Why...
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Comprehension Disorder)?
A few things are obvious:
1. That most people seldom actually try to understand what another
poster is trying to say. They go off on little tangents and hissy fits,
frequently having little or nothing to do with what the message they
are responding to actually said. Or they find a niggling point that
they can expand into the theme of the discussion and that obfuscates
the original point. Or they change the meaning of a posters statements
to suit their agenda. Or...
2. That to many here, how the musical data are processed is more
important than what makes audio (and listening to music) more enjoyable
to an individual.
3. That to others, what makes listening to music enjoyable to them
supercedes how the musical data are processed.
4. That some define 'musicality' as 'accuracy,' which is what makes
them want to listen to music, and those people want things to be as
accurate to the original recording as possible.
5. That some others define 'musicality' as what they like, which is
what makes them want to listen to music, and those people do not seem
to care about ultimate accuracy to the recording.
6. That the group is called 'audio' and not 'fidelity.' Therefore, both
positions are valid as far as the individual that holds them.
7. That some people apparently have a problem differentiating
'preference' vs. 'scientific claim.'
8. It appears that since amplifiers, preamps, tuners, CD or DVD
players, other electronic components, wire and interconnects are
'solved' issues to some, discussing them for that group should not be
necessary.
9. It appears that since turntables, LPs, tonearms, cartridges and tape
are worthless legacy equipment for some people, discussing them for
that group should be irrelevant.
10. The only area that I see the two groups agreeing is that
differences can exist in speakers.
11. nob is an idiot. slick and scott are idiots too.
Arny Krueger
wrote in message
news:1140604878....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>
> 10. The only area that I see the two groups agreeing is
> that differences can exist in speakers.
I would have added rooms, but we've got some people who think that room
acoustics have no significance to sound quality.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 4:44 am
Email: "Arny Krueger" <a...@hotpop.com>
>> 10. The only area that I see the two groups agreeing is
>> that differences can exist in speakers.
>I would have added rooms, but we've got some people who think that room
>acoustics have no significance to sound quality.
Fair point. In my mind, that directly relates to (interaction with)
speakers, so I didn't differentiate between the two.
Fella
>
> 11. nob is an idiot.
>
You can say that again.
Give on to ceaser what belongs to him.. etc. Once, just *once* he made
me laugh. It was when he called you Shhhhhhhhit. :) Confess it now, come
clean, wasn't that funny? :)
Clyde Slick
and you are an anonymous bullshit artist.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
>me laugh. It was when he called you Shhhhhhhhit. :) Confess it now, come
>clean, wasn't that funny? :)
I didn't think it was funny, actually.
If he'd have said, for example, "Shhhhhhhhhhhazam, son, where did you
dream up *that* idea?" or "Don't you wiShhhhhhh!" or "Oh, Shhhhhhhhhure
you do." or "Looky here, sunShhhhhhhhine, you should Shhhhhhhare your
wisdom with me so that I don't look so stupid." it might have been
funny.
Shhhhhhhhit was just so predictable. The only funny thing about it was
how long it took poor nob, in his mentally addled state, to come up
with it. The poor incontinent bastard...
Fella
>
> If he'd have said, for example, "Shhhhhhhhhhhazam, son, where did you
> dream up *that* idea?" or "Don't you wiShhhhhhh!" or "Oh, Shhhhhhhhhure
> you do." or "Looky here, sunShhhhhhhhine, you should Shhhhhhhare your
> wisdom with me so that I don't look so stupid." it might have been
> funny.
We're talking about mickeymickmickey here, you should be a bit more
reasonable with your expectations and be content with what you get given
the circumstances. The man is ultra concenrate stupid and he is
completely ignorant of that fact. Shhhhit is all you're ever going to
get out of him.
>
> Shhhhhhhhit was just so predictable.
I beg to disagree. Not true for duh!mikey. It was this mao style "great
leap forward" for him to display such relatively dazzling creativity.
Normaly he is barely able to write in English and copy-paste what crazy
google links he finds from delirious googling all day. It took me
completely by surprise that he was able to reach out so far as to play
with sounds and words that I burst into laughter. I was so sincerely
happy for the otherwise worthless, wretched little soul. You are
constantly asking him questions and ridiculing him as if it is somehow
necessary. Although I find it curious, I have to confess that you might
be doing him some good in the end.
dave weil
dave weil
<arty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Once again, who in this group have said that room acoustics have no
significance to sound quality?
I must have missed that...
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 6:43 am
Email: "Clyde Slick" <artsack...@comcast.net>
>and you are an anonymous bullshit artist.
I have an idea: Why don't you go take the military quiz I posted for
scott?
The one of you that gets the most right will receive a grade of
'idiot.' The one of you that gets the least right will receive a grade
of 'bigger idiot.'
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
Hmmm, I certainly haven't seen anyone here who believes that. Perhaps
I'm wrong. Or perhaps you're making it up.
Arny Krueger
news:jennconducts-342C...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
Spelling it out for Jenn:
You've said that LPs give you what you perceive to be the best reproduction
of violins, right?
Given how squirrelly and defensive you are Jenn, I'll wait for confirmation
of this before going on.
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jennconducts-342C...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
> > In article <z7udndB4QdQ...@comcast.com>,
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <arty...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote in message
> >> news:1140604878....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> >>>
> >>> 10. The only area that I see the two groups agreeing is
> >>> that differences can exist in speakers.
> >>
> >> I would have added rooms, but we've got some people who
> >> think that room acoustics have no significance to sound
> >> quality.
> >
> > Hmmm, I certainly haven't seen anyone here who believes
> > that. Perhaps I'm wrong. Or perhaps you're making it up.
>
>
> Spelling it out for Jenn:
>
> You've said that LPs give you what you perceive to be the best reproduction
> of violins, right?
Not quite. I've said that the best LPs give what I perceive to be the
best reproduction of violins.
>
> Given how squirrelly and defensive you are Jenn, I'll wait for confirmation
> of this before going on.
LOL I'll let others decide who between us is more "squirrelly and
defensive."
George Middius
dave weil said to The Big Shit:
>>but we've got some people who think that room
>>acoustics have no significance to sound quality.
>Who would THAT be?
Arnii already told us who he means when he used the Hivie "we". I'm sure you
recognize his catch-all nominative for the voices in his head. ;-)
.
.
tubeguy
You have mistaken people's ability to get online as intelligence. People are
pretty much dumb. Learn to live with it, you will be happier in the end.
nyo...@peoplepc.com
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <arty...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140604878....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Comprehension Disorder)?
>
> A few things are obvious:
>
> 1. That most people seldom actually try to understand what another
> poster is trying to say. They go off on little tangents and hissy fits,
> frequently having little or nothing to do with what the message they
> are responding to actually said. Or they find a niggling point that
> they can expand into the theme of the discussion and that obfuscates
> the original point. Or they change the meaning of a posters statements
> to suit their agenda. Or...
>
> 2. That to many here, how the musical data are processed is more
> important than what makes audio (and listening to music) more enjoyable
> to an individual.
>
> 3. That to others, what makes listening to music enjoyable to them
> supercedes how the musical data are processed.
>
how it was recorded, it's jsut that, generally speaking digital recordings
are better.
> 4. That some define 'musicality' as 'accuracy,' which is what makes
> them want to listen to music, and those people want things to be as
> accurate to the original recording as possible.
>
Accuracy is whatmakes me want to spend money on audio equipment.
> 5. That some others define 'musicality' as what they like, which is
> what makes them want to listen to music, and those people do not seem
> to care about ultimate accuracy to the recording.
>
> 6. That the group is called 'audio' and not 'fidelity.' Therefore, both
> positions are valid as far as the individual that holds them.
>
> 7. That some people apparently have a problem differentiating
> 'preference' vs. 'scientific claim.'
>
> 8. It appears that since amplifiers, preamps, tuners, CD or DVD
> players, other electronic components, wire and interconnects are
> 'solved' issues to some, discussing them for that group should not be
> necessary.
>
They are only worthy of discussing when bogus claims are made about them.
> 9. It appears that since turntables, LPs, tonearms, cartridges and tape
> are worthless legacy equipment for some people, discussing them for
> that group should be irrelevant.
>
They are worthy of discussing for people who like them and when bogus claims
are made about them.
> 10. The only area that I see the two groups agreeing is that
> differences can exist in speakers.
>
Because that is a certainty.
> 11. nob is an idiot. slick and scott are idiots too.
>
And you are an anonymous asshole, what's yer point?
Arny Krueger
> In article <64GdnbWoQN3...@comcast.com>,
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jennconducts-342C...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
>>> In article <z7udndB4QdQ...@comcast.com>,
>>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>> <arty...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1140604878....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>>>>>
>>>>> 10. The only area that I see the two groups agreeing
>>>>> is that differences can exist in speakers.
>>>>
>>>> I would have added rooms, but we've got some people who
>>>> think that room acoustics have no significance to sound
>>>> quality.
>>>
>>> Hmmm, I certainly haven't seen anyone here who believes
>>> that. Perhaps I'm wrong. Or perhaps you're making it
>>> up.
>>
>>
>> Spelling it out for Jenn:
>>
>> You've said that LPs give you what you perceive to be
>> the best reproduction of violins, right?
>
> Not quite. I've said that the best LPs give what I
> perceive to be the best reproduction of violins.
Well then Jen i+s that percpetion completely imaginary on your part Jen, or
is it somehow related to the technical properties of the LP medium?
ScottW
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 6:43 am
> Email: "Clyde Slick" <artsack...@comcast.net>
>
> >and you are an anonymous bullshit artist.
>
> I have an idea: Why don't you go take the military quiz I posted for
> scott?
How about I whip up an electronics quiz? When you fail... should
that invalidate your opinion of audio gear?
I don't have to know what each unit calls its grunt dishwashers to
discuss high level military/political strategies.
>
> The one of you that gets the most right will receive a grade of
> 'idiot.' The one of you that gets the least right will receive a grade
> of 'bigger idiot.'
Only idiot is the ex-grunt who thinks its relevant to the discussion.
ScottW
Jenn
Since my perception hasn't changed since 1982 and other people whose
ears I trust (for good reason) share those perceptions, I'd have to go
with the later.
Clyde Slick
why don't you tell us who you are, rather than coming up
with bullshit stories.
dizzy
>A few things are obvious:
Well, let's face it: I'm the smartest guy here. 8)
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 2:49 pm
Email: "ScottW" <Scott...@hotmail.com>
>> I have an idea: Why don't you go take the military quiz I posted for
>> scott?
>How about I whip up an electronics quiz? When you fail... should
>that invalidate your opinion of audio gear?
If you were a repair tech and I was telling you how to repair an
amplifier, that might even be a good analogy. A better one might be
that I am trying to tell Sony how to set up a service network with no
clue about business, Sony's capabilities *or* electronics.
>I don't have to know what each unit calls its grunt dishwashers to
>discuss high level military/political strategies.
No, but you need to have a basic grasp of small (and larger) unit
tactics, capabilities, equipment, how the planning process works and is
then transformed into an order, communicated and executed, among other
things.
That you clearly do not have even the lowest-level, simplest grasp of
any of these does not mean that you can't have an opinion. It just
means that opinion is not worth anything.
Why do you suppose generals are first second lieutenants? They don't
just take 'experts' like you and throw them into high-level military or
political strategic for very good reason.
>Only idiot is the ex-grunt who thinks its relevant to the discussion.
See above. That you *don't* see how it is relevant is absolute proof
that I am correct.
Arny Krueger
Well the well-known technical properties of the LP medium is that it adds
random audible amounts of noise and distortion to the music. When I say
random, I mean that technically speaking the amount and character of the
noise and distoriton varies with the recoording, the playback equipment, the
room, and the music itself. There's simply no chance that *every* LP
recording, *every playback system*, *every room* and every piece of music
would consistently be altered in the direction of increased naturalness as
compared to CD playback.
Therefore Jenn, your perceptions and the perceptions of the miniscule
minority of others who have these perceptions are not perceiving situations
related to the technical properties of the LP medium.
ScottW
> From: ScottW
> Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 2:49 pm
> Email: "ScottW" <Scott...@hotmail.com>
>
>>> I have an idea: Why don't you go take the military quiz I posted for
>>> scott?
>
>>How about I whip up an electronics quiz? When you fail... should
>>that invalidate your opinion of audio gear?
>
> If you were a repair tech and I was telling you how to repair an
> amplifier, that might even be a good analogy. A better one might be
> that I am trying to tell Sony how to set up a service network with no
> clue about business, Sony's capabilities *or* electronics.
Possble truth. Sony's venture in cell phones failed
in NA strictly due to their service.
>
>>I don't have to know what each unit calls its grunt dishwashers to
>>discuss high level military/political strategies.
>
> No, but you need to have a basic grasp of small (and larger) unit
> tactics, capabilities, equipment, how the planning process works and is
> then transformed into an order, communicated and executed, among other
> things.
>
> That you clearly do not have even the lowest-level, simplest grasp of
> any of these does not mean that you can't have an opinion. It just
> means that opinion is not worth anything.
An opinion you get to have. I'll stand by my opinion of
the political viability of sending troops back to Iraq if the
situation goes to hell.
>
> Why do you suppose generals are first second lieutenants? They don't
> just take 'experts' like you and throw them into high-level military or
> political strategic for very good reason.
Yet Clinton was a great CinC to most libs.
>
>>Only idiot is the ex-grunt who thinks its relevant to the discussion.
>
> See above. That you *don't* see how it is relevant is absolute proof
> that I am correct.
We're talking strategy and you're arguing tactics...
which as I recall you whined about when asked for details...like
troop strengths, insertion, and extraction. Now you're claiming
you can't even have a discussion without tactical details.
Spin spin spin....
So you really gave up a military
career just because Bush pissed you off?
How'd you feel about Reagan in Lebanon or Clinton in Somalia?
ScottW
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 10:38 pm
Email: "ScottW" <Scott...@hotmail.com>
>We're talking strategy and you're arguing tactics...
The two go hand in hand. Because you don't 'get it' is not my problem.
Ask a general to implement a strategy that is tactically impossible to
support. (I was kidding. Based on what I've seen you say, you might
actually try to do it.);-)
It is the military staff's job to analyze different COAs and to find
shortcomings, risks, and whether or not it is supportable by all of the
working parts. It is the leadership's job to choose the right COA to
implement, or to blend two or more COAs to get the desired results.
As an example: let's say bushie told General Casey he wanted the entire
military, all personnel and equipment, out of Iraq and into Kuwait
within 10 days. bushie has a new strategy he wants to employ on the
11th day. Having the military out of Iraq is critical before
implementing it.
General Casey goes to his staff and tells them to develop a plan (and
to consider at least three COAs). They do so. All of the staff
sections, with the exception of the poor logistician, say that they can
support the plan with at least one of the COAs. The loggy says that he
cannot get all the equipment moved out in that amount of time in any of
them. He (or she) estimates that they can only get 15% moved, meaning
that 85% would be left behind. That poor loggy gets to stand up at the
briefing and say, "Sir, for the following reasons I cannot support this
plan."
So you have a strategy that is tactically not possible to implement.
The discussion may indeed go on to, "What if we leave 85% of it behind,
and if we do, what is the most critical to get out?" And then bushie
gets to make a decision on whether the strategy's timeline, or the
equipment, is more important.
You want to debate a (possible) strategy without any understanding of
what is or is not tactically possible. You want to debate a (possible)
COA without a full analysis of it. That's just plain (dare I say it?)
stupid.
>which as I recall you whined about when asked for details...like
>troop strengths, insertion, and extraction. Now you're claiming
>you can't even have a discussion without tactical details.
>Spin spin spin....
You want to dismiss a (possible) strategy because you clearly do not
understand the process of analyzing it. If tactically a strategy is
impossible to implement, it should be discarded. If its risks are too
high and they cannot be mitigated, it should be discarded. You need to
understand tactically what is possible. You do not. That is not spin.
That is what I've said over and over.
You want to try to take a very small piece of the analysis process,
worst-case scenario it, and discard the entire (possible) strategy
without considering the whole of it. That is a low-level rookie
mistake. That is not valid. That is stupid. That is not spin. That is
what I've said over and over.
You want a complete operations order, including bases of operation,
equipment and troop strength without having first analyzed the concept.
You cannot do that, as you have not even begun to understand what you
would need to support a (possible) strategy tactically prior to a full
analysis. That is not spin. That is what I've said over and over.
You do not have even the basic knowledge, experience nor the expertise
to discuss this, regarding either the process of analysis, military
capabilities, tactics or strategy. You are simply pulling things out of
your ass. That is not spin. That is what I've said over and over.
You are a fearful little man and an idiot. That is not spin. That is
what I've said over and over.
>So you really gave up a military
>career just because Bush pissed you off?
And I said that where?
By the way, 'retiring' is different than 'giving up,' just as 'having
served for 21 years' is different from 'never having served.';-)
>How'd you feel about Reagan in Lebanon or Clinton in Somalia?
Politically the thing that you have consistently overlooked is the
desire of the various factions in Iraq to make it work. If it's there,
it will work. If it's not, there's nothing that we can do, or anybody
else can do, to make it work. That is a far more fundamental and
critical point than whether we would have the political will to employ
an OTH force.
Somalia and Lebanon both prove this to be true.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 1:44 pm
Email: <nyob...@peoplepc.com>
>> 9. It appears that since turntables, LPs, tonearms, cartridges and tape
>> are worthless legacy equipment for some people, discussing them for
>> that group should be irrelevant.
>They are worthy of discussing for people who like them and when bogus claims
>are made about them.
You recently made this post:
*************************************************************************************
> What does "how much about digital to analog is explained to (me)" have
> to do with it? I should change my opinion about what my ears tell me
> based on some kind of "information" that is offered?
You should make an effort to do some more meaningful comparisons, since
you
obviously are not hearing properly.
*************************************************************************************
Please point out the 'bogus claims' that Jenn has made which have
caused you to question her hearing. While I have seen posts that she
likes LPs (which is a preference and is therefore OK according to you)
I haven't seen any 'bogus claims' regarding them.
If you cannot do that, then you are (as is quite obvious anyway)
nothing but a liar.
ScottW
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> From: ScottW
> Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 10:38 pm
> Email: "ScottW" <Scott...@hotmail.com>
>
> >We're talking strategy and you're arguing tactics...
>
> The two go hand in hand. Because you don't 'get it' is not my problem.
> Ask a general to implement a strategy that is tactically impossible to
> support. (I was kidding. Based on what I've seen you say, you might
> actually try to do it.);-)
I get it... we start out with strategies and then determine if they
are tactically feasible.... except you as military expert can't do your
part... so I... as CinC have to make some assumptions.
>
>
> You want to debate a (possible) strategy without any understanding of
> what is or is not tactically possible. You want to debate a (possible)
> COA without a full analysis of it. That's just plain (dare I say it?)
> stupid.
So Murtha's and the dem teams are idiots for bringing their strategy
into public debate without full analysis.... but I thought you
said we should consider their idea for analysis... how will
the body politic consider it without debate?
>
> >which as I recall you whined about when asked for details...like
> >troop strengths, insertion, and extraction. Now you're claiming
> >you can't even have a discussion without tactical details.
> >Spin spin spin....
>
> You want to dismiss a (possible) strategy because you clearly do not
> understand the process of analyzing it. If tactically a strategy is
> impossible to implement, it should be discarded. If its risks are too
> high and they cannot be mitigated, it should be discarded. You need to
> understand tactically what is possible. You do not. That is not spin.
> That is what I've said over and over.
Except the public debate has begun without the analysis you demand.
Nothing you can do about that.
>
> You want to try to take a very small piece of the analysis process,
> worst-case scenario it, and discard the entire (possible) strategy
> without considering the whole of it. That is a low-level rookie
> mistake. That is not valid. That is stupid. That is not spin. That is
> what I've said over and over.
Happens in politics all the time... look at the port debate.
90% of the people weighing in on that one don't have a clue
about port operations. Still they give their opinions and if the
voices are loud enough the keepers of the facts are forced to refute
them.
>
> >How'd you feel about Reagan in Lebanon or Clinton in Somalia?
>
> Politically the thing that you have consistently overlooked is the
> desire of the various factions in Iraq to make it work. If it's there,
> it will work. If it's not, there's nothing that we can do, or anybody
> else can do, to make it work. That is a far more fundamental and
> critical point than whether we would have the political will to employ
> an OTH force.
>
> Somalia and Lebanon both prove this to be true.
I think it was you that said Somalia is not Iraq. Clearly we made no
attempt to impose any order on Somalia on the scale of what we're
doing in Iraq. Same for Lebanon.
ScottW
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Date: Thurs, Feb 23 2006 2:38 pm
Email: "ScottW" <Scott...@hotmail.com>
>I get it...
No, you don't.
Here's a good read. It's a thumbnail of what I've been trying to tell
you (and it gives many of the answers to your quiz).:-)
http://www.almc.army.mil/LEDD/8a-f17/Adobe/V6-I-03%20--%20Staff%20Planning.pdf
It's a bit dated (no G-7, for example) but the process is the same.
Note what just the G1 and G4 have to do in the examples. That's not a
complete list, either. Perhaps then you will see why I am not
suggesting that you or I can 'solve' the issue of whether or not the
proposal is feasible.
>we start out with strategies
We start out with proposals or an idea or mission or intent or guidance
from a higher headquarters...
>and then determine if they are tactically feasible....
Yes, and then they may or may not become strategies. Part of this
process is to identify 'warstoppers' (insurmountable problems, like the
G4 not being able to get all the equipment moved within 10 days).
>except you as military expert can't do your part...
If I was part of the CENTCOM or DOD staff, with complete situational
awareness (which neither of us has), I could do my part (which would
likely be a small part of the overall COA, like personnel or logistics
or air operations) in determining the military feasibility. Since I am
not, and neither are you, and since we don't have a staff large enough
between us to carry out everything that needs to happen to determine if
it would work, what troops, bases, equipment, and so forth that we'd
need, and so on, that's correct: I cannot determine its feasibility
debating it on r.a.o. Neither of us has situational awareness of the
political arena in Iraq, which is another component, or of the strength
of the friction between the three factions. The G2 would, I'd imagine,
have to have a pretty complete product by region or even by city and
town.
Read the link I gave you. This is not a simple process. It can take
several days (if there's time) or a few hours (if there isn't).
While I do not believe that you or I can 'solve' it, I do have a pretty
complete understanding of how that process works. I've been through it
many, many times. I will guarantee to you that the staffs at every
level in Iraq, from CENTCOM to battalion, go through this process very
frequently. While I never served at the Pentagon, I'd have to believe
that they go through it there too. It's doctrine.
If bushie turned to General Casey and said, "Here is my intent: I want
to reduce by 15% the amount of troops on the ground by June 1" CENTCOM
would go through this exact process. The staff would brief General
Casey. He can accept, reject, or modify the proposal, question the
assumptions, request more information, give additional guidance, blend
parts of several COAs to create yet another COA, etc. etc. before
authorizing the complete plan. In this case, it would be a national
decision, not the CENTCOM commander's.
>so I... as CinC have to make some assumptions.
Leaders always do when instituting a strategy. Leaders always do when
making a tactical plan. For example, that we would be 'welcomed with
open arms' into Iraq was an assumption on the CinC's part, in
developing his strategy for Iraq and its invasion. In the example that
I gave about leaving Iraq in 10 days, the assistant G3 (air) might make
assumptions about available air transport. The G4 might makes
assumption about fuel, or whether some repair parts arrive in time.
Assumptions are a part of life when planning like this. It happens all
the time. G1s, for example, typically have to prepare for casualty
evacuation and mortuary affairs prior to combat operations based
entirely on assumptions.
>So Murtha's and the dem teams are idiots for bringing their strategy
>into public debate without full analysis....
They brought a proposal into public debate, and called it such. You,
OTOH, refer to it as a 'plan' and a 'strategy.'
It's a valid proposal. Now it should be studied by the staffs to see if
it will work.
>but I thought you said we should consider their idea for analysis...
>how will the body politic consider it without debate?
By requesting that CENTCOM or DOD do a feasibility study of it. If it
is not feasible, then it should not go forward. The body politic would
presumably debate it based on that.
I never said 'we' should consider it. I said that it should be
considered, using MDMP or whatever DOD uses.
>Except the public debate has begun without the analysis you demand.
>Nothing you can do about that.
Nor would I want to do anything about that. Why should I? Informed
debate is healthy. It may force them to run a staff analysis on it.
Maybe they have already.
>Happens in politics all the time... look at the port debate.
>90% of the people weighing in on that one don't have a clue
>about port operations. Still they give their opinions and if the
>voices are loud enough the keepers of the facts are forced to refute
>them.
Which is all the DNC did with their proposal.
>> Politically the thing that you have consistently overlooked is the
>> desire of the various factions in Iraq to make it work. If it's there,
>> it will work. If it's not, there's nothing that we can do, or anybody
>> else can do, to make it work. That is a far more fundamental and
>> critical point than whether we would have the political will to employ
>> an OTH force.
>> Somalia and Lebanon both prove this to be true.
>I think it was you that said Somalia is not Iraq.
Militarily, which is what the context of the discussion was, they have
little in common. Politically they are similar in that there are
factions with differing agendas.
>Clearly we made no attempt to impose any order on Somalia on the scale of what we're
>doing in Iraq. Same for Lebanon.
The point of the comment that I made above is that we cannot impose
anything politically that will last by military means on Iraq, just as
we could not on Lebanon or Somalia, that they themselves do not want.
If the three groups in Iraq want an independent Iraq, then they will
work together to make it happen. If they don't, then there's nothing
that we can do about it. They'll fight when we leave anyway, whether
that's now or in 10 or 60 years.
nyo...@peoplepc.com
"dizzy" <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:6pupv11rhskikr0hd...@4ax.com...
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>
>>A few things are obvious:
>
> Well, let's face it: I'm the smartest guy here. 8)
>
nyo...@peoplepc.com
> From: <nyob...@peoplepc.com>
> Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 1:44 pm
> Email: <nyob...@peoplepc.com>
>
>>> 9. It appears that since turntables, LPs, tonearms, cartridges and tape
>>> are worthless legacy equipment for some people, discussing them for
>>> that group should be irrelevant.
>
>>They are worthy of discussing for people who like them and when bogus
>>claims
>>are made about them.
>
> You recently made this post:
> *************************************************************************************
>> What does "how much about digital to analog is explained to (me)" have
>> to do with it? I should change my opinion about what my ears tell me
>> based on some kind of "information" that is offered?
>
> You should make an effort to do some more meaningful comparisons, since
> you
> obviously are not hearing properly.
> *************************************************************************************
>
> Please point out the 'bogus claims' that Jenn has made which have
> caused you to question her hearing.
That violins sound more real on LP. This is ridiculous given the limits of
LP.
Having more distortion, less frequeny response, less dynamic range, more
noise, on the vinyl, not to mention the differences between phono
cartridges, make this impossible. I have recognized her prefernce as
something she, like all audiophiles in entitled to, but to claim on the one
hand to be at the level of involvement she is with music, that an LP plas
back anything that sounds more real than from CD is flatly impossible.
While I have seen posts that she
> likes LPs (which is a preference and is therefore OK according to you)
> I haven't seen any 'bogus claims' regarding them.
>
I don't think she's trying to make a technical claim per se, I think she's
got a bias from somewhere that is clouding her judgement and preception.
Claiming that something sounds more real on LP is just not believable or
possible, and should be easily detected by ears that hear the instruments as
often as her occupation would indicate.
Harry Lavo
<nyo...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:85zLf.2940$S25....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
The beginning of real wisdom is to recognize the difference between "should"
and "does", not only in audio but in the world at large.
Arny Krueger
news:spudnR9iT__cn2Le...@comcast.com
> <nyo...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:85zLf.2940$S25....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> I don't think she's trying to make a technical claim per
>> se, I think she's got a bias from somewhere that is
>> clouding her judgement and preception.
She's saying: I'm a symphony conductor, my ears are better than yours.
>>Claiming that
>> something sounds more real on LP is just not believable
>> or possible,
Agreed. The LP format is incapable of the bandwidth and resolution required
for lifelike reproduction of a symphony orchestra. Lifelike reproduction
demands sonically transparency which the LP format is easy to show to be
incapable of.
>> and should be easily detected by ears that
>> hear the instruments as often as her occupation would
>> indicate.
Well, ears plus brain. The brain is the most powerful organ in the body. It
is capable of perceiving illusions and making other perception judgements
that are completely fallacious.
> The beginning of real wisdom is to recognize the
> difference between "should" and "does", not only in audio
> but in the world at large.
Harry would be a good example of this. He obviously believes that the LP
should sound better, despite its well-known obvious sonic failings. Since he
can't hear whats wrong with the LP format and whats right with the CD
format, its easy to understand why he quit recording.
Jenn
<nyo...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
Says a person who has been fooled into thinking that a real instrument
was in the room when it wasn't.
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:spudnR9iT__cn2Le...@comcast.com
>
> > <nyo...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> > news:85zLf.2940$S25....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> >> I don't think she's trying to make a technical claim per
> >> se, I think she's got a bias from somewhere that is
> >> clouding her judgement and preception.
>
> She's saying: I'm a symphony conductor, my ears are better than yours.
<snip>
1. No, that's not what I'm saying.
2. However, that may well be true. I'm trained to listen and to hear
accurately. You are trained to, for example, measure electrical
signals, and I'm quite sure that you do that better than I do. What's
the difference?
Arny Krueger
In a similar vein...
Please Jenn help me straighten out Harry, who can't hear the difference
between a sine wave from a LP and a sine wave from a precison signal
generator.
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
He didn't say that. You're making things up again.
Arny Krueger
> In article <FbednRwhT60vmWLe...@comcast.com>,
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:spudnR9iT__cn2Le...@comcast.com
>>
>>> <nyo...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:85zLf.2940$S25....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>> I don't think she's trying to make a technical claim
>>>> per se, I think she's got a bias from somewhere that is
>>>> clouding her judgement and preception.
>>
>> She's saying: I'm a symphony conductor, my ears are
>> better than yours. <snip>
>
> 1. No, that's not what I'm saying.
Other than between the lines.
> 2. However, that may well be true.
Thak you.
Wow, you salivate so well when I ring your bell, Jenn.
> I'm trained to listen and to hear accurately.
With a qualification Jenn - you're trained listen and to hear accurately in
the context of the innermost technicalities of music, not audio.
> You are trained to, for
> example, measure electrical signals, and I'm quite sure
> that you do that better than I do. What's the difference?
More to the point:
I'm mostly trained to listen and to hear accurately and reliably in the
context of the reproduction of sound, not in terms the innermost
technicalities of music. I only know a smattering of technicalities of
music.
My music director identifies frequencies he hears in terms of the first 7
letters of the alphabet and words like sharp and flat. I identify
frequencies I hear in terms of Hz. I know about first 7 letters of the
alphabet and words like sharp and flat but that's not what I think of first.
There are some points of intersection. My music director and get along and
communicate well. I translate from his description of frequencies into mine.
Adobe Audition reads out frequencies both ways.
Arny Krueger
I'm sure that both of you wish he hadn't said that, Jenn.
However, IME anybody with normal hearing can successfully ABX them all day
long.
Jenn
George M. Middius
Jenn said to duh-Mikey:
> > Claiming[sic] that something sounds more real on LP is just not believable or
> > possible, and should be easily detected by ears that hear the instruments as
> > often as her occupation would indicate.
> Says a person who has been fooled into thinking that a real instrument
> was in the room when it wasn't.
That's not the dumbest thing Mikey has said on RAO. Not by a long shot. He
has called Arnii Krooger a "leader", believe it or not. And if you really
want to get lost in the vortex of Mikeyness, check out some of his babbling
on the subject of politics and governance.
In that context, the intensity of his confusion about what's real and
what's recorded pales severely.
Harry Lavo
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ANednbkN8br...@comcast.com...
I'm sure both of us KNOW I didn't say that, you a*sh*l*. More importantly,
YOU know I didn't say that and yet you lie to suit your purposes. Wonderful
way to build an upstanding reputation fully comensurate with your christian
principles.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:03 am
Email: <nyob...@peoplepc.com>
>I don't think she's trying to make a technical claim
Thank you for being honest.
The rationale that I've seen here is, "We will not trash preference,
but if somebody is trying to make a technical claim, then it is fair
game to attack that claim" (or words to that effect).
To any objective observer, Jenn has not made any technical claims, yet
the 'attack dogs' have formed and are hard at work. An attack on her
preference is under way. Her preference shows that "she's got a bias
from somewhere that is clouding her judgement and preception." Even if
that's the case, why should you care?
Mr. Krueger even thinks that Jenn is trying to promote LPs over the
dead body of CDs (or some such nonsense). He apparently thinks that
Jenn has claimed her hearing is better than his (again, an objective
observer would see that she has not). Maybe she's even under contract
from a company that wants to do away with digital audio! LOL!
I listen to LPs. I am well aware of their technical shortcomings
vis-a-vis CD. Part of the reason that I still listen to them is that I
have had a rather large collection of them since before the advent of
CD and do I not have a desire to spend the approximately $54,000 that
it would take to replace them all with CDs (assuming $12 each, even if
all of the recordings were available on CD, which they are not). Part
of the reason is that on many of the recordings that I have on both
formats the sound better to me on LP. Does that mean that I'm trying to
promote LPs over CDs?
All that I've said is let's call this what it really is: preference
bashing. And that's all this is. As I said, it's a free country. Just
try to be honest about what you're doing. Even given the extremely
weak, paranoid justification of some imaginary "technical claims" that
Mr. Krueger has said that Jenn has made.
So let's take it to its logical conclusion: rather than saying that you
do not bash preferences, you (and Mr. Krueger, and Mr. Sullivan, et al)
should also admit that you will attack any audio preference not
conforming with your own.
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jennconducts-6E77...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
> > In article <FbednRwhT60vmWLe...@comcast.com>,
> > I'm trained to listen and to hear accurately.
>
> With a qualification Jenn - you're trained listen and to hear accurately in
> the context of the innermost technicalities of music, not audio.
Thanks for admitting that you don't know what conductors do. A good
part of what I do daily is adjusting "audio", i.e. balance, timbre,
volume, dynamic shadings, attacks (transients, if you will),
releases...all in the context of a rehearsal or performance space, from
the POV of both the musicians and the patrons.
>
> > You are trained to, for
> > example, measure electrical signals, and I'm quite sure
> > that you do that better than I do. What's the difference?
>
> More to the point:
>
> I'm mostly trained to listen and to hear accurately and reliably in the
> context of the reproduction of sound, not in terms the innermost
> technicalities of music. I only know a smattering of technicalities of
> music.
See above.
>
> My music director identifies frequencies he hears in terms of the first 7
> letters of the alphabet and words like sharp and flat. I identify
> frequencies I hear in terms of Hz. I know about first 7 letters of the
> alphabet and words like sharp and flat but that's not what I think of first.
Irrelevant. But I have a question: what is your threshold of hearing
vis-a-vis frequency changes, expressed in Hz?
Arny Krueger
> In article <a8adnTvgXfN...@comcast.com>,
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jennconducts-6E77...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
>>> In article
>>> <FbednRwhT60vmWLe...@comcast.com>,
>
>>> I'm trained to listen and to hear accurately.
>> With a qualification Jenn - you're trained listen and to
>> hear accurately in the context of the innermost
>> technicalities of music, not audio.
> Thanks for admitting that you don't know what conductors do.
BTW, the following shows that you have no idea about what recordists do.
> A good part of what I do daily is adjusting "audio",
> i.e. balance, timbre, volume, dynamic shadings, attacks
> (transients, if you will), releases...all in the context
> of a rehearsal or performance space, from the POV of both
> the musicians and the patrons.
So Jenn, you care not whether the rght musicians play the right notes in the
right way at the right time? No, that can't be it, can it! In fact isn't
that what you primarily adjust and isn't that how you obtain the things you
list above?
>>> You are trained to, for
>>> example, measure electrical signals, and I'm quite sure
>>> that you do that better than I do. What's the
>>> difference?
>> More to the point:
>> I'm mostly trained to listen and to hear accurately
>> and reliably in the context of the reproduction of
>> sound, not in terms the innermost technicalities of
>> music. I only know a smattering of technicalities of
>> music.
> See above.
It's mostly irrelevant Jenn, and its not the most important thing you do.
You shaded your answer to deceptively make it look like your concept of what
a recordist does.
>> My music director identifies frequencies he hears in
>> terms of the first 7 letters of the alphabet and words
>> like sharp and flat. I identify frequencies I hear in
>> terms of Hz. I know about first 7 letters of the
>> alphabet and words like sharp and flat but that's not
>> what I think of first.
> Irrelevant.
So Jenn you have no concern for what notes people play and how and when?
LOL!
> But I have a question: what is your
> threshold of hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes,
> expressed in Hz?
If you knew anything about how human hearing works Jenn, you'd know that is
not a proper question because hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes varies
with the Hz of the sound.
Arny Krueger
Harry gets really nasty when backed into a corner.
Well Harry, lets try this again.
Does a pure sine wave tone played off of a LP sound like a pure sine wave?
If a pure sine wave played off of a LP does not sound like a pure sine wave
how can a LP accurately reproduce more complex things, like music?
Arny Krueger
> So let's take it to its logical conclusion: rather than
> saying that you do not bash preferences, you (and Mr.
> Krueger, and Mr. Sullivan, et al) should also admit that
> you will attack any audio preference not conforming with
> your own.
Not at all.
But, thanks for reciting a hymn from the book of RAO trolls with such
accuracy and vigor. It's good to know who is singing out of which hymnal, as
it were.
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jennconducts-80B8...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
> > In article <a8adnTvgXfN...@comcast.com>,
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:jennconducts-6E77...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
> >>> In article
> >>> <FbednRwhT60vmWLe...@comcast.com>,
> >
> >>> I'm trained to listen and to hear accurately.
>
> >> With a qualification Jenn - you're trained listen and to
> >> hear accurately in the context of the innermost
> >> technicalities of music, not audio.
>
> > Thanks for admitting that you don't know what conductors do.
>
> BTW, the following shows that you have no idea about what recordists do.
Not at all. YOU set up the parameters of what you do in relation to
what the conductor of your church choir does, not me.
>
> > A good part of what I do daily is adjusting "audio",
> > i.e. balance, timbre, volume, dynamic shadings, attacks
> > (transients, if you will), releases...all in the context
> > of a rehearsal or performance space, from the POV of both
> > the musicians and the patrons.
>
> So Jenn, you care not whether the rght musicians play the right notes in the
> right way at the right time?
Again, you misstate what I wrote. Do you understand what "a good part"
means?
> No, that can't be it, can it! In fact isn't
> that what you primarily adjust and isn't that how you obtain the things you
> list above?
No, Arny. As opposed to your church choir (I presume from your
question), my players have well over 90% of the notes right and know
when to play them before the first rehearsal. The rest are fixed at the
first rehearsal. Then on the college level, we have another 9 hours of
rehearsal or so for each concert.
>
> >>> You are trained to, for
> >>> example, measure electrical signals, and I'm quite sure
> >>> that you do that better than I do. What's the
> >>> difference?
>
> >> More to the point:
>
> >> I'm mostly trained to listen and to hear accurately
> >> and reliably in the context of the reproduction of
> >> sound, not in terms the innermost technicalities of
> >> music. I only know a smattering of technicalities of
> >> music.
>
> > See above.
>
> It's mostly irrelevant Jenn, and its not the most important thing you do.
> You shaded your answer to deceptively make it look like your concept of what
> a recordist does.
See above. I didn't "shade" anything.
>
> >> My music director identifies frequencies he hears in
> >> terms of the first 7 letters of the alphabet and words
> >> like sharp and flat. I identify frequencies I hear in
> >> terms of Hz. I know about first 7 letters of the
> >> alphabet and words like sharp and flat but that's not
> >> what I think of first.
>
> > Irrelevant.
>
> So Jenn you have no concern for what notes people play and how and when?
> LOL!
See above, and learn something.
>
> > But I have a question: what is your
> > threshold of hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes,
> > expressed in Hz?
>
> If you knew anything about how human hearing works Jenn, you'd know that is
> not a proper question because hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes varies
> with the Hz of the sound.
Of course. So let's say, at A440. What is your threshold of
discernment?
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Of course not. You are 'saving the world' from a world-wide coup by the
pro-LP militia... LOL!
>But, thanks for reciting a hymn from the book of RAO trolls with such
>accuracy and vigor. It's good to know who is singing out of which hymnal, as
>it were.
You are a pitiful little man. Why else would preference bashing be so
important?
(Still waiting for the 'technical claims' that Jenn has made...) LOL!
Arny Krueger
> In article <ToqdnZYQAt0...@comcast.com>,
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jennconducts-80B8...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
>> BTW, the following shows that you have no idea about
>> what recordists do.
> Not at all. YOU set up the parameters of what you do in
> relation to what the conductor of your church choir does,
> not me.
Jenn the above paragraph shows that in fact you have no idea what a
recordists does. It's really a non-statement, a truism that is irrelevant to
the details of what a recordist does.
>>> A good part of what I do daily is adjusting "audio",
>>> i.e. balance, timbre, volume, dynamic shadings, attacks
>>> (transients, if you will), releases...all in the context
>>> of a rehearsal or performance space, from the POV of
>>> both the musicians and the patrons.
>> So Jenn, you care not whether the rght musicians play
>> the right notes in the right way at the right time?
> Again, you misstate what I wrote. Do you understand what
> "a good part" means?
"A good part" is in this case a hedge phrase, intentially chosen by you to
conceal meanings.
>> No, that can't be it, can it! In fact isn't
>> that what you primarily adjust and isn't that how you
>> obtain the things you list above?
> No, Arny. As opposed to your church choir (I presume
> from your question), my players have well over 90% of the
> notes right and know when to play them before the first
> rehearsal.
I don't think that my church choir is anywhere near that bad. Furthermore, I
do most of my work with a select group of musicians who operate at higher
skill levels than that.
> The rest are fixed at the first rehearsal.
> Then on the college level, we have another 9 hours of
> rehearsal or so for each concert.
>>> But I have a question: what is your
>>> threshold of hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes,
>>> expressed in Hz?
>> If you knew anything about how human hearing works Jenn,
>> you'd know that is not a proper question because hearing
>> vis-a-vis frequency changes varies with the Hz of the
>> sound.
> Of course.
> So let's say, at A440. What is your threshold of discernment?
Well it seems that my role here is to teach Jenn how to ask questions. ;-)
Jenn, your question is still improper because frequency changes themselves
have frequency.
If you knew anything about how human hearing works Jenn,
you'd know your question is not a proper question because hearing
vis-a-vis frequency changes varies with the Hz of the change in the Hz.
<And now with just 4 posts I may have given Jenn a hint about human
perception of two of the ways that LP technology butchers music: poor speed
accuracy and massive flutter and wow. Note that Harry denies that vinyl even
has flutter and wow.>
Arny Krueger
>> Not at all.
>
> Of course not. You are 'saving the world' from a
> world-wide coup by the pro-LP militia... LOL!
No, I'm toying with ignorant and less intelligent people who are way puffed
up with their own pride. Along the way they may learn a little technology,
but they are mostly too defensive to learn anything.
Sue me, I'm a compulsive teacher. ;-)
>> But, thanks for reciting a hymn from the book of RAO
>> trolls with such accuracy and vigor. It's good to know
>> who is singing out of which hymnal, as it were.
> You are a pitiful little man.
A little frustrated, eh?
LOL!
> Why else would preference bashing be so important?
Preference bashing is unimportant to me.
> (Still waiting for the 'technical claims' that Jenn has made...) LOL!
Been there done that, but you're way to defensive to get it.
Enjoy your vinyl! ;-)
nyo...@peoplepc.com
violins or any instruent sounds more real on LP, and mostly becuase as a
Conductor that makes even less sense than it would from an ordinary
civilian.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:20 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger" <a...@hotpop.com>
>Sue me, I'm a compulsive teacher. ;-)
Any objective objective observer might agree that you're a compusive
'something.' ;-)
Were you really kicked out of a moderated group for your 'compusive
teaching'?
LOL!
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <arty...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in message
> news:1140811654.0...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
> >> Not at all.
> >
> > Of course not. You are 'saving the world' from a
> > world-wide coup by the pro-LP militia... LOL!
>
> No, I'm toying with ignorant and less intelligent people who are way puffed
> up with their own pride.
<snip>
OMG! Pot, meet kettle.
nyo...@peoplepc.com
"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message news:ao9uv15u8jkl3lpen...@4ax.com...
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
>violins or any instruent sounds more real on LP, and mostly becuase as a
>Conductor that makes even less sense than it would from an ordinary
>civilian.
LOL!
Her statement has been, from what I've seen, that "violins or any
instruent sounds more real on LP" to *her* and do not necessarily carry
over to *you* or anybody else.
That is indeed a preference no matter how you shave it. You, Mr.
Krueger, and Mr. Sullivan are indeed attacking preference.
Why not just call it what it is? Is that so hard?
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jennconducts-AF52...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
> > In article <ToqdnZYQAt0...@comcast.com>,
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:jennconducts-80B8...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
>
> >> BTW, the following shows that you have no idea about
> >> what recordists do.
>
> > Not at all. YOU set up the parameters of what you do in
> > relation to what the conductor of your church choir does,
> > not me.
>
> Jenn the above paragraph shows that in fact you have no idea what a
> recordists does. It's really a non-statement, a truism that is irrelevant to
> the details of what a recordist does.
You're not following the conversation, I guess. So tell me: how does
my paragraph show that?
>
> >>> A good part of what I do daily is adjusting "audio",
> >>> i.e. balance, timbre, volume, dynamic shadings, attacks
> >>> (transients, if you will), releases...all in the context
> >>> of a rehearsal or performance space, from the POV of
> >>> both the musicians and the patrons.
>
> >> So Jenn, you care not whether the rght musicians play
> >> the right notes in the right way at the right time?
>
> > Again, you misstate what I wrote. Do you understand what
> > "a good part" means?
>
> "A good part" is in this case a hedge phrase, intentially chosen by you to
> conceal meanings.
Good God. It's not a "hedge", it means exactly what it says. What do
you want, a percentage?
>
> >> No, that can't be it, can it! In fact isn't
> >> that what you primarily adjust and isn't that how you
> >> obtain the things you list above?
>
> > No, Arny. As opposed to your church choir (I presume
> > from your question), my players have well over 90% of the
> > notes right and know when to play them before the first
> > rehearsal.
>
> I don't think that my church choir is anywhere near that bad. Furthermore, I
> do most of my work with a select group of musicians who operate at higher
> skill levels than that.
If your church choir knows 90% of the notes before the first rehearsal,
then you know that the rest of the rehearsal time is spent adjusting
"audio".
>
> > The rest are fixed at the first rehearsal.
> > Then on the college level, we have another 9 hours of
> > rehearsal or so for each concert.
>
> >>> But I have a question: what is your
> >>> threshold of hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes,
> >>> expressed in Hz?
>
> >> If you knew anything about how human hearing works Jenn,
> >> you'd know that is not a proper question because hearing
> >> vis-a-vis frequency changes varies with the Hz of the
> >> sound.
>
> > Of course.
>
> > So let's say, at A440. What is your threshold of discernment?
>
> Well it seems that my role here is to teach Jenn how to ask questions. ;-)
And my role is to try to get you to answer questions asked.
With a fixed tone of A=400, what is your threshold of discernment?
Arny Krueger
news:JYJLf.3543$5M6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
> I'm not attacking her preference, just
> her statement that violins or any instrument sounds more
> real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor that makes
> even less sense than it would from an ordinary civilian.
It's interesting how all these golden ears make global statements trashing
such a highly effective and succesful audio technology as digtal and then
hide behind their perferences when asked to explain themselves.
I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he created with his excessive
concern for preferences. The coward broke and ran away from here, leaving us
holding the bag! ;-)
Arny Krueger
>> I can't do that. I'm not attacking her preference, just
>> her statement that violins or any instruent sounds more
>> real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor that makes
>> even less sense than it would from an ordinary civilian.
>
> LOL!
>
> Her statement has been, from what I've seen, that
> "violins or any instruent sounds more real on LP" to
> *her* and do not necessarily carry over to *you* or
> anybody else.
And then she says its related to technology and that her preferences should
influence us more than those of the average golden ear because she's a
conductor (part time).
Your inabilty to tell the whole truth is typical, Mr. Listening.
Arny Krueger
It really helps to ask questions that are answerable, which you have again
failed to do, this time for a reason that I just explained to you.
> With a fixed tone of A=400, what is your threshold of
> discernment?
Discernment of what?
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <arty...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in message
> news:1140812995.1...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com
> >> I can't do that. I'm not attacking her preference, just
> >> her statement that violins or any instruent sounds more
> >> real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor that makes
> >> even less sense than it would from an ordinary civilian.
> >
> > LOL!
> >
> > Her statement has been, from what I've seen, that
> > "violins or any instruent sounds more real on LP" to
> > *her* and do not necessarily carry over to *you* or
> > anybody else.
>
> And then she says its related to technology
I've asked questions.
> and that her preferences should
> influence us more than those of the average golden ear because she's a
> conductor (part time).
Part time?? LOL You have no idea, Mr. Volunteer Recordist.
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
Others understand my questions just fine.
>
> > With a fixed tone of A=400, what is your threshold of
> > discernment?
>
> Discernment of what?
See the original question above.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:30 pm
Email: Jenn <jenncondu...@hotmail.com>
Mr. Krueger is a 'compusive teacher,' Jenn.
>And my role is to try to get you to answer questions asked.
If you ask him questions, it disrupts his teaching plan.
Please be considerate and stop asking him questions so that he can
teach you properly.
Arny Krueger
Trouble is Jenn, you're so far out of your realm of understanding, you can't
even ask a proper question. Furhtermore, I've tried to help you understand
how to ask a proper question in this area, and you have still failed.
>> It really helps to ask questions that are answerable,
>> which you have again failed to do, this time for a
>> reason that I just explained to you.
> Others understand my questions just fine.
You're obivously outside of your area of useful knowlege when you try to ask
this question, Jenn. I'm beginning to understand why you believe the way you
do - you're just horrifically uninformed. Trouble is the golden eared
contingent have filled your head with their garbage anti-knowlege about
audio.
>>> With a fixed tone of A=400, what is your threshold of
>>> discernment?
>> Discernment of what?
> See the original question above.
It's still not a proper question. And now Jenn, you've obvously incorrectly
my perceived my instructions about how to ask the question properly.
<walking away, shaking head>
Well I do understand why these so-called objectivists think that so much of
what I say is nonsense - they lack the knowlege it takes to understand what
I'm saying. I could be talking Greek or Klingon for all they can understand!
Arny Krueger
> From: Jenn
> Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:30 pm
> Email: Jenn <jenncondu...@hotmail.com>
>
> Mr. Krueger is a 'compusive teacher,' Jenn.
>
>> And my role is to try to get you to answer questions
>> asked.
>
> If you ask him questions, it disrupts his teaching plan.
Not at all.
> Please be considerate and stop asking him questions so
> that he can teach you properly.
No, the problem is that Jenn can't understand the issues well enough to even
ask answerable questions.
Her question about the audiblilty of frequency changes is like: "Why is the
blue?"
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:33 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger" <a...@hotpop.com>
>And then she says its related to technology and that her preferences should
>influence us more than those of the average golden ear because she's a
>conductor (part time).
My apologies. Just like I missed the posts with the alleged 'technical
claims,' I missed the posts where she was trying to 'influence' you. I
applaud you, BTW, for your strength in avoiding the onslaught of the LP
militia. Lesser men may have cracked and thrown out all of their CDs.
>Your inabilty to tell the whole truth is typical, Mr. Listening.
The 'whole truth' is that, as I've said, I really do not care that you
are attacking preference, as you clearly are. I'm just asking that you
call it as such.
Why is that so hard?
Jenn
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <arty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> From: Jenn
> Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:30 pm
> Email: Jenn <jenncondu...@hotmail.com>
>
> Mr. Krueger is a 'compusive teacher,' Jenn.
You're half right.
>
> >And my role is to try to get you to answer questions asked.
>
> If you ask him questions, it disrupts his teaching plan.
>
> Please be considerate and stop asking him questions so that he can
> teach you properly.
;-)
Arny Krueger
> From: Arny Krueger
> Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:33 pm
> Email: "Arny Krueger" <a...@hotpop.com>
>
>> And then she says its related to technology and that her
>> preferences should influence us more than those of the
>> average golden ear because she's a conductor (part time).
>
> My apologies. Just like I missed the posts with the
> alleged 'technical claims,' I missed the posts where she
> was trying to 'influence' you. I applaud you, BTW, for
> your strength in avoiding the onslaught of the LP
> militia. Lesser men may have cracked and thrown out all
> of their CDs.
Yawn.
>> Your inabilty to tell the whole truth is typical, Mr.
>> Listening.
> The 'whole truth' is that, as I've said, I really do not
> care that you are attacking preference, as you clearly
> are. I'm just asking that you call it as such.
>
> Why is that so hard?
Because its wrong.
Subjectivists play the preference card because its any port in a storm.
Jenn
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
Nope, it's a PERFECTLY asked question: With a fixed tome of A=440, what
is your threshold of discernment of frequency changes?
>
> <walking away, shaking head>
<Jenn, listening to Arny's head rattle>
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <arty...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in message
> news:1140816162.4...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
> > From: Arny Krueger
> > Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:33 pm
> > Email: "Arny Krueger" <a...@hotpop.com>
> >
> >> And then she says its related to technology and that her
> >> preferences should influence us more than those of the
> >> average golden ear because she's a conductor (part time).
> >
> > My apologies. Just like I missed the posts with the
> > alleged 'technical claims,' I missed the posts where she
> > was trying to 'influence' you. I applaud you, BTW, for
> > your strength in avoiding the onslaught of the LP
> > militia. Lesser men may have cracked and thrown out all
> > of their CDs.
>
> Yawn.No
>
> >> Your inabilty to tell the whole truth is typical, Mr.
> >> Listening.
>
> > The 'whole truth' is that, as I've said, I really do not
> > care that you are attacking preference, as you clearly
> > are. I'm just asking that you call it as such.
> >
> > Why is that so hard?
>
> Because its wrong.
>
> Subjectivists play the preference card because its any port in a storm.
No, because THAT'S WHAT THE ENJOYMENT OF MUSIC BOILS DOWN TO.
Arny Krueger
What kind of frequency changes?
Arny Krueger
See where that attitude gets you, missy.
Arny Krueger
That would be relevant in a group about listening to music for the pure
enjoyment of music, but this like RAHE is is an audio group.
And by the way, that's the other well-known escape act of subjectivists.
They try to turn audio groups into groups about listening to music for
enjoyment, musical artist fan clubs, etc.
People with interests like that should find a group with the name .music. in
it. I think there are over 1,000 of them. Apparently, not enough!
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
Arg. Can you tell the difference between 440 and, say 441?
Arny Krueger
Both steady state tones? I get to switch between them at will, as in ABX?
George M. Middius
Jenn said:
> > I'm toying with ignorant and less intelligent people who are way puffed
> > up with their own pride.
> OMG! Pot, meet kettle.
Krooger's delusions about his worth are legendary. Try this one (it's long
but it's worth the time):
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/00c0a8db9f93cbbe?hl=en&
Here's another one, also kind of long, but also worth it:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/4fa3f268d2e6cd50
If you don't know who Glenn Zelniker is, he's the Z in Z-Systems
Engineering (http://www.z-sys.com/). Just mention his name to Krooger and
watch Mr. Shit melt down. ;-)
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
Yep.
> I get to switch between them at will, as in ABX?
Nope, as is done in actual working conditions.
Arny Krueger
What would that be?
I *never* knowingly listen to 440 and 441 under working conditions. I guess
I would if I tuned a guitar with an electronic tuner, but i'm not a guitar
player.
BTW Jenn, do you know what the scientific answer to this question is?
I do, and I just confirmed it. But it wasn't under what I would call working
conditions, and it would make an interesting ABX test.
Arny Krueger
[dot] net> wrote in message
Actually, watch me laugh.
The key phrase from above is:
"Sure, and Zelniker, Bamborough and Atkinson always try to turn from
technical issues to personal attacks because they know that they
don't stand a chance."
Note that the same thing just happened in a thread named:
"Scott The Litigious Rides Again"
None of the trolls here want to touch the audio substance which is 5 points,
clearly set forth.
So Middius and his ilk turned the thread into a bunch of stories about what
they are interested in - personalities.
Usual players, usual whining.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
>>> port in a storm.
>> No, because THAT'S WHAT THE ENJOYMENT OF MUSIC BOILS DOWN
>> TO.
>That would be relevant in a group about listening to music for the pure
>enjoyment of music, but this like RAHE is is an audio group.
Were you really kicked out of r.a.h.e?
Why don't you go to rec.audio.trash.preference? LOL!
>And by the way, that's the other well-known escape act of subjectivists.
>They try to turn audio groups into groups about listening to music for
>enjoyment, musical artist fan clubs, etc.
Straw man argument. Nobody that I've seen in the threads about Jenn and
LPs has done that. That is one of your favorite escape acts: divert
attention away from how poorly you behave.
>People with interests like that should find a group with the name .music. in
>it. I think there are over 1,000 of them. Apparently, not enough!
Apprently, you should also frequent rec.audio.strawman.arguments. LOL!
If someone says, "My Boulder amps sound good to me" you would tell them
that they spent too much and could have gotten the same sound from QSC.
If someone says, "I like LPs" you would tell them, as you are here,
that technically CDs are far superior and that they should have their
hearing checked. If somebody says, "Violins on well-recorded LPs sound
more natural to me" you would say, as you are here, that it was
impossible for that to be the case.
All of these are statements of preference. All of these are valid audio
opinions (which IS the name of this group).
You apparently want to change it to
rec.audio.agree.with.arnys.opinions.or.else
That you won't simply admit that you're trashing preference, when you
even say that "Subjectivists play the preference card because its any
port in a storm" meaning that attacking preference is OK in your mind,
is hilarious.
And as I said, I really do not care that you do it. I just find it
laughable that you can't ADMIT that you do it.
Wrap yourself in the Cloaks of Righteousness. Go forth and teach the
ignorant masses. They apparently don't really know what they like. And
they can't figure it out without you. LOL!
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:31 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger" <a...@hotpop.com>
>I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he created with his excessive
>concern for preferences. The coward broke and ran away from here, leaving us
>holding the bag! ;-)
This JJ sounds like he was one hell of a lot more intelligent that you
are. Why did the coward break ranks and run, anyway? Was it, perhance,
the onslaught of the unstoppable masses of the LP militia, trudging
endlessly over the dead body of the CD format?
And why do the strains of 'Onward Christian Soldiers' pop into my head
when I read this? LOL!
I didn't realize how 'brave' you are. My bad.
MINe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
I thought you recorded church choirs!
Stephen
Arny Krueger
>>>> Subjectivists play the preference card because its any
>>>> port in a storm.
>
>>> No, because THAT'S WHAT THE ENJOYMENT OF MUSIC BOILS
>>> DOWN TO.
>
>> That would be relevant in a group about listening to
>> music for the pure enjoyment of music, but this like
>> RAHE is is an audio group.
>
> Were you really kicked out of r.a.h.e?
Of course, how many times do you need to read that to believe it?
> Why don't you go to rec.audio.trash.preference? LOL!
Yawn.
>> And by the way, that's the other well-known escape act
>> of subjectivists. They try to turn audio groups into
>> groups about listening to music for enjoyment, musical
>> artist fan clubs, etc.
> Straw man argument. Nobody that I've seen in the threads
> about Jenn and LPs has done that.
You haven't been here long enough.
> That is one of your
> favorite escape acts: divert attention away from how
> poorly you behave.
Yawn. See what I mean about diverting attention away from the topic and into
playing personalities?
>> People with interests like that should find a group with
>> the name .music. in it. I think there are over 1,000 of
>> them. Apparently, not enough!
> Apprently, you should also frequent
> rec.audio.strawman.arguments. LOL!
Ditto.
> If someone says, "My Boulder amps sound good to me" you
> would tell them that they spent too much and could have
> gotten the same sound from QSC.
Try it, it will never happen.
>If someone says, "I like
> LPs" you would tell them, as you are here, that
> technically CDs are far superior and that they should
> have their hearing checked.
Nope, Jenn's hook is: I'm a symphony orchestra conductor and that makes my
opinion better than anybody else.
>If somebody says, "Violins on
> well-recorded LPs sound more natural to me" you would
> say, as you are here, that it was impossible for that to
> be the case.
It's been done and it passed, if presented exactly like that.
> All of these are statements of preference. All of these
> are valid audio opinions (which IS the name of this
> group).
In some sense there is no such thing as an invalid opinion.
So, if Jenn would play it straight, she would get a pass.
> You apparently want to change it to
> rec.audio.agree.with.arnys.opinions.or.else
More of the usual golden ear whining...
> That you won't simply admit that you're trashing
> preference, when you even say that "Subjectivists play
> the preference card because its any port in a storm"
> meaning that attacking preference is OK in your mind, is
> hilarious.
just expressing my opinion which is apparently invalid in your book, Mr.
Listener
> And as I said, I really do not care that you do it. I
> just find it laughable that you can't ADMIT that you do
> it.
I'm just expressing my preferences, what's wrong with that?
> Wrap yourself in the Cloaks of Righteousness. Go forth
> and teach the ignorant masses. They apparently don't
> really know what they like. And they can't figure it out
> without you. LOL!
Yawn. When will they update the current model of golden ear with brains?
Arny Krueger
> From: Arny Krueger
> Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:31 pm
> Email: "Arny Krueger" <a...@hotpop.com>
>
>> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he created
>> with his excessive concern for preferences. The coward
>> broke and ran away from here, leaving us holding the
>> bag! ;-)
>
> This JJ sounds like he was one hell of a lot more
> intelligent that you are.
I would say that he suffers from some of the same weak-mindedness as you do.
>Why did the coward break ranks
> and run, anyway? Was it, perhance, the onslaught of the
> unstoppable masses of the LP militia, trudging endlessly
> over the dead body of the CD format?
Good question. You know where to find him - why not ask him?
> And why do the strains of 'Onward Christian Soldiers' pop
> into my head when I read this? LOL!
> I didn't realize how 'brave' you are. My bad.
Yawn.
Harry Lavo
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:97GdncTRFe1...@comcast.com...
> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jennconducts-AF52...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
>
>>> BTW, the following shows that you have no idea about
>>> what recordists do.
>
>> Not at all. YOU set up the parameters of what you do in
>> relation to what the conductor of your church choir does,
>> not me.
>
> Jenn the above paragraph shows that in fact you have no idea what a
> recordists does. It's really a non-statement, a truism that is irrelevant
> to the details of what a recordist does.
>
>>>> i.e. balance, timbre, volume, dynamic shadings, attacks
>>>> (transients, if you will), releases...all in the context
>>>> of a rehearsal or performance space, from the POV of
>>>> both the musicians and the patrons.
>
>>> So Jenn, you care not whether the rght musicians play
>>> the right notes in the right way at the right time?
>
>> Again, you misstate what I wrote. Do you understand what
>> "a good part" means?
>
> "A good part" is in this case a hedge phrase, intentially chosen by you to
> conceal meanings.
>
>>> that what you primarily adjust and isn't that how you
>>> obtain the things you list above?
>
>> No, Arny. As opposed to your church choir (I presume
>> from your question), my players have well over 90% of the
>> notes right and know when to play them before the first
>> rehearsal.
>
> I don't think that my church choir is anywhere near that bad. Furthermore,
> I do most of my work with a select group of musicians who operate at
> higher skill levels than that.
>
>> Then on the college level, we have another 9 hours of
>> rehearsal or so for each concert.
>
>>>> But I have a question: what is your
>>>> threshold of hearing vis-a-vis frequency changes,
>>>> expressed in Hz?
>
>>> If you knew anything about how human hearing works Jenn,
>>> you'd know that is not a proper question because hearing
>>> vis-a-vis frequency changes varies with the Hz of the
>>> sound.
>
>> Of course.
>
>> So let's say, at A440. What is your threshold of discernment?
>
> Well it seems that my role here is to teach Jenn how to ask questions. ;-)
>
> have frequency.
>
> If you knew anything about how human hearing works Jenn,
> vis-a-vis frequency changes varies with the Hz of the change in the Hz.
>
> <And now with just 4 posts I may have given Jenn a hint about human
> perception of two of the ways that LP technology butchers music: poor
> speed accuracy and massive flutter and wow. Note that Harry denies that
> vinyl even has flutter and wow.>
>
What Harry actually said that with his turntable, arm, and cartridge
"audible" wow and flutter on music (including solo piano) had not been a
problem for the last 25 years.
Once again, Arny shows he is more interested in dealing with strawmen than
in discussing issues realistically.
Arny Krueger
news:e8-dnWPQ9-r...@comcast.com
> What Harry actually said that with his turntable, arm,
> and cartridge "audible" wow and flutter on music
> (including solo piano) had not been a problem for the
> last 25 years.
Well, its not problem for someone who has a psychological need to ignore
them!
> Once again, Arny shows he is more interested in dealing
> with strawmen than in discussing issues realistically.
Your inabiilty to hear the obvious failings of the LP could make up a very
realistic discussion, Harry. Your hysterical damnation of the CD format is a
similar problem.
Ruud Broens
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> complosed in message
news:xaWdnQZHRodnUGHe...@comcast.com...
: Well then Jen i+s that percpetion completely imaginary on your part Jen, or
: is it somehow related to the technical properties of the LP medium?
:
I'd change the Kroobatteries at this time -
try some Sanyo Eneloop's - you do want to be 2006esh, eh?
your pwrdoc,
Rudy
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
Yet again, that's NOT what I've stated. I've stated that if we're
comparing sounds that are attempting to replicate the sound of live
instruments/voices, I'm well qualified to do that because I hear the
standard more than most people do and I'm trained to (and paid for)
hearing and listening very subtle differences in sound. I always find
it interesting when this argument is held against me that similar
arguments are not held against those who are trained to, for example,
diagnose vision problems. People don't go to the eye doctor and, when
told they need glasses, tell the doc, "I suppose you think your opinion
is better than mine!" Or a mason, or a mechanic, or... It's not
"bragging" when an auto mechanic claims to know cars better than I do.
He/she is trained and has experience in that field.
>
> >If somebody says, "Violins on
> > well-recorded LPs sound more natural to me" you would
> > say, as you are here, that it was impossible for that to
> > be the case.
>
> It's been done and it passed, if presented exactly like that.
>
> > All of these are statements of preference. All of these
> > are valid audio opinions (which IS the name of this
> > group).
>
> In some sense there is no such thing as an invalid opinion.
>
> So, if Jenn would play it straight, she would get a pass.
???
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
If you don't know, the question is mute.
>
> I *never* knowingly listen to 440 and 441 under working conditions. I guess
> I would if I tuned a guitar with an electronic tuner, but i'm not a guitar
> player.
>
> BTW Jenn, do you know what the scientific answer to this question is?
Which question?
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
Incorrect. The enjoyment of music is what audio is about. Unless you
listen to pure tones only. Or if you don't listen at all.
>
> And by the way, that's the other well-known escape act of subjectivists.
> They try to turn audio groups into groups about listening to music for
> enjoyment,
GOOD GOD! Say it ain't so! Listening to music for enjoyment? Perish
the thought.
> musical artist fan clubs, etc.
I've never seen that in an audio group.
Arny Krueger
>> Nope, Jenn's hook is: I'm a symphony orchestra conductor
>> and that makes my opinion better than anybody else.
> Yet again, that's NOT what I've stated. I've stated that
> if we're comparing sounds that are attempting to
> replicate the sound of live instruments/voices, I'm well
> qualified to do that because I hear the standard more
> than most people do and I'm trained to (and paid for)
> hearing and listening very subtle differences in sound.
Subtle differences of a certain kind, Jenn.
Last night at a party attended by musicians, recordists, music reviewers,
equipment reviewers, and audio develpment engineers I posed the following
question:
"Is listening for differences in sound due to musical differences the same
or different from listening for differences in sound due to technical
differences."
They all agreed that listening for differences in sound due to musical
differences are different from listening for differences in sound due to
technical differences.
Clyde Slick
>
> Incorrect. The enjoyment of music is what audio is about. Unless you
> listen to pure tones only.
Oh, yeah, you haven't met Tommie Pink Noise Saine yet!
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Clyde Slick
Arnie, why not act the gentleman and invite Jenn to your
next SWMWTMS meeting.
ScottW
>>
>> That would be relevant in a group about listening to music for the pure
>> enjoyment of music, but this like RAHE is is an audio group.
>
> Incorrect. The enjoyment of music is what audio is about. Unless you
> listen to pure tones only. Or if you don't listen at all.
>
for him and his buds its all about db level at 50 Hz. Nothing else
matters.... Some of them are even remixing music on their PCs
to create mega bass tracks.
Their is a small pro auto audio shop near my work... they specialize
in bass systems for show cars and trucks. No music involved there
I can assure you.
ScottW
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 5:45 am
Email: "Arny Krueger" <a...@hotpop.com>
>Last night at a party attended by musicians, recordists, music reviewers,
>equipment reviewers, and audio develpment engineers I posed the following
>question:
>"Is listening for differences in sound due to musical differences the same
>or different from listening for differences in sound due to technical
>differences."
>They all agreed that listening for differences in sound due to musical
>differences are different from listening for differences in sound due to
>technical differences.
Which shoots your argument in the foot, and validates everything that
Jenn has said.
And let me venture a guess: you won't be able to see why.
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jennconducts-F3E4...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
>
>
> >> Nope, Jenn's hook is: I'm a symphony orchestra conductor
> >> and that makes my opinion better than anybody else.
>
> > Yet again, that's NOT what I've stated. I've stated that
> > if we're comparing sounds that are attempting to
> > replicate the sound of live instruments/voices, I'm well
> > qualified to do that because I hear the standard more
> > than most people do and I'm trained to (and paid for)
> > hearing and listening very subtle differences in sound.
>
> Subtle differences of a certain kind, Jenn.
In what way(s) are the subtle differences that I'm trained to hear and
that I have a great deal of experience with different than those that
recordists and the home consumer use?
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 9:09 pm
Email: Jenn <jenncondu...@hotmail.com>
>In what way(s) are the subtle differences that I'm trained to hear and
>that I have a great deal of experience with different than those that
>recordists and the home consumer use?
Home consumers, like Mr. Krueger, are trained to hear differences in
audio components.
You, unlike him, listen to music for enjoyment, and listen with a
musician's ear.
Therefore, your opinions about what sounds 'real' to you are not nearly
as valid as his.
You are herewith ordered to stop listening to LPs. You simply cannot
prefer them. CDs are the acceptable format here. OK?
Jenn
nyo...@peoplepc.com
> <nyo...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:JYJLf.3543$5M6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
>
>> I'm not attacking her preference, just
>> her statement that violins or any instrument sounds more
>> real on LP, and mostly becuase as a Conductor that makes
>> even less sense than it would from an ordinary civilian.
>
> It's interesting how all these golden ears make global statements trashing
> such a highly effective and succesful audio technology as digtal and then
> hide behind their perferences when asked to explain themselves.
>
> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he created with his
> excessive concern for preferences. The coward broke and ran away from
> here, leaving us holding the bag! ;-)
exactly as you might think.
There is no delaing with prefernce it has no rationality, no sense
whatsoever.
It is however Jenn's combination of occupation and statements on timbre that
has her in trouble.
It is not the simple fact that she prefers LP, at least not for me it isn't.
nyo...@peoplepc.com
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <arty...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in message
> news:1140820898.0...@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com
>> From: Arny Krueger
>> Date: Fri, Feb 24 2006 2:31 pm
>> Email: "Arny Krueger" <a...@hotpop.com>
>>
>>> I wonder if JJ realized what a sop to cowards he created
>>> with his excessive concern for preferences. The coward
>>> broke and ran away from here, leaving us holding the
>>> bag! ;-)
>>
>> This JJ sounds like he was one hell of a lot more
>> intelligent that you are.
>
> I would say that he suffers from some of the same weak-mindedness as you
> do.
>
idea who JJ is.
>>Why did the coward break ranks
>> and run, anyway? Was it, perhance, the onslaught of the
>> unstoppable masses of the LP militia, trudging endlessly
>> over the dead body of the CD format?
>
> Good question. You know where to find him - why not ask him?
>
>> And why do the strains of 'Onward Christian Soldiers' pop
>> into my head when I read this? LOL!
>
>> I didn't realize how 'brave' you are. My bad.
>
> Yawn.
Braver than an anoymouse.