Wall Street Journal Says LP Dead For 15 years!
Arny Krueger
Jenniver Ordninez of the Wall Street Journal writes:
"In the 15 years since the LP's demise..."
Robert Morein
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:MlO1a.49$2F...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> Quoted in The Detroit Free Press This Morning:
>
> Jenniver Ordninez of the Wall Street Journal writes:
>
> "In the 15 years since the LP's demise..."
>
From the POV of people who listen to and buy them, it's ludicrous.
Bruce J. Richman
Agreed. Also, no details were given. Just the headline. I think we can all
guess why Krueger "forgot" to quote any of the details or give a URL.
LOL!!
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Arny Krueger
"Robert Morein" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:r8mcndcWRd4...@comcast.com...
That's like saying "From the standpoint of people who don't want or have
cars, the death of the horse as a means of transportion is ludicrous". Here
and in Pennsylvania one large group of such people are the Amish. Most
people realize the Amish for what they are - the members of a weird
religious cult. The same is true in the world of audio.
Robert Morein
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:vKQ1a.92$EM3...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:r8mcndcWRd4...@comcast.com...
>>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> news:MlO1a.49$2F...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>>> Quoted in The Detroit Free Press This Morning:
>>>> Jenniver Ordninez of the Wall Street Journal writes:
>>>> "In the 15 years since the LP's demise..."
>>> From the POV of "the music business", it's dead.
A light has dawned?
>>> From the POV of people who listen to and buy them, it's ludicrous.
>
>> That's like saying "From the standpoint of people who don't want or
>> have cars, the death of the horse as a means of transportion is
>> ludicrous". Here and in Pennsylvania one large group of such people
>> are the Amish. Most people realize the Amish for what they are - the
>> members of a weird religious cult. The same is true in the world of
>> audio.
> You mean tolerance of diversity is not part of your world-view?
I mean that I understand the meaning of relevance.
Being intolerant would be like going around and pulling LP players out of
people's house and burning them. I'd have to start with my own house first!
No, what shouldn't be tolerated is people who have turned denial of the
obvious into the reason for their newsgroup careers, like Richman and his
noisy Luddite clique.
Bruce J. Richman
Yet another false claim from Krueger, the CD bigot who never misses an
opportunity to trash and insult those who prefer vinyl.
It must really frighten him, since he continues to generate larger and noisier
distortions in his crusade to brainwash RAO posters into adopting his twisted
and prejudiced anti-preference beliefs.
We've just been exposed to Krueger's Conspiracy Theory for 2/10/03.
What next, a plot to take over the world? Hidden messages in vinyl played
backwards?
LOL!
For those who haven't yet seen it, by the way, there are reviews of 4 different
current turntables in the February issue of Stereophile. And the one given the
most prominent coverage, the VPI Scout, is from a company that usually doesn't
advertise in Stereophile or for thta matter, very much at all in the more
popular audio magazines. Apparently good word of mouth from satisfied users
and excellent customer service keeps leading to the development of new models
from these folks.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Arny Krueger
news:20030210122647...@mb-de.aol.com
>
> For those who haven't yet seen it, by the way, there are reviews of 4
> different current turntables in the February issue of Stereophile.
No doubt no technical tests, just fluff pieces.
Mustn't upset the faithful by revealing the true performance figures for the
next round of equipment they are supposed to lust after.
Bruce J. Richman
It's quite likely that mahy more people read Stereophile than read RAO.
Sorry.
Many of those who read Audio magazines and actually listen to music, prefer to
use their own ears to make purchase decisions.
ScottW
wrote:
>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>>Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:20030210122647...@mb-de.aol.com
>>>
>>> For those who haven't yet seen it, by the way, there are reviews of 4
>>> different current turntables in the February issue of Stereophile.
>>
>>No doubt no technical tests, just fluff pieces.
>>
>>Mustn't upset the faithful by revealing the true performance figures for the
>>next round of equipment they are supposed to lust after.
>>
>>
>
>It's quite likely that mahy more people read Stereophile than read RAO.
>Sorry.
Arny was obviously referring to the content of Stereophile, not
a sarcastic comment on his own plans for RAO.
I would think a trained psycho like you Bruce, would be a little
more perceptive.
ScottW
Marc Phillips
And the Wall Street Journal is one of the leading audio magazines, too! I'm
shocked!
Putz.
BTW, Mikey Fremer is going to be on this bitch's ass in no time flat.
Boon
Bruce J. Richman
You need to learn how to spell, Scott. Or is it perhaps your bitterness in
failing to resolve your problems while in therapy that elicits your hostility
toward mental health professionals? I'd suggest you try another one, if you
don't mind paying for it out of pocket. I don't know of too many insurance
companies that accept claim forms made it out to people with one name. OTOH,
perhaps you'll be less secretive and suspicious with your new therapist.
Now I know why you hide your identity Scott. You obviously failed to
comprehend the fact that Arny is constantly trying to bash vinyl on RAO.
That's why he posted the Wall Street Journal Headline to begin with. Nothing in
the post even indicates that he read the article. His hostility towards John
Atkinson and Stereophile is also well known.
Apparently, you've chosen to ignore the many derogatory claims that Krueger has
made about vinyl playback and people who prefer it in this very thread.
I would have thought that an alleged "engineer" would have more objectivity
and/or the ability to observe more than just small samples of a thread about
vinyl.
What are you "engineering" anyhow? One of a kind items?
LOL!!!!
I'll let you return to your CD's now, where you'll only have to listen to
samples of what was actually recorded, and at relatively low rate at that.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
ScottW
wrote:
>Scott, the anonymous poster said,
>
>
>>On 10 Feb 2003 20:26:28 GMT, bjri...@aol.com (Bruce J. Richman)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:20030210122647...@mb-de.aol.com
>>>>>
>>>>> For those who haven't yet seen it, by the way, there are reviews of 4
>>>>> different current turntables in the February issue of Stereophile.
>>>>
>>>>No doubt no technical tests, just fluff pieces.
>>>>
>>>>Mustn't upset the faithful by revealing the true performance figures for
>>the
>>>>next round of equipment they are supposed to lust after.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's quite likely that mahy more people read Stereophile than read RAO.
>>>Sorry.
>>
>> Arny was obviously referring to the content of Stereophile, not
>>a sarcastic comment on his own plans for RAO.
>> I would think a trained psycho like you Bruce, would be a little
>>more perceptive.
>>
>>ScottW
>>
>
>You need to learn how to spell, Scott.
Why should a trivial BS degreed person need to spell while our
resident Phd can't type?
> Or is it perhaps your bitterness in
>failing to resolve your problems while in therapy that elicits your hostility
>toward mental health professionals?
Are you a mental health professional? I didn't realize.
> I'd suggest you try another one, if you
>don't mind paying for it out of pocket. I don't know of too many insurance
>companies that accept claim forms made it out to people with one name. OTOH,
>perhaps you'll be less secretive and suspicious with your new therapist.
I'd like therapy from you Bruce and I'm willing to pay what
you're worth. I think there is sufficient change in the ashtray
to cover it.
Can we videotape the sessions? I think I might be able to make a
killing on funny videos with you in action.
>
>Now I know why you hide your identity Scott. You obviously failed to
>comprehend the fact that Arny is constantly trying to bash vinyl on RAO.
>That's why he posted the Wall Street Journal Headline to begin with. Nothing in
>the post even indicates that he read the article. His hostility towards John
>Atkinson and Stereophile is also well known.
And this has what to with my identity? For a mental
professional, you sure do lack focus.
>
>Apparently, you've chosen to ignore the many derogatory claims that Krueger has
>made about vinyl playback and people who prefer it in this very thread.
I ignore a lot of stuff Arny says. I find it good for my mental
health. Sort of like ignoring Sanders politics :)
>
>I would have thought that an alleged "engineer" would have more objectivity
>and/or the ability to observe more than just small samples of a thread about
>vinyl.
I would think a mental health professional wouldn't have to
extrapolate beyond what I said (which had nothing to do with
vinyl) in order to mount a defense.
>
>What are you "engineering" anyhow? One of a kind items?
>
>LOL!!!!
You're losing it Bruce, take a deep breath and get a grip.
Hey, Im pretty good at this psycho therapy thing,
>
>I'll let you return to your CD's now, where you'll only have to listen to
>samples of what was actually recorded, and at relatively low rate at that.
Your technical ignorance is glaring again here Bruce. Perhaps
you should stick with your professional mental gig rather than
ignorantly speculating why CDs might not sound a good as they
can.
>
>
>
>Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
>(in Psychology..... nothing technical)
ScottW
Bob-Stanton
There is a man in town who drives a Model A Ford (1930 maybe). It
looks almost like new. I said to him it was a good job of restoration.
He said he "didn't restore it" and he just drives it because he likes
it. (?) He drives it Summer and and Winter and even through the snow.
To him it is just a car.
To the rest of us, the Model A is 'dead'. They are antiques seen only
a car shows. It's all in your point of view.
Bob Stanton
ScottW
wrote:
Why, is she hot?
ScottW
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:20030210122647...@mb-de.aol.com
>>> For those who haven't yet seen it, by the way, there are reviews of
>>> 4 different current turntables in the February issue of Stereophile.
>> No doubt no technical tests, just fluff pieces.
>> Mustn't upset the faithful by revealing the true performance figures
>> for the next round of equipment they are supposed to lust after.
> It's quite likely that mahy more people read Stereophile than read
> RAO. Sorry.
Irrelevant. Next time try responding to the issue that I raised, Richman.
Oops, against your religion!
> Many of those who read Audio magazines and actually listen to music,
> prefer to use their own ears to make purchase decisions.
If they use their own ears, why are they reading fluff-piece non-reviews?
Bruce J. Richman
Better than you, however. I agree though, that the BS you purvey here is
indeed trivial. Which mail-order university in California did you say your
degree was from? Was it $ 50.00 or $ 100.00?
>> Or is it perhaps your bitterness in
>>failing to resolve your problems while in therapy that elicits your
>hostility
>>toward mental health professionals?
>
> Are you a mental health professional? I didn't realize.
>
There are many things of which you are completely oblivious. That's true. So
tell us, why did you publish the Code of Ethics for Psychologists? Were you
trying to promote my profession? I'm deeply honored.
>> I'd suggest you try another one, if you
>>don't mind paying for it out of pocket. I don't know of too many insurance
>>companies that accept claim forms made it out to people with one name.
>OTOH,
>>perhaps you'll be less secretive and suspicious with your new therapist.
>
> I'd like therapy from you Bruce and I'm willing to pay what
>you're worth. I think there is sufficient change in the ashtray
>to cover it.
>
You're quite brave to exhibit your delusional thinking in a public forum. No
wonder you haven't the integrity to use your real name here.
>Can we videotape the sessions? I think I might be able to make a
>killing on funny videos with you in action.
>>
Would you be wearing a sheet over your head to hide your identity? How about a
little cross-burning to go along with it? The Southern market should be
excellent for the idiotic utterances of an anonymous bigot who likes to display
his ignorance on a Usenet newsgroup.
>>Now I know why you hide your identity Scott. You obviously failed to
>>comprehend the fact that Arny is constantly trying to bash vinyl on RAO.
>>That's why he posted the Wall Street Journal Headline to begin with. Nothing
>in
>>the post even indicates that he read the article. His hostility towards
>John
>>Atkinson and Stereophile is also well known.
>
> And this has what to with my identity?
Many people with such severe cognitive deficits (e.g. reading comprehension,
inability to reason, pathological lying) as the ones you display, try and
conceal their identities. Or would you prefer more simplistic explanations
that even somebody as clueless as you can understsand? Here's a few just for
you. =
(1) Cowardice, and (2) Fear of physical
retaliation.
It's interesting to observe that most of the regulars who post here, unlike
you, use their real names. Apparently, they don't have the irrational fears
that you do.
For a mental
>professional, you sure do lack focus.
>>
I guess we can add pathological lying to the list of reasons you hide behind an
alias. Let's make it number #3. Even though one of your few friends claimed
you were an engineer, I'm beginning to suspect that you just encouraged him to
say that. I find it hard to believe that you've ever been to an accredited
college or university. Even the worst of them have basic requirements that you
could never meet.
>>Apparently, you've chosen to ignore the many derogatory claims that Krueger
>has
>>made about vinyl playback and people who prefer it in this very thread.
>
> I ignore a lot of stuff Arny says.
Yet you readily jump in to defend him here, as you have done many times in the
past. I can understand that. You wannabee fake audio engineers tend to stick
together. And you have the same noncode of ethics.
I find it good for my mental
>health.
You don't have anything even remotely resembling mental health. Is that your
own diagnosis, phony engineer? Or did you just decide to take a chance and see
if you could get away with making another nonsensical statement?
Sort of like ignoring Sanders politics :)
The main thing you appear to ignore is factual evidence. If Disney World needs
an "engineer" to help it create some fantasies, then maybe you can sell your
questionable talents and your so-called BS in BS to them. That's about the
only way I can see you ever working outside of a sheltered workshop for former
longterm chronic psych. hospital patients.
>
>>
>>I would have thought that an alleged "engineer" would have more objectivity
>>and/or the ability to observe more than just small samples of a thread
>about
>>vinyl.
>
> I would think a mental health professional wouldn't have to
>extrapolate beyond what I said (which had nothing to do with
>vinyl) in order to mount a defense.
Again, you're deluding yourself. As an apologist for Krueger and his
anti-vinyl agenda, I understand that you choose to ignore such trivial details
as (a) the title of the thread, (b) the content of Krueger's comments about
vinyl, and (c) his derogatory comments about review articles dealing with
tuntables that play vinyl.
Is this just an another example of your quasiscientific approach to dealing
with facts? You're certainly no engineer. Even the most minimally trained
would have some familiarity with basic data in the real world, not the fantasy
world that you live in. I guess one can not expect very much from a coward
with no last name.
>>
>>What are you "engineering" anyhow? One of a kind items?
>>
>>LOL!!!!
>
> You're losing it Bruce, take a deep breath and get a grip.
> Hey, Im pretty good at this psycho therapy thing,
>
I doubt it. The California self-help groups you usded to attend at Esalen to
pick up naked chicks don't really qualify as "training" or meaningful
experience. Neither do your prized possession - a set of Tony Roberts
videotapes. But don't give up trying, maybe you'll be able to convince
somebody at the MJ club that you really need it for "medical reasons" to aid in
your latests self-exploratron.
Not that there's anything wrong with that :-)(
>>
>>I'll let you return to your CD's now, where you'll only have to listen to
>>samples of what was actually recorded, and at relatively low rate at that.
>
> Your technical ignorance is glaring again here Bruce. Perhaps
>you should stick with your professional mental gig rather than
>ignorantly speculating why CDs might not sound a good as they
>can.
>>
As usual, you've added nothing of value to the conversation, Scott. Have you
ever heard of sampling rates? How about samples of ssmples?
If you;re an engineer, George Bush will be the successor to Bill W. and get
all the cabinet members to read the Big Book.
>>
>>
>>Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
>>(in Psychology..... nothing technical)
>
>
>ScottW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Bruce J. Richman
What do you care? Are you planning on making some obscene phone calls and
heavy breathing from the toll booth near your house?
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Bruce J. Richman
>Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030210152628...@mb-de.aol.com
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>> Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:20030210122647...@mb-de.aol.com
>
>>>> For those who haven't yet seen it, by the way, there are reviews of
>>>> 4 different current turntables in the February issue of Stereophile.
>
>>> No doubt no technical tests, just fluff pieces.
>
>>> Mustn't upset the faithful by revealing the true performance figures
>>> for the next round of equipment they are supposed to lust after.
>
>> It's quite likely that mahy more people read Stereophile than read
>> RAO. Sorry.
>
>Irrelevant. Next time try responding to the issue that I raised, Richman.
A lie, Krueger. You didn't raise any issues. You simply posted a headline as
part of your anti-vinyl, anti-preference crusade, followed by your "technical
specifications" strawman. Unfortunately for you, many people have made vinyl
vs. CD comparison direct listenig comparisons and could care less about your
ranting and raving about mainly inaudible technical measuremens.
>Oops, against your religion!
You're the one that engages in preference bashig whenver anybody mentions the
word vinyl in a positive sense. So the religiosity is all on your shoulders,
not mine. If I were in my office, I might call it something else however.
>
>> Many of those who read Audio magazines and actually listen to music,
>> prefer to use their own ears to make purchase decisions.
>
>If they use their own ears, why are they reading fluff-piece non-reviews?
>
>
>
>
A false claim, as expected. Nobody has the time to audition a large number of
the products out there, so they look at audio magazines, discussion forums on
the Internet like Audio Asylum and Audio Annex, or some of the e-zines like
enjoythemusic.com to get some leads on products that others think are worth
listening to.
The PCmagazines and JAES tracts just don't have much to offer to people who
have the ability to form their own judgments after doing their own comparative
listrening tests.
You need to work harder on your anti-vinyl, anti-preference sermon, Krueger,
you're not attacting much of a congregation at your daily services! And even
fewer converts!
LOL!!!
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
George M. Middius
Marc Phillips said:
> >"In the 15 years since the LP's demise..."
>
> And the Wall Street Journal is one of the leading audio magazines, too! I'm
> shocked!
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the entire sentence had an
essential qualifier trailing -- e.g. "... as the best-selling medium
for recorded music". Krooger is not above such "debating trade"
tricks, as we all know.
OTOH, the WSJ is definitely the organ of Big Business. "If it's
small, it should be crushed."
Bruce J. Richman
Organs are part of Krueger's religion.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Sockpuppet Yustabe
>
> Jenniver Ordninez of the Wall Street Journal writes:
>
> "In the 15 years since the LP's demise..."
>
>
I hope you still won't be bobbing about
fifteen years after your demise.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Sockpuppet Yustabe
The houses and furniture they craft, the meat they raise,
and the food they prepare and sell is a hell of a lot better than
the mass market crap that is the current 'standard'.
I guess that to you, people who still believe in
quality would constitute a weird religious cult.
Sockpuppet Yustabe
Such stuff is somewhat informative.
Using them as a sole source for purchasing decisions is ludicrous.
Robert Morein
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" <yusta...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3e485...@corp-goliath.newsgroups.com...
>
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:vKQ1a.92$EM3...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Robert Morein" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:r8mcndcWRd4...@comcast.com...
> > >
> Most
> > people realize the Amish for what they are - the members of a weird
> > religious cult. The same is true in the world of audio.
> >
> >
>
>
> The houses and furniture they craft, the meat they raise,
> and the food they prepare and sell is a hell of a lot better than
> the mass market crap that is the current 'standard'.
>
> I guess that to you, people who still believe in
> quality would constitute a weird religious cult.
>
Amish.
Bruce J. Richman
That's funny. They don't look Amish! :-)
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
trotsky
I wonder if she mentioned that Wall Street has been dead since Dubya
took office.
trotsky
Quit spamming, Brucie.
trotsky
Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> ScottW wrote
>
>
>
>>On 10 Feb 2003 21:30:40 GMT, boon...@aol.comm (Marc Phillips)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Arny said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Quoted in The Detroit Free Press This Morning:
>>>>
>>>>Jenniver Ordninez of the Wall Street Journal writes:
>>>>
>>>>"In the 15 years since the LP's demise..."
>>>
>>>And the Wall Street Journal is one of the leading audio magazines, too! I'm
>>>shocked!
>>>
>>>Putz.
>>>
>>>BTW, Mikey Fremer is going to be on this bitch's ass in no time flat.
>>
>>Why, is she hot?
>>
>> ScottW
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> What do you care?
Why does a hetero man care if a chick is hot? Are you gay?
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>
> >Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20030210152628...@mb-de.aol.com
> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >>> Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:20030210122647...@mb-de.aol.com
> >
> >>>> For those who haven't yet seen it, by the way, there are reviews of
> >>>> 4 different current turntables in the February issue of Stereophile.
> >
> >>> No doubt no technical tests, just fluff pieces.
> >
> >>> Mustn't upset the faithful by revealing the true performance figures
> >>> for the next round of equipment they are supposed to lust after.
> >
> >> It's quite likely that mahy more people read Stereophile than read
> >> RAO. Sorry.
> >
> >Irrelevant. Next time try responding to the issue that I raised, Richman.
> A lie, Krueger. You didn't raise any issues.
Sure I did. I'm sorry Richman they weren't phrased in form you can readily
comprehend, such as a personal attack.
> You simply posted a headline as
> part of your anti-vinyl,
Richman, since when is pointing out that most of the world has observed the
obvious facts about vinyl, "anti-vinyl". I suppose you'd call anybody who
observes that the car has taken over most transportation duties from the
horse as being "anti-horse".
>anti-preference
If it weren't for the fact that vinyl bigots can't seem avoiding senseless
bashing of the near-universal preference for CDs, there wouldn't be a
problem.
> followed by your "technical specifications" strawman.
It's hardly a straw man. Let's review the odd intellectual state of John
Atkinson and Stereophile these days. Stereophile publishes detailed
technical tests of a wide variety of audio components, except for those
related to vinyl playback. It's not that vinyl playback equipment is
sonically perfect, either.
If a tone arm has incorrect geometry mass, a turntable runs at the wrong
speed or cogs, or a cartridge mistracks or has weird bumps or premature
roll-offs, Stereophile closes one eye and blinds the other. Stereophile has
a "Three Monkey's" policy when it comes to vinyl: See no evil, hear no evil,
say no evil.
>Unfortunately for you, many people have made vinyl
> vs. CD comparison direct listening comparisons and could care less about
your
> ranting and raving about mainly inaudible technical measurements.
Of course, and the overwhelming majority of the people who made these direct
comparisons dumped vinyl over 15 years ago.
> >Oops, against your religion!
> You're the one that engages in preference bashing whenever anybody
mentions the
> word vinyl in a positive sense.
I only take exception to people who bash the near-universal preference for
the relatively pristine inherent sound quality of the CD.
>So the religiosity is all on your shoulders, not mine.
Wrong Bruce. You are playing creationist in this discussion because the
majority of the facts, opinions and dollars are on my side. If you vinyl
bigots could quit lying about the CD, this battle would be over.
> If I were in my office, I might call it something else however.
I seriously doubt that you have an office, Bruce.
> >> Many of those who read Audio magazines and actually listen to music,
> >> prefer to use their own ears to make purchase decisions.
> >If they use their own ears, why are they reading fluff-piece non-reviews?
> A false claim, as expected.
It's not a claim Bruce it's a question. What has eluded you about the
question mark at the end of the sentence?
> Nobody has the time to audition a large number of
> the products out there, so they look at audio magazines, discussion forums
on
> the Internet like Audio Asylum and Audio Annex, or some of the e-zines
like
> enjoythemusic.com to get some leads on products that others think are
worth
> listening to.
Then you've contradicted yourself Richman, You said that people prefer to
use their own ears, and now you say that they don't do that. Can you tell us
just ONE believable story, Richman?
> The PC magazines and JAES tracts just don't have much to offer to people
who
> have the ability to form their own judgments after doing their own
comparative
> listening tests.
Richman, you just said that people can't always do their own comparative
listening tests, and must rely on comparative listening tests done by
others. Now you say that people have to do their own comparative listening
tests to form their own judgments. Can you reach some kind of conclusion
and just present IT?
If technical tests and specs are so useless, why does Stereophile waste so
much time and print with them? It appears that Atkinson has the same mental
problems that you do Richman, they can't figure out a single story and tell
it. Like you, they keep waffling between test (just about everything else)
and no test (vinyl playback equipment).
> You need to work harder on your anti-vinyl, anti-preference sermon,
Krueger,
Richman, like your conclusions about personal listening tests, I have no
anti-vinyl, anti-preference sermon. Vinyl is what it is, and everybody who
isn't a vinyl religionist knows it and admits it freely. People who are
vinyl religionists exercise their religious freedom by bashing digital audio
and living in a permanent state of denial about vinyl's well-known audible
and measurable difficulties.
> you're not attracting much of a congregation at your daily services! And
even
> fewer converts!
When one has 99.7% of the music-loving public *converted* to CD finding new
converts is fairly tough. But that's not what I'm about here, I'm just about
overcoming the lies, deceptions and bad science that issues forth from the
church of vinyl.
Arny Krueger
I never did any such thing and you know it!
Morein, you're delusional. That's probably why you can't get a PhD. Your
academic committee realized that you're delusional and that was that!
Arny Krueger
"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.comm> wrote in message
news:20030210163040...@mb-mv.aol.com...
>
> BTW, Mikey Fremer is going to be on this bitch's ass in no time flat.
Which RAO sockpuppet is Michael Fremer?
"Phil"?
LOL!
Arny Krueger
> Have you
> ever heard of sampling rates? How about samples of samples?
Richman, you really ought to stay away from technical commentary because you
make a fool of yourself just about every time.
When a digital signal is downsampled, it is not resampled. In fact the
actual process is more like the inverse of sampling. Sampling is the
process of taking small chunks of something bigger, and downsampling is the
process of combining small chunks into bigger chunks.
Multiple samples at the higher sample rate are combined into fewer samples
at the lower sample rate. In the process, if all other things are equal, the
samples at the lower sample rate become more precise (less noisy) due to
averaging.
Also, your comments about sample rates are disingenuous for a subjectivist.
You're tacitly claiming that something that was done in the technical domain
necessarily impinges on the subjective domain. But your basic ideology as a
subjectivist is that subjective evaluation is the measure of everything. If
subjective evaluation is the measure of everything, then it supercedes
anything that happens in the technical domain. In fact, the claim that
subjective evaluation supercedes the technical domain is how you defend
vinyl.
Richman, after watching you dance on one foot and then the other, in our
recent discussion of Stereophile's fluff pieces about turntables, I'm not
the least bit surprised to see you behave so disingenuously when it comes to
downsampling.
Bruce J. Richman
>
>"Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030210181840...@mb-ck.aol.com...
>
>> Have you
>> ever heard of sampling rates? How about samples of samples?
>
>Richman, you really ought to stay away from technical commentary because you
>make a fool of yourself just about every time.
>
Only in your delusional perceptions, Krueger.
Asking me to stqy away from technical issues suggests, however, that we should
ask you to stay away from rendering objective opinions about the listening
habits oif others, since you have neither the ability nor, more importantly,
the empathy to be able to make any credibvle judgments.
>When a digital signal is downsampled, it is not resampled. In fact the
>actual process is more like the inverse of sampling. Sampling is the
>process of taking small chunks of something bigger, and downsampling is the
>process of combining small chunks into bigger chunks.
>
>Multiple samples at the higher sample rate are combined into fewer samples
>at the lower sample rate. In the process, if all other things are equal, the
>samples at the lower sample rate become more precise (less noisy) due to
>averaging.
>
>Also, your comments about sample rates are disingenuous for a subjectivist.
>You're tacitly claiming that something that was done in the technical domain
>necessarily impinges on the subjective domain. But your basic ideology as a
>subjectivist is that subjective evaluation is the measure of everything. If
>subjective evaluation is the measure of everything, then it supercedes
>anything that happens in the technical domain. In fact, the claim that
>subjective evaluation supercedes the technical domain is how you defend
>vinyl.
>
This, of course, would be yet another one of your false claims, Krueger.
Direct listening is more important than relying exclusiively on technical
specifications, as you tirelessly try to get newbies to do.
Most people know better than to follow your anti-listening propaganda, however.
>Richman, after watching you dance on one foot and then the other, in our
>recent discussion of Stereophile's fluff pieces about turntables, I'm not
>the least bit surprised to see you behave so disingenuously when it comes to
>downsampling.
>
Nor am I surprised, Krueger, to see you twist and distort all my comments about
Stereophile's review articles in
your crusade to once again trash vinyl and preferences in the Wall Street
thread.
Your trnasparency evident in your many misrepresentations never fails to give
you away.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Bruce J. Richman
>Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>>Quoted in The Detroit Free Press This Morning:
>>
>>Jenniver Ordninez of the Wall Street Journal writes:
>>
>>"In the 15 years since the LP's demise..."
>
>Whenever Krooger Kromplains about something he is unable to grasp or
>appreciate, you should realise it's a cry for help.
>
>
>--
>S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
That's an interesting comment. You're probably correct.
In the area of psychodiagnostic evaluation, the term "cry for help" is very
frequently applied to unjsuccessful suicide attempts in which the subject
accounts for their own rescue. For example, drug overdoses or wrist cutting
done in the bathroom of one's own home, with other family members present and
available at the time, is pretty common.
Krueger's posting history on RAO has some pretty obvious parallels with this
type of phenomenon. Do you think he's trying to tell us something?
f
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Bruce J. Richman
Your pathological decline started much earlier, as we all know.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Bruce J. Richman
>rotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Quoted in The Detroit Free Press This Morning:
>>>>
>>>>Jenniver Ordninez of the Wall Street Journal writes:
>>>>
>>>>"In the 15 years since the LP's demise..."
>>>
>>>
>>> And the Wall Street Journal is one of the leading audio magazines, too!
>I'm
>>> shocked!
>>>
>>> Putz.
>>>
>>> BTW, Mikey Fremer is going to be on this bitch's ass in no time flat.
>>
>>
>>I wonder if she mentioned that Wall Street has been dead since Dubya
>>took office.
>
>Some areas of the stock market are strengthening - military hardware
>mfrs, pharmaceuticals, medical eqp mfrs, funeral directors etc.
>
>
>--
>S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
>
>
>
>
>
>
Paul, I think that while most of us understand what you are saying and would
agree with you, a little modification of your post might be necessary for
Singh.
I would suggest that you first define the term "stock market" (Singh is quite
concrete and may think this is a place for selling cattle like the
stockyards), use words of no more than one syllable, and be sure and frequently
say "do you understand what I am saying?" and/or "do you have any questions?"
You'll have a much better chance of getting through to him if you follow these
3 crtical steps.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Bruce J. Richman
>bjri...@aol.com (Bruce J. Richman) wrote:
>
>>Organs are part of Krueger's religion.
>
>Organs.... and eating children.
>
>
All part of the daily rituals at Firehose Cathedral.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Bruce J. Richman
Translation from Singhlish, please?
Do try and refrain from sampling your latest drug purchases while posting, Gerg
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
> >
> >"Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20030210181840...@mb-ck.aol.com...
> >
> >> Have you
> >> ever heard of sampling rates? How about samples of samples?
> >
> >Richman, you really ought to stay away from technical commentary because
you
> >make a fool of yourself just about every time.
> Only in your delusional perceptions, Krueger.
Richman, I deconstructed you technically point by point. As usual, all
you've got to offer is personal attacks. Is there a pattern here or what?
> Asking me to stqy away from technical issues suggests, however, that we
should
> ask you to stay away from rendering objective opinions about the listening
> habits oif others, since you have neither the ability nor, more
importantly,
> the empathy to be able to make any credibvle judgments.
More straw men. Yawn!
> >When a digital signal is downsampled, it is not resampled. In fact the
> >actual process is more like the inverse of sampling. Sampling is the
> >process of taking small chunks of something bigger, and downsampling is
the
> >process of combining small chunks into bigger chunks.
> >Multiple samples at the higher sample rate are combined into fewer
samples
> >at the lower sample rate. In the process, if all other things are equal,
the
> >samples at the lower sample rate become more precise (less noisy) due to
> >averaging.
> >Also, your comments about sample rates are disingenuous for a
subjectivist.
> >You're tacitly claiming that something that was done in the technical
domain
> >necessarily impinges on the subjective domain. But your basic ideology as
a
> >subjectivist is that subjective evaluation is the measure of everything.
If
> >subjective evaluation is the measure of everything, then it supercedes
> >anything that happens in the technical domain. In fact, the claim that
> >subjective evaluation supercedes the technical domain is how you defend
> >vinyl.
> This, of course, would be yet another one of your false claims, Krueger.
No its just an objective evaluation of the internal contradictions in your
posts, Richman. You can deal with the content or not, its up to you. By
failing to deal with the content, you tacitly admit that you are really
standing mute. Words are coming out of your mouth, but they are irrelevant
to the discussion at hand.
> Direct listening is more important than relying exclusively on technical
> specifications, as you tirelessly try to get newbies to do.
That's not what you were doing, Richman. You were suggesting that there was
some audible flaw with downsampled digital due to how it worked technically.
I showed that the flaw was a figment of your imagination, but you lose again
because you were trying to tell people how something would sound based on
your misapprehensions about how it worked technically. Now that's very
disengenous for a subjectivist.
> Most people know better than to follow your anti-listening propaganda,
however.
What anti-listening propaganda? That's just another one of your lies
Richman, and if you aren't lying then you are delusional.
> >Richman, after watching you dance on one foot and then the other, in our
> >recent discussion of Stereophile's fluff pieces about turntables, I'm not
> >the least bit surprised to see you behave so disingenuously when it comes
to
> >downsampling.
> Nor am I surprised, Krueger, to see you twist and distort all my comments
about
> Stereophile's review articles in
> your crusade to once again trash vinyl and preferences in the Wall Street
> thread.
Wrong again Richman. I didn't twist and distort your comments about
Stereophile's articles. I ignored your hype and went to the heart of the
matter - that Stereophile is incapable of properly reviewing vinyl playback
hardware if we judge their vinyl playback equipment reviews by the standard
set by their other equipment reviews.
> Your transparency evident in your many misrepresentations never fails to
give
> you away.
The fact that you find misrepresentations of your comments when I totally
ignored them shows how paranoid and deceptive you are, Richman.
But thanks for showing once again that you lack the personal integrity it
takes to stand behind your pseudo-technical comments, Richman.
Bruce J. Richman
I'd be glad to explain it to you, but I don't want to interfere with your
preference for men.
Most psychologists understand and accept that you have every right to make
that choice, and that this, in itself, is not evidence of psychopathology.
Are you gay?
Nope.
While there is nothing wrong with gay men such as yourself asking questions
about why heterosexual men find some wonen "hot", I'd suggest, respectfully,
that you simply accept your orienation and quit worrying about it.
However, I would also suggest that trying to find partners on Usenet newsgroups
by asking them if they are gay may be a very risky enterprise. You should find
other methods for satisfying your needs.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Robert Morein
No, it wasn't. I've just realized my committee members were prejudiced
against Amish.
>
So picking on people who use renewable energy resources is sane?
Trying desperately to backtrack because it's not PC to be prejudiced against
the Amish?
Perhaps you're confused because the Amish treasure hand made wood objects.
In way, it's flattering that you think audiophiles are Amish.
What religious group do you belong to, so that I may label it a weird
religous cult?
Perhaps you don't realize how arbitrary human beliefs are.
You wear clothes; you probably think that there is one god, you might
believe in life-after-death; you eat three square meals a day.
You probably go to "church" as most Americans do, in a building of
non-utilitarian design with non-parallel walls decorated with mythological
art. You may believe the mythological depictions have historical basis. Many
or most Americans do.
Another characteristic you have is that you address people by their last
name. It somehow frees you to be beligerent. Try being beligerent to "Bob."
You may think you arrived at your beliefs logically.
No one does; we are all programmed by society far more than we affect
society.
The chance of dissuading someone from listening to records is quite small.
Yet your brain wears the indelible imprint, in the form of beliefs you
cannot discard.
It's nothing to be ashamed of, because it's part of being human.
But it's good to try to transcend the limitations of all this firmware.
It will make you a more open minded person.
Bruce J. Richman
>"Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030210184120...@mb-ck.aol.com...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >news:20030210152628...@mb-de.aol.com
>> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >>> news:20030210122647...@mb-de.aol.com
>> >
>> >>>> For those who haven't yet seen it, by the way, there are reviews of
>> >>>> 4 different current turntables in the February issue of Stereophile.
>> >
>> >>> No doubt no technical tests, just fluff pieces.
>> >
>> >>> Mustn't upset the faithful by revealing the true performance figures
>> >>> for the next round of equipment they are supposed to lust after.
>> >
>> >> It's quite likely that mahy more people read Stereophile than read
>> >> RAO. Sorry.
>> >
>> >Irrelevant. Next time try responding to the issue that I raised, Richman.
>
>> A lie, Krueger. You didn't raise any issues.
>
>Sure I did. I'm sorry Richman they weren't phrased in form you can readily
>comprehend, such as a personal attack.
>
Personal attacks are about the only way you ever communicate, Krueger, as in
the false claim made directly above.
Perhaps on those extremely rare occasioins when you lapse into civilized and/or
rational dialogue, you'd be kind enough to warn us. That would be appreciated
(after the intial shock wears off).
>> You simply posted a headline as
>> part of your anti-vinyl,
>
>Richman, since when is pointing out that most of the world has observed the
>obvious facts about vinyl, "anti-vinyl". I suppose you'd call anybody who
>observes that the car has taken over most transportation duties from the
>horse as being "anti-horse".
Irrelevant. You posted a headline, nothing more. The rest of your statement
above is simply a form of anti-vinyl spamming on RAO.
>>anti-preference
>
>If it weren't for the fact that vinyl bigots can't seem avoiding senseless
>bashing of the near-universal preference for CDs, there wouldn't be a
>problem.
>
The problems are created only by your complete inability to refrain from
personal attacks on all people on RAO who happen to prefer vinyl playback. It's
as simple as that.
>
>> followed by your "technical specifications" strawman.
>
>It's hardly a straw man. Let's review the odd intellectual state of John
>Atkinson and Stereophile these days. Stereophile publishes detailed
>technical tests of a wide variety of audio components, except for those
>related to vinyl playback. It's not that vinyl playback equipment is
>sonically perfect, either.
>
I have yet to see anybody claim that it is.
You're missing the point, Krueger. Stereophile and other magazines like it are
basically subjective opinion publications. The technical measurements that
they publish make up an extremely small part of their content.
Also, you fail to mention that in the February issue of Stereophile, which it
appears you didn't read, 3 of the 4 turntable reviews were quite brief and part
of Michael Fremer's monthly column on analog gear. As with all the other
monthly columns in Stereophile, technical measurements are not included.
>If a tone arm has incorrect geometry mass, a turntable runs at the wrong
>speed or cogs, or a cartridge mistracks or has weird bumps or premature
>roll-offs, Stereophile closes one eye and blinds the other. Stereophile has
>a "Three Monkey's" policy when it comes to vinyl: See no evil, hear no evil,
>say no evil.
>
Is the above ad hominem attack you have just made on Stereophile's analog
revfiews and example of the scientific objectivity you profess to represent,
Krueger?
You can't provide any credible evidence that turntables, tonearms or cartridges
are poorly installed by Stereophile's reviewers, can you? If anything, one
can assume that experienced vinyl playback fans such as the Sterreophile
reviewers make sure that their review samples are properly set up before they
begin their evaluations.
Now if you choose to counter this obvious fact by claiming that they can't know
since they take no measurements, than you must also claim that they all have
deficient hearing as well. That is highly unlikely. You simply can't accept
the fact that many technical mesurement comparisons on paper just don't
correlate well with actual listening comparisons in which such minute
differences may not be heard at all in some cases.
>>Unfortunately for you, many people have made vinyl
>> vs. CD comparison direct listening comparisons and could care less about
>your
>> ranting and raving about mainly inaudible technical measurements.
>
>Of course, and the overwhelming majority of the people who made these direct
>comparisons dumped vinyl over 15 years ago.
>
(1) I seriously doubt that you can find any empirical studies or surveys to
support this claim. If you can, feel free to cite them.
(2) The phenomenon you are attacking here on a daily basis deals with the
listening habits of people who make those listening comparisons today comparing
modern analog gear against modern CD players. References to what may or may
not have happened 15 years ago are irrelevant.
>> >Oops, against your religion!
>
>> You're the one that engages in preference bashing whenever anybody
>mentions the
>> word vinyl in a positive sense.
>
>I only take exception to people who bash the near-universal preference for
>the relatively pristine inherent sound quality of the CD.
>
That is not true. Your attempts to promote your agenda by encouraging people
to read an anti-vinyl tract in that distinguished audio newspaper, the Wall
Street Journal, have absolutely nothing to do with an attack on CDs. Really,
Krueger, you do yourself no favors nor do you advance your favorite cause when
you insult the intelligence of all the readers here.
>>So the religiosity is all on your shoulders, not mine.
>
>Wrong Bruce. You are playing creationist in this discussion because the
>majority of the facts, opinions and dollars are on my side. If you vinyl
>bigots could quit lying about the CD, this battle would be over.
>
Nothing but a false claim, Arny, designed to rationalize your neverending
attacks on both the personal characteristics and listening preferences of those
who happen to disagree with you.
Your use of the term "battle", tells us all we need to know about your true
motivations in this and other threads dealing with vinyl playback.
>> If I were in my office, I might call it something else however.
>
>I seriously doubt that you have an office, Bruce.
>
I'm not surprised, Arny. You also doubt my credentials and have libeled me in
the past. You also make claims about people being sockpuppets. You have yet
to provide any credible evidence for any ot these claims. So your "doubts" are
not taken seriously by any intelligent reader on RAO.
>> >> Many of those who read Audio magazines and actually listen to music,
>> >> prefer to use their own ears to make purchase decisions.
>
>> >If they use their own ears, why are they reading fluff-piece non-reviews?
>> A false claim, as expected.
>
>It's not a claim Bruce it's a question. What has eluded you about the
>question mark at the end of the sentence?
>
It's not a question in which an answer is expected, Arny. As is the case with
your new admirer, Singh, you habitually ask questions rhetorically in which no
answer is either requested or expected. As most educated people know, Krueger,
rhetorical questions are proffered with the sole purpose of making a claim.
They are not designed to elicit information. Did you really think you could so
transparently trick the readers, Krueger? If so, you need to wske up and smell
the coffee!
LOL !
>> Nobody has the time to audition a large number of
>> the products out there, so they look at audio magazines, discussion forums
>on
>> the Internet like Audio Asylum and Audio Annex, or some of the e-zines
>like
>> enjoythemusic.com to get some leads on products that others think are
>worth
>> listening to.
>
>Then you've contradicted yourself Richman, You said that people prefer to
>use their own ears, and now you say that they don't do that.
An outrageous lie. I've never said that, and you know it. People get leads on
what to audition from first reading subjective reviews and then doing their own
comparisons, Krueger. Your lies are becoiming more blatant by the day.
Can you tell us
>just ONE believable story, Richman?
>
How about the fact that you have demonstrated in this thread, and in your long
and disgustiung posting career on RAO wju you are the most widely and
universally despised and hated poster that has ever created a stench on RAO.
How about the fact that your hoirrible reputation has been earned because of
your severe and chronic inability to tell the truth about people and or their
statements? I could go on, but rather than do that, I'll simply refer readers
to the classic thread entitled "A Bad Krueger Experience" which can be easily
accessed via Google search under "Groups"..
>
>> The PC magazines and JAES tracts just don't have much to offer to people
>who
>> have the ability to form their own judgments after doing their own
>comparative
>> listening tests.
>
>Richman, you just said that people can't always do their own comparative
>listening tests, and must rely on comparative listening tests done by
>others.
I obviously said no such thing. Yet another false claim from Krueger, who
doesn't apparently know how to read what others have actually said, especially
if he has targeted them for personal attacks.
Now you say that people have to do their own comparative listening
>tests to form their own judgments. Can you reach some kind of conclusion
>and just present IT?
>
Your attempts to misrepresent what I have said are duly noted. You're not
fooling anybody, Krueger. It's really quite laughable that you fail to grasp
this basic truism.
>If technical tests and specs are so useless, why does Stereophile waste so
>much time and print with them?
A statement already refuted above. The %age of print space devoted to
technical measurements in Stereophile is very small. Also, I never said they
were useless. Cite quotes that can be independently retrieved on Google by
reades to suggest otherwise.
It appears that Atkinson has the same mental
>problems that you do Richman, they can't figure out a single story and tell
>it. Like you, they keep waffling between test (just about everything else)
>and no test (vinyl playback equipment).
>
LOL! So now Atkinson is a "they".? Does Atkinson have multiple
personalities that only you can see and analyze? I can't wait to hear about
"them"! Please feel free to enlighten us further, Krueger, on this little know
fact that you've recently discovered.
>> You need to work harder on your anti-vinyl, anti-preference sermon,
>Krueger,
>
>Richman, like your conclusions about personal listening tests, I have no
>anti-vinyl, anti-preference sermon. Vinyl is what it is, and everybody who
>isn't a vinyl religionist knows it and admits it freely. People who are
>vinyl religionists exercise their religious freedom by bashing digital audio
>and living in a permanent state of denial about vinyl's well-known audible
>and measurable difficulties.
>
Just more anti-vinyl, anti=preference bashing by RAO's leading CD bigot.
>> you're not attracting much of a congregation at your daily services! And
>even
>> fewer converts!
>
>When one has 99.7% of the music-loving public *converted* to CD finding new
>converts is fairly tough. But that's not what I'm about here, I'm just about
>overcoming the lies, deceptions and bad science that issues forth from the
>church of vinyl.
>
>
Of course not, you have your very own set of lies, deceptions,
misrepresentations of what other people say, and character assassination
tactics that you use on a daily basis in your neve ending effort to win the
"battle" that you believe is going on, but in reality exists only in your
twisted view of the world.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Powell
"Robert Morein" wrote
> > Morein, you're delusional. That's probably why you
> > can't get a PhD. Your academic committee realized
> > that you're delusional and that was that!
> >
> What religious group do you belong to, so that I may
> label it a weird religous cult?
>
The words of a narcist... big yawn. You and Arny have
much in common in this regard.
nar-cis-sism (när'suh siz em) also <nar-cism>(när'siz uhm) n.
1. inordinate fascination with oneself;
excessive self-love; vanity.
2. Psychoanal. erotic gratification derived
from admiration of one's own physical or
mental attributes.
> You may think you arrived at your beliefs logically.
> No one does; we are all programmed by society far
> more than we affect society.
>
Quack, quack, quack...
> Yet your brain wears the indelible imprint, in the
> form of beliefs you cannot discard.
>
Hypocrite, remove the timber from your own
eye first.
George M. Middius
Powell said:
> The words of a narcist
A what?
> ... big yawn. You and Arny have
> much in common in this regard.
>
> nar-cis-sism (när'suh siz em) also <nar-cism>(när'siz uhm) n.
> 1. inordinate fascination with oneself;
> excessive self-love; vanity.
> 2. Psychoanal. erotic gratification derived
> from admiration of one's own physical or
Now Powie, don't be jumping off the cliff before your parachute opens.
3. Lack of complete and utter faith in the existence
of "God".
There, that should put the cherry on top.
Bob Olhsson
<nospa...@nospam.com> wrote:
>From the POV of "the music business", it's dead.
No, Wall Street just hasn't got a clue about the entertainment or the
music business. They were convinced that radio, records and movies were
dead in 1950 too.
Corporate egos just can't handle the fact that the industry has always
been artist-driven and nobody gives a damn about what company's brand
is on a piece of entertainment.
--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing and Mastering
615.352.7635 FAX 615.356.2483 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they thought possible!
Powell
"George M. Middius" wrote
> > nar-cis-sism (när'suh siz em) also <nar-cism>(när'siz uhm) n.
> > 1. inordinate fascination with oneself;
> > excessive self-love; vanity.
> > 2. Psychoanal. erotic gratification derived
> > from admiration of one's own physical or
>
> Now Powie, don't be jumping off the cliff before your parachute
> opens.
>
> 3. Lack of complete and utter faith in the existence
> of "God".
>
> There, that should put the cherry on top.
>
Mmmm... why does one need the "faith" component
for validation/proof, mr. ripcord :)?
Robert Morein
"Powell" <nos...@noquacking.com> wrote in message
news:v4ianjt...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Robert Morein" wrote
>
> > > Morein, you're delusional. That's probably why you
> > > can't get a PhD. Your academic committee realized
> > > that you're delusional and that was that!
> > >
> > What religious group do you belong to, so that I may
> > label it a weird religous cult?
> >
> The words of a narcist... big yawn. You and Arny have
> much in common in this regard.
>
It's a shame that you, too, apparently believe that audiophiles are Amish.
Robert Morein
> George M. Middius wrote;
[snip]
> >
>
> Organs are part of Krueger's religion.
>
>
>
>
Abdominal or thoracic?
Does he eat them rituallistically?
George M. Middius
Powell said:
> > Now Powie, don't be jumping off the cliff before your parachute
> > opens.
> >
> > 3. Lack of complete and utter faith in the existence
> > of "God".
> >
> > There, that should put the cherry on top.
> >
> Mmmm... why does one need the "faith" component
> for validation/proof, mr. ripcord :)?
I refer to your own pratings on the subject. Forgotten, have you? ;-(
Bruce J. Richman
He prefers pipe organs.
His eating habits pretty much depend on the ritual he is performing at the
time.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Powell
"Robert Morein" wrote
> > > > Morein, you're delusional. That's probably why you
> > > > can't get a PhD. Your academic committee realized
> > > > that you're delusional and that was that!
> > > >
> > > What religious group do you belong to, so that I may
> > > label it a weird religous cult?
> > >
> > The words of a narcist... big yawn. You and Arny have
> > much in common in this regard.
> >
> It's a shame that you, too, apparently believe that
> audiophiles are Amish.
>
Yup, you and Arny have much in common, mr.
simpleton.
Powell
"George M. Middius" wrote
You need bigger shovel, George :).
Robert Morein
Rule):
All horses are animals, but not all animals are horses.
By extension, this can be applied thusly:
All Amish are audiophiles, but not all audiophiles are Amish.
Both you and Arny should brush up on your syllogisms before you accuse me,
an honest audiophile (who is not Amish) of being a simpleton.
Robert Morein
"Paul D." <sig...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:e8ph4vkda47hcjp9g...@4ax.com...
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> >Quoted in The Detroit Free Press This Morning:
> >
> >Jenniver Ordninez of the Wall Street Journal writes:
> >
> >"In the 15 years since the LP's demise..."
>
> appreciate, you should realise it's a cry for help.
>
This claim that audiophiles are Amish is sheer balderdash.
George M. Middius
Powell said:
Does this mean you're denying my obviously true statement?
ScottW
wrote:
>>
>> Are you a mental health professional? I didn't realize.
>>
>
>There are many things of which you are completely oblivious. That's true. So
>tell us, why did you publish the Code of Ethics for Psychologists? Were you
>trying to promote my profession? I'm deeply honored.
Simply making people aware that real psychologists have a code
of conduct. Tell us, do you think your conduct is impecable?
(snip)
>> And this has what to with my identity?
>Many people with such severe cognitive deficits (e.g. reading comprehension,
>inability to reason, pathological lying) as the ones you display, try and
>conceal their identities. Or would you prefer more simplistic explanations
>that even somebody as clueless as you can understsand? Here's a few just for
>you. =
>(1) Cowardice, and (2) Fear of physical
>retaliation.
Are you threatening me?
I wonder how that fits in your code of conduct.
>
(snip)
>> Your technical ignorance is glaring again here Bruce. Perhaps
>>you should stick with your professional mental gig rather than
>>ignorantly speculating why CDs might not sound a good as they
>>can.
>>>
>
>As usual, you've added nothing of value to the conversation, Scott. Have you
>ever heard of sampling rates? How about samples of ssmples?
Never heard that one Dok. Do they us ssmples in psycho
doktoring?.
Why don't you go ahead and explain technically exactly why
reducing sample rates to redbook CD is so horrible.
(This should be a hoot ).
ScottW
Powell
"George M. Middius" wrote
> > > > > 3. Lack of complete and utter faith in the existence
> > > > > of "God".
> > > > >
> > > > > There, that should put the cherry on top.
> > > > >
> > > > Mmmm... why does one need the "faith" component
> > > > for validation/proof, mr. ripcord :)?
> > >
> > > I refer to your own pratings on the subject. Forgotten,
> > > have you? ;-(
> > >
> > You need bigger shovel, George :).
>
> Does this mean you're denying my obviously
> true statement?
>
Yes sir.
BTW, isn't this the part where you run-away, George?
George M. Middius
Cornered now.
I'd rather show you up as an idiot, a liar, or both.
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=u0fahjd...@corp.supernews.com&lr=&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=trk3nm7...@corp.supernews.com&lr=&hl=en
I'm sure it will have no effect on one of RAO's leading
takers-out-of-context, but that's the evidence.
Or maybe you'll pull one of your other well-worn tricks -- the
pretense that all of my words are meant seriously and nothing has
occurred that deserves mockery.
mikemckelvy
> Krueger spreads his Kroopaganda:> >news:FqqcnR864Px...@comcast.com
> >> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> >> news:vKQ1a.92$EM3...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >>>
> >>> "Robert Morein" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:r8mcndcWRd4...@comcast.com...
> >
> >>>>> Quoted in The Detroit Free Press This Morning:
> >
> >>>>> Jenniver Ordninez of the Wall Street Journal writes:
> >
> >>>>> "In the 15 years since the LP's demise..."
> >
> >
> >
> >>>> From the POV of people who listen to and buy them, it's ludicrous.
> >>
> >>> That's like saying "From the standpoint of people who don't want or
> >>> have cars, the death of the horse as a means of transportion is
> >>> ludicrous". Here and in Pennsylvania one large group of such people
> >>> are the Amish. Most people realize the Amish for what they are - the
> >>> members of a weird religious cult. The same is true in the world of
> >>> audio.
> >
> >
> >I mean that I understand the meaning of relevance.
> >
> >Being intolerant would be like going around and pulling LP players out of
> >people's house and burning them. I'd have to start with my own house
first!
> >
> >No, what shouldn't be tolerated is people who have turned denial of the
> >obvious into the reason for their newsgroup careers, like Richman and his
> >noisy Luddite clique.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Yet another false claim from Krueger, the CD bigot who never misses an
> opportunity to trash and insult those who prefer vinyl.
Can you provide some quotes of Arny trashing people's preference for vinyl?
I've only seen his trashing of people who claim there is some sort of
technical advantage to vinyl.
> It must really frighten him, since he continues to generate larger and
noisier
> distortions in his crusade to brainwash RAO posters into adopting his
twisted
> and prejudiced anti-preference beliefs.
>
> We've just been exposed to Krueger's Conspiracy Theory for 2/10/03.
> What next, a plot to take over the world? Hidden messages in vinyl played
> backwards?
>
> LOL!
>
> For those who haven't yet seen it, by the way, there are reviews of 4
different
> current turntables in the February issue of Stereophile. And the one
given the
> most prominent coverage, the VPI Scout, is from a company that usually
doesn't
> advertise in Stereophile or for thta matter, very much at all in the more
> popular audio magazines. Apparently good word of mouth from satisfied
users
> and excellent customer service keeps leading to the development of new
models
> from these folks.
>
>
>
> Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
>
>
>
Marc Phillips
>"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.comm> wrote in message
>news:20030210163040...@mb-mv.aol.com...
>>
>> BTW, Mikey Fremer is going to be on this bitch's ass in no time flat.
>
>
>Which RAO sockpuppet is Michael Fremer?
>
>"Phil"?
>
>LOL!
Are you a fucking moron or what?
Boon
Bruce J. Richman
Well, hopefully, Phil was being facetious. But since he doesn't post here very
much and perhaps has never read The Absolute Sound, Tracking Angle, Listener,
or Stereophile (as some here have not), maybe he made an honest error. :-)
I was puzzled by Phil's comment about Mikey primarily because I don't recall
ever seeing Fremer post on RAO or even RAHE for that matter. The only place
I've seen him posting is on Phonogram, which is a vinyl-oriented mailing list.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Marc Phillips
>I was puzzled by Phil's comment about Mikey primarily because I don't recall
>ever seeing Fremer post on RAO or even RAHE for that matter. The only place
>I've seen him posting is on Phonogram, which is a vinyl-oriented mailing
>list.
I've talked to Michael Fremer before, and he did recognize me as "Boon," so
there is a distinct possiblility that he lurks here occasionally.
Boon
George M. Middius
Moi said to the Bug Eater:
> If your research is thorough, I suspect that you won't find a single
> individual who has ever claimed some sort of "technical advantage" to
> vinyl. If I'm wrong, then please tell me what sort of "technical
> advantages" have been claimed?
Here's one: Using a fancy turntable requires you to hone your
hand-eye coordination, i.e. your technique.
Bruce J. Richman
Sure. One has to look no further than this very post. What would you call the
statement above from Krueger, in which he claims, and I quote:
" what shouldn't be tolerated is people who have turned denial of the
>> >obvious into the reason for their newsgroup careers, like Richman and his
>> >noisy Luddite clique."
Since I have a preference for vinyl as do others, Krueger has, via his usual
personal insuts here, trashed both me and others who prefer that playback
medium.
I've never claimed that vinyl has any technical advantages. Similarly, very
few educated people have ever claimed that vinyl has any technical advantages.
That said, a number of just prefer to listen to it.
The only reason this thread is so long is because of Krueger's determination
to trash people's preferences and win, what he today called, "the battle".
His use of this term I think says it all, and makes his agenda very clear.
Ironically, ever since Krueger decided he needed to win "the battle", he's
managed to bring a lot of attention to vinyl on RAO.
More threads about vinyl, today a question about cartridges. Hell, it has even
spilled over to RAHE where posters know that Krueger can't attack them when
they ask questions about vinyl.
He may not realize it, but his constant attacks on those who prefer vinyl is
getting the medium and the listeners that he hates a lot of free publicity!
LOL!
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
George M. Middius
Moi said to the Bug Eater:
> Stick around awhile, and [the Krooborg's] agenda will become obvious (especially if
> you don't share it). Yet when confronted with his duplicity, he
> immediately backs up to his favorite position and claims his only
> problem is with people who claim vinyl is technically superior.
Did you hear that, Mikey? Since you're new here, you should take this
battlefield veteran's words to heart. Leave the cockroach stew for
your pet rats and go learn why existence exists.
George M. Middius
Powell said:
> > > > > > 3. Lack of complete and utter faith in the existence
> > > > > > of "God".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There, that should put the cherry on top.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Mmmm... why does one need the "faith" component
> > > > > for validation/proof, mr. ripcord :)?
> > > >
> > > > I refer to your own pratings on the subject. Forgotten,
> > > > have you? ;-(
> > > >
> > > You need bigger shovel, George :).
> >
> > Does this mean you're denying my obviously
> > true statement?
> >
> Yes sir.
I found the third post:
Start shoveling, Powie. ;-)
trotsky
It sure would be nice if he could come out of lurker mode, so totally
make mincemeat out of his sorry ass.
trotsky
Moi wrote:
<snip>
Whose sockpuppet did you say you were?
George M. Middius
Moi said:
> Actually, it doesn't necessarily -- many just let their dealer or
> high-end specialist do all the setting up.
Good point to bring out on. I guess that takes us back to zero claims
of technical superiority.
Bruce J. Richman
I'll buy off on that.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Bruce J. Richman
>On 11 Feb 2003 23:32:34 GMT, bjri...@aol.com (Bruce J. Richman)
>wrote:
>
>>Ironically, ever since Krueger decided he needed to win "the battle", he's
>>managed to bring a lot of attention to vinyl on RAO.
>>More threads about vinyl, today a question about cartridges. Hell, it has
>even
>>spilled over to RAHE where posters know that Krueger can't attack them when
>>they ask questions about vinyl.
>
>Indeed... "all publicity is good publicity." People read this "war"
>between CD and vinyl fans, the various claims that vinyl just sounds
>better (and desperate denials of this by vinyl-phobes), and are
>understandably curious to find out for themselves! It's surely doing
>some good for the format, and I'm sure there are a lot of lurkers in
>this group, many people who read the LP & vinyl-related threads
>through Google groups.
>
>>He may not realize it, but his constant attacks on those who prefer vinyl is
>>getting the medium and the listeners that he hates a lot of free publicity!
>
>More than he knows and probably even dreams. Usenet posts are
>archived "forever."
>
>---
>My computer's and Arny's favorite music is a 300Hz test tone.
>
>
>
>
>
>
On RAHE, there's been a thread recently (still ongoing) about where to buy
vinyl through the Internet. A number of people have contributed to this
thread, including Mr. Phillips. Apparently, they haven't been defeated or
surrendered in the battle!
:-)
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Robert Morein
> Mike McKelvy wrote:
[snip]
> I've never claimed that vinyl has any technical advantages. Similarly,
very
> few educated people have ever claimed that vinyl has any technical
advantages.
> That said, a number of just prefer to listen to it.
>
regard their recordings, and the act of playing them.
I'm not a vinyl lover myself, but I find it very significant that, in the
search of pleasure, vinyl lovers have found a more engaging, more satisfying
outlet than the CD, the playing of which has become a very casual thing.
The act of "taking care" of the record, the physical care required, and the
ministering to the adjustments of the turntable, seem to intensify the
pleasure.
Something bought too cheaply is seldom appreciated.
Powell
"George M. Middius" wrote
> > > > > > > 3. Lack of complete and utter faith in the existence
> > > > > > > of "God".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There, that should put the cherry on top.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Mmmm... why does one need the "faith" component
> > > > > > for validation/proof, mr. ripcord :)?
> > > > >
> > > > > I refer to your own pratings on the subject. Forgotten,
> > > > > have you? ;-(
> > > > >
> > > > You need bigger shovel, George :).
> > >
> > > Does this mean you're denying my obviously
> > > true statement?
> > >
> > Yes sir.
> >
> > BTW, isn't this the part where you run-away, George?
>
> I'd rather show you up as an idiot, a liar, or both.
>
You're angry... I think?
Ok... I've read the three references.
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=u0fa
hjdpk...@corp.supernews.com&lr=&hl=en
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=trk3
nm7c2...@corp.supernews.com&lr=&hl=en
>
>
> I'm sure it will have no effect on one of RAO's leading
> takers-out-of-context, but that's the evidence.
>
I acknowledge the "evidence" and its content and
bend/intent, George.
> Or maybe you'll pull one of your other well-worn
> tricks -- the pretense that all of my words are meant
> seriously and nothing has occurred that deserves
> mockery.
>
I don't think I need any wiggle room here, George... just
let me have it, so I can understand your grievance.
"nothing has occurred that deserves mockery."...
"deserves" is a moral/ethical/social based statement,
right?
mock-er-y (mok'uh ree) n. pl. <-er-ies>
1. ridicule; derision.
2. a derisive, imitative action or speech.
3. a subject or occasion of derision.
4. a mocking pretense or imitation;
travesty: a mockery of justice.
5. something absurdly or offensively
inadequate or unfitting.
"Mockery" *feels* like a dehumanized precept and what is its
relationship to "faith" and emotional maturity... your angst?
de-hu-man-ize (dee hyue'muh niez or, often, -yue'-) v.t. <
-ized, -iz-ing>
1. to deprive of human qualities or
attributes; divest of individuality.
Arny Krueger
"Moi" <zis...@NOxSPAMMxhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ojli4vchrgumchf11...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:26:26 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
> >That's not what you were doing, Richman. You were suggesting that there
was
> >some audible flaw with downsampled digital due to how it worked
technically.
>
> In fact, there can be in some cases. For example, downsampling 96KHz
> to 44.1KHz can produce audible flaws (much less likely if it was 88.2
> KHz being downsampled to 44.1KHz).
Weird science. Keep making it up as you go along. This is fun!
> Of course, I can read your mind as to what you're thinking : "but
> there would still be less audible degredation from poor digital
> downsampling than there would be from vinyl." You are as predictable
> as a computer, Krueger.
Paranoia strikes.
> >> Most people know better than to follow your anti-listening propaganda,
> >however.
> >
> >What anti-listening propaganda? That's just another one of your lies
> >Richman, and if you aren't lying then you are delusional.
> Discouraging people from listening to vinyl (due to technical specs)
> is cutting them off from a huge back-catalog not available on CD.
Here's a wild concept: Listen to music, not specs.
Try it sometime!
> There's something anti-listening about that.
> Unless you are trading/distributing CD-R's or MP3's of the vinyl you
> "rip" to digital -- in which case, you're a criminal.
Keep up that free-associating thing!
> >Wrong again Richman. I didn't twist and distort your comments about
> >Stereophile's articles. I ignored your hype and went to the heart of the
> >matter - that Stereophile is incapable of properly reviewing vinyl
playback
> >hardware if we judge their vinyl playback equipment reviews by the
standard
> >set by their other equipment reviews.
> This whole Stereophile thing is ridiculous... anyone with a brain
> knows it's an advertiser-driven "fluff" magazine.
Richman seems to think otherwise. I suggest you two duke it out together and
leave me out of it.
>IMHO the last good audio rag (Listener) is gone.
It no doubt collapsed under its own hype.
George M. Middius
Powell said:
> > I'd rather show you up as an idiot, a liar, or both.
> >
> You're angry... I think?
>
> Ok... I've read the three references.
What's missing here is your admission you were full of shit.
Put it here: ______________________________________
> > I'm sure it will have no effect on one of RAO's leading
> > takers-out-of-context, but that's the evidence.
> I acknowledge the "evidence" and its content and
> bend/intent, George.
I don't know what a "bend/intent" is, and I daresay nobody else does
either. Except maybe you, for what little that might be worth.
To review, you lyingly claimed you have never used "narcissism" or
"narcissistic" as a synonym for atheism or a belief therein. Time to
admit you were full of shit.
> > Or maybe you'll pull one of your other well-worn
> > tricks -- the pretense that all of my words are meant
> > seriously and nothing has occurred that deserves
> > mockery.
> >
> I don't think I need any wiggle room here, George... just
> let me have it, so I can understand your grievance.
You lied. You were "debating trading". Admit it.
> "nothing has occurred that deserves mockery."...
> "deserves" is a moral/ethical/social based statement,
> right?
Wrong!
Grow up already.
[snip irrelevant dictionary citation]
> "Mockery" *feels* like a dehumanized precept and what is its
> relationship to "faith" and emotional maturity... your angst?
Your babble!
With a mind as frazzled as yours, no wonder you think Krooger can be
reasoned with.
Bruce J. Richman
>"Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030211183234...@mb-cm.aol.com...
>> Mike McKelvy wrote:
>[snip]
>> I've never claimed that vinyl has any technical advantages. Similarly,
>very
>> few educated people have ever claimed that vinyl has any technical
>advantages.
>> That said, a number of just prefer to listen to it.
>>
>One thing which I find striking is the intensity with which vinyl lovers
>regard their recordings, and the act of playing them.
>
This may well be true, at least the part for the recordings. Many classical
music lovers, for example, including myself, may prefer the sound of the Boston
Symphony under Munch, or the Chicago Symphony under Reiner, or the Boston
Pops, or Neville Mariner, etc. than some of the newer conductors and less
esteemed orchestras. Also, recording procedures iinvolved lsss mult-miking and
more natural sound IMHO when the RCA Living Stereo, Mercury Living Presence,
and London (Decca) Bluebacks were produced. For classical jazz (a la Basie,
Goodman, James, Ellington, Getz, Byrd, etc.), most originated on vinyl. And
sure, a lot of it has been reissued on CDs, but is it really the same
recording? I think sentiments like these are at least partially responsible
for the continuing popularity of the LP. (And in Pop, groups like the Stones,
Beatles, Fleetwood Mac, Clapton, Dire Straits, Ry Cooder, and others are still
popular and their original output was largely on vinyl). Interestingly, many
of the new recordings from more current groups are also being pressed on
vinyl. I think a lot of people like to listen to artists in different genres
that have staying power, and that often means listening to performers who have
been around for a while who, like Sinatra or Ellington, developed quite a
following in their lifetimes.
I think that for those who prefer it, the sound, not the playing rituals, is
the thing.
Many people who prefer vinyl think that it sounds "warmer" or "not as bright as
digtital", or that it conveys a sense of more "air" around the singers or
instruments, or that, for want of a better word, it sounds more musical.
Not by accident, the same adjectives are often used to described tubed
electronics, and it not at all uncommon to find that people who like vinyl also
like tubes.
>I'm not a vinyl lover myself, but I find it very significant that, in the
>search of pleasure, vinyl lovers have found a more engaging, more satisfying
>outlet than the CD, the playing of which has become a very casual thing.
>
Agreed. Vinyl playback is definitely a more hands-on experience.
>The act of "taking care" of the record, the physical care required, and the
>ministering to the adjustments of the turntable, seem to intensify the
>pleasure.
>
For me, it's a necessary evil. I think most modern turntables, once adjused,
are pretty much plug 'n play. In fact, there are a number of dealers that will
sell you a fully adjusted turntable & tonearm with the cartridge of your choice
already installed. (I believe even mail order houses like
Audio Advisor will do this if requested).so that all the enduser may have to do
is be sure the turntable is level on their equipment rack or other support.
>Something bought too cheaply is seldom appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
Agan, I agree. But LP playback *can* be very cheap! New turntables, complete
wiwth tonearm and cartridge, can be had from reputable companies for as little
as $ 200.00, and if one doesn't mind buying used LPs in good condition, places
like eBay (where over 40R% of the combined LP/CD sales is for vinyl) can yield
some vey good biuys at dirt cheap prices. Same holds true for used record
stores found in most major urban areas.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Howard Ferstler
> Many people who prefer vinyl think that it sounds "warmer" or "not as bright as
> digtital",
Bass bloated and muffled. Sagging midrange.
> or that it conveys a sense of more "air" around the singers or
> instruments,
Gross phase distortion; poor channel separation.
> Not by accident, the same adjectives are often used to described tubed
> electronics, and it not at all uncommon to find that people who like vinyl also
> like tubes.
For similar reasons: they are addled.
> >I'm not a vinyl lover myself, but I find it very significant that, in the
> >search of pleasure, vinyl lovers have found a more engaging, more satisfying
> >outlet than the CD, the playing of which has become a very casual thing.
> Agreed. Vinyl playback is definitely a more hands-on experience.
Further proof of what I said when I indicated that vinyl
lovers are basically looking for exotic toys to play with,
with musical values being secondary.
Enjoy those LP records and players, but never forget for a
moment just how "retro" you are.
I won't.
Howard Ferstler
Arny Krueger
> >> >
> >> >>>> For those who haven't yet seen it, by the way, there are reviews
of
> >> >>>> 4 different current turntables in the February issue of
Stereophile.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>> Mustn't upset the faithful by revealing the true performance
figures
> >> >>> for the next round of equipment they are supposed to lust after.
> >> >
> >> >> It's quite likely that mahy more people read Stereophile than read
> >> >> RAO. Sorry.
> >> >
> >> >Irrelevant. Next time try responding to the issue that I raised,
Richman.
> >
> >> A lie, Krueger. You didn't raise any issues.
> >
> >Sure I did. I'm sorry Richman they weren't phrased in form you can
readily
> >comprehend, such as a personal attack.
> Personal attacks are about the only way you ever communicate, Krueger, as
in
> the false claim made directly above.
Lame IKWYABWAI.
> Perhaps on those extremely rare occasioins when you lapse into civilized
and/or
> rational dialogue, you'd be kind enough to warn us. That would be
appreciated
> (after the intial shock wears off).
Next time the "occasionins" arises, I'll let you know.
> >> You simply posted a headline as
> >> part of your anti-vinyl,
> >Richman, since when is pointing out that most of the world has observed
the
> >obvious facts about vinyl, "anti-vinyl". I suppose you'd call anybody who
> >observes that the car has taken over most transportation duties from the
> >horse as being "anti-horse".
> Irrelevant.
No, its relevant.
> You posted a headline, nothing more.
Actually it was body text, but why let the facts get in your way, eh
Richman?
>The rest of your statement
> above is simply a form of anti-vinyl spamming on RAO.
Actually it was a troll.
> >>anti-preference
> >If it weren't for the fact that vinyl bigots can't seem avoiding
senseless
> >bashing of the near-universal preference for CDs, there wouldn't be a
> >problem.
> The problems are created only by your complete inability to refrain from
> personal attacks on all people on RAO who happen to prefer vinyl playback.
No, it relates to just those who make unjustified attacks on the superior
sound quality that is possible with digital.
> It's as simple as that.
Not hardly.
> >> followed by your "technical specifications" strawman.
> >It's hardly a straw man. Let's review the odd intellectual state of John
> >Atkinson and Stereophile these days. Stereophile publishes detailed
> >technical tests of a wide variety of audio components, except for those
> >related to vinyl playback. It's not that vinyl playback equipment is
> >sonically perfect, either.
> I have yet to see anybody claim that it is.
I have seen many people claim that vinyl is superior to a media that is
sonically perfect.
> You're missing the point, Krueger. Stereophile and other magazines like
it are
> basically subjective opinion publications. The technical measurements
that
> they publish make up an extremely small part of their content.
Really? The technical performance measurements are a major portion of most
of their reviews.
> Also, you fail to mention that in the February issue of Stereophile, which
it
> appears you didn't read, 3 of the 4 turntable reviews were quite brief and
part
> of Michael Fremer's monthly column on analog gear.
Fremer wrote them? Well that would explain their lack of content. I guess
the problem here is that you misrepresented them, Richman.
>As with all the other
> monthly columns in Stereophile, technical measurements are not included.
Why should columns containing fluff pieces about vinyl playback equipment be
superior to formal reviews that are essentially nothing but fluff pieces
about vinyl playback equipment?
> >If a tone arm has incorrect geometry mass, a turntable runs at the wrong
> >speed or cogs, or a cartridge mistracks or has weird bumps or premature
> >roll-offs, Stereophile closes one eye and blinds the other. Stereophile
has
> >a "Three Monkey's" policy when it comes to vinyl: See no evil, hear no
evil,
> >say no evil.
> Is the above ad hominem attack you have just made on Stereophile's analog
> revfiews and example of the scientific objectivity you profess to
represent,
> Krueger?
Sorry Richman, but the former couldn't be ad hominem since no person's
character was mentioned and there was no appeal to people's feelings.
> You can't provide any credible evidence that turntables, tonearms or
cartridges
> are poorly installed by Stereophile's reviewers, can you?
I made no such claim Richman, so I need not provide any evidence to support
it. This is just another one of your straw men, Richman. You know if you
exercised a little creativity you could avoid being so predictable.
> If anything, one
> can assume that experienced vinyl playback fans such as the Sterreophile
> reviewers make sure that their review samples are properly set up before
they
> begin their evaluations.
<Richman rants on about his most recently-fabricated straw men.>
> Now if you choose to counter this obvious fact by claiming that they can't
know
> since they take no measurements, than you must also claim that they all
have
> deficient hearing as well.
Given our recent experience with "Moi" it appears that critical listening
skills aren't always among the strengths of vinyl bigots.
> That is highly unlikely. You simply can't accept
> the fact that many technical mesurement comparisons on paper just don't
> correlate well with actual listening comparisons in which such minute
> differences may not be heard at all in some cases.
Another one of your straw men, Richman. In the recent case "Moi" failed to
hear a difference that was of such a size that it is an audible difference,
and furthermore I showed it was audible to me in a DBT.
> >>Unfortunately for you, many people have made vinyl
> >> vs. CD comparison direct listening comparisons and could care less
about your
> >> ranting and raving about mainly inaudible technical measurements.
> >Of course, and the overwhelming majority of the people who made these
direct
> >comparisons dumped vinyl over 15 years ago.
> (1) I seriously doubt that you can find any empirical studies or surveys
to
> support this claim. If you can, feel free to cite them.
There is plenty of empirical data that approximately 99.7% of everybody has
dumped vinyl.
> (2) The phenomenon you are attacking here on a daily basis deals with the
> listening habits of people who make those listening comparisons today
comparing
> modern analog gear against modern CD players. References to what may or
may
> not have happened 15 years ago are irrelevant.
The fact of the matter is that many vinyl listeners such as "Moi" are using
equipment that is at least 15 years old. Furthermore, when challenged
Richman, you have failed to point out one significant technical refinement
to the playback of vinyl that was made in the past 15 years. I believe the
last such *refinement* that you mentioned was in fact a feature of a
turntable I personally owned over 30 years ago!
> >> >Oops, against your religion!
> >> You're the one that engages in preference bashing whenever anybody
> >mentions the
> >> word vinyl in a positive sense.
> >I only take exception to people who bash the near-universal preference
for
> >the relatively pristine inherent sound quality of the CD.
> That is not true. Your attempts to promote your agenda by encouraging
people
> to read an anti-vinyl tract in that distinguished audio newspaper, the
Wall
> Street Journal, have absolutely nothing to do with an attack on CDs.
Richman you've got your facts wrong. The article in question was hardly an
"anti-vinyl tract". It was an article about a completely different topic. It
mentioned the demise of vinyl as an incidental fact.
>Really,
> Krueger, you do yourself no favors nor do you advance your favorite cause
when
> you insult the intelligence of all the readers here.
Richman, your paranoia and delusions do yourself no favors at all.
> >>So the religiosity is all on your shoulders, not mine.
> >Wrong Bruce. You are playing creationist in this discussion because the
> >majority of the facts, opinions and dollars are on my side. If you vinyl
> >bigots could quit lying about the CD, this battle would be over.
> Nothing but a false claim, Arny, designed to rationalize your
neverending
> attacks on both the personal characteristics and listening preferences of
those
> who happen to disagree with you.
Yet another one of Richman's delusional assertions made without any
supporting evidence.
> Your use of the term "battle", tells us all we need to know about your
true
> motivations in this and other threads dealing with vinyl playback.
Just observing the obvious, Richman.
> >> If I were in my office, I might call it something else however.
> >
> >I seriously doubt that you have an office, Bruce.
> I'm not surprised, Arny. You also doubt my credentials and have libeled
me in
> the past. You also make claims about people being sockpuppets. You have
yet
> to provide any credible evidence for any ot these claims. So your
"doubts" are
> not taken seriously by any intelligent reader on RAO.
Richman, why not prove conclusively that you exist?
> >> >> Many of those who read Audio magazines and actually listen to music,
> >> >> prefer to use their own ears to make purchase decisions.
> >> >If they use their own ears, why are they reading fluff-piece
non-reviews?
> >> A false claim, as expected.
> >It's not a claim Bruce it's a question. What has eluded you about the
> >question mark at the end of the sentence?
> It's not a question in which an answer is expected, Arny.
Sure it is. It was just a question that you lacked the intelligence to
answer, Richman.
> As is the case with
> your new admirer, Singh, you habitually ask questions rhetorically in
which no
> answer is either requested or expected.
Well lets put it this way, Richman. It is well known that you are a no-show
who fails to support just about all of the baseless assertions that you
make. Therefore, any relevant question that is asked of you is in essence, a
rhetorical question. If the same question were put to someone who was
responsive and rational, it would be a reasonable question, but when
addressed to Richman, it becomes a rhetorical question.
> As most educated people know, Krueger,
> rhetorical questions are proffered with the sole purpose of making a
claim.
Right, but Richman if you would just answer a few of these questions... They
are not difficult questions for people with normal intellect.
> They are not designed to elicit information.
Sure they are. The problem Richman is that you have no information to
respond with.
> Did you really think you could so
> transparently trick the readers, Krueger? If so, you need to wske up and
smell
> the coffee!
How does one "wske up"?
> LOL !
> >> Nobody has the time to audition a large number of
> >> the products out there, so they look at audio magazines, discussion
forums on
> >> the Internet like Audio Asylum and Audio Annex, or some of the e-zines
like
> >> enjoythemusic.com to get some leads on products that others think are
worth
> >> listening to.
> >
> >Then you've contradicted yourself Richman, You said that people prefer to
> >use their own ears, and now you say that they don't do that.
>
> An outrageous lie. I've never said that, and you know it. People get
leads on
> what to audition from first reading subjective reviews and then doing
their own
> comparisons, Krueger. Your lies are becoiming more blatant by the day.
>
> Can you tell us
> >just ONE believable story, Richman?
> >
> How about the fact that you have demonstrated in this thread, and in your
long
> and disgustiung posting career on RAO wju you are the most widely and
> universally despised and hated poster that has ever created a stench on
RAO.
What is "wju"?
> How about the fact that your hoirrible reputation has been earned because
of
> your severe and chronic inability to tell the truth about people and or
their
> statements?
What is a "hoirrible"?
> I could go on, but rather than do that, I'll simply refer readers
> to the classic thread entitled "A Bad Krueger Experience" which can be
easily
> accessed via Google search under "Groups"..
Didn't even happen this century!
LOL!
> >> The PC magazines and JAES tracts just don't have much to offer to
people who
> >> have the ability to form their own judgments after doing their own
comparative
> >> listening tests.
> >Richman, you just said that people can't always do their own comparative
> >listening tests, and must rely on comparative listening tests done by
> >others.
> I obviously said no such thing.
The text is still back there.
> Yet another false claim from Krueger, who
> doesn't apparently know how to read what others have actually said,
especially
> if he has targeted them for personal attacks.
Yawn.
> Now you say that people have to do their own comparative listening
> >tests to form their own judgments. Can you reach some kind of conclusion
> >and just present IT?
> Your attempts to misrepresent what I have said are duly noted. You're not
> fooling anybody, Krueger. It's really quite laughable that you fail to
grasp
> this basic truism.
What is true Richman, that you are incapable of making a reasoned response
to sensible questions?
> >If technical tests and specs are so useless, why does Stereophile waste
so
> >much time and print with them?
> A statement already refuted above. The %age of print space devoted to
> technical measurements in Stereophile is very small.
That's because of all the ads.
>Also, I never said they
> were useless. Cite quotes that can be independently retrieved on Google
by
> reades to suggest otherwise.
Just trying to follow your arguments, Richman.
> It appears that Atkinson has the same mental
> >problems that you do Richman, they can't figure out a single story and
tell
> >it. Like you, they keep waffling between test (just about everything
else)
> >and no test (vinyl playback equipment).
> LOL! So now Atkinson is a "they".? Does Atkinson have multiple
> personalities that only you can see and analyze?
Sure, all of his sockpuppets.
>I can't wait to hear about
> "them"! Please feel free to enlighten us further, Krueger, on this little
know
> fact that you've recently discovered.
It's not a recent discovery.
> >> You need to work harder on your anti-vinyl, anti-preference sermon,
> >Krueger,
> >Richman, like your conclusions about personal listening tests, I have no
> >anti-vinyl, anti-preference sermon. Vinyl is what it is, and everybody
who
> >isn't a vinyl religionist knows it and admits it freely. People who are
> >vinyl religionists exercise their religious freedom by bashing digital
audio
> >and living in a permanent state of denial about vinyl's well-known
audible
> >and measurable difficulties.
> Just more anti-vinyl, anti=preference bashing by RAO's leading CD bigot.
If there was something that sounded better than the CD media, I'd be in
favor of it.
> >> you're not attracting much of a congregation at your daily services!
And even
> >> fewer converts!
> >When one has 99.7% of the music-loving public *converted* to CD finding
new
> >converts is fairly tough. But that's not what I'm about here, I'm just
about
> >overcoming the lies, deceptions and bad science that issues forth from
the
> >church of vinyl.
> Of course not, you have your very own set of lies, deceptions,
> misrepresentations of what other people say, and character assassination
> tactics that you use on a daily basis in your neve ending effort to win
the
> "battle" that you believe is going on, but in reality exists only in your
> twisted view of the world.
If I am doing all that Richman, why can't you rebut my statement without
making up so many lies of your own?
Arny Krueger
"Moi" <zis...@NOxSPAMMxhotmail.com> wrote in message
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:22:55 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Moi" <zis...@NOxSPAMMxhotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:ojli4vchrgumchf11...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:26:26 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >That's not what you were doing, Richman. You were suggesting that
there
> >was
> >> >some audible flaw with downsampled digital due to how it worked
> >technically.
> >>
> >> In fact, there can be in some cases. For example, downsampling 96KHz
> >> to 44.1KHz can produce audible flaws (much less likely if it was 88.2
> >> KHz being downsampled to 44.1KHz).
> >
> >Weird science. Keep making it up as you go along. This is fun!
>
>
> The Interpolation accuracy parameter determines the complexity of the
> method used during the resampling process. In general, a setting of 1
> is more than adequate for general purpose audio. Settings of 2 and 3
> are good for high-end audio. Setting this parameter to 4 forces some
> heavy duty number crunching (i.e. slow processing) but produces very
> near perfect results, good for audiophiles and audio researchers.
Irrelevant.
> When downsampling by an even multiple (such as when going from 44 kHz
> to 22 kHz), processing is always fast and perfectly accurate.
Prove that downsampling must be inaccurate otherwise.
> Apply an Anti-alias Filter During Resample
> Apply an anti-aliasing low-pass filter to the sound file before
> resampling when changing to a lower sampling rate. Since the maximum
> frequency that can be represented by a particular sample rate is
> one-half of the sampling rate (the Nyquist frequency), high
> frequencies in a sound file cannot be represented if the sound file is
> resampled to a lower sampling rate. Therefore, when changing to a
> lower sampling rate, if the sound file has a strong high-frequency
> content, anti-aliasing should be used to prevent these high
> frequencies from becoming low-frequency distortion.
> © 1999 Sonic Foundry, Inc.
Motherhood and apple pie.
> >> Discouraging people from listening to vinyl (due to technical specs)
> >> is cutting them off from a huge back-catalog not available on CD.
> >Here's a wild concept: Listen to music, not specs.
> >Try it sometime!
> I do, I just prefer it on vinyl.
It's been shown Moi that you can't hear large sonic imperfections that CD
listeners can hear in DBTs.
> >>IMHO the last good audio rag (Listener) is gone.
> >It no doubt collapsed under its own hype.
> Or lack of advertising due to reviewers refusing kickbacks & "perks"
> for giving a good review to a certain piece of (shit) equipment.
Got proof?
> ---
> My computer's and Arny's favorite music is a 300Hz test tone.
Wrong. I've been grooving on Ry Cooder's "Bop 'till You Drop" lately.
Sockpuppet Yustabe
"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.comm> wrote in message
He is a celibate moron.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Bruce J. Richman
>Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>
>> Many people who prefer vinyl think that it sounds "warmer" or "not as
>bright as
>> digtital",
>
>Bass bloated and muffled. Sagging midrange.
>
Not to those who have done comparative listening tests using the same
selections and prefer the sounds of vinyl
>> or that it conveys a sense of more "air" around the singers or
>> instruments,
>
>Gross phase distortion; poor channel separation.
>
Not to those who have done comparative listening tests using the same
selections and prefer the sounds of vinyl
These comparisons are based on listening, not reading measurements from
laboratory instruments.
>> Not by accident, the same adjectives are often used to described tubed
>> electronics, and it not at all uncommon to find that people who like vinyl
>also
>> like tubes.
>
>For similar reasons: they are addled.
>
Not to those who have done comparative listening tests, using the same CD or LP
for level matched amplifiers or other electronics and find that the prefer the
sound of the tubed piece better.
>> >I'm not a vinyl lover myself, but I find it very significant that, in the
>> >search of pleasure, vinyl lovers have found a more engaging, more
>satisfying
>> >outlet than the CD, the playing of which has become a very casual thing.
>
>> Agreed. Vinyl playback is definitely a more hands-on experience.
>
>Further proof of what I said when I indicated that vinyl
>lovers are basically looking for exotic toys to play with,
>with musical values being secondary.
>
An assertion not based on any empirical research and therefore nothing more
than an opinion stated as fact.
>Enjoy those LP records and players, but never forget for a
>moment just how "retro" you are.
>
The sentence above to which Mr. Ferstler is responding was not written by Dr.
Richman.
>I won't.
>
>Howard Ferstler
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Sockpuppet Yustabe
>
> > My computer's and Arny's favorite music is a 300Hz test tone.
>
> Wrong. I've been grooving on Ry Cooder's "Bop 'till You Drop"
lately.
>
>
That is your favorite? Ry hated it the sound of it.
A couple of the songs are gems. (Trouble,
You Don't Fool Me and Down In Hollywood)
Arny Krueger
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" <yusta...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3e49a...@corp-goliath.newsgroups.com...
>
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:EOh2a.440$FW5.25...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > > My computer's and Arny's favorite music is a 300Hz test tone.
> >
> > Wrong. I've been grooving on Ry Cooder's "Bop 'till You Drop"
> lately.
> That is your favorite?
No.
What is unclear about "I've been grooving on..."? Note the reference to
recent times.
>Ry hated it the sound of it.
Golden ear anecdote AFAIK unsubstantiated outside vinyl bigot audiophile
circles.
> A couple of the songs are gems. (Trouble, You Don't Fool Me and Down In
Hollywood)
More than just that.
Marc Phillips
>On RAHE, there's been a thread recently (still ongoing) about where to buy
>vinyl through the Internet. A number of people have contributed to this
>thread, including Mr. Phillips.
Are you sure? Am I accidentally crossposting?
Boon
Bruce J. Richman
Predictable false claim and personal attack made when unable to counter
factual statement.
>> Perhaps on those extremely rare occasioins when you lapse into civilized
>and/or
>> rational dialogue, you'd be kind enough to warn us. That would be
>appreciated
>> (after the intial shock wears off).
>
>Next time the "occasionins" arises, I'll let you know.
>
>> >> You simply posted a headline as
>> >> part of your anti-vinyl,
>
>> >Richman, since when is pointing out that most of the world has observed
>the
>> >obvious facts about vinyl, "anti-vinyl". I suppose you'd call anybody who
>> >observes that the car has taken over most transportation duties from the
>> >horse as being "anti-horse".
>
>> Irrelevant.
>
>No, its relevant.
>
Only to you. Not to anybody else reading this post.
It matters not what type of text it was, the content of your posts is totally
agenda-driven, and characterized by a high percentage of both personal attacks
and lies, so I'm just giving you comments the respect they have earned.
>> You posted a headline, nothing more.
>
>Actually it was body text, but why let the facts get in your way, eh
>Richman?
>
>>The rest of your statement
>> above is simply a form of anti-vinyl spamming on RAO.
>
>Actually it was a troll.
>
And a form of anti-vinyl spamming on RAO. Your trolling tendencies are well
known and contribute to your lack of credibility in the eyes of most RAO
readers, past and present.
>> >>anti-preference
>
>> >If it weren't for the fact that vinyl bigots can't seem avoiding
>senseless
>> >bashing of the near-universal preference for CDs, there wouldn't be a
>> >problem.
>
>> The problems are created only by your complete inability to refrain from
>> personal attacks on all people on RAO who happen to prefer vinyl playback.
>
>No, it relates to just those who make unjustified attacks on the superior
>sound quality that is possible with digital.
>
Rationalixation and predictable customary attempt to shift blame to those whom
you've smeared.
>> It's as simple as that.
>
>Not hardly.
>
See comments above.
>> >> followed by your "technical specifications" strawman.
>
>> >It's hardly a straw man. Let's review the odd intellectual state of John
>> >Atkinson and Stereophile these days. Stereophile publishes detailed
>> >technical tests of a wide variety of audio components, except for those
>> >related to vinyl playback. It's not that vinyl playback equipment is
>> >sonically perfect, either.
>
>> I have yet to see anybody claim that it is.
>
>I have seen many people claim that vinyl is superior to a media that is
>sonically perfect.
>
Define sonically perfect and explain why you are now trying tio win an argument
by substituting the word "sonically" for the word "technically". Also,
"superior" is not the same as "pefect":. It's obviious, Krueger, that since
you can't logically rebut the statment I made above re. claims of "technical
superiority" that you're trying to pretend they don't exist.
You're pretending that they deal with "sonic perfection", a phrase introduced
bvy you and you alone, not by any of your many enemies and adversaries.
Nice try. LOL!
>> You're missing the point, Krueger. Stereophile and other magazines like
>it are
>> basically subjective opinion publications. The technical measurements
>that
>> they publish make up an extremely small part of their content.
>
>Really? The technical performance measurements are a major portion of most
>of their reviews.
>
Wrong. They consititue a sidebar at the bottom of the pages that contain the
actual review text, and they are smaller.
>> Also, you fail to mention that in the February issue of Stereophile, which
>it
>> appears you didn't read, 3 of the 4 turntable reviews were quite brief and
>part
>> of Michael Fremer's monthly column on analog gear.
>
>Fremer wrote them? Well that would explain their lack of content. I guess
>the problem here is that you misrepresented them, Richman.
The problem here, Kreuger, is that you are lying again. Fremer reviews
turntables and other pieces of equipment within his column, Krueger. Shorter
reviews are still reviews, so you are simply lying again, Krueger.
>
>
>>As with all the other
>> monthly columns in Stereophile, technical measurements are not included.
>
>Why should columns containing fluff pieces about vinyl playback equipment be
>superior to formal reviews that are essentially nothing but fluff pieces
>about vinyl playback equipment?
>
An example of one of Krueger's rhetorical questions that unfortunately is not
based on anything I or anybody else has ever said. The term "fluff-piece"
represents only his opinion and has not been defined operationally. Krueger,
you just can't help yourself from misrepresenting the statements of others, can
you?
>> >If a tone arm has incorrect geometry mass, a turntable runs at the wrong
>> >speed or cogs, or a cartridge mistracks or has weird bumps or premature
>> >roll-offs, Stereophile closes one eye and blinds the other. Stereophile
>has
>> >a "Three Monkey's" policy when it comes to vinyl: See no evil, hear no
>evil,
>> >say no evil.
>
>> Is the above ad hominem attack you have just made on Stereophile's analog
>> revfiews and example of the scientific objectivity you profess to
>represent,
>> Krueger?
>
>Sorry Richman, but the former couldn't be ad hominem since no person's
>character was mentioned and there was no appeal to people's feelings.
>
Sorry, Krueger, but you are engaging in concrete hair-splitting. And
everything you write, whethe it be your trolls, your anti-vinyl smears, your
defamatory statements, etc. - they *all* are designed to appeal to people's
feelings in a negative way. That's partof your "battle" plan, Krueger. You
generalize about whole groups of people, using terms like "anti-vinyl bigots"
and "claques of Luddites". So no, you don't always attack people by name, you
just smear them in groups, as you have made clear in smearing all those who
write analog reviews for Stereophile by innuendo.
>
>> You can't provide any credible evidence that turntables, tonearms or
>cartridges
>> are poorly installed by Stereophile's reviewers, can you?
>
>I made no such claim Richman, so I need not provide any evidence to support
>it. This is just another one of your straw men, Richman. You know if you
>exercised a little creativity you could avoid being so predictable.
>
A false statement. You wrote a whole paragraph mentioned factors such as poor
tonearm geometry, turntable irregularities, etc. ad nauseum. The intent was
quite clear. You need to come up with some no rationalizationis, Krueger. The
current ones are quite transparent.
>> If anything, one
>> can assume that experienced vinyl playback fans such as the Sterreophile
>> reviewers make sure that their review samples are properly set up before
>they
>> begin their evaluations.
>
><Richman rants on about his most recently-fabricated straw men.>
>
Krueger chooses to exhibit his delkusional thinking once again, after being
caught smearing the analog reviewers in Stereophile.
>> Now if you choose to counter this obvious fact by claiming that they can't
>know
>> since they take no measurements, than you must also claim that they all
>have
>> deficient hearing as well.
>
>Given our recent experience with "Moi" it appears that critical listening
>skills aren't always among the strengths of vinyl bigots.
>
Is this another esample of your keen objective, scienific and analytical powers
of observation? Krueger, you're pathetic.
You can no longer even lie well!
The issue is the hearing abilities of the people writing the analog reviews for
Stereophile, not the hearing ability of a new "friend" of yours named "Moi".
LOL!!!
>> That is highly unlikely. You simply can't accept
>> the fact that many technical mesurement comparisons on paper just don't
>> correlate well with actual listening comparisons in which such minute
>> differences may not be heard at all in some cases.
>
>Another one of your straw men, Richman. In the recent case "Moi" failed to
>hear a difference that was of such a size that it is an audible difference,
>and furthermore I showed it was audible to me in a DBT.
>
Your attempts to brainwash newbies and/or people who have never tested vinyl
playback using their own ears are a matter of record. That is the "battle" to
which you constantly refer. Technical specifications apparently mean very
little to the average listener who wants to decide through comparative
listening tests whether they do or do not prefer vinyl *or* want to add it to
their current eqiipment and software. The knowledge that many do the
comparisons with their ears is what scares you and motivates you to smear those
who don't agree with you. That's the bottom line. Cute phrases like "staw
man" and "irrelevant":earn you no pouts in the court of public opinion,
Krueger.
>> >>Unfortunately for you, many people have made vinyl
>> >> vs. CD comparison direct listening comparisons and could care less
>about your
>> >> ranting and raving about mainly inaudible technical measurements.
>
>> >Of course, and the overwhelming majority of the people who made these
>direct
>> >comparisons dumped vinyl over 15 years ago.
>
>> (1) I seriously doubt that you can find any empirical studies or surveys
>to
>> support this claim. If you can, feel free to cite them.
>
>There is plenty of empirical data that approximately 99.7% of everybody has
>dumped vinyl.
>
Tautology anyone? I've never heard a more meaningless statement. I'd really
enjoy hearing your defintion, quantitatively, of the amount you describe as
"99.7R% of everybody". With nonsensical statements like this, who can take you
seriously, krueger?
>> (2) The phenomenon you are attacking here on a daily basis deals with the
>> listening habits of people who make those listening comparisons today
>comparing
>> modern analog gear against modern CD players. References to what may or
>may
>> not have happened 15 years ago are irrelevant.
>
>The fact of the matter is that many vinyl listeners such as "Moi" are using
>equipment that is at least 15 years old.
I gather you have facts to support this assertion. If not, you're again
misrepresenting the current ownership habvts of those who play vinyl.
Furthermore, when challenged
>Richman, you have failed to point out one significant technical refinement
>to the playback of vinyl that was made in the past 15 years.
A false claim. Your rantings and ravings about the technical superiority of CD
playback have been bashed by others perhaps, but not by me. But since you have
even demonstrated an ability to attack posts lifted from other threads, and
ones that I did not even write, I'm not surprised by your current confusion.
I believe the
>last such *refinement* that you mentioned was in fact a feature of a
>turntable I personally owned over 30 years ago!
>
If you are alluding to speed control, I did not claim it was a refinement. So
again, you are lying. I basically was talking aoubt some outboard speed
controllers/AC voltage regulators made by VPI for use with their turntables and
others. I'm probably older than you are Krueger (although not by much) and am
well aware of what features were availablde on early turntables.
>> >> >Oops, against your religion!
>
>> >> You're the one that engages in preference bashing whenever anybody
>> >mentions the
>> >> word vinyl in a positive sense.
>
>> >I only take exception to people who bash the near-universal preference
>for
>> >the relatively pristine inherent sound quality of the CD.
>
>> That is not true. Your attempts to promote your agenda by encouraging
>people
>> to read an anti-vinyl tract in that distinguished audio newspaper, the
>Wall
>> Street Journal, have absolutely nothing to do with an attack on CDs.
>
>Richman you've got your facts wrong. The article in question was hardly an
>"anti-vinyl tract". It was an article about a completely different topic. It
>mentioned the demise of vinyl as an incidental fact.
>
Then why did you choose to use the term "LP Dead for 15 years" to title a
thread?
Apparently, you thought that this opinion as written by one of the audio
experts for the Wall Street Journal was so important that you immediately used
it to start a new anti-vinyl attack thread.
>>Really,
>> Krueger, you do yourself no favors nor do you advance your favorite cause
>when
>> you insult the intelligence of all the readers here.
>
>Richman, your paranoia and delusions do yourself no favors at all.
>
Consideing the source of this "evaluation" is a proven pathological liar, I
shall not give it a second thought.
>> >>So the religiosity is all on your shoulders, not mine.
>
>> >Wrong Bruce. You are playing creationist in this discussion because the
>> >majority of the facts, opinions and dollars are on my side. If you vinyl
>> >bigots could quit lying about the CD, this battle would be over.
>
>> Nothing but a false claim, Arny, designed to rationalize your
>neverending
>> attacks on both the personal characteristics and listening preferences of
>those
>> who happen to disagree with you.
>
>Yet another one of Richman's delusional assertions made without any
>supporting evidence.
>
Another one of Kruegre's lies. His posting history on RAO is a matter of
public record, since all posts are archvied and accesible through Google search
engines.
Readers who want to get a good insight into Krueger's long history of lies,
deceptions, ad hominem attacks, misrepresentations, selective edititing and/or
snipping of posts and other dirty tricks are encouraged to go to Google and
search for the thread entitled "A Bad Krueger Experience". Both it's length
and the number of people involved says it all - the targets and enemies he as
attacked are many and varied.
>> Your use of the term "battle", tells us all we need to know about your
>true
>> motivations in this and other threads dealing with vinyl playback.
>
>Just observing the obvious, Richman.
>
The only thing that is obvious, Krueger, is that for you this is a battle, for
those 98 % of rso of the people on RAO that don';t agree with you (and I'm
being generous), this is not a battle, it is simply your latest anti-vinyl,
anti-preference crusade, 2003 edition. It's all old news Krueger to those who
have been here any length of time and seen your "debating trade" tricks.
>> >> If I were in my office, I might call it something else however.
>> >
>> >I seriously doubt that you have an office, Bruce.
>
>> I'm not surprised, Arny. You also doubt my credentials and have libeled
>me in
>> the past. You also make claims about people being sockpuppets. You have
>yet
>> to provide any credible evidence for any ot these claims. So your
>"doubts" are
>> not taken seriously by any intelligent reader on RAO.
>
>Richman, why not prove conclusively that you exist?
>
ROFLMAO!!!! For whom, you? You're a complete imbecile. That's been done many
times in the past. If you think I don't, that you've been suffering from both
delusions and visual hallucinations for years. You're a fool.
>
>> >> >> Many of those who read Audio magazines and actually listen to music,
>> >> >> prefer to use their own ears to make purchase decisions.
>
>> >> >If they use their own ears, why are they reading fluff-piece
>non-reviews?
>
>> >> A false claim, as expected.
>
>> >It's not a claim Bruce it's a question. What has eluded you about the
>> >question mark at the end of the sentence?
>
>> It's not a question in which an answer is expected, Arny.
>
>Sure it is. It was just a question that you lacked the intelligence to
>answer, Richman.
>
Another false claim, Krueger. The fact that you are too stupid to understand
that people are quick to detect your rhetorical questions as thinly disguised
attacks is just more evidence of your stupidity.
Only a totally clueless sociopath such as you Krueger can peddle lies about
people's iodentities, their words, their credentials, and expect anybody to
believe the trash you spew on RAO and elsewhere.
>> As is the case with
>> your new admirer, Singh, you habitually ask questions rhetorically in
>which no
>> answer is either requested or expected.
>
>Well lets put it this way, Richman. It is well known that you are a no-show
>who fails to support just about all of the baseless assertions that you
>make. Therefore, any relevant question that is asked of you is in essence, a
>rhetorical question. If the same question were put to someone who was
>responsive and rational, it would be a reasonable question, but when
>addressed to Richman, it becomes a rhetorical question.
>
Yet another example of Krueger's patented circular reasoning in which he both
asserts and proves his own bullshit.
Keep it up, Krueger. It's really quite revealing to see you make a fool of
yourself here. I think, in fact, that you've reallly outdone yourself in this
"battle" to save humanity from the "evils" of vinyl playback.
>
>> As most educated people know, Krueger,
>> rhetorical questions are proffered with the sole purpose of making a
>claim.
>
>Right, but Richman if you would just answer a few of these questions... They
>are not difficult questions for people with normal intellect.
>
But, as I''ve alfready explained to you, apparently using words beyond your
very limited veral skill threshold, you don't ask questions, you simply make
false claims and then attach a question mark at the end. The only other person
who normally does this, and his mental health is as quesionable as yours, is
your protege, Gerg Singh. He;s so deluded, he thinks he's a prosecuting
attorney on RAO puttin g people on trial. You better hope he doesn't become
one of your disgruntled "students", like Doug Haugen, because if he does, you
may be up next on his RAO hit list and get asked a lot of personal questios.
>> They are not designed to elicit information.
>
>Sure they are. The problem Richman is that you have no information to
>respond with.
>
Yet another false claim from RAO's resident pathological liar.
1999, to be erxact, and mentioned by many ever since.
The joke is solely on you. You can' escape your past since Google has archived
it.
LOL !
>> >> The PC magazines and JAES tracts just don't have much to offer to
>people who
>> >> have the ability to form their own judgments after doing their own
>comparative
>> >> listening tests.
>
>> >Richman, you just said that people can't always do their own comparative
>> >listening tests, and must rely on comparative listening tests done by
>> >others.
>
>> I obviously said no such thing.
>
>The text is still back there.
>
Then quote it "word for word" and also give the relevant Google citation from
which you have made the quote. Not too long ago, you inserted part of a post I
made in Ocotberk, 2002 in rec.audio.car (not even RAO) into a post here, and
then proceeded to pretend I had said it here.
In the same post, you attacked words that I never wrote, using my name,
"Richman".
So your history of deceptive posting is also a matter oif puboic record. And
nothig you claim that anybody has said should be taken seriously unless it is
accompanied by a URL for a specific Google post that can be independently
verified. You haven't yet figured out a way to forge Google's archives but I'm
sure you're working on it.
LOL !
>> Yet another false claim from Krueger, who
>> doesn't apparently know how to read what others have actually said,
>especially
>> if he has targeted them for personal attacks.
>
>Yawn.
>
I understand, liar. You have heard this appraisal so often from so many
different people that it has become difficult for you to accept.
I feel your pain!
LOL !
>> Now you say that people have to do their own comparative listening
>> >tests to form their own judgments. Can you reach some kind of conclusion
>> >and just present IT?
>
>> Your attempts to misrepresent what I have said are duly noted. You're not
>> fooling anybody, Krueger. It's really quite laughable that you fail to
>grasp
>> this basic truism.
>
>What is true Richman, that you are incapable of making a reasoned response
>to sensible questions?
>
False claim disguised as rhetorical quesiton, as aexpected , ad nauseum.
>
>> >If technical tests and specs are so useless, why does Stereophile waste
>so
>> >much time and print with them?
>
>> A statement already refuted above. The %age of print space devoted to
>> technical measurements in Stereophile is very small.
>
>That's because of all the ads.
>
>>Also, I never said they
>> were useless. Cite quotes that can be independently retrieved on Google
>by
>> reades to suggest otherwise.
>
>Just trying to follow your arguments, Richman.
>
A lie, Krueger. If you can cite the quotes with Google referenes, Krueger, do
it. Otherwise, you're just lying again.
>> It appears that Atkinson has the same mental
>> >problems that you do Richman, they can't figure out a single story and
>tell
>> >it. Like you, they keep waffling between test (just about everything
>else)
>> >and no test (vinyl playback equipment).
>
>> LOL! So now Atkinson is a "they".? Does Atkinson have multiple
>> personalities that only you can see and analyze?
>
>Sure, all of his sockpuppets.
>
Could you name a few of them, please? Sometimes he's hard to reach so I'm sue
the readers hee would like to know the "other" ways to get in touch with him
that are, up until now............ "your secret!"
LOL !
Krueger, much as you provide a ready object of derisiions, I really get to see
and hear enough people with evidence of severe thought disorder when I'm
working with patients. I would prefer not to see it when I'm on RAO Please
try and control your clearly delusional statements.
More false claims from RAO's resident pathooogical liar.
Krueger, your "battle" (with a little help form Howard Ferstler) has backfired,
ornically. The longer you wage "war", the more exposure vinyl equipment and
playback get here on RAO. The publicity is great. We appreciate it. A lot of
curiosity has been piqued and people who don't usually post here are asking
questions about cartridges, turntables, etc. Hell, it's even spilled over to
RAHE, where a current thread is dealing with places on the Internet to buy
vinyl.
Keep up the good work!!!!!!
LOL !!!
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Bruce J. Richman
No, I'm not sure. I apologize if I was mistaken. Anyhow, interest in vinyl
topics appears to be picking up on RAHE as well as here.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Robert Morein
"Powell" <nos...@noquacking.com> wrote in message
news:v4ianjt...@corp.supernews.com...
>
[snip the bullshit]
> Hypocrite, remove the timber from your own
> eye first.
>
In your case, it's quite apparent you should have worn safety goggles in
shop class.
Indeed, trepanning might be called for.
dave weil
In English please.
Marc Phillips
And as well for the rest of the world, too. I've posted to RAHE a couple of
times, but not in the last two years.
Boon
Powell
"George M. Middius" wrote
> To review, you lyingly claimed you have never used
> "narcissism" or "narcissistic" as a synonym for
> atheism or a belief therein.
>
Is this the crux of your argument, George? Last time
I checked your barometer you were agnostic NOT
agnostic... so what's the rub? Traditionally you've
been reticent in verbalizing your thoughts and feeling
on the subject. Have things changed or are you just
complaining because you're unhappy? I'm not a
miracle worker or psychoanalyst :).
> With a mind as frazzled as yours, no wonder you
> think Krooger can be reasoned with.
>
I'm sorry George but I have my own life to live. Your
dehumanizing approach to Arny is ineffectual at best.
It's hard to cast mud and not have any of it stick to
you, old friend.
Powell
"Robert Morein" wrote
> > Hypocrite, remove the timber from your own
> > eye first.
> >
> In your case, it's quite apparent you should have
> worn safety goggles in shop class.
>
Hehehe... shop class, mr Dropout? For three years
you’ve been insisting I'm Brian. Do let me know
when you begin taking personal responsibility for
your inappropriate behavior and actions, Robert.
George M. Middius
Powell said:
> > To review, you lyingly claimed you have never used
> > "narcissism" or "narcissistic" as a synonym for
> > atheism or a belief therein.
> Is this the crux of your argument, George?
[snip irrelevant "debating trade"-style attempt to change the subject]
It's not just the "crux", it's my entire point.
Why won't you admit you lied when you denied having equated narcissism
with a belief in "God"?
> > With a mind as frazzled as yours, no wonder you
> > think Krooger can be reasoned with.
> I'm sorry George but I have my own life to live. Your
> dehumanizing approach to Arny is ineffectual at best.
I can only guess at why you would think that. Mostly likely, you're
projecting your own goals onto me and assuming they're mine.
> It's hard to cast mud and not have any of it stick to
> you, old friend.
So you refuse to admit you lied. How nice.
George M. Middius
Powell said:
> > To review, you lyingly claimed you have never used
> > "narcissism" or "narcissistic" as a synonym for
> > atheism or a belief therein.
> Is this the crux of your argument, George?
[snip irrelevant "debating trade"-style attempt to change the subject]
It's not just the "crux", it's my entire point.
Why won't you admit you lied when you denied having equated narcissism
with a disbelief in "God"?
> > With a mind as frazzled as yours, no wonder you
> > think Krooger can be reasoned with.
> I'm sorry George but I have my own life to live. Your
> dehumanizing approach to Arny is ineffectual at best.
I can only guess at why you would think that. Mostly likely, you're
projecting your own goals onto me and assuming they're mine.
> It's hard to cast mud and not have any of it stick to
> you, old friend.
So you refuse to admit you lied. How nice.
Powell
> Why won't you admit you lied when you denied
> having equated narcissism with a belief in "God"?
>
Powell wrote: "Happy Holidays, George.
BTW, how does the fully mature
Narcissist/Atheist celebrate the Holiday
Season?
"equated narcissism with a belief in "God"?"...
ok, make your thin case... or get on with it.
> > > With a mind as frazzled as yours, no wonder you
> > > think Krooger can be reasoned with.
>
> > I'm sorry George but I have my own life to live. Your
> > dehumanizing approach to Arny is ineffectual at best.
>
> I can only guess at why you would think that. Mostly
> likely, you're projecting your own goals onto me and
> assuming they're mine.
>
So... I am here, share with me the reasons for the
constant level of hate for Arny. It's a mystery to me.
Your direct and indirect post to him and/or about him
number in the 100's if not 1,000's. The two of you DO
have a historically long running relationship. Some
marriage haven't lasted this long... unhealthy as it
is, George :).
> > It's hard to cast mud and not have any of it stick to
> > you, old friend.
>
> So you refuse to admit you lied. How nice.
>
Yea, well, don't use this for an excuse to run
away, mr. judge and jury.
George M. Middius
Powell said:
> > Why won't you admit you lied when you denied
> > having equated narcissism with a belief in "God"?
> >
> Lets examine your claim. Your evidence:
> Powell wrote: "Happy Holidays, George.
> BTW, how does the fully mature
> Narcissist/Atheist celebrate the Holiday
> Season?
>
> "equated narcissism with a belief in "God"?"...
Should have been "disbelief in 'God'".
Now try wriggling out of your lie.
> > I can only guess at why you would think that. Mostly
> > likely, you're projecting your own goals onto me and
> > assuming they're mine.
> So... I am here, share with me the reasons for the
> constant level of hate for Arny.
Because I loathe and despise him, and I'm expressing the way I feel.
I would've thought that much was obvious.
> It's a mystery to me.
So is the trick of expressing your thoughts comprehensibly.
> Your direct and indirect post to him and/or about him
> number in the 100's if not 1,000's. The two of you DO
> have a historically long running relationship. Some
> marriage haven't lasted this long... unhealthy as it
> is, George :).
Indulge your fantasies as much as you want. Just admit you lied about
the "God" shit.
> > So you refuse to admit you lied. How nice.
> Yea, well, don't use this for an excuse to run
> away, mr. judge and jury.
As usual, it's impossible to tell what you're straining to get at.
Robert Morein
Perhaps the cork on your fork fell off.
A simple accident at dinner.
Robert Morein
"Moi" <zis...@NOxSPAMMxhotmail.com> wrote in message
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:50:50 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps you don't realize how arbitrary human beliefs are.
[snip]
>
> Off-topic, but IMHO nicely stated.
>
> ---
> My computer's and Arny's favorite music is a 300Hz test tone.
Thank you!
Powell
"George M. Middius" wrote
> > > Why won't you admit you lied when you denied
> > > having equated narcissism with a belief in "God"?
> > >
> > Lets examine your claim. Your evidence:
> > Powell wrote: "Happy Holidays, George.
> > BTW, how does the fully mature
> > Narcissist/Atheist celebrate the Holiday
> > Season?
> >
> > "equated narcissism with a belief in "God"?"...
>
> Should have been "disbelief in 'God'".
>
Really, are you positive now :)?
> Now try wriggling out of your lie.
>
The untruth is what... you're sore that I wished
you a happy holiday or that you were called a
narcissist or that I called you an atheist when
your're now a egnostic? Or is it that you're not
a narcissist or that you are but hold out the
possibility of God (egnostic). You sure are
particular in the level of purposful intent you
think I had in sending you a holiday greeting,
George.
> > > I can only guess at why you would think that. Mostly
> > > likely, you're projecting your own goals onto me and
> > > assuming they're mine.
>
> > So... I am here, share with me the reasons for the
> > constant level of hate for Arny.
>
> Because I loathe and despise him, and I'm
> expressing the way I feel.
>
> I would've thought that much was obvious.
>
So why do you let him get-to-you to the extent of
elevating your negative emotions. Wouldn't
indifference toward Arny be a healthier mind set?
I have no expectations of detouring your present
actions because just like Arny you're not ready to
break-out of your trench warfare. I'm just inquiring
to see if you have any introspection that you can
verbalize about your own behavior, for my
benefit/understanding.
> > > So you refuse to admit you lied. How nice.
>
> > Yea, well, don't use this for an excuse to run
> > away, mr. judge and jury.
>
> As usual, it's impossible to tell what you're straining
> to get at.
>
Looks like a work in progress.
Sandman
the two of you, any more than I followed the old hostility between Scott and
Marc Phillips until it really got out of hand last year, as I knew each of
them personally, and was being confronted personally by each of them about
the other's behavior on RAO. I encouraged a truce and helped arrange a
personal meeting with them at Scott's house last Spring, and I haven't seen
any nasty exchanges between them on RAO ever since.
But for the record, Bruce, although I am not defending Scott's attacks on
you, any more than I am defending your attacks on him, I can vouch for the
fact that Scott W. is not an anonymous "sockpuppet". "W." is the first
letter of his last name, and he is indeed a very *real* person, whom I've
spent much time with in person since moving to San Diego.
Unfortunately, again, such bickering as I see going on between you both is,
in my view, a direct result of the impersonality and depersonalization
spawned by our internet culture, which encourages the worst in people to
come out.
And on that level, I will most willingly plead a "mea culpa" to allowing the
internet culture to warp my own behavior, especially here on RAO. The
really nasty, mean-spirited, and yes, even juvenile stuff I often post here
is not the kind of stuff that would ever escape my lips in real-life
personal interactions.
Sandman
"ScottW" <scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e49647b....@news.qualcomm.com...
> On 10 Feb 2003 23:18:40 GMT, bjri...@aol.com (Bruce J. Richman)
> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> Are you a mental health professional? I didn't realize.
> >>
> >
> >There are many things of which you are completely oblivious. That's
true. So
> >tell us, why did you publish the Code of Ethics for Psychologists? Were
you
> >trying to promote my profession? I'm deeply honored.
>
> Simply making people aware that real psychologists have a code
> of conduct. Tell us, do you think your conduct is impecable?
> (snip)
>
> >> And this has what to with my identity?
> >Many people with such severe cognitive deficits (e.g. reading
comprehension,
> >inability to reason, pathological lying) as the ones you display, try and
> >conceal their identities. Or would you prefer more simplistic
explanations
> >that even somebody as clueless as you can understsand? Here's a few just
for
> >you. =
> >(1) Cowardice, and (2) Fear of physical
> >retaliation.
>
> Are you threatening me?
>
> I wonder how that fits in your code of conduct.
> >
> (snip)
> >> Your technical ignorance is glaring again here Bruce. Perhaps
> >>you should stick with your professional mental gig rather than
> >>ignorantly speculating why CDs might not sound a good as they
> >>can.
> >>>
> >
> >As usual, you've added nothing of value to the conversation, Scott. Have
you
> >ever heard of sampling rates? How about samples of ssmples?
>
> Never heard that one Dok. Do they us ssmples in psycho
> doktoring?.
> Why don't you go ahead and explain technically exactly why
> reducing sample rates to redbook CD is so horrible.
> (This should be a hoot ).
>
> ScottW