http://homepage.mac.com/danielturek/PhotoAlbum50.html

Arny Krueger wrote:

http://homepage.mac.com/danielturek/PhotoAlbum50.html

There's a defect in the presentation.

The cassette gets dropped and survives. The Ipod doesn't.

But a cassette doesn't play itself !

A true comparative test would be to drop a cassette 'walkman' alongside
the Ipod - I expect both would break.

For example, I could drop a mini-disc and I'm sure it would be as
durable as a cassette. I wouldn't like to drop my mini-disc player /
recorder itself.


Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

http://homepage.mac.com/danielturek/PhotoAlbum50.html

There's a defect in the presentation.

The cassette gets dropped and survives. The Ipod doesn't.

But a cassette doesn't play itself !

A true comparative test would be to drop a cassette 'walkman'
alongside the Ipod - I expect both would break.

For example, I could drop a mini-disc and I'm sure it would be as
durable as a cassette. I wouldn't like to drop my mini-disc player /
recorder itself.

That's all fine and correct. However, Richman't viewpoint of the cassette
format seems to be much closer to the one where the casette plays itself.

Here's an example of his outdated thinking from earlier this year:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...mb-m19.aol.com

"As one who does a lot or home recordings from my LP/CD collection for use
in a
"high-end' automobile audio system (Nakamichi, Audio Arts, MB Quart, Monster
Cable), I've avoided even considering an indash CD player and CD recording
essentially for that reason."

Krueger's latest attack thread perpetuates his pathetic attempts to engage in
character assassination and proveably false claims:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

http://homepage.mac.com/danielturek/PhotoAlbum50.html

There's a defect in the presentation.

The cassette gets dropped and survives. The Ipod doesn't.

But a cassette doesn't play itself !

A true comparative test would be to drop a cassette 'walkman'
alongside the Ipod - I expect both would break.

For example, I could drop a mini-disc and I'm sure it would be as
durable as a cassette. I wouldn't like to drop my mini-disc player /
recorder itself.

That's all fine and correct. However, Richman't viewpoint of the cassette
format seems to be much closer to the one where the casette plays itself.

Here's an example of his outdated thinking from earlier this year:


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...00607%40mb-m19.
aol.com

"As one who does a lot or home recordings from my LP/CD collection for use
in a
"high-end' automobile audio system (Nakamichi, Audio Arts, MB Quart, Monster
Cable), I've avoided even considering an indash CD player and CD recording
essentially for that reason."








Graham, in a way, Krueger has made my job easier - i.e. of exposing him for the
character assassin and reputation as RAO's most widely despised and hated
poster. You may first want to observe several things:

(1) He has chosen to generate an attack thread on RAO with my name in the
title.
Krueger is well known and despised for doing it with many RAO members.

(2) I have taken the liberty of responding with an attack thread with his name
in the title - but notice who threw the first rock.

(3) As is his custom, Krueger has engaged in deceptive post citation. This is
one of his more nasty and fraudulent tricks. He cherry picks selected lines of
a poster while deliberaely ignoring and not reproducing the rest of the
relevant parts of the post. IOW, he quotes people out of context and then
tries to attack those out of context quotes. He's been called on this
transparent ruse many times.

Lest you think I'm making this up, here is the complete post which Krueger
cited:

From: Bruce J. Richman )
Subject: CD Quality Difference in Player
View: Complete Thread (24 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Date: 2004-02-29 10:07:31 PST


Robert Morein wrote:


"Surinder Singh" wrote in message
.. .
I play the CD's I burn in Phillipps Boombox. If I Maxell Gold CD-R it takes
20 seconds for the boom box to recognize the tracks and be ready to play it
after inserting the CD. With Memorex 52x, it takes only 2 seconds for boom
to recognize the tracks. Does it mean that Memorex is better quality? I
would have thought the gold coloration ;-) & Maxell name would make the
former a better quality?

Thanks.

Different CD disks have different reflectivities for the burn/no burn
conditions.
The CD player has a calibration function that enables it to correctly
recognize these conditions.
Depending upon the design of the player, the ability to recognize disks with
different reflectivities vary.

Only a few years ago, it was common for many brands of CD players to fail to
recognize CD-Rs, because insufficient range had been built into the
calibration function.

What you observe has more to do with the player than the disk.

Bob - would the differences in CD player calibration that you describe be the
primary reason that, so I've been told by several, automobile CD players are
very much a gamble when using CD-R's?

As one who does a lot or home recordings from my LP/CD collection for use in a
"high-end' automobile audio system (Nakamichi, Audio Arts, MB Quart, Monster
Cable), I've avoided even considering an indash CD player and CD recording
essentially for that reason. I eoulfn't want to invest in a CD automobile
player which might or might not play CD-R's. Of course, as pointed out in the
other thread on "high-end" audiophile equipment, my automobile is the proud
posessor of a Nakamichi TD-1200 Mobile "Dragon" Cassette Deck/Head Unit
(installation was a chore, since this monster comes in 2 pieces - one just for
the electronics !) which is fed a steady diet of Maxell Metal C-90's encoded
with Dolby C and careful level settings recorded on a 3-head Nakamichi deck.
I've had these products for several years, and they are extremely rugged and
the performance is exceptional.







Gold as a reflective material has a signficant advantage for archival use.
However, it is somewhat less reflective than aluminum.

As you will note, assuming you are objective and not a Krueger sockpuppet or
sycophant, there are explicit reasons for why I chose to use cassettes in my
automobile. They have nothing to do with Krueger's delusional speculations
about
"cassettes that play themselves" or comparisons with ipods.

Believe what you want. Most of the other RAO posters will tell you the same
things about Krueger that I have.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Krueger's latest attack thread perpetuates his pathetic attempts to engage
in
character assassination and proveably false claims:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

http://homepage.mac.com/danielturek/PhotoAlbum50.html

There's a defect in the presentation.

The cassette gets dropped and survives. The Ipod doesn't.

But a cassette doesn't play itself !

A true comparative test would be to drop a cassette 'walkman'
alongside the Ipod - I expect both would break.

For example, I could drop a mini-disc and I'm sure it would be as
durable as a cassette. I wouldn't like to drop my mini-disc player /
recorder itself.

That's all fine and correct. However, Richman't viewpoint of the cassette
format seems to be much closer to the one where the casette plays itself.

Here's an example of his outdated thinking from earlier this year:


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...00607%40mb-m19.
aol.com

"As one who does a lot or home recordings from my LP/CD collection for
use
in a
"high-end' automobile audio system (Nakamichi, Audio Arts, MB Quart,
Monster
Cable), I've avoided even considering an indash CD player and CD
recording
essentially for that reason."








Graham, in a way, Krueger has made my job easier - i.e. of exposing him
for the
character assassin and reputation as RAO's most widely despised and hated
poster. You may first want to observe several things:

(1) He has chosen to generate an attack thread on RAO with my name in the
title.
Krueger is well known and despised for doing it with many RAO members.

As are you. Pot, kettle.

(2) I have taken the liberty of responding with an attack thread with his
name
in the title - but notice who threw the first rock.

As if to make my point. You are that which you claim to despise. Twit.

(3) As is his custom, Krueger has engaged in deceptive post citation.
This is
one of his more nasty and fraudulent tricks.

By accurately quaoteing you?

He cherry picks selected lines of
a poster while deliberaely ignoring and not reproducing the rest of the
relevant parts of the post. IOW, he quotes people out of context and then
tries to attack those out of context quotes. He's been called on this
transparent ruse many times.

He noted that you don't have an in dash CD player for reasons tha are no
longer relevent. What a *******.

Lest you think I'm making this up, here is the complete post which Krueger
cited:

From: Bruce J. Richman )
Subject: CD Quality Difference in Player
View: Complete Thread (24 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Date: 2004-02-29 10:07:31 PST


Robert Morein wrote:


"Surinder Singh" wrote in message
.. .
I play the CD's I burn in Phillipps Boombox. If I Maxell Gold CD-R it
takes
20 seconds for the boom box to recognize the tracks and be ready to
play it
after inserting the CD. With Memorex 52x, it takes only 2 seconds for
boom
to recognize the tracks. Does it mean that Memorex is better quality?
I
would have thought the gold coloration ;-) & Maxell name would make the
former a better quality?

Thanks.

Different CD disks have different reflectivities for the burn/no burn
conditions.
The CD player has a calibration function that enables it to correctly
recognize these conditions.
Depending upon the design of the player, the ability to recognize disks
with
different reflectivities vary.

Only a few years ago, it was common for many brands of CD players to fail
to
recognize CD-Rs, because insufficient range had been built into the
calibration function.

What you observe has more to do with the player than the disk.

Bob - would the differences in CD player calibration that you describe be
the
primary reason that, so I've been told by several, automobile CD players
are
very much a gamble when using CD-R's?


It is possible to check for compatibility.

As one who does a lot or home recordings from my LP/CD collection for use
in a
"high-end' automobile audio system (Nakamichi, Audio Arts, MB Quart,
Monster
Cable), I've avoided even considering an indash CD player and CD recording
essentially for that reason.

That reason no longer exists.

I eoulfn't want to invest in a CD automobile
player which might or might not play CD-R's. Of course, as pointed out in
the
other thread on "high-end" audiophile equipment, my automobile is the
proud
posessor of a Nakamichi TD-1200 Mobile "Dragon" Cassette Deck/Head Unit
(installation was a chore, since this monster comes in 2 pieces - one just
for
the electronics !) which is fed a steady diet of Maxell Metal C-90's
encoded
with Dolby C and careful level settings recorded on a 3-head Nakamichi
deck.
I've had these products for several years, and they are extremely rugged
and
the performance is exceptional.

We get you dig antique technology.





Gold as a reflective material has a signficant advantage for archival
use.
However, it is somewhat less reflective than aluminum.

As you will note, assuming you are objective and not a Krueger sockpuppet
or
sycophant, there are explicit reasons for why I chose to use cassettes in
my
automobile.

Sloth, stupidity, cheapness.

They have nothing to do with Krueger's delusional speculations
about
"cassettes that play themselves" or comparisons with ipods.

Believe what you want. Most of the other RAO posters will tell you the s
ame
things about Krueger that I have.

They will also note that you are prone to tantrums and doing the usenet
equivilent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming at the top of
your lungs, lalalalalalalalalalalala.


Bruce J. Richman
AKA Dr. Quckenbush

Michael McStupid decides to reenter the world of unprovoked pesonal attacks:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Krueger's latest attack thread perpetuates his pathetic attempts to engage
in
character assassination and proveably false claims:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

http://homepage.mac.com/danielturek/PhotoAlbum50.html

There's a defect in the presentation.

The cassette gets dropped and survives. The Ipod doesn't.

But a cassette doesn't play itself !

A true comparative test would be to drop a cassette 'walkman'
alongside the Ipod - I expect both would break.

For example, I could drop a mini-disc and I'm sure it would be as
durable as a cassette. I wouldn't like to drop my mini-disc player /
recorder itself.

That's all fine and correct. However, Richman't viewpoint of the cassette
format seems to be much closer to the one where the casette plays itself.

Here's an example of his outdated thinking from earlier this year:


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...00607%40mb-m19.
aol.com

"As one who does a lot or home recordings from my LP/CD collection for
use
in a
"high-end' automobile audio system (Nakamichi, Audio Arts, MB Quart,
Monster
Cable), I've avoided even considering an indash CD player and CD
recording
essentially for that reason."








Graham, in a way, Krueger has made my job easier - i.e. of exposing him
for the
character assassin and reputation as RAO's most widely despised and hated
poster. You may first want to observe several things:

(1) He has chosen to generate an attack thread on RAO with my name in the
title.
Krueger is well known and despised for doing it with many RAO members.

As are you. Pot, kettle.


Only in the psychotic delusions you spew occasionally on this NG.

As usual, you have no evidence to support your bull****. However, threads such
as "Have You Had A Bad Krueger Experience" are ample testimony to Krueger's
almost universal odiousness towards many. You are one of the very few deluded
cretins that support his attacks on others. Monkey see, monkey do.


(2) I have taken the liberty of responding with an attack thread with his
name
in the title - but notice who threw the first rock.

As if to make my point. You are that which you claim to despise. Twit.


There is a difference between unprovoked personal attack threads and
retaliation agaisnt same. Asshole.


(3) As is his custom, Krueger has engaged in deceptive post citation.
This is
one of his more nasty and fraudulent tricks.

By accurately quaoteing you?


By lying just as you have done now and in the past. Your endorsement of
deceptive posting tactics is duly noted.




He cherry picks selected lines of
a poster while deliberaely ignoring and not reproducing the rest of the
relevant parts of the post. IOW, he quotes people out of context and then
tries to attack those out of context quotes. He's been called on this
transparent ruse many times.

He noted that you don't have an in dash CD player for reasons tha are no
longer relevent. What a *******.


Bull****. He deliberately chose to quote one section of a much longer post and
in so doing, quoted me out of context for the sole purpose of engaging in ad
hominem attacks. You know all about that sort of thing, don't you?





Lest you think I'm making this up, here is the complete post which Krueger
cited:

From: Bruce J. Richman )
Subject: CD Quality Difference in Player
View: Complete Thread (24 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Date: 2004-02-29 10:07:31 PST


Robert Morein wrote:


"Surinder Singh" wrote in message
.. .
I play the CD's I burn in Phillipps Boombox. If I Maxell Gold CD-R it
takes
20 seconds for the boom box to recognize the tracks and be ready to
play it
after inserting the CD. With Memorex 52x, it takes only 2 seconds for
boom
to recognize the tracks. Does it mean that Memorex is better quality?
I
would have thought the gold coloration ;-) & Maxell name would make the
former a better quality?

Thanks.

Different CD disks have different reflectivities for the burn/no burn
conditions.
The CD player has a calibration function that enables it to correctly
recognize these conditions.
Depending upon the design of the player, the ability to recognize disks
with
different reflectivities vary.

Only a few years ago, it was common for many brands of CD players to fail
to
recognize CD-Rs, because insufficient range had been built into the
calibration function.

What you observe has more to do with the player than the disk.

Bob - would the differences in CD player calibration that you describe be
the
primary reason that, so I've been told by several, automobile CD players
are
very much a gamble when using CD-R's?


It is possible to check for compatibility.


With cassettes, that's not even a problem.


As one who does a lot or home recordings from my LP/CD collection for use
in a
"high-end' automobile audio system (Nakamichi, Audio Arts, MB Quart,
Monster
Cable), I've avoided even considering an indash CD player and CD recording
essentially for that reason.

That reason no longer exists.


Prove it. With particular reference to CDRW;s.




I eoulfn't want to invest in a CD automobile
player which might or might not play CD-R's. Of course, as pointed out in
the
other thread on "high-end" audiophile equipment, my automobile is the
proud
posessor of a Nakamichi TD-1200 Mobile "Dragon" Cassette Deck/Head Unit
(installation was a chore, since this monster comes in 2 pieces - one just
for
the electronics !) which is fed a steady diet of Maxell Metal C-90's
encoded
with Dolby C and careful level settings recorded on a 3-head Nakamichi
deck.
I've had these products for several years, and they are extremely rugged
and
the performance is exceptional.

We get you dig antique technology.



You and Krueger rarely get anything other than the need to generate unprovoked
personal attacks. Such as you're doing here.





Gold as a reflective material has a signficant advantage for archival
use.
However, it is somewhat less reflective than aluminum.

As you will note, assuming you are objective and not a Krueger sockpuppet
or
sycophant, there are explicit reasons for why I chose to use cassettes in
my
automobile.



Delusional rantings of McStupid snipped because of obvious false content


They have nothing to do with Krueger's delusional speculations
about
"cassettes that play themselves" or comparisons with ipods.

Believe what you want. Most of the other RAO posters will tell you the s
ame
things about Krueger that I have.

They will also note that you are prone to tantrums and doing the usenet
equivilent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming at the top of
your lungs, lalalalalalalalalalalala.




Prove it, asshole. Your projections of your own delusional hatemongering and
psychotic ravings about others explains your devotion to Krueger.

Let's take a poll, Mc****head. Are you willing to submit to a frequency count
amongst current RAO posters re. your current reputation vs. mine on this
esteemed NG? And shall we add Krueger and Ferstler into the "voting" for good
measure?

Not that any of this really matters, except to hatemongers such as yourself,
who have a 7 year history of making libelous false claims about those with
whom you disagree.


Bruce J. Richman

















Bruce J. Richman

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

http://homepage.mac.com/danielturek/PhotoAlbum50.html

There's a defect in the presentation.

The cassette gets dropped and survives. The Ipod doesn't.

But a cassette doesn't play itself !

A true comparative test would be to drop a cassette 'walkman' alongside
the Ipod - I expect both would break.

For example, I could drop a mini-disc and I'm sure it would be as
durable as a cassette. I wouldn't like to drop my mini-disc player /
recorder itself.


OTOH, with casette, you can drop the medium without
disturbing the player, while with ipod, you drop the
media, you lose the player, too.
Same goes for loss, you losa a casette, you lose
on album worht of material, you misplace the iPod you lose
all your media, and the player, to boot.

I don't advocate one or the other, I am just indicating
to you the other side of the coin.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



OTOH, with cassette, you can drop the medium without
disturbing the player, while with ipod, you drop the
media, you lose the player, too.

Your grasp of the obvious is occasionally up to minimum standards, Art.

Same goes for loss, you losa a cassette, you lose
on album worth of material, you misplace the iPod you lose
all your media, and the player, to boot.

There are a few offsetting advantages, right?

I don't advocate one or the other, I am just indicating
to you the other side of the coin.

As does common knowledge.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



OTOH, with cassette, you can drop the medium without
disturbing the player, while with ipod, you drop the
media, you lose the player, too.

Your grasp of the obvious is occasionally up to minimum standards, Art.

Same goes for loss, you losa a cassette, you lose
on album worth of material, you misplace the iPod you lose
all your media, and the player, to boot.

There are a few offsetting advantages, right?

I don't advocate one or the other, I am just indicating
to you the other side of the coin.

As does common knowledge.


As was your original reference.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


As was your original reference.

Sorry that you didn't see the humor, Art.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



OTOH, with cassette, you can drop the medium without
disturbing the player, while with ipod, you drop the
media, you lose the player, too.

Your grasp of the obvious is occasionally up to minimum standards, Art.

Same goes for loss, you losa a cassette, you lose
on album worth of material, you misplace the iPod you lose
all your media, and the player, to boot.

There are a few offsetting advantages, right?

I don't advocate one or the other, I am just indicating
to you the other side of the coin.

As does common knowledge.


As was your original reference.










I forgot to mention, in my original response to Krueger's pathetically sad and
transparent attempt to misrepresent my views on cassettes vs. CD's - in his
attack thread baring my name - a rather salient fact of life:

I don't know of two many car audio systems that feature an ipod tied in to a
reasonably high-end mobile audio system.
Since the only cassettes I ever record are used *only* for playback in my car's
audio system, his comments about ipods and cassettes are irrelevant.



Bruce J. Richman

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

A true comparative test would be to drop a cassette 'walkman' alongside
the Ipod - I expect both would break.

For example, I could drop a mini-disc and I'm sure it would be as
durable as a cassette. I wouldn't like to drop my mini-disc player /
recorder itself.

OTOH, with casette, you can drop the medium without
disturbing the player,

Sure you can - but that's not a like for like.

while with ipod, you drop the
media, you lose the player, too.

Agreed.

Same goes for loss, you losa a casette, you lose
on album worht of material, you misplace the iPod you lose
all your media, and the player, to boot.

Also true. Maybe that's one reason why Ipods don't appeal to me.

I don't advocate one or the other, I am just indicating
to you the other side of the coin.

I guess before long we will have solid state memory cards capable of storing
enough music to keep us happy.

Nearly there already - just a question of capacity.

In which case you'll simply insert your CF card or whatever and play the
stored data.

Rotating media is certainly on the way out but it has played a remarkably
persistent role over the years.


Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message



I guess before long we will have solid state memory cards capable of
storing enough music to keep us happy.

I think we're pretty much there - its just that the price ain't right, yet.

I find that a 20 GB NJB3 loaded with .wav files does the job for me. That
suggests that 2-4 GB loaded with ideally perceptually coded files would do
the job. The $700 price seems to be damping people's enthusiasm for
running right out and buying them at the moment.

Common wisdom is that memory price drops about 50% every 18 months. That
suggests to me that in about 3 years...

Clyde wrote:


"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

http://homepage.mac.com/danielturek/PhotoAlbum50.html

There's a defect in the presentation.

The cassette gets dropped and survives. The Ipod doesn't.

But a cassette doesn't play itself !

A true comparative test would be to drop a cassette 'walkman' alongside
the Ipod - I expect both would break.

For example, I could drop a mini-disc and I'm sure it would be as
durable as a cassette. I wouldn't like to drop my mini-disc player /
recorder itself.


OTOH, with casette, you can drop the medium without
disturbing the player, while with ipod, you drop the
media, you lose the player, too.
Same goes for loss, you losa a casette, you lose
on album worht of material, you misplace the iPod you lose
all your media, and the player, to boot.

I don't advocate one or the other, I am just indicating
to you the other side of the coin.










As posted in my response to Krueger's latest attack thread, my comments have
nothing to do with iPods. I use cassettes in my car because (a) I have a
superior head end (Nakamichi Mobile Dragon), and (b) I don't have to worry
about incompatibility between different brands of CDRW's and car CD players.
Incompatibility problems have been frequently reported, (c) I like the idea of
being able to get more than 2 complete LP albums or about 1.5 CDs on one
cassette.

Krueger''s pathetic attempts to quote me out of context are illustrated in the
huge majority of the post which he deliberately avoided publishing:

From: Bruce J. Richman )
Subject: CD Quality Difference in Player
View: Complete Thread (24 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Date: 2004-02-29 10:07:31 PST


Robert Morein wrote:


"Surinder Singh" wrote in message
.. .
I play the CD's I burn in Phillipps Boombox. If I Maxell Gold CD-R it takes
20 seconds for the boom box to recognize the tracks and be ready to play it
after inserting the CD. With Memorex 52x, it takes only 2 seconds for boom
to recognize the tracks. Does it mean that Memorex is better quality? I
would have thought the gold coloration ;-) & Maxell name would make the
former a better quality?

Thanks.

Different CD disks have different reflectivities for the burn/no burn
conditions.
The CD player has a calibration function that enables it to correctly
recognize these conditions.
Depending upon the design of the player, the ability to recognize disks with
different reflectivities vary.

Only a few years ago, it was common for many brands of CD players to fail to
recognize CD-Rs, because insufficient range had been built into the
calibration function.

What you observe has more to do with the player than the disk.

Bob - would the differences in CD player calibration that you describe be the
primary reason that, so I've been told by several, automobile CD players are
very much a gamble when using CD-R's?

As one who does a lot or home recordings from my LP/CD collection for use in a
"high-end' automobile audio system (Nakamichi, Audio Arts, MB Quart, Monster
Cable), I've avoided even considering an indash CD player and CD recording
essentially for that reason. I eoulfn't want to invest in a CD automobile
player which might or might not play CD-R's. Of course, as pointed out in the
other thread on "high-end" audiophile equipment, my automobile is the proud
posessor of a Nakamichi TD-1200 Mobile "Dragon" Cassette Deck/Head Unit
(installation was a chore, since this monster comes in 2 pieces - one just for
the electronics !) which is fed a steady diet of Maxell Metal C-90's encoded
with Dolby C and careful level settings recorded on a 3-head Nakamichi deck.
I've had these products for several years, and they are extremely rugged and
the performance is exceptional.







Gold as a reflective material has a signficant advantage for archival use.
However, it is somewhat less reflective than aluminum.


Just more of the same old, same old from Krueger - deceptive deletions, attack
threads with an RAO posters name in the title, and of course, a pathetic
attempt to curry favor with an alleged newbie named "Pooh Bear" who claims
Krueger is not a hatemonger.

LOL !!!



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


Krueger''s pathetic attempts to quote me out of context are
illustrated in the huge majority of the post which he deliberately
avoided publishing:

From: Bruce J. Richman )
Subject: CD Quality Difference in Player
Date: 2004-02-29 10:07:31 PST

Robert Morein wrote:

Different CD disks have different reflectivities for the burn/no burn
conditions.
The CD player has a calibration function that enables it to correctly
recognize these conditions.
Depending upon the design of the player, the ability to recognize
disks with different reflectivities vary.

Only a few years ago, it was common for many brands of CD players to
fail to recognize CD-Rs, because insufficient range had been built
into the calibration function.

What you observe has more to do with the player than the disk.

Bob - would the differences in CD player calibration that you
describe be the primary reason that, so I've been told by several,
automobile CD players are very much a gamble when using CD-R's?


What Bruce, this nth repeat of the same misapprehensions, in the face of
Morein's (correct) counter evidence, changes things?

What's unclear about

"Only a few years ago, it was common for many brands of CD players to fail
to recognize CD-Rs, because insufficient range had been built
into the calibration function."

The obvious meaning is that car player problems with CD-Rs were once a
problem, but they no longer are.

Just another example of your outdated thinking, Bruce.

Given how hateful and libellous your comments about me are Bruce, I could
get some satisfaction out of knowing that you still inflict sonic violence
on your ears with noisy, distorted cassettes. Instead, it just makes me feel
sad because of all of the evidence that this is how you live your life - in
the past. Your claim that you are a published author because of an
off-topic paper you had published in the late 60's is another example of
this. Your thinking about audio seems to be very late-1960s. It appears
that your awareness of audio stopped developing at about the same time.

Graham wrote:


Arny Krueger wrote:

http://homepage.mac.com/danielturek/PhotoAlbum50.html

There's a defect in the presentation.

The cassette gets dropped and survives. The Ipod doesn't.

But a cassette doesn't play itself !

A true comparative test would be to drop a cassette 'walkman' alongside
the Ipod - I expect both would break.

For example, I could drop a mini-disc and I'm sure it would be as
durable as a cassette. I wouldn't like to drop my mini-disc player /
recorder itself.


Graham












Since I've never made any comparisons concerning ipods and cassettes, all of
this wasted effort and your supportive post for Krueger is irrelevant.

I'm sure he;ll appreciate your approval though. He doesn't get much of it from
most of RAO's participants.



Bruce J. Richman