OT:Childish Games Played
ScottW
Somebody must think this is funny enough
to waste time doing it.
Wonder if anyone is savvy enough to know if the IP below
is a source or destination? Its Sterling Va, AOL.
(begin mail)
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail33.opentransfer.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<slzb...@aol.com>:
205.188.158.121 failed after I sent the message.
Remote host said: 554-: (HVU:B1)
http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554hvub1.html
554 TRANSACTION FAILED
--- Enclosed are the original headers of the message.
From: scot...@hotmail.com <scot...@hotmail.com>
Reply To: "scot...@hotmail.com" <scot...@hotmail.com>
To: sco...@lindenhurstsoccer.com
Subject: You tried everything to fight away the Erectile Dysfunction: the best
porno sites, the most exotic movies, hot playboys,nS9gcEEPIIIKg
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 2:30 PM
(end mail)
ScottW
Eeyore
ScottW wrote:
How about the *full* headers ?
OrgName: America Online, Inc
OrgID: AMERIC-59
Address: 22080 Pacific Blvd
City: Sterling
StateProv: VA
PostalCode: 20166
Country: US
NetRange: 205.188.0.0 - 205.188.255.255
CIDR: 205.188.0.0/16
NetName: AOL-DTC
NetHandle: NET-205-188-0-0-1
Parent: NET-205-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: DNS-01.NS.AOL.COM
NameServer: DNS-02.NS.AOL.COM
Comment:
RegDate: 1998-04-18
Updated: 1998-04-27
RTechHandle: AOL-NOC-ARIN
RTechName: America Online, Inc.
RTechPhone: +1-703-265-4670
RTechEmail: dom...@aol.net
ScottW
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:450A0F1D...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com...
How about 'em? Is this a source or destination?
Not sure it matters much.
ScottW
Arny Krueger
"ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EXnOg.73778$W01.50252@dukeread08...
> Got this mailer-daemon mail in my hotmail account today.
> Somebody must think this is funny enough
> to waste time doing it.
No, it is probably a business that mails spam that did this. They falsify
the headers of the spam they send out so they trace back at innocent
parties. Thus, the trace back seems to be valid.
George M. Middius
Krooger grinds his teeth in frustration.
> They falsify the headers of the spam they send out so they trace
> back at[sic] innocent parties. Thus, the trace back seems to be valid.
If only you'd known half that much about email headers when you were
trying to evade the vice squad....
--
"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006
Arny Krueger
"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message news:q56lg2ds058tqfhnk...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Krooger grinds his teeth in frustration.
>
>> They falsify the headers of the spam they send out so they trace
>> back at[sic] innocent parties. Thus, the trace back seems to be valid.
>
> If only you'd known half that much about email headers when you were
> trying to evade the vice squad....
Wow, that's a smart post.
Not.
Thanks for so quickly rising to the occasion and demonstrating your
childishness, Middiot.
George M. Middius
The Krooborg tries sarcasm. Is there no end to the Beast's finely honed
"humor"?
> >> They falsify the headers of the spam they send out so they trace
> >> back at[sic] innocent parties. Thus, the trace back seems to be valid.
> > If only you'd known half that much about email headers when you were
> > trying to evade the vice squad....
> Wow, that's a smart post.
Arnii, I'd like to pause for a moment and ask you to clarify a, uh,
comment that you keep putting in your posts. It goes like this:
> Dooooh!
Nobody else has any idea what you mean by that. Are you singing aloud to a
doo-wop chorus? Are you grunting and straining to make a bathroom
delivery? Are you doing some kind of stuttery scat while Ella sings in the
other room?
> Not.
Hilarious! Sparkling wit for the ages!
> Thanks for so quickly rising to the occasion and demonstrating your
> childishness, Middiot.
In case anybody's forgotten what I was referring to, it was that infamous
episode in which you lied about receiving kiddie porn via email, then lied
about knowing who "sent" it to you, then lied about the header that you
clumsily tried to forge, then lied about reporting it to the police, then
lied about actually talking to an "undercover vice officer".
You should consult with your pastor about the effect all these lies (and
the millions of others) will have on your chances of getting into "heaven"
after you croak.
Arny Krueger
"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
>
>
> The Krooborg tries sarcasm. Is there no end to the Beast's finely honed
> "humor"?
>
>> >> They falsify the headers of the spam they send out so they trace
>> >> back at[sic] innocent parties. Thus, the trace back seems to be valid.
>
>> > If only you'd known half that much about email headers when you were
>> > trying to evade the vice squad....
>
>> Wow, that's a smart post.
Note that Middiot's reply is completely irrelavant to my post. Obviously
this is in his view the following is an earth-shaking issue, that causing a
massive itch in his britches.
> Arnii, I'd like to pause for a moment and ask you to clarify a, uh,
> comment that you keep putting in your posts. It goes like this:
>> Dooooh!
What's to clarify, Middiot?
Google searching shows that "Dooooh!" has been used over 16,000 times on the
web. So no matter how narrow you experience in the real world is.
Middiot, why not deal with the real source of that itch in your britches,
which is no doubt a dirty Depends!
Bill Riel
ar...@hotpop.com says...
Yeah, I get these from time to time on my work account - rejected emails
that appear to have been sent from my account but never were. Invariably
the contents of the emails are just your average boring spams.
--
Bill
MINe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> Google searching shows that "Dooooh!" has been used over 16,000 times on the
> web. So no matter how narrow you experience in the real world is.
Still incorrect.
Stephen
cmdr_...@cox.net
The Big Shit smears himself with his lunch.
> > The Krooborg tries sarcasm. Is there no end to the
> > Beast's finely honed "humor"?
[krapped-up formatting repaired]
> >> > If only you'd known half that much about email headers when you were
> >> > trying to evade the vice squad....
> >> Wow, that's a smart post.
The Krooborg, in its Infinite Shitfulness, shows that it is completely
flummoxed by a reference to one of its earlier Kroodowns. If anybody
still has a milligram of pity left for the poor widdle Kwooborg, this
is the time to give it up.
> irrelavant
Obligatory Krooglish attack noted.
> massive itch in his britches.
Projection of repressed homosexual desires noted.
> > Arnii, I'd like to pause for a moment and ask you to clarify a, uh,
> > comment that you keep putting in your posts. It goes like this:
> >> Dooooh!
> Google searching shows that "Dooooh!" has been used over 16,000
> times on the web.
It's a shame you're unable to translate your grunting into human
language, you filthy turd.
> So no matter how narrow you experience in the real world is.
Obligatory secondary Krooglish attack noted.
> that itch in your britches,
Projection of repressed homosexual desires noted.
> which is no doubt a dirty Depends!
Diaper fetish noted.
Did life get tougher for you after your pal in Pennsylvania was busted?
http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,975260,00.html
Jon Yaeger
cmdr_...@cox.net at cmdr_...@cox.net wrote on 9/15/06 2:32 PM:
Geez, how did my news filter miss this loser??
Eeyore
Jon Yaeger wrote:
> in article 1158345158.4...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,
> cmdr_...@cox.net at cmdr_...@cox.net wrote on 9/15/06 2:32 PM:
>
> > Diaper fetish noted.
>
> Geez, how did my news filter miss this loser??
He's morphed his email addy.
Graham
George M. Middius
Li'l Jonny whined:
> > Did life get tougher for you after your pal in Pennsylvania was busted?
> > http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,975260,00.html
> Geez, how did my news filter miss this loser??
What ever has happened to you, Jonny? You used to be a fairly decent
approximation of a human being. Sad to see you've turned into a bitter
Usenet kvetch.
Arny Krueger
"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> Sad to see you've turned into a bitter Usenet kvetch.
As if that isn't exactly what you are, George: a bitter Usenet kvetch.
George M. Middius
The Krooborg deviates from its standard IKYABWAI routine into an equally
hopeless IKHIBWAY.
> > Sad to see you've turned into a bitter Usenet kvetch.
> As if that isn't exactly what you are, George: a bitter Usenet kvetch.
Arnii, can't you even *try* to come up with an original slam? The whole
world sees your lameness and they're laughing at you.
ScottW
With that subject line? I kind of doubt it.... but anything is
possible.
ScottW
Arny Krueger
"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
>
>
> The Krooborg deviates from its standard IKYABWAI routine into an equally
> hopeless IKHIBWAY.
>
>> > Sad to see you've turned into a bitter Usenet kvetch.
>
>> As if that isn't exactly what you are, George: a bitter Usenet kvetch.
>
> Arnii, can't you even *try* to come up with an original slam?
Stoopid question. About half of your every post you make is composed of
expressions that you coped from me, Middiot.
> The whole world sees your lameness and they're laughing at you.
How would you know that Middiot, given how agoraphobic you really are?
Arny Krueger
"Bill Riel" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f7471ab3...@news.individual.net...
There are people around here who don't believe that email headers can be
falsified, but this is proof.
George M. Middius
The Krooborg is konfused again.
> > Arnii, can't you even *try* to come up with an original slam?
> Stoopid question. About half of your every post you make is composed of
> expressions that you coped from me, Middiot.
I "coped" them, did I? ;-)
> > The whole world sees your lameness and they're laughing at you.
> How would you know that Middiot, given how agoraphobic you really are?
That wasn't original, but at least it's one you haven't whacked to death
with repetition.
Here's a link for you to begin your primary school education, Mr. Shit:
http://ipoo.org/872f
Here's lesson two:
http://ipoo.org/9azq
George M. Middius
The Krooborg keeps trying to spin its web of lies.
> There are people around here who don't believe that email headers can be falsified
Another lie from Arnii "Lies Are In My Blood" Krooger.
The truth is that everybody knows *you* cannot forge (or "falsify" in
Krooglish) a header. You tried; you failed; the proof was posted and is
still available in Goggle™. (1)
____________
(1) The term "Goggle" is a Krooglishized version of the real human word,
Google, which in this context refers to the Usenet archive accessible at
http://groups.google.com/. My use of the Krooglish "Goggle" is mockery,
which idiots like Krooger can study up on at http://ipoo.org/872f.
Eeyore
"George M. Middius" wrote:
> The Krooborg keeps trying to spin its web of lies.
>
> > There are people around here who don't believe that email headers can be falsified
>
> Another lie from Arnii "Lies Are In My Blood" Krooger.
Twit !
Graham
paul packer
That's pretty devastating, Graham. Are you sure you don't want to
withdraw it?
George M. Middius
paul packer said:
> >> Another lie from Arnii "Lies Are In My Blood" Krooger.
> >Twit !
> That's pretty devastating, Graham. Are you sure you don't want to
> withdraw it?
Poopie gets so incensed when I taunt the Krooborg, I'm afraid he's going
to burst into flames and shoot up into the stratosphere like a Chinese
rocket.
Eeyore
paul packer wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 21:56:21 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
> >"George M. Middius" wrote:
> >
> >> The Krooborg keeps trying to spin its web of lies.
> >>
> >> > There are people around here who don't believe that email headers can be falsified
> >>
> >> Another lie from Arnii "Lies Are In My Blood" Krooger.
> >
> >Twit !
>
> That's pretty devastating, Graham. Are you sure you don't want to
> withdraw it?
No.
Graham
Eeyore
"George M. Middius" wrote:
> paul packer said:
>
> > >> Another lie from Arnii "Lies Are In My Blood" Krooger.
>
> > >Twit !
>
> > That's pretty devastating, Graham. Are you sure you don't want to
> > withdraw it?
>
> Poopie gets so incensed when I taunt the Krooborg, I'm afraid he's going
> to burst into flames and shoot up into the stratosphere like a Chinese
> rocket.
Poo !
Graham
George M. Middius
Donkey-Piggie snorted:
> > Poopie gets so incensed when I taunt the Krooborg, I'm afraid he's going
> > to burst into flames and shoot up into the stratosphere like a Chinese
> > rocket.
> Poo !
Careful there, Poopie -- talking like that is liable to inflame the
Krooborg, if you know what I mean.
Eeyore
"George M. Middius" wrote:
> Donkey-Piggie snorted:
>
> > > Poopie gets so incensed when I taunt the Krooborg, I'm afraid he's going
> > > to burst into flames and shoot up into the stratosphere like a Chinese
> > > rocket.
>
> > Poo !
>
> Careful there, Poopie -- talking like that is liable to inflame the
> Krooborg, if you know what I mean.
LMAO !
You truly are such a wortless clot !
Graham
George M. Middius
Poopie, are you getting inflamed too?
> > Donkey-Piggie snorted:
> > > > Poopie gets so incensed when I taunt the Krooborg, I'm afraid he's going
> > > > to burst into flames and shoot up into the stratosphere like a Chinese
> > > > rocket.
> > > Poo !
> > Careful there, Poopie -- talking like that is liable to inflame the
> > Krooborg, if you know what I mean.
> LMAO !
No you're not, you stupid donkey. You're using it to propel your snorts
onto Usenet. We can tell because the stink is overpowering.
> You truly are such a wortless clot !
Why thank you, O Oderiferous Kroopologist Supreme. Fairer praise I could
not want from such an acolyte of Arnii Krooborg as you.
Seriously though... Do you really see nothing at all wrong with Mr. Shit?
Would you be glad, say, to sit down to lunch with him? Would you invite
him to your house to listen to your stereo? Would you not distinguish
yourself from Krooger in any way at all?
Eeyore
"George M. Middius" wrote:
> > LMAO !
>
> No you're not
Eh ?
Graham
Eeyore
"George M. Middius" wrote:
> Poopie, are you getting inflamed too?
>
> > > Donkey-Piggie snorted:
>
> > > > > Poopie gets so incensed when I taunt the Krooborg, I'm afraid he's going
> > > > > to burst into flames and shoot up into the stratosphere like a Chinese
> > > > > rocket.
>
> > > > Poo !
>
> > > Careful there, Poopie -- talking like that is liable to inflame the
> > > Krooborg, if you know what I mean.
>
> > LMAO !
>
> No you're not, you stupid donkey. You're using it to propel your snorts
> onto Usenet. We can tell because the stink is overpowering.
>
> > You truly are such a wortless clot !
>
> Why thank you, O Oderiferous Kroopologist Supreme. Fairer praise I could
> not want from such an acolyte of Arnii Krooborg as you.
>
> Seriously though... Do you really see nothing at all wrong with Mr. Shit?
> Would you be glad, say, to sit down to lunch with him? Would you invite
> him to your house to listen to your stereo? Would you not distinguish
> yourself from Krooger in any way at all?
What a very very strange person you are !
Graham
ScottW
"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote in
>
>
>
> Poopie, are you getting inflamed too?
>
>> > Donkey-Piggie snorted:
>
>> > > > Poopie gets so incensed when I taunt the Krooborg, I'm afraid he's
>> > > > going
>> > > > to burst into flames and shoot up into the stratosphere like a Chinese
>> > > > rocket.
>
>> > > Poo !
>
>> > Careful there, Poopie -- talking like that is liable to inflame the
>> > Krooborg, if you know what I mean.
>
>> LMAO !
>
> No you're not, you stupid donkey. You're using it to propel your snorts
> onto Usenet. We can tell because the stink is overpowering.
>
>> You truly are such a wortless clot !
>
> Why thank you, O Oderiferous Kroopologist Supreme. Fairer praise I could
> not want from such an acolyte of Arnii Krooborg as you.
>
> Seriously though... Do you really see nothing at all wrong with Mr. Shit?
yes
> Would you be glad, say, to sit down to lunch with him?
Is he buying?
> Would you invite
> him to your house to listen to your stereo?
No
> Would you not distinguish
> yourself from Krooger in any way at all?
Yes.
Thank god that is resolved.
Now get over it.
ScottW
Arny Krueger
"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
>
>
>
> The Krooborg keeps trying to spin its web of lies.
>
>> There are people around here who don't believe that email headers can be
>> falsified
> The truth is that everybody knows *you* cannot forge (or "falsify" in
> Krooglish) a header. You tried; you failed; the proof was posted and is
> still available in GoggleT. (1)
Never happened. Just more of your paranoid twaddle, George.
Howard Ferstler
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> in message news:ssbog25hg4k2ud136...@4ax.com...
>>The truth is that everybody knows *you* cannot forge (or "falsify" in
>>Krooglish) a header. You tried; you failed; the proof was posted and is
>>still available in GoggleT. (1)
> Never happened. Just more of your paranoid twaddle, George.
Arny, why do you continue to "debate" this sociopath, or the
other misfits in these groups? Most of them (well, at
least most of those on RAO) are not bothering to deal with
audio at all, and most (including even some on the other
groups) could not or cannot deal with the topic of audio
intelligently even if they gave it a fair try. You have
joined a group of true believers and mud slinging jerks who
are wasting your time.
My god, this hobby has become so small.
Howard Ferstler
Ayn Marx
Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> My god, this hobby has become so small.
>
That's because its been allowed to become a hobby, not a means to enjoy
music.
George M. Middius
Brother Horace the Relentlessly Indefatigable perorated:
> >>The truth is that everybody knows *you* cannot forge (or "falsify" in
> >>Krooglish) a header. You tried; you failed; the proof was posted and is
> >>still available in Goggle™. (1)
> > Never happened. Just more of your paranoid twaddle, George.
> Arny, why do you continue to "debate" this sociopath,
Are you talking about moi, Clerkie? How ironic of you to bandy
psychological terms while consoling Krazy Krooger. But then it's a matter
of public record that despite Mr. Shit's proven pedophiliac tendencies,
the only thing that matters to you is whether he hates Stereophile and
high-priced cables.
BTW, Krooger's idea of "debate" is even sleazier than yours. As you would
know if you yourself weren't mentally impaired, at least half of Turdy's
posts contain one blatant lie. The post to which you replied has one
sentence, and that sentence is a lie. A lie, Harold -- do you know why
Normals dislike lies? We all know you're honesty-challenged, which is
probably part of the reason why your affection for Shit-for-Dinner is
undiminished despite his years of antisocial behavior.
Were you always a tin-pot ideologue, Clerkie? You've been unhinged as long
as I've known of you, which is close to ten years now. How about before
Usenet -- were you a loony clown back then too?
Howard Ferstler
I agree in part. However, from its inception it was a
technically oriented hobby that embraced the goal you
indicated. There is nothing wrong with the two realms (audio
as a progressive and fun hobby and audio as a means to a
musical end), but within the last decade or two the rational
approach of the earlier enthusiasts became smothered by an
unbelievable amount of claptrap and non-scientific
silliness, and obviously the claptrap has itself become
eclipsed by often hysterical attitudes that are wrecking the
high-end approach to the hobby.
Early enthusiasts had a goal: realistic sound reproduction
in home-listening environments. Each technical advance was
embraced by perceptive enthusiasts as a better way to reach
that goal. However, of late, technical diddling, throwback
technologies, and arcane design have become ends in themselves.
Those who embrace such an approach are forgetting that the
initial goal was to develop more realistic sound
reproduction in home-listening environments - and not to
have speculative performance based upon wishful thinking or
the niftiness and art-design looks of exotic and expensive,
and yet often functionally dated products.
Regarding the hobby itself, there is nothing wrong with
having audio toys and enjoying them on a technical and pride
of ownership level, as long as those toys do the job of
helping to simulate live-music sound in the home. However,
toys that do not do that and that are simply arcane and
sometimes complex artifacts are, in my opinion, a waste of
time and money - their historically interesting design
attributes notwithstanding.
Howard Ferstler
Arny Krueger
"Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:450dbc7c$1@kcnews01...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>> wrote in message news:ssbog25hg4k2ud136...@4ax.com...
>
>>>The truth is that everybody knows *you* cannot forge (or "falsify" in
>>>Krooglish) a header. You tried; you failed; the proof was posted and is
>>>still available in GoggleT. (1)
>
>> Never happened. Just more of your paranoid twaddle, George.
>
> Arny, why do you continue to "debate" this sociopath, or the other misfits
> in these groups?
Good question. I've cut way back on it.
>Most of them (well, at least most of those on RAO) are not bothering to
>deal with audio at all,
Right, they don't really care about audio. Audio is just a pretext for their
childish antics.
> and most (including even some on the other groups) could not or cannot
> deal with the topic of audio intelligently even if they gave it a fair
> try.
History bears that out.
> You have joined a group of true believers and mud slinging jerks who are
> wasting your time.
Every once in a while somebody with a sincere interest in audio mistakenly
falls into this hole. I try to make their time here as profitable as
possible. By providing honest and fair responses I provide a counterpoint to
the spewings of the usual list of suspects.
> My god, this hobby has become so small.
Depends on how you define it. Audio defined as something that you sit and
listen to in your listening room is a boomer thing. Personal audio is big.
Howard Ferstler
> "Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:450dbc7c$1@kcnews01...
>>You have joined a group of true believers and mud slinging jerks who are
>>wasting your time.
> Every once in a while somebody with a sincere interest in audio mistakenly
> falls into this hole. I try to make their time here as profitable as
> possible. By providing honest and fair responses I provide a counterpoint to
> the spewings of the usual list of suspects.
Good point. Note that I respond to some posts, myself. I am
not going to get into spitting contests with the idiots, though.
>>My god, this hobby has become so small.
> Depends on how you define it. Audio defined as something that you sit and
> listen to in your listening room is a boomer thing. Personal audio is big.
I was referring to "small in spirit."
In the old days, new products often meant new directions and
improved performance. This is not to say that new products
are devoid of important advances. Hell, surround sound and
technologies like DD and DTS are genuine marvels, as are
some of the DSP circuits and additional channels that allow
two-channel recordings to simulate very good surround sound.
However, these days, at least with the high end, we often
also see super wires for sale, and vibration-isolation
devices, and goofy power-line conditioners and power cords,
along with outrageously priced LP turntables and cartridges,
and power gobbling (but not high-power producing) tube amps,
and of course ultra-low wattage and high distortion SET
amps, all touted as super-duper products - when they are
nothing more than gimmicks and throwback items that could be
bested by fifty-buck CD and DVD players and mainstream
receivers selling for under $400.
That people take this stuff seriously is what I meant when I
said the hobby has become small.
Obviously, though, some areas are booming. Home theater
seems to be, although if you check the Circuit City and Best
Buy ads (and the stores, too) you will see big-ticket video
gear (at least the monitors) but will see little in the way
of big-ticket audio gear. Funny situation. Serious audio has
become enough of a joke for it to have alienated the
mainstream market to the extent that it makes mid-priced
(and admittedly not always bad) gear the way to go for the
vast bulk of the consumer market. Many intelligent people
would just roll their eyes if they ventured into a high-end
audio store and listened to the idiotic statements made by
the sales personnel.
I think that high-end audio would be in much better shape if
the lunatics (both in the manufacturing and sales realms, as
well as in the realm of audio journalism) had not gone off
the deep end.
Well, they are now reaping the rewards for their efforts.
Howard Ferstler
Jenn
wrote:
<snip>
> However, these days, at least with the high end, we often
> also see super wires for sale, and vibration-isolation
> devices, and goofy power-line conditioners and power cords,
<snip>
You don't believe that some vibration isolation devices are effective?
Eeyore
Jenn wrote:
I could elaborate on this whole area extensively actually.
Graham
Howard Ferstler
> In article <450f3618@kcnews01>, Howard Ferstler <fer...@attglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>>However, these days, at least with the high end, we often
>>also see super wires for sale, and vibration-isolation
>>devices, and goofy power-line conditioners and power cords,
> You don't believe that some vibration isolation devices are effective?
With LP turntables, yes. With everything else, no.
Frankly, a good turntable (and certainly one that costs
megabucks) ought to come with built-in mounting feet or
chassis configuration that isolate adequately.
Howard Ferstler
Eeyore
Howard Ferstler wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
> Howard Ferstler <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >>However, these days, at least with the high end, we often
> >>also see super wires for sale, and vibration-isolation
> >>devices, and goofy power-line conditioners and power cords,
>
> > You don't believe that some vibration isolation devices are effective?
>
> With LP turntables, yes. With everything else, no.
>
> Frankly, a good turntable (and certainly one that costs
> megabucks) ought to come with built-in mounting feet or
> chassis configuration that isolate adequately.
The classic 'anti-vibration' plinth is one cast from concrete !
Cuts down the rumble on Garrard 301 and 401s too !
Graham
Thepork...@aol.com
Now that's a load of crap.
Scott
Laurence Payne
<rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote:
>The classic 'anti-vibration' plinth is one cast from concrete !
>
>Cuts down the rumble on Garrard 301 and 401s too !
But FAR too cheap :-)
Eeyore
Stuart Krivis wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2006 14:35:10 -0700, "Ayn Marx" <mdh...@iprimus.com.au>
> A hobby is, IMO, something you do for enjoyment or relaxation. It's a
> leisure activity. I see nothing in that that would preclude enjoying
> music.
I suspect he actually means it's become a fetish or obsession.
Graham
dpi...@cartchunk.org
Eeyore wrote:
> The classic 'anti-vibration' plinth is one cast from concrete !
> Cuts down the rumble on Garrard 301 and 401s too !
Assuming that by "rumble," you're talking about spurious
low-frequency signals that are generated within the turntable
mechanism itself, e.g., bearing noise, motor noise, idler puck
noise and the like, please explain how a concrete base,
sitting on the OTHER side of the tables mechanical isolation,
can "cut down" the noise generate don this side of that filter.
Thepork...@aol.com
Dick Pierce an I just agreed on something. IOW hell just froze over.
scott
Trevor Wilson
> Jenn wrote:
>
>> In article <450f3618@kcnews01>, Howard Ferstler <fer...@attglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>However, these days, at least with the high end, we often also see super
>>>wires for sale, and vibration-isolation devices, and goofy power-line
>>>conditioners and power cords,
>
>> You don't believe that some vibration isolation devices are effective?
>
> With LP turntables, yes. With everything else, no.
**As usual, you are wrong. Many items suffer from vibration problems. CD
players can skip, if subject to shocks. It is for this reason that every CD
player on the planet uses compliant mounting systems for the laser assembly.
Tube products (particularly low level stages) are responsive to vibration.
The resultant 'microphonic' effects are well known and many tube amp
manufacturers employ systems to alleviate the effects.
>
> Frankly, a good turntable (and certainly one that costs megabucks) ought
> to come with built-in mounting feet or chassis configuration that isolate
> adequately.
**On that we agree. ALL turntable manufacturers need only look to SOTA (20
years old) to learn exactly how an inexpensive and intelligently designed
system can virtually eliminate any vibration problems.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Trevor Wilson
"Stuart Krivis" <j...@mongo.krivis.com> wrote in message
news:urj0h2hecg8f5g52q...@4ax.com...
**Wrong.
Eeyore
Stuart Krivis wrote:
> They are for turntables, but not for much else.
Adding mass is quite effective but that's not actually 'isolation'.
Graham
Trevor Wilson
<Thepork...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1158696410....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
**Just a nit-pick: Only the very seriously deluded believe in the concept of
Hell (and Heaven), God, life after death and all that other supernatural
clap-trap.
Trevor Wilson
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>> wrote in message news:ssbog25hg4k2ud136...@4ax.com...
>
>>>The truth is that everybody knows *you* cannot forge (or "falsify" in
>>>Krooglish) a header. You tried; you failed; the proof was posted and is
>>>still available in GoggleT. (1)
>
>> Never happened. Just more of your paranoid twaddle, George.
>
> Arny, why do you continue to "debate" this sociopath, or the other misfits
> in these groups? Most of them (well, at least most of those on RAO) are
> not bothering to deal with audio at all, and most (including even some on
> the other groups) could not or cannot deal with the topic of audio
> intelligently even if they gave it a fair try.
**This would be a pot, kettle, black kind of moment. You have been corrected
many times in the past, yet you doggedly stick to your own deluded view.
Trevor Wilson
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:45102AD7...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com...
**Nonsense. My last workbench was constructed from around 200kg of steel and
timber. With all the crap lying on it, it probably weighed in at around
400kg+. It was solidly mounted to a concrete slab, which probably weighed
several Tonnes. I'd guess it's mass at around 4-5 Tonnes. That slab was
mounted on classic Sydney clay soil. Very solid. I've measured turntables,
which employ no significant (four compliant rubber feet) suspension (Micro
Seiki) whilst a truck rumbles past on the road, near my workshop. The
resulting noise is EASILY measurable (and audible). Coupling a turntable to
the planet is a dumb thing to do. Imagine doing so in this place:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/world/japan/density.php
The 'classic' suspension is a PROPERLY tuned system, employing suitably
compliant systems, be they springs, or some other devices. SOTA showed the
way around 20 years ago. VERY simple, relatively inexpensive and well
designed. Four springs and suitable mass loading to compensate for different
arm/cartridge masses. Such a system can effectively deal with all, but the
most extreme external vibrations and, of course, air transmitted vibrations.
George M. Middius
Trevor Wilson said:
> > Dick Pierce an I just agreed on something. IOW hell just froze over.
> **Just a nit-pick: Only the very seriously deluded believe in the concept of
> Hell (and Heaven), God, life after death and all that other supernatural
> clap-trap.
Thanks for the reminder. The rest of us had a moment of doubt because of
the apocraphyl event Scott cited.
Trevor Wilson
"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
>
>
> Trevor Wilson said:
>
>> > Dick Pierce an I just agreed on something. IOW hell just froze over.
>
>> **Just a nit-pick: Only the very seriously deluded believe in the concept
>> of
>> Hell (and Heaven), God, life after death and all that other supernatural
>> clap-trap.
>
> Thanks for the reminder.
**My pleasure.
The rest of us had a moment of doubt because of
> the apocraphyl event Scott cited.
**Don't forget: Scott supports that idiot Dubya.
dizzy
>>>You don't believe that some vibration isolation devices are effective?
>>
>> They are for turntables, but not for much else.
>
>**Wrong.
What else, then? Tubed preamps?
Trevor Wilson
"dizzy" <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:t701h2l5jh0ahklvp...@4ax.com...
**Yep. And CD players, DVD players, Minidisk players, etc.
Howard Ferstler
> "Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:45102459$1@kcnews01...
>
>>Jenn wrote:
>>>You don't believe that some vibration isolation devices are effective?
>>
>>With LP turntables, yes. With everything else, no.
> **As usual, you are wrong.
Words of wisdom from the snake-oil section.
> Many items suffer from vibration problems. CD
> players can skip, if subject to shocks. It is for this reason that every CD
> player on the planet uses compliant mounting systems for the laser assembly.
Which is why they should not need an exterior vibration
isolation system.
> Tube products (particularly low level stages) are responsive to vibration.
Well, I was assuming that intelligent enthusiasts would use
up-to-date solid-state hardware. However, yes, if someone is
opting for retro-grade gear (tubes), then, for sure, they
might need some kind of vibration protection. Then, again,
if the device has problems with typical home-installation
vibration the user might consider opting for tubes that were
not so microphonic.
> The resultant 'microphonic' effects are well known and many tube amp
> manufacturers employ systems to alleviate the effects.
If so, then it is likely that good tube amps would not need
vibration isolation devices. Protection should be built in,
meaning that outboard devices should not be needed. Of
course, guys like you will still sell stuff like that to
suckers.
>>Frankly, a good turntable (and certainly one that costs megabucks) ought
>>to come with built-in mounting feet or chassis configuration that isolate
>>adequately.
> **On that we agree. ALL turntable manufacturers need only look to SOTA (20
> years old) to learn exactly how an inexpensive and intelligently designed
> system can virtually eliminate any vibration problems.
The AR Turntable appeared in the 1960s and also had the
problem solved - well before that SOTA unit, I think.
Incidentally, it feels kind of creepy having a hi-fi con
artist such as yourself agree with me about anything.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> "Stuart Krivis" <j...@mongo.krivis.com> wrote in message
> news:urj0h2hecg8f5g52q...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:38:58 GMT, Jenn
>><jennconduct...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>You don't believe that some vibration isolation devices are effective?
>>They are for turntables, but not for much else.
> **Wrong.
Actually, I am going to agree with you, which again makes me
feel a bit creepy.
Poorly designed hardware probably needs those "isolation
devices." So do hi-fi store clerks who sell the stuff to
suckers to help meet marketing goals.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> <Thepork...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
>>Dick Pierce an I just agreed on something. IOW hell just froze over.
> **Just a nit-pick: Only the very seriously deluded believe in the concept of
> Hell (and Heaven), God, life after death and all that other supernatural
> clap-trap.
Yikes, we agree again. Here is my take on religion in
general. I normally would not post off topic like this
(particularly with a commentary this long), but I slapped
the text below together just in case one of these days
someone asked about supernatural belief systems. Might as
well run it past you people for a proofing job.
Observations and questions concerning faith-based
lifestyles, Christian or otherwise.
Ironically, the questions, themes, and paradoxes outlined
with below may not concern those with religious
sensibilities as much as they concern nonbelievers. Indeed,
there is the fact that nonbelievers may often be more
involved with the paradox of belief than those who have
happily and securely embraced religion and have stopped
asking really serious questions. Nevertheless, the ten
points below involve questions and paradoxes that any
individual who has a professed faith should be both willing
and able to deal with, in spite of their potential to
shatter a few illusions. The most profound faith is the one
that can conquer skepticism from the outside.
Regarding that faith, I realize that having it makes the
vicissitudes of life easier to handle, which may be one
reason why religious people have a tendency to outlive their
skeptical counterparts. Being in the presence of God
certainly does relieve tension. However, for me believing in
something just because it makes an individual feel better or
safer, or be more able to cope with a world that seems
outwardly chaotic and unjust is not preferable to dealing
with the often demoralizing facts and learning to live with
them. Adults face facts; children create fantasies to cope
with them. Skeptics face facts; believers resort to faith as
a shield against pain. The opinions of believers
notwithstanding, non believers are often as aware of life’s
injustices as any religious person, but a serious non
believer is not willing to trash his rational faculties in
order to sleep better at night.
For me, satisfying curiosity and simply thinking about
reality and learning more about it every day by any means
available is more intellectually (and even spiritually)
satisfying than embracing irrational and doctrinaire beliefs
– beliefs that continue to be disputed by people around the
world. And remember, historically those opposing beliefs
have often resulted in wars, murder, and devastation. Being
a “true believer” (with a nod to Eric Hoffer) may not be as
ultimately beneficial as it is cracked up to be.
(Note that for simplicity’s sake I will sometimes use the
pronoun “him’ or “he” when referring to God, even though it
makes no sense at all to assign the entity a gender.)
First question: Is God a bully, and is he even good?
In terms of rational, stabilized behavior (and this is
clearly evident throughout scripture), the God of Abraham
(who is worshipped by Christians, Muslims, and Jews, but of
course in different ways) often appears to be behaving like
a heavy who lacks self esteem. At least it seems this way if
we apply human standards of decency, fairness, and probity –
standards that God has supposedly given over to us as part
of his creative work.
For example, why is God so obsessed with having people
worship him? Why does this supposedly all-powerful being
fixate upon having humans pay him homage? If he is indeed
all-powerful he certainly would not need to be worshipped to
be fulfilled. Many would say that this demand to be
worshipped is a sign of weakness, not strength. A genuine
god would be satisfied completely by just being what he is,
namely, God. The Bible also indicates that God is “jealous,”
meaning that his wrath will descend upon those who either
have other gods before him or simply ignore him. God appears
to be slighted if he is not the center of attention – which
would be character flaw in a human being. A god that needs
this kind of attention is a god who is anything but strong
in character.
Yes, I realize he is God, and, jealous or not, he obviously
he makes the rules. But why didn’t he just build a good,
trouble-free and just world in which people could live
happily and then give them a decent afterlife as a reward
for living well? Why create such an unfair situation? Why
allow people to be punished who are basically victims of a
flawed creation job?
If a human being had this approach we would declare him to
be a borderline sociopath and obsessed with power for its
own sake. For some reason, Christians (and Muslims and Jews)
actually celebrate this kind of behavior in their god, as if
it is somehow the way a god should behave. However, a real
just and good god would be more magnanimous and would cut
people some slack. The last thing he would want would be for
his intelligent, free-thinking, independent, and precious
creations to grovel at his feet, and then be punished
forever if they did not comply with his demands.
A proper god certainly would not see his creations punished
for simply ignoring him, any more than a human parent would
allow someone to punish their children for doing the same thing.
Second question: does God want people to be his slaves?
God has the power to allow people to go to either heaven or
hell – or, shall we say, he makes it possible for people to
opt out of hell by accepting his gift of grace. However, in
order for anyone to receiver his grace and escape the fires
of damnation they must first declare their love of him (love
based upon what? a fear of going to hell!!) and also declare
that they realize that without his allowing this option they
are headed to the fires of damnation after they die. In
other words, in order to get on the good side of God one
must become his servant and by definition his slave.
Assuming this is the case, is this approach proper behavior
for a god? I mean, a human mother or father would not allow
their children to receive such punishment for minor
infractions, and yet we see no problem with God doing that
sort of thing with his children. Again, why doesn’t he just
cut people some slack and let them be judged by their deeds?
Why is God so extreme?
Third question: why hasn’t God given us a level playing field?
Unfortunately, the situation with God’s grace is even worse
than what we have outlined with the previous observation. It
appears that God has also arranged to make it easy for some
people to obtain grace. For example, church goers who were
raised in the faith, those who attend Billy Graham crusades
or Pat Robertson rallies, or those who watch televangelists,
etc., have many opportunities to hear the word and become
saved.
On the other hand, God has made it nearly impossible, or
even fully impossible for others to obtain similar grace.
For example, all of the Chinese and Indian peoples, and
Sub-Sahara African peoples, and North and South American,
and even European peoples who lived prior to Jesus showing
up or even for centuries after he showed up are at a huge
disadvantage. Ditto (if we digress to the Muslim point of
few for a moment) for those who failed to get the message
prior to Muhammad showing up. They did not have radio or TV
in those days, so televangelists could not get the word out
over a large area, and the disciples could not possibly
reach all of them after Jesus was resurrected (or were out
of range of Muhammad’s horsemen). Millions of people have
gone to hell simply because they were either too far away
from assorted apostles and preachers after the resurrection
to get the news, or lived and died before Jesus showed up.
They are victims of their time and place.
Yes, I realize that some people say that God has taken this
into account and that those people did indeed, in some way,
have a chance, but to the best of my knowledge there is no
mention of this in the Bible. And even if those in distant
lands or who were living during the wrong time period still
had some way to hear the word, so to speak, it is still
obvious that many people have had better chances to get
right with God than others. The playing field has been
anything but level.
On top of that we have scads of people who were able to hear
the "word" during their lifetimes, but were in such dire
straits or had had so many bad things happen to them during
those lifetimes that they would be inclined to think that no
"good" god would allow something like this to happen to
decent people. While some Christians thank God for not
letting one thousand people die during some natural
catastrophe when, say, only five hundred actually did (or
for losing only one arm during an accident instead of both
arms), a more rational person would be inclined to think
that no "good" god would have something so terrible happen
in the first place. If God is good, why is the world in such
sad shape? Why did an all-powerful God allow the world to
devolve into such a mess and let people be put into such
outrageous situations? Is it possible that God really is not
all powerful? Yeah, I suppose we could blame Adam and Eve
for getting things off to a bad start, but why should
everyone who followed them be punished for their foolishness?
Yes, I realize that a typical Christian answer to why bad
things sometimes happen to good people is that in the long
haul, as long as faith is maintained, they will be rewarded
– in heaven – by God. OK, this says that we can tolerate the
torture of people in the meantime, because later on those
same people will be with God and glory. I find this to be
rather weird, actually, given that other people are never
tortured this way during their lifetimes, live happily, and
then go smoothly to heaven after they die. The excuse comes
across as an apology for a flawed theological construct.
Torture now for some of you; but glory later. Just hang in
there.
Fourth question: does God reward ignorance?
Why is it that God has made it possible for anti-faith ideas
to be discovered and embraced by intelligent, curious and
scientifically minded people, who would then be inclined to
doubt the existence of God?
Here I am talking about things such as Darwin’s theory of
evolution, assorted geological discoveries that peg the
earth as being billions of years old, the big-bang theory,
the existence of other worlds circling other stars, the
creation and extinction of animals and whole species before
man ever showed up on earth, etc. At the same time, God
rewards less curious types who think that scientific
evidence was put on earth by God (or perhaps Satan) to fool
intellectuals and scientists and put them on the path to hell.
Why does God make it so difficult for intelligent people to
gain the faith and so easy for naïve and less well educated
people to obtain his grace? It looks like God desires for
people to stay dumb and submissive. Intellectuals need not
apply, because their innate skepticism and scientific
curiosity acts as a barrier to faith. Ironically, this
almost makes the case for not letting one’s children go to
college, particularly if they would be inclined to take
science and/or philosophy courses. The experience could
corrupt them.
Fifth question: is God truly just?
Rather than simply cause people who were bad when they were
alive to cease to exist after death, in other words, die and
be genuinely dead, God appears to have arranged for sinners
to remain alive after death and go to hell and burn there
forever. Yes, I realize that Christians will note that God
does not send people to Hell; rather they send themselves to
Hell for not accepting his grace. However, if God is all
powerful why has he allowed this kind of situation to exist
in the first place? Why not sweep Satan aside and allow the
world to become a full-time paradise, with people living
happily forever right here on earth?
Instead, what we have is a situation where there is no
simple "no afterlife" or "you are dead" punishment for those
who thwart God. They continue to live on in the afterlife
but become theological pot roast forever. And remember, you
get this treatment even if you only sinned a little bit but
still rejected god's gift of grace. The big sin is not being
a monster; rather, the big sin is rejecting God’s grace.
Hitler and Stalin get the same after-death treatment as some
rather nice person who still rejected God’s gift. Talk about
a vindictive attitude and lop-sided justice!
Actually, as I see it, the real vindictiveness comes from
the theologians who have dreamed up this mythology. For
example, in some of his more obscure writings Thomas Aquinas
reveled in knowing that some day he and other saved
Christians would be able to look down from heaven and see
assorted contemporaries who had mocked God burn in hell. And
of course we have the fire and brimstone sermons and
writings of guys like Cotton Mather, John Knox, and John
Wesley. Perhaps these people have corrupted the
interpretation of God’s real plans in order to gain social
and theological power for themselves. If one cannot be a
general and conquer societies by military force, they should
become a theologian and coerce the power to themselves by
preaching fire and brimstone.
Sixth question: what does it mean to know that God is real?
Regarding any evidence that God even exists, we have to
first realize that there is a philosophical discipline
called “epistemology” that deals with how we know. That is,
while a believer may claim to “know” that their redeemer
lives, that kind of knowing, while perhaps psychologically
satisfying, is not really “knowing” at all. At best, it is
wishful thinking.
Religious people, particularly those who practice “creation
science,” will claim that their scientific theories (for
example, countering the age of the earth or disproving the
theory of evolution) are as good as those put forth by
secular scientists. However, there is an important
characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis that
differentiates it from an act of faith: a genuine scientific
theory must be falsifiable.
That is, there must be some experiment or possible discovery
that could potentially prove the theory untrue. For example,
Einstein's Theory of Relativity made predictions about the
results of experiments done many decades later to prove it
valid. These experiments could have produced results that
contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and for that
matter still is) falsifiable.
In contrast, the theory that “the moon is populated by
little green men who can read our minds and will hide
whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee into
deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near” is not
falsifiable: these green men are designed so that no one can
ever see them. Their status cannot be rationally validated,
which means that the green-man “theory” is not a scientific
theory at all. On the other hand, the theory that there are
no little green men on the moon is scientific: you can
disprove it by catching one.
Similar arguments apply to abominable snowmen, Bigfoot,
flying saucers, the Loch Ness Monster, and, shall I say it,
God. Tell a religious person that mixing together two
different flavors of ice cream and then eating them can make
them invisible and they will no doubt require the person
making that statement to come up with some solid proof.
However, tell them that the book they keep by their bed was
indirectly written by an invisible deity who will punish
them with fire and brimstone for eternity if they fail to
accept its every incredible claim about the universe and the
nature of God and they will probably require no proof
whatsoever.
A frequent criticism made of the scientific method by
seriously religious people is that it cannot accommodate
anything that has not been proved. The argument then points
out that many things thought to be impossible in the past
are now everyday realities. However, this criticism is based
on a misinterpretation of the scientific method. When a
hypothesis passes the test and is adopted as a theory it
correctly explains a range of phenomena it can, at any time,
be falsified by new experimental evidence. When exploring a
new set or phenomena scientists do use existing theories
but, since this is a new area of investigation, it is always
kept in mind that the old theories might fail to explain the
new experiments and observations. In this case new
hypotheses are devised and tested until a new theory emerges.
There are many types of “pseudo-scientific” theories which
wrap themselves in a mantle of apparent experimental
evidence but that, when examined closely, are nothing but
statements of faith. For example, the argument, cited by
some religious creationists, that science is “just another
kind of faith” is a philosophic stance that ignores the
trans-cultural nature of science. Science’s theory of
gravity explains why both creationists and scientists don't
float off the earth. All you have to do is jump to verify
this theory – no leap of faith required. On the other hand,
a belief in God involves faith, and while one might think
that this is somehow self-evident, there is no way to prove
that it is anything but wishful thinking.
Seventh question: is there a danger with having faith-based
ethical systems?
The philosopher Spinoza, like the philosophers Nietzsche and
John S. Mill (and even, shudder, Karl Marx), felt that
religion helps to keep confused and/or weak people in line.
They saw it as a necessary evil – well, admittedly, not
Marx, who saw it as an opiate. They would probably say that
it would be nice if people had the backbone to admit that
the world and reality are basically unjust, with no
redemption (and with everybody dying at the end), but most
of them are just not up to the task. They need religion (be
it Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc.)
to offer up a simple analysis of a complex world.
Believe it or not, if we are talking about society in
general, I tend to agree, and I think that Spinoza would be
in agreement, too. I think that many individuals are just
not able to deal with reality and they need a mythology of
some kind to stabilize their lives and give the whole
situation some kind of meaning. That the universe is just
outwardly random and amoral chaos (at least if we are
talking about everyday, common sense analysis) will not do
it for them. On top of that, they also want to live forever,
which may actually be the bottom-line primary motive for
having faith. On the other hand, atheists are in the not
altogether enviable position of having nothing more than
personal integrity and courage to fall back upon in the long
haul. No afterlife rewards for them. It is scary being an
atheist, because philosophically you are all alone.
Walter Kaufmann, a philosopher who taught at Princeton years
ago, said that while there may be no external god to keep us
in line and offer rewards (or punishments), a nonbeliever
could still live an ethical and courageous life. I think he
was correct, as evidenced by the fact that many nonbelievers
do indeed live ethical and courageous lives. (The
philosopher Aristotle even wrote a book dealing with ethics
that showed that people could be noble and moral, based upon
practical and socially related considerations.) However, on
the macro (as opposed to the micro) level, Nietzsche noted
that if God were eliminated from existing societies all hell
(pun intended) would break loose. The great Russian novelist
Dostoyevsky also was aware of this. Most people need a
belief in God to keep things stabilized – and society itself
needs such beliefs to prevent chaos. Kill god and everything
is permitted. Morals go out the window.
Of course, some individuals believe that religious systems
have created this situation, and then must remain dominant
to keep the created situation from getting out of control.
If religion had never existed it would be possible to have
ethical societies that based their social behaviors on
feelings for the value of man and the need for order and
justice. (This reflects Aristotle’s approach, for example.)
However, because religion was created and expanded upon by
theologians for hundreds and hundreds of years, societies
have built behavior systems based upon a sense of coercion.
That is, one behaves sanely and correctly because God
desires such behavior. Consequently, take away that belief
in God and all bets are off; anything goes. Theologians have
essentially built a system that depends upon afterlife
rewards (Heaven) and punishment (Hell) to function, and
without those qualities people would go off the deep end.
Interestingly, while Nietzsche, who thought the situation
was a mess, spent quite a bit of time dealing with this
problem and how to solve it in his book-length essays,
Dostoyevsky, who was fully in favor of the situation, wrote
several novels that illustrated just what would go wrong if
God were proved to be a myth. Both men had the same ideas
concerning the social impact of God, but both came up with
different solutions. My take on this is that it is
preposterous to believe that the main reason people are good
is because they want to suck up to God. Being “good” is far
more complex than that, and does not require a belief in God
at all. There have been plenty of good Atheists throughout
history, just like there have been many religious types who
have been anything but good.
Eighth question: do religious people need courage?
Religious people often comment on how it requires courage to
be a member of their faith. However, being a Christian (or
Muslim, or Jew, or just about any other kind of religious
devotee) should not require courage at all, theological
arguments to the contrary. Why would anyone need courage
when they are backed up and supported by (and on the team
of) the most powerful force in the universe: namely God? If
a Christian exhibits fear of anything in this world it is
proof that their faith is not solid. A real Christian would
and should fear nothing – ever.
Ninth question: do religious people really believe in God
full time?
Ask any believer if they would do a "bad" thing while their
mother or father were watching them (assuming the parents
were still alive). Usually (and hopefully) they will say,
"no." OK, now ask them if they sometimes do "bad" things
when nobody is watching. They will almost certainly have to
admit that they do, even if those bad things are minor
league. At the very least, they will still have bad thoughts
at times.
Then point out to them that by the very definition of their
faith God is always watching them (and also knows their
thoughts) and so when they do bad things (or have bad
thoughts) God immediately sees it and is saddened. Heck, God
even knows the deed before it is done. The believer should
obviously know this is the case, and yet they still often,
or at least sometimes, do those bad things (and have those
bad thoughts). The upshot becomes evidence that they doubt
the existence of God when they do bad things and have bad
thoughts. Yep, their very faith in the existence of God is
not 100 percent, because if they really, really believed in
scripture they would behave correctly all of the time. If
they are so sure about their faith that God exists why do
they behave (or think) wrongly at times?
The philosopher Plato touched on this characteristic in his
writings (although he was not referring to religious belief,
but rather knowledge of good and evil), and pointed out that
if you really, really believed something you would not do
anything that would compromise that belief. If you believed
that doing bad things was bad you would not do bad things.
Renaissance and Reformation-era theologians often
capitalized on this approach when they were interpreting
proper Christian behavior. It justified inflicting terrible
punishments upon wrongdoers.
Tenth question: what if God were visible?
Actually, things are even more problematical for the
believer. Ask them about how, if God were actually visible
and watching them all the time (a great-big head looking
down on them from the sky or standing right beside them in
the form of Jesus) would they do those bad things that they
sometimes do (or think about doing)? They almost certainly
would say "no." (That big head looking down from the sky
would be both intimidating and terrifying, and if Jesus were
visibly standing nearby they would obviously behave.) Then
point out that this behavior of theirs that involves God
being invisible but still looking down from on high is an
indication that the really do not believe completely in God
at all, and basically use him in their daily lives as
convenience requires.
The usual theological excuse is that they are human and
weak, and will occasionally succumb to temptations.
Aristotle, writing a counterpoint argument against that of
Plato discussed above, even embraced this phenomenon in his
ethical writings. Sometimes, emotions get the better of us,
no matter what we believe. Aristotle was not writing about
religion, of course, and was instead outlining reasons why
it is necessary to have codified laws to keep people in line
when they let emotion get out of hand. In the seventeenth
century, Spinoza (who was born a Jew but was booted from the
synagogue at a young age and was also certainly no
Christian) also embraced this approach to social law.
The views of Aristotle and Spinoza notwithstanding, we can
at least admit that even the most profound believers are
weak at times. (Who isn’t? After all, an acknowledgment of
weakness is one of the foundations of the faith.) However,
this still does not explain just why they would behave
differently and not succumb to temptation if God were a
visible presence that was right there looking at them all
the time. Not only do religious people have a problem
dealing with the first eight observations listed above, they
have a problem even believing fully in God to begin with.
End of commentary.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> "Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:450dbc7c$1@kcnews01...
>>Arny, why do you continue to "debate" this sociopath, or the other misfits
>>in these groups? Most of them (well, at least most of those on RAO) are
>>not bothering to deal with audio at all, and most (including even some on
>>the other groups) could not or cannot deal with the topic of audio
>>intelligently even if they gave it a fair try.
> **This would be a pot, kettle, black kind of moment. You have been corrected
> many times in the past, yet you doggedly stick to your own deluded view.
But, unlike you, I am not selling people a bill of goods
that will cost them plenty of cash for zero return. You are
a prime example of whom I was referring to.
PS: admittedly I just posted a HUGE commentary on religion
on another thread, but I figure that since it is my one and
only huge off-topic post I should be forgiven.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> The 'classic' suspension is a PROPERLY tuned system, employing suitably
> compliant systems, be they springs, or some other devices. SOTA showed the
> way around 20 years ago.
And AR showed the way almost 40 years ago.
Howard Ferstler
APR
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:45104bad$0$19632$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>>
>> With LP turntables, yes. With everything else, no.
>
> to shocks. It is for this reason that every CD player on the planet uses
> compliant mounting systems for the laser assembly. Tube products
> (particularly low level stages) are responsive to vibration. The resultant
> 'microphonic' effects are well known and many tube amp manufacturers
> employ systems to alleviate the effects.
>
>>
>> Frankly, a good turntable (and certainly one that costs megabucks) ought
>> to come with built-in mounting feet or chassis configuration that isolate
>> adequately.
>
> **On that we agree. ALL turntable manufacturers need only look to SOTA (20
> years old) to learn exactly how an inexpensive and intelligently designed
> system can virtually eliminate any vibration problems.
>
vibration devices. I would expect any reasonable quality CD player to not
suffer sound degradation through vibration up to the point when skipping
does occur. The ceramic isolation cones, etc, being sold as isolation
devices are a total waste of time. I can readily agree that tubes may be
adversely affected by vibration, however, I don't have tubes so I don't have
that problem.
paul packer
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
>in message news:r6u0h2lt6vof6o5bn...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> Trevor Wilson said:
>>
>>> > Dick Pierce an I just agreed on something. IOW hell just froze over.
>>
>>> **Just a nit-pick: Only the very seriously deluded believe in the concept
>>> of
>>> Hell (and Heaven), God, life after death and all that other supernatural
>>> clap-trap.
>>
>> Thanks for the reminder.
>
>**My pleasure.
>
> The rest of us had a moment of doubt because of
>> the apocraphyl event Scott cited.
>
>**Don't forget: Scott supports that idiot Dubya.
I love Trevor. He's so open minded about everything.
AZ Nomad
>"Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:45102459$1@kcnews01...
>> Jenn wrote:
>>
>>> In article <450f3618@kcnews01>, Howard Ferstler <fer...@attglobal.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>However, these days, at least with the high end, we often also see super
>>>>wires for sale, and vibration-isolation devices, and goofy power-line
>>>>conditioners and power cords,
>>
>>> You don't believe that some vibration isolation devices are effective?
>>
>> With LP turntables, yes. With everything else, no.
>**As usual, you are wrong. Many items suffer from vibration problems. CD
>players can skip, if subject to shocks. It is for this reason that every CD
I suggest you quit grabbing your CD player and slamming it against a wall
while it is playing.
Harry Lavo
Uh, oh. Howard's on his horse and has that lance pointed at the windmill
again!
Harry Lavo
"APR" <I_Don't_Wan...@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:45108cc3$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Perhaps in theory you are correct, but in practice four of the five cd
players I have had in my system, in sturdy shelved cabinets, benefited from
the addition of Audioquest big feet. In all cases, the benfit was a general
deepening and increase in bass, while simultaneously an increase in clarity
and control in the bass region.
Sorbothan feet also benefited my Linn Valhalla in the same way, and my ARC
SP6B (although very slightly and only at really loud volumes.)
George M. Middius
Trevor Wilson said:
> > The rest of us had a moment of doubt because of
> > the apocraphyl event Scott cited.
> **Don't forget: Scott supports that idiot Dubya.
BZZZZZZZZT!
George M. Middius
Brother Horace the Eternally Stumble-Tongued said:
> the questions, themes, and paradoxes outlined with below
Learn to write, hack.
Peter Wieck
Howard Ferstler wrote:
> The AR Turntable appeared in the 1960s and also had the
> problem solved - well before that SOTA unit, I think.
AR advertized that its TT may be struck with a 16oz. hammer while
playing without skipping... of course they did define where those
strikes might be, but still impressive. Their anti-skate properties
preclude CD-4 cartridges, but a small price to pay. That, in any case
was solved with their latest iteration before they were raped and
pillaged by International Jensen.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Eeyore
Harry Lavo wrote:
> Perhaps in theory you are correct, but in practice four of the five cd
> players I have had in my system, in sturdy shelved cabinets, benefited from
> the addition of Audioquest big feet. In all cases, the benfit was a general
> deepening and increase in bass, while simultaneously an increase in clarity
> and control in the bass region.
Considering that there's no feasible explanation for that I guess it was in your
mind.
Graham
AZ Nomad
Yeah, amazing stuff. Those feet reach into the digital data stream, employ
a psychic to sense the original recording and insert data never previously
available on the CD, and then fix up the checksums to match. wow.
Couldn't possibly be that you can't admit to pissing away a pile of money on
something without the slightest sonic merit.
Thepork...@aol.com
They still din't "solve" the problem they simply reduced it. Same for
the SOTA. Better systems are available but they are pricey. I put
together an isolation system that I am quite confident beats the pants
off the SOTA TT. A table I used to own.
Scott
Harry Lavo
"AZ Nomad" <azn...@PmunOgeBOX.com> wrote in message
news:slrneh15f4....@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
First, Audioquest Big Feet are hardly "pissing away a pile of money".
Second, I heard what I heard, and it was repeatable. So it was enough for
me. I don't feel compelled to double-blind everything...my ego is
sufficiently healthy to allow as I might be deceiving myself without coming
unglued over it.
Harry Lavo
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:4510947E...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com...
Perhaps. On the other hand, there are conceivable reasons for it...you just
don't happen to believe in them.
Harry
Eeyore
Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote
> > Harry Lavo wrote:
> >
> >> Perhaps in theory you are correct, but in practice four of the five cd
> >> players I have had in my system, in sturdy shelved cabinets, benefited
> >> from the addition of Audioquest big feet. In all cases, the benfit was a
> >> general deepening and increase in bass, while simultaneously an increase
> >> in clarity and control in the bass region.
> >
> > Considering that there's no feasible explanation for that I guess it was
> > in your mind.
> >
> > Graham
>
> Perhaps. On the other hand, there are conceivable reasons for it...you just
> don't happen to believe in them.
Try tempting me with one.
Graham
dizzy
>"dizzy" <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>>>You don't believe that some vibration isolation devices are effective?
>>>>
>>>> They are for turntables, but not for much else.
>>>
>>>**Wrong.
>>
>> What else, then? Tubed preamps?
>
>**Yep. And CD players, DVD players, Minidisk players, etc.
In what way are CD and DVD players susceptible to vibration?
AZ Nomad
suuuuuure you did.
paul packer
Was the AR the one where you had to carefully drape the arm leads so
as to apply an appropriate amount of anti-skate?
paul packer
<fer...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>You are a prime example of whom I was referring to.
>Howard Ferstler
Eh?
Trevor Wilson
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:45102459$1@kcnews01...
>>
>>>Jenn wrote:
>
>>>>You don't believe that some vibration isolation devices are effective?
>>>
>>>With LP turntables, yes. With everything else, no.
>
>> **As usual, you are wrong.
>
> Words of wisdom from the snake-oil section.
**Insult, rather than providing some actual information, duly noted.
>
>> Many items suffer from vibration problems. CD players can skip, if
>> subject to shocks. It is for this reason that every CD player on the
>> planet uses compliant mounting systems for the laser assembly.
>
> Which is why they should not need an exterior vibration isolation system.
**SHOULD NOT, is not the same as does not.
>
>> Tube products (particularly low level stages) are responsive to
>> vibration.
>
> Well, I was assuming that intelligent enthusiasts would use up-to-date
> solid-state hardware.
**Your insistence on regarding perfectly adequate equimpment as obsolete, is
duly noted. Nevertheless, I chose tube equipment, to prove you wrong., The
correct response from you would be (to paraphrase):
"Oops, sorry. You are correct. There are some types of equipment, other than
turntables which will benefit from vibration reduction devices."
Naturally, you will never admit your error. You will, instead, resort to
idiotic insults. SOP.
However, yes, if someone is
> opting for retro-grade gear (tubes), then, for sure, they might need some
> kind of vibration protection.
**About bloody time you admitted your mistake.
Then, again,
> if the device has problems with typical home-installation vibration the
> user might consider opting for tubes that were not so microphonic.
**ALL tubes are microphonic. Every single one.
>
>> The resultant 'microphonic' effects are well known and many tube amp
>> manufacturers employ systems to alleviate the effects.
>
> If so, then it is likely that good tube amps would not need vibration
> isolation devices.
**Indeed. However, such vibration reduction systems can be very costly, if
implemented at manufacture.
Protection should be built in,
> meaning that outboard devices should not be needed. Of course, guys like
> you will still sell stuff like that to suckers.
**Insult duly noted. I suggest you do some basic research, BEFORE making a
complete idiot of yourself.
>
>>>Frankly, a good turntable (and certainly one that costs megabucks) ought
>>>to come with built-in mounting feet or chassis configuration that isolate
>>>adequately.
>
>> **On that we agree. ALL turntable manufacturers need only look to SOTA
>> (20 years old) to learn exactly how an inexpensive and intelligently
>> designed system can virtually eliminate any vibration problems.
>
> The AR Turntable appeared in the 1960s and also had the problem solved -
> well before that SOTA unit, I think.
**The AR was an excellent first step. The SOTA completed the system, being a
proper tuned system.
>
> Incidentally, it feels kind of creepy having a hi-fi con artist such as
> yourself agree with me about anything.
**OK, I'll bite. Please feel free to state where I have operated as a
con-artist. I'll wait for your proof.
Trevor Wilson
**The AR showed the way, but, with a three point suspension, with no ability
to be properly tuned, was extremely limited. The SOTA was the first of the
really properly tuned, four point suspended turntables. Which I'm sure you
already know, since you are some kind of ex-big time audio writer and
therefore have properly investigated the whole topic.
Of course, I could be wrong about that last part.
Trevor Wilson
"dizzy" <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
**The laser needs to focus down to very small dimensions in all those
players. Any insufficiently attenuated vibration can cause the laser to
mis-read the disk. If that mis-reading is outside the limits of the
abilities of the error correction systems to correct, then severe problems
may be expected.
Laurence Payne
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> If so, then it is likely that good tube amps would not need vibration
>> isolation devices.
>
>**Indeed. However, such vibration reduction systems can be very costly, if
>implemented at manufacture.
But cheaper than adding them afterwards, presumably?
Which of the high-end manufacturers design in adequate isolation?
Which do not? SOME of them must, surely?
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>> Considering that there's no feasible explanation for that I guess it was
>> in your
>> mind.
>>
>> Graham
>
>Perhaps. On the other hand, there are conceivable reasons for it...you just
>don't happen to believe in them.
OK. Here's a conceivable, but unfeasible explanation. "A wizard did
it". Have you got a better one?
Arny Krueger
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:45104bad$0$19632$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> **As usual, you are wrong. Many items suffer from vibration problems. CD
> players can skip, if subject to shocks.
Modern portable CD players are amazingly resistent to shocks.
If someone installs a home CD in such a way that it is receiving shocks that
make it skip the corrective action seems obvious - put it somewhere else or
get it fixed because hypersensitive CD players are half-broke anyway.
> It is for this reason that every CD player on the planet uses compliant
> mounting systems for the laser assembly.
The compliant mounting of the laser is there so the dang thing can focus.
Just shock mounting the laser to deal with external shock would be an
incomplete solution, because the CD needs to move with the laser assembly if
it is to avoid mistracking due to vibration.
Most CD and DVD players do have internal shock mounting for the whole
assembly - main bearing, CD, laser sled, etc.
> Tube products (particularly low level stages) are responsive to vibration.
See previous comments about home CD players.
Bill Riel
says...
He's also confusing his Scots.
--
Bill
Eeyore
Laurence Payne wrote:
Sounds about right to me !
Graham
Arny Krueger
"Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:75mdnWd9N6xlNI3Y...@comcast.com...
>
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:4510947E...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com...
>> Harry Lavo has been programmed by the audio voyeur press to write as
>> follows:
>>> Perhaps in theory you are correct, but in practice four of the five CD
>>> players I have had in my system, in sturdy shelved cabinets, benefited
>>> from
>>> the addition of Audioquest big feet. In all cases, the benefit was a
>>> general
>>> deepening and increase in bass, while simultaneously an increase in
>>> clarity
>>> and control in the bass region.
Well done, Harry! Spoken like well-programmed reader of high end audio
voyeur publications!
>> Considering that there's no feasible explanation for that I guess it was
>> in your mind.
Agreed. And if you check this out scientifically, one finds that all
conceivable explanations are blind alleys.
> Perhaps. On the other hand, there are conceivable reasons for it...you
> just don't happen to believe in them.
I've checked this out, and with equipment in good shape, and reasonable
situations, there are no physically-discernable effects.
It is possible to shake or vibrate a CD player so hard that it stops
operating properly. However right up to the point of data loss and muting,
there are no other effects that a well-programmed audio voyeur like Harry
can conceive of, such as jitter. If one understands the technology well
enough, these observations make sense.
Arny Krueger
"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
news:bn22h2l8emonefv5j...@4ax.com...
A conceivable explanation might be that the vibrations that were allegedly
reduced by the Audioquest "Big Feet" caused jitter and/or data loss.
Unfortunately for snake oil true-believers like Harry, both jitter and data
loss can be readily measured. In the past I did sensitive measurements of
CD players that were in the sound field of a loudspeaker. I found that if
you shake a player hard enough to cause these problems, the shaking has to
be very extreme, and the audible effects are not subtle.
Harry is either completely brain-dead when it comes to setting up a stereo
and listening to how it works, or he's suffering from being programmed by
the high end audio voyeur press to hear things that never happened.
Arny Krueger
>
> "dizzy" <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:9rb1h21e6uv31fpig...@4ax.com...
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>"dizzy" <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>You don't believe that some vibration isolation devices are
>>>>>>>effective?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are for turntables, but not for much else.
>>>>>
>>>>>**Wrong.
>>>>
>>>> What else, then? Tubed preamps?
>>>
>>>**Yep. And CD players, DVD players, Minidisk players, etc.
>>
>> In what way are CD and DVD players susceptible to vibration?
>
> **The laser needs to focus down to very small dimensions in all those
> players. Any insufficiently attenuated vibration can cause the laser to
> mis-read the disk. If that mis-reading is outside the limits of the
> abilities of the error correction systems to correct, then severe problems
> may be expected.
As you say Trevor, when a optical disc player's laser loses focus, the
results are pretty traumatic. We're not talking "general deepening and
increase in bass, while simultaneously an increase in clarity and control
in the bass region", we're talking clearly audible clicks and pops, and
interruptions to the playing of music.
Harry Lavo
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:fJWdnfsPwK0wHY_Y...@comcast.com...
>
> "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
> news:bn22h2l8emonefv5j...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:39:47 -0400, "Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Considering that there's no feasible explanation for that I guess it
>>>> was
>>>> in your
>>>> mind.
>>>>
>>>> Graham
>>>
>>>Perhaps. On the other hand, there are conceivable reasons for it...you
>>>just
>>>don't happen to believe in them.
>>
>> OK. Here's a conceivable, but unfeasible explanation. "A wizard did
>> it". Have you got a better one?
>
> A conceivable explanation might be that the vibrations that were allegedly
> reduced by the Audioquest "Big Feet" caused jitter and/or data loss.
> Unfortunately for snake oil true-believers like Harry, both jitter and
> data loss can be readily measured. In the past I did sensitive
> measurements of CD players that were in the sound field of a loudspeaker.
> I found that if you shake a player hard enough to cause these problems,
> the shaking has to be very extreme, and the audible effects are not
> subtle.
Did you do your testing with carousel SACD/CD changers by Marantz and Sony?
That's what my positive experience is with.
BTW, I am surprised you didn't ask which unit I don't use feet with. That
is my Pioneer 578a....I have found the feet make no difference with that
unit.
And also, just so you know, I always apply the feet to the bottom plate, not
to the unit's original feet. My guess is the bottom plates on some units
are more readily transmitting vibration than on others and the sorbathane
helps damp that. I have never found "hard" cones to make a clear difference
with CD players.
>
> Harry is either completely brain-dead when it comes to setting up a stereo
> and listening to how it works, or he's suffering from being programmed by
> the high end audio voyeur press to hear things that never happened.
I am simply telling you what I hear. I wouldn't use the extra space and
spend the extra bucks if I didn't feel it makes a worthwhile difference in
the sound...which is how I determine my priorities. And I don't have enough
$ invested that I feel I have to be "scientifically sure beyond a
probability of a doubt" to make the decision to use the feet.
And BTW...I pay no attention to a lot of the tweaks available to audiophiles
including most isolation devices. I experiment for myself those that I
think might have a reasonable chance of contributing. For example, I don't
use spikes under my speakers (although they come with them) because on the
current surface of my room I can hear no difference with/without them.
Arny Krueger
Harry, no reasonable person can keep up with your ability to buy and sell
equipment. Therefore no, I haven't tested what you had in your stereo two
weeks ago. Neither can you, you already replaced it! ;-)
Back in the real world every audio player works on the same principles, and
they all have similar but slightly different sensitivites to vibration.
However, when shook too hard, they tend to do the same things. Something
about their operational principles.
Harry, if you had a clue about how digital audio players work, you'd know
that the following is completely impossible:
"... a general deepening and increase in bass, while simultaneously an
increase in clarity
and control in the bass region..."
Just can't happen. What happens is that you shake them until they basically
stop working, and until it stops working a good one just soldiers on like
nothing was happening.
Harry, that is what the theories you obviously don't understand say, and
that is what happens when you test real world equipment. Believe it or not
Harry, after widespread use by perhaps billions of consumers all over the
world for like 25 years, how digital audio works is pretty well understood.
Harry Lavo
I've replied to this elsewhere. Do you always comment twice to the same
post?
Arny Krueger
It was the usual, *Your experiences aren't as valid as I because I churn my
system more often than you do* BS, Harry. I first heard that approach tried
in a hi fi shop in the 1960s.
> Do you always comment twice to the same post?
The other reply was to a post by Mr. Payne. Do try to read more carefully in
the future, Harry.
Eeyore
Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
> news:bn22h2l8emonefv5j...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:39:47 -0400, "Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> Considering that there's no feasible explanation for that I guess it was
> >>> in your mind.
> >>>
> >>> Graham
> >>
> >>Perhaps. On the other hand, there are conceivable reasons for it...you
> >>just don't happen to believe in them.
> >
> > OK. Here's a conceivable, but unfeasible explanation. "A wizard did
> > it". Have you got a better one?
>
> A conceivable explanation might be that the vibrations that were allegedly
> reduced by the Audioquest "Big Feet" caused jitter and/or data loss.
> Unfortunately for snake oil true-believers like Harry, both jitter and data
> loss can be readily measured.
Furthermore, there is no way whatever that any improvement in these could
account for Harry's alleged audible effect ! It might makes some sense if it was
an analogue device ( at a pinch ) but never ever for a digital one. Which is of
course why so much is now digital. It's inherently free of such effects.
Graham