Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
soundhas...@yahoo.com
As I look around this dysfunctional madhouse that you dare call a
discussion group, I can't help but notice that just about every single
thread is an attack thread of some sort, on someone or other. After
only a few days of posting here, there's even an attack thread in my
honour now (thanks to "Westface" for that one).
True discussions about audio are actually quite rare here, from what
I've seen. I don't mean the usual tired old senseless, pointless,
worthless, quasi-debates about "Blind Tests" vs. "Sighted Tests", or
the same 25 year old arguments about which is better LP or CD (its
always the same conclusion: those with discerning tastes who understand
what music sounds like, know that LP is more accurate within its
limitations of amplitude,those who believe whatever they've been
brainwashed to believe by the mid-fi industry and know nothing about
music reproduction, always blindly claim its CD - and ne'er the twain
shall meet). So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit"
by opening up an actual attempt at an audio-related discussion. Perhaps
it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars.
I was reading an article recently where the author talked about the
advances in speaker technology (cone materials, etc), and seemed to
establish a preference for paper-coned drivers. This made me question
my Kevlar-woven drivers, as I wondered if he had a valid point to make.
He said despite "trends" in speaker technology, such as the driver
materials or cabinets, that the Japanese had a preference for paper
drivers, for this specific reason: Basically, his argument was that
paper is a natural material, as are the materials of many musical
instruments, which are made of wood or even brass, etc. He talked about
rapping the side of a cup made of plastic, and one made of wood, and
determining what kind of sound it made. He argues the plastic cup will
make an unnatural type of sound, unlike the wood material. His
reasoning was that plastic materials are used in driver design because
they -measure- well, particularly figures of distortion. But that the
paper cones (I assume if properly designed), while they may produce
more distortion than plastic or measure more poorly, also produce sound
that more resembles real music. Which is something you can't measure.
As I become more and more aware of the affect of materials in our
environment from my other audio experiments, I find no affection for
plastic, and I admit a bias towards natural materials. So I think there
may be some merit in his argument, but I'm not a speaker designer, and
don't have enough expertise to say what the "sound" of a cone may be,
without the motor. If anyone has any reasonable and thoughtful opinions
on the issue, I'd be interested to hear. If you just want to line up to
attack me, please note that I now have a thread specifically for that
purpose: "An open invitation to critique Soundhaspriority's audio
expertise". Again, thanks to Westface for helping this newsgroup to
better focus their attacks on the "real" enemies of RAO.
ScottW
<soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141447562....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> As I look around this dysfunctional madhouse that you dare call a
> discussion group, I can't help but notice that just about every single
> thread is an attack thread of some sort, on someone or other. After
> only a few days of posting here, there's even an attack thread in my
> honour now (thanks to "Westface" for that one).
>
> True discussions about audio are actually quite rare here, from what
> I've seen. I don't mean the usual tired old senseless, pointless,
> worthless, quasi-debates about "Blind Tests" vs. "Sighted Tests", or
> the same 25 year old arguments about which is better LP or CD (its
> always the same conclusion: those with discerning tastes who understand
> what music sounds like, know that LP is more accurate within its
> limitations of amplitude,those who believe whatever they've been
> brainwashed to believe by the mid-fi industry and know nothing about
> music reproduction, always blindly claim its CD - and ne'er the twain
> shall meet). So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit"
You seriously that preface will help "class things up"?
> by opening up an actual attempt at an audio-related discussion. Perhaps
> it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars.
>
> I was reading an article recently where the author talked about the
> advances in speaker technology (cone materials, etc), and seemed to
> establish a preference for paper-coned drivers. This made me question
> my Kevlar-woven drivers, as I wondered if he had a valid point to make.
> He said despite "trends" in speaker technology, such as the driver
> materials or cabinets, that the Japanese had a preference for paper
> drivers, for this specific reason: Basically, his argument was that
> paper is a natural material,
Really? Where exactly would find this source of paper in nature?
Have you ever seen a paper mill? Do you realize
that paper mills were at one time one of the worst sources of
water pollution?
Plastic comes from oil which is a product of nature..
it is as natural as any modern paper.
Perhaps you think a parchment cone is a good idea?
I appreciate your expressed desire to create an audio
thread....but you can't just base one of any seriousness
on such a silly premise. Sorry.
ScottW
soundhas...@yahoo.com
"ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FOjOf.134985$0G.98705@dukeread10...
>
> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1141447562....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > As I look around this dysfunctional madhouse that you dare call a
> > discussion group, I can't help but notice that just about every single
> > thread is an attack thread of some sort, on someone or other. After
> > only a few days of posting here, there's even an attack thread in my
> > honour now (thanks to "Westface" for that one).
> >
> > True discussions about audio are actually quite rare here, from what
> > I've seen. I don't mean the usual tired old senseless, pointless,
> > worthless, quasi-debates about "Blind Tests" vs. "Sighted Tests", or
> > the same 25 year old arguments about which is better LP or CD (its
> > always the same conclusion: those with discerning tastes who understand
> > what music sounds like, know that LP is more accurate within its
> > limitations of amplitude,those who believe whatever they've been
> > brainwashed to believe by the mid-fi industry and know nothing about
> > music reproduction, always blindly claim its CD - and ne'er the twain
> > shall meet). So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit"
>
> You seriously that preface will help "class things up"?
That would be a "yup". Thank you for bringing the "noise" in, you
dyslexic twit. Now close the door on your way out.
> > I was reading an article recently where the author talked about the
> > advances in speaker technology (cone materials, etc), and seemed to
> > establish a preference for paper-coned drivers. This made me question
> > my Kevlar-woven drivers, as I wondered if he had a valid point to make.
> > He said despite "trends" in speaker technology, such as the driver
> > materials or cabinets, that the Japanese had a preference for paper
> > drivers, for this specific reason: Basically, his argument was that
> > paper is a natural material,
>
> Really? Where exactly would find this source of paper in nature?
Ever heard of something called a "tree"? You might have fallen out of
one and landed on your head. Perhaps that's why you don't remember.
> Have you ever seen a paper mill?
Seen a paper mill? I LIVE in a paper mill. (I really ought to clean up
my office though).
> Do you realize
> that paper mills were at one time one of the worst sources of
> water pollution?
And this has WHAT to do with loudspeaker design, you fruitbasket?
> Plastic comes from oil which is a product of nature..
> it is as natural as any modern paper.
Oh really. How long does it take to "grow" a piece of plastic do ya
figure?
> Perhaps you think a parchment cone is a good idea?
I think a waffle type cone is a good idea. So long as it comes with a
scoop of cherry vanilla and some jimmy sprinkles.
> I appreciate your expressed desire to create an audio
> thread....
Oh that couldn't have been more clearer! I try to take the "high road",
but all you belligerent trolls on RAO can do is DRAG me down to your
pitiful level, where you can no longer smell the rot and stench that
you create, since you're so used to living in it. What this group of
sociopathic misfits needs isn't a moderator, but an excorcist.
> but you can't just base one of any seriousness
> on such a silly premise. Sorry.
Why not, you base your life on a silly premise. And as such, I'm
sorrier for you than you are for me.
Robert Morein
>
> I was reading an article recently where the author talked about the
> advances in speaker technology (cone materials, etc), and seemed to
> establish a preference for paper-coned drivers. This made me question
> my Kevlar-woven drivers, as I wondered if he had a valid point to make.
> He said despite "trends" in speaker technology, such as the driver
> materials or cabinets, that the Japanese had a preference for paper
> drivers, for this specific reason: Basically, his argument was that
> paper is a natural material, as are the materials of many musical
> instruments, which are made of wood or even brass, etc.
I have one listening room in which I have three sets of floorstanding
speakers:
Kef Reference III (plastic mid/paper woofers)
NEAR 50me (all metal)
Polk LSi15 (plastic woofer/mids), doped fabric ring tweeter.
Two of these speakers have "character" :
The KEFs are lush, forgiving, with a tonal balance that subjectively seems
"balanced", although, of course, it is not. It was carefully designed to
give the subjective impression that it is "balanced." The NEARs have
exquisite detail, with a tonal balance frequently described as "laid back".
The venue seems larger, the performers arrayed in distant depth.
It appears that Matthew Polk specified objective accuracy as the primary
design goal of the Polk. These speakers are possibly the most detailed of
the bunch; not harsh, but strictly neutral. The presentation is neither
clinical nor romantic.
The impromptu test suggested in the article is a simple measurement of the
damping characteristics. Cellulose based materials found in nature have
significant damping, because they are complex composites. Raw synthetic
materials, be they polymer or metal, are not, in general, highly damped
materials, because they are not composites. But pure plastic is not used in
good speaker drivers. You might find it in a polycarbonate tweeter, but
these have been abandoned for hifi.
Plastics used in speakers are invariably composites, containing mineral
additives such as talc to obtain the necessary damping. Metal drivers are a
much more complex question. Metal is not a well damped material. The virtues
of metal lie elsewhere. In every case where metal is used, the resonant
structure of the driver must be considered and addressed. But in the case of
both plastic and metal, synthetics give the designer more choices. Some
designers have not chosen wisely.
Steven Sullivan
> I've seen. I don't mean the usual tired old senseless, pointless,
> worthless, quasi-debates about "Blind Tests" vs. "Sighted Tests", or
> the same 25 year old arguments about which is better LP or CD (its
> always the same conclusion: those with discerning tastes who understand
> what music sounds like, know that LP is more accurate within its
> limitations of amplitude,those who believe whatever they've been
> brainwashed to believe by the mid-fi industry and know nothing about
> music reproduction, always blindly claim its CD - and ne'er the twain
> shall meet).
Ah, thanks for clearing that whole thing up for us, at long last.
(Personally, I've never seen that particular conclusion until now.)
> So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit"
> by opening up an actual attempt at an audio-related discussion. Perhaps
> it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars.
Why don't you just list all your preconceived yet dubious conclusions,
like the one above re: LPs and CDs. Save us lots of time.
> I was reading an article recently where the author talked about the
> advances in speaker technology (cone materials, etc), and seemed to
> establish a preference for paper-coned drivers. This made me question
> my Kevlar-woven drivers, as I wondered if he had a valid point to make.
> He said despite "trends" in speaker technology, such as the driver
> materials or cabinets, that the Japanese had a preference for paper
> drivers, for this specific reason: Basically, his argument was that
> paper is a natural material, as are the materials of many musical
> instruments, which are made of wood or even brass, etc. He talked about
> rapping the side of a cup made of plastic, and one made of wood, and
> determining what kind of sound it made. He argues the plastic cup will
> make an unnatural type of sound, unlike the wood material. His
> reasoning was that plastic materials are used in driver design because
> they -measure- well, particularly figures of distortion. But that the
> paper cones (I assume if properly designed), while they may produce
> more distortion than plastic or measure more poorly, also produce sound
> that more resembles real music. Which is something you can't measure.
You know, this sort of theory of correspondences had some traction in
the age of alchemy...but not so much nowadays, except in New Age/homepathic
circles.
> As I become more and more aware of the affect of materials in our
> environment from my other audio experiments, I find no affection for
> plastic, and I admit a bias towards natural materials. So I think there
> may be some merit in his argument, but I'm not a speaker designer, and
> don't have enough expertise to say what the "sound" of a cone may be,
> without the motor. If anyone has any reasonable and thoughtful opinions
> on the issue, I'd be interested to hear. If you just want to line up to
> attack me, please note that I now have a thread specifically for that
> purpose: "An open invitation to critique Soundhaspriority's audio
> expertise". Again, thanks to Westface for helping this newsgroup to
> better focus their attacks on the "real" enemies of RAO.
One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from
the listening room. Are you familiar with her work?
Steven Sullivan
> "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:FOjOf.134985$0G.98705@dukeread10...
> >
> > <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1141447562....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > As I look around this dysfunctional madhouse that you dare call a
> > > discussion group, I can't help but notice that just about every single
> > > thread is an attack thread of some sort, on someone or other. After
> > > only a few days of posting here, there's even an attack thread in my
> > > honour now (thanks to "Westface" for that one).
> > >
> > > True discussions about audio are actually quite rare here, from what
> > > I've seen. I don't mean the usual tired old senseless, pointless,
> > > worthless, quasi-debates about "Blind Tests" vs. "Sighted Tests", or
> > > the same 25 year old arguments about which is better LP or CD (its
> > > always the same conclusion: those with discerning tastes who understand
> > > what music sounds like, know that LP is more accurate within its
> > > limitations of amplitude,those who believe whatever they've been
> > > brainwashed to believe by the mid-fi industry and know nothing about
> > > music reproduction, always blindly claim its CD - and ne'er the twain
> > > shall meet). So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit"
> >
> > You seriously that preface will help "class things up"?
> That would be a "yup". Thank you for bringing the "noise" in, you
> dyslexic twit. Now close the door on your way out.
Ah, the 'classing up' continues apace.
--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)
nyo...@peoplepc.com
> discussion group, I can't help but notice that just about every single
> thread is an attack thread of some sort, on someone or other. After
> only a few days of posting here, there's even an attack thread in my
> honour now (thanks to "Westface" for that one).
>
> True discussions about audio are actually quite rare here, from what
> I've seen. I don't mean the usual tired old senseless, pointless,
> worthless, quasi-debates about "Blind Tests" vs. "Sighted Tests", or
> the same 25 year old arguments about which is better LP or CD (its
> always the same conclusion: those with discerning tastes who understand
> what music sounds like, know that LP is more accurate within its
> limitations of amplitude
Complete nonsense.
,those who believe whatever they've been
> brainwashed to believe by the mid-fi industry and know nothing about
> music reproduction, always blindly claim its CD - and ne'er the twain
> shall meet).
More nonsense. I thought you wanted discussions about audio and that sound
has priority. If that's the case then CD is the priority since it is the
most accurate way to listen to music. LP is not now, nor has it ever been
more accurate at anything compared to CD.
So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit"
> by opening up an actual attempt at an audio-related discussion.
Hmm, it looks like your idea of classing things up, is to immediately show
that you don;t know what you are talking about.
Perhaps
> it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars.
>
Like the one you just invited to be started?
> I was reading an article recently where the author talked about the
> advances in speaker technology (cone materials, etc), and seemed to
> establish a preference for paper-coned drivers. This made me question
> my Kevlar-woven drivers, as I wondered if he had a valid point to make.
> He said despite "trends" in speaker technology, such as the driver
> materials or cabinets, that the Japanese had a preference for paper
> drivers, for this specific reason: Basically, his argument was that
> paper is a natural material, as are the materials of many musical
> instruments, which are made of wood or even brass, etc. He talked about
> rapping the side of a cup made of plastic, and one made of wood, and
> determining what kind of sound it made. He argues the plastic cup will
> make an unnatural type of sound, unlike the wood material. His
> reasoning was that plastic materials are used in driver design because
> they -measure- well, particularly figures of distortion. But that the
> paper cones (I assume if properly designed), while they may produce
> more distortion than plastic or measure more poorly, also produce sound
> that more resembles real music. Which is something you can't measure.
>
So, you're on a roll, 2 idiot statements in a row.
Being able to measure whether or not something sounds more like real music
is of course something that is possible and some materials are better at it
than others and they all have different limitations. The nonosense about
paper vs. plastic is just another bit of idiocy from somebody that
apparently has no clue about speaker design.
Speaker design is all about compromises, especially in driver materials.
Paper has a long history and does somethings well, but if you look around at
virtually all the most highly regarded speakeer systems in the world, you
will notice there are virtually none of them using paper in any of the
drivers.
Dynaudio uses silk dome tweeters and other materials for their mid and low
frequency drivers.
B&W uses Kevlar as does Scan Speak in their OEM drivers, altough they have
some paper mixtureswith other materials.
> As I become more and more aware of the affect of materials in our
> environment from my other audio experiments, I find no affection for
> plastic, and I admit a bias towards natural materials. So I think there
> may be some merit in his argument, but I'm not a speaker designer, and
> don't have enough expertise to say what the "sound" of a cone may be,
> without the motor.
Given that you have been wrong about everything else, this comes as no
surprise.
If anyone has any reasonable and thoughtful opinions
> on the issue, I'd be interested to hear.
The best hing for you to do would be to actually investigate the various
high rated speakers that are available and find out how many use paper for
anything, then come bac and admit you were wrong.
If you just want to line up to
> attack me, please note that I now have a thread specifically for that
> purpose: "An open invitation to critique Soundhaspriority's audio
> expertise". Again, thanks to Westface for helping this newsgroup to
> better focus their attacks on the "real" enemies of RAO.
>
If you don't want to be attacked, then you shold try and be smarter about
what you say.
So far you have shown no evidence that you have a clue about audio at all.
Jenn
<nyo...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express an opinion, or
even be factually wrong about something, and not be called an idiot.
Not here, however.
George M. Middius
Stupey Sillybot turns red in the metallic faceplate.
> > those who believe whatever they've been
> > brainwashed to believe by the mid-fi industry and know nothing about
> > music reproduction, always blindly claim its CD ...
> Ah, thanks for clearing that whole thing up for us, at long last.
> (Personally, I've never seen that particular conclusion until now.)
Agreed, Silly. You weren't "brainwashed", you were programmed.
This seems an opportune moment to relate the story of how Sillybot made
his Big Audio Purchase of 2005. He clanked through the spec sheets and
feature lists of various midpriced receivers in order to identify several
models that would "get the job done". He then browsed mail order sources
to pinpoint the one deal offered at the greatest percentage discount off
list price. Then he smashed his piggy bank to borrow his daddy's credit
card and made his highly siciccncnetiittifc purchase. What was it again --
a Pioneer? A Sherwood? Marantz? I forget. Doesn't much matter though,
since you weren't brainwashed ;-) and anyway, you're an audiophobe down to
your rusty bolts and misfiring neural pathways.
> > So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit"
> > by opening up an actual attempt at an audio-related discussion. Perhaps
> > it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars.
>
> Why don't you just list all your preconceived yet dubious conclusions,
> like the one above re: LPs and CDs. Save us lots of time.
Why don't you admit that the real reason you prefer CDs to vinyl is that
you're too klutzy to take care of possessions that can deteriorate. In
fact, weren't you the one who prescribed making cockrings out of CDs in
order to show your love? ;-)
> > As I become more and more aware of the affect of materials in our
> > environment from my other audio experiments, I find no affection for
> > plastic, and I admit a bias towards natural materials.
> One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from
> the listening room. Are you familiar with her work?
What a kook! ... said the metal-encased robot.
Clyde Slick
> rapping the side of a cup made of plastic, and one made of wood, and
> determining what kind of sound it made. He argues the plastic cup will
> make an unnatural type of sound, unlike the wood material.
You can go back to tin cans tied with strings, for all I care.
Rapping a plastic cup to see what kind of
a sound is made, and using that result to make
universal determination on material efficacy is quite stupid.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Clyde Slick
"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ducvto$huf$6...@reader2.panix.com...
> soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from
> the listening room. Are you familiar with her work?
>
>
I was with her. she didn't much like it when I tried to remove
the metal snaps on her bra.
ScottW
<soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141499152.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:FOjOf.134985$0G.98705@dukeread10...
>>
>> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1141447562....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > As I look around this dysfunctional madhouse that you dare call a
>> > discussion group, I can't help but notice that just about every single
>> > thread is an attack thread of some sort, on someone or other. After
>> > only a few days of posting here, there's even an attack thread in my
>> > honour now (thanks to "Westface" for that one).
>> >
>> > True discussions about audio are actually quite rare here, from what
>> > I've seen. I don't mean the usual tired old senseless, pointless,
>> > worthless, quasi-debates about "Blind Tests" vs. "Sighted Tests", or
>> > the same 25 year old arguments about which is better LP or CD (its
>> > always the same conclusion: those with discerning tastes who understand
>> > what music sounds like, know that LP is more accurate within its
>> > limitations of amplitude,those who believe whatever they've been
>> > brainwashed to believe by the mid-fi industry and know nothing about
>> > music reproduction, always blindly claim its CD - and ne'er the twain
>> > shall meet). So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit"
>>
>> You seriously that preface will help "class things up"?
>
>
> That would be a "yup". Thank you for bringing the "noise" in, you
> dyslexic twit. Now close the door on your way out.
We now know the depths of your seriousness.
>
>
>> > I was reading an article recently where the author talked about the
>> > advances in speaker technology (cone materials, etc), and seemed to
>> > establish a preference for paper-coned drivers. This made me question
>> > my Kevlar-woven drivers, as I wondered if he had a valid point to make.
>> > He said despite "trends" in speaker technology, such as the driver
>> > materials or cabinets, that the Japanese had a preference for paper
>> > drivers, for this specific reason: Basically, his argument was that
>> > paper is a natural material,
>>
>> Really? Where exactly would find this source of paper in nature?
>
>
> Ever heard of something called a "tree"? You might have fallen out of
> one and landed on your head. Perhaps that's why you don't remember.
I guess you crawled out of the tar pits of LA.. paper is as removed from a
tree as
plastic is from oil.
>
>
>> Have you ever seen a paper mill?
>
> Seen a paper mill? I LIVE in a paper mill. (I really ought to clean up
> my office though).
>
>> Do you realize
>> that paper mills were at one time one of the worst sources of
>> water pollution?
>
>
> And this has WHAT to do with loudspeaker design, you fruitbasket?
Nothing.. but it is your thread. Paper is not a product of nature.
>
>
>> Plastic comes from oil which is a product of nature..
>> it is as natural as any modern paper.
>
> Oh really. How long does it take to "grow" a piece of plastic do ya
> figure?
As long as it takes to grow paper.
>
>> Perhaps you think a parchment cone is a good idea?
>
> I think a waffle type cone is a good idea. So long as it comes with a
> scoop of cherry vanilla and some jimmy sprinkles.
>
>> I appreciate your expressed desire to create an audio
>> thread....
>
> Oh that couldn't have been more clearer! I try to take the "high road",
but lacked the stamina for it.
> but all you belligerent trolls on RAO can do is DRAG me down to your
> pitiful level,
Dragged? I don't even think it was a nudge.. all you needed was an
opportunity.
>where you can no longer smell the rot and stench that
> you create, since you're so used to living in it. What this group of
> sociopathic misfits needs isn't a moderator, but an excorcist.
Volunteering?
ScottW
ScottW
"Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jennconducts-8813...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>
> It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express an opinion, or
> even be factually wrong about something, and not be called an idiot.
> Not here, however.
I've noticed your skin is thickening already :).
ScottW
ScottW
"Clyde Slick" <artsa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:440a11a3$0$26776$b9f6...@news.newsdemon.com...
>
> "Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:ducvto$huf$6...@reader2.panix.com...
>> soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from
>> the listening room. Are you familiar with her work?
>>
>>
>
> I was with her. she didn't much like it when I tried to remove
> the metal snaps on her bra.
I heard you drew blood with a metal stay :).
ScottW
Goofball_star_dot_etal
<artsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
><soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1141447562....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>. He talked about
>> rapping the side of a cup made of plastic, and one made of wood, and
>> determining what kind of sound it made. He argues the plastic cup will
>> make an unnatural type of sound, unlike the wood material.
>
>You can go back to tin cans tied with strings, for all I care.
>Rapping a plastic cup to see what kind of
>a sound is made, and using that result to make
>universal determination on material efficacy is quite stupid.
Not if if you have a picture of an asprin and lick a dog's arse, Sick.
Clyde Slick
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" <w...@needs.email.anyhow> wrote in message
news:b17k0295igibnm6ii...@4ax.com...
Whatever floats your speaker cones.
George M. Middius
Goofy said:
> >Rapping a plastic cup to see what kind of
> >a sound is made, and using that result to make
> >universal determination on material efficacy is quite stupid.
> Not if if you have a picture of an asprin and lick a dog's arse, Sick.
Complete lack of bias-controlled, level-matched, serially implemented,
statistically significant, bias-free, snot-encased, electrically grounded,
morally superior DBT result's, noted. As if someone with your credential's
or, should I say "lack of" credentails would even know how to reliably
subjectivationalize a listening test, LOt"S! ;-) LOl! ;-(
soundhas...@yahoo.com
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I've seen. I don't mean the usual tired old senseless, pointless,
> > worthless, quasi-debates about "Blind Tests" vs. "Sighted Tests", or
> > the same 25 year old arguments about which is better LP or CD (its
> > always the same conclusion: those with discerning tastes who understand
> > what music sounds like, know that LP is more accurate within its
> > limitations of amplitude,those who believe whatever they've been
> > brainwashed to believe by the mid-fi industry and know nothing about
> > music reproduction, always blindly claim its CD - and ne'er the twain
> > shall meet).
>
> Ah, thanks for clearing that whole thing up for us, at long last.
> (Personally, I've never seen that particular conclusion until now.)
Since you're not an audiophile and wouldn't know how to set up an
audiophile turntable if I put a gun to your head, do you think I should
be surprised?
> > So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit"
> > by opening up an actual attempt at an audio-related discussion. Perhaps
> > it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars.
>
> Why don't you just list all your preconceived yet dubious conclusions,
> like the one above re: LPs and CDs. Save us lots of time.
Okay, here it is:
> > I was reading an article recently where the author talked about the
> > advances in speaker technology (cone materials, etc), and seemed to
> > establish a preference for paper-coned drivers. This made me question
> > my Kevlar-woven drivers, as I wondered if he had a valid point to make.
> > He said despite "trends" in speaker technology, such as the driver
> > materials or cabinets, that the Japanese had a preference for paper
> > drivers, for this specific reason: Basically, his argument was that
> > paper is a natural material, as are the materials of many musical
> > instruments, which are made of wood or even brass, etc. He talked about
> > rapping the side of a cup made of plastic, and one made of wood, and
> > determining what kind of sound it made. He argues the plastic cup will
> > make an unnatural type of sound, unlike the wood material. His
> > reasoning was that plastic materials are used in driver design because
> > they -measure- well, particularly figures of distortion. But that the
> > paper cones (I assume if properly designed), while they may produce
> > more distortion than plastic or measure more poorly, also produce sound
> > that more resembles real music. Which is something you can't measure.
>
> You know, this sort of theory of correspondences had some traction in
> the age of alchemy...but not so much nowadays, except in New Age/homepathic
> circles.
Your vigorous assertions have no currency here. What experiments, Mr.
Scientist, have you done with cone materials that prove contrary to the
article?
> One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from
> the listening room. Are you familiar with her work?
No, but I'll bet your refrring to Enid Lumley. I only heard about her
recently in my research into alternative audio, as I was not a regular
reader of The Absolute Sound. She seems to be very well regarded, and
sorely missed (after having dropped out of the audio scene altogether,
because as I understand, of always having to deal with ignorant pigs
like yourself). I read that she was many years ahead of her time, and
that many of her practices that were largely ridiculed in the 80's (by
ignorant pigs like yourself), are now standard practice in the
audiophile world. I read that TAS should be congratulated, as having
been one of the few audio magazines to have the courage to support
unpopular principles and ideas, such as what Enid Lumley advocated,
that may have helped to advance the state of the audio hobby. I have no
reason to doubt anything I just mentioned.
One reason being, I find that what you mentioned about Enid Lumley's
findings on the effects of metal parallel my own work. I believe that
metal is NOT good for audio. One experience comes from my DIY IC and
speaker wire experiments. Conventional audiophile "wisdom" tells us
that the thicker the wire (ie. the more metal), the better. So
audiophiles cables tend to look like snakes with gold heads. Yet I've
managed to make IC and speaker cables out of hair-thin 30g magnet wire,
that can sound superior to the "snakes". Eichmann showed us with his
popular "bullet plugs", that all metals are not beneficial to the
signal, after reducing them to a bare minimum. He was probably drawing
on principles developed by Dennis Moorecroft, who fabricates amplifiers
containing little or no metals, based on his advanced findings.
Apparently, they sound out of this world good. Do you think your friend
Arny Krueger has done anything to help improve our understanding of how
to achieve higher qualities of music reproduction? Hardly. If it
weren't for pioneers like Lumley, Moorecroft, Eichmann, and alumni, our
hobby would never advance. People like you and Krueger who sit on your
arse all day doing absolutely nothing to advance the state of audio,
but rag on people who are a lot brighter than you and are trying to
move audio ahead, don't do anything good for our hobby.
My research has also shown me that magnets are not good for audio
either (except under certain applications). Any extraneous magnets
should be removed from the listening room. This includes any items
containing magnetic particles. So, a simple way that people can improve
the quality of their sound is by removing videotapes and audio tapes
from their listening room. However, from what people have described to
me in response to my other tweaks, I don't expect most people on this
group to be able to figure out how to do this either. They'd probably
manage to set themselves on fire, in an attempt to remove the
videotapes.
So tell me, what personal experiments have YOU done that prove Lumley
wrong, Mr. Gabalot? Have you ever considered that fact that YOU'RE the
"kook", for not realizing what an ignorant pig you are, in criticizing
people and ideas simply because you're ignorant about them? Ideas you
know nothing about, and have never researched on your own? It's true,
you know. The most frightening thing about all of this (read: your
willful ignorance), is that you call yourself a "scientist". Even more
frightening is the fact that you admitted you don't have the attention
span to read my posts, you get confused when you have to read posts
that are longer than a few lines (which begs the question: why are you
still reading my messages?). You've got my vote for the dumbest
"scientist" I've ever met.
soundhas...@yahoo.com
Clyde Slick wrote:
> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1141447562....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >. He talked about
> > rapping the side of a cup made of plastic, and one made of wood, and
> > determining what kind of sound it made. He argues the plastic cup will
> > make an unnatural type of sound, unlike the wood material.
>
> You can go back to tin cans tied with strings, for all I care.
> Rapping a plastic cup to see what kind of
> a sound is made, and using that result to make
> universal determination on material efficacy is quite stupid.
But perhaps not quite as stupid as misunderstanding so many basic
things from such a simple premise. Your first misunderstanding; the
experiment to rap the side of a cup was not given as a "universal
determination" of anything. That's YOU that made the "determination".
It was merely as an example of the type of sound that might be produced
by natural and synthetic materials. Secondly, I never said I made that
experiment. If you have evidence that shows the argument is invalid,
provide it. So far, the only intelligent response I've read on the
subject came from Mr. Morein.
You and others have just thrown at me your vigorous assertions about
how "stupid" everything is.
soundhas...@yahoo.com
Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:ducvto$huf$6...@reader2.panix.com...
> > soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from
> > the listening room. Are you familiar with her work?
> >
> >
>
> I was with her. she didn't much like it when I tried to remove
> the metal snaps on her bra.
That's a very sexist, disrespectful and offensive comment. It has no
place on an audio group.
soundhas...@yahoo.com
ScottW wrote:
> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1141499152.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:FOjOf.134985$0G.98705@dukeread10...
> >>
> >> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1141447562....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
As "we" already know the depts of your ignorance.
> >> Really? Where exactly would find this source of paper in nature?
> >
> > Ever heard of something called a "tree"? You might have fallen out of
> > one and landed on your head. Perhaps that's why you don't remember.
>
> I guess you crawled out of the tar pits of LA.. paper is as removed from a
> tree as plastic is from oil.
You're wrong, paper is NOT removed from a tree as plastic is from oil.
In fact, plastic is not even "removed" from oil. Do you know ANYTHING?
> > And this has WHAT to do with loudspeaker design, you fruitbasket?
>
> Nothing.. but it is your thread. Paper is not a product of nature.
Tell that to the tree, nutjob.
> > Oh really. How long does it take to "grow" a piece of plastic do ya
> > figure?
>
> As long as it takes to grow paper.
You're wrong, you don't "grow" plastic. Do you know ANYTHING?
> > Oh that couldn't have been more clearer! I try to take the "high road",
>
> but lacked the stamina for it.
Well at least I tried, which is more than I can say for you. Now name
me one person here on RAO that hasn't been attacked? Just one, that's
all. Just ONE. I'd like to find out how they managed to avoid getting
attacked on this newsgroup.
> > but all you belligerent trolls on RAO can do is DRAG me down to your
> > pitiful level,
>
> Dragged? I don't even think it was a nudge.. all you needed was an
> opportunity.
If that's so, then you had no problem giving me plenty with your
abusive personal attacks on me. So stop whining already, if I bite
back.
> >where you can no longer smell the rot and stench that
> > you create, since you're so used to living in it. What this group of
> > sociopathic misfits needs isn't a moderator, but an excorcist.
>
> Volunteering?
So I'm a priest now, according to you? You're even more confused than I
gave you credit for. What do you want from me, anyway? If you're not a
belligerent troll as you claim you're not, than stop responding to my
messages.
nyo...@peoplepc.com
<soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141522460....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1141499152.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:FOjOf.134985$0G.98705@dukeread10...
>> >>
>> >> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1141447562....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> We now know the depths of your seriousness.
>
>
> As "we" already know the depts of your ignorance.
>
>> >> Really? Where exactly would find this source of paper in nature?
>> >
>> > Ever heard of something called a "tree"? You might have fallen out of
>> > one and landed on your head. Perhaps that's why you don't remember.
>>
>> I guess you crawled out of the tar pits of LA.. paper is as removed from
>> a
>> tree as plastic is from oil.
>
> You're wrong, paper is NOT removed from a tree as plastic is from oil.
> In fact, plastic is not even "removed" from oil. Do you know ANYTHING?
>
pulp, and it is one of the smelliest things you'll evver encouter.
>
>> > And this has WHAT to do with loudspeaker design, you fruitbasket?
>>
>> Nothing.. but it is your thread. Paper is not a product of nature.
>
Actually everything that exists, exists within nature, since only the
natural exists.
If a beavers dam is part f nature, then so is a skyscraper, since the same
rules apply, things that were in one form, werre tranformed into something
new. Of course I'm nitpicking, but the point is still valid.
>
> Tell that to the tree, nutjob.
>
>
>> > Oh really. How long does it take to "grow" a piece of plastic do ya
>> > figure?
>>
>> As long as it takes to grow paper.
>
> You're wrong, you don't "grow" plastic. Do you know ANYTHING?
>
I know that you don't make saweeping statements about CD and LP here and
expect to leave unscathed.
>
>> > Oh that couldn't have been more clearer! I try to take the "high road",
>>
>> but lacked the stamina for it.
>
> Well at least I tried, which is more than I can say for you.
You didn't try, you started out insulting everybody who prefers CD's which
are in fact technically superior to LP in every single aspect.
Now name
> me one person here on RAO that hasn't been attacked? Just one, that's
> all. Just ONE. I'd like to find out how they managed to avoid getting
> attacked on this newsgroup.
>
If you already knew that and stilldecided to post here and decided to insult
common sense with statements liek LP being supreior to VD and the nutty
ctrap about paper and plastic drivers, then you prettymuch invited abuse.
Clyde Slick
<nyo...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:lguOf.7057$S25....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>
> If you already knew that and stilldecided to post here and decided to
> insult common sense with statements liek LP being supreior to VD and the
> nutty ctrap about paper and plastic drivers, then you prettymuch invited
> abuse.
>
Mikey would rather have VD than LP.
Its more accurate.
soundhas...@yahoo.com
> news:1141522460....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1141499152.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:FOjOf.134985$0G.98705@dukeread10...
> >> >>
> >> >> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1141447562....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> Paper just doesn't leap out of trees, it has to be be processed from wood
> pulp, and it is one of the smelliest things you'll evver encouter.
Color me skeptical. For I believe _you_ would be one of the smelliest
things I'd ever encounter.
But we're getting off point here, aren't we. What does the smell of
processed wood have to do with the resonance modes of natural paper?
What _is_ it about you silly arse gearheads that you always have to go
off tangent and bring in arguments from 3,000 miles away that have
absolutely ZERO relevance to the points I bring up? Can't you follow a
basic argument in a debate, or are you all trying to watch tv at the
same time as you type?
> >> > And this has WHAT to do with loudspeaker design, you fruitbasket?
> >>
> >> Nothing.. but it is your thread. Paper is not a product of nature.
>
> Actually everything that exists, exists within nature, since only the
> natural exists.
Oh my god, gearhead jr. is a "philosopher" now. You have no end of
wasted talents, don't you, Mr. McKelvy? What are you doing wasting them
here? Shouldn't you be somewhere teaching a university class?
> If a beavers dam is part f nature, then so is a skyscraper, since the same
> rules apply, things that were in one form, werre tranformed into something
> new. Of course I'm nitpicking, but the point is still valid.
No, the point was _never_ valid. And I can see why you're considered
one of the dumber "objectivist-extremists" here. Just because something
exists on this planet, doesn't mean you can call it "natural".
Paper comes from trees, trees are a living thing. That would surely
make it "natural". Plastic is _not_ a living thing. Neither is oil,
neither are skyscrapers. But you're still off the point. I believe the
focus of my question was in the nature of the resonant frequencies of
materials used for speaker coning. Or did you forget all of that? All
materials have resonant frequencies and may produce harmonics. I
believe the question on the table was more like: "Does paper, a natural
material, produce timbral qualities more sympathetic to the natural
sound of musical instrumetns than synthetic materials used for coning,
ie. plastics?" It wasn't simply a question of "is paper superior to
plastic" in general. But then I've come to learn that gearheads are
oblivious to any and all subtlety.
> > You're wrong, you don't "grow" plastic. Do you know ANYTHING?
> >
> I know that you don't make saweeping statements about CD and LP here and
> expect to leave unscathed.
LOL! I will -always- be able to "leave here unscathed", because I'm
"untouchable". IOW, there's nothing you or your beanie baby buddies
could do or say that would harm me in any way, or even change anything
that I choose to do. And as for the "saweeping statements", well that
would be YOU that's prone to making those. Aren't you the shmuck who
said unequivocally that CD was superior to LP? No matter what? A $35
Coby is better than a $30,000 SME? I rest my case.
> >> > Oh that couldn't have been more clearer! I try to take the "high road",
> >>
> >> but lacked the stamina for it.
> >
> > Well at least I tried, which is more than I can say for you.
>
> You didn't try, you started out insulting everybody who prefers CD's which
> are in fact technically superior to LP in every single aspect.
Yup, you're that shmuck all right. You see what I mean? It's as though
you made a promise to yourself that each thing you say to me, has to be
even stupider than the last. You just insulted everybody who prefer's
LP's, which are proven to be technically superior to CDs. But then, how
would you even know that? All that you know about audio you read in the
pages of old Stereo Review articles. You probably wank to pictures of
Julian Hirsch. You really _do_ sound like an android, the way you spew
out misguided gibberish all the time about audio, which one can tell
has not a shred of experience behind a single word that you spill on
these pages. When you've actually learned something from firsthand
knowledge, then maybe you can come back and maybe I'll listen to what
you have to say. Until then... go back to Julian.
> Now name
> > me one person here on RAO that hasn't been attacked? Just one, that's
> > all. Just ONE. I'd like to find out how they managed to avoid getting
> > attacked on this newsgroup.
> >
> If you already knew that and stilldecided to post here and decided to insult
> common sense with statements liek LP being supreior to VD and the nutty
> ctrap about paper and plastic drivers, then you prettymuch invited abuse.
Please put your glasses on before you type, dorkus maximus. I never
said anything about the LP being superior to your VD. Everything you
seem to say is an insult to one's intelligence. And I mean *anyone*.
I'm not knocking the humble CD, because it is a "good enough" type of
medium for the masses. Its just that unlike you, some people are
ambitious about sound quality. They want something better than you can
get off your mp3 based mini that you listen to. They're called
"audiophiles". You should know, you make it your business to slander
and attack them every day, with your senseless jabberwocky. For them,
God created the turntable. (Or more specifically, "The Source"). It is
recognized as being superior to CD by all musicians and audiophiles
with discriminating ears, who can actualy tell what real music is
supposed to sound like. Most CD players under $5 grand simply do not
have the ability to acheive the level of resolution afforded by a good
record deck.
A blind pig is able to determine this when a proper comparison is made.
Speaking of which, I recall reading an article in a hifi magazine where
blind tests were done comparing a good record deck to a CD player that
cost several times the price of the deck. Most could not tell when the
LP was being played (so much for the gearheads complaint about surface
noise), and all without exception, chose the LP reproduction as
superior. Coincidence? Hardly. LP done right, even in the face of SACD
and DVD-A, is a superior medium for reproducing music. For reproducing
mere "sounds", like a movie sfx, CD will do.
Nuff said. Drop the subject, and stop embarassing yourself. There's
enough misguided ignorance about audio here already without you trying
to top everyone.
soundhas...@yahoo.com
I've noticed too how thick your skin is. Only the skin on your head,
though. But it explains a lot when one wonders where you come up with
these inane responses of yours.
Arny Krueger
news:jennconducts-8813...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
> It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express
> an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something,
> and not be called an idiot. Not here, however.
Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone to use the word
idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO one of the most
prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius.
unknown legend
>
> Ah, the 'classing up' continues apace.
I love you.
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
I agree with you that it comes from both "sides". It's all "idiotic" if
you ask me. All part of the "talk radio culture", IMO.
ScottW
I don't see the link to talk radio... which, minimally has to be
considered moderated. I think it's simply the internet culture
where one doesn't have to reveal their identity (many actually
think its foolish to do so) and have little chance of ever
meeting their adversaries face to face, so the usual motivations
for civility... simply aren't there.
ScottW
elm...@pacificcoast.net
It all depends on one's literary preferences. Not being adept in
the
use of "load of crap" "asshole" and "shitbag" language of your camp-
followers. (want names? Just ask) I'd say "idiocy" when responding.
One of your few endearing traits is that you manage without
gutter
language. Don't use phony statistics ( "seem" more prone)
when you try to stand up for your pals.
Ludovic Mirabel
Jenn
elm...@pacificcoast.net wrote:
You may remember his accusing me of using "weasel words" once.
Jenn
"ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jennconducts-EC14...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <57qdnYhMhMpHTZfZ...@comcast.com>,
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:jennconducts-8813...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
> >>
> >> > It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express
> >> > an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something,
> >> > and not be called an idiot. Not here, however.
> >>
> >> Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone to use the word
> >> idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO one of the most
> >> prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius.
> >
> > I agree with you that it comes from both "sides". It's all "idiotic" if
> > you ask me. All part of the "talk radio culture", IMO.
>
> I don't see the link to talk radio... which, minimally has to be
> considered moderated.
I've noticed that in the past few years as "abrasive" hosts have become
more popular, the quality of public debate has become more "idiotic".
Could be a chicken/egg thing.
> I think it's simply the internet culture
> where one doesn't have to reveal their identity (many actually
> think its foolish to do so) and have little chance of ever
> meeting their adversaries face to face, so the usual motivations
> for civility... simply aren't there.
>
> ScottW
Probably right.
George M. Middius
Jenn said:
> > Don't use phony statistics ( "seem" more prone)
> > when you try to stand up for your pals.
> You may remember his accusing me of using "weasel words" once.
Surely you're not suggesting that Arnii Krooger is a hypocrite, are you?
Mickey McMickey assures us that cannot be the case.
ScottW
> In article <uGFOf.135158$0G.57062@dukeread10>,
> "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jennconducts-EC14...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>> > In article <57qdnYhMhMpHTZfZ...@comcast.com>,
>> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:jennconducts-8813...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
>> >>
>> >> > It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express
>> >> > an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something,
>> >> > and not be called an idiot. Not here, however.
>> >>
>> >> Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone to use the
>> >> word
>> >> idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO one of the most
>> >> prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius.
>> >
>> > I agree with you that it comes from both "sides". It's all "idiotic"
>> > if
>> > you ask me. All part of the "talk radio culture", IMO.
>>
>> I don't see the link to talk radio... which, minimally has to be
>> considered moderated.
>
> I've noticed that in the past few years as "abrasive" hosts have become
> more popular,
In talk radio? Who specifically are you thinking of?
> the quality of public debate has become more "idiotic".
> Could be a chicken/egg thing.
I think that content has become fragmented and a bit of
a conflict has surfaced between MSM and talk radio and
bloggers. I don't think that creates an idiotic debate...
to the contrary, it allows for representation of more
diverse opinions.
ScottW
Jenn
"ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hannity, Limbaugh...
>
> > the quality of public debate has become more "idiotic".
> > Could be a chicken/egg thing.
>
> I think that content has become fragmented and a bit of
> a conflict has surfaced between MSM and talk radio and
> bloggers. I don't think that creates an idiotic debate...
> to the contrary, it allows for representation of more
> diverse opinions.
>
> ScottW
Oh, I like the diversity just fine; it's the presentation that bothers
me and that I think has caused the debate to become more "course".
ScottW
Limbaugh is hardly a recent phenom.
He's widely regarded as the father of talk radio.
I don't really consider Hannity "abrasive". He's clearly
conservative and a republican honk but not all
that abrasive. He's worse on his TV show IMO.
Surprised you didn't mention Air America content
like Randi Rhodes though perhaps she doesn't
qualify as popular.
I've read they're gonna loose their New York
affiliate and flagship come end of March.
I wonder just what she would talk about come
the end of the Bush admin anyway.
>>
>> > the quality of public debate has become more "idiotic".
>> > Could be a chicken/egg thing.
>>
>> I think that content has become fragmented and a bit of
>> a conflict has surfaced between MSM and talk radio and
>> bloggers. I don't think that creates an idiotic debate...
>> to the contrary, it allows for representation of more
>> diverse opinions.
>>
>> ScottW
>
> Oh, I like the diversity just fine; it's the presentation that bothers
> me and that I think has caused the debate to become more "course".
One advantage talk radio has over other formats is that they can devote
time to explore a topic. Salem Radio has some hosts that I think do
a good job...Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt to name a couple.
Both conservatives and Hewitt is a hard core republican.
Ed Schultz is probably my favorite lib on the radio though his time
slot prevents me from being able to listen often.
Rhodes is a lunatic who just rants non-stop. I have no idea
how she gets the primetime evening drive slot in the west.
They should tape delay Ed.
ScottW
soundhas...@yahoo.com
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:57qdnYhMhMpHTZfZ...@comcast.com...
I don't mean to suggest that you are a lying hypocrite Mr. Kreuger, and
that this appears to be a very commonly held fact about you... but
aren't you responsible for having written this?:
From: Arny Krueger
Date: Thurs, Aug 15 2002 9:49 am
"Tapio Vanhanen" <tapio.vanha...@mosaic.fi> wrote in message
news:ajem8s$1bg57o$1...@ID-152445.news.dfncis.de...
> "Arny Krueger" <a...@hotpop.com> wrote in message > news:l1A69.2868$n81.48...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com... > > "Tapio Vanhanen" <tapio.vanha...@mosaic.fi> wrote in message
<snip>
"Tapio", I did that in the first post in this thread, the one you used
to give us an object lesson in the fact that you are so stupid that you
can't even count to 109!
==================================
And did you write this, where you call your opponent an "idiot" not
once but twice in the same post? And isn't your "idiot" opponent (the
one you call an "idiot"), what they call an "objectist"? So aren't you
using the word on your "own kind", so to speak, as you whine above
about so-called "subjectivists" doing?
From: Arny Krueger -
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2004 10:00 am
"Le Artiste" <sig...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:rsoc10le9k3lsj635...@4ax.com
<snip>
Thanks for dismissing relevant facts, again Dormer. Earlier, I claimed
that you are a blithering idiot who dismisses relevant evidence that
exposes your ignorance, and you performed on cue.
<snip>
> Stop blaming your tools!
Thanks for dismissing relevant facts, again Dormer. Earlier, I claimed
that you are a blithering idiot who dismisses relevant evidence that
exposes your ignorance, and you performed on cue.
<snip>
Dormer is so afraid of taking responsibility for what he says that he
is now habitually posting with the no-archive flag turned on.
Nevertheless, here's a quote of one of his recent posts where he tries
to lie his way out of a discussion of this very situation:
http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=tx1Ob.33468%24zs4.22433%40fed1read01
Follow the thread for other quotes from Dormer as he spins his way out
of control.
Jenn
"ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hey, at my age, the 80s is recent! :-)
> He's widely regarded as the father of talk radio.
Well, "modern" talk radio, anyway.
>
> I don't really consider Hannity "abrasive". He's clearly
> conservative and a republican honk but not all
> that abrasive. He's worse on his TV show IMO.
He calls a whole variety of people he doesn't agree with "idiot",
"anti-American" and so forth daily.
>
> Surprised you didn't mention Air America content
> like Randi Rhodes though perhaps she doesn't
> qualify as popular.
I don't listen to her; stopped at the second show that I heard.
> I've read they're gonna loose their New York
> affiliate and flagship come end of March.
> I wonder just what she would talk about come
> the end of the Bush admin anyway.
>
> >>
> >> > the quality of public debate has become more "idiotic".
> >> > Could be a chicken/egg thing.
> >>
> >> I think that content has become fragmented and a bit of
> >> a conflict has surfaced between MSM and talk radio and
> >> bloggers. I don't think that creates an idiotic debate...
> >> to the contrary, it allows for representation of more
> >> diverse opinions.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > Oh, I like the diversity just fine; it's the presentation that bothers
> > me and that I think has caused the debate to become more "course".
>
> One advantage talk radio has over other formats is that they can devote
> time to explore a topic.
But they generally don't in any meaningful way. THere are exceptions,
of course.
> Salem Radio has some hosts that I think do
> a good job...Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt to name a couple.
> Both conservatives and Hewitt is a hard core republican.
> Ed Schultz is probably my favorite lib on the radio
Agree, now that Michael Jackson isn't on. Him and Rachel Madow.
> though his time
> slot prevents me from being able to listen often.
> Rhodes is a lunatic who just rants non-stop. I have no idea
> how she gets the primetime evening drive slot in the west.
> They should tape delay Ed.
That's what they do up here, thankfully.
>
> ScottW
Robert Morein
<soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141521556....@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
BTW, notice that I did try to respond in an audio related way further up in
this group. Why not carry on as if the pests aren't here? I'd be happy to
continue in that manner.
ScottW
"Robert Morein" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:T5adnXy7yOVFy5bZ...@giganews.com...
Across the board with everybody? or just this hypocrite who spews
as many or more disrespectful comments than anyone?
ScottW
Arny Krueger
> I think it's simply the
> internet culture where one doesn't have to reveal their
> identity (many actually think its foolish to do so) and have little chance
> of ever meeting their adversaries face
> to face, so the usual motivations for civility... simply
> aren't there.
Agreed. Note that posters using an alias (e.g. George Middius, Andre Jute,
Clyde Slick, Soundhaspriority,) are among the more frequent offenders.
Arny Krueger
news:1141588833.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:57qdnYhMhMpHTZfZ...@comcast.com...
>> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jennconducts-8813...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
>>
>>> It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express
>>> an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something,
>>> and not be called an idiot. Not here, however.
>>
>> Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone
>> to use the word
>> idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO
>> one of the most
>> prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius.
>
> I don't mean to suggest that you are a lying hypocrite
> Mr. Kreuger, and that this appears to be a very commonly
> held fact about you... but aren't you responsible for
> having written this?:
<snip rare exception that "soundhaspriority" had to go into the archives 4
years back to find>
Exceptions don't disprove a rule.
Clyde Slick
<soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141521443....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1141447562....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >. He talked about
>> > rapping the side of a cup made of plastic, and one made of wood, and
>> > determining what kind of sound it made. He argues the plastic cup will
>> > make an unnatural type of sound, unlike the wood material.
>>
>> You can go back to tin cans tied with strings, for all I care.
>> Rapping a plastic cup to see what kind of
>> a sound is made, and using that result to make
>> universal determination on material efficacy is quite stupid.
>
> But perhaps not quite as stupid as misunderstanding so many basic
> things from such a simple premise. Your first misunderstanding; the
> experiment to rap the side of a cup was not given as a "universal
> determination" of anything. That's YOU that made the "determination".
> It was merely as an example of the type of sound that might be produced
> by natural and synthetic materials. Secondly, I never said I made that
> experiment. If you have evidence that shows the argument is invalid,
> provide it. So far, the only intelligent response I've read on the
> subject came from Mr. Morein.
> You and others have just thrown at me your vigorous assertions about
> how "stupid" everything is.
>
>
"It was merely as an example of the type of sound that might be producedby
on material efficacy"
--
Clyde Slick
<soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141521556....@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Ask Arny to accuse you of sending him kiddie porn. I'm
sure he will be glad to add you to the list.
Clyde Slick
Everybody knows who I am, why do revel
in pretending to be so stupid? I gave you a complement
there, Arny, take it home and cherish it.
Clyde Slick
Except when they do.
Oh dear, I just disproved your rule.
soundhas...@yahoo.com
It doesn't matter if the posts were 4 years old or ten years old. I
just proved you to be a lying hypocrite. I gave only two examples of
you calling people "idiots" and "stupid" and so on. But I could have
given dozens MORE examples of your name-calling, because there was no
shortage of that in your many years of trolling these groups.
>
> Exceptions don't disprove a rule.
Oh really? So if I said that your silly DBT tests are merely
"exceptions" that don't disprove the rule that ALL audio devices,
whether components or accesories, have their own unique sound
characteristics. Since after all, there are vastly more examples of
empirical evidence than double blind ABX controlled tests. What about
your false accusations of child pornography upon half the members of
the newsgroup. Would _that_ prove the rule that you're a far more
reprehensible troll than anyone that calls someone an "idiot"?
Particularly if they call YOU an idiot, since in your case, it would be
true?
There are no shortage of examples of your hypocrisy Mr. Kreuger. That
would prove the rule that you're a lying hypocrite. Stop wasting your
time trying to prove otherwse, no one's buying it.
soundhas...@yahoo.com
"Clyde Slick" <artsa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:440baf69$0$5505$b9f6...@news.newsdemon.com...
>
> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1141521556....@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Clyde Slick wrote:
> >> "Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >> news:ducvto$huf$6...@reader2.panix.com...
> >> > soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from
> >> > the listening room. Are you familiar with her work?
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I was with her. she didn't much like it when I tried to remove
> >> the metal snaps on her bra.
> >
> > That's a very sexist, disrespectful and offensive comment. It has no
> > place on an audio group.
> >
>
>
>
> Ask Arny to accuse you of sending him kiddie porn. I'm
> sure he will be glad to add you to the list.
I'm sure he's probably already jotted my address and waiting for a good
time to falsely accuse me of sending him kiddie porn. Arny Krueger is
an inherently miserable sociopathic maniac who's entire life revolves
around trying to shout above the fray of voices on newsgroups. Louder
than anyone else, in the hopes of convincing at least one fence-sitter
of his ridiculous religious beliefs based on everything in audio
sounding the same, and bring one more disciple to his audio religion. I
don't think he's ever convinced anyone of anything in all of this old
crank's wasted and waning years. But what's your excuse for being an
obnoxious git? Why don't you list your accomplishments in audio that
you think allows you to disrespect Ms. Lumley like that?
nyo...@peoplepc.com
>
> <nyo...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:lguOf.7057$S25....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>
>> insult common sense with statements liek LP being supreior to VD and the
>> nutty ctrap about paper and plastic drivers, then you prettymuch invited
>> abuse.
>>
>
>
> Its more accurate.
>
>
The effects of the former are definitely no illusory.
nyo...@peoplepc.com
<soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141551122.2...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> <nyo...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:lguOf.7057$S25....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> news:1141522460....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...>> >> news:1141499152.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>> >> > news:FOjOf.134985$0G.98705@dukeread10...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1141447562....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>
>> Paper just doesn't leap out of trees, it has to be be processed from wood
>> pulp, and it is one of the smelliest things you'll evver encouter.
>
> Color me skeptical. For I believe _you_ would be one of the smelliest
> things I'd ever encounter.
>
> But we're getting off point here, aren't we. What does the smell of
> processed wood have to do with the resonance modes of natural paper?
> What _is_ it about you silly arse gearheads that you always have to go
> off tangent and bring in arguments from 3,000 miles away that have
> absolutely ZERO relevance to the points I bring up? Can't you follow a
> basic argument in a debate, or are you all trying to watch tv at the
> same time as you type?
>
>
>> >> > And this has WHAT to do with loudspeaker design, you fruitbasket?
>> >>
>> >> Nothing.. but it is your thread. Paper is not a product of nature.
>>
>> Actually everything that exists, exists within nature, since only the
>> natural exists.
>
> Oh my god, gearhead jr. is a "philosopher" now. You have no end of
> wasted talents, don't you, Mr. McKelvy? What are you doing wasting them
> here? Shouldn't you be somewhere teaching a university class?
>
>> If a beavers dam is part f nature, then so is a skyscraper, since the
>> same
>> rules apply, things that were in one form, werre tranformed into
>> something
>> new. Of course I'm nitpicking, but the point is still valid.
>
> No, the point was _never_ valid. And I can see why you're considered
> one of the dumber "objectivist-extremists" here. Just because something
> exists on this planet, doesn't mean you can call it "natural".
> Paper comes from trees, trees are a living thing. That would surely
> make it "natural". Plastic is _not_ a living thing. Neither is oil,
> neither are skyscrapers.
A beaver's dam is natural and plastic is natural, as is paper, and all for
the same reason. They all come from creatures in nature, acting according
to their nature. The unnatural can't exist, since everything that exists,
does so within nature.
I believe the
> focus of my question was in the nature of the resonant frequencies of
> materials used for speaker coning. Or did you forget all of that?
I didn't forget it, did you not read the rest of what I wrote?
All
> materials have resonant frequencies and may produce harmonics. I
> believe the question on the table was more like: "Does paper, a natural
> material, produce timbral qualities more sympathetic to the natural
> sound of musical instrumetns than synthetic materials used for coning,
> ie. plastics?" It wasn't simply a question of "is paper superior to
> plastic" in general. But then I've come to learn that gearheads are
> oblivious to any and all subtlety.
>
And I've come to learn that people who think LP is more accurate than CD are
not clear thinkers.
>
>> > You're wrong, you don't "grow" plastic. Do you know ANYTHING?
>> >
>> I know that you don't make saweeping statements about CD and LP here and
>> expect to leave unscathed.
>
> LOL! I will -always- be able to "leave here unscathed", because I'm
> "untouchable". IOW, there's nothing you or your beanie baby buddies
> could do or say that would harm me in any way, or even change anything
> that I choose to do.
Inability to recognize metaphor, noted.
And as for the "saweeping statements", well that
> would be YOU that's prone to making those. Aren't you the shmuck who
> said unequivocally that CD was superior to LP? No matter what? A $35
> Coby is better than a $30,000 SME? I rest my case.
>
Don't know aboutt Coby but there's not any sonic difference between CD
players over $100.00 and they are all vastly superior to LP with it's
ghastly distortion and noise.
>> >> > Oh that couldn't have been more clearer! I try to take the "high
>> >> > road",
>> >>
>> >> but lacked the stamina for it.
>> >
>> > Well at least I tried, which is more than I can say for you.
>>
>> You didn't try, you started out insulting everybody who prefers CD's
>> which
>> are in fact technically superior to LP in every single aspect.
>
> Yup, you're that shmuck all right. You see what I mean? It's as though
> you made a promise to yourself that each thing you say to me, has to be
> even stupider than the last. You just insulted everybody who prefer's
> LP's, which are proven to be technically superior to CDs.
They are free to prefer them. but they aren't free to say thery are more
accurate without proof, and none exists.
But then, how
> would you even know that? All that you know about audio you read in the
> pages of old Stereo Review articles. You probably wank to pictures of
> Julian Hirsch. You really _do_ sound like an android, the way you spew
> out misguided gibberish all the time about audio, which one can tell
> has not a shred of experience behind a single word that you spill on
> these pages.
If irony killed.
When you've actually learned something from firsthand
> knowledge, then maybe you can come back and maybe I'll listen to what
> you have to say. Until then... go back to Julian.
>
And you have firsthand knowledge of the accuracy of LP from where?
>> Now name
>> > me one person here on RAO that hasn't been attacked? Just one, that's
>> > all. Just ONE. I'd like to find out how they managed to avoid getting
>> > attacked on this newsgroup.
>> >
There aren't any, and there will never be, espeically when someone comes on
and says ridiculous things like LP is more accurate than CD or paper is
better for speaker drivers than plastic.
What makes Dynaudio speakers sound so good? Is it paper? No way Jose.
>> If you already knew that and stilldecided to post here and decided to
>> insult
>> common sense with statements liek LP being supreior to VD and the nutty
>> ctrap about paper and plastic drivers, then you prettymuch invited abuse.
>
> Please put your glasses on before you type, dorkus maximus. I never
> said anything about the LP being superior to your VD.
VD is supreior to you. When you can't overlook a typo, you are pathetic.
Everything you
> seem to say is an insult to one's intelligence. And I mean *anyone*.
> I'm not knocking the humble CD, because it is a "good enough" type of
> medium for the masses. Its just that unlike you, some people are
> ambitious about sound quality. They want something better than you can
> get off your mp3 based mini that you listen to.
Don't own one.
They're called
> "audiophiles". You should know, you make it your business to slander
> and attack them every day, with your senseless jabberwocky.
Senseless like some guy who is idiot enough to beleive that CD is less
accurate than LP?
For them,
> God created the turntable. (Or more specifically, "The Source"). It is
> recognized as being superior to CD by all musicians and audiophiles
> with discriminating ears, who can actualy tell what real music is
> supposed to sound like.
Horseshit.
Most CD players under $5 grand simply do not
> have the ability to acheive the level of resolution afforded by a good
> record deck.
>
More horsehsit.
> A blind pig is able to determine this when a proper comparison is made.
I have a fair amount of certainty that yo have no idea what a proper
comparison is.
You do know that you can copy an LP to a CD and then compare the 2 and there
will be no audible difference, don't you? You do know what that means,
right?
> Speaking of which, I recall reading an article in a hifi magazine where
> blind tests were done comparing a good record deck to a CD player that
> cost several times the price of the deck. Most could not tell when the
> LP was being played (so much for the gearheads complaint about surface
> noise), and all without exception, chose the LP reproduction as
> superior. Coincidence? Hardly. LP done right, even in the face of SACD
> and DVD-A, is a superior medium for reproducing music. For reproducing
> mere "sounds", like a movie sfx, CD will do.
>
Please name the magazine and the test conditions. I think you made it up.
> Nuff said. Drop the subject, and stop embarassing yourself. There's
> enough misguided ignorance about audio here already without you trying
> to top everyone.
>
Then why are you trying to spread more?
soundhas...@yahoo.com
<nyo...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:_SROf.7559$S25....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Speaking from experience, are you?
BTW, am I right to assume that English is not your first language?
soundhas...@yahoo.com
Oh, VD is "supreior" to me, is it? You don't get it, do you? You're
pathetic for an endless number of reasons, which would take all night
for me to explain to you.
Look mate, I appreciate the effort but I'm sorry, you're not worth my
time to debate. What would be the point? You're ignorant beyond
comprehension, and you seem to be perfectly happy to wallow in your
dumb ignorance. You clearly do not have a practical background in audio
that matters, you clearly just regurgitate whatever nonsense you've
been told or read. I feel like I'm trying to explain the intricacies of
Sartre to a six year old, with you. You're a die-hard religious
dogmatist, and you have no desire whatsoever to learn anything about
audio. Your only desire is to spew your audio religion on to passers
by, like a beer-swilling goon out on a drunken bender.
Making matters worse, is the fact that you're extremely obnoxious,
rude, and just plain dumb. You don't even have a basic grasp of what
you read; such as when you attribute me as having "said that paper is
better for speakers than plastic", when that was _not_ what I wrote.
You make dumb dismissive statements like "Horseshit!" and not once in
your attempts at debate do you ever support any of the dross that you
spit out. Another curious thing I noticed about you, is that you use
the EXACT same catchphrases as used by your mentor, Arny Krueger. To
wit:
> Inability to recognize metaphor, noted.
> If irony killed.
So perhaps you're better off dropping your alias and just posting under
your regular alias of "Arny Krueger". I don't even know who you're
supposed to be. An even more ignorant version of Arny Krueger? What's
the point?
westpas...@hotmail.com
Good luck on getting any published confirmation on the statements
he makes.
After all he is the person that demanded published proof of another
poster's statements but has yet to make any documented confirmations
when requested of his own.
"I'll stop posting when they pry my 8 tracks from my cold dead fingers"
:-)
Arny Krueger
news:1141617338.8...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
>> Exceptions don't disprove a rule.
>
> Oh really? So if I said that your silly DBT tests are
> merely "exceptions" that don't disprove the rule that ALL
> audio devices, whether components or accesories, have
> their own unique sound characteristics.
Saying something doesn't make it so.
soundhas...@yahoo.com
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:X8GdnT7jN6R0rZHZ...@comcast.com...
Confession that everything you've ever said about audio devices
sounding alike or the relevance of ABX tests in consumer audio or that
half the "subjectivists" on the newsgroup emailed you kiddie porn was a
lie, noted.
bro...@flash.net
paper is a natural material, as are the materials of many musical
instruments, which are made of wood or even brass, etc."
Well, all I know is Charlie Parker played one hell of a concert on a
plastic saxophone (look for a CD called "The Greatest Jazz Concert
Ever"). Anyway, paper is not really a "natural" material, unless you're
gonna make cones out of wasp nests. And who makes speaker cones out of
brass? There is a guy in New York who plays an upright bass made of
metal.
TB
westpas...@hotmail.com
I think I did a show with him, great sounding instrument.
He said he didn't have to worry about the baggage handlers
when he travelled :-)
Maybe wasps would make the best speaker cones if
you could train them.
Market them under the Madder than Hornets logo.
bro...@flash.net
westpas...@hotmail.com
bro...@flash.net wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Parker
>
> http://www.saxgourmet.com/grafton.htm
Sorry not to more precise, it was the fellow with the metal bass.
I'm trying to remember where, but 20 years of shows,
mostly one offs, the players tend to fade into the mists.
It's a shame when you work with so many talented artists
that the one that are the most difficult to work with are the
ones that come to mind first. :-)
bro...@flash.net
> Sorry not to more precise, it was the fellow with the metal bass.
That guy had a bass sax also. I was kinda wondering how old you were to
have played with bird.
> It's a shame when you work with so many talented artists
> that the one that are the most difficult to work with are the
> ones that come to mind first. :-)
Reminds me of a trumpet player I met who commented on Ron Carter...
TB
westpas...@hotmail.com
I'm 50, and a SE, not a player, meet them the day of show,
sometimes get a sound check, sometimes you wing it the
first couple of tunes and work out the kinks. I've had them walk in
20 minutes before curtain, ask what do you have on stage, and play.
Others can be a couple hours of sound check and move this here.
Could I have some more (X-Y) in the monitors please.
It's great when the energy flow is there and you see it in
the faces of the audience.
I apologize for the OT discussion, not mentioning a speaker
material.
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > I've seen. I don't mean the usual tired old senseless, pointless,
> > > worthless, quasi-debates about "Blind Tests" vs. "Sighted Tests", or
> > > the same 25 year old arguments about which is better LP or CD (its
> > > always the same conclusion: those with discerning tastes who understand
> > > what music sounds like, know that LP is more accurate within its
> > > limitations of amplitude,those who believe whatever they've been
> > > brainwashed to believe by the mid-fi industry and know nothing about
> > > music reproduction, always blindly claim its CD - and ne'er the twain
> > > shall meet).
> >
> > Ah, thanks for clearing that whole thing up for us, at long last.
> > (Personally, I've never seen that particular conclusion until now.)
> Since you're not an audiophile and wouldn't know how to set up an
> audiophile turntable if I put a gun to your head, do you think I should
> be surprised?
Hmm.. is the ability to set up an audiophile turntable *the* defining
talent of an audiophile?
FWIW, I do have one of those cartridge aligning and balancing tools,
as well as the Shure test record, but it's been ages since I've used either,
though. My V15TypeV MR and Systemdek IIX remain ever-ready, though,
should I decide to haul them out of the storage they went into circa 1987.
> > > So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit"
> > > by opening up an actual attempt at an audio-related discussion. Perhaps
> > > it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars.
> >
> > Why don't you just list all your preconceived yet dubious conclusions,
> > like the one above re: LPs and CDs. Save us lots of time.
> Okay, here it is:
At a loss for words, are we? Well, there's a first time for everything.
> >
> > You know, this sort of theory of correspondences had some traction in
> > the age of alchemy...but not so much nowadays, except in New Age/homepathic
> > circles.
> Your vigorous assertions have no currency here. What experiments, Mr.
> Scientist, have you done with cone materials that prove contrary to the
> article?
That's not how it works. First, the article write has to do some good experiments
to establish his claim. I can wait.
> > One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from
> > the listening room. Are you familiar with her work?
> No, but I'll bet your refrring to Enid Lumley. I only heard about her
> recently in my research into alternative audio, as I was not a regular
> reader of The Absolute Sound. She seems to be very well regarded, and
> sorely missed (after having dropped out of the audio scene altogether,
> because as I understand, of always having to deal with ignorant pigs
> like yourself).
What I especially admire about you, is the bounty of class you're
bringing to RAO.
And the way your outer kook conceals an even nuttier center.
> I read that she was many years ahead of her time, and
> that many of her practices that were largely ridiculed in the 80's (by
> ignorant pigs like yourself), are now standard practice in the
> audiophile world. I read that TAS should be congratulated, as having
> been one of the few audio magazines to have the courage to support
> unpopular principles and ideas, such as what Enid Lumley advocated,
> that may have helped to advance the state of the audio hobby. I have no
> reason to doubt anything I just mentioned.
You really should be subcribed to TAS. You *ARE* their target audience.
> One reason being, I find that what you mentioned about Enid Lumley'
> findings on the effects of metal parallel my own work.
I'm not surprised in the least.
Anyway. That's enough fun with you for today. Ramble on, dude.
--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)
Steven Sullivan
> <nyo...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:lguOf.7057$S25....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > news:1141522460....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> > >> >
> > >> > "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> > news:FOjOf.134985$0G.98705@dukeread10...
> > >> >>
> > >> >> news:1141447562....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> > >>
> > Paper just doesn't leap out of trees, it has to be be processed from wood
> > pulp, and it is one of the smelliest things you'll evver encouter.
> Color me skeptical. For I believe _you_ would be one of the smelliest
> things I'd ever encounter.
The class. The CLASS. I'm in awe.
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> >
> > Ah, the 'classing up' continues apace.
> I love you.
I love you too, and that's why I'm tellin' you:
Hey! This is no place for a lady!
Steven Sullivan
> "Clyde Slick" <artsa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:440baf69$0$5505$b9f6...@news.newsdemon.com...
> >
> > <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1141521556....@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Clyde Slick wrote:
> > >> "Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:ducvto$huf$6...@reader2.panix.com...
> > >> > soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > One of the TAS kooks once insisted that all metal must be removed from
> > >> > the listening room. Are you familiar with her work?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> I was with her. she didn't much like it when I tried to remove
> > >> the metal snaps on her bra.
> > >
> > > That's a very sexist, disrespectful and offensive comment. It has no
> > > place on an audio group.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ask Arny to accuse you of sending him kiddie porn. I'm
> > sure he will be glad to add you to the list.
> I'm sure he's probably already jotted my address and waiting for a good
> time to falsely accuse me of sending him kiddie porn. Arny Krueger is
> an inherently miserable sociopathic maniac who's entire life revolves
> around trying to shout above the fray of voices on newsgroups.
I'm not sure this ng can take any more classing up from you. Can you
please close the spigot just a little bit please?
Sander deWaal
>FWIW, I do have one of those cartridge aligning and balancing tools,
>as well as the Shure test record, but it's been ages since I've used either,
>though. My V15TypeV MR and Systemdek IIX remain ever-ready, though,
>should I decide to haul them out of the storage they went into circa 1987.
There's a good chance that your cartridge is shot after all those
years.
Dried out cantilever suspension.
--
- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -
Steven Sullivan
> >FWIW, I do have one of those cartridge aligning and balancing tools,
> >as well as the Shure test record, but it's been ages since I've used either,
> >though. My V15TypeV MR and Systemdek IIX remain ever-ready, though,
> >should I decide to haul them out of the storage they went into circa 1987.
> There's a good chance that your cartridge is shot after all those
> years.
> Dried out cantilever suspension.
FWIW, the stylus is much newer than the cart. I have to confess I
*do* break out the table occasionally, to transfer an LP to CDR.
I think I replaced the stylus less than ten years ago and must have used
it once every year or two since then. The last time I checked
it still tracked the Shure test record very well, after setup.
George M. Middius
Stupey, you've misunderstood (again).
> > > Ah, the 'classing up' continues apace.
> > I love you.
> I love you too, and that's why I'm tellin' you:
> Hey! This is no place for a lady!
Wrong you are, Sillybot. He (not she) used "love" in the "JEE-zus loves
you" sense.
nyo...@peoplepc.com
<soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141640348.7...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> nyo...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1141551122.2...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > <nyo...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>> > news:lguOf.7057$S25....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> >>
>> >> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1141522460....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> >> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1141499152.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:FOjOf.134985$0G.98705@dukeread10...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:1141447562....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >>
>> >
>> >> Paper just doesn't leap out of trees, it has to be be processed from
>> >> wood
>> >> pulp, and it is one of the smelliest things you'll evver encouter.
>> >
>> > Color me skeptical. For I believe _you_ would be one of the smelliest
>> > things I'd ever encounter.
>> >
>> > But we're getting off point here, aren't we. What does the smell of
>> > processed wood have to do with the resonance modes of natural paper?
What does the fact that oil is where plastic come from have anything to do
with it being natural?
I simply pointed out that pulp mills stink for the simple reason that they
are doing a lot of chemical processing to that "natural" wood.
>> > What _is_ it about you silly arse gearheads that you always have to go
>> > off tangent and bring in arguments from 3,000 miles away that have
>> > absolutely ZERO relevance to the points I bring up? Can't you follow a
>> > basic argument in a debate, or are you all trying to watch tv at the
>> > same time as you type?
>> >
>> >
>> >> >> > And this has WHAT to do with loudspeaker design, you fruitbasket?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nothing.. but it is your thread. Paper is not a product of
>> >> >> nature.
>> >>
>> >> Actually everything that exists, exists within nature, since only the
>> >> natural exists.
>> >
>> > Oh my god, gearhead jr. is a "philosopher" now. You have no end of
>> > wasted talents, don't you, Mr. McKelvy? What are you doing wasting them
>> > here? Shouldn't you be somewhere teaching a university class?
>> >
>> >> If a beavers dam is part of nature, then so is a skyscraper, since the
>> >> same
>> >> rules apply, things that were in one form, werre tranformed into
>> >> something
>> >> new. Of course I'm nitpicking, but the point is still valid.
>> >
>> > No, the point was _never_ valid. And I can see why you're considered
>> > one of the dumber "objectivist-extremists" here. Just because something
>> > exists on this planet, doesn't mean you can call it "natural".
Yes it does.
>> > Paper comes from trees, trees are a living thing. That would surely
>> > make it "natural". Plastic is _not_ a living thing. Neither is oil,
>> > neither are skyscrapers.
>>
But like anything made by any other creature on earth they come from things
in nature that are restructured according to need and ability.
>> A beaver's dam is natural and plastic is natural, as is paper, and all
>> for
>> the same reason. They all come from creatures in nature, acting
>> according
>> to their nature. The unnatural can't exist, since everything that
>> exists,
>> does so within nature.
>>
>> I believe the
>> > focus of my question was in the nature of the resonant frequencies of
>> > materials used for speaker coning. Or did you forget all of that?
>>
>> I didn't forget it, did you not read the rest of what I wrote?
>>
>> All
>> > materials have resonant frequencies and may produce harmonics. I
>> > believe the question on the table was more like: "Does paper, a natural
>> > material, produce timbral qualities more sympathetic to the natural
>> > sound of musical instrumetns than synthetic materials used for coning,
>> > ie. plastics?" It wasn't simply a question of "is paper superior to
>> > plastic" in general. But then I've come to learn that gearheads are
>> > oblivious to any and all subtlety.
>> >
Then the answer to that question is no. Most of the best sounding speakers
made do not have much paper in their drivers, which is precisely why I
mentioned Dynaudio, and B&W.
>> And I've come to learn that people who think LP is more accurate than CD
>> are
>> not clear thinkers.
>> >
>> >> > You're wrong, you don't "grow" plastic. Do you know ANYTHING?
>> >> >
I know you are not really classing up the joint. You're just adding to the
noise.
>> >> I know that you don't make saweeping statements about CD and LP here
>> >> and
>> >> expect to leave unscathed.
>> >
>> > LOL! I will -always- be able to "leave here unscathed", because I'm
>> > "untouchable". IOW, there's nothing you or your beanie baby buddies
>> > could do or say that would harm me in any way, or even change anything
>> > that I choose to do.
>>
>> Inability to recognize metaphor, noted.
>>
>> And as for the "saweeping statements", well that
>> > would be YOU that's prone to making those. Aren't you the shmuck who
>> > said unequivocally that CD was superior to LP? No matter what? A $35
>> > Coby is better than a $30,000 SME? I rest my case.
>> >
You haven't made a case, you only made a statement, that is not backed up by
any evidence.
>> Don't know aboutt Coby but there's not any sonic difference between CD
>> players over $100.00 and they are all vastly superior to LP with it's
>> ghastly distortion and noise.
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > Well at least I tried, which is more than I can say for you.
>> >>
>> >> You didn't try, you started out insulting everybody who prefers CD's
>> >> which
>> >> are in fact technically superior to LP in every single aspect.
>> >
>> > Yup, you're that shmuck all right. You see what I mean? It's as though
>> > you made a promise to yourself that each thing you say to me, has to be
>> > even stupider than the last. You just insulted everybody who prefer's
>> > LP's, which are proven to be technically superior to CDs.
>>
>> They are free to prefer them. but they aren't free to say thery are more
>> accurate without proof, and none exists.
>>
>> But then, how
>> > would you even know that? All that you know about audio you read in the
>> > pages of old Stereo Review articles. You probably wank to pictures of
>> > Julian Hirsch.
You have very odd homo-erotic fantasies.
>> VD is superior to you. When you can't overlook a typo, you are pathetic.
>
>
Still waiting for evidence of any kind to prove that LP is more accurate
than CD?
>
>> Everything you
>> > seem to say is an insult to one's intelligence. And I mean *anyone*.
>> > I'm not knocking the humble CD, because it is a "good enough" type of
>> > medium for the masses. Its just that unlike you, some people are
>> > ambitious about sound quality. They want something better than you can
>> > get off your mp3 based mini that you listen to.
>>
>> Don't own one.
>>
>> They're called
>> > "audiophiles". You should know, you make it your business to slander
>> > and attack them every day, with your senseless jabberwocky.
>>
I 've been an audiophile for over 30 years, so I have a pretty good idea
about wht sounds good.
LP was fine when it was all that there was, but the moment CD's became
available, it was obvious how god awful they were by comparison. Lack of
dynamic range, noise, bass summed to mono, high frequency rolloff, blech.
That's probably why some people don't like CD, they aren't used to hearing
things undistorted on their home stereo.
You sound like a Jute clone. No offer of evidedence, too time consuming and
it doesn't support your flaky assumptions.
What would be the point? You're ignorant beyond
> comprehension, and you seem to be perfectly happy to wallow in your
> dumb ignorance.
How smart do you have to be to know what an inferior medium LP is?
You clearly do not have a practical background in audio
> that matters, you clearly just regurgitate whatever nonsense you've
> been told or read.
Failed attempt at mind reading noted.
I feel like I'm trying to explain the intricacies of
> Sartre to a six year old, with you. You're a die-hard religious
> dogmatist, and you have no desire whatsoever to learn anything about
> audio.
You haven't taught anything yet, it seems like you don't know very much.
Your only desire is to spew your audio religion on to passers
> by, like a beer-swilling goon out on a drunken bender.
>
By letting people know that LP is distorted by many orders of magnitude over
CD?
That's not dogma, that's just the facts.
> Making matters worse, is the fact that you're extremely obnoxious,
> rude, and just plain dumb.
I should try and be as pleasant as yourself?
You don't even have a basic grasp of what
> you read; such as when you attribute me as having "said that paper is
> better for speakers than plastic", when that was _not_ what I wrote.
> You make dumb dismissive statements like "Horseshit!" and not once in
> your attempts at debate do you ever support any of the dross that you
> spit out.
Saying that LP is more accurate than CD is horseshit.
You made the statement that LP is more accurate than CD, where's the support
for that?
You offer no evidence of any kind for your claims about CD players in
various price ranges sounding different. There is evidence that virtually
all CD players are more accurate than all LP/truntable/cartridge
combinations.
Another curious thing I noticed about you, is that you use
> the EXACT same catchphrases as used by your mentor, Arny Krueger. To
> wit:
>
>> Inability to recognize metaphor, noted.
>
>> If irony killed.
>
If it works, use it.
> So perhaps you're better off dropping your alias and just posting under
> your regular alias of "Arny Krueger". I don't even know who you're
> supposed to be. An even more ignorant version of Arny Krueger? What's
> the point?
>
The point is that you make statements as if they are revealed truth, with no
evidence to support them.
I am not Arny Kruger, anymore than you are knowledgable about audio.
You are right about one thing, it is pointless to debate with you, you don't
actually know anything.
nyo...@peoplepc.com
> In article <xSGOf.135165$0G.78822@dukeread10>,
> "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Oh, I like the diversity just fine; it's the presentation that bothers
> me and that I think has caused the debate to become more "course".
Like when there are websites like smirking chimp.com?
More of that leftist class?
dizzy
>True discussions about audio are actually quite rare here, from what
>I've seen. I don't mean the usual tired old senseless, pointless,
>worthless, quasi-debates about "Blind Tests" vs. "Sighted Tests", or
>the same 25 year old arguments about which is better LP or CD (its
>always the same conclusion: those with discerning tastes who understand
>what music sounds like, know that LP is more accurate within its
>limitations of amplitude,those who believe whatever they've been
>brainwashed to believe by the mid-fi industry and know nothing about
>music reproduction, always blindly claim its CD - and ne'er the twain
>shall meet).
Good troll.
Say, can I interest you in some buggy whips?
Jenn
Ouch.
I just spent a week at the Eastman School, and he's thought of very
highly there as a person.
Jenn
Yeah, and then there is the Killing Kennedy video games..... Who knows
where it all starts? The point is that the radio talk guys help to
foster the "I'm right so you're an idiot" atmosphere.
bro...@flash.net
material."
At least we're talking about sound and music, unlike alot of the
(ir)regulars here ;o)
bro...@flash.net
highly there as a person."
I got to chat with him about 25 years ago after a concert in Madison,
WI. He struck me as friendly but very serious about his music.
TB
nyo...@peoplepc.com
anything like that.
Could you provide some examples?
nyo...@peoplepc.com
<soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141588833.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> news:57qdnYhMhMpHTZfZ...@comcast.com...>> news:jennconducts-8813...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
>>
>> > It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express
>> > an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something,
>> > and not be called an idiot. Not here, however.
>>
>> Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone to use the word
>> idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO one of the most
>> prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius.
>
> I don't mean to suggest that you are a lying hypocrite Mr. Kreuger, and
> that this appears to be a very commonly held fact about you... but
> aren't you responsible for having written this?:
>
> From: Arny Krueger
> Date: Thurs, Aug 15 2002 9:49 am
>
> "Tapio Vanhanen" <tapio.vanha...@mosaic.fi> wrote in message
>
> news:ajem8s$1bg57o$1...@ID-152445.news.dfncis.de...
>
>> "Arny Krueger" <a...@hotpop.com> wrote in message >
>> news:l1A69.2868$n81.48...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com... > > "Tapio
>> Vanhanen" <tapio.vanha...@mosaic.fi> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> "Tapio", I did that in the first post in this thread, the one you used
> to give us an object lesson in the fact that you are so stupid that you
> can't even count to 109!
>
>
> ==================================
>
> And did you write this, where you call your opponent an "idiot" not
> once but twice in the same post? And isn't your "idiot" opponent (the
> one you call an "idiot"), what they call an "objectist"? So aren't you
> using the word on your "own kind", so to speak, as you whine above
> about so-called "subjectivists" doing?
>
>
> From: Arny Krueger -
> Date: Tues, Jan 27 2004 10:00 am
>
> "Le Artiste" <sig...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>
> news:rsoc10le9k3lsj635...@4ax.com
>
> <snip>
>
> Thanks for dismissing relevant facts, again Dormer. Earlier, I claimed
> that you are a blithering idiot who dismisses relevant evidence that
> exposes your ignorance, and you performed on cue.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Stop blaming your tools!
>
> Thanks for dismissing relevant facts, again Dormer. Earlier, I claimed
> that you are a blithering idiot who dismisses relevant evidence that
> exposes your ignorance, and you performed on cue.
>
> <snip>
>
> Dormer is so afraid of taking responsibility for what he says that he
> is now habitually posting with the no-archive flag turned on.
> Nevertheless, here's a quote of one of his recent posts where he tries
> to lie his way out of a discussion of this very situation:
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=tx1Ob.33468%24zs4.22433%40fed1read01
> Follow the thread for other quotes from Dormer as he spins his way out
> of control.
>
You might want to get some perspective and read some of Dormer's posts.
He's hardly an innocent victim. Not that you care much about pesky things
like facts.
nyo...@peoplepc.com
<soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141617338.8...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...> news:7fGdnRiT0sM...@comcast.com...
>> > news:57qdnYhMhMpHTZfZ...@comcast.com...
>> >> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:jennconducts-8813...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
>> >>
>> >>> It's interesting that in some endeavors, one can express
>> >>> an opinion, or even be factually wrong about something,
>> >>> and not be called an idiot. Not here, however.
>> >>
>> >> Note that so-called subjectivists seem to be more prone
>> >> to use the word
>> >> idiot - both on each other and on objectivists. On RAO
>> >> one of the most
>> >> prolific orgionators of the word is George Middius.
>> >
>> > I don't mean to suggest that you are a lying hypocrite
>> > Mr. Kreuger, and that this appears to be a very commonly
>> > held fact about you... but aren't you responsible for
>> > having written this?:
>>
>> 4
>> years back to find>
>
> It doesn't matter if the posts were 4 years old or ten years old. I
> just proved you to be a lying hypocrite. I gave only two examples of
> you calling people "idiots" and "stupid" and so on. But I could have
> given dozens MORE examples of your name-calling, because there was no
> shortage of that in your many years of trolling these groups.
>
>
>>
>> Exceptions don't disprove a rule.
>
> Oh really? So if I said that your silly DBT tests are merely
> "exceptions" that don't disprove the rule that ALL audio devices,
> whether components or accesories, have their own unique sound
> characteristics.
There is no such rule, thatis simply an opinion that some people hold. It
is up to them to demonstrate that such a rule exists. So far the research
indicates the opposite. The facts show that when things measure closely
enough, they can't be distinguished from each other.
This doesn't conclusivley prove that point but there is no evidence to
support the everything sounds different hypothesis, it just means that so
far no relaible evidence exists to support it.
Since after all, there are vastly more examples of
> empirical evidence than double blind ABX controlled tests.
Aside from anecdotes, what evidence is there?
> Particularly if they call YOU an idiot, since in your case, it would be
> true?
>
> There are no shortage of examples of your hypocrisy Mr. Kreuger. That
> would prove the rule that you're a lying hypocrite. Stop wasting your
> time trying to prove otherwse, no one's buying it.
>
There is ample evidence that you have no clue about what is real in audio,
yet you continue to ramble on.
Jenn
<nyo...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1141697083.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > nyo...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> >> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:jennconducts-351A...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> >> > In article <xSGOf.135165$0G.78822@dukeread10>,
> >> > "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Oh, I like the diversity just fine; it's the presentation that bothers
> >> > me and that I think has caused the debate to become more "course".
> >>
> >> Like when there are websites like smirking chimp.com?
> >>
> >> More of that leftist class?
> >
> > Yeah, and then there is the Killing Kennedy video games..... Who knows
> > where it all starts? The point is that the radio talk guys help to
> > foster the "I'm right so you're an idiot" atmosphere.
> >
> I don't know which radio guys you're talking about, since I've never heard
> anything like that.
>
> Could you provide some examples?
Examples of the "I'm right so you're an idiot" thing? Sure. I'd rather
do it elsewhere, but I'll give you some direct quotes during a break
later today.
soundhas...@yahoo.com
nyo...@peoplepc.com wrote:
You don't say? Well isn't THAT ironic? I say you're either an alias of
Kreuger's, or your his right hand man, a supreme Kreuger apologist.
Krueger can stab someone in the face 12 times in front of 5,000
witnesses, and you'll say the man fell on Kreuger's knife. 12 times.
You wouldn't recognize a "fact" Mr. McKelvy, if it stabbed you in the
face.
Here's the FACTS. Just TRY and argue against me on this:
Krueger whined about how "subjectivists" always objectivists and each
other "idiots". In two seconds I found numerous examples of your
boyfriend Krueger calling others "idiot" and "stupid". I posted two
such examples, since that's all that was needed to prove the point
about Krueger being a lying, whining, hypocrite.
You telling now about what the other guy did to provoke Krueger only
shows what a true imbecile you are, since everyone else seems to know
that it doesn't excuse Kreuger's criticism of others, or change the
fact that he's a lying hypocrite and therefore has no right to
criticize others for behaviour he engages in. You're a lying hypocrite
as well for excusing Krueger's behavior. Now go back to banging your
head against a wall.
nyo...@peoplepc.com
<soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141749855....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Where did he ever say he never does such things?
> You telling now about what the other guy did to provoke Krueger only
> shows what a true imbecile you are, since everyone else seems to know
> that it doesn't excuse Kreuger's criticism of others, or change the
> fact that he's a lying hypocrite and therefore has no right to
> criticize others for behaviour he engages in.
Not everyone, only the usual suspects.
You're a lying hypocrite
> as well for excusing Krueger's behavior. Now go back to banging your
> head against a wall.
>
Is that how you got to be so brilliant?
nyo...@peoplepc.com
Actually, I thought of one guy I have heard who does that, Mark Levin on
WABC in New York. The bigger names, that I've heard, at least on the
Conservative side do not normally use such tactics.
Jenn
<nyo...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
Yeah, Levin is a jerk form what little I've heard of him. He's a
Hannity protege. Try Michael "Savage" if you want to hear some real
nastiness and constant lies.
ScottW
>
> Yeah, Levin is a jerk form what little I've heard of him. He's a
> Hannity protege. Try Michael "Savage" if you want to hear some real
> nastiness and constant lies.
Savage is a hoot.. ever notice that when he works himself into a real
rant he often takes the next day off and then comes back appearing..
well... sedated? I think he might be a bit over the edge mentally.
Savage is pure show though... on occasion people who were dumb
enough to join is Paul Revere society call in and demand action,
he just says listen to the radio and he's just one man what can he do.
Hannity does his stupid tours where people actually pay to listen
to him. I thought/hoped his fiasco on Shavo would do him in,
but it didn't.
ScottW
NYO...@peoplepc.com
He's got no stomach for the same old bromides fropm Liberals, but he
usually just tosses back his own. He is IIRC a lawyer and works with
the Heritage Foundation, so he can't be as dumb as he sounds.
He's a
> Hannity protege.
They work in the same radio station.
Try Michael "Savage" if you want to hear some real
> nastiness and constant lies.
I don't, I prefer to hear reasoned debate even if it's from people I
don't agree with.
The problem is as I have said many times, there are 2 sides presenting
their polarized views and neither side is above strectching the truth
to win. When it comes to journalism, I find this particularly
abhorent.
The NYT and the other big liberal papers print crap all the time that
is blatantly false and never get called on it, just look at all the
nonsense regarding hurricaine Katrina. There was looting in the
streets, rapes,and on and on. None of it true.
Or look at how there was a blood lust over the video supposedly telling
Bush that the levee's weren't expected to hold, when no such thing was
contained therein.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Date: Tues, Mar 7 2006 10:01 pm
Email: "NYOB...@peoplepc.com" <NYOB...@peoplepc.com>
>The NYT and the other big liberal papers print crap all the time that
>is blatantly false and never get called on it, just look at all the
>nonsense regarding hurricaine Katrina. There was looting in the
>streets, rapes,and on and on. None of it true.
Tell that to the police and soldiers that were fired upon during rescue
operations.
Or was all of that false too?
>Or look at how there was a blood lust over the video supposedly telling
>Bush that the levee's weren't expected to hold, when no such thing was
>contained therein.
nob. What more can you say?
LOL!
Jenn
"NYO...@peoplepc.com" <NYO...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
Kind of like Franken has none for those from Conservatives ;-)
> but he
> usually just tosses back his own. He is IIRC a lawyer and works with
> the Heritage Foundation, so he can't be as dumb as he sounds.
>
> He's a
> > Hannity protege.
>
> They work in the same radio station.
>
> Try Michael "Savage" if you want to hear some real
> > nastiness and constant lies.
>
> I don't, I prefer to hear reasoned debate even if it's from people I
> don't agree with.
I quite agree.
> The problem is as I have said many times, there are 2 sides presenting
> their polarized views and neither side is above strectching the truth
> to win. When it comes to journalism, I find this particularly
> abhorent.
Yep.
>
> The NYT and the other big liberal papers print crap all the time that
> is blatantly false and never get called on it, just look at all the
> nonsense regarding hurricaine Katrina. There was looting in the
> streets, rapes,and on and on. None of it true.
>
> Or look at how there was a blood lust over the video supposedly telling
> Bush that the levee's weren't expected to hold, when no such thing was
> contained therein.
Well, I have a lot that I could say on these, but if you don't mind, I'd
rather not do so here; perhaps elsewhere. I just try to not mix
politics with other hobbies too much; just clouds the issues.
soundhas...@yahoo.com
nyo...@peoplepc.com wrote:
What did you do, sell your brains for taffy when you were in grade
school? You can't POSSBILY be that stupid, can you? Your boyfriend
Krueger _just got finished_ whining about "subjectivists" calling
"objectivists" "idiots", I said he was a lying hypocrite for having
said that, and I used actual evidence as proof.
What part of "lying hypocrite" don't you understand, slo-mo?
> > You telling now about what the other guy did to provoke Krueger only
> > shows what a true imbecile you are, since everyone else seems to know
> > that it doesn't excuse Kreuger's criticism of others, or change the
> > fact that he's a lying hypocrite and therefore has no right to
> > criticize others for behaviour he engages in.
>
> Not everyone, only the usual suspects.
Really? Who besides you will defend this lying hypocrite for having
whined about "subjectivists" calling "objectivists" "idiots" when he's
done the very same thing toward "subjectivists"? If anyone will defend
Kreuger on this, please show your face now, and let's see what excuses
you have. Anyone? C'mon! Someone besides Krueger's boy toy, Mike
McKelvy?
> You're a lying hypocrite
Prove it. I just proved above that you're too stupid to even understand
the term.
> > as well for excusing Krueger's behavior. Now go back to banging your
> > head against a wall.
> >
> Is that how you got to be so brilliant?
You have nothing to say but a lame "IKYABWAI" and you think you're
brilliant?
soundhas...@yahoo.com
NYO...@peoplepc.com wrote:
Who said that you could hijack my thread? Get this crap out of my
thread, McKelvy. You come at me complaining about the behaviour of
"subjectivists" towards you and your boyfriend Krueger, and you have
the nerve to hijack people's threads; an extreme breach of netiquette?
Remember the term "lying hypocrite" I tried to teach you earlier?
nyo...@peoplepc.com
<soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141799188.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
You don't have a thread, you have a propaganda pieced for the incredibly
stupid.
Get this crap out of my
> thread, McKelvy. You come at me complaining about the behaviour of
> "subjectivists" towards you and your boyfriend Krueger, and you have
> the nerve to hijack people's threads; an extreme breach of netiquette?
> Remember the term "lying hypocrite" I tried to teach you earlier?
>
Remember the term snake oil? It's what you must eat for breakfast.
You have yet to offer any sort of evidence of any kind on anything that
demonstrates that any of the crap you have stated is in fact true. Worse,
you asked for proof of a negative, indicating your complete dishonesty.
nyo...@peoplepc.com
<soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141798972.8...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
What part of reacting to enourmous provocation don't you get? Dormer has
repeatedly gone out of his way to be as rude and vulgar as possible, with no
provocation at all.
>
>> > You telling now about what the other guy did to provoke Krueger only
>> > shows what a true imbecile you are, since everyone else seems to know
>> > that it doesn't excuse Kreuger's criticism of others, or change the
>> > fact that he's a lying hypocrite and therefore has no right to
>> > criticize others for behaviour he engages in.
>>
>> Not everyone, only the usual suspects.
>
> Really? Who besides you will defend this lying hypocrite for having
> whined about "subjectivists" calling "objectivists" "idiots" when he's
> done the very same thing toward "subjectivists"?
You mean you don't know? There have been a few just in the last few days,
go find them and while you look, remember this, it doesn't mean anything if
it were just me or nobody who defended him against the kooks and scum who
have attacked him, it only matters that he doesn't deserve the treatment and
that it doesn't slove any thing, unless your solution is to become what you
claim to despise.
If anyone will defend
> Kreuger on this, please show your face now, and let's see what excuses
> you have. Anyone? C'mon! Someone besides Krueger's boy toy, Mike
> McKelvy?
>
>> You're a lying hypocrite
And you are a brain dead gerbil.
I see you have yet to stay on topic or anwer one single audio question.
soundhas...@yahoo.com
nyo...@peoplepc.com, in fit of objectivist rage, blurted out:
> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1141799188.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> > Who said that you could hijack my thread?
>
> You don't have a thread, you have a propaganda pieced for the incredibly
> stupid.
Is that why I keep seeing you in my thread, when you have no business
being here?
The only "propaganda" I see, is your silly objectivist "I swear,
everything sounds the same!!" propaganda. Which you've spent the last
number of years trumpeting on this group in your quasi-objectivist
agenda, I'll bet. And which no one but extremist nutjobs like yourself
are buying.
But at least I see that we're back on topic....
> Get this crap out of my
> > thread, McKelvy. You come at me complaining about the behaviour of
> > "subjectivists" towards you and your boyfriend Krueger, and you have
> > the nerve to hijack people's threads; an extreme breach of netiquette?
> > Remember the term "lying hypocrite" I tried to teach you earlier?
> >
> Remember the term snake oil?
Considering that I've seen objectivists use this tired, worn out phrase
about 65 and half million times.... no. What is it, and do you have any
to sell? I'll pay a princely sum, if you do.
> It's what you must eat for breakfast.
Don't be ridiculous. It tastes AWFUL. However, I do smear it on my
woofer cones. Works a treat to improve the ol' hifi kit.
> You have yet to offer any sort of evidence of any kind on anything that
> demonstrates that any of the crap you have stated is in fact true.
That's funny.... because I was just about to say that to YOU. What
evidence do YOU have that any of the quite legitimate tweaks that I've
publicized here are, how did you put it? "Crap"?
What evidence do you have that what you just said about my tweaks isn't
"crap", and that your brains aren't made of the very same stuff you
accuse the tweaks of being? Have you actually tried any of the tweaks?
> Worse, you asked for proof of a negative, indicating your complete dishonesty.
Prove it. (tm)
soundhas...@yahoo.com
nyo...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1141798972.8...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> > What did you do, sell your brains for taffy when you were in grade
> > school? You can't POSSBILY be that stupid, can you? Your boyfriend
> > Krueger _just got finished_ whining about "subjectivists" calling
> > "objectivists" "idiots", I said he was a lying hypocrite for having
> > said that, and I used actual evidence as proof.
> >
> > What part of "lying hypocrite" don't you understand, slo-mo?
> >
>
> What part of reacting to enourmous provocation don't you get? Dormer has
> repeatedly gone out of his way to be as rude and vulgar as possible, with no
> provocation at all.
I don't know who "Dormer" is, and it appears he isn't here to defend
himself, so you can shut up about him already, your point is worthless.
However, I do know that you are here, and you've been as rude and
vulgar as possible, with no provocation at all. I saw plenty of
examples of this just in your posts on RAO today.
You and your boyfriend Arny seem to think that both you clowns have a
point to make, when you whine and moan about how others treat you, or
how others treat others. You're repsonsible for YOUR moral behaviour,
no one else. If both you lunatic fools wish to behave as badly as you
accuse others of being, I don't care, but SHUT YOUR GOB ALREADY, when
you condemn others. Stop whining about how others are behaving! No
one's buying it. Especially not from a couple of well known lying
hypocrites.
> >> > You telling now about what the other guy did to provoke Krueger only
> >> > shows what a true imbecile you are, since everyone else seems to know
> >> > that it doesn't excuse Kreuger's criticism of others, or change the
> >> > fact that he's a lying hypocrite and therefore has no right to
> >> > criticize others for behaviour he engages in.
> >>
> >> Not everyone, only the usual suspects.
> >
> > Really? Who besides you will defend this lying hypocrite for having
> > whined about "subjectivists" calling "objectivists" "idiots" when he's
> > done the very same thing toward "subjectivists"?
>
> You mean you don't know? There have been a few just in the last few days,
Where are they? I asked them to come to this thread and defend this
lying hypocrite boyfriend of yours, who hypocritically complained about
subjectivists calling others "idiots", when I proved he does the same.
I ask again: where are they?
> it were just me or nobody who defended him against the kooks and scum who
> have attacked him,
That must have been as painful to you, as it was to him. Anyone ever
tell you that you're the audio equivalent of the lickspittle that Mr.
Burns always has by his side, on The Simpsons? You make a damn fine
lackey, son. Do you have a screen saver with a naked picture of Arny
Krueger as well?
> it only matters that he doesn't deserve the treatment and
Arny deserves EVERYTHING that he has gotten over the years. And MORE.
Much, much more. Someone who would go and accuse innocent people of
trading in child pornography, smearing their names across the internet
this way, as your boyfriend Arny Kreuger did, ought to be hit in the
face with a QSC amp.
> that it doesn't slove any thing, unless your solution is to become what you
> claim to despise.
Didn't I just tell you to stop whining about how others are treating
you or Arny, after you go out and behave obnoxiously and
antagonistically, with rudeness and vulgarity, towards everyone on the
audio groups who doesn't share your stupid crackpot ideas about
everything sounding the same in audio? Aren't you the dumb twit who
went on to rec.audio.tubes, and blared out how tubes are crap, and
cheap mid-fi solid state amps were better? Are you really THAT stupid
that you don't get it, McKelvy?
> If anyone will defend
> > Kreuger on this, please show your face now, and let's see what excuses
> > you have. Anyone? C'mon! Someone besides Krueger's boy toy, Mike
> > McKelvy?
> >
> >> You're a lying hypocrite
>
> And you are a brain dead gerbil.
And yet, even I, a "brain-dead gerbil" apparently, is infinitely
smarter than you could ever hope to be. Considering how dumb you prove
yourself to be, such as with responses like this, I'm not sure if
you're a help or a hindrance to your master Arny's propagandist agenda.
> I see you have yet to stay on topic or anwer one single audio question.
But do you see what I mean about you being a complete and total
hypocritical idiot? I mean, I just finished complaining to you in this
thread, that you are not staying on topic. And I have yet to see you
answer a single audio question. Let's see if I'm right about that as
well:
Q. "Did you try any of my tweaks and if not, why not?"
Arny Krueger
news:1141852309.6...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com
> The only "propaganda" I see, is your silly objectivist
> "I swear, everything sounds the same!!" propaganda.
There is no such thing as "I swear, everything sounds the same!!"
propaganda any place but in the mind of certain "I swear, everything sounds
different!!" subjectivists.
Steven Sullivan
> What did you do, sell your brains for taffy when you were in grade
> school? You can't POSSBILY be that stupid, can you? Your boyfriend
> Krueger _just got finished_ whining about "subjectivists" calling
> "objectivists" "idiots", I said he was a lying hypocrite for having
> said that, and I used actual evidence as proof.
> What part of "lying hypocrite" don't you understand, slo-mo?
So, is your 'classing up' of RAO about finished? I wouldn't want
to miss the finale.
--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)
ScottW
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <arty...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141795740....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> From: NYO...@peoplepc.com
> Date: Tues, Mar 7 2006 10:01 pm
> Email: "NYOB...@peoplepc.com" <NYOB...@peoplepc.com>
>
>>The NYT and the other big liberal papers print crap all the time that
>>is blatantly false and never get called on it, just look at all the
>>nonsense regarding hurricaine Katrina. There was looting in the
>>streets, rapes,and on and on. None of it true.
>
> Tell that to the police and soldiers that were fired upon during rescue
> operations.
>
> Or was all of that false too?
Much of it was.
http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporleans/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_tporleans/archives/2005_09_26.html
ScottW
soundhas...@yahoo.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
Oh there you are. We were just talking about you... Aren't you the
infamous audio newsgroup troll/audio propagandist who said that a $35
Coby Cd player will outperform a $30,000 SME?
> There is no such thing as "I swear, everything sounds the same!!"
> propaganda any place but in the mind of certain "I swear, everything sounds
> different!!" subjectivists.
Prove it (tm).
nyo...@peoplepc.com
<soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141852309.6...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
> nyo...@peoplepc.com, in fit of objectivist rage, blurted out:
>
>> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1141799188.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > Who said that you could hijack my thread?
>>
>> stupid.
>
> Is that why I keep seeing you in my thread, when you have no business
> being here?
You don't get to dictate where I post.
> The only "propaganda" I see, is your silly objectivist "I swear,
> everything sounds the same!!"
Something I've never said, but why would you let truth get inyour way now?
propaganda. Which you've spent the last
> number of years trumpeting on this group in your quasi-objectivist
> agenda, I'll bet. And which no one but extremist nutjobs like yourself
> are buying.
>
Me and everybody who actually has a cursory understanding of electronics as
it applies to audio.
> But at least I see that we're back on topic....
>
>> Get this crap out of my
>> > thread, McKelvy.
Ooooh, you've been taking lessons from Jute/McCoy, or maybe you are another
of his sockpuppetts. You work pretty much the same way.
You come at me complaining about the behaviour of
>> > "subjectivists" towards you and your boyfriend Krueger, and you have
>> > the nerve to hijack people's threads; an extreme breach of netiquette?
>> > Remember the term "lying hypocrite" I tried to teach you earlier?
>> >
>> Remember the term snake oil?
>
> Considering that I've seen objectivists use this tired, worn out phrase
> about 65 and half million times.... no. What is it, and do you have any
> to sell? I'll pay a princely sum, if you do.
>
>> It's what you must eat for breakfast.
>
> Don't be ridiculous. It tastes AWFUL. However, I do smear it on my
> woofer cones. Works a treat to improve the ol' hifi kit.
>
>> You have yet to offer any sort of evidence of any kind on anything that
>> demonstrates that any of the crap you have stated is in fact true.
>
> That's funny.... because I was just about to say that to YOU. What
> evidence do YOU have that any of the quite legitimate tweaks that I've
> publicized here are, how did you put it? "Crap"?
>
You don't really get the burden of proof thing do you?
>
>> Worse, you asked for proof of a negative, indicating your complete
>> dishonesty.
>
> Prove it. (tm)
>
You first, you made the claims.
soundhas...@yahoo.com
nyo...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1141852309.6...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > nyo...@peoplepc.com, in fit of objectivist rage, blurted out:
> >
> >> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1141799188.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> > Who said that you could hijack my thread?
> >>
> >> You don't have a thread, you have a propaganda piece for the incredibly
> >> stupid.
> >
> > Is that why I keep seeing you in my thread, when you have no business
> > being here?
>
> You don't get to dictate where I post.
I see. The funny part is, although you're too stupid to have gotten it,
you just admitted you're incredibly stupid. And you're right! LOL!
> > The only "propaganda" I see, is your silly objectivist "I swear,
> > everything sounds the same!!"
>
> Something I've never said, but why would you let truth get inyour way now?
Well it's not like it ever impeded your path, has it, you belligerent
little ankle-biter? You conveniently snipped out the part where I asked
you why you went on the rec.audio.tubes group to spew your inane
nonsense about solid state amps being better, and piss off all the tube
lovers? Just as you do here with audiophiles. Why did you do that,
hmmm?
> propaganda. Which you've spent the last
> > number of years trumpeting on this group in your quasi-objectivist
> > agenda, I'll bet. And which no one but extremist nutjobs like yourself
> > are buying.
> >
>
> Me and everybody who actually has a cursory understanding of electronics as
> it applies to audio.
Dont kid yourself, son. You haven't a clue as to what audio is about.
> > But at least I see that we're back on topic....
> >
> >> Get this crap out of my
> >> > thread, McKelvy.
>
> Ooooh, you've been taking lessons from Jute/McCoy, or maybe you are another
> of his sockpuppetts. You work pretty much the same way.
I've been called a lot of things in my time, but what the hell's a
"sockpuppet", you paranoid lunatic??
> >> You have yet to offer any sort of evidence of any kind on anything that
> >> demonstrates that any of the crap you have stated is in fact true.
> >
> > That's funny.... because I was just about to say that to YOU. What
> > evidence do YOU have that any of the quite legitimate tweaks that I've
> > publicized here are, how did you put it? "Crap"?
> >
>
> You don't really get the burden of proof thing do you?
Yes, I do. Whoever makes a claim has a burden to prove it. You have yet
to prove any of the claims you have made to me. Ergo, you can shut up
about the "proof thing", until you do. What you don't get, is that this
works both ways.
Arny Krueger
news:1141876762.5...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1141852309.6...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com
>>
>>
>>> The only "propaganda" I see, is your silly objectivist
>>> "I swear, everything sounds the same!!" propaganda.
>>
>> There is no such thing as "I swear, everything sounds
>> the same!!" propaganda any place but in the mind of
>> certain "I swear, everything sounds different!!"
>> subjectivists.
>
> Oh there you are. We were just talking about you...
> Aren't you the infamous audio newsgroup troll/audio
> propagandist who said that a $35 Coby Cd player will
> outperform a $30,000 SME?
No, I'm the well-known audio group participant who said that a $35 Coby will
sound better than a $30,000 SME if faithfulness to the original master
recording is your criteria.
>> There is no such thing as "I swear, everything sounds
>> the same!!" propaganda any place but in the mind of
>> certain "I swear, everything sounds different!!"
>> subjectivists.
> Prove it (tm).
Check the google archives. You will find that the phrase "everything sounds
the same" has been origionated on RAO more often by so-called subjectivists.