JBorg, Jr. wrote:
JimC wrote:




Incidentally Mr. Borg, do you disagree with my contention that
Geroge's purpose for posting his original note related to a point he
was trying to make and a philosphy he was tring to push rather than
intellectual curiosity, for example, or a desire on his part to learn
from contributors with various viewpoints?

Jim



To agree, or disagree -- that is the question.


I shall place my answer on hold, Mr. Cate, because a missing
part of my response will be build on the answer you provide to
my questions above.


Mr. Cate, I'm not able to place my anwer because you have not
responded. All that I have learn so far in our exchanges is the
apparent evidence of myself being unfairly and falsely accused
by you of inventing and ascribing thoughts which I know I did
not do.

In lieu of these matter, I succumb to superior force and must,
therefore, disagree with your contention.

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 4, 7:41 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Peter, your lack of historical perspective is forgiven. I posted on RAO
for
many years before the Middiot showed off his butt around here. Therefore,
I
have a proven track record of doing quite well without him. OTOH, the
Middiot is quite obviously obsessed with me. Since I'm quite happily
monogamously occupied, his love will go unrequited for eternity.

Oh, I dunno... the last couple of threads you initiated, and the
various posts made in them make you, Middius, Jute and Ludwig a close-
run thing in terms of differentiating levels of idiocy. And most
certainly the grains of wisdom displayed in the collective product
could be fit on the cover page of a Tom Thumb paperback in 10-point
type... with the majority of the page still blank.

Not meant to be viciously insulting... that I save for Jute & Middius.
But you clearly do not read what you write, for content anyway.

OK Peter, so now I can't differentiate you from Middius, Jute and Ludwig
either. Have a stroke lately? ;-(

JBorg, Jr. wrote:
JimC wrote:

JBorg, Jr. wrote:

JimC wrote:

snip



It's really rather simple, Georgie. - Those of us who are not within
your black magic-subjectivism cult enjoy listening to recorded music
because we enjoy hearing the music as it was composed and/or
performed. [...]

What does black magic-subjectivism cult imply, Mr. Cate?
What does it signify? You seems bitter on something about
high-end audio in general.



A more helpful line of questions would have been, what does Middius
mean by the term "borg," "normals", "Kroogism," etc.; and why has he
been spending all that time, year after year, attacking those who
disagree with him on this ng? "Black magic-subjectivism" is the
philosopy Mr. Middius adheres to and promotes. It is characterized by
personal attacks on those who introduce logic into discussions of
audio matters, and in particular, those who have some knowldge of the
relevant principles of physics.




Okey, so it's about exposing the tedious propaganda that Arny K.
and his ilk demonstrate in audio groups.



The purpose of a "high-fidelity" audio system is to
reproduce Beethoven's works more nearly as Beethoven intended them
to be performed, or to hear the Rolling Stones in a manner that
reproduces their concerts more nearly as they were performed (more
nearly than a small table radio, for example). [...]

Mr. Cate, how does Mr. Beethoven and The Rolling Stone intended their
music to be heard when played in the listening room in our home?

So that a cello (violin, organ, drums, piano) would, in general, have
the characteristics of the particular instrument, etc. Not perfectly,
not with the same acoustics heard in the hall itself, but with greater
accuracy, for example, than a small table radio.


Is there a manifest enumerating all the specific list of requirement
where we can obtain these information so that we can listen to
Mr. Beethoven and the Rolling Stone precisely and correctly as
they intended them to be heard when performed inside our home ?


The point I was making (which I suspect you knew full well in the
first place) was that listening to music in on a system capable of
reproducing the music with greater fidelity to the performance
(greater "accuracy") is, for most audiophiles, more satisfying and
enjoyable than listening to the same music reproduced by a system
with minimal accuracy, e.g., a small table radio. In other words,
greater "accuracy" generally provides a more satisfying listening
experience. YOUR interjection of the suggestion that I somehow expect
or require that we listen to Beethoven, or the RSs or whoever,
"precisely and correctly as they intended to be heard" is, of course,
your own invention. - I never said or implied such a thing. - [...]



What you said then was unclear to me. You stated that:


***
" Those of us ... enjoy listening to recorded music because we
enjoy hearing the music as it was composed and/or performed."

" The purpose of a "high-fidelity" audio system is to reproduce
Beethoven's works more nearly as Beethoven intended them to
be performed..."

***


Is it my invention then to claim that you implied that we listen as it
was composed and/or performed by whoever in the listening room
inside our home ?

No, it was your invention to imply that I suggested that we need to
have an exact reproduction in our homes of the original performance. -
You stated:

.....the specific list of requirement
where we can obtain these information so that we can listen to
Mr. Beethoven and the Rolling Stone PRECISELY and CORRECTLY as
THEY INTENDED them to be heard WHEN PERFORMED INSIDE OUR HOME.

By posting an exaggerated caricature of my response (to the effect that
I expect the actual performance to be reproduced in our home PRECISELY
as Beethoven intended it to be heard IN OUR HOME), you mock and dismiss
out of hand the underlying meaning of my note. In other words, you
don't want to discuss the underlying intent of my note. - Rather, you
want to pick it apart.



How did Beethoven intended his composition to be performed ?


In general, he intended it to be performed as indicated in his scores.
With cellos, violins, horns, bass drums, etc., played at appropriate
times in the manner indicated in the score. Obviously, one can always
question details of particular stanzas (and I never used the terms
"precisely" or "exactly,"). In general, however, his music is intended
to be performed in the style of the Classical period, occurring prior to
the Romantic period.

How should conductor determine Beethoven's intention when
performing his composition ?

By obtaining an extensive music education in which he becomes familiar
with music from the various periods, with Beethoven's various works and
style, with the classical period in particular. By interpreting
Beethoven's score for the particular piece in light of all the above.


How should sound recording engineer determine Beethoven's
intention when reproducing his works ?

By having a general knowledge of classical music, as indicated above.


What would be your prescribe designation when determining
"accuracy" in these case ?


What the hell does this sentence mean? Is it intended to be in English?


And I'm
well aware that there are limits to realistic reproduction of an
orchestra or rock group in the home. My point was that most of us
generally derive greater pleasure from listening to good music
reproduced with accuracy (higher fidelity to the original
performance) than we do with less accurate reproduction, e.g.,
listening to the same music reproduced by a small table radio.



Higher fidelity ? As in higher fidelity than Beethoven intended
his composition to be performed ?

Nope. As in the fact that most audiophiles listen to music reproduced by
a system that reproduces recorded music with higher fidelity than a
small table radio.

What would be your prescribe designation when determining
"accuracy" in this case ?

Again, write your questions in english and I'll try to answer them.




It's because our listening pleasure derives from the music itself,
George, not from distortion or manipulation of the music caused by our
equipment.


Mr. Cate, are you hinting that audiophiles who listen to music
through their vinyl records derives listening pleasure from the
distortion and manipulation by their equipment, and not from the
music itself ?


Nope. I'm just saying that, in general, accuracy is in fact a useful
and desirable quality in audio, and that, in general, it results in a
more satisfying and enjoyable listening experience.


Ok.



snip

Jim

Incidentally Mr. Borg, do you disagree with my contention that
Geroge's purpose for posting his original note related to a point he
was trying to make and a philosphy he was tring to push rather than
intellectual curiosity, for example, or a desire on his part to learn
from contributors with various viewpoints?

Jim




To agree, or disagree -- that is the question.


I shall place my answer on hold, Mr. Cate, because a missing
part of my response will be build on the answer you provide to
my questions above.


What do my answers to your questions (all intended to pick apart my
original note), have to do with your answering this question?

The really unfortunate conclusion of the matter, Mr. Borg, is that
"normals"??? like you and Mr. Middius aren't willing to acknowledge
that the enjoyment of great music available to all of us today is to a
large extent made possible by the work of engineers and scientists
(borgs?) who over the years worked to design and produce audio equipment
capable of recording and accurately reproducing great music. - Instead
of being thankful for the beautiful music available to them through the
dedicated work of the "borgs", the subjectivists ("normals"??) spit in
their face.

Jim

On 4 Sep, 23:33, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


One reason why I don't feel threatened by the Middiot is that he speaks in
code.


It's called "English".




I guess we can conclude that the Middiot is against people having
alternatives to choose from.


You aren't exactly a world champion guesser.

On Sep 5, 3:21 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

It's called "English".

Sure. Words gathered at random from the English Language, rarely
assembled in a superficially clever way entirely irrespective of
meaning or content.

As to Arny's ability to "guess", I would expect from his manner that
he leaves nothing to guesswork, only certainty. The sign of a closed
mind if nothing else.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 5, 3:21 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

It's called "English".

Sure. Words gathered at random from the English Language, rarely
assembled in a superficially clever way entirely irrespective of
meaning or content.

As to Arny's ability to "guess", I would expect from his manner that
he leaves nothing to guesswork, only certainty. The sign of a closed
mind if nothing else.

Musta been a mini-stroke that has left your mind in such a confused state,
Peter.

I'm well known among my friends for both my careful work and out-of-the box
thinking. Its an effective pairing - think outside the box and then test
well to know for sure whether the new idea actually works.

Arnii "**** for Dinner" Krooger lashes out at the foolish yob who tries to
befriend him.

Musta been a mini-stroke that has left your mind in such a confused state,
Peter.

Arnii, what would happen if you actually accepted a human being's
friendship? Would your implanted nanites start to decay? Would your cranial
superstructure start leaking acid? Would your caches of preserved feces
start to decompose?

On Sep 5, 6:20 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
I'm well known among my friends for both my careful work
and out-of-the box thinking.

Snort! Now I've got coffee coming out my nose! The last time
your name came up in conversation with someone you have
referred to on this newsgroup as a "friend," Mr. Krueger, that
wasn't exactly how he characterised your behavior! :-)

But thank you for allowing me to end the day on an upbeat note.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson said:

I'm well known among my friends for both my careful work
and out-of-the box thinking.

Snort! Now I've got coffee coming out my nose! The last time
your name came up in conversation with someone you have
referred to on this newsgroup as a "friend," Mr. Krueger, that
wasn't exactly how he characterised your behavior! :-)

I'm surprised you didn't know that in automotive circles, "box" is
synonymous with "ashtray".

But thank you for allowing me to end the day on an upbeat note.

Arnii is perversely proud of the "fact" that the E.H.E.E. has expended so
much time and effort on shutting him up, with the evil Stereophile serving
as their principal anti-Kroo weapon. How can you sleep at night, John?

JimC wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
JimC wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
JimC wrote:

snip




The purpose of a "high-fidelity" audio system is to
reproduce Beethoven's works more nearly as Beethoven intended them to
be performed, or to hear the Rolling Stones in a manner that
reproduces their concerts more nearly as they were performed (more
nearly than a small table radio, for example). [...]

Mr. Cate, how does Mr. Beethoven and The Rolling Stone intended
their music to be heard when played in the listening room in our
home?


So that a cello (violin, organ, drums, piano) would, in general, have
the characteristics of the particular instrument, etc. Not perfectly,
not with the same acoustics heard in the hall itself, but with greater
accuracy, for example, than a small table radio.




In general ? And not perfectly !

Facts only please, Mr. Cate, with verifiable evidence confirmed with
firsthand testimony supported with proof and genuine documents,
free of your opinion and reference to small table radios.




Is there a manifest enumerating all the specific list of
requirement where we can obtain these information so that we can
listen to Mr. Beethoven and the Rolling Stone precisely and correctly
as
they intended them to be heard when performed inside our home ?

The point I was making (which I suspect you knew full well in the
first place) was that listening to music in on a system capable of
reproducing the music with greater fidelity to the performance
(greater "accuracy") is, for most audiophiles, more satisfying and
enjoyable than listening to the same music reproduced by a system
with minimal accuracy, e.g., a small table radio. In other words,
greater "accuracy" generally provides a more satisfying listening
experience. YOUR interjection of the suggestion that I somehow
expect or require that we listen to Beethoven, or the RSs or
whoever, "precisely and correctly as they intended to be heard" is,
of course, your own invention. - I never said or implied such a
thing. - [...]

What you said then was unclear to me. You stated that:

***
" Those of us ... enjoy listening to recorded music because we
enjoy hearing the music as it was composed and/or performed."

" The purpose of a "high-fidelity" audio system is to reproduce
Beethoven's works more nearly as Beethoven intended them to
be performed..."

***
Is it my invention then to claim that you implied that we listen as
it was composed and/or performed by whoever in the listening room
inside our home ?


No, it was your invention to imply that I suggested that we need to
have an exact reproduction in our homes of the original performance. -
You stated:

.....the specific list of requirement
where we can obtain these information so that we can listen to
Mr. Beethoven and the Rolling Stone PRECISELY and CORRECTLY as THEY
INTENDED them to be heard WHEN PERFORMED INSIDE OUR HOME.


But you said "as intended." What did you mean by "as intended",
Mr. Cate?

Did you mean as intended, but not when we're listening (at home or
elsewhere?).


By posting an exaggerated caricature of my response (to the effect
that I expect the actual performance to be reproduced in our home
PRECISELY as Beethoven intended it to be heard IN OUR HOME), you mock and
dismiss out of hand the underlying meaning of my note.

It is you who's making nebulous and fuzzy underlying meaning to
your notes.


In other words, you don't want to discuss the underlying intent of my
note. - Rather, you want to pick it apart.

I am trying to understand you notes, Mr. Cate.


How did Beethoven intended his composition to be performed ?


In general, he intended it to be performed as indicated in his scores.
With cellos, violins, horns, bass drums, etc., played at appropriate
times in the manner indicated in the score. Obviously, one can always
question details of particular stanzas (and I never used the terms
"precisely" or "exactly,"). In general, however, his music is
intended to be performed in the style of the Classical period,
occurring prior to the Romantic period.


In general again? That's rather generous of you Mr. Cate.



How should conductor determine Beethoven's intention when
performing his composition ?

By obtaining an extensive music education [...]


[Hmm, Arny ?]


in which he becomes familiar
with music from the various periods, with Beethoven's various works
and style, with the classical period in particular. By interpreting
Beethoven's score for the particular piece in light of all the above.


How should sound recording engineer determine Beethoven's
intention when reproducing his works ?

By having a general knowledge of classical music, as indicated above.


[Hmm, Arny?]

What would be your prescribe designation when determining
"accuracy" in these case ?


What the hell does this sentence mean? Is it intended to be in
English?


What I meant was how would you know that the intended rendition
of Beethoven's composition by the conductor and recording engineer
met the required accuracy as approved by Mr. Beethoven himself,
Mr. Cate?




And I'm
well aware that there are limits to realistic reproduction of an
orchestra or rock group in the home. My point was that most of us
generally derive greater pleasure from listening to good music
reproduced with accuracy (higher fidelity to the original
performance) than we do with less accurate reproduction, e.g.,
listening to the same music reproduced by a small table radio.

Higher fidelity ? As in higher fidelity than Beethoven intended
his composition to be performed ?

Nope. As in the fact that most audiophiles listen to music reproduced
by a system that reproduces recorded music with higher fidelity than a
small table radio.


OK

What would be your prescribe designation when determining
"accuracy" in this case ?

Again, write your questions in english and I'll try to answer them.


snip


Incidentally Mr. Borg, do you disagree with my contention that
Geroge's purpose for posting his original note related to a point he
was trying to make and a philosphy he was tring to push rather than
intellectual curiosity, for example, or a desire on his part to
learn from contributors with various viewpoints?

Jim

To agree, or disagree -- that is the question.

I shall place my answer on hold, Mr. Cate, because a missing
part of my response will be build on the answer you provide to
my questions above.

What do my answers to your questions (all intended to pick apart my
original note), have to do with your answering this question?



Because your question regards contention of whether the original intent
of the post in this thread concern the philosophy that, as you have said,
characterized by personal attacks to those who introduce logic into
audio discussions.


The paragraph below demonstrate "one" example.


The really unfortunate conclusion of the matter, Mr. Borg, is that
"normals"??? like you and Mr. Middius aren't willing to acknowledge
that the enjoyment of great music available to all of us today is to a
large extent made possible by the work of engineers and scientists
(borgs?) who over the years worked to design and produce audio
equipment capable of recording and accurately reproducing great
music. - Instead of being thankful for the beautiful music available
to them through the dedicated work of the "borgs", the subjectivists
("normals"??) spit in their face.

Jim