Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

This is a bit long - move on if you're not interested.

(Apologies if there are any howlers in it - I sure as hell ain't going to
read through it again!)


OK, I could use a bit of guidance here.

The more astute of you will notice that I frequently draw a response from
someone here who, for the sake of argument, I will call 'Rudi' (I wonder
what put that name into my head??). No matter what I post or however
UKcentric it is, Rudi's got an opinion! I ignore these responses on a
routine basis as it inevitably leads to a slanging match which brings the
tone of this group down and into disrepute. (You really need to know that,
out in the real world, any mention of this group will usually be met by
peals of laughter, which is a pity because I'm a real 'audio enthusiast', if
not much of a techie and believe it's a good place to share an interest,
learn stuff and feed back anything I've learned.)

This time last year (if you were here and can recall) we were tit-deep in
mile-long 'format bashing' threads where certain people's stated preferences
for a particular format where slated as being 'wrong' by a tiny majority
here (led by Rudi) and those of us (me, mostly) were slated as being
'bigots' for expressing such a preference. This, despite repeated statements
that we had/have no problems with other's differing preferences! IIRC
correctly the normal rigmarole was to put words into our mouths to the
effect we had claimed some 'mystical superiority' of our own preference
which, apart from anything else, seem to threaten Rudi (and is dog) and
would evoke a mile of techie BS, half of which I would have doubted as being
accurate, but all of which managed to ignore the simple fact that a clear,
stated preference could only imply that, for one reason or another, the
'preferred' has to be 'superior' in some way! The other 'easy meat' target
was, of course, the odd individual (returners to the medium, in some cases)
who would make sweeping claims in an enthusiastic manner - always handy for
Rudi (and his) dog to make a couple of 'strawman' arguments!

I made a decision about a year ago and decided to avoid furthering the
acrimony which was becoming the underlying theme in this group. I started
the Webpages, have put myself to the effort (and, no doubt, made myself look
a right plonker) of posting a ton of 'Show N Tell' nonsense and, when it
looked like there was to be no let-up, punted the idea of a separate group
for discussion of, er, my 'prefered medium'. Although this new group appears
to lie dead in the water it seems that not even BT fields it yet (that's a
big 'un in the UK, for those of us here who are somewhat 'offshore' ;-) and
I don't think it can even be found in Google yet! So who knows? Anyhoo, I
think it's gone a long way to reduce the acrimony here and I would have
said, until the latest mile-long streak of 'MJ' ****e Rudi's managed to drag
in here (which strangely seems to cause him no personal embarrassment
whatsoever???), that this group was looking better now than it's done for a
long time!

The rather pathetic personal insults I can easily ignore as they are usually
so damn 'wrong' they give me a damned good laugh at the very least! -
'Mentally deficient'? - Could well be, but at least I went to the same 400
year old Grammar School (all Latin and Rugby) as Tim De Paravacini (might
possibly have been his brother - I don't think so, but I'm not certain) at
about the same time (maybe 2 years younger than him?)! Founded about 50
years *before* the Pilgrim Fathers ****ed off to turn the Colonies into the
must anal continent on the planet, I might add! 'Bloody rude *******'? - Bit
hard on me poor old mum but, yes, I can give as good I get. (I think Rudi's
the one who 'can dish it out but can't take it'!). 'Calling him nasty
names'? - That's a good 'un, coming from him - the hissing and spitting
Queen of Audio Usenet! (Oops! :-) Oh, and by the way, tell him it's
*über*.......!! (Poor old Rudi, he's in such a state! ;-)

Anyway, enough already!

Basically, I'm not sure what to do - should I continue to ignore him (I know
he only wants to make 'friends'..... ;-), KF him completely or give him a
reet good kicking? (It's a bugger trying to play Mr Nice Guy all the time
and I've been at it for nearly a full year now! - One or two of you here
spotted my 'Peacemaker' rôle on a couple of occasions!) It's no good
suggesting I 'speak' to him - wouldn't last 5 minutes! (Been there, done
that too many times now!)

Perhaps one of you could have a word with him? Tell him we don't need
speaking to like we're thick children (clue: my youngest son is 25 or 26
years - buggered if I know which!). Point out to him that we ain't desperate
for outside help and that we've got enough knowledge and experience in this
group to scrape by, if it comes to it! Point out also that grabbing words
like 'bigot' and hurling them first doesn't make him look any less of a
hypocrite! Drop the hint that not everybody give a rat's arse about ABX
testing and that using it in a LISTENING TEST says more about him than I
ever could! (He's like a kid who's got hold of his dad's Black & Decker -
drilling holes in everything!) etc. etc. etc.....

Maybe *I* should just **** off - I've said it befo If any ONE person (who
I do not deem to be a tit) thinks this group would be better off without me,
I'm gone! Just say the word!

Anyway, gotta go now - just seen an interesting vinyl post come in and I've
got a couple of questions about digital radio I want to post!

Well done, if you made it this far - a right load of auld ******** I know,
but I just needed to get it off me chest!

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

This is a bit long - move on if you're not interested.

(Apologies if there are any howlers in it - I sure as hell ain't going to
read through it again!)


OK, I could use a bit of guidance here.

The more astute of you will notice that I frequently draw a response from
someone here who, for the sake of argument, I will call 'Rudi' (I wonder
what put that name into my head??). No matter what I post or however
UKcentric it is, Rudi's got an opinion! I ignore these responses on a
routine basis as it inevitably leads to a slanging match which brings the
tone of this group down and into disrepute. (You really need to know that,
out in the real world, any mention of this group will usually be met by
peals of laughter, which is a pity because I'm a real 'audio enthusiast',
if
not much of a techie and believe it's a good place to share an interest,
learn stuff and feed back anything I've learned.)

This time last year (if you were here and can recall) we were tit-deep in
mile-long 'format bashing' threads where certain people's stated
preferences
for a particular format where slated as being 'wrong' by a tiny majority
here (led by Rudi) and those of us (me, mostly) were slated as being
'bigots' for expressing such a preference. This, despite repeated
statements
that we had/have no problems with other's differing preferences! IIRC
correctly the normal rigmarole was to put words into our mouths to the
effect we had claimed some 'mystical superiority' of our own preference
which, apart from anything else, seem to threaten Rudi (and is dog) and
would evoke a mile of techie BS, half of which I would have doubted as
being
accurate, but all of which managed to ignore the simple fact that a clear,
stated preference could only imply that, for one reason or another, the
'preferred' has to be 'superior' in some way! The other 'easy meat' target
was, of course, the odd individual (returners to the medium, in some
cases)
who would make sweeping claims in an enthusiastic manner - always handy
for
Rudi (and his) dog to make a couple of 'strawman' arguments!

I made a decision about a year ago and decided to avoid furthering the
acrimony which was becoming the underlying theme in this group. I started
the Webpages, have put myself to the effort (and, no doubt, made myself
look
a right plonker) of posting a ton of 'Show N Tell' nonsense and, when it
looked like there was to be no let-up, punted the idea of a separate group
for discussion of, er, my 'prefered medium'. Although this new group
appears
to lie dead in the water it seems that not even BT fields it yet (that's a
big 'un in the UK, for those of us here who are somewhat 'offshore' ;-)
and
I don't think it can even be found in Google yet! So who knows? Anyhoo, I
think it's gone a long way to reduce the acrimony here and I would have
said, until the latest mile-long streak of 'MJ' ****e Rudi's managed to
drag
in here (which strangely seems to cause him no personal embarrassment
whatsoever???), that this group was looking better now than it's done for
a
long time!

The rather pathetic personal insults I can easily ignore as they are
usually
so damn 'wrong' they give me a damned good laugh at the very least! -
'Mentally deficient'? - Could well be, but at least I went to the same 400
year old Grammar School (all Latin and Rugby) as Tim De Paravacini (might
possibly have been his brother - I don't think so, but I'm not certain) at
about the same time (maybe 2 years younger than him?)! Founded about 50
years *before* the Pilgrim Fathers ****ed off to turn the Colonies into
the
must anal continent on the planet, I might add! 'Bloody rude *******'? -
Bit
hard on me poor old mum but, yes, I can give as good I get. (I think
Rudi's
the one who 'can dish it out but can't take it'!). 'Calling him nasty
names'? - That's a good 'un, coming from him - the hissing and spitting
Queen of Audio Usenet! (Oops! :-) Oh, and by the way, tell him it's
*über*.......!! (Poor old Rudi, he's in such a state! ;-)

Anyway, enough already!

Basically, I'm not sure what to do - should I continue to ignore him (I
know
he only wants to make 'friends'..... ;-), KF him completely or give him a
reet good kicking? (It's a bugger trying to play Mr Nice Guy all the time
and I've been at it for nearly a full year now! - One or two of you here
spotted my 'Peacemaker' rôle on a couple of occasions!) It's no good
suggesting I 'speak' to him - wouldn't last 5 minutes! (Been there, done
that too many times now!)

Perhaps one of you could have a word with him? Tell him we don't need
speaking to like we're thick children (clue: my youngest son is 25 or 26
years - buggered if I know which!). Point out to him that we ain't
desperate
for outside help and that we've got enough knowledge and experience in
this
group to scrape by, if it comes to it! Point out also that grabbing words
like 'bigot' and hurling them first doesn't make him look any less of a
hypocrite! Drop the hint that not everybody give a rat's arse about ABX
testing and that using it in a LISTENING TEST says more about him than I
ever could! (He's like a kid who's got hold of his dad's Black & Decker -
drilling holes in everything!) etc. etc. etc.....

Maybe *I* should just **** off - I've said it befo If any ONE person
(who
I do not deem to be a tit) thinks this group would be better off without
me,
I'm gone! Just say the word!

Anyway, gotta go now - just seen an interesting vinyl post come in and
I've
got a couple of questions about digital radio I want to post!

Well done, if you made it this far - a right load of auld ******** I know,
but I just needed to get it off me chest!





Keith, you know yourself there will always be one or two in a group who
ignores the obvious just for the chance to give an uninvited lecture on the
technical inadequacies of the poster. Don't get me wrong, Usenet IMO is a
great place to learn but not if technical knowledge is being used for
scoring points just because the recipients expertise does not lie in that
particular direction. That translates only to puffed-up arrogance on the
part of the poster and should be treated as such.

It never ceases to amaze me that some people on usenet can treat others with
such distain because certain areas are outside their own sphere of
experience. Would you come face-to-face with a senior doctor of medicine to
tell him he's an idiot because he doesn't know how to solder a plug to a
cable - of course not! As you are an 'audio enthusiast' and do not claim to
be an out&out techie then its pretty clear what you were asking in your
posting. Simply 1 or 2. I'm sure most replied accordingly and you got the
answers you required.

I have never claimed to be technical in certain areas such as precise audio
performance measurements because I simply have not had either the training
or experience in that area. I have in the past been in overall electronics
supervision of the building and maiden voyages of five VLCC's (supertankers)
but of course that obviously does not give me any audio measurement
knowledge or experience but I'm sure some parallels with instrument
measurement may exist. I am always open and eager to learn in other areas
but not if the knowledge offered is used as a pawn in a larger game or to
parade a usenet ego.

Trouble is this is a big open window and you get both the smell of flowers
and the sewerage works wafting in.

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

This is a bit long - move on if you're not interested.

(Apologies if there are any howlers in it - I sure as hell ain't going to
read through it again!)


OK, I could use a bit of guidance here.

The more astute of you will notice that I frequently draw a response from
someone here who, for the sake of argument, I will call 'Rudi' (I wonder
what put that name into my head??). No matter what I post or however
UKcentric it is, Rudi's got an opinion! I ignore these responses on a
routine basis as it inevitably leads to a slanging match which brings the
tone of this group down and into disrepute. (You really need to know that,
out in the real world, any mention of this group will usually be met by
peals of laughter, which is a pity because I'm a real 'audio enthusiast',
if
not much of a techie and believe it's a good place to share an interest,
learn stuff and feed back anything I've learned.)

This time last year (if you were here and can recall) we were tit-deep in
mile-long 'format bashing' threads where certain people's stated
preferences
for a particular format where slated as being 'wrong' by a tiny majority
here (led by Rudi) and those of us (me, mostly) were slated as being
'bigots' for expressing such a preference. This, despite repeated
statements
that we had/have no problems with other's differing preferences! IIRC
correctly the normal rigmarole was to put words into our mouths to the
effect we had claimed some 'mystical superiority' of our own preference
which, apart from anything else, seem to threaten Rudi (and is dog) and
would evoke a mile of techie BS, half of which I would have doubted as
being
accurate, but all of which managed to ignore the simple fact that a clear,
stated preference could only imply that, for one reason or another, the
'preferred' has to be 'superior' in some way! The other 'easy meat' target
was, of course, the odd individual (returners to the medium, in some
cases)
who would make sweeping claims in an enthusiastic manner - always handy
for
Rudi (and his) dog to make a couple of 'strawman' arguments!

I made a decision about a year ago and decided to avoid furthering the
acrimony which was becoming the underlying theme in this group. I started
the Webpages, have put myself to the effort (and, no doubt, made myself
look
a right plonker) of posting a ton of 'Show N Tell' nonsense and, when it
looked like there was to be no let-up, punted the idea of a separate group
for discussion of, er, my 'prefered medium'. Although this new group
appears
to lie dead in the water it seems that not even BT fields it yet (that's a
big 'un in the UK, for those of us here who are somewhat 'offshore' ;-)
and
I don't think it can even be found in Google yet! So who knows? Anyhoo, I
think it's gone a long way to reduce the acrimony here and I would have
said, until the latest mile-long streak of 'MJ' ****e Rudi's managed to
drag
in here (which strangely seems to cause him no personal embarrassment
whatsoever???), that this group was looking better now than it's done for
a
long time!

The rather pathetic personal insults I can easily ignore as they are
usually
so damn 'wrong' they give me a damned good laugh at the very least! -
'Mentally deficient'? - Could well be, but at least I went to the same 400
year old Grammar School (all Latin and Rugby) as Tim De Paravacini (might
possibly have been his brother - I don't think so, but I'm not certain) at
about the same time (maybe 2 years younger than him?)! Founded about 50
years *before* the Pilgrim Fathers ****ed off to turn the Colonies into
the
must anal continent on the planet, I might add! 'Bloody rude *******'? -
Bit
hard on me poor old mum but, yes, I can give as good I get. (I think
Rudi's
the one who 'can dish it out but can't take it'!). 'Calling him nasty
names'? - That's a good 'un, coming from him - the hissing and spitting
Queen of Audio Usenet! (Oops! :-) Oh, and by the way, tell him it's
*über*.......!! (Poor old Rudi, he's in such a state! ;-)

Anyway, enough already!

Basically, I'm not sure what to do - should I continue to ignore him (I
know
he only wants to make 'friends'..... ;-), KF him completely or give him a
reet good kicking? (It's a bugger trying to play Mr Nice Guy all the time
and I've been at it for nearly a full year now! - One or two of you here
spotted my 'Peacemaker' rôle on a couple of occasions!) It's no good
suggesting I 'speak' to him - wouldn't last 5 minutes! (Been there, done
that too many times now!)

Perhaps one of you could have a word with him? Tell him we don't need
speaking to like we're thick children (clue: my youngest son is 25 or 26
years - buggered if I know which!). Point out to him that we ain't
desperate
for outside help and that we've got enough knowledge and experience in
this
group to scrape by, if it comes to it! Point out also that grabbing words
like 'bigot' and hurling them first doesn't make him look any less of a
hypocrite! Drop the hint that not everybody give a rat's arse about ABX
testing and that using it in a LISTENING TEST says more about him than I
ever could! (He's like a kid who's got hold of his dad's Black & Decker -
drilling holes in everything!) etc. etc. etc.....

Maybe *I* should just **** off - I've said it befo If any ONE person
(who
I do not deem to be a tit) thinks this group would be better off without
me,
I'm gone! Just say the word!

Anyway, gotta go now - just seen an interesting vinyl post come in and
I've
got a couple of questions about digital radio I want to post!

Well done, if you made it this far - a right load of auld ******** I know,
but I just needed to get it off me chest!





Keith, you know yourself there will always be one or two in a group who
ignores the obvious just for the chance to give an uninvited lecture on the
technical inadequacies of the poster. Don't get me wrong, Usenet IMO is a
great place to learn but not if technical knowledge is being used for
scoring points just because the recipients expertise does not lie in that
particular direction. That translates only to puffed-up arrogance on the
part of the poster and should be treated as such.

It never ceases to amaze me that some people on usenet can treat others with
such distain because certain areas are outside their own sphere of
experience. Would you come face-to-face with a senior doctor of medicine to
tell him he's an idiot because he doesn't know how to solder a plug to a
cable - of course not! As you are an 'audio enthusiast' and do not claim to
be an out&out techie then its pretty clear what you were asking in your
posting. Simply 1 or 2. I'm sure most replied accordingly and you got the
answers you required.

I have never claimed to be technical in certain areas such as precise audio
performance measurements because I simply have not had either the training
or experience in that area. I have in the past been in overall electronics
supervision of the building and maiden voyages of five VLCC's (supertankers)
but of course that obviously does not give me any audio measurement
knowledge or experience but I'm sure some parallels with instrument
measurement may exist. I am always open and eager to learn in other areas
but not if the knowledge offered is used as a pawn in a larger game or to
parade a usenet ego.

Trouble is this is a big open window and you get both the smell of flowers
and the sewerage works wafting in.

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

This is a bit long - move on if you're not interested.

(Apologies if there are any howlers in it - I sure as hell ain't going to
read through it again!)


OK, I could use a bit of guidance here.

The more astute of you will notice that I frequently draw a response from
someone here who, for the sake of argument, I will call 'Rudi' (I wonder
what put that name into my head??). No matter what I post or however
UKcentric it is, Rudi's got an opinion! I ignore these responses on a
routine basis as it inevitably leads to a slanging match which brings the
tone of this group down and into disrepute. (You really need to know that,
out in the real world, any mention of this group will usually be met by
peals of laughter, which is a pity because I'm a real 'audio enthusiast',
if
not much of a techie and believe it's a good place to share an interest,
learn stuff and feed back anything I've learned.)

snipped for length

stay and be heard, sod the bigots.
regards malcolm

--
¸.·´¯`·.¸((((º.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸((((º.·´¯`·.¸
LED Headlamps and Sea Fishing UK
http://www.geocities.com/malc_hurn
¸.·´¯`·.¸((((º.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸((((º.·´¯`·.¸

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

This is a bit long - move on if you're not interested.

(Apologies if there are any howlers in it - I sure as hell ain't going to
read through it again!)


OK, I could use a bit of guidance here.

The more astute of you will notice that I frequently draw a response from
someone here who, for the sake of argument, I will call 'Rudi' (I wonder
what put that name into my head??). No matter what I post or however
UKcentric it is, Rudi's got an opinion! I ignore these responses on a
routine basis as it inevitably leads to a slanging match which brings the
tone of this group down and into disrepute. (You really need to know that,
out in the real world, any mention of this group will usually be met by
peals of laughter, which is a pity because I'm a real 'audio enthusiast',
if
not much of a techie and believe it's a good place to share an interest,
learn stuff and feed back anything I've learned.)

snipped for length

stay and be heard, sod the bigots.
regards malcolm

--
¸.·´¯`·.¸((((º.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸((((º.·´¯`·.¸
LED Headlamps and Sea Fishing UK
http://www.geocities.com/malc_hurn
¸.·´¯`·.¸((((º.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸((((º.·´¯`·.¸

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Mike Gilmour" wrote


snip own ******** and an interesting reply


cable - of course not! As you are an 'audio enthusiast' and do not claim
to
be an out&out techie then its pretty clear what you were asking in your
posting. Simply 1 or 2. I'm sure most replied accordingly and you got
the
answers you required.


Yes, I did thanks! The added bonus was that the 'normal' replies confirmed
my own thoughts and those of a couple of people that have heard the tracks
here. The outcome is not so peachy though - I now have a few hundred tracks
(more than I thought) that I feel should be replaced!

If Clever Clogs hadn't been such a smartarse and attached his own agenda to
my doings I don't think the 'media/format' thing would have come up at all -
I haven't *even yet* identified the tracks and thought they were so close
myself it need not have been an issue at all. (If they had been vastly
different I wouldn't have needed to seek 'outside opinion'!)

Ya hafta bloody larf! - As I said, there was no hidden agenda and no dark
ulterior motive attached to this exercise, but the fact that Rudi had to run
the tracks through his computer to 'identify' them and that the 'demon
device' (that causes him so much anxiety) is actually a no more than a
little 'budget' number from the very bottom end of the food chain says more
about the sound quality it produces than I would have done! :-)

(I kinda think he's shot himself in the foot on this one! :-)


Trouble is this is a big open window and you get both the smell of flowers
and the sewerage works wafting in.


Indeed, but the less we 'accept' this sorry fact as the norm, the better the
view gets (hopefully). The trouble is that there's not too much to see out
of the window much of the time - leads me to post perhaps more than I
should, just to see summat happening!

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Mike Gilmour" wrote


snip own ******** and an interesting reply


cable - of course not! As you are an 'audio enthusiast' and do not claim
to
be an out&out techie then its pretty clear what you were asking in your
posting. Simply 1 or 2. I'm sure most replied accordingly and you got
the
answers you required.


Yes, I did thanks! The added bonus was that the 'normal' replies confirmed
my own thoughts and those of a couple of people that have heard the tracks
here. The outcome is not so peachy though - I now have a few hundred tracks
(more than I thought) that I feel should be replaced!

If Clever Clogs hadn't been such a smartarse and attached his own agenda to
my doings I don't think the 'media/format' thing would have come up at all -
I haven't *even yet* identified the tracks and thought they were so close
myself it need not have been an issue at all. (If they had been vastly
different I wouldn't have needed to seek 'outside opinion'!)

Ya hafta bloody larf! - As I said, there was no hidden agenda and no dark
ulterior motive attached to this exercise, but the fact that Rudi had to run
the tracks through his computer to 'identify' them and that the 'demon
device' (that causes him so much anxiety) is actually a no more than a
little 'budget' number from the very bottom end of the food chain says more
about the sound quality it produces than I would have done! :-)

(I kinda think he's shot himself in the foot on this one! :-)


Trouble is this is a big open window and you get both the smell of flowers
and the sewerage works wafting in.


Indeed, but the less we 'accept' this sorry fact as the norm, the better the
view gets (hopefully). The trouble is that there's not too much to see out
of the window much of the time - leads me to post perhaps more than I
should, just to see summat happening!

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Alicia Tamblyn" wrote


snipped for length


stay and be heard, sod the bigots.


Heh heh! Thanks Malcolm!

;-)

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Alicia Tamblyn" wrote


snipped for length


stay and be heard, sod the bigots.


Heh heh! Thanks Malcolm!

;-)

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Keith speaking as "Rudi", why don't you do the easy thing and just clean up
your act?

All this wailing and gnashing of teeth is not going to get you any place
productive.

Next time you try to bias a listening test, I'll jump all over you once
again. There's only one reasonable way out for you, and that's to clean up
your act. You know what it takes, so why don't you just quit crying like a
little baby and do things right next time?

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Keith speaking as "Rudi", why don't you do the easy thing and just clean up
your act?

All this wailing and gnashing of teeth is not going to get you any place
productive.

Next time you try to bias a listening test, I'll jump all over you once
again. There's only one reasonable way out for you, and that's to clean up
your act. You know what it takes, so why don't you just quit crying like a
little baby and do things right next time?

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

more from the 'Arny Krueger school' of uk.rec.audio-ism:

Next time you try to bias a listening test...

Why would Keith deliberately bias his own test? Do you _really_ think he
edited one file slightly louder than the other on purpose? Why?! He wasn't
trying to sell anything or push an agenda.

How about the more plausable explanation that becasue he didn't care for
ABX, he didn't bother making the files 'ABX-ready'.

--
Jim H jh
@333
.org

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

more from the 'Arny Krueger school' of uk.rec.audio-ism:

Next time you try to bias a listening test...

Why would Keith deliberately bias his own test? Do you _really_ think he
edited one file slightly louder than the other on purpose? Why?! He wasn't
trying to sell anything or push an agenda.

How about the more plausable explanation that becasue he didn't care for
ABX, he didn't bother making the files 'ABX-ready'.

--
Jim H jh
@333
.org

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Jim H" wrote in message
...
more from the 'Arny Krueger school' of uk.rec.audio-ism:

Next time you try to bias a listening test...

Why would Keith deliberately bias his own test? Do you _really_ think he
edited one file slightly louder than the other on purpose? Why?! He wasn't
trying to sell anything or push an agenda.

How about the more plausable explanation that becasue he didn't care for
ABX, he didn't bother making the files 'ABX-ready'.



Heh heh! Poor old Rudi - he's such a tit! Makes himself look like a prat in
front of the entire group with his silly little ABX bull**** on a simple,
quick listening test and he's kicking *my* arse?? (Dream on, sunshine!)

He's so ****ing desperate to get me to answer him direct, he's drowning me
in silly little girlie insults now, I gather! (Ya hafta fekkin' larf! :-)

The fact that you and half a dozen others didn't have a problem with the
tracks tells me all I need to know! ;-)

Out of interest, before I posted the tracks, I ran them past Swim (pianist
and clarinetist and a damn good ear) who picked her preferred track in a
heartbeat (never mind which one - like I've said a hundred times, I ain't
'selling' anything here). She said one was a bit louder than the other, I
asked 'did it matter?' and she said 'no'. So, bish bash bosh I posted them.
The second set (which were chosen as they were at the other end of the
spectrum from the 'bright' that one or two people had commented on) were
deemed 'close enough' for any difference to be of no real importance. (Real
world here - not some sad little ****'s PC....)

The tracks were designed for *listening to*, at no time did I post them for
some squealing tit to ABX them. In any case, if identical sound levels were
that important why TF didn't he match 'em up? (The tit hasn't even got the
sense to use a volume control, if it mattered that much!)

AFAIAC, the only serious flaw in the test was picked up by you, Jim - the
fact that I resampled the original 128 Kbit track to 256K (to avoid an
obvious 'visible' difference) but, I have to admit that even that comes from
the twansatlantic **** actually resampling fekkin' 128K MP3s to a full-blown
WAV some while back! I had been misled into thinking it was valid for a
little while! (Won't make that mistake again - I ain't ever seen *anything*
come from that quarter which made sense or was worthwhile - spouts crap and
gets the arse when we won't suck it up!)

I'll let you into a secret - I've never had to match sound levels (peak,
RMS, or whatever) as I record all my MP3 **** at -16dB no matter what and
I've never had the spare time or bothered to put a brain cell up to it!

Tonights little harvest, all to rip:

Bjork - Selmasongs
Bjork - Post (again)
Regina Lund - Year Zero
Laurie Anderson - Bright Red
Laurie Anderson - Big Science (again)

Plus 4 DVDs to rip and 6 more to burn (2 ways = 12 burns altogether!) as
well as 3 or 4 DVD-RAMs to copy the HD and burn to disc - all before Friday
Night. Given that it slugs my machine down to an unusable crawl - how much
time do you think that will give me to **** around with sound levels on a
couple of MP3s now that I've told you I would have to spend machine time to
suss it out properly....??

Somebody tell that **** to **** off and grow up!

Better yet, someone ask the clown what's got him so *scared*.....???

;-)

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Jim H" wrote in message
...
more from the 'Arny Krueger school' of uk.rec.audio-ism:

Next time you try to bias a listening test...

Why would Keith deliberately bias his own test? Do you _really_ think he
edited one file slightly louder than the other on purpose? Why?! He wasn't
trying to sell anything or push an agenda.

How about the more plausable explanation that becasue he didn't care for
ABX, he didn't bother making the files 'ABX-ready'.



Heh heh! Poor old Rudi - he's such a tit! Makes himself look like a prat in
front of the entire group with his silly little ABX bull**** on a simple,
quick listening test and he's kicking *my* arse?? (Dream on, sunshine!)

He's so ****ing desperate to get me to answer him direct, he's drowning me
in silly little girlie insults now, I gather! (Ya hafta fekkin' larf! :-)

The fact that you and half a dozen others didn't have a problem with the
tracks tells me all I need to know! ;-)

Out of interest, before I posted the tracks, I ran them past Swim (pianist
and clarinetist and a damn good ear) who picked her preferred track in a
heartbeat (never mind which one - like I've said a hundred times, I ain't
'selling' anything here). She said one was a bit louder than the other, I
asked 'did it matter?' and she said 'no'. So, bish bash bosh I posted them.
The second set (which were chosen as they were at the other end of the
spectrum from the 'bright' that one or two people had commented on) were
deemed 'close enough' for any difference to be of no real importance. (Real
world here - not some sad little ****'s PC....)

The tracks were designed for *listening to*, at no time did I post them for
some squealing tit to ABX them. In any case, if identical sound levels were
that important why TF didn't he match 'em up? (The tit hasn't even got the
sense to use a volume control, if it mattered that much!)

AFAIAC, the only serious flaw in the test was picked up by you, Jim - the
fact that I resampled the original 128 Kbit track to 256K (to avoid an
obvious 'visible' difference) but, I have to admit that even that comes from
the twansatlantic **** actually resampling fekkin' 128K MP3s to a full-blown
WAV some while back! I had been misled into thinking it was valid for a
little while! (Won't make that mistake again - I ain't ever seen *anything*
come from that quarter which made sense or was worthwhile - spouts crap and
gets the arse when we won't suck it up!)

I'll let you into a secret - I've never had to match sound levels (peak,
RMS, or whatever) as I record all my MP3 **** at -16dB no matter what and
I've never had the spare time or bothered to put a brain cell up to it!

Tonights little harvest, all to rip:

Bjork - Selmasongs
Bjork - Post (again)
Regina Lund - Year Zero
Laurie Anderson - Bright Red
Laurie Anderson - Big Science (again)

Plus 4 DVDs to rip and 6 more to burn (2 ways = 12 burns altogether!) as
well as 3 or 4 DVD-RAMs to copy the HD and burn to disc - all before Friday
Night. Given that it slugs my machine down to an unusable crawl - how much
time do you think that will give me to **** around with sound levels on a
couple of MP3s now that I've told you I would have to spend machine time to
suss it out properly....??

Somebody tell that **** to **** off and grow up!

Better yet, someone ask the clown what's got him so *scared*.....???

;-)

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Jim H" wrote in message
...
more from the 'Arny Krueger school' of uk.rec.audio-ism:

Next time you try to bias a listening test...

Why would Keith deliberately bias his own test?

Good question.

Why would he so staunchly resist reasonable efforts to remove bias?

Do you _really_ think he
edited one file slightly louder than the other on purpose?

No, I suspect the bias was applied in the analog domain, but I'm just
guessing.

Why?! He wasn't trying to sell anything or push an agenda.

Sure he was. It was a veiled vinyl versus CD comparison.

How about the more plausible explanation that because he didn't care for
ABX, he didn't bother making the files 'ABX-ready'.

Which begs the question why wouldn't he care for ABX? All it does is make
listening tests easier, more sensitive and free of bias.

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Jim H" wrote in message
...
more from the 'Arny Krueger school' of uk.rec.audio-ism:

Next time you try to bias a listening test...

Why would Keith deliberately bias his own test?

Good question.

Why would he so staunchly resist reasonable efforts to remove bias?

Do you _really_ think he
edited one file slightly louder than the other on purpose?

No, I suspect the bias was applied in the analog domain, but I'm just
guessing.

Why?! He wasn't trying to sell anything or push an agenda.

Sure he was. It was a veiled vinyl versus CD comparison.

How about the more plausible explanation that because he didn't care for
ABX, he didn't bother making the files 'ABX-ready'.

Which begs the question why wouldn't he care for ABX? All it does is make
listening tests easier, more sensitive and free of bias.

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Heh heh! Poor old Rudi - he's such a tit!

I'm back in middle school and the kid whose butt I just kicked is trying for
some kind of a come back.

Makes himself look like a prat in
front of the entire group with his silly little ABX bull**** on a simple,
quick listening test and he's kicking *my* arse?? (Dream on, sunshine!)

It's amazing what people will say, even after you pin them to the floor and
make them beg for mercy. You give them mercy and all of a sudden they start
opening their big yap again.

He's so ****ing desperate to get me to answer him direct, he's drowning me
in silly little girlie insults now, I gather! (Ya hafta fekkin' larf! :-)

Just goes to show that violence fixes nothing, because we still don't have
the technology to do brain transplants in the midst of a brawl.

The fact that you and half a dozen others didn't have a problem with the
tracks tells me all I need to know! ;-)

Hey, there are people who proudly drink rotgut no sane man would touch. I
don't feel the need to justify low standards and poor judgement.

Out of interest, before I posted the tracks, I ran them past Swim (pianist
and clarinetist and a damn good ear) who picked her preferred track in a
heartbeat (never mind which one - like I've said a hundred times, I ain't
'selling' anything here). She said one was a bit louder than the other, I
asked 'did it matter?' and she said 'no'. So, bish bash bosh I posted
them.
The second set (which were chosen as they were at the other end of the
spectrum from the 'bright' that one or two people had commented on) were
deemed 'close enough' for any difference to be of no real importance.
(Real
world here - not some sad little ****'s PC....)

Hey, just ask for opinions until you get the one that makes you feel
comfortable, Keith.

The tracks were designed for *listening to*, at no time did I post them fo
r
some squealing tit to ABX them. In any case, if identical sound levels
were
that important why TF didn't he match 'em up? (The tit hasn't even got the
sense to use a volume control, if it mattered that much!)

Actually, I did match them up, which why I know it takes 5 minutes or less
to do it. I've been cleaning up your trash for months, Keith.

AFAIAC, the only serious flaw in the test was picked up by you, Jim - the
fact that I resampled the original 128 Kbit track to 256K (to avoid an
obvious 'visible' difference) but, I have to admit that even that comes
from
the twansatlantic **** actually resampling fekkin' 128K MP3s to a
full-blown
WAV some while back! I had been misled into thinking it was valid for a
little while! (Won't make that mistake again - I ain't ever seen
*anything*
come from that quarter which made sense or was worthwhile - spouts crap
and
gets the arse when we won't suck it up!)

It's not crap Keith, its called putting forth a reasonable effort to do the
best job you can.

I'll let you into a secret - I've never had to match sound levels (peak,
RMS, or whatever) as I record all my MP3 **** at -16dB no matter what and
I've never had the spare time or bothered to put a brain cell up to it!

How lame can you get, Keith? Bragging about how much you ****sed in the soup
again, I see.

Sad.

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Heh heh! Poor old Rudi - he's such a tit!

I'm back in middle school and the kid whose butt I just kicked is trying for
some kind of a come back.

Makes himself look like a prat in
front of the entire group with his silly little ABX bull**** on a simple,
quick listening test and he's kicking *my* arse?? (Dream on, sunshine!)

It's amazing what people will say, even after you pin them to the floor and
make them beg for mercy. You give them mercy and all of a sudden they start
opening their big yap again.

He's so ****ing desperate to get me to answer him direct, he's drowning me
in silly little girlie insults now, I gather! (Ya hafta fekkin' larf! :-)

Just goes to show that violence fixes nothing, because we still don't have
the technology to do brain transplants in the midst of a brawl.

The fact that you and half a dozen others didn't have a problem with the
tracks tells me all I need to know! ;-)

Hey, there are people who proudly drink rotgut no sane man would touch. I
don't feel the need to justify low standards and poor judgement.

Out of interest, before I posted the tracks, I ran them past Swim (pianist
and clarinetist and a damn good ear) who picked her preferred track in a
heartbeat (never mind which one - like I've said a hundred times, I ain't
'selling' anything here). She said one was a bit louder than the other, I
asked 'did it matter?' and she said 'no'. So, bish bash bosh I posted
them.
The second set (which were chosen as they were at the other end of the
spectrum from the 'bright' that one or two people had commented on) were
deemed 'close enough' for any difference to be of no real importance.
(Real
world here - not some sad little ****'s PC....)

Hey, just ask for opinions until you get the one that makes you feel
comfortable, Keith.

The tracks were designed for *listening to*, at no time did I post them fo
r
some squealing tit to ABX them. In any case, if identical sound levels
were
that important why TF didn't he match 'em up? (The tit hasn't even got the
sense to use a volume control, if it mattered that much!)

Actually, I did match them up, which why I know it takes 5 minutes or less
to do it. I've been cleaning up your trash for months, Keith.

AFAIAC, the only serious flaw in the test was picked up by you, Jim - the
fact that I resampled the original 128 Kbit track to 256K (to avoid an
obvious 'visible' difference) but, I have to admit that even that comes
from
the twansatlantic **** actually resampling fekkin' 128K MP3s to a
full-blown
WAV some while back! I had been misled into thinking it was valid for a
little while! (Won't make that mistake again - I ain't ever seen
*anything*
come from that quarter which made sense or was worthwhile - spouts crap
and
gets the arse when we won't suck it up!)

It's not crap Keith, its called putting forth a reasonable effort to do the
best job you can.

I'll let you into a secret - I've never had to match sound levels (peak,
RMS, or whatever) as I record all my MP3 **** at -16dB no matter what and
I've never had the spare time or bothered to put a brain cell up to it!

How lame can you get, Keith? Bragging about how much you ****sed in the soup
again, I see.

Sad.

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Heh heh! Poor old Rudi - he's such a tit!

I'm back in middle school and the kid whose butt I just kicked is trying
for
some kind of a come back.

Makes himself look like a prat in
front of the entire group with his silly little ABX bull**** on a
simple,
quick listening test and he's kicking *my* arse?? (Dream on, sunshine!)

It's amazing what people will say, even after you pin them to the floor
and
make them beg for mercy. You give them mercy and all of a sudden they
start
opening their big yap again.

He's so ****ing desperate to get me to answer him direct, he's drowning
me
in silly little girlie insults now, I gather! (Ya hafta fekkin' larf!
:-)

Just goes to show that violence fixes nothing, because we still don't have
the technology to do brain transplants in the midst of a brawl.

The fact that you and half a dozen others didn't have a problem with the
tracks tells me all I need to know! ;-)

Hey, there are people who proudly drink rotgut no sane man would touch. I
don't feel the need to justify low standards and poor judgement.

Out of interest, before I posted the tracks, I ran them past Swim
(pianist
and clarinetist and a damn good ear) who picked her preferred track in a
heartbeat (never mind which one - like I've said a hundred times, I
ain't
'selling' anything here). She said one was a bit louder than the other,
I
asked 'did it matter?' and she said 'no'. So, bish bash bosh I posted
them.
The second set (which were chosen as they were at the other end of the
spectrum from the 'bright' that one or two people had commented on) were
deemed 'close enough' for any difference to be of no real importance.
(Real
world here - not some sad little ****'s PC....)

Hey, just ask for opinions until you get the one that makes you feel
comfortable, Keith.

The tracks were designed for *listening to*, at no time did I post them
fo
r
some squealing tit to ABX them. In any case, if identical sound levels
were
that important why TF didn't he match 'em up? (The tit hasn't even got
the
sense to use a volume control, if it mattered that much!)

Actually, I did match them up, which why I know it takes 5 minutes or less
to do it. I've been cleaning up your trash for months, Keith.

AFAIAC, the only serious flaw in the test was picked up by you, Jim -
the
fact that I resampled the original 128 Kbit track to 256K (to avoid an
obvious 'visible' difference) but, I have to admit that even that comes
from
the twansatlantic **** actually resampling fekkin' 128K MP3s to a
full-blown
WAV some while back! I had been misled into thinking it was valid for a
little while! (Won't make that mistake again - I ain't ever seen
*anything*
come from that quarter which made sense or was worthwhile - spouts crap
and
gets the arse when we won't suck it up!)

It's not crap Keith, its called putting forth a reasonable effort to do
the
best job you can.

I'll let you into a secret - I've never had to match sound levels (peak,
RMS, or whatever) as I record all my MP3 **** at -16dB no matter what
and
I've never had the spare time or bothered to put a brain cell up to it!

How lame can you get, Keith? Bragging about how much you ****sed in the
soup
again, I see.

Sad.



Heh heh! Wodger reckon folks? If he's in Chicago (figures - even the film
was crap) this ****'s still in his pyjamas! :-)

Ya gotta larf ain'tcha!


Uh oh! all this pathetic bluster has brought me on an attack of RCS*.....


"From Rudi's keyboard, yet more weasel words,
This typèd form of bovine turds......."


*Rhyming Couplet Syndrome

LOL! (And I *mean* LOL!!!!)

:-))

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Heh heh! Poor old Rudi - he's such a tit!

I'm back in middle school and the kid whose butt I just kicked is trying
for
some kind of a come back.

Makes himself look like a prat in
front of the entire group with his silly little ABX bull**** on a
simple,
quick listening test and he's kicking *my* arse?? (Dream on, sunshine!)

It's amazing what people will say, even after you pin them to the floor
and
make them beg for mercy. You give them mercy and all of a sudden they
start
opening their big yap again.

He's so ****ing desperate to get me to answer him direct, he's drowning
me
in silly little girlie insults now, I gather! (Ya hafta fekkin' larf!
:-)

Just goes to show that violence fixes nothing, because we still don't have
the technology to do brain transplants in the midst of a brawl.

The fact that you and half a dozen others didn't have a problem with the
tracks tells me all I need to know! ;-)

Hey, there are people who proudly drink rotgut no sane man would touch. I
don't feel the need to justify low standards and poor judgement.

Out of interest, before I posted the tracks, I ran them past Swim
(pianist
and clarinetist and a damn good ear) who picked her preferred track in a
heartbeat (never mind which one - like I've said a hundred times, I
ain't
'selling' anything here). She said one was a bit louder than the other,
I
asked 'did it matter?' and she said 'no'. So, bish bash bosh I posted
them.
The second set (which were chosen as they were at the other end of the
spectrum from the 'bright' that one or two people had commented on) were
deemed 'close enough' for any difference to be of no real importance.
(Real
world here - not some sad little ****'s PC....)

Hey, just ask for opinions until you get the one that makes you feel
comfortable, Keith.

The tracks were designed for *listening to*, at no time did I post them
fo
r
some squealing tit to ABX them. In any case, if identical sound levels
were
that important why TF didn't he match 'em up? (The tit hasn't even got
the
sense to use a volume control, if it mattered that much!)

Actually, I did match them up, which why I know it takes 5 minutes or less
to do it. I've been cleaning up your trash for months, Keith.

AFAIAC, the only serious flaw in the test was picked up by you, Jim -
the
fact that I resampled the original 128 Kbit track to 256K (to avoid an
obvious 'visible' difference) but, I have to admit that even that comes
from
the twansatlantic **** actually resampling fekkin' 128K MP3s to a
full-blown
WAV some while back! I had been misled into thinking it was valid for a
little while! (Won't make that mistake again - I ain't ever seen
*anything*
come from that quarter which made sense or was worthwhile - spouts crap
and
gets the arse when we won't suck it up!)

It's not crap Keith, its called putting forth a reasonable effort to do
the
best job you can.

I'll let you into a secret - I've never had to match sound levels (peak,
RMS, or whatever) as I record all my MP3 **** at -16dB no matter what
and
I've never had the spare time or bothered to put a brain cell up to it!

How lame can you get, Keith? Bragging about how much you ****sed in the
soup
again, I see.

Sad.



Heh heh! Wodger reckon folks? If he's in Chicago (figures - even the film
was crap) this ****'s still in his pyjamas! :-)

Ya gotta larf ain'tcha!


Uh oh! all this pathetic bluster has brought me on an attack of RCS*.....


"From Rudi's keyboard, yet more weasel words,
This typèd form of bovine turds......."


*Rhyming Couplet Syndrome

LOL! (And I *mean* LOL!!!!)

:-))

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:52:19 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Heh heh! Poor old Rudi - he's such a tit!

I'm back in middle school and the kid whose butt I just kicked is trying for
some kind of a come back.

For christs sake guys. give it up!

You *both* look like a pair of babies now.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:52:19 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Heh heh! Poor old Rudi - he's such a tit!

I'm back in middle school and the kid whose butt I just kicked is trying for
some kind of a come back.

For christs sake guys. give it up!

You *both* look like a pair of babies now.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Keith G" wrote


snip my own pithy observations and the pathetic responses thereunto


Heh heh! Wodger reckon folks? If he's in Chicago (figures - even the film
was crap) this ****'s still in his pyjamas! :-)

Ya gotta larf ain'tcha!


Uh oh! all this pathetic bluster has brought me on an attack of RCS*.....


"From Rudi's keyboard, yet more weasel words,
This typèd form of bovine turds......."


*Rhyming Couplet Syndrome

LOL! (And I *mean* LOL!!!!)

:-))


Bugger! Substitute 'feast' for 'form' - make a better rhyme (just thought of
it).....

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Keith G" wrote


snip my own pithy observations and the pathetic responses thereunto


Heh heh! Wodger reckon folks? If he's in Chicago (figures - even the film
was crap) this ****'s still in his pyjamas! :-)

Ya gotta larf ain'tcha!


Uh oh! all this pathetic bluster has brought me on an attack of RCS*.....


"From Rudi's keyboard, yet more weasel words,
This typèd form of bovine turds......."


*Rhyming Couplet Syndrome

LOL! (And I *mean* LOL!!!!)

:-))


Bugger! Substitute 'feast' for 'form' - make a better rhyme (just thought of
it).....

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:52:19 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Heh heh! Poor old Rudi - he's such a tit!

I'm back in middle school and the kid whose butt I just kicked is trying
for
some kind of a come back.

For christs sake guys. give it up!

You *both* look like a pair of babies now.


:-)

Guidance needed..... (LONG)
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:52:19 -0500
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Heh heh! Poor old Rudi - he's such a tit!

I'm back in middle school and the kid whose butt I just kicked is trying
for
some kind of a come back.

For christs sake guys. give it up!

You *both* look like a pair of babies now.


:-)