Really? Wow!
Gruvmyster
Nousaine barfs on his keyboard:
> Wolph washes to wishful thunking:
>
> <<Whether or not there is frequency responses are irrelevent. If that is
> the "cause" of the positive results.. they are still positive results.>>
>
> Which can be completely corrected with an equalizer or substituting a properly
> designed component for the one with irregular frequency response. The sad
> thing about Jays test is that he had the equipment to confiorm response but he
> didn't bother...but now holds the experiment up as "proving" something other
> than that which we already know.
So lemme get this straight. If a piece of gear has aberrant frequency response, we
must take that out by EQing it, and level match in order to see if there is really
a difference between components. Is that correct?
So if we level match and EQ we have no difference in CD players, amps, and preamps.
I'll buy that.
Who could argue with "if you make everything sound the same, then it will sound the
same?" That's a tautology.
I'll also buy the fact if we take a Buick, replace the suspension, body style,
amenities, and "level match" performance, you won't be able to tell the difference
between it and a Cadillac. So what? Why not just buy the Cadillac?
Why don't you guys all just come out and say "You're all idiots if you buy anything
other than a Sanyo rack system with better speakers and a good EQ"?
OK, all together on the count of three: 1, 2....
Doug
--
"A good solution applied with vigor now is better than
a perfect solution applied ten minutes later"-- George S. Patton
W0LPH
In article <34616986...@mail.idt.net>, Gruvmyster
<dhau...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> Who could argue with "if you make everything sound the same, then it
will sound the
> same?" That's a tautology.
Yep.
Notice how he also previously defined any amp/etc which sounded different to
be either broken, or poorly designed.
Stewart Pinkerton
Gruvmyster <dhau...@mail.idt.net> writes:
>Nousaine barfs on his keyboard:
>
>> Wolph washes to wishful thunking:
>>
>> <<Whether or not there is frequency responses are irrelevent. If that is
>> the "cause" of the positive results.. they are still positive results.>>
>>
>> Which can be completely corrected with an equalizer or substituting a properly
>> designed component for the one with irregular frequency response. The sad
>> thing about Jays test is that he had the equipment to confiorm response but he
>> didn't bother...but now holds the experiment up as "proving" something other
>> than that which we already know.
>
>So lemme get this straight. If a piece of gear has aberrant frequency response, we
>must take that out by EQing it, and level match in order to see if there is really
>a difference between components. Is that correct?
That's not what he said. Tom simply pointed out that there is a good
chance that two components with differing frequency responses will
indeed sound different in a blind test. This says nothing as to which
is *preferred*, since preference is not an issue in ABX testing.
Jay found that a simple tube line stage sounded different than a
solid-state Meridian preamp with an electronic volume control.
Surprise! Earth tilts on its axis, empires fall..............
>So if we level match and EQ we have no difference in CD players, amps, and preamps.
>I'll buy that.
I won't! many amps with identical FR +/- 0.1dB do sound different in
blind testing, but many others don't................
>Who could argue with "if you make everything sound the same, then it will sound the
>same?" That's a tautology.
>
>I'll also buy the fact if we take a Buick, replace the suspension, body style,
>amenities, and "level match" performance, you won't be able to tell the difference
>between it and a Cadillac. So what? Why not just buy the Cadillac?
Because it's made by GM? :-)
>Why don't you guys all just come out and say "You're all idiots if you buy anything
>other than a Sanyo rack system with better speakers and a good EQ"?
Nobody ever said that, although a couple of the more extreme 'ABX ers'
have admittedly come close.............
Equally, why don't you guys come out and say that if you don't use
'audiophile brand' amps and cables, you cannot achieve high-end sound?
That's an equally dumb and extreme argument, but you *will* hear it
said quite often in this newsgroup.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
ASP Consulting |
(44) 1509 880112 |
W0LPH
In article <3461fc8b...@news.dircon.co.uk>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
> postmaster@localhost.. (W0LPH) writes:
>
> >In article <34616986...@mail.idt.net>, Gruvmyster
> ><dhau...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Who could argue with "if you make everything sound the same, then it
> >will sound the
> >> same?" That's a tautology.
> >
> >Yep.
> >
> >Notice how he also previously defined any amp/etc which sounded different to
> >be either broken, or poorly designed.
>
> Please explain why this is untrue.
>
> An amplifier amplifies. Anything else it does is an error, hence all
> properly designed amplifiers sound the same.
Actually, here is a great case.. Are you now going to claim that you
REALLY did not mean "anything else"?
Yes, I SHOULD respond to this post as if you ACTUALLY meant "everything else"
and include EVERYTHING in that. IF you don't mean EVERYTHING.. god damn it,
don't use the freaking word!
W0LPH
> postmaster@localhost.. (W0LPH) writes:
>
> >In article <34616986...@mail.idt.net>, Gruvmyster
> ><dhau...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Who could argue with "if you make everything sound the same, then it
> >will sound the
> >> same?" That's a tautology.
> >
> >Yep.
> >
> >Notice how he also previously defined any amp/etc which sounded different to
> >be either broken, or poorly designed.
>
> Please explain why this is untrue.
>
> An amplifier amplifies. Anything else it does is an error, hence all
> properly designed amplifiers sound the same. Blind testing shows that
> a large number of amplifiers *do* sound indistinguishably similar.
> Apply brain to an evaluation of one which sounds noticeably different
> from this 'standard sound'.
You are ignoring the "excluded middle". Those amplifiers designed specifically
to affect the sound. These include Class D amplifiers, one's intended for
specific application ( e.g. servo, or with restricted bandwidth ), built
in crossovers.. ). Don't forget the vast majority of amplifiers WILL sound
different when overdriven. That's neither being broken, nor poorly designed.
Not to mention different impedance ability, etc..
Just because an amplifier sounds different does NOT aprior, imply that its
poorly designed or broken.
In any event.. I'm sure the vast majority of amplifiers you and others may
consider "well designed" would be reduced to a molten slag if asked to drive
my sub system..
Greg Guarino
On Thu, 06 Nov 1997 21:31:09 -0600, Gruvmyster
<dhau...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>Well, for one, I'm not one of "you guys". I feel I get "high-end" sound out of decidedly
>less than "audiophile brand" equipment. I don't get why if someone wants to buy an
>"audiophile brand" it bothers some "people" on r.a.o.
[I think that many of the "objectivists" would agree with my
forthcoming point, but I'll just speak for myself]
Misinformation as a sales tactic is what bothers me, in audio as
in anything else.
It doesn't bother me that someone BUYS astronomically-priced
stuff, even when I think it's unwise to do so. It bothers me that
someone SELLS that stuff using unsubstantiated or downright false
claims.
Greg Guarino
Sorcerer Sound Recording Studios
http://www.mindspring.com/~sorcerersound
Gruvmyster
Greg Guarino wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Nov 1997 21:31:09 -0600, Gruvmyster
> <dhau...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>
> >Well, for one, I'm not one of "you guys". I feel I get "high-end" sound out of decidedly
> >less than "audiophile brand" equipment. I don't get why if someone wants to buy an
> >"audiophile brand" it bothers some "people" on r.a.o.
>
> [I think that many of the "objectivists" would agree with my
> forthcoming point, but I'll just speak for myself]
>
> Misinformation as a sales tactic is what bothers me, in audio as
> in anything else.
>
> It doesn't bother me that someone BUYS astronomically-priced
> stuff, even when I think it's unwise to do so. It bothers me that
> someone SELLS that stuff using unsubstantiated or downright false
> claims.
I think that's a valid point, and plays back to what I've said several times: why not
approach the problem from the manufacturers end, rather than the consumers? If you truly are
speaking for other objectivists (and I understand you cannot assume you are), why do the
"customers" on r.a.o catch the blast?
If there are fraudulent claims being made, and it can be proven they are being made, you'd
have an airtight case. Correct?
Jay B. Haider
>I'd expect a difference too. This doesn't rock my world at all. A difference was shown.
>Now it becomes an issue of EQing FR as well? Nah. Now Jay can decide what he likes
>better, and whatever he chooses is valid *for him*. Correct?
The following is a nitpick, but little things have a way of growing
between the mainframes...
While I wish I could say that the 501 and SF Line-2 were mine, they
were in fact my girlfriend's dad's components. So I suppose we choose
what's valid for him, not me! 8)
Arny Krüger
Gruvmyster wrote in message <34628B7D...@mail.idt.net>...
>
>Now it becomes an issue of EQing FR as well?
Indeed, and since what, 1982 when Clark published his AES paper on ABX
(attached).
>> >I'll also buy the fact if we take a Buick, replace the suspension, body
style,
>> >amenities, and "level match" performance, you won't be able to tell the
difference
>> >between it and a Cadillac. So what? Why not just buy the Cadillac?
While most Buicks and Caddies are more different than that, replace
"Cadillac" with "Oldsmobile", and you are talking technical fact.
>>
>> Because it's made by GM? :-)
Because GM, Ford, and Chrysler have a lot more brands of cars than they have
inherently different cars.
>> >Why don't you guys all just come out and say "You're all idiots if you
buy anything
>> >other than a Sanyo rack system with better speakers and a good EQ"?
Because it has been pointed out that many rack systems are way down on s/n,
power and frequency response, and that is just for openers.
>>
>> Nobody ever said that, although a couple of the more extreme 'ABX ers'
>> have admittedly come close.............
>>
>> Equally, why don't you guys come out and say that if you don't use
>> 'audiophile brand' amps and cables, you cannot achieve high-end sound?
>
>Well, for one, I'm not one of "you guys". I feel I get "high-end" sound out
of decidedly
>less than "audiophile brand" equipment. I don't get why if someone wants to
buy an
>"audiophile brand" it bothers some "people" on r.a.o.
It does not. However, when they ascribe superior sound quality to their
purchases, a few people point out essentially what you just said:
"I feel I get "high-end" sound out of decidedly less than "audiophile brand"
equipment. ".
The justification being that many of the sound quality superiorities or
differences ascribed to high end equipment being due to trivial factors or
just imagination.
>
>> That's an equally dumb and extreme argument, but you *will* hear it
>> said quite often in this newsgroup.
>
Ever wonder why you can say:
"I feel I get "high-end" sound out of decidedly less than "audiophile brand"
equipment. ".
?
The answer is that many of the sound quality advatages claimed for it are
either illusion or caused by trivial differences (e.g., frequency response).
begin 666 Clark Level Match Cirteria(AES)1.gif
<encoded_portion_removed>
end
Arny Krüger
Gruvmyster wrote in message <3462AA69...@mail.idt.net>...
>
>I think that's a valid point, and plays back to what I've said several
times: why not
>approach the problem from the manufacturers end, rather than the consumers?
Been there, and did that. It does not work. There is a whole system out
there that makes these misrepsentations:
(1) Dealers - who often make sound quality claims that their manufacturers
won't back up at the highest levels.
(2) Reviewers - who need something to write about and therefore intentionall
write about flawed evaluations.
(3) "Satisfied" customers, who get pretty emotional when someone points out
that they now own the Emperor's new sound.
>If you truly are
>speaking for other objectivists (and I understand you cannot assume you
are), why do the
>"customers" on r.a.o catch the blast?
Many of the people who catch the blast are manufacturers, dealers and
reviewers. Dontcha think that guys like Ken Kantor read what is posted on
RAO and think something like "Thank God I did speakers!"?
>If there are fraudulent claims being made, and it can be proven they are
being made, you'd
>have an airtight case. Correct?
Kids are dying, literally by the 100's due to bad & illegal drugs. You want
a prosecutor to waste time on relatively small amounts of fraud being
perpetrated on rich dilettantes?
Nousaine
The grooveman hopes:
<<<I'd expect a difference too. This doesn't rock my world at all. A difference
was shown.
Now it becomes an issue of EQing FR as well? Nah. Now Jay can decide what he
likes
better, and whatever he chooses is valid *for him*. Correct?>>>
Sure but he (and you) cannot proclaim that what he "likes" or chooses is due
to anything but frequency response error if he hasn't verified it. The mystery
differences and system synergy jazz has not been confirmed here and never has
been confirmed anywhere else either..
Stewart Pinkerton
postmaster@localhost.. (W0LPH) writes:
>In article <3461fc8b...@news.dircon.co.uk>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
>> An amplifier amplifies. Anything else it does is an error, hence all
>> properly designed amplifiers sound the same.
>
>Actually, here is a great case.. Are you now going to claim that you
>REALLY did not mean "anything else"?
As you say, here is a great case............
>Yes, I SHOULD respond to this post as if you ACTUALLY meant "everything else"
>and include EVERYTHING in that. IF you don't mean EVERYTHING.. god damn it,
>don't use the freaking word!
No, you shouldn't respond to the post that way. That's your freaking
problem, you don't understand how dumb your attitude is.
Stewart Pinkerton
postmaster@localhost.. (W0LPH) writes:
>In article <3461fc8b...@news.dircon.co.uk>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
>> An amplifier amplifies. Anything else it does is an error, hence all
>> properly designed amplifiers sound the same. Blind testing shows that
>> a large number of amplifiers *do* sound indistinguishably similar.
>> Apply brain to an evaluation of one which sounds noticeably different
>> from this 'standard sound'.
>
>You are ignoring the "excluded middle". Those amplifiers designed specifically
>to affect the sound. These include Class D amplifiers, one's intended for
>specific application ( e.g. servo, or with restricted bandwidth ), built
>in crossovers.. ). Don't forget the vast majority of amplifiers WILL sound
>different when overdriven. That's neither being broken, nor poorly designed.
Class D amplifiers are *not* designed to affect the sound, as the
prototype Harman-Kardon 'digital amplifier' demonstrated. Dedicated
amplifiers are not designed to modify the overall system sound *when
used as intended*. Overdriving of amplifiers is specifically excluded
in standard ABX test conditions. As always, you are wrong on all
counts when debating the topic. Your pathetic attempts to weasel out
of any argument (in this case the context was clearly full bandwidth
audio power amplifiers used for reproduction of music in the home,
which only a fool like you insists on being spelled out every time),
simply reveal you for the hollow shell you are, never having anything
of substance to contribute to the debate.
The sign of a W0lph post? A semantic nitpick or a reference to car
audio. Also, a failure to address the point under discussiomn in its
proper context.
>Not to mention different impedance ability, etc..
Taken as read within the non-overdriving context of conventional
comparison tests. If you want to know which amps drive low loads most
easily, it's all in the test results. Says nothing about the *sound*
of the amp, which is the topic under discussion.
>Just because an amplifier sounds different does NOT aprior, imply that its
>poorly designed or broken.
Yes it does. An amplifier which is designed to sound 'different' is,
by definition, poorly designed for high-fidelity reproduction, which
*is* the topic under discussion.
>In any event.. I'm sure the vast majority of amplifiers you and others may
>consider "well designed" would be reduced to a molten slag if asked to drive
>my sub system..
Unlikely in my case, but no doubt your sub system is some weird
car-audio derived beast that you'd use to score one of your usual out
of context 'gee, aint I smart' fifth-grade points.
||0|PH
> postmaster@localhost.. (W0LPH) writes:
>
> >In article <3461fc8b...@news.dircon.co.uk>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
>
> >> An amplifier amplifies. Anything else it does is an error, hence all
> >> properly designed amplifiers sound the same.
> >
> >Actually, here is a great case.. Are you now going to claim that you
> >REALLY did not mean "anything else"?
>
> As you say, here is a great case............
> >Yes, I SHOULD respond to this post as if you ACTUALLY meant "everything else"
> >and include EVERYTHING in that. IF you don't mean EVERYTHING.. god damn it,
> >don't use the freaking word!
>
> No, you shouldn't respond to the post that way. That's your freaking
> problem, you don't understand how dumb your attitude is.
Sorry. I choose to evaluate a post on what is written, not what I WANT to
see written.
Do you have ANY proof contained in his post, which shows that he lied when
he said "anything else"? Any evidence? Any at all?
Didn't think so.
I'm getting so god damn sick of your petty games and asinine claims, and your
refuse to provide any evidence for them. It's pretty easy for you to make
the claims, eh? Yea.. life must be easier when you read what you wish to read,
not what IS written. Grow up and stop taking the easy cop out.
I'll treat any refusal of you to provide evidence when asked, as you
specifically admitting that you were wrong. I'm tired of your games.
I accept your admission that you were wrong, and agree: the author neither
lied, nor was imprecise when he said "anything else".
All that is necessary to disprove an absolute statement; is one single
example. Take a basic logic 101 class at your local community college.
||0|PH
> postmaster@localhost.. (W0LPH) writes:
>
> >In article <3461fc8b...@news.dircon.co.uk>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
>
> >> An amplifier amplifies. Anything else it does is an error, hence all
> >> properly designed amplifiers sound the same. Blind testing shows that
> >> a large number of amplifiers *do* sound indistinguishably similar.
> >> Apply brain to an evaluation of one which sounds noticeably different
> >> from this 'standard sound'.
> >
> >You are ignoring the "excluded middle". Those amplifiers designed
specifically
> >to affect the sound. These include Class D amplifiers, one's intended for
> >specific application ( e.g. servo, or with restricted bandwidth ), built
> >in crossovers.. ). Don't forget the vast majority of amplifiers WILL sound
> >different when overdriven. That's neither being broken, nor poorly designed.
>
> Class D amplifiers are *not* designed to affect the sound, as the
> prototype Harman-Kardon 'digital amplifier' demonstrated. Dedicated
> amplifiers are not designed to modify the overall system sound *when
> used as intended*.
Really? Wow.. I know of at least three commerically avaiable Class D
amplifiers which INTENTIONALLY have a limited freqeuncy response, to
increase effeciency. They're dedicated for bass/midbass only applications,
and you would NOT want to run them up past ~1khz or so.
I never said that ALL class D amplifiers are designed to affect the sound.
And I assure you.. the Class D OEM amplifier for a subsystem *IS* being
used as designed.. to play bass only.
I just prefer to use a larger amp, hence the Crown.
>Overdriving of amplifiers is specifically excluded
> in standard ABX test conditions.
But the context was not ABX tests.. but whether or not the amplifier is
well designed. Two seperate issues. In fact, ABX is irrelevent to the
context.. why are you trying to drag it in?
>As always, you are wrong on all
> counts when debating the topic. Your pathetic attempts to weasel out
> of any argument (in this case the context was clearly full bandwidth
> audio power amplifiers used for reproduction of music in the home,
I see no such statement in this conversation. Care to point to it?
In fact, you are ALWAYS making these claims of "context".. Well, I
say "bullshit", PROVE it you mother fucker. EVERYONE can see
the post I replied to. It's right at the top of this post.
Notice NO mention of full bandwidth amplifiers (*). I'm sick and tired of
your whining ass game of refusing to adhere to the written word, and
making CLAIMS of what YOU wish to read into the post.
Yea yea.. I bet you won't be able to provide any evidence of context
in the above post either.. Somehow, you alwasy fail to provide
evidence. Why are you so against evidence and facts?
> The sign of a W0lph post? A semantic nitpick or a reference to car
> audio.
Um.. I'm talking about a servo sub for a home theatre system, dufus.
Sure, you could put it in a mobile home with a 110volt AC adapter..
> >Not to mention different impedance ability, etc..
>
> Taken as read within the non-overdriving context of conventional
> comparison tests. If you want to know which amps drive low loads most
> easily, it's all in the test results. Says nothing about the *sound*
> of the amp, which is the topic under discussion.
Um.. Get a clue. An amplifier's stability is DIRECTLY related to the
sound of the amp. Otherwise, if stability doesn't affect the sound one
bit.. why worry about it?
If the amp is incredibly unstable... yet sounds exactly the same as
a stable amplifier.. than what difference does it make?
> >Just because an amplifier sounds different does NOT aprior, imply that its
> >poorly designed or broken.
>
> Yes it does. An amplifier which is designed to sound 'different' is,
> by definition, poorly designed for high-fidelity reproduction, which
> *is* the topic under discussion.
That's funny. I guess then those THX certified amplifiers for subsystems
are poorly designed, eh? Guess what.. they are specifically designed to
have a non-flat response.. imagine that!
> >In any event.. I'm sure the vast majority of amplifiers you and others may
> >consider "well designed" would be reduced to a molten slag if asked to drive
> >my sub system..
>
> Unlikely in my case, but no doubt your sub system is some weird
> car-audio derived beast that you'd use to score one of your usual out
> of context 'gee, aint I smart' fifth-grade points.
Nope. Its a home unit. I happen to prefer a Crown VZ2400 on it.
(*) that arguement is asinine to begin with, as obviously, ALL amplifiers
have a set bandwidth.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <postmaster-06...@192.168.1.20>,
W0LPH <root@localhost..> wrote:
>You are ignoring the "excluded middle".
We're talking about AMPLIFIERS.
>Those amplifiers designed specifically
>to affect the sound. These include Class D amplifiers, one's intended for
>specific application ( e.g. servo, or with restricted bandwidth ), built
>in crossovers.. ).
Ok, you're talking about something MORE than an amplifier. An amplifier
amplifies. If you add something that does processing, you're buying a processor,
perhaps one with a powerful output.
>Just because an amplifier sounds different does NOT aprior, imply that its
>poorly designed or broken.
If it sounds "different" when operated within spec, it's broken, unless
it's more than just an amplifier. If it's more than an amplifier, call
it that.
--
Copyright alice!jj 1997, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET
and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any use by a
provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this article
and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
Gruvmyster
Jay B. Haider wrote:
> The following is a nitpick, but little things have a way of growing
> between the mainframes...
> While I wish I could say that the 501 and SF Line-2 were mine, they
> were in fact my girlfriend's dad's components. So I suppose we choose
> what's valid for him, not me! 8)
I hope you're in good with him, Jay. If not, just think of his possible reaction when you
tell him his nice sounding rig is *broken*!:-)
You *could* always get him and EQ for his birthday...
Gruvmyster
Arny Krüger wrote:
> Gruvmyster wrote in message <34628B7D...@mail.idt.net>...
>
> >Well, for one, I'm not one of "you guys". I feel I get "high-end" sound out
> of decidedly
> >less than "audiophile brand" equipment. I don't get why if someone wants to
> buy an
> >"audiophile brand" it bothers some "people" on r.a.o.
>
> It does not. However, when they ascribe superior sound quality to their
> purchases, a few people point out essentially what you just said:
>
> "I feel I get "high-end" sound out of decidedly less than "audiophile brand"
> equipment. ".
Well, that statement usually takes the form of "stand and deliver!" while the
former usually takes the form "I prefer...".
> The justification being that many of the sound quality superiorities or
> differences ascribed to high end equipment being due to trivial factors or
> just imagination.
A simple question: so what?
> Ever wonder why you can say:
>
> "I feel I get "high-end" sound out of decidedly less than "audiophile brand"
> equipment. ".
Um, because I possess some common sense, am not afraid to tinker, and don't have
money to burn? (Just a guess...)
> The answer is that many of the sound quality advatages claimed for it are
> either illusion or caused by trivial differences (e.g., frequency response).
(Ooops! I was wrong!)
I *still* wonder why this would bother you guys so much... (I must be dense.)
Jeff Adams
On Fri, 07 Nov 1997 13:35:51 -0500, postmaster@localhost.. (\|\|0|PH)
wrote:
>> >Yes, I SHOULD respond to this post as if you ACTUALLY meant "everything else"
>> >and include EVERYTHING in that. IF you don't mean EVERYTHING.. god damn it,
>> >don't use the freaking word!
Why is it that only YOU seem to have a problem understanding context?
If someone were to include all possible variations and exceptions
every time they post something, that would be very tiresome indeed.
This is a simple question and not meant to be rude - I ask again -
have you ever wondered why no one else in the entire newsgroup ever
seems to have any problem understanding the context of people's posts?
And please try to keep your language civil. Just because people are
"picking" on you doesn't mean you have to start spewing obscenities.
======CORRECT EMAIL: remove the xyz======================================
| Jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com) | GTE Electronic Systems Division |
| 415-966-2122 | Mountain View, CA U.S.A. |
| All opinions are mine and not my employer or internet access provider. |
==========================================================================
Arny Krüger
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist wrote in message ...
>If it sounds "different" when operated within spec, it's broken, unless
>it's more than just an amplifier. If it's more than an amplifier, call
>it that.
What, tell it like it is? Call a spade a spade? That would be very
un-Wolphian!
Arny Krüger
Jeff Adams wrote in message <3465e55f...@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>...
>
>Why is it that only YOU seem to have a problem understanding context?
>If someone were to include all possible variations and exceptions
>every time they post something, that would be very tiresome indeed.
>
>This is a simple question and not meant to be rude - I ask again -
>have you ever wondered why no one else in the entire newsgroup ever
>seems to have any problem understanding the context of people's posts?
Since Wolph is very secretive about his true name and location, it can be
fun to speculate about where and who he is. My current theory is that he was
once a really smart person, but for medical reasons, they removed the part
of his brain that reliably perceives context. He's still smart in his way,
but context eludes him consistently - that much is clear.
Now if we could just get him a good stereo and some nice CD's, he could
enjoy the music and stop wasting bandwith. Should we take a collection? ;-)
Stewart Pinkerton
jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com (Jeff Adams) writes:
>On Fri, 07 Nov 1997 13:35:51 -0500, postmaster@localhost.. (\|\|0|PH)
>wrote:
>
>>> >Yes, I SHOULD respond to this post as if you ACTUALLY meant "everything else"
>>> >and include EVERYTHING in that. IF you don't mean EVERYTHING.. god damn it,
>>> >don't use the freaking word!
>
>Why is it that only YOU seem to have a problem understanding context?
>If someone were to include all possible variations and exceptions
>every time they post something, that would be very tiresome indeed.
>
>This is a simple question and not meant to be rude - I ask again -
>have you ever wondered why no one else in the entire newsgroup ever
>seems to have any problem understanding the context of people's posts?
>
>
>And please try to keep your language civil. Just because people are
>"picking" on you doesn't mean you have to start spewing obscenities.
It does when you've run out of other options......................
Gruvmyster
Arny Krüger wrote:
> My current theory is that he was
> once a really smart person, but for medical reasons, they removed the part
> of his brain that reliably perceives context. He's still smart in his way,
> but context eludes him consistently - that much is clear.
Or perhaps he's emulating someone? You know, trying to "out-<name deleted>"
somebody?;-)
George M. Middius
The Krooborg hones its surgical instruments.
>Since Wolph is very secretive about his true name and location, it can be
>fun to speculate about where and who he is.
***** A Message to Usenet Users *****
Is boredom filling your days? Is a lack of meaningful
activities warping your idea of fun? Do broken promises
litter the empty lot of your life?
If so, what you need is a daily dose of R.A.O. Taken in
moderation, you'll find it informative, perhaps challenging,
maybe amusing here and there. But be careful -- too much
R.A.O. will turn you into a self-absorbed computer geek and
straiten your concept of living to the point that you may
get obsessed with insignificant ideas and pointless
endeavors.
>My current theory is that he was
>once a really smart person, but for medical reasons, they removed the part
>of his brain that reliably perceives context. He's still smart in his way,
>but context eludes him consistently - that much is clear.
But you could put that right, couldn't you, cyborg? A
cerebrum nip here, a brain tuck there -- and presto, a new,
improved Wolph that you can control to your blood-pumping
mechanism's content.
>Now if we could just get him a good stereo and some nice CD's, he could
>enjoy the music and stop wasting bandwith. Should we take [up] a collection?
Oh, by all means, let's do that. God knows (not your God,
silly cyborg -- it's just an expression) that no human who
tries to keep up with you on R.A.O. could possibly spend any
time listening to music.
George M. Middius
remove "jiffy" to reply
If I were an engineer,
I'd tell Santa to switch to tubes
And forget all about the reindeer.
Stewart Pinkerton
postmaster@localhost.. (\|\|0|PH) writes:
>In article <34633b7e...@news.dircon.co.uk>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
>
>> postmaster@localhost.. (W0LPH) writes:
>>
>> >In article <3461fc8b...@news.dircon.co.uk>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
>>
>> >> An amplifier amplifies. Anything else it does is an error, hence all
>> >> properly designed amplifiers sound the same.
>> >
>> >Actually, here is a great case.. Are you now going to claim that you
>> >REALLY did not mean "anything else"?
>>
>> As you say, here is a great case............
>
>
>> >Yes, I SHOULD respond to this post as if you ACTUALLY meant "everything else"
>> >and include EVERYTHING in that. IF you don't mean EVERYTHING.. god damn it,
>> >don't use the freaking word!
>>
>> No, you shouldn't respond to the post that way. That's your freaking
>> problem, you don't understand how dumb your attitude is.
>
>Sorry. I choose to evaluate a post on what is written, not what I WANT to
>see written.
No, you choose to respond to whatever weird exception you can think up
which would fit the wording, if you first ignore the context.
>Do you have ANY proof contained in his post, which shows that he lied when
>he said "anything else"? Any evidence? Any at all?
Gee whiz, all this 'perfect logic' and you still can't tell the
difference between a lie and an error? I'd demand a refund on that
correspondence course on 'logic for sad sacks', if I were you.
>Didn't think so.
Hardly think at all, as far as I can tell.......................
>I'm getting so god damn sick of your petty games and asinine claims, and your
>refuse to provide any evidence for them. It's pretty easy for you to make
>the claims, eh? Yea.. life must be easier when you read what you wish to read,
>not what IS written. Grow up and stop taking the easy cop out.
Funny, that's just what I would have said about you.
>I'll treat any refusal of you to provide evidence when asked, as you
>specifically admitting that you were wrong. I'm tired of your games.
So stop playing, and provide some substance to the *audio* debate.
>I accept your admission that you were wrong, and agree: the author neither
>lied, nor was imprecise when he said "anything else".
>
>All that is necessary to disprove an absolute statement; is one single
>example. Take a basic logic 101 class at your local community college.
I did, at Aberdeen University. This debating forum however is
rec.audio.opinion, not logic 101. Get a clue, or failing that, a life.
Stewart Pinkerton
postmaster@localhost.. (\|\|0|PH) writes:
>In article <346337ee...@news.dircon.co.uk>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
>
>> postmaster@localhost.. (W0LPH) writes:
>>
>> >In article <3461fc8b...@news.dircon.co.uk>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
>>
>> >> An amplifier amplifies. Anything else it does is an error, hence all
>> >> properly designed amplifiers sound the same. Blind testing shows that
>> >> a large number of amplifiers *do* sound indistinguishably similar.
>> >> Apply brain to an evaluation of one which sounds noticeably different
>> >> from this 'standard sound'.
>> >
>> >You are ignoring the "excluded middle". Those amplifiers designed
>specifically
>> >to affect the sound. These include Class D amplifiers, one's intended for
>> >specific application ( e.g. servo, or with restricted bandwidth ), built
>> >in crossovers.. ). Don't forget the vast majority of amplifiers WILL sound
>> >different when overdriven. That's neither being broken, nor poorly designed.
>>
>> Class D amplifiers are *not* designed to affect the sound, as the
>> prototype Harman-Kardon 'digital amplifier' demonstrated. Dedicated
>> amplifiers are not designed to modify the overall system sound *when
>> used as intended*.
>
>Really? Wow.. I know of at least three commerically avaiable Class D
>amplifiers which INTENTIONALLY have a limited freqeuncy response, to
>increase effeciency. They're dedicated for bass/midbass only applications,
>and you would NOT want to run them up past ~1khz or so.
Quite so, hence within the context of <1kHz operation, they are not
intended to modify the sound of the signal which they are fed. Unless
they employ active equalisation etc etc, which is yet another context.
>I never said that ALL class D amplifiers are designed to affect the sound.
>And I assure you.. the Class D OEM amplifier for a subsystem *IS* being
>used as designed.. to play bass only.
This may not have been what you *meant* to say, but what you *did* say
was "You are ignoring the "excluded middle". Those amplifiers designed
specifically to affect the sound. These include Class D amplifiers"
Sauce for the goose.........................
If it *is* a bass amp, then it should be judged *as* a bass amp.
Sheesh................
>I just prefer to use a larger amp, hence the Crown.
Fine. Your point?
>>Overdriving of amplifiers is specifically excluded
>> in standard ABX test conditions.
>
>But the context was not ABX tests.. but whether or not the amplifier is
>well designed. Two seperate issues. In fact, ABX is irrelevent to the
>context.. why are you trying to drag it in?
Why are you suggesting that an amplifier with limited current capacity
is badly designed? This is a cost-effectiveness decision...........
>>As always, you are wrong on all
>> counts when debating the topic. Your pathetic attempts to weasel out
>> of any argument (in this case the context was clearly full bandwidth
>> audio power amplifiers used for reproduction of music in the home,
>
>I see no such statement in this conversation. Care to point to it?
>In fact, you are ALWAYS making these claims of "context".. Well, I
>say "bullshit", PROVE it you mother fucker. EVERYONE can see
>the post I replied to. It's right at the top of this post.
It's a post about 'amplifiers' in the rec.audio.opinion newsgroup. If
you're too dumb or weaselly to recognise context, others aren't....
>Notice NO mention of full bandwidth amplifiers (*). I'm sick and tired of
>your whining ass game of refusing to adhere to the written word, and
>making CLAIMS of what YOU wish to read into the post.
And you are an asshole who habitually uses a *clearly* inappropriate
exception in a pathetic attempt to score smartass points, because you
have no rebuttal to the *real* point being made.
>Yea yea.. I bet you won't be able to provide any evidence of context
>in the above post either.. Somehow, you alwasy fail to provide
>evidence. Why are you so against evidence and facts?
Why are you so desperate to avoid the debate?
>> The sign of a W0lph post? A semantic nitpick or a reference to car
>> audio.
>
>Um.. I'm talking about a servo sub for a home theatre system, dufus.
>Sure, you could put it in a mobile home with a 110volt AC adapter..
Shame that evryone else is talking about general purpose amplifiers
then. Maybe you should consider marking *your* context in a thread
title, then actually sticking to it for once. I'll be quite happy to
discuss the pros and cons of subwoofer amp design, for which class D
is particularly appropriate in terms of cost-efficiency.
>> >Not to mention different impedance ability, etc..
>>
>> Taken as read within the non-overdriving context of conventional
>> comparison tests. If you want to know which amps drive low loads most
>> easily, it's all in the test results. Says nothing about the *sound*
>> of the amp, which is the topic under discussion.
>
>Um.. Get a clue. An amplifier's stability is DIRECTLY related to the
>sound of the amp. Otherwise, if stability doesn't affect the sound one
>bit.. why worry about it?
Who said anything about stability? If you were *referring* to
stability, why didn't you *say* "stability into different impedances".
Gads man, be *precise*!
An amp may be perfectly stable into a 1 ohm load, but still have no
ability to drive it. The Quad 405 is one example.
>If the amp is incredibly unstable... yet sounds exactly the same as
>a stable amplifier.. than what difference does it make?
If it's unstable under the conditions of the listening test, then it's
unlikely to sound the same. Duh.............
>> >Just because an amplifier sounds different does NOT aprior, imply that its
>> >poorly designed or broken.
>>
>> Yes it does. An amplifier which is designed to sound 'different' is,
>> by definition, poorly designed for high-fidelity reproduction, which
>> *is* the topic under discussion.
>
>That's funny. I guess then those THX certified amplifiers for subsystems
>are poorly designed, eh? Guess what.. they are specifically designed to
>have a non-flat response.. imagine that!
They're *not* designed to sound 'different', they are in fact designed
to sound *exactly* the same as any other THX certified amplifier for
subwoofer systems. That's what the THX certification means! Duh.....
>> >In any event.. I'm sure the vast majority of amplifiers you and others may
>> >consider "well designed" would be reduced to a molten slag if asked to drive
>> >my sub system..
>>
>> Unlikely in my case, but no doubt your sub system is some weird
>> car-audio derived beast that you'd use to score one of your usual out
>> of context 'gee, aint I smart' fifth-grade points.
>
>Nope. Its a home unit. I happen to prefer a Crown VZ2400 on it.
Your preference is of course sacrosanct, regardless of your inability
to frame a cogent argument in its defence. Either of my power amps
will happily drive this unit without getting upset, just not as loud
as your Crown will.
>(*) that arguement is asinine to begin with, as obviously, ALL amplifiers
>have a set bandwidth.
In the context of domestic audio, 'full bandwidth' is always taken as
20Hz-20kHz, although few are this restricted. Get a clue........
Gruvmyster
Arny Krüger wrote:
> Gruvmyster wrote in message <3463F50F...@mail.idt.net>...
>
> >> The justification being that many of the sound quality superiorities or
> >> differences ascribed to high end equipment being due to trivial factors
> or
> >> just imagination.
>
> >A simple question: so what?
>
> If you have not noticed, this is a topic that creates 1,000's of posts on
> RAO, and RAHE when the RAHE moderators loosen their grip from time to time.
> Why? because it is fundamental to HiFi.
If you weren't here, Arny, it would drop to 10's of posts on r.a.o...
>> I *still* wonder why this would bother you guys so much...
> It obviously bothers you because you bring it up again and again. Why is
> that?
Um, because it you profess the One True Way into Audio Nirvana, and I happen
to disagree?
There, I've answered you. Fair is fair, now answer my question:
Why does what such a small percentage of the audio population do bother you so
much? You guys talk about wasted money; why not go after those who spend too
much on a Best Buy system for what they get, when for the same or less they
could probably do much better? The dollars in high-end audio are trivial by
comparison.
> >(I must be dense.)
>
> Strongly agreed. ;-)
Did you come with this on your own, or did Mackie and Nousaine help you?;-)
Arny Krüger
Gruvmyster wrote in message <3465771A...@mail.idt.net>...
>
>Um, because it you profess the One True Way into Audio Nirvana, and I
happen
>to disagree?
Show where I have claimed to know the One True Way to anywhere. If I was
going to characterize my message it is "You can't get there from here (you
have to go someplace else first).
>
>There, I've answered you.
Hardly, but it is Sunday, so I'm being more charitable...
...now answer my question:
>Why does what such a small percentage of the audio population do bother you
so
>much?
It is not such a small percentage of the audio population.
>You guys talk about wasted money; why not go after those who spend too
>much on a Best Buy system for what they get, when for the same or less they
>could probably do much better?
This is weird. First off, you seem to be characterizing my comments as being
targeted at only certain dealers. That is not the case at all, and I think
the record shows that when it comes to criticizing certain dealers the last
dealer I criticized specifically was, in fact, Circuit City who is fo
course, a major competitor of Best Buy and probably the same in your book.
So, you are making this whole argument up, and claiming a difference that
you made up in your mind, and I decline further comment based on the fact
that your question is irrelevant to me.
Gruvmyster
Arny Krüger guesses:
> Gruvmyster wrote in message <3465771A...@mail.idt.net>...
> >
> >Um, because it you profess the One True Way into Audio Nirvana, and I
> happen
> >to disagree?
>
> Show where I have claimed to know the One True Way to anywhere. If I was
> going to characterize my message it is "You can't get there from here (you
> have to go someplace else first).
When one says that someone else is "in the business of lying", one indicates
they, not the other, have the truth.
> >Why does what such a small percentage of the audio population do bother you
> so
> >much?
>
> It is not such a small percentage of the audio population.
You are specifically targeting high-end, which probably accounts for less than
2-3% of the total audio market.
> >You guys talk about wasted money; why not go after those who spend too
> >much on a Best Buy system for what they get, when for the same or less they
> >could probably do much better?
>
> This is weird. First off, you seem to be characterizing my comments as being
> targeted at only certain dealers. That is not the case at all, and I think
> the record shows that when it comes to criticizing certain dealers the last
> dealer I criticized specifically was, in fact, Circuit City who is fo
> course, a major competitor of Best Buy and probably the same in your book.
I agree it is weird. I still wonder why how someone else spends their money is
anyone else's business. My point is merely this: if you are going to *make* it
your business, why are you targeting 2-3% of the market, when the other 97%
represents (obviously) a much larger opportunity to altruistically help
individuals? One post about Circuit City doe not outweigh the hundreds or
thousands you've made about high-end.
Arny Krüger
Gruvmyster wrote in message <34654B7B...@mail.idt.net>...
>
>More and more tube companies are springing up.
More and more houses are springing up. Does that mean that houses are a new
trend?
> Now that CDs have been around for
>15 years, are recent vinyl sales increasing or decreasing to the
"audiophile"
>community? Shure is making their top-of-the-line phono cartridge again.
Why?
Nousaine explained the fascination with small or non-existent differences
quite well last night. He argued that many HiFi components like amplifiers
and CD players are representative of rather fully developed technology and
are therefore commodity items like soap and potato chips. In the marketing
of soap and potato chips we know there is an inordinate focus on small to
non-existent differences and heavily promoting intangible and/or imaginary
benefits to create markets. Same thing has happened in HiFi.
In the case of retro-technology like tubes and vinyl, I think that
sentimentality and boredom with the status quo has a lot to do with it.
There is also a real market segment of folks in the 35-45 year old range who
were so busy with the rest of their lives for about the past 15 years that
they really put their systems on hold, and many are now quite comfortably
set but their HiFi's are very old and they still have large vinyl
collections. Many have never bought their first CD - not because they don't
like them, but frankly they have been too busy with their educations, jobs,
homes and kids to worry about stuff like that. Now the kids are getting more
self-sufficient, they have topped out at work, and they have some time on
their hands. Spending money on their stereo suits their fancy, so they want
to get a new one. Obviously, they are going to build a CD-based system but
they have all these records that they think they still want to enjoy. They
form a significant market for retro-technology and they do have money to
spend.
>I submit it is possible your absolute accuracy leaves something to be
desired in
>a segment of that community. I further submit there is nothing wrong with
that.
What I will agree with is that there are other practical considerations that
can be more important to certain folks than accuracy, like ownership of 200
to 2000 records, no CD, and a desire to dramatically upgrade their system.
George M. Middius
The Krooborg huffs and puffs and blows itself down.
>>More and more tube companies are springing up.
>More and more houses are springing up. Does that mean that houses are a new trend?
Wow, that's a pretty retarded comeback, even for a cyborg.
Do you really equate a house with a business?
>Nousaine explained ... that ... amplifiers and CD players are ... commodity items ...
>In the marketing of soap and potato chips we know there is an inordinate focus on
>small to non-existent differences and heavily promoting intangible and/or imaginary
>benefits to create markets. Same thing has happened in HiFi.
Interesting. It now appears that cyborgs not only desire to
brainwash their human prey, but that they also enjoy being
brainwashed themselves.
Which "technology" did the odious Noussaine use to
accomplish this feat of laundry legerdemain, cyborg?
>In the case of retro-technology like tubes and vinyl, I think that
>sentimentality and boredom with the status quo has a lot to do with it.
An original thought? Goodness, we'd better check with the
hive-ship to see when your last overhaul was.
Actually, I think you are partly right on this count,
cyborg. But my theory is that the resurgence of vinyl
bespeaks curiousity about a boutique technology. It may turn
out to be a fad; among humans who have used both media for
playback, CDs are quite a bit more popular. Once the current
vogue has settled in to become familiar, some of the
converts may switch from vinyl to plastic just as their
predecessors did. (I did, but not because I think the care
and use of vinyl is "weirdness.")
>What I will agree with is that there are other practical considerations that
>can be more important to certain folks than accuracy, like ownership of 200
>to 2000 records, no CD, and a desire to dramatically upgrade their system.
So you still won't admit that some humans are entitled to
*prefer* the sound of recordings on vinyl?
Arny Krüger
George M. Middius wrote in message <3465e401...@news.erols.com>...
>
>So you still won't admit that some humans are entitled to
>*prefer* the sound of recordings on vinyl?
>
Folks can enjoy what they will - no skin off my nose. However, if they want
to enjoy more music with less hassle, they will scrap vinyl except for those
performances that can't be obtained any other way.
Jay B. Haider
>In the case of retro-technology like tubes and vinyl, I think that
>sentimentality and boredom with the status quo has a lot to do with it.
In the case of vinyl, at least, I think you explained it much
better below.
>There is also a real market segment of folks in the 35-45 year old range who
>were so busy with the rest of their lives for about the past 15 years that
>they really put their systems on hold, and many are now quite comfortably
>set but their HiFi's are very old and they still have large vinyl
>collections. Many have never bought their first CD - not because they don't
>like them, but frankly they have been too busy with their educations, jobs,
>homes and kids to worry about stuff like that. Now the kids are getting more
>self-sufficient, they have topped out at work, and they have some time on
>their hands. Spending money on their stereo suits their fancy, so they want
>to get a new one. Obviously, they are going to build a CD-based system but
>they have all these records that they think they still want to enjoy. They
>form a significant market for retro-technology and they do have money to
>spend.
Another market you're neglecting is the 18-25 y/o who recently
discovered a treasure trove of cool old vinyl languishing in their
parent's closets/basements, etc, which their parents haven't touched
since college, and think that there's a bunch of great music there
that needs to be heard. Sure, this group is more likely to buy their
turntables at Best Buys or Circuit City (or 1988-vintage Bang &
Olufsens....) but chances are that they'll move up as their systems
grow to Regas or Linns or something.
Arny Krüger
Jay B. Haider wrote in message <346fbf13...@news.gatech.edu>...
Frankly, I have not run into any folks like this, but I won't deny they
exist.
However, the major point is that markets are not always driven by better
sound or technological superiority. In fact, the kinds of situations you and
I just described are very, very important, and really pretty much ignore
sound quality and technology and (and this is a wild concept that many on
RAO just don't get) focus on music as art and enjoyment.
Guys like Gruvie see the numbers that arise from these factors and seem to
wanna say: "See, I told you vinyl sounds better"; when sound quality has
nothing to do with it, and availability and art has everything to do with
it.
W0L PH
In article <3465e55f...@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>,
jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Nov 1997 13:35:51 -0500, postmaster@localhost.. (\|\|0|PH)
> wrote:
>
> >> >Yes, I SHOULD respond to this post as if you ACTUALLY meant
"everything else"
> >> >and include EVERYTHING in that. IF you don't mean EVERYTHING.. god
damn it,
> >> >don't use the freaking word!
>
> Why is it that only YOU seem to have a problem understanding context?
> If someone were to include all possible variations and exceptions
> every time they post something, that would be very tiresome indeed.
>
> This is a simple question and not meant to be rude - I ask again -
> have you ever wondered why no one else in the entire newsgroup ever
> seems to have any problem understanding the context of people's posts?
No. If you notice, they're NEVER able to substantiate their so called
context.
If *I* were the one mistaken, you think once, just once.. someone would
be able to provide some evidence of it, no?
Essentially, what their entire context aguement boils down to:
"I can't find any evidence to counter what you say, so I'm just going
to make up red herrings such as supposively context"
Yes, its a strawman arguement they use, when they know they have no
real arguement. Evidence of this is their complete lack of ability to
substantiate it. If the statements were taking out of context, then they'ld
be able to provide evidence of it, instead of just claims. No?
W0L PH
In article <641jqt$i...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Arny Krüger"
<ar...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Jeff Adams wrote in message <3465e55f...@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>...
> >
> >Why is it that only YOU seem to have a problem understanding context?
> >If someone were to include all possible variations and exceptions
> >every time they post something, that would be very tiresome indeed.
> >
> >This is a simple question and not meant to be rude - I ask again -
> >have you ever wondered why no one else in the entire newsgroup ever
> >seems to have any problem understanding the context of people's posts?
>
> Since Wolph is very secretive about his true name and location, it can be
> fun to speculate about where and who he is. My current theory is that he was
> once a really smart person, but for medical reasons, they removed the part
> of his brain that reliably perceives context. He's still smart in his way,
> but context eludes him consistently - that much is clear.
I'm very secretive about my true name? Naw.. its public knowledge.
I just hate spam email.
> Now if we could just get him a good stereo and some nice CD's, he could
> enjoy the music and stop wasting bandwith. Should we take a collection? ;-)
Hey, if you wish to buy me a Grand Utopia or the like.. I'll be more than
willing to accept.
Stewart Pinkerton
postmaster@localhost.. (W0L PH) writes:
>In article <34648b3f...@news.dircon.co.uk>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
>>
>> >>Overdriving of amplifiers is specifically excluded
>> >> in standard ABX test conditions.
>> >
>> >But the context was not ABX tests.. but whether or not the amplifier is
>> >well designed. Two seperate issues. In fact, ABX is irrelevent to the
>> >context.. why are you trying to drag it in?
>>
>> Why are you suggesting that an amplifier with limited current capacity
>> is badly designed? This is a cost-effectiveness decision...........
>
>It's ability to faithfully reproduce music is gauged without consideration
>of cost. That's its ability to work effectively for a given price point.
It will work very effectively up to the point at which it is incapable
of delivering further current or voltage to the load. It therefore
becomes a matter of system synergy to choose a speaker which will not
make this occur at the listening levels you want. Such speakers are
available for almost any combination of amplifier and required
listening level, if cost is not a consideration.
>> >>As always, you are wrong on all
>> >> counts when debating the topic. Your pathetic attempts to weasel out
>> >> of any argument (in this case the context was clearly full bandwidth
>> >> audio power amplifiers used for reproduction of music in the home,
>> >
>> >I see no such statement in this conversation. Care to point to it?
>> >In fact, you are ALWAYS making these claims of "context".. Well, I
>> >say "bullshit", PROVE it you mother fucker. EVERYONE can see
>> >the post I replied to. It's right at the top of this post.
>>
>> It's a post about 'amplifiers' in the rec.audio.opinion newsgroup. If
>> you're too dumb or weaselly to recognise context, others aren't....
>
>Yep.. and those certainly include THX spec amplifiers for subwoofers.
>Unless you can point out where in the charter, it ecludes that from
>discussion? I didn't think so.
The 'default set' of amplifiers in this group is wideband
general-purpose amplifiers. If you wish to discuss the particular set
known as subwoofer amplifiers, and the subset known as THX subwoofer
amplfiers, then *you* need to specify that context, otherwise you
spread confusion. I'm sure you wouldn't want to spread confusion, now
would you?
>> >Notice NO mention of full bandwidth amplifiers (*). I'm sick and tired of
>> >your whining ass game of refusing to adhere to the written word, and
>> >making CLAIMS of what YOU wish to read into the post.
>>
>> And you are an asshole who habitually uses a *clearly* inappropriate
>> exception in a pathetic attempt to score smartass points, because you
>> have no rebuttal to the *real* point being made.
>
>yea..care to show where a THX amplifier is *CLEARLY* inappropriate to
>rec.audio.opinion?
A THX subwoofer amplifier is clearly inappropriate to a discussion of
'amplifiers', with no qualifier, which is taken as amplifiers which
are linear over the full audio bandwidth. Anyone who is referring to
subwoofer amps or RIAA amps needs to specify up front that this
special context is being used. Everyone except *you* operates in this
manner.
>I didnt think so.
>And you
>>
>> >Yea yea.. I bet you won't be able to provide any evidence of context
>> >in the above post either.. Somehow, you alwasy fail to provide
>> >evidence. Why are you so against evidence and facts?
>>
>> Why are you so desperate to avoid the debate?
>
>I'm not. You are the one who runs and hides when evidence is asked for.
You are the one who runs and hides, because you are always wrong on
the topic under discussion, so you try to change it.
>> >> The sign of a W0lph post? A semantic nitpick or a reference to car
>> >> audio.
>> >
>> >Um.. I'm talking about a servo sub for a home theatre system, dufus.
>> >Sure, you could put it in a mobile home with a 110volt AC adapter..
>>
>> Shame that evryone else is talking about general purpose amplifiers
>> then. Maybe you should consider marking *your* context in a thread
>> title, then actually sticking to it for once. I'll be quite happy to
>> discuss the pros and cons of subwoofer amp design, for which class D
>> is particularly appropriate in terms of cost-efficiency.
>
>i'm talking ALL quality amplifiers.
Fine, in which case we need to split the discussion as appropriate for
the particular quality determinants of RIAA amps, MC stepup devices,
pre-amps, subwoofer amps, parametric equalisers etc etc etc.
You also need to call these out *specifically*, because in the context
of this newsgroup, an 'amplifier' with no other description, is a
linear device which may be a power amplifier or a complete integrated
amplfier. Everyone but *you* is happy with this definition.
>> >> >Not to mention different impedance ability, etc..
>> >>
>> >> Taken as read within the non-overdriving context of conventional
>> >> comparison tests. If you want to know which amps drive low loads most
>> >> easily, it's all in the test results. Says nothing about the *sound*
>> >> of the amp, which is the topic under discussion.
>> >
>> >Um.. Get a clue. An amplifier's stability is DIRECTLY related to the
>> >sound of the amp. Otherwise, if stability doesn't affect the sound one
>> >bit.. why worry about it?
>>
>> Who said anything about stability? If you were *referring* to
>> stability, why didn't you *say* "stability into different impedances".
>> Gads man, be *precise*!
>
>Talking about ALL quality amplifiers.
You still said nothing about stability. Good grief man, you can't even
play the game by your own dumb rules! Sheesh........
>> >If the amp is incredibly unstable... yet sounds exactly the same as
>> >a stable amplifier.. than what difference does it make?
>>
>> If it's unstable under the conditions of the listening test, then it's
>> unlikely to sound the same. Duh.............
>
>
>Thank you for agreeing with my point.
You made no such point in your original post, you subsequently changed
the context because you were wrong. Do we see a pattern here, boys and
girls?
>> >> >Just because an amplifier sounds different does NOT aprior, imply that its
>> >> >poorly designed or broken.
>> >>
>> >> Yes it does. An amplifier which is designed to sound 'different' is,
>> >> by definition, poorly designed for high-fidelity reproduction, which
>> >> *is* the topic under discussion.
>> >
>> >That's funny. I guess then those THX certified amplifiers for subsystems
>> >are poorly designed, eh? Guess what.. they are specifically designed to
>> >have a non-flat response.. imagine that!
>>
>> They're *not* designed to sound 'different', they are in fact designed
>> to sound *exactly* the same as any other THX certified amplifier for
>> subwoofer systems. That's what the THX certification means! Duh.....
>
>Yes, they are designed to sound different than other amplifiers on the
>market. If you are not familiar with the THX certification spec for
>dedicated subwoofer amplifiers; I suggest you look it up.
Any item must be compared to others performing the *same* function if
their relative quality is to be estimated. Hence, there is no
relevance in a subwoofer amp sounding different than a wideband amp.
Of course, irrelevance *is* your speciality...............
>> >> >In any event.. I'm sure the vast majority of amplifiers you and others may
>> >> >consider "well designed" would be reduced to a molten slag if asked
>to drive
>> >> >my sub system..
>> >>
>> >> Unlikely in my case, but no doubt your sub system is some weird
>> >> car-audio derived beast that you'd use to score one of your usual out
>> >> of context 'gee, aint I smart' fifth-grade points.
>> >
>> >Nope. Its a home unit. I happen to prefer a Crown VZ2400 on it.
>>
>> Your preference is of course sacrosanct, regardless of your inability
>> to frame a cogent argument in its defence. Either of my power amps
>> will happily drive this unit without getting upset, just not as loud
>> as your Crown will.
>
>Wanna bet? I'll bet once your amplifier slams into its voltage rail, it'll
>be very upset.
Not at all, it will simply deliver nice crisp square waves until you
engage your brain and turn down the volume.
>>(*) that arguement is asinine to begin with, as obviously, ALL amplifiers
>> >have a set bandwidth.
>>
>> In the context of domestic audio, 'full bandwidth' is always taken as
>> 20Hz-20kHz, although few are this restricted. Get a clue........
>
>Yes, and I point out to you, that there was no mention of "full bandwidth";
>nor is discussion on RAC limited to it. So, there is no factual basis for
>yoru claims of context. In fact, our very discussion about non-full
>bandwidth amplifiers is PROOF that its dicussed on RAC.
This is RAO. Get a grip.
Stewart Pinkerton
postmaster@localhost.. (W0L PH) writes:
>In article <3465e55f...@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>,
>jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 07 Nov 1997 13:35:51 -0500, postmaster@localhost.. (\|\|0|PH)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Yes, I SHOULD respond to this post as if you ACTUALLY meant
>"everything else"
>> >> >and include EVERYTHING in that. IF you don't mean EVERYTHING.. god
>damn it,
>> >> >don't use the freaking word!
>>
>> Why is it that only YOU seem to have a problem understanding context?
>> If someone were to include all possible variations and exceptions
>> every time they post something, that would be very tiresome indeed.
>>
>> This is a simple question and not meant to be rude - I ask again -
>> have you ever wondered why no one else in the entire newsgroup ever
>> seems to have any problem understanding the context of people's posts?
>
>No. If you notice, they're NEVER able to substantiate their so called
>context.
More bullshit redirection, he's asking *you* if *you* have ever
wondered why *you* are the only one who 'misunderstands' the context
of the original post.
Are you that dumb, or just being a difficult brat?
>If *I* were the one mistaken, you think once, just once.. someone would
>be able to provide some evidence of it, no?
If you were the one *not* mistaken, then once, just once, someone
would have agreed with you. I see no evidence of this.
>Essentially, what their entire context aguement boils down to:
>
>"I can't find any evidence to counter what you say, so I'm just going
>to make up red herrings such as supposively context"
Essentially, what *your* 'argument' boils down to is:
"I can't find any evidence to counter what you say, so I'm just going
to make up red herrings, such as changing the context"
Stewart Pinkerton
postmaster@localhost.. (W0L PH) writes:
>In article <EJAJ5...@research.att.com>, j...@research.att.com (jj,
>curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>
>> In article <postmaster-06...@192.168.1.20>,
>> W0LPH <root@localhost..> wrote:
>> >> An amplifier amplifies. Anything else it does is an error, hence all
>> >> properly designed amplifiers sound the same.
>>
>> >Yes, I SHOULD respond to this post as if you ACTUALLY meant "everything else"
>> >and include EVERYTHING in that. IF you don't mean EVERYTHING.. god damn it,
>> >don't use the freaking word!
>> Wolph jumps out of context yet again.
>
>Hardly. May I suggest remedial dictionary 101 and look up what the
>definition of "Everything" is?
>
>And the context of RAC includes disucssion of music production, such
>as which cables recording studio's use.. quality of recordings of various
>Cd's and the like. So don't try no bogus "out of context" arguement.
Come to think of it, you sanctimonious little hair splitter, I did not
say 'everything' in my post, I said 'anything'. At least get the
freakin' word you're freakin' complainin' about freakin' RIGHT!!
Gruvmyster
Jeff Adams wondered:
> But this wasn't my question. My question was, (well, you can read it
> for yourself, it appears above - but I'll re-state it), it seems that
> the entire newsgroup readership (at least the ones that post - I
> suppose there may be some non-posting types that are too afraid to ask
> questions) picks up on the context of a post, but only you can't
> understand the context. So, my question is, doesn't it make you wonder
> why only you have this problem? You post some really intelligent stuff
> sometimes, but, you seem to really have this problem with context -
He isn't the only one. It appears Wolph is trying to out-<name deleted>
Someone Else on this newsgroup.;-)
Wolph is just emulating The Master.
Been there, done that. Your gun, your bullet, your foot. Get it?;-)
W0L PH
W0L PH
In article <641enl$c...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Arny Krüger"
<ar...@concentric.net> wrote:
So, we're to ignore the ENTIRE industry, from THX to a very wide
selection of amplifier manufactures.. and accept YOUR and JJ's word?
Hardly.
W0L PH
>
> >>Overdriving of amplifiers is specifically excluded
> >> in standard ABX test conditions.
> >
> >But the context was not ABX tests.. but whether or not the amplifier is
> >well designed. Two seperate issues. In fact, ABX is irrelevent to the
> >context.. why are you trying to drag it in?
>
> Why are you suggesting that an amplifier with limited current capacity
> is badly designed? This is a cost-effectiveness decision...........
It's ability to faithfully reproduce music is gauged without consideration
of cost. That's its ability to work effectively for a given price point.
>
>
> >>As always, you are wrong on all
> >> counts when debating the topic. Your pathetic attempts to weasel out
> >> of any argument (in this case the context was clearly full bandwidth
> >> audio power amplifiers used for reproduction of music in the home,
> >
> >I see no such statement in this conversation. Care to point to it?
> >In fact, you are ALWAYS making these claims of "context".. Well, I
> >say "bullshit", PROVE it you mother fucker. EVERYONE can see
> >the post I replied to. It's right at the top of this post.
>
> It's a post about 'amplifiers' in the rec.audio.opinion newsgroup. If
> you're too dumb or weaselly to recognise context, others aren't....
Yep.. and those certainly include THX spec amplifiers for subwoofers.
Unless you can point out where in the charter, it ecludes that from
discussion? I didn't think so.
>
>
> >Notice NO mention of full bandwidth amplifiers (*). I'm sick and tired of
> >your whining ass game of refusing to adhere to the written word, and
> >making CLAIMS of what YOU wish to read into the post.
>
> And you are an asshole who habitually uses a *clearly* inappropriate
> exception in a pathetic attempt to score smartass points, because you
> have no rebuttal to the *real* point being made.
yea..care to show where a THX amplifier is *CLEARLY* inappropriate to
rec.audio.opinion?
I didnt think so.
And you
>
> >Yea yea.. I bet you won't be able to provide any evidence of context
> >in the above post either.. Somehow, you alwasy fail to provide
> >evidence. Why are you so against evidence and facts?
>
> Why are you so desperate to avoid the debate?
I'm not. You are the one who runs and hides when evidence is asked for.
>
> >> The sign of a W0lph post? A semantic nitpick or a reference to car
> >> audio.
> >
> >Um.. I'm talking about a servo sub for a home theatre system, dufus.
> >Sure, you could put it in a mobile home with a 110volt AC adapter..
>
> Shame that evryone else is talking about general purpose amplifiers
> then. Maybe you should consider marking *your* context in a thread
> title, then actually sticking to it for once. I'll be quite happy to
> discuss the pros and cons of subwoofer amp design, for which class D
> is particularly appropriate in terms of cost-efficiency.
i'm talking ALL quality amplifiers.
>
>
> >> >Not to mention different impedance ability, etc..
> >>
> >> Taken as read within the non-overdriving context of conventional
> >> comparison tests. If you want to know which amps drive low loads most
> >> easily, it's all in the test results. Says nothing about the *sound*
> >> of the amp, which is the topic under discussion.
> >
> >Um.. Get a clue. An amplifier's stability is DIRECTLY related to the
> >sound of the amp. Otherwise, if stability doesn't affect the sound one
> >bit.. why worry about it?
>
> Who said anything about stability? If you were *referring* to
> stability, why didn't you *say* "stability into different impedances".
> Gads man, be *precise*!
Talking about ALL quality amplifiers.
> >If the amp is incredibly unstable... yet sounds exactly the same as
> >a stable amplifier.. than what difference does it make?
>
> If it's unstable under the conditions of the listening test, then it's
> unlikely to sound the same. Duh.............
Thank you for agreeing with my point.
>
>
> >> >Just because an amplifier sounds different does NOT aprior, imply that its
> >> >poorly designed or broken.
> >>
> >> Yes it does. An amplifier which is designed to sound 'different' is,
> >> by definition, poorly designed for high-fidelity reproduction, which
> >> *is* the topic under discussion.
> >
> >That's funny. I guess then those THX certified amplifiers for subsystems
> >are poorly designed, eh? Guess what.. they are specifically designed to
> >have a non-flat response.. imagine that!
>
> They're *not* designed to sound 'different', they are in fact designed
> to sound *exactly* the same as any other THX certified amplifier for
> subwoofer systems. That's what the THX certification means! Duh.....
Yes, they are designed to sound different than other amplifiers on the
market. If you are not familiar with the THX certification spec for
dedicated subwoofer amplifiers; I suggest you look it up.
>
>
> >> >In any event.. I'm sure the vast majority of amplifiers you and others may
> >> >consider "well designed" would be reduced to a molten slag if asked
to drive
> >> >my sub system..
> >>
> >> Unlikely in my case, but no doubt your sub system is some weird
> >> car-audio derived beast that you'd use to score one of your usual out
> >> of context 'gee, aint I smart' fifth-grade points.
> >
> >Nope. Its a home unit. I happen to prefer a Crown VZ2400 on it.
>
> Your preference is of course sacrosanct, regardless of your inability
> to frame a cogent argument in its defence. Either of my power amps
> will happily drive this unit without getting upset, just not as loud
> as your Crown will.
Wanna bet? I'll bet once your amplifier slams into its voltage rail, it'll
be very upset.
>(*) that arguement is asinine to begin with, as obviously, ALL amplifiers
> >have a set bandwidth.
>
> In the context of domestic audio, 'full bandwidth' is always taken as
> 20Hz-20kHz, although few are this restricted. Get a clue........
Yes, and I point out to you, that there was no mention of "full bandwidth";
W0L PH
> postmaster@localhost.. (\|\|0|PH) writes:
>
> >In article <34633b7e...@news.dircon.co.uk>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
> >
> >> postmaster@localhost.. (W0LPH) writes:
> >>
> >> >In article <3461fc8b...@news.dircon.co.uk>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >> An amplifier amplifies. Anything else it does is an error, hence all
> >> >> properly designed amplifiers sound the same.
> >> >
> >> >Actually, here is a great case.. Are you now going to claim that you
> >> >REALLY did not mean "anything else"?
> >>
> >> As you say, here is a great case............
> >
> >
> >> >Yes, I SHOULD respond to this post as if you ACTUALLY meant
"everything else"
> >> >and include EVERYTHING in that. IF you don't mean EVERYTHING.. god
damn it,
> >> >don't use the freaking word!
> >>
> >> No, you shouldn't respond to the post that way. That's your freaking
> >> problem, you don't understand how dumb your attitude is.
> >
> >Sorry. I choose to evaluate a post on what is written, not what I WANT to
> >see written.
>
> No, you choose to respond to whatever weird exception you can think up
> which would fit the wording, if you first ignore the context.
No, you claim I ignore the context. You've been unable to provide any
evidence for such a claim; inspite of being asked to on numerous ocations.
If I ignore the context, you'ld have evidence of it, no?
>
> >Do you have ANY proof contained in his post, which shows that he lied when
> >he said "anything else"? Any evidence? Any at all?
>
> Gee whiz, all this 'perfect logic' and you still can't tell the
> difference between a lie and an error? I'd demand a refund on that
> correspondence course on 'logic for sad sacks', if I were you.
Okay, if you'll agree that he made an error, and MEANT to say something other
than "anything else".. that I can agree with. The point is, you admit that,
"anything else" was an error of the writer, and not the reader.
>
>
> >Didn't think so.
>
> Hardly think at all, as far as I can tell.......................
>
>
> >I'm getting so god damn sick of your petty games and asinine claims, and your
> >refuse to provide any evidence for them. It's pretty easy for you to make
> >the claims, eh? Yea.. life must be easier when you read what you wish
to read,
> >not what IS written. Grow up and stop taking the easy cop out.
>
> Funny, that's just what I would have said about you.
Yet I've been able to post specific example after specific example. You can't
provide one iota of evidence; dispite my continually asking for one!
And until you do so, you won't be able to convince me that I"m wrong.
You gotta make more than claims, you have to have evidence. So, I ask
you.. if you REALLY wish to convince me, rather than put on a good
show.. why don't you try answering one of my requests for evidence?
Now, lurker's reading this probably wonder why I'm so insistant on
seeing evidence? Easy, I know I am in the right, and that they can't
provide any facts... *smirk*
> >I'll treat any refusal of you to provide evidence when asked, as you
> >specifically admitting that you were wrong. I'm tired of your games.
>
> So stop playing, and provide some substance to the *audio* debate.
I did. I got Steve and Paul to admit that knowledge of teh DUT's can
affect the results of ABX/double blind listening tests.. You still havn't
thou.
> >I accept your admission that you were wrong, and agree: the author neither
> >lied, nor was imprecise when he said "anything else".
> >
> >All that is necessary to disprove an absolute statement; is one single
> >example. Take a basic logic 101 class at your local community college.
>
> I did, at Aberdeen University. This debating forum however is
> rec.audio.opinion, not logic 101. Get a clue, or failing that, a life.
Just because you are no longer in school; gives you no reason to ignore
the lessons from 101 Logic.
W0L PH
In article <34649352...@news.dircon.co.uk>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
> jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com (Jeff Adams) writes:
>
> >On Fri, 07 Nov 1997 13:35:51 -0500, postmaster@localhost.. (\|\|0|PH)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>> >Yes, I SHOULD respond to this post as if you ACTUALLY meant
"everything else"
> >>> >and include EVERYTHING in that. IF you don't mean EVERYTHING.. god
damn it,
> >>> >don't use the freaking word!
> >
> >Why is it that only YOU seem to have a problem understanding context?
> >If someone were to include all possible variations and exceptions
> >every time they post something, that would be very tiresome indeed.
> >
> >This is a simple question and not meant to be rude - I ask again -
> >have you ever wondered why no one else in the entire newsgroup ever
> >seems to have any problem understanding the context of people's posts?
> >
> >
> >And please try to keep your language civil. Just because people are
> >"picking" on you doesn't mean you have to start spewing obscenities.
>
> It does when you've run out of other options......................
Witness the fact that Arnold has one of the most vulgar mouths here.
But when someone such as Stew refuses to provide evidence for his claims;
after repeated requests for it.. that IS being an "asshole"; not as
an obcenities; but an applicable description.
Stewart Pinkerton
postmaster@localhost.. (W0L PH) writes:
>In article <3464919f...@news.dircon.co.uk>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
>
>> postmaster@localhost.. (\|\|0|PH) writes:
>>
>> >In article <34633b7e...@news.dircon.co.uk>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Yes, I SHOULD respond to this post as if you ACTUALLY meant
>"everything else"
>> >> >and include EVERYTHING in that. IF you don't mean EVERYTHING.. god
>damn it,
>> >> >don't use the freaking word!
>> >>
>> >> No, you shouldn't respond to the post that way. That's your freaking
>> >> problem, you don't understand how dumb your attitude is.
>> >
>> >Sorry. I choose to evaluate a post on what is written, not what I WANT to
>> >see written.
>>
>> No, you choose to respond to whatever weird exception you can think up
>> which would fit the wording, if you first ignore the context.
>
>No, you claim I ignore the context. You've been unable to provide any
>evidence for such a claim; inspite of being asked to on numerous ocations.
>If I ignore the context, you'ld have evidence of it, no?
Did not. Do too. Did not. Do too...........................
>> >Do you have ANY proof contained in his post, which shows that he lied when
>> >he said "anything else"? Any evidence? Any at all?
>>
>> Gee whiz, all this 'perfect logic' and you still can't tell the
>> difference between a lie and an error? I'd demand a refund on that
>> correspondence course on 'logic for sad sacks', if I were you.
>
>Okay, if you'll agree that he made an error, and MEANT to say something other
>than "anything else".. that I can agree with. The point is, you admit that,
>"anything else" was an error of the writer, and not the reader.
He is me, dingbat. 'Anything else' stands, in the context of full
bandwidth audio amplifiers, which is the 'default set' of amplifiers
in this newsgroup. If it does anything but amplify, that's extraneous
to the task.
>> >I'm getting so god damn sick of your petty games and asinine claims, and your
>> >refuse to provide any evidence for them. It's pretty easy for you to make
>> >the claims, eh? Yea.. life must be easier when you read what you wish
>to read,
>> >not what IS written. Grow up and stop taking the easy cop out.
>>
>> Funny, that's just what I would have said about you.
>
>Yet I've been able to post specific example after specific example. You can't
>provide one iota of evidence; dispite my continually asking for one!
You have never quoted a single example which did not reveal you for
the weasel you are. You have never, ever, been able to win an argument
on the subject of the thread, so you weasel out by attempting to
change the subject, usually to car audio or subwoofers.
>And until you do so, you won't be able to convince me that I"m wrong.
>You gotta make more than claims, you have to have evidence. So, I ask
>you.. if you REALLY wish to convince me, rather than put on a good
>show.. why don't you try answering one of my requests for evidence?
>
>Now, lurker's reading this probably wonder why I'm so insistant on
>seeing evidence? Easy, I know I am in the right, and that they can't
>provide any facts... *smirk*
You really need to get your shrink to cancel that regression
treatment..................
>> >I'll treat any refusal of you to provide evidence when asked, as you
>> >specifically admitting that you were wrong. I'm tired of your games.
>>
>> So stop playing, and provide some substance to the *audio* debate.
>
>I did. I got Steve and Paul to admit that knowledge of teh DUT's can
>affect the results of ABX/double blind listening tests.. You still havn't
>thou.
Rubbish, I've already agreed that it affects the test. It makes it
more sensitive. Your attempt to twist this into an agreemnent that it
*biases* the test is pathetic.
>Just because you are no longer in school; gives you no reason to ignore
>the lessons from 101 Logic.
The basic lesson is that life is too short to provide fully precise
definitions of every statement, that's why we put things into their
proper context. When you grow up, you'll discover this.
p.s. Why are you subtly changing your author name all the time these
days - trying to avoid dejanews searches on your weaselling?
Gruvmyster
Jay B. Haider wrote:
> Another market you're neglecting is the 18-25 y/o who recently
> discovered a treasure trove of cool old vinyl languishing in their
> parent's closets/basements, etc, which their parents haven't touched
> since college, and think that there's a bunch of great music there
> that needs to be heard.
I can buy that there are some with large collections. Then why the sales of new
vinyl, especially considering these titles are usually avilable in CD?
Gruvmyster
Arny Krüger postures:
> Guys like Gruvie see the numbers that arise from these factors and seem to
> wanna say: "See, I told you vinyl sounds better"; when sound quality has
> nothing to do with it, and availability and art has everything to do with
> it.
Ignorance is bliss, I'm told. Are they correct Arny?
Where did I say vinyl is superior, Arn baby? (Feel free to post it.)
I said some people consider it so. If you read r.a.o how can you deny this?
I ask again: why are vinyl sales existant *at all*, given that the titles being
sold on vinyl are available on CD? Why are they on the rise?
Nice attempt at posturing, though. Or so it seemed. I know you'd never do this.
Arny Krüger
Gruvmyster wrote in message <3467BCF9...@mail.idt.net>...
>Arny Krüger postures:
>
>> Guys like Gruvie see the numbers that arise from these factors and seem
to
>> wanna say: "See, I told you vinyl sounds better"; when sound quality has
>> nothing to do with it, and availability and art has everything to do with
>> it.
>
>Ignorance is bliss, I'm told. Are they correct Arny?
You don't seem all that blissful, so you would be a counter-example, right?
;-)
>
>Where did I say vinyl is superior, Arn baby? (Feel free to post it.)
I never said that you said that vinyl is superior. Learn to read.
>I said some people consider it so. If you read r.a.o how can you deny this?
I don't doubt that for a second. Are you in that category or not?
>I ask again: why are vinyl sales existant *at all*, given that the titles
being
>sold on vinyl are available on CD? Why are they on the rise?
Same reason that buggy whips are still sold, and sales of them rise as the
Amish population increases, I guess! ;-)
Jay B. Haider
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:36:43 -0500, "Arny Krüger"
<ar...@pop3.concentric.net> wrote:
>Jay:
>> Another market you're neglecting is the 18-25 y/o who recently
>>discovered a treasure trove of cool old vinyl languishing in their
>>parent's closets/basements, etc, which their parents haven't touched
>>since college, and think that there's a bunch of great music there
>>that needs to be heard. Sure, this group is more likely to buy their
>>turntables at Best Buys or Circuit City (or 1988-vintage Bang &
>>Olufsens....) but chances are that they'll move up as their systems
>>grow to Regas or Linns or something.
>Frankly, I have not run into any folks like this, but I won't deny they
>exist.
Good, because I don't like having my existence denied! 8)
>However, the major point is that markets are not always driven by better
>sound or technological superiority. In fact, the kinds of situations you and
>I just described are very, very important, and really pretty much ignore
>sound quality and technology and (and this is a wild concept that many on
>RAO just don't get) focus on music as art and enjoyment.
Definitely.
Jay B. Haider
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 19:57:43 -0600, Gruvmyster <dhau...@mail.idt.net>
wrote:
>Jay B. Haider wrote:
>> Another market you're neglecting is the 18-25 y/o who recently
>> discovered a treasure trove of cool old vinyl languishing in their
>> parent's closets/basements, etc, which their parents haven't touched
>> since college, and think that there's a bunch of great music there
>> that needs to be heard.
>I can buy that there are some with large collections. Then why the sales of new
>vinyl, especially considering these titles are usually avilable in CD?
>Doug
Good question! I've only bought one album in my life -- Stone
Temple Pilots' "Purple", pressed in purple vinyl. (Well, besides the
stuff I've bought at goodwill -- I've found some great records there,
particularly of the Telarc, London, and DG varieties that are very
well taken care of -- and at the hotel my HS band stayed in during the
1995 Orange Bowl Parade.)
Bottom line, though, is that vinyl, for various reasons (won't go
there) sounds different from CD, and if people prefer it, I won't
stand in their way!
Jeff Adams
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 06:04:35 -0500, postmaster@localhost.. (W0L PH)
wrote:
>Jeff Adams wrote:
>> This is a simple question and not meant to be rude - I ask again -
>> have you ever wondered why no one else in the entire newsgroup ever
>> seems to have any problem understanding the context of people's posts?
>
>context.
>
>be able to provide some evidence of it, no?
> [snip]
But this wasn't my question. My question was, (well, you can read it
for yourself, it appears above - but I'll re-state it), it seems that
the entire newsgroup readership (at least the ones that post - I
suppose there may be some non-posting types that are too afraid to ask
questions) picks up on the context of a post, but only you can't
understand the context. So, my question is, doesn't it make you wonder
why only you have this problem? You post some really intelligent stuff
sometimes, but, you seem to really have this problem with context -
Again, I refer you back to the discussion of amps that don't have any
voltage gain (the clear topic of discussion was an entire amplifier as
purchased from the store, not one portion of the circuitry); the use
of tube amps to amplify radio station's signals (when the discussion
was audio gear); the discussion about amps sounding the same where you
bring up bandwidth limited subwoofer amps (when the obvious context
was about standard full bandwidth amps); the list goes on and on. So,
again, why do you think that everyone participating in these 4 threads
I list above as examples had no problems understanding the context?
======CORRECT EMAIL: remove the xyz======================================
| Jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com) | GTE Electronic Systems Division |
| 415-966-2122 | Mountain View, CA U.S.A. |
| All opinions are mine and not my employer or internet access provider. |
==========================================================================
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <postmaster-10...@192.168.1.20>,
W0L PH <root@localhost..> wrote:
>And the context of RAC includes disucssion of music production, such
>as which cables recording studio's use.. quality of recordings of various
>Cd's and the like. So don't try no bogus "out of context" arguement.
This time, by trying to misinform people that the dispute over context
is involving the newsgroup, when in fact the dispute over context is
over TAC's context.
Wolph, you have nothing of substance to offer, are you trying for a
Derrida/Durybito position here?
--
Copyright alice!jj 1997, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET
and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any use by a
provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this article
and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>selection of amplifier manufactures.. and accept YOUR and JJ's word?
Well, yes, of course, in this, we agree with THX rather clearly,
and also with everyone who doesn't make high-end amplifiers.
People who make signal-processing devices often call them
tone controls, equalizers, limiters, compressors, aural exciters,
and all sorts of things. Very few people make amplifiers that
inject coloration into the signal on purpose, and call them
only amplifiers.
Your claim that we disagree with the industry as a whole is false,
and you should retract it and apologize for your mis-statement.
Gruvmyster
Arny Krüger wrote:
> Gruvmyster wrote in message <3467BCF9...@mail.idt.net>...
> >Arny Krüger postures:
> >
> >> Guys like Gruvie see the numbers that arise from these factors and seem
> to
> >> wanna say: "See, I told you vinyl sounds better"; when sound quality has
> >> nothing to do with it, and availability and art has everything to do with
> >> it.
>
> >Where did I say vinyl is superior, Arn baby? (Feel free to post it.)
>
> I never said that you said that vinyl is superior. Learn to read.
Fine. I never said it sounds better, nor do I seem to want to. You *can* get
better definitions, (if you want to...);-(
> >I said some people consider it so. If you read r.a.o how can you deny this?
>
> I don't doubt that for a second. Are you in that category or not?
Nope. I do listen to both. Early commercail CDs sucked, IMO. They're better now.
MFSL, DCC, Reference and some others are consistently better sounding, but I
attribute that to the remastering. The recent remasters I've heard are
improvements, too.
I would rather listen to a good LP than a poor CD, so in some cases I'd say LPs
are superior to CDs.
> >I ask again: why are vinyl sales existant *at all*, given that the titles
> being
> >sold on vinyl are available on CD? Why are they on the rise?
>
> Same reason that buggy whips are still sold, and sales of them rise as the
> Amish population increases, I guess! ;-)
Once again, you've missed a point. If there are people who say vinyl is superior
(and there are, as you agreed), we can all knowingly wink, cite data, test until
the equipment melts, and to the person who thinks LPs are better prove nothing.
Their point of view is valid. They aren't liars, either.
Doug Plumb
W0LPH <postmaster@localhost..> wrote in article
<postmaster-06...@192.168.1.20>...
> In article <34616986...@mail.idt.net>, Gruvmyster
> <dhau...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Who could argue with "if you make everything sound the same, then it
> will sound the
> > same?" That's a tautology.
>
> Yep.
>
> Notice how he also previously defined any amp/etc which sounded different
to
> be either broken, or poorly designed.
>
Yep. I agree with that statement, as do many others. This is from listening
as I do not have the experience in semi conductor analogue design to design
a high performance audio amplifier.
--
Doug Plumb, B. Eng,
sa...@etfacoustic.com
http://www.etfacoustic.com
W0L PH
In article <3468d652...@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>,
jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 06:04:35 -0500, postmaster@localhost.. (W0L PH)
> wrote:
> >Jeff Adams wrote:
> >> This is a simple question and not meant to be rude - I ask again -
> >> have you ever wondered why no one else in the entire newsgroup ever
> >> seems to have any problem understanding the context of people's posts?
> >
> >No. If you notice, they're NEVER able to substantiate their so called
> >context.
> >
> >If *I* were the one mistaken, you think once, just once.. someone would
> >be able to provide some evidence of it, no?
>
> > [snip]
>
> But this wasn't my question. My question was, (well, you can read it
> for yourself, it appears above - but I'll re-state it), it seems that
> the entire newsgroup readership (at least the ones that post - I
> suppose there may be some non-posting types that are too afraid to ask
> questions) picks up on the context of a post, but only you can't
> understand the context.
I fully understand and can predict how the majority will WISH it to
have been written. It's usually obviously how the sheep will go. I prefer
to respond to how it WAS written. And that, as long as you all can only
whine and make claims.. and offer no facts.. will be how it remains..
So, if you wish to change my standard operation of responding to the posts
AS written, and not how I or others WISH it were written.. come back with
facts.. Your claims are rather well.. blase.
> Again, I refer you back to the discussion of amps that don't have any
> voltage gain (the clear topic of discussion was an entire amplifier as
> purchased from the store, not one portion of the circuitry);
Good point. I specifically stated I was refering to the amplifier section
of the "box", marketing calls amplifiers. I specifically stated what I
was talking with.
>the use
> of tube amps to amplify radio station's signals (when the discussion
> was audio gear);
Um.. radio stations broadcast audio.. usually in stereo, but not always.
e.g. AM broadcasts
> the discussion about amps sounding the same where you
> bring up bandwidth limited subwoofer amps (when the obvious context
> was about standard full bandwidth amps);
The obvious? If it was so obvious, a single person could provide a single
fact substantiating it. Yes, you can claim it was.. but I see your hands
are devoid of any facts. So you merely prove my point.. it was your
wishful thinking with no basis in reality.
W0L PH
> He is me, dingbat. 'Anything else' stands, in the context of full
> bandwidth audio amplifiers, which is the 'default set' of amplifiers
> in this newsgroup.
Care to provide a single bit of fact or evidence for your claim?
Have you ever READ the charter for this newsgroup? Somehow, I don't think
so.
CLaims claims claims.. you are just so full of claims..
But no facts..
Stewart: if you can not provide evidence and facts for yoru claims.. but
only insist on reissuing the same claim over and over again.. do you REALLY
think you are going to convince me?
I'll save you the time Stewart: If you can't provide facts for yoru claims
of context.. don't even bother to respond. It's pathetic.
W0L PH
In article <EJHsq...@research.att.com>, j...@research.att.com (jj,
curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) wrote:
> People who make signal-processing devices often call them
> tone controls, equalizers, limiters, compressors, aural exciters,
> and all sorts of things. Very few people make amplifiers that
> inject coloration into the signal on purpose, and call them
> only amplifiers.
Very few people? Wish to put a specific number on what you call
"very few people"? I'm quite sure I can name quite a few more..
But, I'ld take the words from a very wide number of people, ranging
from THX, to Carver, to Zapco, to Meridan, to JBL, to NHT, to Velodyne
etc etc yada yada yada.. over your claims of authority.
W0L PH
> postmaster@localhost.. (W0L PH) writes:
>
> >In article <3464919f...@news.dircon.co.uk>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
> >
> >> postmaster@localhost.. (\|\|0|PH) writes:
> >>
> >> >In article <34633b7e...@news.dircon.co.uk>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >Yes, I SHOULD respond to this post as if you ACTUALLY meant
> >"everything else"
> >> >> >and include EVERYTHING in that. IF you don't mean EVERYTHING.. god
> >damn it,
> >> >> >don't use the freaking word!
> >> >>
> >> >> No, you shouldn't respond to the post that way. That's your freaking
> >> >> problem, you don't understand how dumb your attitude is.
> >> >
> >> >Sorry. I choose to evaluate a post on what is written, not what I WANT to
> >> >see written.
> >>
> >> No, you choose to respond to whatever weird exception you can think up
> >> which would fit the wording, if you first ignore the context.
> >
> >No, you claim I ignore the context. You've been unable to provide any
> >evidence for such a claim; inspite of being asked to on numerous ocations.
> >If I ignore the context, you'ld have evidence of it, no?
>
> Did not. Do too. Did not. Do too...........................
Yep. That's the amount of your claims. Claims claims claims.. you've yet
been able to provide a single fact to substantiate your point.
that's why you'll never convince me that I'm wrong. you don't have a single
fact as evidence that I'm wrong. Only your unsubstantiated claims..
claims are a dime a dozen.
Provide us with one fact.
> >> >Do you have ANY proof contained in his post, which shows that he lied when
> >> >he said "anything else"? Any evidence? Any at all?
> >>
> >> Gee whiz, all this 'perfect logic' and you still can't tell the
> >> difference between a lie and an error? I'd demand a refund on that
> >> correspondence course on 'logic for sad sacks', if I were you.
> >
> >Okay, if you'll agree that he made an error, and MEANT to say something other
> >than "anything else".. that I can agree with. The point is, you admit that,
> >"anything else" was an error of the writer, and not the reader.
>
> He is me, dingbat. 'Anything else' stands, in the context of full
> bandwidth audio amplifiers, which is the 'default set' of amplifiers
> in this newsgroup. If it does anything but amplify, that's extraneous
> to the task.
Again, your shallow and pathetic claims. You CLAIM the "default set"
is full bandwidth audio amplifiers. You don't even ATTEMPT to provide
a SINGLE solitary fact of that.
CLaims claims claims.. You are just so full of CLAIMS.. where are your
FACTS and evidence my dear boy?
Or, have you not learned the difference between claims and facts yet?
so you weasel out by attempting to
> change the subject, usually to car audio or subwoofers.
I do not believe that the law's of physics and electronics changes within
the confines of an automobile. Perhaps you do.. but I don't.
W0L PH
> It will work very effectively up to the point at which it is incapable
> of delivering further current or voltage to the load. It therefore
> becomes a matter of system synergy to choose a speaker which will not
> make this occur at the listening levels you want. Such speakers are
> available for almost any combination of amplifier and required
> listening level, if cost is not a consideration.
Unlike you.. I choose my speaker system first.. and THEN the amplifier..
Might I suggest you try that order of selection first?
> >Yep.. and those certainly include THX spec amplifiers for subwoofers.
> >Unless you can point out where in the charter, it ecludes that from
> >discussion? I didn't think so.
>
> The 'default set' of amplifiers in this group is wideband
> general-purpose amplifiers.
So is your claim. Care to substantiate it.
Oh wait, its *SO* unfair of me to ask you to provide facts for your
claims.. now isn't it?
Why do I ask yet again for you to provide evidence for your claim?
As I know you do not have any! That's why.
> You also need to call these out *specifically*, because in the context
> of this newsgroup, an 'amplifier' with no other description, is a
> linear device which may be a power amplifier or a complete integrated
> amplfier. Everyone but *you* is happy with this definition.
Um.. I dunno about you.. but jsut about every amplifier that I have, with
a non-fixed gain control, is not linear in gain.
> >>(*) that arguement is asinine to begin with, as obviously, ALL amplifiers
> >> >have a set bandwidth.
> >>
> >> In the context of domestic audio, 'full bandwidth' is always taken as
> >> 20Hz-20kHz, although few are this restricted. Get a clue........
> >
> >Yes, and I point out to you, that there was no mention of "full bandwidth";
> >nor is discussion on RAC limited to it. So, there is no factual basis for
> >yoru claims of context. In fact, our very discussion about non-full
> >bandwidth amplifiers is PROOF that its dicussed on RAC.
>
> This is RAO. Get a grip.
In otherwards.. you can't provide evidence?
W0L PH
In article <EJHsL...@research.att.com>, j...@research.att.com (jj,
curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) wrote:
> In article <postmaster-10...@192.168.1.20>,
> W0L PH <root@localhost..> wrote:
> >And the context of RAC includes disucssion of music production, such
> >as which cables recording studio's use.. quality of recordings of various
> >Cd's and the like. So don't try no bogus "out of context" arguement.
> And wolphie cheats again with context.
>
> This time, by trying to misinform people that the dispute over context
> is involving the newsgroup, when in fact the dispute over context is
> over TAC's context.
Um.. get a clue. I specifically said RAC. Do you disagree that the
context of RAC includes dicussion of music production, etc?
But in any event, no one has been able to offer any evidence for their
CLAIMS as to the context of TAC. And until they do so, its their
subjective opinion.
> Wolph, you have nothing of substance to offer, are you trying for a
> Derrida/Durybito position here?
Obviously, its enough substance to warrant a response from you...
W0L PH
> postmaster@localhost.. (W0LPH) writes:
>
> >In article <3461fc8b...@news.dircon.co.uk>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
>
> >> An amplifier amplifies. Anything else it does is an error, hence all
> >> properly designed amplifiers sound the same.
> >
> >Actually, here is a great case.. Are you now going to claim that you
> >REALLY did not mean "anything else"?
>
> As you say, here is a great case............
> >Yes, I SHOULD respond to this post as if you ACTUALLY meant "everything else"
> >and include EVERYTHING in that. IF you don't mean EVERYTHING.. god damn it,
> >don't use the freaking word!
>
> No, you shouldn't respond to the post that way. That's your freaking
> problem, you don't understand how dumb your attitude is.
Sorry. I choose to evaluate a post on what is written, not what I WANT to
see written.
Do you have ANY proof contained in his post, which shows that he lied when
he said "anything else"? Any evidence? Any at all?
Didn't think so.
I'm getting so god damn sick of your petty games and asinine claims, and your
refuse to provide any evidence for them. It's pretty easy for you to make
the claims, eh? Yea.. life must be easier when you read what you wish to read,
not what IS written. Grow up and stop taking the easy cop out.
I'll treat any refusal of you to provide evidence when asked, as you
specifically admitting that you were wrong. I'm tired of your games.
I accept your admission that you were wrong, and agree: the author neither
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <34695B73...@mail.idt.net>,
Gruvmyster <dhau...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>Once again, you've missed a point. If there are people who say vinyl is superior
>(and there are, as you agreed), we can all knowingly wink, cite data, test until
>the equipment melts, and to the person who thinks LPs are better prove nothing.
>
>Their point of view is valid. They aren't liars, either.
Your argument is absurd. As long as the vinyl liker keeps his or her
argument to a preference, there is no arguing.
It's when statements like "vinyl is more accurate" come about that
the problems start.
Vinyl is not more accurate. Period. There are, of course, any number
of other fallacies put forth.
Gruvmyster
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist wrote:
> In article <34695B73...@mail.idt.net>,
> Gruvmyster <dhau...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> >Once again, you've missed a point. If there are people who say vinyl is superior
> >(and there are, as you agreed), we can all knowingly wink, cite data, test until
> >the equipment melts, and to the person who thinks LPs are better prove nothing.
> >
> >Their point of view is valid. They aren't liars, either.
>
> Your argument is absurd. As long as the vinyl liker keeps his or her
> argument to a preference, there is no arguing.
Isn't that what I just said?
> It's when statements like "vinyl is more accurate" come about that
> the problems start.
No argument here. There would also be a problem if they said "vinyl has better s/n,
better channel separation, or is more dynamic" or any number of other statements.
What's your point?. Where did accuracy come into the picture? As I reread the
statement I made, I don't see the word anywhere.
> Vinyl is not more accurate. Period. There are, of course, any number
> of other fallacies put forth.
I do not know where this turned into a "vinyl is more accurate" argument. I do not
see "any number
of other fallacies." How did they work into your reply? Can you explain this?
If you change the words in statements, they can all be made absurd.
Gruvmyster
W0L PH wrote:
> In article <34674579...@news.dircon.co.uk>, a...@borealis.com wrote:
>
> > He is me, dingbat. 'Anything else' stands, in the context of full
> > bandwidth audio amplifiers, which is the 'default set' of amplifiers
> > in this newsgroup. If it does anything but amplify, that's extraneous
> > to the task.
>
> Again, your shallow and pathetic claims. You CLAIM the "default set"
> is full bandwidth audio amplifiers. You don't even ATTEMPT to provide
> a SINGLE solitary fact of that.
Well, Wolph, as one who is frequently (and erroneously) tied to the "golden ears"
crowd through the posturing of "the usual suspects", in lieu of any qualifying
statement to the contrary, I would assume any amp statements on r.a.o to refer to
full-bandwidth amps as well.
FWIW.
Peter Corey
On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:32:40 GMT
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philatelist wrote:
> In article <34695B73...@mail.idt.net>,
> Gruvmyster <dhau...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> >Once again, you've missed a point. If there are people who say vinyl is superior
> >(and there are, as you agreed), we can all knowingly wink, cite data, test until
> >the equipment melts, and to the person who thinks LPs are better prove nothing.
> >
> >Their point of view is valid. They aren't liars, either.
Exactly, and my name is Napoleon Bonaparte !!Wink knowingly as much as
you wish.
I am NOT a liar !
And MY claim is VALID also, since this is what I believe.
> Your argument is absurd. As long as the vinyl liker keeps his or her
> argument to a preference, there is no arguing.
(or reasoning)
> It's when statements like "vinyl is more accurate" come about that
> the problems start.
>
> Vinyl is not more accurate. Period.
DITTO !!
> There are, of course, any number
> of other fallacies put forth.
And also jj ;
If the claimants would just stop and think about it they would realize
that their opinions rely on the following chain of events;
1:
Undulating grooves at frequencies of say 50 to 15,000 hertz are
impressed in a plastic platter
2:
Playback is accomplished by a stylus of inherent mass whose vibrations
are transmitted through lever action to, for example, a coil whose
corresponding (hopefully) movements within a magnetic field induces a
current which is then equalized to compensate for, at the very least,
the tracing distortion , involved in the process .
Add tracking angle problems etc. etc.,
Tick ! Pop ! Tick ! Pop !..........and " Thanks for the memory "
(with apologies to Bob Hope).
Regards;
Peter Corey.
W0L PH
> >If *I* were the one mistaken, you think once, just once.. someone would
> >be able to provide some evidence of it, no?
>
> If you were the one *not* mistaken, then once, just once, someone
> would have agreed with you. I see no evidence of this.
>
Nope. As I have enough experience to know that truth and reality is not
determined by public opinion polls.
I could care less if people agree or disagree; even if I am in the middle
of a flat earth society convention.
I'll still say loudly in the crowd: Do you have any factual evidence..
And you, and the other nay-sayers.. have alwasy been silent to that
challenge. Your silence merely tells me that I"m right.
>"I can't find any evidence to counter what you say, so I'm just going
>to make up red herrings, such as changing the context"
That may be your claim; but you've yet been able to substantiate it with
facts.
W0L PH
In article <34707771....@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>,
jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com wrote:
> That is not NECESSARILY a statement of
> preference. In fact, to me, saying vinyl is superior sounds much more
> like a statement that it's more accurate.
Your arguement presupposes that "superior=accurate". When dealing with
aesthetic judgements.. that's a very dicey assumption. Keep in mind, that
your arguements based on such an assumption, are 100% irrelevent to someone
who does not support that assumption.
BTW: a Picasso picture was sold last week at Sutherby's for an absurd
amount. It wasn't very "accurate"..
W0L PH
In article <346e756a....@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>,
jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:53:20 -0500, postmaster@localhost.. (W0L PH)
> wrote:
>
> >I fully understand and can predict how the majority will WISH it to
> >have been written. It's usually obviously how the sheep will go. I prefer
> >to respond to how it WAS written. And that, as long as you all can only
> >whine and make claims.. and offer no facts.. will be how it remains..
>
> So let me see if I have this right - you are the only one that truly
> understands the context of discussions on this newsgroup; everyone
> else is clueless.
Nope. I'm the only one who aparently has facts. Stew, et all are making
claims without teh ability to produce facts and evidence.
Claims are a dime a dozen.. let's see some facts.
> By the way, why is it that you're afraid to post from your real email
> address? Or, to avoid spam, at least give instructions for how to send
> mail to you?
As my identity is well known on this board to the regular posters. I see
no reason to produce methods to enable the more sophisticated spam-scripters
to obtain my address.
Gruvmyster
Jeff Adams wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:55:01 -0600, Gruvmyster <dhau...@mail.idt.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Gruvmyster <dhau...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> >> >Once again, you've missed a point. If there are people who say vinyl is superior
> >> >(and there are, as you agreed), we can all knowingly wink, cite data, test until
> >> >the equipment melts, and to the person who thinks LPs are better prove nothing.
>
> >I do not know where this turned into a "vinyl is more accurate" argument.
>
> I'm sure JJ can answer himself, but, because it is so obvious to me, I
> figured I'd tell you. Your above statement said "If there are people
> who say vinyl is superior". That is not NECESSARILY a statement of
> preference. In fact, to me, saying vinyl is superior sounds much more
> like a statement that it's more accurate. If your quote had said
> "Vinyl sounds better", that would have sounded much more like a
> statement of preference. As written though, it seems highly likely
> that it's a statement of technical superiority.
Sheesh. No wonder we never get anywhere on this NG.
A simple hint: if you can't measure what the other person is talking about, it is mere
opinion or speculation. If I say "Marantz CD players are superior to Denon" prove I'm
wrong. You'd still need to ask what I meant, or do as jj did and go off ranting on an
incorrect tangent.. Perhaps I like the positioning of the controls better on the
Marantz. Perhaps I've had a bad experience with service. Why would you start ranting
about accuracy at that point?
You are indeed correct, though: as stated it is not NECESSARILY a statement of
preference. It is also not NECESSARILY a statement of objective measureable fact. As it
stands, it is NECESSARILY an OPINION; otherwise, why are we talking about your OPINION
of what it meant? So why not ask what is meant before ranting?
Peter Corey
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:27:28 -0600
Gruvmyster wrote:
> Peter Corey wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:32:40 GMT
> > jj, curmudgeon and tiring philatelist wrote:
> >
> > > In article <34695B73...@mail.idt.net>,
> > > Gruvmyster <dhau...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> > > >If there are people who say vinyl is superior
> > > >(and there are, as you agreed), we can all knowingly wink, cite data, test until
> > > >the equipment melts, and to the person who thinks LPs are better prove nothing.
> > > >
> > > >Their point of view is valid. They aren't liars, either.
> >
> > Exactly, and my name is Napoleon Bonaparte !!
> >Wink knowingly as much as you wish
> And MY claim is VALID also, since this is what I believe.
> Do you really believe this to be an equivalent statement to someone saying "I like the
> sound of vinyl better than CD because the sound of LPs is superior to me?
Absolutely !!
> Then perhaps you are a bit "touched"... Since I don't know one way or the other, I'll
> have to take your word for it, won't I?
That was my point exactly, and I'm happy to see that you got it.
> > > Your argument is absurd. As long as the vinyl liker keeps his or her
> > > argument to a preference, there is no arguing.
> >
> > (or reasoning)
>
> Please "reason" with me why my preference of blue over red is incorrect.
Is there a chance that I could get anywhere ?
>
> > > It's when statements like "vinyl is more accurate" come about that
> > > the problems start.
> > >
> > > Vinyl is not more accurate. Period.
> >
> > DITTO !!
>
> And ditto. The statement "vinyl is more accurate" was not made, however.
> Can you > build an argument out of thin air? Sure appears that way to me.
Was responding to the above, or didn't you notice.
>
> > > There are, of course, any number
> > > of other fallacies put forth.
> >
> > And also jj ;
> > If the claimants would just stop and think about it they would realize
> > that their opinions rely on the following chain of events;
>
> <snip well-known vinyl problems>
Oh no you don't.
Snip not the crux of the discussion.
I sentence you to stay after school and write the
"well known" problems over and over again.
And also:
"Well known but too often forgotten !"
> > Tick ! Pop ! Tick ! Pop !..........and " Thanks for the memory "
> > (with apologies to Bob Hope).
>
> I rest my case. Peter admits he is "touched", and that nobody can have
> an opinion he doesn't agree with.
> Or did you want to make some other point as well?
Are any more necessary ?
> Doug
Peter Corey.
Peter Corey
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:53:10 -0600
Gruvmyster wrote:
> Napoloen Bonaparte wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:27:28 -0600
> > Gruvmyster wrote:
> >
> > > Napoleon Bonaparte wrote:
> >
> > > > Exactly, and my name is Napoleon Bonaparte !!
>
> Pleased to meet you, Sir. I wasn't sure it was you at first.
>
> > > >Wink knowingly as much as you wish
> > >> And MY claim is VALID also, since this is what I believe.
> >
> > > Do you really believe this to be an equivalent statement to someone saying "I like the
> sound of vinyl better than CD because the sound of LPs is superior to me?
> >Absolutely !!
Claim is Valid because of Belief
> Therefore, anyone who thinks something that sounds better than something else that measures
> better is "touched", correct?
Not at all.
> > > Then perhaps you are a bit "touched"... Since I don't know one way or the other, I'll have
> to take your word for it, won't I?
> >
> > That was my point exactly, and I'm happy to see that you got it.
>
> I agree with you when someone gives an opinion in what sounds better to them we have to take
> their word for it.
> I personally believe there is a difference between "opinion" and
> "delusion". You seem to argue, therefore, that anybody with an
> opinion on anything is delusional.
Touched ?, delusional ? I believe those are your terms.
> If I state that the scent of some Avon product is superior to Chanel,
> should I get some appointment in your court, Mr. Bonaparte?
Not necessarily, but Granted !
> > > > (or reasoning)
> >
> > > Please "reason" with me why my preference of blue over red is incorrect.
>
> > Is there a chance that I could get anywhere ?
>
> Nope. That's been my point exactly. I'm glad you got it!;-)
We both agree.
> > > And ditto. The statement "vinyl is more accurate" was not made, however.
> > > Can you build an argument out of thin air? Sure appears that way to me.
> >
> > Was responding to the above, or didn't you notice.
>
> Was responding to the context of the thread, not someone's misquoting
> thereof. Didn't you notice?
The same comments apply in either case, any case, and every case
involving a comparison between LP or CD for high fidelity reproduction.
> > > <snip well-known vinyl problems>
> >
> > Oh no you don't.
> > Snip not the crux of the discussion.
> > Anbd remember, I've sentenced you to stay after school and write
> > the "well known" problems over and over again.
> > And also write;
> > "Well known but too often forgotten !"
>
> This was not the crux of the discussion in anyone's mind but yours,
> Mr. Bonaparte. Now back to the "quiet room" with you for your time
> out!
Thanks ! for the invitation.
I'll be sure to bring along my accurate LP's so that we may both
enjoy:-)
> Doug
Regards;
Peter Corey.
Jeff Adams
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 07:44:45 -0500, postmaster@localhost.. (W0L PH)
wrote:
>In article <346e756a....@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>,
>jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com wrote:
Hmm. I'm a regular poster, and I don't have a clue as to your real
email address.
Jeff Adams
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 10:45:17 -0600, Gruvmyster <dhau...@mail.idt.net>
wrote:
>You are indeed correct, though: as stated it is not NECESSARILY a statement of
>preference. It is also not NECESSARILY a statement of objective measureable fact. As it
>stands, it is NECESSARILY an OPINION; otherwise, why are we talking about your OPINION
>of what it meant? So why not ask what is meant before ranting?
A perfectly valid point. :-)
Michael J. Wright
postmaster@localhost.. (W0L PH) wrote:
>Stop for a moment, and consider this..
>
>Is this statement necessarily a lie?
>
>"I find the theory of a flat earth superior to that of a round
>earth"...
No. Your making a belief in something, not a statement of fact.
Make the statement read "The theory of a flat earth IS superior to
that of a round earth" and it becomes a factual statement (as far as
you' re concerned) and then becomes a lie.
But you already knew that.... Who's chain are you trying to yank?
Michael J. Wright
Remove the Thwart to reply.
"Activate the window, and watch the world go round...."
Neil Peart. 'Power Windows....'
Stewart Pinkerton
postmaster@localhost.. (W0L PH) writes:
>In article <34707771....@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>,
>jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com wrote:
>
>> That is not NECESSARILY a statement of
>> preference. In fact, to me, saying vinyl is superior sounds much more
>> like a statement that it's more accurate.
>
>Your arguement presupposes that "superior=accurate". When dealing with
>aesthetic judgements.. that's a very dicey assumption. Keep in mind, that
>your arguements based on such an assumption, are 100% irrelevent to someone
>who does not support that assumption.
>
>BTW: a Picasso picture was sold last week at Sutherby's for an absurd
>amount. It wasn't very "accurate"..
OTOH, the one that was sold at Sotheby's was an absolutely accurate
prtrayal of how the artist saw the subject................
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
ASP Consulting |
(44) 1509 880112 |
George M. Middius
Pinky tries to compartmentalize abstract art into its
elemental components.
>>BTW: a Picasso picture was sold last week at Sutherby's for an absurd
>>amount. It wasn't very "accurate"..
>OTOH, the one that was sold at Sotheby's was an absolutely accurate
>prtrayal of how the artist saw the subject................
Not according to all the authorities on Picasso, including
several people who knew him quite well.
Cubism and other branches of expressionism reflect almost
anything BUT "how the artist saw the subject." The image on
the canvas tends to have about as much in common with the
"subject" as astrophysics has with Freudian psychology.
George M. Middius
remove "jiffy" to reply
If I were an engineer,
I'd tell Santa to switch to tubes
And forget all about the reindeer.
George M. Middius
W0LPH said:
>Is this statement necessarily a lie?
>"I find the theory of a flat earth superior to that of a round earth"...
You didn't define "superior." Here are some possible
definitions:
1. Feels better to me.
2. Has more intrinsic logic.
3. Reinforces my preconceptions and prejudices.
4. Renders me less vulnerable to assimilation by predatory
cyborgs.
Stewart Pinkerton
postmaster@localhost.. (W0L PH) writes:
>Don't insist that all amplifiers sound alike, if they are not all
>created alike then..
I never did, you are thinking of someone else...............
>
>> >> The 'default set' of amplifiers in this group is wideband
>> >> general-purpose amplifiers.
>> >
>> >So is your claim. Care to substantiate it.
>>
>> Care to refute it?
>
>I have no obligation. I'm simply pointing out, that it is your claim, and
>its your duty and obligation to substantiate it.
>However, I do not expect you to have the moral fortitude, and will cut
>this short.. You won't substantiate it, and I'll treat it as yet another
>case of you refusing to provide evidence for your claims.
Nope, everyone was quite happy with the context until *you* claimed
that it was something else. Your call, your burden of proof.
>> >> You also need to call these out *specifically*, because in the context
>> >> of this newsgroup, an 'amplifier' with no other description, is a
>> >> linear device which may be a power amplifier or a complete integrated
>> >> amplfier. Everyone but *you* is happy with this definition.
>> >
>> >Um.. I dunno about you.. but jsut about every amplifier that I have, with
>> >a non-fixed gain control, is not linear in gain.
>>
>> Linear refers to a relative lack of distortion, and to a flat
>> frequency response. If you don't even understand the basic
>> terminology, stay out of the debate. An amplifier may be perfectly
>> linear, and still have a gain control.
>
>True.. gain controls can be linear.. But most gain controls on commerically
>available amplifiers are not linear.
Hah hah. A logarithmic gain control (or an 'audio taper', which is not
quite the same) still has a linear response once set, unless broken.
>> >> This is RAO. Get a grip.
>> >
>> >In otherwards.. you can't provide evidence?
>>
>> In other words, you don't even know where you are, never mind that you
>> don't know anything about audio.........................
>
>I know perfectly where I am..
>Dio you?
Indeed I dio! I'm on planet Earth, you appear to have a quite
different Net access point........................
Stewart Pinkerton
Glan...@jiffypop.erols.com (George M. Middius) writes:
>Pinky tries to compartmentalize abstract art into its
>elemental components.
>
>>>BTW: a Picasso picture was sold last week at Sutherby's for an absurd
>>>amount. It wasn't very "accurate"..
>
>>OTOH, the one that was sold at Sotheby's was an absolutely accurate
>>prtrayal of how the artist saw the subject................
>
>Not according to all the authorities on Picasso, including
>several people who knew him quite well.
The pontificating opinions of art critics have always been a great
fund of hysterical tales!
>Cubism and other branches of expressionism reflect almost
>anything BUT "how the artist saw the subject." The image on
>the canvas tends to have about as much in common with the
>"subject" as astrophysics has with Freudian psychology.
In what context? We're not talking about representational art here,
but the translation of a four-dimensional experience onto a coloured
rag. Whatever, back to audio..................
W0L PH
In article <346cadad...@news.mindspring.com>,
mandj...@Thwart.mindspring.com wrote:
> postmaster@localhost.. (W0L PH) wrote:
>
> >Stop for a moment, and consider this..
> >
> >Is this statement necessarily a lie?
> >
> >"I find the theory of a flat earth superior to that of a round
> >earth"...
>
> No. Your making a belief in something, not a statement of fact.
>
> Make the statement read "The theory of a flat earth IS superior to
> that of a round earth" and it becomes a factual statement (as far as
> you' re concerned) and then becomes a lie.
>
> But you already knew that.... Who's chain are you trying to yank?
Nope. Its not a lie. If for example, its superior as I find it more
aethestically pleasing, or emotionally supportive for my well being..
then it'll be superior.
So the statement
"The theory of a flat earth IS superior to that of a round earth" is
not, aprior a lie.. as it does not specify what "superior" is refering to.
W0L PH
In article <346c6e57...@news.erols.com>, Glan...@jiffypop.erols.com
(George M. Middius) wrote:
> W0LPH said:
>
> >Is this statement necessarily a lie?
>
> >"I find the theory of a flat earth superior to that of a round earth"...
>
> You didn't define "superior." Here are some possible
> definitions:
>
> 1. Feels better to me.
>
> 2. Has more intrinsic logic.
>
> 3. Reinforces my preconceptions and prejudices.
>
> 4. Renders me less vulnerable to assimilation by predatory
> cyborgs.
Good... then its not aprior a lie..
So likewise "Vinal is superior to CD/digital" is also, not necessarily
a lie.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <346B2E9A...@mail.idt.net>,
Gruvmyster <dhau...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>You'd still need to ask what I meant, or do as jj did and go off ranting on an
>incorrect tangent..
find out what you really meant.
Please retract your personal attack. Using words like "ranting" is the
most purely propagandistic kind of behavior. If you can't address the
substance of my objections, and you never have, you show your abject,
absolute weakness in making ONLY personal attacks.
>Perhaps I like the positioning of the controls better on the
>Marantz. Perhaps I've had a bad experience with service. Why would you start ranting
>about accuracy at that point?
If you claim it's more accurate, then there's a problem if it's not.
If you say "I prefer this" then nobody is arguing with you.
WHEN you state a preference as a preference, there is no argument.
When you make an unqualified statement, that is not phrased as
a preference, you are obligated to provide substantive evidence.
Peter Corey
On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:52:52 GMT
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist wrote:
> In article <346B2E9A...@mail.idt.net>,
> Gruvmyster <dhau...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> >You'd still need to ask what I meant, or do as jj did and go off ranting on an
> >incorrect tangent..
> If you make a definitive statment, I'm not obligated to "draw you out" to
> find out what you really meant.
>
> Please retract your personal attack. Using words like "ranting" is the
> most purely propagandistic kind of behavior. If you can't address the
> substance of my objections, and you never have, you show your abject,
> absolute weakness in making ONLY personal attacks.
Hell jj: That's a conservative description compared to those that
someone we know ,who in neurotic and emotionally uncontrolled
fashion, continully spews in his "responses"
Hint ............. "Z"
>
>
> >Perhaps I like the positioning of the controls better on the
> >Marantz. Perhaps I've had a bad experience with service. Why would you start ranting
> >about accuracy at that point?
> If you claim it's more accurate, then there's a problem if it's not.
> If you say "I prefer this" then nobody is arguing with you.
>
> WHEN you state a preference as a preference, there is no argument.
> When you make an unqualified statement, that is not phrased as
> a preference, you are obligated to provide substantive evidence.
jj :Do think theres a chance that he finally got it !?
Regards;
Peter Corey
^ ^
0 -
/\
\_/
Gruvmyster
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist guessed:
> In article <346B68B5...@mail.idt.net>,
> Gruvmyster <dhau...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> >Therefore, anyone who thinks something that sounds better than something else that measures
> >better is "touched", correct?
> You are making that assertion, perhaps, but no, I'm not, and neither
> are the other objectivists here, as far as I've noticed. There are many
> reasons that you might like the distortions of LP's. If you prefer
> them, there's no judgement to be had, one simply does not judge a preferences.
> Period.
>
> Why do you make this often repeated accusation, one that many people have
> made, but few, if any, have produced ANY evidence for at all?
Is English your first language?
If you are referring to the accusation of being "touched", keep in mind I was replying to
Napoleon Bonaparte. 'Nuff said.
If you are referring to your claim I prefer vinyl over CD, then you are simply confused. Either
way, it becomes apparent to me you are either confused, reading impaired, perceptually
challenged, or a moron.
> >I personally believe there is a difference between "opinion" and
> >"delusion". You seem to argue, therefore, that anybody with an opinion on anything is
> >delusional.
> No, that's a simple exercise of the fallicy of the excluded middle.
I'm not quite sure what a "fallicy" is. Perhaps you mean "phallicy"? Are you talking about the
Principle of the Excluded Middle, IOW any statement is either true or false? When I learned
logic, it was called a "principle", not a "fallacy".
Or are you arguing that Corey's comparison of a statement like "vinyl is superior" to his "I am
Napoleon" is a good one? Sorry, in the latter case it can be easily proven he's not Napoleon. In
the former, you cannot prove someone doesn't prefer vinyl. BTW, that was the point of the
initial post, in case you missed that, too.
Gruvmyster
Peter Corey parroted:
Hmmm. It seems you're confusing me with someone who didn't "get it" in the first
place...(hint: look in the mirror).
When on an opinion forum, nobody is obligated to give you jack, my friend. If you have
incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, feel free to post it. Look up the word "opinion"
first, so you don't make a bigger ass of yourself.
This is the only place I've seen with morons who believe someone posting an opinion (on an
*opinion* forum, no less) has any burden, interest, or obligation to "prove" their opinion
is correct. You may attempt to prove them wrong, but if you don't change their minds they
are not necessarily "liars". Do you "get it"?
Sheesh. Who's *really* into propoganda here?
Reread the original post. Write again when you get it.
Peter: you are an idiot. Now it's up to you to ask why I think that, or prove you're not if
you so desire. I have no burden of proof for that opinion. You always, of course, also have
the option of agreeing, too.
Peter Corey
On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:17:34 -0600
Gruvmyster wrote:
> Or are you arguing that Corey's comparison of a statement like "vinyl is superior" to his "I am
> Napoleon" is a good one? Sorry, in the latter case it can be easily proven he's not Napoleon.
Not to "His" satisfaction . (apparently you still have missed my point).
> In the former, you cannot prove someone doesn't prefer vinyl.
Of course not. Everone has the right to a preference.The object was to
discuss the validity of the preference based on the inherent flaws in
the LP recording and reproduction process.
That's all. Nothing more, nothing less
Hell, I remember sharpening cactus needles years ago and then listening
to a Beethoven Symphony in glorious satisfaction.
Happy listening !
> BTW, that was the point of the initial post, in case you missed that, too.
> Doug
> --
> "A good solution applied with vigor now is better than
> a perfect solution applied ten minutes later"-- George S. Patton
Regards;
Gruvmyster
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist flatulated:
> In article <346B2E9A...@mail.idt.net>,
> Gruvmyster <dhau...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> >You'd still need to ask what I meant, or do as jj did and go off ranting on an
> >incorrect tangent..
> If you make a definitive statment, I'm not obligated to "draw you out" to
> find out what you really meant.
>
> Please retract your personal attack. Using words like "ranting" is the
> most purely propagandistic kind of behavior. If you can't address the
> substance of my objections, and you never have, you show your abject,
> absolute weakness in making ONLY personal attacks.
I did address them, you moron. If you look at the original post, the word "accurate" was
brought up for the one and only time by *you*. If you wish to assume your opinion of what
a word means, or the intent of a poster, is correct and go off ranting on an incorrect
tangent, why on earth should I retract anything?
> >Perhaps I like the positioning of the controls better on the
> >Marantz. Perhaps I've had a bad experience with service. Why would you start ranting
> >about accuracy at that point?
> If you claim it's more accurate, then there's a problem if it's not.
> If you say "I prefer this" then nobody is arguing with you.
I never "claimed it was more accurate". That claim belongs to you. Go back and find the
original use of the word "accurate" in this thread. Now post for us all who wrote it
(hint: you). It looks like three out of five got the point. I'm sorry you and Corey are
in the minority.
> WHEN you state a preference as a preference, there is no argument.
> When you make an unqualified statement, that is not phrased as
> a preference, you are obligated to provide substantive evidence.
Are you now attempting to dictate in what form we must state opinions?Perhaps you have
forgotten the name of this group. Simply because you disagree with the phrasing of an
opinion, or what it says, does not entail automatic obligation to prove anything to you.
Jeff Adams
On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:32:37 -0500, postmaster@localhost.. (W0L PH)
wrote:
>In article <347298ba....@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>,
>jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com wrote:
>> >I listen to the radio occasionally. Why is it a stretch of the imagination
>> >to believe that other average person listens to the radio as well?
>>
>> Great, you listen to the radio. So that means we can include AM and FM
>> receivers/tuners, etc. But NOT transmitters!!!!!! Don't you see the
>> difference?
>
>Without any transmitters.. you'll have a very slim selection of stations to
>pick up.. now wouldn't you? Or do you prefer to listen to the afterglow of
>the big bang?
Ok, I've decided you are just a troll, or, in serious need of
medication and counseling. The topic is listening gear, not
transmitting gear. So, transmitters can exist apart from a discussion
of listening gear. Tell me that you really are just a troll (or,
answer my other questions about how old you are, etc.).
Gruvmyster
Peter Corey wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:17:34 -0600
> Gruvmyster wrote:
>
> > Or are you arguing that Corey's comparison of a statement like "vinyl is superior" to his "I am
> > Napoleon" is a good one? Sorry, in the latter case it can be easily proven he's not Napoleon.
>
> Not to "His" satisfaction . (apparently you still have missed my point).
Was that the point about internal vs. external evidence?
There was one Napoleon Bonaparte. He is dead. Whatever someone believes, there is no changing that
fact. That is not opinion.
You can prove something measures more accurate, or is easier to take care of. If someone believes
otherwise, you can prove that they are not correct. That is not opinion.
You cannot, however, prove which sounds better to that individual. That is individual perception,
taste, and opinion.
Click. Pop. End of subject.
W0L PH
In article <34720731...@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>,
jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:32:37 -0500, postmaster@localhost.. (W0L PH)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <347298ba....@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>,
> >jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com wrote:
>
> >> >I listen to the radio occasionally. Why is it a stretch of the imagination
> >> >to believe that other average person listens to the radio as well?
> >>
> >> Great, you listen to the radio. So that means we can include AM and FM
> >> receivers/tuners, etc. But NOT transmitters!!!!!! Don't you see the
> >> difference?
> >
> >Without any transmitters.. you'll have a very slim selection of stations to
> >pick up.. now wouldn't you? Or do you prefer to listen to the afterglow of
> >the big bang?
>
> Ok, I've decided you are just a troll, or, in serious need of
> medication and counseling. The topic is listening gear, not
> transmitting gear. So, transmitters can exist apart from a discussion
> of listening gear. Tell me that you really are just a troll (or,
> answer my other questions about how old you are, etc.).
Nope. You and no one else has provided a single fact to support your
claim that the topic is limited to just "listening gear"..
In any event, are you of the mistaken opinion that the quality of the
broadcast, does not affect the quality of the reception?