| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
As I look around this dysfunctional madhouse that you dare call a discussion group, I can't help but notice that just about every single thread is an attack thread of some sort, on someone or other. After only a few days of posting here, there's even an attack thread in my honour now (thanks to "Westface" for that one). True discussions about audio are actually quite rare here, from what I've seen. I don't mean the usual tired old senseless, pointless, worthless, quasi-debates about "Blind Tests" vs. "Sighted Tests", or the same 25 year old arguments about which is better LP or CD (its always the same conclusion: those with discerning tastes who understand what music sounds like, know that LP is more accurate within its limitations of amplitude,those who believe whatever they've been brainwashed to believe by the mid-fi industry and know nothing about music reproduction, always blindly claim its CD - and ne'er the twain shall meet). So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit" by opening up an actual attempt at an audio-related discussion. Perhaps it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars. I was reading an article recently where the author talked about the advances in speaker technology (cone materials, etc), and seemed to establish a preference for paper-coned drivers. This made me question my Kevlar-woven drivers, as I wondered if he had a valid point to make. He said despite "trends" in speaker technology, such as the driver materials or cabinets, that the Japanese had a preference for paper drivers, for this specific reason: Basically, his argument was that paper is a natural material, as are the materials of many musical instruments, which are made of wood or even brass, etc. He talked about rapping the side of a cup made of plastic, and one made of wood, and determining what kind of sound it made. He argues the plastic cup will make an unnatural type of sound, unlike the wood material. His reasoning was that plastic materials are used in driver design because they -measure- well, particularly figures of distortion. But that the paper cones (I assume if properly designed), while they may produce more distortion than plastic or measure more poorly, also produce sound that more resembles real music. Which is something you can't measure. As I become more and more aware of the affect of materials in our environment from my other audio experiments, I find no affection for plastic, and I admit a bias towards natural materials. So I think there may be some merit in his argument, but I'm not a speaker designer, and don't have enough expertise to say what the "sound" of a cone may be, without the motor. If anyone has any reasonable and thoughtful opinions on the issue, I'd be interested to hear. If you just want to line up to attack me, please note that I now have a thread specifically for that purpose: "An open invitation to critique Soundhaspriority's audio expertise". Again, thanks to Westface for helping this newsgroup to better focus their attacks on the "real" enemies of RAO. |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
wrote in message ups.com... As I look around this dysfunctional madhouse that you dare call a discussion group, I can't help but notice that just about every single thread is an attack thread of some sort, on someone or other. After only a few days of posting here, there's even an attack thread in my honour now (thanks to "Westface" for that one). True discussions about audio are actually quite rare here, from what I've seen. I don't mean the usual tired old senseless, pointless, worthless, quasi-debates about "Blind Tests" vs. "Sighted Tests", or the same 25 year old arguments about which is better LP or CD (its always the same conclusion: those with discerning tastes who understand what music sounds like, know that LP is more accurate within its limitations of amplitude,those who believe whatever they've been brainwashed to believe by the mid-fi industry and know nothing about music reproduction, always blindly claim its CD - and ne'er the twain shall meet). So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit" You seriously that preface will help "class things up"? by opening up an actual attempt at an audio-related discussion. Perhaps it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars. I was reading an article recently where the author talked about the advances in speaker technology (cone materials, etc), and seemed to establish a preference for paper-coned drivers. This made me question my Kevlar-woven drivers, as I wondered if he had a valid point to make. He said despite "trends" in speaker technology, such as the driver materials or cabinets, that the Japanese had a preference for paper drivers, for this specific reason: Basically, his argument was that paper is a natural material, Really? Where exactly would find this source of paper in nature? Have you ever seen a paper mill? Do you realize that paper mills were at one time one of the worst sources of water pollution? Plastic comes from oil which is a product of nature.. it is as natural as any modern paper. Perhaps you think a parchment cone is a good idea? I appreciate your expressed desire to create an audio thread....but you can't just base one of any seriousness on such a silly premise. Sorry. ScottW |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
wrote in message ups.com... [snip] I was reading an article recently where the author talked about the advances in speaker technology (cone materials, etc), and seemed to establish a preference for paper-coned drivers. This made me question my Kevlar-woven drivers, as I wondered if he had a valid point to make. He said despite "trends" in speaker technology, such as the driver materials or cabinets, that the Japanese had a preference for paper drivers, for this specific reason: Basically, his argument was that paper is a natural material, as are the materials of many musical instruments, which are made of wood or even brass, etc. I have one listening room in which I have three sets of floorstanding speakers: Kef Reference III (plastic mid/paper woofers) NEAR 50me (all metal) Polk LSi15 (plastic woofer/mids), doped fabric ring tweeter. Two of these speakers have "character" : The KEFs are lush, forgiving, with a tonal balance that subjectively seems "balanced", although, of course, it is not. It was carefully designed to give the subjective impression that it is "balanced." The NEARs have exquisite detail, with a tonal balance frequently described as "laid back". The venue seems larger, the performers arrayed in distant depth. It appears that Matthew Polk specified objective accuracy as the primary design goal of the Polk. These speakers are possibly the most detailed of the bunch; not harsh, but strictly neutral. The presentation is neither clinical nor romantic. The impromptu test suggested in the article is a simple measurement of the damping characteristics. Cellulose based materials found in nature have significant damping, because they are complex composites. Raw synthetic materials, be they polymer or metal, are not, in general, highly damped materials, because they are not composites. But pure plastic is not used in good speaker drivers. You might find it in a polycarbonate tweeter, but these have been abandoned for hifi. Plastics used in speakers are invariably composites, containing mineral additives such as talc to obtain the necessary damping. Metal drivers are a much more complex question. Metal is not a well damped material. The virtues of metal lie elsewhere. In every case where metal is used, the resonant structure of the driver must be considered and addressed. But in the case of both plastic and metal, synthetics give the designer more choices. Some designers have not chosen wisely. |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
|
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
wrote in message ups.com... As I look around this dysfunctional madhouse that you dare call a discussion group, I can't help but notice that just about every single thread is an attack thread of some sort, on someone or other. After only a few days of posting here, there's even an attack thread in my honour now (thanks to "Westface" for that one). True discussions about audio are actually quite rare here, from what I've seen. I don't mean the usual tired old senseless, pointless, worthless, quasi-debates about "Blind Tests" vs. "Sighted Tests", or the same 25 year old arguments about which is better LP or CD (its always the same conclusion: those with discerning tastes who understand what music sounds like, know that LP is more accurate within its limitations of amplitude Complete nonsense. ,those who believe whatever they've been brainwashed to believe by the mid-fi industry and know nothing about music reproduction, always blindly claim its CD - and ne'er the twain shall meet). More nonsense. I thought you wanted discussions about audio and that sound has priority. If that's the case then CD is the priority since it is the most accurate way to listen to music. LP is not now, nor has it ever been more accurate at anything compared to CD. So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit" by opening up an actual attempt at an audio-related discussion. Hmm, it looks like your idea of classing things up, is to immediately show that you don;t know what you are talking about. Perhaps it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars. Like the one you just invited to be started? I was reading an article recently where the author talked about the advances in speaker technology (cone materials, etc), and seemed to establish a preference for paper-coned drivers. This made me question my Kevlar-woven drivers, as I wondered if he had a valid point to make. He said despite "trends" in speaker technology, such as the driver materials or cabinets, that the Japanese had a preference for paper drivers, for this specific reason: Basically, his argument was that paper is a natural material, as are the materials of many musical instruments, which are made of wood or even brass, etc. He talked about rapping the side of a cup made of plastic, and one made of wood, and determining what kind of sound it made. He argues the plastic cup will make an unnatural type of sound, unlike the wood material. His reasoning was that plastic materials are used in driver design because they -measure- well, particularly figures of distortion. But that the paper cones (I assume if properly designed), while they may produce more distortion than plastic or measure more poorly, also produce sound that more resembles real music. Which is something you can't measure. So, you're on a roll, 2 idiot statements in a row. Being able to measure whether or not something sounds more like real music is of course something that is possible and some materials are better at it than others and they all have different limitations. The nonosense about paper vs. plastic is just another bit of idiocy from somebody that apparently has no clue about speaker design. Speaker design is all about compromises, especially in driver materials. Paper has a long history and does somethings well, but if you look around at virtually all the most highly regarded speakeer systems in the world, you will notice there are virtually none of them using paper in any of the drivers. Dynaudio uses silk dome tweeters and other materials for their mid and low frequency drivers. B&W uses Kevlar as does Scan Speak in their OEM drivers, altough they have some paper mixtureswith other materials. As I become more and more aware of the affect of materials in our environment from my other audio experiments, I find no affection for plastic, and I admit a bias towards natural materials. So I think there may be some merit in his argument, but I'm not a speaker designer, and don't have enough expertise to say what the "sound" of a cone may be, without the motor. Given that you have been wrong about everything else, this comes as no surprise. If anyone has any reasonable and thoughtful opinions on the issue, I'd be interested to hear. The best hing for you to do would be to actually investigate the various high rated speakers that are available and find out how many use paper for anything, then come bac and admit you were wrong. If you just want to line up to attack me, please note that I now have a thread specifically for that purpose: "An open invitation to critique Soundhaspriority's audio expertise". Again, thanks to Westface for helping this newsgroup to better focus their attacks on the "real" enemies of RAO. If you don't want to be attacked, then you shold try and be smarter about what you say. So far you have shown no evidence that you have a clue about audio at all. |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
In article et,
wrote: wrote in message ups.com... As I look around this dysfunctional madhouse that you dare call a discussion group, I can't help but notice that just about every single thread is an attack thread of some sort, on someone or other. After only a few days of posting here, there's even an attack thread in my honour now (thanks to "Westface" for that one). True discussions about audio are actually quite rare here, from what I've seen. I don't mean the usual tired old senseless, pointless, worthless, quasi-debates about "Blind Tests" vs. "Sighted Tests", or the same 25 year old arguments about which is better LP or CD (its always the same conclusion: those with discerning tastes who understand what music sounds like, know that LP is more accurate within its limitations of amplitude Complete nonsense. ,those who believe whatever they've been brainwashed to believe by the mid-fi industry and know nothing about music reproduction, always blindly claim its CD - and ne'er the twain shall meet). More nonsense. I thought you wanted discussions about audio and that sound has priority. If that's the case then CD is the priority since it is the most accurate way to listen to music. LP is not now, nor has it ever been more accurate at anything compared to CD. So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit" by opening up an actual attempt at an audio-related discussion. Hmm, it looks like your idea of classing things up, is to immediately show that you don;t know what you are talking about. Perhaps it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars. Like the one you just invited to be started? I was reading an article recently where the author talked about the advances in speaker technology (cone materials, etc), and seemed to establish a preference for paper-coned drivers. This made me question my Kevlar-woven drivers, as I wondered if he had a valid point to make. He said despite "trends" in speaker technology, such as the driver materials or cabinets, that the Japanese had a preference for paper drivers, for this specific reason: Basically, his argument was that paper is a natural material, as are the materials of many musical instruments, which are made of wood or even brass, etc. He talked about rapping the side of a cup made of plastic, and one made of wood, and determining what kind of sound it made. He argues the plastic cup will make an unnatural type of sound, unlike the wood material. His reasoning was that plastic materials are used in driver design because they -measure- well, particularly figures of distortion. But that the paper cones (I assume if properly designed), while they may produce more distortion than plastic or measure more poorly, also produce sound that more resembles real music. Which is something you can't measure. So, you're on a roll, 2 idiot statements in a row. Being able to measure whether or not something sounds more like real music is of course something that is possible and some materials are better at it than others and they all have different limitations. The nonosense about paper vs. plastic is just another bit of idiocy from somebody that apparently has no clue about speaker design. Speaker design is all about compromises, especially in driver materials. Paper has a long history and does somethings well, but if you look around at virtually all the most highly regarded speakeer systems in the world, you will notice there are virtually none of them using paper in any of the drivers. Dynaudio uses silk dome tweeters and other materials for their mid and low frequency drivers. B&W uses Kevlar as does Scan Speak in their OEM drivers, altough they have some paper mixtureswith other materials. As I become more and more aware of the affect of materials in our environment from my other audio experiments, I find no affection for plastic, and I admit a bias towards natural materials. So I think there may be some merit in his argument, but I'm not a speaker designer, and don't have enough expertise to say what the "sound" of a cone may be, without the motor. Given that you have been wrong about everything else, this comes as no surprise. If anyone has any reasonable and thoughtful opinions on the issue, I'd be interested to hear. The best hing for you to do would be to actually investigate the various high rated speakers that are available and find out how many use paper for anything, then come bac and admit you were wrong. If you just want to line up to attack me, please note that I now have a thread specifically for that purpose: "An open invitation to critique Soundhaspriority's audio expertise". Again, thanks to Westface for helping this newsgroup to better focus their attacks on the "real" enemies of RAO. If you don't want to be attacked, then you shold try and be smarter about what you say. It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something, and not be called an idiot. Not here, however. |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
Stupey Sillybot turns red in the metallic faceplate. those who believe whatever they've been brainwashed to believe by the mid-fi industry and know nothing about music reproduction, always blindly claim its CD ... Ah, thanks for clearing that whole thing up for us, at long last. (Personally, I've never seen that particular conclusion until now.) Agreed, Silly. You weren't "brainwashed", you were programmed. This seems an opportune moment to relate the story of how Sillybot made his Big Audio Purchase of 2005. He clanked through the spec sheets and feature lists of various midpriced receivers in order to identify several models that would "get the job done". He then browsed mail order sources to pinpoint the one deal offered at the greatest percentage discount off list price. Then he smashed his piggy bank to borrow his daddy's credit card and made his highly siciccncnetiittifc purchase. What was it again -- a Pioneer? A Sherwood? Marantz? I forget. Doesn't much matter though, since you weren't brainwashed ;-) and anyway, you're an audiophobe down to your rusty bolts and misfiring neural pathways. So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit" by opening up an actual attempt at an audio-related discussion. Perhaps it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars. Why don't you just list all your preconceived yet dubious conclusions, like the one above LPs and CDs. Save us lots of time. Why don't you admit that the real reason you prefer CDs to vinyl is that you're too klutzy to take care of possessions that can deteriorate. In fact, weren't you the one who prescribed making cockrings out of CDs in order to show your love? ;-) As I become more and more aware of the affect of materials in our environment from my other audio experiments, I find no affection for plastic, and I admit a bias towards natural materials. One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from the listening room. Are you familiar with her work? What a kook! ... said the metal-encased robot. |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
wrote in message ups.com... . He talked about rapping the side of a cup made of plastic, and one made of wood, and determining what kind of sound it made. He argues the plastic cup will make an unnatural type of sound, unlike the wood material. You can go back to tin cans tied with strings, for all I care. Rapping a plastic cup to see what kind of a sound is made, and using that result to make universal determination on material efficacy is quite stupid. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... wrote: One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from the listening room. Are you familiar with her work? I was with her. she didn't much like it when I tried to remove the metal snaps on her bra. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
wrote in message oups.com... "ScottW" wrote in message news:FOjOf.134985$0G.98705@dukeread10... wrote in message ups.com... As I look around this dysfunctional madhouse that you dare call a discussion group, I can't help but notice that just about every single thread is an attack thread of some sort, on someone or other. After only a few days of posting here, there's even an attack thread in my honour now (thanks to "Westface" for that one). True discussions about audio are actually quite rare here, from what I've seen. I don't mean the usual tired old senseless, pointless, worthless, quasi-debates about "Blind Tests" vs. "Sighted Tests", or the same 25 year old arguments about which is better LP or CD (its always the same conclusion: those with discerning tastes who understand what music sounds like, know that LP is more accurate within its limitations of amplitude,those who believe whatever they've been brainwashed to believe by the mid-fi industry and know nothing about music reproduction, always blindly claim its CD - and ne'er the twain shall meet). So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit" You seriously that preface will help "class things up"? That would be a "yup". Thank you for bringing the "noise" in, you dyslexic twit. Now close the door on your way out. We now know the depths of your seriousness. I was reading an article recently where the author talked about the advances in speaker technology (cone materials, etc), and seemed to establish a preference for paper-coned drivers. This made me question my Kevlar-woven drivers, as I wondered if he had a valid point to make. He said despite "trends" in speaker technology, such as the driver materials or cabinets, that the Japanese had a preference for paper drivers, for this specific reason: Basically, his argument was that paper is a natural material, Really? Where exactly would find this source of paper in nature? Ever heard of something called a "tree"? You might have fallen out of one and landed on your head. Perhaps that's why you don't remember. I guess you crawled out of the tar pits of LA.. paper is as removed from a tree as plastic is from oil. Have you ever seen a paper mill? Seen a paper mill? I LIVE in a paper mill. (I really ought to clean up my office though). Do you realize that paper mills were at one time one of the worst sources of water pollution? And this has WHAT to do with loudspeaker design, you fruitbasket? Nothing.. but it is your thread. Paper is not a product of nature. Plastic comes from oil which is a product of nature.. it is as natural as any modern paper. Oh really. How long does it take to "grow" a piece of plastic do ya figure? As long as it takes to grow paper. Perhaps you think a parchment cone is a good idea? I think a waffle type cone is a good idea. So long as it comes with a scoop of cherry vanilla and some jimmy sprinkles. I appreciate your expressed desire to create an audio thread.... Oh that couldn't have been more clearer! I try to take the "high road", but lacked the stamina for it. but all you belligerent trolls on RAO can do is DRAG me down to your pitiful level, Dragged? I don't even think it was a nudge.. all you needed was an opportunity. where you can no longer smell the rot and stench that you create, since you're so used to living in it. What this group of sociopathic misfits needs isn't a moderator, but an excorcist. Volunteering? ScottW |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
"Jenn" wrote in message ... It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something, and not be called an idiot. Not here, however. I've noticed your skin is thickening already  .ScottW |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message . .. "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... wrote: One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from the listening room. Are you familiar with her work? I was with her. she didn't much like it when I tried to remove the metal snaps on her bra. I heard you drew blood with a metal stay .ScottW |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:14:30 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: wrote in message oups.com... . He talked about rapping the side of a cup made of plastic, and one made of wood, and determining what kind of sound it made. He argues the plastic cup will make an unnatural type of sound, unlike the wood material. You can go back to tin cans tied with strings, for all I care. Rapping a plastic cup to see what kind of a sound is made, and using that result to make universal determination on material efficacy is quite stupid. Not if if you have a picture of an asprin and lick a dog's arse, Sick. |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message ... On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:14:30 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote: wrote in message roups.com... . He talked about rapping the side of a cup made of plastic, and one made of wood, and determining what kind of sound it made. He argues the plastic cup will make an unnatural type of sound, unlike the wood material. You can go back to tin cans tied with strings, for all I care. Rapping a plastic cup to see what kind of a sound is made, and using that result to make universal determination on material efficacy is quite stupid. Not if if you have a picture of an asprin and lick a dog's arse, Sick. Whatever floats your speaker cones. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
Goofy said: Rapping a plastic cup to see what kind of a sound is made, and using that result to make universal determination on material efficacy is quite stupid. Not if if you have a picture of an asprin and lick a dog's arse, Sick. Complete lack of bias-controlled, level-matched, serially implemented, statistically significant, bias-free, snot-encased, electrically grounded, morally superior DBT result's, noted. As if someone with your credential's or, should I say "lack of" credentails would even know how to reliably subjectivationalize a listening test, LOt"S! ;-) LOl! ;-( |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: I've seen. I don't mean the usual tired old senseless, pointless, worthless, quasi-debates about "Blind Tests" vs. "Sighted Tests", or the same 25 year old arguments about which is better LP or CD (its always the same conclusion: those with discerning tastes who understand what music sounds like, know that LP is more accurate within its limitations of amplitude,those who believe whatever they've been brainwashed to believe by the mid-fi industry and know nothing about music reproduction, always blindly claim its CD - and ne'er the twain shall meet). Ah, thanks for clearing that whole thing up for us, at long last. (Personally, I've never seen that particular conclusion until now.) Since you're not an audiophile and wouldn't know how to set up an audiophile turntable if I put a gun to your head, do you think I should be surprised? So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit" by opening up an actual attempt at an audio-related discussion. Perhaps it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars. Why don't you just list all your preconceived yet dubious conclusions, like the one above LPs and CDs. Save us lots of time. Okay, here it is: I was reading an article recently where the author talked about the advances in speaker technology (cone materials, etc), and seemed to establish a preference for paper-coned drivers. This made me question my Kevlar-woven drivers, as I wondered if he had a valid point to make. He said despite "trends" in speaker technology, such as the driver materials or cabinets, that the Japanese had a preference for paper drivers, for this specific reason: Basically, his argument was that paper is a natural material, as are the materials of many musical instruments, which are made of wood or even brass, etc. He talked about rapping the side of a cup made of plastic, and one made of wood, and determining what kind of sound it made. He argues the plastic cup will make an unnatural type of sound, unlike the wood material. His reasoning was that plastic materials are used in driver design because they -measure- well, particularly figures of distortion. But that the paper cones (I assume if properly designed), while they may produce more distortion than plastic or measure more poorly, also produce sound that more resembles real music. Which is something you can't measure. You know, this sort of theory of correspondences had some traction in the age of alchemy...but not so much nowadays, except in New Age/homepathic circles. Your vigorous assertions have no currency here. What experiments, Mr. Scientist, have you done with cone materials that prove contrary to the article? One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from the listening room. Are you familiar with her work? No, but I'll bet your refrring to Enid Lumley. I only heard about her recently in my research into alternative audio, as I was not a regular reader of The Absolute Sound. She seems to be very well regarded, and sorely missed (after having dropped out of the audio scene altogether, because as I understand, of always having to deal with ignorant pigs like yourself). I read that she was many years ahead of her time, and that many of her practices that were largely ridiculed in the 80's (by ignorant pigs like yourself), are now standard practice in the audiophile world. I read that TAS should be congratulated, as having been one of the few audio magazines to have the courage to support unpopular principles and ideas, such as what Enid Lumley advocated, that may have helped to advance the state of the audio hobby. I have no reason to doubt anything I just mentioned. One reason being, I find that what you mentioned about Enid Lumley's findings on the effects of metal parallel my own work. I believe that metal is NOT good for audio. One experience comes from my DIY IC and speaker wire experiments. Conventional audiophile "wisdom" tells us that the thicker the wire (ie. the more metal), the better. So audiophiles cables tend to look like snakes with gold heads. Yet I've managed to make IC and speaker cables out of hair-thin 30g magnet wire, that can sound superior to the "snakes". Eichmann showed us with his popular "bullet plugs", that all metals are not beneficial to the signal, after reducing them to a bare minimum. He was probably drawing on principles developed by Dennis Moorecroft, who fabricates amplifiers containing little or no metals, based on his advanced findings. Apparently, they sound out of this world good. Do you think your friend Arny Krueger has done anything to help improve our understanding of how to achieve higher qualities of music reproduction? Hardly. If it weren't for pioneers like Lumley, Moorecroft, Eichmann, and alumni, our hobby would never advance. People like you and Krueger who sit on your arse all day doing absolutely nothing to advance the state of audio, but rag on people who are a lot brighter than you and are trying to move audio ahead, don't do anything good for our hobby. My research has also shown me that magnets are not good for audio either (except under certain applications). Any extraneous magnets should be removed from the listening room. This includes any items containing magnetic particles. So, a simple way that people can improve the quality of their sound is by removing videotapes and audio tapes from their listening room. However, from what people have described to me in response to my other tweaks, I don't expect most people on this group to be able to figure out how to do this either. They'd probably manage to set themselves on fire, in an attempt to remove the videotapes. So tell me, what personal experiments have YOU done that prove Lumley wrong, Mr. Gabalot? Have you ever considered that fact that YOU'RE the "kook", for not realizing what an ignorant pig you are, in criticizing people and ideas simply because you're ignorant about them? Ideas you know nothing about, and have never researched on your own? It's true, you know. The most frightening thing about all of this (read: your willful ignorance), is that you call yourself a "scientist". Even more frightening is the fact that you admitted you don't have the attention span to read my posts, you get confused when you have to read posts that are longer than a few lines (which begs the question: why are you still reading my messages?). You've got my vote for the dumbest "scientist" I've ever met. |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
Clyde Slick wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... wrote: One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from the listening room. Are you familiar with her work? I was with her. she didn't much like it when I tried to remove the metal snaps on her bra. That's a very sexist, disrespectful and offensive comment. It has no place on an audio group. |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
ScottW wrote: wrote in message oups.com... "ScottW" wrote in message news:FOjOf.134985$0G.98705@dukeread10... wrote in message ups.com... We now know the depths of your seriousness. As "we" already know the depts of your ignorance. Really? Where exactly would find this source of paper in nature? Ever heard of something called a "tree"? You might have fallen out of one and landed on your head. Perhaps that's why you don't remember. I guess you crawled out of the tar pits of LA.. paper is as removed from a tree as plastic is from oil. You're wrong, paper is NOT removed from a tree as plastic is from oil. In fact, plastic is not even "removed" from oil. Do you know ANYTHING? And this has WHAT to do with loudspeaker design, you fruitbasket? Nothing.. but it is your thread. Paper is not a product of nature. Tell that to the tree, nutjob. Oh really. How long does it take to "grow" a piece of plastic do ya figure? As long as it takes to grow paper. You're wrong, you don't "grow" plastic. Do you know ANYTHING? Oh that couldn't have been more clearer! I try to take the "high road", but lacked the stamina for it. Well at least I tried, which is more than I can say for you. Now name me one person here on RAO that hasn't been attacked? Just one, that's all. Just ONE. I'd like to find out how they managed to avoid getting attacked on this newsgroup. but all you belligerent trolls on RAO can do is DRAG me down to your pitiful level, Dragged? I don't even think it was a nudge.. all you needed was an opportunity. If that's so, then you had no problem giving me plenty with your abusive personal attacks on me. So stop whining already, if I bite back. where you can no longer smell the rot and stench that you create, since you're so used to living in it. What this group of sociopathic misfits needs isn't a moderator, but an excorcist. Volunteering? So I'm a priest now, according to you? You're even more confused than I gave you credit for. What do you want from me, anyway? If you're not a belligerent troll as you claim you're not, than stop responding to my messages. |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
wrote in message ups.com... ScottW wrote: wrote in message oups.com... "ScottW" wrote in message news:FOjOf.134985$0G.98705@dukeread10... wrote in message ups.com... We now know the depths of your seriousness. As "we" already know the depts of your ignorance. Really? Where exactly would find this source of paper in nature? Ever heard of something called a "tree"? You might have fallen out of one and landed on your head. Perhaps that's why you don't remember. I guess you crawled out of the tar pits of LA.. paper is as removed from a tree as plastic is from oil. You're wrong, paper is NOT removed from a tree as plastic is from oil. In fact, plastic is not even "removed" from oil. Do you know ANYTHING? Paper just doesn't leap out of trees, it has to be be processed from wood pulp, and it is one of the smelliest things you'll evver encouter. And this has WHAT to do with loudspeaker design, you fruitbasket? Nothing.. but it is your thread. Paper is not a product of nature. Actually everything that exists, exists within nature, since only the natural exists. If a beavers dam is part f nature, then so is a skyscraper, since the same rules apply, things that were in one form, werre tranformed into something new. Of course I'm nitpicking, but the point is still valid. Tell that to the tree, nutjob. Oh really. How long does it take to "grow" a piece of plastic do ya figure? As long as it takes to grow paper. You're wrong, you don't "grow" plastic. Do you know ANYTHING? I know that you don't make saweeping statements about CD and LP here and expect to leave unscathed. Oh that couldn't have been more clearer! I try to take the "high road", but lacked the stamina for it. Well at least I tried, which is more than I can say for you. You didn't try, you started out insulting everybody who prefers CD's which are in fact technically superior to LP in every single aspect. Now name me one person here on RAO that hasn't been attacked? Just one, that's all. Just ONE. I'd like to find out how they managed to avoid getting attacked on this newsgroup. If you already knew that and stilldecided to post here and decided to insult common sense with statements liek LP being supreior to VD and the nutty ctrap about paper and plastic drivers, then you prettymuch invited abuse. |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
wrote in message ink.net... If you already knew that and stilldecided to post here and decided to insult common sense with statements liek LP being supreior to VD and the nutty ctrap about paper and plastic drivers, then you prettymuch invited abuse. Mikey would rather have VD than LP. Its more accurate. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
wrote in message
ink.net... wrote in message ups.com... ScottW wrote: wrote in message oups.com... "ScottW" wrote in message news:FOjOf.134985$0G.98705@dukeread10... wrote in message ups.com... Paper just doesn't leap out of trees, it has to be be processed from wood pulp, and it is one of the smelliest things you'll evver encouter. Color me skeptical. For I believe _you_ would be one of the smelliest things I'd ever encounter. But we're getting off point here, aren't we. What does the smell of processed wood have to do with the resonance modes of natural paper? What _is_ it about you silly arse gearheads that you always have to go off tangent and bring in arguments from 3,000 miles away that have absolutely ZERO relevance to the points I bring up? Can't you follow a basic argument in a debate, or are you all trying to watch tv at the same time as you type? And this has WHAT to do with loudspeaker design, you fruitbasket? Nothing.. but it is your thread. Paper is not a product of nature. Actually everything that exists, exists within nature, since only the natural exists. Oh my god, gearhead jr. is a "philosopher" now. You have no end of wasted talents, don't you, Mr. McKelvy? What are you doing wasting them here? Shouldn't you be somewhere teaching a university class? If a beavers dam is part f nature, then so is a skyscraper, since the same rules apply, things that were in one form, werre tranformed into something new. Of course I'm nitpicking, but the point is still valid. No, the point was _never_ valid. And I can see why you're considered one of the dumber "objectivist-extremists" here. Just because something exists on this planet, doesn't mean you can call it "natural". Paper comes from trees, trees are a living thing. That would surely make it "natural". Plastic is _not_ a living thing. Neither is oil, neither are skyscrapers. But you're still off the point. I believe the focus of my question was in the nature of the resonant frequencies of materials used for speaker coning. Or did you forget all of that? All materials have resonant frequencies and may produce harmonics. I believe the question on the table was more like: "Does paper, a natural material, produce timbral qualities more sympathetic to the natural sound of musical instrumetns than synthetic materials used for coning, ie. plastics?" It wasn't simply a question of "is paper superior to plastic" in general. But then I've come to learn that gearheads are oblivious to any and all subtlety. You're wrong, you don't "grow" plastic. Do you know ANYTHING? I know that you don't make saweeping statements about CD and LP here and expect to leave unscathed. LOL! I will -always- be able to "leave here unscathed", because I'm "untouchable". IOW, there's nothing you or your beanie baby buddies could do or say that would harm me in any way, or even change anything that I choose to do. And as for the "saweeping statements", well that would be YOU that's prone to making those. Aren't you the shmuck who said unequivocally that CD was superior to LP? No matter what? A $35 Coby is better than a $30,000 SME? I rest my case. Oh that couldn't have been more clearer! I try to take the "high road", but lacked the stamina for it. Well at least I tried, which is more than I can say for you. You didn't try, you started out insulting everybody who prefers CD's which are in fact technically superior to LP in every single aspect. Yup, you're that shmuck all right. You see what I mean? It's as though you made a promise to yourself that each thing you say to me, has to be even stupider than the last. You just insulted everybody who prefer's LP's, which are proven to be technically superior to CDs. But then, how would you even know that? All that you know about audio you read in the pages of old Stereo Review articles. You probably wank to pictures of Julian Hirsch. You really _do_ sound like an android, the way you spew out misguided gibberish all the time about audio, which one can tell has not a shred of experience behind a single word that you spill on these pages. When you've actually learned something from firsthand knowledge, then maybe you can come back and maybe I'll listen to what you have to say. Until then... go back to Julian. Now name me one person here on RAO that hasn't been attacked? Just one, that's all. Just ONE. I'd like to find out how they managed to avoid getting attacked on this newsgroup. If you already knew that and stilldecided to post here and decided to insult common sense with statements liek LP being supreior to VD and the nutty ctrap about paper and plastic drivers, then you prettymuch invited abuse. Please put your glasses on before you type, dorkus maximus. I never said anything about the LP being superior to your VD. Everything you seem to say is an insult to one's intelligence. And I mean *anyone*. I'm not knocking the humble CD, because it is a "good enough" type of medium for the masses. Its just that unlike you, some people are ambitious about sound quality. They want something better than you can get off your mp3 based mini that you listen to. They're called "audiophiles". You should know, you make it your business to slander and attack them every day, with your senseless jabberwocky. For them, God created the turntable. (Or more specifically, "The Source"). It is recognized as being superior to CD by all musicians and audiophiles with discriminating ears, who can actualy tell what real music is supposed to sound like. Most CD players under $5 grand simply do not have the ability to acheive the level of resolution afforded by a good record deck. A blind pig is able to determine this when a proper comparison is made. Speaking of which, I recall reading an article in a hifi magazine where blind tests were done comparing a good record deck to a CD player that cost several times the price of the deck. Most could not tell when the LP was being played (so much for the gearheads complaint about surface noise), and all without exception, chose the LP reproduction as superior. Coincidence? Hardly. LP done right, even in the face of SACD and DVD-A, is a superior medium for reproducing music. For reproducing mere "sounds", like a movie sfx, CD will do. Nuff said. Drop the subject, and stop embarassing yourself. There's enough misguided ignorance about audio here already without you trying to top everyone. |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
"ScottW" wrote in message news:FroOf.135029$0G.75246@dukeread10... "Jenn" wrote in message ... It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something, and not be called an idiot. Not here, however. I've noticed your skin is thickening already .ScottW I've noticed too how thick your skin is. Only the skin on your head, though. But it explains a lot when one wonders where you come up with these inane responses of yours. |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
"Jenn" wrote in message
It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something, and not be called an idiot. Not here, however. Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone to use the word idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO one of the most prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius. |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Ah, the 'classing up' continues apace. I love you. |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something, and not be called an idiot. Not here, however. Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone to use the word idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO one of the most prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius. I agree with you that it comes from both "sides". It's all "idiotic" if you ask me. All part of the "talk radio culture", IMO. |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
"Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something, and not be called an idiot. Not here, however. Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone to use the word idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO one of the most prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius. I agree with you that it comes from both "sides". It's all "idiotic" if you ask me. All part of the "talk radio culture", IMO. I don't see the link to talk radio... which, minimally has to be considered moderated. I think it's simply the internet culture where one doesn't have to reveal their identity (many actually think its foolish to do so) and have little chance of ever meeting their adversaries face to face, so the usual motivations for civility... simply aren't there. ScottW |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
Arny Krueger wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something, and not be called an idiot. Not here, however. Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone to use the word idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO one of the most prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius. It all depends on one's literary preferences. Not being adept in the use of "load of crap" "asshole" and "****bag" language of your camp- followers. (want names? Just ask) I'd say "idiocy" when responding. One of your few endearing traits is that you manage without gutter language. Don't use phony statistics ( "seem" more prone) when you try to stand up for your pals. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
|
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
Jenn said: Don't use phony statistics ( "seem" more prone) when you try to stand up for your pals. You may remember his accusing me of using "weasel words" once. Surely you're not suggesting that Arnii Krooger is a hypocrite, are you? Mickey McMickey assures us that cannot be the case. |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
In article uGFOf.135158$0G.57062@dukeread10,
"ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something, and not be called an idiot. Not here, however. Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone to use the word idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO one of the most prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius. I agree with you that it comes from both "sides". It's all "idiotic" if you ask me. All part of the "talk radio culture", IMO. I don't see the link to talk radio... which, minimally has to be considered moderated. I've noticed that in the past few years as "abrasive" hosts have become more popular, the quality of public debate has become more "idiotic". Could be a chicken/egg thing. I think it's simply the internet culture where one doesn't have to reveal their identity (many actually think its foolish to do so) and have little chance of ever meeting their adversaries face to face, so the usual motivations for civility... simply aren't there. ScottW Probably right. |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
"Jenn" wrote in message ... In article uGFOf.135158$0G.57062@dukeread10, "ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something, and not be called an idiot. Not here, however. Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone to use the word idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO one of the most prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius. I agree with you that it comes from both "sides". It's all "idiotic" if you ask me. All part of the "talk radio culture", IMO. I don't see the link to talk radio... which, minimally has to be considered moderated. I've noticed that in the past few years as "abrasive" hosts have become more popular, In talk radio? Who specifically are you thinking of? the quality of public debate has become more "idiotic". Could be a chicken/egg thing. I think that content has become fragmented and a bit of a conflict has surfaced between MSM and talk radio and bloggers. I don't think that creates an idiotic debate... to the contrary, it allows for representation of more diverse opinions. ScottW |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
In article xSGOf.135165$0G.78822@dukeread10,
"ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article uGFOf.135158$0G.57062@dukeread10, "ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something, and not be called an idiot. Not here, however. Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone to use the word idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO one of the most prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius. I agree with you that it comes from both "sides". It's all "idiotic" if you ask me. All part of the "talk radio culture", IMO. I don't see the link to talk radio... which, minimally has to be considered moderated. I've noticed that in the past few years as "abrasive" hosts have become more popular, In talk radio? Who specifically are you thinking of? Hannity, Limbaugh... the quality of public debate has become more "idiotic". Could be a chicken/egg thing. I think that content has become fragmented and a bit of a conflict has surfaced between MSM and talk radio and bloggers. I don't think that creates an idiotic debate... to the contrary, it allows for representation of more diverse opinions. ScottW Oh, I like the diversity just fine; it's the presentation that bothers me and that I think has caused the debate to become more "course". |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
"Jenn" wrote in message ... In article xSGOf.135165$0G.78822@dukeread10, "ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article uGFOf.135158$0G.57062@dukeread10, "ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something, and not be called an idiot. Not here, however. Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone to use the word idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO one of the most prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius. I agree with you that it comes from both "sides". It's all "idiotic" if you ask me. All part of the "talk radio culture", IMO. I don't see the link to talk radio... which, minimally has to be considered moderated. I've noticed that in the past few years as "abrasive" hosts have become more popular, In talk radio? Who specifically are you thinking of? Hannity, Limbaugh... Limbaugh is hardly a recent phenom. He's widely regarded as the father of talk radio. I don't really consider Hannity "abrasive". He's clearly conservative and a republican honk but not all that abrasive. He's worse on his TV show IMO. Surprised you didn't mention Air America content like Randi Rhodes though perhaps she doesn't qualify as popular. I've read they're gonna loose their New York affiliate and flagship come end of March. I wonder just what she would talk about come the end of the Bush admin anyway. the quality of public debate has become more "idiotic". Could be a chicken/egg thing. I think that content has become fragmented and a bit of a conflict has surfaced between MSM and talk radio and bloggers. I don't think that creates an idiotic debate... to the contrary, it allows for representation of more diverse opinions. ScottW Oh, I like the diversity just fine; it's the presentation that bothers me and that I think has caused the debate to become more "course". One advantage talk radio has over other formats is that they can devote time to explore a topic. Salem Radio has some hosts that I think do a good job...Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt to name a couple. Both conservatives and Hewitt is a hard core republican. Ed Schultz is probably my favorite lib on the radio though his time slot prevents me from being able to listen often. Rhodes is a lunatic who just rants non-stop. I have no idea how she gets the primetime evening drive slot in the west. They should tape delay Ed. ScottW |
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
In article %iHOf.135167$0G.33844@dukeread10,
"ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article xSGOf.135165$0G.78822@dukeread10, "ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article uGFOf.135158$0G.57062@dukeread10, "ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something, and not be called an idiot. Not here, however. Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone to use the word idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO one of the most prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius. I agree with you that it comes from both "sides". It's all "idiotic" if you ask me. All part of the "talk radio culture", IMO. I don't see the link to talk radio... which, minimally has to be considered moderated. I've noticed that in the past few years as "abrasive" hosts have become more popular, In talk radio? Who specifically are you thinking of? Hannity, Limbaugh... Limbaugh is hardly a recent phenom. Hey, at my age, the 80s is recent! :-) He's widely regarded as the father of talk radio. Well, "modern" talk radio, anyway. I don't really consider Hannity "abrasive". He's clearly conservative and a republican honk but not all that abrasive. He's worse on his TV show IMO. He calls a whole variety of people he doesn't agree with "idiot", "anti-American" and so forth daily. Surprised you didn't mention Air America content like Randi Rhodes though perhaps she doesn't qualify as popular. I don't listen to her; stopped at the second show that I heard. I've read they're gonna loose their New York affiliate and flagship come end of March. I wonder just what she would talk about come the end of the Bush admin anyway. the quality of public debate has become more "idiotic". Could be a chicken/egg thing. I think that content has become fragmented and a bit of a conflict has surfaced between MSM and talk radio and bloggers. I don't think that creates an idiotic debate... to the contrary, it allows for representation of more diverse opinions. ScottW Oh, I like the diversity just fine; it's the presentation that bothers me and that I think has caused the debate to become more "course". One advantage talk radio has over other formats is that they can devote time to explore a topic. But they generally don't in any meaningful way. THere are exceptions, of course. Salem Radio has some hosts that I think do a good job...Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt to name a couple. Both conservatives and Hewitt is a hard core republican. Ed Schultz is probably my favorite lib on the radio Agree, now that Michael Jackson isn't on. Him and Rachel Madow. though his time slot prevents me from being able to listen often. Rhodes is a lunatic who just rants non-stop. I have no idea how she gets the primetime evening drive slot in the west. They should tape delay Ed. That's what they do up here, thankfully. ScottW |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
wrote in message ups.com... Clyde Slick wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... wrote: One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from the listening room. Are you familiar with her work? I was with her. she didn't much like it when I tried to remove the metal snaps on her bra. That's a very sexist, disrespectful and offensive comment. It has no place on an audio group. I agree. BTW, notice that I did try to respond in an audio related way further up in this group. Why not carry on as if the pests aren't here? I'd be happy to continue in that manner. |
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... Clyde Slick wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... wrote: One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from the listening room. Are you familiar with her work? I was with her. she didn't much like it when I tried to remove the metal snaps on her bra. That's a very sexist, disrespectful and offensive comment. It has no place on an audio group. I agree. BTW, notice that I did try to respond in an audio related way further up in this group. Why not carry on as if the pests aren't here? I'd be happy to continue in that manner. Across the board with everybody? or just this hypocrite who spews as many or more disrespectful comments than anyone? ScottW |
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:uGFOf.135158$0G.57062@dukeread10 I think it's simply the internet culture where one doesn't have to reveal their identity (many actually think its foolish to do so) and have little chance of ever meeting their adversaries face to face, so the usual motivations for civility... simply aren't there. Agreed. Note that posters using an alias (e.g. George Middius, Andre Jute, Clyde Slick, Soundhaspriority,) are among the more frequent offenders. |
|
#39
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
wrote in message
oups.com "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Jenn" wrote in message It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something, and not be called an idiot. Not here, however. Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone to use the word idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO one of the most prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius. I don't mean to suggest that you are a lying hypocrite Mr. Kreuger, and that this appears to be a very commonly held fact about you... but aren't you responsible for having written this?: snip rare exception that "soundhaspriority" had to go into the archives 4 years back to find Exceptions don't disprove a rule. |
|
#40
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
wrote in message ups.com... Clyde Slick wrote: wrote in message ups.com... . He talked about rapping the side of a cup made of plastic, and one made of wood, and determining what kind of sound it made. He argues the plastic cup will make an unnatural type of sound, unlike the wood material. You can go back to tin cans tied with strings, for all I care. Rapping a plastic cup to see what kind of a sound is made, and using that result to make universal determination on material efficacy is quite stupid. But perhaps not quite as stupid as misunderstanding so many basic things from such a simple premise. Your first misunderstanding; the experiment to rap the side of a cup was not given as a "universal determination" of anything. That's YOU that made the "determination". It was merely as an example of the type of sound that might be produced by natural and synthetic materials. Secondly, I never said I made that experiment. If you have evidence that shows the argument is invalid, provide it. So far, the only intelligent response I've read on the subject came from Mr. Morein. You and others have just thrown at me your vigorous assertions about how "stupid" everything is. "It was merely as an example of the type of sound that might be producedby natural and synthetic materials" = "Rapping a plastic cup to see what kind of a sound is made, and using that result to make universal determination on material efficacy" -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Great Money Making Opportunity | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| Doppler Distortion - Fact or Fiction | Pro Audio | |||
| Paper for printing CD inserts? | Pro Audio | |||
| Home studio setup - Protools or Layla? Mac or PC? Paper or plastic? | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
