DUNLAVY AND VON SCHWEIKERT AND BUSINESS ETHICSDUNLAVY AND VON SCHWEIKERT AND BUSINESS ETHICS

[anna...@aol.com]

Dear Audiophiles:

Over the last few weeks I have been astonished by what appears to have
been a well-orchestrated campaign to discredit Albert Von Schweikert, and
I find it sad that someone of John Dunlavy’s caliber apparently feels it
is appropriate to condone such behavior, however tacitly, supposedly on
his behalf.

It is no secret that the VR-4 speaker appears to be outselling the
Dunlavy SC-IV by a substantial margin. All reports in the audio press at
large as well as from individual dealers indicate that the great majority
of buyers are choosing the Von Schweikert Research VR-4 because they feel
it delivers more of a "live music" experience than any other speaker they
have auditioned. My own personal listening tests bear this out. Indeed,
Albert Von Schweikert has done something rather remarkable: put truly
great sound -- megabuck sound, if you will -- within the reach of all but
the very modest budget. His success is well deserved -- his creation is
so incredibly effective to its purpose that at its supreme moment of
achievement ..... it totally disappears. In fact, IMNSHO, the Von
Schweikert speakers are a revelation of such magnitude that other
ordinarily good speakers seem flat and artificial (if not lifeless) by
comparison.

Obviously, it is understandable that any competitor might feel quite
chagrined about such a great commercial threat, and so, to the average
observer, these attempts to discredit Von Schweikert become highly
suspect. However, let me share the benefit of my long experience in
business and say that such tactics usually have exactly the opposite
effect, and do far more damage to the perpetrator. I believe that such
has happened here, for certainly, very few readers of this newsgroup who
have been following this discourse are either deaf or stupid (although
the very patronizing nature of some of these diatribes would suggest that
the Dunlavy supporters believe otherwise).

As if this display of bad manners (not to mention ugly language) weren’t
bad enough, we readers have also had to contend with a certain few
newsgroup members who claim to be engineers, and, by dint of that fact,
also the Ultimate Authority/ies On Just About Everything Else (and are
quite vocal about it). This tiresome group regularly applauds anyone who
agrees with their "scientific measurement" approach (and mercilessly
browbeats those who don't), and have the audacity to insist on applying
it, albeit indirectly, to such an ephemeral art form as music, even in
the face of such overwhelming listener opinion and preference! Ergo,
despite the weakness of such assertions, they drag out the "specs" and
wax ad nauseam regarding the Dunlavy systems’ supposed measurement
superiority. Well folks, I did a very simple test: I just marched my
unscientific size 9AA’s into the nearest dealer and listened to both
speakers, just like anyone else is able to do. I know a fair amount
about [engineering] "specs," but I know a lot more about live, acoustic
music. I actually go to concerts regularly ... lots of ‘em .... and I
agree with all those people who are buying VR-4s -- they let the sound
of the music through with all of its lifelike, hair-raising timbres,
tonality and dynamics. (Again, megabuck sound for a pauper's purse!) I
don’t have a degree from MIT, but I do have two very, very good ears and
an even better frame of reference to live music. How do your
"measurements" and "specs" explain this? (Or, are you the same guys who
keep insisting that "all amps that measure alike, sound alike?") :-D

However, had the "debate" begun and ended with merely differences of
opinion regarding speaker design, it would have been at least somewhat
understandable, and certainly far more tolerable. But the personal
attacks that were launched against Von Schweikert have turned this into a
sad display of certainly distasteful, if not borderline unethical,
business tactics. Attempts to gain (or regain) ground for a product by
denigrating and demeaning an honest competitor shows desperation. I was
employed for over 25 years in one of the finest and most successful
companies in the world, which lacked not at all for aggressive and worthy
competition. In that company -- IBM -- even so much as a hint via facial
expression or tone of voice that could be construed as demeaning to a
competitor was punishable by immediate termination of employment.
Period. Yet, the IBM Corporation enjoys great success by insistence upon
adherence to this rule of ethical business conduct (even when many of its
competitors do not!) and making sales by focusing on the merits and
benefits of their product(s), not by slamming the competition. And,
similar ethical (and gentlemanly) business conduct has also been a
hallmark of the high end industry. I think that this entire episode by
Dunlavy's supporters has caused an embarassing blight on this industry’s
history of admirable public conduct -- not to mention Mr. Dunlavy
himself.

Frankly, I think everyone involved owes Mr. Von Schweikert an apology for
the shameless way in which you all have participated in this despicable,
tasteless public flogging, and absolutely audacious demands that he make
substantial (and, possibly, costly) business changes to suit the
capricious whims of a few self-appointed, highly prejudiced "judges."
You have engaged in infantile hysterics over, his web site, his
"marketing" efforts, his employees -- things that have nothing to do with
speaker design and/or performance. Most laughable is your infernal snit
over the fact of a few colorful product names. On behalf of all the
listeners out here in cyberspace (and elsewhere), let me assure you that
we don’t give a hoot what he calls it. And, we care even less whether
you all approve of his product names.

Prior to your ill-advised undertaking, we saw no evidence of ill will on
his part, and even throughout your relentless humiliations, he restrained
himself from retaliating in kind with similar personal attacks. I know
too from observing other protesters to this newsgroup that I am not alone
in my observation that Albert Von Schweikert has conducted himself like
a gentleman throughout this miserable affair. Is he the better man?
Well, maybe..... maybe not. But he sure built a "better mousetrap".....
er, speaker!

Yours truly,
Anna Logg

P.S. For your collective information, I am a middle-aged lady audiophile
who lives in central New Jersey. I am well-known here, and a respected
member of the New Jersey Audio Society. I am also a member of the Owners
Committee of the Vinylphiles LP record collectors’ mailing list and an
active participant in that list. I have chosen this screen name as a
prudent precaution in dealing with total strangers via the internet. In
view of this, I have no intention of publishing my "real" name as same
would not necessarily serve to provide any further credibility to my
remarks above. Anyone wishing to take issue with me about this or
anything else may do so either publicly via a response to this post, or
privately via email and I will be happy to respond.

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

[Marc Blank]

anna...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Dear Audiophiles:
>
<snip>
> [VSR's] success is well deserved -- his creation is

> so incredibly effective to its purpose that at its supreme moment of
> achievement ..... it totally disappears. In fact, IMNSHO, the Von
> Schweikert speakers are a revelation of such magnitude that other
> ordinarily good speakers seem flat and artificial (if not lifeless) by
> comparison.
>

This is true also (perhaps more so) from the Gallo Nucleus References. They are just
harder to find.

<snip>

>
> However, had the "debate" begun and ended with merely differences of
> opinion regarding speaker design, it would have been at least somewhat
> understandable, and certainly far more tolerable. But the personal
> attacks that were launched against Von Schweikert have turned this into a
> sad display of certainly distasteful, if not borderline unethical,
> business tactics.

Boy, I've got to disagree here. VSR has conducted a vicious, unethical attack of its
own on a competitor (Steve Zipser), one which has caused consternation among many
people who are not normally supporters of Zip. Dave Kersh (VP of VSR) has spewed such
filth here on RAO (with Albert's agreement, btw) as to make me completely dismiss your
attempts to paint VSR as honorable and ethical.

I have not participated AT ALL in the threads you are discussing, so I can't fairly be
accused of being biased either towards Dunlavy or against VSR. Indeed, I LOVED the
sound of VSR's speakers when I first heard them (it's what made be decide to audition
the Gallo's, btw...)

Your timing in support of VSR could not possibly be worse. Methinks thou dost protest
too much.

>
> Frankly, I think everyone involved owes Mr. Von Schweikert an apology for
> the shameless way in which you all have participated in this despicable,
> tasteless public flogging, and absolutely audacious demands that he make
> substantial (and, possibly, costly) business changes to suit the
> capricious whims of a few self-appointed, highly prejudiced "judges."

<snip>

When Dave Kersh or Albert Von S. apologizes for proven falsehoods posted on RAO (as
promised, no less), then maybe somebody will respond with other than a snicker to this
request.

> Prior to your ill-advised undertaking, we saw no evidence of ill will on
> his part, and even throughout your relentless humiliations, he restrained
> himself from retaliating in kind with similar personal attacks. I know
> too from observing other protesters to this newsgroup that I am not alone
> in my observation that Albert Von Schweikert has conducted himself like
> a gentleman throughout this miserable affair. Is he the better man?
> Well, maybe..... maybe not. But he sure built a "better mousetrap".....
> er, speaker!
>

You will not get an argument from me about your opinions of the speakers themselves.
When it comes to business practices, however, the picture is far murkier.

> Yours truly,
> Anna Logg
>

[R. Scott King]

Regarding Subjectivism vs. Objectivism:

I regularly enjoy listening to live and recorded music. My computer,
with its MLSSA analyzer and LEAP simulation program, does not. Who do
you think I try to please when I design a speaker?

Regarding Dunlavy vs. Von Schweikert:

I have not been privy to the ongoing antics of these two, but there is
never any justification for belittlement of another's integrity,
opinion, or creative accomplishment (read:product). To "slam" one's
competition is to admit that they worry you.

R. Scott King
Product Engineer
ESX, Inc.

[Rodney Gold]

anna...@aol.com wrote:

>Dear Audiophiles:
>
>Over the last few weeks I have been astonished by what appears to have
>been a well-orchestrated campaign to discredit Albert Von Schweikert, and
>I find it sad that someone of John Dunlavy’s caliber apparently feels it
>is appropriate to condone such behavior, however tacitly, supposedly on
>his behalf.

>Frankly, I think everyone involved owes Mr. Von Schweikert an apology for

>the shameless way in which you all have participated in this despicable,
>tasteless public flogging, and absolutely audacious demands that he make
>substantial (and, possibly, costly) business changes to suit the
>capricious whims of a few self-appointed, highly prejudiced "judges."
>You have engaged in infantile hysterics over, his web site, his
>"marketing" efforts, his employees -- things that have nothing to do with
>speaker design and/or performance. Most laughable is your infernal snit
>over the fact of a few colorful product names. On behalf of all the
>listeners out here in cyberspace (and elsewhere), let me assure you that
>we don’t give a hoot what he calls it. And, we care even less whether
>you all approve of his product names.
>
>Prior to your ill-advised undertaking, we saw no evidence of ill will on
>his part, and even throughout your relentless humiliations, he restrained
>himself from retaliating in kind with similar personal attacks. I know
>too from observing other protesters to this newsgroup that I am not alone
>in my observation that Albert Von Schweikert has conducted himself like
>a gentleman throughout this miserable affair. Is he the better man?
>Well, maybe..... maybe not. But he sure built a "better mousetrap".....
>er, speaker!

Maybe Mr VS has conducted himself like a true gentleman - but the
accusations of his Marketing arm have been reprehensible on this
newsgroup.
So before you continue with your diatribe re "We all owe VS an
apology" perhaps you would like to read the posts of his minions and
the responses to them.
Inform yourself of the facts.
I would assume that Mr VS condones these posts.

Now as to myself - I own niether product - and never will as niether
companys are represented in any way that I know of in my country . But
I have been following the debate in its different forms and as a
business man - had one of my employees acted in the manner that
VS'ses had - he would have been fired forthwith.
In my opionion - VSR has damaged their reputation in this newsgroup
via their employee/employees - now should VS distance himself from
this it would go a long way to dispelling the notion that he indeed
condones the behaviour exhibited.

I couldnt care less whether he builds a better mousetrap ,but my
impressions of his company VS Dunlavy a a complete outsider are
certainly not concurrent with yours in terms of their ethics.

As an Aside - you constantly refer to the plural "We" - who is "we"
are you writing this post as a combined effort with someone - or is it
your personal opinion ?
If the "we" is "the listeners out here in cyberspace" I for one
certainly don't wish to be lumped in that category , niether do I wish
or authorise you to speak on my behalf.

Rodney Gold

"The nicest thing about smacking your head against the wall is-
the feeling you get when you stop."

[Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)]

GAG ME WITH A SPOON!!!!

--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc. 9535 Biscayne Blvd. Miami Shores FL 33138
Gallo Acoustics, Cabasse, N.E.A.R., Energy & Veritas, NHT, Dunlavy,
DH Cones, Camelot, Audible Illusions, Kinergetics,, Carver, Shakti,
Sound Dynamics, NSM, ESP, Rega, PASS Labs, Parasound, Solid Steel,
Chiro, Quicksilver, CODA, Straightwire, Magnum Dynalab, Lightstar,
RoomTunes, Chesky, Reference Recordings, Jadis, Zenith INTEQ,

[Tom Albertz]

> Anna Lo...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >Over the last few weeks I have been astonished by what appears to have
> >been a well-orchestrated campaign to discredit Albert Von Schweikert, and
> >I find it sad that someone of John Dunlavy’s caliber apparently feels it
> >is appropriate to condone such behavior, however tacitly, supposedly on
> >his behalf.
>

Rodney Gold wrote:
>
> Maybe Mr VS has conducted himself like a true gentleman - but the
> accusations of his Marketing arm have been reprehensible on this
> newsgroup.
> So before you continue with your diatribe re "We all owe VS an
> apology" perhaps you would like to read the posts of his minions and
> the responses to them.
> Inform yourself of the facts.
> I would assume that Mr VS condones these posts.

Is it possible this Anna Logg stuff was also written by Kersch?
Whether or not, it WAS more clueless and pompous drivel.

--
My real email is 'albertz' - not 'returntosender'.

[Arny Krüger]

anna...@aol.com wrote in article <8743753...@dejanews.com>...
> This ... group regularly applauds anyone who

> agrees with their "scientific measurement" approach (and mercilessly
> browbeats those who don't), and have the audacity to insist on applying
> it, albeit indirectly, to such an ephemeral art form as music, even in
> the face of such overwhelming listener opinion and preference!

Music is an art, Audio is the mixture of art and science. There is a
difference between music and audio.

However, you have purpounded a larger falsehood here, and that is the claim
that science is being used to criticize the performance of the VS speakers.
The truth is that several folks who you would like to criticize on this
point have actually said that if they had to design a high quality speaker
they would probably use similar technolgy to do so. What highere praise is
there?

The criticism is not of the speakers that VS produces, but some sales and
promotion material on the VS web site. Since you have failed to correctly
identify the issue, your criticisms become irrelevant.

> Ergo,
> despite the weakness of such assertions, they drag out the "specs" and
> wax ad nauseam regarding the Dunlavy systems’ supposed measurement
> superiority.

Many folks who ascribe, in general, to the "scientific measurement"
approach, myself included, do not agree that scientific measurements
necessarily criticise the sonic performance of the VS speakers. It is true
that Dunlavy promotes his speakers based on features like square wave
response, but there is not universal agreement that speakers with good
square wave response necessarily sound better. This is not to criticise the
sound of DAL speakers, either. I say, let these speakers stand on their
sonic qualities and let folks buy what suits their needs best. If I had the
money to spend, I would certainly give both brands an intensely serious
listen, but I might buy something else!

>Well folks, I did a very simple test: I just marched my
> unscientific size 9AA’s into the nearest dealer and listened to both
> speakers, just like anyone else is able to do. I know a fair amount
> about [engineering] "specs," but I know a lot more about live, acoustic
> music. I actually go to concerts regularly ... lots of ‘em .... and I
> agree with all those people who are buying VR-4s -- they let the sound
> of the music through with all of its lifelike, hair-raising timbres,
> tonality and dynamics. (Again, megabuck sound for a pauper's purse!) I
> don’t have a degree from MIT, but I do have two very, very good ears and
> an even better frame of reference to live music. How do your
> "measurements" and "specs" explain this? (Or, are you the same guys who
> keep insisting that "all amps that measure alike, sound alike?") :-D

See my previous paragraph. I might add that the quality of the drivers that
VS uses have not been criticized, and there has been scientifically-based
support for the general design scheme that VS uses; particularly the
strategy of using a single high quality driver to carry most of the audible
range.

What you allege should be a surprise to folks of a technical bent is no
surprise to us at all. In fact, it has been stated that many speakers using
this same approach are doing well in the marketplace, and even sound pretty
good to us and we may even own some! On this issue you are preaching to the
choir.

Your claim that the fact that VS speakers doing well in the marketplace and
providing satisfying sound is a surprise or embarassment to folks of a
technical bent is wrong, false, error, just not the rule. IMO, its a straw
man. It looks to me like dogmatic posturing in the truest sense.

> However, had the "debate" begun and ended with merely differences of
> opinion regarding speaker design, it would have been at least somewhat
> understandable, and certainly far more tolerable. But the personal
> attacks that were launched against Von Schweikert have turned this into a
> sad display of certainly distasteful, if not borderline unethical,
> business tactics.

I think the only discussion of VS himself centered around his resume, which
he posted. The discussion of it centered around the fact that it was a
document with spin, and the same facts supported counter-spin which seems
less glorious than the obvious pro-spin. I see no attacks on his character,
just an interesting study in perception and the meaning of words and facts.

> Attempts to gain (or regain) ground for a product by
> denigrating and demeaning an honest competitor shows desperation.

I don't know. Got a post from the Dunlavy employees or John himself
attacking VS, or are you basing this all on a sort of funny piece posted by
Stu Pinkerton who is a independent? BTW, Pinkerton himself has suggested
that VS's approach to speaker design has technical merits.

> I was
> employed for over 25 years in one of the finest and most successful
> companies in the world, which lacked not at all for aggressive and worthy
> competition. In that company -- IBM -- even so much as a hint via facial
> expression or tone of voice that could be construed as demeaning to a
> competitor was punishable by immediate termination of employment.
> Period.

I worked for IBM for a while starting about 30 years ago, and was in a
branch office that sold the IBM 360/9x series computer to against the CDC
6000 series (at Dow Chemical and some GM sites). Whatever the facial
expressions or other tactics that IBM used in that sales effort may have
been, IBM eventually had to *GIVE* CDC AN ENTIRE MULTIMILLIION DOLLAR
PROFITABLE DIVISION OF IBM to CDC to settle damages done to CDC by IBM's
sales efforts.

[Doug Plumb]

I have no doubts about Von Schweikert sound quality. My point was that this
is an "Information Highway" rather than a "Dis Information Highway". Von
Schweikert is clearly wrong on his site in some respects, many in fact,
with regard to his stated accomplishments with regard to passive networks
(only possible with time travel..we live in a causal world) and
directivity of instruments.

Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) <z...@netrunner.net> wrote in article
<5vm48e$k...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...

[Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)]

Stewart:
I wonder how "Anna" who claims to be morally riteously indignant feels
about her, oops, I mean Kersh's PHONY apology to me, when I proved him
wrong about our licenses. Every time I meet their challenge to my
business ethics and legitimacy, they back pedal.
See you in court, Anna, oops Dave.
Zip

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> anna...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Dear Audiophiles:
>
> Yup, it *is* an expensive hobby!

>
> > Over the last few weeks I have been astonished by what appears to have
> > been a well-orchestrated campaign to discredit Albert Von Schweikert, and
> > I find it sad that someone of John Dunlavy’s caliber apparently feels it
> > is appropriate to condone such behavior, however tacitly, supposedly on
> > his behalf.
>

> I think you'll find that any 'orchestration' is coming from the
> opposite direction.

>
>
> > It is no secret that the VR-4 speaker appears to be outselling the
> > Dunlavy SC-IV by a substantial margin.
>

> Really? And how would a "middle-aged lady audiophile who lives in
> central New Jersey" know that? Alarm bells ON.

>
> > All reports in the audio press at
> > large as well as from individual dealers indicate that the great majority
> > of buyers are choosing the Von Schweikert Research VR-4 because they feel
> > it delivers more of a "live music" experience than any other speaker they
> > have auditioned.
>

> 'Sfunny, most of the ones I know prefer the Wilson X-1, JMlab Grande
> Utopia or Avalon Osiris, but there y'go..................

>
> > My own personal listening tests bear this out. Indeed,
> > Albert Von Schweikert has done something rather remarkable: put truly
> > great sound -- megabuck sound, if you will -- within the reach of all but
> > the very modest budget. His success is well deserved -- his creation is
> > so incredibly effective to its purpose that at its supreme moment of
> > achievement ..... it totally disappears. In fact, IMNSHO, the Von
> > Schweikert speakers are a revelation of such magnitude that other
> > ordinarily good speakers seem flat and artificial (if not lifeless) by
> > comparison.
>

> Gee whiz, this must be the second coming - surely a rare event for a
> "middle-aged lady audiophile who lives in central New Jersey". Am I
> sounding suitably cynical yet?

>
>
> > Obviously, it is understandable that any competitor might feel quite
> > chagrined about such a great commercial threat, and so, to the average
> > observer, these attempts to discredit Von Schweikert become highly
> > suspect. However, let me share the benefit of my long experience in
> > business and say that such tactics usually have exactly the opposite
> > effect, and do far more damage to the perpetrator. I believe that such
> > has happened here, for certainly, very few readers of this newsgroup who
> > have been following this discourse are either deaf or stupid (although
> > the very patronizing nature of some of these diatribes would suggest that
> > the Dunlavy supporters believe otherwise).
>

> Ah ha! This "middle-aged lady audiophile who lives in central New
> Jersey" has long experience in business, huh? Interestingly, I'd have
> put the 'deaf or stupid' observers in the other camp, but then Kersh
> was never that bright. Are we getting a clue yet, gentle readers?

>
>
> > As if this display of bad manners (not to mention ugly language) weren’t
> > bad enough, we readers have also had to contend with a certain few
> > newsgroup members who claim to be engineers, and, by dint of that fact,
> > also the Ultimate Authority/ies On Just About Everything Else (and are
> > quite vocal about it). This tiresome group regularly applauds anyone who
> > agrees with their "scientific measurement" approach (and mercilessly
> > browbeats those who don't), and have the audacity to insist on applying
> > it, albeit indirectly, to such an ephemeral art form as music, even in
> > the face of such overwhelming listener opinion and preference!
>

> Well, I have to guess that this bit is principally aimed at me
> (although this could be just my paranoia showing), but let me just say
> that "music is art, audio is engineering". There's nothing ephemeral
> about the *reproduction* of a sublime performance. I always judge a
> *great* music system as one which can reduce me to tears when
> Jacqueline plays Elgars cello concerto.

>
> > Ergo,
> > despite the weakness of such assertions, they drag out the "specs" and
> > wax ad nauseam regarding the Dunlavy systems’ supposed measurement
> > superiority. Well folks, I did a very simple test: I just marched my
> > unscientific size 9AA’s into the nearest dealer and listened to both
> > speakers, just like anyone else is able to do.
>

> Well, you're a big girl, aren't you? Or are US sizes different?

>
> > I know a fair amount
> > about [engineering] "specs," but I know a lot more about live, acoustic
> > music. I actually go to concerts regularly ... lots of ‘em .... and I
> > agree with all those people who are buying VR-4s -- they let the sound
> > of the music through with all of its lifelike, hair-raising timbres,
> > tonality and dynamics. (Again, megabuck sound for a pauper's purse!) I
> > don’t have a degree from MIT, but I do have two very, very good ears and
> > an even better frame of reference to live music. How do your
> > "measurements" and "specs" explain this? (Or, are you the same guys who
> > keep insisting that "all amps that measure alike, sound alike?") :-D
>

> All amps that measure alike, do indeed sound alike. However, since no
> two amps measure alike, this is hardly relevant. I also agree with all
> those who are buying VR-4s, a fine speaker at its price point, but
> what has this to do with the general debate? Has anyone ever suggested
> that the VR-4 is *not* a fine speaker? I think not.

>
>
> > However, had the "debate" begun and ended with merely differences of
> > opinion regarding speaker design, it would have been at least somewhat
> > understandable, and certainly far more tolerable. But the personal
> > attacks that were launched against Von Schweikert have turned this into a
> > sad display of certainly distasteful, if not borderline unethical,
> > business tactics.
>

> In business terms, I think you'll find that the first blow was struck
> by VSR against DAL, but whatever. Try harder Kersh - oops , I mean

> "middle-aged lady audiophile who lives in central New Jersey".
>

> > Attempts to gain (or regain) ground for a product by
> > denigrating and demeaning an honest competitor shows desperation. I was
> > employed for over 25 years in one of the finest and most successful
> > companies in the world, which lacked not at all for aggressive and worthy
> > competition. In that company -- IBM -- even so much as a hint via facial
> > expression or tone of voice that could be construed as demeaning to a
> > competitor was punishable by immediate termination of employment.
> > Period.
>

> Actually, IBMs business tactics through this period are notorious for
> their desperate attempts to maintain a proprietary operating system
> against a customer demand for an open system, an attitude which led
> directly to the dire straits in which 'Big Blue' now finds itself, in
> the modern world of open systems architecture.

>
> > Yet, the IBM Corporation enjoys great success by insistence upon
> > adherence to this rule of ethical business conduct (even when many of its
> > competitors do not!) and making sales by focusing on the merits and
> > benefits of their product(s), not by slamming the competition.
>

> Utter bullshit! I really *cannot* believe anyone would open themselves
> to such ridicule!

>
> > And,
> > similar ethical (and gentlemanly) business conduct has also been a
> > hallmark of the high end industry. I think that this entire episode by
> > Dunlavy's supporters has caused an embarassing blight on this industry’s
> > history of admirable public conduct -- not to mention Mr. Dunlavy
> > himself.
>

> The 'high-end' industry has (not) distinguished itself by an appeal to
> snake-oil sales techniques and sheer charlatanism, which has been
> resisted by a very few *real* engineers like John Dunlavy.
> Incidentally, don't confuse the debunking of VSR bullshit as support
> for DAL, it is a pure debunking of bullshit for its own sake.

>
> > Frankly, I think everyone involved owes Mr. Von Schweikert an apology for
> > the shameless way in which you all have participated in this despicable,
> > tasteless public flogging, and absolutely audacious demands that he make
> > substantial (and, possibly, costly) business changes to suit the
> > capricious whims of a few self-appointed, highly prejudiced "judges."
>

> Excuse me? Where were any demands made for changes to the way VSR does
> business? Unless of course you mean conducting business in an honest
> and engineering-led manner.......................

>
> > You have engaged in infantile hysterics over, his web site, his
> > "marketing" efforts, his employees -- things that have nothing to do with
> > speaker design and/or performance. Most laughable is your infernal snit
> > over the fact of a few colorful product names. On behalf of all the
> > listeners out here in cyberspace (and elsewhere), let me assure you that
> > we don’t give a hoot what he calls it. And, we care even less whether
> > you all approve of his product names.
>

> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Who are "we"? Why are you so sensitive about the
> bullshit product names you invented, Kersh - er, I mean Anna?

>
>
> > Prior to your ill-advised undertaking, we saw no evidence of ill will on
> > his part, and even throughout your relentless humiliations, he restrained
> > himself from retaliating in kind with similar personal attacks.
>

> Oh, really? Not from some of the posts Jim Wald posted, supposedly on
> his behalf!

>
> > I know
> > too from observing other protesters to this newsgroup that I am not alone
> > in my observation that Albert Von Schweikert has conducted himself like
> > a gentleman throughout this miserable affair. Is he the better man?
> > Well, maybe..... maybe not. But he sure built a "better mousetrap".....
> > er, speaker!
> >
> > Yours truly,
> > Anna Logg
>

> Careful - Anna Log is a trademark of Nottingham Analogue Engineerng
> for their top turntable!

>
>
> > P.S. For your collective information, I am a middle-aged lady audiophile
> > who lives in central New Jersey. I am well-known here, and a respected
> > member of the New Jersey Audio Society. I am also a member of the Owners
> > Committee of the Vinylphiles LP record collectors’ mailing list and an
> > active participant in that list. I have chosen this screen name as a
> > prudent precaution in dealing with total strangers via the internet. In
> > view of this, I have no intention of publishing my "real" name as same
> > would not necessarily serve to provide any further credibility to my
> > remarks above. Anyone wishing to take issue with me about this or
> > anything else may do so either publicly via a response to this post, or
> > privately via email and I will be happy to respond.
>

> Consider yourself contacted. If you wish to reveal an identity which
> is *not* David Kersh, via e-mail, then I will of course respect your
> right to Usenet anonymity. Otherwise - how dumb do you think we are?
> There again, I guess that's pretty obvious...................
>
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
> A S P Consulting |
> (44) 1509 880112 |

[Stewart Pinkerton]

anna...@aol.com wrote:

> Dear Audiophiles:

Yup, it *is* an expensive hobby!

> Over the last few weeks I have been astonished by what appears to have
> been a well-orchestrated campaign to discredit Albert Von Schweikert, and
> I find it sad that someone of John Dunlavy’s caliber apparently feels it
> is appropriate to condone such behavior, however tacitly, supposedly on
> his behalf.

I think you'll find that any 'orchestration' is coming from the
opposite direction.

> It is no secret that the VR-4 speaker appears to be outselling the
> Dunlavy SC-IV by a substantial margin.

Really? And how would a "middle-aged lady audiophile who lives in

central New Jersey" know that? Alarm bells ON.

> All reports in the audio press at
> large as well as from individual dealers indicate that the great majority
> of buyers are choosing the Von Schweikert Research VR-4 because they feel
> it delivers more of a "live music" experience than any other speaker they
> have auditioned.

'Sfunny, most of the ones I know prefer the Wilson X-1, JMlab Grande

Utopia or Avalon Osiris, but there y'go..................

> My own personal listening tests bear this out. Indeed,
> Albert Von Schweikert has done something rather remarkable: put truly
> great sound -- megabuck sound, if you will -- within the reach of all but
> the very modest budget. His success is well deserved -- his creation is
> so incredibly effective to its purpose that at its supreme moment of
> achievement ..... it totally disappears. In fact, IMNSHO, the Von
> Schweikert speakers are a revelation of such magnitude that other
> ordinarily good speakers seem flat and artificial (if not lifeless) by
> comparison.

Gee whiz, this must be the second coming - surely a rare event for a

"middle-aged lady audiophile who lives in central New Jersey". Am I
sounding suitably cynical yet?

> Obviously, it is understandable that any competitor might feel quite
> chagrined about such a great commercial threat, and so, to the average
> observer, these attempts to discredit Von Schweikert become highly
> suspect. However, let me share the benefit of my long experience in
> business and say that such tactics usually have exactly the opposite
> effect, and do far more damage to the perpetrator. I believe that such
> has happened here, for certainly, very few readers of this newsgroup who
> have been following this discourse are either deaf or stupid (although
> the very patronizing nature of some of these diatribes would suggest that
> the Dunlavy supporters believe otherwise).

Ah ha! This "middle-aged lady audiophile who lives in central New

Jersey" has long experience in business, huh? Interestingly, I'd have
put the 'deaf or stupid' observers in the other camp, but then Kersh
was never that bright. Are we getting a clue yet, gentle readers?

> As if this display of bad manners (not to mention ugly language) weren’t
> bad enough, we readers have also had to contend with a certain few
> newsgroup members who claim to be engineers, and, by dint of that fact,
> also the Ultimate Authority/ies On Just About Everything Else (and are
> quite vocal about it). This tiresome group regularly applauds anyone who
> agrees with their "scientific measurement" approach (and mercilessly
> browbeats those who don't), and have the audacity to insist on applying
> it, albeit indirectly, to such an ephemeral art form as music, even in
> the face of such overwhelming listener opinion and preference!

Well, I have to guess that this bit is principally aimed at me

(although this could be just my paranoia showing), but let me just say
that "music is art, audio is engineering". There's nothing ephemeral
about the *reproduction* of a sublime performance. I always judge a
*great* music system as one which can reduce me to tears when
Jacqueline plays Elgars cello concerto.

> Ergo,
> despite the weakness of such assertions, they drag out the "specs" and
> wax ad nauseam regarding the Dunlavy systems’ supposed measurement
> superiority. Well folks, I did a very simple test: I just marched my
> unscientific size 9AA’s into the nearest dealer and listened to both
> speakers, just like anyone else is able to do.

Well, you're a big girl, aren't you? Or are US sizes different?

> I know a fair amount
> about [engineering] "specs," but I know a lot more about live, acoustic
> music. I actually go to concerts regularly ... lots of ‘em .... and I
> agree with all those people who are buying VR-4s -- they let the sound
> of the music through with all of its lifelike, hair-raising timbres,
> tonality and dynamics. (Again, megabuck sound for a pauper's purse!) I
> don’t have a degree from MIT, but I do have two very, very good ears and
> an even better frame of reference to live music. How do your
> "measurements" and "specs" explain this? (Or, are you the same guys who
> keep insisting that "all amps that measure alike, sound alike?") :-D

All amps that measure alike, do indeed sound alike. However, since no

two amps measure alike, this is hardly relevant. I also agree with all
those who are buying VR-4s, a fine speaker at its price point, but
what has this to do with the general debate? Has anyone ever suggested
that the VR-4 is *not* a fine speaker? I think not.

> However, had the "debate" begun and ended with merely differences of
> opinion regarding speaker design, it would have been at least somewhat
> understandable, and certainly far more tolerable. But the personal
> attacks that were launched against Von Schweikert have turned this into a
> sad display of certainly distasteful, if not borderline unethical,
> business tactics.

In business terms, I think you'll find that the first blow was struck

by VSR against DAL, but whatever. Try harder Kersh - oops , I mean

"middle-aged lady audiophile who lives in central New Jersey".

> Attempts to gain (or regain) ground for a product by
> denigrating and demeaning an honest competitor shows desperation. I was
> employed for over 25 years in one of the finest and most successful
> companies in the world, which lacked not at all for aggressive and worthy
> competition. In that company -- IBM -- even so much as a hint via facial
> expression or tone of voice that could be construed as demeaning to a
> competitor was punishable by immediate termination of employment.
> Period.

Actually, IBMs business tactics through this period are notorious for

their desperate attempts to maintain a proprietary operating system
against a customer demand for an open system, an attitude which led
directly to the dire straits in which 'Big Blue' now finds itself, in
the modern world of open systems architecture.

> Yet, the IBM Corporation enjoys great success by insistence upon
> adherence to this rule of ethical business conduct (even when many of its
> competitors do not!) and making sales by focusing on the merits and
> benefits of their product(s), not by slamming the competition.

Utter bullshit! I really *cannot* believe anyone would open themselves
to such ridicule!

> And,
> similar ethical (and gentlemanly) business conduct has also been a
> hallmark of the high end industry. I think that this entire episode by
> Dunlavy's supporters has caused an embarassing blight on this industry’s
> history of admirable public conduct -- not to mention Mr. Dunlavy
> himself.

The 'high-end' industry has (not) distinguished itself by an appeal to

snake-oil sales techniques and sheer charlatanism, which has been
resisted by a very few *real* engineers like John Dunlavy.
Incidentally, don't confuse the debunking of VSR bullshit as support
for DAL, it is a pure debunking of bullshit for its own sake.

> Frankly, I think everyone involved owes Mr. Von Schweikert an apology for
> the shameless way in which you all have participated in this despicable,
> tasteless public flogging, and absolutely audacious demands that he make
> substantial (and, possibly, costly) business changes to suit the
> capricious whims of a few self-appointed, highly prejudiced "judges."

Excuse me? Where were any demands made for changes to the way VSR does

business? Unless of course you mean conducting business in an honest
and engineering-led manner.......................

> You have engaged in infantile hysterics over, his web site, his
> "marketing" efforts, his employees -- things that have nothing to do with
> speaker design and/or performance. Most laughable is your infernal snit
> over the fact of a few colorful product names. On behalf of all the
> listeners out here in cyberspace (and elsewhere), let me assure you that
> we don’t give a hoot what he calls it. And, we care even less whether
> you all approve of his product names.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Who are "we"? Why are you so sensitive about the

bullshit product names you invented, Kersh - er, I mean Anna?

> Prior to your ill-advised undertaking, we saw no evidence of ill will on
> his part, and even throughout your relentless humiliations, he restrained
> himself from retaliating in kind with similar personal attacks.

Oh, really? Not from some of the posts Jim Wald posted, supposedly on
his behalf!

> I know
> too from observing other protesters to this newsgroup that I am not alone
> in my observation that Albert Von Schweikert has conducted himself like
> a gentleman throughout this miserable affair. Is he the better man?
> Well, maybe..... maybe not. But he sure built a "better mousetrap".....
> er, speaker!
>
> Yours truly,
> Anna Logg

Careful - Anna Log is a trademark of Nottingham Analogue Engineerng
for their top turntable!

> P.S. For your collective information, I am a middle-aged lady audiophile
> who lives in central New Jersey. I am well-known here, and a respected
> member of the New Jersey Audio Society. I am also a member of the Owners
> Committee of the Vinylphiles LP record collectors’ mailing list and an
> active participant in that list. I have chosen this screen name as a
> prudent precaution in dealing with total strangers via the internet. In
> view of this, I have no intention of publishing my "real" name as same
> would not necessarily serve to provide any further credibility to my
> remarks above. Anyone wishing to take issue with me about this or
> anything else may do so either publicly via a response to this post, or
> privately via email and I will be happy to respond.

Consider yourself contacted. If you wish to reveal an identity which

[George M. Middius]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

>I think you'll find that any 'orchestration' is coming from the
>opposite direction.

and

>Really? And how would a "middle-aged lady audiophile who lives in
>central New Jersey" know that? Alarm bells ON.

and

>'Sfunny, most of the ones I know prefer the Wilson X-1, JMlab Grande
>Utopia or Avalon Osiris, but there y'go..................

etc.

Stewart should get a Usenet Stamina and Endurance Award for
answering so many points so lucidly in the anonymous
audiophile's diatribe.

Where is the Krooborg when we need it? "Come out from behind
the mask, middle-aged lady audiophile!" Can you hear me,
cyborg? Time to lay some bait.

George M. Middius
remove "jiffy" to reply

************************ Advisory Notice ************************

"Purchase only ABX-approved amplifiers and other electronics.
Recommended by eight out of ten cyborgs."

***************************** End *****************************

[Vandit Kalia]

anna...@aol.com wrote:
: superiority. Well folks, I did a very simple test: I just marched my

: unscientific size 9AA’s into the nearest dealer and listened to both

Size 9AA for a lady? Did I see you on "Women's Wrestling" on Beijing
TV early this year?

: employed for over 25 years in one of the finest and most successful

: companies in the world, which lacked not at all for aggressive and worthy
: competition.

IBM? "One of the finest and most successful companies"??? Should I
compare the performance of IBM's stock against the market? Or talk
about the amount of money they spent on consultants (*cheer* :))?
Dont make me laugh.

: In that company -- IBM -- even so much as a hint via facial

: expression or tone of voice that could be construed as demeaning to a
: competitor was punishable by immediate termination of employment.
: Period. Yet, the IBM Corporation enjoys great success by insistence upon
: adherence to this rule of ethical business conduct (even when many of its
: competitors do not!) and making sales by focusing on the merits and
: benefits of their product(s), not by slamming the competition.

Kersh, I already told you in a previous post that what you dont know about
marketing can fill tomes and tomes. If you really think that being
employed at IBM qualifies you as a marketing guy, you're a candidate for
the loony bin.

: substantial (and, possibly, costly) business changes to suit the

: capricious whims of a few self-appointed, highly prejudiced "judges."

These capricious, self-appointed judges are called "PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS".
you retarded twit. Look it up.

: speaker design and/or performance. Most laughable is your infernal snit

: over the fact of a few colorful product names. On behalf of all the

If you were any good at marketing, this wouldnt have happened.

: we could care less if you approve of his product names

Nice. Good to see you care about your customers.

: P.S. For your collective information, I am a middle-aged lady audiophile

: who lives in central New Jersey.

Yeah right

: active participant in that list. I have chosen this screen name as a

: prudent precaution in dealing with total strangers via the internet.

Of course we understand. If I was as bad at my job as you are at yours,
I would hide my real name as well.. unfortunately, you lack enough
brain cells to grasp the concept of subtlety.

Vandit

--
========================================================================
Vandit Kalia || LET'S GO FLYERS!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"With the first link, a chain is forged. The first speech censured, the
first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all
irrevocably"

[anna...@aol.com]

In article <341ef1c7...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
a...@borealis.com wrote:
>
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> anna...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Dear Audiophiles:
>
> Yup, it *is* an expensive hobby!

(Well that was an exciting retort.... <yawn>)

> > Over the last few weeks I have been astonished by what appears to have
> > been a well-orchestrated campaign to discredit Albert Von Schweikert, and
> > I find it sad that someone of John Dunlavy’s caliber apparently feels it
> > is appropriate to condone such behavior, however tacitly, supposedly on
> > his behalf.
>
> I think you'll find that any 'orchestration' is coming from the
> opposite direction.

I think not. They had no reason to do so, nor would they benefit in any
way from such a controversy. They are, after all, the successful "front
runners" with an outstanding product.

> > It is no secret that the VR-4 speaker appears to be outselling the
> > Dunlavy SC-IV by a substantial margin.
>
> Really? And how would a "middle-aged lady audiophile who lives in
> central New Jersey" know that? Alarm bells ON.

Down, Rover. I know stuff because I read stuff. Stuff like, reports
from the CES show, and other "light" reading like that. I talk to audio
people; audio people talk to me. In fact, some of them have called my
attention to the fact that BAT switched horses from Dunlavy to Von
Schweikert. Why do you suppose they did that?

> > All reports in the audio press at
> > large as well as from individual dealers indicate that the great majority
> > of buyers are choosing the Von Schweikert Research VR-4 because they feel
> > it delivers more of a "live music" experience than any other speaker they
> > have auditioned.
>
> 'Sfunny, most of the ones I know prefer the Wilson X-1, JMlab Grande
> Utopia or Avalon Osiris, but there y'go..................>

Yes, free enterprise is a wonderful thing. Just let's keep it honest and
forthright.

> > My own personal listening tests bear this out. Indeed,
> > Albert Von Schweikert has done something rather remarkable: put truly
> > great sound -- megabuck sound, if you will -- within the reach of all but
> > the very modest budget. His success is well deserved -- his creation is
> > so incredibly effective to its purpose that at its supreme moment of
> > achievement ..... it totally disappears. In fact, IMNSHO, the Von
> > Schweikert speakers are a revelation of such magnitude that other
> > ordinarily good speakers seem flat and artificial (if not lifeless) by
> > comparison.

> Gee whiz, this must be the second coming - surely a rare event for a

Yes. I get really excited about a component that brings me one step
closer to ... (you-know-what).

> "middle-aged lady audiophile who lives in central New Jersey". Am I
> sounding suitably cynical yet?

Yes, but I expect that one of these days you will be joining Messrs.
Durkin and Foster over in the dunce's corner when you realize that you
are making a huge mistake in doubting my existence. Of course, they may
[still] be too embarrassed to talk about it, which is understandable.

> > Obviously, it is understandable that any competitor might feel quite
> > chagrined about such a great commercial threat, and so, to the average
> > observer, these attempts to discredit Von Schweikert become highly
> > suspect. However, let me share the benefit of my long experience in
> > business and say that such tactics usually have exactly the opposite
> > effect, and do far more damage to the perpetrator. I believe that such
> > has happened here, for certainly, very few readers of this newsgroup who
> > have been following this discourse are either deaf or stupid (although
> > the very patronizing nature of some of these diatribes would suggest that
> > the Dunlavy supporters believe otherwise).
>
> Ah ha! This "middle-aged lady audiophile who lives in central New
> Jersey" has long experience in business, huh? Interestingly, I'd have
> put the 'deaf or stupid' observers in the other camp, but then Kersh
> was never that bright. Are we getting a clue yet, gentle readers?

Yes, Mr. Pinkerton. I have worked all my life, starting at age 14 (part
time after school). I have been modestly successful as an office
automation/data processing marketing professional, and received an IBM
Corporate Leadership Award in recognition of my accomplishments. I also
have professional writing credentials as the music and dance reviewer for
one of the Gannett chain's daily papers in southern California (1987 to
1990).

> > As if this display of bad manners (not to mention ugly language) weren’t
> > bad enough, we readers have also had to contend with a certain few
> > newsgroup members who claim to be engineers, and, by dint of that fact,
> > also the Ultimate Authority/ies On Just About Everything Else (and are
> > quite vocal about it). This tiresome group regularly applauds anyone who
> > agrees with their "scientific measurement" approach (and mercilessly
> > browbeats those who don't), and have the audacity to insist on applying
> > it, albeit indirectly, to such an ephemeral art form as music, even in
> > the face of such overwhelming listener opinion and preference!
>
> Well, I have to guess that this bit is principally aimed at me

If the shoe fits.....

> (although this could be just my paranoia showing), but let me just say
> that "music is art, audio is engineering". There's nothing ephemeral

There, I agree .... and heartily disagree. There is a large segment of
high end equipment that is ...merely "engineering." Then, there are
those few, select components that transcend the ordinary and are just as
much a work of art as the music they so profoundly reproduce. These are
the ones that rise above the ordinary and set new benchmarks and by which
all that follow are judged.

> about the *reproduction* of a sublime performance. I always judge a
> *great* music system as one which can reduce me to tears when
> Jacqueline plays Elgars cello concerto.

The difference between us, sir, is that those great pieces of music and
great performances can reduce me to tears no matter where I hear them --
on my table radio, in the car.... to hear them on a truly great system is
to have died and gone to heaven besides.

> > Ergo,
> > despite the weakness of such assertions, they drag out the "specs" and
> > wax ad nauseam regarding the Dunlavy systems’ supposed measurement
> > superiority. Well folks, I did a very simple test: I just marched my
> > unscientific size 9AA’s into the nearest dealer and listened to both
> > speakers, just like anyone else is able to do.

> Well, you're a big girl, aren't you? Or are US sizes different?

Yes I am (almost 5' 9" in my stocking feet), and yes I believe they are.
Maybe if I said "my size 38Cs" you'd have a better idea? But that might
be different "over there" also. (You're the metric people who also drive
on the wrong side of the road, if I'm not mistaken...)

> > I know a fair amount
> > about [engineering] "specs," but I know a lot more about live, acoustic
> > music. I actually go to concerts regularly ... lots of ‘em .... and I
> > agree with all those people who are buying VR-4s -- they let the sound
> > of the music through with all of its lifelike, hair-raising timbres,
> > tonality and dynamics. (Again, megabuck sound for a pauper's purse!) I
> > don’t have a degree from MIT, but I do have two very, very good ears and
> > an even better frame of reference to live music. How do your
> > "measurements" and "specs" explain this? (Or, are you the same guys who
> > keep insisting that "all amps that measure alike, sound alike?") :-D

> All amps that measure alike, do indeed sound alike. However, since no
> two amps measure alike, this is hardly relevant. I also agree with all

Except that you keep insisting on this fallacy as fact. Since you state
that "no two amps measure alike" how do you know this to be true? I have
flawlessly passed listening tests where A-B switching took place behind
my back. Neil Sinclair himself dubbed me "Golden Ears" after such a test
was conducted at his old Absolute Audio emporium.

> those who are buying VR-4s, a fine speaker at its price point, but
> what has this to do with the general debate? Has anyone ever suggested
> that the VR-4 is *not* a fine speaker? I think not.

Now that statement earns you the Snake Oil Award. Let me see ... you tear
the designer to shreds, attempt to humiliate him and his design
philosophy in every possible way, call his web site "bullshit" etc. etc.
But, you haven't said a word against the product, have you? I think you
do think we are all stupid.

> > However, had the "debate" begun and ended with merely differences of
> > opinion regarding speaker design, it would have been at least somewhat
> > understandable, and certainly far more tolerable. But the personal
> > attacks that were launched against Von Schweikert have turned this into a
> > sad display of certainly distasteful, if not borderline unethical,
> > business tactics.

> In business terms, I think you'll find that the first blow was struck
> by VSR against DAL, but whatever. Try harder Kersh - oops , I mean
> "middle-aged lady audiophile who lives in central New Jersey".

Well, I read back through all the posts and it doesn't look that way to
me. (and again, Yes. Ask any member of the NJAS.)

> > Attempts to gain (or regain) ground for a product by
> > denigrating and demeaning an honest competitor shows desperation. I was
> > employed for over 25 years in one of the finest and most successful
> > companies in the world, which lacked not at all for aggressive and worthy
> > competition. In that company -- IBM -- even so much as a hint via facial
> > expression or tone of voice that could be construed as demeaning to a
> > competitor was punishable by immediate termination of employment.
> > Period.
>
> Actually, IBMs business tactics through this period are notorious for
> their desperate attempts to maintain a proprietary operating system
> against a customer demand for an open system, an attitude which led
> directly to the dire straits in which 'Big Blue' now finds itself, in
> the modern world of open systems architecture.

What does that statement have to do with the fact of IBM's internal rules
for business conduct? That is what I am discussing here. And it is
true. As for any strategic product decisions you think IBM has made to
the detriment of its customers, I can tell you that is not the whole
story. The other side of that very flip coin you toss is an enormous
installed 360x customer base with gigajillions of dollars invested in
personnel, hardware and software. If that were not so, the System 38
(you know, the one with relational database ARCHITECTED INTO THE
HARDWARE???) would have taken over the world a long time ago -- it is
still a computer ahead of its time, and it's what .... 15 - 20 years old?
No, the only ones clamoring for an open architecture are IBM's
competitors (who keep circling over the corpse that won't die....).

> > Yet, the IBM Corporation enjoys great success by insistence upon
> > adherence to this rule of ethical business conduct (even when many of its
> > competitors do not!) and making sales by focusing on the merits and
> > benefits of their product(s), not by slamming the competition.
>
> Utter bullshit! I really *cannot* believe anyone would open themselves
> to such ridicule!

Ask any teeth-gnashing IBM sales rep if you don't believe me. (Surely,
there are some of you out there?)

> > And,
> > similar ethical (and gentlemanly) business conduct has also been a
> > hallmark of the high end industry. I think that this entire episode by
> > Dunlavy's supporters has caused an embarassing blight on this industry’s
> > history of admirable public conduct -- not to mention Mr. Dunlavy
> > himself.
>
> The 'high-end' industry has (not) distinguished itself by an appeal to
> snake-oil sales techniques and sheer charlatanism, which has been
> resisted by a very few *real* engineers like John Dunlavy.
> Incidentally, don't confuse the debunking of VSR bullshit as support
> for DAL, it is a pure debunking of bullshit for its own sake.

But, of course, Von Schweikert makes a very fine speaker, mais non? And
nobody is knocking his speakers..... really. Even though they were not
designed by a "real" engineer (ahem!). You really DO think we're stupid.

> > Frankly, I think everyone involved owes Mr. Von Schweikert an apology for
> > the shameless way in which you all have participated in this despicable,
> > tasteless public flogging, and absolutely audacious demands that he make
> > substantial (and, possibly, costly) business changes to suit the
> > capricious whims of a few self-appointed, highly prejudiced "judges."
>
> Excuse me? Where were any demands made for changes to the way VSR does
> business? Unless of course you mean conducting business in an honest
> and engineering-led manner.......................

See above.

> > You have engaged in infantile hysterics over, his web site, his
> > "marketing" efforts, his employees -- things that have nothing to do with
> > speaker design and/or performance. Most laughable is your infernal snit
> > over the fact of a few colorful product names. On behalf of all the
> > listeners out here in cyberspace (and elsewhere), let me assure you that
> > we don’t give a hoot what he calls it. And, we care even less whether
> > you all approve of his product names.
>
> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Who are "we"? Why are you so sensitive about the
> bullshit product names you invented, Kersh - er, I mean Anna?

Not me. I think they're great. But then, I love the "play on words" and
use it a great deal in my writing. Besides, I thought engineers loved
acronyms. They use them all the time. Or is that just so us ordinary
mortals will be awestruck?

> > Prior to your ill-advised undertaking, we saw no evidence of ill will on
> > his part, and even throughout your relentless humiliations, he restrained
> > himself from retaliating in kind with similar personal attacks.
>
> Oh, really? Not from some of the posts Jim Wald posted, supposedly on
> his behalf!

If Jim Wald lost his cool then that is between Jim Wald and whomever. I
saw some pretty snide stuff from one A. Rigby too, who appears to be
speaking for Mr. Dunlavy.... You know what they say about "assume" ---
it can make an "ass" out of "u" and "me"..... Suppose better that the
words are the writer's own.

> > I know
> > too from observing other protesters to this newsgroup that I am not alone
> > in my observation that Albert Von Schweikert has conducted himself like
> > a gentleman throughout this miserable affair. Is he the better man?
> > Well, maybe..... maybe not. But he sure built a "better mousetrap".....
> > er, speaker!
> >
> > Yours truly,
> > Anna Logg

> Careful - Anna Log is a trademark of Nottingham Analogue Engineerng
> for their top turntable!

No, my name is Anna LogG (two "G"s) and it is a "nom de plume" which I
copyrighted via publication in early 1993. Plus I don't make or sell
turntables or anything else, for that matter. (Nor do I own a CD player
unless you count the one in my PC.) But I'd love to know more about
those! I might buy one just.... because! :-) Please send info to me at
P.O. Box 769, Point Pleasant, NJ (USA) 08742. Thank you.

> > P.S. For your collective information, I am a middle-aged lady audiophile
> > who lives in central New Jersey. I am well-known here, and a respected
> > member of the New Jersey Audio Society. I am also a member of the Owners
> > Committee of the Vinylphiles LP record collectors’ mailing list and an
> > active participant in that list. I have chosen this screen name as a
> > prudent precaution in dealing with total strangers via the internet. In
> > view of this, I have no intention of publishing my "real" name as same
> > would not necessarily serve to provide any further credibility to my
> > remarks above. Anyone wishing to take issue with me about this or
> > anything else may do so either publicly via a response to this post, or
> > privately via email and I will be happy to respond.

> Consider yourself contacted. If you wish to reveal an identity which
> is *not* David Kersh, via e-mail, then I will of course respect your
> right to Usenet anonymity. Otherwise - how dumb do you think we are?
> There again, I guess that's pretty obvious...................

I will maintain my right to Usenet/Internet whatever anonynimity with or
without your "respect." And, email is no proof -- it is possible to set
up any dummy screen name/person's name you wish -- AOL gives each user
five, altogether, for heaven's sake. I have given you some very
substantial background experience, etc., and that will have to suffice,
as two gentlemen from Phonogram and r.a.h-e have already learned.

Yours,
Anna L.

[anna...@aol.com]

In article <5vn2mh$r...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,

"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)" <z...@netrunner.net> wrote:
>
> Stewart:
> I wonder how "Anna" who claims to be morally riteously indignant feels
> about her, oops, I mean Kersh's PHONY apology to me, when I proved him
> wrong about our licenses. Every time I meet their challenge to my
> business ethics and legitimacy, they back pedal.
> See you in court, Anna, oops Dave.
> Zip

I am not David Kersh. (Mr. Durkin? Mr. Foster? Would you like to tell
Mr. Zipser that I am indeed a real person, and not Harry Pearson,
either?)

Anna o(*.*)o

[anna...@aol.com]

In article <5vm48e$k...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,

"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)" <z...@netrunner.net> wrote:
>
>

> GAG ME WITH A SPOON!!!!
>

So THAT'S what will do it!? Happy to, dear.

Your Golden-Eared friend,
Anna o(*.*)o

[anna...@aol.com]

In article <5vm48e$k...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)" <z...@netrunner.net> wrote:
>
>

> GAG ME WITH A SPOON!!!!
>

So THAT'S what will do it!? Happy to, dear.

Your Golden-Eared friend,
Anna o(*.*)o

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------

[Christian Artman]

> No, my name is Anna LogG (two "G"s) and it is a "nom de plume" which I
>
> copyrighted via publication in early 1993. Plus I don't make or sell
> turntables or anything else, for that matter. (Nor do I own a CD
> player
> unless you count the one in my PC.) But I'd love to know more about
> those! I might buy one just.... because! :-) Please send info to me
> at
> P.O. Box 769, Point Pleasant, NJ (USA) 08742. Thank you.

I have been to Point Pleasant. I live one hour away.Have you heard of
the Olde Mill Inn ?

Chris

[R Burt]

Isn't this more appropriate for private e-mail?

Regards,
--

On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 08:26:23 -0400, Christian Artman
<chr...@voicenet.com> wrote:

>> No, my name is Anna LogG (two "G"s) and it is a "nom de plume" which I
>>
>> copyrighted via publication in early 1993. Plus I don't make or sell
>> turntables or anything else, for that matter. (Nor do I own a CD
>> player
>> unless you count the one in my PC.) But I'd love to know more about
>> those! I might buy one just.... because! :-) Please send info to me
>> at
>> P.O. Box 769, Point Pleasant, NJ (USA) 08742. Thank you.
>

>I have been to Point Pleasant. I live one hour away.Have you heard of
>the Olde Mill Inn ?
>
>Chris
>
>>
>>

>> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News
>> ====-----------------------
>> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
>
>
>

rjb...@worldnet.att.net

[Vandit Kalia]

anna...@aol.com wrote:
: time after school). I have been modestly successful as an office

: automation/data processing marketing professional, and received an IBM
: Corporate Leadership Award in recognition of my accomplishments. I also

TRANSLATION:
You're basically a data-entry clerk who received some stupid "employee
motivation" award. In any case, we all know howsuccessful IBM's
Corporate LEadership was, dont we, eh?

: me. (and again, Yes. Ask any member of the NJAS.)

: > Actually, IBMs business tactics through this period are notorious for

: > their desperate attempts to maintain a proprietary operating system
: > against a customer demand for an open system, an attitude which led
: > directly to the dire straits in which 'Big Blue' now finds itself, in
: > the modern world of open systems architecture.

: What does that statement have to do with the fact of IBM's internal rules
: for business conduct?

I rest my case that you are a data-entry drone. The fact that you cannot
figure out the relevance also explains how/why you came up with such a
retarded marketing campagin for VSR.

: Not me. I think they're great. But then, I love the "play on words" and

You would also probably be very enamored by shiny objects and things
that make sounds.

[James W. Durkin]

anna...@aol.com writes:

> In article <5vn2mh$r...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "Steve Zipser

> (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)" <z...@netrunner.net> wrote:

>> Stewart:
>> I wonder how "Anna" who claims to be morally riteously indignant feels
>> about her, oops, I mean Kersh's PHONY apology to me, when I proved him
>> wrong about our licenses. Every time I meet their challenge to my
>> business ethics and legitimacy, they back pedal.
>> See you in court, Anna, oops Dave.

> I am not David Kersh. (Mr. Durkin? Mr. Foster? Would you like to

> tell Mr. Zipser that I am indeed a real person, and not Harry
> Pearson, either?)

Me? Not particularly.

Sorry missy, if you're looking for a character witness, you're barking
up the wrong tree. On the evidence, you could be just about anyone
under the sun: David Kersh, Harry Pearson, John Akers, Henry
Kissinger, or a latter day Zippy The Pinhead. I don't know, and
frankly dearie I don't much care. Y'all have fun with your little
exercise in virtual mud wrestling. My 11Cs will be taking me
elsewhere today.

As they say, "So long and thanks for all the fish." Now what are the
odds of the Vogans installing a cyberspace bypass in this vicinity and
taking this thread and RAO out in the process? Ah well, a man can
dream.

[AWRigby]

Dear Ms. Logg,

As you have stated that you would be open to discuss your recent post, and
I would be interested in doing so via a private telephone conversation.

I may be reached at 719-592-1159 from 8am to 5pm MST.

If you would like me to contact you, please email me your phone number
with a time suitable for possible conversation.

Sincerely,
Andrew Rigby
DAL

[Tom Morley]

In article <8743753...@dejanews.com>, anna...@aol.com wrote:

> Dear Audiophiles:
>
> Over the last few weeks I have been astonished by what appears to have
> been a well-orchestrated campaign to discredit Albert Von Schweikert, and
> I find it sad that someone of John Dunlavy’s caliber apparently feels it
> is appropriate to condone such behavior, however tacitly, supposedly on
> his behalf.

Nonesense. The Web, and Usnet posts of DK and AVA, both
by themselves, and though third parties, speak for themselves.
Scientific and Engineering nonsense. I cannot speak for others,
but I have let the peresonal behavior of Mr DK, in particular,
speak for itself.

>
> It is no secret that the VR-4 speaker appears to be outselling the
> Dunlavy SC-IV by a substantial margin.

This is compleately irrelevent to my points. Whether
of not you personally perfer the sound of this or that
speaker is also not relevent. I you will note, I have never
addressed this issuse in any of these threads.

> As if this display of bad manners

Let the posts of all parties speak for themselves as to manners.

>. But the personal
> attacks that were launched against Von Schweikert have turned this into a

> sad display of certainly distasteful,....

Can you be more specific?? Be careful. A statement that AVS's
description of "Acoustic Inverse Replication" makes NO sense
is NOT a poersonal attack on AVA.

Listening to Le Festin D'Esope, # 12 in Douze Etudes dans les
tons mineurs, Op. 39, performance by M. A. Hamilin on
Hyperion. I finally got to see the score for this the other day,
and quite frankly, I don't see how anyone can play this,
much less give such a fantastic performance as M. A. H.
Another fine performance -- Raymond Lewenthal (Elan ),

Tom Morley | My God! What does sound have
mor...@math.gatech.edu | to do with music?
tmo...@bmtc.mindspring.com |-- George Ives to Charles Ives,
http://www.math.gatech.edu/~morley | as reported by Charles Ives.

[Audiolife]

I searched for a full range speaker, as a move up from my Quad
ESL63s, for quite a while. It wasn't until I came across the VR4 did I
find a full range speaker with the resolution of the ESL63.
I am an impassioned VR4 owner for almost 2 years with no regrets. At first
reading this thread, I was looking forward to learn
about the theories behind two of today's best designs. Especially
my hero AVS. Unfortunately, I was dismayed to see this
deteroirate to a level of cynicism,beratement and character assassination
last seen in the school yard. It is too bad that both sides could not
conduct themselves in a more civil maner. I think it is time we all(lurkers
& active participants)) move on to more
constructive threads & let this die the death it deserves.

[anna...@aol.com]

In article <341FCC6F...@voicenet.com>,
Christian Artman <chr...@voicenet.com> wrote:
>

> I have been to Point Pleasant. I live one hour away.Have you heard of
> the Olde Mill Inn ?
>
> Chris

Actually, that is in Spring Lake Heights, one of the prettier places here
at the "Jersey Shore" I've never had the pleasure of dining there,
however. :-(

[Stewart Pinkerton]

"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)" <z...@netrunner.net> writes:

>Stewart:
>I wonder how "Anna" who claims to be morally riteously indignant feels
>about her, oops, I mean Kersh's PHONY apology to me, when I proved him
>wrong about our licenses. Every time I meet their challenge to my
>business ethics and legitimacy, they back pedal.
>See you in court, Anna, oops Dave.

I have to say that Kersh's "apology" was one of the most incompetent
and downright stupid statements that I have ever seen publicly
broadcast by a senior company officer in *any* industry, just ripe for
being introduced in court as a character reference! However, someone
else already covered that one pretty thoroughly, even to making the
point that he will now avoid VSR products like the plague, even though
he likes the VR-4 sound.

[AWRigby]

Here is John Dunlavy's most recent post:

--------------------------------------------------------

Where oh where has Albert gone? And those who so staunchly and reverently
defended his use of language and explanations so foreign to the teachings
of legitimate engineering and science?

And where oh where are his promised refutations of what other engineers
and I have posted over the past several days? Have our recitations and
quotations from well-known teachings of physics and engineering proven too
much for him and his associates to bear?

Funny how simple truths can silence those intent on propagating pure
floobydust and gobbledygook for the sake of profit - with little or no
regard for the true interests of innocent audiophiles who can be so easily
beguiled and seduced by pseudo-scientific claims promising a new vista of
audio nirvana!

There can never be a legitimate reward, either intellectual or monetary,
for those who seek to distort or pervert the timeless teachings of
legitimate science and engineering - teachings that have endured peer
review and passed the tests of time unscathed. VSR’s approach is an
ill-advised pursuit - with no Nobel prize for claiming the discovery of
new technology (based upon false theories and premises). Indeed, lots of
enticing claims - but, as yet, not a single set of competently made
measurements to substantiate them!

Here I refer to VSR product claims for “spherical radiation patterns,
pulse-coherent performance, accurate time/phase alignment of drivers,
excellent impulse response, flat frequency response, etc.” We have accurate
measurements of VSR loudspeakers to prove that they do not exhibit these
properties. By contrast, DAL publishes a full set of measurements, and
guarantees their accuracy, for all of its advertised performance claims.
The accuracy of DAL’s products can be verified by the independent
measurements of our SC-I, SC-IV and SC-VI loudspeakers shown and discussed
in reviews published by Stereophile Magazine. Where oh where can one find
accurate measurements to support the absurd claims being advertised by
VSR? Hmmm!

And, VSR’s claim that their loudspeakers are outselling those made by DAL
by a 4:1 margin is total nonsense. Again, another fabrication of VSR’s
fertile imagination!

But enough!

I doubt there are many engineers with professional credentials that
delight in exposing wannabe engineers or companies who make unsupportable
claims for their products. But engineering is a profession whose members
feel a duty to expose claims that are without merit and or simply false. It
is also a profession that zealously guards its teachings against the
introduction of error - and intellectual integrity is viewed as being
essential in the search for truth.

My main purpose in challenging Albert and his staff at VSR has been not to
belittle or chastise them but to expose their design and performance claims
as being unprovable by means acceptable to the engineering and scientific
communities. My secondary purpose has been to develop a better awareness
among non-technical audiophiles of their need to become more critical when
examining questionable theories and performance claims - and to search for
those truths that can only be found in the teachings of true engineering
and true science.

Audiophiles frequently spend large sums of money in their quest for more
accurate reproduction of sound. As such, I believe they deserve a better,
self-regulating industry, one which seeks to serve the public by means
intended to ensure the integrity of manufacturer’s claims for design
features, engineering attributes and product performance.

In this regard, it is much easier and far cheaper to design and
manufacture products that sound sweet, nice, musical, rich, etc. than
products capable of reproducing complex musical sounds with a level of
accuracy that preclusdes critical listeners from discerning any audible
difference between live musicians and their reproduced sound during
competently conducted blind comparisons within a suitable acoustical
listening environment.

However, it is only right that everyone’s personal preferences be catered
to - including those expressed in a recent posting by Anna Logg (who!). But
products that are not truly accurate should not be promoted and advertised
as such! And this is where I and others find fault with VSR and its
advertising/marketing mumbo-jumbo.

Caveat Emptor!

John Dunlavy

[Tom Albertz]

James W. Durkin wrote:

> As they say, "So long and thanks for all the fish." Now what are the
> odds of the Vogans installing a cyberspace bypass in this vicinity and
> taking this thread and RAO out in the process? Ah well, a man can
> dream.

If you don't like RAO - go away. No one's making you come here.
Most of us don't really want to have to contend with the HE moderators
every time we want to post something. Your post here wouldn't have
made the cut.

[Bob Myers]

James W. Durkin (j...@graphics.cornell.edu) wrote:

> As they say, "So long and thanks for all the fish." Now what are the
> odds of the Vogans installing a cyberspace bypass in this vicinity and
> taking this thread and RAO out in the process? Ah well, a man can
> dream.

Pretty long odds, JD; they haven't started reading poetry to us yet....

Bob Myers KC0EW Hewlett-Packard Co. |Opinions expressed here are not
O- Workstations Systems Div.|those of my employer or any other
my...@fc.hp.com Fort Collins, Colorado |sentient life-form on this planet.

[Lon Stowell]

Tom Albertz <returnt...@what.fc.hp.com> wrote:
>
>If you don't like RAO - go away. No one's making you come here.
>Most of us don't really want to have to contend with the HE moderators
>every time we want to post something. Your post here wouldn't have
>made the cut.

Mr. Durkin was responding to another posting requesting his
services as a character witness.

However, you do give good advice in that I doubt if anyone
kidnapped YOU and drugged you and forced you to read his
posting......so........

[anna...@aol.com]

In article <19970918175...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
awr...@aol.com (AWRigby) wrote:

> Here is John Dunlavy's most recent post:
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Where oh where has Albert gone? And those who so staunchly and reverently
> defended his use of language and explanations so foreign to the teachings
> of legitimate engineering and science?

Oh, we’re still here, Mr. D. Do go on.

> And where oh where are his promised refutations of what other engineers
> and I have posted over the past several days? Have our recitations and
> quotations from well-known teachings of physics and engineering proven too
> much for him and his associates to bear?

Probably more likely he’s giving priority to running his business. Don’t
you have something better to do? (On the other hand, maybe business is a
little slow these days, Hmmmmm?)

> Funny how simple truths can silence those intent on propagating pure
> floobydust and gobbledygook for the sake of profit - with little or no

So can we infer from this that your aversion to making a profit means
that Dunlavy Audio is either a charitable organization or a tax shelter?

And, please tell me why must you disagree in such a disagreeable fashion?
(Is anyone else besides me getting really really tired of this?) I have
a mental image of some dotty old Scrooge slavering over his stack of
loudspeaker EKGs, snarling whenever anything resembling a human being
approaches.

> regard for the true interests of innocent audiophiles who can be so easily
> beguiled and seduced by pseudo-scientific claims promising a new vista of
> audio nirvana!

Oh, thank you Great Master! We are undeserving of such benevolent
protection. (And there’s that sexy talk again! Now you just watch it
there, fella!)

> There can never be a legitimate reward, either intellectual or monetary,
> for those who seek to distort or pervert the timeless teachings of
> legitimate science and engineering - teachings that have endured peer
> review and passed the tests of time unscathed.

Boy, then crime surely does pay for it seems that VSR is reaping both
monetary and intellectual rewards (read the reviews) and, in fact,
enjoying great success from their dastardly deeds. In fact, I REALLY
think that you don’t give a tinker’s dam about truth or honesty or
legitimacy or tests of time or any of that noble stuff at all. I think
you are determined to wreak vengeance upon this man because you lost a
strategic business alliance and blame everybody but yourself for your
troubles. (So, when are you going to tell us about BAT, Mr. Dunlavy?)

(But how nice of you to warn us about all these perverts! I, for one,
truly do thank you.)

>VSR’s approach is an
> ill-advised pursuit - with no Nobel prize for claiming the discovery of
> new technology (based upon false theories and premises). Indeed, lots of
> enticing claims - but, as yet, not a single set of competently made
> measurements to substantiate them!

Gee, how about a Profit & Loss Statement? I should think that would be
an excellent measurement not to mention one that everyone would
understand -- especially us stoopid, pea-brained naive audiophiles who
are so dumb we’ll buy anything!

> Here I refer to VSR product claims for spherical radiation patterns,
> pulse-coherent performance, accurate time/phase alignment of drivers,
> excellent impulse response, flat frequency response, etc. We have accurate
> measurements of VSR loudspeakers to prove that they do not exhibit these
> properties. By contrast, DAL publishes a full set of measurements, and
> guarantees their accuracy, for all of its advertised performance claims.

Is there an extra charge for framing?

> The accuracy of DAL’s products can be verified by the independent
> measurements of our SC-I, SC-IV and SC-VI loudspeakers shown and discussed
> in reviews published by Stereophile Magazine.

Then you’re just going to LOVE the new October issue. It’s the one where
John Atkinson finally ‘fesses up that maybe measurements don’t mean a
thing, after all. Yes, that’s right. It’s right there in print in --
let’s see, what did you yourself call it just a few days ago? Oh yes,
here it is. You said: "perhaps the most reputable audiophile magazine
presently being published." Your very words, oh Great One. Yes, John
Atkinson admits to being confounded by a couple of loudspeakers that
measured rotten .... and sounded great! Dear me, what heresy. No doubt
you will devote a tirade or two to J.A.

(P.S. These loudspeakers that measured rotten and sounded great were
made by OTHER designers, not AVS. Hmmmm! The virus is spreading?)

>Where oh where can one find
> accurate measurements to support the absurd claims being advertised by
> VSR? Hmmm!

Well, Hmmmm! I have two devices I use to measure such claims - there's
one on each side of my head (not to mention the stuff in the middle...)

> And, VSR’s claim that their loudspeakers are outselling those made by DAL
> by a 4:1 margin is total nonsense. Again, another fabrication of VSR’s
> fertile imagination!

Oh we are so glad to hear that, Mr. Dunlavy. F’hevvin’s sake, if you go
out of business who will look after us stoopid, pea-brained idiot
audiophiles?

> But enough!

Well at last! A statement I heartily agree with.

> I doubt there are many engineers with professional credentials that
> delight in exposing wannabe engineers or companies who make unsupportable
> claims for their products.

No? Bet I can name one!

> But engineering is a profession whose members
> feel a duty to expose claims that are without merit and or simply false. It
> is also a profession that zealously guards its teachings against the
> introduction of error - and intellectual integrity is viewed as being
> essential in the search for truth.

Oh. You mean like they did in the Spanish Inquisition?

> My main purpose in challenging Albert and his staff at VSR has been not to
> belittle or chastise them

No! Really? Coulda fooled me, big time.

> but to expose their design and performance claims
> as being unprovable by means acceptable to the engineering and scientific
> communities. My secondary purpose has been to develop a better awareness
> among non-technical audiophiles of their need to become more critical when
> examining questionable theories and performance claims - and to search for
> those truths that can only be found in the teachings of true engineering
> and true science.

Yeah. You guys don’t exactly have a great track record when it comes to
Truth and Science, such as burning at the stake those who insisted that
the earth was round....

> Audiophiles frequently spend large sums of money in their quest for more
> accurate reproduction of sound. As such, I believe they deserve a better,
> self-regulating industry, one which seeks to serve the public by means
> intended to ensure the integrity of manufacturer’s claims for design
> features, engineering attributes and product performance.

With you as sole, self-appointed Judge, Jury .... and Executioner, no
doubt.

> In this regard, it is much easier and far cheaper to design and
> manufacture products that sound sweet, nice, musical, rich, etc. than

Hmmmm. Lessee... In the concert hall, the music sounds sweet, nice,
musical and rich. (Must be the lousy acoustics!) So let me get this
straight: 1) sounds as gorgeous as live music, and 2) doesn’t require a
2nd mortgage or selling your first-born to afford... Why those dirty
rats at VSR!!! Imagine the nerve!

> products capable of reproducing complex musical sounds with a level of
> accuracy that preclusdes critical listeners from discerning any audible
> difference between live musicians and their reproduced sound during
> competently conducted blind comparisons within a suitable acoustical
> listening environment.

Wow, sounds impressive, no? Okay class. A little history lesson now.
Open your books to the chapter, "The Quest For Perfect Sound" by Edward
Rothstein (The New Republic, Dec. 1985). Johnny, will you please read
the marked paragraph? Speak up now, dear, so everyone can hear.

"What seemed at first to Edison little more than a business and dictating
machine became much more. By the First World War, special public
concerts began to combine live singers with recordings. A singer might
sing in unison with a recording played on an acoustic phonograph fitted
with an enormous horn, stopping from time to time to let the machine be
heard, accompanied by gasps from the audience. "The most sensitive ear,"
read a London report of one such recital by Hardy Williamson, "could not
detect the slightest difference between the tone of the singer and the
tone of the mechanical device." He continues, "There were debates then,
as now, about accuracy ......." ;-D

(That was 1917, folks, or thereabouts.....)

> However, it is only right that everyone’s personal preferences be catered
> to - including those expressed in a recent posting by Anna Logg (who!). But

Oh, how sweet! Moi? Well, I’m so relieved that I have your permission
to buy what I like. I’ll sure sleep better, now.

> products that are not truly accurate should not be promoted and advertised
> as such! And this is where I and others find fault with VSR and its
> advertising/marketing mumbo-jumbo.
>
> Caveat Emptor!

Indeed. I do heartily agree -- anyone who relies on "marketing
mumbo-jumbo" OR GRAPHS, CHARTS AND ‘SPECS’ to make their decision
deserves exactly what they get.

Best regards,
Anna Logg
(who is not David Kersh
or Harry Pearson
or the Tooth Fairy
or any other person
but solely and individually
her own self.)

[Arny Krüger]

anna...@aol.com wrote in article <8746649...@dejanews.com>...
> In article <19970918175...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,

>
> > Funny how simple truths can silence those intent on propagating pure
> > floobydust and gobbledygook for the sake of profit - with little or no
>
> So can we infer from this that your aversion to making a profit means
> that Dunlavy Audio is either a charitable organization or a tax shelter?

Err, Anna, I think he is suggesting that he can make a profit with out all
that weirdness...

>
> > There can never be a legitimate reward, either intellectual or
monetary,
> > for those who seek to distort or pervert the timeless teachings of
> > legitimate science and engineering - teachings that have endured peer
> > review and passed the tests of time unscathed.
>
> Boy, then crime surely does pay for it seems that VSR is reaping both
> monetary and intellectual rewards (read the reviews) and, in fact,
> enjoying great success from their dastardly deeds.

Err, Anna, are you so brain dead that you find audio mag reviews
"intellectual"? ;-)

> Gee, how about a Profit & Loss Statement? I should think that would be
> an excellent measurement not to mention one that everyone would
> understand -- especially us stoopid, pea-brained naive audiophiles who
> are so dumb we’ll buy anything!

Gee, Bose is said to have a GREAT profit and loss statement. Does that mean
they are the only folks who make great speakers? ;-( (I don't think they
make great speakers at all, but they do seem to make money!)

>
> > The accuracy of DAL’s products can be verified by the independent
> > measurements of our SC-I, SC-IV and SC-VI loudspeakers shown and
discussed
> > in reviews published by Stereophile Magazine.
>
> Then you’re just going to LOVE the new October issue. It’s the one where
> John Atkinson finally ‘fesses up that maybe measurements don’t mean a
> thing, after all.

This is supposed to be a suprize? ;-) JA condradicting himself (again).

What about Stereophile's favorable subjective comments about the same
speakers? Is JA refuting them too?

>
> >Where oh where can one find
> > accurate measurements to support the absurd claims being advertised by
> > VSR? Hmmm!
>
> Well, Hmmmm! I have two devices I use to measure such claims - there's
> one on each side of my head (not to mention the stuff in the middle...)

Which is sorta in doubt given that it finds audiophile magazine reviews to
be "Intellectual". ;-)

>
> > And, VSR’s claim that their loudspeakers are outselling those made by
DAL
> > by a 4:1 margin is total nonsense. Again, another fabrication of
VSR’s
> > fertile imagination!
>
> Oh we are so glad to hear that, Mr. Dunlavy. F’hevvin’s sake, if you go
> out of business who will look after us stoopid, pea-brained idiot
> audiophiles?

Nothing like a factual, on-topic rebuttal (NOT!).

>
> > but to expose their design and performance claims
> > as being unprovable by means acceptable to the engineering and
scientific
> > communities. My secondary purpose has been to develop a better
awareness
> > among non-technical audiophiles of their need to become more critical
when
> > examining questionable theories and performance claims - and to search
for
> > those truths that can only be found in the teachings of true
engineering
> > and true science.
>
> Yeah. You guys don’t exactly have a great track record when it comes to
> Truth and Science, such as burning at the stake those who insisted that
> the earth was round....

I wasn't there, were you? I don't think Dunlavy was there either. But you
seem to be claiming it was his fault. How can that be? And, BTW, since when
are we hanging the inquisition on scientists? Wasn't that some church folks
who did that?

>
> > Audiophiles frequently spend large sums of money in their quest for
more
> > accurate reproduction of sound. As such, I believe they deserve a
better,
> > self-regulating industry, one which seeks to serve the public by means
> > intended to ensure the integrity of manufacturer’s claims for design
> > features, engineering attributes and product performance.
>
> With you as sole, self-appointed Judge, Jury .... and Executioner, no
> doubt.

Dogmatic Posturing, your name is Anna!

>
> Wow, sounds impressive, no? Okay class. A little history lesson now.
> Open your books to the chapter, "The Quest For Perfect Sound" by Edward
> Rothstein (The New Republic, Dec. 1985). Johnny, will you please read
> the marked paragraph? Speak up now, dear, so everyone can hear.

Now your intellectual credentials have fallen in the sewer. That article
was a real hoot, but the ulitmate truth, it ain't.

>
> "What seemed at first to Edison little more than a business and dictating
> machine became much more. By the First World War, special public
> concerts began to combine live singers with recordings. A singer might
> sing in unison with a recording played on an acoustic phonograph fitted
> with an enormous horn, stopping from time to time to let the machine be
> heard, accompanied by gasps from the audience. "The most sensitive ear,"
> read a London report of one such recital by Hardy Williamson, "could not
> detect the slightest difference between the tone of the singer and the
> tone of the mechanical device." He continues, "There were debates then,
> as now, about accuracy ......." ;-D
>
> (That was 1917, folks, or thereabouts.....)

I think there has been a little consciousness raising since then... Why not
attack the more modern Villchur tests that made similar claims? At least
that would be just 40 years old, not like 80.

>

[Tom Albertz]

James W. Durkin wrote:

>............ Now what are the

> odds of the Vogans installing a cyberspace bypass in this vicinity and

> taking ... RAO out in the process?

> Tom Albertz <returnt...@what.fc.hp.com> wrote:
> >
> >If you don't like RAO - go away. No one's making you come here.
> >Most of us don't really want to have to contend with the HE moderators
> >every time we want to post something. Your post here wouldn't have
> >made the cut.
>

Lon Stowell wrote:
>
> Mr. Durkin was responding to another posting requesting his
> services as a character witness.

I know that, but what did he mean by the 'Vogans' and 'taking
RAO out' statements?

> However, you do give good advice in that I doubt if anyone
> kidnapped YOU and drugged you and forced you to read his
> posting......so........

So what?

[AWRigby]

From: anna...@aol.com:

<<Probably more likely he’s giving priority to running his business.
Don’t you have something better to do?>>

Actually, John is physically present at DAL from approximately 7:00 am to
8:00 pm everyday (and that includes Saturdays and Sundays). He has
composed every single article that has appeared here on RAO & RAHE in his
"spare time" when he is at home, not during his regular business hours.

<<So can we infer from this that your aversion to making a profit means
that Dunlavy Audio is either a charitable organization or a tax shelter?>>

When one takes the time and costs involved when individually measuring
every single loudspeaker manufactured (as well as each component used in
each loudspeaker), the bottom line, at times, can resemble one from a
nonprofit operation. But, we do this more for the love of music (accurate
musical reproduction) and offering our customers and potential customers an
accurate product than trying to put a Ferrari in the garage.

<<I have a mental image of some dotty old Scrooge slavering over his stack
of loudspeaker EKGs, snarling whenever anything resembling a human being
approaches.>>

And now personal insults and demeaning characterizations? My, my.

<<I think you are determined to wreak vengeance upon this man because you
lost a strategic business alliance and blame everybody but yourself for
your troubles. (So, when are you going to tell us about BAT, Mr. Dunlavy?)>>

Are you referring to BAT as in Geoff Poor being BAT's sales manager who
also has personal interests in a retail audio store in Champaign, IL which
happens to sell Von Schweikert products? (We consider relationships
between DAL and such elite recording, mastering, and editing studios such
as Dorian, Sony Classical, Sterling Sound, Reference Recordings, Absolute
Audio, The Hit Factory, Synchrosound Studios, etc., which use DAL speakers
as their reference transducers, more important than the personal opinion of
an individual who has a vested interest in the success of VSR.)

As well, we don't feel that it is beneficial to the long term interests of
our company as well as the industry in general to forge "strategic
alliances" with one specific company. (We feel that our loudspeakers work
equally well with a myriad of electronics.) The only "alliance" bewteen
BAT and DAL was that Victor Kohmenko (BAT's President) purchased a pair of
SC-IV's for his personal use. I didn't realize that this made us "allies",
but rather that he just liked the speakers.

<<Gee, how about a Profit & Loss Statement?>>

And this means what with regards to sound quality and measurable,
guaranteed accuracy of a manufacturer's products?

<<Is there an extra charge for framing?>>

Nope. In fact, I would be more than happy to send you copies if you are
interested.

<<Well, Hmmmm! I have two devices I use to measure such claims - there's
one on each side of my head (not to mention the stuff in the middle...)>>

And we have absolutely no problem with anyone's personal, subjective
opinion. However, objective accuracy is not the same thing as personal
opinion.

<<Oh. You mean like they did in the Spanish Inquisition?>>

Actually, no. The Spanish Inquisition had more to do with religion than
it did with transducer design.

<<You guys don’t exactly have a great track record when it comes to Truth
and Science, such as burning at the stake those who insisted that the earth
was round....>>

Again, I believe that this occured previous to late Twentieth Century
transducer design and manufacturing. (And I think that you got the flat
earth thing backwards. e.g. - Galileo, who had an okay reputation as a
scientist, spent the last part of his life imprisoned for his beliefs on
layout of the solar system. - He was kooky enough to proffer scientific
evidence that the Sun was actually the center of the solar system instead
of the Earth. What a nut!)

<<1) sounds as gorgeous as live music,>>

Without objective measurements performed in a properly designed, equipped,
and staffed lab (which includes an anechoic chamber), this is simply a
personal, subjective opinion.

<<and 2) doesn’t require a
2nd mortgage or selling your first-born to afford...>>

Doesn't the VR-10 retail for approximately $65,000.00?

<<,"There were debates then, as now, about accuracy ......." ;-D

(That was 1917, folks, or thereabouts.....)>>

Yep. In fact, we have the manual to a (which accompanies a fully
operational) early Twentieth century Victrola which basically states the
same thing. Although, I believe that most people, when comparing the
Victrola to modern audio systems, could probably hear the difference (you
can also measure the difference).

<<Indeed. I do heartily agree -- anyone who relies on "marketing
mumbo-jumbo" OR GRAPHS, CHARTS AND ‘SPECS’ to make their decision deserves
exactly what they get.>>

Anna, I concur. Without accompanying anechoic measurements, it is
virtually impossible to guarantee any type of consistency and objective
performance. If you don't measure the product, how do you know that a
specific unit is performing up to the standards set by the original? Using
the same model drivers doesn't necessarily guarantee consistency as drive
units will usually show differences from batch to batch, and if one is
concerned with maintaining consistency in a production run, one must be
able to objectively analyze each individual unit. Dunlavy Audio Labs feels
that it's customers "deserve" a guarantee of the products performance. I
guess that others feel that their customers and potential customers
"deserve" no guarantee. It seems that it just comes down to what the
manufacturer feels that the customer deserves when they are spending
literally thousands of dollars for a loudspeaker.

<<Best regards,
Anna Logg
(who is not David Kersh
or Harry Pearson
or the Tooth Fairy
or any other person
but solely and individually
her own self.)>>

Best regards to you as well Anna. I look forward to eventually receiving
the information regarding your availability for a telephone discussion.
(Like I previously stated, even weekends are fine for me.)

Sincerely,
Andrew Rigby

[jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist]

In article <5vs4kl$a...@fcnews.fc.hp.com> my...@fc.hp.com (Bob Myers) writes:
>James W. Durkin (j...@graphics.cornell.edu) wrote:
>

>> As they say, "So long and thanks for all the fish." Now what are the

>> odds of the Vogans installing a cyberspace bypass in this vicinity and

>> taking this thread and RAO out in the process? Ah well, a man can
>> dream.
>
>Pretty long odds, JD; they haven't started reading poetry to us yet....

Um, boys, what DID you think Middius was preaching to us?

Note, he insists on doing it despite all, he keeps to one subject,
and he slant-rhymes on "borg" all the time.

MIDDIUS IS THE VOGON!
--
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.

[George M. Middius]

jjjjohnston, never a lover of knowledge, prated:

>Um, boys, what DID you think Middius was preaching to us?

I do not preach. You, however, may have been assimilated by
the Krooborg.

>Note, he insists on doing it despite all, he keeps to one subject,
>and he slant-rhymes on "borg" all the time.

A very cyborgic collection of words, that, masquerading
badly as a sentence.

I have never rhymed anything with "borg," slantwise or
otherwise.

>MIDDIUS IS THE VOGON!

Am not. If we're talking about invaders from another star
system, shouldn't that be "Vegan"?

No one needs to tell you to stop making sense, Jimmy.

[Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)]

AWRigby wrote:

> Best regards to you as well Anna. I look forward to eventually receiving
> the information regarding your availability for a telephone discussion.
> (Like I previously stated, even weekends are fine for me.)
>
> Sincerely,
> Andrew Rigby

Andy:
They will have her rehearsed enpough in about two weeks :)
Zip

[Tom Morley]

In article <8746649...@dejanews.com>, anna...@aol.com wrote:

[a large number of words...]

Here are some secrets:

Great art and great science are not contradictory.

Insincerity is a sin in art and science.

The best of art and science combines the analytical and the emotional.

Example: Alban Berg's opera Wozzcek --largely constructed out
of formal forms, but the most emotionally draining opera I know of.
The final scene is heart breaking. The little boy, oblivious
to what has happened, to the fact that both his parents are
dead by hideous means, playing with his horsie

Example: Berlioz was certainly one of the most romantic of the
romantics, and there is good evidence that he was manic-depressive
(or is bipolar disorder the right term?) Yet he was an incredible
orchestrator. He knew the effects he was after,
and understood how to obtain them. Analytical.

Examples: Emotional scientists? Sure - Einstein, O. Heaviside,
Hammilton

Examples: Analytical artists: James Joyce. He knew precisely
what he was trying to do and how to achieve it with the tools
at hand. Good Engineering, if you will. Sometimes he invented new
tools. Good science. Result -- great art.

Everyone should reread "Politics and the English Language"
by George Orwell.

[Arny Krüger]

Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) <z...@netrunner.net> wrote in article
<5vuicl$4...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...

>
> Andy:
> They will have her rehearsed enpough in about two weeks :)
> Zip
>

While Anna Logg seems to represent that she's been around the NG circuit
for a long time, searching DN's "Old Databse" for her name in either of the
two forms she uses nets me a frowny face icon and the following message:
"Your search did not match any articles at all."

Your suggestions that her alias was contrived for some purpose in the
recent past seems to pass some basic correctness tests... Hmmmm. Maybe
she's one of Alan Derrida's old girl friends?

[Arny Krüger]

George M. Middius <Glan...@jiffypop.erols.com> wrote in article
<3422c398...@news.erols.com>...

> ************************ Advisory Notice ************************
>
> "Purchase only ABX-approved amplifiers and other electronics.
> Recommended by eight out of ten cyborgs."
>
> ***************************** End *****************************
>

BTW, George, where is the list of ABX-approved amplifiers and other
electonics?

[Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)]

Jim Cate wrote:
>
> In

> >Indeed. I do heartily agree -- anyone who relies on "marketing
> >mumbo-jumbo" OR GRAPHS, CHARTS AND ‘SPECS’ to make their decision
> >deserves exactly what they get.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Anna Logg
> >(who is not David Kersh
> >or Harry Pearson

> >_________________________________________________
>
> Anna,
> Tell us, what exactly is your relationship with Albert or Albert's
> associates, family, or staff members? Your notes are highly incredulous,
> with respect to your claim of being an individual audiophile with no
> relationship or interest in VSR or their people.
>
> Additionally, your carping, whining, sarcastic, utterly non
> substantive, childish notes are a disgrace to this board (and that's saying
> a lot) as well as to VSR. If this type of petty, childish, defensive
> attitude is typical of VS owners and/or supporters, I sure don't want to
> join the group.
>
> Jim Cate
> >
>
>

Did you ever see the seven faces of Eve :)
Zip
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc. 9535 Biscayne Blvd. Miami Shores FL 33138
Gallo Acoustics, Cabasse, N.E.A.R., Energy & Veritas, NHT, Dunlavy,
DH Cones, Camelot, Audible Illusions, Kinergetics,, Carver, Shakti,
Sound Dynamics, NSM, ESP, Rega, PASS Labs, Parasound, Solid Steel,
Chiro, Quicksilver, CODA, Straightwire, Magnum Dynalab, Lightstar,
RoomTunes, Chesky, Reference Recordings, Jadis, Zenith INTEQ,

[Jason C. Cotton]

tmo...@bmtc.mindspring.com (Tom Morley) writes:

<snip>

>Everyone should reread "Politics and the English Language"
>by George Orwell.

Agreed. One of the great writers of the century.

Also, "The Elements of Style" should be passed out to Usenet
posters. Maybe a dictionary as well.

-Jason

[Jim Cate]

In

>Indeed. I do heartily agree -- anyone who relies on "marketing
>mumbo-jumbo" OR GRAPHS, CHARTS AND ‘SPECS’ to make their decision
>deserves exactly what they get.
>
>Best regards,
>Anna Logg
>(who is not David Kersh
>or Harry Pearson

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg dances on the head of a pin.

>BTW, George, where is the list of ABX-approved amplifiers and other
>electonics?

We are on to you, cyborg. Your dissembling is as effective
as a mime for the blind.

For the benefit of all nonassimilated humans (or, as they
are known in the Hive, the "pre-assimilated"), here is what
the Resistance has determined so far:

1. No tube gear.
2. No analog gear.
3. "pro" amplifiers (modifier unquantified as yet)
4. No fancy wires or cables.
5. No goo-proofed gear of any kind.

We will, of course, continue to apprise the human race of
new information as it becomes available.

Myerborg was a pretty big catch for you, eh, cyborg? Bon
appetit!

George M. Middius
remove "jiffy" to reply

************************ Advisory Notice ************************

[anna...@aol.com]

[ON 9/19] In article <19970919171...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,

awr...@aol.com (AWRigby) wrote:
>
> And now personal insults and demeaning characterizations? My, my.

As a friend of mine would say, "The bit dog barks." Isn't pleasant, is
it? I just thought it was time that Mr. D. got a taste of his own
medicine.

> And we have absolutely no problem with anyone's personal, subjective
> opinion. However, objective accuracy is not the same thing as personal
> opinion.

So what's your point? High end audio is all about "subjective"
preference. "specs" and "measurements" only attempt to explain the often
inexplicable.

>(A.L.): <<Oh. You mean like they did in the Spanish Inquisition?>>

>
> Actually, no. The Spanish Inquisition had more to do with religion than
> it did with transducer design.

<Sigh...> Okay, class, come to order please. Open your dictionaries to
the word "metaphor." Let's read aloud in unison: "met-a-phor" n. [Fr.
metaphore < L. metaphora < Gr. metaphora < metapherein, to carry over
< meta, over, (see META-) + pherein, to BEAR] a figure of speech
containing an implied comparison, in which a word or phrase ordinarily
and primarily used of one thing is applied to another.

> Doesn't the VR-10 retail for approximately $65,000.00?

I thought we were discussing the VR4 speaker system. Who said anything
about any other model(s)??

> I look forward to eventually receiving
> the information regarding your availability for a telephone discussion.
> (Like I previously stated, even weekends are fine for me.)

Now don't make me think you mean to imply to this forum that I avoided your request. You posted the above on the 19th. Following is a (censored) copy of my private post to you on the morning of the 18th:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 97-09-18 09:21:30 EDT
From: Anna Logg
To: AWRigby

I have no problem if you wish to call. I thought I might have time
today, but now have to leave. Through tomorrow, my schedule is very
tight so I think it will be safest to say that I will make myself
available for you Saturday a.m. here when there should be no other
distractions. (732) xxx.xxxx.

I look forward to talking with you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A.L.

[anna...@aol.com]

In article <5vv4d7$9...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,

Jim Cate <jim...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Anna,
> Tell us, what exactly is your relationship with Albert or Albert's
> associates, family, or staff members? Your notes are highly incredulous,
> with respect to your claim of being an individual audiophile with no
> relationship or interest in VSR or their people.

Oh, I get it! You're saying that anyone with an opinion (and I do
believe this group is called "rec.audio.OPINION" ??) contrary to your own
must have an ulterior motive. <sigh!> I say, look to your own conscience
before you concern yourself with mine. As for me, here is a News Flash:
(BTW, this concept may be difficult for you to grasp; you may have to
read it several times...) My opinions are based on independent, original
thoughts all of my very own devising. Sometimes debatable as to their
efficacy or brilliance, to be sure, but my very own nonetheless, ergo, I
stand behind them.

In situations such as this, then, I am reminded of what the momma whale
said to the baby whale, "It's only when you're spouting that you get
harpooned."

> Additionally, your carping, whining, sarcastic, utterly non
> substantive, childish notes are a disgrace to this board (and that's saying
> a lot) as well as to VSR. If this type of petty, childish, defensive
> attitude is typical of VS owners and/or supporters, I sure don't want to
> join the group.

Oh well, Jim, relax. You'll get over it. As for the rest, I can only
say, gee, isn't the 'net an awesome place? Here, one can reach THOUSANDS
at a time and so, deliver a "mass insult" with one click of the SEND
button.

(And isn't this just such a fun hobby?)

Best regards,
Anna o(*,*)o Logg (H.O.S.)

[Arny Krüger]

Tom Morley <tmo...@bmtc.mindspring.com> wrote in article
<tmorley-1909...@user-38lc97b.dialup.mindspring.com>...

>
>
> Here are some secrets:
>
> Great art and great science are not contradictory.
>
> Insincerity is a sin in art and science.
>
> The best of art and science combines the analytical and the emotional.
>

One could hope that facts such as you present here would be perceived by
the posturing unreliable subjectivists around here.

Marc, you read this? ;-)

[Arny Krüger]

George M. Middius <Glan...@jiffypop.erols.com> wrote in article

<34232ee7...@news.erols.com>...

...here is what the Resistance has determined so far:

> 1. No tube gear.

I understand that most ABX-ers own components that have at least 1 tube.

> 2. No analog gear.

At this point in time, analog gear seems very hard to avoid,

> 3. "pro" amplifiers (modifier unquantified as yet)

It is an approach, but not the only approach.

> 4. No fancy wires or cables.

As interior decoration and status symbols, they seem to work at least part
of the time.

> 5. No goo-proofed gear of any kind.

Please describe the physical properties of "goo".

[Christian Artman]

Arny Krüger wrote:

> George M. Middius <Glan...@jiffypop.erols.com> wrote in article
> <34232ee7...@news.erols.com>...
>

> > 5. No goo-proofed gear of any kind.
>
> Please describe the physical properties of "goo".

82% Dilithium Hydroxyls, Magnesium, Chromium, and soy protein isolate.

[Johnny Y Boey]

This med student does not understand the difference btw CHEMICAL and
PHYSICAL properties.

JB

[Marvin Duchow Library]

In article <8746649...@dejanews.com>, anna...@aol.com wrote:

> In article <19970918175...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> awr...@aol.com (AWRigby) wrote:

> > The accuracy of DAL’s products can be verified by the independent
> > measurements of our SC-I, SC-IV and SC-VI loudspeakers shown and discussed
> > in reviews published by Stereophile Magazine.
>
> Then you’re just going to LOVE the new October issue. It’s the one where
> John Atkinson finally ‘fesses up that maybe measurements don’t mean a
> thing, after all. Yes, that’s right. It’s right there in print in --
> let’s see, what did you yourself call it just a few days ago? Oh yes,
> here it is. You said: "perhaps the most reputable audiophile magazine
> presently being published." Your very words, oh Great One. Yes, John
> Atkinson admits to being confounded by a couple of loudspeakers that
> measured rotten .... and sounded great! Dear me, what heresy. No doubt
> you will devote a tirade or two to J.A.

Let's hear if he will say the same on Monday September 29 (103rd AES Covention)
and how well he will defend his sayings/findings derived from sighted
listening, considering Floyd Toole's well-backed evidence to the
contrary.....
Meet you there.
8-D

[Arny Krüger]

anna...@aol.com wrote in article <8747637...@dejanews.com>...

>
>
> Oh, I get it! You're saying that anyone with an opinion (and I do
> believe this group is called "rec.audio.OPINION" ??) contrary to your own
> must have an ulterior motive.

In other words, no definitive answer to the question about Anna's personal
and business relationships. ;-(

[anna...@aol.com]

In article <01bcc546$57a75d20$8072...@crc3.concentric.net>,

Oh for Pete's sake, let me save you all a lot of time and pointless
speculation. Following is an excerpt from a private email exchange today
in answer to more or less the same query with another reader of this
group. It will tell you everything you need to know. (And by the way,
Mr. Kruger, I have posted a copy of my response of 9/18, Thursday a.m. to
A.W. Rigby offering my telephone number (which I censored out of this
public posting for obvious purposes). I need no "rehearsals" to discuss
my opinions, which are entirely my own. BTW, he never called.) Yes I
have been interested in audio since the late '60s when I got my first
system and over the years have met a lot of people, some of whom you
might consider "important." So shoot me.

Also, stop looking for any "net history" on me. I have only had my
computer since the beginning of the year, and only really active on the
'net since late spring.....

===================================================
<< And why the hidden persona? That
speaks louder than your entire post, eh? >>

I am not sure what it speaks "louder" about. Would you please enlighten
me? I see a lot of nickname screen names just perusing down the list of
posts in rec.audio.opinion, not to mention all across the 'net. Why
single me out? Now more than ever, I believe it was a smart thing to do
and will not change my position regarding my public ID, for I am not
"hiding" behind anything -- I am as much "Anna" as I am my other name,
for it is what I say and do that reflects the "who" that I am. Besides,
I am known locally by people I come into personal, face-to-face contact
with, including the members of the NJAS.

But anyway, how would knowing the name that appears on my birth
certificate tell any more about me or, for that matter, provide any
further information regarding whether I was affiliated in any way with
any high-end manufacturer, or had any other industry connections, direct
or indirect? I mean, what's the point? I submit that it is a specious
arrow meant only to introduce mighty doses of the FUD Factor (Fear,
Uncertainty and Doubt) delivered by those who are themselves masters of
the Art of Dissemblance. Again, it's just as effective -- if not a lot
easier -- to simply discredit the messenger, and a very smart way of
deflecting everyone's attention away from the real issues.

Also, I must remind you that there are a lot of crazy people out there.
I am a single lady who lives alone. I came up with this name because I
am an LP devotee who does not own a CD player (yet...), and I thought it
would be a fun way of giving a big clue as to what I stand for in
high-end audio. After seeing some of the weirdities on the 'net I
decided that it would be prudent to use this nom de plume. . . . If my
little screen name makes my opinions suspect, then so be it, but it does
not change the fact that my thoughts and opinions stand quite clearly for
the PERSON that I am. "A rose," after all, does indeed "smell just as
sweet....." Whatever.
=====================================================

Regards,

Anna o(*.*)o Logg

[Chuck Ross]

In article <342409...@ix.netcom.com>, Johnny Y Boey
<jb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

That's because he's still a student.

_________________________________________________________________
Chuck Ross

[Chuck Ross]

In article <01bcc5a4$70e07d40$9a6d...@crc3.concentric.net>, "Arny Krüger"

<ar...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> Please describe the physical properties of "goo".

Sorta gooey.

(the devil made me goo it....)

_________________________________________________________________
Chuck Ross

[Christian Artman]

Chuck Ross wrote:

> In article <342409...@ix.netcom.com>, Johnny Y Boey
> <jb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Christian Artman wrote:
> > >
> > > Arny Krüger wrote:
> > >
> > > > George M. Middius <Glan...@jiffypop.erols.com> wrote in article
>
> > > > <34232ee7...@news.erols.com>...
> > > >
> > > > > 5. No goo-proofed gear of any kind.
> > > >

> > > > Please describe the physical properties of "goo".
> > >

> > > 82% Dilithium Hydroxyls, Magnesium, Chromium, and soy protein
> isolate.
> >
> >
> > This med student does not understand the difference btw CHEMICAL and
>
> > PHYSICAL properties.
> >
> >
> > JB
>
> That's because he's still a student.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chuck Ross

Sorry I forgot to include viscosity information

[Christian Artman]

Chuck Ross wrote:

When someone has too much time on their hands they become
an annyoing flea. BJ go get a life.
I know more about chemistry than you do BJ.

[Christian Artman]

Chuck Ross wrote:

> In article <01bcc5a4$70e07d40$9a6d...@crc3.concentric.net>, "Arny
> Krüger"
> <ar...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >

> > Please describe the physical properties of "goo".
>

> Sorta gooey.
>
> (the devil made me goo it....)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chuck Ross

The devil made me goo it... Good one. your ready
for your own show.

[Jeff Adams]

On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 21:22:38 -0600, anna...@aol.com wrote:

>Over the last few weeks I have been astonished by what appears to have
>been a well-orchestrated campaign to discredit Albert Von Schweikert, and
>I find it sad that someone of John Dunlavy’s caliber apparently feels it
>is appropriate to condone such behavior, however tacitly, supposedly on
>his behalf.

No one is involved in an orchestrated campaign to discredit AVS that I
know of. The discussion has been purely about engineering credentials,
design approaches, and the explanation of these approaches as
implemented in the VR-4. Note that I own VR-4's and like them very
much. Liking the sound of the speaker is a totally separate issue,
which you appear to be unable to comprehend (even Stewart likes the
VR-4).

>It is no secret that the VR-4 speaker appears to be outselling the
>Dunlavy SC-IV by a substantial margin.

Please provide some objective evidence of this.

>All reports in the audio press at
>large as well as from individual dealers indicate that the great majority
>of buyers are choosing the Von Schweikert Research VR-4 because they feel
>it delivers more of a "live music" experience than any other speaker they
>have auditioned.

Please provide some objective evidence that "the great majority of
buyers are choosing the VR-4..." - you say the audio press says this
(I've seen articles that are very positive about the VR-4's and agree
with much of their assessment of the VR-4's strengths). Please share
with us your data from individual dealers (how many have you received
such data from)?

>My own personal listening tests bear this out. Indeed,
>Albert Von Schweikert has done something rather remarkable: put truly
>great sound -- megabuck sound, if you will -- within the reach of all but
>the very modest budget. His success is well deserved -- his creation is
>so incredibly effective to its purpose that at its supreme moment of
>achievement ..... it totally disappears.

I agree they sound very good for the money. So do most (maybe even
"all" if I might be so bold - atleast those that have heard the VR-4
for themselves) of the people that are complaining about the "bad
science".

>Obviously, it is understandable that any competitor might feel quite
>chagrined about such a great commercial threat, and so, to the average
>observer, these attempts to discredit Von Schweikert become highly
>suspect. However, let me share the benefit of my long experience in
>business and say that such tactics usually have exactly the opposite
>effect, and do far more damage to the perpetrator. I believe that such
>has happened here, for certainly, very few readers of this newsgroup who
>have been following this discourse are either deaf or stupid (although
>the very patronizing nature of some of these diatribes would suggest that
>the Dunlavy supporters believe otherwise).

You seem to be in the minority opinion here. People are objecting to
the use of non-technical terms to describe standard things. This is
not even arguable (that VSR does this - they have admitted it).

>[snip much stuff about how measurements are unimportant] ... and
>wax ad nauseam regarding the Dunlavy systems’ supposed measurement
>superiority.

It's not supposed. It's documented. The only measurement in debate as
far as I know is "polar response". I do anxiously await the posting of
such data.

>Well folks, I did a very simple test: I just marched my
>unscientific size 9AA’s into the nearest dealer and listened to both
>speakers, just like anyone else is able to do. I know a fair amount
>about [engineering] "specs," but I know a lot more about live, acoustic
>music. I actually go to concerts regularly ... lots of ‘em .... and I
>agree with all those people who are buying VR-4s -- they let the sound
>of the music through with all of its lifelike, hair-raising timbres,
>tonality and dynamics. (Again, megabuck sound for a pauper's purse!) I
>don’t have a degree from MIT, but I do have two very, very good ears and
>an even better frame of reference to live music. How do your
>"measurements" and "specs" explain this? (Or, are you the same guys who
>keep insisting that "all amps that measure alike, sound alike?") :-D

Well, I did the same thing (by the way - tell us where you heard both
speakers - some might be skeptical that you actually heard both
speakers at the same store, i.e., were able to perform a valid
comparison). And I preferred the SC-IV to the VR-4. So how do you
explain that? I have been a musician since I was 6, have attended
dozens if not hundreds of live performances (covering a variety of
musical styles) and have played in bands for years and years. So, I
too, have two very god ears and an even better frame of reference to
live music. So, how do you explain this???

>[snip] I think that this entire episode by
>Dunlavy's supporters has caused an embarassing blight on this industry’s
>history of admirable public conduct -- not to mention Mr. Dunlavy
>himself.

And what is it that Mr. Dunlavy has supposedly said that is
embarrasing (or whatever else you were objecting to) in the posted
exchanges on this newsgroup? I think if you go back and read all the
posts that AVS and John D. have made, it would be VERY hard to
conclude that JD has said anything "bad". He thinks Albert's science
is bad and that his technical claims for his products are incorrect.
What is wrong with stating this?

>[snip] You have engaged in infantile hysterics over, his web site, his
>"marketing" efforts, his employees

Why do you insist on considering objections to the use of
non-scientific explanations as "infantile hysterics"?

> -- things that have nothing to do with
>speaker design and/or performance.

But they (the VSR website) are trying to explain why the VR-4 sounds
so good - this has everything to do with the design and performance
for gosh sakes!!!

>Most laughable is your infernal snit
>over the fact of a few colorful product names. On behalf of all the
>listeners out here in cyberspace (and elsewhere), let me assure you that
>we don’t give a hoot what he calls it. And, we care even less whether
>you all approve of his product names.

You obviously don't speak for "all" the listeners out here. I am an
owner of VR-4's and I don't like the names either. So please speak for
yourself.

>Prior to your ill-advised undertaking, we saw no evidence of ill will on
>his part, and even throughout your relentless humiliations, he restrained
>himself from retaliating in kind with similar personal attacks.

Please re-read the posts from both parties (AVS and JD) and then come
back and tell me who you thought was the most calm and collected...

>I know
>too from observing other protesters to this newsgroup that I am not alone
>in my observation that Albert Von Schweikert has conducted himself like
>a gentleman throughout this miserable affair.

See above suggestion.

======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. |
==========================================================================

[Jeff Adams]

On Wed, 17 Sep 1997 02:51:55 -0600, anna...@aol.com wrote:

>[snip a lot of stuff]

>Yes, free enterprise is a wonderful thing. Just let's keep it honest and
>forthright.

Good grief, this is just the point that the scientific types are
trying to make. Please re-read John Dunlavy's posts - he is claiming
that some of Albert's claims for the VR-4 are false.

>> those who are buying VR-4s, a fine speaker at its price point, but
>> what has this to do with the general debate? Has anyone ever suggested
>> that the VR-4 is *not* a fine speaker? I think not.
>
>Now that statement earns you the Snake Oil Award. Let me see ... you tear
>the designer to shreds, attempt to humiliate him and his design
>philosophy in every possible way, call his web site "bullshit" etc. etc.
>But, you haven't said a word against the product, have you? I think you
>do think we are all stupid.

Anna, you are dead wrong on this one. Please spend the time to read
all the posts in the related threads. Stewart (and most others) have
NEVER said they don't think the VR-4 sounds good. Why can't you
separate this in your mind? They are SEPARATE issues.

>> The 'high-end' industry has (not) distinguished itself by an appeal to
>> snake-oil sales techniques and sheer charlatanism, which has been
>> resisted by a very few *real* engineers like John Dunlavy.
>> Incidentally, don't confuse the debunking of VSR bullshit as support
>> for DAL, it is a pure debunking of bullshit for its own sake.
>
>But, of course, Von Schweikert makes a very fine speaker, mais non? And
>nobody is knocking his speakers..... really. Even though they were not
>designed by a "real" engineer (ahem!). You really DO think we're stupid.

Well, you obviously haven't read many posts on rec.audio.opinion in
the last year or so. If you had, you'd know and understand Stewart's
style. You're the one that looks uninformed (I won't use the word
stupid because I'm not trying to be inflamatory).

[Marc Blank]

Arny Krüger wrote:

Yes, and I wholeheartedly agree with it.

- Marc

[Jeff Adams]

On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 05:51:19 -0600, anna...@aol.com wrote:

>> And where oh where are his promised refutations of what other engineers
>> and I have posted over the past several days? Have our recitations and
>> quotations from well-known teachings of physics and engineering proven too
>> much for him and his associates to bear?
>
>Probably more likely he’s giving priority to running his business. Don’t
>you have something better to do? (On the other hand, maybe business is a
>little slow these days, Hmmmmm?)

Your response is totally useless and doesn't answer the question.

>And, please tell me why must you disagree in such a disagreeable fashion?
>(Is anyone else besides me getting really really tired of this?) I have
>a mental image of some dotty old Scrooge slavering over his stack of
>loudspeaker EKGs, snarling whenever anything resembling a human being
>approaches.

And this sort of response is supposed to encourage open, friendly
dialogue? You accuse others of being rude, etc., but you seem to not
mind exhibiting the same behaviour that you say you dislike.

What is it about the way he disagrees that you find so disagreeable?
Please cite specific examples.

>> regard for the true interests of innocent audiophiles who can be so easily
>> beguiled and seduced by pseudo-scientific claims promising a new vista of
>> audio nirvana!
>
>Oh, thank you Great Master! We are undeserving of such benevolent
>protection. (And there’s that sexy talk again! Now you just watch it
>there, fella!)

Again, you complain about folks acting immature and making snide
remarks, etc., but, here you go again!

>> Here I refer to VSR product claims for spherical radiation patterns,
>> pulse-coherent performance, accurate time/phase alignment of drivers,
>> excellent impulse response, flat frequency response, etc. We have accurate
>> measurements of VSR loudspeakers to prove that they do not exhibit these
>> properties. By contrast, DAL publishes a full set of measurements, and
>> guarantees their accuracy, for all of its advertised performance claims.
>
>Is there an extra charge for framing?

What a smart answer - I guess since you have nothing technical to
contribute to this part of the discussion that you feel you have to
resort to the same sort of behaviour that you accuse the "anti VSR"
people of?

>> The accuracy of DAL’s products can be verified by the independent
>> measurements of our SC-I, SC-IV and SC-VI loudspeakers shown and discussed
>> in reviews published by Stereophile Magazine.
>
>Then you’re just going to LOVE the new October issue. It’s the one where
>John Atkinson finally ‘fesses up that maybe measurements don’t mean a
>thing, after all. Yes, that’s right. It’s right there in print in --
>let’s see, what did you yourself call it just a few days ago? Oh yes,
>here it is. You said: "perhaps the most reputable audiophile magazine
>presently being published." Your very words, oh Great One. Yes, John
>Atkinson admits to being confounded by a couple of loudspeakers that
>measured rotten .... and sounded great! Dear me, what heresy. No doubt
>you will devote a tirade or two to J.A.
>

>(P.S. These loudspeakers that measured rotten and sounded great were
>made by OTHER designers, not AVS. Hmmmm! The virus is spreading?)

And your point is? The DAL speakers reviewed and measured by
Stereophile measured great AND sounded great (have you read the
reviews).

This is certainly one of J.D.'s main points - a speaker can sound
good/pleasant/etc. and measure poorly. No surprise.

>> But engineering is a profession whose members
>> feel a duty to expose claims that are without merit and or simply false. It
>> is also a profession that zealously guards its teachings against the
>> introduction of error - and intellectual integrity is viewed as being
>> essential in the search for truth.

>
>Oh. You mean like they did in the Spanish Inquisition?

Gee, this is such a relevant diversion here. Why can't you just
address his point directly?

>> but to expose their design and performance claims
>> as being unprovable by means acceptable to the engineering and scientific
>> communities. My secondary purpose has been to develop a better awareness
>> among non-technical audiophiles of their need to become more critical when
>> examining questionable theories and performance claims - and to search for
>> those truths that can only be found in the teachings of true engineering
>> and true science.
>
>Yeah. You guys don’t exactly have a great track record when it comes to
>Truth and Science, such as burning at the stake those who insisted that
>the earth was round....

Again, would you care to answer the content of J.D's post rather than
rambling on with your "metaphor"?

>Indeed. I do heartily agree -- anyone who relies on "marketing
>mumbo-jumbo" OR GRAPHS, CHARTS AND ‘SPECS’ to make their decision
>deserves exactly what they get.

So let me try to get this straight - you think that someone who
expects their speakers (or we could substitute some other component
here) to measure well is stupid? Are you saying you would buy a CD
player that had a freq. response of +/- 6 dB? Or an amplifier that
couldn't pass a waveform from input to output with out distorting it's
shape? Please explain how good measurements, hence accuracy, are a bad
thing?

[Dana]

Jeff Adams wrote:

> Well, I did the same thing (by the way - tell us where you heard both
> speakers - some might be skeptical that you actually heard both
> speakers at the same store, i.e., were able to perform a valid
> comparison). And I preferred the SC-IV to the VR-4. So how do you
> explain that?

Jeff,

It isn't *THAT* surprising that you would prefer the $6K SC-IV
vs the $3.6K VR-4. I might too! But I've never had a chance to
listen to the SC-IVs, or for that matter, anything other than
a SC-I. No local Dunlavy dealers. :-(

Some people prefer $2500 Klipschorns to both of them. You can
never predict speaker preferences.

> So, I too, have two very god ears

If you have "god ears" then I'm not going to argue with you!

Dana

[Dana]

Jim Cate wrote:

> This is the rec.audio.opinion group alright, but most of us understand
> the need for at least a minimal degree of respect for the basic principles
> of logic and evidence. And most of your notes have been totally devoid of
> evidence or logic, consisting only of personal attacks and insults. With
> respect to substantive proplems with the VR-4's, a number of contributors to
> this board have mentioned the mid-bass suckout (extending from about 60 Hz
> to 250 Hz) and the fact that they didn't have the level of transient
> response that one would expect for a speaker costing $4,000 (which, though
> less than some high-end flagship models, is far, far higher than than the
> MEDIAN price level of high-fidelity speakers sold). Others have remarked
> that imaging and directivity is poorer in the VR line than in other
> comparably priced speakers, such as the Dunlavys.

Jim,

While I do not contest your right to not be impressed by VR-4 speakers,
after all selecting speakers is a very subjective process, I must take
issue with some of your statements above.

Mid-bass "suck-out": While I have read a few opinions (none of which
have been supported in any of several published reviews of the VR-4)
which expressed the perception of a "suckout" in the 60-80/100Hz region,
I think extending this to 250Hz is an exaggeration. I have measured
two VR-4 speakers using an audio generator as a source and while I did
find a slight dip around 55-70Hz, the speakers measured very flat from
75Hz up to 300Hz. I would agree that there is a lack of emphasis
across this region, but nothing even remotely resembling a "suckout."
A very narrow "suckout" of about 1/4th an octave, centered around 64Hz
I can agree with.

As to imaging, I must say that I find the imaging of my VR-4s to be
excellent. Perhaps their finest quality. Prior to purchasing the
VR-4s, I used a pair of Spica TC-60s in my primary system. The Spicas
are reknowned across the audio industry for their marvelous imaging.
Yet when I moved from the TC-60s to the VR-4s, expecting to gain
better dynamics, much better low bass output, better power-handling,
and high-frequency extension, I also expected slightly diminished
imaging. That was not the case. The VR-4s sonically disappeared
into my living room. It was eerie, there sat these large, black
monoliths, physically dominating the room. Yet when the music
started, I was unable to pinpoint their location with my eyes
closed. I was very pleasantly surprised.

I would also be quite hesitant to label it a "fact" that they are
deficient in transient response. Since none of the reviews have
mentioned this weakness, I'm not sure what you are basing this
"fact" upon, unless it is a few opinions (which in turn are far
less than unanimous). To label this a "fact" is inconsisent with
the rest of your post, which argued for the use of scientific
reasoning.

> For such reasons, I have been a little suspicious of the technical
> "breakthroughs" described in VSR's literature.

No argument here.

Dana

[Jeff Adams]

On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 10:03:12 -0600, anna...@aol.com wrote:

>[ON 9/19] In article <19970919171...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> awr...@aol.com (AWRigby) wrote:
>>
>> And now personal insults and demeaning characterizations? My, my.
>
>As a friend of mine would say, "The bit dog barks." Isn't pleasant, is
>it? I just thought it was time that Mr. D. got a taste of his own
>medicine.

And so, to show off your superior intellect and maturity, you respond
in kind by being insulting... Hmmm.... I'm impressed.

[Jim Cate]

My opinions are based on independent, original
>thoughts all of my very own devising. Sometimes debatable as to their
>efficacy or brilliance, to be sure, but my very own nonetheless, ergo, I
>stand behind them.
>

________________________________________

Ann,

This is the rec.audio.opinion group alright, but most of us understand
the need for at least a minimal degree of respect for the basic principles
of logic and evidence. And most of your notes have been totally devoid of
evidence or logic, consisting only of personal attacks and insults. With
respect to substantive proplems with the VR-4's, a number of contributors to
this board have mentioned the mid-bass suckout (extending from about 60 Hz
to 250 Hz) and the fact that they didn't have the level of transient
response that one would expect for a speaker costing $4,000 (which, though
less than some high-end flagship models, is far, far higher than than the
MEDIAN price level of high-fidelity speakers sold). Others have remarked
that imaging and directivity is poorer in the VR line than in other
comparably priced speakers, such as the Dunlavys.

Part of my job happens to entail reviewing and evaluating technical
disclosures from various scientists and engineers. Some of the writers are
Ph.d-level scientists or experienced, highly trained engineers. Others are
technicians, assistants, mechanics, etc. Over many years, I have noticed
some patterns which seem common in such technical reports. The reports from
top level engineers and scientists, contrary to what you might expect, are
normally written in clear, unambiguous language, using standard, well-known
scientific terminology. If there are questions, they also can explain their
developments with clarity. On the other hand, disclosures received from
lower level technicians, technical assistants, etc., are often unclear
or replete with obscure, psuedo-technical terminology. And when you ask them
to explain their developments, they can't do it, and they try to snow you
with more technobobble.

For such reasons, I have been a little suspicious of the technical

"breakthroughs" described in VSR's literature. -- If he really has come up
with revolutionary, inventive developments in audio, why does he choose to
describe them (or have them described) in a manner that certainly smells
like a snow job, and why doesn't he want to use standard technical
terminology understandable to those in the audio field? One explanation has
been that, well, since he has come up with new technology, he has to use
"new" terms to describe it. This is simply absurd. -- He hasn't come up with
new laws of physics, after all. Remember that every patent issued by the US
Patent and Trademark Office is for a "new" invention. Yet despite the fact
that they each describe a new or novel technical development, their
specification must be drafted in language which is clear and understandable
to one of average (not exceptional) skill in the particular technical art.
Thus, complex, significant scientific developments patented through the
years are all described in standard technical terms, or in terms which are
clearly defined using standard terminology. The bottom line is that Albert
COULD describe his products in understandable language if he wanted to.
Since he doesn't, it would appear that his promotional literature is
intended as a psuedo-scientific snow-job for impressing and perhaps
misleading non-technical potential purchasers.
Another difference I have noted over the years is that inovators who
really know what they are doing are generally quite humble and rational in
their evaluation of the importance of their discoveries. -- They know enough
about the technology and the literature to realize that their particular
innovation is but one of several approaches to the problem, and that they
are, after all, probably not the world's greatest inventor, and that they
expect to have competition from other products, etc. On the other hand,
those with marginal technical knowledge are often absolutely certain that
they have achieved a revolutionary breakthrough which is completely unique,
and moreover, they are often unshakable in their opinion that their
invention(s) can result in millions and millions of dollars in sales. --
People are going to beat a path to their door, and they are sitting on a
gold mine. Anyone who questions their wildly optomistic assessment is
looked upon as either dense or non-visionary, or worse, as a part of a
conspiracy to put down their invention for some personal reason. I wouldn't
put Albert in this category, but I do note that ASR seems not to have what I
would consider a normal and healthy degree of perspective in their
evaluations of their product line. - Its great to be an enthusiatic member
of your team, of course, and we recognize that we are talking about
promotional literature. But their pronouncements seem often to cross the
line from promotionalism to fanaticism, it seems to me.
These are just my opinions, of course, and as you note, this is the
RA-OPINION board. But I would be interested in knowing if anyone else in the
group has had similar observations.

Jim Cate

[Christian Artman]

> >
> >
> > This med student does not understand the difference btw CHEMICAL and
>
> > PHYSICAL properties.
> >
> >
> > JB

BJ,

Which area of chemistry would you like to discuss?

physical chemistry, biochemistry, organic chemistry, ....

By the way BJ, what do you do for a living besides
hang out on these news groups and give bad advice.

How many times can I count that you criticize others
yet do not offer anything worthwhile.
All you do is look to flame people... take your flames
and go away before I get out the flea powder.

[Jim Wald]

Jeff Adams <jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com> wrote in article
<342850ab...@news.mtv.gtegsc.com>...

> On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 05:51:19 -0600, anna...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> >> The accuracy of DAL’s products can be verified by the independent
> >> measurements of our SC-I, SC-IV and SC-VI loudspeakers shown and
discussed
> >> in reviews published by Stereophile Magazine.
> >
> >Then you’re just going to LOVE the new October issue. It’s the one
where
> >John Atkinson finally ‘fesses up that maybe measurements don’t mean a
> >thing, after all. Yes, that’s right. It’s right there in print in --
> >let’s see, what did you yourself call it just a few days ago? Oh yes,
> >here it is. You said: "perhaps the most reputable audiophile magazine
> >presently being published." Your very words, oh Great One. Yes, John
> >Atkinson admits to being confounded by a couple of loudspeakers that
> >measured rotten .... and sounded great! Dear me, what heresy. No doubt
> >you will devote a tirade or two to J.A.
> >
> >(P.S. These loudspeakers that measured rotten and sounded great were
> >made by OTHER designers, not AVS. Hmmmm! The virus is spreading?)
>
> And your point is? The DAL speakers reviewed and measured by
> Stereophile measured great AND sounded great (have you read the
> reviews).
>
> This is certainly one of J.D.'s main points - a speaker can sound
> good/pleasant/etc. and measure poorly. No surprise.
>

Sorry, Jeff, John Dunlavy's point IS that NO OTHER SPEAKER IN THE
WORLD could possibly sound good except for his, because only his
"measure properly". He is asking you to buy his speakers based solely
on the superiority of their measurements, and NOT ON HOW THEY
SOUND. He feels that you are making a mistake buy any speaker based
on how it sounds, no matter how good it sounds, because they don't
MEASURE as well as the Dunlavy's. If you haven't gotten that, then I
suggest that you RE-READ all SIX of John Dunlavy's posts (especially
the sixth on, dated Sept 18th). In fact, DAL's measurements are
DALs' ONLY claim of their sole superiority. Just think of all those idiots

who were stupid enough to buy Wilson X-1s, Egglestonworks Andras,
Audio Artisty Beethovens, etc, that ALSO don't measure well.
Using John Dunlavy's criteria, nothing except a first order crossover
speaker could EVER measure well. I wonder if I can pick up a spare
pair of X-1s for a couple of Thousand dollars, as all Wilson owners
see the "Dunlavy light" and dump those X-1s.

>
>
> >Indeed. I do heartily agree -- anyone who relies on "marketing
> >mumbo-jumbo" OR GRAPHS, CHARTS AND ‘SPECS’ to make their decision
> >deserves exactly what they get.
>
> So let me try to get this straight - you think that someone who
> expects their speakers (or we could substitute some other component
> here) to measure well is stupid? Are you saying you would buy a CD
> player that had a freq. response of +/- 6 dB? Or an amplifier that
> couldn't pass a waveform from input to output with out distorting it's
> shape? Please explain how good measurements, hence accuracy, are a bad
> thing?
>

You are completely right, Jeff, measurements DON'T tell all. Otherwise,
I should dump my Krell FPB 600 and my Mark Levinson 333 for the
Pioneer and Sansui amps of about 1980 with almost no MEASURABLE
distortion due to the parlor tricks of lots of negative feedback. Getting
good measurements is sometimes nothing more than sacrificing good
sound for the sake of measurements. In my opinion, Dunlavy has fallen
into this pitfall.

You can't seriously think that your VR-4's were the result of EITHER
"Bad Science" or dumb luck, could you? That, in my mind, would
be right up there with thinking that Microsoft got their market leadership
by accident. Albert Von Schweikert knows EXACTLY what he is doing
when he designs a speaker. Do you know of any BAD speakers that
he has designed (and yes, the VR-3 is inferior to the VR-4, but it is
HALF the money, and I would take a pair of VR-3s all day long over
a pair of SC-Is or SC-IIs)?

Jim

[Jason C. Cotton]

"Jim Wald" <ji...@microsoft.com> writes:

<snip>

>You are completely right, Jeff, measurements DON'T tell all. Otherwise,
>I should dump my Krell FPB 600 and my Mark Levinson 333 for the
>Pioneer and Sansui amps of about 1980 with almost no MEASURABLE
>distortion due to the parlor tricks of lots of negative feedback. Getting
>good measurements is sometimes nothing more than sacrificing good
>sound for the sake of measurements. In my opinion, Dunlavy has fallen
>into this pitfall.

Except that Dunlavy speakers sound great...

>You can't seriously think that your VR-4's were the result of EITHER
>"Bad Science" or dumb luck, could you? That, in my mind, would
>be right up there with thinking that Microsoft got their market leadership
>by accident. Albert Von Schweikert knows EXACTLY what he is doing
>when he designs a speaker. Do you know of any BAD speakers that
>he has designed (and yes, the VR-3 is inferior to the VR-4, but it is
>HALF the money, and I would take a pair of VR-3s all day long over
>a pair of SC-Is or SC-IIs)?

Microsoft's market leadership had everything to do with shrewd business
arrangements. MS-DOS (which put the company on the map) was SO
primitive technically that I hesitate to call it an "operating
system".

-Jason

[Jeff Adams]

On 21 Sep 1997 01:26:32 GMT, "Jim Wald" <ji...@microsoft.com> wrote:

>> This is certainly one of J.D.'s main points - a speaker can sound
>> good/pleasant/etc. and measure poorly. No surprise.
>>
>

>Sorry, Jeff, John Dunlavy's point IS that NO OTHER SPEAKER IN THE
>WORLD could possibly sound good except for his, because only his
>"measure properly".

Hmmm... Where did you get this idea? I'll review for you what JD has
posted. His whole point is that plenty of speakers sound nice, but are
not as accurate as his speakers. Here's my first quote from a JD post:

- And I believe there is a "place" for loudspeakers that exhibit a
- "lush, sweet, nice, pretty, engaging, etc." sound character. But
- such qualities should not be referred to as accurate.

-In this regard, it is much easier and far cheaper to design and
-manufacture products that sound sweet, nice, musical, rich, etc.
-than products capable of reproducing complex musical sounds with a
-level of accuracy that preclusdes critical listeners from
-discerning any audible difference between live musicians and their
-reproduced - sound during competently conducted blind comparisons
-within a suitable acoustical listening environment.

The above to me says he thinks there are plenty of speakers out there
that sound sweet, nice, musical, rich, etc. Doesn't sound like he
thinks they sound bad... Does it to you?

Apparently 2 or 3 of JD's posts have fallen off my news server - I
have them saved on my computer at work, and can go through them as
well to pull out quotes that say that he thinks there are plenty of
nice sounding speakers out there.

>He is asking you to buy his speakers based solely
>on the superiority of their measurements, and NOT ON HOW THEY
>SOUND.

This is totally false. Perhaps you haven't been reading his posts or
have read any of his literature? Or perhaps the interview with him in
Stereophile? You know, when you make these hilarious quotes that are
so totally obviously false, it just makes you look silly. Here's my
next quote from one of JD's posts:

-In summation, while DAL firmly believes that a complete set of
-competent measurements, properly interpreted, can be used to assess
-the "potential" a given loudspeaker possesses to achieve truly
-accurate reproduction of complex musical transients, inner detail,
-etc., the final test must always be a real-time comparison with live

-music.

In other words, how they sound.

>He feels that you are making a mistake buy any speaker based
>on how it sounds, no matter how good it sounds, because they don't
>MEASURE as well as the Dunlavy's.

Not at all what he is saying. He says go buy anything you want, your
subjective choice is your own, there are plenty of nice sounding
speakers out there, but his are the most accurate.

>If you haven't gotten that, then I
>suggest that you RE-READ all SIX of John Dunlavy's posts (especially
>the sixth on, dated Sept 18th). In fact, DAL's measurements are
>DALs' ONLY claim of their sole superiority.

I think you're the one that hasn't gotten the clear message from his
six posts.

And as far as the claim to superiority, let's see - two Stereophile
class A speakers and the SC-I in class C was it? Voted best budget
component of the year last year of the year before, was it? Use in a
number of famous recording and mastering studios... etc.

Nice try.

>> So let me try to get this straight - you think that someone who
>> expects their speakers (or we could substitute some other component
>> here) to measure well is stupid? Are you saying you would buy a CD
>> player that had a freq. response of +/- 6 dB? Or an amplifier that
>> couldn't pass a waveform from input to output with out distorting it's
>> shape? Please explain how good measurements, hence accuracy, are a bad
>> thing?
>>

>You are completely right, Jeff, measurements DON'T tell all. Otherwise,
>I should dump my Krell FPB 600 and my Mark Levinson 333 for the
>Pioneer and Sansui amps of about 1980 with almost no MEASURABLE
>distortion due to the parlor tricks of lots of negative feedback. Getting
>good measurements is sometimes nothing more than sacrificing good
>sound for the sake of measurements. In my opinion, Dunlavy has fallen
>into this pitfall.

I guess I'm missing something... I had heard the Levinson 333 didn't
measure very well, so, yes, I think that's a pretty large sum of money
for an amp that doesn't measure up. Don't know about the Krell. And
frankly, I've never claimed to be any kind of expert, so, I don't know
what measurements would reveal that the Pioneer with all the negative
feedback would sound worse than the Krell. I'll let someone who knows
better take that one up with you.

What was your point in the above? I ask again - would you
intentionally (maybe you did and that's what you are saying) buy an
amp that distorts the output waveform? I wouldn't.

>You can't seriously think that your VR-4's were the result of EITHER
>"Bad Science" or dumb luck, could you? That, in my mind, would
>be right up there with thinking that Microsoft got their market leadership
>by accident. Albert Von Schweikert knows EXACTLY what he is doing
>when he designs a speaker. Do you know of any BAD speakers that
>he has designed (and yes, the VR-3 is inferior to the VR-4, but it is
>HALF the money, and I would take a pair of VR-3s all day long over
>a pair of SC-Is or SC-IIs)?

I won't start this argument again. The VR-3 sounded very nice to me.
No, I'm not saying the VR-4 was dumb luck (did I say that somewhere?
No I didn't). I'm just repeating what John Dunlavy's points in his
posts were to Anna, who apparently wasn't grasping them.

So, you're way off base here with this post. Here is a final quote of
JD's:

-However, it is only right that everyone’s personal preferences be
-catered to - including those expressed in a recent posting by Anna
-Logg (who!). But products that are not truly accurate should not be
-promoted and advertised as such! And this is where I and others find

-fault with VSR and its advertising/marketing mumbo-jumbo.

His whole point is the nonsense marketing stuff, and the flat out
un-truths (his claim - although I think he's certainly proven the time
aligned one). If VSR would have not made such claims, there would have
never been a discussion.

[Santini Bandini]

In article <8747637...@dejanews.com>, anna...@aol.com says...

>Oh, I get it!

On a daily basis? From Dave?

> You're saying that anyone with an opinion (and I do
>believe this group is called "rec.audio.OPINION" ??) contrary to your own

>must have an ulterior motive.\

No, Annalog digital whatever, that is YOU are saying this! Your ulterior
motive is saving Von Schweikert from their owns stupiditys. But that is self
preservation, now, isn't it?

><sigh!> I say, look to your own conscience

Because they won't be finding one in your possession.

>before you concern yourself with mine. As for me, here is a News Flash:
>(BTW, this concept may be difficult for you to grasp; you may have to

>read it several times...) My opinions are based on independent, original

>thoughts all of my very own devising.

So was Charlie Manson

> Sometimes debatable as to their
>efficacy or brilliance,

This is pretty interest - you call yourself brilliant? Only if you are
glowing in the dark, whoever you are.

>to be sure, but my very own nonetheless, ergo, I
>stand behind them.

Nobody else will.\

>In situations such as this, then, I am reminded of what the momma whale
>said to the baby whale, "It's only when you're spouting that you get
>harpooned."

Then your mama was an idiot, Annawhale.

>> Additionally, your carping, whining, sarcastic, utterly non
>> substantive, childish notes are a disgrace to this board (and that's saying
>> a lot) as well as to VSR. If this type of petty, childish, defensive
>> attitude is typical of VS owners and/or supporters, I sure don't want to
>> join the group.
>
>Oh well, Jim, relax. You'll get over it. As for the rest, I can only
>say, gee, isn't the 'net an awesome place? Here, one can reach THOUSANDS
>at a time and so, deliver a "mass insult" with one click of the SEND
>button.

Nice comming back, Dave. NOT!
Santini

[Jeff Adams]

On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 20:12:00 -0400, Dana <dbu...@macc.wisc.edu>
wrote:

>Jeff Adams wrote:
>
>> Well, I did the same thing (by the way - tell us where you heard both
>> speakers - some might be skeptical that you actually heard both
>> speakers at the same store, i.e., were able to perform a valid
>> comparison). And I preferred the SC-IV to the VR-4. So how do you
>> explain that?

>It isn't *THAT* surprising that you would prefer the $6K SC-IV

>vs the $3.6K VR-4. I might too! But I've never had a chance to
>listen to the SC-IVs, or for that matter, anything other than
>a SC-I. No local Dunlavy dealers. :-(

Now Dana, be fair to me :-). I said exactly that in a different post
in this same thread within minutes of this post (I guess I should have
said it in this one too). Bummer about no local DAL dealer.

>Some people prefer $2500 Klipschorns to both of them. You can
>never predict speaker preferences.
>

>> So, I too, have two very god ears
>

>If you have "god ears" then I'm not going to argue with you!

Oooops!!!!! :-) Just for Anna's sake (in case she couldn't figure out
what I was really saying), the above sentence should have read,

"So, I too, have two very good ears"

Thanks for catching that!

And you know, (changing topics abrubtly), it's not a forgone
conclusion that I'm going to like the SC-IV's better than the VR-4's
in my room. I would (I'm guessing since I've not heard the SC-IV in my
home yet) guess that I'll miss the difuse, easy, big sound of the
VR-4's if I were to get rid of them. I agree with the people that say
(and I've never said otherwise) that it's about what you like
personally, not about the measurements. And DAL doesn't disagree with
that (I've quoted J.D. to prove that in a response to Jim Wald). If in
fact I end up liking a speaker (whether it's the VR-4 or the Martin
Logan ReQuest, another speaker I really like a lot) that doesn't
measure as well as a DAL better than the SC-IV, then that's the one
I'll stick with (but knowing it's not as accurate may bug me). Thiel
is a good example - lot's of people like their 3.6's. I've listened to
them for hours at the local dealer. I've read at least 4 glowing
reviews that say the speaker is absolutely terrific. But at my dealer,
I just can't get involved with the speaker. Just doesn't do anything
for me. And I'll bet they measure prettty darn good (time alignment
anyway).

Oh well, gotta go for now.

[Jim Wald]

Jeff Adams <jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com> wrote in article

<342d9535...@news.mtv.gtegsc.com>...

> On 21 Sep 1997 01:26:32 GMT, "Jim Wald" <ji...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >> This is certainly one of J.D.'s main points - a speaker can sound
> >> good/pleasant/etc. and measure poorly. No surprise.
> >>
> >
> >Sorry, Jeff, John Dunlavy's point IS that NO OTHER SPEAKER IN THE
> >WORLD could possibly sound good except for his, because only his
> >"measure properly".
>
> Hmmm... Where did you get this idea? I'll review for you what JD has
> posted. His whole point is that plenty of speakers sound nice, but are
> not as accurate as his speakers. Here's my first quote from a JD post:
>
> - And I believe there is a "place" for loudspeakers that exhibit a
> - "lush, sweet, nice, pretty, engaging, etc." sound character. But
> - such qualities should not be referred to as accurate.
>
> -In this regard, it is much easier and far cheaper to design and
> -manufacture products that sound sweet, nice, musical, rich, etc.
> -than products capable of reproducing complex musical sounds with a
> -level of accuracy that preclusdes critical listeners from
> -discerning any audible difference between live musicians and their

> -reproduced.

>
> The above to me says he thinks there are plenty of speakers out there
> that sound sweet, nice, musical, rich, etc. Doesn't sound like he
> thinks they sound bad... Does it to you?
>

Well, Yes, Jeff, it DOES sound like John Dunlavy is saying that VSR
speakers sound bad, BY IMPLYING that VSR speakers are inaccurate.
If you can not get this, and the "fact" that it is "easier and cheaper" to
build a "nice" speaker than an accurate speaker, from the two Dunlavy
quotes below (one of which YOU used), then you are not getting what
John Dunlavy is trying to convey:

- Here I refer to VSR product claims for "spherical radiation patterns,
- pulse-coherent performance, accurate time/phase alignment of drivers,
- excellent impulse response, flat frequency response, etc." We have
accurate
- measurements of VSR loudspeakers to prove that they do not exhibit these
- properties.

- In this regard, it is much easier and far cheaper to design and
- manufacture products that sound sweet, nice, musical, rich, etc. than
- products capable of reproducing complex musical sounds with a level of
- accuracy that preclusdes critical listeners from discerning any audible
- difference between live musicians and their reproduced sound during
- competently conducted blind comparisons within a suitable acoustical
- listening environment.

Yes, "products that sound sweet, nice, musical, rich, etc" is Dunlavy-speak

for "an inaccurate speaker". Dunlavy himself hasn't said whether he
considers Thiel and Vandersteen speakers to be accurate (and they are
just about the only other big-name speakers that even have a chance
at being accurate, as Dunlavy defines it, because they are the only
other big-name first order crossover speakers that I am aware of), or
if he indeed considers himself as the ONLY speaker designer capable
of building an "accurate" speaker. If you haven't figured this out, then
YOU have bought John Dunlavy's floobydust that ONLY HE can build an
accurate speaker, because he is setting the definition of what an
accurate speaker is.

He first defines that only a first order crossover can give an accurate
speaker, so that eliminates Wilson, Egglestonworks, Audio Artisty,
Von Schweikert, B & W, JMLab, and most everybody else, except
as I said, Thiel and Vandersteen. And I doubt that John Dunlavy
would admit to either Thiel or Vandersteen being anywhere as
"accurate" as his own speakers. So, he is indeed saying that
VSR, and probably EVERYBODY else is inaccurate and inferior.
AND THIS IS NOT FLOOBYDUST????

As I have said repeatedly, Dunlavy speakers sound great. But
I have a hard time swallowing John Dunlavy's Holier-Than-Thou
scientific measurement smoke and mirrors, with him basically
saying that only his speakers are accurate, and thus good.

What John Dunlavy won't tell you (but Sigfried Linkwist would)
is that the human ear CAN NOT distinguish the 0.5 ms delay
introduced by VSR's 4th order crossover, making the delay
irrelevant, EXCEPT in the DUNLAVY-speak measurements.

No, I'm not saying that Dunlavy's measurements don't mean
that Dunlavy's speakers are NOT accurate (they are). I am saying
that Dunlavy's measurements only show the whole picture on
FIRST ORDER CROSSOVER speakers.

And no one, EXCEPT JOHN DUNLAVY, has ever said that the
VR-4 did not have flat frequency response. This goes counter
to independent tests that have been done. Indeed, the VR-4
is NOTED for being full range and flat, so flat that YOU have
trouble with the lack of a mid-bass bump, that is common today.
You can get a non-flat mid-bass bump with WATT/Puppies,
but not with the VR-4, BECAUSE OF THE VR-4's FLAT
FREQUENCY RESPONSE. BTW, Albert could make the
VR-4 non-flat, and increase the mid-bass bump, simply by
raising the roll-off frequency of the crossover on the 2nd
woofer. This would solve your "problem", but then, indeed,
the VR-4s would NOT have the flat frequency response that
John Dunlavy ALONE claims now.

Likewise, ONLY John Dunlavy even implies that the VR-4s
are not "capable of reproducing complex musical sounds".
Again, indeed, the VR-4 are NOTED for disappearing and
giving a level of accuracy that "precludes critical listeners
from discerning any audible difference between live
musicians and their reproduced".

THIS Holier-Than-Thou attitude of John Dunlavy (and the
one-seat wide sweet spot of his speakers) are exactly
what has raised my ire in these threads.

>
> >He is asking you to buy his speakers based solely
> >on the superiority of their measurements, and NOT ON HOW THEY
> >SOUND.
>
>
>

> And as far as the claim to superiority, let's see - two Stereophile
> class A speakers and the SC-I in class C was it? Voted best budget
> component of the year last year of the year before, was it?

And what about those class A rating for all those higher order crossover
speakers, like the X-1s, which Dunlavy would also say are inaccurate?

Several years ago, Dunlavy was voted best sound at the Stereophile show.
The Wilson X-1s got it the last few years. Last year, Von Schweikert
was third. This year Von Schweikert was second. This year Dunlavy
was ninth. And this year Von Schweikert was mentioned by most of the
speaker reviews as one of the best sound of the show, and Dunlavy wasn't
mentioned at all. See a pattern here? I guess whenever Stereophile gets
around to reviewing Von Schweikert speakers, you can feel good about
owning them again.

My point is that measurements DO NOT SHOW EVERYTHING. I know
of no amps that have had a low THD distortion of those Japanese amps
of about 15 years ago, with their huge amounts of negative feedback.
This negative feedback provided amps that MEASURED extremely well,
but didn't sound very good. A new Krell FPB doesn't have as low a
distortion
MEASUREMENT, but it is generally acknowledged as the best sounding
solid state amp ever made. Likewise, the Dunlavy's, like those old
Japanese amps, measures best, but, I submit, the VSR sounds better,
especially in real world environments with more than one seating position,
and at louder levels.

I hope we can continue growing our amount of common ground.

Jim

[Stewart Pinkerton]

"Arny Krüger" <ar...@pop3.concentric.net> writes:

>
>
>Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.) <z...@netrunner.net> wrote in article
><5vuicl$4...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>>
>> Andy:
>> They will have her rehearsed enpough in about two weeks :)
>> Zip
>>
>
>While Anna Logg seems to represent that she's been around the NG circuit
>for a long time, searching DN's "Old Databse" for her name in either of the
>two forms she uses nets me a frowny face icon and the following message:
>"Your search did not match any articles at all."
>
>Your suggestions that her alias was contrived for some purpose in the
>recent past seems to pass some basic correctness tests... Hmmmm. Maybe
>she's one of Alan Derrida's old girl friends?

Or you could try Stuart McCreary...................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
A S P Consulting |
(44) 1509 880112 |

[Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)]

Johnny Y Boey wrote:

>
> Christian Artman wrote:
> >
> > Chuck Ross wrote:
> >

> > > In article <342409...@ix.netcom.com>, Johnny Y Boey
> > > <jb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Christian Artman wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Arny Krüger wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > George M. Middius <Glan...@jiffypop.erols.com> wrote in article
> > >
> > > > > > <34232ee7...@news.erols.com>...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 5. No goo-proofed gear of any kind.
> > > > > >

> > > > > > Please describe the physical properties of "goo".
> > > > >

> > > > > 82% Dilithium Hydroxyls, Magnesium, Chromium, and soy protein
> > > isolate.
> > > >
> > > >

> > > > This med student does not understand the difference btw CHEMICAL and
> > >
> > > > PHYSICAL properties.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > JB
> > >

> > > That's because he's still a student.
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Chuck Ross
> >
> > When someone has too much time on their hands they become
> > an annyoing flea. BJ go get a life.
>

> you have no wits, just low character.

>
> > I know more about chemistry than you do BJ.
>

> that;s what you assume.

Chuck:
JB is an expert in this department! He knows :)
Zip

--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc. 9535 Biscayne Blvd. Miami Shores FL 33138
Gallo Acoustics, Cabasse, N.E.A.R., Energy & Veritas, NHT, Dunlavy,
DH Cones, Camelot, Audible Illusions, Kinergetics,, Carver, Shakti,
Sound Dynamics, NSM, ESP, Rega, PASS Labs, Parasound, Solid Steel,
Chiro, Quicksilver, CODA, Straightwire, Magnum Dynalab, Lightstar,
RoomTunes, Chesky, Reference Recordings, Jadis, Zenith INTEQ,

[Johnny Y Boey]

Christian Artman wrote:
>
> Chuck Ross wrote:
>
> > In article <342409...@ix.netcom.com>, Johnny Y Boey
> > <jb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Christian Artman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Arny Krüger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > George M. Middius <Glan...@jiffypop.erols.com> wrote in article
> >
> > > > > <34232ee7...@news.erols.com>...
> > > > >
> > > > > > 5. No goo-proofed gear of any kind.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please describe the physical properties of "goo".
> > > >
> > > > 82% Dilithium Hydroxyls, Magnesium, Chromium, and soy protein
> > isolate.
> > >
> > >
> > > This med student does not understand the difference btw CHEMICAL and
> >
> > > PHYSICAL properties.
> > >
> > >
> > > JB
> >
> > That's because he's still a student.
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Chuck Ross
>
> When someone has too much time on their hands they become
> an annyoing flea. BJ go get a life.

you have no wits, just low character.

> I know more about chemistry than you do BJ.

that;s what you assume.

JB

[Johnny Y Boey]

Christian Artman wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > > This med student does not understand the difference btw CHEMICAL and
> >
> > > PHYSICAL properties.
> > >
> > >
> > > JB
>

> BJ,
>
> Which area of chemistry would you like to discuss?
>
> physical chemistry, biochemistry, organic chemistry, ....
>
> By the way BJ, what do you do for a living besides
> hang out on these news groups and give bad advice.

I have a bachelor of science in chemical engineering. Two years work
experience (unlike you), and expecting my PhD next year.

Unlike you chemist, we understand what you say but you have no idea what
we can do. We put your data to real-world applications. Nobody needs
chemist anymore. People talk about cutting costs, so chemical engineers
are all they need since we can do your job but you are clueless about
ours.

And don't tell me you're a doctor. You are not. You're just a med
student and we all know how many people flunk med school. If that
happens, see you at McDonald's.

>
> How many times can I count that you criticize others
> yet do not offer anything worthwhile.

not true.

> All you do is look to flame people... take your flames
> and go away before I get out the flea powder.

sore loser shows his low character.

JB

[Anthony Genovese]

In article <01bcc697$dc44f7c0$b6fd1eac@jimwa2>, "Jim Wald"
<ji...@microsoft.com> wrote:

<very big snip>

> He first defines that only a first order crossover can give an accurate
> speaker, so that eliminates Wilson, Egglestonworks, Audio Artisty,
> Von Schweikert, B & W, JMLab, and most everybody else, except
> as I said, Thiel and Vandersteen. And I doubt that John Dunlavy
> would admit to either Thiel or Vandersteen being anywhere as
> "accurate" as his own speakers. So, he is indeed saying that
> VSR, and probably EVERYBODY else is inaccurate and inferior.
> AND THIS IS NOT FLOOBYDUST????

Actually, Eggleston uses first order networks, as does Artemis, Coincident,
and Green Mountain Audio among others.

> As I have said repeatedly, Dunlavy speakers sound great. But
> I have a hard time swallowing John Dunlavy's Holier-Than-Thou
> scientific measurement smoke and mirrors, with him basically
> saying that only his speakers are accurate, and thus good.

Well, I have a hard time swallowing Albert VS's (or is that BS's) total
disregard for science in his White Paper.

> What John Dunlavy won't tell you (but Sigfried Linkwist would)
> is that the human ear CAN NOT distinguish the 0.5 ms delay
> introduced by VSR's 4th order crossover, making the delay
> irrelevant, EXCEPT in the DUNLAVY-speak measurements.

Although Mr. Linkwitz (unlike Mr. BS, it appears) has kept an open mind re
this, read the interview in the 4/96 Stereophile. To quote: "...some
people whom I respect seem to think this is something that could have
audible consequences, so I'm keeping an open mind about it..."

> No, I'm not saying that Dunlavy's measurements don't mean
> that Dunlavy's speakers are NOT accurate (they are). I am saying
> that Dunlavy's measurements only show the whole picture on
> FIRST ORDER CROSSOVER speakers.
>
> And no one, EXCEPT JOHN DUNLAVY, has ever said that the
> VR-4 did not have flat frequency response.

Where did he say this? Mr. Dunlavy's speakers are optimized in the "time
domain", Mr. BS's in the frequency domain. Two different philosphies. The
problem with Mr. BS is that he claims his speakers are accurate in the time
domain, which they clearly cannot be. Talk about Holier-Than-Thou! This
guy claims to have rewritten the laws of acoustics (playing a little
supreme being here???) which of course is ludicrous.

Keep listening!

Tony

[Arny Krüger]

Christian Artman <chr...@voicenet.com> wrote in article
<3423ECE5...@voicenet.com>...

> Arny Krüger wrote:
>
> > George M. Middius <Glan...@jiffypop.erols.com> wrote in article
> > <34232ee7...@news.erols.com>...
> >
> > > 5. No goo-proofed gear of any kind.
> >
> > Please describe the physical properties of "goo".
>
> 82% Dilithium Hydroxyls, Magnesium, Chromium, and soy protein isolate.
>

Which episode of Voyager provided that recipie?

[Jim Cate]

In article <342464...@macc.wisc.edu>,

Dana <dbu...@macc.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Jim,
>
>While I do not contest your right to not be impressed by VR-4 speakers,
>after all selecting speakers is a very subjective process, I must take
>issue with some of your statements above.
>
>Mid-bass "suck-out": While I have read a few opinions (none of which
>have been supported in any of several published reviews of the VR-4)
>which expressed the perception of a "suckout" in the 60-80/100Hz region,
>I think extending this to 250Hz is an exaggeration.

____________________________________
____________________________________

Danna,
As you will recall, several contributors to this board have also noticed
the deficiencies in the VR-4 mid-bass region. YOU YOURSELF have expressed
misgivings regarding their response in this region. -- Of course, this is
one reason they went to the Eton 9-inch woofers in the 4.5's, and everyone
who has heard the 4.5's reports that the bass is a great improvement over
the VR-4's. As I have noted previously, VSR uses multiple large bass and
mid-bass drivers in their better systems, and they correctly state that one
of the advantages of such driver arrays is an increase in efficiency,
dynamics, transients, etc. In their larger systems, they go to 12-inch, and
18-inch woofers (in the VR-10). My point in all this is that there is no
denying that the VR-4's do NOT provide full-range response AT REALISTIC
VOLUME levels throughout the full frequency spectrum. IF THEY DID, THERE
WOULD BE LITTLE OR NO REASON FOR THEM to build their VR-6, VR-8, and VR-10
models with substantially larger driver arrays. In my opinion, $4,000 is a
lot of money to pay for a speaker system that is really not a full-range,
high-fidelity speaker. You and others like to talk about their response to
20Hz. -- But as we have discussed several times, their output in the deep
bass region is also deficient in that it doesn't even approach realistic
levels, and therefore, they don't provide realistic, high-fidelity response
when reproducing low bass at high volume, as in a live performance. Again,
if the VR-4 was all you need, who in their right mind would pay the price
they are asking for the VR-8 and VR-10?
By building several larger systems (the VR-6, VR-8, VR-10) priced
substantially higher than the VR-4, the picture I seem to be getting is that
I should consider the VR-4 to be a mid-to-low-end system on the total scale,
and that such compromises should therefore be expected. It's often called a
good speaker "at its price range." - But my point is that they are priced
substantially higher than the median paid for stereo speakers, unless you
want to limit the field to esoteric, high-end systems sold in very limited
quantities. I personally don't think I should be required to pay $8,000 or
more for full-range high-fidelity speakers.
Jim

[Stewart Pinkerton]

anna...@aol.com writes:

>[ON 9/19] In article <19970919171...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> awr...@aol.com (AWRigby) wrote:
>>
>> And now personal insults and demeaning characterizations? My, my.
>
>As a friend of mine would say, "The bit dog barks." Isn't pleasant, is
>it? I just thought it was time that Mr. D. got a taste of his own
>medicine.

Yeah, sure.

>> And we have absolutely no problem with anyone's personal, subjective
>> opinion. However, objective accuracy is not the same thing as personal
>> opinion.
>
>So what's your point? High end audio is all about "subjective"
>preference. "specs" and "measurements" only attempt to explain the often
>inexplicable.

Ah yes, the old subjectivist battle cry - "we cannot understand
everything, therefore we should not attempt to explain anything". It's
a tired old routine, used by snake-oil salesmen for a long, long time.
It's a convenient excuse for the technically incompetent.

>>(A.L.): <<Oh. You mean like they did in the Spanish Inquisition?>>
>>
>> Actually, no. The Spanish Inquisition had more to do with religion than
>> it did with transducer design.
>
><Sigh...> Okay, class, come to order please. Open your dictionaries to
>the word "metaphor." Let's read aloud in unison: "met-a-phor" n. [Fr.
>metaphore < L. metaphora < Gr. metaphora < metapherein, to carry over
>< meta, over, (see META-) + pherein, to BEAR] a figure of speech
>containing an implied comparison, in which a word or phrase ordinarily
>and primarily used of one thing is applied to another.

However, a metaphor comparing a notorious organ of religious
persecution to someone who consistently debunks mysticism in high-end
audio is particularly inept, wouldn't you say? Incidentally, your
history is as shaky as your science. Galileo was convicted by the
Inquisition for his teaching of heliocentricity, the Church accepted
that the earth was round, but insisted that it was the centre of the
universe. Subjectivists of course 'know' that the Audio Note factory
is the centre of the universe...................

>> Doesn't the VR-10 retail for approximately $65,000.00?
>
>I thought we were discussing the VR4 speaker system. Who said anything
>about any other model(s)??

Everyone since the beginning of this debate has mentioned other
models, the entire range has been mentioned on several occasions. It
remains interesting that the extremely expensive VR-10 does not follow
the same methodology as the VR-4, on which VSRs reputation rests.

>> I look forward to eventually receiving
>> the information regarding your availability for a telephone discussion.
>> (Like I previously stated, even weekends are fine for me.)
>
>Now don't make me think you mean to imply to this forum that I avoided your request. You posted the above on the 19th. Following is a (censored) copy of my private post to you on the morning of the 18th:
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Date: 97-09-18 09:21:30 EDT
>From: Anna Logg
>To: AWRigby
>
>I have no problem if you wish to call. I thought I might have time
>today, but now have to leave. Through tomorrow, my schedule is very
>tight so I think it will be safest to say that I will make myself
>available for you Saturday a.m. here when there should be no other
>distractions. (732) xxx.xxxx.
>
>I look forward to talking with you.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you took the trouble to *read* Andrews post, he acknowledges that
he is prepared to work weekends, i.e. he would be happy to make
contact on Saturday, as per your post, once you made final
arrangements. Did you get in touch?

[Christian Artman]

<HTML>
Johnny Y Boey wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>

<P>I have a bachelor of science in chemical engineering. Two years work
<BR>experience (unlike you), and expecting my PhD next year.
<BR>&nbsp;</BLOCKQUOTE>
Well BJ.&nbsp; Since you want to compare,I have two degrees from 2 different
universities:

<P>Molecular Biology and Microbiology

<P>Neuroscience, Chemistry

<P>With 2 years work/research experience at PENN
<BR>and Children's Hospital.

<P>I chose to become a Dr. of Medicine because I was hurt and given
<BR>substandard care by a couple of doctors.
<BR>Being an older and wiser medical student, not to mention my board
<BR>scores were in the top 5%, I think it is you that will be working
<BR>in Radio Shack... you can give all the bad advice you like while working
<BR>there!
<BR>&nbsp;

<P>&nbsp;</HTML>

[Johnny Y Boey]

Christian Artman wrote:

>
> Johnny Y Boey wrote:
>
> I have a bachelor of science in chemical engineering. Two
> years work

> experience (unlike you), and expecting my PhD next year.
>
>

> Well BJ. Since you want to compare,I have two degrees from 2
> different universities:
>
> Molecular Biology and Microbiology
>
> Neuroscience, Chemistry

>
> With 2 years work/research experience at PENN

> and Children's Hospital.

>
> I chose to become a Dr. of Medicine because I was hurt and given

> substandard care by a couple of doctors.

> Being an older and wiser medical student, not to mention my board

> scores were in the top 5%, I think it is you that will be working

> in Radio Shack... you can give all the bad advice you like while
> working

> there!
>
>
>

Sorry, my job offers are abundant. Your scores were? meaning not
anymore? Too bad.

See you at Burger King.

JB

[Chuck Ross]

In article <34255F...@netrunner.net>, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo,
Inc.)" <z...@netrunner.net> wrote:

> Johnny Y Boey wrote:
> >
> > Christian Artman wrote:
> > >
> > > Chuck Ross wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <342409...@ix.netcom.com>, Johnny Y Boey
> > > > <jb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Christian Artman wrote:
> > > > > >

> > > > > > Arny Krüger wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > George M. Middius <Glan...@jiffypop.erols.com> wrote in article
> > > >
> > > > > > > <34232ee7...@news.erols.com>...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 5. No goo-proofed gear of any kind.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please describe the physical properties of "goo".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 82% Dilithium Hydroxyls, Magnesium, Chromium, and soy protein
> > > > isolate.
> > > > >
> > > > >

> > > > > This med student does not understand the difference btw CHEMICAL and
> > > >
> > > > > PHYSICAL properties.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > JB
> > > >

> > > > That's because he's still a student.
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Chuck Ross
> > >
> > > When someone has too much time on their hands they become
> > > an annyoing flea. BJ go get a life.
> >
> > you have no wits, just low character.
> >
> > > I know more about chemistry than you do BJ.
> >
> > that;s what you assume.
>

> Chuck:
> JB is an expert in this department! He knows :)
> Zip

Hey, I didn't say that....Christian Artman did! (you gotta count the ">"s!

_________________________________________________________________
Chuck Ross

[Johnny Y Boey]

Jim Cate wrote:
>
> My point in all this is that there is no
> denying that the VR-4's do NOT provide full-range response AT REALISTIC
> VOLUME levels throughout the full frequency spectrum. IF THEY DID, THERE
> WOULD BE LITTLE OR NO REASON FOR THEM to build their VR-6, VR-8, and VR-10
> models with substantially larger driver arrays. In my opinion, $4,000 is a
> lot of money to pay for a speaker system that is really not a full-range,
> high-fidelity speaker.

So which pair of speakers at 4k will give you 'realistic' full-range
reasponse? There is NONE!! and the VR4 is as close as it gets.

JB

[Arny Krüger]

Marc Blank <mbl...@eidetic.com> wrote in article
<3423F787...@eidetic.com>...

Then, only in your mind - certainly not what you write here.

[Arny Krüger]

anna...@aol.com wrote in article <8747884...@dejanews.com>...
>
> Also, stop looking for any "net history" on me. I have only had my
> computer since the beginning of the year, and only really active on the
> 'net since late spring.....

The fact is that you have posted on no NG on Usenet that is monitored by DN
under the alias you are currently using prior to about a week ago.

Do you play alias of the week? ;-)

If you are so afraid of what you write that you won't put your real name on
it why should anyone grant it any credibility? ;-(

> I am not sure what it speaks "louder" about. Would you please enlighten
> me? I see a lot of nickname screen names just perusing down the list of
> posts in rec.audio.opinion, not to mention all across the 'net. Why
> single me out?

Actually, if you studied the history of RAO, as listed in DejaNews, you
would find that many folks who post here under aliases have been
challenged. The best intelligence I have about common screen names here is:

Mark Davenport (Swanlee)?
Armand Di Eleonora? (Armand) ?
Brian Leupp (HEAudio)?
Keith Ryan (W0lph)?
James Sanders (Sandman/ etc.)?

> I am known locally by people I come into personal, face-to-face contact
> with, including the members of the NJAS.

Whatever that is. This is just irrelevant posturing.

> But anyway, how would knowing the name that appears on my birth
> certificate tell any more about me or, for that matter, provide any
> further information regarding whether I was affiliated in any way with
> any high-end manufacturer, or had any other industry connections, direct
> or indirect? I mean, what's the point?

If you are so afraid of what you post that you won't put your legal name on
what you write why should anybody give it any credibilty?

[Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)]

Jim Cate wrote:
>
> In article <342594...@ix.netcom.com>,

> Johnny Y Boey <jb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>

> >Jim Cate wrote:
> >>
> >> My point in all this is that there is no
> >> denying that the VR-4's do NOT provide full-range response AT REALISTIC
> >> VOLUME levels throughout the full frequency spectrum. IF THEY DID, THERE
> >> WOULD BE LITTLE OR NO REASON FOR THEM to build their VR-6, VR-8, and VR

> 10
> >> models with substantially larger driver arrays. In my opinion, $4,000 is
> a
> >> lot of money to pay for a speaker system that is really not a full-range,
> >> high-fidelity speaker.
> >So which pair of speakers at 4k will give you 'realistic' full-range
> >reasponse? There is NONE!! and the VR4 is as close as it gets.
> >JB

Johnny:
The NHT 3.3's are full range. They go deeper, play louder, with more
authority - for $4300. This doesn't make them necessarily better, but
it does refute your statement :)

[Arny Krüger]

Jeff Adams <jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com> wrote in article
<342d9535...@news.mtv.gtegsc.com>...

Jason Cotton dogmatically postured:

> >You are completely right, Jeff, measurements DON'T tell all. Otherwise,

> >I should dump my Krell FPB 600 and my Mark Levinson 333 for the
> >Pioneer and Sansui amps of about 1980 with almost no MEASURABLE
> >distortion due to the parlor tricks of lots of negative feedback.
Getting
> >good measurements is sometimes nothing more than sacrificing good
> >sound for the sake of measurements. In my opinion, Dunlavy has fallen
> >into this pitfall.
>
> I guess I'm missing something... I had heard the Levinson 333 didn't
> measure very well, so, yes, I think that's a pretty large sum of money
> for an amp that doesn't measure up. Don't know about the Krell. And
> frankly, I've never claimed to be any kind of expert, so, I don't know
> what measurements would reveal that the Pioneer with all the negative
> feedback would sound worse than the Krell. I'll let someone who knows
> better take that one up with you.
>

You must remember that at Cotton's level of non-understanding of amplifier
technology "Negative Feedback" is obviously a "Negative" ;-). Form what he
says, I think he buys amps by the pound, not the sound.

[Dana]

Jim Cate wrote:
>
> In article <34258D...@macc.wisc.edu>,
> Dana <dbu...@macc.wisc.edu> wrote:

> >I disagree. While I have never claimed they are flat to 20Hz, I have
> >measured them using both an audio generator and CD test tones and found
> >the response in my room flat down to around 27-28Hz. With very
> >significant output down to 22-23Hz. And I've been able to drive them
> >to very high volume levels. For example, using the Enya album "Shepard
> >Moons," which contains a fair amount of sub-30Hz content, I've
> >driven the speakers to very high volume levels with no apparent
> >distortion. Likewise when using the Sheffield Drum Track CD and using
> >both SPL meters and LED power meters attached to the amp, I pushed
> >my amp all the way to clipping (registering over 200 watts on the
> >power meters) and with the SPL fast peak meter measuring 109dB
> >with no signal breakup. And I've done this on three occasions
> >with guests present. All were amazed by the VR-4s.
> >
> >I was able to produce some cone breakup when I turned up the
> >1812 Overture too loud and the cannons fired. But I don't know
> >if this was due to the speaker or the amp clipping. I saw my
> >amp's clipping indicators light up at the same time, and I wasn't
> >about to repeat the experiment.

> Dana,
> If all this is true, why are people willing to pay over three times the
> price of the VR-4's for the VR-6's, six times the price of the VR-4's for
> the VR-8's, and over 15 times as much for the VR-10's??? It just doesn't
> make sense, Dana. If the VR-4 provides all the response any rational person
> needs in the average sized listening room, as you seem to imply, then the
> purchase of these "better" speakers would be complete folly, equivalent to
> throwing thousands of dollars down a rathole, not to mention all the
> disadvantages of their huge cabinets, etc.

My reactions:

1) I think many, many listeners would be quite satisfied with the
bass response of the VR-4. I know I am, I know of many other people
on the net who are.

2) However if one is willing to part with $6K or more for speakers
then you can get even better bass response, while maintaining
a very high quality sound across the rest of the audible spectrum.

While I have measured the VR-4s -3dB point in my room at around
27-28Hz (I believe Steve Zipser has stated that he found the -3dB
in his listening room down around 23-24Hz), this doesn't mean that
the sound is as dynamic and having as much impact as the sound of
a much higher priced speaker that uses much larger woofers and
moves a great deal more air.

While I have not noticed much cone breakup, even at relatively
high sound levels, this doesn't mean that the distortion coming
from the VR-4 is as low as that from an excellent $12,000 speaker.

In terms of sheer bass output, I've stated on a few occasions that
I think the NHT 3.3 is more robust than the VR-4. Also, I've
acknowledged there is a minor dip in and around the 60-70Hz
region that does take a bit of energy out on several instruments.
I consider this dip to be a minor issue, much overscored by the
positive attributes of the VR-4.

I'm sure my impression is influenced by the fact that my listening
preferences are not strongly oriented towards strong bass output.
Prior to using the VR-4s, I was using a pair of Spica TC-60s, without
a subwoofer. I measured the Spica's -3dB point at 46Hz, with
significant output down to 32Hz. I found this quite adequate.
The low end output from the VR-4s blow the Spicas away.

Plus, I don't listen to a lot of music that has significant bass
output. I like Bob Dylan, Celtic stuff, Diana Krall, Holly Cole
(which has some very nice acoustic bass), Roy Orbison, Emmy Lou
Harris, Blue Rodeo, and the ilk. I have a decent collection of
classical, but of late have favored string quartets, cello, and
piano. There is bass present on all of this, but most of it puts
more demand upon clarity, not chest-thumping dynamics. I've loved
what the VR-4s do with this material. Sometimes I do crank this
stuff up to fairly loud levels, and in a room of over 500sq ft
and the VR-4s respond without strain.

Now if I really loved a strong bass line played at loud levels,
perhaps I would like other speakers better. I don't know because
that's not me. I know other people add subwoofers to their VR-4s,
and I can't imagine needing to do that. Heck, I know one guy on
this group used a subwoofer with his NHT 3.3s and I was shocked.

So it comes down to personal perferences, like it always does
with speakers. However I took, and still take, exception to your
claims that the VR-4s are not full-range and are a poor value
in their price range for someone wanting a full-range speaker.
When I can put on an Enya cut and hear the sub-30Hz rumbling
throughout the house, while the midrange & highs continue to
sparkle, then that's a full-range speaker. Will it knock you
down on a bass drum like a $15,000 speaker with an 18" high-
quality built-in subwoofer, I seriously doubt it. But it is
unrealistic to think it should. At $3500, you've still got
tradeoffs in a speaker.

You might want to make an effort to audition the Waveform Mach
17 speakers at $7K a pair. Both Stereophile and The Audio
Critic raved about them. Unfortunately they require 6 channels
of amplification (tri-amped), however from the reviews they
sound like a bargain at that price. But I believe they are
only sold via mail-order.

Dana

[Dana]

Jim Cate wrote:
>
> In article <342464...@macc.wisc.edu>,
> Dana <dbu...@macc.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >Jim,
> >
> >While I do not contest your right to not be impressed by VR-4 speakers,
> >after all selecting speakers is a very subjective process, I must take
> >issue with some of your statements above.
> >
> >Mid-bass "suck-out": While I have read a few opinions (none of which
> >have been supported in any of several published reviews of the VR-4)
> >which expressed the perception of a "suckout" in the 60-80/100Hz region,
> >I think extending this to 250Hz is an exaggeration.

> As you will recall, several contributors to this board have also noticed

> the deficiencies in the VR-4 mid-bass region. YOU YOURSELF have expressed
> misgivings regarding their response in this region.

Yes, in the 50/55 to 70/75Hz region. NOT all the way up to the 300Hz
point that you cited in your last message. That was the point I was
contesting.

I even acknowledged the minor bass deficiency I found centered around
64Hz in my last post.

And I believe the overall sound of the bass, including low-frequency
extension, "punch", and definition, of the VR-4 is very, very good for
a $3500 speaker. Although I also acknowledge that if I was looking
for a slightly emphasized bass, that is common to many speakers -
including several well-regarded ones, then I would not be as happy
with the VR-4.

Is it the ultimate in bass playback? No. Thus the reason for the
upgrades found in the VR-4.5. Is it the strongest point of the
VR-4 design? Again I would say no, although the low-end extension
is certainly one of the strongest points - especially in this
price range. IMHO, the strength is the excellent clarity and
imaging through the midrange and treble - combining with a very
solid low end to produce a most pleasing sound.

> My point in all this is that there is no
> denying that the VR-4's do NOT provide full-range response AT REALISTIC
> VOLUME levels throughout the full frequency spectrum. IF THEY DID, THERE

> WOULD BE LITTLE OR NO REASON FOR THEM to build their VR-6, VR-8, and VR-10

> models with substantially larger driver arrays.

Name a $3500 speaker that does do this. In all honesty, on this
particular point I know of no other speaker in this price range
that produces a fuller-range response than the VR-4.

> In my opinion, $4,000 is a
> lot of money to pay for a speaker system that is really not a full-range,
> high-fidelity speaker.

Ha! It most certainly is a full-range speaker. I can't believe you
are claiming otherwise.

> You and others like to talk about their response to
> 20Hz. -- But as we have discussed several times, their output in the deep
> bass region is also deficient in that it doesn't even approach realistic
> levels

I disagree. While I have never claimed they are flat to 20Hz, I have

measured them using both an audio generator and CD test tones and found
the response in my room flat down to around 27-28Hz. With very
significant output down to 22-23Hz. And I've been able to drive them
to very high volume levels. For example, using the Enya album "Shepard
Moons," which contains a fair amount of sub-30Hz content, I've
driven the speakers to very high volume levels with no apparent
distortion. Likewise when using the Sheffield Drum Track CD and using
both SPL meters and LED power meters attached to the amp, I pushed
my amp all the way to clipping (registering over 200 watts on the
power meters) and with the SPL fast peak meter measuring 109dB
with no signal breakup. And I've done this on three occasions
with guests present. All were amazed by the VR-4s.

I was able to produce some cone breakup when I turned up the
1812 Overture too loud and the cannons fired. But I don't know
if this was due to the speaker or the amp clipping. I saw my
amp's clipping indicators light up at the same time, and I wasn't
about to repeat the experiment.

This may not be sufficient to meet your needs, but it does meet
mine. And I consider it a heckeva achievement for $3500 speakers.

All of that said, if someone is really into bass output and could
spend a few hundred more, then I suggest they audition the NHT 3.3.
Overall, I prefer the VR-4 to the 3.3, although I have a lot of
respect for the NHT & could live with it easily, but the total
bass output of the 3.3 is "fuller" than the VR-4. However to my
tastes, the 3.3 is a bit too full on the low-end.

Dana

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg dissembles again.

>> > > 5. No goo-proofed gear of any kind.

>> > Please describe the physical properties of "goo".

>> 82% Dilithium Hydroxyls, Magnesium, Chromium, and soy protein isolate.

>Which episode of Voyager provided that recipie?

You will not fool us with your nonchalant but flagrantly
false disingenuousness, cyborg. We humans know that the
"Voyager" TV show is set in our future. When your hive-ship
crashed here, you were forced to reckon with an earlier
version of humanity than that which you had known.
(Relativity resists assimilation.)

George M. Middius
remove "jiffy" to reply

*************** Anti-Assimilation Bulletin #13 ***************
Three ways to tell if your susceptibility is increasing:

1. You feel strong urges to measure your every sensation.
2. You can no longer stomach chess, financial analyses, mathematics,
or any other discipline requiring logic.
3. Any mention of enjoying music makes you feel like going into the
kitchen and sharpening some knives.

***************** Provided by the Resistance *****************

[Armand]

In article <01bcc680$68ae53e0$1e71...@crc3.concentric.net>, ar...@pop3.concentric.net says...

>Actually, if you studied the history of RAO, as listed in DejaNews, you
>would find that many folks who post here under aliases have been
>challenged. The best intelligence I have about common screen names here is:
>
>
>Mark Davenport (Swanlee)?
>Armand Di Eleonora? (Armand) ?

ROTFL! Hell of an alias eh' Arn? I'm a frigin' genius. ;}

Armand

[Jim Wald]

Anthony Genovese <tony...@tiac.net> wrote in article
<tonygeno-ya0240800...@news.tiac.net>...

> In article <01bcc697$dc44f7c0$b6fd1eac@jimwa2>, "Jim Wald"
> <ji...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> <very big snip>
>

> > He first defines that only a first order crossover can give an accurate

> > speaker, so that eliminates Wilson, Egglestonworks, Audio Artisty,
> > Von Schweikert, B & W, JMLab, and most everybody else, except
> > as I said, Thiel and Vandersteen. And I doubt that John Dunlavy
> > would admit to either Thiel or Vandersteen being anywhere as
> > "accurate" as his own speakers. So, he is indeed saying that
> > VSR, and probably EVERYBODY else is inaccurate and inferior.
> > AND THIS IS NOT FLOOBYDUST????
>

> Actually, Eggleston uses first order networks, as does Artemis,
Coincident,
> and Green Mountain Audio among others.

I stand corrected as to the Egglestonworks (I had forgotten that they
were first order crossovers). I am not familiar with Artemis, Coincident,
nor Green Mountain Audio, but I did specify "only other big-name
speakers" in a part that you snipped, and Artemis, Coincident, and
Green Mountain Audio and not really "big-name speakers". Of course,
the Egglestonworks, in spite of being first order, was just found NOT
TO MEASURE very well, yet, specifically in spite of this, John Atkinson
said he liked the Egglestonworks, questioning the importance of his
own measurements, furthering my point.

>
> > As I have said repeatedly, Dunlavy speakers sound great. But
> > I have a hard time swallowing John Dunlavy's Holier-Than-Thou
> > scientific measurement smoke and mirrors, with him basically
> > saying that only his speakers are accurate, and thus good.
>

> Well, I have a hard time swallowing Albert VS's ...total

> disregard for science in his White Paper.

I think that, if nothing else, this whole thing will probably prompt
Albert to re-write his white paper when time allows.

>
> > What John Dunlavy won't tell you (but Sigfried Linkwist would)
> > is that the human ear CAN NOT distinguish the 0.5 ms delay
> > introduced by VSR's 4th order crossover, making the delay
> > irrelevant, EXCEPT in the DUNLAVY-speak measurements.
>

> Although Mr. Linkwitz (unlike Mr. VS, it appears) has kept an open

> mind re this, read the interview in the 4/96 Stereophile. To quote:
> "...some people whom I respect seem to think this is something
> that could have audible consequences, so I'm keeping an open
> mind about it..."
>

And if you continue with that quote, Mr. Linkwitz said: "I must say
that I have not heard an example of a speaker design that conclusively
demonstrates the benefits of a linear-phase system. (i.e. first order
crossover speaker). "You could question, for example, whether the
extra stress on drivers and resulting distortions produced by a
first-order system are not more audibly significant than the subtle
improvements potentially created by its linear phase effects."

He is NOT saying that the human ear CAN distinguish a 0.5 ms delay
caused by a fourth order crossover. And I think that Mr. Linkwist
would (and does) definitely agree that there are very audible
consequences of a fourth order crossover over a first order crossover
in the areas of superior vertical off axis response (and measurements),
superior power handling and increased clarity due to lack of
excessive driver interference.

> > No, I'm not saying that Dunlavy's measurements don't mean
> > that Dunlavy's speakers are NOT accurate (they are). I am saying
> > that Dunlavy's measurements only show the whole picture on
> > FIRST ORDER CROSSOVER speakers.
> >
> > And no one, EXCEPT JOHN DUNLAVY, has ever said that the
> > VR-4 did not have flat frequency response.
>

> Where did he say this?

How about in the John Dunlavy quote that you snipped????

- Here I refer to VSR product claims for "spherical radiation patterns,
- pulse-coherent performance, accurate time/phase alignment of drivers,

- excellent impulse response, FLAT FREQUENCY RESPONSE, etc."
- We have accurate measurements of VSR loudspeakers to prove
- that they do not exhibit these properties.

> Mr. Dunlavy's speakers are optimized in the "time

> domain", Mr. VS's in the frequency domain. Two different philosphies.
The
> problem with Mr. VS is that he claims his speakers are accurate in the

time
> domain, which they clearly cannot be. Talk about Holier-Than-Thou! This
> guy claims to have rewritten the laws of acoustics (playing a little
> supreme being here???) which of course is ludicrous.

If you asked Albert about this, as I have, he WILL readily tell you
that there is a 0.5 ms delay inherent in a fourth order crossover,
which he compensates for. Again, the HUMAN EAR can not
distinguish a 0.5 ms delay. Albert has told me that he regrets not
fully explaining the 0.5 ms delay in forth order crossovers, and he
will, when he has time to re-write the white paper, but he did not
see the white paper as a scientific presentation, but only as an
easy-to-grasp explanation to the lay person interested in the VSR
speakers. Believe me, Albert is FULLY versed in speaker design
science (he is fascinating to listen to), but the "white paper" was
NOT written as a peer-review document. It was a LAY EXPLANATION.
He has admitted this on this form. GET OVER IT. He DOES know
his stuff, and if you want to telephone him, I'm sure you will quickly
understand this.

Jim

>
> Keep listening!
>
> Tony
>

[Jim Cate]

In article <34258D...@macc.wisc.edu>,
Dana <dbu...@macc.wisc.edu> wrote:

>
>> As you will recall, several contributors to this board have also
noticed>> the deficiencies in the VR-4 mid-bass region. YOU YOURSELF have
expressed misgivings regarding their response in this region.
>
>Yes, in the 50/55 to 70/75Hz region. NOT all the way up to the 300Hz
>point that you cited in your last message. That was the point I was
>contesting.
>
>I even acknowledged the minor bass deficiency I found centered around
>64Hz in my last post.>And I believe the overall sound of the bass,
including low-frequency>extension, "punch", and definition, of the VR-4 is
very, very good for >a $3500 speaker. Although I also acknowledge that if I
was looking>for a slightly emphasized bass, that is common to many speakers
->including several well-regarded ones, then I would not be as happy
>with the VR-4.

_________________-
Dana, I personally am NOT looking for "emphasized" bass. But I do want good,
accurate, tight bass is not DEMPHASIZED and that goes down to 25Hz with
little distortion AT REALISTIC VOLUME LEVELS. >(Sort of like the bass
produced by the VR-8's and VR-10's, from reports I read.)

>Is it the ultimate in bass playback? No. Thus the reason for the
>upgrades found in the VR-4.5. Is it the strongest point of the
>VR-4 design? Again I would say no, although the low-end extension
>is certainly one of the strongest points - especially in this
>price range. IMHO, the strength is the excellent clarity and
>imaging through the midrange and treble - combining with a very
>solid low end to produce a most pleasing sound.
>
>> My point in all this is that there is no
>> denying that the VR-4's do NOT provide full-range response AT REALISTIC
>> VOLUME levels throughout the full frequency spectrum. IF THEY DID, THERE
>> WOULD BE LITTLE OR NO REASON FOR THEM to build their VR-6, VR-8, and VR

10 models with substantially larger driver arrays.

>>
>Ha! It most certainly is a full-range speaker. I can't believe you
>are claiming otherwise.

________-

That's not what I said, Dana. What I said was that it was not a full-range
high-fidelity speaker capable of accurate response at realistic volume
levels throughout the audio spectrum.

>
>> You and others like to talk about their response to
>> 20Hz. -- But as we have discussed several times, their output in the deep
>> bass region is also deficient in that it doesn't even approach realistic
>> levels
>
>I disagree. While I have never claimed they are flat to 20Hz, I have
>measured them using both an audio generator and CD test tones and found
>the response in my room flat down to around 27-28Hz. With very
>significant output down to 22-23Hz. And I've been able to drive them
>to very high volume levels. For example, using the Enya album "Shepard
>Moons," which contains a fair amount of sub-30Hz content, I've
>driven the speakers to very high volume levels with no apparent
>distortion. Likewise when using the Sheffield Drum Track CD and using
>both SPL meters and LED power meters attached to the amp, I pushed
>my amp all the way to clipping (registering over 200 watts on the
>power meters) and with the SPL fast peak meter measuring 109dB
>with no signal breakup. And I've done this on three occasions
>with guests present. All were amazed by the VR-4s.
>
>I was able to produce some cone breakup when I turned up the
>1812 Overture too loud and the cannons fired. But I don't know
>if this was due to the speaker or the amp clipping. I saw my
>amp's clipping indicators light up at the same time, and I wasn't
>about to repeat the experiment.

_____________________________________--

Dana,
If all this is true, why are people willing to pay over three times the
price of the VR-4's for the VR-6's, six times the price of the VR-4's for
the VR-8's, and over 15 times as much for the VR-10's??? It just doesn't
make sense, Dana. If the VR-4 provides all the response any rational person
needs in the average sized listening room, as you seem to imply, then the
purchase of these "better" speakers would be complete folly, equivalent to
throwing thousands of dollars down a rathole, not to mention all the
disadvantages of their huge cabinets, etc.

Jim

[Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)]

Jim Wald wrote:

> Well, if the VR-4's go to 20 Hz, if they go above 110db (I have measured
> mine at 113 db), EXACTLY WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR?

Jim:
If you attempt to play the VR-4's or VR-4.5's at 110dB at 20hz, you will
bottom the bass drivers bigtime, and in all liklihood, you will burn out
the voice coils in a puff of smoke!
Lets keep it realistic. They are nice speakers from Earth, they are not
from Krypton!
Zip

[Jim Wald]

Jim Cate <jim...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<603t27$7...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...

> In article <342464...@macc.wisc.edu>,
> Dana <dbu...@macc.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >Jim,
> >
> >While I do not contest your right to not be impressed by VR-4 speakers,
> >after all selecting speakers is a very subjective process, I must take
> >issue with some of your statements above.
> >
> >Mid-bass "suck-out": While I have read a few opinions (none of which
> >have been supported in any of several published reviews of the VR-4)

> ____________________________________
> ____________________________________
>
> Danna,

> As you will recall, several contributors to this board have also
noticed
> the deficiencies in the VR-4 mid-bass region. YOU YOURSELF have expressed

> misgivings regarding their response in this region. -- Of course, this is
> one reason they went to the Eton 9-inch woofers in the 4.5's, and
everyone
> who has heard the 4.5's reports that the bass is a great improvement over
> the VR-4's. As I have noted previously, VSR uses multiple large bass and
> mid-bass drivers in their better systems, and they correctly state that
one
> of the advantages of such driver arrays is an increase in efficiency,
> dynamics, transients, etc. In their larger systems, they go to 12-inch,
and

> 18-inch woofers (in the VR-10). My point in all this is that there is no

> denying that the VR-4's do NOT provide full-range response AT REALISTIC
> VOLUME levels throughout the full frequency spectrum. IF THEY DID, THERE
> WOULD BE LITTLE OR NO REASON FOR THEM to build their VR-6, VR-8, and

VR-10
> models with substantially larger driver arrays. In my opinion, $4,000 is

a
> lot of money to pay for a speaker system that is really not a full-range,

> high-fidelity speaker. You and others like to talk about their response

to
> 20Hz. -- But as we have discussed several times, their output in the deep
> bass region is also deficient in that it doesn't even approach realistic

> levels, and therefore, they don't provide realistic, high-fidelity
response
> when reproducing low bass at high volume, as in a live performance.
Again,
> if the VR-4 was all you need, who in their right mind would pay the price
> they are asking for the VR-8 and VR-10?
> By building several larger systems (the VR-6, VR-8, VR-10) priced
> substantially higher than the VR-4, the picture I seem to be getting is
that
> I should consider the VR-4 to be a mid-to-low-end system on the total
scale,
> and that such compromises should therefore be expected. It's often called
a
> good speaker "at its price range." - But my point is that they are priced
> substantially higher than the median paid for stereo speakers, unless you
> want to limit the field to esoteric, high-end systems sold in very
limited
> quantities. I personally don't think I should be required to pay $8,000
or
> more for full-range high-fidelity speakers.
> Jim
>

Jim, according to Stereophile's recommended list, the CHEAPEST
FULL-RANGE class A loudspeaker are the $16,995 Meridian DSP6000.
So, maybe $8,000 for "full-range high-fidelity speakers" might be
a little light.

Yes, the $5,995 VR-4.5s have better woofers than the much cheaper
VR-4s. Surprise, Surprise, you pay more, you get more. Wouldn't
you expect to??? Maybe in your world you can get VR-8s for $1,800
and Dunlavy SC-VIs for $2,600 and Krell FPB 600s for $1,200, but in
the real world you can not. At the Wilson store, the $12,000 WITT and
the $17,000 WATT/Puppy are the LOW END speakers, when you
consider the $75,000 X-1s and the $150,000 WAMMs. And I think that
Wilson sells more speakers than either VSR or DAL, making VSR and
DAL even more "Esoteric" than Wilson (we are talking about SMALL
companies).

BTW, no VSR speaker uses a 12" driver, as you stated. And if you
think that $3,600 is a lot to pay for a speaker that "is not full range",
then consider that the $6,000 Dunlavy SC-IV is ranked by Stereophile
in their non-full range category, in spite of their size.

You say that:

> You and others like to talk about their response to
> 20Hz. -- But as we have discussed several times, their output in the deep
> bass region is also deficient in that it doesn't even approach realistic

> levels, and therefore, they don't provide realistic, high-fidelity
response
> when reproducing low bass at high volume, as in a live performance.

Well, if the VR-4's go to 20 Hz, if they go above 110db (I have measured
mine at 113 db), EXACTLY WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR? If these
are not FULL RANGE, then what is? What other speaker at $3,600
can do that??? NO WHERE have I ever seen someone say that the
VR-4s are deficient in output power. Indeed, they are noted for just
the opposite.

The ONLY "deficiency" that has EVER been noted in the VR-4s output
or bass is that the bass DOES NOT have a mid-bass bump in the
60-120 Hz range, as so many NON-FLAT speakers. If you really
wanted a NON-FLAT VR-4, I sure you could ask Albert to build you
a special pair of VR-4s with the HF roll off of the SECOND woofer set
at 120Hz rather than the 60Hz it is supposed to roll off at, he probably
would accommodate you.

As to your theory that there must be something "wrong" with the VR-4,
since VSR makes bigger models, that is utter nonsense. That logic
would say that ANY PRODUCT that exists in a manufacturer's line
that is not the top of the line, by definition, is defective. Are all the
owners of Krell FPB 200s and FPB 300s saddled with defective
products just because there exists a FPB 600??? If the FPB 200
was "was all you need, who in their right mind would pay the price
they are asking for the" FPB 300 or the FPB 600, much less the
Audio Standard? The FPBs are ALL priced above the median of
the price of power amps (and receivers), especially the mass
market stuff. The VR-4s are also NOT MASS MARKET stuff
(seen them in Circuit City lately?).

Jim, I wish I could understand ANY of your points, but I just
don't see where you are going with this. Are you just complaining
that you can't get the best for mass market prices?

Jim

[Jason C. Cotton]

"Arny Krüger" <ar...@pop3.concentric.net> writes:

>Jeff Adams <jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com> wrote in article
><342d9535...@news.mtv.gtegsc.com>...

>Jason Cotton dogmatically postured:

Kreuger, you are a pathetic piece of shit!

There isn't ONE WORD written by me in your entire rehash!!!!!!

>> >You are completely right, Jeff, measurements DON'T tell all. Otherwise,

>> >I should dump my Krell FPB 600 and my Mark Levinson 333 for the
>> >Pioneer and Sansui amps of about 1980 with almost no MEASURABLE
>> >distortion due to the parlor tricks of lots of negative feedback.
>Getting
>> >good measurements is sometimes nothing more than sacrificing good
>> >sound for the sake of measurements. In my opinion, Dunlavy has fallen
>> >into this pitfall.
>>
>> I guess I'm missing something... I had heard the Levinson 333 didn't
>> measure very well, so, yes, I think that's a pretty large sum of money
>> for an amp that doesn't measure up. Don't know about the Krell. And
>> frankly, I've never claimed to be any kind of expert, so, I don't know
>> what measurements would reveal that the Pioneer with all the negative
>> feedback would sound worse than the Krell. I'll let someone who knows
>> better take that one up with you.
>>

>You must remember that at Cotton's level of non-understanding of amplifier
>technology "Negative Feedback" is obviously a "Negative" ;-). Form what he
>says, I think he buys amps by the pound, not the sound.

You got a problem with Bryston and Hafler? You're the one that needs
1200 Watts to enjoy audio. I get by on 100wpc.

Go slither back under your rock...

-Jason

[Jim Cate]

In article <342594...@ix.netcom.com>,
Johnny Y Boey <jb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Jim Cate wrote:
>>
>> My point in all this is that there is no
>> denying that the VR-4's do NOT provide full-range response AT REALISTIC
>> VOLUME levels throughout the full frequency spectrum. IF THEY DID, THERE
>> WOULD BE LITTLE OR NO REASON FOR THEM to build their VR-6, VR-8, and VR

10
>> models with substantially larger driver arrays. In my opinion, $4,000 is
a
>> lot of money to pay for a speaker system that is really not a full-range,
>> high-fidelity speaker.

>So which pair of speakers at 4k will give you 'realistic' full-range
>reasponse? There is NONE!! and the VR4 is as close as it gets.
>JB

___________________________________

I take it that you do agree with my statement that the VR-4's do not
provide full-range high-fidelity response at realistic levels. Is this so?
Jim

[jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist]

(in a thread where Middius accuses everyone who speaks any sense
of being robotic)
In article <3422c398...@news.erols.com> Glan...@jiffypop.erols.com (George M. Middius) writes:
jj says>>
>>MIDDIUS IS THE VOGON!

>Am not. If we're talking about invaders from another star
>system, shouldn't that be "Vegan"?

Um, clearly you haven't a clue about your ancestry, then. :-)
You write bad, slant-rhymed poetry about starfaring robots,
and you keep forcing people to see it. Do you by any chance
make hyperspace shunts, George?

>No one needs to tell you to stop making sense, Jimmy.
I suppose that you think calling people names somehow enhances
your argument?

George, you've sunk BELOW the level of the 4th grade bully.
It's time for you to take a vacatiaon.

--
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.

[George M. Middius]

The Schoolmarm gets out the wicked ruler.

>Um, clearly you haven't a clue about your ancestry, then. :-)

Oh, I understand that comment. Don't bother trying to
communicate using language, we're all telepathic just as you
hope.

>You write bad, slant-rhymed poetry about starfaring robots,
>and you keep forcing people to see it. Do you by any chance
>make hyperspace shunts, George?

Poetry? Twice in the last year on R.A.O. "Slant-rhymed"?
Sorry, ma'am, I must have been absent during that lesson.
Where are the robots you're thinking of? Cyborgs are not
robots, you know, ma'am. If you'd like, I could get you a
current dictionary to replace than 19th-century one on your
desk, ma'am.

>>No one needs to tell you to stop making sense, Jimmy.

>I suppose that you think calling people names somehow enhances
>your argument?

What is your name, ma'am?

>George, you've sunk BELOW the level of the 4th grade bully.
>It's time for you to take a vacatiaon.

Yes ma'am. Right away. May I be excused now, ma'am?