[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote
Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr" wrote:

I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
Nordost and MIT over the years and yet, despite what you or what
Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able to
hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime I
upgraded the wires supplied or otherwise, with my components.

Is there a problem with this ?

You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they were all
*improvements* ?

Because it sounded better to me. Particularly, when listening to a
well recorded music and sound.


How do we know that you have even a clue about what the origional [sic]
performance sounded like, when [sic] it was recorded?

That doesn't follow.

Why not ?


After you make it so,

So ? What do you mean by so ?


it will be listener training and skilled sound engineer.

Which you clearly aren't.

Both Arny and I *are* sound engineers.

What are you ? A lawyer ? Refuse operative ?


Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie brays his towering ignorance.

I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
Nordost and MIT

Never heard of any of them.

They're American companies.

In the *PRO* audio world no-one buys that kind of over-priced crap.

If you haven't heard of them, how do you know they're "over-priced" or
"crap"?



--

It's best to talk to Poopie in his own language:

Hee-haw! EEE-yaw! HNAWK!

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:




But for now, I still have Norton and their whole shebang.

Utter POS.

Hello.

I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
Nordost and MIT

Never heard of any of them.

In the *PRO* audio world no-one buys that kind of over-priced crap.

over the years and yet, despite what you or what
Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able to
hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime I
upgraded the wires supplied, or otherwise, with my components.

Is there a problem with this ?

I was referring to Norton you utter nitwit !


I cannot say that I'm 100% in love with your tone right now.


The fact that you could hear differences between wires simply shows
you were buying lousy wires or lousy equipment.


You never bought aftermarket wires for stereo? This evidence
tells me that you might be having money problem to improve your stereo
or you have lousy ears and inferior component complimenting the said
ears.



Your assertion that the sound 'improved' each time is baseless. You
heard a difference maybe and assumed it must be 'better' because it
cost you more.

Why are you repudiating me to use the word "improved" to described
my experience. Okeyy, the sound didn't improved. The sound became
superior. Your assertion insinuating that money makes everything better
is bordering on psychopathy, btw.



Are you using tube amplification by any chance ?


Not at this time. I do have Audio Research tube preamp at my disposal.



Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr" wrote:




I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
Nordost and MIT over the years and yet, despite what you or what
Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able to
hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime I
upgraded the wires supplied or otherwise, with my components.

Is there a problem with this ?

You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they were all
*improvements* ?

Because it sounded better to me.

Define 'better'.


Immmproved! Oopps, I mean superior.


Particularly, when listening to a well recorded music and sound.

Define 'well-recorded'.


Something recorded well? Like: This record is not compressed and is
well done! It is recorded superiorly.


Sounds like psychology at work to me.

No, listening training at work here. Is your stereo system that bad?

Tell me how much time you've spent designing top-flight recording
consoles and messing about in high-end studios making it *sound
right* ?


What is your point? Spell it out.

You called me a nitwit. You said I'm hopeless and my compuetr
is POS, and that my stereo components are lousy 'cause I'm a liar
when I admitted that the sound produced by my stereo has "improved."
Therefore, I wasted my money for spending on wires that cost more
'cause you never bought or heard them in your system before.

Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote
Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr" wrote:



I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
Nordost and MIT over the years and yet, despite what you or what
Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able
to hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime
I upgraded the wires supplied or otherwise, with my components.

Is there a problem with this ?

You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they were all
*improvements* ?

Because it sounded better to me. Particularly, when listening to a
well recorded music and sound.


How do we know that you have even a clue about what the origional
[sic] performance sounded like, when [sic] it was recorded?


That doesn't follow.


Why not ?




Because sound recording and music reproduction-- is art.




After you make it so,

So ? What do you mean by so ?


He has this reprehensible obsession of dissembling what he had said
during exchanges in desire to engrossed himself further into oblivion.

Will you promise to not have this obsession?



it will be listener training and skilled sound engineer.

Which you clearly aren't.

Both Arny and I *are* sound engineers.

What are you ? A lawyer ? Refuse operative ?


Graham

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Poopie brays his towering ignorance.

I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
Nordost and MIT

Never heard of any of them.

They're American companies.

Figures.


In the *PRO* audio world no-one buys that kind of over-priced crap.

If you haven't heard of them, how do you know they're "over-priced" or
"crap"?

Because wire is basically wire. Increasing the price makes no earthly
difference.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr" wrote:

I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
Nordost and MIT over the years and yet, despite what you or what
Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able to
hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime I
upgraded the wires supplied or otherwise, with my components.

Is there a problem with this ?

You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they were all
*improvements* ?

Because it sounded better to me.

Define 'better'.

Immmproved! Oopps, I mean superior.

Define 'superior'. Or 'improved'. Try something that's not simply 'your opinion'
and can be heard reproducibly by other ppl.


Particularly, when listening to a well recorded music and sound.

Define 'well-recorded'.

Something recorded well? Like: This record is not compressed and is
well done! It is recorded superiorly.

Most 'records' aren't compressed in the first place.

Next ?


Sounds like psychology at work to me.

No, listening training at work here. Is your stereo system that bad?

Tell me how much time you've spent designing top-flight recording
consoles and messing about in high-end studios making it *sound
right* ?

What is your point? Spell it out.

My point is that science holds all the answers. Ppl who believe one brand of
cable sounds 'better' than another are either simply deluding themselves. Wire
can be defined in terms of its resistance, inductance and capacitance. That's
all that matters. Provided that your wire meets certain fairly basic criteria
and every wire I've ever met does, then it's entirely incapable of sounding
different when used for interconnects.

It should be added that tube equipment is more fussy about cable capacitance due
to its poorer techical specs wrt output impedance. Tube gear may need very low
capacitance cables especially with long runs to avoid treble loss.

Loudspeaker cables are another matter. Here, cable resistance is the primary
'culprit' and wires of different gauges will affect the frequency response (and
hence the 'sound') to varying degrees. No argument there but the *brand* is
irrelevant. Ideally your speaker cable should be of large cross-sectional area
for minimum resistance and there should be no audible differences between
loudspeaker cables of the same gauge.

UK professional recording magazine Studio Sound found decades ago that the
'best' results were achieved with 4mm2 house wiring cable, the largest diameter
they checked at the time. Few plugs are capable of taking a larger cable.


You called me a nitwit.

You show all the usual signs.


You said I'm hopeless and my compuetr is POS,

I said Norton is a POS. Most IT pros will agree.


and that my stereo components are lousy 'cause I'm a liar

I said no such thing.


when I admitted that the sound produced by my stereo has "improved."
Therefore, I wasted my money for spending on wires that cost more
'cause you never bought or heard them in your system before.

Do you also buy the additives that claim to make your car run on water or to
improve 'mileage' ? Do you know the meaning of the phrase 'snake oil' ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote
Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr" wrote:

I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
Nordost and MIT over the years and yet, despite what you or what
Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able
to hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime
I upgraded the wires supplied or otherwise, with my components.

Is there a problem with this ?

You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they were all
*improvements* ?

Because it sounded better to me. Particularly, when listening to a
well recorded music and sound.


How do we know that you have even a clue about what the origional
[sic] performance sounded like, when [sic] it was recorded?


That doesn't follow.

Why not ?

Because sound recording and music reproduction-- is art.

No. They're both entirely and exclusively science / technology. Music
performance and production is art. There's a huge difference between these
things. A 'good' recording is the product of both art and technology.

Electrons obey scientific rules only.


After you make it so,

So ? What do you mean by so ?

He has this reprehensible obsession of dissembling what he had said
during exchanges in desire to engrossed himself further into oblivion.

Will you promise to not have this obsession?

You're rambling.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
"George M. Middius" wrote:

Poopie brays his towering ignorance.

I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest,
Kimber Kable, Nordost and MIT

Never heard of any of them.

They're American companies.

Figures.


In the *PRO* audio world no-one buys that kind of
over-priced crap.

If you haven't heard of them, how do you know they're
"over-priced" or "crap"?

Because wire is basically wire. Increasing the price
makes no earthly difference.

Yes a higher price can make a difference, it can make more profits, or
not.

I find it very funny to see Monster Cable "overstock" selling for pennies on
the dollar in MCM fliers.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote
Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr" wrote:

I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas,
audioquest, Kimber Kable, Nordost and MIT over the
years and yet, despite what you or what Arny's
subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I
was able to hear sonic improvement to my stereo
system each and everytime I upgraded the wires
supplied or otherwise, with my components.

Is there a problem with this ?

You may have heard *differences* but how do you
know they were all *improvements* ?

Because it sounded better to me. Particularly, when
listening to a well recorded music and sound.


How do we know that you have even a clue about what
the origional [sic] performance sounded like, when
[sic] it was recorded?


That doesn't follow.

Why not ?

Because sound recording and music reproduction-- is art.

No. They're both entirely and exclusively science /
technology. Music performance and production is art.
There's a huge difference between these things. A 'good'
recording is the product of both art and technology.

Electrons obey scientific rules only.


After you make it so,

So ? What do you mean by so ?

He has this reprehensible obsession of dissembling what
he had said during exchanges in desire to engrossed
himself further into oblivion.

Will you promise to not have this obsession?

You're rambling.


Even if he stopped doing that, he still wouldn't make sense.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
"George M. Middius" wrote:

Poopie brays his towering ignorance.

I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest,
Kimber Kable, Nordost and MIT

Never heard of any of them.

They're American companies.

Figures.


In the *PRO* audio world no-one buys that kind of
over-priced crap.

If you haven't heard of them, how do you know they're
"over-priced" or "crap"?

Because wire is basically wire. Increasing the price
makes no earthly difference.

Yes a higher price can make a difference, it can make more profits, or
not.

I find it very funny to see Monster Cable "overstock" selling for pennies on
the dollar in MCM fliers.

Has the myth of 'magic cables' finally been laid to rest ? Is the sale on the
net too ?

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie brays his ignorance to the world.

Has the myth of 'magic cables' finally been laid to rest ?

No, and there will always be better cables than what you can afford, you
wrinkled old putz.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[vlad]

On May 13, 7:14 am, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Poopie brays his ignorance to the world.

Has the myth of 'magic cables' finally been laid to rest ?

No, and there will always be better cables than what you can afford, you
wrinkled old putz.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.


Translation:

There will always be a scam artisti who is ready to relieve fool from
his money :-)

vova

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Poopie brays his ignorance to the world.

Has the myth of 'magic cables' finally been laid to rest ?

No, and there will always be better cables than what you can afford, you
wrinkled old putz.

The Middiot is finally revealed as a believer in mythical audiophoolery !

Do PLEASE tell me what exactly is better about them.

Graham

[ScottW]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


"George M. Middius" wrote:

Poopie brays his ignorance to the world.

Has the myth of 'magic cables' finally been laid to rest ?

No, and there will always be better cables than what you can afford, you
wrinkled old putz.

The Middiot is finally revealed as a believer in mythical audiophoolery !

Do PLEASE tell me what exactly is better about them.

I saw a neat cable that is extremely thin and adhesive backed
you can put on dry wall and paint over it...it almost disappears.
Its a little pricey...but definitely better for hiding.

http://www.decorp.com/flat-speaker-cable.htm

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Poopie the Dunderheaded Donkey brayed:

No, and there will always be better cables than what you can afford, you
wrinkled old putz.

The Middiot is finally revealed as a believer in mythical audiophoolery !

Poopster, you should reflect on the ramifications of running your mouth
off without knowing anything. Nearly every time you post on RAO, you're
revealed as a doddering, half-in-the-bag old fart who can barely
remember how to brush his teeth. This exchange is a case in point.

Do PLEASE tell me what exactly is better about them.

If you don't know what the differences are, it's utterly stupid to claim
they're "mythical audiophoolery". Why aren't you ashamed of showing
everybody what a dimbulb you are?




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Graham the Genius Audio Designer said:

Do PLEASE tell me what exactly is better about them [magic cables].

If you don't know what the differences are, it's utterly stupid to claim
they're "mythical audiophoolery".

First you have to establish that there are any meaningful differences. Since
copper = copper and PVC = PVC perhaps you'd care to enlighten us ?

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie the Pooped-Up Poop-Head poops himself.

If you don't know what the differences are, it's utterly stupid to claim
they're "mythical audiophoolery".

First you have to establish that there are any meaningful differences.

No, you blithering idiot, you have to admit you're blind, dumb, and
stupid. Any moron can simply look at various cables and see differences.



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:



snip




Because it sounded better to me.

Define 'better'.

Immmproved! Oopps, I mean superior.

Define 'superior'. Or 'improved'. Try something that's not simply
'your opinion' and can be heard reproducibly by other ppl.



Well give me a specific outline or scheme that is more agreeable to
you and other people and maybe we can work something out. The
last thing I want to do is displease you.

How about these: exceptional, extraordinary, grander, impressive
outstanding, splended



Particularly, when listening to a well recorded music and sound.

Define 'well-recorded'.

Something recorded well? Like: This record is not compressed and is
well done! It is recorded superiorly.


Most 'records' aren't compressed in the first place.


I was referring to CDs.


Next ?


Next what ?




Sounds like psychology at work to me.

No, listening training at work here. Is your stereo system that
bad?

Tell me how much time you've spent designing top-flight recording
consoles and messing about in high-end studios making it *sound
right* ?

What is your point? Spell it out.

My point is that science holds all the answers. Ppl who believe one
brand of cable sounds 'better' than another are either simply
deluding themselves. Wire can be defined in terms of its resistance,
inductance and capacitance. That's all that matters. Provided that
your wire meets certain fairly basic criteria and every wire I've
ever met does, then it's entirely incapable of sounding different
when used for interconnects.


If that is your point then explain scientifically why my stereo system
sounded sonically better after replacing the wires that either came
with the components or those I bought (though I don't have the
product # right now) specifically from Radio Shack, Target, and Best
Buy as compared to those aftermarket brands I mentioned earlier.




It should be added that tube equipment is more fussy about cable
capacitance due to its poorer techical specs wrt output impedance.
Tube gear may need very low capacitance cables especially with long
runs to avoid treble loss.

Loudspeaker cables are another matter. Here, cable resistance is the
primary 'culprit' and wires of different gauges will affect the
frequency response (and hence the 'sound') to varying degrees. No
argument there but the brand is irrelevant. Ideally your speaker
cable should be of large cross-sectional area for minimum resistance
and there should be no audible differences between loudspeaker cables
of the same gauge.

UK professional recording magazine Studio Sound found decades ago
that the 'best' results were achieved with 4mm2 house wiring cable,
the largest diameter they checked at the time. Few plugs are capable
of taking a larger cable.



You called me a nitwit.

You show all the usual signs.


You said I'm hopeless and my compuetr is POS,

I said Norton is a POS. Most IT pros will agree.


and that my stereo components are lousy 'cause I'm a liar

I said no such thing.


when I admitted that the sound produced by my stereo has "improved."
Therefore, I wasted my money for spending on wires that cost more
'cause you never bought or heard them in your system before.

Do you also buy the additives that claim to make your car run on
water or to improve 'mileage' ? Do you know the meaning of the phrase
'snake oil' ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middiot" wrote:

Graham the source of all enlightenment wrote:

If you don't know what the differences are, it's utterly stupid to claim
they're "mythical audiophoolery".

First you have to establish that there are any meaningful differences.

No, you blithering idiot, you have to admit you're blind, dumb, and
stupid. Any moron can simply look at various cables and see differences.

WHAT DIFFERENCES ???

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie the Constipated Donkey admits he's blind, dumb, and stupid.

No, you blithering idiot, you have to admit you're blind, dumb, and
stupid. Any moron can simply look at various cables and see differences.

WHAT DIFFERENCES ???

So we agree -- you're dumber than the average moron.



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:

snip

Because it sounded better to me.

Define 'better'.

Immmproved! Oopps, I mean superior.

Define 'superior'. Or 'improved'. Try something that's not simply
'your opinion' and can be heard reproducibly by other ppl.

Well give me a specific outline or scheme that is more agreeable to
you and other people and maybe we can work something out. The
last thing I want to do is displease you.

How about these: exceptional, extraordinary, grander, impressive
outstanding, splended

You seem to be missing the point. These are subjective terms. What sounds
'exceptional' to you may sound rubbish to someone else.

That's why intelligent ppl pay attention to technical specs which are objective
and don't depend on an opinion that may not match your own.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

My point is that science holds all the answers. Ppl who believe one
brand of cable sounds 'better' than another are either simply
deluding themselves. Wire can be defined in terms of its resistance,
inductance and capacitance. That's all that matters. Provided that
your wire meets certain fairly basic criteria and every wire I've
ever met does, then it's entirely incapable of sounding different
when used for interconnects.

If that is your point then explain scientifically why my stereo system
sounded sonically better after replacing the wires that either came
with the components or those I bought (though I don't have the
product # right now) specifically from Radio Shack, Target, and Best
Buy as compared to those aftermarket brands I mentioned earlier.

It probably didn't.

You however were expecting it to sound better, so it sounded better TO YOU. This
effect is readily demonstrable btw. I bet I could even convince you that a cheap
cable sounded better if you believed it was actually an expensive one.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

No, you blithering idiot, you have to admit you're blind, dumb, and
stupid. Any moron can simply look at various cables and see differences.

WHAT DIFFERENCES ???

So we agree

We don't agree.

There are no differences in esoteric cables. They are made of the same materials
as cheap ones.

Graahm

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote
Eeyore wrote:




snip




You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they
were all *improvements* ?

Because it sounded better to me. Particularly, when listening
to a well recorded music and sound.

How do we know that you have even a clue about what the origional
[sic] performance sounded like, when [sic] it was recorded?

That doesn't follow.

Why not ?

Because sound recording and music reproduction-- is art.


No. They're both entirely and exclusively science / technology. Music
performance and production is art. There's a huge difference between
these things. A 'good' recording is the product of both art and
technology.


We were not discussing music performance. The issues were sound
recording and musical reproduction.


So please stay on topic. The question was:


"How do we know that you have even a clue about what the
original performance sounded like when it was recorded?"


It does requires technical skill, knowledge, and creativity to express
ideas and impression of what the outcome should be throughout
the recording and reproduction chain unto the listening room.



Electrons obey scientific rules only.


Go on.... you're getting there.




After you make it so,

So ? What do you mean by so ?

He has this reprehensible obsession of dissembling what he had said
during exchanges in desire to engrossed himself further into
oblivion.

Will you promise to not have this obsession?


You're rambling.


What are you talkin about. Here, answer this question:

As you sat in your listening room, listening to a musical sound recording
that you have *never* participated in, how do you know that you have
even a clue about what the original performance sounded like when
it was recorded?



Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
Eeyore wrote
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:




After you make it so,

So ? What do you mean by so ?

He has this reprehensible obsession of dissembling what
he had said during exchanges in desire to engrossed
himself further into oblivion.

Will you promise to not have this obsession?

You're rambling.


Even if he stopped doing that, he still wouldn't make sense.


What do you mean by rambling?

I hope you had a wonderfull Sunday mass.

Here, answer this question since you claim to be a recording
engineer:

As you sat in your listening room, listening to a musical sound recording
that you have *never* participated in, how do you know that you have
even a clue about what the original performance sounded like when
it was recorded?

[George M. Middius]

Poopie brays at the spectre of reality.

So we agree -- you're dumber than the average moron.

There are no differences in esoteric cables.

You're a moron. Case closed.



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote
Eeyore wrote:

snip

You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they
were all *improvements* ?

Because it sounded better to me. Particularly, when listening
to a well recorded music and sound.

How do we know that you have even a clue about what the origional
[sic] performance sounded like, when [sic] it was recorded?

That doesn't follow.

Why not ?

Because sound recording and music reproduction-- is art.


No. They're both entirely and exclusively science / technology. Music
performance and production is art. There's a huge difference between
these things. A 'good' recording is the product of both art and
technology.

We were not discussing music performance. The issues were sound
recording and musical reproduction.

These are exclusivly science and technology areas. There is no art in either of
these other than the skill (art) of the designer and engineer.


So please stay on topic. The question was:

"How do we know that you have even a clue about what the
original performance sounded like when it was recorded?"

From experience mainly.


It does requires technical skill, knowledge, and creativity to express
ideas and impression of what the outcome should be throughout
the recording and reproduction chain unto the listening room.

The creativity in the recording process is exclusivley about musical production
and performance and not about technology.

Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:

snip

Because it sounded better to me.

Define 'better'.

Immmproved! Oopps, I mean superior.

Define 'superior'. Or 'improved'. Try something that's not simply
'your opinion' and can be heard reproducibly by other ppl.

Well give me a specific outline or scheme that is more agreeable to
you and other people and maybe we can work something out. The
last thing I want to do is displease you.

How about these: exceptional, extraordinary, grander, impressive
outstanding, splended

You seem to be missing the point. These are subjective terms. What
sounds 'exceptional' to you may sound rubbish to someone else.


Who is this goddamn someone you keep referring to ?


That's why intelligent ppl pay attention to technical specs which are
objective and don't depend on an opinion that may not match your own.

Graham

I was concidering a pair of speakers that had excellent specs ...
some years ago and detested the sound after listening awhile in
my system. What would be your recommended plan of action
with regards to this.

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

As you sat in your listening room, listening to a musical sound recording
that you have *never* participated in, how do you know that you have
even a clue about what the original performance sounded like when
it was recorded?

You assume incorrectly that it was an individual performance. That is rarely the
case these days.

The recording you listen to is usually an amalgam of various individual tracks
and takes.

Graham

[Eeyore]

The Middiot wailed in despair:

So we agree -- you're dumber than the average moron.

There are no differences in esoteric cables.

You're a moron.

You're an idiot believer in audio voodoo.

The copper the esoteric freaks use is no different to any other copper. Their
PVC is no better than the cheapest. That's all there is that matters.

Then again you do seem to be very slow in picking up on simple facts.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:

snip

Because it sounded better to me.

Define 'better'.

Immmproved! Oopps, I mean superior.

Define 'superior'. Or 'improved'. Try something that's not simply
'your opinion' and can be heard reproducibly by other ppl.

Well give me a specific outline or scheme that is more agreeable to
you and other people and maybe we can work something out. The
last thing I want to do is displease you.

How about these: exceptional, extraordinary, grander, impressive
outstanding, splended

You seem to be missing the point. These are subjective terms. What
sounds 'exceptional' to you may sound rubbish to someone else.

Who is this goddamn someone you keep referring to ?

Anyone.

You appear to believe that what you think sounds good will sound good to
everyone else. It ain't so.


That's why intelligent ppl pay attention to technical specs which are
objective and don't depend on an opinion that may not match your own.

I was concidering a pair of speakers that had excellent specs ...
some years ago and detested the sound after listening awhile in
my system. What would be your recommended plan of action
with regards to this.

Speakers (and microphones) are a case where more complicated measurements would
be required to 'describe them' fully since they are full of such huge flaws. In
this case, listening does make sense but that's no guarantee of accuracy of
reproduction at all. Indeed many listeners like an inaccurate sound it seems.
Else no-one would buy tube/valve amplifiers !

Graham

[Jenn]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

As you sat in your listening room, listening to a musical sound recording
that you have *never* participated in, how do you know that you have
even a clue about what the original performance sounded like when
it was recorded?

You assume incorrectly that it was an individual performance. That is rarely
the
case these days.

The recording you listen to is usually an amalgam of various individual
tracks
and takes.

Graham

But it's the same hall, same players, same instruments...

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Eeyore wrote:



My point is that science holds all the answers. Ppl who believe one
brand of cable sounds 'better' than another are either simply
deluding themselves. Wire can be defined in terms of its resistance,
inductance and capacitance. That's all that matters. Provided that
your wire meets certain fairly basic criteria and every wire I've
ever met does, then it's entirely incapable of sounding different
when used for interconnects.

If that is your point then explain scientifically why my stereo
system sounded sonically better after replacing the wires that
either came with the components or those I bought (though I don't
have the product # right now) specifically from Radio Shack, Target,
and Best Buy as compared to those aftermarket brands I mentioned
earlier.

It probably didn't.



How the hell did you learn about these things? Are we talkin mind
control or something?


You however were expecting it to sound better, so it sounded better
TO YOU.

How the did you knowww whether this the case?


This effect is readily demonstrable btw.

How so, how so.


I bet I could even convince you that a cheap cable sounded better
if you believed it was actually an expensive one.


I'll bet you just plucked that out of your belly button.



Graham

[Clyde Slick]

George M. Middius a scris:

Poopster, you should reflect on the ramifications of running your mouth
off without knowing anything. Nearly every time you post on RAO, you're
revealed as a doddering, half-in-the-bag old fart who can barely


"at least" he still has a few teeth.

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
JBorg, Jr wrote:



snip



Because it sounded better to me.

Define 'better'.

Immmproved! Oopps, I mean superior.

Define 'superior'. Or 'improved'. Try something that's not simply
'your opinion' and can be heard reproducibly by other ppl.

Well give me a specific outline or scheme that is more agreeable to
you and other people and maybe we can work something out. The
last thing I want to do is displease you.

How about these: exceptional, extraordinary, grander, impressive
outstanding, splended

You seem to be missing the point. These are subjective terms. What
sounds 'exceptional' to you may sound rubbish to someone else.

Who is this goddamn someone you keep referring to ?

Anyone.

You appear to believe that what you think sounds good will sound good
to everyone else. It ain't so.


OKEY, TELL ME WHAT SHOULD I DO TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN
SOMETHING SOUND GOOD TO ME -- MUST SOUND GOOD TO YOU.

I WANT TO KNOW YOUR SPECIFIC CRITERIA WITH REGARD THIS
ALL IMPORTANT MATTER.


That's why intelligent ppl pay attention to technical specs which
are objective and don't depend on an opinion that may not match
your own.

I was concidering a pair of speakers that had excellent specs ...
some years ago and detested the sound after listening awhile in
my system. What would be your recommended plan of action
with regards to this.

Speakers (and microphones) are a case where more complicated
measurements would be required to 'describe them' fully since they
are full of such huge flaws.


Oh, they have flaws regardless of these *scientifically* base excellent
specs. ACTUALLY, I LOVE THE WAY IT SOUNDED BUT I WAS
DISSUADED 'CAUSE IT COST MORE. What would be your
recommended plan of action ENLIGHT OF THIS?

I want to be intelligent like you.


In this case, listening does make sense
but that's no guarantee of accuracy of reproduction at all. Indeed
many listeners like an inaccurate sound it seems. Else no-one would
buy tube/valve amplifiers !

Graham

[Clyde Slick]

Eeyore a scris:

That's why intelligent ppl pay attention to technical specs which are objective
and don't depend on an opinion that may not match your own.


not that tech specs would necessarily match any individual's opinion
of
how well they woould sound.

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

As you sat in your listening room, listening to a musical sound recording
that you have *never* participated in, how do you know that you have
even a clue about what the original performance sounded like when
it was recorded?

You assume incorrectly that it was an individual performance. That is rarely
the case these days.

The recording you listen to is usually an amalgam of various individual
tracks and takes.


But it's the same hall, same players, same instruments...

Not always ! Classical recording is quite different to 'pop' of course.

Graham

[Clyde Slick]

Eeyore a scris:

That's why intelligent ppl pay attention to technical specs which are objective
and don't depend on an opinion that may not match your own.


not that tech specs would necessarily match any individual's opinion
of
how well they woould sound.

[Clyde Slick]

ScottW a scris:
"Eeyore" wrote in message


I saw a neat cable that is extremely thin and adhesive backed
you can put on dry wall and paint over it...it almost disappears.
Its a little pricey...but definitely better for hiding.

but do they also hide treble, bass, inner detail, and imaging?
and various kinds of paint could affect the sound