Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 59
  1. #26
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas_A
    okiemax,

    or maybe midfi gear does not need tweeking. Maybe some expensive units have flaws and need to be corrected. I've e.g. read about people buying expensive players that do not accept all CDs. Sent back several times for correction, but still not accepting discs. Discs that are easily accepted on cheap players. How about older Wadia and Pioneer players, adding high frequency distortion to "extend" the frequency response which was not there on the CD? Green pens that did nothing? Cables that do nothing except when there is very long cables and passive units (impedance match)? The list can be made long.

    T
    I gave the mid-fi explanation as a possibility. I don't know what you heard. And I'm not saying you need to spend more to get greater enjoyment. If you are happy with what you have, why spend more? Unless you are a child or are insane, you have the right to make your own decisions. This is something many naysayers on this Forum can't seem to accept.

    I

  2. #27
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    With all due respect,

    ...I believe you are quite mistaken...In this arena, the term is usually used as one of derision and is hardly the result of some sort of self-loathing, contrary to your opinion.

    I, for the most part, usually use the term as sarcasm in correspondence with the "golden-eared" among us who use it, with regularity, as some sort of arbiter of hearing ability...

    One can achieve excellent results with well-chosen "mid-if" stuff and for a fraction of the price of the "salon" gear, new or used.

    "...Your seeing "mid-fi" in print launched you into a tirade..."

    Hardly a tirade IMO, seems a reasonable estimate of the genre, albeit a startlingly frank one...

    "...I don't understand why you react with such strong emotion to the fact that some people believe they can improve their listening enjoyment by buying better components. ..."

    "...believe they can improve their listening enjoyment..." Which opens a whole 'nother can of worms...and brings us right back to square one, beliefs and facts may be mutually exclusive and there is no accounting for what may seem to "improve their listening enjoyment"...

    " In what way have they harmed you?"

    That's not the point, skep and the rest of "us" know better...however there are those who don't!

    jimHJJ(...both sides of the story and all that...)

  3. #28
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    High Point, NC
    Posts
    112
    "Quite honestly and in many cases, my answer is: YES! A great many wear their wealth on their sleeves...Value? Some folks love to show off, and only the "best" will do..."

    "Actually, they probably "got there" by being cheap, slimey, SOBs.. and why are they thought of as "movers and shakers"? Could outward appearances play any part?"


    I would think as you are not that person you are presuming that the reasons above are fact.

  4. #29
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Sorry, these are not assumptions...

    ...these statements are based on firsthand observation...empirical evidence if you will...

    I had asked earlier if you were that naive...

    jimHJJ(...I think I may have my answer...)

  5. #30
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332
    [QUOTE=Resident Loser]...these statements are based on firsthand observation...empirical evidence if you will...QUOTE]

    Firsthand observation... a major "nay-nay" of the naysayer camp, nay?

  6. #31
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    ...I believe you are quite mistaken...In this arena, the term is usually used as one of derision and is hardly the result of some sort of self-loathing, contrary to your opinion.

    I, for the most part, usually use the term as sarcasm in correspondence with the "golden-eared" among us who use it, with regularity, as some sort of arbiter of hearing ability...

    One can achieve excellent results with well-chosen "mid-if" stuff and for a fraction of the price of the "salon" gear, new or used.

    "...Your seeing "mid-fi" in print launched you into a tirade..."

    Hardly a tirade IMO, seems a reasonable estimate of the genre, albeit a startlingly frank one...

    "...I don't understand why you react with such strong emotion to the fact that some people believe they can improve their listening enjoyment by buying better components. ..."

    "...believe they can improve their listening enjoyment..." Which opens a whole 'nother can of worms...and brings us right back to square one, beliefs and facts may be mutually exclusive and there is no accounting for what may seem to "improve their listening enjoyment"...

    " In what way have they harmed you?"

    That's not the point, skep and the rest of "us" know better...however there are those who don't!

    jimHJJ(...both sides of the story and all that...)
    The term "mid-fi" is not in any dictionairy that I can find. Regardless of how it might usually be used on this Forum, the word in itself clearly is not derogatory. A Google search confirmed the word usually is used to describe a level of quality, and that is the way I used it. Certainly, "mid-fi" could be used in a deragatory way, such as in .....

    Ignore the advice of the meter readers, they only know mid-fi.

    Hey tin ears, ditch that mid-fi garbage and get some real gear!

    Double blind yourself, you mid-fi moron!

    I would expect statements such as these to provoke an angry response. However, I only used "mid-fi" in reference to performance differences in components. Perhaps the mere suggestion of performance differences provokes anger.

    Although "mid-fi" may not have a dictionary definition, "tirade" does, and here is the one from Cambridge Dictionaries Online .... "a long angry speech expressing strong disapproval." Sketic's speech was long, angry, and expressed disapproval. And his calling people stupid certainly is derogatory.

    Why not address the reason for the anger underlying Skeptic's tirade? Anger usually stems from fear of being hurt or from having been hurt. Obviously, he has strong feelings about isteners who claim to hear differences in components. I'll ask the question again. In what way have they harmed you?

  7. #32
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    High Point, NC
    Posts
    112
    You used the term probably. From our past discussions I will assume you are aware of the definition of that word. You are casting a stereotype. You can not make that broad of a comment about a single group.

    Certainly you are not so nieve to believe that all people among a group are the same.

    And once again why do you have to come off like such an @$$.

  8. #33
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    I have never said that some equipment isn't better than other equipment. Exactly the opposite. However, the term mid fi would make that distinction based on an artificial caste system and the term was invented for exactly the same reason that all caste systems are invented. Caste systems exist to promote the notion that worth is not an objective measurable attribute but is related to the mystique imbued into certain products to elevate their position far beyond their intrinsic worth at the expense of better products which do not have the same cache. Most so called high end audio equipment today falls into that category. Even where so called high end equipment outperforms so called mid fi equipment, it usually does it very marginally. The only thing that isn't marginal is the vast difference in price. The good news is that the so called mid fi of yesteryear is not in great demand because of ignorance and therefore much of it is available on the used market for far less than it would otherwise be worth.

  9. #34
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    ...most expensive equipment on the market has nothing to do with usable performance.
    Please define "usable performance". I've yet to hear a system better than mine where the audible improvements were not "usable".

    rw

  10. #35
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Please define "usable performance". I've yet to hear a system better than mine where the audible improvements were not "usable".

    rw
    Define your view of audible improvement. Is it to reproduce the chain without audible coloration of the signal, or to your own personal taste? (Since it is impossible to reproduce the exact situation of every recording studio in the world, the perfect recreation of the signal as it was heard in the recording studio is not possible.)

  11. #36
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "I've yet to hear a system better than mine where the audible improvements were not "usable"."

    Why don't you define better. Does better mean more expensive? Does it mean those guys over at Stereophile Magazine gave it a higher rating, A minus instead of B plus.

    What is usable? A turntable with lower wow, flutter, and rumble is usable improvement up to a point. Once those are below the threshold of audibility, further improvements no longer matters. When rumble is minus 100 db, it won't sound any quieter if it gets down to minus 1000 db.

    How about a cartridge which tracks at lower pressure and less distortion. That's usable. A lot of cartridges track at a gram and a half to two grams, have a high frequency peak, are hand made in small batches so no two are quite alike, and cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Do you call that usable? I don't. Some even have bodies made of wood, the worst conceivable material for manufacturing phonograph cartridges.

    How about amplifiers which put out a few miserable watts so that the user is restricted to about three percent of the loudspeakers on the market yet these amplifiers cost thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. Is that usable performance? Or what about amplifiers that cost thousands that don't offer any benefit in terms of distortion, frequency response, bandwidth, or power output over amplifiers which only cost hundreds.

    How about a $3000 pair of loudspeakers consisting of one or two 8" woofers and a 1" tweeter in a pair of 200 pound cabinets which can't reproduce the bottom two octaves of audible sound and if you say Mr. manufacturer what about it, he tells you to spend another $1500 on a subwoofer and figure out yourself how to integrate it with the rest of the system. What kind of crap is that?

    Why does this stuff sell? Because it has cache. It's high up on the rank of "recommended equipment" in some Audio geek magazine. It's got prestige in the caste system which puts it above "mid fi." Funny thing is, you'd think if it was half as good as people claim it was, they wouldn't constantly be coming here to find out what kind of cables to buy because when you put it all together it sounds too bright or doesn't have enough of this or too much of that. And not one control incorporated by the manufacturer of any of it to help the end user adjust for unknown variables it will confront in its installation. Not a tone control, not a tweeter or midrange level control. Just a bunch of little spikes to rip up your carpet or scratch up your oak flooring. For an industry that has come so far, the state of the art in many ways is pathetic. And why? Because many of the people who buy this stuff have lost all sense of perspective. They know what everything costs, but have no idea of what it's worth. That's also a matter of perspective.

  12. #37
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332
    [QUOTE=Thomas_A]Define your view of audible improvement. Is it to reproduce the chain without audible coloration of the signal, or to your own personal taste? QUOTE]

    That question has been posed before and it always makes me think and/or wonder. The answer to it is, of course, both! In a perfect world, components that are measured as transparent would also sound good and those that sound good would measure properly. The fact that neither is an absolute true statement across the board makes me wonder if sonic neutrality/transparency is really what I'm after with a stereo rig.

    I've listened to systems that measure nearly perfectly. With even stellar recordings, they sound flat and distorted - nothing at all like live music, which I go hear at every opportunity. I'm aware of the length of sonic memory but I believe that once one has the sound of an instrument in his head i.e the sound of a piano, guitar, violin, that this sound is ingrained - at least his hearing of it. These perfectly measuring systems are so far away from the sound of live music (let's say, a solo violin for simplicity) that I would not own one as my main rig. I'm not just talking about cheap receivers with their infintesimal THD numbers, I'm also talking basic solid state from the likes of Krell and Classe, to name two. Tubed amps, which measure worse, sound much closer to a live instrument, whether is because of their measured distortion or in spite of it. Vinyl, also, communicates this sound much better than CD in most cases.

    It's not enough to offer an either/or - either transparent or euphonic. There needs to be a third choice as an audible improvement in MY system occurs when my system takes a closer step towards the sound of live music. It's a subjective ideology, of course, but so is music itself. It's when I try to place music and its reproduction into neat, quantifiable categories that make sense on paper, that I lose sight of the enjoyment of it. My current system has been in place for several years with the exception of my phono cartridge. When it is time to upgrade, it's not going to be the component with the best measurements that I purchase - unless reality somehow meets theory and it's the best sounding piece!

  13. #38
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332

    I'll take a stab at this

    [QUOTE=skeptic
    "Why don't you define better. Does better mean more expensive? Does it mean those guys over at Stereophile Magazine gave it a higher rating, A minus instead of B plus."

    With a few exceptions, I seriously doubt anyone at Stereophile has heard the components I own and certainly none of their writers have heard the whole shebang together.

    "What is usable? A turntable with lower wow, flutter, and rumble is usable improvement up to a point. Once those are below the threshold of audibility, further improvements no longer matters. When rumble is minus 100 db, it won't sound any quieter if it gets down to minus 1000 db."

    True but there are other factors that make turntables sonically different from one another.

    "How about a cartridge which tracks at lower pressure and less distortion. That's usable. A lot of cartridges track at a gram and a half to two grams, have a high frequency peak, are hand made in small batches so no two are quite alike, and cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Do you call that usable? I don't. "

    I don't, either. Consequently, I only enjoy MC cartridges that do NOT have high frequency peaks. The only cartridge I've listened to with much regularity that tracks at very low pressure sounds very flat and unlifelike i.e more distortion from a sonic viewpoint. There's that personal taste again.

    "How about amplifiers which put out a few miserable watts so that the user is restricted to about three percent of the loudspeakers on the market yet these amplifiers cost thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. Is that usable performance? Or what about amplifiers that cost thousands that don't offer any benefit in terms of distortion, frequency response, bandwidth, or power output over amplifiers which only cost hundreds."

    Amps with a "few miserable watts" may sound more like live music. Wattage in and of itself isn't "usable performance", at least not in my lexicon. Some of the foulest sounding amps out there have more power than most of us would ever need. Conversely, some of the finest sounding amps have 25 watts or less - which consequently is more than I need. It's all about sound.

    "How about a $3000 pair of loudspeakers consisting of one or two 8" woofers and a 1" tweeter in a pair of 200 pound cabinets which can't reproduce the bottom two octaves of audible sound and if you say Mr. manufacturer what about it, he tells you to spend another $1500 on a subwoofer and figure out yourself how to integrate it with the rest of the system. What kind of crap is that?"

    How about the myriad of sub-$1000 loudspeakers (or even more expensive) that CAN give you the bottom two octaves but sound like cats fighting in the treble, or like singers are holding megaphones in the midrange, or bass that hangs in your room and sounds like thumpy syrup? Based on your posts over the years, you buy components based on sound rather than pure numbers. So what's with THIS post???

    "And not one control incorporated by the manufacturer of any of it to help the end user adjust for unknown variables it will confront in its installation. Not a tone control, not a tweeter or midrange level control. " .[/QUOTE]

    Agreed. The argument is that we have to suffer through bad recordings. The problem is we may also have to suffer with certain anomalies in the room. Some user adjustments are often necessary.

  14. #39
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Why don't you define better.
    Brings me closer to the musical event.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Does better mean more expensive?
    Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I don't look at pricetags first.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Does it mean those guys over at Stereophile Magazine gave it a higher rating, A minus instead of B plus.
    I don't use their categories as a point of reference. I use my own experience.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    What is usable? A turntable with lower wow, flutter, and rumble is usable improvement up to a point.
    True. That point, however, is significantly higher than you will find with your Dual. I find larger differences in the tonearm - cartridge combination. As in ones that create a rock stable image with subterranean bass and clear, extended high frequencies.


    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    How about amplifiers which put out a few miserable watts so that the user is restricted to about three percent of the loudspeakers on the market yet these amplifiers cost thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. Is that usable performance?
    Since I am not a fan of horns, I have not heard any of the SET amps. Not my thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Or what about amplifiers that cost thousands that don't offer any benefit in terms of distortion, frequency response, bandwidth, or power output over amplifiers which only cost hundreds.
    I'm not interested in those. I am, however, interested in those that typically do cost thousands of dollars that leave the "hundreds of dollars" category in the dust in terms of image specificity, timbral accuracy, and power.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    How about a $3000 pair of loudspeakers consisting of one or two 8" woofers and a 1" tweeter in a pair of 200 pound cabinets which can't reproduce the bottom two octaves of audible sound and if you say Mr. manufacturer what about it, he tells you to spend another $1500 on a subwoofer and figure out yourself how to integrate it with the rest of the system. What kind of crap is that?
    Good question. I'm not a fan of box speakers at that budget.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Funny thing is, you'd think if it was half as good as people claim it was, they wouldn't constantly be coming here to find out what kind of cables to buy because when you put it all together it sounds too bright or doesn't have enough of this or too much of that.
    Or choice "B", like any high performance machine, one can reach higher levels of audible performance with matched components.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    And not one control incorporated by the manufacturer of any of it to help the end user adjust for unknown variables it will confront in its installation. Not a tone control, not a tweeter or midrange level control.
    Here again you are not citing the components I choose. My 'stats have a high frequency level control on the transformers. The best speakers I've heard, the Alon Grand Exoticas, offer level controls via the active crossover.

    There are a number of high end components that don't match your rant.

    rw

  15. #40
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas_A
    Define your view of audible improvement. Is it to reproduce the chain without audible coloration of the signal, or to your own personal taste? (Since it is impossible to reproduce the exact situation of every recording studio in the world, the perfect recreation of the signal as it was heard in the recording studio is not possible.)
    You have a mastery for stating the obvious. I have, however, participated in one very nice Telarc recording by the ASO. I do know how that sounded. I know how that hall sounds having been there many a time.

    To an extent, the answer to your leading question is some of both: I seek accuracy to the original - subject to my listening priorities given an imperfect world. I will happily give up some performance at the frequency extremes to achieve the most natural midrange.

    rw

  16. #41
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    133
    E-Stat,

    one problem with your subjective method is that IF there are true audible differences in your tested players, there is no way you know if you are preferring players with some flaws that are otherwise compensating for any other flaw in the system (e.g. treble level). Thus claiming any superiority of certain expensive players with differences in frequency response may just be plain wrong when it comes to reproducing the original signal.

  17. #42
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas_A
    E-Stat,

    one problem with your subjective method is that IF there are true audible differences in your tested players, there is no way you know if you are preferring players with some flaws that are otherwise compensating for any other flaw in the system (e.g. treble level). Thus claiming any superiority of certain expensive players with differences in frequency response may just be plain wrong when it comes to reproducing the original signal.
    Indeed. I'm a firm believer in system matching and synergy. That is why I have posted details of my system (and my listening biases) so that a reader may put my comments in perspective. That is why the audio reviewers I respect compare a given component on more than one system or use more than one set of cables to get a feel for that component in a different environment. It is not perfect, but neither are "objective" measurements-only-on-test-tones based reviews.

    rw

  18. #43
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    In this case, what device should one use...

    ...other than firsthand observation?

    As we are often told re: cable synergies, science doesn't know eveyrthing...after all, there is, at this time, no test equipment to measure the operating parameters of obnoxious pr!ck$...

    jimHJJ(...although a micrometer or calipers could be used to measure the thinness of skin...)

  19. #44
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    High Point, NC
    Posts
    112
    There you go again Loser.

    You talk about thin skins but you seem to be the one who makes the combative comments time and time again.

    I ask you who is the obnoxious pr!ck?

    Is ridicule the only tool you have available to you?

  20. #45
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    When in Rome...

    ...there are countless words and phrases in the English language which are innocent by themselves, but take on a completely different connotation when used in specific contexts...surely, I needn't explain THAT...

    As I stated, IMO, a "tirade" it was not...It wasn't all that long and it wasn't all that angry..."frank" was the word I chose...Did it become a "tirade" to you when costs vs. performance issues were cited? Not nearly as farfetched as some "performance" and "improvement" claims I've witnessed...Also, I recall only "snobs" being referred to as "stupid"...

    Anger? Wasn't it Dick Nixon who said something to the effect of " in order to be angry with someone, you have to respect them"? IMHO, he quite simply doesn't suffer fools easily...

    In what way have they harmed you?

    None. Again, that's not the point. In fact, I could give neither feather nor fig about how anyone spends their money...most have more money than brains...however, anecdotal postings should and will continue to be treated as they have thusfar...

    jimHJJ(...both sides of the story and all that...)

  21. #46
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Indeed. I'm a firm believer in system matching and synergy. That is why I have posted details of my system (and my listening biases) so that a reader may put my comments in perspective. That is why the audio reviewers I respect compare a given component on more than one system or use more than one set of cables to get a feel for that component in a different environment. It is not perfect, but neither are "objective" measurements-only-on-test-tones based reviews.

    rw
    I think we should limit ourselves to the active electronic devices and the loudspeakers/rooms in this discussion. But in essence your philosophy dictates that any player, regardless of price or performance, could be a high-end player using a suitable "compensating" (or "EQ") surrounding equipment?!

  22. #47
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    It would seem that I was correct...

    ...subtle sarcasm IS lost on you!

    "...you talk about thin skins but you seem to be the one who makes the combative comments time and time again..."

    That statement actually made sense to you before, during and now after you've posted it? "Combative"? I rarely engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed...

    I ask you who is the obnoxious pr!ck?

    And I ask you, "Are we not men?"...or perhaps "You want flies with that?"...

    Is ridicule the only tool you have available to you?

    No, but it's right there on the top tray of my toolbox and easy to get at and I always use the right tool for the job at hand and...

    jimHJJ(...now lessee, where was your other post what needed some re-toolin'?...)

  23. #48
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Do I have to do sentence diagrams for you?...

    You posted: "...The people who buy that gear are the movers and shakers of society they did not get ther(sic) by kidding themselves..."

    And I responded: " Actually they probably "got there" by being cheap, slimy SOBs..."

    "...You used the term probably..."

    Yes, I certainly did, as it is well within the realm of reasonable thought that most did not aquire the "M&S" status by being nice guys...just as most politicians get to where they're going with the help of "connected" friends and/or relatives and how some "celebrities" are accorded near "god-like" status for no reason other than the way they look, dress or the cars they drive..."outward appearances" ring a bell?

    "...From our past discussions I will assume you are aware of the definition of that word..."

    Yes I am...that's why I used it...

    "...You are casting a stereotype..."

    And I suppose you are of the opinion that they(stereotypes) have absolutely no basis in fact?

    "...You can not make that broad of a comment about a single group..."

    Yes I can...I just did and will probably do so again...

    "...Certainly you are not so nieve(sic) to believe that all people among a group are the same..."

    That would be unfair...but you have to start somewhere...

    "...And once again why do you have to come off like such an @$$..."

    Probably because of your blinkered viewpoint...

    jimHJJ(...but then again, that's just me...)

  24. #49
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    ...there are countless words and phrases in the English language which are innocent by themselves, but take on a completely different connotation when used in specific contexts...surely, I needn't explain THAT...

    As I stated, IMO, a "tirade" it was not...It wasn't all that long and it wasn't all that angry..."frank" was the word I chose...Did it become a "tirade" to you when costs vs. performance issues were cited? Not nearly as farfetched as some "performance" and "improvement" claims I've witnessed...Also, I recall only "snobs" being referred to as "stupid"...

    Anger? Wasn't it Dick Nixon who said something to the effect of " in order to be angry with someone, you have to respect them"? IMHO, he quite simply doesn't suffer fools easily...

    In what way have they harmed you?

    None. Again, that's not the point. In fact, I could give neither feather nor fig about how anyone spends their money...most have more money than brains...however, anecdotal postings should and will continue to be treated as they have thusfar...

    jimHJJ(...both sides of the story and all that...)
    Now that you are the official lexicographer for the AR Forums, I hope we will be seeing an AR Forums Dictionary soon. It may be difficult dividing your time between this project, and your full-time job of telling people what they can and can't hear, but an authoritive reference is long overdue. I trust other members will be eager to contribute their own unique interpretations of word meanings.

    You say audiophiles haven't harmed you, and in reference to their buying expensive components, you say "I could give neither feather nor fig about how anyone spends their money." If you haven't been harmed and don't fear being harmed by audiophiles, and you don't care how they spend, what motivates your attacks on their anecdotal postings?

  25. #50
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    And I assumed this title how?...

    "...the official lexicographer for the AR Forums..."

    Like the judge says "...ignorance of the law is no excuse..."

    Your unfamiliarity with the connotation of the phrase used is your problem, no one elses...your feeble attempt at sarcasm is just that...

    "...telling people what they can and can't hear..."

    I said this? When was that? I always tell folks to listen for themselves...but, to be aware of the potential biases involved. Also, I try to familiarize them with the laws of diminishing returns and the perils of deception from without...I make no claims since I cannot replicate all the variables involved in each unique situation...

    "...unique interpretations of word meanings..."

    Whose?

    "...what motivates your attacks on their anecdotal postings?..."

    Your choice of the word "attacks" speaks volumes...Reread the paragraph beginning with "I said this?"

    jimHJJ(...pay particular attention to the "I make no claims" part...)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •