourself or contest the accusation. (Of course, the defense you
offered on RAO wouldn't have worked very well in the real world.)


What sort of individual gets into real-world trouble five times in as many
years based only on his behavior in a semi-anonymous sector of cyberspace?
Is such an individual likely to be a victim of happenstance, or maybe the
object of a nefarious plot? Or is it possible that such an individual
BRINGS IT ALL ON HIMSELF?





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
Here in Ohio > wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:48:32 GMT, MiNe 109
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Here in Ohio > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 21:03:29 GMT, MiNe 109
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> >> message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> >> >> >> Arny's in the "attack thread title" phase of his mania.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > When does the 'disappear from RAO forever' phase kick in?:-)
> >> >>
> >> >> More to the point, when does your "disappear from ROA for 30 days"
> >> >> phase
> >> >> kick in?
> >> >
> >> >That reminds me: must go to REI.
> >>
> >> Recreational Equipment?
> >>
> >> I wish there was a store near me, although they're not what they used
> >> to be. (Their prices went up and they started selling far more really
> >> expensive items. In essense, they became a boutique.)
> >
> >They do have some up market stuff: Royal Robbins, etc. Still to big to
> >be a boutique and the sporting goods stores don't do as good a job with
> >the outdoorsy stuff.
>
> The last time I was in an REI store was in the late '70s in Seattle,
> before they opened other stores. We always dealt with them mail order,
> and my father had joined the Co-op in the '50s.
>
> The stuff they sold was very good quality, but it tended to be more
> utilitarian than fashionable.
>
> It's hard to describe, but there was a noticeable change in the types
> of goods they sold sometime in the '80s.
>
> They didn't change as much as Abercrombie & Fitch did, but I still saw
> a change.
>
> Oh, and "boutique" needn't mean small. I'd call something like Krell
> amps and preamps "boutique" products.

No problem. Yes, REI is more retail than co-op these days. The local
marketing strategy involves being on the same block as Whole Foods.

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

> Yes, REI is more retail than co-op these days. The local
> marketing strategy involves being on the same block as Whole Foods.

I went to a Whole Foods a couple weeks ago, and I was surprised to find a
lot of unexpectedly fresh produce, as well as some inventive salad bar
items. It's about time they offered some quality to justify their premium
prices.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> > But if somebody else wants to buy one, and they think it's important,
> > and they enjoy it, then more power to them. (No pun intended...). I
> > might even speak my piece on it as I did above.
> >
> > Once.
> >
> > Same for all other things audio: green pens, Mpingo disks, pizza
> > spacers, whatever.
>
> > Go on and on and on like Arns, belittling people, bashing their
> > preferences, as well as being a very large asshole, and you've lost me.
>
> I find it interesting that you think that aggressively bashing me for my
> preferences, belittling me over and over again, and generally acting like a
> prick is a good thing, and yet you fault me for it. Just goes to show that
> you have minimum self-awareness and maximum hypocrisy. It's idiots like you
> who made this place the craphole that it is well known to be.

I find it interesting that you call belittling and agressively acting
out towards other people your 'preference.'

You obviously did not comprehend what you responded to.

Look at how you act towards Jenn, for example. I act towards you like
you are a piece of **** because that's exactly what you are. And you're
clearly not very bright if you were not able to understand exactly what
I said to you.

So squash the fake self-pity schtick. You're an asshole, and now it
appears that you're a dumb asshole.

> Once upon a time people actually talked about audio around here, and they
> still do it on other Usenet groups that I post on, but you would be shouted
> off in an instant.

Go there then, as you wouldn't be missed here at all. It's interesting
that you choose to stay here and belittle people's preferences when
audio discussion nirvana is apparently right around the corner.

> However, after the months of daily mega-posts from psycho-cases like Derrida
> and Benchomol, a decade of irrelevant steady personal attacks from idiots
> like Middius, maybe half a decade of over-the-top hype and profanity from
> saleshacks like Singh and Zipser, this place is what it is.

And you had absolutely no responsibility in making it that way. I see,
Arns.

So tell me: did you lust after your mother? How was your relationship
with your father?

> You seem to like the status quo. Why should I worry about your personal
> preferences, or take their negative results very seriously?

A very telling statement, asshole.

> Enjoy RAO, and
> hope you come up with a shorter, more convenient handle the next time you
> change it.

Whatever that means. OK, crazy dumb asshole. Keep talking Arns. LOL!

Now go away. I'm sure all those other groups would love to have a guru
like you there.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said to TurdBorg:

> Whatever that means. OK, crazy dumb asshole. Keep talking Arns. LOL!
> Now go away. I'm sure all those other groups would love to have a guru
> like you there.

Actually, Arnii has "explained" why he makes RAO his stomping ground.
Here's a list of the "explanations" he's given (translated into human
language) as to why he doesn't enjoy the on-topic discussions available on
several other groups and web sites:

• rec.audio.tech: Krooger doesn't like that group because the discussions
are "not technical enough" for him. His evidence for that judgment is that
very few of the other posters are able comprehend the advanced wisdom and
knowledge he dispenses there. In reality, he's been unmasked as a poseur
so many times that the jeering now starts at his first or second post.

• aus.hi-fi: The denizens of this group have their hands full with a
couple of other posters who are, apparently, just as obstreperous as the
Krooborg (i.e. Bassett and Phallison). Consequently, the Normals on that
group tend to ignore the Krooborg, which is of course the only response to
his snot-bombs that he can't deal with.

• rec.audio.high-end: As we know, Krooger was permanently banned from that
group because of his compulsive preaching of aBxism dogma. (Turdy has
attempted to spin this simple truth into some far-fetched malarkey about
"freedom of speech", but the facts are as stated.)

• rec.audio.pro: The productionoids who post there are, by and large,
gainfully employed in studios and other production venues. Their knowledge
of their craft is informed by experience in the real world. Krooger, as we
all know, is a talentless hack whose "professional" recordings are the
ones he does for free as a volunteer at his church. It turns out Turdy's
lack of real-world experience is readily apparent to people who have such
experience, and they are singularly intolerant of his bloviating.

• rec.audio.tubes: Krooger is unwelcome here because the audio discussions
are focused on [gasp!] tubed gear. Mr. **** has had a singular lack of
success in winning converts to his solid-state-uber-alles religion.
Furthermore, the reception he receives there in response to his
proselytizing is about what you'd expect for, say, a guy selling
counterfeit software out of his car trunk at a convention of intellectual
property rights lawyers.

• audioasylum.com: This site is dominated by opinions about audio gear.
Since Krooger has no such opinions, other than his tired religious dogma
that we know so well, he's ignored there. In fact, he's muffled by the
moderators because, like RAH-E, this site is moderated.






--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Harry Lavo]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
>
> Shhhh! said to TurdBorg:
>
>> Whatever that means. OK, crazy dumb asshole. Keep talking Arns. LOL!
>> Now go away. I'm sure all those other groups would love to have a guru
>> like you there.
>
> Actually, Arnii has "explained" why he makes RAO his stomping ground.
> Here's a list of the "explanations" he's given (translated into human
> language) as to why he doesn't enjoy the on-topic discussions available on
> several other groups and web sites:
>
> . rec.audio.tech: Krooger doesn't like that group because the discussions
> are "not technical enough" for him. His evidence for that judgment is that
> very few of the other posters are able comprehend the advanced wisdom and
> knowledge he dispenses there. In reality, he's been unmasked as a poseur
> so many times that the jeering now starts at his first or second post.
>
> . aus.hi-fi: The denizens of this group have their hands full with a
> couple of other posters who are, apparently, just as obstreperous as the
> Krooborg (i.e. Bassett and Phallison). Consequently, the Normals on that
> group tend to ignore the Krooborg, which is of course the only response to
> his snot-bombs that he can't deal with.
>
> . rec.audio.high-end: As we know, Krooger was permanently banned from that
> group because of his compulsive preaching of aBxism dogma. (Turdy has
> attempted to spin this simple truth into some far-fetched malarkey about
> "freedom of speech", but the facts are as stated.)
>
> . rec.audio.pro: The productionoids who post there are, by and large,
> gainfully employed in studios and other production venues. Their knowledge
> of their craft is informed by experience in the real world. Krooger, as we
> all know, is a talentless hack whose "professional" recordings are the
> ones he does for free as a volunteer at his church. It turns out Turdy's
> lack of real-world experience is readily apparent to people who have such
> experience, and they are singularly intolerant of his bloviating.
>
> . rec.audio.tubes: Krooger is unwelcome here because the audio discussions
> are focused on [gasp!] tubed gear. Mr. **** has had a singular lack of
> success in winning converts to his solid-state-uber-alles religion.
> Furthermore, the reception he receives there in response to his
> proselytizing is about what you'd expect for, say, a guy selling
> counterfeit software out of his car trunk at a convention of intellectual
> property rights lawyers.
>
> . audioasylum.com: This site is dominated by opinions about audio gear.
> Since Krooger has no such opinions, other than his tired religious dogma
> that we know so well, he's ignored there. In fact, he's muffled by the
> moderators because, like RAH-E, this site is moderated.

You forgot the Steve Hoffman, Audiogon, and Quad.Quad Forum sites......oh, I
forgot, those are moderated as well. :-)

[MiNe 109]

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

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > Yes, REI is more retail than co-op these days. The local
> > marketing strategy involves being on the same block as Whole Foods.
>
> I went to a Whole Foods a couple weeks ago, and I was surprised to find a
> lot of unexpectedly fresh produce, as well as some inventive salad bar
> items. It's about time they offered some quality to justify their premium
> prices.

The local flagship store has fun stuff like beer tasting and a barbeque
counter. I think there's a corporate decision to pursue locally produced
produce.

Still expensive!

Stephen

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Here in Ohio wrote:
>
>> Wacky expensive power cords don't do anything but siphon money out of
>> your wallet.
>
> Actually, not out of mine. I wouldn't buy one either. I have a hard
> time believing that miles of aluminum wire on a high-tension line
> through industrial transformers and then a service drop and several
> feet of plain old copper 12/2 or 14/2 Romex will get 'cleaned up' in
> six feet. And I'm not sure what's so dirty that the PS can't handle it
> to begin with.
>
> But if somebody else wants to buy one, and they think it's important,
> and they enjoy it, then more power to them. (No pun intended...). I
> might even speak my piece on it as I did above.
>
> Once.
>
> Same for all other things audio: green pens, Mpingo disks, pizza
> spacers, whatever.
>
> Go on and on and on like Arns, belittling people, bashing their
> preferences, as well as being a very large asshole, and you've lost me.

Hypocrisy noted.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Here in Ohio wrote:
> >
> >> Wacky expensive power cords don't do anything but siphon money out of
> >> your wallet.
> >
> > Actually, not out of mine. I wouldn't buy one either. I have a hard
> > time believing that miles of aluminum wire on a high-tension line
> > through industrial transformers and then a service drop and several
> > feet of plain old copper 12/2 or 14/2 Romex will get 'cleaned up' in
> > six feet. And I'm not sure what's so dirty that the PS can't handle it
> > to begin with.
> >
> > But if somebody else wants to buy one, and they think it's important,
> > and they enjoy it, then more power to them. (No pun intended...). I
> > might even speak my piece on it as I did above.
> >
> > Once.
> >
> > Same for all other things audio: green pens, Mpingo disks, pizza
> > spacers, whatever.
> >
> > Go on and on and on like Arns, belittling people, bashing their
> > preferences, as well as being a very large asshole, and you've lost me.
>
> Hypocrisy noted.

Have I bashed your audio preferences? When?

Have I bashed anybody's audio preferences? When?

Or are you sore at me because I bash your ignorant political
preferences, most which if enacted *would,* *do,* and *will* affect me?

Sorry dude, no hypocrisy. Not even close.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Here in Ohio wrote:
>> >
>> >> Wacky expensive power cords don't do anything but siphon money out of
>> >> your wallet.
>> >
>> > Actually, not out of mine. I wouldn't buy one either. I have a hard
>> > time believing that miles of aluminum wire on a high-tension line
>> > through industrial transformers and then a service drop and several
>> > feet of plain old copper 12/2 or 14/2 Romex will get 'cleaned up' in
>> > six feet. And I'm not sure what's so dirty that the PS can't handle it
>> > to begin with.
>> >
>> > But if somebody else wants to buy one, and they think it's important,
>> > and they enjoy it, then more power to them. (No pun intended...). I
>> > might even speak my piece on it as I did above.
>> >
>> > Once.
>> >
>> > Same for all other things audio: green pens, Mpingo disks, pizza
>> > spacers, whatever.
>> >
>> > Go on and on and on like Arns, belittling people, bashing their
>> > preferences, as well as being a very large asshole, and you've lost me.
>>
>> Hypocrisy noted.
>
> Have I bashed your audio preferences? When?

So audio preferences are different from social preferences?

My audio preferences have about as much market influence
as my vote has social influence so...I rule in both arenas.


>
> Have I bashed anybody's audio preferences? When?
>
> Or are you sore at me because I bash your ignorant political
> preferences, most which if enacted *would,* *do,* and *will* affect me?

Me sore...nah...but I'm glad you feel affected. :).

ScottW

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
> > Could you quote some of the activities in audio that "will benefit all
> > music lovers"
>
> > I'm not setting up traps. I would love to hear improvements in the
> > often abysmal recording standards for example.
>
> Just goes to show that Mirabel does not understand the difference between
> art and science as applied to audio.
>
> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has nothing
> at all to with any limitations of current recording and distribution
> technology.
>
> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
> everything to do with artistic choices.

Arny pontificates:

> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
> everything to do with artistic choices

Let's rephrase this opaque verbiage: "The reason that so many
recordings sound so awful is that not a few rwcording engineers have
wooden ears or gutter-level taste or commercial ideas about what will
sell best- and they are often right in this last ionstance"

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>> > Could you quote some of the activities in audio that "will benefit all
>> > music lovers"
>>
>> > I'm not setting up traps. I would love to hear improvements in the
>> > often abysmal recording standards for example.
>>
>> Just goes to show that Mirabel does not understand the difference between
>> art and science as applied to audio.
>>
>> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
>> nothing
>> at all to with any limitations of current recording and distribution
>> technology.
>>
>> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
>> everything to do with artistic choices.
>
> Arny pontificates:
>
>> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
>> everything to do with artistic choices
>
> Let's rephrase this opaque verbiage: "The reason that so many
> recordings sound so awful is that not a few rwcording engineers have
> wooden ears or gutter-level taste or commercial ideas about what will
> sell best- and they are often right in this last ionstance"

More likely their bosses tell them that people don't listen to music as a
dedicated activity, and want recordings that work well as background music.

[George M. Middius]

Ludovic, we're all supposed to stop insulting Mr. Krooger for a while.

> Arny pontificates:

Insult noted.

> > The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
> > everything to do with artistic choices

> Let's rephrase this opaque verbiage:

Insult noted.

See, Arnii? I'm on your side.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[R. Stanton]

On Nov 12, 7:46 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> >> > Could you quote some of the activities in audio that "will benefit all
> >> > music lovers"
>
> >> > I'm not setting up traps. I would love to hear improvements in the
> >> > often abysmal recording standards for example.
>
> >> Just goes to show that Mirabel does not understand the difference between
> >> art and science as applied to audio.
>
> >> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
> >> nothing
> >> at all to with any limitations of current recording and distribution
> >> technology.
>
> >> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
> >> everything to do with artistic choices.
>
> > Arny pontificates:
>
> >> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
> >> everything to do with artistic choices
>
> > Let's rephrase this opaque verbiage: "The reason that so many
> > recordings sound so awful is that not a few rwcording engineers have
> > wooden ears or gutter-level taste or commercial ideas about what will
> > sell best- and they are often right in this last ionstance"More likely their bosses tell them that people don't listen to music as a
> dedicated activity, and want recordings that work well as background music.

There was a time when everyone looked down on "elevator music". Now the
"elevator music " sound sells. What a mess.

[paul packer]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 09:22:13 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>Ludovic, we're all supposed to stop insulting Mr. Krooger for a while.
>
>> Arny pontificates:
>
>Insult noted.
>
>> > The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
>> > everything to do with artistic choices
>
>> Let's rephrase this opaque verbiage:
>
>Insult noted.
>
>See, Arnii? I'm on your side.

Say, this could work.

Not!

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> > Could you quote some of the activities in audio that "will benefit all
> >> > music lovers"
> >>
> >> > I'm not setting up traps. I would love to hear improvements in the
> >> > often abysmal recording standards for example.
> >>
> >> Just goes to show that Mirabel does not understand the difference between
> >> art and science as applied to audio.
> >>
> >> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
> >> nothing
> >> at all to with any limitations of current recording and distribution
> >> technology.
> >>
> >> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
> >> everything to do with artistic choices.
> >
> > Arny pontificates:
> >
> >> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
> >> everything to do with artistic choices
> >
> > Let's rephrase this opaque verbiage: "The reason that so many
> > recordings sound so awful is that not a few rwcording engineers have
> > wooden ears or gutter-level taste or commercial ideas about what will
> > sell best- and they are often right in this last ionstance"
>
> More likely their bosses tell them that people don't listen to music as a
> dedicated activity, and want recordings that work well as background music.

++++++++++++++++++

Arny at 4am:

" >> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do
has
> >> everything to do with artistic choices

Arny a few hours later:

> More likely their bosses tell them that people don't listen to music as a
> dedicated activity, and want recordings that work well as background music

I see. No comment.

No insult..
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com...

> Arny at 4am:

> " >> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
>> >> everything to do with artistic choices

> Arny a few hours later:

>> More likely their bosses tell them that people don't listen to music as a
>> dedicated activity, and want recordings that work well as background
>> music

> I see. No comment.

Let me put the pieces together for you, Ludo:

More likely their bosses tell them that people don't listen to music as a
dedicated activity, and want recordings that work well as background music.
So, they make some artistic choices to modify the dynamics and possibly the
spectral balance of the recording.

And to clarify:

If you turn the treble down to avoid a dynamic range limitation of the
media, then that is a technical decision.

If you turn the treble down so that it sounds better to you in your
listening environment, then that is an artistic decision.

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..

:
: If you turn the treble down to avoid a dynamic range limitation of the
: media, then that is a technical decision.
:
: If you turn the treble down so that it sounds better to you in your
: listening environment, then that is an artistic decision.
:
So there you have it, folks:
Audiophiles are Artists, free to pursuit hedonistic purposes,
choose any combination of signal source, amp & speakers
they like.

anything left to discuss on RAO ?
:-)

R.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
> :
> : If you turn the treble down to avoid a dynamic range limitation of the
> : media, then that is a technical decision.
> :
> : If you turn the treble down so that it sounds better to you in your
> : listening environment, then that is an artistic decision.
> :
> So there you have it, folks:

> Audiophiles are Artists, free to pursuit hedonistic purposes,
> choose any combination of signal source, amp & speakers
> they like.

This is an important announcement, a true landmark. Until now, if an
audiophile did not make approved choices, the RAO thought police would come
to their houses and confiscate the offending equipment.

[George M. Middius]

Our Holy Protector Mr. Krooger is here again to do battle with the evil
minions of the E.H.E.E.

> > Audiophiles are Artists, free to pursuit hedonistic purposes,
> > choose any combination of signal source, amp & speakers
> > they like.

> This is an important announcement, a true landmark. Until now, if an
> audiophile did not make approved choices, the RAO thought police would come
> to their houses and confiscate the offending equipment.

What about the Solid State Inquisition, whose holy mission is to identify
and punish "tube bigots" and "vinyl-uber-alles" adherents? They were a
pretty big threat in the old days as well.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
Here in Ohio > wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:49:21 GMT, MiNe 109
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> MiNe 109 said:
> >>
> >> > Yes, REI is more retail than co-op these days. The local
> >> > marketing strategy involves being on the same block as Whole Foods.
> >>
> >> I went to a Whole Foods a couple weeks ago, and I was surprised to find a
> >> lot of unexpectedly fresh produce, as well as some inventive salad bar
> >> items. It's about time they offered some quality to justify their premium
> >> prices.
> >
> >The local flagship store has fun stuff like beer tasting and a barbeque
> >counter. I think there's a corporate decision to pursue locally produced
> >produce.
> >
>
>
> There's a new book out called "The United States of Arugula" that
> talks about where things like that originated. It's an interesting
> read and it does mention Whole Foods.

Thanks. I was given another recommendation on what I guess is a similar
subject, "The Omnivore's Dilemma".

Stephen

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> > Arny at 4am:
>
> > " >> The reason that some current recordings sound as bad as they do has
> >> >> everything to do with artistic choices
>
> > Arny a few hours later:
>
> >> More likely their bosses tell them that people don't listen to music as a
> >> dedicated activity, and want recordings that work well as background
> >> music
>
> > I see. No comment.
>
> Let me put the pieces together for you, Ludo:
>
> More likely their bosses tell them that people don't listen to music as a
> dedicated activity, and want recordings that work well as background music.
> So, they make some artistic choices to modify the dynamics and possibly the
> spectral balance of the recording.
>
> And to clarify:
>
> If you turn the treble down to avoid a dynamic range limitation of the
> media, then that is a technical decision.
>
> If you turn the treble down so that it sounds better to you in your
> listening environment, then that is an artistic decision.

==================================
Arny "clarifies" and instructs:

> If you turn the treble down to avoid a dynamic range limitation of the
> media, then that is a technical decision.
>
> If you turn the treble down so that it sounds better to you in your
> listening environment, then that is an artistic decision.

In Krueger semantics "avoiding dynamic range limitatation" to please
the prospective listeners is a "technical decision". But turning the
treble down to please yourself is an "artistic decision"

Similarly seeing an empty piece of wall and putting a grafitti on it is
a technical decision. But taking a mop and bucket to it is an
"artistic" decision.

Psychobabble has nothing on Master Krueger.
Ludovic Mirabel

PS. For more Krueger gymnastics see my posting today in the (renamed
"Arny is not listening" thread.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>> Arny at 4am:
>>
>>> " >> The reason that some current recordings sound as
>>> bad as they do has
>>>>>> everything to do with artistic choices
>>
>>> Arny a few hours later:
>>
>>>> More likely their bosses tell them that people don't
>>>> listen to music as a dedicated activity, and want
>>>> recordings that work well as background music
>>
>>> I see. No comment.
>>
>> Let me put the pieces together for you, Ludo:
>>
>> More likely their bosses tell them that people don't
>> listen to music as a dedicated activity, and want
>> recordings that work well as background music. So, they
>> make some artistic choices to modify the dynamics and
>> possibly the spectral balance of the recording.
>>
>> And to clarify:
>>
>> If you turn the treble down to avoid a dynamic range
>> limitation of the media, then that is a technical
>> decision.
>>
>> If you turn the treble down so that it sounds better to
>> you in your listening environment, then that is an
>> artistic decision.
>
> ==================================
> Arny "clarifies" and instructs:

>> If you turn the treble down to avoid a dynamic range
>> limitation of the media, then that is a technical
>> decision.

>> If you turn the treble down so that it sounds better to
>> you in your listening environment, then that is an
>> artistic decision.
>
> In Krueger semantics "avoiding dynamic range
> limitatation" to please the prospective listeners is a
> "technical decision".

> But turning the treble down to
> please yourself is an "artistic decision"

> Similarly seeing an empty piece of wall and putting a
> grafitti on it is a technical decision. But taking a mop
> and bucket to it is an "artistic" decision.

You seem to be free-associating, Ludo. I'm sorry that everything I'm saying
here is over your head.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Ruud Broens wrote:

> :-)

Insultejeren notedeeren.