Everybody perceives you as aiding and abetting the Krooborg. Even
identifying with Mr. ****. You probably don't care, since you're almost as
socially retarded as Arnii is.

[George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.] George is angry, because
the golden-ears myth has been thoroughly debunked. Mr. John Atkinson
and _Stereophile_ want you to believe in the golden-ears myth.

Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_'s credibility:
http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4
http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html#Lies

The golden-ears myth (PDF file):
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

The myth that golden ears can hear the difference in wires:
http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html

More evidence against the myth (PDF file):
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

More evidence against the myth:
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...bx_testing.htm

More evidence against the myth:
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampin...subjectv.htm#4

--124

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

124 wrote:
George is angry, because the golden-ears myth has been
thoroughly debunked. Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_
want you to believe in the golden-ears myth.

I don't know why you keep trolling in this manner, Mr. 7. I
am not George, nor is he me. So even if what you say
about me were true, why would that make _George_
angry. The only thing that apepars to make George angry
is hypocrisy and dishonesty on the part of those who
claim to adhere to a higher standard of behavior.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

The thing that makes GFeorge angry is people who disagree with George. It
has nothing to do with anything else.

Your claiming otherwise, identifies you as an idiot or a liar.

duh-Mikey dispenses some of his back-of-the-cereal-box wisdom.

I don't know why you keep trolling in this manner, Mr. 7. I
am not George, nor is he me. So even if what you say
about me were true, why would that make _George_
angry. The only thing that apepars to make George angry
is hypocrisy and dishonesty on the part of those who
claim to adhere to a higher standard of behavior.

The thing that makes GFeorge[sic] angry is people who disagree

You are so profoundly clueless that the rest of the world needs to
recalibrate their cluelessness scales in order to appreciate the abyss of
cluelessness you inhabit.

Tell us again how Arnii Kroofeces never lies and never attacks first. I
think you've also claimed Mr. **** is a courteous and science-loving
individual who seeks only to enlighten through christian sharing of
knowledge, and he's not at all hypocritical. And you're not stupid, right
Mickey? But the rest of us are. ;-)

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


Tell us again how Arnii Kroofeces never lies and never
attacks first.

George, given all the lies you've told and all the gratuitous attacks you've
made against so many different people, why are you bringing these issues up?

Oh, I get it, this week is George Middius Hypocrisy Week!

"Arny Krueger" said:

Oh, I get it, this week is George Middius Hypocrisy Week!


As opposed to Arny Krueger's Decade of Hypocracy? ;-)

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

124 wrote:
George is angry, because the golden-ears myth has been
thoroughly debunked. Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_
want you to believe in the golden-ears myth.

I don't know why you keep trolling in this manner, Mr. 7. I
am not George, nor is he me. So even if what you say
about me were true, why would that make _George_
angry. The only thing that apepars to make George angry
is hypocrisy and dishonesty on the part of those who
claim to adhere to a higher standard of behavior.

Don't forget that small knit he gets into whenever someone
doesn't think that Arny is the great satan of RAO.

ScottW

Scooter said:

Don't forget that small knit

What do you mean? Did you give me a sweater for Xmas?

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




duh-Mikey dispenses some of his back-of-the-cereal-box wisdom.

I don't know why you keep trolling in this manner, Mr. 7. I
am not George, nor is he me. So even if what you say
about me were true, why would that make _George_
angry. The only thing that apepars to make George angry
is hypocrisy and dishonesty on the part of those who
claim to adhere to a higher standard of behavior.

The thing that makes GFeorge[sic] angry is people who disagree

You are so profoundly clueless that the rest of the world needs to
recalibrate their cluelessness scales in order to appreciate the abyss of
cluelessness you inhabit.

Tell us again how Arnii Kroofeces never lies and never attacks first. I
think you've also claimed Mr. **** is a courteous and science-loving
individual who seeks only to enlighten through christian sharing of
knowledge, and he's not at all hypocritical. And you're not stupid, right
Mickey? But the rest of us are. ;-)


Tell us all how this war on expression by you has a ****ing thing to do with
audio.
Tell us how you are a paragon of intellectual honesty and respectful of
other people's opinions on an opinion group.

Better yet, tell us anything about your audio choices.

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


Scooter said:

Don't forget that small knit

What do you mean? Did you give me a sweater for Xmas?

Either that or a giant sock... do you have arms?

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:iWvMf.134462$0G.40956@dukeread10...

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


Scooter said:

Don't forget that small knit

What do you mean? Did you give me a sweater for Xmas?

Either that or a giant sock... do you have arms?


Probably an AK-47 and a crossbow or two.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

John Atkinson wrote:

124 wrote:
George is angry, because the golden-ears myth has been
thoroughly debunked. Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_
want you to believe in the golden-ears myth.

I don't know why you keep trolling in this manner, Mr. 7.

If you truly thought I was trolling, you would have ignored my post.

I am not George, nor is he me.

I never claimed that he was one of your sockpuppets.

So even if what you say about me were true, why would that make _George_
angry.

If I am not mistaken, the only things I have accused you and
_Stereophile_ of are nonsense and hype and the natural consequences of
this nonsense and hype. Disinterested readers can decide for
themselves by examining the evidence to see if there is any substance
to the accusations. Yes, why would this make George angry? George
should explain himself. Why is it that George has, for years, been
unrelenting in his constant stream of abusive posts? I think it is
because he does not tolerate any opinions that differ from his; his 53
400 posts to this forum appears to support this.

The only thing that apepars to make George angry
is hypocrisy and dishonesty on the part of those who
claim to adhere to a higher standard of behavior.

Keyword: _appears_. Everyone here knows appearances may deceive.
Which regular here has the highest standard of behaviour? Which
regular here has the lowest standard of behaviour? This person with
the highest standard of behaviour, what is his hypocrisy and
dishonesty?

Regards,
Mr. 7

4 of 12 said:

Why is it that George has, for years, been
unrelenting in his constant stream of abusive posts?

Humans know the answer to this. Back to Dr. Kroomacher's lair with you!

In article .com,
"124" wrote:

John Atkinson wrote:

124 wrote:
George is angry, because the golden-ears myth has been
thoroughly debunked. Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_
want you to believe in the golden-ears myth.

I don't know why you keep trolling in this manner, Mr. 7.

If you truly thought I was trolling, you would have ignored my post.

I am not George, nor is he me.

I never claimed that he was one of your sockpuppets.

Who is one? I never found out who I was supposed to be a sock for, and
it leaves a bit of an empty feeling.


So even if what you say about me were true, why would that make _George_
angry.

If I am not mistaken, the only things I have accused you and
_Stereophile_ of are nonsense and hype and the natural consequences of
this nonsense and hype. Disinterested readers can decide for
themselves by examining the evidence to see if there is any substance
to the accusations. Yes, why would this make George angry? George
should explain himself. Why is it that George has, for years, been
unrelenting in his constant stream of abusive posts? I think it is
because he does not tolerate any opinions that differ from his; his 53
400 posts to this forum appears to support this.

The only thing that apepars to make George angry
is hypocrisy and dishonesty on the part of those who
claim to adhere to a higher standard of behavior.

Keyword: _appears_. Everyone here knows appearances may deceive.
Which regular here has the highest standard of behaviour? Which
regular here has the lowest standard of behaviour? This person with
the highest standard of behaviour, what is his hypocrisy and
dishonesty?

Regards,
Mr. 7

In article .com,
"124" wrote:

Jenn wrote:

I never claimed that he was one of your sockpuppets.

Who is one? I never found out who I was supposed to be a sock for, and
it leaves a bit of an empty feeling.

I know how you feel. JA said that I was a sockpuppet, but he never
gave any evidence to support his claim.

--124

You didn't answer the question.

4 of 12 said:

JA said that I was a sockpuppet, but he never
gave any evidence to support his claim.

It's your cowardly anonymity, 4. Same difference.

Jenn wrote:

In article .com,
"124" wrote:

Jenn wrote:

I never claimed that he was one of your sockpuppets.

Who is one? I never found out who I was supposed to be a sock for, and
it leaves a bit of an empty feeling.

I know how you feel. JA said that I was a sockpuppet, but he never
gave any evidence to support his claim.

--124

You didn't answer the question.

For the record, I have never claimed that anyone here is a sockpuppet.
Anyone who thinks I made this claim should provide the evidence that
shows that I made this claim. I, moreover, in a previous post told JA
that I knew that George was not JA.

--124

In article .com,
"124" wrote:

Jenn wrote:

In article .com,
"124" wrote:

Jenn wrote:

I never claimed that he was one of your sockpuppets.

Who is one? I never found out who I was supposed to be a sock for, and
it leaves a bit of an empty feeling.

I know how you feel. JA said that I was a sockpuppet, but he never
gave any evidence to support his claim.

--124

You didn't answer the question.

For the record, I have never claimed that anyone here is a sockpuppet.
Anyone who thinks I made this claim should provide the evidence that
shows that I made this claim. I, moreover, in a previous post told JA
that I knew that George was not JA.

--124

I see. Do you believe that John has sockpuppets here?

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

4 of 12 said:

JA said that I was a sockpuppet, but he never
gave any evidence to support his claim.

It's your cowardly anonymity,

Interesting *George* that you don't call yourself or Art a coward.

"124" wrote in
message

For the record, I have never claimed that anyone here is
a sockpuppet. Anyone who thinks I made this claim should
provide the evidence that shows that I made this claim.
I, moreover, in a previous post told JA that I knew that
George was not JA.


What makes you think that George is most certainly not JA? BTW I agree with
your analysis, but I'm curious as to your reasoning.

wrote in message
oups.com
124 wrote :

[George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.] George is
angry, because the golden-ears myth has been thoroughly
debunked. Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_ want you
to believe in the golden-ears myth.

I agree with you. The golden ears myth has been
thoroughly debunked. And I recall reading this on-line in
a stereophile article by Mr. Atkinson, as I recall
agreeing with its premise. The article, by my
recollection, stated that the "golden ear" tag has always
been a myth propagated by the so-called "tin-eared"
crowd. That you really don't need to have "special ears"
to perceive and enjoy the wealth of differences among
audio components and accessories, like wire, cable,
isolation feet, green markers or 5-pinhole paper with
aspirin tweaks. You simply need to have listening skills.

"listening skills" defined here as suspending disbelief.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 10:25 pm
Email:

Tell us all how this war on expression by you has a ****ing thing to do
with
audio.

Why not tell us how this war on preference that you are waging has a
****ing thing to do with audio, nob?

I'm not waging a war on preference, ****. I'm trying to help debunk the
notion that anything can sound better or more real on an inferior medium.
Not that you care about audio anyway so whynot just **** off?

Tell us how you are a paragon of intellectual honesty and respectful of
other people's opinions on an opinion group.

I have not seen Mr. Middius telling you that your hearing is faulty.

It's about the only thing he hasn't said then.

I
have, OTOH, seen you and Mr. Krueger and Mr. Sullivan say this, and
more.

Bul****.

Why don't you tell us about your rabid defense of other people's
opinions, nob? (Don't let the fact that you do not have a leg to stand
on deter you, either...)

I'm not going to try and defend something I haven't done, namely attack
preference, since I have not done so.

Better yet, tell us anything about your audio choices.

I enjoy listening to the most accurate recordings I can find on CD because
it is the most accurate medium. I have at one time been an avid speaker
building hoobyist, but am not so much now that I have physical limitations
and tremendous pain.

Pretty tired, nob.
Yes you are, ****.

I haven't been here all that long and I've already
seen him do this. Apparently, it wasn't 'good enough.'

You have no reason to be here, since by your own admission you don't give a
**** about audio, so **** off.

I have seen, OTOH, you and Mr. Krueger and Mr. Sullivan attack
preference with regularity, all the while claiming that you don't
engage in this behavior. That would make you...

...a liar.

Talking to the mirror?

"124" wrote in message
oups.com...
Jenn wrote:

I never claimed that he was one of your sockpuppets.

Who is one? I never found out who I was supposed to be a sock for, and
it leaves a bit of an empty feeling.

I know how you feel. JA said that I was a sockpuppet, but he never
gave any evidence to support his claim.



I, for one, have no evidence that you are a sockpuppet,
however; you remain anonymous. Right now it
doesn't matter, unless and until you become abusive,
as torresists, or make some kind of special personal claim, as does Shhh!




--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
oups.com
From:
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 4:42 pm
Email:

I'm not waging a war on preference, ****. I'm trying to
help debunk the notion that anything can sound better or
more real on an inferior medium. Not that you care about
audio anyway so whynot just **** off?

If I said that a seven-transistor radio from 1963 sounded
better to me, that is indeed a preference. Preferences
cannot be debunked.

As they say, there's no accounting for taste or the lack of it.

What about all the times that vinyl bigots have trashed my preference for
clean sound with mininal unecessarly added noise and distortion?

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"124" wrote in message
oups.com...
Jenn wrote:

I never claimed that he was one of your sockpuppets.

Who is one? I never found out who I was supposed to be a sock for, and
it leaves a bit of an empty feeling.

I know how you feel. JA said that I was a sockpuppet, but he never
gave any evidence to support his claim.



I, for one, have no evidence that you are a sockpuppet,

That's a relief.

however; you remain anonymous.

Well, a website with my bio has been referenced here.

Right now it
doesn't matter, unless and until you become abusive,
as torresists, or make some kind of special personal claim, as does Shhh!




--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Shhhh! said to duh-Mikey:

I imagine you, for example, to be a disgustingly ugly, smelly creature.

No need to imagine. We found a candid picture of Mikey (on the left) and
another diehard Kroopologist (real name dickless maletwitski, aka
torrie****s, aka dippyborg). Check it out:

http://www.geocities.com/glanbrok/RA..._and_Thing.jpg

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

4 of 12 said:

JA said that I was a sockpuppet, but he never
gave any evidence to support his claim.

It's your cowardly anonymity,

Interesting *George* that you don't call yourself or Art a coward.


If I am anonymous by posting under hte name of Clyde sSlick,
why do you call me Art? If I were anonymous, you would not
know my name. That's Kroologic for you!!


As far as myself, an 'alias' or 'nickname' is far different than anonymity,
You know who I am, what state I live in and you could easily track
my address and phone number, if you wanted to. Additionally,
I have met, in person, four people who have posted to this group.
Jim Sanders, Marc Phillips, Scott Wiitenvrongel and Scott Wheeler.
So, the five of us are very real. And, Arny, I do not doubt
your reality, you have no reason at all to doubt mine.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
oups.com...
Our minds have a lot to do with what our
ears pick up.


And we don't disconnect our minds when we listen to music.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

From: George M. Middius
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 5:42 pm
Email: George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net

No need to imagine. We found a candid picture of Mikey (on the left) and
another diehard Kroopologist (real name dickless maletwitski, aka
torrie****s, aka dippyborg). Check it out:

Their hands are out of the picture. Are they drunk, or sexually aroused?

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ups.com
From: Arny Krueger
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 5:22 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger"

What about all the times that vinyl bigots have trashed
my preference for clean sound with mininal unecessarly
added noise and distortion?

If those 'vinyl bigots' were being treated the same way
that you and nob have treated Jenn, then I would say that
you got what you deserved.

Comparatively speaking, we've been treating Jenn with kid gloves.

If you were happily minding your own business, and
offered a simple opinion that wasn't geared toward
'debunking' or 'convincing,' someone of their error, then
I would say they were as wrong as you are now.

Over the years a lot of progress has been made. Vinyl bigots used to believe
a lot of weirdness, that has been effectively debunked. I don't know if they
wised up or just learned that the bogus claims they made about digital got
them into trouble.

There's nothing inherently wrong with someone liking either format.

Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and then saying that you
prefer to listen to music with added unecessary audible noise and distortion
is hypocritical and self-contradictory.

Saying that digital has audible forms of distortion such as graininess, or
being incapable of reproducing certain tones or timbres is the result of
being poorly-informed.

Of course there's nothing inherently wrong with being a hypocrite or
self-contradictory, or being intentionally poorly-informed. ;-)

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

Shhhh! said to duh-Mikey:

I imagine you, for example, to be a disgustingly ugly,
smelly creature.

No need to imagine. We found a candid picture of Mikey
(on the left) and another diehard Kroopologist (real name
dickless maletwitski, aka torrie****s, aka dippyborg).
Check it out:

http://www.geocities.com/glanbrok/RA..._and_Thing.jpg

Looks like Middius screwed up and posted a picture of himself and Sackman
instead.

"Arny Krueger" said:

Comparatively speaking, we've been treating Jenn with kid gloves.


Really Arn? By what standard?

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:20 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger"

Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and then saying that you
prefer to listen to music with added unecessary audible noise and distortion
is hypocritical and self-contradictory.

Except that this is rec.*audio* not rec.*high-fidelity*

As I've said, some LPs are more pleasing to listen to than the CD
counterparts that I also have. Some, not all.

But LP, CD, tape, tubes, tuner (probably the lowest fidelity of all,
and never mentioned from what I've seen), etc. are all audio.

Some of us listen for the music. Some of the most enjoyable music that
I've listened to was through a boom box at a beach. A few beers, some
sun, a good Doors tune comes on... And even that boom box was 'audio.'

Therein lies the problem here apparently. Audio to some here has to
mean the 'highest fidelity' or it isn't valid. To others it means the
'most satisfying' to them, regardless of whether or not it represents
the zenith of accuracy.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:

Comparatively speaking, we've been treating Jenn with
kid gloves.

Really Arn? By what standard?

How about the *gentlemanly* standard of conduct established on RAO by George
Middius, Greg Singh, Allan Derrida, and Roy Briggs?

I believe that all of these distinguished *gentlemen* have used various
violent and sexual phrases and activities to characterize and threaten
people they disagreed with, right?

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
oups.com
From: Arny Krueger
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:20 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger"

Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and
then saying that you prefer to listen to music with
added unecessary audible noise and distortion is
hypocritical and self-contradictory.

Except that this is rec.*audio* not rec.*high-fidelity*

Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do with high fidelity.

As I've said, some LPs are more pleasing to listen to
than the CD counterparts that I also have. Some, not all.

There might be a few exceptional cases like that. But Jenn is not talking
about exceptional cases, now is she?

But LP, CD, tape, tubes, tuner (probably the lowest
fidelity of all, and never mentioned from what I've
seen), etc. are all audio.

You forgot cassette!

Some of us listen for the music.

Which is the whole point of high fidelity.

Some of the most
enjoyable music that I've listened to was through a boom
box at a beach.

Good for you!

A few beers, some sun, a good Doors tune
comes on... And even that boom box was 'audio.'

Well, audio of a kind.

Therein lies the problem here apparently. Audio to some
here has to mean the 'highest fidelity' or it isn't
valid.

Nice job of using sentimental imagry to change the subject from Jenn's
global preference of music with unecessasily added audioble noise and
distortion to an afternoon on the beach.

Oh, and you forgot that this is the 21st century, and that courtesy of high
quality portable digital players, its unecesary to leave the desire for
high fidelity at home when going to the beach.

To others it means the 'most satisfying' to them,
regardless of whether or not it represents the zenith of
accuracy.

Irrelevant to Jenn's global preference for music with audible noise and
distortion unecessarily added.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
oups.com
From: Arny Krueger
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:20 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger"

Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and
then saying that you prefer to listen to music with
added unecessary audible noise and distortion is
hypocritical and self-contradictory.

Except that this is rec.*audio* not rec.*high-fidelity*

Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do with high fidelity.

As I've said, some LPs are more pleasing to listen to
than the CD counterparts that I also have. Some, not all.

There might be a few exceptional cases like that. But Jenn is not talking
about exceptional cases, now is she?

But LP, CD, tape, tubes, tuner (probably the lowest
fidelity of all, and never mentioned from what I've
seen), etc. are all audio.

You forgot cassette!

Did they start putting something in cassettes besides TAPE?

Some of us listen for the music.

Which is the whole point of high fidelity.

Some of the most
enjoyable music that I've listened to was through a boom
box at a beach.

Good for you!

A few beers, some sun, a good Doors tune
comes on... And even that boom box was 'audio.'

Well, audio of a kind.

Therein lies the problem here apparently. Audio to some
here has to mean the 'highest fidelity' or it isn't
valid.

Nice job of using sentimental imagry to change the subject from Jenn's
global preference of music with unecessasily added audioble noise and
distortion to an afternoon on the beach.

Oh, and you forgot that this is the 21st century, and that courtesy of high
quality portable digital players, its unecesary to leave the desire for
high fidelity at home when going to the beach.

To others it means the 'most satisfying' to them,
regardless of whether or not it represents the zenith of
accuracy.

Irrelevant to Jenn's global preference for music with audible noise and
distortion unecessarily added.

Yet ANOTHER lie by Arny. By my count, that's 5 today concerning me
alone.

Sander deWaal said to The Big ****:

Comparatively speaking, we've been treating Jenn with kid gloves.

Really Arn? By what standard?

Scary, isn't it?

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
oups.com
From: Arny Krueger
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:20 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger"

Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and
then saying that you prefer to listen to music with
added unecessary audible noise and distortion is
hypocritical and self-contradictory.

Except that this is rec.*audio* not rec.*high-fidelity*

Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do
with high fidelity.

As I've said, some LPs are more pleasing to listen to
than the CD counterparts that I also have. Some, not
all.

There might be a few exceptional cases like that. But
Jenn is not talking about exceptional cases, now is she?

But LP, CD, tape, tubes, tuner (probably the lowest
fidelity of all, and never mentioned from what I've
seen), etc. are all audio.

You forgot cassette!

Did they start putting something in cassettes besides
TAPE?

Some of us listen for the music.

Which is the whole point of high fidelity.

Some of the most
enjoyable music that I've listened to was through a boom
box at a beach.

Good for you!

A few beers, some sun, a good Doors tune
comes on... And even that boom box was 'audio.'

Well, audio of a kind.

Therein lies the problem here apparently. Audio to some
here has to mean the 'highest fidelity' or it isn't
valid.

Nice job of using sentimental imagry to change the
subject from Jenn's global preference of music with
unecessasily added audioble noise and distortion to an
afternoon on the beach.

Oh, and you forgot that this is the 21st century, and
that courtesy of high quality portable digital players,
its unecesary to leave the desire for high fidelity at
home when going to the beach.

To others it means the 'most satisfying' to them,
regardless of whether or not it represents the zenith of
accuracy.

Irrelevant to Jenn's global preference for music with
audible noise and distortion unecessarily added.

Yet ANOTHER lie by Arny. By my count, that's 5 today
concerning me alone.

Well Jenn, do you prefer LP or CD for violin sound or not?

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
oups.com
From: Arny Krueger
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:20 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger"

Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and
then saying that you prefer to listen to music with
added unecessary audible noise and distortion is
hypocritical and self-contradictory.

Except that this is rec.*audio* not rec.*high-fidelity*

Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do
with high fidelity.

As I've said, some LPs are more pleasing to listen to
than the CD counterparts that I also have. Some, not
all.

There might be a few exceptional cases like that. But
Jenn is not talking about exceptional cases, now is she?

But LP, CD, tape, tubes, tuner (probably the lowest
fidelity of all, and never mentioned from what I've
seen), etc. are all audio.

You forgot cassette!

Did they start putting something in cassettes besides
TAPE?

Some of us listen for the music.

Which is the whole point of high fidelity.

Some of the most
enjoyable music that I've listened to was through a boom
box at a beach.

Good for you!

A few beers, some sun, a good Doors tune
comes on... And even that boom box was 'audio.'

Well, audio of a kind.

Therein lies the problem here apparently. Audio to some
here has to mean the 'highest fidelity' or it isn't
valid.

Nice job of using sentimental imagry to change the
subject from Jenn's global preference of music with
unecessasily added audioble noise and distortion to an
afternoon on the beach.

Oh, and you forgot that this is the 21st century, and
that courtesy of high quality portable digital players,
its unecesary to leave the desire for high fidelity at
home when going to the beach.

To others it means the 'most satisfying' to them,
regardless of whether or not it represents the zenith of
accuracy.

Irrelevant to Jenn's global preference for music with
audible noise and distortion unecessarily added.

Yet ANOTHER lie by Arny. By my count, that's 5 today
concerning me alone.

Well Jenn, do you prefer LP or CD for violin sound or not?

On the best LPs, yes. Now, how does that differ from, "...Jenn's global
preference for music ..."

Jenn said:

Jenn's global preference for music with audible noise and
distortion unecessarily added.

Yet ANOTHER lie by Arny. By my count, that's 5 today concerning me alone.

I hope you don't think that's going to break his record. Not even close. ;-)