In article ,
(chunky_john) wrote:

(Tried posting this on rec.audio.high-end. Got lots of advice, but
no-one actually answered my question...)

Current system: Marantz CD63 KI Signature, Arcam 8/8P biamped to
Monitor Audio Gold Reference 20s via Chord Odyssey 4. Interconnects
are Cambridge Audio Studio Reference.

Have just upgraded speakers & cables. Very nice!. What next?

My thoughts are interconnects first, probably CD player second, then
amplification last.

Interconnects: Chord Anthem has been suggested - presumably this ought
to be pretty upgrade-proof, but pricey.

It's unlikely interconnects will make the big kind of change you're
looking for, but go ahead if it's fun for you.

CD/amp: I am very tempted to try a Cyrus system, eg Cyrus 8, CD 8 &
SmartPower (Having 'gone bi-amp', I would never go back!). Musical
Fidelity has also been suggested, but I'm totally open-minded. The
GR20s don't seem to need all the warmth the Arcam set-up provides, but
I ouldn't want too dry a sound either. So perhaps Arcam A90 + A90P?

I'm very happy with my Arcam CD23 FMJ. Think of it as a dcs in a box. As
for the amps, going from 65 watts to 90 isn't much of a change, all
other things assumed equal. I've heard good things about the A90 in
general.

A modest windfall and an understanding wife mean budget is circa
£3-4000.

Awaiting your suggestions...

How's your room? Are you interested in multichannel?

(Please reply via newsgroup)

Stephen

"chunky_john" wrote in message
om...
(Tried posting this on rec.audio.high-end. Got lots of advice, but
no-one actually answered my question...)

Current system: Marantz CD63 KI Signature, Arcam 8/8P biamped to
Monitor Audio Gold Reference 20s via Chord Odyssey 4. Interconnects
are Cambridge Audio Studio Reference.

Have just upgraded speakers & cables. Very nice!. What next?

My thoughts are interconnects first, probably CD player second, then
amplification last.

Interconnects: Chord Anthem has been suggested - presumably this
ought
to be pretty upgrade-proof, but pricey.

CD/amp: I am very tempted to try a Cyrus system, eg Cyrus 8, CD 8 &
SmartPower (Having 'gone bi-amp', I would never go back!). Musical
Fidelity has also been suggested, but I'm totally open-minded. The
GR20s don't seem to need all the warmth the Arcam set-up provides,
but
I ouldn't want too dry a sound either. So perhaps Arcam A90 + A90P?

A modest windfall and an understanding wife mean budget is circa
£3-4000.

Awaiting your suggestions...

(Please reply via newsgroup)

First, always provide an e-mail return address. Not everybody wants
to broadcast his opinions on these matters.

Second, if you want advice, don't provide possible answers to your own
questions. Why would I suggest anything different than what you're
already predisposed to buy?

Norm Strong

"chunky_john" wrote in message
om
(Tried posting this on rec.audio.high-end. Got lots of advice, but
no-one actually answered my question...)

Current system: Marantz CD63 KI Signature, Arcam 8/8P biamped to
Monitor Audio Gold Reference 20s via Chord Odyssey 4. Interconnects
are Cambridge Audio Studio Reference.

Have just upgraded speakers & cables. Very nice!. What next?

http://www.audiorevolution.com/equip...orgoldtheater/

In article hCyJc.86464$IQ4.51103@attbi_s02,
"normanstrong" wrote:

"chunky_john" wrote in message
om...
(Tried posting this on rec.audio.high-end. Got lots of advice, but
no-one actually answered my question...)

snip

First, always provide an e-mail return address. Not everybody wants
to broadcast his opinions on these matters.

Second, if you want advice, don't provide possible answers to your own
questions. Why would I suggest anything different than what you're
already predisposed to buy?

Didn't he get enough of this on RA-HE?

Stephen

chunky_john wrote:

(Tried posting this on rec.audio.high-end. Got lots of advice, but
no-one actually answered my question...)

Current system: Marantz CD63 KI Signature, Arcam 8/8P biamped to
Monitor Audio Gold Reference 20s via Chord Odyssey 4. Interconnects
are Cambridge Audio Studio Reference.

Have just upgraded speakers & cables. Very nice!. What next?

My thoughts are interconnects first, probably CD player second, then
amplification last.

Nice way to do it exactly the opposite of what will increase your
sound quality the most, but it's your money.

Interconnects: Chord Anthem has been suggested - presumably this ought
to be pretty upgrade-proof, but pricey.

Interconnects and speaker wires are useless for a setup like this.
They look nice, but are sonically indistinguishable from plain
electrical wire. Save your money - you've already gone WAY overkill
here.

CD/amp: I am very tempted to try a Cyrus system, eg Cyrus 8, CD 8 &
SmartPower (Having 'gone bi-amp', I would never go back!).

CDs are digital decoders. Any unit made in the last few years will
do exactly the same job. Either it sees a 0 or a 1 and the D/A
converter chip reassembles the sound accordingly. Again, you've
gone way overkill here as well.

A modest windfall and an understanding wife mean budget is circa
£3-4000.

So we come to the REAL options - amplifier and speakers.

Amplifier - what you have is decent enough to run most any pair of
speakers. That leaves...

Speakers. This is where 100% of your budget should go. Get the
best speakers that you can, as the Reference 20s are not even
in the same league as what 4000 pounds could purchase. Even consider
big planar or electrostatics.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"chunky_john" wrote in message
om

(Tried posting this on rec.audio.high-end. Got lots of advice, but
no-one actually answered my question...)

Current system: Marantz CD63 KI Signature, Arcam 8/8P biamped to
Monitor Audio Gold Reference 20s via Chord Odyssey 4. Interconnects
are Cambridge Audio Studio Reference.

Have just upgraded speakers & cables. Very nice!. What next?


http://www.audiorevolution.com/equip...orgoldtheater/

Ah. I see. He already HAS the 20s.

So change my reconnedation to a 5.1 setup like Arny suggested.
Add another amplifier for the center channel and add surrounds.

The two amplifiers you have are overkill - you don't need to
biamp - so there are 4 of your 5 channels already. As for
a subwoofer(if you want one at all) Martin Logan makes a very good
servo sub that's accurate and fast.

In article et,
Joseph Oberlander wrote:

chunky_john wrote:

(Tried posting this on rec.audio.high-end. Got lots of advice, but
no-one actually answered my question...)

Current system: Marantz CD63 KI Signature, Arcam 8/8P biamped to
Monitor Audio Gold Reference 20s via Chord Odyssey 4. Interconnects
are Cambridge Audio Studio Reference.

Have just upgraded speakers & cables. Very nice!. What next?

My thoughts are interconnects first, probably CD player second, then
amplification last.

Nice way to do it exactly the opposite of what will increase your
sound quality the most, but it's your money.

Interconnects: Chord Anthem has been suggested - presumably this ought
to be pretty upgrade-proof, but pricey.

Interconnects and speaker wires are useless for a setup like this.
They look nice, but are sonically indistinguishable from plain
electrical wire. Save your money - you've already gone WAY overkill
here.

CD/amp: I am very tempted to try a Cyrus system, eg Cyrus 8, CD 8 &
SmartPower (Having 'gone bi-amp', I would never go back!).

CDs are digital decoders. Any unit made in the last few years will
do exactly the same job. Either it sees a 0 or a 1 and the D/A
converter chip reassembles the sound accordingly. Again, you've
gone way overkill here as well.

A modest windfall and an understanding wife mean budget is circa
£3-4000.

So we come to the REAL options - amplifier and speakers.

Amplifier - what you have is decent enough to run most any pair of
speakers. That leaves...

Speakers. This is where 100% of your budget should go. Get the
best speakers that you can, as the Reference 20s are not even
in the same league as what 4000 pounds could purchase. Even consider
big planar or electrostatics.


He did the speakers first!

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
news
Arny Krueger wrote:

"chunky_john" wrote in message
om

(Tried posting this on rec.audio.high-end. Got lots of advice, but
no-one actually answered my question...)

Current system: Marantz CD63 KI Signature, Arcam 8/8P biamped to
Monitor Audio Gold Reference 20s via Chord Odyssey 4. Interconnects
are Cambridge Audio Studio Reference.

Have just upgraded speakers & cables. Very nice!. What next?


http://www.audiorevolution.com/equip...orgoldtheater/

Ah. I see. He already HAS the 20s.

Right, and this article suggests other components to match up with them.

Even if he doesn't buy into the surround sound approach, he might take
notice of the subwoofer(s).

So change my reconnedation to a 5.1 setup like Arny suggested.

Or, just enhanced 2-channel with more clean and deep on the bottom end.

Add another amplifier for the center channel and add surrounds.

as he prefers.

The two amplifiers you have are overkill - you don't need to
biamp - so there are 4 of your 5 channels already.

Good point.

As for a subwoofer(if you want one at all) Martin Logan makes a very good
servo sub that's accurate and fast.

Joseph, some day I'll figure out how to explain the myth of fast bass, in a
way that you will understand. Maybe I'll get lucky today!

My last shot at it on another forum pointed out that subwoofer crossovers
are low pass filters in the 50 to 150 Hz range. 12 to 24 dB roll-offs are
common. Even an 18 inch subwoofer has a natural rolloff that is someplace
above 500 Hz, normally 12 dB/ocatve. If you cascade any kind of serious 150
Hz low pass filter with a 500 Hz low pass filter, the 150 Hz is tremendously
dominant. At 500 Hz, a 125 Hz 12 dB filter is something like 20 dB or more
down. So, the effects of relative difference in the *speed* of the subwoofer
driver are completely blown away by the crossover that is always there.

Now for a discussion of the *real* issue. Every room has a frequency,
inversely dependent on its size, where the room starts producing a
sifnificant bass boost. This boost may or may not be mixed in with otehr
audible effects due to standing waves. Its always there if the room has any
integrity as a closed volume.

Very few subwoofers are designed to be flat in free space. They are all
tuned to have a roll-off that is compensated by some presumption about the
space where the subwoofer will be used.

On a good day, the subwoofer comes with a specialized parametric equalizer
that allows you to tune it to any reasonable room. On a slightly worse day,
the user provides his own equalizer, hopefully a parametric. On a slightly
worse day he uses a 1/3 octave graphic eq. On most days, miseducated to
pathologically fear equalizers by the high end establishment and its dupes,
the hapless audiophile has no control over the situation other than buying
and selling subwoofers until he blunders into the right one.

If you use a subwoofer that is designed for a small room in a large room,
the sound is going to be thin, because the subwoofer's roll-off is well in
force by the time we get down to the frequency where the room starts
helping.

If you use a subwoofer that is designed for a large room in a small room,
the sound is going to be thick and thuddy, because the subwoofer's roll-off
isn't going to start until we get well below the frequency where the room
starts boosting the bass.

And so, we have a lot of poorly-informed discussions about non-existent
things like fast bass, because people don't properly match subwoofers to the
room they are listening to them in.

"chunky_john" wrote

(Tried posting this on rec.audio.high-end. Got lots of
advice, but no-one actually answered my question...)

Ok.


Current system: Marantz CD63 KI Signature, Arcam
8/8P biamped to Monitor Audio Gold Reference 20s
via Chord Odyssey 4. Interconnects are Cambridge
Audio Studio Reference.

Have just upgraded speakers & cables. Very nice!.
What next?

What do you find lacking (technical limitations/preference)
about your existing system setup?


My thoughts are interconnects first, probably CD player
second, then amplification last.

An intellectual approach is not possible in determining
the weakest link in your particular system or your
preferences. High end is an empirical approach
concept. Your ears must be your ultimate guide... and
the size of your wallet .


CD/amp: I am very tempted to try....

Try many things until you hit upon something that emotional
grabs you. I find that auditioning two or more of something,
for example CD players, will give you a better feeling for the
price-to-performance ratio a particular component adds
(sound wise) to your overall system. You seem to be taking
the shotgun approach.


... , but I'm totally open-minded.

Three suggestions to consider:

1. Audition a tubed pre-amp for a different perspective of
the sound presentation.

2. Try lowering the cabinet noise your speakers produce
by coupling them with spikes... if you don't have carpeting.
Most spikes are unable to adequately penetrate through
the carpet and pad into the sub-floor.

3. Audition a power line conditioner like those
manufactured by Audio Power Industries, for example.
http://www.audiopower.com/newsite/toc.html

chunky_john wrote:
(Tried posting this on rec.audio.high-end. Got lots of advice, but
no-one actually answered my question...)

Current system: Marantz CD63 KI Signature, Arcam 8/8P biamped to
Monitor Audio Gold Reference 20s via Chord Odyssey 4. Interconnects
are Cambridge Audio Studio Reference.

Have just upgraded speakers & cables. Very nice!. What next?

My thoughts are interconnects first,

Don't waste more money. If you follow my suggestions below you will
want a I-link cable, but I-link is (in physical terms) the same
thing as Firewire or IEEE 1394, so you can buy it in a computer
store.

probably CD player second,

I suggest that you buy an universal player (CD, DVD-Audio, SACD), and
since you seem willing to spend lots of money, one with an I-link
output. For instance the Pioneer DV-868AVi-S or DV-757Ai:

http://www.pioneer-eur.com/eur/produ...onomy_id=62-84
http://www.pioneer-eur.com/eur/produ...onomy_id=62-84

then amplification last.

A amplifier with a I-link input, like the Pioneers VSA-AX10Ai-S or VSX-AX5i-S:
http://www.pioneer-eur.com/eur/produ...onomy_id=62-98
http://www.pioneer-eur.com/eur/produ...onomy_id=62-98

The combo DV-868AVi-S + VSX-AX5i-S has been reviewed in the audiophile
press (I am looking at hi-fi World March 2004 issue, page 34,
although the article covering the DV-868AVi-S was on the previous
issue) and given 5 stars by Noel Keywood, who is the guy who does
the measurements (elsewhere in the same magazine (page 81) he writes
that he wrote "a cheque large enough for a good car" to buy a "new
Rohde & Schwarz UPL analyser [which] can resolve down to 0.0002%".

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/

http://www.rohde-schwarz.com/www/dev...f/html/1116118

If you don't want to buy more speakers, I am sure the amplifier can
be configured to use only two (but check the manual). But your budget
is enough to buy some speakers.

A modest windfall and an understanding wife mean budget is circa
£3-4000.

The DV-868AVi-S + VSX-AX5i-S costs £2000, according to the article
(probably list price).

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

"George M. Middius" wrote

Have just upgraded speakers & cables. Very nice!.
What next?

What do you find lacking (technical limitations/preference)
about your existing system setup?

I suspect the spirit of governance has migrated to the bestial
plane, leaving him alone in the meadow with only plastic toys
and no chance of exogenous redemption.

Big yawn...

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote

The two amplifiers you have are overkill - you don't
need to biamp...

What is the basis for this comment? There is no such
thing as an amp that is too big (watts per channel). If the
poster says that biamping works for him, what leads you
to believe that he is mistaken about his empirical
experience?

"Powell" wrote in message


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote

The two amplifiers you have are overkill - you don't
need to biamp...

What is the basis for this comment? There is no such
thing as an amp that is too big (watts per channel).


If you really believed this Powell, you'd 5 KW per channel amps,
wall-to-wall. So, do you?

If the poster says that biamping works for him, what leads you
to believe that he is mistaken about his empirical experience?

Just because someone thinks that putting premium gas into their 1976
Volkswagen makes it go faster, doesn't make it true.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote

The two amplifiers you have are overkill - you don't
need to biamp...

What is the basis for this comment? There is no such
thing as an amp that is too big (watts per channel).

If you really believed this Powell, you'd 5 KW per
channel amps, wall-to-wall. So, do you?

Archive-name: AudioFAQ/part4

11.6 Is this amplifier too big for that set of speakers?
There is no such thing as an amplifier that is too big.
Small amplifiers are more likely to damage speakers
than large ones, because small amplifiers are more
likely to clip than larger ones, at the same listening
level. I have never heard of speakers being damaged
by an overly large amplifier.


If the poster says that biamping works for him, what
leads you to believe that he is mistaken about his
empirical experience?

Just because someone thinks that putting premium gas
into their 1976 Volkswagen makes it go faster, doesn't
make it true.

Neither does listening to you, mr. No Experience.

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote

The two amplifiers you have are overkill - you don't
need to biamp...

What is the basis for this comment? There is no such
thing as an amp that is too big (watts per channel).

If you really believed this Powell, you'd 5 KW per
channel amps, wall-to-wall. So, do you?

Archive-name: AudioFAQ/part4

11.6 Is this amplifier too big for that set of speakers?
There is no such thing as an amplifier that is too big.
Small amplifiers are more likely to damage speakers
than large ones, because small amplifiers are more
likely to clip than larger ones, at the same listening
level. I have never heard of speakers being damaged
by an overly large amplifier.

This has been debunked any number of times, including AES papers that I've
cited here many times.

Next!

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote

The two amplifiers you have are overkill - you don't
need to biamp...

What is the basis for this comment? There is no such
thing as an amp that is too big (watts per channel).

If you really believed this Powell, you'd 5 KW per
channel amps, wall-to-wall. So, do you?

Archive-name: AudioFAQ/part4

11.6 Is this amplifier too big for that set of speakers?
There is no such thing as an amplifier that is too big.
Small amplifiers are more likely to damage speakers
than large ones, because small amplifiers are more
likely to clip than larger ones, at the same listening
level. I have never heard of speakers being damaged
by an overly large amplifier.

This has been debunked any number of times, including
AES papers that I've cited here many times.

Hehehe... sure, whatever you say, mr. Empty Pockets.


..

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote

The two amplifiers you have are overkill - you don't
need to biamp...

What is the basis for this comment? There is no such
thing as an amp that is too big (watts per channel).

If you really believed this Powell, you'd 5 KW per
channel amps, wall-to-wall. So, do you?

Archive-name: AudioFAQ/part4

11.6 Is this amplifier too big for that set of speakers?
There is no such thing as an amplifier that is too big.
Small amplifiers are more likely to damage speakers
than large ones, because small amplifiers are more
likely to clip than larger ones, at the same listening
level. I have never heard of speakers being damaged
by an overly large amplifier.

This has been debunked any number of times, including
AES papers that I've cited here many times.

Hehehe... sure, whatever you say, mr. Empty Pockets.

Are you suggesting that my pockets are less full than yours because I've
spend more on audio gear? Might be true.

Let's compare microphone closets and mic preamp collections...

;-)

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/16/2004 11:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote

The two amplifiers you have are overkill - you don't
need to biamp...

What is the basis for this comment? There is no such
thing as an amp that is too big (watts per channel).

If you really believed this Powell, you'd 5 KW per
channel amps, wall-to-wall. So, do you?

Archive-name: AudioFAQ/part4

11.6 Is this amplifier too big for that set of speakers?
There is no such thing as an amplifier that is too big.
Small amplifiers are more likely to damage speakers
than large ones, because small amplifiers are more
likely to clip than larger ones, at the same listening
level. I have never heard of speakers being damaged
by an overly large amplifier.

This has been debunked any number of times, including
AES papers that I've cited here many times.

Hehehe... sure, whatever you say, mr. Empty Pockets.

Are you suggesting that my pockets are less full than yours because I've
spend more on audio gear? Might be true.

Let's compare microphone closets and mic preamp collections...

;-)


Gee Arny, why don't you just go for the sure win and challenge Powell to an
obsolete sound card collection contest?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/16/2004 11:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote

The two amplifiers you have are overkill - you don't
need to biamp...

What is the basis for this comment? There is no such
thing as an amp that is too big (watts per channel).

If you really believed this Powell, you'd 5 KW per
channel amps, wall-to-wall. So, do you?

Archive-name: AudioFAQ/part4

11.6 Is this amplifier too big for that set of speakers?
There is no such thing as an amplifier that is too big.
Small amplifiers are more likely to damage speakers
than large ones, because small amplifiers are more
likely to clip than larger ones, at the same listening
level. I have never heard of speakers being damaged
by an overly large amplifier.

This has been debunked any number of times, including
AES papers that I've cited here many times.

Hehehe... sure, whatever you say, mr. Empty Pockets.

Are you suggesting that my pockets are less full than yours because
I've spend more on audio gear? Might be true.

Let's compare microphone closets and mic preamp collections...

;-)


Gee Arny, why don't you just go for the sure win and challenge Powell
to an obsolete sound card collection contest?

Because it would be even more like taking candy from a child. Sort of like
beating you in court without raising a finger...

Arny Krueger a écrit :

Sort of like beating you in court without raising a finger...

LOL ! Don't be so hard Arnold. Mrs Wheeler will have a bad night. :-)

"Lionel" wrote in message

Arny Krueger a écrit :

Sort of like beating you in court without raising a finger...

LOL ! Don't be so hard Arnold. Mrs Wheeler will have a bad night. :-)

Is there a Mrs Wheeler?

Arny Krueger a écrit :

"Lionel" wrote in message


Arny Krueger a écrit :


Sort of like beating you in court without raising a finger...

LOL ! Don't be so hard Arnold. Mrs Wheeler will have a bad night. :-)


Is there a Mrs Wheeler?

I don't think it is *humanely* possible. ;-)

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/16/2004 12:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/16/2004 11:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote

The two amplifiers you have are overkill - you don't
need to biamp...

What is the basis for this comment? There is no such
thing as an amp that is too big (watts per channel).

If you really believed this Powell, you'd 5 KW per
channel amps, wall-to-wall. So, do you?

Archive-name: AudioFAQ/part4

11.6 Is this amplifier too big for that set of speakers?
There is no such thing as an amplifier that is too big.
Small amplifiers are more likely to damage speakers
than large ones, because small amplifiers are more
likely to clip than larger ones, at the same listening
level. I have never heard of speakers being damaged
by an overly large amplifier.

This has been debunked any number of times, including
AES papers that I've cited here many times.

Hehehe... sure, whatever you say, mr. Empty Pockets.

Are you suggesting that my pockets are less full than yours because
I've spend more on audio gear? Might be true.

Let's compare microphone closets and mic preamp collections...

;-)


Gee Arny, why don't you just go for the sure win and challenge Powell
to an obsolete sound card collection contest?

Because it would be even more like taking candy from a child.

I suppose so. I can't thing of anyone whose collection of obsolete sound cards
comes close to yours.

Sort of like
beating you in court without raising a finger...

You never beat me in court Arny. I let the case go. You didn't have the balls
to show up in court.









Well if you want to get Powell into a ****ing contest why don't you just stick
with things that interest most audiophiles such as your playback system or
music collection?

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/16/2004 1:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Arny Krueger a écrit :

Sort of like beating you in court without raising a finger...

LOL ! Don't be so hard Arnold. Mrs Wheeler will have a bad night. :-)







I won't be up past midnight venting my rage on RAO if that's what you mean.

Just try for me to help the dancing monkey and his lonely sow. ;-)

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/16/2004 1:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Lionel" wrote in message

Arny Krueger a écrit :

Sort of like beating you in court without raising a finger...

LOL ! Don't be so hard Arnold. Mrs Wheeler will have a bad night. :-)

Is there a Mrs Wheeler?









Thanks for admitting you can't read Arny, if that is your real name. LOt's

S888Wheel a écrit :


You never beat me in court Arny. I let the case go. You didn't have the balls
to show up in court.

You are a *liar*.
According to your behaviour on RAO and RAHE and your rage to *discuss*
every stupid subjects everybody know that you would never let the case
go if you haven't been *obliged* to do that. LOL !

According to my prediction you have dig your own grave. You been defeat
Scott Wheeler, you are a loser, deal with this now.

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/16/2004 1:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Arny Krueger a écrit :

"Lionel" wrote in message


Arny Krueger a écrit :


Sort of like beating you in court without raising a finger...

LOL ! Don't be so hard Arnold. Mrs Wheeler will have a bad night. :-)


Is there a Mrs Wheeler?

I don't think it is *humanely* possible. ;-)







Ah, this explain for your marriage to one of the swine form of animals. You do
not comprehend with the marriage of humans. Glad I am to help. ;-)

S888Wheel a écrit :

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/16/2004 1:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Arny Krueger a écrit :


"Lionel" wrote in message



Arny Krueger a écrit :



Sort of like beating you in court without raising a finger...

LOL ! Don't be so hard Arnold. Mrs Wheeler will have a bad night. :-)


Is there a Mrs Wheeler?

I don't think it is *humanely* possible. ;-)








Ah, this explain for your marriage to one of the swine form of animals. You do
not comprehend with the marriage of humans. Glad I am to help. ;-)

Ask your wife, she loves to do blow-jobs to Porky George.
At least the dogs have erections !

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/16/2004 1:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Lionel" wrote in message

Arny Krueger a écrit :

Sort of like beating you in court without raising a finger...

LOL ! Don't be so hard Arnold. Mrs Wheeler will have a bad night.
:-)

Is there a Mrs Wheeler?

no answer to a simple question

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/16/2004 1:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel a écrit :


You never beat me in court Arny. I let the case go. You didn't have the
balls
to show up in court.

You are a *liar*.

You are a liar!!! You insult your father with your lies you French beer half
number non person man! You are lucky we do not meet face to face you cowardice
ballsack swine raper hamster licker. You beg for the insult from to the family
so I help, no? loser non person half man number boy. ;-)

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/16/2004 1:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel a écrit :

From: Lionel ahc
Date: 7/16/2004 1:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Arny Krueger a écrit :


"Lionel" wrote in message



Arny Krueger a écrit :



Sort of like beating you in court without raising a finger...

LOL ! Don't be so hard Arnold. Mrs Wheeler will have a bad night. :-)


Is there a Mrs Wheeler?

I don't think it is *humanely* possible. ;-)








Ah, this explain for your marriage to one of the swine form of animals. You
do
not comprehend with the marriage of humans. Glad I am to help. ;-)

Ask your wife, she loves to do blow-jobs to Porky George.
At least the dogs have erections !







Your swine gave the Porky George a blow job! That is insult to my dog, no? You
may wish to check the DNA of the litter for to see if they are, as we say, half
le monky or half le bull dog. I see why the monkey and the sow have make the
marriage now. They both love for the French beer and le english Bulldogs, No? I
am only to help us understand the little monkey. ;-)

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/16/2004 12:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message



Gee Arny, why don't you just go for the sure win and challenge
Powell to an obsolete sound card collection contest?

Because it would be even more like taking candy from a child.

Sort of like beating you in court without raising a finger...

You never beat me in court Arny.

Sure I did. I won the case by being in the right.

I let the case go.

You were forced to abide by the decision of the court that there was no
cause to proceed.

You didn't have the balls to show up in court.

I had the smarts to know I didn't have to show up in court or respond in any
way, and the balls that it took to act on that knowledge.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/16/2004 4:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/16/2004 12:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message



Gee Arny, why don't you just go for the sure win and challenge
Powell to an obsolete sound card collection contest?

Because it would be even more like taking candy from a child.

Sort of like beating you in court without raising a finger...

You never beat me in court Arny.

Sure I did. I won the case by being in the right.

Nope and nope.



I let the case go.

You were forced to abide by the decision of the court that there was no
cause to proceed.

Nope, I chose not to fix the problem the court had with the proof of service
and let the case go.



You didn't have the balls to show up in court.

I had the smarts to know I didn't have to show up in court or respond in any
way, and the balls that it took to act on that knowledge.

You got lucky that I got busy. Nothing more.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/16/2004 4:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/16/2004 12:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message



Gee Arny, why don't you just go for the sure win and challenge
Powell to an obsolete sound card collection contest?

Because it would be even more like taking candy from a child.

Sort of like beating you in court without raising a finger...

You never beat me in court Arny.

Sure I did. I won the case by being in the right.

Nope and nope.

Who to believe, Scott or the court?

I let the case go.

You were forced to abide by the decision of the court that there was
no cause to proceed.

Nope, I chose not to fix the problem the court had with the proof of
service and let the case go.

You gave up because you knew you had no choice.

You didn't have the balls to show up in court.

I had the smarts to know I didn't have to show up in court or
respond in any way, and the balls that it took to act on that
knowledge.

You got lucky that I got busy.

Likely story.

Yawn.

Nothing more.

The fact of the matter is that you lost, Scott. You can tell whatever fairy
tale you want to, but in the end, it's over and I won.

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

On a good day, the subwoofer comes with a specialized parametric
equalizer that allows you to tune it to any reasonable room. On a
slightly worse day, the user provides his own equalizer, hopefully a
parametric. On a slightly worse day he uses a 1/3 octave graphic eq.
On most days, miseducated to pathologically fear equalizers by the
high end establishment and its dupes, the hapless audiophile has no
control over the situation other than buying and selling subwoofers
until he blunders into the right one.

Equalizers are nothing more than a band aid.

That's old fashioned thinking.

They don't properly fix problems with room acoustics.

Depends on the nature of the problem.

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

On a good day, the subwoofer comes with a specialized parametric
equalizer that allows you to tune it to any reasonable room. On a
slightly worse day, the user provides his own equalizer, hopefully
a parametric. On a slightly worse day he uses a 1/3 octave graphic
eq. On most days, miseducated to pathologically fear equalizers by
the high end establishment and its dupes, the hapless audiophile
has no control over the situation other than buying and selling
subwoofers until he blunders into the right one.

Equalizers are nothing more than a band aid.

That's old fashioned thinking.

They don't properly fix problems with room acoustics.

Depends on the nature of the problem.

Go ahead, elaborate on that...

Nahh Dormer, you aren't worth the trouble to try to educate.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/16/2004 6:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/16/2004 4:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 7/16/2004 12:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message



Gee Arny, why don't you just go for the sure win and challenge
Powell to an obsolete sound card collection contest?

Because it would be even more like taking candy from a child.

Sort of like beating you in court without raising a finger...

You never beat me in court Arny.

Sure I did. I won the case by being in the right.

Nope and nope.

Who to believe, Scott or the court?

Arny's delusion that he is the court is noted.


I let the case go.

You were forced to abide by the decision of the court that there was
no cause to proceed.

Nope, I chose not to fix the problem the court had with the proof of
service and let the case go.

You gave up because you knew you had no choice.

Arny's delusion of mind reading is noted.


You didn't have the balls to show up in court.

I had the smarts to know I didn't have to show up in court or
respond in any way, and the balls that it took to act on that
knowledge.

You got lucky that I got busy.

Likely story.

Nope.



Yawn.

Melt down noted.



Nothing more.

The fact of the matter is that you lost, Scott.

The fact of the matter is I let it go.

You can tell whatever fairy
tale you want to, but in the end, it's over and I won.


What did you win Arny? The respect of a French monkey? Congradulations. Did you
pop open an Old Milwaukee and declare in a high pitch slingblade like voice "It
don't git no better thn this!" hmmm?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


What did you win Arny?

The pleasure of your humiliation Scott, at your own hands.

Paul Dormer wrote:
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

On a good day, the subwoofer comes with a specialized parametric
equalizer that allows you to tune it to any reasonable room. On a
slightly worse day, the user provides his own equalizer, hopefully a
parametric.

Equalizers are nothing more than a band aid.
That's old fashioned thinking.
They don't properly fix problems with room acoustics.
Depends on the nature of the problem.
Go ahead, elaborate on that...

See this white paper, specifically around page 17 and page 28:

http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=122
http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt3.pdf

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

"Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" emitted :

On a good day, the subwoofer comes with a specialized parametric
equalizer that allows you to tune it to any reasonable room. On a
slightly worse day, the user provides his own equalizer,
hopefully a parametric.

Equalizers are nothing more than a band aid.

That's old fashioned thinking.

They don't properly fix problems with room acoustics.
Depends on the nature of the problem.

See this white paper, specifically around page 17 and page 28:

http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=122

"The room, and the arrangement of loudspeakers and listeners within it,
dominate what we hear. It is a problem that cannot be completely solved by
good loudspeaker design, or by electronic equalization, although both of
these can help."

http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt3.pdf

Good references by people who know their stuff.

Thanks!