A question for Arnold.
paul packer wrote:
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.
OK Paul, you're so dense that you can't apply something I say if it isn't
spelled out for you, up front and personal. Here was my response from my
previous post, put where you shouldn't be able to miss it:
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.
Please see my comments about Marc's ludicrous means for comparing
turntables. Many of them apply to your optical disc player comparisons.
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.
Nice job of not taking responsibility for your false claims, Paul.
C'mon, Arnie, stop dodging about. What else is the
"sighted listening" you're always decrying but being fooled by
appearances.
Please see my comments about Marc's ludicrous means for comparing
turntables. Many of them apply to your optical disc player comparisons.
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.
Please see my comments about Marc's ludicrous means for comparing
turntables. Many of them apply to your optical disc player comparisons.
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.
Here's the explanatory text that Paul cut out as part of his ongoing
attempts to win arguments with intellectual dishonesty
Please see my comments about Marc's ludicrous means for comparing
turntables. Many of them apply to your optical disc player comparisons.
Well, that is ludicrous.
Dismissive attitude noted.
Here I confess that my powers of
comprehension really do fail me. Arnie, I have no idea what you're
talking about.
Yes you do Paul. That's why you butcher what I write - you understand
exactly what I said and how I destroyed your objections.
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. .
Be my guest Paul -that would be a very childish thing for you to do, but it
would be completely in character.
|