In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
oups.com
From: Arny Krueger
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:20 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger"

Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and
then saying that you prefer to listen to music with
added unecessary audible noise and distortion is
hypocritical and self-contradictory.

Except that this is rec.*audio* not rec.*high-fidelity*

Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do with high fidelity.

As I've said, some LPs are more pleasing to listen to
than the CD counterparts that I also have. Some, not all.

There might be a few exceptional cases like that. But Jenn is not talking
about exceptional cases, now is she?

But LP, CD, tape, tubes, tuner (probably the lowest
fidelity of all, and never mentioned from what I've
seen), etc. are all audio.

You forgot cassette!

Did they start putting something in cassettes besides TAPE?

Some of us listen for the music.

Which is the whole point of high fidelity.

Some of the most
enjoyable music that I've listened to was through a boom
box at a beach.

Good for you!

A few beers, some sun, a good Doors tune
comes on... And even that boom box was 'audio.'

Well, audio of a kind.

Therein lies the problem here apparently. Audio to some
here has to mean the 'highest fidelity' or it isn't
valid.

Nice job of using sentimental imagry to change the subject from Jenn's
global preference of music with unecessasily added audioble noise and
distortion to an afternoon on the beach.

Oh, and you forgot that this is the 21st century, and that courtesy of high
quality portable digital players, its unecesary to leave the desire for
high fidelity at home when going to the beach.

To others it means the 'most satisfying' to them,
regardless of whether or not it represents the zenith of
accuracy.

Irrelevant to Jenn's global preference for music with audible noise and
distortion unecessarily added.

Yet ANOTHER lie by Arny. By my count, that's 5 today concerning me
alone.