S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the pervasiveness of
low frequency content in real-world listening experiences. From past
experience, he's also impossible to educate because he thinks he knows it
all.

What are you trying to recreate at that point?

Reality.

If some CDs have information at 6hz
chances are there was something wrong that put it there.

Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the pervasiveness of
low frequency content in real-world listening experiences. He's a vinyl
bigot and tube bigot as well. Three strikes. Real-world IQ test failed.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the pervasiveness of
low frequency content in real-world listening experiences. From past
experience, he's also impossible to educate because he thinks he knows it
all.

What are you trying to recreate at that point?

Reality.


Reality. 6hz tones are inaudible. Arny is an idiot.



If some CDs have information at 6hz
chances are there was something wrong that put it there.

Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the pervasiveness of
low frequency content in real-world listening experiences.

Spoken by somebody who is desperate to troll. 6hz tones are inaudible. Did you
and Nousaine develop a taste for this kind of vibation from cheap hotel 25 cent
vibrating beds? ^hz of anything is useless in audio.

He's a vinyl
bigot and tube bigot as well. Three strikes. Real-world IQ test failed.


Anytime you want to take standard IQ tests and compare results just say the
word.


The funny thing is Arny is still reading RAHE. This post is from there. Why
didn't you just respond in that forum Arny? LOL

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

If you are in a sound field that includes an acoustical signal at 6 Hz, and
its intensity is sufficient, you will perceive it. Is it audible?

Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the
pervasiveness of low frequency content in real-world listening
experiences. From past experience, he's also impossible to educate
because he thinks he knows it all.

What are you trying to recreate at that point?

Reality.

Reality. 6hz tones are inaudible.

But they are perceptible and they are present at live performances of music.

Arny is an idiot.

Agreed, I'm an idiot for trying to reason with an arrogant fool like
sockpuppet wheel.


If some CDs have information at 6hz
chances are there was something wrong that put it there.

Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the
pervasiveness of low frequency content in real-world listening
experiences.

Spoken by somebody who is desperate to troll. 6hz tones are inaudible.

They are acoustical, they are present at musical events and they are
perceptible. If they are not reproduced then they represent a sonic loss.


Did you and Nousaine develop a taste for this kind of vibation from cheap
hotel 25 cent vibrating beds?

I developed a taste in experiencing low frequency events from living in the
real world, including being present at live musical events.


6 hz of anything is useless in audio.

It's not useless if you are interested in reproducing musical events in a
way that produces similar perceptions as those you would experience at a
live musical event.

He's a vinyl
bigot and tube bigot as well. Three strikes. Real-world IQ test
failed.

Anytime you want to take standard IQ tests and compare results just
say the word.

Inability to read and perceive clear English noted.

The funny thing is Arny is still reading RAHE. This post is from
there. Why didn't you just respond in that forum Arny?

I can speak to your idiocy more freely here, sockpuppet wheel.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 9:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

If you are in a sound field that includes an acoustical signal at 6 Hz, and
its intensity is sufficient, you will perceive it. Is it audible?

No.



Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the
pervasiveness of low frequency content in real-world listening
experiences. From past experience, he's also impossible to educate
because he thinks he knows it all.

What are you trying to recreate at that point?

Reality.

Reality. 6hz tones are inaudible.

But they are perceptible


So is the smell of coffeee in the morning. I suggest you wake up and partake in
the smelling of the coffee.

and they are present at live performances of music.

Maybe maybe not.Doesn't matter. Body odor may also be present at a live
performance and the recreation of said body odor would be as audible and as
valuable.





Arny is an idiot.

Agreed,

Thank you ;-)



If some CDs have information at 6hz
chances are there was something wrong that put it there.

Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the
pervasiveness of low frequency content in real-world listening
experiences.

Spoken by somebody who is desperate to troll. 6hz tones are inaudible.

They are acoustical,

Strawman. I said they are inaudible.

they are present at musical events


Many things are present at live musical events that are neither audible nor of
value to that live musical event. Another strawman.

and they are
perceptible.

As is the room temperature and the smell of the room and everybody in it an the
brightness of the light in the room. All of which are inaudible and completely
without value for the purpose of hearing the music.


If they are not reproduced then they represent a sonic loss.

But not an audible loss or a loss of anything of value to the playback of
music.


Did you and Nousaine develop a taste for this kind of vibation from cheap
hotel 25 cent vibrating beds?

I developed a taste in experiencing low frequency events from living in the
real world, including being present at live musical events.

Do tell us about your experiences with the sound of 6hz tones in live music. I
think the vibrating bed is a more plausable explination since it is closer to
anything one would experience from 6hz tones.




6 hz of anything is useless in audio.

It's not useless if you are interested in reproducing musical events in a
way that produces similar perceptions as those you would experience at a
live musical event.


Wrong.



He's a vinyl
bigot and tube bigot as well. Three strikes. Real-world IQ test
failed.

Anytime you want to take standard IQ tests and compare results just
say the word.

Inability to read and perceive clear English noted.

There was no "clear English" to be percieved. Clear English excludes incomplete
sentences.



The funny thing is Arny is still reading RAHE. This post is from
there. Why didn't you just respond in that forum Arny?

I can speak to your idiocy more freely here, sockpuppet wheel.

IOW you can't post there. It is pretty obvious that you miss it if you are
still lurking there. Oh well.

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 9:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

If you are in a sound field that includes an acoustical signal at 6
Hz, and its intensity is sufficient, you will perceive it. Is it
audible?

No.

The horse has been led to the water but even though it's thirsty, it's way
to stupid and obstinate to even try to drink. I'm sure not going to waste
any more time beating it over the head trying to get it to discover another
way to enjoy the music.

BTW, this is the sort of stupidity that people fall into when they spend too
many nears unknowling glorifying the experience of listening to music
through a high pass filter, AKA a tone arm.

Digital rules.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/16/2004 4:20 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 9:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

If you are in a sound field that includes an acoustical signal at 6
Hz, and its intensity is sufficient, you will perceive it. Is it
audible?

No.

The horse has been led to the water but even though it's thirsty, it's way
to stupid and obstinate to even try to drink.

Does this mean you had a moment of selfawareness as you came to realize that a
6hz tone is inaudible?

I'm sure not going to waste
any more time beating it over the head trying to get it to discover another
way to enjoy the music.

Hopefully someday you will learn at least one way to enjoy music. Here is a
hint. Weapons grade subsonics isn't one of them.



BTW, this is the sort of stupidity that people fall into when they spend too
many nears unknowling glorifying the experience of listening to music
through a high pass filter, AKA a tone arm.

Digital rules.








You remain an idiot.

Arny said:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 9:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

If you are in a sound field that includes an acoustical signal at 6
Hz, and its intensity is sufficient, you will perceive it. Is it
audible?

No.

The horse has been led to the water but even though it's thirsty, it's way
to stupid and obstinate to even try to drink. I'm sure not going to waste
any more time beating it over the head trying to get it to discover another
way to enjoy the music.

BTW, this is the sort of stupidity that people fall into when they spend too
many nears unknowling glorifying the experience of listening to music
through a high pass filter, AKA a tone arm.

Digital rules.

Wow, you just totally conceded the argument to Scott. Are you smart enough to
realize how?

Boon

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

If you are in a sound field that includes an acoustical signal at 6 Hz,
and
its intensity is sufficient, you will perceive it. Is it audible?

Don't you lose control of your bodily functions when exposed to a frequecy
that low? I ssem to recall that a crowd control weapon was thought of using
extreme LF. It didn't work because it wasn't possible to make the frequency
directional.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 05:18:32 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

If you are in a sound field that includes an acoustical signal at 6 Hz,
and
its intensity is sufficient, you will perceive it. Is it audible?

Don't you lose control of your bodily functions when exposed to a frequecy
that low?

That *is* the mark of great sound for Arnold.

Just a note - there's certainly no pipe organ that hits 6 hz. There
are two that get close though. As far as I know, there's only one
musical device that can hit 6 hz or below and it isn't "perceivable"
(in practical terms) to anyone that isn't playing it. And I would bet
that Arnold can't prove that he's ever "perceived" 6 hz in a live
setting.

dave weil wrote:

That *is* the mark of great sound for Arnold.

Prove it.

I'm just kind of amused by the irony of watching sockpuppet wheel and Weil
get led down the primrose path by the high pass filters built into their
turntables, which seem to be their references for judging all sound quality
and relevance. Because their reference music sources are incapable of clean
reproduction at 6 Hz, they are obviously and delusionally trying to convince
themselves and the world that music can't possibly contain sound at 6 Hz or
below.

Just a note - there's certainly no pipe organ that hits 6 hz.

Not as its tuning frequency. Which is not to say that there is no pipe organ
that generates sound that down at 6 Hz and below. The longest "standard"
pipes are 32' which corresponds to a tuning frequency of about 16 Hz. The
pipe organ I record has a true 16' rank, so its lowest fundamental would be
32 Hz. This is about the same as the lowest note on a 5 string electric
bass. However, my recordings of music at that location go a lot lower than
32 Hz.

A lot of the subsonics in music are not fundamentals of musical sounds, but
are instead sounds that are incidental to the production of music. However,
there are music works that use non-standard sound sources that produce
infrasonics as part of the musical performance. I'll cite two very well
known examples below. All this consternation about sound at 6 Hz in music
just proves what a bunch of musical ignoramuses RAO is now filled with.

Many musical instruments produce substantial amounts of sound at frequencies
that are well below their nominal fundamental resonant frequency. For
example, a kick drum's fundamental is set by the resonance of its drum head,
which is relatively high. However, when the drum's pedal is operated
briskly, an acoustical transient is produced that has significant measurable
components that go far lower.

There
are two that get close though. As far as I know, there's only one
musical device that can hit 6 Hz or below and it isn't "perceivable"
(in practical terms) to anyone that isn't playing it. And I would bet
that Arnold can't prove that he's ever "perceived" 6 Hz in a live
setting.

Weil is obviously now totally unfamiliar with well-known orchestral works
such as Wellington's Victory and the 1812 Overture. I've been at a live
performance of the 1812. Weil probably once knew about these pieces of
music. The illegal drugs must have taken their toll on what was left of his
brain.

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

If you are in a sound field that includes an acoustical signal at 6
Hz, and its intensity is sufficient, you will perceive it. Is it
audible?

Don't you lose control of your bodily functions when exposed to a
frequecy that low?

AFAIK everybody does. Nikola Tesla was an early experimenter who discovered
this effect.

I seem to recall that a crowd control weapon was
thought of using extreme LF. It didn't work because it wasn't
possible to make the frequency directional.

I think they figured that out, too.

Arny said:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone)
would be utterly useless. It is completely inaudible.

If you are in a sound field that includes an acoustical signal at 6 Hz, and
its intensity is sufficient, you will perceive it. Is it audible?

Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the
pervasiveness of low frequency content in real-world listening
experiences. From past experience, he's also impossible to educate
because he thinks he knows it all.

What are you trying to recreate at that point?

Reality.

Reality. 6hz tones are inaudible.

But they are perceptible and they are present at live performances of music.

Arny is an idiot.

Agreed, I'm an idiot for trying to reason with an arrogant fool like
sockpuppet wheel.


If some CDs have information at 6hz
chances are there was something wrong that put it there.

Spoken by someone who obviously has no understanding of the
pervasiveness of low frequency content in real-world listening
experiences.

Spoken by somebody who is desperate to troll. 6hz tones are inaudible.

They are acoustical, they are present at musical events and they are
perceptible. If they are not reproduced then they represent a sonic loss.


Did you and Nousaine develop a taste for this kind of vibation from cheap
hotel 25 cent vibrating beds?

I developed a taste in experiencing low frequency events from living in the
real world, including being present at live musical events.


6 hz of anything is useless in audio.

It's not useless if you are interested in reproducing musical events in a
way that produces similar perceptions as those you would experience at a
live musical event.

He's a vinyl
bigot and tube bigot as well. Three strikes. Real-world IQ test
failed.

Anytime you want to take standard IQ tests and compare results just
say the word.

Inability to read and perceive clear English noted.

The funny thing is Arny is still reading RAHE. This post is from
there. Why didn't you just respond in that forum Arny?

I can speak to your idiocy more freely here, sockpuppet wheel.

No, you aren't allowed to post on RAHE because you're too stupid to conduct
yourself properly in public. Real-world IQ test failed.

Boon

Marc Phillips wrote:

No, you aren't allowed to post on RAHE because you're too stupid to
conduct yourself properly in public.

Phillips, this retrieval yields exactly one post. It seems like for just
this once, you know your own limitations.

http://www.google.com/groups?&q=auth...audio.high-end

Arny said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

No, you aren't allowed to post on RAHE because you're too stupid to
conduct yourself properly in public.

Phillips, this retrieval yields exactly one post. It seems like for just
this once, you know your own limitations.

Wrong. First of all, 100% of my post submissions to RAHE have been accepted,
and there is more than one. Second, your statement ignores the fact that I
regularly post on at least two other audio forums. And finally, you have no
idea what my limitations are, since I regularly kick your ass on audio
matters...or would you like to tell me again how Quad designed their ESLs to be
used with SS amplification, or what the length limts are on Cat 5 cable?

Boon