Newsgroups: rec.audio

In rec.audio, jj@alice.att.com (jj, sick and tired of all this nonsense) writes:

> Lon, it seems, has made at least a few valid technical points.
> This is hardly the mark of the flat-earther. 
> Your dismissal
> of his points, showing no understanding when you dismiss them,
> is more suggestive of the followers of farmer Ned Lud.

Gee, sorry I follow what I hear, and I don't buy these overrated garbage
technical arguments that you believe is proof for the disqualification
for the medium as a serious contender.  Same reaction you have concerning my 
arguments about CD limitations.  You also stand up and say "you can't hear
that."   You're worse than Ned Lud. 
You trash anything for something new that's worse.  Give us that great DCC
signal processing spiel.  Your view is "hey, looks good on paper, I buy it."

> >Maybe, but there's more CD bigots who confuse cartoon quality sound with 
> >accuracy.  Guys who think all Telarc recordings have real depth, balance and
> >personality.
> Interesting, I never had a record show personality to me.

That's because you don't listen, you compute.  You don't understand what a 
dry, sterile recording sounds like?  You probably have a shelfload
of them.  It's statements like these that drop you from my list of audio 
experts.  If I want to know some basic principle, yes, but not about judging
sound and recording quality. 

> Kurt, you seem to be incapable of accepting the well-established
> fact that there are euphonic distortions. It's no judgement on
> your preferences, after all, arguing personal preference is pointless.

> Such distortions have been shown since the days of the rotating
> wax roll recording.   They do not judge the person who likes
> them, they just ARE.  If you like them, fine, but when you
> start to argue about "digital looses the music" and so on,
> you're going beyond preference to making factual statements.

You still don't get the simple fact that we are trying to remove the
goddamn euphonic distortions from the record. We are not interested in
them.  That's why people spend upwards of $25K for a turntable system,
TO REMOVE THE UNWANTED DISTORTIONS, GET IT?!!!!!!  Prejudiced technical-only
people like yourself never do get it.  They're too busy making pronouncements
about measurable artifacts to try to study what motivates people like me. They
come to their own McCarthyism conclusions about them and dismiss any
testimony from the people themselves.  Absolutely pathetic mindset.
I don't care if you're happy with what you have, I don't want you insulting
my intelligence by demeaning all LP-files with "proposed reasons",
reasons you don't understand.  And your side fired the first volley.  Eat it
in return.  I wouldn't start attacking CDs if there weren't such a pompously
erroneous posting in the first place - erroneous by the fact that he's
unfairly judging a record by the sum of a few parts, parts that have all
been worked on to be nearly undetectable as far as I'm concerned.

> Ok, first, what makes me a 'psuedo-expert, and second, when do I tell
> you that you're wrong about what you like?  I'm not giving you
> any derision about your choice of LP, I'm deriding your inaccurate
> technical and phisiological statements.

You just tell me all the reasons why I must like my records; i.e. I like 
distortion,  and now you say this comment.  You're a pseudo-expert 
because you don't even have one iota of a clue about what I'm after, even after
repeated strong commentary from my part.  It just doesn't get through,
does it?  If it did, you'd probably become an expert on LP-files.  But
you're not.

What the hell is so inaccurate about me saying I can't hear something, or
at least there's nothing I can tell is there bothering me?  You simply want
to believe some bad scientific explanation for my choice of medium.  Stop
it.  To understand vinyl advantages you have to play around with stereos 
awhile, seeking a closer view of the recording.  The window may be a little
distorted, but a lot of light comes shining through.   Sorry, you wouldn't
understand.

> >Hey, who cares anyhow?
> You must, you keep coming back and singing your Luddite chorus.

And you must, too, singing your Luddite chorus.  The high end is
the state-of-the-art, not the low end.  And the high-end is chock full
of LP-files and tube-files and expensive wire-files, all for the purpose
of wasting their time and money to get the closest, most accurate and
musically satisfying sound they can tune in.  Having no technical argument
in their favor is not their problem, but still we must endure the pot
shots from guys like you, name calling all the way.  Eat dirt and get
out of the way.

> When you attack someone for suggesting some of the reasons that
> might be true, you're no longer discussing preference.

Jesus Christ, man.  When I suggested reasons that might be true about
CDs or wires you flipped out.  So why can't I?