Mr.T wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
...
What kills me is these clowns don't seem to realise there is no small
degree
of *engineering* in vinyl and vinyl playback systems...

Some of us were those Engineers!

Really? OK do tell us about your engineering work in the world of
vinyl. Didn't mean you? Who did you mean? Plowman?


We are the ones with enough experience to
know when technology has moved on. You obviously don't.


Tell us the details of that experience.



Scott

Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Arny, you are just a troll.

Very amusing, coming from the resident troll :-)


Very clever and original. What gave the idea for this post? I guess I
shouldn't expet much from a guy who can't tell the difference betwen a
link and an email address.



At least Arny has some idea of what the "tech" in rec.audio.tech stands for.


Dude, I am posting on uk.rec.audio. Guess the idea of cross posting is
also beyond you.

Mr.T wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
He is an expert on makeup?

That what we're told about him.

Yes, he "likes to make things up" here too :-)

Bull****.

Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I said that I can't distinguish between an LP and a 24/96 copy of that LP

It's nice of you to finally admit there is no problem with digital recording
then.

Finally? Did you "finally" pull your head out of your ass?


All we need to know now is whether you think you can hear above 22
kHz, and why it is more important than the bottom octave or so, where vinyl
fails miserably. After all the only other difference for 24/96 over CD is
dynamic range beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that! :-)


Prove it.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
I have actually. that is one of the many reasons I get such a laugh at
the idiots on Usenet and their complete misapplication and
misinerpretation of psychoacoustics. The idea that human hearing is
wrong while technical measurements are right when it comes to this
hobby is a prime example of that misapplication.

What you obviously don't realise is just how poor the ear's 'memory' is
and how easily it is fooled by other factors.

Another meter reader building an argument based on made up facts. Yep
you guys do pretty much all sound the same. As usual the point went
right over your head.



Scott

wrote in message
oups.com
Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Now where is your proof to the contrary?

I see no proof in the link you have quoted?

It's an email address Einstien not a link. wow.

Fear not, we were able to circumvent your inability to provide a proper
cite, Scott.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
One would think from your post that one's ability to solder has
something to do with one's ability to make aesthetic judgements.
Do I hve to tell you just how stupid that idea is? Engineers do
the work the hobbyists consume it.

So they're mutually exclusive?

The ability to solder and the ability to make aestheic judgemens?
Yes they are.

Wonder what your only 'supporter' Mr G will make of that?

I'll bet he agrees. I think he is smart enough to know his soldering
skills are independent of his listening skills.

But not mutually exclusive as I asked?

It was a loaded question. Like do you still beat your wife? The point
is they are independent. You have been trying to assert they are
related.



He loves to
build kit


Yes I have noticed that. I have yet to see him claim that his skills at
building has any impact on his listening skills.

and is the vinyl disciple to end all disciples.


Disciple? I know he generally prefers LPs over CDs. I guess you can't
wrap your punny brain around that so you have to attack it. sad

Just prefers?

Yes.

I'm getting a feeling you simply don't read or understand UK
English.


I'm getting the feeling you rely on semantics since your arguments
don't hold up.

wrote in message
oups.com
Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I said that I can't distinguish between an LP and a
24/96 copy of that LP

It's nice of you to finally admit there is no problem
with digital recording then.

Finally? Did you "finally" pull your head out of your ass?


All we need to know now is whether you think you can
hear above 22
kHz, and why it is more important than the bottom octave
or so, where vinyl fails miserably. After all the only
other difference for 24/96 over CD is dynamic range
beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that! :-)


Prove it.

It is your claim to prove, Scott.

wrote in message
ups.com
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article

.com,
wrote:
I have actually. that is one of the many reasons I get
such a laugh at the idiots on Usenet and their complete
misapplication and misinerpretation of psychoacoustics.
The idea that human hearing is wrong while technical
measurements are right when it comes to this hobby is a
prime example of that misapplication.

What you obviously don't realise is just how poor the
ear's 'memory' is and how easily it is fooled by other
factors.

Another meter reader building an argument based on made
up facts.

Not at all. It's not our fault that you appear to be so poorly informed,
Scott.

Have you ever read this book or anything similar?

E. Zwicker and H. Fastl, Psychoacoustics Facts and Models, Springer Verlag,
1990.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Mr.T wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
...
What kills me is these clowns don't seem to realise there is no small
degree
of *engineering* in vinyl and vinyl playback systems...

Some of us were those Engineers!

Really? OK do tell us about your engineering work in the world of
vinyl. Didn't mean you? Who did you mean? Plowman?


We are the ones with enough experience to
know when technology has moved on. You obviously don't.



Kills me the way these digital bigots all hide behind vague 'we' and us'
statements - like they are trying to pump the idea there's lots of them and
they got *mates* or summat!

Not one of them has the balls to speak plainly for themselves - I still
wonder what it is they are all so *scared* of...???

Can't be my ****ter 'cos most of 'em are already in it...!!??

(Glad I paid extra for the 'Tardis' model....!! :-)

LOL!

:-))