What does make a speaker "disappear"

[fid]

I read lots of reviews in which often people describe their speakers
as they where :disappearing" in the soundstage. I am not knowledgeable
in this field. But based on my brief experience, to me seems that a
loudspeaker that doesn't have a bright or extremely extended HF is
more likely to "disappear" because it will not be localized as if it
would have had a more extended high frequencies. It doesn't mean that
those speakers are lacking HF by any means, however. Am I wrong?
Otherwise what does make speakers disappear?
Please share your thoughts.
Thank you.

[Arny Krueger]

"fid" > wrote in message
oups.com

> I read lots of reviews in which often people describe
> their speakers as they where :disappearing" in the
> soundstage.

An ideal speaker, being one that is sonically transparent, might be one that
would disappear in the room. No speakers apparent, just a realistic
soundfield.

> But based on my brief experience, to me seems that a
> loudspeaker that doesn't have a bright or extremely
> extended HF is more likely to "disappear" because it will
> not be localized as if it would have had a more extended
> high frequencies.

Localization of sounds to the speaker itself is pretty much idependent of
timbre. We localize sounds based on.

(1) Where the sound is coming from.

(2) Reflections of sound that comes from the speaker by other parts of the
room.

(3) How the shape and orientation of our heads affects the sound reaching
our ears (HRTF).

[Harry Lavo]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
...
>
> "fid" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>I read lots of reviews in which often people describe their speakers
>> as they where :disappearing" in the soundstage. I am not knowledgeable
>> in this field. But based on my brief experience, to me seems that a
>> loudspeaker that doesn't have a bright or extremely extended HF is
>> more likely to "disappear" because it will not be localized as if it
>> would have had a more extended high frequencies. It doesn't mean that
>> those speakers are lacking HF by any means, however. Am I wrong?
>> Otherwise what does make speakers disappear?
>> Please share your thoughts.
>> Thank you.
>>

>snip<

> Stereo imaging is formed by the brain in response to cues of intensity and
> phase. A very wide dispersion design can slightly reduce the intensity
> cues. The NEAR 50m speakers have very small midrange drivers, about 3
> inches diameter, which, by the nature of small drivers, radiate with more
> uniformity over a solid angle than the more typical ~5 inch drivers.

>snip<

> My Thiel CS2.3 speakers are located on the same diagonal, but require an
> angular separation of less than 100 degrees. The mid drivers of these
> speakers are also very small. The frequency response is subjectively much
> flatter than the NEARs.

I can attest to that....I got to the same place with my 2 2's (about 95
degrees) through listening in several different rooms (never knew what
Thielf recommended since I bought all of mine used and had no printed
material to go with them). Properly set up, they do just "disappear". I'm
hardly ever aware of the speakers, just the music. When the all-Thiel
system plays in surround, this becomes true of all five speakers. Jim Thiel
really knows what he is doing.

>snip<

..> I speculate that the "disappearing act" is supported by wide dispersion,

which tends to be native to mini-monitors by the nature of their design

> and certain tricks of frequency response manipulation, some of which are
> may be generally applicable, while others may be discoveries of designers
> as they relate to the particular driver/crossover system at hand.

Perhaps you are referring to time- and/or phase- alignment which I suspect
also plays a role.

>
> Bob Morein
> Dresher, PA
> (215) 646-4894
>
>

[fid]

>
> Localization of sounds to the speaker itself is pretty much idependent of
> timbre. We localize sounds based on.
>
> (1) Where the sound is coming from.
>
> (2) Reflections of sound that comes from the speaker by other parts of the
> room.
>
> (3) How the shape and orientation of our heads affects the sound reaching
> our ears (HRTF).

Don't we localize HF more then the rest of the sound spectrum?

[Howard Ferstler]

fid wrote:
> I read lots of reviews in which often people describe their speakers
> as they where :disappearing" in the soundstage. I am not knowledgeable
> in this field. But based on my brief experience, to me seems that a
> loudspeaker that doesn't have a bright or extremely extended HF is
> more likely to "disappear" because it will not be localized as if it
> would have had a more extended high frequencies. It doesn't mean that
> those speakers are lacking HF by any means, however. Am I wrong?
> Otherwise what does make speakers disappear?
> Please share your thoughts.
> Thank you.

Actually, a good recording might be able to make even so-so
speakers appear to somewhat disappear, provided the speakers
are located properly. Also, the attitude of the listener
will play a part, particularly if he is impressed with the
looks of the speakers, their cost, and any exotic design
features claimed by the manufacturer. Having a few alcoholic
drinks under the belt helps, too.

What makes a good speaker disappear better than lesser
designs is smooth frequency response, particularly in the
reverberant field, and minimal distortion. A wide,
broad-bandwidth radiation pattern can help, but even fairly
directional speakers, provided their narrow radiation
pattern is consistent over a broad frequency range above the
bass, can disappear if the listener has them in a good room
and set up properly. Generally, a sweet-spot listening
position is required to make such systems "disappear." If
the off-axis response of the speaker in the midrange is
appreciably different from the on-axis response the result
will be image shifting and vague soundstaging that will cut
into the disappearing act. This is one reason why speakers
with non-flat response in the important mid-to-tweeter
transition area will have trouble "disappearing."

Frankly, the very best disappearing act I have seen involves
the use of a center channel in addition to the left/right
mains, which allows the main speakers to be set up fairly
wide apart. Any tendency for a hole to form in the middle
will be minimized. Needless to say, it is important that the
center speaker be itself sonically compatible with the
mains. The center channel can be handling either a
well-recorded discrete signal (DVD-A, SACD, or even DTS or
Dolby Digital) or working from the A+B, "derived" part of a
stereo signal fed to it by a really good steering circuit.

Most important in any case is a smooth response from
whatever number of speakers are involved, be that response
reverberant-field or direct-field dominated.

Howard Ferstler

[Trevor Wilson]

"fid" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I read lots of reviews in which often people describe their speakers
> as they where :disappearing" in the soundstage. I am not knowledgeable
> in this field. But based on my brief experience, to me seems that a
> loudspeaker that doesn't have a bright or extremely extended HF is
> more likely to "disappear" because it will not be localized as if it
> would have had a more extended high frequencies. It doesn't mean that
> those speakers are lacking HF by any means, however. Am I wrong?
> Otherwise what does make speakers disappear?
> Please share your thoughts.

**In a single word: reflections.

Reflections from the room boundaries, but, given a good room, reflections
from the speaker cabinet, itself. It is for this reasons that many
manufacturers use heroic methods to cause the box to disappear (in an
acoustic sense). A manufacturer may use one or more of the following
mechanisms (plus others I don't mention):

* Curved surfaces.
* Minimal surfaces (relative to the dimensions of the wavelength being
used - examine the B&W Nautilus series for an excellent example)
* Absorbent materials on baffle surfaces.
* Controlled directivity (aka: horns)
* Careful selection of crossover points and slopes.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[[email protected]]

On Jun 15, 5:02 pm, "Trevor Wilson" >
wrote:
> "fid" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> >I read lots of reviews in which often people describe their speakers
> > as they where :disappearing" in the soundstage. I am not knowledgeable
> > in this field. But based on my brief experience, to me seems that a
> > loudspeaker that doesn't have a bright or extremely extended HF is
> > more likely to "disappear" because it will not be localized as if it
> > would have had a more extended high frequencies. It doesn't mean that
> > those speakers are lacking HF by any means, however. Am I wrong?
> > Otherwise what does make speakers disappear?
> > Please share your thoughts.
>
> **In a single word: reflections.
>
> Reflections from the room boundaries, but, given a good room, reflections
> from the speaker cabinet, itself. It is for this reasons that many
> manufacturers use heroic methods to cause the box to disappear (in an
> acoustic sense). A manufacturer may use one or more of the following
> mechanisms (plus others I don't mention):
>
> * Curved surfaces.
> * Minimal surfaces (relative to the dimensions of the wavelength being
> used - examine the B&W Nautilus series for an excellent example)
> * Absorbent materials on baffle surfaces.
> * Controlled directivity (aka: horns)
> * Careful selection of crossover points and slopes.
>
> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

As mere layman may I ask; Don't the bipolar speakers like the
electrostats dispense with all these tweaks and remedies and still
seem not to be there.
Mine do so to me..
Ludovic Mirabel

[Trevor Wilson]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 15, 5:02 pm, "Trevor Wilson" >
> wrote:
>> "fid" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>> >I read lots of reviews in which often people describe their speakers
>> > as they where :disappearing" in the soundstage. I am not knowledgeable
>> > in this field. But based on my brief experience, to me seems that a
>> > loudspeaker that doesn't have a bright or extremely extended HF is
>> > more likely to "disappear" because it will not be localized as if it
>> > would have had a more extended high frequencies. It doesn't mean that
>> > those speakers are lacking HF by any means, however. Am I wrong?
>> > Otherwise what does make speakers disappear?
>> > Please share your thoughts.
>>
>> **In a single word: reflections.
>>
>> Reflections from the room boundaries, but, given a good room, reflections
>> from the speaker cabinet, itself. It is for this reasons that many
>> manufacturers use heroic methods to cause the box to disappear (in an
>> acoustic sense). A manufacturer may use one or more of the following
>> mechanisms (plus others I don't mention):
>>
>> * Curved surfaces.
>> * Minimal surfaces (relative to the dimensions of the wavelength being
>> used - examine the B&W Nautilus series for an excellent example)
>> * Absorbent materials on baffle surfaces.
>> * Controlled directivity (aka: horns)
>> * Careful selection of crossover points and slopes.
>>
>> --
>> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
>>
>> --
>> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
>
> As mere layman may I ask; Don't the bipolar speakers like the
> electrostats dispense with all these tweaks and remedies and still
> seem not to be there.

**No. Though they MAY do so. It not a given that because a speaker is a
panel type, that it does not have reflection problems. Since it probably
won't have a box type construction, it is likely to exhibit fewer problems
however. That does not mean that those problems are non-existent, nor that a
well designed box speaker (like the B&W Nautilus stuff) cannot perform
better, in this area.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[jeffc[_2_]]

"fid" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I read lots of reviews in which often people describe their speakers
> as they where :disappearing" in the soundstage. I am not knowledgeable
> in this field. But based on my brief experience, to me seems that a
> loudspeaker that doesn't have a bright or extremely extended HF is
> more likely to "disappear" because it will not be localized as if it
> would have had a more extended high frequencies. It doesn't mean that
> those speakers are lacking HF by any means, however. Am I wrong?
> Otherwise what does make speakers disappear?
> Please share your thoughts.

I don't think it's related to frequency at all. I think it's related to 2
things:
1) accuracy of the speaker (lack of distortion)
2) room acoustics

The latter is usually vastly underrated.

[jeffc[_2_]]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
news:467308df@kcnews01...
> Also, the attitude of the listener will play a part, particularly if he is
> impressed with the looks of the speakers, their cost, and any exotic
> design features claimed by the manufacturer.

Paying a lot of attention to the speakers will have the opposite affect -
the sound will appear to eminate from the speaker.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Howard Ferstler triumphantly whoop!


He holler and howl !
to hailing underlings

HE RumBle ! and RoaR !
'tis a crowned Emperor

SO He wail ! and He yell !
then toothsomely toot ...



> the attitude of the listener will play a part,
particularly if he is impressed with



> looks

> cost

> exotic design

> few alcoholic drinks






> Howard Ferstler




No intention to deride your first and last name but each time
the name comes gloating and frothing across my line of vision,
it intuitively prompt me to link it with scrupulous cartoon
characters on Mad magazine. Do you?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> fid wrote:
>
>
>> Localization of sounds to the speaker itself is pretty much
>> idependent of timbre. We localize sounds based on.
>>
>> (1) Where the sound is coming from.
>>
>> (2) Reflections of sound that comes from the speaker by other parts
>> of the room.
>>
>> (3) How the shape and orientation of our heads affects the sound
>> reaching our ears (HRTF).
>
> Don't we localize HF more then the rest of the sound spectrum?


Yep I agree, except that in music, HF are like moving pictures.

[Stefano]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:49:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"fid" > wrote in message
oups.com
>
>> I read lots of reviews in which often people describe
>> their speakers as they where :disappearing" in the
>> soundstage.
>
>An ideal speaker, being one that is sonically transparent, might be one that
>would disappear in the room. No speakers apparent, just a realistic
>soundfield.

Interesting... the listener position in the room is important as well?

--
Now working at http://www.newonlineshopping.net

Books, Clothing and Accessories, Computers,
Electronics, Gifts, Jewelry and Watches.

[Howard Ferstler]

jeffc wrote:
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> news:467308df@kcnews01...
>
>>Also, the attitude of the listener will play a part, particularly if he is
>>impressed with the looks of the speakers, their cost, and any exotic
>>design features claimed by the manufacturer.
>
>
> Paying a lot of attention to the speakers will have the opposite affect -
> the sound will appear to eminate from the speaker.

There is a difference between paying close attention to the
sonic behavior of a pair of speakers during critical
evaluations and blindly reveling in the looks, cost, and any
exotic design features claimed by the manufacturer. Note
also that my original post covered more than just the
psychological factors.

Howard Ferstler

[J. Clouse]

In article >,
says...
>
>Howard Ferstler triumphantly whoop!
>
>
>He holler and howl !
> to hailing underlings
>
>HE RumBle ! and RoaR !


Now Howard is a man of odd taste,
The Bose 901 he embraced.
He said they sound good
Like a great speaker should
So clearly his faith is misplaced.

Hammingaway

[J. Clouse]

In article <467414bc@kcnews01>, says...
>
>
>There is a difference between paying close attention to the
>sonic behavior ...
>
>Howard Ferstler


If you pay close attention to the sound,
And you find that it's splattered all around
Then only a tin ear
That can't half hear
Would consider it to be profound.

Hammingaway

[J. Clouse]

In article >,
says...
>
> We localize sounds based on.
>
>(1) Where the sound is coming from.

....


That's funny as hell you may note
As funny as anything you have wrote.
Please let me remind
If it comes from behind,
The odds that it's George are remote. :)

Hammingaway
..

[J. Clouse]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>"J. Clouse" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>>
>>>Howard Ferstler triumphantly whoop!
>>>
>>>
>>>He holler and howl !
>>> to hailing underlings
>>>
>>>HE RumBle ! and RoaR !
>>
>>
>> Now Howard is a man of odd taste,
>> The Bose 901 he embraced.
>> He said they sound good
>> Like a great speaker should
>> So clearly his faith is misplaced.
>>
>> Hammingaway
>>
>Your advice falls on deaf ears.
>
>Bob Morein
>Dresher, PA
>(215) 646-4894


Ears that are deaf, you say...
And so at the end of the day
His opinions as such
Don't amount to much
What he says has very little sway.

Hammingaway

[[email protected]]

On Jun 16, 9:47 am, Howard Ferstler > wrote:
> jeffc wrote:
> > "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> >news:467308df@kcnews01...
>
> >>Also, the attitude of the listener will play a part, particularly if he is
> >>impressed with the looks of the speakers, their cost, and any exotic
> >>design features claimed by the manufacturer.
>
> > Paying a lot of attention to the speakers will have the opposite affect -
> > the sound will appear to eminate from the speaker.
>
> There is a difference between paying close attention to the
> sonic behavior of a pair of speakers during critical
> evaluations and blindly reveling in the looks, cost, and any
> exotic design features claimed by the manufacturer. Note
> also that my original post covered more than just the
> psychological factors.
>
> Howard Ferstler

You're always so right it hurts.
Ludovic Mirabel

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> J. Clouse wrote:
>> J. Clouse wrote
>>> EddieM says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Howard Ferstler triumphantly whoop!
>>>>
>>>> He holler and howl !
>>>> to hailing underlings
>>>>
>>>> HE RumBle ! and RoaR !
>>>
>>>
>>> Now Howard is a man of odd taste,
>>> The Bose 901 he embraced.
>>> He said they sound good
>>> Like a great speaker should
>>> So clearly his faith is misplaced.
>>>
>>> Hammingaway
>>>
>> Your advice falls on deaf ears.
>>
>> Bob Morein
>> Dresher, PA
>> (215) 646-4894
>
>
> Ears that are deaf, you say...
> And so at the end of the day
> His opinions as such
> Don't amount to much
> What he says has very little sway.
>
> Hammingaway



allow me to say
From J to J
it's Howie's desire
to Scold and Slam
with unwavering Fury
in a travelin fair
he cackle in a cage
with his impotent rage

'cause he's a simpering fool
singin like a-ring-a-ling ding !

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>> jeffc wrote:
>>> Howard Ferstler wrote
>>
>>
>>> Also, the attitude of the listener will play a part, particularly
>>> if he is impressed with the looks of the speakers, their cost, and
>>> any exotic design features claimed by the manufacturer.
>>
>>
>> Paying a lot of attention to the speakers will have the opposite
>> affect - the sound will appear to eminate from the speaker.
>
> There is a difference between paying close attention to the
> sonic behavior of a pair of speakers during critical
> evaluations and blindly reveling in the looks, cost, and any
> exotic design features claimed by the manufacturer. Note
> also that my original post covered more than just the
> psychological factors.
>
> Howard Ferstler

Yes, that's right. You said a lot more in your post than just
your ravishing psychological babbledegook. That's the truth
and it should be out, out, out. It's like saying that some truly
ingenious little switching device takes the fraud out of your
test. Did you not say these ? It should be out, out, out.

[Arny Krueger]

"fid" > wrote in message
oups.com
>> Localization of sounds to the speaker itself is pretty
>> much idependent of timbre. We localize sounds based on.
>>
>> (1) Where the sound is coming from.
>>
>> (2) Reflections of sound that comes from the speaker by
>> other parts of the room.
>>
>> (3) How the shape and orientation of our heads affects
>> the sound reaching our ears (HRTF).
>
> Don't we localize HF more then the rest of the sound
> spectrum?

Let's put it this way - not all musical and natural sounds have appreciable
HF, and we can localize many of them very well.

[Arny Krueger]

"Stefano" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:49:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "fid" > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>
>>> I read lots of reviews in which often people describe
>>> their speakers as they where :disappearing" in the
>>> soundstage.
>>
>> An ideal speaker, being one that is sonically
>> transparent, might be one that would disappear in the
>> room. No speakers apparent, just a realistic soundfield.

> Interesting... the listener position in the room is
> important as well?

Always.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> As mere layman may I ask; Don't the bipolar speakers
> like the electrostats dispense with all these tweaks and
> remedies and still seem not to be there.

Not at all.

> Mine do so to me..

Probably Ludo becasue your hearing has been vastly degraded for decades.

[Howard Ferstler]

J. Clouse wrote:
> In article <467414bc@kcnews01>, says...
>
>>
>>There is a difference between paying close attention to the
>>sonic behavior ...
>>
>>Howard Ferstler

> If you pay close attention to the sound,
> And you find that it's splattered all around
> Then only a tin ear
> That can't half hear
> Would consider it to be profound.

Attitudes, even those entertained by knowledgeable
enthusiasts, vary.

I tend to sympathize (or maybe I should say empathize) with
both the wide-dispersion group and the direct-field, narrow
dispersion group. Both approaches can work, and one approach
to speaker radiation-pattern issues may benefit certain
kinds of recordings more than others.

For example, with large-scale works, and home theater, I
prefer the sound of my IC-20 Allison models working in
concert with a home-built (with Allison drivers)
wide-dispersion center speaker and wide-dispersion surround
speakers (six of the latter with my set up in my main room).
However, with smaller scale baroque works, quartets,
quintets, etc., as well as certain material featuring
centered soloists I rather favor the Dunlavy Cantatas in my
middle system. Of course, with the latter I also have a
center speaker and surround speakers, because I like the
combination of precise detail and surround ambiance, even if
the latter has to be synthesized.

In any case, both approaches can work, with the
wide-dispersion design only doing so if the system can
produce smooth response within the reverberant field. The
narrow-dispersion design only jells when the dispersion
angle above the lower midrange is consistently narrow and
does not have a lot of choppiness at wide off-axis
horizontal angles. The Cantatas certainly fill the bill
there, as do the Allison units within the wide-dispersion
approach.

Other designs that I have checked out (Waveform, Triad, NHT,
Ascend, Eminent Technology, Snell, SVS, and even Polk) split
the difference and can work well in their respective ways,
provided the response at the listening position (be that
response biased towards the reverberant field or the direct
field) is smooth.

Anybody who has read my speaker reviews in The Sensible
Sound (which I continue to produce, but at a reduced
quantity over what I did in the old days) will see that I
cut speaker designers a lot of slack, provided the
smoothness issue is properly addressed. Some speakers are
not smooth by any measurement standards, and those are the
ones most likely to not disappear when listening to good
recordings.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

wrote:

> You're always so right it hurts.
> Ludovic Mirabel

No pain, no gain.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:

>>Howard Ferstler wrote:
>>
>>>jeffc wrote:
>>>
>>>>Howard Ferstler wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Also, the attitude of the listener will play a part, particularly
>>>>if he is impressed with the looks of the speakers, their cost, and
>>>>any exotic design features claimed by the manufacturer.
>>>
>>>
>>>Paying a lot of attention to the speakers will have the opposite
>>>affect - the sound will appear to eminate from the speaker.
>>
>>There is a difference between paying close attention to the
>>sonic behavior of a pair of speakers during critical
>>evaluations and blindly reveling in the looks, cost, and any
>>exotic design features claimed by the manufacturer. Note
>>also that my original post covered more than just the
>>psychological factors.
>>
>>Howard Ferstler
>
>
> Yes, that's right. You said a lot more in your post than just
> your ravishing psychological babbledegook. That's the truth
> and it should be out, out, out. It's like saying that some truly
> ingenious little switching device takes the fraud out of your
> test. Did you not say these ? It should be out, out, out.

I am not sure what you are attempting to say, and probably
you are not sure, yourself. But in any case, enjoy your
speakers.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace, Alternate Adjunct to the Second Assistant Undersecretary
of the Canned Tunafish Forever Society, investigates some unknown
sounds.

> I am not sure what you are attempting to say, and probably
> you are not sure, yourself.

Isn't that how you often feel, yourself?

> But in any case, enjoy your speakers.

Time to feed the cat, Clerkie. Chop chop!




--

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

[Howard Ferstler]

George M. Middius wrote:

> Brother Horace, Alternate Adjunct to the Second Assistant Undersecretary
> of the Canned Tunafish Forever Society, investigates some unknown
> sounds.

>>I am not sure what you are attempting to say, and probably
>>you are not sure, yourself.

> Isn't that how you often feel, yourself?

>>But in any case, enjoy your speakers.

> Time to feed the cat, Clerkie. Chop chop!

You always seem to be on RAO, reading and posting at all
times of the day (and night). Do you have a toilet built
into your computer desk?

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace is pinned to the mat already, and it's not even
mid-afternoon.

> > Brother Horace, Alternate Adjunct to the Second Assistant Undersecretary
> > of the Canned Tunafish Forever Society, investigates some unknown
> > sounds.

I take it the results were negative. Are you allowed outside to visit
doctors, Clerkie?

> >>But in any case, enjoy your speakers.

> > Time to feed the cat, Clerkie. Chop chop!

> You always seem to be on RAO, reading and posting at all
> times of the day (and night). Do you have a toilet built
> into your computer desk?

Your toilet fetish is tedious, Harold. Join us now as we look back in
disgust at your unhealthy obsession with toilets and bathrooms:

"Provided a murderer is proven to be guilty beyond a doubt, I consider
his or her execution akin to flushing a toilet."

[I have the perfect listening room for you. … Anybody care to guess what
kind of room this is?]
"As I noted elsewhere, it is probably a bathroom."

"You must have a CD player next to your toilet."

"Do you have a toilet built into your computer chair?"

"First, go into ... a big bathroom ... and recite some poetry."


Google lists dozens more examples of your fetish, Harold. Have you
considered starting up your therapy again? Even though you're old and
creaky, you might still benefit from having some of your mental kinks
smoothed out.




--

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

[MiNe 109]

In article <46757a92@kcnews01>, Howard Ferstler >
wrote:

> George M. Middius wrote:
>
> > Brother Horace, Alternate Adjunct to the Second Assistant Undersecretary
> > of the Canned Tunafish Forever Society, investigates some unknown
> > sounds.
>
> >>I am not sure what you are attempting to say, and probably
> >>you are not sure, yourself.
>
> > Isn't that how you often feel, yourself?
>
> >>But in any case, enjoy your speakers.
>
> > Time to feed the cat, Clerkie. Chop chop!
>
> You always seem to be on RAO, reading and posting at all
> times of the day (and night). Do you have a toilet built
> into your computer desk?

Another Ferstler golden oldie...

Stephen

[Howard Ferstler]

George M. Middius wrote:

> Google lists dozens more examples of your fetish, Harold. Have you
> considered starting up your therapy again? Even though you're old and
> creaky, you might still benefit from having some of your mental kinks
> smoothed out.

That you take time to do pointless Google searches like
those says a lot about you. That you bounce back so rapidly
any time of the day or night with responses also says a lot.
You have nothing else to do. You run the keyboard with one
hand and flush your toilet with the other.

Frankly, I do not see why you hang around an audio group,
even one as typically malicious as this one. You clearly
have little constructive to say about the topic on any
level. Why not just migrate to a porn or profanity-swapping
site and correspond with people more like you? Perhaps you
should just go all the way in the realm of sick internet
correspondence and work out a situation that will get you
onto one of those "expose a predator" TV shows? You can rant
out the names of your RAO antagonists as they haul you off
to the slammer.

Anyway, you will obviously get the final say so in this
series, because this is my last give and take with you on
this thread. Doing any more just lights you up and gives you
another near-pornographic reason to pump out pointless,
inane, and insulting comments.

Howard Ferstler

[[email protected]]

On Jun 17, 10:43 am, Howard Ferstler > wrote:
> wrote:
> > You're always so right it hurts.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
>
> No pain, no gain.
>
> Howard Ferstler

======
I was just responding to your oddball logic when you claimed that
satisfaction with cost and looks will make the owner forget the
speaker.
as sound source..
Would you prefer trying: " so predictably banal that it bores into
stupor" for size?
Ludovic Mirabel

[Howard Ferstler]

MiNe 109 wrote:

> In article <46757a92@kcnews01>, Howard Ferstler >
> wrote:

>>George M. Middius wrote:

>>>Time to feed the cat, Clerkie. Chop chop!

>>You always seem to be on RAO, reading and posting at all
>>times of the day (and night). Do you have a toilet built
>>into your computer desk?

> Another Ferstler golden oldie...

It fits.

I believe that I have had enough chatting with the likes of
you people for a while. I'll leave you all to your standard
venom-swapping commentaries.

Howard.

[Howard Ferstler]

wrote:

> On Jun 17, 10:43 am, Howard Ferstler > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>> You're always so right it hurts.
>>>Ludovic Mirabel
>>
>>No pain, no gain.
>>
>>Howard Ferstler

> I was just responding to your oddball logic when you claimed that
> satisfaction with cost and looks will make the owner forget the
> speaker.
> as sound source..

Well, an additional factor would be a laudatory review in a
tweako audio journal, particularly one done by somebody who
writes poetry about the sound and talks about the speakers
disappearing. That would certainly trigger the proper
psychological response from an impressionable purchaser when
listening to a brand-new pair.

Seventy-five percent of high-end audio is mumbo jumbo. The
technologically significant twenty-five remaining percent
goes right over the heads of the tweakos.

This particular usenet group is made up mostly of those who
lionize that bigger seventy-five-percent segment. I drop in
once in a while to pull some tails and read some of the
inanities, and then happily depart.

It is interesting to note that audio goofiness is as much
alive in America as ever.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

> > > Time to feed the cat, Clerkie. Chop chop!

> > You always seem to be on RAO, reading and posting at all
> > times of the day (and night). Do you have a toilet built
> > into your computer desk?

> Another Ferstler golden oldie...

Clearly, Clerkie forgot to feed the cat, and now he's in the doghouse.




--

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

[George M. Middius]

Ludo said:

> > > You're always so right it hurts.

> > No pain, no gain.

> Would you prefer trying: " so predictably banal that it bores into
> stupor" for size?

Or even "so predictably banal that it bores everybody into a stupor".




--

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

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace the Blessedly Unaware whined:

> I believe that I have had enough chatting with the likes of
> you people for a while. I'll leave you all to your standard
> venom-swapping commentaries.

Clerkie, even though you're one of the biggest laughingstocks on Usenet,
I have to give you credit for juicing up the wattage on RAO.




--

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

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace pines for the return of Gregipus.

> > Your toilet fetish is tedious, Harold. Join us now as we look back in
> > disgust at your unhealthy obsession with toilets and bathrooms:

> > "Provided a murderer is proven to be guilty beyond a doubt, I consider
> > his or her execution akin to flushing a toilet."

> > [I have the perfect listening room for you. … Anybody care to guess what
> > kind of room this is?]
> > "As I noted elsewhere, it is probably a bathroom."

> > "You must have a CD player next to your toilet."

> > "Do you have a toilet built into your computer chair?"

> > "First, go into ... a big bathroom ... and recite some poetry."

> > Google lists dozens more examples of your fetish, Harold. Have you
> > considered starting up your therapy again? Even though you're old and
> > creaky, you might still benefit from having some of your mental kinks
> > smoothed out.

> That you take time to do pointless Google searches like
> those says a lot about you.

Why thank you, Clerkie. At the very least, it shows I'm smarter than
your idol Krooger, who is easily stumped by the simplest of indexes and
search engines.

BTW, I did that search years ago. I found it in one of my folders, just
waiting for an opportune moment to emerge and humiliate you.

> You run the keyboard with one
> hand and flush your toilet with the other.

Um.... Harold, the toilet thing is your fetish. I might have a few
hangups of my own, but I'm circumspect enough to keep them off Usenet.

> Frankly, I do not see why you hang around an audio group,
> even one as typically malicious as this one. You clearly
> have little constructive to say about the topic on any
> level.

It's my often-stated opinion that disparaging you and Krooger serves a
valuable purpose for audiophiles. I'm not surprised you're unable to
perceive the big picture, what with your artificially distended ego and
everything.





--

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

[Jenn]

In article <46758dd0$1@kcnews01>,
Howard Ferstler > wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 17, 10:43 am, Howard Ferstler > wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> You're always so right it hurts.
> >>>Ludovic Mirabel
> >>
> >>No pain, no gain.
> >>
> >>Howard Ferstler
>
> > I was just responding to your oddball logic when you claimed that
> > satisfaction with cost and looks will make the owner forget the
> > speaker.
> > as sound source..
>
> Well, an additional factor would be a laudatory review in a
> tweako audio journal, particularly one done by somebody who
> writes poetry about the sound and talks about the speakers
> disappearing. That would certainly trigger the proper
> psychological response from an impressionable purchaser when
> listening to a brand-new pair.
>
> Seventy-five percent of high-end audio is mumbo jumbo. The
> technologically significant twenty-five remaining percent
> goes right over the heads of the tweakos.
>
> This particular usenet group is made up mostly of those who
> lionize that bigger seventy-five-percent segment. I drop in
> once in a while to pull some tails and read some of the
> inanities, and then happily depart.
>
> It is interesting to note that audio goofiness is as much
> alive in America as ever.
>
> Howard Ferstler

And yet you keep returning to a place that you obviously despise.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 17, 12:36 pm, Howard Ferstler > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 10:43 am, Howard Ferstler > wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
> >>> You're always so right it hurts.
> >>>Ludovic Mirabel
>
> >>No pain, no gain.
>
> >>Howard Ferstler
> > I was just responding to your oddball logic when you claimed that
> > satisfaction with cost and looks will make the owner forget the
> > speaker.
> > as sound source..
>
> Well, an additional factor would be a laudatory review in a
> tweako audio journal, particularly one done by somebody who
> writes poetry about the sound and talks about the speakers
> disappearing. That would certainly trigger the proper
> psychological response from an impressionable purchaser when
> listening to a brand-new pair.
>
> Seventy-five percent of high-end audio is mumbo jumbo. The
> technologically significant twenty-five remaining percent
> goes right over the heads of the tweakos.
>
> This particular usenet group is made up mostly of those who
> lionize that bigger seventy-five-percent segment. I drop in
> once in a while to pull some tails and read some of the
> inanities, and then happily depart.
>
> It is interesting to note that audio goofiness is as much
> alive in America as ever.
>
> Howard Ferstler

=================================
The scientology guru speaks. Scientifically of course:
..
>...technologically significant twenty-five remaining percent
> goes right over the heads of the tweakos.




I have the same angle on violins, flutes and pianos as you have
on HiFi .. I listened and Stradivarius sounded to me just the same as
the country wedding violin and Bluethner no different from Yamaha.
QED.
You listen and hear no differnce. Same here. Which goes to prove....
All those technologically challenged silly tweakos Goulds,
Perahias, Barenboims and Pearlmans cart their supposedly superior
Bluethners, Guarnieris and Stradivarius around with them.because they
read the wrong reviews instead of your famous contributions to the
"Sensible Sound"

Truck on Ferstler. One day you'll become immortal .
Ludovic Mirabel

[MiNe 109]

In article <46758bd6$1@kcnews01>,
Howard Ferstler > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
>
> > In article <46757a92@kcnews01>, Howard Ferstler >
> > wrote:
>
> >>George M. Middius wrote:
>
> >>>Time to feed the cat, Clerkie. Chop chop!
>
> >>You always seem to be on RAO, reading and posting at all
> >>times of the day (and night). Do you have a toilet built
> >>into your computer desk?
>
> > Another Ferstler golden oldie...
>
> It fits.
>
> I believe that I have had enough chatting with the likes of
> you people for a while. I'll leave you all to your standard
> venom-swapping commentaries.

Bye!

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

J. Clouse a scris:

>
> Now Howard is a man of odd taste,
> The Bose 901 he embraced.
> He said they sound good
> Like a great speaker should
> So clearly his faith is misplaced.
>

Now Howard rails against looks
and prefers to read his spec books
but if truth were the test
he thought Bose were best
cause they work fine as a bird's nest.

[Clyde Slick]

Howard Ferstler a scris:
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
> > Brother Horace, Alternate Adjunct to the Second Assistant Undersecretary
> > of the Canned Tunafish Forever Society, investigates some unknown
> > sounds.
>
> >>I am not sure what you are attempting to say, and probably
> >>you are not sure, yourself.
>
> > Isn't that how you often feel, yourself?
>
> >>But in any case, enjoy your speakers.
>
> > Time to feed the cat, Clerkie. Chop chop!
>
> You always seem to be on RAO, reading and posting at all
> times of the day (and night). Do you have a toilet built
> into your computer desk?
>

"At least" George doesn't leave brown streaks on his
dining room chairs.

[Clyde Slick]

Howard Ferstler finally finds his old form:

>
> cost and looks
>
> tweako audio journal,
> poetry
> mumbo jumbo
> tweakos
> goofiness

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

> > I'll leave you all to your standard
> > venom-swapping commentaries.

> Bye!

Bet?



--

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

[Clyde Slick]

a scris:
>
>
>
> I have the same angle on violins, flutes and pianos as you have
>

Then you had better move the violins back to the left,
where they belong.
Or, maybe, like Howard, you reversed the wiring between your left
and right speakers?

[Howard Ferstler]

Jenn wrote:

> In article <46758dd0$1@kcnews01>,
> Howard Ferstler > wrote:

>>Seventy-five percent of high-end audio is mumbo jumbo. The
>>technologically significant twenty-five remaining percent
>>goes right over the heads of the tweakos.

>>This particular usenet group is made up mostly of those who
>>lionize that bigger seventy-five-percent segment. I drop in
>>once in a while to pull some tails and read some of the
>>inanities, and then happily depart.

>>It is interesting to note that audio goofiness is as much
>>alive in America as ever.

> And yet you keep returning to a place that you obviously despise.

Keep returning? Heck, I have been away for months. I dropped
in to see what is going on (not much of interest, and
certainly not much of interest to anybody interested in
serious audio) and decided to post a few responses to a few
comments. I started out simply answering some questions or
making some points and of course you idiots jumped at the
chance to make noise and be obnoxious.

Don't worry, I will be pulling away pretty soon (after I
satisfy myself that I have stirred the nest and caused you
people to spin in your chairs a bit), and then you nitwits
and losers can continue your self-contained series of rants
back and forth.

You exist in a little world all to yourselves, here, and it
is interesting to see how a bit of input from an outsider
like me triggers a tempest in a teapot.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

wrote:

> I have the same angle on violins, flutes and pianos as you have
> on HiFi .. I listened and Stradivarius sounded to me just the same as
> the country wedding violin and Bluethner no different from Yamaha.
> QED.
> You listen and hear no differnce. Same here. Which goes to prove....
> All those technologically challenged silly tweakos Goulds,
> Perahias, Barenboims and Pearlmans cart their supposedly superior
> Bluethners, Guarnieris and Stradivarius around with them.because they
> read the wrong reviews instead of your famous contributions to the
> "Sensible Sound"

If you had writing skills your attempt at humor would have
more impact.

To repeat an old but still true response to your point,
comparing musical instruments to audio gear is like
comparing apples and oranges. Musical instruments have a
definite character, and they are supposed to. That is one of
the way they create music.

Stuff like amps, wires, CD players, DVD players, etc. are
simply supposed to be transparent. They are not supposed to
add character. They just reproduce it from whatever recorded
source materials are involved.

Speakers are different than amps and wires, of course, but
even they do not determine character the say way musical
instruments do. Speakers interact with listening rooms, but
no matter how they interact and no matter what kind of
balance they may generate between the direct and reverberant
fields they are still supposed to deliver smooth response at
the listening position with minimal distortion. If they do
not do that then lauding any of their other positive
attributes becomes a waste of time.

Incidentally, if you took the time to do decent
level-matched comparisons you would discover that much of
what you think about the so-called "sound" of certain audio
components (particularly wires and amps) is pure
speculation. This assumes that you worked to make the
comparisons blind enough to insure that you did not let
wishful thinking psychologically manipulate the results.
That speculation I mentioned is based upon a desire to make
the hobby interesting, mysterious, adventuresome, and, well,
fun. Simple minds like the type of "fun" that works that way.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

MiNe 109 wrote:

>>MiNe 109 wrote:

> Bye!

Bye to you, too. Now you can go back to swapping insults,
anecdotes, and speculative tall tales with the other
goofballs occupying this insular group.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace the dishonest millipede said:

> > And yet you keep returning to a place that you obviously despise.

> Keep returning? Heck, I have been away for months.

Sorry to tell you this, but the RAO Stupid Stakes are out of your reach.
Scottie and Mikey have been honing their acts for years.

You could inaugurate the senility stakes, though. Pretty soon it'll be
you and Krooger, down to the wire. ;-(





--

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

[Howard Ferstler]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> J. Clouse a scris:

>>Now Howard is a man of odd taste,
>>The Bose 901 he embraced.
>>He said they sound good
>>Like a great speaker should
>>So clearly his faith is misplaced.

> Now Howard rails against looks
> and prefers to read his spec books
> but if truth were the test
> he thought Bose were best
> cause they work fine as a bird's nest.
>
While I did review a pair of Bose 901 systems in issue 86
(June/July, 2001) of The Sensible Sound, it was in the
context of a commentary column on room/speaker interactions
and not a specific review.

I thought the systems could do some impressive things (their
lack of low-bass ability notwithstanding), but much of what
impressed me was the huge (21 x 33 x 10 foot) room wherein
they were located. I also printed a curve I measured of the
systems in issue 94 of the magazine (as part of a two-part
article on speaker reviewing), but noted that since the room
was different from the one I usually use the curve was not
be taken all that literally.

Actually, in all of my reviews I have pointed out that the
room/power curves I print are only starting points for the
way the speakers should be evaluated. Normally, my reviews
are based upon a series of A/B comparisons between some good
systems I keep on hand at my place for evaluation purposes.
For those comparisons I mostly have a fixed series of
software materials that allow me to be reasonably consistent.

Anyway, I am about to wrap up this series of posts here on
RAO, because, unlike most of you people, I have a life to
live. You may now feel free to get back to your
back-and-forth rants and insult swappings that are mainly
related to nonsense issues.

Howard Ferstler

[[email protected]]

On Jun 17, 4:00 pm, Howard Ferstler > wrote:
> wrote:
> > I have the same angle on violins, flutes and pianos as you have
> > on HiFi .. I listened and Stradivarius sounded to me just the same as
> > the country wedding violin and Bluethner no different from Yamaha.
> > QED.
> > You listen and hear no differnce. Same here. Which goes to prove....
> > All those technologically challenged silly tweakos Goulds,
> > Perahias, Barenboims and Pearlmans cart their supposedly superior
> > Bluethners, Guarnieris and Stradivarius around with them.because they
> > read the wrong reviews instead of your famous contributions to the
> > "Sensible Sound"
>
> If you had writing skills your attempt at humor would have
> more impact.
>
> To repeat an old but still true response to your point,
> comparing musical instruments to audio gear is like
> comparing apples and oranges. Musical instruments have a
> definite character, and they are supposed to. That is one of
> the way they create music.
>
> Stuff like amps, wires, CD players, DVD players, etc. are
> simply supposed to be transparent. They are not supposed to
> add character. They just reproduce it from whatever recorded
> source materials are involved.
>
> Speakers are different than amps and wires, of course, but
> even they do not determine character the say way musical
> instruments do. Speakers interact with listening rooms, but
> no matter how they interact and no matter what kind of
> balance they may generate between the direct and reverberant
> fields they are still supposed to deliver smooth response at
> the listening position with minimal distortion. If they do
> not do that then lauding any of their other positive
> attributes becomes a waste of time.
>
> Incidentally, if you took the time to do decent
> level-matched comparisons you would discover that much of
> what you think about the so-called "sound" of certain audio
> components (particularly wires and amps) is pure
> speculation. This assumes that you worked to make the
> comparisons blind enough to insure that you did not let
> wishful thinking psychologically manipulate the results.
> That speculation I mentioned is based upon a desire to make
> the hobby interesting, mysterious, adventuresome, and, well,
> fun. Simple minds like the type of "fun" that works that way.
>
> Howard Ferstler
========================
Scientologist warbles on:
> Musical instruments have a
> definite character, and they are supposed to. That is one of
> the way they create music.

Definite character? Should be a cinch for a musicologist/scientologist
like you to
> take the time to do decent
> level-matched comparisons
and guess double if not triple blind the difference between a
Bluthner and a Yamaha playing?...Hammereklavier sonata?

Next issue of the "Sensible Sound"?
Ludovic Mirabel

[Jenn]

In article <4675b8e5@kcnews01>, Howard Ferstler >
wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > In article <46758dd0$1@kcnews01>,
> > Howard Ferstler > wrote:
>
> >>Seventy-five percent of high-end audio is mumbo jumbo. The
> >>technologically significant twenty-five remaining percent
> >>goes right over the heads of the tweakos.
>
> >>This particular usenet group is made up mostly of those who
> >>lionize that bigger seventy-five-percent segment. I drop in
> >>once in a while to pull some tails and read some of the
> >>inanities, and then happily depart.
>
> >>It is interesting to note that audio goofiness is as much
> >>alive in America as ever.
>
> > And yet you keep returning to a place that you obviously despise.
>
> Keep returning? Heck, I have been away for months.

Which has nothing to do with the true statement that "you keep
returning".

> I dropped
> in to see what is going on (not much of interest, and
> certainly not much of interest to anybody interested in
> serious audio) and decided to post a few responses to a few
> comments. I started out simply answering some questions or
> making some points and of course you idiots jumped at the
> chance to make noise and be obnoxious.

You're referring to my comment about hammers?

>
> Don't worry, I will be pulling away pretty soon (after I
> satisfy myself that I have stirred the nest and caused you
> people to spin in your chairs a bit), and then you nitwits
> and losers can continue your self-contained series of rants
> back and forth.
>
> You exist in a little world all to yourselves, here, and it
> is interesting to see how a bit of input from an outsider
> like me triggers a tempest in a teapot.
>
> Howard Ferstler

Granted, it is an odd place. It's an interesting sociological exercise.
That and a few friendly and interesting people is what keeps me coming
back.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

[RAO]

> Granted, it is an odd place. It's an interesting sociological exercise.
> That and a few friendly and interesting people is what keeps me coming back.

I've never heard Krooger described as "interesting". But then you're an
academic, and I'm a worker bee.




--

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

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > I'll leave you all to your standard
> > > venom-swapping commentaries.
>
> > Bye!
>
> Bet?

Bad.

Stephen

[dizzy]

Howard Ferstler wrote:

>Anyway, I am about to wrap up this series of posts here on
>RAO, because, unlike most of you people, I have a life to
>live. You may now feel free to get back to your
>back-and-forth rants and insult swappings that are mainly
>related to nonsense issues.

Yeah, well, up yours!

8)

[[email protected]]

On Jun 17, 4:00 pm, Howard Ferstler > wrote:
> wrote:
> > I have the same angle on violins, flutes and pianos as you have
> > on HiFi .. I listened and Stradivarius sounded to me just the same as
> > the country wedding violin and Bluethner no different from Yamaha.
> > QED.
> > You listen and hear no differnce. Same here. Which goes to prove....
> > All those technologically challenged silly tweakos Goulds,
> > Perahias, Barenboims and Pearlmans cart their supposedly superior
> > Bluethners, Guarnieris and Stradivarius around with them.because they
> > read the wrong reviews instead of your famous contributions to the
> > "Sensible Sound"
>
> If you had writing skills your attempt at humor would have
> more impact.
>
> To repeat an old but still true response to your point,
> comparing musical instruments to audio gear is like
> comparing apples and oranges. Musical instruments have a
> definite character, and they are supposed to. That is one of
> the way they create music.
>
> Stuff like amps, wires, CD players, DVD players, etc. are
> simply supposed to be transparent. They are not supposed to
> add character. They just reproduce it from whatever recorded
> source materials are involved.
>
> Speakers are different than amps and wires, of course, but
> even they do not determine character the say way musical
> instruments do. Speakers interact with listening rooms, but
> no matter how they interact and no matter what kind of
> balance they may generate between the direct and reverberant
> fields they are still supposed to deliver smooth response at
> the listening position with minimal distortion. If they do
> not do that then lauding any of their other positive
> attributes becomes a waste of time.
>
> Incidentally, if you took the time to do decent
> level-matched comparisons you would discover that much of
> what you think about the so-called "sound" of certain audio
> components (particularly wires and amps) is pure
> speculation. This assumes that you worked to make the
> comparisons blind enough to insure that you did not let
> wishful thinking psychologically manipulate the results.
> That speculation I mentioned is based upon a desire to make
> the hobby interesting, mysterious, adventuresome, and, well,
> fun. Simple minds like the type of "fun" that works that way.
>
> Howard Ferstler
=====================

Mr. Ferstler says to this poor, benighted illiterate:
> If you had writing skills your attempt at humor would have
> more impact.

Dear Mr. F. I am waiting impatiently for your crushing retort to my
question about blind-testing pianos and pianists. I am not only hoping
to learn the sensible sound science but also improve my writing
skills.
Like for instance this your elegant turn of phrase:
> Speakers are different than amps and wires.
I always thought that something can be bigger THAN something else but
that speakers were different FROM amps. Now that you helped me out
I'll know how to use the upper crust English skills. Like for
instance:"tubes are different THAN transistors" -it sounds so, so much
eleganter (???) THAN "FROM". But I see I'm getting mixed up. Waiting
to hear from you about the proper way to tell who is playing
"Hammerklavier" on what piano as explained by you who is different
than me.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message


> And yet you keep returning to a place that you obviously
> despise.

No Jen, RAO is a place where it is easy to find people such as yourself and
the Middiot, who are caricatures of human beings, and whose writings have a
certain entertaining cartoon-like quality.

[Harry Lavo]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
news:4675b8e5@kcnews01...
> Jenn wrote:
>
>> In article <46758dd0$1@kcnews01>,
>> Howard Ferstler > wrote:
>
>>>Seventy-five percent of high-end audio is mumbo jumbo. The
>>>technologically significant twenty-five remaining percent goes right over
>>>the heads of the tweakos.
>
>>>This particular usenet group is made up mostly of those who lionize that
>>>bigger seventy-five-percent segment. I drop in once in a while to pull
>>>some tails and read some of the inanities, and then happily depart.
>
>>>It is interesting to note that audio goofiness is as much alive in
>>>America as ever.
>
>> And yet you keep returning to a place that you obviously despise.
>
> Keep returning? Heck, I have been away for months. I dropped in to see
> what is going on (not much of interest, and certainly not much of interest
> to anybody interested in serious audio) and decided to post a few
> responses to a few comments. I started out simply answering some questions
> or making some points and of course you idiots jumped at the chance to
> make noise and be obnoxious.
>
> Don't worry, I will be pulling away pretty soon (after I satisfy myself
> that I have stirred the nest and caused you people to spin in your chairs
> a bit), and then you nitwits and losers can continue your self-contained
> series of rants back and forth.
>
> You exist in a little world all to yourselves, here, and it is interesting
> to see how a bit of input from an outsider like me triggers a tempest in a
> teapot.
>
> Howard Ferstler

There's that God complex again.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>
>> And yet you keep returning to a place that you obviously
>> despise.
>
> No Jen, RAO is a place where it is easy to find people such as yourself
> and the Middiot, who are caricatures of human beings, and whose writings
> have a certain entertaining cartoon-like quality.

He who sees himself as Zeus among the lesser gods.

[Harry Lavo]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
news:46758bd6$1@kcnews01...
> MiNe 109 wrote:
>
>> In article <46757a92@kcnews01>, Howard Ferstler >
>> wrote:
>
>>>George M. Middius wrote:
>
>>>>Time to feed the cat, Clerkie. Chop chop!
>
>>>You always seem to be on RAO, reading and posting at all times of the day
>>>(and night). Do you have a toilet built into your computer desk?
>
>> Another Ferstler golden oldie...
>
> It fits.
>
> I believe that I have had enough chatting with the likes of you people for
> a while. I'll leave you all to your standard venom-swapping commentaries.
>
> Howard.

So many atheists, so few true believers! As John McClaughlin would say:
"bye-bye"!

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>
> > And yet you keep returning to a place that you obviously
> > despise.
>
> No Jen, RAO is a place where it is easy to find people such as yourself and
> the Middiot, who are caricatures of human beings, and whose writings have a
> certain entertaining cartoon-like quality.

lol

Thanks Mr. Self Awareness.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said to ****-for-Dinner:

> > certain entertaining cartoon-like quality.

> Thanks Mr. Self Awareness.

Are you're implying that Arnii's posts have a "cartoon-like quality"?
Cartoons for Krooger are almost certainly a nightmarish panoply of
monsters and supernatural horrors. Krooger hates laughter as much as he
hates music.





--

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

[Joe Duffy]

In article >,
Jenn > wrote:
>In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>
>> > And yet you keep returning to a place that you obviously
>> > despise.
>>
>> No Jen, RAO is a place where it is easy to find people such as yourself and
>> the Middiot, who are caricatures of human beings, and whose writings have a
>> certain entertaining cartoon-like quality.
>
>lol
>
>Thanks Mr. Self Awareness.



The caricatures from this newsgroup are legendary.
Unfortunately, Jenn, you are much too 3-D to be
among them!
There was actually a time when I thought that
George and Arny were actually two separate caricatures,
rather than two sides of one extremely demented pathology.



Joe

[Joe Duffy]

In article >,
George M. Middius <do not reply> wrote:
>
>
>Jenn said to ****-for-Dinner:
>
>> > certain entertaining cartoon-like quality.
>
>> Thanks Mr. Self Awareness.
>
>Are you're implying that Arnii's posts have a "cartoon-like quality"?
>Cartoons for Krooger are almost certainly a nightmarish panoply of
>monsters and supernatural horrors. Krooger hates laughter as much as he
>hates music.
>

Fortunately digital animation has lessened his
fears, although the resurgence of hand-drawn
elements is always lurking there in the
shadows.




Joe

[J. Clouse]

In article <46757330@kcnews01>, says...
>
>J. Clouse wrote:
>> In article <467414bc@kcnews01>, says...
>>
>>>
>>>There is a difference between paying close attention to the
>>>sonic behavior ...
>>>
>>>Howard Ferstler
>
>> If you pay close attention to the sound,
>> And you find that it's splattered all around
>> Then only a tin ear
>> That can't half hear
>> Would consider it to be profound.
>
>Attitudes, even those entertained by knowledgeable
>enthusiasts, vary.
>
>I tend to sympathize (or maybe I should say empathize) with
>both the wide-dispersion group and the direct-field, narrow
>dispersion group. Both approaches can work, and one approach
>to speaker radiation-pattern issues may benefit certain
>kinds of recordings more than others.
>
>For example, with large-scale works, and home theater, I
>prefer the sound of my IC-20 Allison models working in
>concert with a home-built (with Allison drivers)
>wide-dispersion center speaker and wide-dispersion surround
>speakers (six of the latter with my set up in my main room).
>However, with smaller scale baroque works, quartets,
>quintets, etc., as well as certain material featuring
>centered soloists I rather favor the Dunlavy Cantatas in my
>middle system. Of course, with the latter I also have a
>center speaker and surround speakers, because I like the
>combination of precise detail and surround ambiance, even if
>the latter has to be synthesized.
>
>In any case, both approaches can work, with the
>wide-dispersion design only doing so if the system can
>produce smooth response within the reverberant field. The
>narrow-dispersion design only jells when the dispersion
>angle above the lower midrange is consistently narrow and
>does not have a lot of choppiness at wide off-axis
>horizontal angles. The Cantatas certainly fill the bill
>there, as do the Allison units within the wide-dispersion
>approach.
>
>Other designs that I have checked out (Waveform, Triad, NHT,
>Ascend, Eminent Technology, Snell, SVS, and even Polk) split
>the difference and can work well in their respective ways,
>provided the response at the listening position (be that
>response biased towards the reverberant field or the direct
>field) is smooth.
>
>Anybody who has read my speaker reviews in The Sensible
>Sound (which I continue to produce, but at a reduced
>quantity over what I did in the old days) will see that I
>cut speaker designers a lot of slack, provided the
>smoothness issue is properly addressed. Some speakers are
>not smooth by any measurement standards, and those are the
>ones most likely to not disappear when listening to good
>recordings.
>
>Howard Ferstler



If no ambience in the recording is shown,
The likely we should make our own.
But when it's contained
From the above I've refrained
So we see some logic you have shown.

Hammingaway

[J. Clouse]

In article >, says...
>
>In article <46757330@kcnews01>, says...
>>
>>J. Clouse wrote:
>>> In article <467414bc@kcnews01>, says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>There is a difference between paying close attention to the
>>>>sonic behavior ...
>>>>
>>>>Howard Ferstler
>>
>>> If you pay close attention to the sound,
>>> And you find that it's splattered all around
>>> Then only a tin ear
>>> That can't half hear
>>> Would consider it to be profound.
>>
>>Attitudes, even those entertained by knowledgeable
>>enthusiasts, vary.
>>
>>I tend to sympathize (or maybe I should say empathize) with
>>both the wide-dispersion group and the direct-field, narrow
>>dispersion group. Both approaches can work, and one approach
>>to speaker radiation-pattern issues may benefit certain
>>kinds of recordings more than others.
>>
>>For example, with large-scale works, and home theater, I
>>prefer the sound of my IC-20 Allison models working in
>>concert with a home-built (with Allison drivers)
>>wide-dispersion center speaker and wide-dispersion surround
>>speakers (six of the latter with my set up in my main room).
>>However, with smaller scale baroque works, quartets,
>>quintets, etc., as well as certain material featuring
>>centered soloists I rather favor the Dunlavy Cantatas in my
>>middle system. Of course, with the latter I also have a
>>center speaker and surround speakers, because I like the
>>combination of precise detail and surround ambiance, even if
>>the latter has to be synthesized.
>>
>>In any case, both approaches can work, with the
>>wide-dispersion design only doing so if the system can
>>produce smooth response within the reverberant field. The
>>narrow-dispersion design only jells when the dispersion
>>angle above the lower midrange is consistently narrow and
>>does not have a lot of choppiness at wide off-axis
>>horizontal angles. The Cantatas certainly fill the bill
>>there, as do the Allison units within the wide-dispersion
>>approach.
>>
>>Other designs that I have checked out (Waveform, Triad, NHT,
>>Ascend, Eminent Technology, Snell, SVS, and even Polk) split
>>the difference and can work well in their respective ways,
>>provided the response at the listening position (be that
>>response biased towards the reverberant field or the direct
>>field) is smooth.
>>
>>Anybody who has read my speaker reviews in The Sensible
>>Sound (which I continue to produce, but at a reduced
>>quantity over what I did in the old days) will see that I
>>cut speaker designers a lot of slack, provided the
>>smoothness issue is properly addressed. Some speakers are
>>not smooth by any measurement standards, and those are the
>>ones most likely to not disappear when listening to good
>>recordings.
>>
>>Howard Ferstler
>
>
>
>If no ambience in the recording is shown,
>The likely we should make our own.
>But when it's contained
>From the above I've refrained
>So we see some logic you have shown.
>
>Hammingaway


Duplication. Please correct last line to:

So we see to some logic you are prone.

Bad weekend...

Hammingaway

[J. Clouse]

In article om>,
says...
>
>
>J. Clouse a scris:
>
>>
>> Now Howard is a man of odd taste,
>> The Bose 901 he embraced.
>> He said they sound good
>> Like a great speaker should
>> So clearly his faith is misplaced.
>>
>
>Now Howard rails against looks
>and prefers to read his spec books
>but if truth were the test
>he thought Bose were best
>cause they work fine as a bird's nest.


In noting this limerick from Clyde,
Clearly it shows he has tried.
Altho' not too bad
Or the worst that we've had
It's just a bid tough to abide. :)

Hammingaway

[J. Clouse]

In article >, says...
>
>In article om>,
says...
>>
>>
>>J. Clouse a scris:
>>
>>>
>>> Now Howard is a man of odd taste,
>>> The Bose 901 he embraced.
>>> He said they sound good
>>> Like a great speaker should
>>> So clearly his faith is misplaced.
>>>
>>
>>Now Howard rails against looks
>>and prefers to read his spec books
>>but if truth were the test
>>he thought Bose were best
>>cause they work fine as a bird's nest.
>
>
>In noting this limerick from Clyde,
>Clearly it shows he has tried.
>Altho' not too bad
>Or the worst that we've had
>It's just a bid tough to abide. :)
>
>Hammingaway


Arghhhhhhh.......

Please change bid to bit.

Again, bad weekend...

Hammingaway

[Clyde Slick]

Woody Woodpecker pecked:
>
> No Jen, RAO is a place where it is easy to find people such as yourself and
> the Middiot, who are caricatures of human beings, and whose writings have a
> certain entertaining cartoon-like quality.

[Clyde Slick]

J. Clouse a scris:
> In article om>,
> says...
> >
> >
> >J. Clouse a scris:
> >
> >>
> >> Now Howard is a man of odd taste,
> >> The Bose 901 he embraced.
> >> He said they sound good
> >> Like a great speaker should
> >> So clearly his faith is misplaced.
> >>
> >
> >Now Howard rails against looks
> >and prefers to read his spec books
> >but if truth were the test
> >he thought Bose were best
> >cause they work fine as a bird's nest.
>
>
> In noting this limerick from Clyde,
> Clearly it shows he has tried.
> Altho' not too bad
> Or the worst that we've had
> It's just a bid tough to abide. :)
>

In noting my limerick de jour
whose quality you say is poor
you cut me to size
and show me not wise
but its truth cuts right to the core.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> Woody Woodpecker

So Krooger finally wangled some ED meds? Somebody should warn the
children in Goose Puke.





--

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

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> J. Clouse a scris:
>>
>>
>>
>> In noting this limerick from Clyde,
>> Clearly it shows he has tried.
>> Altho' not too bad
>> Or the worst that we've had
>> It's just a bid tough to abide. :)
>>
>
> In noting my limerick de jour
> whose quality you say is poor
> you cut me to size
> and show me not wise
> but its truth cuts right to the core.



Arnii Krooger: On Joys of Fixing


I lavishly joy - to
explore, to scope, to probe
and scan then exam

It's so delightful - to
feel, to grip, to squeeze
and touch then grasp

I'm jubilated when - I
poke and shove then thrust
and push then pull.

Then I put on my -
robe, my thong, my socks
my shirt, my shoes and hat

[J. Clouse]

In article om>,
says...
>
>
>J. Clouse a scris:
>> In article om>,
>> says...
>> >
>> >
>> >J. Clouse a scris:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Now Howard is a man of odd taste,
>> >> The Bose 901 he embraced.
>> >> He said they sound good
>> >> Like a great speaker should
>> >> So clearly his faith is misplaced.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Now Howard rails against looks
>> >and prefers to read his spec books
>> >but if truth were the test
>> >he thought Bose were best
>> >cause they work fine as a bird's nest.
>>
>>
>> In noting this limerick from Clyde,
>> Clearly it shows he has tried.
>> Altho' not too bad
>> Or the worst that we've had
>> It's just a bid tough to abide. :)
>>
>
>In noting my limerick de jour
>whose quality you say is poor
>you cut me to size
>and show me not wise
>but its truth cuts right to the core.


You now write a limerick with class,
Not something that's pulled from your ass :)
And speaking of Bose
Most everyone knows
They're purchased by rednecks en masse.

Hammingaway

[[email protected]]

On Jun 19, 3:05 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > Woody Woodpecker
>
> So Krooger finally wangled some ED meds? Somebody should warn the
> children in Goose Puke.
>
> --
>
> Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

A note to remember.
1) Ferstler The Scientologist was challenged 3 days ago to report
results of a blind test for identification of various makes of musical
instruments- pianos etc. I let him define his own criteria for a
"prperly conducted test".
Silence.
2 The other scientologist Krueger was being challenged for the past
two weeks to give a chapter and verse refernce to his experimental
work that would back up his ABX- audio listening "test"promotion.
Silence.
The cat that ate those scientific tongues is walking about tail up
purring..
Ludovic Mirabel

[Howard Ferstler]

wrote:
> On Jun 19, 3:05 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
> net> wrote:
>
>>Clyde Slick said:
>>
>>
>>>Woody Woodpecker
>>
>>So Krooger finally wangled some ED meds? Somebody should warn the
>>children in Goose Puke.
>>
>>--
>>
>>Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.
>
>
> A note to remember.
> 1) Ferstler The Scientologist was challenged 3 days ago to report
> results of a blind test for identification of various makes of musical
> instruments- pianos etc. I let him define his own criteria for a
> "prperly conducted test".
> Silence.

And other than this brief reply, silence is all you will
get. Guys like you (sockpuppets with too much spare time on
their hands) just want to get into silly "debates" about
issues that smart people figured out a long time ago. Your
opinions about DBT comparisons, instrument sounds, and the
like are too goofy to deal with intelligently.

Adios, goofball.

Howard Ferstler

[[email protected]]

On Jun 22, 1:53 pm, Howard Ferstler > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 3:05 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
> > net> wrote:
>
> >>Clyde Slick said:
>
> >>>Woody Woodpecker
>
> >>So Krooger finally wangled some ED meds? Somebody should warn the
> >>children in Goose Puke.
>
> >>--
>
> >>Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.
>
> > A note to remember.
> > 1) Ferstler The Scientologist was challenged 3 days ago to report
> > results of a blind test for identification of various makes of musical
> > instruments- pianos etc. I let him define his own criteria for a
> > "prperly conducted test".
> > Silence.
>
> And other than this brief reply, silence is all you will
> get. Guys like you (sockpuppets with too much spare time on
> their hands) just want to get into silly "debates" about
> issues that smart people figured out a long time ago. Your
> opinions about DBT comparisons, instrument sounds, and the
> like are too goofy to deal with intelligently.
>
> Adios, goofball.
>
> Howard Ferstler- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
================================
The scientist-in-chief of the Sensible Sound is up on his hind
legs the brain cells firing furiously
> Your
> opinions about DBT comparisons, instrument sounds, and the
> like are too goofy to deal with intelligently.

So are the opinions of everyone else outside of Ferstler meager
intellectual resources.. Which explains Ferstler's literary activities
at 80 IQ level. Poor guy he can not deal "intelligently" with high
school physics...

So when asked a simple question he feels himself unfairly cornered and
instead of answering to the topic foams at the mouth producing
profanities::
"sockpuppet, goofball"!!!!
But I must count my blessings. He could have generated more of his
"science".
Regards Ludovic Mirabel.. ..

[George M. Middius]

Ludo said:

> So when asked a simple question he feels himself unfairly cornered and
> instead of answering to the topic foams at the mouth producing
> profanities::
> "sockpuppet, goofball"!!!!
> But I must count my blessings. He could have generated more of his
> "science".

I'm sure you've realized by now that Ferstler is every bit as impervious
to mockery as Krooger is. The two of them share the fundamental
conviction that they "know" the "truth" -- a belief so deeply inculcated
in them that nothing short of a visit from "God" himself would ever be
able to sway them.




--

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

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Jun 22, 1:53 pm, Howard Ferstler > wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > On Jun 19, 3:05 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
>> > net> wrote:
>>
>> >>Clyde Slick said:
>>
>> >>>Woody Woodpecker
>>
>> >>So Krooger finally wangled some ED meds? Somebody should warn the
>> >>children in Goose Puke.
>>
>> >>--
>>
>> >>Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.
>>
>> > A note to remember.
>> > 1) Ferstler The Scientologist was challenged 3 days ago to report
>> > results of a blind test for identification of various makes of musical
>> > instruments- pianos etc. I let him define his own criteria for a
>> > "prperly conducted test".
>> > Silence.
>>
>> And other than this brief reply, silence is all you will
>> get. Guys like you (sockpuppets with too much spare time on
>> their hands) just want to get into silly "debates" about
>> issues that smart people figured out a long time ago. Your
>> opinions about DBT comparisons, instrument sounds, and the
>> like are too goofy to deal with intelligently.
>>
>> Adios, goofball.
>>
>> Howard Ferstler- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> ================================
> The scientist-in-chief of the Sensible Sound is up on his hind
> legs the brain cells firing furiously
>> Your
>> opinions about DBT comparisons, instrument sounds, and the
>> like are too goofy to deal with intelligently.
>
> So are the opinions of everyone else outside of Ferstler meager
> intellectual resources.. Which explains Ferstler's literary activities
> at 80 IQ level. Poor guy he can not deal "intelligently" with high
> school physics...
>
> So when asked a simple question he feels himself unfairly cornered and
> instead of answering to the topic foams at the mouth producing
> profanities::
> "sockpuppet, goofball"!!!!
> But I must count my blessings. He could have generated more of his
> "science".
> Regards Ludovic Mirabel.. ..

Which is worse....bad science or no science?
One has effort..albeit misguided..like that practiced
by Atkinson and Nousaine mentioned here.
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/wishful_thinking.htm

On the other side...no science would have you listening to
sticks on hollow logs with grass skirted topless women
doing the Shakira.... Ok...so no science has its advantages
for everyone except George.
Well George, How's it feel to be in Ferstlers boat?

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

duh-Scottie slinks back into RAO.

> Which is worse....bad science or no science?

Only a true idiot would think that question is binary in nature. Many
evil acts have been perpetrated under the mantle of "science". Many
instances of fraud have been perpetrated through bad science. Speaking
of science, how about those poison pills from China... bad science or no
science (i.e. mistakes or knowing malfeasance)?

The false dichotomy is one of the Krooborg's favorite "debating trade"
ploys. The real questions should be (1) whether personal preferences in
audio gear can be refined by "science"; (2) if so, whether there exists
a "scientific" procedure that can achieve that objective; and (3) if
such a procedure does exist, how it has been validated according to the
accepted norms of human science.

My opinion is that "science" is completely, totally, and 100% irrelevant
to choosing audio gear for personal use. Furthermore, it's an obvious
fact that anybody who prefers to substitute a "test" for his or her own
preference is a fool.

After all these years, why are you still yammering about some
pie-in-the-sky "science" solution to a non-problem? What is wrong with
you that you can't just buy what you want to buy? If something costs too
much for you, why are you even looking at it? Just look at the stuff
that's in your budget.

Only a true imbecile would complain about the existence of $100,000 cars
when said imbecile's purchasing limit is $30,000.





--

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

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
>
>
> duh-Scottie slinks back into RAO.
>
>> Which is worse....bad science or no science?
>
> Only a true idiot would think that question is binary in nature. Many
> evil acts have been perpetrated under the mantle of "science". Many
> instances of fraud have been perpetrated through bad science. Speaking
> of science, how about those poison pills from China... bad science or no
> science (i.e. mistakes or knowing malfeasance)?

Non-science. You obviously don't know what science is.
There is no proof you even know what audio is.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

On Jun 23, 10:21 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in messagenews:8vjq73prdr1ns8vp5iuumllhgjhs5b8j1b@4ax .com...
>
>
>
> > duh-Scottie slinks back into RAO.
>
> >> Which is worse....bad science or no science?
>
> > Only a true idiot would think that question is binary in nature. Many
> > evil acts have been perpetrated under the mantle of "science". Many
> > instances of fraud have been perpetrated through bad science. Speaking
> > of science, how about those poison pills from China... bad science or no
> > science (i.e. mistakes or knowing malfeasance)?
>
> Non-science. You obviously don't know what science is.
> There is no proof you even know what audio is.
>
> ScottW
======================
You say:
> Non-science. You obviously don't know what science is.
> There is no proof you even know what audio is.

For the benefit of the great unwashed such as myself:
Please define "science"
Please define "audio".
Please define "bad science" and "good science".
Please inform how "good science" motivates one to choose "good" in
preference to "bad "audio.
I hope to see a dozen Gordian knots cut with a single, concise
enlightening posting.
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

On Jun 23, 10:02 am, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> duh-Scottie slinks back into RAO.
>
> > Which is worse....bad science or no science?
>
> Only a true idiot would think that question is binary in nature. Many
> evil acts have been perpetrated under the mantle of "science". Many
> instances of fraud have been perpetrated through bad science. Speaking
> of science, how about those poison pills from China... bad science or no
> science (i.e. mistakes or knowing malfeasance)?
>
> The false dichotomy is one of the Krooborg's favorite "debating trade"
> ploys. The real questions should be (1) whether personal preferences in
> audio gear can be refined by "science"; (2) if so, whether there exists
> a "scientific" procedure that can achieve that objective; and (3) if
> such a procedure does exist, how it has been validated according to the
> accepted norms of human science.
>
> My opinion is that "science" is completely, totally, and 100% irrelevant
> to choosing audio gear for personal use. Furthermore, it's an obvious
> fact that anybody who prefers to substitute a "test" for his or her own
> preference is a fool.
>
> After all these years, why are you still yammering about some
> pie-in-the-sky "science" solution to a non-problem? What is wrong with
> you that you can't just buy what you want to buy? If something costs too
> much for you, why are you even looking at it? Just look at the stuff
> that's in your budget.
>
> Only a true imbecile would complain about the existence of $100,000 cars
> when said imbecile's purchasing limit is $30,000.
>
> --
>
> Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Amen to all that (with the exception of pungent phrasing.)
Ludovic Mirabel

[George M. Middius]

> > duh-Scottie slinks back into RAO.

> >> Which is worse....bad science or no science?

> > Only a true idiot would think that question is binary in nature. Many
> > evil acts have been perpetrated under the mantle of "science". Many
> > instances of fraud have been perpetrated through bad science. Speaking
> > of science, how about those poison pills from China... bad science or no
> > science (i.e. mistakes or knowing malfeasance)?

> > The false dichotomy is one of the Krooborg's favorite "debating trade"
> > ploys. The real questions should be (1) whether personal preferences in
> > audio gear can be refined by "science"; (2) if so, whether there exists
> > a "scientific" procedure that can achieve that objective; and (3) if
> > such a procedure does exist, how it has been validated according to the
> > accepted norms of human science.

> > My opinion is that "science" is completely, totally, and 100% irrelevant
> > to choosing audio gear for personal use. Furthermore, it's an obvious
> > fact that anybody who prefers to substitute a "test" for his or her own
> > preference is a fool.

> > After all these years, why are you still yammering about some
> > pie-in-the-sky "science" solution to a non-problem? What is wrong with
> > you that you can't just buy what you want to buy? If something costs too
> > much for you, why are you even looking at it? Just look at the stuff
> > that's in your budget.

> Only a true imbecile would complain about the existence of $100,000 cars
> when said imbecile's purchasing limit is $30,000.

> Non-science.

Coincidentally, Krooger is non-human. At least you have a dream.

> You obviously don't know what science is.

Pretty lame, but not your lamest ever.

The spam industry exists because of people like you, Scooter.



--

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

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 23, 10:21 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in
>> messagenews:8vjq73prdr1ns8vp5iuumllhgjhs5b8j1b@4ax .com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > duh-Scottie slinks back into RAO.
>>
>> >> Which is worse....bad science or no science?
>>
>> > Only a true idiot would think that question is binary in nature. Many
>> > evil acts have been perpetrated under the mantle of "science". Many
>> > instances of fraud have been perpetrated through bad science. Speaking
>> > of science, how about those poison pills from China... bad science or no
>> > science (i.e. mistakes or knowing malfeasance)?
>>
>> Non-science. You obviously don't know what science is.
>> There is no proof you even know what audio is.
>>
>> ScottW
> ======================
> You say:
>> Non-science. You obviously don't know what science is.
>> There is no proof you even know what audio is.
>
> For the benefit of the great unwashed such as myself:
> Please define "science"
> Please define "audio".
> Please define "bad science" and "good science".
> Please inform how "good science" motivates one to choose "good" in
> preference to "bad "audio.
> I hope to see a dozen Gordian knots cut with a single, concise
> enlightening posting.

A single enlightening link for you.

http://www.m-w.com/

ScottW

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 23, 10:02 am, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
> net> wrote:
>> duh-Scottie slinks back into RAO.
>>
>> > Which is worse....bad science or no science?
>>
>> Only a true idiot would think that question is binary in nature. Many
>> evil acts have been perpetrated under the mantle of "science". Many
>> instances of fraud have been perpetrated through bad science. Speaking
>> of science, how about those poison pills from China... bad science or no
>> science (i.e. mistakes or knowing malfeasance)?
>>
>> The false dichotomy is one of the Krooborg's favorite "debating trade"
>> ploys. The real questions should be (1) whether personal preferences in
>> audio gear can be refined by "science"; (2) if so, whether there exists
>> a "scientific" procedure that can achieve that objective; and (3) if
>> such a procedure does exist, how it has been validated according to the
>> accepted norms of human science.
>>
>> My opinion is that "science" is completely, totally, and 100% irrelevant
>> to choosing audio gear for personal use.

Yes we know...Ignorance is bliss for you.

>> Furthermore, it's an obvious
>> fact that anybody who prefers to substitute a "test" for his or her own
>> preference is a fool.

Who suggests that? Its the charlatan reviewers and sellers of
recommended component lists who need tests.

>>
>> After all these years, why are you still yammering about some
>> pie-in-the-sky "science" solution to a non-problem? What is wrong with
>> you that you can't just buy what you want to buy?

Nothing..I can and do just that.

>> If something costs too
>> much for you, why are you even looking at it? Just look at the stuff
>> that's in your budget.

Strawman, I rarely discuss costs. I am interested in performance.
Is it better, worse, or same is the important question.
Cost isn't the question. Value is and that is an individual
decision.

>>
>> Only a true imbecile would complain about the existence of $100,000 cars
>> when said imbecile's purchasing limit is $30,000.

Only a myopic suffer of KDS would think this applies to me.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

On Jun 23, 1:09 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 10:21 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in
> >> messagenews:8vjq73prdr1ns8vp5iuumllhgjhs5b8j1b@4ax .com...
>
> >> > duh-Scottie slinks back into RAO.
>
> >> >> Which is worse....bad science or no science?
>
> >> > Only a true idiot would think that question is binary in nature. Many
> >> > evil acts have been perpetrated under the mantle of "science". Many
> >> > instances of fraud have been perpetrated through bad science. Speaking
> >> > of science, how about those poison pills from China... bad science or no
> >> > science (i.e. mistakes or knowing malfeasance)?
>
> >> Non-science. You obviously don't know what science is.
> >> There is no proof you even know what audio is.
>
> >> ScottW
> > ======================
> > You say:
> >> Non-science. You obviously don't know what science is.
> >> There is no proof you even know what audio is.
>
> > For the benefit of the great unwashed such as myself:
> > Please define "science"
> > Please define "audio".
> > Please define "bad science" and "good science".
> > Please inform how "good science" motivates one to choose "good" in
> > preference to "bad "audio.
> > I hope to see a dozen Gordian knots cut with a single, concise
> > enlightening posting.
>
> A single enlightening link for you.
>
> http://www.m-w.com/
>
> ScottW- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text
=============================-

Thank for your help. I must remember to turn to you whenever I
have a scholarship problem I asked:
> > Please inform how "good science" motivates one to choose "good" in preference to "bad "audio.

As directed by you I looked up my edition of the large Webster
You are right. Webster has an entry for "science"..It lists 7
(seven)definitions of "science" .
But trrying as Ihard as I could I found not one single word about
preferences in audio components.in any of the seven.

Not to miss anything and to limit the correspondence to
1) The topics of concern in a rec/AUDIO/ forum
2) the topic under discussion
I looked up: "philosophy", "religom", "metaphysics" and "political
economy"

Blank, blank, blank.
Awaiting impatiently your helpful comment.
Ludovic Mirabel

[George M. Middius]

Ludo said to duh-Scottie:

> Not to miss anything and to limit the correspondence to
> 1) The topics of concern in a rec/AUDIO/ forum
> 2) the topic under discussion
> I looked up: "philosophy", "religom", "metaphysics" and "political
> economy"

> Blank, blank, blank.
> Awaiting impatiently your helpful comment.

Scottie doesn't bark helpfully. He can express frustration, anger, envy,
and stupidity. Especially stupidity. But not helpfulness.




--

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

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 23, 1:09 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 23, 10:21 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in
>> >> messagenews:8vjq73prdr1ns8vp5iuumllhgjhs5b8j1b@4ax .com...
>>
>> >> > duh-Scottie slinks back into RAO.
>>
>> >> >> Which is worse....bad science or no science?
>>
>> >> > Only a true idiot would think that question is binary in nature. Many
>> >> > evil acts have been perpetrated under the mantle of "science". Many
>> >> > instances of fraud have been perpetrated through bad science. Speaking
>> >> > of science, how about those poison pills from China... bad science or no
>> >> > science (i.e. mistakes or knowing malfeasance)?
>>
>> >> Non-science. You obviously don't know what science is.
>> >> There is no proof you even know what audio is.
>>
>> >> ScottW
>> > ======================
>> > You say:
>> >> Non-science. You obviously don't know what science is.
>> >> There is no proof you even know what audio is.
>>
>> > For the benefit of the great unwashed such as myself:
>> > Please define "science"
>> > Please define "audio".
>> > Please define "bad science" and "good science".
>> > Please inform how "good science" motivates one to choose "good" in
>> > preference to "bad "audio.
>> > I hope to see a dozen Gordian knots cut with a single, concise
>> > enlightening posting.
>>
>> A single enlightening link for you.
>>
>> http://www.m-w.com/
>>
>> ScottW- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text
> =============================-
>
> Thank for your help. I must remember to turn to you whenever I
> have a scholarship problem I asked:
>> > Please inform how "good science" motivates one to choose "good" in
>> > preference to "bad "audio.

Sorry, I didn't make it past the desperate pleas for definition assistance.

>
> As directed by you I looked up my edition of the large Webster
> You are right. Webster has an entry for "science"..It lists 7
> (seven)definitions of "science" .
> But trrying as Ihard as I could I found not one single word about
> preferences in audio components.in any of the seven.

Perhaps because you keep juxtaposing good for preference and
vice versa.
Do you seek good audio as in technically accurate at reproduction
or good as in pleasing to your soul? The two aren't the same
for some. It's all rather simple if you can accurately state your
question. Unfortunately, I can only describe your queries as
all over the map.

ScottW

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> ScottW wrote:
>> elmir2m wrote
>
>
>
>...snip
>
>
>> As directed by you I looked up my edition of the large Webster
>> You are right. Webster has an entry for "science"..It lists 7
>> (seven)definitions of "science" .
>> But trrying as Ihard as I could I found not one single word about
>> preferences in audio components.in any of the seven.
>
> Perhaps because you keep juxtaposing good for preference and
> vice versa.
>
> Do you seek good audio as in technically accurate at reproduction
> or good as in pleasing to your soul? The two aren't the same
> for some. It's all rather simple if you can accurately state your
> question. Unfortunately, I can only describe your queries as
> all over the map.
>
> ScottW


I am aware of the nature encircling the question you asked.

What would then be generally considered _good audio_ that should
result at the ending phase during the recording process.

And what is also considered _good audio_ as one sits in his
listening room listening to the recorded sound that resulted above ?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> elmir2m wrote:
>
>
>
> As directed by you


> Blank, blank, blank.
>
>
> Ludovic Mirabel




No sense wasting time with the twitty twerp. He is
all talk, a muttering woof, a birdbrain with furiously
wagging tail. Watch him sputter and muddle in mud
with tail cloistered neatly in between. A miserable
bum infested with fleas forlorn with absurdity.

See him strut,
toddle

and run.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 25, 12:23 pm, "JBorg, Jr." > wrote:
> > elmir2m wrote:
>
> > As directed by you
> > Blank, blank, blank.
>
> > Ludovic Mirabel
>
> No sense wasting time with the twitty twerp. He is
> all talk, a muttering woof, a birdbrain with furiously
> wagging tail. Watch him sputter and muddle in mud
> with tail cloistered neatly in between. A miserable
> bum infested with fleas forlorn with absurdity.
>
> See him strut,
> toddle
>
> and run.

=========================
=====================
ScottW. defends "science"
> Which is worse....bad science or no science?
He stands on guard against the millenia of composers and performers
who don't give a damn for science and just go on creating music. He
instructs me, who also don't give a damn for the high grade textbook
"science" of the silly "objectivists", and just choose what I like
best,.where to find sources for "audio science"
When I demonstrate that science as defined in his Bible, the
Webster.has nothing to do with choosing audio equipment he runs to
Webster again and finds there a new word- "juxtapapose"

> Perhaps because you keep juxtaposing good for preference and
> vice versa

Of course I can't juxtapose anything FOR anything else becauase
juxtapose means laying subjects out side by side or on top of each
other. (Like in "Stabat Mater dolorosa juxta crucem lacrimosa" put to
music by Pergolesi amongst others) You can "substitute" something FOR
something else. But that comes in Webster under "S". Many pages to
turn.
You ask why I bother.? Mr. Borg where else but in the RAO could one
find such a barrel of laughs watching the strutting nonentities making
a spectacle of themselves; tirelessly, day in, day out.
A sight for sore eyes.
Ludovic Mirabel

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 25, 12:23 pm, "JBorg, Jr." > wrote:
>> > elmir2m wrote:
>>
>> > As directed by you
>> > Blank, blank, blank.
>>
>> > Ludovic Mirabel
>>
>> No sense wasting time with the twitty twerp. He is
>> all talk, a muttering woof, a birdbrain with furiously
>> wagging tail. Watch him sputter and muddle in mud
>> with tail cloistered neatly in between. A miserable
>> bum infested with fleas forlorn with absurdity.
>>
>> See him strut,
>> toddle
>>
>> and run.
>
> =========================
> =====================
> ScottW. defends "science"
>> Which is worse....bad science or no science?

> He stands on guard against the millenia of composers and performers
> who don't give a damn for science and just go on creating music.

WTH are you on? Did you steal Jenn's stash?
That ditchweed is 30 years old and didn't get her high.
WTH is it gonna do for you?


> He
> instructs me, who also don't give a damn for the high grade textbook
> "science" of the silly "objectivists", and just choose what I like
> best,.where to find sources for "audio science"
> When I demonstrate that science as defined in his Bible, the
> Webster.has nothing to do with choosing audio equipment he runs to
> Webster again and finds there a new word- "juxtapapose"
>
>> Perhaps because you keep juxtaposing good for preference and
>> vice versa
>
> Of course I can't juxtapose anything FOR anything else becauase
> juxtapose means laying subjects out side by side or on top of each
> other. (Like in "Stabat Mater dolorosa juxta crucem lacrimosa" put to
> music by Pergolesi amongst others) You can "substitute" something FOR
> something else. But that comes in Webster under "S". Many pages to
> turn.

Fine Ludo...you know what I meant. Go ahead and bash your brains
on the brick wall to avoid the simple fact that you keep confusing
preference with objective performance.
They are different and once you come to accept that...all your
serious troubles float away. Well...maybe not all YOUR troubles.

> You ask why I bother.? Mr. Borg where else but in the RAO could one
> find such a barrel of laughs watching the strutting nonentities making
> a spectacle of themselves; tirelessly, day in, day out.
> A sight for sore eyes.

but troubling to your dull mind.

ScottW

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> elmir2m wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>>> elmir2m wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ScottW. defends "science"
>
>> Which is worse....bad science or no science?
>> Perhaps because you keep juxtaposing good for preference and
>> vice versa
>
> Of course I can't juxtapose anything FOR anything else becauase
> juxtapose means laying subjects out side by side or on top of each
> other. (Like in "Stabat Mater dolorosa juxta crucem lacrimosa" put to
> music by Pergolesi amongst others) You can "substitute" something FOR
> something else. But that comes in Webster under "S". Many pages to
> turn.
>
> You ask why I bother.? Mr. Borg where else but in the RAO could one
> find such a barrel of laughs watching the strutting nonentities making
> a spectacle of themselves; tirelessly, day in, day out.
> A sight for sore eyes.
>
> Ludovic Mirabel


Well said. I'd like to add that the much-overdue meltdown is
in progress. This all-talk Invertebrate is ripe for some much
anticipated toiling dues to sandbox. How could one befriend a
gutless mollycoddle and go as far as to delight the thickness in
presence.

May I ask if you aware of prescribed treatment plan for those
with condition having no vertebrae ?

[[email protected]]

On Jun 25, 5:31 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 25, 12:23 pm, "JBorg, Jr." > wrote:
> >> > elmir2m wrote:
>
> >> > As directed by you
> >> > Blank, blank, blank.
>
> >> > Ludovic Mirabel
>
> >> No sense wasting time with the twitty twerp. He is
> >> all talk, a muttering woof, a birdbrain with furiously
> >> wagging tail. Watch him sputter and muddle in mud
> >> with tail cloistered neatly in between. A miserable
> >> bum infested with fleas forlorn with absurdity.
>
> >> See him strut,
> >> toddle
>
> >> and run.
>
> > =========================
> > =====================
> > ScottW. defends "science"
> >> Which is worse....bad science or no science?
> > He stands on guard against the millenia of composers and performers
> > who don't give a damn for science and just go on creating music.
>
> WTH are you on? Did you steal Jenn's stash?
> That ditchweed is 30 years old and didn't get her high.
> WTH is it gonna do for you?
>
>
>
>
>
> > He
> > instructs me, who also don't give a damn for the high grade textbook
> > "science" of the silly "objectivists", and just choose what I like
> > best,.where to find sources for "audio science"
> > When I demonstrate that science as defined in his Bible, the
> > Webster.has nothing to do with choosing audio equipment he runs to
> > Webster again and finds there a new word- "juxtapapose"
>
> >> Perhaps because you keep juxtaposing good for preference and
> >> vice versa
>
> > Of course I can't juxtapose anything FOR anything else becauase
> > juxtapose means laying subjects out side by side or on top of each
> > other. (Like in "Stabat Mater dolorosa juxta crucem lacrimosa" put to
> > music by Pergolesi amongst others) You can "substitute" something FOR
> > something else. But that comes in Webster under "S". Many pages to
> > turn.
>
> Fine Ludo...you know what I meant. Go ahead and bash your brains
> on the brick wall to avoid the simple fact that you keep confusing
> preference with objective performance.
> They are different and once you come to accept that...all your
> serious troubles float away. Well...maybe not all YOUR troubles.
>
> > You ask why I bother.? Mr. Borg where else but in the RAO could one
> > find such a barrel of laughs watching the strutting nonentities making
> > a spectacle of themselves; tirelessly, day in, day out.
> > A sight for sore eyes.
>
> but troubling to your dull mind.
>
> ScottW- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You would like to acquire one more correspondent to play your
masochistic games, your onr and only way to fame, wouldn't you? What
you manage to say is either wrong or semiliterate or both. But people
bother answering you and that shows you, if no one else, that you're
being taken seriously.

I did answer once and got you to write rubbish about aspirin from a
misunderstood-(as per usual)- reading of advertising material.

This time I'll leave you with "juxtaposing from" and the distinction
between "preference" and "objective (???!!!) performance".
I don't know what "objective performance" in music is (as distinct
from "subjective" performance) but please, please save me the
explanation. .
It is on par with some other gems of yours like this one
:
> The irony of creating a new thread simply to complain about
> me is kind of hypocritical...don't you think?
I commented:
" Yes this irony is very hypocritical. Hypocrisy of this irony is very
ironic. "
..
I truly and in all kindness suggest attending a reading comprehension
and elementary verbal skills course. But you won't. You found a
perfect outlet-the web that tolerates all asininities.

Corresponding with you is a limited source of entertainment for a day
or two Boredom soon sets in. You win again.
Ludovic Mirabel
If google suddenly makes up its mind to find the same message that I
posted this morning and that sank without survivors accept my apology

[George M. Middius]

Ludo said:

> Corresponding with you is a limited source of entertainment for a day
> or two Boredom soon sets in. You win again.

If you're lucky, you'll get one of Scottie's too-too clever "Izza allya
got? Nyaah nyaah!" ripostes.




--

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

[[email protected]]

On Jun 26, 5:45 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Ludo said:
>
> > Corresponding with you is a limited source of entertainment for a day
> > or two Boredom soon sets in. You win again.
>
> If you're lucky, you'll get one of Scottie's too-too clever "Izza allya
> got? Nyaah nyaah!" ripostes.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We should be so lucky!. More likely it will be one of his excursions
into the world of high thought where he sets up the opposition
between "accurate' and "pleasing'. As though the Wal-Mart "hi-
fi"innacurately making a violin into a screech, a soprano voice into
chalk gliding on the blackboad and the drum into car radio boom-boom
could be "pleasing " to anyone who cares for decent audio.
But like every semilterate, in his travels through the internet and
the Webster dictionary he picks up with glee. the pretentious words
like "accuracy" . It sounds to him so much more professional than the
mere old hi-fi.
Ludovic Mirabel
> --
>
>.

[ScottW]

On Jun 26, 11:22 pm, " > wrote:
> On Jun 26, 5:45 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .net> wrote:
> > Ludo said:
>
> > > Corresponding with you is a limited source of entertainment for a day
> > > or two Boredom soon sets in. You win again.
>
> > If you're lucky, you'll get one of Scottie's too-too clever "Izza allya
> > got? Nyaah nyaah!" ripostes.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> We should be so lucky!. More likely it will be one of his excursions
> into the world of high thought where he sets up the opposition
> between "accurate' and "pleasing'.

Opposition? I simply note the objectives are not always coincident.

You can go on endlessly while refusing to accept that your refusal to
accept this simple concept is a significant contributor to your
conflict.

> As though the Wal-Mart "hi-
> fi"innacurately making a violin into a screech, a soprano voice into
> chalk gliding on the blackboad and the drum into car radio boom-boom
> could be "pleasing " to anyone who cares for decent audio.

As if the SET vs Tube vs tranny or digital vs analog
discussions don't exist in the realm of "decent" audio.
Your Walmart strawman should be beneath even you Ludo.

> But like every semilterate,

Lol, It's like the hand of God reaches down to smite the arrogance
in
action.

> in his travels through the internet and
> the Webster dictionary he picks up with glee. the pretentious words
> like "accuracy" .

What is pretentious about accuracy?

>It sounds to him so much more professional than the
> mere old hi-fi.

Professional? No. Descriptive..yes.

But clarity is obviously not on your agenda.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

On Jun 27, 1:30 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jun 26, 11:22 pm, " > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 26, 5:45 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .net> wrote:
> > > Ludo said:
>
> > > > Corresponding with you is a limited source of entertainment for a day
> > > > or two Boredom soon sets in. You win again.
>
> > > If you're lucky, you'll get one of Scottie's too-too clever "Izza allya
> > > got? Nyaah nyaah!" ripostes.
>
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> > We should be so lucky!. More likely it will be one of his excursions
> > into the world of high thought where he sets up the opposition
> > between "accurate' and "pleasing'.
>
> Opposition? I simply note the objectives are not always coincident.
>
> You can go on endlessly while refusing to accept that your refusal to
> accept this simple concept is a significant contributor to your
> conflict.
>
> > As though the Wal-Mart "hi-
> > fi"innacurately making a violin into a screech, a soprano voice into
> > chalk gliding on the blackboad and the drum into car radio boom-boom
> > could be "pleasing " to anyone who cares for decent audio.
>
> As if the SET vs Tube vs tranny or digital vs analog
> discussions don't exist in the realm of "decent" audio.
> Your Walmart strawman should be beneath even you Ludo.
>
> > But like every semilterate,
>
> Lol, It's like the hand of God reaches down to smite the arrogance
> in
> action.
>
> > in his travels through the internet and
> > the Webster dictionary he picks up with glee. the pretentious words
> > like "accuracy" .
>
> What is pretentious about accuracy?
>
> >It sounds to him so much more professional than the
> > mere old hi-fi.
>
> Professional? No. Descriptive..yes.
>
> But clarity is obviously not on your agenda.
>
> ScottW

==========================
Piano TO ME as like a real piano as electronics can do it, flute as
like a real flute, soprano as like a real singer = more true to life
=- more "accurate =more high fidelity= more pleasing= ...
To my ears.
How it is achieved; analog/digital, SETt|ype A or or the mixture of
the two is immaterial to me.
It also happens to be beyond my area of competence.
I leave the yechnicalities to the electronic wizards like the renowned
ScottW of the RAO.
> As if the SET vs Tube vs tranny or digital vs analog
> discussions don't exist in the realm of "decent" audio
No doubt he'll cut all those Gordian knots once he decides to open up.
The world of electronics is waiting. The consumer Reports clientele is
waiting. The Nobel Prize Cttee is waiting.. Don't keep us all in
suspense.

Ludovic Mirabel

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 27, 1:30 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>> On Jun 26, 11:22 pm, " > wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 26, 5:45 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .net>
>> > wrote:
>> > > Ludo said:
>>
>> > > > Corresponding with you is a limited source of entertainment for a day
>> > > > or two Boredom soon sets in. You win again.
>>
>> > > If you're lucky, you'll get one of Scottie's too-too clever "Izza allya
>> > > got? Nyaah nyaah!" ripostes.
>>
>> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> > We should be so lucky!. More likely it will be one of his excursions
>> > into the world of high thought where he sets up the opposition
>> > between "accurate' and "pleasing'.
>>
>> Opposition? I simply note the objectives are not always coincident.
>>
>> You can go on endlessly while refusing to accept that your refusal to
>> accept this simple concept is a significant contributor to your
>> conflict.
>>
>> > As though the Wal-Mart "hi-
>> > fi"innacurately making a violin into a screech, a soprano voice into
>> > chalk gliding on the blackboad and the drum into car radio boom-boom
>> > could be "pleasing " to anyone who cares for decent audio.
>>
>> As if the SET vs Tube vs tranny or digital vs analog
>> discussions don't exist in the realm of "decent" audio.
>> Your Walmart strawman should be beneath even you Ludo.
>>
>> > But like every semilterate,
>>
>> Lol, It's like the hand of God reaches down to smite the arrogance
>> in
>> action.
>>
>> > in his travels through the internet and
>> > the Webster dictionary he picks up with glee. the pretentious words
>> > like "accuracy" .
>>
>> What is pretentious about accuracy?
>>
>> >It sounds to him so much more professional than the
>> > mere old hi-fi.
>>
>> Professional? No. Descriptive..yes.
>>
>> But clarity is obviously not on your agenda.
>>
>> ScottW
>
> ==========================
> Piano TO ME as like a real piano as electronics can do it, flute as
> like a real flute, soprano as like a real singer = more true to life
> =- more "accurate =more high fidelity= more pleasing= ...

Wow...I can see why having a discussion with you on these
topics is difficult. These terms are not equivalent to
me and to have a basic discussion on the topics requires
at least a minimal agreement on terms.

BTW, my kid borrowed a cheap drum kit from his friend.....
IME, I seriously doubt you would want an accurately
reproduced snare drum going off in your listening room.

> To my ears.
> How it is achieved; analog/digital, SETt|ype A or or the mixture of
> the two is immaterial to me.
> It also happens to be beyond my area of competence.
> I leave the yechnicalities to the electronic wizards like the renowned
> ScottW of the RAO.
>> As if the SET vs Tube vs tranny or digital vs analog
>> discussions don't exist in the realm of "decent" audio
> No doubt he'll cut all those Gordian knots once he decides to open up.
> The world of electronics is waiting. The consumer Reports clientele is
> waiting. The Nobel Prize Cttee is waiting.. Don't keep us all in
> suspense.

Walmart has some very nice speakers in fake rock enclosures.
See the garden dept. You'll be impressed.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

On Jun 17, 4:40 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com
>
> > As mere layman may I ask; Don't the bipolar speakers
> > like the electrostats dispense with all these tweaks and
> > remedies and still seem not to be there.
>
> Not at all.
>
> > Mine do so to me..
>
> Probably Ludo becasue your hearing has been vastly degraded for decades.
=========================
Krueger "argues".
> Probably Ludo becasue your hearing has been vastly degraded > for
decades.

What I shame . I missed this typical Krueger chivalrous ad
personam repartee till today.. He gave up for the time being
enlarging on my poor understanding of his exquisite English prosel
and for a change beats me with my advanced age stick. It all explains
why he is so universally beloved.

You are more right than you know Krueger. My hearing above
10k. Hz. has been poor ever since my youth in the Army when I used to
shoot heavy Vickers machine gun without earmuffs - because in those
days nobody knew or cared about ear-drum protection.

And you know what else? J. Gordon Holt wrote to me that he
can't hear high frequencies either. Assuming that a spring chicken
like you hears it all I'll give you one guess : whose opinion about
audio should we value more? Yours with perfect hearing or Gordon
Hall's without?

Don't let your impotent rage at being unable to answer
why you don't publish the results of your double blind, ABX
recognition of different pianos and flutes recorded by your own
"accurate" microphones, and played by your own ideal "Hi-Fi" blind you
to common decencies in discussion.

Another confession-just for you before you find out
about it yourself.: my great grandfather used to drink 2 (two) ounces
of vodka before dinner.
Ludovic Mirabel

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

>
> Walmart has some very nice speakers in fake rock enclosures.
> See the garden dept.

A true audio enthusiast would hold out for these:

http://www.bogen.com/products/NEARspeakers/

Stephen

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>
>> Walmart has some very nice speakers in fake rock enclosures.
>> See the garden dept.
>
> A true audio enthusiast would hold out for these:
>
> http://www.bogen.com/products/NEARspeakers/

New means for the disappearing speaker.

ScottW

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

MollyCoddle said:



> These terms are not equivalent to me


> the topics requires at least a minimal agreement on terms.



Isn't it a coincidence that you live in general area from
McKelvy's house ? You two could make a wholesome
percolation to the style of 'chicken' broth with the combining
suppurating juices titrated lushly into a sudsy froth for dorritos.

[ScottW]

On Jun 28, 1:39 am, "JBorg, Jr." > wrote:
> MollyCoddle said:
>
> > These terms are not equivalent to me
> > the topics requires at least a minimal agreement on terms.
>
> Isn't it a coincidence that you live in general area from
> McKelvy's house ?

I don't consider anything north of Pendleton in my general area.

Anything else worthy of note? ....I guess not.

ScottW

> You two could make a wholesome
> percolation to the style of 'chicken' broth with the combining
> suppurating juices titrated lushly into a sudsy froth for dorritos.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> ScottW wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>>> MollyCoddle said:
>>
>>
>>
>>> These terms are not equivalent to me
>>> the topics requires at least a minimal agreement on terms.
>>
>> Isn't it a coincidence that you live in general area from
>> McKelvy's house ?
>
> I don't consider anything north of Pendleton in my general area.
>
> Anything else worthy of note? ....I guess not.
>
> ScottW


Aha! You replied. It means that your backbone has appeared and
decided to flex by electing to piece itself together, and is now
furiously standing in full. It was not broken nor afraid, it was just
resting.


Along this subthread, a question was raised in responsed to you asking
to ... inform how "good science" motivates one to choose "good" in
preference to "bad "audio.

(That is, science-based listening preferences in audio components)


You stated:


-- Which is worse....bad science or no science?

-- ...no science would have you listening to sticks
on hollow logs with grass skirted topless women

-- What is pretentious about accuracy?

-- Do you seek good audio as in technically accurate at reproduction
or good as in pleasing to your soul?


So I asked:


What is considered good audio which should result at the ending phase
of the recording process ?

And what is considered good audio as you sit in your
listening room listening to the recorded sound that resulted above ?

[ScottW]

On Jun 29, 1:17 am, "JBorg, Jr." > wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
> >>> MollyCoddle said:
>
> >>> These terms are not equivalent to me
> >>> the topics requires at least a minimal agreement on terms.
>
> >> Isn't it a coincidence that you live in general area from
> >> McKelvy's house ?
>
> > I don't consider anything north of Pendleton in my general area.
>
> > Anything else worthy of note? ....I guess not.
>
> > ScottW
>
> Aha! You replied. It means that your backbone has appeared and
> decided to flex by electing to piece itself together, and is now
> furiously standing in full. It was not broken nor afraid, it was just
> resting.
>
> Along this subthread, a question was raised in responsed to you asking
> to ... inform how "good science" motivates one to choose "good" in
> preference to "bad "audio.

If you paid attention...it would be the reviewers and creators of
RCLs
who have been known to have some influence on the buying habits
of some consumers who would benefit from a little science in their
selection of "good" audio.

>
> (That is, science-based listening preferences in audio components)
>
> You stated:
>
> -- Which is worse....bad science or no science?
>
> -- ...no science would have you listening to sticks
> on hollow logs with grass skirted topless women
>
> -- What is pretentious about accuracy?
>
> -- Do you seek good audio as in technically accurate at reproduction
> or good as in pleasing to your soul?
>
> So I asked:
>
> What is considered good audio which should result at the ending phase
> of the recording process ?

Unanswerable in the given context.

>
> And what is considered good audio as you sit in your
> listening room listening to the recorded sound that resulted above ?

What I like.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

JBorg, Jr. a scris:
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
> >>> MollyCoddle said:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> These terms are not equivalent to me
> >>> the topics requires at least a minimal agreement on terms.
> >>
> >> Isn't it a coincidence that you live in general area from
> >> McKelvy's house ?
> >
> > I don't consider anything north of Pendleton in my general area.
> >
> > Anything else worthy of note? ....I guess not.
> >
> > ScottW
>
>
> Aha! You replied. It means that your backbone has appeared and
> decided to flex by electing to piece itself together, and is now
> furiously standing in full. It was not broken nor afraid, it was just
> resting.
>
>
> Along this subthread, a question was raised in responsed to you asking
> to ... inform how "good science" motivates one to choose "good" in
> preference to "bad "audio.
>
> (That is, science-based listening preferences in audio components)
>
>
> You stated:
>
>
> -- Which is worse....bad science or no science?
>


Which is worse, bad art, or no art?

[Clyde Slick]

ScottW a scris:

> >
> > And what is considered good audio as you sit in your
> > listening room listening to the recorded sound that resulted above ?
>
> What I like.
>


that ought to hold Georgs at bay for "at least" a day or two.

[George M. Middius]

Sacky said:

> > > And what is considered good audio as you sit in your
> > > listening room listening to the recorded sound that resulted above ?

> > What I like.

> that ought to hold Georgs at bay for "at least" a day or two.

Are you referring to me as "Georgs"? Don't know why you brought me into
it. The Idiot was babbling at Shushie.





--

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

[Clyde Slick]

George M. Middius a scris:
> Sacky said:
>
> > > > And what is considered good audio as you sit in your
> > > > listening room listening to the recorded sound that resulted above ?
>
> > > What I like.
>
> > that ought to hold Georgs at bay for "at least" a day or two.
>
> Are you referring to me as "Georgs"?

Nos

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> ScottW wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>> snip...
>>
>>
>>
>> Along this subthread, a question was raised in responsed to you
>> asking to ... inform how "good science" motivates one to choose
>> "good" in preference to "bad "audio.
>
>
> If you paid attention...it would be the reviewers and creators of
> RCLs who have been known to have some influence on the buying
> habits of some consumers who would benefit from a little science
> in their selection of "good" audio.


How could the selector(s) of RCLs benefit from a little science
to select "good" audio when in fact, you, yourself, admitted below
that "good" audio is determine based on what you like ?


Please give an opinion to counter this remark.


>> (That is, science-based listening preferences in audio components)
>>
>> You stated:
>>
>> -- Which is worse....bad science or no science?
>>
>> -- ...no science would have you listening to sticks
>> on hollow logs with grass skirted topless women
>>
>> -- What is pretentious about accuracy?
>>
>> -- Do you seek good audio as in technically accurate at reproduction
>> or good as in pleasing to your soul?
>>
>> So I asked:
>>
>> What is considered good audio which should result at the ending
>> phase of the recording process ?
>
> Unanswerable in the given context.


Okey.


At the ending phase of recording process, please tell:



--- Should preference to personal choice determine good audio

OR,

--- Should preference to science determine good audio





>> And what is considered good audio as you sit in your
>> listening room listening to the recorded sound that resulted above ?
>
>
> What I like.


That's Non-science. That's like listening to sticks on hollow logs with
grass skirted topless women. You obviously don't know what science is.


What about accuracy ?




> ScottW

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>> ScottW wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>> -- Which is worse....bad science or no science?
>>
>>
>
> Which is worse, bad art, or no art?

I will be more than happy to sellect after we agreed on the
appropriate criteria that define bad art.

He contends that non-science is like listening to sticks on hollow
logs with grass skirted topless women.

[ScottW]

"JBorg, Jr." > wrote in message
et...
>> ScottW wrote:
>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> snip...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Along this subthread, a question was raised in responsed to you
>>> asking to ... inform how "good science" motivates one to choose
>>> "good" in preference to "bad "audio.
>>
>>
>> If you paid attention...it would be the reviewers and creators of
>> RCLs who have been known to have some influence on the buying
>> habits of some consumers who would benefit from a little science
>> in their selection of "good" audio.
>
>
> How could the selector(s) of RCLs benefit from a little science
> to select "good" audio when in fact, you, yourself, admitted below
> that "good" audio is determine based on what you like ?

I'm not selling my opinion....unless you wish to pay?

>
>
> Please give an opinion to counter this remark.
>
>
>>> (That is, science-based listening preferences in audio components)
>>>
>>> You stated:
>>>
>>> -- Which is worse....bad science or no science?
>>>
>>> -- ...no science would have you listening to sticks
>>> on hollow logs with grass skirted topless women
>>>
>>> -- What is pretentious about accuracy?
>>>
>>> -- Do you seek good audio as in technically accurate at reproduction
>>> or good as in pleasing to your soul?
>>>
>>> So I asked:
>>>
>>> What is considered good audio which should result at the ending
>>> phase of the recording process ?
>>
>> Unanswerable in the given context.
>
>
> Okey.
>
>
> At the ending phase of recording process, please tell:
>
>
>
> --- Should preference to personal choice determine good audio
>
> OR,
>
> --- Should preference to science determine good audio

At the consumer end...preference rules.
At the producer end...I think a bit of applied science will go
far to insure the consumer agrees.
Consumers can also use science to some degree to achieve
their goal...but in the end its all up to their minds.

Now these reviewers lie somewhere in between.
They can offer just another consumers opinion, and I guess
that's fine. Or they could do more. I'd like a little more.
JA does his measurements and that's great.
Why not some listening tests as well?
>
>
>
>
>
>>> And what is considered good audio as you sit in your
>>> listening room listening to the recorded sound that resulted above ?
>>
>>
>> What I like.
>
>
> That's Non-science. That's like listening to sticks on hollow logs with
> grass skirted topless women.

Sounds yummy :).

> You obviously don't know what science is.

I know where to apply it.

>
> What about accuracy ?

What about it? I used FR to help me integrate my sub.
First time I did it strictly by ear...lived happily with that awhile
and then decided it was lacking.
So I pulled out the SPL and did a little tweaking without
changing crossover much. I lived with that awhile and
decided I liked it a bit better but ultimately decided to
try something else.
So I did a full FR plot upto about 250 and decided to change
the crossover a bunch and then reset the level.
A couple of folks have heard the results, subjectivists themselves
and as far as they were willing to tell me, they all preferred
the new settings.

In this case..I'd say science let me select a reasonable
number of choices for settings from the infinite opportunities
to find one that my preference says is right for me.
Did I find the absolute best setting for me? I'll never know.
But without a little science would I find one as good as this,
I doubt it.
(Imagine what it would be like if I had my wish for a 10 turn
pot on my subs level and crossover :) )

You ever try to setup a surround system by ear?
I did...it was OK. A little science improved that
a bunch too IMO.

Did I mention the load matching I did for my cart?
That was huge. Or the channel imbalance?

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 30, 1:16 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "JBorg, Jr." > wrote in message
>
> et...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> ScottW wrote:
> >>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>
> >>> snip...
>
> >>> Along this subthread, a question was raised in responsed to you
> >>> asking to ... inform how "good science" motivates one to choose
> >>> "good" in preference to "bad "audio.
>
> >> If you paid attention...it would be the reviewers and creators of
> >> RCLs who have been known to have some influence on the buying
> >> habits of some consumers who would benefit from a little science
> >> in their selection of "good" audio.
>
> > How could the selector(s) of RCLs benefit from a little science
> > to select "good" audio when in fact, you, yourself, admitted below
> > that "good" audio is determine based on what you like ?
>
> I'm not selling my opinion....unless you wish to pay?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Please give an opinion to counter this remark.
>
> >>> (That is, science-based listening preferences in audio components)
>
> >>> You stated:
>
> >>> -- Which is worse....bad science or no science?
>
> >>> -- ...no science would have you listening to sticks
> >>> on hollow logs with grass skirted topless women
>
> >>> -- What is pretentious about accuracy?
>
> >>> -- Do you seek good audio as in technically accurate at reproduction
> >>> or good as in pleasing to your soul?
>
> >>> So I asked:
>
> >>> What is considered good audio which should result at the ending
> >>> phase of the recording process ?
>
> >> Unanswerable in the given context.
>
> > Okey.
>
> > At the ending phase of recording process, please tell:
>
> > --- Should preference to personal choice determine good audio
>
> > OR,
>
> > --- Should preference to science determine good audio
>
> At the consumer end...preference rules.
> At the producer end...I think a bit of applied science will go
> far to insure the consumer agrees.
> Consumers can also use science to some degree to achieve
> their goal...but in the end its all up to their minds.
>
> Now these reviewers lie somewhere in between.
> They can offer just another consumers opinion, and I guess
> that's fine. Or they could do more. I'd like a little more.
> JA does his measurements and that's great.
> Why not some listening tests as well?
>
>
>
> >>> And what is considered good audio as you sit in your
> >>> listening room listening to the recorded sound that resulted above ?
>
> >> What I like.
>
> > That's Non-science. That's like listening to sticks on hollow logs with
> > grass skirted topless women.
>
> Sounds yummy :).
>
> > You obviously don't know what science is.
>
> I know where to apply it.
>
>
>
> > What about accuracy ?
>
> What about it? I used FR to help me integrate my sub.
> First time I did it strictly by ear...lived happily with that awhile
> and then decided it was lacking.
> So I pulled out the SPL and did a little tweaking without
> changing crossover much. I lived with that awhile and
> decided I liked it a bit better but ultimately decided to
> try something else.
> So I did a full FR plot upto about 250 and decided to change
> the crossover a bunch and then reset the level.
> A couple of folks have heard the results, subjectivists themselves
> and as far as they were willing to tell me, they all preferred
> the new settings.
>
> In this case..I'd say science let me select a reasonable
> number of choices for settings from the infinite opportunities
> to find one that my preference says is right for me.
> Did I find the absolute best setting for me? I'll never know.
> But without a little science would I find one as good as this,
> I doubt it.
> (Imagine what it would be like if I had my wish for a 10 turn
> pot on my subs level and crossover :) )
>
> You ever try to setup a surround system by ear?
> I did...it was OK. A little science improved that
> a bunch too IMO.
>
> Did I mention the load matching I did for my cart?
> That was huge. Or the channel imbalance?

All of your self-described "science" is really just the equivalent of
verifying that a 100K pot is really 100K. I have not seen anybody
claim that there is *no* science in audio.

Now tell everyone how science helped you select your current
equipment, which is what the debate is about.

Deatils (like what the discussion is about) seem to consistently elude
you.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 30, 1:16 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>> "JBorg, Jr." > wrote in message
>>
>> et...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> ScottW wrote:
>> >>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> >>> snip...
>>
>> >>> Along this subthread, a question was raised in responsed to you
>> >>> asking to ... inform how "good science" motivates one to choose
>> >>> "good" in preference to "bad "audio.
>>
>> >> If you paid attention...it would be the reviewers and creators of
>> >> RCLs who have been known to have some influence on the buying
>> >> habits of some consumers who would benefit from a little science
>> >> in their selection of "good" audio.
>>
>> > How could the selector(s) of RCLs benefit from a little science
>> > to select "good" audio when in fact, you, yourself, admitted below
>> > that "good" audio is determine based on what you like ?
>>
>> I'm not selling my opinion....unless you wish to pay?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Please give an opinion to counter this remark.
>>
>> >>> (That is, science-based listening preferences in audio components)
>>
>> >>> You stated:
>>
>> >>> -- Which is worse....bad science or no science?
>>
>> >>> -- ...no science would have you listening to sticks
>> >>> on hollow logs with grass skirted topless women
>>
>> >>> -- What is pretentious about accuracy?
>>
>> >>> -- Do you seek good audio as in technically accurate at reproduction
>> >>> or good as in pleasing to your soul?
>>
>> >>> So I asked:
>>
>> >>> What is considered good audio which should result at the ending
>> >>> phase of the recording process ?
>>
>> >> Unanswerable in the given context.
>>
>> > Okey.
>>
>> > At the ending phase of recording process, please tell:
>>
>> > --- Should preference to personal choice determine good audio
>>
>> > OR,
>>
>> > --- Should preference to science determine good audio
>>
>> At the consumer end...preference rules.
>> At the producer end...I think a bit of applied science will go
>> far to insure the consumer agrees.
>> Consumers can also use science to some degree to achieve
>> their goal...but in the end its all up to their minds.
>>
>> Now these reviewers lie somewhere in between.
>> They can offer just another consumers opinion, and I guess
>> that's fine. Or they could do more. I'd like a little more.
>> JA does his measurements and that's great.
>> Why not some listening tests as well?
>>
>>
>>
>> >>> And what is considered good audio as you sit in your
>> >>> listening room listening to the recorded sound that resulted above ?
>>
>> >> What I like.
>>
>> > That's Non-science. That's like listening to sticks on hollow logs with
>> > grass skirted topless women.
>>
>> Sounds yummy :).
>>
>> > You obviously don't know what science is.
>>
>> I know where to apply it.
>>
>>
>>
>> > What about accuracy ?
>>
>> What about it? I used FR to help me integrate my sub.
>> First time I did it strictly by ear...lived happily with that awhile
>> and then decided it was lacking.
>> So I pulled out the SPL and did a little tweaking without
>> changing crossover much. I lived with that awhile and
>> decided I liked it a bit better but ultimately decided to
>> try something else.
>> So I did a full FR plot upto about 250 and decided to change
>> the crossover a bunch and then reset the level.
>> A couple of folks have heard the results, subjectivists themselves
>> and as far as they were willing to tell me, they all preferred
>> the new settings.
>>
>> In this case..I'd say science let me select a reasonable
>> number of choices for settings from the infinite opportunities
>> to find one that my preference says is right for me.
>> Did I find the absolute best setting for me? I'll never know.
>> But without a little science would I find one as good as this,
>> I doubt it.
>> (Imagine what it would be like if I had my wish for a 10 turn
>> pot on my subs level and crossover :) )
>>
>> You ever try to setup a surround system by ear?
>> I did...it was OK. A little science improved that
>> a bunch too IMO.
>>
>> Did I mention the load matching I did for my cart?
>> That was huge. Or the channel imbalance?
>
> All of your self-described "science" is really just the equivalent of
> verifying that a 100K pot is really 100K. I have not seen anybody
> claim that there is *no* science in audio.
>
> Now tell everyone how science helped you select your current
> equipment, which is what the debate is about.

I spent a good deal of time looking at cart compliance
to match my arm. I chose an amp for stability in tough loads
(versatility). It really isn't rocket science.

>
> Deatils (like what the discussion is about) seem to consistently elude
> you.

Audio discussions seem to be all over the map with few taking the time
or even showing a desire to define these things,
ref Ludo. You are far more interested in tossing about insults
and scoring your points than engaging in civil discourse
to arrive at any kind of understanding. But you know that.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Witlessmongrel bares his teeth and goes straight for the lie-bone.

> You are far more interested in tossing about insults
> and scoring your points than engaging in civil discourse
> to arrive at any kind of understanding.

It's a simple fact that you're incapable of understanding most of what's
said to you. Your most recent attempt to "communicate" with Jenn is
still more proof of your mental problems: Rather than try to understand
what she meant, you made clumsy attempts to mock her by putting words in
her mouth.

You are as skilled at "understanding" others as Krooger is at setting up
a turntable.




--

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

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Witlessmongrel bares his teeth and goes straight for the lie-bone.
>
>> You are far more interested in tossing about insults
>> and scoring your points than engaging in civil discourse
>> to arrive at any kind of understanding.
>
> It's a simple fact that you're incapable of understanding most of what's
> said to you.

Then I sincerely suggest for your sake, stop trying.
It's not like you have something important to say.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

duh-Scottie, self-proclaimed "engineer", sets his meager mental
resources to "solving a problem".

> >> to arrive at any kind of understanding.

> > It's a simple fact that you're incapable of understanding most of what's
> > said to you. Your most recent attempt to "communicate" with Jenn is
> > still more proof of your mental problems: Rather than try to understand
> > what she meant, you made clumsy attempts to mock her by putting words
> > in her mouth.

> Then I sincerely suggest for your sake, stop trying.

Got that double-digit IQ working on the "problem", I see.

> > You are as skilled at "understanding" others as Krooger is at setting up
> > a turntable.

Thank you for accepting my opinion without comment.




--

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

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
>
>
> duh-Scottie, self-proclaimed "engineer", sets his meager mental
> resources to "solving a problem".
>
>> >> to arrive at any kind of understanding.
>
>> > It's a simple fact that you're incapable of understanding most of what's
>> > said to you. Your most recent attempt to "communicate" with Jenn is
>> > still more proof of your mental problems: Rather than try to understand
>> > what she meant, you made clumsy attempts to mock her by putting words
>> > in her mouth.
>
>> Then I sincerely suggest for your sake, stop trying.
>
> Got that double-digit IQ working on the "problem", I see.

No, just the source.

>
>> > You are as skilled at "understanding" others as Krooger is at setting up
>> > a turntable.
>
> Thank you for accepting my opinion without comment.

When your opinion is worthy of comment, I'll let you know.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

JBorg, Jr. a scris:
> > Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>> ScottW wrote:
> >
> > Which is worse, bad art, or no art?
>
> I will be more than happy to sellect after we agreed on the
> appropriate criteria that define bad art.
>
> He contends that non-science is like listening to sticks on hollow
> logs with grass skirted topless women.

Then we will have to say that Gaugin is not art.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> ScottW wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> snip...
>>>>
>>>> Along this subthread, a question was raised in responsed to you
>>>> asking to ... inform how "good science" motivates one to choose
>>>> "good" in preference to "bad "audio.
>>>
>>> If you paid attention...it would be the reviewers and creators of
>>> RCLs who have been known to have some influence on the buying
>>> habits of some consumers who would benefit from a little science
>>> in their selection of "good" audio.
>>
>> How could the selector(s) of RCLs benefit from a little science
>> to select "good" audio when in fact, you, yourself, admitted below
>> that "good" audio is determine based on what you like ?
>
>
> I'm not selling my opinion....unless you wish to pay?



The discussion isn't about "selling" any opinion, it regards
your contention using science to decide good audio.

If knowing that 'science' played a great part in the process of
selecting good audio with excellent specs, what would happen
if you *don't like* the sound? What would be reasons to disfavor
yourself for disliking the sound ?




>>>> (That is, science-based listening preferences in audio components)
>>>>
>>>> You stated:
>>>>
>>>> -- Which is worse....bad science or no science?
>>>>
>>>> -- ...no science would have you listening to sticks
>>>> on hollow logs with grass skirted topless women
>>>>
>>>> -- What is pretentious about accuracy?
>>>>
>>>> -- Do you seek good audio as in technically accurate at
>>>> reproduction or good as in pleasing to your soul?
>>>>
>>>> So I asked:
>>>>
>>>> What is considered good audio which should result at the ending
>>>> phase of the recording process ?
>>>
>>> Unanswerable in the given context.
>>
>> Okey.
>>
>> At the ending phase of recording process, please tell:
>>
>> --- Should preference to personal choice determine good audio
>>
>> OR,
>>
>> --- Should preference to science determine good audio
>
> At the consumer end...preference rules.
> At the producer end...I think a bit of applied science will go
> far to insure the consumer agrees.


The discussion regards your contention using science to
decide good audio.


> Consumers can also use science to some degree to achieve
> their goal...but in the end its all up to their minds.
>
> Now these reviewers lie somewhere in between.
> They can offer just another consumers opinion, and I guess
> that's fine. Or they could do more. I'd like a little more.
> JA does his measurements and that's great.
> Why not some listening tests as well?


What kind of listening test ?


>>>> And what is considered good audio as you sit in your
>>>> listening room listening to the recorded sound that resulted above ?
>>>
>>> What I like.
>>
>> That's Non-science. That's like listening to sticks on hollow logs
>> with grass skirted topless women.
>
> Sounds yummy :).


Why are you contradicting yourself ?


>> You obviously don't know what science is.
>
> I know where to apply it.



You apply it where it suits your bigotry. You want others to combine
science when determing to decide what is good audio -- except YOU.
To you, good audio is simply based on what you like.

Your conviction to hypocracy is staggeringly breathtaking.


>> What about accuracy ?
>
> What about it? I used FR to help me integrate my sub.
> First time I did it strictly by ear...lived happily with that awhile
> and then decided it was lacking.
> So I pulled out the SPL and did a little tweaking without
> changing crossover much. I lived with that awhile and
> decided I liked it a bit better but ultimately decided to
> try something else.
> So I did a full FR plot upto about 250 and decided to change
> the crossover a bunch and then reset the level.
> A couple of folks have heard the results, subjectivists themselves
> and as far as they were willing to tell me, they all preferred
> the new settings.
>
> In this case..I'd say science let me select a reasonable
> number of choices for settings from the infinite opportunities
> to find one that my preference says is right for me.
> Did I find the absolute best setting for me? I'll never know.
> But without a little science would I find one as good as this,
> I doubt it.
> (Imagine what it would be like if I had my wish for a 10 turn
> pot on my subs level and crossover :) )
>
> You ever try to setup a surround system by ear?
> I did...it was OK. A little science improved that
> a bunch too IMO.
>
> Did I mention the load matching I did for my cart?
> That was huge. Or the channel imbalance?
>
> ScottW


You seem to really know lots about science up there.

So having done all that, what was the reason you decided at some
point that everything were accurate enough for you ?

[ScottW]

"JBorg, Jr." > wrote in message
. net...
>> ScottW wrote:
>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> snip...
>>>>>
>>>>> Along this subthread, a question was raised in responsed to you
>>>>> asking to ... inform how "good science" motivates one to choose
>>>>> "good" in preference to "bad "audio.
>>>>
>>>> If you paid attention...it would be the reviewers and creators of
>>>> RCLs who have been known to have some influence on the buying
>>>> habits of some consumers who would benefit from a little science
>>>> in their selection of "good" audio.
>>>
>>> How could the selector(s) of RCLs benefit from a little science
>>> to select "good" audio when in fact, you, yourself, admitted below
>>> that "good" audio is determine based on what you like ?
>>
>>
>> I'm not selling my opinion....unless you wish to pay?
>
>
>
> The discussion isn't about "selling" any opinion, it regards
> your contention using science to decide good audio.

I think it's more about finding good audio in the consumers
point of view.

>
> If knowing that 'science' played a great part in the process of
> selecting good audio with excellent specs, what would happen
> if you *don't like* the sound?

Movin on... keep your head, hold head up..movin on..

> What would be reasons to disfavor
> yourself for disliking the sound ?

????

>
>
>
>
>>>>> (That is, science-based listening preferences in audio components)
>>>>>
>>>>> You stated:
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Which is worse....bad science or no science?
>>>>>
>>>>> -- ...no science would have you listening to sticks
>>>>> on hollow logs with grass skirted topless women
>>>>>
>>>>> -- What is pretentious about accuracy?
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Do you seek good audio as in technically accurate at
>>>>> reproduction or good as in pleasing to your soul?
>>>>>
>>>>> So I asked:
>>>>>
>>>>> What is considered good audio which should result at the ending
>>>>> phase of the recording process ?
>>>>
>>>> Unanswerable in the given context.
>>>
>>> Okey.
>>>
>>> At the ending phase of recording process, please tell:
>>>
>>> --- Should preference to personal choice determine good audio
>>>
>>> OR,
>>>
>>> --- Should preference to science determine good audio
>>
>> At the consumer end...preference rules.
>> At the producer end...I think a bit of applied science will go
>> far to insure the consumer agrees.
>
>
> The discussion regards your contention using science to
> decide good audio.

No...my subjective impression tells me if its good.
Science just helps me through the guantlet laid down
out there to find it..... which isn't all that difficult
today. Lots of good stuff out there.
Even old stuff can be damned good. I recently moved
my old original Large Advents with my HS purchased
Sansui AU-6500 amp to my office for listening to
internet radio and CDs. Maybe its my bias cuz
I spent so much time with these speakers but
they sound really good. Nice smooth sweet tunes.

>
>
>> Consumers can also use science to some degree to achieve
>> their goal...but in the end its all up to their minds.
>>
>> Now these reviewers lie somewhere in between.
>> They can offer just another consumers opinion, and I guess
>> that's fine. Or they could do more. I'd like a little more.
>> JA does his measurements and that's great.
>> Why not some listening tests as well?
>
>
> What kind of listening test ?

I suggested a blind test against their personal standard.

>
>
>>>>> And what is considered good audio as you sit in your
>>>>> listening room listening to the recorded sound that resulted above ?
>>>>
>>>> What I like.
>>>
>>> That's Non-science. That's like listening to sticks on hollow logs
>>> with grass skirted topless women.
>>
>> Sounds yummy :).
> Why are you contradicting yourself ?

Why are you insisting I am?

>
>
>>> You obviously don't know what science is.
>>
>> I know where to apply it.
>
>
>
> You apply it where it suits your bigotry.

Ooooh, now I'm a bigot. Shame on me.

> You want others to combine
> science when determing to decide what is good audio -- except YOU.

You're not paying attention. I want reviewers who sell their
opinions to apply a little science.

> To you, good audio is simply based on what you like.

I have impeccable taste, note.

>
> Your conviction to hypocracy is staggeringly breathtaking.

Oh well. I thought you wanted to discuss, but instead another
Jr. ssshhhhiiiieeee emerges.

>
>
>>> What about accuracy ?
>>
>> What about it? I used FR to help me integrate my sub.
>> First time I did it strictly by ear...lived happily with that awhile
>> and then decided it was lacking.
>> So I pulled out the SPL and did a little tweaking without
>> changing crossover much. I lived with that awhile and
>> decided I liked it a bit better but ultimately decided to
>> try something else.
>> So I did a full FR plot upto about 250 and decided to change
>> the crossover a bunch and then reset the level.
>> A couple of folks have heard the results, subjectivists themselves
>> and as far as they were willing to tell me, they all preferred
>> the new settings.
>>
>> In this case..I'd say science let me select a reasonable
>> number of choices for settings from the infinite opportunities
>> to find one that my preference says is right for me.
>> Did I find the absolute best setting for me? I'll never know.
>> But without a little science would I find one as good as this,
>> I doubt it.
>> (Imagine what it would be like if I had my wish for a 10 turn
>> pot on my subs level and crossover :) )
>>
>> You ever try to setup a surround system by ear?
>> I did...it was OK. A little science improved that
>> a bunch too IMO.
>>
>> Did I mention the load matching I did for my cart?
>> That was huge. Or the channel imbalance?
>>
>> ScottW
>
>
> You seem to really know lots about science up there.
>
> So having done all that, what was the reason you decided at some
> point that everything were accurate enough for you ?

When did I ever say accuracy was my goal. If you paid attention
you'd have noticed many times that I've said I don't want a "live"
recreation in my listening room.
Much of the music I like, that I've heard live...sucked.
So I take liberties from accuracy to please myself and recreate
the perfect, albeit fictitious venue.
For instance, the major deficiency of my quads is peak SPL.
Can't come close to live listening levels which is just fine
with me.

ScottW

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. a scris:
>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>
>>> Which is worse, bad art, or no art?
>>
>> I will be more than happy to sellect after we agreed on the
>> appropriate criteria that define bad art.
>>
>> He contends that non-science is like listening to sticks on hollow
>> logs with grass skirted topless women.
>
> Then we will have to say that Gaugin is not art.


I'll comply when you tell the criterion between no art and not art.

[Clyde Slick]

JBorg, Jr. a scris:
> > Clyde Slick wrote:
> >> JBorg, Jr. a scris:
> >>> Clyde Slick wrote:
> >>>>> ScottW wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Which is worse, bad art, or no art?
> >>
> >> I will be more than happy to sellect after we agreed on the
> >> appropriate criteria that define bad art.
> >>
> >> He contends that non-science is like listening to sticks on hollow
> >> logs with grass skirted topless women.
> >
> > Then we will have to say that Gaugin is not art.
>
>
> I'll comply when you tell the criterion between no art and not art.


one has a 't", the
other does not

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> ScottW wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> snip...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Along this subthread, a question was raised in responsed to you
>>>>>> asking to ... inform how "good science" motivates one to choose
>>>>>> "good" in preference to "bad "audio.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you paid attention...it would be the reviewers and creators of
>>>>> RCLs who have been known to have some influence on the buying
>>>>> habits of some consumers who would benefit from a little science
>>>>> in their selection of "good" audio.
>>>>
>>>> How could the selector(s) of RCLs benefit from a little science
>>>> to select "good" audio when in fact, you, yourself, admitted below
>>>> that "good" audio is determine based on what you like ?
>>>
>>> I'm not selling my opinion....unless you wish to pay?
>>
>> The discussion isn't about "selling" any opinion, it regards
>> your contention using science to decide good audio.
>
> I think it's more about finding good audio in the consumers
> point of view.

That is not what you are contesting before !


>> If knowing that 'science' played a great part in the process of
>> selecting good audio with excellent specs, what would happen
>> if you *don't like* the sound?
>
> Movin on... keep your head, hold head up..movin on..
>
>> What would be reasons to disfavor yourself for disliking the sound ?
>
> ????

YOU SAID that science must play a part. So if science tells you
that it should sound good, you wouldn't care at all and move on.
But you said science will tell you whether it is good audio or not.

No science is like listening to sticks on hollow logs... you said.

>>>>>> (That is, science-based listening preferences in audio
>>>>>> components) You stated:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Which is worse....bad science or no science?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- ...no science would have you listening to sticks
>>>>>> on hollow logs with grass skirted topless women
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- What is pretentious about accuracy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Do you seek good audio as in technically accurate at
>>>>>> reproduction or good as in pleasing to your soul?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I asked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is considered good audio which should result at the ending
>>>>>> phase of the recording process ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Unanswerable in the given context.
>>>>
>>>> Okey.
>>>>
>>>> At the ending phase of recording process, please tell:
>>>>
>>>> --- Should preference to personal choice determine good audio
>>>>
>>>> OR,
>>>>
>>>> --- Should preference to science determine good audio
>>>
>>> At the consumer end...preference rules.
>>> At the producer end...I think a bit of applied science will go
>>> far to insure the consumer agrees.
>>
>>
>> The discussion regards your contention using science to
>> decide good audio.
>
> No...my subjective impression tells me if its good.
> Science just helps me through the guantlet laid down
> out there to find it..... which isn't all that difficult

But that's NOT what you're saying before!



> today. Lots of good stuff out there.
> Even old stuff can be damned good. I recently moved
> my old original Large Advents with my HS purchased
> Sansui AU-6500 amp to my office for listening to
> internet radio and CDs. Maybe its my bias cuz
> I spent so much time with these speakers but
> they sound really good. Nice smooth sweet tunes.
>
>>
>>
>>> Consumers can also use science to some degree to achieve
>>> their goal...but in the end its all up to their minds.
>>>
>>> Now these reviewers lie somewhere in between.
>>> They can offer just another consumers opinion, and I guess
>>> that's fine. Or they could do more. I'd like a little more.
>>> JA does his measurements and that's great.
>>> Why not some listening tests as well?
>>
>>
>> What kind of listening test ?
>
> I suggested a blind test against their personal standard.


I seem to to recall discussing blind test with you before, BUT
you "ran" away, remember ?


>>>>>> And what is considered good audio as you sit in your
>>>>>> listening room listening to the recorded sound that resulted
>>>>>> above ?
>>>>>
>>>>> What I like.
>>>>
>>>> That's Non-science. That's like listening to sticks on hollow
>>>> logs with grass skirted topless women.
>>>
>>> Sounds yummy :).
>
>> Why are you contradicting yourself ?
>
> Why are you insisting I am?


Because you are.


>>>> You obviously don't know what science is.
>>>
>>> I know where to apply it.
>>
>> You apply it where it suits your bigotry.
>
> Ooooh, now I'm a bigot. Shame on me.


You know, you remind me a lot of McKelvy. Right now I'm
deciding which one has a bigger a**h*le


>> You want others to combine science when determing to decide what is good
>> audio -- except YOU.
>
> You're not paying attention. I want reviewers who sell their
> opinions to apply a little science.


What is wrong with you ?



>> To you, good audio is simply based on what you like.
>
> I have impeccable taste, note.


That's besides the point. What happen to science?


>> Your conviction to hypocracy is staggeringly breathtaking.
>
> Oh well. I thought you wanted to discuss, but instead another
> Jr. ssshhhhiiiieeee emerges.


But it shows that you're hypocrite.


>>>> What about accuracy ?
>>>
>>> What about it? I used FR to help me integrate my sub.
>>> First time I did it strictly by ear...lived happily with that awhile
>>> and then decided it was lacking.
>>> So I pulled out the SPL and did a little tweaking without
>>> changing crossover much. I lived with that awhile and
>>> decided I liked it a bit better but ultimately decided to
>>> try something else.
>>> So I did a full FR plot upto about 250 and decided to change
>>> the crossover a bunch and then reset the level.
>>> A couple of folks have heard the results, subjectivists themselves
>>> and as far as they were willing to tell me, they all preferred
>>> the new settings.
>>>
>>> In this case..I'd say science let me select a reasonable
>>> number of choices for settings from the infinite opportunities
>>> to find one that my preference says is right for me.
>>> Did I find the absolute best setting for me? I'll never know.
>>> But without a little science would I find one as good as this,
>>> I doubt it.
>>> (Imagine what it would be like if I had my wish for a 10 turn
>>> pot on my subs level and crossover :) )
>>>
>>> You ever try to setup a surround system by ear?
>>> I did...it was OK. A little science improved that
>>> a bunch too IMO.
>>>
>>> Did I mention the load matching I did for my cart?
>>> That was huge. Or the channel imbalance?
>>>
>>> ScottW
>>
>>
>> You seem to really know lots about science up there.
>>
>> So having done all that, what was the reason you decided at some
>> point that everything were accurate enough for you ?
>
> When did I ever say accuracy was my goal. If you paid attention
> you'd have noticed many times that I've said I don't want a "live"
> recreation in my listening room.


Hey I was referring to the FR and SPL meter that you use. At what
point was it decided that everything were accurate enough for you ?



> Much of the music I like, that I've heard live...sucked.
> So I take liberties from accuracy to please myself and recreate
> the perfect, albeit fictitious venue.
> For instance, the major deficiency of my quads is peak SPL.
> Can't come close to live listening levels which is just fine
> with me.

Now you remind me of Ferstler. For some reason or another,
Arny's friend and minions sound alike.


> ScottW


.......... I'm going to clubs man, don't ruin my night.

[ScottW]

"JBorg, Jr." > wrote in message
. net...
>> ScottW wrote:
>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> snip...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Along this subthread, a question was raised in responsed to you
>>>>>>> asking to ... inform how "good science" motivates one to choose
>>>>>>> "good" in preference to "bad "audio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you paid attention...it would be the reviewers and creators of
>>>>>> RCLs who have been known to have some influence on the buying
>>>>>> habits of some consumers who would benefit from a little science
>>>>>> in their selection of "good" audio.
>>>>>
>>>>> How could the selector(s) of RCLs benefit from a little science
>>>>> to select "good" audio when in fact, you, yourself, admitted below
>>>>> that "good" audio is determine based on what you like ?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not selling my opinion....unless you wish to pay?
>>>
>>> The discussion isn't about "selling" any opinion, it regards
>>> your contention using science to decide good audio.
>>
>> I think it's more about finding good audio in the consumers
>> point of view.
>
> That is not what you are contesting before !

What is more interesting to you...my POV about
audio or what you think I might have meant when I said
something earlier? I'll debate either but the latter
isn't as interesting as the former.
>
>
>>> If knowing that 'science' played a great part in the process of
>>> selecting good audio with excellent specs, what would happen
>>> if you *don't like* the sound?
>>
>> Movin on... keep your head, hold head up..movin on..
>>
>>> What would be reasons to disfavor yourself for disliking the sound ?
>>
>> ????
>
> YOU SAID that science must play a part.

I'm going to have to start requestiong quotes.
I believe I said I prefer science playing a part in
the review process. My choices for applying science
to my choices..or not..are my own.

> So if science tells you
> that it should sound good, you wouldn't care at all and move on.

I didn't say that...I would be mildly interested if opportunity presented
itself to sort that out...but more than likely the cause is
someone just pulling a fast one.

> But you said science will tell you whether it is good audio or not.

Science tends to tell me it has the potential for good audio
or not. Nothing is guaranteed.

>
> No science is like listening to sticks on hollow logs... you said.

Taken to an extreme, without science there would be no electrical
music recording and reproduction.
Even taking some science for granted, the odds of getting good
audio from say a speaker designer who practiced no science
is slim to none.

>
>>>>>>> (That is, science-based listening preferences in audio
>>>>>>> components) You stated:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Which is worse....bad science or no science?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- ...no science would have you listening to sticks
>>>>>>> on hollow logs with grass skirted topless women
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- What is pretentious about accuracy?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Do you seek good audio as in technically accurate at
>>>>>>> reproduction or good as in pleasing to your soul?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I asked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is considered good audio which should result at the ending
>>>>>>> phase of the recording process ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unanswerable in the given context.
>>>>>
>>>>> Okey.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the ending phase of recording process, please tell:
>>>>>
>>>>> --- Should preference to personal choice determine good audio
>>>>>
>>>>> OR,
>>>>>
>>>>> --- Should preference to science determine good audio
>>>>
>>>> At the consumer end...preference rules.
>>>> At the producer end...I think a bit of applied science will go
>>>> far to insure the consumer agrees.
>>>
>>>
>>> The discussion regards your contention using science to
>>> decide good audio.
>>
>> No...my subjective impression tells me if its good.
>> Science just helps me through the guantlet laid down
>> out there to find it..... which isn't all that difficult
>
> But that's NOT what you're saying before!

Really...I think that's not what YOU understood me
to say before. So please accept this clarification.
>
>
>
>> today. Lots of good stuff out there.
>> Even old stuff can be damned good. I recently moved
>> my old original Large Advents with my HS purchased
>> Sansui AU-6500 amp to my office for listening to
>> internet radio and CDs. Maybe its my bias cuz
>> I spent so much time with these speakers but
>> they sound really good. Nice smooth sweet tunes.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Consumers can also use science to some degree to achieve
>>>> their goal...but in the end its all up to their minds.
>>>>
>>>> Now these reviewers lie somewhere in between.
>>>> They can offer just another consumers opinion, and I guess
>>>> that's fine. Or they could do more. I'd like a little more.
>>>> JA does his measurements and that's great.
>>>> Why not some listening tests as well?
>>>
>>>
>>> What kind of listening test ?
>>
>> I suggested a blind test against their personal standard.
>
> I seem to to recall discussing blind test with you before, BUT
> you "ran" away, remember ?

No, I don't remember.

>
>
>>>>>>> And what is considered good audio as you sit in your
>>>>>>> listening room listening to the recorded sound that resulted
>>>>>>> above ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I like.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's Non-science. That's like listening to sticks on hollow
>>>>> logs with grass skirted topless women.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds yummy :).
>>
>>> Why are you contradicting yourself ?
>>
>> Why are you insisting I am?
> Because you are.

IYO.

>
>
>>>>> You obviously don't know what science is.
>>>>
>>>> I know where to apply it.
>>>
>>> You apply it where it suits your bigotry.
>>
>> Ooooh, now I'm a bigot. Shame on me.
>
>
> You know, you remind me a lot of McKelvy. Right now I'm
> deciding which one has a bigger a**h*le

Having a big anus does have it's advantage I suppose.
Ask George.

>
>
>>> You want others to combine science when determing to decide what is good
>>> audio -- except YOU.
>>
>> You're not paying attention. I want reviewers who sell their
>> opinions to apply a little science.
>
> What is wrong with you ?

Let me think...it's a beautiful day in So. Cal.
My system sounds great. I got a stack of CD-R MP3s
from Art and he forgot to take his copy of Fleetwood Mac
Then Play On when he left.
Sorry...ya got me on that one.
>
>
>
>>> To you, good audio is simply based on what you like.
>>
>> I have impeccable taste, note.
>
>
> That's besides the point. What happen to science?

It has it's place.

>
>
>>> Your conviction to hypocracy is staggeringly breathtaking.
>>
>> Oh well. I thought you wanted to discuss, but instead another
>> Jr. ssshhhhiiiieeee emerges.
> But it shows that you're hypocrite.

An opinion you can have if it makes you feel better.

>
>
>>>>> What about accuracy ?
>>>>
>>>> What about it? I used FR to help me integrate my sub.
>>>> First time I did it strictly by ear...lived happily with that awhile
>>>> and then decided it was lacking.
>>>> So I pulled out the SPL and did a little tweaking without
>>>> changing crossover much. I lived with that awhile and
>>>> decided I liked it a bit better but ultimately decided to
>>>> try something else.
>>>> So I did a full FR plot upto about 250 and decided to change
>>>> the crossover a bunch and then reset the level.
>>>> A couple of folks have heard the results, subjectivists themselves
>>>> and as far as they were willing to tell me, they all preferred
>>>> the new settings.
>>>>
>>>> In this case..I'd say science let me select a reasonable
>>>> number of choices for settings from the infinite opportunities
>>>> to find one that my preference says is right for me.
>>>> Did I find the absolute best setting for me? I'll never know.
>>>> But without a little science would I find one as good as this,
>>>> I doubt it.
>>>> (Imagine what it would be like if I had my wish for a 10 turn
>>>> pot on my subs level and crossover :) )
>>>>
>>>> You ever try to setup a surround system by ear?
>>>> I did...it was OK. A little science improved that
>>>> a bunch too IMO.
>>>>
>>>> Did I mention the load matching I did for my cart?
>>>> That was huge. Or the channel imbalance?
>>>>
>>>> ScottW
>>>
>>>
>>> You seem to really know lots about science up there.
>>>
>>> So having done all that, what was the reason you decided at some
>>> point that everything were accurate enough for you ?
>>
>> When did I ever say accuracy was my goal. If you paid attention
>> you'd have noticed many times that I've said I don't want a "live"
>> recreation in my listening room.
>
>
> Hey I was referring to the FR and SPL meter that you use. At what
> point was it decided that everything were accurate enough for you ?

When I sat back and listened to the music :).

>
>
>
>> Much of the music I like, that I've heard live...sucked.
>> So I take liberties from accuracy to please myself and recreate
>> the perfect, albeit fictitious venue.
>> For instance, the major deficiency of my quads is peak SPL.
>> Can't come close to live listening levels which is just fine
>> with me.
>
> Now you remind me of Ferstler. For some reason or another,
> Arny's friend and minions sound alike.

Lol....I don't think Arny or Ferstler share my POV.
That you want to think so is your burden, not mine.

> ......... I'm going to clubs man, don't ruin my night.

Not my thing anymore, but enjoy.

ScottW

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. a scris:
>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr. a scris:
>>>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is worse, bad art, or no art?
>>>>
>>>> I will be more than happy to sellect after we agreed on the
>>>> appropriate criteria that define bad art.
>>>>
>>>> He contends that non-science is like listening to sticks on hollow
>>>> logs with grass skirted topless women.
>>>
>>> Then we will have to say that Gaugin is not art.
>>
>>
>> I'll comply when you tell the criterion between no art and not art.
>
>
> one has a 't", the
> other does not

Okey.

Gaugin use to be a bad art
'cause in his sack is not art
So now he got no art

[Clyde Slick]

JBorg, Jr. a scris:
>
> Okey.
>
> Gaugin use to be a bad art
> 'cause in his sack is not art
> So now he got no art

"At least" it is evident that bad poetry is worse than no poetry.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 30, 8:11 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> JBorg, Jr. a scris:
>
>
>
> > Okey.
>
> > Gaugin use to be a bad art
> > 'cause in his sack is not art
> > So now he got no art
>
> "At least" it is evident that bad poetry is worse than no poetry.

Never mind "poetry". Unless you're worried that lyrics will distract
the RAOers from the fascinating discussion about meeting of high
aesthetics and high technology. That would be a shame just when
Ferstler, ScottW et al are about to lay to rest the spirits of Plato,
Aristotle, Kant and all others who wrestled with the topic.

As for myself I aim much lower.

I'm still waiting for Ferstler and Krueger to publish their results of
"controlled" listening tests demonstrating how easy it is to tell a
Yamaha from a Bluethner. (same music, same pianist of course)

After all as Ferstler said musical instruments have a "definite
character. Unlike hi-fi.
Should be a cinch.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 30, 9:52 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:

> Not my thing anymore, but enjoy.

Does anybody else think that 2pid sounds a lot like good old Arns?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> ScottW wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>>>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>>>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> snip...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Along this subthread, a question was raised in responsed to you
>>>>>>>> asking to ... inform how "good science" motivates one to choose
>>>>>>>> "good" in preference to "bad "audio.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you paid attention...it would be the reviewers and creators
>>>>>>> of RCLs who have been known to have some influence on the buying
>>>>>>> habits of some consumers who would benefit from a little science
>>>>>>> in their selection of "good" audio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How could the selector(s) of RCLs benefit from a little science
>>>>>> to select "good" audio when in fact, you, yourself, admitted
>>>>>> below that "good" audio is determine based on what you like ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not selling my opinion....unless you wish to pay?
>>>>
>>>> The discussion isn't about "selling" any opinion, it regards
>>>> your contention using science to decide good audio.
>>>
>>> I think it's more about finding good audio in the consumers
>>> point of view.
>>
>> That is not what you are contesting before !
>
> What is more interesting to you...my POV about
> audio or what you think I might have meant when I said
> something earlier? I'll debate either but the latter
> isn't as interesting as the former.



This has nothing to do with what is important to me, it is about your
contention that science decide what is good audio.

BUT now you're backtracking and changing what you said by stating
that your POV was more about finding good audio in the consumers
point of view. (see 5th parag. above)



>>>> If knowing that 'science' played a great part in the process of
>>>> selecting good audio with excellent specs, what would happen
>>>> if you *don't like* the sound?
>>>
>>> Movin on... keep your head, hold head up..movin on..
>>>
>>>> What would be reasons to disfavor yourself for disliking the sound
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> ????
>>
>> YOU SAID that science must play a part.
>
> I'm going to have to start requesting quotes.
> I believe I said I prefer science playing a part in
> the review process. My choices for applying science
> to my choices..or not..are my own.


It was your contention that science select and decide
what is good audio.


You are backtracking. Other than at some point later on when you
"recoiled" and said, "... reviewers and creators of RCLs ...would
benefit from a little science in their selection of "good" audio. "

So as you now claim, where did you believed you have said that you
prefer science playing a part in the review process "before" stating
the above ?



>> So if science tells you that it should sound good, you wouldn't care at
>> all and move on.
>
> I didn't say that...I would be mildly interested if opportunity
> presented itself to sort that out...but more than likely the cause is
> someone just pulling a fast one.


*Mildly interested ?*



>> But you said science will tell you whether it is good audio or not.
>
> Science tends to tell me it has the potential for good audio
> or not. Nothing is guaranteed.



*Science 'tends' to tell you?*



>> No science is like listening to sticks on hollow logs... you said.
>
> Taken to an extreme, without science there would be no electrical
> music recording and reproduction.
> Even taking some science for granted, the odds of getting good
> audio from say a speaker designer who practiced no science
> is slim to none.


*Taken to an extreme?*


>>>>>>>> SNIPPED

>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the ending phase of recording process, please tell:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- Should preference to personal choice determine good audio
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OR,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- Should preference to science determine good audio
>>>>>
>>>>> At the consumer end...preference rules.
>>>>> At the producer end...I think a bit of applied science will go
>>>>> far to insure the consumer agrees.
>>>>
>>>> The discussion regards your contention using science to
>>>> decide good audio.
>>>
>>> No...my subjective impression tells me if its good.
>>> Science just helps me through the guantlet laid down
>>> out there to find it..... which isn't all that difficult
>>
>> But that's NOT what you're saying before!
>
> Really...I think that's not what YOU understood me
> to say before. So please accept this clarification.



SO IT IS YOU, NOT SCIENCE, THAT SELECT AND DECIDE
WHAT IS GOOD AUDIO. THANKS FOR CLEARING THAT UP.

So if science tells you that it should sound good, you would be
mildly interested if opportunity presented itself to sort that out...

Science, now, just tends to tell you if it has the potential for good
audio or not.



>>> today. Lots of good stuff out there.
>>> Even old stuff can be damned good. I recently moved
>>> my old original Large Advents with my HS purchased
>>> Sansui AU-6500 amp to my office for listening to
>>> internet radio and CDs. Maybe its my bias cuz
>>> I spent so much time with these speakers but
>>> they sound really good. Nice smooth sweet tunes.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Consumers can also use science to some degree to achieve
>>>>> their goal...but in the end its all up to their minds.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now these reviewers lie somewhere in between.
>>>>> They can offer just another consumers opinion, and I guess
>>>>> that's fine. Or they could do more. I'd like a little more.
>>>>> JA does his measurements and that's great.
>>>>> Why not some listening tests as well?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What kind of listening test ?
>>>
>>> I suggested a blind test against their personal standard.
>>
>> I seem to to recall discussing blind test with you before, BUT
>> you "ran" away, remember ?
>
> No, I don't remember.

>>>>>>>> And what is considered good audio as you sit in your
>>>>>>>> listening room listening to the recorded sound that resulted
>>>>>>>> above ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's Non-science. That's like listening to sticks on hollow
>>>>>> logs with grass skirted topless women.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds yummy :).
>>>
>>>> Why are you contradicting yourself ?
>>>
>>> Why are you insisting I am?
>
>> Because you are.
>
> IYO.

>>>>>> You obviously don't know what science is.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know where to apply it.
>>>>
>>>> You apply it where it suits your bigotry.
>>> snip


>
> ScottW

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. a scris:
>>
>> Okey.
>>
>> Gaugin use to be a bad art
>> 'cause in his sack is not art
>> So now he got no art
>
> "At least" it is evident that bad poetry is worse than no poetry.


Man, what did I missed.