Stereophile & Cable Theory

[Guest]

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

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.
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. Of course he inconsiderately did it comparing
cables and we know what cables are in the ABXers vocabulary.
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. Oddly I'm interested in music not pink
noise.
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

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:42:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>news:4316efbd.2687310@news.iprimus.com.au
>
>> 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.
>
>These claims are probably relevant for certain people.

Certain people? Most people seeking a "hi-fi system" who don't
bother to acquaint themselves with what hi-fi means. And that means
nearly everybody.

>> 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?

>> 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?

>> but they do after all
>> appeal to the well heeled afficianado, not the first time
>> buyer unable to make an informed decision.
>
>I don't know about your neck of the woods, but high priced
>cables can be found in just about every audio retail store
>in the US, including electronics stores and appliance
>stores.

Are you suggesting that the average buyer of a mini system is likely
to purchase Monster cable to go with it?

>> 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.

>>(or at least it did, until HT began to do that even more
>>effectively).
>
>Higher-end HT seems to be shaping up as being like a better
>set of speakers for that shiney new HDTV.

HT is swallowing hi-fi whole. 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 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. As I said before, you've been slaving
over that hot test bench too long.

 

[Guest]

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

"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:43170abe.9600772@news.iprimus.com.au
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:42:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4316efbd.2687310@news.iprimus.com.au
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> These claims are probably relevant for certain people.
>
> Certain people? Most people seeking a "hi-fi system"
> who don't bother to acquaint themselves with what hi-fi
> means. And that means nearly everybody.

OK, those claims are relevant for lots of people.

>>> 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.

>>> 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.

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

Expensive cable *can't* make a difference because commodity
cables are already do such a complete job of meeting the
need. The essence of believing in the possible need for
expensive cable is ignorance about the goodness of comodity
cables.


>>> but they do after all
>>> appeal to the well heeled afficianado, not the first
>>> time buyer unable to make an informed decision.
>>
>> I don't know about your neck of the woods, but high
>> priced cables can be found in just about every audio
>> retail store in the US, including electronics stores and
>> appliance stores.

> Are you suggesting that the average buyer of a mini
> system is likely to purchase Monster cable to go with it?

Mini systems are generally self-contained. They are not
likely to purchase any cable to go with it. But, if you go
to Best Buy or Circuit City and pick up a receiver, a DVD
player, and some speakers you are likely to get a pitch for
upscale cables from Monster or a competitor.

>>> 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.

>>> (or at least it did, until HT began to do that even
>>> more effectively).

>> Higher-end HT seems to be shaping up as being like a
>> better set of speakers for that shiney new HDTV.

> 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.

For example, I think there were at least three major HTPC or
HTPC-related exhibits (not hotel rooms but large exhibit
halls) at HE2005. Given the size of the market, it was
amazing to me how little portable A/V was in evidence. I can
only think of a small booth by Shure that was getting pretty
heavy traffic.

>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 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.

>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. I spend most of my audio prime time doing
live sound and recording. About 8 hours a week. I do almost
all my listening with portable systems or a production
system.

My major project at this time has almost nothing to do with
audio test bench work. The little technical testing I do is
almost all in-situ and on-site, and in support of system
construction and reconstruction. My major project for the
last 3 years has been:

(1) Learn and provide live sound, both leadership of the
service team, and hands-on.

(2) Catch up with live recording technology and do it
weekly.

(3) Help revitalize the worship music program at my church
which implies revitalizing a 100 year old church in a 50
year old building. This will hopefully provide quality
acoustic input for (1) and (2).

(4) Dramatically modernize the acoustics and lighting
(architectural and theatrical) of the two largest
performance spaces in said church. The larger room has about
113,000 cubic feet. This is a major component of (3)

At the same time I've been supervising the refurbishment of
my 70-year old house - a project that is already way into
the six figures. About a year ago I demolished my test bench
to make way for the refurbishment project. It had become
pretty idle for several years due to the above-mentioned
activities.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:36:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>news:4316ee03.2244945@news.iprimus.com.au
>
>> Well, you do, anyway. My point was that it's impossible
>> not to be influenced by others.
>
>Right, people like Middius write thousands of posts for RAO,
>with absolutely zero expectation of influencing anybody.

Putting Middius aside, if that's possible, what it your reaction to
the proposition?

>If you believe that...
>
>> There's a saying: "Any
>> conviction gains infinitely the moment another begins to
>> believe in it."
>
>The infinitely part is obviously hyperbole, but large and
>finite is more accurate and significant.

Too literal, Arnie. It's not a measurement of capacitance.

>> George claims a negative review wouldn't affect
>> his listening pleasure.
>
>George makes many improbable claims, this is just one more.
>
>> I don't believe it, but I'd like to hear other input.
>
>I don't know if I can influence you, Paul. ;-)

Here's your chance to find out.

 

[Guest]

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

"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:43170dd4.10390754@news.iprimus.com.au
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:36:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

>> "paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4316ee03.2244945@news.iprimus.com.au

>>> Well, you do, anyway. My point was that it's impossible
>>> not to be influenced by others.

>> Right, people like Middius write thousands of posts for
>> RAO, with absolutely zero expectation of influencing
>> anybody.

> Putting Middius aside, if that's possible,

Sigh, I was just turning his argument back at him.

> what it your reaction to the proposition?

I agree that its impossible to not be influenced by others,
one way or the other, to a large degree or small degree.

Furthermore, I brought the issue of influences on listeners
up during the HE2005 debate, now about 4 months ago.

>> If you believe that...

>>> There's a saying: "Any
>>> conviction gains infinitely the moment another begins to
>>> believe in it."
>>
>> The infinitely part is obviously hyperbole, but large and
>> finite is more accurate and significant.

> Too literal, Arnie. It's not a measurement of capacitance.

Any serious claim should be credible.

 

[Guest]

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

paul packer a écrit :
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:39:03 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Well, it's useful work. And much needed.
>>
>>I would appreciate that he shows, sometime, other talents...
>> ;-)
>
>
> I believe he does excellent woodwork, but it's bit hard to demonstrate
> on Usenet.

You are kindly credulous. I appreciate.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:24:49 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
wrote:

>paul packer a écrit :
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:39:03 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Well, it's useful work. And much needed.
>>>
>>>I would appreciate that he shows, sometime, other talents...
>>> ;-)
>>
>>
>> I believe he does excellent woodwork, but it's bit hard to demonstrate
>> on Usenet.
>
>You are kindly credulous. I appreciate.

"Kindly credulous"? Interesting use of English.

 

[Guest]

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

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.

 

[Guest]

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

To John Corbett: (See message from him on Sept. 1. Find text below)
Second thoughts:
Largely through my fault this debate is completely off the
rails. It should not be about the "golden ear".
If he indeed performed miracles getting 83% accuracy then
there are differences between the wires waiting to be "tested.
But three testees ("expert audiophiles all according to
Greenhill) had 33% accuracy score. To them wires are totally
indistiguishable- their results are worse than random.
Let's accept all the criticsms of these 83% results:
"nonrepeatable fluke" etc. Perhaps the "golden ear would go down to 33%
next time around.
Of what use to an ordinary choice- seeking audiophile is a
"test" like that?
And if you consider that in Sean Olive's careful
loudspeaker lab testing ( S. Olive "Differences in performance...."
JAES, vol 51, No 8, 2003, 806- 826) the divergencies in performance
were nearly just as wide- then it is not only wires that are
indistinguishable to many while DBTiing. (Olive felt full ABX was
unsuitable. Ask him why)
Again and again : a one grand "test" for the varying
abilities of millions of individuals to listen and discern is a
pipedream of simplistic minds. So simple that they don't even know when
they are burying their own darling.
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. As recent correspondence (not yours) shows my comment about
"repulsive creatures crawling out of the woodwork" was an
understatement.
_______________________

elmi...@pacificcoast.net wrote:
> I did not invent Greenhill's "Golden Ear" or Greenhill's statistics. I
> *quoted* from that impeccably objectivist writer who moderated and
> reported the Stereo Review cable test.


Ludovic's *quoted* results are pure fabrications. See below.


> You are also taking him for a village moron and insulting his statistics'
> protocol which for an objectivist, with an axe to grind, was quite scrupulous
> (read it!!!). I suspect that he forgot more statistics than you had ever
> known. I learnt mine as an employee of the Med. Research Ccil. of U.K. where
> double blind tests were *first ever* used.


If Ludovic understood statistical science, he would recognize that
Greenhill's Stereo Review article is not an example of good statistical

work. I used to wonder if Greenhill intended that article as a
hoax---it's that bad--- but now I am resigned to the idea that he was
serious.


> I must acknowledge that I admire your temerity in- how shall I put it?-
> shooting your mouth off without first looking up the source (I gave
> clear reference to it)


See below---what more can I say?.


> Greenhill's "Golden Ear" did not "come at 81% one time" Mr,
> Scott W. There were six different cable comparison tests consisting of
> 15 trials each. The "Golden Ear" got 15 out of 15 in four of them,
> 12 in one, and 10 in one. Hence 83%-get it?


Actually the so-called "Golden Ear" got 15 of 15 in _two_ (not four)
sets
of trials; he got 12 in three sets, and 10 in one.

So much for Ludovic's high standards for accurate reporting.


Even those two perfect scores are not so impressive.


One of the two perfect scores for Listener J (the alleged "Golden Ear")

was on the first test (Monster vs 24 awg, pink noise, levels
unmatched).
Ten of the eleven listeners got 15 of 15 on that, and the other
listener
got 14 of 15; that was an overall rate of 164/165 (more than 99%).


The other perfect score for Listener J was a similar test (16 awg vs 24

awg, pink noise, levels unmatched). Greenhill gave scores for only
nine
listeners (who all got 14 or 15) for an overall rate exceeding 98%.


High scores on such easy tests are not necessarily evidence of
exceptional
ability. By adding those scores to results from other tests Greenhill
inflated the combined score, whether or not it even it made sense to
combine the scores in the first place. That's rather weak support for
"Golden Ear" status.


Reply

 

[Guest]

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

"Clyde Slick" <YustabeSlim@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125588448_2153@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:gKxRe.4947$_84.820@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1125541957_775@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>
>>> <torresists@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1125539699.481277.232170@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:77oRe.4777$9i4.1666@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>> >
>>>>> > "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> > news:1125517687_105@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>>>> >> news:SPmRe.4731$9i4.4663@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> >>> news:1125506602_2025@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>>>> >>>> news:_FkRe.4569$_84.2029@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> That you say that "no one has ever heard a difference.....81% is
>>>>> >>>> within
>>>>> >>>> probablitity",
>>>>> >>>> that probability for it being chance is very small indeed. You
>>>>> >>>> are
>>>>> >>>> claiming only
>>>>> >>>> 5% of the ground. Your knees must be wobbling.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> My understanding is that there were 15 trials for that person, in
>>>>> >>>> each
>>>>> >>>> of
>>>>> >>>> six runs, and that he had an 81% or 83% correct score (73 or 75
>>>>> >>>> out of
>>>>> >>>> 90).
>>>>> >>>> I don't know the confidence level of that result, but I would
>>>>> >>>> think it
>>>>> >>>> is in the
>>>>> >>>> 85 to 95% range, which indicates it is MUCH more likely that he
>>>>> >>>> heard
>>>>> >>>> a difference than that the result was by chance
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> But, I know that you won't except that.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> u r kerect, i wont except that.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Even if the confidence level were
>>>>> >>>> 80%, it is four times more likely that the result indicates the
>>>>> >>>> ability
>>>>> >>>> to
>>>>> >>>> discern a diference, than the result coming up by chance.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>> Note, wire is wire. If you want to challenge the idea, take up
>>>>> >>> the
>>>>> >>> $5000.00 challenge being discussed on RAHE. So far the magic wire
>>>>> >>> people have let it sit for years, obviously their confidence level
>>>>> >>> is
>>>>> >>> somewhat lower than 95%.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> The results of the six tests on the subject were
>>>>> >> reportedly 15/15, 15/15, 15/15, 15/15, 12/15, and 10/15.
>>>>> >> Scott W. accepted that as statistically significant.
>>>>> >> Do you?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> > Yes, but I'd want to know more about the wire being compared, since
>>>>> > no one
>>>>> > is arguing that wire can't affect the sound, only that 2 different
>>>>> > wires
>>>>> > of simialr construction can't.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > There are still people claiming that there is a problem with skin
>>>>> > effect
>>>>> > in audio cables, do you think they have a case?
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> High end wire is not of similar construction to mass market wire.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Aside from possible differences in durability, if they are audibly
>>>> identical, who cares?
>>>>
>>>
>>> "if" they are.
>>> My experience in sighted evaluation is that there
>>> are differences for some of them, but not substantial differences, and
>>> the it is not cost effective for me to deal with it. I just buy
>>> better sounding equipment, it makes a more substantial difference.
>>> I fel the same way about most of what the borgs call tweak equipment
>>> like poweer line conditioners, etc. But I reserve to others
>>> to find for themselves what they will.
>>>
>>> I've always said that the piece of equipment that
>>> improves my sound the most is my record cleaner.
>>>
>>>
>> BOB MOREIN, where is your condemnation of Arts' posts and attacks on his
>> IQ? This post of his is full of errors. Aren't you going to tell him how
>> low his IQ is.
>
> Its about content. Yours is woefully lacking
>
>
Bulshit, his most recent posts have nothing to with content, he's become
Middius without the charisma, just pointing out spelling errors. If I had
made the post you made, he would have commented on the errors. And speaking
of lacking in content, what are most of your posts?

 

[Guest]

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

"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in
message
news:auGRe.5165$9i4.511@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
> "Clyde Slick" <YustabeSlim@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1125588448_2153@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>
>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in
>> message

>>> BOB MOREIN, where is your condemnation of Arts' posts
>>> and attacks on his IQ? This post of his is full of
>>> errors. Aren't you going to tell him how low his IQ is.

It's where Bob's ethics are - where the sun shines not.

>> Its about content. Yours is woefully lacking
>
> Bulshit, his most recent posts have nothing to with
> content, he's become Middius without the charisma, just
> pointing out spelling errors.

When you're talking less charisma than Middius, you're
really scraping the bottom. But you're right.

>If I had made the post you
> made, he would have commented on the errors.

Yeah, but Art's posts pour healing oil on Bob's vendetta
against me.

> And speaking of lacking in content, what are most of your
> posts?

Let's not go there. Opps, we're there already.

Art is getting older and some people become more childish
when they are older. I remember Art' posts from years ago,
and he used to be able to at least suggest the appearance of
content.

 

[Guest]

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

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.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

"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.

 

[Guest]

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

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.

>> It's not about envy, it's always been about the truth of the claims.
>>
>
>if not class envy, it is about hearing caability envy.
>Sorry for your misfortune. "At least" it saves you a good bit of money.

And your imagination costs you money. Why is it always the clowns like
you who claim to have Golden Ears - but cry foul if asked to *prove*
their hearing capability?

--

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 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.

 

[Guest]

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

I got my own cable theory: WIRE = WIRE !!!

 

[Guest]

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

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, 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.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:J9udnVvVqonPq4reRVn-qg@comcast.com...
> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in
> message
> news:auGRe.5165$9i4.511@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
>> "Clyde Slick" <YustabeSlim@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1125588448_2153@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>
>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in
>>> message
>
>>>> BOB MOREIN, where is your condemnation of Arts' posts
>>>> and attacks on his IQ? This post of his is full of
>>>> errors. Aren't you going to tell him how low his IQ is.
>
> It's where Bob's ethics are - where the sun shines not.
>
>>> Its about content. Yours is woefully lacking
>>
>> Bullshit, his most recent posts have nothing to with
>> content, he's become Middius without the charisma, just
>> pointing out spelling errors.
>
> When you're talking less charisma than Middius, you're really scraping the
> bottom. But you're right.
>
>>If I had made the post you
>> made, he would have commented on the errors.
>
> Yeah, but Art's posts pour healing oil on Bob's vendetta against me.
>
>> And speaking of lacking in content, what are most of your posts?
>
> Let's not go there. Opps, we're there already.
>
> Art is getting older and some people become more childish when they are
> older. I remember Art' posts from years ago, and he used to be able to at
> least suggest the appearance of content.
>
Maybe he Bob could claim that the posts are forged by Bwian again, to make
him look bad, or should I say worse than he already does.

It's the only possible way he might extricate himself from the deep doo-doo
he has put himself in. Either that, or he just likes doo-doo.

 

[Guest]

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

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.

 

[Guest]

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

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.