Stereo Review Poll
mrlefty
a) impartial and informative
b) never negative to advertisers
Arny Krueger
"mrlefty" <sirl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t5lS6.24811$Ip5.5...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> In the defunct magazine Stereo Review, the REVIEWS were:
> a) impartial and informative
Generally.
> b) never negative to advertisers
Never overwhelmingly negative, on the publicly-stated grounds that
they had plenty of equipment to review that deserved positive reviews
so why waste time and space with junk?
(c) Reviews in Stereophile, TAS and HiFi News are rarely if ever
negative, as well.
Joe Samangitak
mrlefty wrote in message ...
>In the defunct magazine Stereo Review, the REVIEWS were:
>
>a) impartial and informative
>b) never negative to advertisers
It's hard for the magazine to be purely impartial when you pay thousands
of dollars for the magazine to review your product.
Gene Steinberg
Samangitak <joes...@wolfcountryNOSPAM.org> wrote:
>
> It's hard for the magazine to be purely impartial when you pay thousands
> of dollars for the magazine to review your product.
I don't think there's any evidence that manufacturers pay to have their
products reviewed by any of the well-known consumer magazines. I have
reviewed products for computing magazines (and online publications) and
I've seen no evidence there either.
Manufacturers will provide products to be reviewed, but that's another
issue entirely. One can suggest the products may be specially tweaked
in the review versions, but there's little evidence of any of that
either.
Joe Samangitak
Gene Steinberg wrote in message <030620010501458307%ge...@macnightowl.com>...
>In article <WyoS6.58491$%i7.44...@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>, Joe
>Samangitak <joes...@wolfcountryNOSPAM.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> It's hard for the magazine to be purely impartial when you pay
thousands
>> of dollars for the magazine to review your product.
>
>I don't think there's any evidence that manufacturers pay to have their
>products reviewed by any of the well-known consumer magazines.
There's a reason for that evidence not being widely available.
I have
>reviewed products for computing magazines (and online publications) and
>I've seen no evidence there either.
PC product reviews are a bit different in that. PC products are less of
a specialty product than hifi equipment. If I want info on
laptop, digicam, or some new pc gadget, I will find several reviews,
spec sheets and more opinions than I need on the net. But it's certainly
harder to find info
on specific audio gear.
>
>Manufacturers will provide products to be reviewed, but that's another
>issue entirely.
I don't see that as an issue really . That's just procedure.
One can suggest the products may be specially tweaked
>in the review versions, but there's little evidence of any of that
>either.
I can go further than just suggesting it .
I ran across proof of this practice when shopping for a digicam. The
reviewed version was "specially tweaked" with backlit display and video
capture. The versions available on the retail market were without backlit
display and video capture. They decided to put those features on the
more expensive newer model. I bought that cam based on the review of the
manufacture's provided sample, and I and many others got screwed.
But on the issue of hifi review samples being tweaked, for the most part,
it's not worth it. That's not to say it doesn't happen. I do not doubt
that secret *tweaking* does happen at events like CES. Demonstrations
at very high volume....there's an example of a simple tweak!!
Gene Steinberg
Samangitak <joes...@wolfcountryNOSPAM.org> wrote:
> PC product reviews are a bit different in that. PC products are less of
> a specialty product than hifi equipment. If I want info on
> laptop, digicam, or some new pc gadget, I will find several reviews,
> spec sheets and more opinions than I need on the net. But it's certainly
> harder to find info
> on specific audio gear.
Many PC products are more expensive than many hifi components.
As to specific audio gear, specs are usually at a manufacturer's Web
site; how good they are is another story, but not all PC-related
products come with good specs either.
> I can go further than just suggesting it .
> I ran across proof of this practice when shopping for a digicam.
> The
> reviewed version was "specially tweaked" with backlit display and
> video
> capture. The versions available on the retail market were without
> backlit
> display and video capture. They decided to put those features on the
> more expensive newer model. I bought that cam based on the review of
> the
> manufacture's provided sample, and I and many others got screwed.
>
Did the review state as much or did the manufacturer also fool the
reviewers? Specifics please.
Joe Samangitak
Gene Steinberg wrote in message <050620010150392127%ge...@macnightowl.com>...
>In article <5FWS6.63341$%i7.48...@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>, Joe
>Samangitak <joes...@wolfcountryNOSPAM.org> wrote:
>
>> PC product reviews are a bit different in that. PC products are less
of
>> a specialty product than hifi equipment. If I want info on
>> laptop, digicam, or some new pc gadget, I will find several
reviews,
>> spec sheets and more opinions than I need on the net. But it's
certainly
>> harder to find info
>> on specific audio gear.
>
>Many PC products are more expensive than many hifi components.
The hifi market is more specialty than the PC market. On average, PC
products depreciate and become obsolete much quicker than hifi gear.
>Did the review state as much or did the manufacturer also fool the
>reviewers? Specifics please.
Like I stated, I bought the camera based on the review, and the reviewed
sample included features not on actual retail versions. Why do you think
the reviwer was fooled. The reviewer just reviewed the camera that was sent
to him.
It puzzles me why you doubt that this these scammish practices exist.
There is such a thing as receiving compensation for favorable
reviews, no matter how illegal or scammish it may seem. I have a friend
whos product recently won awards at a big hifi event on the east coast.
Fees for a particular mag to review the product ranges in the thousands.
It may seems scammish, but if a positive review on a halfway decent
product is going to generate thousands of dollars in revenues for the
manufacture, the magazine is going to want their cut and I don't blame
them. IMO it's not illegal as long as the review is not grossly
misleading.
Here's an even more bizarre and related current story. If you think
there's no evidence to support it may cost money for big name mag
reviews , how about large corporations totally fabricating reviews
and making up bogus names of reviewers :
http://www.msnbc.com/news/581770.asp?cp1=1
It's all about aggressive practices for the bottom line, maximizing
profit.
stephen campbell
wrote:
>"BTW there are now 4 power amplifier
>tests posted at
>http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/
>ndex.htm . Despite all the RAO smoke
>and thunder about PCABX being
>inherently insensitive, all 4 have been
>used by careful listeners to produce
>positive results in DBTs. I have data for 2
>more..."
Bryston amps giving positive results, I guess this proves you've been
wrong all along about amps.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Arny Krueger
"stephen campbell" <Camf...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22542-3B...@storefull-177.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
There is more than meets the eye here.
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
OK, I won't go and further given my feelings about casting pearls
before swine.
George M. Middius
> It puzzles me why you doubt that this these scammish practices exist.
> There is such a thing as receiving compensation for favorable
> reviews, no matter how illegal or scammish it may seem. I have a friend
> whos product recently won awards at a big hifi event on the east coast.
> Fees for a particular mag to review the product ranges in the thousands.
> It may seems scammish, but if a positive review on a halfway decent
> product is going to generate thousands of dollars in revenues for the
> manufacture, the magazine is going to want their cut and I don't blame
> them. IMO it's not illegal as long as the review is not grossly
> misleading.
If the "magazine" (a better word might be "brochure") is selling its
editorial content as objective, fact-based, or anything else in
keeping with the tradition of true journalism, then the scenario you
describe is nothing less than fraud.
Consumers have rights, you know. They have the right to buy a box of
chocolates and find real chocolate, not chocolate-flavored vegetable
protein. A car sold as having a V-6 engine should not have a
four-cylinder one with "V-6" painted on it.
BTW, arguing with AutoRepeatBorg is an exercise in futility. He's as
stubborn as Phoebe and nearly as fucked in the head as Krooger.
stephen campbell
>Hey autorepeatborg,....
That's Gene Steinberg for those who don't know.
stephen campbell
>BTW, arguing with AutoRepeatBorg is an
>exercise in futility. He's as stubborn as
>Phoebe and nearly as fucked in the head
>as Krooger.
The worst part is that when it comes to audio he really has very little
knowledge, he just parrots whatever Nousaine says.
paul packer
What does BWAHAHAHAHAHA mean? I've been all through the dictionary....
George M. Middius
> >Bryston amps giving positive results, I guess this proves you've been
> >wrong all along about amps.
> >BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> What does BWAHAHAHAHAHA mean? I've been all through the dictionary....
Which dictionary?
stephen campbell
>Bryston amps giving positive results, I
>guess this proves you've been wrong all
>along about amps.
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
paul packer responded:
>What does BWAHAHAHAHAHA mean?
>I've been all through the dictionary....
Of course you didn't find it, you spelled it wrong! It has 6 H's not 5,
now go look again.
Gene Steinberg
Samangitak <joes...@wolfcountryNOSPAM.org> wrote:
> Like I stated, I bought the camera based on the review, and the reviewed
> sample included features not on actual retail versions. Why do you think
> the reviwer was fooled. The reviewer just reviewed the camera that was sent
> to him.
And like I said, specifics. You didn't supply any. I haven't encounterd
any "ringers" in my reviewing process and haven't heard of others
encounting such a situation.
>
> It puzzles me why you doubt that this these scammish practices exist.
> There is such a thing as receiving compensation for favorable
> reviews, no matter how illegal or scammish it may seem. I have a friend
> whos product recently won awards at a big hifi event on the east coast.
> Fees for a particular mag to review the product ranges in the thousands.
> It may seems scammish, but if a positive review on a halfway decent
> product is going to generate thousands of dollars in revenues for the
> manufacture, the magazine is going to want their cut and I don't blame
> them. IMO it's not illegal as long as the review is not grossly
> misleading.
I doubt that for which you provide no evidence. You are telling us
magazines are being bribed to give a product a good review, yet you
provide no evidence of same. It's one thing to not review a product
that tests bad, but it's another to be actually paid to review a
product, period.
>
> Here's an even more bizarre and related current story. If you think
> there's no evidence to support it may cost money for big name mag
> reviews , how about large corporations totally fabricating reviews
> and making up bogus names of reviewers :
Ah yes, the fake movie reviewer from Sony Pictures. The damage is far
less, since at worst you've bought a couple of movie tickets for a bad
movie, not spent hundreds or thousands for a component that doesn't
deliver the goods.
Where is the evidence?
Gene Steinberg
stephen campbell <Camf...@webtv.net> wrote:
> The worst part is that when it comes to audio he really has very little
> knowledge, he just parrots whatever Nousaine says.
The worst part of it is that you have no clue what you're talking
about, because you provide no examples of same. I may agree with
someone's viewpoints, but that is not parroting. Actually, I read
material from other writers a lot more.
You, on the other hand, parrot the Middius-borg. Does that mean you
really have very little knowledge of the fine art of insulting
yourself.
You have never displayed any indication of knowing a darn thing about
audio.
Arny Krueger
"Gene Steinberg" <ge...@macnightowl.com> wrote in message
news:060620010311509855%ge...@macnightowl.com...
> You have never displayed any indication of knowing a darn thing
about audio.
IME well-practiced ignorance about audio and a lack of common sense
are two important prerequisites for Middius-hood. Notice how well
Weil, Campbell, Dormer, Phillips, Kramer, and Gibbs have picked up
the shtick. Obviously, you can teach it to monkeys. I thought I heard
them talking during the coke-snorting scenes in "Traffic".
stephen campbell
>I may agree with someone's viewpoints,
>but that is not parroting.
Hey Gene, while you're here, what do you make of this? Arny wrote:
>"BTW there are now 4 power amplifier
>tests posted at
>http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/
>ndex.htm . Despite all the RAO smoke
>and thunder about PCABX being
>inherently insensitive, all 4 have been
>used by careful listeners to produce
>positive results in DBTs. I have data for 2
>more..."
Bryston amps giving positive results, I guess this proves you've been
George M. Middius
> You, on the other hand, parrot the Middius-borg.
Gene-ius, I'm curious about something: How many of my posts
establishing the RAO 'borg canon did you need to read before you
figured out we didn't like you metronic drones?
Gene Steinberg
stephen campbell <Camf...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> Hey Gene, while you're here, what do you make of this? Arny wrote:
>
> >"BTW there are now 4 power amplifier
> >tests posted at
> >http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/
> >ndex.htm . Despite all the RAO smoke
> >and thunder about PCABX being
> >inherently insensitive, all 4 have been
> >used by careful listeners to produce
> >positive results in DBTs. I have data for 2
> >more..."
>
> Bryston amps giving positive results, I guess this proves you've been
> wrong all along about amps.
No, it proves, as usual, that you cannot read. I never said amplifiers
cannot sound different, only that for differences to exist, there has
to be a clear cause, easily measured.
In this case, the page to which you pointed makes tests available, but
doesn't display the statistics with regard to the positive results or
the circumstances under which they were achieved and what amplifiers
were used for comparisons. But I never expected you'd be able to read
the contents of a Web site. Or maybe you gave the wrong link?
dave weil
<ge...@macnightowl.com> wrote:
>In article <7694-3B1...@storefull-173.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>stephen campbell <Camf...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey Gene, while you're here, what do you make of this? Arny wrote:
>>
>> >"BTW there are now 4 power amplifier
>> >tests posted at
>> >http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/
>> >ndex.htm . Despite all the RAO smoke
>> >and thunder about PCABX being
>> >inherently insensitive, all 4 have been
>> >used by careful listeners to produce
>> >positive results in DBTs. I have data for 2
>> >more..."
>>
>> Bryston amps giving positive results, I guess this proves you've been
>> wrong all along about amps.
>
>No, it proves, as usual, that you cannot read. I never said amplifiers
>cannot sound different, only that for differences to exist, there has
>to be a clear cause, easily measured.
So does that mean that these differences didn't exist before we were
"blessed" with Arny's results?
Gene Steinberg
<ddw...@home.com> wrote:
> So does that mean that these differences didn't exist before we were
> "blessed" with Arny's results?
What does that have to do with the matter I discussed? Nothing, of
course. Your comment defies logic and makes no sense. Think carefully
as to why an amplifier would sound different, and then look at the
hundreds or thousand of times the causes have been mentioned here and
in published material. Maybe you'll learn something--for once!
dave weil
Geez Gene, here's the deal. All these years you've been harping on the
idea that all decently engineered amps should sound alike. Right? If
I'm wrong, then please quote some of your earlier postings where you
*don't* say this.
Many of us have been battling that misconception, because <gasp> we
actually heard differences. Of course, when explanations were given,
they were laughed away. Now it turns out that one of the leading
proponents of the "all working adequately designed amps sound the
same" has actually found a "reason" that they should sound different.
Now suddenly you're hopping on the bandwagon? C'mon!
Of course, maybe there are some explanations. Maybe some of the amps
that he tested are defective. Maybe some of them aren't designed
properly. However, these are some of the very amps that Arny, Annika,
Howard and you think *should* sound identical when run "properly". Or
*maybe* it turns out that there are previously unknown factors at
work.
If the last is the case, then your statement implies that because we
didn't know what was causing the differences, that there were *no*
differences. Nice logic there!
Arny Krueger
> In article <thruhtkgijfqabe4b...@4ax.com>, dave weil
> <ddw...@home.com> wrote:
> > So does that mean that these differences didn't exist before we
were
> > "blessed" with Arny's results?
> What does that have to do with the matter I discussed? Nothing, of
> course. Your comment defies logic and makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense if you consider the source. Irrelevant
comments like this are his stock and trade.
> Think carefully
> as to why an amplifier would sound different, and then look at the
> hundreds or thousand of times the causes have been mentioned here
and
> in published material.
Agreed. Linear distortion, anyone?
>Maybe you'll learn something--for once!
I haven't seen any signs of progress despite years of trying. I gave
up, and am happier for it.
dave weil
wrote:
How is making libelous remarks about me "giving up"?
Just curious.
George M. Middius
> If the last is the case, then your statement implies that because we
> didn't know what was causing the differences, that there were *no*
> differences. Nice logic there!
Yes, that's what passes for "logic" in the Hive. Out in the human
world, of course, such a syllogism is better known as "religion".
dave weil
wrote:
>
>"Gene Steinberg" <ge...@macnightowl.com> wrote in message
>news:070620010808480781%ge...@macnightowl.com...
>
>> In article <thruhtkgijfqabe4b...@4ax.com>, dave weil
>> <ddw...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> > So does that mean that these differences didn't exist before we
>were
>> > "blessed" with Arny's results?
>
>> What does that have to do with the matter I discussed? Nothing, of
>> course. Your comment defies logic and makes no sense.
>
>It makes perfect sense if you consider the source. Irrelevant
>comments like this are his stock and trade.
>
>
>> Think carefully
>> as to why an amplifier would sound different, and then look at the
>> hundreds or thousand of times the causes have been mentioned here
>and
>> in published material.
>
>Agreed. Linear distortion, anyone?
"If you want to hear what various levels of distortion sound like, you
can download samples from
http://www.p*onlinear/index.htm . Compare the
sound of the "1% added distortion tracks" to the sound of the "0.1%
added distortion" track of the same "order". I suspect that in a
blind test (easy to do on a windows PC with a good sound card and
speakers with the provided software) you won't hear anything like a
dramatic or even an audible difference. Unless they are clipping, you
can pretty well count on good modern SS amps to have less than 1%
distortion." - Arny Krueger.
Have you changed your tune?
Remember when Felix said this?
"Let's compare two amps which measure to spec [Adcom 5300 and a
Bryston 4b-ST] in my system, with my components - I'm betting I can
tell them apart with NO problem what so ever. Where's your pool of
doubter's. Actually, we don't really need them: you, Tom and Gene can
pool your funds together [$5K is fine] and give me the test!"
No wonder you didn't take him up on the challenge! <chuckle> Maybe
subconsciously you *knew* that differences could be heard, but you
didn't believe it based on your available knowledge at the time.
Then of course you said:
>Hey Borg,
> When are you going to DBT me?
"Unless you want to duplicate the unhappy results of Singh and Zipser,
perhaps you should do some listener training with the software ABX
Comparator..."
Maybe *you* should have taken your own advice <g>.
Oh yeah:
Howard Ferstler <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> said:
>Hey, I never said my test was definitive. I just said that
>based upon what I heard, amps is pretty much amps.
"Amps is amps and wire is wire. And that's the truth"
Howard Ferstler, RAO, 21-11-1999.
Guess Howard's wrong yet again, right?
Gene Steinberg
<ddw...@home.com> wrote:
> Geez Gene, here's the deal. All these years you've been harping on the
> idea that all decently engineered amps should sound alike. Right? If
> I'm wrong, then please quote some of your earlier postings where you
> *don't* say this.
Nothing shown so far indicates otherwise.
>
> Many of us have been battling that misconception, because <gasp> we
> actually heard differences. Of course, when explanations were given,
> they were laughed away. Now it turns out that one of the leading
> proponents of the "all working adequately designed amps sound the
> same" has actually found a "reason" that they should sound different.
> Now suddenly you're hopping on the bandwagon? C'mon!
No you think you heard differences. That is a difference.
>
> Of course, maybe there are some explanations. Maybe some of the amps
> that he tested are defective. Maybe some of them aren't designed
> properly. However, these are some of the very amps that Arny, Annika,
> Howard and you think *should* sound identical when run "properly". Or
> *maybe* it turns out that there are previously unknown factors at
> work.
Now maybe you'll learn what's going on before you comment on the
subject further. So far you're shooting from the hip. You know nothing
about the subject.
>
> If the last is the case, then your statement implies that because we
> didn't know what was causing the differences, that there were *no*
> differences. Nice logic there!
For heaven's sake, learn to read. The fact of the matter is that you
don't know under what circumstances the differences were heard and in
comparison to what. Without knowing any of that, you are in absolutely
no position to go off and make comments about what is going on. Nothing
in what has been reported so far invalidates what I and others have
said on the subject.
dave weil
<ge...@macnightowl.com> wrote:
>In article <rr7vht40202d1h1cp...@4ax.com>, dave weil
><ddw...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Geez Gene, here's the deal. All these years you've been harping on the
>> idea that all decently engineered amps should sound alike. Right? If
>> I'm wrong, then please quote some of your earlier postings where you
>> *don't* say this.
>
>Nothing shown so far indicates otherwise.
>
>>
>> Many of us have been battling that misconception, because <gasp> we
>> actually heard differences. Of course, when explanations were given,
>> they were laughed away. Now it turns out that one of the leading
>> proponents of the "all working adequately designed amps sound the
>> same" has actually found a "reason" that they should sound different.
>> Now suddenly you're hopping on the bandwagon? C'mon!
>
>No you think you heard differences. That is a difference.
Bullshit. There was a claim that any "reasonably engineered amp in
good working condition operating within parameters will sound lke any
other reasonably engineered amps with similar specs". Many of us have
found exceptions to the rule.
Now it turns out, so has Arny.
>
>>
>> Of course, maybe there are some explanations. Maybe some of the amps
>> that he tested are defective. Maybe some of them aren't designed
>> properly. However, these are some of the very amps that Arny, Annika,
>> Howard and you think *should* sound identical when run "properly". Or
>> *maybe* it turns out that there are previously unknown factors at
>> work.
>
>Now maybe you'll learn what's going on before you comment on the
>subject further. So far you're shooting from the hip. You know nothing
>about the subject.
Face it Gene. Your "one size fits all" approach has been shot to hell.
Maybe *you'll* learn to listen to your betters next time.
>
>>
>> If the last is the case, then your statement implies that because we
>> didn't know what was causing the differences, that there were *no*
>> differences. Nice logic there!
>
>For heaven's sake, learn to read. The fact of the matter is that you
>don't know under what circumstances the differences were heard and in
>comparison to what. Without knowing any of that, you are in absolutely
>no position to go off and make comments about what is going on. Nothing
>in what has been reported so far invalidates what I and others have
>said on the subject.
Hell, I never thought that *you* would be the one challenging any of
Krueger's conclusions.
stephen campbell
>I never said amplifiers cannot sound
>different, only that for differences to exist,
>there has to be a clear cause, easily
>measured.
Yes, what you say is that amps whose spec's meet certain thresholds will
be indistinguishable, however, it is clear to anybody who has read your
ramblings in the past that you imply that these spec's are easily met by
mid-fi and even less expensive amps. Here we have Arny reporting that a
Bryston distorts under certain speaker loads, how would a consumer have
known this just by reading the spec's you speak of?
It is also clear from reading your stuff that had somebody reported
hearing this distortion through casual sighted evaluations, you would
have criticized their opinion on the basis of their method of
evaluation, basically because you wouldn't have believed that a Bryston
would have a sonic signature. I fully expect you to deny this but you
would only be lying to yourself.
dave weil
Yes. Nice and to the point. Good work Stephen.
Jacob Kramer
> In article <7694-3B1...@storefull-173.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> stephen campbell <Camf...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> > Bryston amps giving positive results, I guess this proves you've been
> > wrong all along about amps.
>
> No, it proves, as usual, that you cannot read. I never said amplifiers
> cannot sound different, only that for differences to exist, there has
> to be a clear cause, easily measured.
I think the real question is, how likely are real-world situations to
present loads that would cause distortion in an inexpensive amp, and
what is the threshold for flat performance. For instance, Gene did
say in July of 1996:
"Nobody disputes the value of amplifier horsepower in certain
situations. But if the loudspeakers aren't enormously power hungry
and don't have exotic impedance curves and you aren't trying to
duplicate the volume level of your favorite rock concert or symphony
orchestra, you don't have to worry so much about this. Your general
50 or 100 watt amplifier is probably enough."
So the question is, how much do you have to spend to get flat
performance?
I recently went shopping with a friend to buy a system in New York.
We went to Stereo Exchange, J&R, Park Avenue Audio, Cosmophonic Sound,
and the Wiz, but he wanted to stop in at Lyric, which we passed on the
way to Cosmophonic. He told me he wanted to spend up to $600, so I
recommended Paradigm, Yamaha and Technics, and a Marantz player if he
wanted to spend another $100, and referred him to GoodSound (which was
a few days before its redesign, which I found quite diappointing). He
had visited Stereo Exchange and another place, and he liked B&W 303s
($300) Marantz receiver and CD player. Also an inexpensive pair of JM
Labs.
The B&W's stuck in his mind throughout--after listening to PSB Alphas,
NHT Superones, two models from Mission, Tannoy MX-1s and MX-2s,
Paradigm Titans and Minimonitors, PSB Century 300is, and something
from KEF--as did the Marantz. We could only hear the Yamaha at J&R
through Mission speakers, and he didn't like it, nor the Onkyo. At
Park Avenue he compared a NAD and Marantz amp and CD players, and
couldn't hear any difference. But he was stuck on the stuff shown to
him at Stereo Exchange. Nothing could seem to shake his conviction.
Then we went to Lyric, and he was persuaded he needed the NAD 740
(over $500) or at least a NAD 720 ($400) and a NAD 540 player ($500)
or at least a 521 ($300). This was augmented by the salesperson's
demonstrating a pair of B&W 803s ($5000) with the NAD gear, which I
didn't like very much but greatly impressed my friend, and his
showcasing--but not playing--of a system in a back room with some sort
of enormous speakers driven by a 3600 watt amp costing altogether
about $500,000.
After this experience, I just couldn't persuade my friend to stick to
his original budget. He was going through something like an identity
crisis and was convinced he had to spend at least $900. He seemed to
think that I was in denial about the need to spend money and was
trying to hold him back in some important way. My original goal was
just to discourage him from getting a minisystem for $600, but
something the salespeople said to him at Stereo Exchange and Lyric
really stuck.
Gene Steinberg
<ddw...@home.com> wrote:
> Bullshit. There was a claim that any "reasonably engineered amp in
> good working condition operating within parameters will sound lke any
> other reasonably engineered amps with similar specs". Many of us have
> found exceptions to the rule.
>
> Now it turns out, so has Arny.
You don't really understand what's going on, do you? You have clue
where differences were found, and in comparison to what. Without
knowing any of that (and you clearly don't) you are in no position to
make assumptions.
> Face it Gene. Your "one size fits all" approach has been shot to hell.
> Maybe *you'll* learn to listen to your betters next time.
No, your inability to understand has been demonstrated. Nothing has
been shot to hell. You don't even understand what Arny is talking
about.
>
> Hell, I never thought that *you* would be the one challenging any of
> Krueger's conclusions.
I'm not challenging what he said.. I'm challenging your demonstration
of in ability to read and understand what's happening.
Answer these questions:
1. Under what circumstances were differences heard with the amps in
question?
2. What was compared to what in making these determinations?
The point is that you can't answer those questions or any others on
this matter. You are just blowing hot air.
Gene Steinberg
stephen campbell <Camf...@webtv.net> wrote:
> Yes, what you say is that amps whose spec's meet certain thresholds will
> be indistinguishable, however, it is clear to anybody who has read your
> ramblings in the past that you imply that these spec's are easily met by
> mid-fi and even less expensive amps. Here we have Arny reporting that a
> Bryston distorts under certain speaker loads, how would a consumer have
> known this just by reading the spec's you speak of?
The answer is that you don't understandi anything about what's going
on. If the amps distort under certain speaker loads, is the phenomenon
unique to these amplifiers or would it affect other amplifiers with
similar measurement or design characteristics?
Is ths sort of distortion something that would happen in the real
world, or just in a simulation?
It is possible to design a speaker system so badly that only the most
powerful amps would handle the load, but you don't know what the facts
are behind these tests. You are blowing smoke.
>
> It is also clear from reading your stuff that had somebody reported
> hearing this distortion through casual sighted evaluations, you would
> have criticized their opinion on the basis of their method of
> evaluation, basically because you wouldn't have believed that a Bryston
> would have a sonic signature. I fully expect you to deny this but you
> would only be lying to yourself.
The lie comes from you, your inability to know what's going on and the
background of the tests. If folks reliably report an audible artifact
in a series of properly-done double blind tests, you can say the
artifact exists. The next thing is to see if there is also a measurable
anomaly that might be producing this audible result. Do you see
anything from ArnyK suggesting what was reported cannot be measured?
Gene Steinberg
<ddw...@home.com> wrote:
> Yes. Nice and to the point. Good work Stephen.
Yes, he is as good at demonstrating his studidity as you are in
demonstrating yours.
Congratulations to both of you for talking about things you do not
understand and making assumptions not supported by facts.
dave weil
<ge...@macnightowl.com> wrote:
>In article <o3d1itkganricv3ab...@4ax.com>, dave weil
><ddw...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Bullshit. There was a claim that any "reasonably engineered amp in
>> good working condition operating within parameters will sound lke any
>> other reasonably engineered amps with similar specs". Many of us have
>> found exceptions to the rule.
>>
>> Now it turns out, so has Arny.
>
>You don't really understand what's going on, do you? You have clue
>where differences were found, and in comparison to what. Without
>knowing any of that (and you clearly don't) you are in no position to
>make assumptions.
And you don't really understand my point, do you Einstein?
If a Zulu warrior claims that there's no way that man can move at 100
mph because he's never seen a car and can "prove" that a man can't
move that far, can a man move at 60 mph or not?
>
>> Face it Gene. Your "one size fits all" approach has been shot to hell.
>> Maybe *you'll* learn to listen to your betters next time.
>
>No, your inability to understand has been demonstrated. Nothing has
>been shot to hell. You don't even understand what Arny is talking
>about.
I understand enough to know what a position has been broached.
>
>>
>> Hell, I never thought that *you* would be the one challenging any of
>> Krueger's conclusions.
>
>I'm not challenging what he said.. I'm challenging your demonstration
>of in ability to read and understand what's happening.
Answer me this question. If people hear a difference but nobody can
explain it, and then somebody comes along and explains it, was there a
difference or not?
>
>Answer these questions:
>
>1. Under what circumstances were differences heard with the amps in
>question?
If it turns out that there are actual reasons why the amps might be
"different," then it's irrelevant, except to convince people who use
science as a "crutch" that there is *indeed* a difference.
>
>2. What was compared to what in making these determinations?
Doesn't matter if it turns out that there *are* differences.
>
>The point is that you can't answer those questions or any others on
>this matter. You are just blowing hot air.
The point is that you are quibbling once again. But what else is new?
dave weil
<ge...@macnightowl.com> wrote:
>In article <19439-3B...@storefull-177.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>stephen campbell <Camf...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, what you say is that amps whose spec's meet certain thresholds will
>> be indistinguishable, however, it is clear to anybody who has read your
>> ramblings in the past that you imply that these spec's are easily met by
>> mid-fi and even less expensive amps. Here we have Arny reporting that a
>> Bryston distorts under certain speaker loads, how would a consumer have
>> known this just by reading the spec's you speak of?
>
>The answer is that you don't understandi anything about what's going
>on.
You're in auto-repeat mode.
> If the amps distort under certain speaker loads, is the phenomenon
>unique to these amplifiers or would it affect other amplifiers with
>similar measurement or design characteristics?
Apparently in different ways.
>
>Is ths sort of distortion something that would happen in the real
>world, or just in a simulation?
If it's a "simulation" that isn't relevant, then what in the hell is
Arny "publishing" these results?
Does that mean that we toss out all dummy load tests?
>
>It is possible to design a speaker system so badly that only the most
>powerful amps would handle the load, but you don't know what the facts
>are behind these tests. You are blowing smoke.
We can only go by what Mr. Krueger has "published". If you want to
pick apart his results because they don't conform with your world
view, then be my guest.
>
>>
>> It is also clear from reading your stuff that had somebody reported
>> hearing this distortion through casual sighted evaluations, you would
>> have criticized their opinion on the basis of their method of
>> evaluation, basically because you wouldn't have believed that a Bryston
>> would have a sonic signature. I fully expect you to deny this but you
>> would only be lying to yourself.
>
>The lie comes from you, your inability to know what's going on and the
>background of the tests.
Auto-reapeat alert!
> If folks reliably report an audible artifact
>in a series of properly-done double blind tests, you can say the
>artifact exists.
Oh, I see. You are accusing Arny of conducting improper tests. Hell, I
wouldn't necessarily argue with that.
> The next thing is to see if there is also a measurable
>anomaly that might be producing this audible result. Do you see
>anything from ArnyK suggesting what was reported cannot be measured?
Eventually everything *might* be able to be measured.
dave weil
<ge...@macnightowl.com> wrote:
>In article <j3k1it08gfp59vds5...@4ax.com>, dave weil
><ddw...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes. Nice and to the point. Good work Stephen.
>
>Yes, he is as good at demonstrating his studidity as you are in
>demonstrating yours.
OK Gene boy. I guess I *am* studid.
>
>Congratulations to both of you for talking about things you do not
>understand and making assumptions not supported by facts.
Maybe you're right about Arny's results being utterly useless.
Gene Steinberg
<ddw...@home.com> wrote:
> Maybe you're right about Arny's results being utterly useless.
I never said his results were useless. I said your comments were
useless, because they make assumptions based on ignorance.
Gene Steinberg
<ddw...@home.com> wrote:
> Answer me this question. If people hear a difference but nobody can
> explain it, and then somebody comes along and explains it, was there a
> difference or not?
Answer me these questions: Do you know what differences were heard? Do
you know what was compared to what in reporting those differences? Do
you know if a cause was found?
> If it turns out that there are actual reasons why the amps might be
> "different," then it's irrelevant, except to convince people who use
> science as a "crutch" that there is *indeed* a difference.
No, it means that when you know why something is happening, you can
work towards eliminating it, making the product better. Science isn't a
crutch; it's what is used to design these things in the first place.
> Doesn't matter if it turns out that there *are* differences.
Are you that stupid? Of course it matters, because you want to find out
the circumstances under which differences are audible and what is being
compared to what. Did the Bryston amps sound different compared to each
other, other amplifiers, a dead fish, what? You don't know, do you!
>
> The point is that you are quibbling once again. But what else is new?
The point is that I have demonstrated that you are shooting from the
hip, blowing hot air and have no clue what you're talking about. So
what else is new?
Gene Steinberg
<ddw...@home.com> wrote:
> If it's a "simulation" that isn't relevant, then what in the hell is
> Arny "publishing" these results?
>
> Does that mean that we toss out all dummy load tests?
This has nothing to do with what I wrote.
He is publishing the results to provide information. You are making
assumptions about those results that have no basis in fact.
>
> We can only go by what Mr. Krueger has "published". If you want to
> pick apart his results because they don't conform with your world
> view, then be my guest.
I am not arguing with his results. I am pointing out that you know very
little about them. You are blowing hot air, taking a few sentences and
making assumptions.
Let me ask you again. What are we comparing those Bryston amps to in
order to decide there are audible differences?
> >
>
> Oh, I see. You are accusing Arny of conducting improper tests. Hell, I
> wouldn't necessarily argue with that.
No, I am accusing you of being unable to pose a logical argument and of
being ignorant of the facts. So far nothing you write has changed my
conclusion.
> Eventually everything *might* be able to be measured.
Do you know if any attempt was made to measure what was supposedly
heard? Do you know what was compared to what? Do you know anything
about this test, other than a few sentences from which you've been
raving and ranting like a wild chicken?
Arny Krueger
> In article <j3k1it08gfp59vds5...@4ax.com>, dave weil
> <ddw...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes. Nice and to the point. Good work Stephen.
>
> Yes, he is as good at demonstrating his studidity as you are in
> demonstrating yours.
Classic example of one dirty hand washing another. Blind leading the
blind.
Arny Krueger
> Do you see anything from ArnyK suggesting what was reported cannot
be measured?
The effect and its cause are very measurable.
stephen campbell
>The fact of the matter is that you don't
>know under what circumstances the
>differences were heard and in comparison
>to what. Without knowing any of that, you
>are in absolutely no position to go off and
>make comments about what is going on.
>Nothing in what has been reported so far
>invalidates what I and others have said on
>the subject.
You're right, Arny is being rather conspicuous by his absense here.
However, judging by Arny's recent comments(see below) he is implying
that his results are a breakthrough in the world of amplifier testing,
revealing previous unknowns. Don't you agree?
Arny wrote on 2001-04-12:
"...The surprise was that the amplifiers don't have the low output
impedance in the normal audio band that we all seem to think they
do...."
"...I prefer to say that my test is devised to find out if an amplifier
adds colorations to the sounds it amplifies....."
"....I prefer to say I have found out that a certain amplifier does add
colorations to the sounds it amplifies, and I expect to be able to do
this with several or many amplifiers."
"...In a few weeks I'm hoping to cover most of the product line of a
well-respected high end power amp manufacturer, listening tests with
positive results on every page. "
"For over 2 decades DBTs with positive results for many of these kinds
of equipment have been elusive."
"I have a working example amplifier test posted at
http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/usa-850/index.htm that
produces positive results for audible differences in an amplifier that
measures very well in conventional technical tests. I hope that when I
get access to a collection of fine amplifiers that I am arranging I'll
have more of them. "
"... complaining about the insensitivity of a procedure for listening
tests that has reversed 20 years of negative results from DBTs of good
power amps by providing a positive result."
"...why has it been so easy for me to use it to show audible differences
due to a good amplifier that isn't clipping etc., etc. when this has
been tried by so many before PCABX and they experienced nothing but
failure? Are you faulting PCABX for being too sensitive?"
dave weil
Here's what Arny claims:
>How about all your failures to do a believable DBT showing
>audible differences between good modern power amplifiers and the fact
>that I did it via my www.pcabx.com web site the first time I
>tried?
Arny has claimed to have detected "audible differences between good
modern power amplifiers." This is a break from the past.
If you have a problem with his methodology, then I suggest you take
*him* apart, not me.
Let's do a little word substitution game, shall we?
Gene Steinberg:
"I never said amplifiers cannot sound different, only that for
differences to exist, there has to be a clear cause, easily measured."
Dave Weil
"I never said gravity cannot exist, only that for gravity to exist,
there has to be a clear cause, easily measured."
I wonder if gravity existed before Galileo.
dave weil
You know Gene, you can just shut your fucking big mouth right now.
You can ignore the fact that Arnold Krueger has been bragging that he
has shown "positive results" in dbts for differences in "good modern
power amplifiers" all you want. It's not going to change his claims.
You can continue to do what you do best, and that's obsfucate. I'm
finished with you.
dave weil
wrote:
>
At least I'm not ranting about unwashed buttholes.
dave weil
wrote:
>
Oooops. Guess you opened your big fat mouth too soon Genie.
And I guess I *wasn't* finished with you after all...
George M. Middius
> I wonder if gravity existed before Galileo.
Galilei, Galileo (1564-1642): big-time astronomer; enemy of
entrenched religion
Newton, Isaac (1642-1727): mathematician and natural philosopher
(physicist); considered by many the greatest scientist who ever
lived
Oop, Alley (1933-present): self-styled caveman who believes in
time travel
Which one is in Steindrone's pantheon of Leading Intellectual
Lights, do you think?
stephen campbell
>Galilei, Galileo (1564-1642): big-time
>astronomer; enemy of entrenched religion
>Newton, Isaac (1642-1727):
>mathematician and natural philosopher
>(physicist); considered by many the
>greatest scientist who ever lived
>Oop, Alley (1933-present): self-styled
>caveman who believes in time travel
>Which one is in Steindrone's pantheon of
>Leading Intellectual Lights, do you think?
Nousaine, Thomas (1950-next week): Virgin who claims he has discovered
the value of low frequency sound waves as a sexual replacement for the
opposite sex.
See also: woofosexual
trotsky
That's so close to reality I almost hate to jump on the bandwagon.
Gene Steinberg
stephen campbell <Camf...@webtv.net> wrote:
> You're right, Arny is being rather conspicuous by his absense here.
> However, judging by Arny's recent comments(see below) he is implying
> that his results are a breakthrough in the world of amplifier testing,
> revealing previous unknowns. Don't you agree?
Everything Arny K has done confirms what I've written. For there to be
an audible difference, it must be measurable. You are raving about
something else entirely.
Hearing audible differences in double-blind tests and then showing
measurable factors that might cause those differences is how it works.
He has simply found a test condition that can make an amp audibly
different (or a number of amps). The test condition also makes it
measurably different too.
Does that test condition exist with normal speakers and load
conditions? You really don't know, do you.
You clearly know how to copy and paste words without a clue what those
words mean.
Gene Steinberg
<ddw...@home.com> wrote:
> Arny has claimed to have detected "audible differences between good
> modern power amplifiers." This is a break from the past.
>
> If you have a problem with his methodology, then I suggest you take
> *him* apart, not me.
I said that, for audible differences to exist, there will be cause that
can be measured. Nothing in that statement is contradicted by what Arny
claims about his tests and their results. I am not arguing with his
methodology. I'm arguing with the stupid comments you made about the
subject. They show you as utterly clueless.
Gene Steinberg
<ddw...@home.com> wrote:
> You can ignore the fact that Arnold Krueger has been bragging that he
> has shown "positive results" in dbts for differences in "good modern
> power amplifiers" all you want. It's not going to change his claims.
They are not being disputed. What is being disputed is your idiotic
behavior in completely misunderstanding what he's written.
>
> You can continue to do what you do best, and that's obsfucate. I'm
> finished with you.
Audible, measurable. Is he comparing one amplifier to another or what?
I have simply discussed the facts. You have come up with conclusions
that make you look like an utter fool.
trotsky
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> In article <27094-3B2...@storefull-176.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> stephen campbell <Camf...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> > You're right, Arny is being rather conspicuous by his absense here.
> > However, judging by Arny's recent comments(see below) he is implying
> > that his results are a breakthrough in the world of amplifier testing,
> > revealing previous unknowns. Don't you agree?
>
> Everything Arny K has done confirms what I've written.
About Macintosh computers?!?
dave weil
<ge...@macnightowl.com> wrote:
>In article <27094-3B2...@storefull-176.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>stephen campbell <Camf...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>> You're right, Arny is being rather conspicuous by his absense here.
>> However, judging by Arny's recent comments(see below) he is implying
>> that his results are a breakthrough in the world of amplifier testing,
>> revealing previous unknowns. Don't you agree?
>
>
>Everything Arny K has done confirms what I've written. For there to be
>an audible difference, it must be measurable. You are raving about
>something else entirely.
Bullshit. For there to be a *confirmed* audible difference perhaps.
But not for there to be an "audible difference".
You're awfully confused.
>Hearing audible differences in double-blind tests and then showing
>measurable factors that might cause those differences is how it works.
>
>He has simply found a test condition that can make an amp audibly
>different (or a number of amps). The test condition also makes it
>measurably different too.
>
>Does that test condition exist with normal speakers and load
>conditions? You really don't know, do you.
HAAAAAA! Guess what we've been saying all these years you moron.
dave weil
<ge...@macnightowl.com> wrote:
>In article <2qa3it0mk9me1anq6...@4ax.com>, dave weil
><ddw...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> You can ignore the fact that Arnold Krueger has been bragging that he
>> has shown "positive results" in dbts for differences in "good modern
>> power amplifiers" all you want. It's not going to change his claims.
>
>They are not being disputed. What is being disputed is your idiotic
>behavior in completely misunderstanding what he's written.
Gene, you really *are* a moro, aren't you?
>
>>
>> You can continue to do what you do best, and that's obsfucate. I'm
>> finished with you.
>
>Audible, measurable. Is he comparing one amplifier to another or what?
He claims to have conclusions about DIFFERENCE. Is that so hard for a
pinhead like you to understand.
I note that you excised all of the quotes that Stephen offered up.
Know why? Because you can't defend them. I note that you haven't
defended your idiotic claim about a phenomena not existing until it's
measured. You know why? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.
>
>I have simply discussed the facts. You have come up with conclusions
>that make you look like an utter fool.
Yeah right. That's just studid.
dave weil
On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 13:19:25 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 11:22:31 GMT, Gene Steinberg
><ge...@macnightowl.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <2qa3it0mk9me1anq6...@4ax.com>, dave weil
>><ddw...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You can ignore the fact that Arnold Krueger has been bragging that he
>>> has shown "positive results" in dbts for differences in "good modern
>>> power amplifiers" all you want. It's not going to change his claims.
>>
>>They are not being disputed. What is being disputed is your idiotic
>>behavior in completely misunderstanding what he's written.
>
>Gene, you really *are* a moro, aren't you?
Yep, that would be "moron". You're free to run with this typo though.
At least I don't claim to be a world famous published author
<chuckle>.
Gene Steinberg
<ddw...@home.com> wrote:
> Bullshit. For there to be a *confirmed* audible difference perhaps.
> But not for there to be an "audible difference".
You have fallen into total incoherence here. Not worth a response.
> HAAAAAA! Guess what we've been saying all these years you moron.
> >
Things that can't be proved, and making assumptions based on deliberate
misreading of published information. You come across like a total
idioit! Don't you realize that?
Gene Steinberg
<ddw...@home.com> wrote:
> He claims to have conclusions about DIFFERENCE. Is that so hard for a
> pinhead like you to understand.
That's right he has information about cause and effect and an audible
and measurable difference. No dispute. You are trying to raise an
argument where there is no argument. The problem is you don't
understand what any of this is about, so you keep putting your foot in
your mouth.
>
> I note that you excised all of the quotes that Stephen offered up.
> Know why? Because you can't defend them. I note that you haven't
> defended your idiotic claim about a phenomena not existing until it's
> measured. You know why? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.
Because he is so stupid that he can't understand any iota of what's
going on. Most of what he writes is a waste of bandwidth, hence not
worth quoting and surely not worth a response.
Gene Steinberg
<ddw...@home.com> wrote:
> At least I don't claim to be a world famous published author
> <chuckle>.
Because you aren't, obviously, and your total misunderstanding of
what's going on isn't going to endear you to a publisher if you sought
to get published.
I don't make any claims about my published works that aren't supported
by the facts and a quick visit to Amazon Books, ZDNet, CNET,
Macworld.com, etc., eetc.
dave weil
<ge...@macnightowl.com> wrote:
>In article <2e84it08j7a41niat...@4ax.com>, dave weil
><ddw...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> He claims to have conclusions about DIFFERENCE. Is that so hard for a
>> pinhead like you to understand.
>
>That's right he has information about cause and effect and an audible
>and measurable difference. No dispute. You are trying to raise an
>argument where there is no argument. The problem is you don't
>understand what any of this is about, so you keep putting your foot in
>your mouth.
Auto-repeat mode on...
>
>>
>> I note that you excised all of the quotes that Stephen offered up.
>> Know why? Because you can't defend them. I note that you haven't
>> defended your idiotic claim about a phenomena not existing until it's
>> measured. You know why? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.
>
>Because he is so stupid that he can't understand any iota of what's
>going on. Most of what he writes is a waste of bandwidth, hence not
>worth quoting and surely not worth a response.
Auto-repeat mode on...
dave weil
<ge...@macnightowl.com> wrote:
>In article <fo84itg8ihlf86bg3...@4ax.com>, dave weil
><ddw...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> At least I don't claim to be a world famous published author
>> <chuckle>.
>
>Because you aren't, obviously, and your total misunderstanding of
>what's going on isn't going to endear you to a publisher if you sought
>to get published.
Why would I seek to be published?
>
>I don't make any claims about my published works that aren't supported
>by the facts and a quick visit to Amazon Books, ZDNet, CNET,
>Macworld.com, etc., eetc.
I didn't make any claims about your published works either.
I'm not studid.
Arny Krueger
> In article <2e84it08j7a41niat...@4ax.com>, dave weil
> <ddw...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > He claims to have conclusions about DIFFERENCE. Is that so hard
for a
> > pinhead like you to understand.
>
> That's right he has information about cause and effect and an
audible
> and measurable difference. No dispute. You are trying to raise an
> argument where there is no argument. The problem is you don't
> understand what any of this is about, so you keep putting your foot
in
> your mouth.
IME Weil is the sort of "genius" who would ask for a Nobel prize for
discovering subatomic particles because he speculated idly that they
exist, and later on someone else found scientific proof of their
existence.
dave weil
wrote:
>
How is this "ignoring me" Arny?
You know what it is? It's pure cowardice. When I make substantial
points, you ignore them. Since you are willing to comment on my
statements sometimes, I, and the rest of RAO, can only conclude that
when you don't answer me, I'm totally and absolutely correct and you
have no counter.
So answer me this Arny. Did or did not those subatomic particles exist
before scientic proof of their existence was discovered?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
PS, if you don't answer this, then we must assume that the answer is
yes.
dave weil
Boy, it's typo morning at the Weil household.
Maybe I *do* need to start using the spell checker <g>.
GRL
"I'm not studid."
was not the ideal thing to do (it was funny, though). You might want to
enable your spelling checker.
Cheers.
- GRL
"dave weil" <ddw...@home.com> wrote in message
news:4v94it4e720ppej9o...@4ax.com...
Arny Krueger
"GRL" <GLitw...@BIGFOOT.COM> wrote in message
news:1QqU6.51945$DG1.8...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com...
> No offence, but your ending your message with:
>
> "I'm not studid."
>
> was not the ideal thing to do (it was funny, though). You might
want to
> enable your spelling checker.
The post properties say he posted with: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent
1.8/32.548. I don't think it has spell-checking..
Mr. Weil used to whine about my spelling, but once the tables were
turned and my spelling improved through improved technology, it
stopped mattering to him.
Can we spell "hypocrite"?
George M. Middius
> No offence, but your ending your message with:
> "I'm not studid."
> was not the ideal thing to do (it was funny, though). You might want to
> enable your spelling checker.
You, OTOH are stupid. Also studid™.
Isn't it amazing how these moronic 'borgs have so little idea
what's being said?
trotsky
GRL wrote:
>
> No offence,
Are you British?
stephen campbell
Gene wrote:
>They are not being disputed.
Do you expect us to believe that you are not surprised about positive
results with good modern amps? Are you trying to tell us that you don't
find this hard to believe?
A brief sampling of your posts suggests otherwise:
>"It doesn't mean all amps sound the
>same, but most do when not clipping."
>"The childish insults and name calling
>usually come from the folks who feel
>everything or most everything sounds
>different. They just don't like being thrust
>into the bright light of reality. Feel free to
>disagree with the "rare difference"
>viewpoint, but expect folks who show you
>some references that should give you
>reason to change your viewpoint, if you
>view it fairly."
>"With audio, people are buying in to the
>expectation of an audible difference, even
>if that difference doesn't always exist on
>an objective basis."
>"Yes, we know it is not convenient for
>users to do ABX testing on their own.
>High-end dealers are not apt to do it since
>it will hurt their bottom lines (since they'll
>just be demonstrating that many of the
>claims of audible differences don't stand
>up)."
Ed Seedhouse
>You might want to enable your spelling checker.
>The post properties say he posted with: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent
>1.8/32.548. I don't think it has spell-checking..
Agent does indeed have a spell checker. I am using that exact version
myself.
Ed Seedhouse
Victoria, B.C.
dave weil
wrote:
>No offence, but your ending your message with:
>
>"I'm not studid."
>
>was not the ideal thing to do (it was funny, though). You might want to
>enable your spelling checker.
Ummmmm, I'm just using the word as Gene Steinberg (world famous
published writer) originally used it. I'll be happy to forward a
citation if you'd like, but you can just go back a few posts in this
thread to find it for yourself.
Thanks for your concern though.
dave weil
>
>"GRL" <GLitw...@BIGFOOT.COM> wrote in message
>news:1QqU6.51945$DG1.8...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com...
>> No offence, but your ending your message with:
>>
>> "I'm not studid."
>>
>> was not the ideal thing to do (it was funny, though). You might
>want to
>> enable your spelling checker.
>
>The post properties say he posted with: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent
>1.8/32.548. I don't think it has spell-checking..
Once again, world famous computer expert, you are DEAD WRONG.
Agent is an award-winning newsreader with complete email
functionality, designed to meet all of your personal communication
needs on the Internet. So what does Agent have that Free Agent
doesn't? Agent 1.8 includes all of the features and functionality of
Free Agent 1.21, plus many more news and email feature enhancements.
Here are some of the many things you can do with Agent:
Handle all your email needs
· Agent provides complete email functionality, including the
ability to send and receive email messages. Agent's address book is
handy for keeping track or common addresses.
· Use a multilingual spellchecker that will check your email (or
news) message before it is sent.
------------------------------------------
Ya think that Arny might admit that he was wrong about what he
"thought"? I doubt it.
>
>Mr. Weil used to whine about my spelling, but once the tables were
>turned and my spelling improved through improved technology, it
>stopped mattering to him.
Shame you can't do anything about the abysmal formatting.
>
>Can we spell "hypocrite"?
Ummmm, who was the one who made fun of *himself* for not using a spell
checker. HINT - It wasn't *you*. And it happened before GRL mentioned
it, although it was in a different situation.
Yes, unlike you, I can make fun of myself.
Buy a clue with one of those $1000 checks, will ya?
CS
CS
Arny Krueger
"Ed Seedhouse" <eseed...@home.com> wrote in message
news:1hl4itsjcaq7nu3mn...@4ax.com...
Thanks for the correction. I suspect that Weil thinks that his
language skills are too good for him to bother with a spell checker.
Gene Steinberg
<ddw...@home.com> wrote:
When folks with a low intellect and no ability to respond to serious
questions can't answer anything logically they make stuipid remarks,
such as:
> Auto-repeat mode on...
Gene Steinberg
<ddw...@home.com> wrote:
> I didn't make any claims about your published works either.
No you made a claim about me being a published author. Do you know what
you write when you write it?
Gene Steinberg
<GLitw...@BIGFOOT.COM> wrote:
>
> was not the ideal thing to do (it was funny, though). You might want to
> enable your spelling checker.
How about enabling your logic, if you have any, and supply a comment
about the issues at hand...
Gene Steinberg
Krueger <ar...@pop3free.com> wrote:
>
> The post properties say he posted with: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent
> 1.8/32.548. I don't think it has spell-checking..
>
> Mr. Weil used to whine about my spelling, but once the tables were
> turned and my spelling improved through improved technology, it
> stopped mattering to him.
>
> Can we spell "hypocrite"?
It's not even an issue, since I don't concern myself over it when
writing to folks like him. He has to remark about a typo, because he's
not smart enough to comment on the actual issues under discussion.
Gene Steinberg
<eseed...@home.com> wrote:
> Agent does indeed have a spell checker. I am using that exact version
> myself.
Actually I'm using Thoth 1.2.2 for Mac OS X.
Gene Steinberg
Krueger <ar...@pop3free.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the correction. I suspect that Weil thinks that his
> language skills are too good for him to bother with a spell checker.
Or with any display of intelligence.
Gene Steinberg
stephen campbell <Camf...@webtv.net> wrote:
> Do you expect us to believe that you are not surprised about positive
> results with good modern amps? Are you trying to tell us that you don't
> find this hard to believe?
You clearly don't understand the nature of the tests, nor what was
compared. If you did, you'd retreat fast, because you don't have the
guts to admit when you're wrong. And virtually every comment you've
made on this subject is way off base.
George M. Middius
> stuipid remarks,
Is that more to your liking than the previous standard of "studid"?
George M. Middius
> No you made a claim about me being a published author.
And what does Harold have to say about this, I wonder?
George M. Middius
> > enable your spelling checker.
> How about enabling your logic, if you have any, and supply a comment
> about the issues at hand...
The evidence shows that you're just as much of a pill as you've ever
been, Gene-ius. Renowned from one end of Usenet to the other,
appreciated equally in chatrooms, on bulletin boards, and in the
virtual halls of instant messaging, your gregarious personality
continues to win you friends and influence at an unprecedented rate.
You da man! (So to speak.)
Mark Plancke
>
>If the "magazine" (a better word might be "brochure") is selling its
>editorial content as objective, fact-based, or anything else in
>keeping with the tradition of true journalism, then the scenario you
>describe is nothing less than fraud.
Now, that's funny.
>They have the right to buy a box of
>chocolates and find real chocolate, not chocolate-flavored vegetable
>protein.
Yeah, that's why God gave us ears.
>
>BTW, arguing with AutoRepeatBorg is an exercise in futility. He's as
>stubborn as Phoebe and nearly as fucked in the head as Krooger.
Poddy mouth George, the pot calling the kettle black again.
Mark Plancke
SOUNDTECH RECORDING STUDIOS
Windsor, Ontario, Canada
http://SoundTechRecording.com
"You can't learn to engineer or eat pussy from a book. You can get
the basic idea, but until you dive into it face first and make a
few mistakes, you're not going to get the hang of it." - Fletcher
trotsky
Mark Plancke wrote:
>
> Poddy mouth George, the pot calling the kettle black again.
Shouldn't that be "...pod calling the kettle black..."? What's the
exact combination of drugs that you do, anyway?
George M. Middius
> >BTW, arguing with AutoRepeatBorg is an exercise in futility. He's as
> >stubborn as Phoebe and nearly as fucked in the head as Krooger.
> Poddy
Oh dear, it looks like the acolyte pussy eater is back to his old
habit of posting while drunk. Or maybe he's hoping to cast a
spell of cacaphilia over us with his random neologization.
What's been happening at the Detroit Zoo lately, Princey? I think
I read about you in the news. The report said the gorillas
suddenly burst into extreme agitation, and witnesses gave a
description of visitor in a curious mode of behavior. A short
pudgy man-like creature wearing a stained, torn raincoat appeared
to be doing a sort of dance in front of the gorillas. At one
point he pulled open his raincoat and said, according to a
witness, "Mud are outs! Where's Arnii! It's a firehose!" The
witness also said the peculiar, highly smelly man had slurred
speech and appeared to be digging in his backside during his
"dance".
My question, of course, is: What the devil were you up to,
Plancky? And how did you escape from your keepers?
Mark Plancke
>My question, of course, is: What the devil were you up to,
>Plancky?
Hey, can somebody get George a fresh diaper.
stephen campbell
>You clearly don't understand the nature of
>the tests, nor what was compared. If you
>did, you'd retreat fast,
This comment implies that you know something about the tests that I
don't, why don't you enlighten me? Why hasn't Arny supplied more details
about the tests? Perhaps he's afraid of being caught contradicting
himself.
dave weil
wrote:
No, I think that Weil is too damn lazy to use it.
You're welcome for the correction Arny. And I accept your apology.
dave weil
<Auto-repeat mode on>
Gene Steinberg
stephen campbell <Camf...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> This comment implies that you know something about the tests that I
> don't, why don't you enlighten me? Why hasn't Arny supplied more details
> about the tests? Perhaps he's afraid of being caught contradicting
> himself.
Your own statements indicate you don't understand anything about any of
the tests he's talked about here over the years.
Gene Steinberg
<ddw...@home.com> wrote:
> <Auto-repeat mode on>
I take that as an admission that you admit you lost this particular
round in this discussion, since your statement has nothing to do with
anything.
dave weil
You can take it anyway you want.
You never *did* address some of *my* points so I take that as you not
being able to defend some idiotic statements.
You never did address all of the Arny quotes that Stephen and I
brought up. This avoidance indicates that you realize that we are
right and you are wrong.
So there.
Arny Krueger
"Gene Steinberg" <ge...@macnightowl.com> wrote in message
news:100620010309217900%ge...@macnightowl.com...
Notice the absence of specific technical questions from Mr. Campbell.
BTW, the roster of amplifiers tests that can be downloaded from
http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm has increased
lately. The current roster is:
Bryston 2Bst
Bryston 4Bnrb
Bryston 4Bst
Crown Macrotech 5000VZ
Parasound-HCA-1000A
QSC USA 850
I'd bet money that none of the "critics" who are trying to jump on
this topic have actually ever tried to give them a listen...
Talk is cheap, no?
Next: posting the corresponding technical tests at www.pcavtech.com .
dave weil
wrote:
>
>"Gene Steinberg" <ge...@macnightowl.com> wrote in message
>news:100620010309217900%ge...@macnightowl.com...
>> In article <27093-3B2...@storefull-176.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>> stephen campbell <Camf...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>> > This comment implies that you know something about the tests that
>I
>> > don't, why don't you enlighten me? Why hasn't Arny supplied more
>details
>> > about the tests? Perhaps he's afraid of being caught
>contradicting
>> > himself.
>
>> Your own statements indicate you don't understand anything about
>any of
>> the tests he's talked about here over the years.
>
>Notice the absence of specific technical questions from Mr. Campbell.
>
>BTW, the roster of amplifiers tests that can be downloaded from
>http://www.pcabx.com/product/a*ifiers/index.htm has increased
>lately. The current roster is:
>
>Bryston 2Bst
>Bryston 4Bnrb
>Bryston 4Bst
>Crown Macrotech 5000VZ
>Parasound-HCA-1000A
>QSC USA 850
>
>I'd bet money that none of the "critics" who are trying to jump on
>this topic have actually ever tried to give them a listen...
Boy, just like Steinberg, you miss the point. I don't think either of
us has "criticized" your results. Yet. All we done is comment on your
public statements about the tests, which implies some sort of
breakthrough.
Boy, your comprehension skills are as poor as ever.
>Talk is cheap, no?
As cheap as an unwashed butthole.
>
>Next: posting the corresponding technical tests at www.p*vtech.com .
>
George M. Middius
> Your own statements indicate you don't understand anything about any of
> the tests he's talked about here over the years.
Of course we do, Gene-ius. Krooger's so-called "tests" are the
very epitome of what humans call an exercise in futility.
Krooger's incompetence in all things audio has been demonstrated
time and time again on this forum. Not to mention RAH-E, where
even Phoebe calls a 'tard a 'tard. Krooger is a mindless golem
who tries to equate home audio with computer soundcards. The
Kroo-stooge actually, seriously tries to tell us that normal
humans can compare the performance of home audio equipment using
their computers. That means, for most of us, using a soundcard as
a D-to-A converter and listening through cheesy "computer"
speakers. Do soundcards have good DACs? Sure, if you buy a $500
soundcard. And then let's talk jitter. Oops -- that's where
Krooger's diaper bursts, isn't it?
Where you been the last 8 months, Dronie? Out getting your
batteries recharged?