I submit it's because people realized they had little to offer. They
never slammed products, they had few or no DIY projects and they always
repeated the new-is-best and the-authorities-are always-right lines.
Who wants to pay to read such tommyrot?

wrote in message
oups.com...
I submit it's because people realized they had little to offer. They
never slammed products, they had few or no DIY projects and they always
repeated the new-is-best and the-authorities-are always-right lines.
Who wants to pay to read such tommyrot?

Every subscription magazine is a business, with a business model.
The direct reason is that they went broke.

Although the fear of loss of advertising revenue is one reason why products
are not trashed as often as they should be, another, more ethical reason
would be the reluctance of the publisher to be responsible for business
failures.

I once had a brief email discussion with Atkinson about the absence of
multichannel reproduction in Stereophile. He responded that the readers
didn't want that. At the time, I didn't understand, but now I do. Most hifi
nuts tend to be a bit obsessive and rigid in their thinking. If more modern
content were incorporated, it would actually have a negative effect.
Stereophile comforts, coddles, and reinforces behavior patterns. Catholic
tastes do not coexist well under the same cover. If you want to read about
something outside the box, publishing dictates that you find another "box",
ie., magazine.

In particular, it seems to me that the appearance of Stereophile as a
product-promotion is not accidental. It has to be that way. When John
Atkinson published independently, he could have done otherwise. Now that
Stereophile is part of a larger publishing entity, there is no alternative.
The requirement is that Stereophile MAKE MONEY. As an example of the dgree
of pervasive control, Atkinson noted in one issue with some pleasure that
additional editorial pages had been allocated.

I recall, as a specific example of your point, a very erudite Stereophile
article on speaker cables, with comprehensive measurements, analysis of
materials and geometry. However, one choice was conspicuously absent: the
doubling or tripling of common zipcord.

Yet Stereophile is the only major survivor. Although I applaud Atkinson's
excellent measurements and technical analysis, my personal favorite was
Audio, as I feel the content was more related to merit than appearance and
marketing. Yet there came a time, in the early 90's, when the industry began
to decline as consumer dollars fled to other amusements. It no longer became
viable to service the merit of sound reproduction; there simply wasn't
enough money in it. Other factors, such as appearance, exclusivity, and
consequent high cost, allowed for favorable business models.

This trend continues. I would guess that half or more of the cost of high
end audio equipment is in the cabinet, and capacitors with "name brand"
recognition. Even that was not enough to prevent market saturation -- hence
the current shift to tubes. Tubes appear even where they have no effect, as
in the input stage of solid state amplifiers. It must be there, because it
sounds different, or because it glows.

None of the above should be construed to be an endorsement, in any way, of
anything Arny Krueger or Howard Ferstler have said or believe. Arny believes
that PA amplifiers are the "final solution". This "dumbing down" of audio,
by men with defective hearing, is a tragic sideshow. Although I do not agree
with tube lovers, I do believe that the limits and variations of audio
reproduction are subtle and still distant from complete characterization.

Much tube-ism is in fact total fraud. Most tube equipment is mediocre
just as most solid state equipment is, although tube mediocrity is more
euphonic and if built in the old manner easier to fix. While I don't
totally eschew PCBs in tube equipment many PCB built tube units are a
total cocksucker to service, unnecessarily so.

Good solid state is perfectly satisfactory, personally I often prefer
tubes because I find them more fun to fool with. Modern solid state
commercial PA amps are actually usually well built and documented and
quite serviceworthy, many High End solid state boxes are ostensibly
factory service only. The PA amps are not designed in most cases for
domestic service, some will do reasonably well some will not. Whether
PA or home oriented, high power amps with low quiescent currrent draw
usually have sonic issues at very low power levels. Power amps have a
zone they work well in, just like engines or light bulbs.

PA amps are not always a bad choice for home use. Sometimes they are
cost effective and satisfactory. However situations where they are the
best possible choice are not al that common. At least among the audio
buffs! Teenage heffalumps who want loud hard rock in the house on a
beer (Old Mil at that!) budget, sure, but do we want to encourage that?
We already have a generation and a half of people whose hearing is
shot. I am against high SPL high duty cycle music whether it's rock,
hip-hop, or whatever.

We all have our prejudices, technical and otherwise, and that doesn't
make them right for everyone all the time. Some people really like
dipole speakers, they have certain qualities: I'm sort of a horn buff.
But Arny is just a goof, and he really thinks he's the ****. No one
cares or is going to care about his ABX box and his soundcard reviews
are ridiculous. For one thing they're mostly of obsolete ones. Also he
doesn't talk about driver issues especially for Linux users or MacOS.
And does he review/test cards specifically built for pro use in
broadcast ansd other demanding markets? Finally how can we verify his
kmetrology is not grossly out of cal?

wrote:

I submit it's because people realized they had little to offer. They
never slammed products, they had few or no DIY projects and they always
repeated the new-is-best and the-authorities-are always-right lines.
Who wants to pay to read such tommyrot?

People have just lost interest in audio, a hobby that was
really on fire a few decades back.

These days, it is home theater that dominates. Just go down
to Best Buy or Circuit City for the proof. You will find
borderline high-end TV monitors in the 2 to 5 grand
categories. Yet, when you go over to the audio departments
in the same stores you will be lucky to find receivers or
speakers costing more than $400 and you will not find any
high-end gear at all.

Another reason is that all the really smart geeks have
switched to computers.

Howard Ferstler

Robert Morein wrote:

(snips)

None of the above should be construed to be an endorsement, in any way, of
anything Arny Krueger or Howard Ferstler have said or believe.

Actually, some of what you said makes sense.

Arny believes
that PA amplifiers are the "final solution".

I rather doubt this, and I also rather doubt that you really
believe what you wrote.

This "dumbing down" of audio,
by men with defective hearing, is a tragic sideshow.

This is a typically preposterous statement. The tweako
response to an objective approach is that the objective
individual has defective hearing. Heck, it is that objective
individual who trusts his ears enough to favor DBT
comparisons. On the other hand, the golden-ear types are so
unsure of their hearing that they dare not chance a DBT. If
they do give it a try and "flunk," the test is blamed.

Although I do not agree
with tube lovers, I do believe that the limits and variations of audio
reproduction are subtle and still distant from complete characterization.

In that case, the only alternatives are DBT comparisons
which will settle the issue.

Howard Ferstler

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:

(snips)

None of the above should be construed to be an endorsement, in any way,
of
anything Arny Krueger or Howard Ferstler have said or believe.

Actually, some of what you said makes sense.

Arny believes
that PA amplifiers are the "final solution".

I rather doubt this, and I also rather doubt that you really
believe what you wrote.

The rest of Howard's post is so offensive, I had to clip it.
Reading one of Howard's post feels like being trapped in a drum booth.

Robert Morein wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:

(snips)

None of the above should be construed to be an endorsement, in any way,
of
anything Arny Krueger or Howard Ferstler have said or believe.

Actually, some of what you said makes sense.

Arny believes
that PA amplifiers are the "final solution".

I rather doubt this, and I also rather doubt that you really
believe what you wrote.

The rest of Howard's post is so offensive, I had to clip it.

Ignorance is bliss for tweakos.

Reading one of Howard's post feels like being trapped in a drum booth.

Only if you are tweako freako, who, ironically, does not
trust his own hearing and has to know what device is playing
to render a judgment.

Howard Ferstler

Robert Morein said:

The rest of Howard's post is so offensive, I had to clip it.
Reading one of Howard's post feels like being trapped in a drum booth.

Et maintenant tu vois que tous Les Autres habitent l'enfer, n'est-ce pas?

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


Robert Morein said:

The rest of Howard's post is so offensive, I had to clip it.
Reading one of Howard's post feels like being trapped in a drum booth.

Et maintenant tu vois que tous Les Autres habitent l'enfer, n'est-ce pas?

Chacun de nous les vies dans un enfer de sa propre fabrication.

Robert Morein said:

The rest of Howard's post is so offensive, I had to clip it.
Reading one of Howard's post feels like being trapped in a drum booth.

Et maintenant tu vois que tous Les Autres habitent l'enfer, n'est-ce pas?

Chacun de nous les vies dans un enfer de sa propre fabrication.

I was speaking real french. You're flattening yourself in ignominy.

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


Robert Morein said:

The rest of Howard's post is so offensive, I had to clip it.
Reading one of Howard's post feels like being trapped in a drum
booth.

Et maintenant tu vois que tous Les Autres habitent l'enfer, n'est-ce
pas?

Chacun de nous les vies dans un enfer de sa propre fabrication.

I was speaking real french. You're flattening yourself in ignominy.

Vous parliez vrai français ? Mais pas aussi bien que Voltaire a écrit.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I submit it's because people realized they had little to offer. They
never slammed products, they had few or no DIY projects and they always
repeated the new-is-best and the-authorities-are always-right lines.
Who wants to pay to read such tommyrot?

Well actually, they used to give some negative reviews. Or at least "damn
with faint praise", so you could figure it out. Having said that, it well
might be that just about all "high end" gear or even top end mass market
gear is just pretty darn good nowadays. Even Absolute Sound raves over some
Sony models.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

Yet Stereophile is the only major survivor.

Huh? The Absolute Sound. Stereophile is now viewed as a cheapy. It now
costs a buck an issue, and you can sometimes get much better deals than
that. Of course, that's usually the perceived value too. Maybe they make
money, I don't know. But when asked why I thought TAS was now a better
magazine, I couldn't resist using a quote from Stereophile - "there's just
more there there".

Robert Morein said:

I was speaking real french. You're flattening yourself in ignominy.

Vous parliez vrai français ? Mais pas aussi bien que Voltaire a écrit.

You have ze, how we say, langue en fourchette. A bas le poseur!

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


Robert Morein said:

I was speaking real french. You're flattening yourself in ignominy.

Vous parliez vrai français ? Mais pas aussi bien que Voltaire a écrit.

You have ze, how we say, langue en fourchette. A bas le poseur!

De diable vous parlent-ils ?

Howard Ferstler wrote:
wrote:
snip


Another reason is that all the really smart geeks have
switched to computers.

For the most part computers are a solved problem. You buy a bizarro
looking case and power supply, an Asus motherboard, a sound card and
video card, and load Red Hat. Or the new $499 iMac. It's not like the
S100 days.

Howard Ferstler wrote
Robert Morein wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote
Robert Morein wrote:





(snips)

None of the above should be construed to be an endorsement, in
any way, of anything Arny Krueger or Howard Ferstler have said or
believe.

Actually, some of what you said makes sense.

Arny believes
that PA amplifiers are the "final solution".

I rather doubt this, and I also rather doubt that you really
believe what you wrote.

The rest of Howard's post is so offensive, I had to clip it.

Ignorance is bliss for tweakos.

Reading one of Howard's post feels like being trapped in a drum booth.


Only if you are tweako freako, who, ironically, does not
trust his own hearing and has to know what device is playing
to render a judgment.


How would you render conscionable judgement if you don't know what
device is playing doofus ?


Howard Ferstler

jeffc wrote
Robert Morein wrote





Yet Stereophile is the only major survivor.

Huh? The Absolute Sound. Stereophile is now viewed as a cheapy. It now
costs a buck an issue, and you can sometimes get much better deals than
that. Of course, that's usually the perceived value too. Maybe they make
money, I don't know. But when asked why I thought TAS was now a better
magazine, I couldn't resist using a quote from Stereophile - "there's just
more there there".


Your 'commentary' reminds me of this guy below. I couldn't tell
what is said about what.


The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing



Glass Box
You know, it's the old glass box at the—
At the gas station,
Where you're using those little things
Trying to pick up the prize,
And you can't find it.
It's—

And it's all these arms are going down in there,
And so you keep dropping it
And picking it up again and moving it,
But—

Some of you are probably too young to remember those—
Those glass boxes,
But—

But they used to have them
At all the gas stations
When I was a kid.

—Dec. 6, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing

A Confession
Once in a while,
I'm standing here, doing something.
And I think,
"What in the world am I doing here?"
It's a big surprise.

—May 16, 2001, interview with the New York Times

The Digital Revolution
Oh my goodness gracious,
What you can buy off the Internet
In terms of overhead photography!

A trained ape can know an awful lot
Of what is going on in this world,
Just by punching on his mouse
For a relatively modest cost!

—June 9, 2001, following European trip

The Situation
Things will not be necessarily continuous.
The fact that they are something other than perfectly continuous
Ought not to be characterized as a pause.
There will be some things that people will see.
There will be some things that people won't see.
And life goes on.

—Oct. 12, 2001, Department of Defense news briefing

Clarity
I think what you'll find,
I think what you'll find is,
Whatever it is we do substantively,
There will be near-perfect clarity
As to what it is.

And it will be known,
And it will be known to the Congress,
And it will be known to you,
Probably before we decide it,
But it will be known.

—Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

http://slate.msn.com/id/2081042/

-----

JB

Robert Morein wrote
calcerise wrote



I submit it's because people realized they had little to offer. They
never slammed products, they had few or no DIY projects and they always
repeated the new-is-best and the-authorities-are always-right lines.
Who wants to pay to read such tommyrot?

Every subscription magazine is a business, with a business model.
The direct reason is that they went broke.

Although the fear of loss of advertising revenue is one reason why products
are not trashed as often as they should be, another, more ethical reason
would be the reluctance of the publisher to be responsible for business
failures.

I once had a brief email discussion with Atkinson about the absence of
multichannel reproduction in Stereophile. He responded that the readers
didn't want that. At the time, I didn't understand, but now I do. Most hifi
nuts tend to be a bit obsessive and rigid in their thinking. If more modern
content were incorporated, it would actually have a negative effect.
Stereophile comforts, coddles, and reinforces behavior patterns. Catholic
tastes do not coexist well under the same cover. If you want to read about
something outside the box, publishing dictates that you find another "box",
ie., magazine.

In particular, it seems to me that the appearance of Stereophile as a
product-promotion is not accidental. It has to be that way. When John
Atkinson published independently, he could have done otherwise. Now that
Stereophile is part of a larger publishing entity, there is no alternative.
The requirement is that Stereophile MAKE MONEY. As an example of the
degree of pervasive control, Atkinson noted in one issue with some pleasure
that additional editorial pages had been allocated.

It seem a foregone conclusion with you that SP's sole porpose is to make
money.


I recall, as a specific example of your point, a very erudite Stereophile
article on speaker cables, with comprehensive measurements, analysis of
materials and geometry. However, one choice was conspicuously absent: the
doubling or tripling of common zipcord.

Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc. promote
using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even though they're not
commonly use as such?



Yet Stereophile is the only major survivor. Although I applaud Atkinson's
excellent measurements and technical analysis, my personal favorite was
Audio, as I feel the content was more related to merit than appearance and
marketing. Yet there came a time, in the early 90's, when the industry began
to decline as consumer dollars fled to other amusements. It no longer became
viable to service the merit of sound reproduction; there simply wasn't
enough money in it. Other factors, such as appearance, exclusivity, and
consequent high cost, allowed for favorable business models.

This trend continues. I would guess that half or more of the cost of high
end audio equipment is in the cabinet, and capacitors with "name brand"
recognition. Even that was not enough to prevent market saturation -- hence
the current shift to tubes. Tubes appear even where they have no effect, as
in the input stage of solid state amplifiers. It must be there, because it
sounds different, or because it glows.

It would be enlightening a bit if you separate facts from opinion on this
post.


None of the above should be construed to be an endorsement, in any way, of
anything Arny Krueger or Howard Ferstler have said or believe. Arny believes
that PA amplifiers are the "final solution". This "dumbing down" of audio,
by men with defective hearing, is a tragic sideshow. Although I do not agree
with tube lovers, I do believe that the limits and variations of audio
reproduction are subtle and still distant from complete characterization.

"EddieM" wrote in message
m...

Robert Morein wrote
calcerise wrote



I submit it's because people realized they had little to offer. They
never slammed products, they had few or no DIY projects and they always
repeated the new-is-best and the-authorities-are always-right lines.
Who wants to pay to read such tommyrot?

Every subscription magazine is a business, with a business model.
The direct reason is that they went broke.

Although the fear of loss of advertising revenue is one reason why
products
are not trashed as often as they should be, another, more ethical reason
would be the reluctance of the publisher to be responsible for business
failures.

I once had a brief email discussion with Atkinson about the absence of
multichannel reproduction in Stereophile. He responded that the readers
didn't want that. At the time, I didn't understand, but now I do. Most
hifi
nuts tend to be a bit obsessive and rigid in their thinking. If more
modern
content were incorporated, it would actually have a negative effect.
Stereophile comforts, coddles, and reinforces behavior patterns.
Catholic
tastes do not coexist well under the same cover. If you want to read
about
something outside the box, publishing dictates that you find another
"box",
ie., magazine.

In particular, it seems to me that the appearance of Stereophile as a
product-promotion is not accidental. It has to be that way. When John
Atkinson published independently, he could have done otherwise. Now that
Stereophile is part of a larger publishing entity, there is no
alternative.
The requirement is that Stereophile MAKE MONEY. As an example of the
degree of pervasive control, Atkinson noted in one issue with some
pleasure
that additional editorial pages had been allocated.

It seem a foregone conclusion with you that SP's sole porpose is to make
money.

I didn't say what the "porpose" of Stereophile is.
Did you by any chance mean to write "purpose" when you wrote "porpose"?
Or did you mean "porpoise", the aquatic mammal?
You also said "It seem".
You confuse with grammatical errors. Did you intend to write "It seems..."
?

I did not use either word. I said "REQUIREMENT".
It is a requirement that Stereophile will make money, or it will cease to be
published.
This does not exclude the possibility that John Atkinson may have other
motivations, such as a love of audio, and a great job.


I recall, as a specific example of your point, a very erudite
Stereophile
article on speaker cables, with comprehensive measurements, analysis of
materials and geometry. However, one choice was conspicuously absent:
the
doubling or tripling of common zipcord.

Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc. promote
using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even though they're
not
commonly use as such?

Zipcord is very commonly used as speaker cable. It is commonly said that
multiple runs of zipcord make very good speaker cable. This may or may not
be true. It is worthy of investigation. Considering the popularity of
zipcord as an alternative to high-priced proprietary formulations, I would
have liked to see how it measured.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


Zipcord is very commonly used as speaker cable. It is commonly said
that multiple runs of zipcord make very good speaker cable. This may
or may not be true. It is worthy of investigation. Considering the
popularity of zipcord as an alternative to high-priced proprietary
formulations, I would have liked to see how it measured.


Please see http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/cableInteractions.pdf

Robert Morein wrote
EddieM wrote
Robert Morein wrote
calcerise wrote



I submit it's because people realized they had little to offer. They
never slammed products, they had few or no DIY projects and they
always repeated the new-is-best and the-authorities-are always-right
lines. Who wants to pay to read such tommyrot?

Every subscription magazine is a business, with a business model.
The direct reason is that they went broke.

Although the fear of loss of advertising revenue is one reason why
products are not trashed as often as they should be, another, more
ethical reason would be the reluctance of the publisher to be responsible
for business failures.

I once had a brief email discussion with Atkinson about the absence of
multichannel reproduction in Stereophile. He responded that the readers
didn't want that. At the time, I didn't understand, but now I do. Most
hifi nuts tend to be a bit obsessive and rigid in their thinking. If more
modern content were incorporated, it would actually have a negative
effect. Stereophile comforts, coddles, and reinforces behavior patterns.
Catholic tastes do not coexist well under the same cover. If you want
to read about something outside the box, publishing dictates that you
find another "box", ie., magazine.

In particular, it seems to me that the appearance of Stereophile as a
product-promotion is not accidental. It has to be that way. When John
Atkinson published independently, he could have done otherwise. Now
that Stereophile is part of a larger publishing entity, there is no
alternative. The requirement is that Stereophile MAKE MONEY. As an
example of the degree of pervasive control, Atkinson noted in one issue
with some pleasure that additional editorial pages had been allocated.

It seem a foregone conclusion with you that SP's sole porpose is to make
money.

I didn't say what the "porpose" of Stereophile is.
Did you by any chance mean to write "purpose" when you wrote "porpose"?
Or did you mean "porpoise", the aquatic mammal?
You also said "It seem".
You confuse with grammatical errors. Did you intend to write "It seems..."
?

I did not use either word. I said "REQUIREMENT".
It is a requirement that Stereophile will make money, or it will cease to be
published.
This does not exclude the possibility that John Atkinson may have other
motivations, such as a love of audio, and a great job.


You said that since organization such as Stereophile is now part of a larger
entity, and that there's "no alternative" but to make money. Whether that is
their sole requirement or not I'm not sure base on your talk. You said that
every subscription magazine is a business and that a direct consequence
for failing to follow a business model is that they will go broke. You also
said that their fear of losing advertising revenue is one reason products are
not trashed as often, and you gratuitously supported this by adding that for
an
even more ethical reason, their publisher is reluctant to be responsible for
business failures of HE mfr.

Further, you enunciate that Stereophile comforts, coddles, and reinforces
the rigid thinking pattern of their readers as a result of their reluctance to
delve away from this business model you enthuse about for fear that they
will go broke -- as they have no alternative but to make money, according to
you.

Can you separate your facts and fiction from these ?


In your reply above, you said that it is a requirement for organization like
Stereophile to make money, or it will cease to be published and therefore
must adhere strictly to this bus. model. BUT yet, you now say that its editor
may have other motivations, such as a love for audio, and a great job.


Do you mean to say to do a great job in succumbing to the obsessiveness
of most of these hi-fi nuts for ... the love of audios ?

Could you share your wisdom on these?



I recall, as a specific example of your point, a very erudite
Stereophile article on speaker cables, with comprehensive measurements,
analysis of materials and geometry. However, one choice was conspicuously
absent: the doubling or tripling of common zipcord.

Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc. promote
using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even though they're
not commonly use as such?

Zipcord is very commonly used as speaker cable. It is commonly said that
multiple runs of zipcord make very good speaker cable. This may or may not
be true. It is worthy of investigation. Considering the popularity of
zipcord as an alternative to high-priced proprietary formulations, I would
have liked to see how it measured.


How do you think they're going to measure ??

You seems to be constantly falling head over heels on measuring things. Could
you enlighten me what it would mean if they measure about the same ?


---
Btw, do you "know" how to set the line length on your newsreader when making
post ? Do you "know" the purpose of using the backspace and/or return/enter
keys in your keyboard to align the margin ?

"EddieM" wrote in message
om...
Robert Morein wrote
EddieM wrote
Robert Morein wrote
calcerise wrote



I submit it's because people realized they had little to offer. They
never slammed products, they had few or no DIY projects and they
always repeated the new-is-best and the-authorities-are always-right
lines. Who wants to pay to read such tommyrot?

Every subscription magazine is a business, with a business model.
The direct reason is that they went broke.

Although the fear of loss of advertising revenue is one reason why
products are not trashed as often as they should be, another, more
ethical reason would be the reluctance of the publisher to be
responsible
for business failures.

I once had a brief email discussion with Atkinson about the absence
of
multichannel reproduction in Stereophile. He responded that the
readers
didn't want that. At the time, I didn't understand, but now I do.
Most
hifi nuts tend to be a bit obsessive and rigid in their thinking. If
more
modern content were incorporated, it would actually have a negative
effect. Stereophile comforts, coddles, and reinforces behavior
patterns.
Catholic tastes do not coexist well under the same cover. If you want
to read about something outside the box, publishing dictates that you
find another "box", ie., magazine.

In particular, it seems to me that the appearance of Stereophile as a
product-promotion is not accidental. It has to be that way. When John
Atkinson published independently, he could have done otherwise. Now
that Stereophile is part of a larger publishing entity, there is no
alternative. The requirement is that Stereophile MAKE MONEY. As an
example of the degree of pervasive control, Atkinson noted in one
issue
with some pleasure that additional editorial pages had been
allocated.

It seem a foregone conclusion with you that SP's sole porpose is to
make
money.

I didn't say what the "porpose" of Stereophile is.
Did you by any chance mean to write "purpose" when you wrote "porpose"?
Or did you mean "porpoise", the aquatic mammal?
You also said "It seem".
You confuse with grammatical errors. Did you intend to write "It
seems..."
?

I did not use either word. I said "REQUIREMENT".
It is a requirement that Stereophile will make money, or it will cease
to be
published.
This does not exclude the possibility that John Atkinson may have other
motivations, such as a love of audio, and a great job.


You said that since organization such as Stereophile is now part of a
larger
entity, and that there's "no alternative" but to make money. Whether that
is
their sole requirement or not I'm not sure base on your talk. You said
that
every subscription magazine is a business and that a direct consequence
for failing to follow a business model is that they will go broke. You
also
said that their fear of losing advertising revenue is one reason products
are
not trashed as often, and you gratuitously supported this by adding that
for
an
even more ethical reason, their publisher is reluctant to be responsible
for
business failures of HE mfr.

Further, you enunciate that Stereophile comforts, coddles, and reinforces
the rigid thinking pattern of their readers as a result of their
reluctance to
delve away from this business model you enthuse about for fear that they
will go broke -- as they have no alternative but to make money, according
to
you.

Can you separate your facts and fiction from these ?


In your reply above, you said that it is a requirement for organization
like
Stereophile to make money, or it will cease to be published and therefore

must adhere strictly to this bus. model. BUT yet, you now say that its
editor
may have other motivations, such as a love for audio, and a great job.


Do you mean to say to do a great job in succumbing to the obsessiveness
of most of these hi-fi nuts for ... the love of audios ?

Could you share your wisdom on these?



I recall, as a specific example of your point, a very erudite
Stereophile article on speaker cables, with comprehensive
measurements,
analysis of materials and geometry. However, one choice was
conspicuously
absent: the doubling or tripling of common zipcord.

Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc.
promote
using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even though
they're
not commonly use as such?

Zipcord is very commonly used as speaker cable. It is commonly said
that
multiple runs of zipcord make very good speaker cable. This may or may
not
be true. It is worthy of investigation. Considering the popularity of
zipcord as an alternative to high-priced proprietary formulations, I
would
have liked to see how it measured.


How do you think they're going to measure ??

You seems to be constantly falling head over heels on measuring things.
Could
you enlighten me what it would mean if they measure about the same ?

I can, but I won't.

"EddieM" wrote in message
m...

Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc. promote
using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even though they're
not
commonly use as such?

Maybe I didn't read this correctly. Are you saying that zipcord is NOT
commonly used as speaker cable? It's all I ever use.

Or perhaps your definition of "zipcord" is different than mine.

Norm Strong

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


Zipcord is very commonly used as speaker cable. It is commonly said
that multiple runs of zipcord make very good speaker cable. This may
or may not be true. It is worthy of investigation. Considering the
popularity of zipcord as an alternative to high-priced proprietary
formulations, I would have liked to see how it measured.


Please see http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/cableInteractions.pdf

Arny,
I can't access it. Perhaps the server hit it's limit. I will try later.
Perhaps you would summarize?

"Robert Morein" said:

Please see http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/cableInteractions.pdf

Arny,
I can't access it. Perhaps the server hit it's limit. I will try later.
Perhaps you would summarize?


Install Acrobat Reader 6.0 on your PC.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


Zipcord is very commonly used as speaker cable. It is commonly said
that multiple runs of zipcord make very good speaker cable. This may
or may not be true. It is worthy of investigation. Considering the
popularity of zipcord as an alternative to high-priced proprietary
formulations, I would have liked to see how it measured.


Please see http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/cableInteractions.pdf

Arny,
I can't access it. Perhaps the server hit it's limit. I will try
later. Perhaps you would summarize?

The author writes:

"The effects of 3.1-m cables are subtle, so many situations may not warrant
the use of special cables. Low- inductance cables will provide the best
performance when driving reactive loads, especially with amplifiers having
low damping factor, and when flat response is critical, when long cable
lengths are required, or when perfection is sought. Though not as linear as
flat cables, 12 AWG wire works well and exceeds the high-fre- of discussions
and rebuttals can be found referencing frequency performance of other
two-conductor cables tested. By the way, keep the auto jumper cables in the
garage!"

BTW, the author Fred E. Davis is among the people that Middius and his crowd
chased off of RAO.

Sander deWaal said:

Perhaps you would summarize?

Install Acrobat Reader 6.0 on your PC.

Or go read one of Harold's tedious books. Same net effect.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Sander deWaal said:

Perhaps you would summarize?

Install Acrobat Reader 6.0 on your PC.

Or go read one of Harold's tedious books. Same net effect.

It's about audio technology so it has no useful meaning to Middius.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" said:

Please see http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/cableInteractions.pdf

Arny,
I can't access it. Perhaps the server hit it's limit. I will try
later.
Perhaps you would summarize?


Install Acrobat Reader 6.0 on your PC.

I have it.
I read Acrobat files all the time; Acrobat is installed as a helper app.

Robert Morein wrote
EddieM wrote


snip

Zipcord is very commonly used as speaker cable. It is commonly said
that multiple runs of zipcord make very good speaker cable. This may or
may not be true. It is worthy of investigation. Considering the
popularity of zipcord as an alternative to high-priced proprietary
formulations, I would have liked to see how it measured.


How do you think they're going to measure ??

You seems to be constantly falling head over heels on measuring things.
Could you enlighten me what it would mean if they measure about the
same ?


I can, but I won't.

I wonder why. Is it because the Stereophile's article was't erudite afterall,
and that the exclusion of zipcords was alright, or Is it because you're not
sure
whether you have the latest edition of your religious fantasy?

Turdborg smears himself again.

Perhaps you would summarize?

Install Acrobat Reader 6.0 on your PC.

Or go read one of Harold's tedious books. Same net effect.

It's about audio technology so it has no useful meaning to Middius.

I've said before that the highest purpose any cable or wire can serve is as a
noose for Arnii Krooger. For that purpose, gauge doesn't matter, construction
doesn't matter, and price doesn't matter. Anything that gets the job done™ is
first-rate.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Turdborg smears himself again.

Perhaps you would summarize?

Install Acrobat Reader 6.0 on your PC.

Or go read one of Harold's tedious books. Same net effect.

It's about audio technology so it has no useful meaning to Middius.

I've said before that the highest purpose any cable or wire can serve
is as a noose for Arnii Krooger.

Thanks for helping convince everybody here that you're a murderous nut,
Middius.

For that purpose, gauge doesn't
matter, construction doesn't matter, and price doesn't matter.

Why not just put "I'm insane" in your signature line, George?

Anything that gets the job doneT is first-rate.

Your supporters have to be just as nutzoid as you are!

Oh George, have a nice day! ;-)

wrote
EddieM wrote




Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc. promote
using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even though they're
not commonly use as such?

Maybe I didn't read this correctly. Are you saying that zipcord is NOT
commonly used as speaker cable? It's all I ever use.

Or perhaps your definition of "zipcord" is different than mine.

Norm Strong



I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household appliances.

Paranoa™Borg quivers and quails.

I've said before that the highest purpose any cable or wire can serve
is as a noose for Arnii Krooger.

Thanks for helping convince everybody here that you're a murderous nut,
Middius.

Did I make you cry again, Arnii? ;-)

Hey, where's Mikey? When you start to fall apart, he's usually right there,
kleenex at the ready. ;-)


For that purpose, gauge doesn't
matter, construction doesn't matter, and price doesn't matter.

Why not just put "I'm insane" in your signature line, George?

Kill yourself. Now.

Anything that gets the job done™ is first-rate.

Your supporters have to be just as nutzoid as you are!

I have supporters? Cool. To you, anybody who sees you as a paranoid religious
freak is incomprehensible. Is your insurance paid up, BTW? When you
eventually break down and go to pieces, you don't want to be a burden to your
unfortunate surviving children.

"EddieM" wrote in message
om...

wrote
EddieM wrote




Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc.
promote
using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even though
they're
not commonly use as such?

Maybe I didn't read this correctly. Are you saying that zipcord is NOT
commonly used as speaker cable? It's all I ever use.

Or perhaps your definition of "zipcord" is different than mine.

Norm Strong



I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household appliances.

A lot of people use it.

EddieM said:

I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household appliances.

24-ga is strong enough to choke the Krooborg, so it gets the Resistance Seal
of Approval.

"EddieM" wrote in message
om

I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household appliances.

A good card-carrying golden ear would never do such a thing. The power cords
have to be twisted pair composed of Teflon-insulated silver-plated
finely-stranded OFHC copper wire with a hand-braided silk overcoat. The
speaker cables must be composed of layers of thin trips of silver-plated
OFHC copper, separated by foamed polyethylene spacers, again
Teflon-insulated and with a color-coded pattern-coordinated braided silk
overcoat.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

ParanoaTBorg quivers and quails.

I've said before that the highest purpose any cable or wire can
serve is as a noose for Arnii Krooger.

Thanks for helping convince everybody here that you're a murderous
nut, Middius.

Did I make you cry again, Arnii? ;-)

No, I was laughing but I wasn't laughing so hard that it made me cry.

What's a boy like me to do when his leading critic on RAO provides one or
more daily demonstrations of his termendous insanity?

Robert Morein wrote
EddieM wrote
wrote
EddieM wrote




Do you propose then that Stereophile, The Absolute Sound ... etc.
promote using zipcord as viable alternative as speaker cable even
though they're not commonly use as such?

Maybe I didn't read this correctly. Are you saying that zipcord is NOT
commonly used as speaker cable? It's all I ever use.

Or perhaps your definition of "zipcord" is different than mine.

Norm Strong

I'm using zipcords to include cords use to plug household appliances.



A lot of people use it.


A lotta people use it to tie-up the metal flap behind their lawn mower.
Do you ?