Stereophile & Cable Theory

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:51:23 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>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.

Bullshit. The Porsche is rated at 247 HP (same as the rating for that
engine in all other VW and Audi cars in which it's used), while it's
rated at 240 in the Touareg, for no reason I can find. There is *no*
special Porsche tuning at work here, just some mysterious derating in
the Touareg (mebbe Porsche's marketing guys insisted?). Five'll get
you ten they'll be identical on a rolling road........

>> they share the 'stump-pulling' VW 5-litre V-10 turbo-diesel,
>
>Ooops, nope. The Cayenne doesn't offer the diesel.

Apologies - that's for next year.

>>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.

OK, they changed the designations when the base model was introduced,
originally the S *was* the Turbo.

> Besides, the W12 ISN'T AVAILABLE
>on the Touareg, so it's irrelevant.

Yes, it is. Don't you read the motoring magazines? Maybe not in that
lawless third-world place called America, but certainly in Europe.
There was a limited run of 500, and the dealers screamed so much that
it's now been made a mainstream model.

> And since it's not a
>Pinkerton-approved "cutting-edge motor", who cares, right?

Not 'cutting edge'? The engine that powers the latest Bentleys? the
world's only W-12? Are you *crazy*?! Ah, sorry, silly question.......

>>Shame that you know so little about cars.
>
>So you say. However, you've gotten just about everything wrong in this
>post.

Nope, you have as ever lost all touch with reality. The Porsche
Cayenne and VW Touareg are the *same* car, and the base models share
the *same* VW engine. Only *you* are dumb enough to think otherwise.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 18:14:36 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
<patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:51:23 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Bullshit. The Porsche is rated at 247 HP (same as the rating for that
>engine in all other VW and Audi cars in which it's used), while it's
>rated at 240 in the Touareg, for no reason I can find. There is *no*
>special Porsche tuning at work here, just some mysterious derating in
>the Touareg (mebbe Porsche's marketing guys insisted?). Five'll get
>you ten they'll be identical on a rolling road........

Why can't you just admit that you are wrong?

Oh it's you, that's why...

"So why did Porsche develop a V6 engine? Well, in designing and
constructing the unit-body chassis of the Cayenne, Porsche worked with
parent company VW, who was co-developing the Touareg SUV. Although the
3.2-liter V6 is snatched from the Touareg, Porsche engineers assure
that extensive modification has been done to guarantee Porsche
performance. For example, the new intake system uses continuously
variable valve timing and two overhead camshafts. The exhaust has also
been tweaked to bellow the familiar Porsche note. For towing, the
cooling system was also enhanced to withstand pulling in high ambient
temperatures.


V6 Horsepower
Porsche reports horsepower for its V6 version at 247 and torque at 228
lb.-ft. A Touareg yields only 220 hp. but creates 225 lb.-ft. of
torque. However, all that torque arrives later in the power band in
the VW (3,200 rpm as opposed to 2,500 rpm in the Porsche), so Porsche
can tout slightly better utility capabilities".

Looks like VW has added another 20 HP though for 2005. Still less than
the Porsche.

>>> they share the 'stump-pulling' VW 5-litre V-10 turbo-diesel,
>>
>>Ooops, nope. The Cayenne doesn't offer the diesel.
>
>Apologies - that's for next year.

Still can't say the simple words, "I'm wrong". But thanks for the
acknowlegement. I fully admit that I was wrong about some things as
well. You should try the straightforward approach. Speaking of next
year though, it's likely that Porsche will maintain a technical
superiority, as they've not settled for the same specs on anything
they've used from VW.

>>>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.
>
>OK, they changed the designations when the base model was introduced,
>originally the S *was* the Turbo.

Again, why not just say, "Sorry, I'm wrong". It doesn't hurt as much
as you think.

>> Besides, the W12 ISN'T AVAILABLE
>>on the Touareg, so it's irrelevant.
>
>Yes, it is.

I've already said that I was wrong about this.

>Don't you read the motoring magazines?

Not really (except occasionally). I don't read the hi-fi magazines
either (same frequency)
..
>Maybe not in that
>lawless third-world place called America, but certainly in Europe.
>There was a limited run of 500, and the dealers screamed so much that
>it's now been made a mainstream model.

I've now seen that. Thanks for the update.

>> And since it's not a
>>Pinkerton-approved "cutting-edge motor", who cares, right?
>
>Not 'cutting edge'? The engine that powers the latest Bentleys? the
>world's only W-12? Are you *crazy*?! Ah, sorry, silly question.......

According to you, it has to be 100 HP per liter, remember? Funny how
the words come back to haunt you. This is roughly the same percentage
as Ford's engine that Imentioned as being cutting edge, although you
correctly pointed out (or *I* found out later) that it was only 170 HP
per 2 liter.

>>>Shame that you know so little about cars.
>>
>>So you say. However, you've gotten just about everything wrong in this
>>post.
>
>Nope, you have as ever lost all touch with reality. The Porsche
>Cayenne and VW Touareg are the *same* car, and the base models share
>the *same* VW engine. Only *you* are dumb enough to think otherwise.

Now you are changing your story.

"PS: The standard Cayenne's narrow-angle 3.2-liter V6 engine was
developed by Volkswagen. Porsche did its own finish work for its
version of the V6, which features variable timing for both the intake
and exhaust valves for an impressive combination of smooth idling,
good low-end torque and free-revving high-end horsepower". 6 more
horsepower actually.

They do NOT offer the exact same performance, regardless of how you
spin it.

However, I fully stipulate that you weren't the ONLY one wrong in this
exchange.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 18:14:36 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
<patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>>> they share the 'stump-pulling' VW 5-litre V-10 turbo-diesel,
>>
>>Ooops, nope. The Cayenne doesn't offer the diesel.
>
>Apologies - that's for next year.

Maybe you've heard something different (other than base speculation),
but this from June of this year from Herr Riedel:

"Porsche Doesn't Do Diesel
We should do an alternative power concept for the Cayenne. The sports
cars will continue to be only naturally aspirated and turbo gas
engines. A Cayenne diesel is out. It wouldn't have the right driving
characteristics, it doesn't fit our brand, and it isn't the right
answer for the environment. Anyway, diesel is less than 20 percent of
the world SUV market--why chase that small segment? We're looking at
hybrid. But ours wouldn't be just a me-too vehicle; we wouldn't use an
existing system. We've set the benchmark high, not just for
consumption and emissions but for driving dynamics. We can't build a
car that's dull to drive".

Maybe it's a smokescreen, but that's the party line at the moment. As
I said though, events of this week MIGHT force their hand, at least
for the US market. I'm guessing that it will be hard enough to
maintain the SUV market here in the US for all automaker, which is
already taking a beating (as it should, IMHO). Of course, whether or
not it's economic for them to retool for such a motor for such a small
potential increase is questionable.

BTW, were you aware of the 500HP Cayenne, available as a special order
or as a retrofit through Porsche dealers? On the off-chance that you
didn't, here's the info:

http/www.germancarfans.com/news.cfm/newsid/2040914.005/porsche/1.html

I doubt that Porsche will EVER let VW equal their specs, even when
sharing platforms, motors, or whatever. And that was the original
point.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:18:35 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>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".

Since you're being pedantic about it, the above model designations are
for the base model in each case - with the *same* VW 3.2 V-6,
mysteriously derated from its usual 247 hp to 240 in the Touareg.

>>>> 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

Oh, so that picture is a fake, is it?

>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.

I doubt anyone was unaware of what I meant. Just more smoke and
mirrors to cover your basic ignorance, Vile.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 18:21:37 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
<patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:18:35 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>
>>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".
>
>Since you're being pedantic about it, the above model designations are
>for the base model in each case - with the *same* VW 3.2 V-6,
>mysteriously derated from its usual 247 hp to 240 in the Touareg.

Oh, NOW is "mysterious". Must be "hi-end-auto-magicks".

>>>>> 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
>
>Oh, so that picture is a fake, is it?

No, no such car as "Toureg".

>>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.
>
>I doubt anyone was unaware of what I meant. Just more smoke and
>mirrors to cover your basic ignorance, Vile.

Still can't just say, "I was wrong". Proves my point. A real man can
admit his error/s. Since YOU'RE the one usually being pedantic, it's
kinda fun to hoist you on your own petard.

 

[Guest]

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

"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:4317f7f8.2564877@news.iprimus.com.au...
> Actually in 2 seconds, just around midnight.

Why 2 seconds? Why not 1 second, or even 1 nano second?

MrT.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 18:27:31 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>
>"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>news:4317f7f8.2564877@news.iprimus.com.au...
>> Actually in 2 seconds, just around midnight.
>
>Why 2 seconds? Why not 1 second, or even 1 nano second?

I wasn't going to split hairs. But hey, why not?

 

[Guest]

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

dave weil a écrit :

> If there's no diesel version, then there's no "same car" to talk
> about.

Everybody have noted that in your original post you was
focused on "performances" only, since it was to compare the
performance of 2 cables.
Your today digressions are grotesque and pathetic, you
should give up now.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:53:47 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>
>> If there's no diesel version, then there's no "same car" to talk
>> about.
>
>Everybody have noted that in your original post you was
>focused on "performances" only, since it was to compare the
>performance of 2 cables.

No, it was to compare the performance of two VEHICLES.

>Your today digressions are grotesque and pathetic, you
>should give up now.

Thank you Mr. Bandoneon.

 

[Guest]

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

Paul packer wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 06:59:11 GMT, "nyob123@peoplepc.com"
> <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>
Very good. But I wonder if you object as strongly to the claims made
> by mini and micro systems manufacturers and retailers that these
> systems are true hi-fi, sound brilliant and will fulfil all your
> expectations about sound reproduction forever. Surely if you're
> looking for charlatans in the audio industry this where most of >them> hang out.



Mr Packer, I think you hit the nail on the head.
You'd think that people posting to an audio group would be
intensely interested in progress and improvement of audio equipment.
But it seems that they accept the marketer-promoted garbage sold as
"hi-fi" without concern or protest. But when it comes to the
high-end they get truly passionate. Bile overflows. Could it be that
they have no acquaintance with the sound of live orchestral instruments
and do not strive to get it?
One certainly should be vocal b be vocal be be be vocal
about things one considers rubbish: green felt pens etc. But where is
the sense of proportion. I disagree with many of their enthusiasms.
Lucky for me because I could not afford most of them. But at least they
are interested in hearing violin sound reproduced as close to the real
violin as possible. So am I. No, it is not about fidelity to the
processor-digested pap that some audio engineers feel they are entitled
to feed me.

Would it really improve audio if "The Stereophile"
mistaken as it can be at times were hounded out of existence? What
would be left? Clones of the defunct, unlamented "Stereo Review"
with its reviewing motto: "You gets what you pays for".
The language of the audio-bores betrays them. They always talk
about "subtle" differences. Of course, the differences between a
Bluethner and a Yamaha are subtle to them but not to a concert pianist.
They are as
"subtle" as the differences between John Grisham and Marcel Proust
or a Beethoven quartet and Neil Diamond. By the way listening to and
appreciating music is not just about the hearing ability. Perfect
hearing is perfectly compatible with tone deafness while Beethoven was
more than half deaf when he composed his late quartets.
I doubt if this cultural chasm can ever be bridged.
Ludovic Mirabel

 

[Guest]

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

dave weil a écrit :
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:58:38 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>I'm also glad to find out that you're nasty 'for fun".
>>>
>>>Cool.
>>
>>Dave you are really too slow and dense, in one word you are
>>lovely ridiculous.
>>I already tell you that at least 10 times and each time you
>>done the same stupid answer "I am glad...".
>
>
> Sorry, the phrase was "I'm also glad"...

So ?

> Once again, if you like to be nasty "for fun", that's your
> prerogative.

No just a choice you motivate. ;-)

>>It's not my fault if you cannot avoid to act like a
>>grotesque and presumptuous braggart, it's too tempting to
>>nail you.
>
>
> Does your wife know that you're bi?


Bi :

# noun: a heavy brittle diamagnetic trivalent metallic
element (resembles arsenic and antimony chemically); usually
recovered as a by-product from ores of other metals

Yes she knows.


>>I cannot resist.
>
>
> Try to get your urges under control.
>
> Now, back to your hoppy swill.

You are really vexed, little man. Good, game set and match. ;-)

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:04:56 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
wrote:

>> Try to get your urges under control.
>>
>> Now, back to your hoppy swill.
>
Good, game set and match. ;-)

Hard to believe that you concede.

Well done!

 

[Guest]

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

dave weil a écrit :
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:58:38 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>I'm also glad to find out that you're nasty 'for fun".
>>>
>>>Cool.
>>
>>Dave you are really too slow and dense, in one word you are
>>lovely ridiculous.
>>I already tell you that at least 10 times and each time you
>>done the same stupid answer "I am glad...".
>
>
> Sorry, the phrase was "I'm also glad"...

So ?

> Once again, if you like to be nasty "for fun", that's your
> prerogative.

No just a choice you motivate. ;-)

>>It's not my fault if you cannot avoid to act like a
>>grotesque and presumptuous braggart, it's too tempting to
>>nail you.
>
>
> Does your wife know that you're bi?


Bi :

# noun: a heavy brittle diamagnetic trivalent metallic
element (resembles arsenic and antimony chemically); usually
recovered as a by-product from ores of other metals

Yes she knows.


>>I cannot resist.
>
>
> Try to get your urges under control.
>
> Now, back to your hoppy swill.

You are really vexed, little man. Good, game set and match. ;-)

 

[Guest]

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

In article <n6u5t7ek5nry.1dzky1anq98o2.dlg@40tude.net>,
Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote:

> > And a Volvo S-40 is a Mazda 3, or a Lincoln LS and a Jaguar S-type are
> > the same cars. Cool.
>
> Anybody know what he's talking about?

Yes. And the European Ford Focus, too.

Stephen

 

[Guest]

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

elmir2m@pacificcoast.net wrote:
>
>
<snipped>
>
>
> One certainly should be vocal b be vocal be be be vocal
> about things
>
>
Stereophile attracts only the finest!

 

[Guest]

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

elmir2m@pacificcoast.net wrote:
>
>
<snipped>

> Would it really improve audio if "The Stereophile"
> mistaken as it can be at times were hounded out of existence?
>
>
"Stereophile" in it's current incarnation? Yes! Absolutely!
>
>
>What would be left?
>
>
No Recommended Component Lists with green pens, SET amps and Shakti
Stones. No positive reviews of Mpingo Discs. All in all, that's a good
start.

 

[Guest]

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

The glitch happened in transmission from Microsoft Word to
Google. It was."... be vocal about things in Stereophile one disagrees
with...."
Thank for giving me the opporunity to correct it. But
for your eagle eye and your close reading it would stay as it was.
L.M.

 

[Guest]

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote

>.......... he's not as smart as he thinks he is, and he'll lie and distort
>the truth unless caught absolutely dead to rights.


that's the difference between you and Dave. You
lie and distort the truth to the bitter end.

 

[Guest]

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

dave weil a écrit :
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:04:56 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Try to get your urges under control.
>>>
>>>Now, back to your hoppy swill.
>>
> Good, game set and match. ;-)
>
> Hard to believe that you concede.
>
> Well done!

Seems that when I said that you are a presumptuous pathetic
baggart it was a kind euphemism.

)

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 23:15:17 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:04:56 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Try to get your urges under control.
>>>>
>>>>Now, back to your hoppy swill.
>>>
>> Good, game set and match. ;-)
>>
>> Hard to believe that you concede.
>>
>> Well done!
>
>Seems that when I said that you are a presumptuous pathetic
>baggart it was a kind euphemism.
>
>)
Uh oh, the Frenchman's "vexed".