[paul packer]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:09:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


What confuses me about Arnie's quote is that I said the new player
didn't sound better. He then says a possible reason the new player
sounded better was that the old one was "broke".

No, I didn't say that. I said and I have to quote since you are so incapable
of reading and grasping simple meanings, Paul:

"It's possible that your old player was broke and the new player did sound
better. Or not."

Yes, and I had said that the new player didn't sound better. So why
give a possible reason why the new player sounded better when I said
the new player didn't sound better.

I simply want to know
why real world experience appears to fly in the face of Arny's
contention that we're all being fooled by appearances, brand
reputations and our expectations.

Another example of your inability to read and grasp simple meanings, Paul. I
never said that "...we're all being fooled by appearances, (and) brand
reputations...".

In those words? Possibly not, but you've said it in other words a
thousand times. C'mon, Arnie, stop dodging about. What else is the
"sighted listening" you're always decrying but being fooled by
appearances. As for brand reputations, how many times have you
implied that audiophools are prepared to love the sound of a Krell or
whatever simply because it is a Krell and not a JVC integrated? It's
the main stanchion of your politican platform.

My experiences, and much anecdotal evidence, shows there's no pattern of
that at all.

The bottom line Paul is that unless one or the other of the optical disc
players that you are comparing is in really bad shape, you have no way of
knowing which sounds better, worse, or even different.

Well, that is ludicrous. Here I confess that my powers of
comprehension really do fail me. Arnie, I have no idea what you're
talking about.

Next time I'm comparing two CD players, I'll smash one on the floor
first so that I know which sounds better and which worse, and which
just different. .