Incredible. Arny Krueger, an auto mechanic not widely renowned for his
culture, knows better what the musicians who recorded the discs hear
than they do.

He then justifies this travesty by making large assumptions and
presumtions which were not in my original post, and reinforces this
prejudice and straight wistful thinking without any proof offered.

Of course, in his usual slimy style, Arny also immediately impugns my
auditors as "very lilely" to be deaf.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

It is the result at the ear that counts. If to the most experienced and
refined ears in the world, professional classical performers, the
people who make their living playing, recording, listening to the music
I wish to reproduce, a particular set of componentry sounds more like
an open window on the concert hall, that is the set of componentry I
want. I don't care whether the components are tubes or transistors or
some self-mimicking biological growth.

That professional musicians have extraordinary abilities to hear
imperfections due to techical issues is just and old wife's tale.

That's your opinion, Arny. It has no currency with those who actually
have professional performers available for such tests. If you have
proof, offer it. Othwise, blow.

For
openers, professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are
likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds.

You have assumed my auditors are orchestral musicians. You have a
railroad mind, Arnie, that goes straight to the most obvious, lowest
common denominator, and squats on it despite all evidence that you are
in altogether the wrong place.

You have to prove that the hearing of even orchestral musicians is
impaired. Your unsupported opinions is merely a scandalous slander, a
slimy smear tactic.

Even soloists,
particularly soloists are likely to have their hearing damaged by the
extraordinarly loud sounds they can make with their own voices.

Another unproven claim.

Another unfounded presumption by this little man, Krueger. Nope, my
auditors aren't singers either. Keep guessing, Arny. Anyone who
seriously wanted to debate these matters would have asked which
musicians I used. Instead you storm in and start throwing accusations
based on absolutely nothing that I said.

In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes.

Probably due to a number of factors.

(1) Classical musicians are basically performers of retro-music. That they
would prefer retro-technology makes perfect sense.

Absolute nonsense. How would they distinguish the sound of
"retro-technology" when all the amps on test are behind a curtain? You
do talk a lot of ridiculous crap, Arny.

(2) Said blind tests were set by Andre Jute. Therefore we know for sure that
they are biased against modern technology.

This sort of scummy mudslinging is beneath contempt. How could I bias a
test specifically designed to eradicate human bias?

This poor ignorant netwarrior Krueger should prove that I am against
modern technology; he's in for a whole row of very big surprises.

(3) Aformentioned hearing problems that endemic among performers who must
endure extraordinary SPLs as they perform.

Arny has now progressed from a tentative lie ("are likely to be
hearing-damaged") to stating as a fact that "hearing problems that
[are] endemic among performers" which is an outright lie.

(4) Problems related to the fact that musical performers *are* often very
sensitive listeners for *musical* differences, but not technical
differences. IOW, if you want to know that a note is off key, ask a
musician. If you want to know if it has audible nolinear distortion, find a
trained technical listener.

More tenth-rate engineer's gobbledegook: artificial problems. We
already know that ever-diminishing THD doesn't predict anything. All
you want to know from the musicians is which amp most closely
approximates what the music makers heard in the concert room as they
created the music. All this crap about "nonlinear distortion"
(barbarian tautological phrasing to make Arny sound "scientific" and
"professional") is a handful of dust in our eyes. When the best ears in
the business say that is the music they heard as they made it,
faithfully reproduced by the electronics, that is the amp we're
striving for. Arny and his kind are already surplus to requirements.
All this nastiness is their desperate rearguard action to protect their
importance.

What a transparent idiot this Arny Krueger is. How did such an
inadequate, ignorant jerk ever come to take control of RAO? Who
permitted this travesty?

Andre Jute

Andre Jute wrote:

What a transparent idiot this Arny Krueger is. How did such an
inadequate, ignorant jerk ever come to take control of RAO? Who
permitted this travesty?


That would be George. He did it.

ScottW

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

Incredible. Arny Krueger, an auto mechanic not widely renowned for his
culture,

Incredible, a sockpuppet posting under the name Andre Jute, pretends that
he's qualified to sit in judgement of me. Mr. Sockpuppet is obviously
incompetent to judge me, because he has my occupational information
completely wrong.

knows better what the musicians who recorded the discs hear
than they do.

A musician can only directly know what he sounds like from his perspective.

He then justifies this travesty

No travesty, it's simple logic.

by making large assumptions and
presumtions which were not in my original post,

I think you're making this part up for effect, Jute. Specify it or lose the
point.

and reinforces this
prejudice and straight wistful thinking without any proof offered.

My personal experiences are just as valid as yours, Jute. Admit it, I
attacked this situation from an angle that you never thought of.

Of course, in his usual slimy style, Arny also immediately impugns my
auditors as very liely" to be deaf.

Nothing slimey, just the facts.


Bottom line, Jute has properly addressed (none) (zero) (nada) critical
points. Therefore they stand.

Arny Krueger wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
Incredible. Arny Krueger, an auto mechanic not widely renowned for his
culture, knows better what the musicians who recorded the discs hear
than they do.

He then justifies this travesty by making large assumptions and
presumtions which were not in my original post, and reinforces this
prejudice and straight wistful thinking without any proof offered.

Of course, in his usual slimy style, Arny also immediately impugns my
auditors as "very lilely" to be deaf.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

It is the result at the ear that counts. If to the most experienced and
refined ears in the world, professional classical performers, the
people who make their living playing, recording, listening to the music
I wish to reproduce, a particular set of componentry sounds more like
an open window on the concert hall, that is the set of componentry I
want. I don't care whether the components are tubes or transistors or
some self-mimicking biological growth.

That professional musicians have extraordinary abilities to hear
imperfections due to techical issues is just and old wife's tale.

That's your opinion, Arny. It has no currency with those who actually
have professional performers available for such tests. If you have
proof, offer it. Othwise, blow.

For
openers, professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are
likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds.

You have assumed my auditors are orchestral musicians. You have a
railroad mind, Arnie, that goes straight to the most obvious, lowest
common denominator, and squats on it despite all evidence that you are
in altogether the wrong place.

You have to prove that the hearing of even orchestral musicians is
impaired. Your unsupported opinions is merely a scandalous slander, a
slimy smear tactic.

Even soloists,
particularly soloists are likely to have their hearing damaged by the
extraordinarly loud sounds they can make with their own voices.

Another unproven claim.

Another unfounded presumption by this little man, Krueger. Nope, my
auditors aren't singers either. Keep guessing, Arny. Anyone who
seriously wanted to debate these matters would have asked which
musicians I used. Instead you storm in and start throwing accusations
based on absolutely nothing that I said.

In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes.

Probably due to a number of factors.

(1) Classical musicians are basically performers of retro-music. That they
would prefer retro-technology makes perfect sense.

Absolute nonsense. How would they distinguish the sound of
"retro-technology" when all the amps on test are behind a curtain? You
do talk a lot of ridiculous crap, Arny.

(2) Said blind tests were set by Andre Jute. Therefore we know for sure that
they are biased against modern technology.

This sort of scummy mudslinging is beneath contempt. How could I bias a
test specifically designed to eradicate human bias?

This poor ignorant netwarrior Krueger should prove that I am against
modern technology; he's in for a whole row of very big surprises.

(3) Aformentioned hearing problems that endemic among performers who must
endure extraordinary SPLs as they perform.

Arny has now progressed from a tentative lie ("are likely to be
hearing-damaged") to stating as a fact that "hearing problems that
[are] endemic among performers" which is an outright lie.

(4) Problems related to the fact that musical performers *are* often very
sensitive listeners for *musical* differences, but not technical
differences. IOW, if you want to know that a note is off key, ask a
musician. If you want to know if it has audible nolinear distortion, find a
trained technical listener.

More tenth-rate engineer's gobbledegook: artificial problems. We
already know that ever-diminishing THD doesn't predict anything. All
you want to know from the musicians is which amp most closely
approximates what the music makers heard in the concert room as they
created the music. All this crap about "nonlinear distortion"
(barbarian tautological phrasing to make Arny sound "scientific" and
"professional") is a handful of dust in our eyes. When the best ears in
the business say that is the music they heard as they made it,
faithfully reproduced by the electronics, that is the amp we're
striving for. Arny and his kind are already surplus to requirements.
All this nastiness is their desperate rearguard action to protect their
importance.

What a transparent idiot this Arny Krueger is. How did such an
inadequate, ignorant jerk ever come to take control of RAO? Who
permitted this travesty?

Andre Jute

To which reasoned argument, above, Mr Krueger's entire answer consist
of these childish rhetorical tricks that would be transparent, and
contemptible, to any average six-year old:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

Incredible. Arny Krueger, an auto mechanic not widely renowned for his
culture,

Incredible, a sockpuppet posting under the name Andre Jute, pretends that
he's qualified to sit in judgement of me. Mr. Sockpuppet is obviously
incompetent to judge me, because he has my occupational information
completely wrong.

knows better what the musicians who recorded the discs hear
than they do.

A musician can only directly know what he sounds like from his perspective.

He then justifies this travesty

No travesty, it's simple logic.

by making large assumptions and
presumtions which were not in my original post,

I think you're making this part up for effect, Jute. Specify it or lose the
point.

and reinforces this
prejudice and straight wistful thinking without any proof offered.

My personal experiences are just as valid as yours, Jute. Admit it, I
attacked this situation from an angle that you never thought of.

Of course, in his usual slimy style, Arny also immediately impugns my
auditors as very liely" to be deaf.

Nothing slimey, just the facts.


Bottom line, Jute has properly addressed (none) (zero) (nada) critical
points. Therefore they stand.

And that's it. Krueger has cut all my reasoned argument and simply lies
that I didn't make any. But from the top down you just read a
devastating reply to all his points. But Arny claims I never made all
those points. He just cut them right out...

Perhaps Arny was drunk when he wrote the above, perhaps he was
suffering some kind of a fit, perhaps he is just senile. But he never
in his life gave anyone else a break, so let his chickens come home to
roost:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

Incredible. Arny Krueger, an auto mechanic not widely renowned for his
culture,

Incredible, a sockpuppet posting under the name Andre Jute, pretends that
he's qualified to sit in judgement of me. Mr. Sockpuppet is obviously
incompetent to judge me, because he has my occupational information
completely wrong.

If you say it is 12.35:15 and Arnie's watch reads 15 seconds faster,
you've lost the war. Those are Arny's Rules. We're discussing large
cultural matters, and this little railroad mind 'engineer' thinks it is
valid currency to nitpick literary flourishes, to insist on dullest
engineering literalmindedness. How petty can you get?

knows better what the musicians who recorded the discs hear
than they do.

A musician can only directly know what he sounds like from his perspective.

Unfortunately, Arny, you still haven't had the sense to ask me which
musicians I chose. I left their description out of the original
precisely as a trap to demonstrate your vacuity and your tendency to
presumption, assumption and jumping to entirely unwarranted
conclusions, and to build lies upon lies, in short your daily betrayal
of the scientific method. You dived face-first into the pit I staked
for you, exposing your cloven hoof and every single one of your
malicious weaknesses.

I chose the musicians precisely so that they could hear each other in
the performance.

What is more, you, Arny, can only hear the music from your perspective.
Furthermore, the THD figures you want to substitute for cultural
judgement measures only from the perspective of engineers and has
clearly is long past the point of having anything to do with culture.

He then justifies this travesty

No travesty, it's simple logic.

You have made a series of bald claims without proof. You have
demonstrated no logic whatsoever. I shall shortly prove that your lies,
your misrepresentations and your smears separately and together make
travesty of a serious subject.

by making large assumptions and
presumtions which were not in my original post,

I think you're making this part up for effect, Jute. Specify it or lose the
point.

I have already demonstrated that you don't know which musicians I
chose. You made "large assumptions and presumptions which were not in
my original post" and on them built a farrago of nonsense and lies, and
in this reply to me snipped off a;; my reasoned counterargument to
these lies of yours because you don't have a foot to stand on. You're a
graceless loser, Krueger, and dishonest slime for these debating
methods.

and reinforces this
prejudice and straight wistful thinking without any proof offered.

My personal experiences are just as valid as yours, Jute. Admit it, I
attacked this situation from an angle that you never thought of.

Are they? And did you? Two extremely doubtful statements. We'll discuss
them in a minute.

But first we should note that this is another of Arny's kindergarten
polemics dolly kit tricks. What little Arny stands accused of is
reinforcing his lies with prejudice and wishful thinking about the
hearing of professional classical peformers without any proof offered.
Arny knows I'm going to nail him on the proof (indeed, I have already
nailed him on the proof, which is why he snipped away my argument), so
now he tries to distract us with this bull**** about Arny Krueger being
as good as the next man. That's a lie, too.

My personal experiences are just as valid as yours, Jute.

No, they are not. You are right to be defensive about your lack of
relevant experience. I have spent 45 years reviewing music in all the
great halls and opera houses. For years I went to concerts five night a
week. I have worked with a symphony orchestra to prepare the premiere
of my symphony. I am a psychologist who tested the ears of many
musicians. When I want to record music, I don't go to my little church
and ask humbly if I can record the choir with my little tape recorder,
as you do. I go to a recording studio which I once owned and I tell
the engineers to prepare the suite for me in which I once joked with
Miriam Makeba and Frank Sinatra.

Admit it, I
attacked this situation from an angle that you never thought of.

What?! You stacked up some dull, transparent lies about performers, who
may or may not be the performers specified, suffering "endemic" hearing
loss, a lie so clumsy it is an offense to the intelligence of even the
idiots who travel on your coattails for the bovvers. And now you want
my approval for these dumb, dumb, stupid, offensive kiddie-corner
tricks? You *are* senile, Krueger.

Of course, in his usual slimy style, Arny also immediately impugns my
auditors as very liely" to be deaf.

Nothing slimey, just the facts.

Well then, provide the proof that hearing loss is "endemic" among the
musicians I used. You can't provide that proof because you don't know
which musicians they are. But you pontificate as if you're expert about
a group you cannot even identify.

You are a fraud, Arny Krueger.

Bottom line, Jute has properly addressed (none) (zero) (nada) critical
points. Therefore they stand.

Bottom line: you didn't make any critical points. Instead you told a
bunch of lies. Then you cut away all my analysis of your lies and claim
you won. Nope. Here is my devastating refutation of your lies and
deceits with additional commentary:

Andre Jute wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

It is the result at the ear that counts. If to the most experienced and
refined ears in the world, professional classical performers, the
people who make their living playing, recording, listening to the music
I wish to reproduce, a particular set of componentry sounds more like
an open window on the concert hall, that is the set of componentry I
want. I don't care whether the components are tubes or transistors or
some self-mimicking biological growth.

That professional musicians have extraordinary abilities to hear
imperfections due to techical issues is just and old wife's tale.

That's your opinion, Arny. It has no currency with those who actually
have professional performers available for such tests. If you have
proof, offer it. Othwise, blow.

In short, prove it, you deceitful little man. That refutation that you
didn't want your hangers-on to see already kills the rest of your
meretricious argument stone dead but there's more to come:

For
openers, professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are
likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds.

You have assumed my auditors are orchestral musicians. You have a
railroad mind, Arnie, that goes straight to the most obvious, lowest
common denominator, and squats on it despite all evidence that you are
in altogether the wrong place.

You have to prove that the hearing of even orchestral musicians is
impaired. Your unsupported opinions is merely a scandalous slander, a
slimy smear tactic.

Again, I didn't tell you which musicians I used. But you blunder in and
tell a lie about the musicians you assume I used. You then follow that
up with a lie about another group of musicians, just in case I used
them. We note that above, where you had the chance to offer proof, you
offered none, and instead tried to hide the fact that I demanded proof.

Even soloists,
particularly soloists are likely to have their hearing damaged by the
extraordinarly loud sounds they can make with their own voices.

Another unproven claim.

Another unfounded presumption by this little man, Krueger. Nope, my
auditors aren't singers either. Keep guessing, Arny. Anyone who
seriously wanted to debate these matters would have asked which
musicians I used. Instead you storm in and start throwing accusations
based on absolutely nothing that I said.

Let's see what Arny says about this, after snipping away the part above
so you cannot immediately juxtapose the truth and his deceit. First
quotes me:

by making large assumptions and
presumtions which were not in my original post,

Then he demands:

I think you're making this part up for effect, Jute. Specify it or lose the
point.

I already answered that, repeatedly, and Arny snipped my reply. So, is
Arny a functional illiterate who didn't understand that I was referring
to his assumption about which musicians I used, and his wishful
thinking (absolutely evil this) that they should go deaf. Or is Arny
merely being deceitful again by removing my argument and then claiming
I didn't make it? Whatever, Arny deceitfully snipped the specification
I already made.

In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes.

Probably due to a number of factors.

(1) Classical musicians are basically performers of retro-music. That they
would prefer retro-technology makes perfect sense.

Absolute nonsense. How would they distinguish the sound of
"retro-technology" when all the amps on test are behind a curtain? You
do talk a lot of ridiculous crap, Arny.

Note that Arny doesn't try to explain how his ridiculous claim can be
justified. He merely snips my scathing comment and my demand for
justification.

(2) Said blind tests were set by Andre Jute. Therefore we know for sure that
they are biased against modern technology.

This sort of scummy mudslinging is beneath contempt. How could I bias a
test specifically designed to eradicate human bias?

Note that Arny doesn't even attempt an answer. He merely snips my
scathing remark about his smear tactics. He refuses to answer the
question about ABX tests. Arny Krueger knows I know more about placebo
tests (what he pretentiously calls ABX) than he ever will. Yet Krueger
ponces around on RAO as the self-declared great ABX expert. Now he
makes a smear that makes all his claims of ABX expertise into a lie.
It's another foolish, foolish lie, because surely he must have known
that I, and others, would see through it immediately.

This poor ignorant netwarrior Krueger should prove that I am against
modern technology; he's in for a whole row of very big surprises.

Note that Arny doesn't even attempt proof. He knows his statement is a
lie and that if he attempts to prove it, I will wipe my lavatory with
him.

(3) Aformentioned hearing problems that endemic among performers who must
endure extraordinary SPLs as they perform.

Arny has now progressed from a tentative lie ("are likely to be
hearing-damaged") to stating as a fact that "hearing problems that
[are] endemic among performers" which is an outright lie.

Arny Krueger, a slimy, deceitful, habitual liar, didn't even attempt to
prove this outrageous lie, and slander on musicians. He just snipped
the entire section where I pointed out that he lies and lies and lies.

(4) Problems related to the fact that musical performers *are* often very
sensitive listeners for *musical* differences, but not technical
differences. IOW, if you want to know that a note is off key, ask a
musician. If you want to know if it has audible nolinear distortion, find a
trained technical listener.

More tenth-rate engineer's gobbledegook: artificial problems.

With artificial emphasis. We don't *know* any such thing, Arny, and I
suspect you know it, hence the attempt to distract by artificial
insistence.

We
already know that ever-diminishing THD doesn't predict anything. All
you want to know from the musicians is which amp most closely
approximates what the music makers heard in the concert room as they
created the music. All this crap about "nonlinear distortion"
(barbarian tautological phrasing to make Arny sound "scientific" and
"professional") is a handful of dust in our eyes. When the best ears in
the business say that is the music they heard as they made it,
faithfully reproduced by the electronics, that is the amp we're
striving for. Arny and his kind are already surplus to requirements.
All this nastiness is their desperate rearguard action to protect their
importance.

What a transparent idiot this Arny Krueger is. How did such an
inadequate, ignorant jerk ever come to take control of RAO? Who
permitted this travesty?

Andre Jute

And of course Arny doesn't want his claque of travelling bullyboys to
see my logical, reasoned, well-founded conclusion, so he just snips
everthing away, doesn't offer proof of his outrageous claims, just
insists ludicrously that he won the argument. Perhaps he thought that
by now his gang of travelling bullyboys (Packer, McKelvey, Pinkerton,
etc) would have softened me up so much that I would shut up. (How
stupid can even these netidiots get?)

Arny Krueger is a despicable liar and a fool and if he knows **** about
music, recording or audio, I have failed to discover the smallest
nugget of knowledge in him.

Andre Jute

Arny Krueger wrote







My personal experiences are just as valid as yours, Jute. Admit it, I
attacked this situation from an angle that you never thought of.



Here's another Cream Puff, Lover of ABX black box. Just another
wimpy, wussy, and a sad sack tuck-tailed sisssssy little yellow belly.
How much longer are ya gonna hide those tail? Gettda **** off
this thread.


Any problem?


Do we have a problem with this?

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:

snip personal attacks

Bottom line, Jute has properly addressed (none) (zero) (nada) critical
points. Therefore they stand.

snip empty rhetoric

Arny Krueger wrote






****
snip personal attacks

Bottom line, Jute has properly addressed (none) (zero) (nada) critical
points. Therefore they stand.

snip empty rhetoric

*****

Andre Jute had some legitimate concern he pose to the post prior
to the above. It should be addressed. It's a somewhat lengthy post
(about 458 lines) but towards the second half, he particularly ask:



"... Krueger has cut all my reasoned argument and simply lies
that I didn't make any. But from the top down you just read a
devastating reply to all his points. But Arny claims I never made all
those points. He just cut them right out... "


[ I must believe there were many more...]



My personal experiences are just as valid as yours, Jute.

" No, they are not. You are right to be defensive about your lack of
relevant experience. I have spent 45 years reviewing music in all the
great halls and opera houses. [...] "

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:

snip personal attacks

Bottom line, Jute has properly addressed (none) (zero) (nada) critical
points. Therefore they stand.

snip empty rhetoric

Arny Krueger, a superannuated mechanic, pretends to be a sound
recording engineer and general all-purpose audio expert. The above is
his entire answer to a serious suggestion about improving amplfiers
(and sources) -- after he has been given two chances to make a serious
argument and provide proof of patently erroneous claims. It leads me to
conclude that Krueger has neither the knowledge nor the experience nor
the brains, and certainly not the necessary verbal skills, seriously to
discuss audio. Below my signature are the short versions of the facts
(and demands for proof of his dumb counterarguments) that Krueger tries
to escape. Or, if you have the patience and taste (and ability for
sophisticated argument that Krueger clearly lacks) here
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...7b0a3368af699d
you can find a longer, annotated version of Krueger's first attempt to
escape judgement for his lies.

Run, rabbit, run. You won't get far, little Arny

Andre Jute
Knowledgeable, articulate, relentless

THE FACTS AND DEMAND FOR PROOF KRUEGER IS TRYING TO EVADE WITH CHILDISH
RHETORICAL TRICKS:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

It is the result at the ear that counts. If to the most experienced and
refined ears in the world, professional classical performers, the
people who make their living playing, recording, listening to the music
I wish to reproduce, a particular set of componentry sounds more like
an open window on the concert hall, that is the set of componentry I
want. I don't care whether the components are tubes or transistors or
some self-mimicking biological growth.

That professional musicians have extraordinary abilities to hear
imperfections due to techical issues is just and old wife's tale.

That's your opinion, Arny. It has no currency with those who actually
have professional performers available for such tests. If you have
proof, offer it. Othwise, blow.

For
openers, professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are
likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds.

You have assumed my auditors are orchestral musicians. You have a
railroad mind, Arnie, that goes straight to the most obvious, lowest
common denominator, and squats on it despite all evidence that you are
in altogether the wrong place.

You have to prove that the hearing of even orchestral musicians is
impaired. Your unsupported opinions is merely a scandalous slander, a
slimy smear tactic.

Even soloists,
particularly soloists are likely to have their hearing damaged by the
extraordinarly loud sounds they can make with their own voices.

Another unproven claim.

Another unfounded presumption by this little man, Krueger. Nope, my
auditors aren't singers either. Keep guessing, Arny. Anyone who
seriously wanted to debate these matters would have asked which
musicians I used. Instead you storm in and start throwing accusations
based on absolutely nothing that I said.

In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes.

Probably due to a number of factors.

(1) Classical musicians are basically performers of retro-music. That they
would prefer retro-technology makes perfect sense.

Absolute nonsense. How would they distinguish the sound of
"retro-technology" when all the amps on test are behind a curtain? You
do talk a lot of ridiculous crap, Arny.

(2) Said blind tests were set by Andre Jute. Therefore we know for sure that
they are biased against modern technology.

This sort of scummy mudslinging is beneath contempt. How could I bias a
test specifically designed to eradicate human bias?

This poor ignorant netwarrior Krueger should prove that I am against
modern technology; he's in for a whole row of very big surprises.

(3) Aformentioned hearing problems that endemic among performers who must
endure extraordinary SPLs as they perform.

Arny has now progressed from a tentative lie ("are likely to be
hearing-damaged") to stating as a fact that "hearing problems that
[are] endemic among performers" which is an outright lie.

(4) Problems related to the fact that musical performers *are* often very
sensitive listeners for *musical* differences, but not technical
differences. IOW, if you want to know that a note is off key, ask a
musician. If you want to know if it has audible nolinear distortion, find a
trained technical listener.

More tenth-rate engineer's gobbledegook: artificial problems. We
already know that ever-diminishing THD doesn't predict anything. All
you want to know from the musicians is which amp most closely
approximates what the music makers heard in the concert room as they
created the music. All this crap about "nonlinear distortion"
(barbarian tautological phrasing to make Arny sound "scientific" and
"professional") is a handful of dust in our eyes. When the best ears in
the business say that is the music they heard as they made it,
faithfully reproduced by the electronics, that is the amp we're
striving for. Arny and his kind are already surplus to requirements.
All this nastiness is their desperate rearguard action to protect their
importance.

What a transparent idiot this Arny Krueger is. How did such an
inadequate, ignorant jerk ever come to take control of RAO? Who
permitted this travesty?

Andre Jute

wrote:

Andre Jute
Knowledgeable, articulate, relentless

I thought we were supposed to wait for others to compliment us rather
than doing it ourselves.

paul packer wrote:
wrote:

Andre Jute
Knowledgeable, articulate, relentless

I thought we were supposed to wait for others to compliment us rather
than doing it ourselves.

We Australians don't hang around.

Andre Jute

PS I assume you're literate enough to grasp that it is not
self-congratulation (not that I'm above it when deserved) but a threat
the postman will deliver in Borgtown. See my analysis of the causes of
Arny's psychological maladjustment.

Andre Jute said:

PS I assume you're literate enough to grasp that it is not
self-congratulation (not that I'm above it when deserved) but a threat
the postman will deliver in Borgtown. See my analysis of the causes of
Arny's psychological maladjustment.

Not a bad excuse for an apparent bout of self-indulgence. :-)

As the illustrious A. Derrida once remarked on the subject of the
Krooborg, somebody that crazy had to have been abused as a child or
undergone some horrible Dr. Moreau-type experiment.

On 10 Dec 2005 15:32:48 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


paul packer wrote:
wrote:

Andre Jute
Knowledgeable, articulate, relentless

I thought we were supposed to wait for others to compliment us rather
than doing it ourselves.

We Australians don't hang around.

You're in OZ? I hadn't realized. Oh well, in that case you're
forgiven....um, nearly everything.

PS I assume you're literate enough to grasp that it is not
self-congratulation (not that I'm above it when deserved) but a threat
the postman will deliver in Borgtown.

Yep, got that. However, I'm still a little worried that you're the
one who gets to decide it's time to congratulate yourself. It seems
like there should be a third party involved somewhere. :-)