wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:FOjOf.134985$0G.98705@dukeread10...

wrote in message
ups.com...


Paper just doesn't leap out of trees, it has to be be processed from wood
pulp, and it is one of the smelliest things you'll evver encouter.

Color me skeptical. For I believe _you_ would be one of the smelliest
things I'd ever encounter.

But we're getting off point here, aren't we. What does the smell of
processed wood have to do with the resonance modes of natural paper?
What _is_ it about you silly arse gearheads that you always have to go
off tangent and bring in arguments from 3,000 miles away that have
absolutely ZERO relevance to the points I bring up? Can't you follow a
basic argument in a debate, or are you all trying to watch tv at the
same time as you type?


And this has WHAT to do with loudspeaker design, you fruitbasket?

Nothing.. but it is your thread. Paper is not a product of nature.

Actually everything that exists, exists within nature, since only the
natural exists.

Oh my god, gearhead jr. is a "philosopher" now. You have no end of
wasted talents, don't you, Mr. McKelvy? What are you doing wasting them
here? Shouldn't you be somewhere teaching a university class?

If a beavers dam is part f nature, then so is a skyscraper, since the same
rules apply, things that were in one form, werre tranformed into something
new. Of course I'm nitpicking, but the point is still valid.

No, the point was _never_ valid. And I can see why you're considered
one of the dumber "objectivist-extremists" here. Just because something
exists on this planet, doesn't mean you can call it "natural".
Paper comes from trees, trees are a living thing. That would surely
make it "natural". Plastic is _not_ a living thing. Neither is oil,
neither are skyscrapers. But you're still off the point. I believe the
focus of my question was in the nature of the resonant frequencies of
materials used for speaker coning. Or did you forget all of that? All
materials have resonant frequencies and may produce harmonics. I
believe the question on the table was more like: "Does paper, a natural
material, produce timbral qualities more sympathetic to the natural
sound of musical instrumetns than synthetic materials used for coning,
ie. plastics?" It wasn't simply a question of "is paper superior to
plastic" in general. But then I've come to learn that gearheads are
oblivious to any and all subtlety.


You're wrong, you don't "grow" plastic. Do you know ANYTHING?

I know that you don't make saweeping statements about CD and LP here and
expect to leave unscathed.

LOL! I will -always- be able to "leave here unscathed", because I'm
"untouchable". IOW, there's nothing you or your beanie baby buddies
could do or say that would harm me in any way, or even change anything
that I choose to do. And as for the "saweeping statements", well that
would be YOU that's prone to making those. Aren't you the shmuck who
said unequivocally that CD was superior to LP? No matter what? A $35
Coby is better than a $30,000 SME? I rest my case.

Oh that couldn't have been more clearer! I try to take the "high road",

but lacked the stamina for it.

Well at least I tried, which is more than I can say for you.

You didn't try, you started out insulting everybody who prefers CD's which
are in fact technically superior to LP in every single aspect.

Yup, you're that shmuck all right. You see what I mean? It's as though
you made a promise to yourself that each thing you say to me, has to be
even stupider than the last. You just insulted everybody who prefer's
LP's, which are proven to be technically superior to CDs. But then, how
would you even know that? All that you know about audio you read in the
pages of old Stereo Review articles. You probably wank to pictures of
Julian Hirsch. You really _do_ sound like an android, the way you spew
out misguided gibberish all the time about audio, which one can tell
has not a shred of experience behind a single word that you spill on
these pages. When you've actually learned something from firsthand
knowledge, then maybe you can come back and maybe I'll listen to what
you have to say. Until then... go back to Julian.

Now name
me one person here on RAO that hasn't been attacked? Just one, that's
all. Just ONE. I'd like to find out how they managed to avoid getting
attacked on this newsgroup.

If you already knew that and stilldecided to post here and decided to insult
common sense with statements liek LP being supreior to VD and the nutty
ctrap about paper and plastic drivers, then you prettymuch invited abuse.

Please put your glasses on before you type, dorkus maximus. I never
said anything about the LP being superior to your VD. Everything you
seem to say is an insult to one's intelligence. And I mean *anyone*.
I'm not knocking the humble CD, because it is a "good enough" type of
medium for the masses. Its just that unlike you, some people are
ambitious about sound quality. They want something better than you can
get off your mp3 based mini that you listen to. They're called
"audiophiles". You should know, you make it your business to slander
and attack them every day, with your senseless jabberwocky. For them,
God created the turntable. (Or more specifically, "The Source"). It is
recognized as being superior to CD by all musicians and audiophiles
with discriminating ears, who can actualy tell what real music is
supposed to sound like. Most CD players under $5 grand simply do not
have the ability to acheive the level of resolution afforded by a good
record deck.

A blind pig is able to determine this when a proper comparison is made.
Speaking of which, I recall reading an article in a hifi magazine where
blind tests were done comparing a good record deck to a CD player that
cost several times the price of the deck. Most could not tell when the
LP was being played (so much for the gearheads complaint about surface
noise), and all without exception, chose the LP reproduction as
superior. Coincidence? Hardly. LP done right, even in the face of SACD
and DVD-A, is a superior medium for reproducing music. For reproducing
mere "sounds", like a movie sfx, CD will do.

Nuff said. Drop the subject, and stop embarassing yourself. There's
enough misguided ignorance about audio here already without you trying
to top everyone.