In , Robert Morein wrote :


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:

I am American.
The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that there
is a lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that
self-delusion is not solely the province of Americans. Take China, for
example. That country has the opportunity to build an economy from the
ground up that would not be oil based.

How ?
Do you know exactly how many *billions* dollars USA have invested in
Chinese industry and infrastructure ?
I bet that more than 80% of the US money invested in China are the money
of your future pensions...
Why the US investors (and the others...) haven't chosen an other type of
energy ?

Lionel, I'm not excusing what individual industrialists do, but this is an
issue where governments must set national policy. You might think that
industrialists are always against energy conservation, but this is not
always true.

Obviously.

For example, Henry Ford has publicly advocated a high
gasoline tax, because it would enable his company to sell energy efficient
vehicles.

It's time no ?
The ratio power/motor volume is usually ridicule in the common US
engine production.

Also, please do not think that becaue I mentioned China, that I am trying
to dilute the responsibility of the U.S. I, for one, am ashamed that the
U.S. has not signed the Kyoto accords.

USA are today world economical leaders. If this situation is full of
advantages today it is also full of responsabilities. IMHO it is the
responsability of all highly developped democratic countries.

Furthermore, I pointed out the dire consequences for the U.S. of current
energy policy, for the U.S. itself. Whatever fault I find in China's
policy does not change the consequences for the U.S. of our own policy.

The Chinese government still has substantial central planning power. They
choose to allow a rapid expansion in their automobile fleet, because they
are worried about political stability. They feel forced to buy the loyalty
of each class on whatever terms they can get.

They simply have no choice. There's 1.5 billion inhabitants in China.
Who can guarantee today to 1.5 billions people that the economical
competition will be suspended since they will have built a strong
economical model based on "soft" energy ? ;-)

Moreover it is well known that today high priced energy penalizes more the
countries with high economical growth than the others. Compare economical
growth of USA with China or India and you will better understand today US
energical policy...
Why do you think that US army is in Iraq today ?

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
In , Robert Morein wrote :


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:

I am American.
The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that there
is a lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that
self-delusion is not solely the province of Americans. Take China, for
example. That country has the opportunity to build an economy from the
ground up that would not be oil based.

How ?
Do you know exactly how many *billions* dollars USA have invested in
Chinese industry and infrastructure ?
I bet that more than 80% of the US money invested in China are the money
of your future pensions...
Why the US investors (and the others...) haven't chosen an other type of
energy ?

Lionel, I'm not excusing what individual industrialists do, but this is
an
issue where governments must set national policy. You might think that
industrialists are always against energy conservation, but this is not
always true.

Obviously.

For example, Henry Ford has publicly advocated a high
gasoline tax, because it would enable his company to sell energy
efficient
vehicles.

It's time no ?
The ratio power/motor volume is usually ridicule in the common US
engine production.

Also, please do not think that becaue I mentioned China, that I am trying
to dilute the responsibility of the U.S. I, for one, am ashamed that the
U.S. has not signed the Kyoto accords.

USA are today world economical leaders. If this situation is full of
advantages today it is also full of responsabilities. IMHO it is the
responsability of all highly developped democratic countries.

Furthermore, I pointed out the dire consequences for the U.S. of current
energy policy, for the U.S. itself. Whatever fault I find in China's
policy does not change the consequences for the U.S. of our own policy.

The Chinese government still has substantial central planning power. They
choose to allow a rapid expansion in their automobile fleet, because they
are worried about political stability. They feel forced to buy the
loyalty
of each class on whatever terms they can get.

They simply have no choice. There's 1.5 billion inhabitants in China.
Who can guarantee today to 1.5 billions people that the economical
competition will be suspended since they will have built a strong
economical model based on "soft" energy ? ;-)

Moreover it is well known that today high priced energy penalizes more the
countries with high economical growth than the others. Compare economical
growth of USA with China or India and you will better understand today US
energical policy...
Why do you think that US army is in Iraq today ?

Lionel,
You are debating the wrong guy. I agree with you

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein said:

The issue is now whether Arny had some
excuse(s) that justify willful false charges of disseminating kiddie
porn.

There can be NO EXCUSE for Arny Krueger's reprehensible behavior, or for
that of his evil stooge, Mike McKelvy, a.k.a. the "mckelviphibian".


If Mickey were a hair smarter, he'd point out that Arnii is mentally ill
and
appeal to the Normals' compassion when judging Mr. ****'s behavior.

Amphibians do not pontificate on morality. They croak.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...



The Hive is losing its cohesion, and Mickey is coming unglued.

Arnii? Who the **** is Arnii?

I thought bugs provided the protein needed by humans for moderately
efficient
brain activity. Are you on some kind of protein-blocking medication,
Mickey?

It's not the food, it's the temperature. As we move into autumn, his species
becomes lethargic.

wrote:

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

paul packer wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:30:26 GMT, "
wrote:


That's pretty much been my point for some time. If you pay more for an
amp,
CD player, or whatever, you don't get better sound, you get bragging
rights.
Once you achieve flat response without any form of audible distortion or
noise, and the ability to drive difficult loads, you have a perfect
piece of
equipment. Adding heavy faceplates or designer caps, and coils, doesn't
really get you better sound, but it might get you a longer product life.

So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
difficult loads? Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
assertion means nothing.

I can predict the answer. It will say something about ABXing
"proving" his beliefs. Except, of course, that so far (mere 40 years
of ABX history) every published report, on everything in audio,
resulted in "It all sounds the same" outcome- as long as ABX was the
test protocol. ("Published" means at least accepted by a mag. if not by
a peer reviewed journal. Web free=for=all does not qualify)


Why do you contiue this lie, even after you posted the evidence that refutes
it?

Since they continue to promote it one must assume that indeed to
those true believers everything does sound the same.
Ludovic Mirabel

One must conclude that the truth bothers you so much that you are willing to
keep repeating the same lie over and over. Why is that?
__________________________________________________ _____
You're under notice . I'll repeat my "lie" every time you
bring up your ABX "test" as your final, clinching argument.
Your taking the leaf out of the vocabulary of the RAO thugs
will not deter me.
What would do it is one single REFERENCE to a published
(web gossip does not apply) ABX test with a panel of 10 or more
listeners comparing any roughly comparable audio components whatsover
with a positive outcome:."Postive" means "Yes there was a difference"
as a statistically valid verdict by the majority of panelists. Take
loudspeakers or cartridges if you want..

Sean Olive's speaker comparison tests would appear to suffice.

Olive, S.E.
Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained versus Untrained Listeners in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study
Volume 51 Number 9 pp. 806-825; September 2003

Of course, hearing a real difference between *speakers* in
an ABX test is not much of a challenge. Olive's tests
were in fact about comparing speaker *preference* of
trained versus untrained listeners.

But you did say 'any roughly comparable audio components'
And Olive did use Harman's ABX-type speaker comparator
setup. And the results were certainly positive for
*difference*.

Robert Morein said:

You are debating the wrong guy. I agree with you

Only about politics, right? Sluttie is now RAO's No. 2 Kroopologist. ;-)

George Minus Middius wrote :

Sluttie is now RAO's No. 2 Kroopologist. ;-)

What the **** are you speaking about ?

)

In , Robert Morein wrote :


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
In , Robert Morein wrote :


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:

I am American.
The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that there
is a lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that
self-delusion is not solely the province of Americans. Take China, for
example. That country has the opportunity to build an economy from the
ground up that would not be oil based.

How ?
Do you know exactly how many *billions* dollars USA have invested in
Chinese industry and infrastructure ?
I bet that more than 80% of the US money invested in China are the
money of your future pensions...
Why the US investors (and the others...) haven't chosen an other type
of energy ?

Lionel, I'm not excusing what individual industrialists do, but this is
an
issue where governments must set national policy. You might think that
industrialists are always against energy conservation, but this is not
always true.

Obviously.

For example, Henry Ford has publicly advocated a high
gasoline tax, because it would enable his company to sell energy
efficient
vehicles.

It's time no ?
The ratio power/motor volume is usually ridicule in the common US
engine production.

Also, please do not think that becaue I mentioned China, that I am
trying to dilute the responsibility of the U.S. I, for one, am ashamed
that the U.S. has not signed the Kyoto accords.

USA are today world economical leaders. If this situation is full of
advantages today it is also full of responsabilities. IMHO it is the
responsability of all highly developped democratic countries.

Furthermore, I pointed out the dire consequences for the U.S. of current
energy policy, for the U.S. itself. Whatever fault I find in China's
policy does not change the consequences for the U.S. of our own policy.

The Chinese government still has substantial central planning power.
They choose to allow a rapid expansion in their automobile fleet,
because they are worried about political stability. They feel forced to
buy the loyalty
of each class on whatever terms they can get.

They simply have no choice. There's 1.5 billion inhabitants in China.
Who can guarantee today to 1.5 billions people that the economical
competition will be suspended since they will have built a strong
economical model based on "soft" energy ? ;-)

Moreover it is well known that today high priced energy penalizes more
the countries with high economical growth than the others. Compare
economical growth of USA with China or India and you will better
understand today US energical policy...
Why do you think that US army is in Iraq today ?

Lionel,
You are debating the wrong guy. I agree with you

I know, I wasn't debating "you". ;-)

Lionel wrote:
ScottW "The Môron" wrote:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


I am American.
The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that
there is a lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that
self-delusion is not solely the province of Americans. Take China,
for example. That country has the opportunity to build an economy
from the ground up that would not be oil based. But it's not doing
that. Driven by the desires of the newly rich and the pressure from
below to improve the incredibly poor living conditions of the
peasantry, China embraces oil.

The deeper problem seems independent of political systems. We are on
the threshold of a wretched future, mandated by the world's greed for
energy and insatiable desire to procreate.



I agree with you on this 100%


Are you looking for some help for your children euthanasia ?


The problem isn't euthanasia. It's Youth in Asia! (and what they get up
to when nobody is looking, that is.

Regards,

DAve

Robert Morein said:

I thought bugs provided the protein needed by humans for moderately
efficient brain activity. Are you on some kind of protein-blocking
medication, Mickey?

It's not the food, it's the temperature. As we move into autumn, his species
becomes lethargic.

That's like saying a dead battery runs down in the cold.

Gibberella gibberizes her comprehension ability.

Sluttie is now RAO's No. 2 Kroopologist. ;-)

What the **** are you speaking about ?

Hairy or smooth, Slut?

George Minus Middius wrote :


Gibberella gibberizes her comprehension ability.

Sluttie is now RAO's No. 2 Kroopologist. ;-)

What the **** are you speaking about ?

Hairy or smooth, Slut?

No more porn, George ?
The best is to come and check by yourself... My sweet little skinheads
hunter. :-)

In qTB_e.10537$kH3.2659@trnddc01, DaveW wrote :

Lionel wrote:
ScottW "The Môron" wrote:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


I am American.
The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that
there is a lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that
self-delusion is not solely the province of Americans. Take China,
for example. That country has the opportunity to build an economy
from the ground up that would not be oil based. But it's not doing
that. Driven by the desires of the newly rich and the pressure from
below to improve the incredibly poor living conditions of the
peasantry, China embraces oil.

The deeper problem seems independent of political systems. We are on
the threshold of a wretched future, mandated by the world's greed for
energy and insatiable desire to procreate.



I agree with you on this 100%


Are you looking for some help for your children euthanasia ?


The problem isn't euthanasia. It's Youth in Asia! (and what they get up
to when nobody is looking, that is.

Sorry Dave but I'm not sure to understand you correctly. Can you please
elaborate a little bit ?

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 06:25:25 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
. au...

Mr. T.,
I respectfully suggest that it would not be in your interest, or anybody
else's to have a discussion with the notorious Brian L. McCarty, who posts
here as ", and under various other pseudonyms,
such as "OFFICIAL RAM BLUEBOOK VALUATION", and a wide variety of other
identities. He is a pest on rec.audio.marketplace, where he accuses innocent
sellers of variousmisdeeds. He appears to be a pathological liar, with
unknown motivations.

McCarty is the owner of websites http://www.coralseastudios.com, and
http://www.worldjazz.com, both of which have used fraudulent advertising in
attempts to attract investors. Both have been unsuccessful.

McCarty is an American expatriate, originally from the Chicago area, then LA
where he worked as a sound mixer, currently living in Cairns Australia,
where he manages the Baskin-Robbins
ice cream franchise located at
Shop G6, 59 The Esplanade
Cairns QLD 4870
07 4051 4034

McCarty lives in the Coral Sands apartment complex at 65 Vasey Esplanade,
Trinity beach, a bit north of metropolitan Cairns.

Baskin-Robbins Australia may be contacted at
.


LOL !!

Bluebook value on Robert Morein's detective work

is minus $50....batting below zero.

Morein's Post Re-posted to the relevant newsgroup.

Lionel wrote:
In qTB_e.10537$kH3.2659@trnddc01, DaveW wrote :


Lionel wrote:

ScottW "The Môron" wrote:


"Robert Morein" wrote in message


I am American.
The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that
there is a lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that
self-delusion is not solely the province of Americans. Take China,
for example. That country has the opportunity to build an economy
from the ground up that would not be oil based. But it's not doing
that. Driven by the desires of the newly rich and the pressure from
below to improve the incredibly poor living conditions of the
peasantry, China embraces oil.

The deeper problem seems independent of political systems. We are on
the threshold of a wretched future, mandated by the world's greed for
energy and insatiable desire to procreate.



I agree with you on this 100%


Are you looking for some help for your children euthanasia ?


The problem isn't euthanasia. It's Youth in Asia! (and what they get up
to when nobody is looking, that is.


Sorry Dave but I'm not sure to understand you correctly. Can you please
elaborate a little bit ?

Try pronouncing them.

euthanasia

Youth in Asia.

The former reduces the population, the latter increases it.

DAve

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:

I am American.
The others are not dishonest. They are ignorant. It's simply that the
country has fallen into a state of self-delusion. It's true that there
is a lack of responsibility at the top. But don't forget that
self-delusion is not solely the province of Americans. Take China, for
example. That country has the opportunity to build an economy from the
ground up that would not be oil based.

How ?
Do you know exactly how many *billions* dollars USA have invested in
Chinese industry and infrastructure ?
I bet that more than 80% of the US money invested in China are the money
of your future pensions...
Why the US investors (and the others...) haven't chosen an other type of
energy ?

Lionel, I'm not excusing what individual industrialists do, but this is an
issue where governments must set national policy. You might think that
industrialists are always against energy conservation, but this is not
always true. For example, Henry Ford has publicly advocated a high
gasoline tax, because it would enable his company to sell energy efficient
vehicles.

Also, please do not think that becaue I mentioned China, that I am trying
to dilute the responsibility of the U.S. I, for one, am ashamed that the
U.S. has not signed the Kyoto accords.

What a surprise! Bob comes out in favor of junk science, again.

Furthermore, I pointed out the dire consequences for the U.S. of current
energy policy, for the U.S. itself. Whatever fault I find in China's
policy does not change the consequences for the U.S. of our own policy.

The U.S. has ther strictest environmental laws in the world, and the
cleanest manufacturing.

There is no man made global warming.

The Kyoto Accords are a waste of paper.

The Chinese government still has substantial central planning power. They
choose to allow a rapid expansion in their automobile fleet, because they
are worried about political stability. They feel forced to buy the loyalty
of each class on whatever terms they can get.


They are trying to give people the things they want.

There is no shortage of oil, there is a shortage of profitability and a
shortage of capitalism for people who could be pumping more oil if they were
allowed.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...



duh-Mikey takes a bath with Oil of Irony.

You're just plain dumb. No two ways about that.

Nasty comments from you are a badge of honor for me George, since you have
not a clue about audio technology,

If you say so. Bear in mind G that the subject at hand is not technology
but
marketing, and the auxiliary issue is how dumb you are.

and have made your sole purpose on RAO
one of name calling an attacks against any sort of discussion of the
technical merits of audio gear.

Is that what you believe, Mickey? You also believe that Arnii Krooger is
an
exceedingly honest individual,

I don't know who that is. Arny Kruger is a guy who happens to be surly and
knowledgable about audio. He tends to share this temperment with Dick
Pierce who tends to agree with Arny on virtually every audio technology
issue.

that the aBXism religion is real science,

Becuase it is and because it is widely used by people doing audio research.

and
that everything sounds the same.

Nope, I think LP sounds like **** compared to a CD.
I think SET's sound different than SS, in that SET's sound bad.
The tings that sound the same and the reasons they sound the same have been
stated many times.

Nobody should be worried about your "thinking"
process overturning accepted wisdom in any area of human endeavor. ;-)

Like you'd know.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:27:13 GMT, "
wrote:


So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
difficult loads?

If they measure within .1 dB of each other, it's likely they will sound
idnetical.

They may sound idnetical, but will they sound the same?

Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
assertion means nothing.

I have not but I have seen some of the research and that's the consensenus.
I'm satisfied that fropm my own experience, an audiophile approved power amp
like the Acoustat 120, doesn't sound audibly different than a Pioneer
reciever, or Scott integrated amp.

If 2 amps sound different there are reasons, clipping, inabilty to drive
difficult loads, or design problems.

Well, it's not clipping because I can hear clear differences on
headphones. Likewise inability to drive difficult loads. Design
problems? I'm thinking of the differences I was able to hear between a
Rotel RA931 Mk11 and my current Marantz PM8200, so I don't think it's
design problems unless all amps at every level are afflicted with
design problems. Unless of course you mean that some designers are
better than others, or use better components, then I might agree with
you.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...


You ask Mr. Morein :" You have a DBT that shows otherwise?"
Just to remind you that so far no one, and you least of all, referenced
a DBT that shows anything other thasn "It all sounds the same".
Whatever in audio is being compared.
Timje to reach for an argument from another barrel. Any in
sight?
Ludovic Mirabel


You are a gruunnt liar urrrghh, and the greeeek fact that you gruuuunt
yourself urrrghhh referenced greeeek a DBT where a difference gruuunt was
recorded urrrrgh just points greeeeek up how big an gruuunt idiot urrrrgh
you are greeeek.

Mikey, you are a mere amphibian, and you do not have a brain with higher
centers of thought. It would be impossible for you to know the difference
between truth and falsehood.


If irony killed.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...


Then you must be a real high end piece, Mikey, as you are a perfect
parrot
of Arny Krueger.

So, by your reckoning, it's bad to reapeat the truth? What
diffference does it make who said it, as long as it is the truth?


Was Arnie telling the truth when he accused Atkinson of emailing him
kiddie porn, or was Arnie telling the truth when he accused George
Middius
of emailing him kiddie pron, or was Arnie telling the truth when he
accused
Dave Weil of emailing him kiddie porn, or Was Arnie telling the truth
when
he accused Scot Wheeler of emailing him kiddie porn, or was Arnie
telling the
truth when he accused me of emailing him kiddie porn. Was Arnie
telling
the truth that ANYBODY sent him kiddie porn. Didn't Arny later say
that a MSP
investigator told him it was not kiddie porn? Wouldn't it make
sense that one would not make such hideous accusations if
it weren't obvious that the porn in question was kiddie porn?
Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were absoultely no reason due to
anything that happened on RAO, could make Arny think someone would be
despicable enough to do such a thing?

The fact is that there are people like George, for whom such behavior
seems quite likely.


So, you are excusing Arny for making groundless
accusations about sending kiddie porn just because he 'thinks' someone
'might' do it.
I am saying that such things must be viewed in their entire context.

Tell us your excuse(s) that justify such behavior by Arny.
I will note, in your defense, that you are giving tacit acknowledgement
that Arny willingly and knowingly made multiple false
charges in this regard.

I always assumed they were not serious accusations, just his way of
retaliating against the twits who kept attacking him.

The issue is now whether Arny had some
excuse(s) that justify willful false charges of disseminating kiddie porn.
Well, "at least" its a start for you, a step in the right direction.
If you can't see that he was the victim of a smear campaign from day one,
because he dared to tell the truth about audio, and that people like Middius
and others are the real villains of this NG, then this subject is pointless
to discuss.

The worst of Arny's sins here is that he like every other EE I've ever
known, they don't suffer bull**** well.

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:15:08 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Robert Morein" wrote in message
. ..
"Ayn Marx" wrote in message
ups.com wrote:

We are on the
threshold of a wretched future, mandated by the world's greed for energy
and
insatiable desire to procreate.

I've never had a desire to procreate at all. That's why I prefer to take
it
up the ass.

Brian, is that an expression of your own tendencies?

Gee, Robert, for a moment there I thought you were being unhealthily
honest. And after all it was just Brian again. :-)

wrote in message
...
At least China has a one child policy, so is doing something to stop
it.

Forced abortions on Chinese women including late term abortions past
30 weeks is murder.

Only go past 30 weeks when the woman tries to hide the fact. They have
the
option of actually obeying the law. Sterialisation after the first child
is
free.

so you agree with State sanctioned murder of inncocent babies..

You think they should kill the mother instead?

So you'd prefer a few Billion more Chinese? What are *you* prepared to
give
up for them?

so you agree with State sanctioned murder of inncocent babies....
after all they're only Chinese!!

I note you do not answer my question.

MrT.

" wrote in message
ink.net...


Mikey, you are a mere amphibian, and you do not have a brain with higher
centers of thought. ......


If irony killed.


Yes, indeed!

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...


Then you must be a real high end piece, Mikey, as you are a perfect
parrot
of Arny Krueger.

So, by your reckoning, it's bad to reapeat the truth? What
diffference does it make who said it, as long as it is the truth?


Was Arnie telling the truth when he accused Atkinson of emailing him
kiddie porn, or was Arnie telling the truth when he accused George
Middius
of emailing him kiddie pron, or was Arnie telling the truth when he
accused
Dave Weil of emailing him kiddie porn, or Was Arnie telling the truth
when
he accused Scot Wheeler of emailing him kiddie porn, or was Arnie
telling the
truth when he accused me of emailing him kiddie porn. Was Arnie
telling
the truth that ANYBODY sent him kiddie porn. Didn't Arny later say
that a MSP
investigator told him it was not kiddie porn? Wouldn't it make
sense that one would not make such hideous accusations if
it weren't obvious that the porn in question was kiddie porn?
Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were absoultely no reason due to
anything that happened on RAO, could make Arny think someone would be
despicable enough to do such a thing?

The fact is that there are people like George, for whom such behavior
seems quite likely.


So, you are excusing Arny for making groundless
accusations about sending kiddie porn just because he 'thinks' someone
'might' do it.
I am saying that such things must be viewed in their entire context.

Tell us your excuse(s) that justify such behavior by Arny.
I will note, in your defense, that you are giving tacit acknowledgement
that Arny willingly and knowingly made multiple false
charges in this regard.

I always assumed they were not serious accusations, just his way of
retaliating against the twits who kept attacking him.


Thanks for directly acknowledging that Arny is a liar!
There is nothing tacit about your acknowledgement now.

Clyde Slick said:

I always assumed they were not serious accusations, just his way of
retaliating against the twits who kept attacking him.

Thanks for directly acknowledging that Arny is a liar!
There is nothing tacit about your acknowledgement now.

Mickey's mother doesn't wear army boots, but she often served them for
dinner.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

I always assumed they were not serious accusations, just his way of
retaliating against the twits who kept attacking him.

Thanks for directly acknowledging that Arny is a liar!
There is nothing tacit about your acknowledgement now.

Mickey's mother doesn't wear army boots, but she often served them for
dinner.


I didn't know you could buy them with food stamps.

Clyde Slick wrote:
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

I always assumed they were not serious accusations, just his way of
retaliating against the twits who kept attacking him.

Thanks for directly acknowledging that Arny is a liar!
There is nothing tacit about your acknowledgement now.

Mickey's mother doesn't wear army boots, but she often served them for
dinner.


I didn't know you could buy them with food stamps

Please stop posting this dull, un-funny drivel on Aus.H-Fi.
Everyone at R.A.O may indeed find it fascinating so please keep it to
yourselves.
Thanking you all in anticipation.

" said:

The worst of Arny's sins here is that he like every other EE I've ever
known, they don't suffer bull**** well.


I thought you knew that I'm an EE as well :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Ayn Marx wrote:
Clyde Slick wrote:
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

I always assumed they were not serious accusations, just his way of
retaliating against the twits who kept attacking him.

Thanks for directly acknowledging that Arny is a liar!
There is nothing tacit about your acknowledgement now.

Mickey's mother doesn't wear army boots, but she often served them for
dinner.


I didn't know you could buy them with food stamps

Please stop posting this dull, un-funny drivel on Aus.H-Fi.
Everyone at R.A.O may indeed find it fascinating so please keep it to
yourselves.
Thanking you all in anticipation.

I think the real intent is to bore everyone to death...it's like a
filibuster.

ScottW

In rec.audio.opinion paul packer wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:27:13 GMT, "
wrote:


So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
difficult loads?

If they measure within .1 dB of each other, it's likely they will sound
idnetical.

They may sound idnetical, but will they sound the same?

Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
assertion means nothing.

I have not but I have seen some of the research and that's the consensenus.
I'm satisfied that fropm my own experience, an audiophile approved power amp
like the Acoustat 120, doesn't sound audibly different than a Pioneer
reciever, or Scott integrated amp.

If 2 amps sound different there are reasons, clipping, inabilty to drive
difficult loads, or design problems.

Well, it's not clipping because I can hear clear differences on
headphones. Likewise inability to drive difficult loads. Design
problems? I'm thinking of the differences I was able to hear between a
Rotel RA931 Mk11 and my current Marantz PM8200, so I don't think it's
design problems unless all amps at every level are afflicted with
design problems. Unless of course you mean that some designers are
better than others, or use better components, then I might agree with
you.

How closely have you level matched them? And are you doing the
comparisons blind? Your amps *could* sound intrinsically different,
or they might really sound the same. How do you determine
which is actually the case?



--

-S

ScottW "The Môron" wrote :


I think the real intent is to bore everyone to death...it's like a
filibuster.

Are you afraid of competition ?

Steven Sullivan said:

How closely have you level matched them? And are you doing the
comparisons blind? Your amps *could* sound intrinsically different,
or they might really sound the same. How do you determine
which is actually the case?


sigh
Let me try to explain this just one more time.

The way hobbyists and music lovers listen at home, is *sighted* .
The way they determine differences in amps, DACs etc. is done sighted.

You see, it *doesn't matter* one whit if two amps sound the same in a
DBT; when there's a difference in listening sighted, that's all that
matters.
Listening sighted is the reality of everyday's life, the ideal
circumstances in a laboratory are *not*.

I'm an EE, I know amplifier topology, I know that most likely 99% of
all amps sound alike in a DBT, but *it simply doesn't matter* for the
consumer at home, since other biases can't be ignored when returning
to listening for pleasure.
One can't avoid looking at his amp, enjoying the thick faceplate, the
brand name, the gold-plated connectors or the huge heatsinks or tubes
sticking out.
Such things *have* to alter the perception.

Ignoring for this moment those amp topologies, where differences are
built into it *on purpose*.
It should be clear that those designs sound even more different :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan said:

How closely have you level matched them? And are you doing the
comparisons blind? Your amps *could* sound intrinsically different,
or they might really sound the same. How do you determine
which is actually the case?


sigh
Let me try to explain this just one more time.

The way hobbyists and music lovers listen at home, is *sighted* .
The way they determine differences in amps, DACs etc. is done sighted.

You see, it *doesn't matter* one whit if two amps sound the same in a
DBT; when there's a difference in listening sighted, that's all that
matters.
Listening sighted is the reality of everyday's life, the ideal
circumstances in a laboratory are *not*.

I'm an EE, I know amplifier topology, I know that most likely 99% of
all amps sound alike in a DBT, but *it simply doesn't matter* for the
consumer at home, since other biases can't be ignored when returning
to listening for pleasure.
One can't avoid looking at his amp, enjoying the thick faceplate, the
brand name, the gold-plated connectors or the huge heatsinks or tubes
sticking out.
Such things *have* to alter the perception.

Ignoring for this moment those amp topologies, where differences are
built into it *on purpose*.
It should be clear that those designs sound even more different :-)

Thanks Sander. Good, solid sensible Dutch logic. Now if you could
only convince the others:-)

Iain

In rec.audio.opinion Sander deWaal wrote:
Steven Sullivan said:

How closely have you level matched them? And are you doing the
comparisons blind? Your amps *could* sound intrinsically different,
or they might really sound the same. How do you determine
which is actually the case?


sigh
Let me try to explain this just one more time.

sigh I know what's coming. A shame it comes from *you* Sander.


The way hobbyists and music lovers listen at home, is *sighted* .
The way they determine differences in amps, DACs etc. is done sighted.


Yes, and some people consult horoscopes to 'determine' how their day will
be. They aren't *really* doing anything of the sort, of course. A person
*believing* he's determining difference, doesn't mean he is 'determining'
anything in any substantive way -- that is, a way that is distinguishable
from a private delusion. A person anecdotally 'determining' that a
horoscope 'predicted' how his day will be, does not demonstrate the truth
of astrology.

And of course there are other hobbyists and music lovers who realize the
pitfalls of 'determining difference' this way, and simply adjust their
claims about difference accordingly. Or, if they are so motivated, they
arrange to compare amps in a more rigorous fashion.

I wonder if there's any other technically-oriented hobby where there's
such a strong strain of hostility towards objective verification of
truth-claims about the performance of the gear involved?


You see, it *doesn't matter* one whit if two amps sound the same in a
DBT; when there's a difference in listening sighted, that's all that
matters.

You see, it doesn't matter one whit to me if that's 'all that matters' to
some audiophiles. In fact, if all they ever wrote was 'it sounds different
to me and that's all that matters', then you'd hardly ever see any
rebuttal. But they *don't* confine themselves to such limited
truth-claims about the real world, do they, Sander?


Listening sighted is the reality of everyday's life, the ideal
circumstances in a laboratory are *not*.

sigh
So, scientific fact and 'everyday' fact have no overlap?

*Of course* what is *true* about the physical world *matters*, Sander.
An industry does not exist in a vaccuum. An industry that encourages
consumers to believe what isn't true coupled wiht a consumer base that
doesn't think objective truth 'matters' isn't likely to be accountable
for its own claims.



I'm an EE, I know amplifier topology, I know that most likely 99% of
all amps sound alike in a DBT, but *it simply doesn't matter* for the
consumer at home, since other biases can't be ignored when returning
to listening for pleasure.

Who are you to say 'it simply doesn't matter to the consumer at home'? Are
consumers at home even being given the *choice* in the matter -- e.g. a
source of data from controlled listening tests? Do you assert it
wouldn't matter to *any* of them if magazines began conducting such tests?

I guarantee you that assertion would be wrong.

The success of endeavors like Consumer Reports indicates that a population
of consumers exists who *do* want accurate information about performance
of consumer products. Why would you believe that audio hobbyists aren't
among them?


One can't avoid looking at his amp, enjoying the thick faceplate, the
brand name, the gold-plated connectors or the huge heatsinks or tubes
sticking out.
Such things *have* to alter the perception.

Yes, the *perception*. But making claims about a *perception*, and making
claims about the *source*, are not the same thing, are they? It's quite
easy to make a badly-reasoned leap from cause to effect. The belief that
'perception is reality' leads inevitably to embarrassing 'emperor's new
clothes' paradoxes.


Ignoring for this moment those amp topologies, where differences are
built into it *on purpose*.
It should be clear that those designs sound even more different :-)

Of course amps can be designed to 'sound different'; no one claims
otherwise.




--

-S

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

I wonder if there's any other technically-oriented hobby where there's
such a strong strain of hostility towards objective verification of
truth-claims about the performance of the gear involved?

Hot rodding?

Listening to music isn't "technically-oriented." High end is more like
golfing and fishing in that the gear can be an end to itself but is also
marketed with promises of improved "performance."

Stephen

In rec.audio.opinion Iain M Churches wrote:

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan said:

How closely have you level matched them? And are you doing the
comparisons blind? Your amps *could* sound intrinsically different,
or they might really sound the same. How do you determine
which is actually the case?


sigh
Let me try to explain this just one more time.

The way hobbyists and music lovers listen at home, is *sighted* .
The way they determine differences in amps, DACs etc. is done sighted.

You see, it *doesn't matter* one whit if two amps sound the same in a
DBT; when there's a difference in listening sighted, that's all that
matters.
Listening sighted is the reality of everyday's life, the ideal
circumstances in a laboratory are *not*.

I'm an EE, I know amplifier topology, I know that most likely 99% of
all amps sound alike in a DBT, but *it simply doesn't matter* for the
consumer at home, since other biases can't be ignored when returning
to listening for pleasure.
One can't avoid looking at his amp, enjoying the thick faceplate, the
brand name, the gold-plated connectors or the huge heatsinks or tubes
sticking out.
Such things *have* to alter the perception.

Ignoring for this moment those amp topologies, where differences are
built into it *on purpose*.
It should be clear that those designs sound even more different :-)

Thanks Sander. Good, solid sensible Dutch logic. Now if you could
only convince the others:-)

Iain

Dutch logic says logic doesn't matter, only 'personal' logic does?

I hardly think so.

Truth doesn't matter to lots of people in lots of areas. I suspect
the Dutch don't generally laud them for that attitude.

And what about the 'reality' of everday life to someone who knows,
like Sander, that most amps under standard DBT conditions won't
sound different? If *he* hears a diffence, he can take comfort
in the possibility that it's not something about his amp at all,
(possibly requiring a new purchase) it's something, possibly
transitory, in his perception.

Accepting the validity of DBTs, and the fallibility of sighted
perception, hasn't notably impaired my enjoyment of music, *ever*.
And I'm certainly not fretting over whether my amp or cables
are performing well. That gievs me much more time to fret
over things that matter in a *demonstrable* way, like room
acoustics.





--

-S

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:27:13 GMT, "
wrote:


So you're saying that an amp costing $5000 is not going to sound any
better than one costing $300 providing both measure well and drive
difficult loads?

If they measure within .1 dB of each other, it's likely they will sound
idnetical.



They may sound idnetical, but will they sound the same?

If you can't tell them apart they are identical.

Have you tested this theory? Have you truly satisfied
yourself that nothing is to be gained by spending more? If not your
assertion means nothing.

I have not but I have seen some of the research and that's the
consensenus.
I'm satisfied that from my own experience, an audiophile approved power
amp
like the Acoustat 120, doesn't sound audibly different than a Pioneer
reciever, or Scott integrated amp.

If 2 amps sound different there are reasons, clipping, inabilty to drive
difficult loads, or design problems.

Well, it's not clipping because I can hear clear differences on
headphones. Likewise inability to drive difficult loads. Design
problems? I'm thinking of the differences I was able to hear between a
Rotel RA931 Mk11 and my current Marantz PM8200, so I don't think it's
design problems unless all amps at every level are afflicted with
design problems. Unless of course you mean that some designers are
better than others, or use better components, then I might agree with
you.

The criteria are as I explained, they need to measure within .1 dB of each
other. A difference of .1 dB or more is audible.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan said:

How closely have you level matched them? And are you doing the
comparisons blind? Your amps *could* sound intrinsically different,
or they might really sound the same. How do you determine
which is actually the case?


sigh
Let me try to explain this just one more time.

The way hobbyists and music lovers listen at home, is *sighted* .
The way they determine differences in amps, DACs etc. is done sighted.

Which is known to be an unrelaible way to determine differences.

You see, it *doesn't matter* one whit if two amps sound the same in a
DBT; when there's a difference in listening sighted, that's all that
matters.

It does matter if you care about how you spend your money, or if you simply
want to conduct the most reliable comparisons.

Listening sighted is the reality of everyday's life, the ideal
circumstances in a laboratory are *not*.

Which is why you don't do such comparisons except when making a buying
decision.
Once you've learned that differences exist or not, you just kick back and
relax.

I'm an EE, I know amplifier topology, I know that most likely 99% of
all amps sound alike in a DBT, but *it simply doesn't matter* for the
consumer at home, since other biases can't be ignored when returning
to listening for pleasure.

Exactly, it doesn't need to be done, since only a tiny minority of amps are
going to sound different, and of those that do, it will be that they are
less than flat.

One can't avoid looking at his amp, enjoying the thick faceplate, the
brand name, the gold-plated connectors or the huge heatsinks or tubes
sticking out.
Such things *have* to alter the perception.


But not the actual performance. Note that people can believe their amps
sound different depending on their mood.

Ignoring for this moment those amp topologies, where differences are
built into it *on purpose*.
It should be clear that those designs sound even more different :-)


And it's only fair that people be made aware of what differences if any
there are and if those differences will be audible.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


The Bug Eater quickly abandons his principled stand against invective.

There can be NO EXCUSE for Arny Krueger's reprehensible behavior, or for
that of his evil stooge, Mike McKelvy, a.k.a. the "mckelviphibian".

Or yours, ****head.

Mickey, I just read another of your posts in which you whined about my
"name
calling". Is your version of name-calling more socially acceptable than
mind?

When you have a near decade long history of name calling, why would you not
expect to have it thrown back at you?

Please explain this so that I might begin to emulate your high standards.

It's clear to anybody who reads your posts, that you only standards are
smear, ad hominem attack, name calling and vitriol.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...


Then you must be a real high end piece, Mikey, as you are a
perfect parrot
of Arny Krueger.

So, by your reckoning, it's bad to reapeat the truth? What
diffference does it make who said it, as long as it is the truth?


Was Arnie telling the truth when he accused Atkinson of emailing him
kiddie porn, or was Arnie telling the truth when he accused George
Middius
of emailing him kiddie pron, or was Arnie telling the truth when he
accused
Dave Weil of emailing him kiddie porn, or Was Arnie telling the
truth when
he accused Scot Wheeler of emailing him kiddie porn, or was Arnie
telling the
truth when he accused me of emailing him kiddie porn. Was Arnie
telling
the truth that ANYBODY sent him kiddie porn. Didn't Arny later say
that a MSP
investigator told him it was not kiddie porn? Wouldn't it make
sense that one would not make such hideous accusations if
it weren't obvious that the porn in question was kiddie porn?
Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were absoultely no reason due to
anything that happened on RAO, could make Arny think someone would
be despicable enough to do such a thing?

The fact is that there are people like George, for whom such behavior
seems quite likely.


So, you are excusing Arny for making groundless
accusations about sending kiddie porn just because he 'thinks'
someone
'might' do it.
I am saying that such things must be viewed in their entire context.

Tell us your excuse(s) that justify such behavior by Arny.
I will note, in your defense, that you are giving tacit acknowledgement
that Arny willingly and knowingly made multiple false
charges in this regard.

I always assumed they were not serious accusations, just his way of
retaliating against the twits who kept attacking him.


Thanks for directly acknowledging that Arny is a liar!

I made no such acknowledgement.