how authoritative is Stereophiles R C list?
Harbir Singh
recommended components list. I am not too sure how it works. Is the idea
that components that are not on the list not worth having? NHT's 3.3 is on
the list, but the 95% identical 2.9 isn't. However the certainly inferior
2.5i and Paradigm Studio/100 are one list. The PSB Gold is also on the list
but it is no better than the 2.9. I own a pair of 2.9s. But that doesn't
mean I am disappointed that Stereophile doesn't mention them. I just
question the absolute value of a list that is supposed to be authoritative
but clearly isn't.
Harbir
Fear3000
>I don't like Stereophile and NEVER read it, but I do scan through their
>recommended components list. I am not too sure how it works. Is
>the idea that components that are not on the list not worth having?
Perhaps you should consider _reading_ the "How to Use the Listings" section...
>NHT's 3.3 is on the list, but the 95% identical 2.9 isn't.
Where's the value in them recommending a speaker they did not audition?
>However the certainly inferior
>2.5i and Paradigm Studio/100 are one list. The PSB Gold is also on the list
>but it is no better than the 2.9. I own a pair of 2.9s. But that doesn't
>mean I am disappointed that Stereophile doesn't mention them.
...is this why you took the time to post your comments?
>I just question the absolute value of a list that is supposed to
>be authoritative but clearly isn't.
It seems like you'd like RC to tell people what to buy, and that's clearly not
the intent...
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Nigel Tufnel
question. If you don't like Stereophile, then why pay any attention to
the recommended component list? On the other hand, if all you want is
high snobbery value, pick only from there....your friends with too much
money and not enough brains will think you're the man.
I always find Hi Fidelity News and Record Review, a Brit magazine to
have a much more interesting list of what their reviewers like to listen
to on the back.
Best Regards,
Nigel
Harbir Singh wrote:
>
> I don't like Stereophile and NEVER read it, but I do scan through their
> recommended components list. I am not too sure how it works. Is the idea
> that components that are not on the list not worth having? NHT's 3.3 is on
> the list, but the 95% identical 2.9 isn't. However the certainly inferior
> 2.5i and Paradigm Studio/100 are one list. The PSB Gold is also on the list
> but it is no better than the 2.9. I own a pair of 2.9s. But that doesn't
> mean I am disappointed that Stereophile doesn't mention them. I just
> question the absolute value of a list that is supposed to be authoritative
> but clearly isn't.
>
> Harbir
Randy
amount of authority that so many people give that list. The magazine is in
the business of reviewing audio components; it would seem strange to me if
they DIDN'T compile a list of recommended components. As a group, myself
included earlier in my audio buying days, audio consumers are a rather
insecure bunch. A recommended list is kind of a road map one can use to
explore the audio marketplace. Unfortunately it will ONLY take you to those
products on the map if you use it too literally. I found it to be an
excellent starting point for shopping. The RC list got me into the store.
However, in many instances I would prefer and ended up buying components
other than the ones I went to audition. One has to be willing to take side
roads and get off the beaten path sometimes to find the unexpected and
special products. And, you need to listen more than you read.
Lastly the RC list is a no-brainer for people with more money than taste.
These "bottom line" people want the "best" but have neither the ear or the
time to devote to making those discoveries for themselves. For these folks,
Stereophile ought to just include an order form at the end of the RC section
of their magazine. :)
Fear3000 <fear...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990328091724...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> >From: "Harbir Singh" <har...@vt.edu>
>
> >I don't like Stereophile and NEVER read it, but I do scan through their
> >recommended components list. I am not too sure how it works. Is
> >the idea that components that are not on the list not worth having?
>
> Perhaps you should consider _reading_ the "How to Use the Listings"
section...
>
> >NHT's 3.3 is on the list, but the 95% identical 2.9 isn't.
>
> Where's the value in them recommending a speaker they did not audition?
>
> >However the certainly inferior
> >2.5i and Paradigm Studio/100 are one list. The PSB Gold is also on the
list
> >but it is no better than the 2.9. I own a pair of 2.9s. But that doesn't
> >mean I am disappointed that Stereophile doesn't mention them.
>
> ...is this why you took the time to post your comments?
>
> >I just question the absolute value of a list that is supposed to
> >be authoritative but clearly isn't.
>
Steve Zipser
> I don't like Stereophile and NEVER read it, but I do scan through their
> recommended components list.
You either read it or you don't. You say you don't, but then you admit
you do read it!
> I am not too sure how it works. Is the idea
> that components that are not on the list not worth having?
It probably means they haven't reviewed them for one reason or another
Harbir.
> NHT's 3.3 is on the list, but the 95% identical 2.9 isn't.
That means they have tested one and not the other, bright light. Do you
have to be Eainstein to figure that out ;-)
> However the certainly inferior 2.5i and Paradigm Studio/100 are one list.
> The PSB Gold is also on the list but it is no better than the 2.9.
EARTH TO HARBIR! EARTH TO HARBIR!!!! GET A CLUE!!!!
> I own a pair of 2.9s. But that doesn't mean I am disappointed that
> Stereophile doesn't mention them.
OH YES IT DOES!!!!! ADMIT IT!!!! YOU REGO IS DEFLATED ;-)
> I just question the absolute value of a list that is supposed to
> be authoritative but clearly isn't.
How comprehensive can it be, Harbir? There are about a thousand speakers
on the market, there are 12 reviewers and 12 issues. You do the math,
Sir Isaac Newton Singh. DUH! COME ON! GET REAL!!!
Cheers
Zip
--
LETS GO PANTHERS
Sunshine Stereo,Inc http://sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
PASS Rega Miranda CODA Audible Illusions CEC Camelot Parasound ESP
Audio Logic Chiro Benz-Micro Dunlavy NEAR NHT Gallo Zenith Arcane
Mordaunt-Short EAD Vans-Evers Monster/ENTECH Straightwire Eggleston
JeffC 1474
>that components that are not on the list not worth having?
Not necessarily. They probably haven't reviewed it. Or they haven't reviewed
it in a long time. Or it's price changed dramatically since they reveiewed it,
or it's design has changed, or...
>I just
>question the absolute value of a list that is supposed to be authoritative
>but clearly isn't.
>
I never thought it was authoritative or was even trying to be. It's just a
list
of the products they've reviewed that they can recommend.
Regards,
Jeff
JeffC 1474
>included earlier in my audio buying days, audio consumers are a rather
>insecure bunch. A recommended list is kind of a road map one can use to
>explore the audio marketplace. Unfortunately it will ONLY take you to those
>products on the map if you use it too literally. I found it to be an
>excellent starting point for shopping. The RC list got me into the store.
>However, in many instances I would prefer and ended up buying components
>other than the ones I went to audition. One has to be willing to take side
>roads and get off the beaten path sometimes to find the unexpected and
>special products. And, you need to listen more than you read.
That was well put.
Regards,
Jeff
Stereophi...@compuserve.com
> question the absolute value of a list that is supposed to be authoritative
> but clearly isn't.
Mr. Singh, by definition our "Recommended Components" list can only include
components that have been formally reviewed in the magazine (with the
exception of accessories, cables, and recording equipment). We have not yet
published a review of the NHT 2.9 speakers, though Tom Norton is working on a
review. If he is impressed with the sound of the speakers in his eventual
review, the NHT will find its way into the list.
Sincerely
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Warren Tremain
thread:
Harbir Singh wrote in message <7dlcuh$htc$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>...
>I don't like Stereophile and NEVER read it, but I do scan through their
>recommended components list. I am not too sure how it works. Is the idea
>that components that are not on the list not worth having?
Like they can only recomend stuff they have reviewed. if actually read the damn
magazine instead of making things up you would know this.
NHT's 3.3 is on
>the list, but the 95% identical 2.9 isn't.
they haven'y reviewed the 2.9 speaker
However the certainly inferior
>2.5i and Paradigm Studio/100 are one list.
oh no how could they do that please write your congressman and alert NATO
The PSB Gold is also on the list
>but it is no better than the 2.9. I own a pair of 2.9s. But that doesn't
>mean I am disappointed that Stereophile doesn't mention them.
So lets get this right you hate stereophile, never read it but you want
validation
for your speaker purchase from them. seems hypocritical doesn't it?
I just
>question the absolute value of a list that is supposed to be authoritative
>but clearly isn't.
>
In your mind its not authoritative because they didn't review *your* speakers.
so maybe you should question the absolute value of your comments?
Or just use the guide as its supposed to be used as a *guide* seems simple
enough
to me
Arny Krüger
Randy wrote in message
<675ACD1287A3012B.CFEBE942EB44CFE6.1D6A31585DB11D58@library->Last
ly the RC list is a no-brainer for people with more money than
taste.
Particularly true for some around here who seem to have the
attitude that if a component or manufacturer is not on the list,
their gear is trash.
Arny Krüger
Stereophi...@compuserve.com wrote in message
<7dm46l$jet$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> mean I am disappointed that Stereophile doesn't mention them.
>> question the absolute value of a list that is supposed to be
authoritative
>> but clearly isn't.
>
only include
>components that have been formally reviewed in the magazine
(with the
>exception of accessories, cables, and recording equipment). We
have not yet
>published a review of the NHT 2.9 speakers, though Tom Norton is
working on a
>review. If he is impressed with the sound of the speakers in his
eventual
>review, the NHT will find its way into the list.
>
I think this is the best possible reason. Nobody can review
EVERYTHING, or even the ALL the popular favorites.
George M. Middius
>I just question the absolute value of a list that is supposed to be
>authoritative but clearly isn't.
The Easter Bunny is supposed to drop cute colored eggs all
over the place but clearly doesn't.
It must be nice to have a shiny, happy fantasy for every
trivial imponderable in your life.
George M. Middius
Jester
George M. Middius <Glan...@ipo.net> wrote in message
news:3703bae9...@news.supernews.com...
> Harbir Singh said:
>
> >I just question the absolute value of a list that is supposed to be
> >authoritative but clearly isn't.
>
> The Easter Bunny is supposed to drop cute colored eggs all
> over the place but clearly doesn't.
I am crushed.
Disillusioned....
Nay, shattered.
>
> It must be nice to have a shiny, happy fantasy for every
> trivial imponderable in your life.
...and to spend so much time pondering the basic unfairness of a list that
is meant to be no more than a vague, general guide...except for those thick
enough to invest the Recommended Components list with more meaning than it
carries....
Jester
>
>
> George M. Middius
Warren Tremain
Arny Krüger wrote in message ...
Hey Arny
Can you back that statement up ie with a post by anyone
who says that something is trash because it wasn't on the list.
Thanks
Arny Krüger
Warren Tremain wrote in message <7dpc4j$14n4$1...@news.gate.net>...
I can find a number of examples of the inverse - where something
was recomended because it was on the list, over something that
was not. The true state of any component not on that list is
"indeterminate", not "not recommended".
http://x17.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=qs]/getdoc.xp?AN=363166158
"Sure, they do take notice when a product they sell is listed in
the "Recommended Component List"...
http://x17.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=qs]/getdoc.xp?AN=326002357
"These seem to be continuously showing up in Stereophile's
Recommended
Components Listing...always a good place to start your search."
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>>
>>Hey Arny
>>
>>Can you back that statement up ie with a post by anyone
>>who says that something is trash because it wasn't on the list.
>
>
>I can find a number of examples of the inverse - where something
>was recomended because it was on the list, over something that
>was not. The true state of any component not on that list is
>"indeterminate", not "not recommended".
A good point. Stereophile is a standard reference point.
Products which have not been reviewed by the magazine sometimes become
nebulous entities.
Ed
>
George M. Middius
>>Particularly true for some around here who seem to have the
>>attitude that if a component or manufacturer is not on the list,
>>their gear is trash.
>Hey Arny
>Can you back that statement up ie with a post by anyone
>who says that something is trash because it wasn't on the list.
>Thanks
Arnii orders his strawborgs from AT&T. See jjjjjjimmy for a
volume discount.
George M. Middius
PAUL MACCA
>I don't like Stereophile and NEVER read it, but I do scan through their
>recommended components list. I am not too sure how it works. Is the >idea
>that components that are not on the list not worth having?
There are many reasons why a certain component is not on the list. It probably
has not been reviewed or the review has yet to be finished. Or maybe it was
recommended at one point but has dropped off the list because it has not been
reviewed in too long a time or it is out of production.
You say you don't read Stereophile save for the semi-annual RC listing. If you
had bothered to read the mag, you would have known this.
>
>NHT's 3.3 is >on
>the list, but the 95% identical 2.9 isn't. However the certainly inferior
>2.5i and Paradigm Studio/100 are one list. The PSB Gold is also on the >list
>but it is no better than the 2.9. I own a pair of 2.9s.
How nice. Yet another person's opinion. Something you find in abundance in
this NG.
>But that doesn't
>mean I am disappointed that Stereophile doesn't mention them. I just
>question the absolute value of a list that is supposed to be authoritative
>but clearly isn't.
The list is what it is. A subjective class ranking of components that have
recently been reviewed by Stereophile. It does not claim to be an
"all-comprehensive" listing. And if you don't agree with the pecking order
they set up, then learn to live with the concept that not everyone shares your
opinions.
Steve Zipser
cited author.]
Paul:
Do something useful, like dump on Fester some more ;-)
Harbir is just trolling.
Zip
In article <19990330152726...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
paul...@aol.comvulsion says...
--
Warren Tremain
>>>
>>>Can you back that statement up ie with a post by anyone
>>>who says that something is trash because it wasn't on the list.
>>
>>
>>was recomended because it was on the list, over something that
>>was not. The true state of any component not on that list is
>>"indeterminate", not "not recommended".
Which is not what you said. is it now?
And how strange it is from something from a recomended component
list to be recommended. Just like your ratings on your web site.
The true state of any component not on the list
is either unreviewed or if its been reviewed not
recomended. (which also means stereophile
doesn't like everything they review)
the true state of your intellect Arny is another question though.
Barry Rothman
Warren Tremain wrote:
>
> The true state of any component not on the list
> is either unreviewed or if its been reviewed not
> recomended. (which also means stereophile
> doesn't like everything they review)
Add to that description products that have been reviewed, but are
dropped from the list if they have been discontinued.
As for Arny's intelligence on such matters, I think it also falls into
the discontinued category.
Harbir Singh
>Paul:
>Do something useful, like dump on Fester some more ;-)
>Harbir is just trolling.
trolling?
Edward M. Shain
I'm shocked to say this, but I like Arny's suggestion of
"indeterminate."
It doesn't bother me. I enjoy the magazine's success on many
levels, but I don't want to suggest that it's not powerfully
influential at times, either.
I think of it more like a hygiene factor: Stereophile's
approval doesn't sell anything, but it's disapproval might kill, and
products which have not been reviewed may have their value obscured if
they aren't the creation of a well-known, well-financed company.
I don't think this will affect a Madrigal or Krell product, or
a Wilson or B&W product, but it might affect, say, a Rogue Audio or a
Joule Electra, perhaps a BEL etc.
Ed
QXLMG
>I don't like Stereophile and NEVER read it, but I do scan through their
>recommended components list. I am not too sure how it works. Is the idea
>that components that are not on the list not worth having? NHT's 3.3 is on
>the list, but the 95% identical 2.9 isn't. However the certainly inferior
>2.5i and Paradigm Studio/100 are one list. The PSB Gold is also on the list
>but it is no better than the 2.9. I own a pair of 2.9s. But that doesn't
>mean I am disappointed that Stereophile doesn't mention them. I just
>question the absolute value of a list that is supposed to be authoritative
>but clearly isn't.
It's too bad Harbir never has read Stereophile because he wouldn't have to
ask these questions to the newsgroup if he had.John Atkinson has stated time
and time again in the magazine that it is NOT a comprehensive list of all of
the good components out there;he acknowledges that there are good components
that are worthy contenders for the list but that never got reviewed;and
Atkinson has ALWAYS stated that one should use their OWN EARS AND JUDGEMENT to
choose components,not "Recommended Components".JA has said that R/C is just a
starting point for deciding which components to audition.He NEVER intended it
to be "authoritative" or the last word in what to buy.
Harbir,read the magazine before you ask any more questions!
Duane
Arny Krüger
Edward M. Shain wrote in message
<3703e00c...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:23:02 GMT, "Arny Krüger"
<ar...@flash.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Hey Arny
>>>
>>>Can you back that statement up ie with a post by anyone
>>>who says that something is trash because it wasn't on the
list.
>>
>>
>>I can find a number of examples of the inverse - where
something
>>was recomended because it was on the list, over something that
>>was not. The true state of any component not on that list is
>>"indeterminate", not "not recommended".
>
>Products which have not been reviewed by the magazine sometimes
become
>nebulous entities.
...for about 200,000 religious subjectivists who worship it and
magazines like it. For the other 250 million or so people in the
US, they retain the potential to be viable commercial products
based on their performance as commercial products.
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>
>Edward M. Shain wrote in message
><3703e00c...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>>On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:23:02 GMT, "Arny Krüger"
><ar...@flash.net>
>>wrote:
>>>I can find a number of examples of the inverse - where
>something
>>>was recomended because it was on the list, over something that
>>>was not. The true state of any component not on that list is
>>>"indeterminate", not "not recommended".
>>
I said this--------->
>> A good point. Stereophile is a standard reference point.
>>Products which have not been reviewed by the magazine sometimes
>become
>>nebulous entities.
>
>
And you respond thusly??????---------------->
>...for about 200,000 religious subjectivists who worship it and
>magazines like it. For the other 250 million or so people in the
>US, they retain the potential to be viable commercial products
>based on their performance as commercial products.
A new standard is raised for idiotic postings. Since you seem
to have difficulty even with the simplest exchanges, let's review the
bidding.
You made the statement that products not reviewed by
Stereophile often had an "indeterminate" status.
I thought this a good point and supported it with the text
quoted above.
You naturally respond by using my supportive post to launch an
ad hominem, absurd, and ill logical attack. I guess that will teach me
to agree with you.....
And it certainly does.... ::sigh::
Thanks, Arny. I feel so much more like myself again. Whatever
was I thinking of?
Ed
>
rne...@my-dejanews.com
> Mr. Singh, by definition our "Recommended Components" list can only include
> components that have been formally reviewed in the magazine (with the
> exception of accessories, cables, and recording equipment).
Except for Category K, which is actually a very valuable one: components
not yet reviewed which on the basis of some staff experience are likely
to be recommended in the future and should be looked into. That is the
one place where the list COULD correct for some of weaknesses that come
with the inclusion policy. On the other hand, a product can sit on the
K List until it's virtually defunct. Straightwire Virtuoso has been in
the land of K Limbo for eons! Candidates for the K lists: Sonic Frontiers
Line 3 preamp, Merlin speakers, Blue Circle BC 3 preamp, VTL 250 triode
monoblocks, Naim CDS II....
Bob Neill
Arny Krüger
Leonard wrote in message
<37042f55...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
Arny wrote:
>:>>I can find a number of examples of the inverse - where
>:something
>:>>was recomended because it was on the list, over something
that
>:>>was not. The true state of any component not on that list is
>:>>"indeterminate", not "not recommended".
>:>
>:> A good point. Stereophile is a standard reference point.
>:>Products which have not been reviewed by the magazine
sometimes
>:become
>:>nebulous entities.
>:
>:
>:...for about 200,000 religious subjectivists who worship it and
>:magazines like it. For the other 250 million or so people in
the
>:US, they retain the potential to be viable commercial products
>:based on their performance as commercial products.
>
> I think that statement is a bit much.
But who cares about what you think? What are your credentials,
except for an ability to dodge questions you don't want to
answer, make personal attacks, and wax poetic about technology
you have no demonstrated understanding of?
> There are a few
> young newbies that get "whacked-off" because their
> gear is not listed.
There are bozo's like Rothman that think that any amp that is not
on the SP recommended components list, its trash. Why listen for
yourself when reading revealed truth is so much easier?
> But, to a man, all of the ole-timers
> that have discussed this with me, tend to understand
> it is merely an opinion of others, and as such, is nothing
> more than a pointer as defined by a group of reviewers.
It's been pointed out several times that just about every item
that SP reviews ends up getting recommended, and that the
recommendations are ordered essentially by list price. Sounds
like "Real Science" to me....
> It's informative...its opinion...that's about it. To push the
> "subjectivist" crowd to the land of "Stereophile Worship"
> is a bit heavy.
True, there is TAS-worship, and HFN&RR-worship, and... ;-)
>I read most of the Audio-rags...I find it
> informative, interesting, a source of humor at times and
> generally a positive adjunct to this hobby of ours. Having
> said that, I still make up my own mind about what I
> prefer...I neither lean on them for religious audio guidance,
> nor you, or your followers. I simply sit in my own little space
> and make those decisions a rather private matter. Stereophile
> is happy with that!
As long as you privately spend money with their advertisers...
;-)
>You've indicated, for years, you are
> unhappy with this degree of audio independence.
Hardly. Again, you are just making this up as you go along.
When are you going to stop posturing and making false claims? ;-(
Barry Rothman
Arny Krüger wrote, in a prime example of his habit of deceitful
posting:
>
> There are bozo's like Rothman that think that any amp that is not
> on the SP recommended components list, its trash. Why listen for
> yourself when reading revealed truth is so much easier?
When did I ever say such a thing? I demand that you list the exact
post or statement I ever made to that effect. In fact your statement
is a bald-faced lie and typical of how you often post deceitfully in
an effort to advance your weak, poorly thought, out argument.
Actually I have said the opposite many, many times here on RAO. In
fact, all of my responses regarding the recommended components list
specifically state my opinion that the list should be used only as a
guideline of what Stereophile has reviewed and thus recommends in one
fashion or another and that before buying anything a consumer would be
foolish not to listen to said component(s). Moreover, using one's own
ears to audition equipment is the cornerstone of what I believe about
the right method of purchasing audio equipment. And home auditions
are essential. How any one could try to turn that into the complete
opposite is beyond me, but apparently not beyond your demented little
mind.
Fact is, I own three pieces of gear that are not on the list and it
doesn't bother me one bit. My JM Labs Mini Utopias, Rowland Model 2
power amp (discontinued model now off the list) and my Theta Miles CD
player are all not recommended components. In fact, I had decided on
the Model 2 long before it originally appeared on the list, and the
same goes for my Rowland Synergy preamp. Better still, I took issue
with many of Robert Deutsch's comments and some of his review
methodology as they appeared in the printed review, and discussed this
with him via email. He actually preferred other preamps over the
Synergy, which I guess dispels your moronic assertion regarding my
"worship" of the written word as it appears in Stereophile.
Better still, I find some things on the list to be unworthy of my
purchasing dollars and there are many, many more components that I
have heard that I wish they would review and place on the list as I
think they should be considered by consumers looking for new gear.
But, in your moronic and fact distorting manner, you go on to say:
> It's been pointed out several times that just about every item
> that SP reviews ends up getting recommended, and that the
> recommendations are ordered essentially by list price. Sounds
> like "Real Science" to me....
It was never intended to be "real science" in the sense you try to
sarcastically imply and if you ever used your eyes and brain to read
the text that accompanies the recommended component list you would
know that the purpose and genesis of the list is explicitly stated in
the preamble to the list itself.
Finally, about the only other thing to be said of this concept of
"worship" you seem to think high end buyers/owners/wannabees have for
Stereophile is non-existent, except in the demented minds of people
like you - which is in the same league as those who become so fixated
on celebrities and such. In this regard, you have truly positioned
yourself as a Stereophile "Stalker", replete with lunatic ravings.
BR
Arny Krüger
Barry Rothman <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:37026999...@bellsouth.net...
>
>
> Arny Krüger wrote, in a prime example of his habit of deceitful
> posting:
> >
> > There are bozo's like Rothman that think that any amp that is
not
> > on the SP recommended components list, its trash. Why listen
for
> > yourself when reading revealed truth is so much easier?
I honestly thought that was why you were trashing my power amps.
if not that, why?
Barry Rothman
> Barry Rothman <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:37026999...@bellsouth.net...
> >
> >
> > Arny Krüger wrote, in a prime example of his habit of deceitful
> > posting:
> > >
> > > There are bozo's like Rothman that think that any amp that is
> not on the SP recommended components list, its trash. Why listen
> for yourself when reading revealed truth is so much easier?
In his reply, Arny said:
>
> I honestly thought that was why you were trashing my power amps.
> if not that, why?
Let's get one thing straight. I never trashed your power amps. The
only thing I ever commented on was your source unit - that
all-in-one-box unit that contained a cd player, tuner, preamp and
cassette deck. More to the point, I only commented on that in
response to your own comments. That you choose (prefer) that unit is
one thing. That you might argue that it serves as a reference point
against which to compare the performance of individual units, be they
high, mid or low priced, is really closer to my point.
You will argue this point, but I am convinced that a DVD player does
not match up to a good individual cd player in performance. My very
good Marantz DVD 930 does not measure up sonically (according to my
ears) to my Theta Miles. Does that mean that I don't agree that
people wanting to invest in something today should instead buy a
really good DVD player and wait to see what happens in the cd market?
The answer is no - as I happen to agree with you on this - unless of
course the buyer really wants premium performance today and is not
concerned with the reality that the player they buy might become
obsolete.
Which, taken to the next step, means that I don't feel your all-in-one
unit would sound very good on my system, which happens to be extremely
revealing - despite the fact that only one of my four major components
(the preamp) are on Stereophile's RC list. And, like I said earlier,
that preamp was not even the reviewer's "cup-of-tea", though he did
give it a generally good review.
All of this aside, you have never once read a comment of mine wherein
I said that anyone should take the written words of any review,
annual/bi-annual component list or similar writings from any
publication as gospel. The purchase of equipment is a personal matter
based on personal tastes. What turns you on or satisfies you may not
do it for me. That is why many of my friends are quite happy with
their mid fi receivers hooked up to what I consider to be inferior
speakers systems (as more than a few have those Bose cubes hanging
from their ceiling). And that is not to say that they don't recognize
the gross differences between what they hear when they visit my house
versus what they hear at home.
And let's get one final thing straight. I am not a shill for
Stereophile or any other publication. I happen to subscribe to
Stereophile, understand where they are coming from, what their
"mission" is and how they approach the business of writing about
audio. I take that into consideration and find the magazine enjoyable
reading. Many times I am confounded by the conclusions they come to
regarding equipment that I have heard and didn't personally feel
passed muster. Similarly, there have been times when I was pleased to
see that the reviewer heard what I heard. There have also been a few
reviews wherein they have obtained poor measurements from a unit that
they claimed pleasantly surprised them sonically and found their
attempts to explain this phenomenon interesting reading. Note the key
word here, "interesting". That is the point, after all, interesting
reading. It's not a bible, not God's words handed down about what to
buy, and neither are the words of any other reviewer at any other
publication.
And one final point. If you think I give you a hard unnecessarily,
then take a look at your responses to even the most benign threads. I
start a music thread so people can share ideas about what cd's they
like and why - particularly aimed at what they feel sounds good, and
all you can do is shit on the concept that I used the Stereophile show
as the venue, a device used only to give people a frame of reference.
I then start a new thread to solicit opinions of what music cd people
like so much they could listen to it for 5 hours straight and then
another 5 hours straight. You, in turn, can only find need to comment
on the exception about CDR's, which I purposely excluded in order
develop discussion about music people can buy based on the
recommendations of others.
You know, we all argue here about equipment, testing methodologies,
how to compare equipment, how much one really needs to spend, etc,
etc., but the central point remains the music. Perhaps you should
consider tempering your dogmatic style with some reasonable responses
that don't reflect your "Great Crusade". Better still, you might find
it interesting that I have personally gained far greater understanding
and respect for the "objectivist" point of view from just a sampling
of posts from JJ and John Feng, than from all of your bantering (as
well as the bantering of a few other choice "experts").
BR
Arny Krüger
Actually, all I ever said about it was that it was suitable for
the purpose, being a secondary front end for my system. I don't
prefer it, its just a necesary evil because FM, and cassette are
not extinct. As far as the CD player in it goes, I'm sure that if
pressed to identify it by just listening, you'd go down in flames
like Zip and Singh did. However, it is not the primary means by
which I play CD's.
Actually, what you claimed was:
http://x13.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=458425464
"In point of fact, Arny has noted that this is his prime source
unit
for cd's, cassettes and radio. It isn't for "recreation, travel
use,
etc." as you attempted to imply. The fact is that he listed it
third
in the list of components that make up his "Main" system. And it
is
the only source component listed at all for CD's, tapes and
radio."
In fact, the computer is the primarly source component for CD's.
It plays them digitally.
Actually, another thing you said was:
http://x13.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=459550646
"Great. And if we follow his lead we will have a $500 all-in-one
box
unit containing a cd player, tuner, cassette deck and preamp,
coupled
with a computer or two and an amp, and then an equalizer to try
to
make it sound reasonable. At least he used some good sense and
invested in those NHT's, which would sound far better if attached
to
some real electronics."
Since "electronics" includes amps, the source of my concern seems
obvious.
I don't think that you've actually heard ANY of the "electronics"
in my system, so where do you come off claiming that it is not
"real", posture-man?
Barry Rothman
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> In fact, the computer is the primarly source component for CD's.
> It plays them digitally.
>
In my opinion, that is even less heartwarming - a computer with all
that stuff going on inside of it, a power supply connected to so many
boards and such, and all of that feeding a music system. But, if it
makes you happy, so be it.
And you added:
> I don't think that you've actually heard ANY of the "electronics"
> in my system, so where do you come off claiming that it is not
> "real", posture-man?
>
It doesn't take any real posturing to comment on a system that is
comprised not of audio equipment, but of computer equipment, hooked up
to a power amp and speakers. But, if I speak based on an assumption,
let's just say that it is an educated guess and leave it at that.
Even more curious is your lack of comment on the rest of my post,
which I shall re-post in a readible format:
> You will argue this point, but I am convinced that a DVD player does
> not match up to a good individual cd player in performance. My very
> good Marantz DVD 930 does not measure up sonically (according to my
> ears) to my Theta Miles. Does that mean that I don't agree that
> people wanting to invest in something today should instead buy a
> really good DVD player and wait to see what happens in the cd market?
> The answer is no - as I happen to agree with you on this - unless of
> course the buyer really wants premium performance today and is not
> concerned with the reality that the player they buy might become
> obsolete.
>
> Which, taken to the next step, means that I don't feel your all-in-one
> unit would sound very good on my system, which happens to be extremely
> revealing - despite the fact that only one of my four major components
> (the preamp) are on Stereophile's RC list. And, like I said earlier,
> that preamp was not even the reviewer's "cup-of-tea", though he did
> give it a generally good review.
>
(I would add that I feel your computer based CD player would be
equally exposed on my system.)
jennifer burton
that is the most cogent and intelligent statement I have ever read on
rao. you said it all, and you said it well....no hate mongering, no
sophomoric babble.
jen
Garthap
>I don't like Stereophile and NEVER read it, but I do scan through their
>recommended components list. I am not too sure how it works. Is the idea
>that components that are not on the list not worth having? NHT's 3.3 is on
>the list, but the 95% identical 2.9 isn't. However the certainly inferior
>2.5i and Paradigm Studio/100 are one list. The PSB Gold is also on the list
>but it is no better than the 2.9. I own a pair of 2.9s. But that doesn't
>mean I am disappointed that Stereophile doesn't mention them. I just
>question the absolute value of a list that is supposed to be authoritative
>but clearly isn't.
>
>
The Stereophile RC list contains ONLY products previously tested in the
magazine.
So if you don´t like the magazine and never read it the list is probably
useless for you.
They obviously cannot test everything and many items they will never get to
test so the list is simply those products the Stereophile staff knows, tested
and gives some sort of personal recommendation on.
Garth
Arny Krüger
>
>
> "Arny Krüger" wrote:
> >
> > In fact, the computer is the primarly source component for
CD's.
> > It plays them digitally.
> >
>
> In my opinion, that is even less heartwarming - a computer with
all
> that stuff going on inside of it, a power supply connected to
so many
> boards and such, and all of that feeding a music system. But,
if it
> makes you happy, so be it.
Technically clueless as usual, eh, prejudice-man? At the point
the music leaves my computer it's just bits. If the noise inside
that computer contaminated any of the bits in it, the machine
would crash in a few milliseconds. It runs stably for weeks at a
time.
> And you added:
> > I don't think that you've actually heard ANY of the
"electronics"
> > in my system, so where do you come off claiming that it is
not
> > "real", posture-man?
> It doesn't take any real posturing to comment on a system that
is
> comprised not of audio equipment, but of computer equipment,
hooked up
> to a power amp and speakers. But, if I speak based on an
assumption,
> let's just say that it is an educated guess and leave it at
that.
Your education has been highly defective, and so is your reading
ability. My computer is not hooked to power amps, and I've said
this to you many times. My computer is hooked to a regular audio
component that you can buy in regular audio stores, called a
DSP-based system controller, made by Sony. Now, it has two
Motorola 56xxx DSP's in it, and arguably they are computers, but
the general system topology is the same as the Lexicon and
Meridian equivalents, just to name some names that might jog your
pea-brain.
> Even more curious is your lack of comment on the rest of my
post,
> which I shall re-post in a readible format:
More lies, like the one where you claimed that power amps are not
electronics?
> > You will argue this point, but I am convinced that a DVD
player does
> > not match up to a good individual cd player in performance.
You are a technical neophyte with ears of cloth. Who gives a
rat's hinnie about what you are convinced of?
You are convinced that power amps are not "electronics". You are
convinced that you are a web expert when you don't have a domain,
URL or IP address to your name. You are convinced that my power
amps are hooked to my computer. You are a posturing fool - a
professional dilettante who knows how to drop names.
> <My very
> > good Marantz DVD 930 does not measure up sonically (according
to my
> > ears) to my Theta Miles. Does that mean that I don't agree
that
> > people wanting to invest in something today should instead
buy a
> > really good DVD player and wait to see what happens in the cd
market?
I'm sure that you sonic evaluation of things you listen to are
just as valid as your claims about things you've never listened
to, which you posture about daily. Like Stereophile, your
listening evaluations are so prone to false positives and false
negatives that only God knows why you believe what you claim.
> > The answer is no - as I happen to agree with you on this -
unless of
> > course the buyer really wants premium performance today and
is not
> > concerned with the reality that the player they buy might
become
> > obsolete.
If you take the digital output of a cheap DVD player and hook it
to a good digital system controller, it will sound
indistinguishable from the high end transport of your choice. If
you hook the analog outputs of a high end CD player to the input
of just about any analog preamp, its technical performance, as
determined at the output of that analog component will probably
be worse than the comparable output of any good digital system
controller, including those that SRP for under $300.
> > Which, taken to the next step, means that I don't feel your
all-in-one
> > unit would sound very good on my system, which happens to be
extremely
> > revealing - despite the fact that only one of my four major
components
> > (the preamp) are on Stereophile's RC list. And, like I said
earlier,
> > that preamp was not even the reviewer's "cup-of-tea", though
he did
> > give it a generally good review.
> >
> (I would add that I feel your computer based CD player would be
> equally exposed on my system.)
Feel what you want. Some people around here actually think. Don't
try to compare yourself to them, posture-man.
>
> > All of this aside, you have never once read a comment of mine
wherein
> > I said that anyone should take the written words of any
review,
> > annual/bi-annual component list or similar writings from any
> > publication as gospel.
But, I think we can show that is about how your little pea brain
works.
> > The purchase of equipment is a personal matter
> > based on personal tastes. What turns you on or satisfies you
may not
> > do it for me.
If the criterial is just sound quality, then its highly probable
that if we took your entire system, up to the far end of the
speaker wires, and replaced it with a subset of mine (mine is
largeer and more complex, right?), you'd never know it by
listening.
> > That is why many of my friends are quite happy with
> > their mid fi receivers hooked up to what I consider to be
inferior
> > speakers systems (as more than a few have those Bose cubes
hanging
> > from their ceiling).
Speakers and electronics are two different categories of
equipment. I rather loathe those little bass cubes and can often
hear their egregious distortions from the next room. When I think
about people who substitute listening to hype for actually
listening to equipment, I think of you, and people with those
little Bose cubes. Opposite ends of the spectrum, but both
equally mislead.
> > And let's get one final thing straight. I am not a shill for
> > Stereophile or any other publication.
No, you just act that way most of the time. I would hope and pray
that if SP has official shills, that they'd do a better job than
you!
Arny Krüger
jennifer burton <Harm...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSU.4.05.990331...@galileo.cris.com...
Shows how clueless you are. It's all hate-mongering and sophmoric
babble, just with a face that you like.
Barry Rothman
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> More lies, like the one where you claimed that power amps are not
> electronics?
I never did such a thing, and once again you lie like a rug. Please
cite any statement from me that said power amps are not electronics.
You really are a souless moron.
>
> > > You will argue this point, but I am convinced that a DVD
> player does
> > > not match up to a good individual cd player in performance.
>
> You are a technical neophyte with ears of cloth. Who gives a
> rat's hinnie about what you are convinced of?
>
Anyone who wants to build a system that sounds good would consider my
opinions quite valuable, as well as anyone with an interest in music.
As for the music part, the world of RAO is still waiting for your
first post that involves real music. As for what I am convinced of is
clear: common sense, coupled with careful auditioning and the use of
one's ears will lead to a system that can be very, very satisfying.
It works for me.
> You are convinced that power amps are not "electronics". You are
> convinced that you are a web expert when you don't have a domain,
> URL or IP address to your name. You are convinced that my power
> amps are hooked to my computer. You are a posturing fool - a
> professional dilettante who knows how to drop names.
Drop names? Never happened once. The very fact that I refuse to drop
any names that would give you a clue as to my involvement with
Internet companies really hits hard, doesn't it? But your efforts at
deceitful posting continue to gain speed, as the further we go with
this the more you create crap to post.
>
> > <My very
> > > good Marantz DVD 930 does not measure up sonically (according
> to my
> > > ears) to my Theta Miles. Does that mean that I don't agree
> that
> > > people wanting to invest in something today should instead
> buy a
> > > really good DVD player and wait to see what happens in the cd
> market?
>
> I'm sure that you sonic evaluation of things you listen to are
> just as valid as your claims about things you've never listened
> to, which you posture about daily. Like Stereophile, your
> listening evaluations are so prone to false positives and false
> negatives that only God knows why you believe what you claim.
Only God and anyone who has heard my system knows that my claims are
in fact quite real, despite your babble about false positives and
false negatives. In fact, one of the few false positives I've seen
proof of is your expertise in putting together an audio system.
>
> > > The answer is no - as I happen to agree with you on this -
> unless of
> > > course the buyer really wants premium performance today and
> is not
> > > concerned with the reality that the player they buy might
> become
> > > obsolete.
>
> If you take the digital output of a cheap DVD player and hook it
> to a good digital system controller, it will sound
> indistinguishable from the high end transport of your choice. If
> you hook the analog outputs of a high end CD player to the input
> of just about any analog preamp, its technical performance, as
> determined at the output of that analog component will probably
> be worse than the comparable output of any good digital system
> controller, including those that SRP for under $300.
That is your opinion and one that is not shared by all people. But,
if it makes you happy, so be it.
> > > Which, taken to the next step, means that I don't feel your
> all-in-one
> > > unit would sound very good on my system, which happens to be
> extremely
> > > revealing - despite the fact that only one of my four major
> components
> > > (the preamp) are on Stereophile's RC list. And, like I said
> earlier,
> > > that preamp was not even the reviewer's "cup-of-tea", though
> he did
> > > give it a generally good review.
> > >
> > (I would add that I feel your computer based CD player would be
> > equally exposed on my system.)
>
> Feel what you want. Some people around here actually think. Don't
> try to compare yourself to them, posture-man.
You're right, I don't have to think, only listen in order to know what
sounds good. Your problem is that you are on a continual search for
proof that your choices are not second rate.
>
> >
> > > All of this aside, you have never once read a comment of mine
> wherein
> > > I said that anyone should take the written words of any
> review,
> > > annual/bi-annual component list or similar writings from any
> > > publication as gospel.
>
> But, I think we can show that is about how your little pea brain
> works.
>
Really? How about using my own actions? I would think they speak
louder than any of your lies.
> > > The purchase of equipment is a personal matter
> > > based on personal tastes. What turns you on or satisfies you
> may not
> > > do it for me.
>
> If the criterial is just sound quality, then its highly probable
> that if we took your entire system, up to the far end of the
> speaker wires, and replaced it with a subset of mine (mine is
> largeer and more complex, right?), you'd never know it by
> listening.
Really? And this being the same person who inferred that in a blind
test I probably would not be able to distinguish between my JM LAbs
Mini Utopias and my former Vandersteen 1C's? Keep believing that
dream if it makes you feel better about your own choices.
>
> > > That is why many of my friends are quite happy with
> > > their mid fi receivers hooked up to what I consider to be
> inferior
> > > speakers systems (as more than a few have those Bose cubes
> hanging
> > > from their ceiling).
>
> Speakers and electronics are two different categories of
> equipment. I rather loathe those little bass cubes and can often
> hear their egregious distortions from the next room. When I think
> about people who substitute listening to hype for actually
> listening to equipment, I think of you, and people with those
> little Bose cubes. Opposite ends of the spectrum, but both
> equally mislead.
Ye[, you got that right. I'm the one with the quality guitars who
abhors the sound of things with bad "tone", but would accept an audio
system that isn't true to real sound of those guitars! Nice try.
Fact is that when it comes to acoustic performances, I am very
demanding and my system reflects that preference.
>
> > > And let's get one final thing straight. I am not a shill for
> > > Stereophile or any other publication.
>
> No, you just act that way most of the time. I would hope and pray
> that if SP has official shills, that they'd do a better job than
> you!
Gee Arny, thanks for the compliment. Like I said, I find more value
in just a handful of posts from John Feng and JJ than all of your
output on RAO combined. As for being a shill for Stereophile, it
seems to me that you pin that label on just about anyone who disagrees
with you, along with some similar labels.
jennifer burton
>
> Shows how clueless you are. It's all hate-mongering and sophmoric
> babble, just with a face that you like.
>
>
called clueless by you is paramount to being called a flirt by Monica or
racist by Adolph.
Unlike you, I am astute enough to realize I know very little about
hi-fidelity, and again unlike you I love music enough that I will learn a
lot more.
Jen
>
>
Steve Zipser
Harm...@concentric.net says...
>
> >
> > Shows how clueless you are. It's all hate-mongering and sophmoric
> > babble, just with a face that you like.
> >
> >
> called clueless by you is paramount to being called a flirt by Monica or
> racist by Adolph.
>
> Unlike you, I am astute enough to realize I know very little about
> hi-fidelity, and again unlike you I love music enough that I will learn a
> lot more.
>
> Jen
> >
Jen:
It is not worth it to argue with Arnold. He definitely has his own
unique ideas about audio, and they are obviously rather different from
your own and different from the vast majority of music loving
audiophiles.
I have found a killfile to be particularly useful in this group.
Did your packages show up yet?
ENJOY THAT MUSIC!
Cheers
Zip
trotsky
Jen, I really think I should step in and say something here. Although
every word of Rothman's criticism of Krueger is valid, there are a
couple of things that I feel should be clarified. The first is this
latest bout of audio-political-correctness: "it's really the music that
matters." This is a myopic statement on two levels: (1) Usenet is chock
full of ngs discussing music, from almost every angle. To come on an
audio group and say, "why discuss audio, when it's really the music that
matters?" doesn't make much sense. In this respect, Ferstler, whom feng
and JJ have been taking to task, is actually ahead of the game--although
much of what he says is nonsensical, at least he has a point of view of
discussing recording quality, i.e. why we should be interested as
audiophiles. I'll bet there are zillions of 78's out there that have
fantastic music on them, but I'm a little reluctant to go out and listen
to these because of my sensibilties as an audiophile.
(2) Like it or not, home theater is what's currently driving the audio
marketplace. Thus, though it sounds very all-encompassing and zen like
to say "it's the music that matters", that isn't entirely true.
Granted, I think the emotional impact of music makes one most likely to
discuss it, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were quite a few
lurkers out there who got into the audio thing through the purchase of
home theater equipment, and this is rarely discussed on this group.
Lastly, I must say that the two threads that Rothman originated, about
picking 5 discs and then picking one disc, are really indicative of what
the biggest problem with discussing music is: there is no discussion.
Trying to pigeonhole musical tastes and preferences into 5 or even one
disc is a joke, frankly. To me, a discussion of one's top 500 cd's or
top 5000 songs would be more interesting and relevant. What we wind up
getting are baby boomers talking about the same Rickie Lee Jones, James
Taylor, and Simon and Garfunkel releases over and over. It is a shame
that this "music that matters" crowd doesn't really listen to any
variety of music at all. To toot my own horn, it seems like only
Fear3000 and I talk about any real variety of music. Granted, the baby
boomer stuff is great--I have a lot of it in my collection--but,
personally, I would be interested in finding out if there are any of
these baby boomers on the group that listen to anything that came out
after 1990 that doesn't say "Sarah Mclaughlin" or "Natalie Merchant" on it.
Fear3000
>baby boomers talking about the same Rickie Lee Jones, James
>Taylor, and Simon and Garfunkel releases over and over.
>it seems like only
>Fear3000 and I talk about any real variety of music
Hi Greg,
I could not agree more with your observations. I'd never post this on RAO, but
i think you know as well as I do that most audiophiles have terrible tastes in
music, coupled to rediculously small record collections. All they listen to is
that Chesky bitch :-)) If I hear Rebecca Pigeon doing "Spanish Harlem" just one
more time...
All my best,
Felix
Fear3000
[this was meant to be a private e-mail, but since I posted it by mistake...]
Greg Singh wrote:
>>baby boomers talking about the same Rickie Lee Jones, James
>>Taylor, and Simon and Garfunkel releases over and over.
>>it seems like only
>>Fear3000 and I talk about any real variety of music
I wrote:
>I could not agree more with your observations. I'd never post this
>on RAO, but I think you know as well as I do that most audiophiles
>have terrible tastes in music, coupled to rediculously small
>record collections. All they listen to is that Chesky bitch :-)) If I
>hear Rebecca Pigeon doing "Spanish Harlem" just one more time...
It's a sad fact, but unfortunately it's true ,IME. I can't even recall the
number of times I walked into people's listening rooms to find a very limited
number of recordings - all CDs, all female vocalists. Those same individuals
shared Fester's outlook: if a piece is not well recorded, it's not worth
listening to - disgusting!
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Gruvmyster
> It is a shame
> that this "music that matters" crowd doesn't really listen to any
> variety of music at all. To toot my own horn, it seems like only
> Fear3000 and I talk about any real variety of music.
Ahhh... ahhh... <bullshit>
> Granted, the baby
> boomer stuff is great--I have a lot of it in my collection--but,
> personally, I would be interested in finding out if there are any of
> these baby boomers on the group that listen to anything that came out
> after 1990 that doesn't say "Sarah Mclaughlin" or "Natalie Merchant" on it.
This baby boomer's collection contains at least 1/2 music written before 1920
(by the likes of Beethoven, Sibelius, Debussy, Gershwin, etc...), 1/4 written
from 1930 to 1965 (jazz from the 'golden age'), 1/8 'odd' music (from dulcimer
folk bands to Slim Whitman), show tunes, classical guitar, modern jazz, blues,
R+B, and on and on and on.
Simply because you prefer to listen to some 'modern' pop hardly qualifies you as
a diverse listener, nor as one expert with a 'variety' of music, you pompous
idiot.
Doug
--
"Ignorance per se is not nearly as dangerous
as ignorance of ignorance"-- Sydney Harris
jennifer burton
> getting are baby boomers talking about the same Rickie Lee Jones, James
> Taylor, and Simon and Garfunkel releases over and over. It is a shame
> that this "music that matters" crowd doesn't really listen to any
> variety of music at all. To toot my own horn, it seems like only
> Fear3000 and I talk about any real variety of music. Granted, the baby
> boomer stuff is great--I have a lot of it in my collection--but,
> personally, I would be interested in finding out if there are any of
> these baby boomers on the group that listen to anything that came out
> after 1990 that doesn't say "Sarah Mclaughlin" or "Natalie Merchant" on it.
>
>
hmm. this boomer has well over 2000 albums and all genres are well
represented with the exception of disco and opera...don't and won't own
any 'merchant' either. admittedly i have alot of classic boomer stuff
(simon, taylor, joel) but i love many types of music. i call my
collection eclectic and many have called it schizophrenic. :) i started
rebuilding my collection eight years ago when i had over 3000 vinyl albums
"lost" by movers.
as to "pick 1 and 5" i too think it would be wonderful to see lists of
others top 500 albums or 1000 song titles but at least br made a stab at
promoting a discussion of "music". personally, i would be delighted to see
your top 500 album picks, either in this ng or in email. you show me
yours..i'll show you mine. <g>
concerning your assertion about home theater enthusiasts being lead to
audiophile, well i'll have to thunk on that one for a while...doesn't feel
right to me.
thanks for your response, i enjoyed it.
jen
Steve Zipser
fear...@aol.com says...
> >From: fear...@aol.com (Fear3000)
>
> [this was meant to be a private e-mail, but since I posted it by mistake...]
>
> Greg Singh wrote:
>
> >>Taylor, and Simon and Garfunkel releases over and over.
>
> >>Fear3000 and I talk about any real variety of music
>
> I wrote:
>
> >I could not agree more with your observations. I'd never post this
> >on RAO, but I think you know as well as I do that most audiophiles
> >have terrible tastes in music, coupled to rediculously small
> >record collections. All they listen to is that Chesky bitch :-)) If I
> >hear Rebecca Pigeon doing "Spanish Harlem" just one more time...
>
> It's a sad fact, but unfortunately it's true ,IME. I can't even recall the
> number of times I walked into people's listening rooms to find a very limited
> number of recordings - all CDs, all female vocalists. Those same individuals
> shared Fester's outlook: if a piece is not well recorded, it's not worth
> listening to - disgusting!
I think that is the biggest crock o' shit I ever heard! Most of my
customers have VERY extensive record and/or CD collections. I also love
when customers come into my shop with their own demo material - I have
found this is one of the safest methods of adding to my music collection.
If they bring in something I like, I write it down and go buy it! No
guesswork involved at all.
Felix, you are hanging with the wrong crowd.
Zip
PS: I have 1600 CD's, 1200 LP's (down from about 3000), 100 R to R tapes
and about 600 live concerts on cassette.
Barry Rothman
Uh, I think you mean "Barry being called clueless by you (Arny)" is
what you meant.\
Thanks for the nice words! (I know what you really meant!)
BR
jennifer burton wrote:
>
> >
> > Shows how clueless you are. It's all hate-mongering and sophmoric
> > babble, just with a face that you like.
> >
> >
Fear3000
>>
>> [this was meant to be a private e-mail, but since I posted it
>>by mistake...]
>>
>> Greg Singh wrote:
>>
>> >>baby boomers talking about the same Rickie Lee Jones, James
>> >>Taylor, and Simon and Garfunkel releases over and over.
>>
>> >>it seems like only
>> >>Fear3000 and I talk about any real variety of music
>>
>> I wrote:
>>
>> >I could not agree more with your observations. I'd never post this
>> >on RAO, but I think you know as well as I do that most audiophiles
>> >have terrible tastes in music, coupled to rediculously small
>> >record collections. All they listen to is that Chesky bitch :-)) If I
>> >hear Rebecca Pigeon doing "Spanish Harlem" just one more time...
>>
>> It's a sad fact, but unfortunately it's true ,IME. I can't even recall the
>> number of times I walked into people's listening rooms to find a
>>very limited number of recordings - all CDs, all female vocalists.
>>Those same individuals shared Fester's outlook: if a piece is not
>>well recorded, it's not worth listening to - disgusting!
>I think that is the biggest crock o' shit I ever heard!
Surely not the biggest? :-)
> Most of my customers have VERY extensive record and/or
>CD collections. I also love hen customers come into my shop with
>their own demo material - I have ound this is one of the safest methods
>of adding to my music collection. If they bring in something I like, I
>write it down and go buy it! No guesswork involved at all.
My experience has been different. I'd say that relative to the total number of
customers I had, perhaps 10-15% had extensive record collections.
As for the rest...
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
jennifer burton
> In article <Pine.GSU.4.05.99040...@galileo.cris.com>,
> Harm...@concentric.net says...
> >
> > >
> > > Shows how clueless you are. It's all hate-mongering and sophmoric
> > > babble, just with a face that you like.
> > >
> > >
> > I admit the brain behind that face is pretty impressive, but Arny being
> > called clueless by you is paramount to being called a flirt by Monica or
> > racist by Adolph.
> >
> > Unlike you, I am astute enough to realize I know very little about
> > hi-fidelity, and again unlike you I love music enough that I will learn a
> > lot more.
> >
> > Jen
> > >
>
> Jen:
> It is not worth it to argue with Arnold. He definitely has his own
> unique ideas about audio, and they are obviously rather different from
> your own and different from the vast majority of music loving
> audiophiles.
>
> I have found a killfile to be particularly useful in this group.
> Did your packages show up yet?
> ENJOY THAT MUSIC!
> Cheers
> Zip
>
> --
> LETS GO PANTHERS
> Sunshine Stereo,Inc http://sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
> 9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
> PASS Rega Miranda CODA Audible Illusions CEC Camelot Parasound ESP
> Audio Logic Chiro Benz-Micro Dunlavy NEAR NHT Gallo Zenith Arcane
> Mordaunt-Short EAD Vans-Evers Monster/ENTECH Straightwire Eggleston
>
>
yes! Yes! Assuming there is only one package, the stuff got here! Can't
wait to get it home and set up. Thanks Zip for the lightening fast
service.
Jen
trot...@my-dejanews.com
z...@sunshinestereo.com (Steve Zipser) wrote:
>
>
> I think that is the biggest crock o' shit I ever heard! Most of my
> customers have VERY extensive record and/or CD collections. I also love
> found this is one of the safest methods of adding to my music collection.
> If they bring in something I like, I write it down and go buy it! No
> guesswork involved at all.
>
> Zip
>
> PS: I have 1600 CD's, 1200 LP's (down from about 3000), 100 R to R tapes
> and about 600 live concerts on cassette.
>
Steve, why not try hanging out in my neck of the woods sometime? See how
sick of listening to the same Dire Straits and Steely Dan songs over and over
again you get! Demo material can make or break a presentation, and when a
customer comes in with his cache of poorly mastered classic rock ditties,
your odds of a creating a favorable impression go down the toilet. Couple
that with the equally shitty sounding "alternative" discs--Dave Matthews
might be okay music, but the sound quality just isn't there. You might have
been at an advantage having been on the East Coast, where people tend to be
more eclectic, but I doubt it. The fact of the matter is, regardless of what
Fester says, there are an awful lot of poor sounding recordings out there,
and there is a pretty good chance of a potential customer bringing one in as
his "reference" disc. You can also couple that with the phenomon Felix
mentioned--Rebecca Pidgeon, as an example, is considered "reference" quality,
and is a lame sounding recording of equally lame music. Not only that--the
movie "The Spanish Prisoner" was lame too! In stark contrast is Patricia
Barber's "Modern Cool"--great music, audiophile approved, and an absolutely
kick ass recording. How many of your customers have this in hand, Steve?
How many are trying to make Howie Fester look like a genius by listening to
"Break on Through to the Other Side"?
Barry Rothman
trotsky wrote:
>
>
> Jen, I really think I should step in and say something here. Although
> every word of Rothman's criticism of Krueger is valid, there are a
> couple of things that I feel should be clarified. The first is this
> latest bout of audio-political-correctness: "it's really the music that
> matters." This is a myopic statement on two levels: (1) Usenet is chock
> full of ngs discussing music, from almost every angle. To come on an
> audio group and say, "why discuss audio, when it's really the music that
> matters?" doesn't make much sense.
No disagreement about the other music newsgroups, but you still miss
the point of the comment "it's really the music that matters." It
isn't that the music is all that matters, but rather that the point of
having an audio system is to enjoy music, not test tones, not so you
can put your components on a test bench and analyze the crap out of
them, etc. And, since this a newsgroup that attracts people who like
audio systems, take great interest in the equipment they own and own
such equipment in order to maximize the music experience based on
their preferences, then where else to solicit opinions about good
music that others prefer in an effort to share such opinions and find
suggestions for new purchases. That you miss this point amazes me.
> In this respect, Ferstler, whom feng
> and JJ have been taking to task, is actually ahead of the game--although
> much of what he says is nonsensical, at least he has a point of view of
> discussing recording quality, i.e. why we should be interested as
> audiophiles. I'll bet there are zillions of 78's out there that have
> fantastic music on them, but I'm a little reluctant to go out and listen
> to these because of my sensibilties as an audiophile.
>
Howie doesn't claim that we should just try to find the best
recordings of the music we like, he takes it one step further and
places listening to better performances by better artists secondary to
listening to great recordings (engineering-wise).
> (2) Like it or not, home theater is what's currently driving the audio
> marketplace. Thus, though it sounds very all-encompassing and zen like
> to say "it's the music that matters", that isn't entirely true.
> Granted, I think the emotional impact of music makes one most likely to
> discuss it, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were quite a few
> lurkers out there who got into the audio thing through the purchase of
> home theater equipment, and this is rarely discussed on this group.
>
Fine, you want to start a thread about great home theater software,
then go for it. Personally, I don't find myself buying a DVD simply
because it has great special effects. Rather, my purchases have and
continue to be limited to DVD's of movies that I enjoy so much I want
them around, available to watch whenever I want - though you can add
to that list DVDs of children's stuff that my son and my wife and I
can watch and enjoy together (otherwise it's bought only on VHS).
> Lastly, I must say that the two threads that Rothman originated, about
> picking 5 discs and then picking one disc, are really indicative of what
> the biggest problem with discussing music is: there is no discussion.
> Trying to pigeonhole musical tastes and preferences into 5 or even one
> disc is a joke, frankly.
No one tried to pigeonhole anyone, either with respect to their tastes
and preferences or their all time favorites. Rather, it was an
exercise in what would you pick if you wanted to either audition all
that equipment or just wanted to hear a select number of discs in that
type of setting (comprised of some super systems designed to "wow"
show attendees).
> To me, a discussion of one's top 500 cd's or
> top 5000 songs would be more interesting and relevant. What we wind up
> getting are baby boomers talking about the same Rickie Lee Jones, James
> Taylor, and Simon and Garfunkel releases over and over. It is a shame
> that this "music that matters" crowd doesn't really listen to any
> variety of music at all.
It is statements like this that make it so hard to defend you
sometimes. Hey, I grew up listening to what today you call classic
rock and as my tastes have evolved to enjoy some of today's more
alternative artists, I have also maintained a love of those artists
whose works endure today and who could have put out any number of
those works today and they would still be considered brilliant. That
you don't enjoy some of those artists is a function of your tastes and
preferences, but to denigrate the preferences of others makes you more
narrow minded than even Ferstler.
As for your comment about listening to a variety of music, you really
come off looking like a horse's ass. Gosh, Trots, how many Broadway
shows have you attended in your life and how many such albums do you
own? Just cause someone doesn't list such stuff in their 5 picks
doesn't mean that something like that isn't in their collections - and
the same goes for classic jazz, classical music, opera and the like.
> To toot my own horn, it seems like only
> Fear3000 and I talk about any real variety of music. Granted, the baby
> boomer stuff is great--I have a lot of it in my collection--but,
> personally, I would be interested in finding out if there are any of
> these baby boomers on the group that listen to anything that came out
> after 1990 that doesn't say "Sarah Mclaughlin" or "Natalie Merchant" on it.
"To toot your own horn"? Gee, isn't it nice to be so avant garde, so
chic, so full of true musical intelligence, so full of good taste.
Hey, I have stuff that ranges from Dinah Washington to Green Day, from
Die Fledermaus to Lauryn Hill, from the Brandenburg Concertos to
Stevie Wonder. And so what!
Like I said, it is comments like these that make you so hard to
defend.
BR
Barry Rothman
BR
Gruvmyster wrote:
>
>
> This baby boomer's collection contains at least 1/2 music written before 1920
> (by the likes of Beethoven, Sibelius, Debussy, Gershwin, etc...), 1/4 written
> from 1930 to 1965 (jazz from the 'golden age'), 1/8 'odd' music (from dulcimer
> folk bands to Slim Whitman), show tunes, classical guitar, modern jazz, blues,
> R+B, and on and on and on.
>
> Simply because you prefer to listen to some 'modern' pop hardly qualifies you as
> a diverse listener, nor as one expert with a 'variety' of music, you pompous
> idiot.
>
> Doug
Steve Zipser
says...
> Not only that--the movie "The Spanish Prisoner" was lame too!
I liked it. I thought there were some genuinely good plot twists to keep
it interesting.
> In stark contrast is Patricia Barber's "Modern Cool"--great music,
> audiophile approved, and an absolutely kick ass recording.
I'm already bored by it. If you want a serious recording, try one of the
new XRCD's of Sarah Vaughan - How Long Has This Been Going On? Or there
duet album of Ella and Joe Pass - that is timeless music - or the Harry
Belafonte at Carnegie - best of all, Louie and Ella doing Summmertime
from Porgy and Bess.
> How many of your customers have this in hand, Steve?
Many! I can't think of one that used Steely Dan in a while, but I still
listen and use Aja from time to time. As stated, that's where I get a
lot of my good demo stuff!
> How many are trying to make Howie Fester look like a genius by listening to
> "Break on Through to the Other Side"?
That is awesome music - but I cannot think of anyone that has pulled out
a doors album for demo. OTOH, the Dave Matthews album with TOO MUCH on
it does have some excellent music with very fine sound quality on it.
Greg - a strong and effective salesman can use those bad recordings to
advantage! Explain to your customer that this speaker or this system is
good enough to reveal the differences in the quality of recordings, and
then pull out some of your own samples of music of the same genre. So
when someone pulls out a bomb, show them why it's a bomb.
Edward Derson Hou
> In article <7e0q8u$uo6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, trot...@my-dejanews.com
> says...
> > Not only that--the movie "The Spanish Prisoner" was lame too!
>
> I liked it. I thought there were some genuinely good plot twists to keep
> it interesting.
I had mixed feelings about it. I definitey was glad that I saw it, but I
probably wouldn't watch it a 2nd time (assuming I didn't misunderstand any
of the major plot twists). I suppose if one doesn't like Rebecca Pidgeon
(I do!), then this movie isn't very attractive.
>
> > In stark contrast is Patricia Barber's "Modern Cool"--great music,
> > audiophile approved, and an absolutely kick ass recording.
>
> I'm already bored by it. If you want a serious recording, try one of the
> new XRCD's of Sarah Vaughan - How Long Has This Been Going On? Or there
> duet album of Ella and Joe Pass - that is timeless music - or the Harry
> Belafonte at Carnegie - best of all, Louie and Ella doing Summmertime
> from Porgy and Bess.
>
I still listen to Light My Fire and Let It Rain (Vamp) regularly, but
otherwise, the rest is "only" decent. The Doors on DCC, OTOH... ;-)
-Eddie
Brian L. McCarty
----------
In article <MPG.116d53e7f...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
z...@sunbankruptstereo.com (Steve Ziploser) wrote:
> I have found a killfile to be particularly useful in this group.
Yes, we know.
You answer the "killfile" messages first!
Arny Krüger
>
>
> "Arny Krüger" wrote:
> >
> > More lies, like the one where you claimed that power amps are
not
> > electronics?
>
> I never did such a thing, and once again you lie like a rug.
Please
> cite any statement from me that said power amps are not
electronics.
> You really are a souless moron.
It's simple. You said that the electronics in my system were
problematical, and later on in another post claimed that did not
include the power amps.
Of course, you've never heard ANY of the electronics in my
system, power amps or otherwise. So, this begs the question how
you know that any of the electronics in my system are
problematical, except by personal prejudice and speculation
presented as fact.
Of course, if I tried to apply what you said, and get you to sign
off on the adequacy of my power amps, I'm sure you'd try to
backtrack and revise one more time... ;-(
Given that you are a self-proclaimed superior wordsmith, I'm
going to presume that if you meant all electronics in my system
but the power amps, you would have said that. Therefore, I can
only conclude that you want us to think that power amps are not
electronics.
Want me to again illustrate this with quotes from DejaNews, just
like I did last night?
Barry Rothman
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> It's simple. You said that the electronics in my system were
> problematical, and later on in another post claimed that did not
> include the power amps.
>
You and I both know what I meant. In case you are confused, here it
is again. I think your source units are below par if meant to be
considered a reference standard.
> Of course, you've never heard ANY of the electronics in my
> system, power amps or otherwise. So, this begs the question how
> you know that any of the electronics in my system are
> problematical, except by personal prejudice and speculation
> presented as fact.
Speculation? Absolutely.
>
> Of course, if I tried to apply what you said, and get you to sign
> off on the adequacy of my power amps, I'm sure you'd try to
> backtrack and revise one more time... ;-(
>
Again, I am not concerned with whatever you use as a power amp. Never
once commented on that aspect of your system.
> Given that you are a self-proclaimed superior wordsmith, I'm
> going to presume that if you meant all electronics in my system
> but the power amps, you would have said that. Therefore, I can
> only conclude that you want us to think that power amps are not
> electronics.
No, this is not a conclusion, but your attempt to twist what I said.
You know it and I know it. Besides, do you think you fool anyone into
thinking that I might not know that a power amp is an electronic
device? Considering my experience and knowledge of what's on the
market, that is hardly believable.
>
> Want me to again illustrate this with quotes from DejaNews, just
> like I did last night?
Go ahead. Take your best shot. The only one who keeps looking
foolish is you. No one here believes your sad tales of woe.
George M. Middius
>> > Not only that--the movie "The Spanish Prisoner" was lame too!
>I had mixed feelings about it. I definitey was glad that I saw it, but I
>probably wouldn't watch it a 2nd time (assuming I didn't misunderstand any
>of the major plot twists).
I found that movie utterly unwatchable. The screenplay wasn't
much more than an outline, a ghost of a story. The wussiness,
I have to say, is typical of Mamet. I would bet a month's
salary that Fester loved that movie, and Glengarry too.
George M. Middius
Remove "jiffy" to reply
Brian L. McCarty
----------
In article <MPG.116d53e7f...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
z...@sunswinestereo.com (Steve Zipovich) wrote:
> I have found a killfile to be particularly useful in this group.
Yes, it organizes the messages that you will always answer FIRST!
Brian L. McCarty
----------
In article <MPG.116d703ba...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
z...@sunswinestereo.com (Steve Zipswine) wrote:
> PS: I have 1600 CD's, 1200 LP's (down from about 3000), 100 R to R tapes
> and about 600 live concerts on cassette, but Gigi still complains about my 3"
> penis.
What? Too big for her to handle?
trot...@my-dejanews.com
Barry Rothman <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> No disagreement about the other music newsgroups, but you still miss
> the point of the comment "it's really the music that matters." It
> isn't that the music is all that matters, but rather that the point of
> having an audio system is to enjoy music, not test tones, not so you
> can put your components on a test bench and analyze the crap out of
> them, etc. And, since this a newsgroup that attracts people who like
> audio systems, take great interest in the equipment they own and own
> such equipment in order to maximize the music experience based on
> their preferences, then where else to solicit opinions about good
> music that others prefer in an effort to share such opinions and find
> suggestions for new purchases. That you miss this point amazes me.
What do you mean by "new" purchases Barry? Is this the Barry that agrees
with Dog Haugen about it being unnecessary to be cognizant of any recent
musical releases whatsoever? I think we have beaten to death the concept of
"Don't be a geek like Arny and listen to five seconds worth of music and then
later say you even have a reason for owning a hifi." That's a given--we all
know who the geeks on the group are, and yet, 30,000 posts later, we are
still having bitch sessions with the likes of Arny and Howie, while
simultaneously trumpeting "It's really the music that matters, not the bitch
sessions with the geeks." Don't tell me I'm "missing the point"--I can't
believe you have the gall to go there. What's next--Arny type comments about
me having the worst reading comprehension problem in the history of Usenet?
Here's a salient point, Barry--everybody, with the exception of Mike McKelvy,
is capable of reading what is written. That said, what would you say is the
percentage of your posts in the past week that fall in the "bitch session"
category? That would be an easy one to tally up.
I wrote:
>
> > In this respect, Ferstler, whom feng
> > and JJ have been taking to task, is actually ahead of the game--although
> > much of what he says is nonsensical, at least he has a point of view of
> > discussing recording quality, i.e. why we should be interested as
> > audiophiles. I'll bet there are zillions of 78's out there that have
> > fantastic music on them, but I'm a little reluctant to go out and listen
> > to these because of my sensibilties as an audiophile.
> >
>
> Howie doesn't claim that we should just try to find the best
> recordings of the music we like, he takes it one step further and
> places listening to better performances by better artists secondary to
> listening to great recordings (engineering-wise).
Yeah, that would be the "non-sensical" part. You didn't miss that point, did
you, Barry? ;-)
I wrote:
>
> > (2) Like it or not, home theater is what's currently driving the audio
> > marketplace. Thus, though it sounds very all-encompassing and zen like
> > to say "it's the music that matters", that isn't entirely true.
> > Granted, I think the emotional impact of music makes one most likely to
> > discuss it, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were quite a few
> > lurkers out there who got into the audio thing through the purchase of
> > home theater equipment, and this is rarely discussed on this group.
> >
> Fine, you want to start a thread about great home theater software,
> then go for it. Personally, I don't find myself buying a DVD simply
> because it has great special effects. Rather, my purchases have and
> continue to be limited to DVD's of movies that I enjoy so much I want
> them around, available to watch whenever I want - though you can add
> to that list DVDs of children's stuff that my son and my wife and I
> can watch and enjoy together (otherwise it's bought only on VHS).
It's funny that you should mention DVD. You obviously have quite a system,
and, I think, are a discerning listener. Personally, I find DVDs substandard
in terms of audio quality. What's your opinion on that?
>
> > Lastly, I must say that the two threads that Rothman originated, about
> > picking 5 discs and then picking one disc, are really indicative of what
> > the biggest problem with discussing music is: there is no discussion.
> > Trying to pigeonhole musical tastes and preferences into 5 or even one
> > disc is a joke, frankly.
>
> No one tried to pigeonhole anyone, either with respect to their tastes
> and preferences or their all time favorites. Rather, it was an
> exercise in what would you pick if you wanted to either audition all
> that equipment or just wanted to hear a select number of discs in that
> type of setting (comprised of some super systems designed to "wow"
> show attendees).
Well, on the one hand I suppose I should laud you for starting a thread that
is outside the realm of the bitch sessions with geeks. On the other hand, I
think the point I raised is no less valid: what's point? I have a couple of
cd wallets that hold twenty discs a piece--they aren't hard to carry around.
That way, if I'm in the mood to listen to something that I have already
determined to be of (my) reference quality, I just whip it out. Perhaps if
cds weighed a pound a piece, then you might want to set a limit of five
pounds of weight to carry around with you. However, back in the real world,
if we set this five pound limit, how many cds would this actually be? Again,
what's the point of pigeonholing oneself to 5 discs, unless, of course, we
don't have much of a selection to start with, i.e. the same discs by the same
white people singing in English?
I wrote:
>
> > To me, a discussion of one's top 500 cd's or
> > top 5000 songs would be more interesting and relevant. What we wind up
> > getting are baby boomers talking about the same Rickie Lee Jones, James
> > Taylor, and Simon and Garfunkel releases over and over. It is a shame
> > that this "music that matters" crowd doesn't really listen to any
> > variety of music at all.
>
> It is statements like this that make it so hard to defend you
> sometimes. Hey, I grew up listening to what today you call classic
> rock and as my tastes have evolved to enjoy some of today's more
> alternative artists, I have also maintained a love of those artists
> whose works endure today and who could have put out any number of
> those works today and they would still be considered brilliant. That
> you don't enjoy some of those artists is a function of your tastes and
> preferences, but to denigrate the preferences of others makes you more
> narrow minded than even Ferstler.
I think you are really missing the point here. I think that if one did a
search of all the rao posts you have posted, once you have gotten past the 5
or 6000 posts that are telling Arny he's a looser (that's the only spelling
he seems to understand), then it would be a little tough finding all these
artists being mentioned that you claim to listen to. I think, by playing
devil's advocate, I am occasionally capable of stimulating conversation that
is other than banal, and, I think, comparing me to a Ferstler is nothing more
than a cheap shot, indicative of *your* narrow mind, not mine. Face it,
Barry, you are imagining substance to your posts that just isn't there. I'm
not saying what you do post isn't intelligent and well-reasoned--it obviously
is--but the variety of your subject matter simply isn't the way your describe
it. Are you reading a different ng than I am? Do you have some kind of
rose-colored filter I don't know about? I doubt it.
>
> As for your comment about listening to a variety of music, you really
> come off looking like a horse's ass. Gosh, Trots, how many Broadway
> shows have you attended in your life and how many such albums do you
> own? Just cause someone doesn't list such stuff in their 5 picks
> doesn't mean that something like that isn't in their collections - and
> the same goes for classic jazz, classical music, opera and the like.
Yeah, this is unfortunate, Barry, because, instead of keeping the
conversation above board, as you *imagine* yourself doing, you further choose
to descend into the realm of the cheap shots. Sorry, Barry, this group
doesn't need moderation, what it needs is posters who have the discipline to
be informative and respectful. Do you disagree? Allow me to toot my own
horn, again: in recent memory, I recall starting a thread asking Felix about
the trance/ambient music category--he had some great suggestions--you and the
rest of the regulars had nothing to say. I recall mentioning something about
Tricky and Massive Attack-- there were several responses to that, including
Roy Briggs mentioning a Shara Nelson solo album that I didn't know existed.
You probably don't know who Shara Nelson is. I posted a review of a Brad
Mehldau concert--nobody responded. I posted something about my penchant for
collecting E. Power Biggs records, and got flamed by Arny the Dickhead and
some other generic guy. I posted something about RCA Living Stereo records,
and Dog Haugen expressed confusion about the way RCA stamper numbers work,
but tried to turn it into a flame anyway. I'm sure there were other music
related threads that I started and/or were involved in--I just can't think of
them off the top of my head. Your turn.
>
> > To toot my own horn, it seems like only
> > Fear3000 and I talk about any real variety of music. Granted, the baby
> > boomer stuff is great--I have a lot of it in my collection--but,
> > personally, I would be interested in finding out if there are any of
> > these baby boomers on the group that listen to anything that came out
> > after 1990 that doesn't say "Sarah Mclaughlin" or "Natalie Merchant" on it.
>
> "To toot your own horn"? Gee, isn't it nice to be so avant garde, so
> chic, so full of true musical intelligence, so full of good taste.
> Hey, I have stuff that ranges from Dinah Washington to Green Day, from
> Die Fledermaus to Lauryn Hill, from the Brandenburg Concertos to
> Stevie Wonder. And so what!
So what? Now I know you listen to *some* kind of variety--previously it
would have been a logical inference to say your position was that if you had
the entire James Taylor recorded legacy you didn't need any other music. Do
you see the point yet? Hey, I should give you credit--at least you have the
guts to admit to listening to any kind of music--guys like Krooger,
Steinborg, Stinkerton, et al are incapable of mentioning any artists
whatsoever.
>
> Like I said, it is comments like these that make you so hard to
> defend.
Bullshit. You're just pulling a mini-Krooger.
P.S. Green Day sux.
Arny Krüger
>
>
> "Arny Krüger" wrote:
> >
> > It's simple. You said that the electronics in my system were
> > problematical, and later on in another post claimed that did
not
> > include the power amps.
> >
> You and I both know what I meant. In case you are confused,
here it
> is again. I think your source units are below par if meant to
be
> considered a reference standard.
So, you are saying that my amps are just fine?
> > Of course, you've never heard ANY of the electronics in my
> > system, power amps or otherwise. So, this begs the question
how
> > you know that any of the electronics in my system are
> > problematical, except by personal prejudice and speculation
> > presented as fact.
>
> Speculation? Absolutely.
Thanks for admitting that you present speculation as if it were
revealed truth.
trotsky
Steve Zipser wrote:
>
>
> Greg - a strong and effective salesman can use those bad recordings to
> advantage! Explain to your customer that this speaker or this system is
> good enough to reveal the differences in the quality of recordings, and
> then pull out some of your own samples of music of the same genre. So
> when someone pulls out a bomb, show them why it's a bomb.
> Zip
>
Sorry, Steve, but your "I can sell ice to the Eskimos" philosophy means
nothing to me. Some people were just born to be Bose customers.
trotsky
jennifer burton wrote:
> hmm. this boomer has well over 2000 albums and all genres are well
> represented with the exception of disco and opera...don't and won't own
> any 'merchant' either. admittedly i have alot of classic boomer stuff
> (simon, taylor, joel) but i love many types of music. i call my
> collection eclectic and many have called it schizophrenic. :) i started
> rebuilding my collection eight years ago when i had over 3000 vinyl albums
> "lost" by movers.
>
> as to "pick 1 and 5" i too think it would be wonderful to see lists of
> others top 500 albums or 1000 song titles but at least br made a stab at
> promoting a discussion of "music". personally, i would be delighted to see
> your top 500 album picks, either in this ng or in email. you show me
> yours..i'll show you mine. <g>
>
> concerning your assertion about home theater enthusiasts being lead to
> audiophile, well i'll have to thunk on that one for a while...doesn't feel
> right to me.
>
> thanks for your response, i enjoyed it.
>
> jen
Sorry to hear about your lost record collection--that is true tragedy.
As for the lists of music that I like/recommend, perhaps it would be
more interesting if we narrowed it down a bit: top reference choices
from the past five years, favorite sixties pop albums, favorite
Brazilian music, favorite Celtic music, are there *any* audiophile
releases that are keepers?, classic rock of reference quality, favorite
trad. jazz releases, favorite modern jazz releases, favorite classical
(vinyl) records, favorite trance/ambient/electronica/trip-hop music, etc.
mdryoon
How authoritative is Stereophile's RC list? Pretty authoritative
from a marketing POV.
trot...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <3703F3B7...@bellsouth.net>,
> Barry Rothman <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
<snip>
> > That
> > you don't enjoy some of those artists is a function of your tastes and
> > preferences, but to denigrate the preferences of others makes you more
> > narrow minded than even Ferstler.
>
<snip>
> I think, by playing
> devil's advocate, I am occasionally capable of stimulating conversation that
> is other than banal,
Greg, is this an admission that you are a troll? That you play
devil's advocate because you want entertainment?
> and, I think, comparing me to a Ferstler is nothing more
> than a cheap shot, indicative of *your* narrow mind, not mine.
Greg, like Howard Ferstler now, you do have a penchant for turning
your RAO "friends" against you on occasion. Ever wonder why?
<snip>
> I posted something about RCA Living Stereo records,
> and Dog Haugen ... tried to turn it into a flame anyway.
That wouldn't be a tactic you're familiar with, right Greg?
<snip>
> Sorry, Barry, this group
> doesn't need moderation, what it needs is posters who have the discipline to
> be informative and respectful. Do you disagree?
I agree. What are you doing to be informative and respectful, Greg?
> > Like I said, it is comments like these that make you so hard to
> > defend.
Barry, why should you defend Greg Singh? Over some minor
ideological squabble? Ridiculous, because AFAIK, you're just an
audiophile, not an audio professional. Because Arny Krüger is rude,
demeaning, and arrogant? So are some people who you hardly ever
flame on RAO, like Singh, Zip, and Middius.
No "chopped-off," quoted text here. Whew!
Richard Yoon (http://www.angelfire.com/md/RYoonHome/usenetemail.html
has my email address for those who want to send me
email replies.)
The Devil
M. Middius) wrote:
>Edward Derson Hou said:
>>> > Not only that--the movie "The Spanish Prisoner" was lame too!
>>I had mixed feelings about it. I definitey was glad that I saw it, but I
>>probably wouldn't watch it a 2nd time (assuming I didn't misunderstand any
>>of the major plot twists).
>I found that movie utterly unwatchable. The screenplay wasn't
>much more than an outline, a ghost of a story. The wussiness,
>I have to say, is typical of Mamet.
I confess I never saw that film, but David Mamet has
something of a reputation as a profound writer over here. I
saw *Glengarry* and I thought it was competently written;
and Al Pacino and Kevin Spacey are always interesting to
watch, IMO.
--
Roy Briggs. Remove 'ZZ' for e-mail reply.
The Devil
>It's funny that you should mention DVD. You obviously have quite a system,
>and, I think, are a discerning listener. Personally, I find DVDs substandard
>in terms of audio quality. What's your opinion on that?
Greg, are you talking about the 24/96 recordings played on
DVD machines or 16/44 on DVD machines? I haven't yet heard a
24/96 recording and was looking forward to the experience.
Someone else here on RAO said he couldn't tell the
difference on a DVD player, but the poster didn't specify
whether it was 24/96 recordings he had been listening to.
>Again, what's the point of pigeonholing oneself to 5 discs, unless, of
>course, we don't have much of a selection to start with, i.e. the same
>discs by the same white people singing in English?
Out of interest, have you heard of the Sounds of Blackness,
'Africa to America; the Journey of the Drum'? It's an
excellent album, and is quite well recorded.
>Allow me to toot my own
>horn, again: in recent memory, I recall starting a thread asking Felix about
>the trance/ambient music category--he had some great suggestions--you and the
>rest of the regulars had nothing to say. I recall mentioning something about
>Tricky and Massive Attack-- there were several responses to that, including
>Roy Briggs mentioning a Shara Nelson solo album that I didn't know existed.
There's actually two solo albums now, I believe. 'What
Silence Knows', which is excellent, and 'Friendly Fire', I
think it's called, which I haven't yet heard. Did you manage
to find 'What Silence knows', BTW?
Arny Krüger
mdryoon <I_don't_eat...@austin.mn> wrote in message
news:3704B7D9...@austin.mn...
> Please excuse me for any "chopped-off," quoted text.
>
> How authoritative is Stereophile's RC list? Pretty
authoritative
> from a marketing POV.
I find it interesting that they don't review something without
putting it on their list, or at least so it seems.
jennifer burton
:) you're getting me excited here, is there something out there beside
'what silence knows'? if so, please let me know where you found it!
jen
jennifer burton
yes, it was tragic. i lost many, many pristine and irreplaceable albums
and quite frankly it was almost like losing a loved one.
as for your suggested threads, sounds fantastic! i'd like to see at least
two running simultaneously so as to enhance the likelihood of a broader
participation. i'll start one this weekend if no one beats me to it.jen
George M. Middius
>How authoritative is Stereophile's RC list? Pretty authoritative
>from a marketing POV.
No it's not. It may be effective or successful, but it's not
authoritative. Except, maybe, in the minds of a handful of
paranoid Usenet junkies who have embarked on a holy crusade to
rid the world of the evil influence of the venal and corrupt
high-end industry.
Arnii, what do you say? ;-)
George M. Middius
Jay B. Haider
>Couple
>that with the equally shitty sounding "alternative" discs--Dave Matthews
>might be okay music, but the sound quality just isn't there.
I assume you haven't heard Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds "Live at
Luther College", which sounds quite good to my ears. Some of the
others can be marginal (for example, "Under the Table and Dreaming"
can pretty easily overload systems with crappy bass performance, and
other than that doesn't sound half as good as the music on it).
As for whining about making the difficulty for salesdroids to make
a positive impression with badly recorded discs, who gives a damn if
it sounds good on the JVC xrcd of ROTFLMAO Audiophool's "Dance for
Three Legged Donkey", played by the Podunk County Reserve Tactical
Naval Wind Ensemble, if it doesn't sound great on the music that a
person listens to?
--
Jay B. Haider
Land of the free and home of the Braves
RAnder3127
Middius) writes:
>Except, maybe, in the minds of a handful of
>paranoid Usenet junkies who have embarked on a holy crusade to
>rid the world of the evil influence of the venal and corrupt
>high-end industry.
Don't broad-brush the whole industry, even sarcastically.
Someone who starts up a company to produce high
end equipment because they are enthusiatic about
it is different from writers who pretend to be objective
about selling specific products.
-Rich
It "Serbs" them right.
George M. Middius
>... David Mamet has
>something of a reputation as a profound writer over here.
I may not know art, but I know what I like. And dislike.
David Mamet strikes me as a theatrical version of our own
Fester. Tons and tons of words, but almost no underlying
meaning.
Gruvmyster
> Richard Yoon wrote:
> > How authoritative is Stereophile's RC list? Pretty authoritative
> > from a marketing POV.
> I find it interesting that they don't review something without
> putting it on their list, or at least so it seems.
Class 'A': Almost perfect.
Class 'B': Almost almost perfect
Class 'C': Almost almost almost perfect
Class 'D': Almost almost almost almost perfect
And then there is the unreviewed stuff.
Doug
--
"Ignorance per se is not nearly as dangerous
as ignorance of ignorance"-- Sydney Harris
trotsky
"Jay B. Haider" wrote:
>
> trot...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >Couple
> >that with the equally shitty sounding "alternative" discs--Dave Matthews
> >might be okay music, but the sound quality just isn't there.
>
> I assume you haven't heard Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds "Live at
> Luther College", which sounds quite good to my ears. Some of the
> others can be marginal (for example, "Under the Table and Dreaming"
> can pretty easily overload systems with crappy bass performance, and
> other than that doesn't sound half as good as the music on it).
And that "crappy bass performance" would be the large Dunlavy's, then?
trotsky
"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> The Devil said:
>
> >... David Mamet has
> >something of a reputation as a profound writer over here.
>
> I may not know art, but I know what I like. And dislike.
>
> David Mamet strikes me as a theatrical version of our own
> Fester. Tons and tons of words, but almost no underlying
> meaning.
George--have you seen the movie "Homocide"? That's one of my favorites
from the past ten years.
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
>> Richard Yoon wrote:
>
>> > How authoritative is Stereophile's RC list? Pretty authoritative
>> > from a marketing POV.
>
>> I find it interesting that they don't review something without
>> putting it on their list, or at least so it seems.
I believe their stated policy is that they only accept for
review those products which they are reasonably sure are up to snuff.
Larry Archibald and JA have both commented on this and on the reasons
why.
Rather than a mystery, this has been a matter of publicly
declared policy. One may or may not agree with this policy, but it's
disingenuous to call it "interesting" in the sense of meaning suspect
in some way.
Ed
masala
Ink...@ZZDemonScript.freeserve.co.uk (The Devil) wrote:
>Out of interest, have you heard of the Sounds of Blackness,
>'Africa to America; the Journey of the Drum'? It's an
>excellent album, and is quite well recorded.
Zat the one where they cover "Stand"? Not crazy about the entire
arrangement, but the vox are lovely . . .
Masala
--
masalaATprontomailDOTcom
There may be said to be two classes of people in the world: Those who
constantly divide the people of the world into two classes, and those who
do not. -- Benchly
George M. Middius
>>Except, maybe, in the minds of a handful of
>>paranoid Usenet junkies who have embarked on a holy crusade to
>>rid the world of the evil influence of the venal and corrupt
>>high-end industry.
>Don't broad-brush the whole industry, even sarcastically.
>Someone who starts up a company to produce high
>end equipment because they are enthusiatic about
>it is different from writers who pretend to be objective
>about selling specific products.
Interesting comment. I was commenting on "a handful of
paranoid Usenet junkies". Your follow-up should, properly,
be directed at those folks too. To consider them an
"industry" of any sort is wacky and silly, to say the least.
Now maybe you'd like to read two or three of my posts on RAO
and recast your own thoughts so they align more accurately
with our shared reality.
George M. Middius
>George--have you seen the movie "Homocide"? That's one of my favorites
>from the past ten years.
Not I. In fact I just searched three movie databases and
none of them has any info about that title. Are you sure
that's the correct title?
trotsky
George M. Middius wrote:
> trotsky said:
>
> >George--have you seen the movie "Homocide"? That's one of my favorites
> >from the past ten years.
>
> Not I. In fact I just searched three movie databases and
> none of them has any info about that title. Are you sure
> that's the correct title?
>
Oh, okay--try "Homicide". Only occasionally do I claim to know how to
spell.
Gruvmyster
> George M. Middius wrote:
> > trotsky said:
Or a Freudian slip of your gay bashing tendencies. You should hang more
closely with your fellow Nazi traveler Feerlicks. You have a lot in common.
Gruvmyster
> What do you mean by "new" purchases Barry? Is this the Barry that agrees
> with Dog Haugen about it being unnecessary to be cognizant of any recent
> musical releases whatsoever?
<rest of missed point snipped, unread>
As usual, Trots, your RCP interferes with you. Where did I say it
is 'unnecessary to be cognizant of any recent musical releases whatsoever'?
What I said was being cognizant of them does not mean you are expert
in a variety of music, as you claimed.
You are an utter waste, devoid of any brain cells not actively engaged in
keeping your sorry ass alive.
Gene Steinberg
Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward M. Shain) wrote:
> I believe their stated policy is that they only accept for
>review those products which they are reasonably sure are up to snuff.
>Larry Archibald and JA have both commented on this and on the reasons
>why.
This would then be similar to the stated policy of Stereo Review (or its
present form, "Stereo Review's Sound & Vision"). The difference here is
that folks may accept the concept in Stereophile, but when voiced in the
other magazine, they attack it. Fascinating.
George M. Middius
>Oh, okay--try "Homicide". Only occasionally do I claim to know how to
>spell.
I saw that movie some years ago. I thought it would have
something in common with "House of Games," which wasn't bad.
It didn't. If ever an actor was born to spew Mamet's
Fester-like scribblings, it's Joe Mantegna.
trotsky
Gruvmyster wrote:
>
> trot...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > What do you mean by "new" purchases Barry? Is this the Barry that agrees
> > with Dog Haugen about it being unnecessary to be cognizant of any recent
> > musical releases whatsoever?
>
> <rest of missed point snipped, unread>
>
> As usual, Trots, your RCP interferes with you. Where did I say it
> is 'unnecessary to be cognizant of any recent musical releases whatsoever'?
>
> What I said was being cognizant of them does not mean you are expert
> in a variety of music, as you claimed.
>
> You are an utter waste, devoid of any brain cells not actively engaged in
> keeping your sorry ass alive.
>
>
Duggles--full of the Easter spirit, I see. Seriously, what is your
problem? Your trolls aren't even nasty anymore, just pathetic--like the
dorky kid in the sandbox that no one will play with. I can only hope,
for your sake, that you wake up one day and realize that if you have
something substantive to post, people will respond with more frequency.
Barry Rothman
follow, but I'll do my best. First, though, let me say that your
comments continue to position you as some sort of erudite audio boy,
just leaping at the chance to show off your fantastic and discerning
taste in music.
The point you miss is that even if someone here were to say that their
favorite music was the Carpenters, and that they could listen to that,
followed by a host of other pop artists, and that followed only by a
few Windam Hill (sp.) discs, that still wouldn't make your opinions
any more valid, your tastes any more refined and your preferences any
more preferable.
But let's have a go at your comments and see if we can find some
reason and reasonable middle ground.
trot...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> What do you mean by "new" purchases Barry?
I'll stop you right there since you seem to not understand my
comment. New purchases means just that. I don't have it and might
want to buy it. You or someone says they like something, I find the
disc they mention is in a genre I like, or that our tastes seem to run
similar, so I might want to go and purchase it. Which part didn't you
get?
You continued later in your reply:
> It's funny that you should mention DVD. You obviously have quite a system,
> and, I think, are a discerning listener. Personally, I find DVDs substandard
> in terms of audio quality. What's your opinion on that?
Personally I find some DVD's sound ok and some sound like crap - I get
better sound sometimes with movies on my DSS. That said, I didn't buy
a DVD player or the discs for the sound quality. As I noted, I bought
what I have in order to have those select movies in house and in an
easy to store format. As for substandard, I don't have a laserdisc
and haven't done much listening to one except for a few demo sessions
at a dealer, so I have no base of reference. Better still, most of the
movies I really like are not sonic blockbusters, but instead well
acted dramas and comedies where special effects are not so important.
To me the most important aspect of DVD is being able to see the entire
screen instead of pan and scan which ruins most scenes.
>
> >
> Well, on the one hand I suppose I should laud you for starting a thread that
> is outside the realm of the bitch sessions with geeks. On the other hand, I
> think the point I raised is no less valid: what's point? I have a couple of
> cd wallets that hold twenty discs a piece--they aren't hard to carry around.
> That way, if I'm in the mood to listen to something that I have already
> determined to be of (my) reference quality, I just whip it out. Perhaps if
> cds weighed a pound a piece, then you might want to set a limit of five
> pounds of weight to carry around with you. However, back in the real world,
> if we set this five pound limit, how many cds would this actually be? Again,
> what's the point of pigeonholing oneself to 5 discs, unless, of course, we
> don't have much of a selection to start with, i.e. the same discs by the same
> white people singing in English?
You still miss the point. Picking 5 discs is part of the mental
exercise that makes it a challenge to list only those. Truth is, if
you were going to such as show for such a purpose, you would probably
take two of those cd wallets, filled with as much as you can.
Similarly, you wouldn't' go on a car trip with only one disc either.
Gee, Greg, haven't you ever heard the term "suspension of disbelief",
well this is it's close cousin.
> I think you are really missing the point here. I think that if one did a
> search of all the rao posts you have posted, once you have gotten past the 5
> or 6000 posts that are telling Arny he's a looser (that's the only spelling
> he seems to understand), then it would be a little tough finding all these
> artists being mentioned that you claim to listen to. I think, by playing
> devil's advocate, I am occasionally capable of stimulating conversation that
> is other than banal, and, I think, comparing me to a Ferstler is nothing more
> than a cheap shot, indicative of *your* narrow mind, not mine. Face it,
> Barry, you are imagining substance to your posts that just isn't there. I'm
> not saying what you do post isn't intelligent and well-reasoned--it obviously
> is--but the variety of your subject matter simply isn't the way your describe
> it. Are you reading a different ng than I am? Do you have some kind of
> rose-colored filter I don't know about? I doubt it.
>
Greg, the only aspect of your post that I compared to Ferstler is the
place where you try to show that your tastes in music are superior -
something he falls guilty to all the time. As for your opinion of my
posts, it's your right to think what you like and judge them as you
see fit.
You also added this about my comment about your comments about having
depth and breadth in one's music tastes and collection.
> Yeah, this is unfortunate, Barry, because, instead of keeping the
> conversation above board, as you *imagine* yourself doing, you further choose
> to descend into the realm of the cheap shots.
It wasn't a cheap shot, but rather a reminder that just cause people
don't list stuff, doesn't mean they don't have it or listen to it.
You seem to be stuck on your own "horn-tooting", as you fall prey to
it once again. It's kind of like an erudite old professor lecturing
the rest of society on how pitiful their tastes because people choose
to read John Grisham instead of Shakespeare or Chaucer. Kind of like
your comments below:
Sorry, Barry, this group
> doesn't need moderation, what it needs is posters who have the discipline to
> be informative and respectful. Do you disagree? Allow me to toot my own
> horn, again: in recent memory, I recall starting a thread asking Felix about
> the trance/ambient music category--he had some great suggestions--you and the
> rest of the regulars had nothing to say. I recall mentioning something about
> Tricky and Massive Attack-- there were several responses to that, including
> Roy Briggs mentioning a Shara Nelson solo album that I didn't know existed.
> You probably don't know who Shara Nelson is. I posted a review of a Brad
> Mehldau concert--nobody responded. I posted something about my penchant for
> collecting E. Power Biggs records, and got flamed by Arny the Dickhead and
> some other generic guy. I posted something about RCA Living Stereo records,
> and Dog Haugen expressed confusion about the way RCA stamper numbers work,
> but tried to turn it into a flame anyway. I'm sure there were other music
> related threads that I started and/or were involved in--I just can't think of
> them off the top of my head. Your turn.
Do you want a medal? Do you think this counts for something? Gee
Greg, you seem to quickly forget all the trolls you've posted here for
several people. Do you think this is some sort of balancing act, that
you get credits for your good behavior? Fact is, neither the troll,
flames, good posts, good threads or anything here earns or loses
credits. It's just for fun and there are no points given or taken.
If you gain pleasure from what you write and read, then you are ahead
of the game. And if you don't get any such pleasure, then just rip the
computer off your desk (or at least the modem card) and hurl it out
the window - it ain't doing you any good to own it in the first place.
You also noted:
> So what? Now I know you listen to *some* kind of variety--previously it
> would have been a logical inference to say your position was that if you had
> the entire James Taylor recorded legacy you didn't need any other music. Do
> you see the point yet? Hey, I should give you credit--at least you have the
> guts to admit to listening to any kind of music--guys like Krooger,
> Steinborg, Stinkerton, et al are incapable of mentioning any artists
> whatsoever.
>
I actually do have the entire James Taylor recorded legacy, and I'm
quite proud of it. And I also have lots of other stuff. That I
happen to think he is one of the best artists of the past 25 years is
simply my opinion and is not mutually exclusive of loving music from
completely disparate genres. Funny thing about stupid little threads
like the "Pick one for the drive", someone's comment about The Who
reminded me that I have been neglectful in pulling out some of my
favorite Who material and listening to it. Made for a nice hour and
change listening to the entire Quadrophenia 2 disc set.
I said earlier:
> > Like I said, it is comments like these that make you so hard to
> > defend.
>
And you replied:
> Bullshit. You're just pulling a mini-Krooger.
>
> P.S. Green Day sux.
>
Now just who here is pulling the mini-Krooger? Overall, what I think
you really took odds wiht the most was my comment in another post
where I said I agreed with Doug's comments about your original post.
Try to remember that I don't profess to have any loyalties here on
RAO. I say what I want when I want, whether it pleasures you or
anyone else. If I seem to follow someone like Arny or Howie around,
chasing their every word, it is not because I don't see the world the
same way they do, but rather because they attempt to claim that anyone
who sees it different from them holds invalid opinions. Fact is, I
don't care whether some listens to Rebecca Pidgeon (sp.), reads Stereo
Review, believes Stereophile is the gospel (or not), uses DBT
methodologies, owns 50 ABX boxes, buys only Bose speakers, believes
that his/her receiver sounds as good as good separates, believes that
their Krell/Rowland/ARC/Levinson/Pass/etc. amp is the best made, etc,
etc, etc. What I object to and often post in response to are comments
where someone tries to say that ONLY their preferences are valid and
everyone who disagrees is invalid. What you miss is that you too
crossed that line (if only slightly).
Still and all, at least you hold off from saying that anyone with
lesser music preferences than you is invalid, something some of our
friends here on RAO do all the time when it comes to other areas of
discussion.
BR
Barry Rothman
mdryoon wrote:
>
> Barry, why should you defend Greg Singh? Over some minor
> ideological squabble? Ridiculous, because AFAIK, you're just an
> audiophile, not an audio professional. Because Arny Krüger is rude,
> demeaning, and arrogant? So are some people who you hardly ever
> flame on RAO, like Singh, Zip, and Middius.
>
Gee, Richard, I think you would have to search pretty hard to see me
writing in defense of just about any of the people on your list,
including Greg. Fact, I hardly ever pause to defend other people
here, unless the comment comes from bigots like our audio engineer
friend from Australia. As for flaming Zip, you seem to be quite
mistaken. We have had quite a number of battles here on RAO, and even
George and I started out with quite war between us.
As for Arny, I couldn't care less about his rudeness. My problems
with him extend to quite a different area.
You, like many people, keep making the mistake of seeing things in
terms of a two-sided war, with a camp of audio/scientific
professionals battling a Resistance force. This assumption is the
first weak link in your chain of thoughts.
BR
trotsky
"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> trotsky said:
>
> >Oh, okay--try "Homicide". Only occasionally do I claim to know how to
> >spell.
>
> I saw that movie some years ago. I thought it would have
> something in common with "House of Games," which wasn't bad.
> It didn't. If ever an actor was born to spew Mamet's
> Fester-like scribblings, it's Joe Mantegna.
>
That doesn't sound like a positive response. Any movies you can
recommend where you feel there's better writing--I think you'll be hard
pressed to come up with a sci-fi title, at any rate.
Fear3000
>We have had quite a number of battles here on RAO, and even
>George and I started out with quite war between us.
Barry and I started exchanging posts based on a misunderstanding also.
You have no point!
Best Wishes,
Fear3000
Gene Steinberg
Organization: http://www.genesteinberg.com
X-Posted-Path-Was: gsteinberg
Lines: 12
X-ELN-Date: 4 Apr 1999 10:41:10 GMT
Message-ID: <gsteinberg-04...@ip165.tucson3.az.pub-ip.psi.net>
Path: capella.physics.utoronto.ca!info.ecf!utnut!torn!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news-peer-east1.sprintlink.net!Sprint!news-peer1.sprintlink.net!news-in-east1.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!gsteinberg
Gene Steinberg
Gene Steinberg
Gene Steinberg
George M. Middius
>You, like many people, keep making the mistake of seeing things in
>terms of a two-sided war, with a camp of audio/scientific
>professionals battling a Resistance force. This assumption is the
>first weak link in your chain of thoughts.
Of course you are correct, Barry. We in the Resistance pick
our targets carefully. You (Barry) are not an enemy of free
thought; neither is Yoon-Yoon. Yoon-Yoon is, in my ever so
humble opinion, a whiney crybaby nitwit, in no particular
order.
There are really only a handful of Audio 'Borgs who incite
the Resistance to our more extreme efforts. The fact that
RAO is such a perpetual flamefest is no doubt due in part to
the ongoing battle between us and Them, but there are other
causes that no intelligent observer would ignore.
mdryoon
>
> mdryoon wrote:
> >
> > Barry, why should you defend Greg Singh? Over some minor
> > ideological squabble? Ridiculous, because AFAIK, you're just an
> > audiophile, not an audio professional. Because Arny Krüger is rude,
> > demeaning, and arrogant? So are some people who you hardly ever
> > flame on RAO, like Singh, Zip, and Middius.
> >
>
> Gee, Richard, I think you would have to search pretty hard to see me
> writing in defense of just about any of the people on your list,
> including Greg.
On this thread, I didn't say you defended the others. However, you
did say previously about Greg Singh: "it is comments like these that
make you so hard to defend."
> Fact, I hardly ever pause to defend other people
> here, unless the comment comes from bigots like our audio engineer
> friend from Australia. As for flaming Zip, you seem to be quite
> mistaken. We have had quite a number of battles here on RAO, and even
> George and I started out with quite war between us.
If you did flame Greg, Zip and Middius more than a few times, then
my apologies for the wrong assumption.
> As for Arny, I couldn't care less about his rudeness. My problems
> with him extend to quite a different area.
What area?
> You, like many people, keep making the mistake of seeing things in
> terms of a two-sided war, with a camp of audio/scientific
> professionals battling a Resistance force. This assumption is the
> first weak link in your chain of thoughts.
Barry, if you think I place you and some other subjectivist RAO
regulars in the "resistance," you are wrong. However, many of RAO's
subjectivist regulars, yourself included, Barry, do side with the
"resistance" against the so-called "borgs" way more often than the
other way around.
As for RAO's "two-sided war," I submit to you George Middius'
response to your post, especially his last paragraph. Although
Middius said that there are "only a handful of Audio 'Borgs," that
doesn't prevent him and the other members of the "resistance" from
polarizing RAO by using ad hominem against other objectivists, like
John Feng and Howard Ferstler. Also, audiophilia lends itself to
tension between subjectivists and objectivists, with not that much
middle ground in between. This is true with magazines, like Sound
and Vision vs. Stereophile, and this is true in RAO.
Richard Yoon (http://www.angelfire.com/md/RYoonHome/usenetemail.html
has my e-mail address for those who want to send me
e-mail replies.)
trotsky
Barry Rothman wrote:
>
> Gosh, Trots, your rambling is so intense, it's just plain hard to
> follow, but I'll do my best. First, though, let me say that your
> comments continue to position you as some sort of erudite audio boy,
> just leaping at the chance to show off your fantastic and discerning
> taste in music.
Still in personal attack mode, eh Barry? Oh well. If it came off that
I'm trying to show my musical taste, I apologize. In fact, if I may
"ramble" some more, I was being arrogant as a tactic to stimulate
conversation that is less than superficial. If you are satisfied with
the depth of discussions that are acheived on this group, then I have a
few choice words for you!
>
> The point you miss is that even if someone here were to say that their
> favorite music was the Carpenters, and that they could listen to that,
> followed by a host of other pop artists, and that followed only by a
> few Windam Hill (sp.) discs, that still wouldn't make your opinions
> any more valid, your tastes any more refined and your preferences any
> more preferable.
Ooh, bad example. If Gary Eickmeier tells the group the only speakers
you ever need to listen to are Bose, where would any thinking person
place his opinion? Unless you are Stew Pinkerton, everybody is entitled
to their personal preference--that is one rule of thumb we should always
be 'politically correct' on. But, I gotta tell ya, if you come on the
group and say that James Taylor is one of the biggest geniuses in the
history of recorded music, I'm likely to ask "compared to whom?", and
things would only get hotter from there.
As for validity of opinions, this is something I will never get. People
who dedicate their lives to a certain subject are usually considered
experts, and we tend to regard 'experts'' opinions as more valid than
laymen's. Thus we have professors teaching college classes, and not
students. Did you really use the argument with your professors, "Your
opinion is no more valid than mine." That probably garnered you a big
fat "F", I'll tell you what!
In conclusion, I'm ten times more likely to take Felix's opinion of
what's hip in the music scene compared to Howard Ferstler's, or John
Feng's, or Jimmy Johnston's. YMMV.
>
> But let's have a go at your comments and see if we can find some
> reason and reasonable middle ground.
Fine by me--still sounds like a personal attack though, and I'm
notoriously thin-skinned. I've been pretty patient with you thus far.
>
> trot...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > What do you mean by "new" purchases Barry?
>
> I'll stop you right there since you seem to not understand my
> comment. New purchases means just that. I don't have it and might
> want to buy it. You or someone says they like something, I find the
> disc they mention is in a genre I like, or that our tastes seem to run
> similar, so I might want to go and purchase it. Which part didn't you
> get?
You're being evasive. You knew, clearly, that I had made well reasoned,
well spoken point about baby boomers being unable to contemplate new
music, stuff that debuted after 1990, so the question of what "new"
purchases are is a valid one. I can only take this to mean that you
wish this exchange to degenerate into typical rao mudslinging. The
group gets this crap on a regular basis from feng and Krooger--I thought
we might be able to keep this above board.
>
> You continued later in your reply:
>
> > It's funny that you should mention DVD. You obviously have quite a system,
> > and, I think, are a discerning listener. Personally, I find DVDs substandard
> > in terms of audio quality. What's your opinion on that?
>
> Personally I find some DVD's sound ok and some sound like crap - I get
> better sound sometimes with movies on my DSS. That said, I didn't buy
> a DVD player or the discs for the sound quality. As I noted, I bought
> what I have in order to have those select movies in house and in an
> easy to store format. As for substandard, I don't have a laserdisc
> and haven't done much listening to one except for a few demo sessions
> at a dealer, so I have no base of reference. Better still, most of the
> movies I really like are not sonic blockbusters, but instead well
> acted dramas and comedies where special effects are not so important.
> To me the most important aspect of DVD is being able to see the entire
> screen instead of pan and scan which ruins most scenes.
Great! We are in complete agreement on the DVD format. As for LD, I
have a lot of experience with those, and they *always* sound better than
the same material on CD, so, in the case of concert videos for example,
you might be missing out on some cool stuff. Unfortunately, you have
already made it plain that my experiences have nothing to do with the
validity of my opinion, so I probably just wasted a few seconds out of
my life typing that last sentence.
>
> >
> > >
> > Well, on the one hand I suppose I should laud you for starting a thread that
> > is outside the realm of the bitch sessions with geeks. On the other hand, I
> > think the point I raised is no less valid: what's point? I have a couple of
> > cd wallets that hold twenty discs a piece--they aren't hard to carry around.
> > That way, if I'm in the mood to listen to something that I have already
> > determined to be of (my) reference quality, I just whip it out. Perhaps if
> > cds weighed a pound a piece, then you might want to set a limit of five
> > pounds of weight to carry around with you. However, back in the real world,
> > if we set this five pound limit, how many cds would this actually be? Again,
> > what's the point of pigeonholing oneself to 5 discs, unless, of course, we
> > don't have much of a selection to start with, i.e. the same discs by the same
> > white people singing in English?
>
> You still miss the point. Picking 5 discs is part of the mental
> exercise that makes it a challenge to list only those. Truth is, if
> you were going to such as show for such a purpose, you would probably
> take two of those cd wallets, filled with as much as you can.
> Similarly, you wouldn't' go on a car trip with only one disc either.
> Gee, Greg, haven't you ever heard the term "suspension of disbelief",
> well this is it's close cousin.
Well, that's great, Barry--you see your position clearly. Now, as an
exercise--what's my position? My position is that you are letting the
Carpenters and Windham Hill fans off the hook, by not having them list
any variety. The lack of variety in people's musical and stereophonic
preferences is a problem, in my opinion, and makes discussions rather
dull. If, using my example, you were to have asked people to fill up an
imaginary cd wallet with their top 20 reference discs, this would force
them to show a little variety. I still would be reluctant to
contribute, though, because I would say on average I have about 50 or so
selections buzzing through my head at a given time, such that I won't
get bored by listening to the same stuff over and over. So you see,
Barry, the variety issue is a topic for discussion, whether you choose
to acknowledge it or not.
>
> > I think you are really missing the point here. I think that if one did a
> > search of all the rao posts you have posted, once you have gotten past the 5
> > or 6000 posts that are telling Arny he's a looser (that's the only spelling
> > he seems to understand), then it would be a little tough finding all these
> > artists being mentioned that you claim to listen to. I think, by playing
> > devil's advocate, I am occasionally capable of stimulating conversation that
> > is other than banal, and, I think, comparing me to a Ferstler is nothing more
> > than a cheap shot, indicative of *your* narrow mind, not mine. Face it,
> > Barry, you are imagining substance to your posts that just isn't there. I'm
> > not saying what you do post isn't intelligent and well-reasoned--it obviously
> > is--but the variety of your subject matter simply isn't the way your describe
> > it. Are you reading a different ng than I am? Do you have some kind of
> > rose-colored filter I don't know about? I doubt it.
> >
>
> Greg, the only aspect of your post that I compared to Ferstler is the
> place where you try to show that your tastes in music are superior -
> something he falls guilty to all the time. As for your opinion of my
> posts, it's your right to think what you like and judge them as you
> see fit.
Did I really say that my tastes were superior, or did I state that my
concept of variety is superior?
>
> You also added this about my comment about your comments about having
> depth and breadth in one's music tastes and collection.
>
> > Yeah, this is unfortunate, Barry, because, instead of keeping the
> > conversation above board, as you *imagine* yourself doing, you further choose
> > to descend into the realm of the cheap shots.
>
> It wasn't a cheap shot, but rather a reminder that just cause people
> don't list stuff, doesn't mean they don't have it or listen to it.
> You seem to be stuck on your own "horn-tooting", as you fall prey to
> it once again. It's kind of like an erudite old professor lecturing
> the rest of society on how pitiful their tastes because people choose
> to read John Grisham instead of Shakespeare or Chaucer. Kind of like
> your comments below:
How could you say comparing someone to Ferstler isn't a cheap shot?
5000 posts saying he is the biggest ass in the history of Usenet, and
I'm supposed to think otherwise? Stay out of the Bizarro Universe, Barry.
Let's see, "do I want a medal?" No, that won't be necessary. Do I want
a nod saying that I'm doing more than others to stimulate some
substantive conversation--in your world I guess that won't be necessary,
either. Apparently, in your world, we can all be Barry Manilow and John
Grisham and Bose fans, and that's great, because there is no such thing
as discerning tastes anyway, and your purchase of JM Labs speakers was
merely fortuitous happenstance anyway. What would you say to you,
Barry, if you were in my shoes? Would "shut the fuck up" come to mind?
What do you say to someone who is being as obtuse and pointless as you?
"Everything is beautiful, in its own way." That's great, Mr Stevens.
How many Crucifucks and Revolting Cocks albums do you own, anyway? Oh
that's right, those are names beyond the scope of your baby boomer
blinders, so you don't have to comment on the efficacy of comparing them
to Barry Manilow or the Carpenters or James Taylor. Allow me to
summarize Rothman's view point: nothing matters. Validity of opinion is
unimportant, appreciation of variety is unimportant, the quality of
one's post on Usenet is unimportant, and computers and modems should be
hurled out the window when one gets frustrated. Yep, I think I got it now.
I'm sorry, Barry, I've tried hard to be reasonable, but you've countered
with personal attacks and plain old drivel. You tell me: how am I
supposed to respond?
>
> You also noted:
>
> > So what? Now I know you listen to *some* kind of variety--previously it
> > would have been a logical inference to say your position was that if you had
> > the entire James Taylor recorded legacy you didn't need any other music. Do
> > you see the point yet? Hey, I should give you credit--at least you have the
> > guts to admit to listening to any kind of music--guys like Krooger,
> > Steinborg, Stinkerton, et al are incapable of mentioning any artists
> > whatsoever.
> >
> I actually do have the entire James Taylor recorded legacy, and I'm
> quite proud of it. And I also have lots of other stuff. That I
> happen to think he is one of the best artists of the past 25 years is
> simply my opinion and is not mutually exclusive of loving music from
> completely disparate genres. Funny thing about stupid little threads
> like the "Pick one for the drive", someone's comment about The Who
> reminded me that I have been neglectful in pulling out some of my
> favorite Who material and listening to it. Made for a nice hour and
> change listening to the entire Quadrophenia 2 disc set.
One can only hope you paid close attention to "Can You See the Real Me?"
>
> I said earlier:
> > > Like I said, it is comments like these that make you so hard to
> > > defend.
> >
> And you replied:
> > Bullshit. You're just pulling a mini-Krooger.
> >
> > P.S. Green Day sux.
> >
>
> Now just who here is pulling the mini-Krooger? Overall, what I think
> you really took odds wiht the most was my comment in another post
> where I said I agreed with Doug's comments about your original post.
> Try to remember that I don't profess to have any loyalties here on
> RAO. I say what I want when I want, whether it pleasures you or
> anyone else. If I seem to follow someone like Arny or Howie around,
> chasing their every word, it is not because I don't see the world the
> same way they do, but rather because they attempt to claim that anyone
> who sees it different from them holds invalid opinions. Fact is, I
> don't care whether some listens to Rebecca Pidgeon (sp.), reads Stereo
> Review, believes Stereophile is the gospel (or not), uses DBT
> methodologies, owns 50 ABX boxes, buys only Bose speakers, believes
> that his/her receiver sounds as good as good separates, believes that
> their Krell/Rowland/ARC/Levinson/Pass/etc. amp is the best made, etc,
> etc, etc. What I object to and often post in response to are comments
> where someone tries to say that ONLY their preferences are valid and
> everyone who disagrees is invalid. What you miss is that you too
> crossed that line (if only slightly).
Really? I have yet to see you take Stinkerton to task. He is the worst
transgressor of all, posting opinions of personal preference on
uk.rec.audio, and attacking people for similar opinions on rao. Simple
question, Barry: what's your opinion of Stinky Pinky?
Steve Zipser
says...
> If you did flame Greg, Zip and Middius more than a few times, then
> my apologies for the wrong assumption.
>
Screw you, Yoon. Who the hell are you that someone has to prove their
worth to you by who they've flamed!
Go say a thousand hail marys
Zip
--
LETS GO PANTHERS
Sunshine Stereo,Inc http://sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
PASS Rega Miranda CODA Audible Illusions CEC Camelot Parasound ESP
Audio Logic Chiro Benz-Micro Dunlavy NEAR NHT Gallo Zenith Arcane
Mordaunt-Short EAD Vans-Evers Monster/ENTECH Straightwire Eggleston
Steve Zipser
says...
Well the difference is that we have seen products castigated in
Stereophile, but NEVER in Stereo Review.