Stereophile & Cable Theory

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

dave weil a écrit :
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:32:04 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:28:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
>>><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:18:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>>>><YustabeSlim@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:3FxRe.4944$_84.2418@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>>>When people flat out lie about the perfomance improvements that a peice of
>>>>>>equipment, it's my feeling that such information shoud be challenged. If
>>>>>>manufacturers want to chare high prices for gear they ought to expect
>>>>>>challenges. Aside from liking the way one peice of gear looks as opposed
>>>>>>to another, why would anyone want tos spend more monye than needed to
>>>>>>achieve the same performance. Do you think they'd sell more VW's of they
>>>>>>performed exactly the way Porsche does? Do you tink if someone made a car
>>>>>>that performed exactly the way a Porsce does that they'd likely sell
>>>>>>plenty?
>>>>
>>>>They do - the VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne are the *same* car.
>>>
>>>
>>>Until you look at the motors. That has more than a little to do with
>>>"performance".
>>>
>>>Sorry you know so little about cars.
>>
>>LOL I bet that *you* can make the difference between :
>>
>>Porsche Cayenne : Cayenne Turbo 450 ch - 620 Nm.
>>0 to 100 km/H : 5,6 secondes
>>
>>VW Touareg W12 : 450 ch - 600 Nm
>>0 to 100 km/H : 5,9 secondes
>>
>>BTW 99% of the drivers would not make any
>>difference between the V10 TDI (313ch) and the W12, so...
>>
>>I'm sorry *you* know so little about cars, Dave.
>
>
> When you learn the meaning of the English word "exactly", please get
> back to me.

Oh, oh Dave is vexed.

My point was about performance :
"That has more than a little to do with "performance".

When you learn to read, please get back too me. ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:06:14 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
wrote:

>>>Porsche Cayenne : Cayenne Turbo 450 ch - 620 Nm.
>>>0 to 100 km/H : 5,6 secondes
>>>
>>>VW Touareg W12 : 450 ch - 600 Nm
>>>0 to 100 km/H : 5,9 secondes
>>>
>>>BTW 99% of the drivers would not make any
>>>difference between the V10 TDI (313ch) and the W12, so...
>>>
>>>I'm sorry *you* know so little about cars, Dave.
>>
>>
>> When you learn the meaning of the English word "exactly", please get
>> back to me.
>
>Oh, oh Dave is vexed.
>
>My point was about performance :
>"That has more than a little to do with "performance".
>
>When you learn to read, please get back too me. ;-)

Who cares WHAT your point was about? But since you asked, .3 of a
second IS a difference. Whether or not YOU think that a certain
percentage of drivers might or might not notice is stupid. That
difference could mean the difference between life and death.

Now, quit interferring before I DO get "vexed".

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

<elmir2m@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
news:1125607315.380700.126350@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Your corection is accurate: I was writing from
> memory- my memory for figures is just as poor as my arithmetics are
> in general. My respect for medical research statisticians is
> theoretical not, God forbids, hands on :
> If the "golden ear" had really got 15 "hits" four times I
> should have said that his score was a much better one namely 91% (my
> calculator tells me) not 83% that I reported. Odd that you did not
> include this in your account of my perfidy. Or do you make errors as
> well sometimes?.
>
> Here is Greenhill's table. If it is confusing blame Google. I tried
> to arrange it cleanly but could not.
> SUBJECTS: A B C D E F G H I J K
> Test1: Monster vs. 24 g. wire,Pink noise
> 15 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
> 2. Same but levels matched
> 9 13 7 10 na. 8 9 6 14 12 12
> 3. Monster vs. 16 gauge zipcord, Pink noise
> 13 7 10 7 11 12 9 9 11 12 7
> 4.. 16 ga vs. 24 ga., Pink noise
> 15 15 na. 14 15 na 15 14 15 15 15
> 5. Monster vs. 16ga., choral music
> 4 6 11 8 9 5 5 7 6 10 10
> 6. Monster vs. 24ga, choral music
> 14 7 15 10 8 10 6 10 11 12 10
> ______________________________________________
> % of "hits" in the total of 6 tests 90 tries:
>
>
>> > 67. 50 40 33 40 40 33 33 50? 83 50
>
>
> I am not prepared to lay my
> life down for Greenhill's "golden ear"- once again the description is
> Greenhill's not mine. Nor will I comment on your disagreement with his
> statistics. The entire subject was thrashed out ad nauseam in the RAHE
> 2 years ago and I regret restarting it. While obviously you're not
> bending over backwards to make allowances I have no quarrel with your
> forum manners. I quoted Greenhill only as a bait to someone who
> pontificated on the subject that he obviously knew little about. But
> the topic brings out of the woodwork several creatures that I find
> repulsive.
>
The biggest of which is your own lying self. You bring up an article tgat
essentially provesthe case for wire being wire. Nothing more than random
chance for equal diameter wire, as expected.

I note that you do not mention any ABX
> component comparison studies that would meet your statistical
> standards. Even the negative ones like Greenhill's or- dream on- just
> one with a POSITIVE outcome.
> Where is the research to validate the claims?
> My comments are as follows:
> 1) Your comment that it is "no proof of
> exceptional ability" is fair.The "golden ear's" performance may have
> been sheer one time luck. ABXing I think fox the temporal lobes of the
> brain. It does it to me. I find it funny that the ABXers are up in arms
> when someone, just one man, is said to have done well when ABXing. They
> should be cheering.

For what? The physics of wire don't allow for it to be discerned when
compared properly.

Of course he inconsiderately did it comparing
> cables and we know what cables are in the ABXers vocabulary.

They are wire, and wire has proerties that are well known, thus when
comparing wire of equal gauge, nobody will ever tell one form another.

> 2) All the panelists did well comparing
> uneven diameter cables when pink noise was played to them. The scores
> were much worse when music was used as a signal and became awful when
> similar diameters were used.

As has been said repeatedly, pink noise is better than music for telling
differences.

Oddly I'm interested in music not pink
> noise.

Nor truth.

> 3) I understand that 16 Gauge vs. 24
> gauge over 50" means 1,70db volume difference. Six out of eleven
> panelists failed to hear this difference in 5 (out of fifteen) tries
> or more. I have, with my elderly ears, no difficulty hearing 1db volume
> difference between the two speakers when my stepped volume control is
> moved without my knowledge- but of course I'm not ABXing.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
Of course not, you prefer to pretend that difference exists wher it does
not.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

NYOB says: (Sept 1)
"The biggest of which is your own lying self. You bring up
an article tgat
essentially provesthe case for wire being wire. Nothing more than
random
chance for equal diameter wire, as expected.
I note that you do not mention any ABX "

Temper... temper Mr. NYOB. You don't have to imitate our
littler RAO Goebbelses. Why don't you check Greenhill's article for
yourself rather than expect me to spoonfeed you? But I will this time-
yes it was an ABX test.
Dear NYOB. "Wire is wire". So be it.
But the crux is not the object of the "test" but the test itself.
I don't think you're capable of lying convincingly so I won't
reciprocate. I think you truly believe in your "test". But when you
tell me that *I'm* a believer I must point out that your semantics
are out of whack. You preach a "test". I'm asking for your
evidence. Call me a heretic, a disbeliever, a sceptic- your choice. But
I'm not a believer. You are.
But enough of word games. I'd rather not have this topic
sidetracked into a pointless, unprovable argument about "Wire this,
wire that". It is about the "test" that you say "proves' how
right you are when you can not hear very much.

Are the loudspeakers, cartridges, amps, preamps, cdplayers
and Dacs same as the wires? Or have you finally found a test report
(Journak, author(s_. vol., year, Nr,. Page) where most members of an
ABX panel could tell one comparable component from another?
Naturally I'd expect that you would apply your exacting
statistical criteria (better than 83% hits?) to such a report and not
gossip about "industry" or the BBC doing this or that. Judging by
your fighting choice of "arguments" (see above) I'd hate feeling
responsible for some unpleasantness befalling you from rising blood
pressure while trying to devise new dodges so I'll make this one a
final (5th?) invitation.
In the future till you respond I'll just reprint what I
said to you on August 30th:
"But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias controlled'
(his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything and anything
else in audio. He was challenged twice for a reference to a published
report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing, where
the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twice (only
to reemerge after a suitable interval.
Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your
"test" work? "
On Aug. 31 we had another exchange:
"Mr McKelvy, do you realize how ridiculous you sound when YOU
pompously
"point (me) in the right direction?"
How about cutting out the chit- chatting and "pointing out" some
references to the ABX helping to recognise differences between
anything and anything else in audio. If I "hair-split and deny", never
mind me- the world is waiting with bated breath. Your grateful readers
will be able to tell the grain from the jaw jaw chaff."
By now the clam up count is up to three.
Ludovic Mirabel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:48:56 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
<patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:16:22 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:28:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
>><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:18:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>>><YustabeSlim@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:3FxRe.4944$_84.2418@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>>> When people flat out lie about the perfomance improvements that a peice of
>>>>> equipment, it's my feeling that such information shoud be challenged. If
>>>>> manufacturers want to chare high prices for gear they ought to expect
>>>>> challenges. Aside from liking the way one peice of gear looks as opposed
>>>>> to another, why would anyone want tos spend more monye than needed to
>>>>> achieve the same performance. Do you think they'd sell more VW's of they
>>>>> performed exactly the way Porsche does? Do you tink if someone made a car
>>>>> that performed exactly the way a Porsce does that they'd likely sell
>>>>> plenty?
>>>
>>>They do - the VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne are the *same* car.
>>
>>Until you look at the motors. That has more than a little to do with
>>"performance".
>>
>>Sorry you know so little about cars.
>
>Sorry you're unaware that the base models use the 3.2 V-6 VW petrol
>engine,

Except that the Porsche gets 25 more HP out of the same motor. Sorry
you don't know more about what you're talking about.

> they share the 'stump-pulling' VW 5-litre V-10 turbo-diesel,

Ooops, nope. The Cayenne doesn't offer the diesel.

>and the W-12 VW has the same power output (but with no turbo lag) as
>the V-8 Cayenne Turbo S.

There is no such model as a Cayenne Turbo S. The S is a V-8, the
turbo-equipped model is called Turbo. Besides, the W12 ISN'T AVAILABLE
on the Touareg, so it's irrelevant. And since it's not a
Pinkerton-approved "cutting-edge motor", who cares, right?

>Shame that you know so little about cars.

So you say. However, you've gotten just about everything wrong in this
post.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On 1 Sep 2005 15:56:01 -0700, elmir2m@pacificcoast.net wrote:

>P.S. As recent correspondence (not yours) shows my comment about
>"repulsive creatures crawling out of the woodwork" was an
>understatement.

Indeed it was, so I suggest you crawl back under your rock and refrain
from spewing your lying garbage all over Usenet.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:55:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:


>The legal definition of kiddie porn is quite exact. A person
>changes from an illegal subject to a legal subject in one
>day.

Actually in 2 seconds, just around midnight.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 10:53:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:
>>>> Surely if you're looking for
>>>> charlatans in the audio industry this where most of them
>>>> hang out.
>>
>>> I don't know if that is a slam dunk.
>
>> Explanation?
>
>I don't think that it is necessarily true that people
>selling $100, $200, $300 mini-systems are charlatans.

Charlatans is probably the wrong word. Let's be kind and call them
"marketers addicted to hyperbole". Not that there's anything strange
about that, of course.

>>>> Personally I don't believe that expensive
>>>> cables make much if any difference,
>>>
>>> Notice the hedge, apparently faith springs eternal.
>
>> I fear this says something important about you, Arnie.
>> Most people like to leave room for a doubt. Remember what
>> I said (or rather, Mr. Ustinov said) about the inability
>> to have a doubt?
>
>Believe it or not Paul, you may not always find the best
>information about technology in the popular media.

I claimed otherwise?

>Its not about an inability to have a doubt about
>*everything*, its about knowing what can and cannot be done.

Fair enough. However, I still detect too little doubt in most of your
statements about audio.

>>>> What galls me
>>>> about the marketing of micros, midis & minis is that it
>>>> effectively syphons off all the potential customers for
>>>> real hi-fi
>
>>> People who buy this stuff are looking for a packaged
>>> solution. Where they fade out, HTIB systems pick up.
>
>> They're looking for a packaged solution because they've
>> been convinced the package will supply their need. This
>> is called marketing.
>
>It may also be a reasonble offering.

It may well suit their needs. I had a need for such a system in the
loungeroom. Doesn't alter the fact that their marketing excludes the
possibility that there may be something better, that sound
reproduction can reach greater heights. It's a pity that the audio
manufacturing world is divided more or less into two camps--the
mainstream Sony/Panasonic/Sanyo/Teac etc camp churning out svelt
little mini/micro systems in only slightly different price ranges, and
the specialist hi-fi manufacturers. What I mean is, if say Sony also
marketed high grade hi-fi, they would be pitching their mini/micro
systems on a "first step" basis hoping to keep the same customer
through many upgrades, and higher-end hi-fi would probably be
flourishing. As it is, mini/micro systems are the alpha and omega;
buyers go from a mini/micro to another mini/micro with more of the
latest gadgets without ever suspecting the possibility of better sound
even from something the same size. I guess you could call this dead
end marketing, but it's only a dead end for the hi-fi specialists.
Sony/panasonic et al continue to flourish.

>> HT is swallowing hi-fi whole.
>
>Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys, but you're wrong.
>
>HT + portable A/V + HTPC are swallowing hi-fi.

Don't you mean I'm one third right?

>>Few people care to have two
>> systems, one for HT and one for audio. Ergo, the HT has
>> to do for both. And in the minds of most punters, why
>> should it not?
>
>I'm not sure they are punters.
>
>You're way behind, Paul. Many people don't have any serious
>HT at all. Instead, they put their time and money into
>portable A/V. Some of the most serious HT advocates I know
>are actually doing HTPC.

I don't understand this paragraph at all. In OZ there's a HT stampede.
Has been for years, shows no sign of abating. HT rules.

>>>> I wonder how many innocents have
>>>> listened to their first mini system plastered with the
>>>> word "Hi-Fi" and thought, "Well if that's hi-fi it's
>>>> waaaay overrated. I thought it was s'posed to sound like
>>>> a real band."
>
>>> Probably not many at all. Who would be that naive?
>
>> Get into the real world, Arnie.
>
>I suspect that the US is a little more mainstream than
>Aussie-land.

Why? Isn't Oz a province of the good old US of A? Even yank tourists
can't believe how at home they feel.

>>As I said before, you've been slaving over that hot test
>>bench too long.
>
>The fact is Paul, you simply don't know me. I don't even
>have a audio-related test bench right now due to home
>(re)construction.

(snip quite interesting personal tid-bits)

Too literal, Arnie. The term "test bench" is merely a metaphor for
getting involved in your current interests to the exclusion of the
wider world. Tunnel vision, in other words.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On 1 Sep 2005 08:06:35 -0700, George Middius
<George_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said to La Salope:
>
>>>You are kindly credulous. I appreciate.
>
>>"Kindly credulous"? Interesting use of English.
>
>Lewis Carroll may have anticipated Lionella's assaults on the language. But at
>the last minute, his editor persuaded him to call the beast Jabberwocky instead
>of Gibberwocky.

You do know of course that one of the underlying motives of the
French/English wars was the spread of language. Both sides realized
that ultimately language dictated influence, that if a colony or
province spoke your language, its allegiance would almost certainly be
to you. The French lost those wars, the evidence being that the
dominant world language today is English, but that doesn't mean
they've taken the loss in good part. Personally I believe that much of
the current obstructionist activity of the French as a nation arises
from their resentment that English is now either the first or second
language of most of the world's youth--in other words, they're sore
losers. However, they still have RAO in which to make a last stand. By
posting in gibberish English, it's possible they hope to convince us
that English is not after all a fit means of communication, the
inference being that French might be better. Consequently I would
urge all RAO posters and lurkers to resist this mean-spirited attempt
at cultural sabotage and demand a full translation of any gibberish
they encounter. This is simple first line defence of our most precious
possession-our primary means of communication. English must survive,
and RAO is where the battle starts.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

paul packer said:

>>Lewis Carroll may have anticipated Lionella's assaults on the language. But at
>>the last minute, his editor persuaded him to call the beast Jabberwocky
>>instead of Gibberwocky.

>You do know of course that one of the underlying motives of the
>French/English wars was the spread of language. Both sides realized
>that ultimately language dictated influence, that if a colony or
>province spoke your language, its allegiance would almost certainly be
>to you. The French lost those wars, the evidence being that the
>dominant world language today is English, but that doesn't mean
>they've taken the loss in good part.

The French are sore losers? Mon dieu!

>Consequently I would
>urge all RAO posters and lurkers to resist this mean-spirited attempt
>at cultural sabotage and demand a full translation of any gibberish
>they encounter. This is simple first line defence of our most precious
>possession-our primary means of communication. English must survive,
>and RAO is where the battle starts.

Well, we've certainly been battling for a while. The 'borgs are relentless.

I like your analysis. Your theory might explain Gibberella's alliance with Arnii
Krooborg, the source of that other ugly duckling -- Krooglish.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

<torresists@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125611991.388943.219180@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:i5eeh190341oj52nojg0ps07evlpldkqjq@4ax.com
>>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:17:18 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>>> <YustabeSlim@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> news:elxRe.5343$FW1.4152@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>>> Then why would something like CD stoplight make the
>>>>> RCL? It has no value at all, in fact the whole green
>>>>> ink thing was the result of an April Fools Day prank.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, I tried it on a number of cd's, and it made most
>>>> of those a little worse sounding.
>>>
>>> Bullshit - you always had an overly vivid imagination,
>>> sad Sack.
>>
>> Based on Sackman's lengthy and volumnous history of
>> over-the-edge postings, maybe he carried that philosoply
>> into his CD treatments.
>>
>>
> What??? You're not supposed to cover the whole CD with
> green ink??? ;-)

That would explain his claimed results perfectly. It would
something that a person of his level of technical competence
might do.

Psst! Don't tell Art! ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:4317f917.2851845@news.iprimus.com.au


> Well, I'd repeat what I've said elsewhere about the
> inability to have a doubt being a sure sign of madness.

Thus showing that you can't distinguish between having no
doubt about certain isolated facts, and having no doubt
about just about anything.

> It's worrying to see people making statements like: "Sure
> it is, especially if you know they're wrong".

When one is dealing with audiophools, its almost like you
know they are wrong before they start speaking. If they get
something right, its like a hallowed day.

> Try to be a little uncertain occasionally. It's good for
> the ego.

In real life I'm known as a skeptic and one who hangs with
skeptics. The whole ABX crew go almost so far as to try to
one-up each other when it comes to skepticism. The attack on
golden-eared audio was founded in skepticism and discussions
of epistemology.

BTW Paul, just in case you don't see the connection, being
a skeptic means having doubt about *everything*.
;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:4317fcf4.3840889@news.iprimus.com.au
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 10:53:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>>>> Surely if you're looking for
>>>>> charlatans in the audio industry this where most of
>>>>> them hang out.
>>>
>>>> I don't know if that is a slam dunk.
>>
>>> Explanation?
>>
>> I don't think that it is necessarily true that people
>> selling $100, $200, $300 mini-systems are charlatans.
>
> Charlatans is probably the wrong word. Let's be kind and
> call them "marketers addicted to hyperbole". Not that
> there's anything strange about that, of course.

I don't know how vigorously mini-systems are marketed in
Australia. In the US they are necessary evils for people
with limited resources for audio.

>>>>> Personally I don't believe that expensive
>>>>> cables make much if any difference,
>>>>
>>>> Notice the hedge, apparently faith springs eternal.
>>
>>> I fear this says something important about you, Arnie.
>>> Most people like to leave room for a doubt. Remember
>>> what I said (or rather, Mr. Ustinov said) about the
>>> inability to have a doubt?
>>
>> Believe it or not Paul, you may not always find the best
>> information about technology in the popular media.

> I claimed otherwise?

You surely act like it.

>> Its not about an inability to have a doubt about
>> *everything*, its about knowing what can and cannot be
>> done.

> Fair enough. However, I still detect too little doubt in
> most of your statements about audio.

A half century of experience with a slow-moving technology
tends to do that to perceptive people. There is a great deal
about audio that isn't changing, isn't rocket science, itn't
in question to knowlegeable, experienced people.

>>>>> What galls me
>>>>> about the marketing of micros, midis & minis is that
>>>>> it effectively syphons off all the potential
>>>>> customers for real hi-fi
>>
>>>> People who buy this stuff are looking for a packaged
>>>> solution. Where they fade out, HTIB systems pick up.
>>
>>> They're looking for a packaged solution because they've
>>> been convinced the package will supply their need. This
>>> is called marketing.

>> It may also be a reasonble offering.

> It may well suit their needs. I had a need for such a
> system in the loungeroom. Doesn't alter the fact that
> their marketing excludes the possibility that there may
> be something better, that sound reproduction can reach
> greater heights.

AFAIK Mini systems aren't even seriously marketed in the US.
They are necesary evils for people with limited resources.

>It's a pity that the audio manufacturing
> world is divided more or less into two camps--the
> mainstream Sony/Panasonic/Sanyo/Teac etc camp churning
> out svelt little mini/micro systems in only slightly
> different price ranges, and the specialist hi-fi
> manufacturers. What I mean is, if say Sony also marketed
> high grade hi-fi, they would be pitching their mini/micro
> systems on a "first step" basis hoping to keep the same
> customer through many upgrades, and higher-end hi-fi
> would probably be flourishing. As it is, mini/micro
> systems are the alpha and omega; buyers go from a
> mini/micro to another mini/micro with more of the latest
> gadgets without ever suspecting the possibility of better
> sound even from something the same size. I guess you
> could call this dead end marketing, but it's only a dead
> end for the hi-fi specialists. Sony/panasonic et al
> continue to flourish.

Australia must be very different than the US in this regard.

>>> HT is swallowing hi-fi whole.

>> Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys, but you're
>> wrong.

>> HT + portable A/V + HTPC are swallowing hi-fi.

> Don't you mean I'm one third right?

Pretty lame.

>>> systems, one for HT and one for audio. Ergo, the HT has
>>> to do for both. And in the minds of most punters, why
>>> should it not?

>> I'm not sure they are punters.

>> You're way behind, Paul. Many people don't have any
>> serious HT at all. Instead, they put their time and
>> money into portable A/V. Some of the most serious HT
>> advocates I know are actually doing HTPC.

> I don't understand this paragraph at all. In OZ there's a
> HT stampede. Has been for years, shows no sign of
> abating. HT rules.

So much for OZ. My kids who are into listening to music (2
out of 3) are into portable audio, big time. Their home
systems are left-overs from their earlier lives. They even
use portable audio gear at home.


>>>>> I wonder how many innocents have
>>>>> listened to their first mini system plastered with the
>>>>> word "Hi-Fi" and thought, "Well if that's hi-fi it's
>>>>> waaaay overrated. I thought it was s'posed to sound
>>>>> like a real band."
>>
>>>> Probably not many at all. Who would be that naive?
>>
>>> Get into the real world, Arnie.
>>
>> I suspect that the US is a little more mainstream than
>> Aussie-land.

> Why? Isn't Oz a province of the good old US of A? Even
> yank tourists can't believe how at home they feel.

Provinces tend to lag the mother land.

>>> As I said before, you've been slaving over that hot test
>>> bench too long.
>>
>> The fact is Paul, you simply don't know me. I don't even
>> have a audio-related test bench right now due to home
>> (re)construction.

> (snip quite interesting personal tid-bits)

> Too literal, Arnie. The term "test bench" is merely a
> metaphor for getting involved in your current interests
> to the exclusion of the wider world. Tunnel vision, in
> other words.

Paul, you're the one with tunnel vision.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qgpeh1ptl0kl85nmqvcrm2cnkqh5ev1kdq@4ax.com
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:16:22 -0500, dave weil
> <dweil2@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:28:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart
>> Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:


>>> They do - the VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne are the
>>> *same* car.
>>
>> Until you look at the motors. That has more than a
>> little to do with "performance".
>>
>> Sorry you know so little about cars.
>
> Sorry you're unaware that the base models use the 3.2 V-6
> VW petrol engine, they share the 'stump-pulling' VW
> 5-litre V-10 turbo-diesel, and the W-12 VW has the same
> power output (but with no turbo lag) as the V-8 Cayenne
> Turbo S. Shame that you know so little about cars.

Agreed.

*Non-existent* picture of the non-existent W12 Toureg:

http/rs6.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=5426

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 08:41:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:qgpeh1ptl0kl85nmqvcrm2cnkqh5ev1kdq@4ax.com
>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:16:22 -0500, dave weil
>> <dweil2@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:28:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart
>>> Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>> They do - the VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne are the
>>>> *same* car.
>>>
>>> Until you look at the motors. That has more than a
>>> little to do with "performance".
>>>
>>> Sorry you know so little about cars.
>>
>> Sorry you're unaware that the base models use the 3.2 V-6
>> VW petrol engine, they share the 'stump-pulling' VW
>> 5-litre V-10 turbo-diesel, and the W-12 VW has the same
>> power output (but with no turbo lag) as the V-8 Cayenne
>> Turbo S. Shame that you know so little about cars.
>
>Agreed.
>
>*Non-existent* picture of the non-existent W12 Toureg:

No such car.

>
>http/rs6.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=5426

Here's a picture of the non-existent Touareg diesel:
http/www.familycar.com/RoadTests/VolkswagenTouareg/IndexV10.htm

Can you show me a picture of the Cayenne "Turbo S"?

I doubt I'll be seeing Stewart admitting THAT mistake anytime soon.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

Lionel wrote to dave-the-nit-picker:
>
>
<snipped to eliminate nits>
>
>
> You are really vexed, little man. Good, game set and match. ;-)
>
>
"Check please!" :-D

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 08:26:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:


>BTW Paul, just in case you don't see the connection, being
>a skeptic means having doubt about *everything*.

Actually it doesn't, Arnie. In practice it means being just as certain
in your skepticism as others are in their lack of it. That's why
skeptics have a society.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:431855c8.26584405@news.iprimus.com.au
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 08:26:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>
>> BTW Paul, just in case you don't see the connection,
>> being a skeptic means having doubt about *everything*.

> Actually it doesn't, Arnie.

Just shows that when you have your blinders on Paul, you're
about as slit-visioned as they come.

> In practice it means being
> just as certain in your skepticism as others are in their
> lack of it.

You obviously don't know much about being a skeptic, Paul.

There's nothing certain about being a skeptic - you get to
be skeptical about things, and then you're skeptical about
your skepticism. Then you're skeptical of your skepticism of
your skepticism.

In the case of ABX, we became skeptical of claims of
mind-blowing differences among good amps. Then we became
skeptical about the means we were using to test other's
claims about amps.

Perhaps the most irritating thing about ABX critics is how
smug and proud they often are, when all they do is come up
fresh with something that we hashed out 30 years ago.

>That's why skeptics have a society.

I'll leave the broad claims about others to you, Paul.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On 2 Sep 2005 11:17:26 -0700, torresists@aol.com wrote:

>
>Lionel wrote to dave-the-nit-picker:
>>
>>
><snipped to eliminate nits>
>>
>>
>> You are really vexed, little man. Good, game set and match. ;-)
>>
>>
>"Check please!" :-D

OK. Here's your Shoney's breakfast buffet check, passed along by your
waitress, Bess, who faxed it to me. Please make sure you leave her at
least a buck, 'k?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

dave weil a écrit :
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:06:14 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Porsche Cayenne : Cayenne Turbo 450 ch - 620 Nm.
>>>>0 to 100 km/H : 5,6 secondes
>>>>
>>>>VW Touareg W12 : 450 ch - 600 Nm
>>>>0 to 100 km/H : 5,9 secondes
>>>>
>>>>BTW 99% of the drivers would not make any
>>>>difference between the V10 TDI (313ch) and the W12, so...
>>>>
>>>>I'm sorry *you* know so little about cars, Dave.
>>>
>>>
>>>When you learn the meaning of the English word "exactly", please get
>>>back to me.
>>
>>Oh, oh Dave is vexed.
>>
>>My point was about performance :
>>"That has more than a little to do with "performance".
>>
>>When you learn to read, please get back too me. ;-)
>
>
> Who cares WHAT your point was about?

Mr Pinkerton perhaps. ;-)

> But since you asked, .3 of a
> second IS a difference.

LOL !

> Whether or not YOU think that a certain
> percentage of drivers might or might not notice is stupid. That
> difference could mean the difference between life and death.

You cannot imagine how *ridiculous* you are.


> Now, quit interferring

Lesson one for you, small man, if you don't like
interferences don't post on a public NG.

> before I DO get "vexed".

Oh, I'm scary.