Stereophile & Cable Theory

[Guest]

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

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message news:sjmlh1d608fmic63ndtsmmgbgfh8r44i2a@4ax.com...
>
>
> paul packer said:
>
>> > There is always room for improvement. An interesting consideration...
>> >are objectivist and subjectivist needs mutually exclusive?
>
>> There's a dichotomy here. I believe components other than speakers
>> sound significantly (though not radically) different even within the
>> same price range, so I'm a subjectivist. But I don't believe these
>> weird accessories (including high priced interconnects) and tweaks
>> really aid sound quality at all (and I've tried many of them including
>> green pens), so I'm also a skeptic, which I guess is a kind of
>> objectivist. So....I appear to have a foot in both camps. Am I the
>> only one?
>
> You're avoiding the crux, which is "tests". If you believe in the value of
> tests, you get to be an objectivist.

Fair enough.

>That doesn't just mean rationally
> acknowledging the value of scientifically valid tests performed by
> experienced R&D professionals in real enterprises. It also means you have
> to believe that a very few "tests" that are done without real scientific
> controls, in which both the participants and the proctors are predisposed
> to not hearing differences, are sufficient for all audio equipment and all
> listeners.

That's just BS and and a cheap attempt to smear all objectivists by
forcing association with Arny. You need to give that agenda a rest
when having meaningful input.

>You also have to believe that any difference somebody thinks
> they heard in real-life listening, but that disappears during a "test", is
> illusory.

More BS. You just need to allow the test protocol every opportunity
to reveal the difference heard in "real-life listening". Long sessions,
music, noise sources, tones, rapid switching etc.
Anything the subject feels is necessary to allow positive blind detection.


>You further have to believe that "science" has reached its
> limit, and any apparent (but not real) audible difference that cannot be
> fully explained using what the best scientists know today is also not
> real.

Obvious to me that the science of recording and playback enhancement
hasn't reached its limits. Some of the processing of surround environments
with headphones in PC games is proof of that. The progress in just the last
few
years is nothing short of amazing.
I think that arena might open up whole new realms of audible reproduction
differences. Does it apply to classic stereo recordings? Not really...
>
> Failing all of the above criteria, you're not an "objectivist".

Who appointed you judge and jury?

> Sorry. (If
> you want to be a 'borg, the requirements are even more stringent.)

Borg's practice thought control... but so does George.

ScottW

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 06:17:24 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
<patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 07:02:56 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 07:22:17 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
>><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>I doubt that Porsche will EVER let VW equal their specs, even when
>>>>sharing platforms, motors, or whatever. And that was the original
>>>>point.
>>>
>>>But of course they do, in the base models, which was my point - they
>>>are the *same* vehicle, aside from the nose cones.
>>
>>Nope. Motors have different specs. You can endulge your fantasy about
>>"fake detuning" and all that, but your spinning just make you look
>>foolish, Lord Bumbershoot.
>
>Yeah, yeah, funny how that engine gives 247 HP in *every* vehicle it's
>used in, apart from the Touareg. You could of course argue that it's
>therefore the Touareg that's had the 'special tuning', rather than
>believe the Porsche bullshit.

No, one can easily believe that the VW group understands the marketing
angle of "higher-end marques" even within their own group. That's why,
for instance, they don't make a comparable Golf to your vehicle. If
they do a "high end" model of their own, it seems to be a unique
model, like the Phaeton (and now we see how successful *that* has
been.

>>>BTW, did you know that Burnt Fishtrousers, head of VAG Group, would
>>>just *love* to drop the 650 HP twin-turbo version of the W-12 into the
>>>Touareg, to blow the Porsche into the weeds? Of course, the marketing
>>>boys will never let him do it,
>>
>>There you go. That's the point, which you are only NOW finally coming
>>around to admit.
>
>Oh, so your pooint wasn't that Porsche makes better cars, just that
>their marketing boys insist that the competition is rated with less
>power?

Oh, you DIDN'T quite get the point.

It's more that Porsche's marketing boys INSIST that there be a
"sporting" advantage between themselves and "a garden variety VW". And
VW itself does this with their own branding. Your car is a perfect
example of that niche marketing. And the lack of success of the
Phaeton vs the relative success of the Bentley seems to underscore
that when VW tries to get out of the public perception as a
value-driven car, it gets in trouble.

> Of course, they've been playing that braindead game for years
>with the Boxster, which was never going to be allowed to have more
>power than the base 911. They're now doing the same with the Cayman,
>even though it's already faster round the 'Ring than a 911.

What's your point? That either the Boxter or the 911 has suffered in
sales from this sort of positioning? Why on earth would they undermine
the 9-11? The idea was to bring MORE people on board the Porsche ship,
not siphon sales away from their bread and butter line. You really
*don't* understand marketing. VAG is going to fight Porsche with AUDI,
not VW.

>> What's stupid is the whole idea of such a vehicle
>>having over 400HP in the first place. It's something that a drunken
>>inbred such as yourself would embrace. People have also stuck big
>>block V8s in the back of old VW Beetles as well. Doesn't make it
>>particularly smart.
>
>Shame that you don't know much about cars. Overfinch have been putting
>big V-8s with up to 400 horses into Rangies for more than a decade.

So? It's STILL stupid.

>My favourite Beetle conversion is the one that has a 911 Turbo under the
>skin - sort of completes the circle!

My favorite was a Beetle front end and a 911 rear cap and Boxer motor
and Porsche running gear, complete with wing. It was really quite
amazing looking AND it passed the TuV, which is a miracle in and of
itself. Only took my buddy almost three years to finish it.

>As previously noted, when you weight more than two tons, you *need*
>400 horses - any Bentley owner could have told you that, Vile.

No you don't, Stewed. Or are you saying that the V8 Touareg/Cayenne is
"useless"? Hell, we have 800 hp Mustangs with blowers. Stupid if you
ask me.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 06:19:05 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
<patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 08:44:21 -0500, dave weil <dweil2@bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 12:15:42 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
>><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>BTW, the Ford pickup doesn't *have* to have a rifle rack
>>
>>But it *does* have to have a little cartoon of Calvin (of Calvin and
>>Hobbes fame) pissing on a ram's head (or a Chevy bowtie).
>>
>>I haven't seen a rifle rack in a pickup for years. They keep them in
>>stainless steel bed boxes now.
>
>Yeah, but that's not so handy for picking off n***** of opportunity,
>now is it, boy?

Your racism is your own issue, not mine.

 

[Guest]

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

torresists@aol.com a écrit :
> Lionel wrote:
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>>On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 12:38:44 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Uh oh, the Frenchman's "vexed".
>>>>
>>>>You are pathetic Dave, I start to feel a lot of pity for you.
>>>
>>>
>>>Uh oh, more "vexation". I guess I should be "having fun" right about
>>>now, right?
>>
>>No, no, but please continue to make an ass of yourself
>>publicly, all the pleasure will be for me.
>>We already know that you are an audio-clown now we see that
>>you are also an auto-clown...
>>
>>
>
> But dave teaches us valuable facts, Lionel. Just in the past few days,
> we have learned that a 0.3 second difference in 0-100kph (0-62 mph) can
> be a difference of life or death. And, we also learned that a
> difference of 3 RATED HP (or 1.2%, in this case) can make a significant
> difference in performance. :-D

True. And all the unshamed distortions he used in his
exchange with Pinkerton.
All along this thread Dave Weil fits perfectly the Middius'
definition of the Borg.
....So much that I am very surprised of George silence. ;-)

 

[Guest]

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

"Lionel" <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil> wrote
>
> True. And all the unshamed distortions he used in his exchange with
> Pinkerton.
> All along this thread Dave Weil fits perfectly the Middius' definition of
> the Borg.
> ...So much that I am very surprised of George silence. ;-)


and I am surprised that you find it necessary to converse with
a bloated, alcoholic malcontent like Malesweski. Maybe
you need the help in your battles with Dave and George?

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 06:29:22 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
<patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>>>That engine - in current 3.2 size - has *always* produced 247 HP in
>>>VWs and Audis.
>>
>>http/www.internetautoguide.com/car-specifications/09-int/2004/volkswagen/touareg/
>>2004 Volkswagen Touareg Performance & Efficiency Standard Features
>>
>>- 3,189 cc 3.2 liters 6 V front engine with 84 mm bore, 95.9 mm
>>stroke, 11 compression ratio, double overhead cam, variable valve
>>timing/camshaft and four valves per cylinder
>>- Premium unleaded fuel
>>- Multi-point injection fuel system
>>- Main 100 liter premium unleaded fuel tank
>>- Power: EEC and 164 kW , 220 HP @ 5,400 rpm; 225 ft lb , 310 Nm @
>>3,200 rpm
>>
>>http/www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/?id=78
>>ENGINES/TRANSMISSIONS
>>3.2 V6 petrol (3,189cc): 162kW (220PS) at 5,800 rpm / 305Nm (225 lb
>>ft) torque at 3,200 rpm.
>>
>>So much for your knowledge of "history".
>
>It's already been stipulated that the Touareg is the exception,
>presumably for marketing reasons.

Busshit. You haven't retracted your claim that the Touareg has ALWAYS
had 240 (or plus as you tried to claim earlier). It hasn't. It used to
only have 220HP.

>Typical Vile distortion of reality.

You're joking of course. You ignore the reason that I posted those
links and you change the subject. Just say the words, stumblebum. "I
was wrong. The VW version of this motor HASN'T always had the current
level of tune". You CAN'T, can you?

>Your original point was that the Porsche version is special, which it
>just plain is not.

No, my original point is that the performance WASN'T exactly the same,
as you claimed. It's STILL not. The Porsche STILL beats the VW by a
second (and it used to be two). This is NOT identical (surely in the
engineering world, the word Identical still has some meaning). And I
wonder how much the new Porsche 500 hp model beats the W12 equipped
model. Or do you consider 50 hp a "nit"?

>That big-bore VR6 engine was developed for the R32
>Golf and the TT, and now is also used in the new Passat and the Audi
>A3. In all cases, it produces 247 HP. There's a 3.6 litre FSI version
>with close on 300 horses waiting to go into the new TT, and it will no
>doubt also find its way across the range in time.

<shrug>

None of this has anything to do with the original point. And later on,
I'll show you where you're wrong about R32 and the new Passat.

>>>Don't believe everything the Porsche boys try to tell
>>>you, Vile, they simply don't have the resources to develop serious new
>>>engines (or indeed an SUV).
>>
>>I guess you don't know how a company can increase horsepower by even
>>simple tweaks to an intake/exhaust system. Heck, a more efficient
>>exhaust from manifold to tailpipe ALONE can add 5 HP. I guess you
>>don't think that Porsche has the resources to maximize the diesign of
>>an existing motor. You'd be wrong, of course, but you can reach for
>>any desperate measure that you'd like. But it looks like VAG DID want
>>to narrow the over 20 HP gap by doing some tweaking of their own.
>
>Still trying to lie your way out of your obvious foul up, Vile? The
>Cayenne has the same power as every other vehicle using the 3.2 VR6
>*except* the Touareg.

So? so far, you haven't been able to show any documentation that
disproves the idea that Porsche's tweaking is unique to Porsche.

>No special tuning by Porsche,

Wrong.

> just an agreement
>by VW to *detune* the Touareg to save Porsche blushes.

Why on earth would they do that? It's THEIR motor, right? Why would
they sign/make such an agreement? Both parties insisted that
development would be done in-house (and with great secrecy toward the
other). They didn't "detune" the Touareg, the old base motor at 220 hp
was the standard. Both Porsche AND VW simply took it further, with VAG
declining to take the Touareg to the Audi and Porsche levels. They
obviously did that to protect the AUDI marque, not the Porsche marque.

>>And who cares that Audi (another "upscale marque") ALSO maintains a
>>respectable difference in specs between VW and itself. Bringing in
>>Audi just shows your desperation to avoid saying the simple words,
>>"Hey, I'm wrong about the specs". In fact, it supports my OWN
>>contention, because even VAG ITSELF keeps a spec advantage to their
>>"upscale" brand.
>
>Still trying to lie your way out of your obvious foul up, Vile? The
>Golf R32 and new Passat also use the same engine, rated at 247 HP in
>each case.

Wrong. The R32 started with 241 HP, at a time when the Audi WAS rated
at 247, and this year, it's going all the way to 250 HP. Which means
that they're tweaking it even further that Porsche has to this point.
But since these cars aren't in direct competition with Porsche,
Porsche doesn't really care. I guarantee you that if they put this new
version in the Touareg, the Porsche team will find a way to tweak it
to 255 or 260.

http/www.vwvortex.com/artman/publish/volkswagen_news/printer_1472.shtml
"Volkswagen News
The New Golf R32 – New Edition Of The Most Powerful Golf Ever
By source: Volkswagen AG
Aug 9, 2005, 09:05

Volkswagen AG has released the first official information on the new
Golf R32 for the German/European market. The immediate question that
will come to North American enthusiasts minds is why another 3.2l VR6?
The 3.2l VR6 in this latest generation R32 now has fuel stratisfied
injection (FSI) technology and now outputs 250hp more efficiently and
with better economy".

http/www.germancarfans.com/news.cfm/newsid/2050725.005/page/2/lang/eng/volkswagen/1.html
"3.2 V6 FSI, 184 kW: As of the fourth quarter of 2005, a newly
developed 3,169 cm3 V6 engine will be available for the Passat
Variant. At 6,200 rpm and with 184 kW / 250 hp at its disposal, it can
produce a maximum torque of 330 Newton metres (as of 2,500 and up to
3,000 rpm)".

Etc., etc., etc...

Oh, BTW, the new A6 gets 255 HP (maybe you poor backwater types aren't
going to get the new tuning <shrug>). Once again, advantage to Audi.

http/www.audiusa.com/model_home/0,,bodyStyleId-4,00.html?bodystyle=a6sedan
A6 3.2
Starting at $42,620*
The all-new A6 3.2 performs with uncommon vigor when fitted with the
powerful but economical V6 engine with FSI® Direct Injection. With 255
hp, the first ever Audi FSI engine in North America goes from 0-60 mph
in just 7.1 seconds.


http/autos.yahoo.com/newcars/audi_a6_32withtiptronic_2005/16472/style_overview.html
Quick Facts about the 2005 Audi A6 3.2 with Tiptronic:
Invoice Price:$38,757 get dealer quotes
MSRP:$41,900
Estimated Payments:$874/month* find current rates
Rebates & Incentives:Cash Back / Special Financing more info

Gas Mileage:NL mpg city / NL mpg hwy
Engine/s:3.2L V6, 24 valve, 255@6500hp


And, this IS a redesign, a 3.2-litre V6 FSI which is NOT technically
the same motor on the Touareg (at this point). At least, VAG is
calling it "new", because they've made the intake system more
efficient. Hey, sorta what Porsche did a few years ago.

You lose.

Again.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <6lnlh1pfu8b1lltsuopn7bivumn3isgf1k@4ax.com>,
George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote:

> paul packer said:
>
> > Actually I'd have expected that many would be intensely interested in
> > "affordable" hi-fi and where the bargains might be found, but there
> > are very few such posts, or even reviews of cheaper equipment.
> > Admittedly the stores are crammed with HT stuff at the moment, but
> > what about Ebay? Surely posters here buy and sell on the Bay, yet I
> > never see any posts about their latest acquisitions and how they
> > sound, what marvellous discoveries they've made about Rotel and Nad
> > cheapies and how they sound 80% as good as a Krell, or whatever. What
> > I'm saying is that for an audio NG there's something missing here,
> > which is lively debate on non gold-plated audio. It's ironic that in
> > this very thread there's a lively debate going on about cars of the
> > vey kind we rarely see about audio.
>
> If you're referring to RAO, those discussions used to happen. Then came
> the 'borgs, and that was the end of that.

Because of the reduced number of posters, it's less likely to find
someone with direct experience with a given piece of audio equipment.

It was fun to point to my second-hand NAD integrated when Howard tried
to sell me on amp comparisons.

Stephen

 

[Guest]

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

Scottie said:

> >That doesn't just mean rationally
> > acknowledging the value of scientifically valid tests performed by
> > experienced R&D professionals in real enterprises. It also means you have
> > to believe that a very few "tests" that are done without real scientific
> > controls, in which both the participants and the proctors are predisposed
> > to not hearing differences, are sufficient for all audio equipment and all
> > listeners.
>
> That's just BS

How rude.

> and and a cheap attempt to smear all objectivists by
> forcing association with Arny. You need to give that agenda a rest
> when having meaningful input.

You still don't read very well.

> >You also have to believe that any difference somebody thinks
> > they heard in real-life listening, but that disappears during a "test", is
> > illusory.
>
> More BS.

Gracious, such hostility!

> You just need to allow the test protocol every opportunity
> to reveal the difference heard in "real-life listening". Long sessions,
> music, noise sources, tones, rapid switching etc.
> Anything the subject feels is necessary to allow positive blind detection.

It's still a "test" and it's not the same as listening for enjoyment.

> >You further have to believe that "science" has reached its
> > limit, and any apparent (but not real) audible difference that cannot be
> > fully explained using what the best scientists know today is also not
> > real.
>
> Obvious to me that the science of recording and playback enhancement
> hasn't reached its limits. Some of the processing of surround environments
> with headphones in PC games is proof of that. The progress in just the last
> few years is nothing short of amazing.

Thank you for not attacking me in this paragraph.

> > Failing all of the above criteria, you're not an "objectivist".
>
> Who appointed you judge and jury?

It's an opinion, twit. You seem to have a different opinion. Shall I have
my commandos take off your head?

> > Sorry. (If
> > you want to be a 'borg, the requirements are even more stringent.)
>
> Borg's[sic] practice thought control... but so does George.

How is your opinion any less of "thought control" than mine? Where did I
say that if you don't share my viewpoint, that makes you an un-person?

Audio 'borgism entails a lot more deformities than just being
undereducated and subpar in literacy.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 07:47:52 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>paul packer said:
>
>> Actually I'd have expected that many would be intensely interested in
>> "affordable" hi-fi and where the bargains might be found, but there
>> are very few such posts, or even reviews of cheaper equipment.
>> Admittedly the stores are crammed with HT stuff at the moment, but
>> what about Ebay? Surely posters here buy and sell on the Bay, yet I
>> never see any posts about their latest acquisitions and how they
>> sound, what marvellous discoveries they've made about Rotel and Nad
>> cheapies and how they sound 80% as good as a Krell, or whatever. What
>> I'm saying is that for an audio NG there's something missing here,
>> which is lively debate on non gold-plated audio. It's ironic that in
>> this very thread there's a lively debate going on about cars of the
>> vey kind we rarely see about audio.
>
>If you're referring to RAO, those discussions used to happen. Then came
>the 'borgs, and that was the end of that.

Are you saying you're wary of discussing subjective distinctions with
the objectivists looking on? If you're so certain such distinctions
exist, why not just discuss them and leave the objectivists to their
measurements? Or could it be that most of the potential on-topic
posters have been scared away by all the off-topic strife and there's
no one left to discuss audio?

 

[Guest]

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

paul packer said:

> >If you're referring to RAO, those discussions used to happen. Then came
> >the 'borgs, and that was the end of that.

> Are you saying you're wary of discussing subjective distinctions with
> the objectivists looking on?

No.

> If you're so certain such distinctions
> exist, why not just discuss them and leave the objectivists to their
> measurements?

How new are you to RAO?

> Or could it be that most of the potential on-topic
> posters have been scared away by all the off-topic strife and there's
> no one left to discuss audio?

Now, maybe.

 

[Guest]

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

MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> said:

>> If you're referring to RAO, those discussions used to happen. Then came
>> the 'borgs, and that was the end of that.

>Because of the reduced number of posters, it's less likely to find
>someone with direct experience with a given piece of audio equipment.

>It was fun to point to my second-hand NAD integrated when Howard tried
>to sell me on amp comparisons.


I always wondered why Howard considered me a tweako freako, where I
have never bought an amplifier or CD player new.
Instead, I build most of my stuff myself, incuding the turntable.

Speaking of Howard, how would he have survived Katrina?

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 16:08:40 +0200, Sander deWaal <nospam@wanadoo.nl>
wrote:

>Speaking of Howard, how would he have survived Katrina?

He should be fine. Probably got a bit of rain and wind. Might have
lost power for a short time. Probably about what we got in Nashville a
day later.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <sqvlh15t8v66gp7setm5itmakjhhbuklus@4ax.com>,
Sander deWaal <nospam@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> said:
>
> >> If you're referring to RAO, those discussions used to happen. Then came
> >> the 'borgs, and that was the end of that.
>
> >Because of the reduced number of posters, it's less likely to find
> >someone with direct experience with a given piece of audio equipment.
>
> >It was fun to point to my second-hand NAD integrated when Howard tried
> >to sell me on amp comparisons.
>
>
> I always wondered why Howard considered me a tweako freako, where I
> have never bought an amplifier or CD player new.

Think of all the sales you've cost the midfi industry! Obviously you're
an enemy of rational audio.

> Instead, I build most of my stuff myself, incuding the turntable.
>
> Speaking of Howard, how would he have survived Katrina?

If you live in a swing state as Howard does, FEMA's on your doorstep
with checks and casseroles in a matter of days.

Stephen

 

[Guest]

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

"Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:AOGdnVu8zMaPz4feRVn-pQ@comcast.com
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:6tKdnZvK7p55oIfeRVn-2Q@comcast.com...

>> So Harry, you think that audiophiles need to be lied to?
>
> No, Arny, I think audiophiles need news, information, and
> reviews and Stereophile provides it.

Addicts think they need drugs.

> Most audiophiles
> know how to (and how not to) use their reviews and
> reviewers.

Ignore them?

>The fact that you have no use for it and have
> a vendetta against it is *your* problem.

No vendetta Harry, its just that I'm far more knowlegable
about audio than you are, and therefore can catch more lies.

 

[Guest]

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

"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:431a9e97.22059393@news.iprimus.com.au

> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 21:46:55 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
> <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Given the massive swing to Home Theatre gear
>
> Gee, and Arnie's just finished assuring me that HT is not
> the biggest enemy of hi-fi in the US.


Harry is a good source of obsolete information.

 

[Guest]

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

Arny Krueger wrote:
> <arnyk@hotplop.com> wrote in message
> news:i_OdnbLcNpZ86obeRVn-hw@comcast.com
>
>
> > Those are your battles that everyone can see. You can't
> > see the pitiful pathologies of torrieshits only because he
> > helps you with your petty battles. He is on your side,
> > no?
>
> The irony is that the loser who posted this has to post with
> an email address that closely resembles mine.
>
> It's all about truth and justice, right?
>
> LOL!
>
>
One of the bigger psychos carrying a "resistance" membership card, eh?
>
>
Does "The Group" have mental health coverage for their employees?
>
>
Tom Albertz- seek help!!

 

[Guest]

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

Paul Packer says: (Sept4)
"I'm saying is that for an audio NG there's something missing here",

Yes, indeed. I find it interesting that of all controversies
it is the questioning of evidence for ABX that sends not a few into
spluttering, red-eyed, inarticulate, foaming-at-the-mouth,rage, where
nothing but obscenities will do.* Their fury intimidates new audio
amateurs from asking questions or discussing improvement

Not a few of the most vocal have little acquaintance with
(and interest in) the sound of original instruments of the orchestra.
For those whose "music' consists of what they can hear on their
home or car" hi-fi system" the little ABX box with a switch is a
godsend. Its limitations confirm "scientifically" that there is
nothing more to hear out there then they manage to; wire is wire and
amps are amps - and those who hear more are snobs or self-deluded, or
swindlers trying to put one over the honest folks. ABX allows them to
transform their resentment and suspicion of inferiority into a triumph.
There is something very personal about the fervour with which pursue
those who want to get closer to the original instruments' sound.
After all no one forces them to listen to chamber music.
The simplistic minds, bereft of any original thought, have
limited ability to profit from education. They believe that the
textbooks they managed to memorise contain the ultimate truth. They now
own Science with a capital S. But if one learns one thing in medicine
it is that science is a living process. Yesterday's "100%
incurable" disease one day yields to penicillin and yesterday's
certainties go into the textbooks of history of medicine.
Like in every generalization there are exceptions. Two that occur
to me are first Arny Krueger , the inventor of ABX. He would be
superhuman if he did not have emotional capital invested in his brain
child.
The other are the musicians. Very few are interested in high-end.
It is a shame from the consumer point of view- because if they were
they would not allow some of the monstrosities perpetrated in their
name by eg. DG and Melodiya. The explanation may be that they listen
for and hear something completely different from the audience out in
their seats. Perhaps they *expect* the reproduction to be a caricature
and a little better or a little worse makes no difference to them.
Ludovic Mirabel
*If you think I'm exaggerating just look at the RAO correspondence.

 

[Guest]

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

Sam's surf is deploring :

> "Lionel" <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil> wrote
>
>>True. And all the unshamed distortions he used in his exchange with
>>Pinkerton.
>>All along this thread Dave Weil fits perfectly the Middius' definition of
>>the Borg.
>>...So much that I am very surprised of George silence. ;-)
>
>
>
> and I am surprised that you find it necessary to converse with
> a bloated, alcoholic malcontent like Malesweski. Maybe
> you need the help in your battles with Dave and George?

Unlike you I don't handle any battles on RAO, and I'm not
interested in sharing your petty misery.
I just like to point out that Dave "Nice Guy" Weil is a
pitiful braggart and George "Minus" Middius a pathologic
narcissistic.

 

[Guest]

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

"Lionel" <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil> wrote
>
> Unlike you I don't handle any battles on RAO, and I'm not
> interested in sharing your petty misery.

Oh - you handle battles on RAO, and you also have your
own petty miseries. Deny it all you want. Everyone can
see it.

> I just like to point out that Dave "Nice Guy" Weil is a
> pitiful braggart and George "Minus" Middius a pathologic
> narcissistic.

Those are your battles that everyone can see. You can't
see the pitiful pathologies of torrieshits only because he
helps you with your petty battles. He is on your side, no?

 

[Guest]

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

dave weil a écrit :

> Busshit.

Coming out a bus with an oat engine ?