Eeyore wrote:

What I mean there is the accuracy with which the sound of a similar acoustic instrument is
reproduced accurately. Clearly no acoustic instrument will exactly match the precise timbre
of the synthesiser itself but it'll give you a good clue.


One can certainly use their aural memory to determine a reasonable
level of realism but not accuracy. An example. I have two versions of
John Renbourn's Lady and the Unicorn. Two different masterings. The
sound of the instruments on both are startlingly realistic yet the
timbre is distinctly different between the two masterings. I can't tell
you which one is accurate but I can tell you which one sounds better.
But as for pure realism they are pretty close.


What's wrong with multiway speakers or crossovers ?

A good electronic crossover ( often in DSP these days ) will provide such precise
band-to-band matching that you can end up with something that's truly quite like a single
idealised FR speaker !


Can you cite any examples of such a beast. I must say I hear plenty
wrong with multi-driver speakers having lived with Martin Logan CLSs
and Sound Lab A3s.



And I think you're simply obsessed with 'glowing bottles'. I doubt you've ever heard a
professional monitoring system for example and you might even hate it for its accuracy !


I have heard a few. The good ones were quite good.




I also really don't care that you know 'an electronics bloke' who thinks the sun shines out
of you arse. I've been doing pro-audio for 33 yrs. I don't need any 'bloke' to validate my
gear.


Are you suggesting that this gives you more authority?



Scott

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:06:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Even sockpuppets can follow a script and appear not to be
silly. It is when they attempt to animate themselves that
they are both stupid and silly. In the case of Mr.
Middius, it is obvious that it has no knowledge of any of
the subjects under discussion. So, when it confines
itself to attack-dog tactics, it is merely stupidly doing
what it is told. When it attempts to comment on the
actual subject at hand as if it had anything to offer,
then it is both silly and stupid.

One irony about Middius is that his animator truely believes that he's so
smart that if he didn't dumb himself down when he posts as the sockpuppet,
his real-world identity would be too apparent.


What are you two babbling about? The Usenet personality of George
Middius has many faults (some of which he and I have clashed over in
the past), like not knowing where to draw the line and leave well
enough alone, but stupidity isn't one of them. George rarely posts
about audio. As I've previously observed, I don't think it interests
him very much. He appears to be here to amuse himself, which is pretty
much why I'm here. If you can point to any instances where George has
been drawn on any subject, even politics, enough to make a fool of
himself I'd be interested to read it, but I certainly can't recall
one.

paul packer said:

If you can point to any instances where George has
been drawn on any subject, even politics, enough to make a fool of
himself I'd be interested to read it, but I certainly can't recall
one.

Thanks, paul. I do try not to be an idiot.

What you've just seen, I believe, is two 'borgs whose vocabularies are too
limited to express their thoughts. It might be accurate to call me a
troublemaker, or a pedant, or a vituperative SOB. However, such terms as
those entail value judgments. Krooger in particular tries to view the
world without engaging his vestigial human feelings. When he says "idiot"
or "stupid" or "liar", he believes he can summon "facts" to support his
accusations. But he is simply incapable of discerning anybody's social
value because the entire concept is alien to him.

I'm rambling a bit, but do you recall Krooger's ranting about belonging to
church groups as evidence of his social skills? Tasks at churches always
outnumber those willing to do them. But Krooger fancies himself as morally
upstanding because he volunteers to do tedious chores at his church. You
have to be really nasty to get chucked out of church.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

George M. Middius bleated:

.. It might be accurate to call me a
troublemaker, or a pedant, or a vituperative SOB. However, such terms as
those entail value judgments.


"Troublemaker" endows you with the actual power to make trouble. This
you lack.

"Pedant" assumes you have knowledge to offer. You do not.

"Vituperative" assumes you have the wherewithall to be clever. You do
not.

"SOB" assumes that you are the product of a natural act. Unlikely.

"Value Judgement" is the escape-clause of those without either.

And you are clearly not amused as you are so tiresomely repetitive,
strident and generally unimaginative as to preclude that possibility.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

in article , Peter Wieck
at wrote on 9/11/06 9:50 PM:


George M. Middius bleated:

. It might be accurate to call me a

troublemaker, or a pedant, or a vituperative SOB. However, such terms as
those entail value judgments.


"Troublemaker" endows you with the actual power to make trouble. This
you lack.

"Pedant" assumes you have knowledge to offer. You do not.

"Vituperative" assumes you have the wherewithall to be clever. You do
not.

"SOB" assumes that you are the product of a natural act. Unlikely.

"Value Judgement" is the escape-clause of those without either.

And you are clearly not amused as you are so tiresomely repetitive,
strident and generally unimaginative as to preclude that possibility.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA



Give it a frigggin' rest mate.

Jute, Middius, Arny et. al. aren't worth two synapses of consideration.

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:47:02 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


'God grant me a big dick and a pound more than I can spend....'

(But I'd only get him accusing me of being 'shallow' again!! :-)


Now who would ever accuse you of that?

On 11 Sep 2006 18:50:14 -0700, "Peter Wieck" wrote:


And you are clearly not amused as you are so tiresomely repetitive,


I assume you mean amusing. That at least is in the individual funny
bone.

On 11 Sep 2006 18:50:14 -0700, "Peter Wieck" wrote:


George M. Middius bleated:

. It might be accurate to call me a
troublemaker, or a pedant, or a vituperative SOB. However, such terms as
those entail value judgments.


"Troublemaker" endows you with the actual power to make trouble. This
you lack.

Really? I thought he was very good at it.

"Pedant" assumes you have knowledge to offer. You do not.

Rubbish. Just ask him anything about grammar. He's very knowledgeable
about the gerand modifying the past participle or whatever.

"Vituperative" assumes you have the wherewithall[sic] to be clever. You do
not.

(thinks) I hope George notices I put square brackets around my [sic]

"SOB" assumes that you are the product of a natural act. Unlikely.

He's the product of a natural act between two sockpuppets. It took
place in the third drawer down of his mother's dressing table.

paul packer said:

And you are clearly not amused as you are so tiresomely repetitive,

I assume you mean amusing. That at least is in the individual funny
bone.

Witless is getting wobbly. Jute is staying out of this thread, so Wiecky
is impelled to channel his pent-up rage at another target.

We should remember that Worthless Wiecky, alone among all the residents of
North America, chose to aid and abet Lyin' Bwian McFraudster in a
real-world attack on an RAO regular. Infer what you will about Wiecky's
character, or lack thereof.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:47:02 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


'God grant me a big dick and a pound more than I can spend....'

(But I'd only get him accusing me of being 'shallow' again!! :-)


Now who would ever accuse you of that?



Oh, only someone who wants to plaster his own failings onto someone else -
it's a form of expiation....