|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: That is a good question concerning twisted pair vs Coax.. posted by jneutron on June 19, 2003 at 10:46:16:
I think a large part of it is that the model that Tony (and Jitter, and many of the naysayers) is willing to settle for is way too simplistic.By reducing the model to ONLY basic LCR parameters, the physics is no longer real world enough to give an answer about audible differences.
You will not acheive a match between the model and the real world down to better than -90 dB without all the other known factors included.As for apologizing, I think that Tony is the one who owes the Cable Asylum inmates an apology, for his trolling posts. And now you, for your characterization of my posts as "knee jerk".
Follow Ups:
""I think a large part of it is that the model that Tony (and Jitter, and many of the naysayers) is willing to settle for is way too simplistic.""JRSo, in other words, you are NOT reacting to his posting where he states a lack of correlation between price tag and physics, but to the model you believe Tony has with respect to cables?
Hmmm.
""By reducing the model to ONLY basic LCR parameters, the physics is no longer real world enough to give an answer about audible differences. You will not acheive a match between the model and the real world down to better than -90 dB without all the other known factors included.""JR
Based on the assumption that cable differences can be heard, yes I completely agree..basic LCR does not explain it.
""As for apologizing, I think that Tony is the one who owes the Cable Asylum inmates an apology, for his trolling posts.""JR
He asked a valid question, one which many posters answered in good spirit, with a good bit of discussion..You are the one calling it a troll..
""And now you, for your characterization of my posts as "knee jerk".""
Why? You did a knee jerk..You, either by association, or by classification of questions, have assigned Tony into a category..You then, in THIS THREAD ALONE, either insulted or abused Tony in an unwarranted fashion at least SIX times..Without Tony having said anything to deserve it..
So, yes, your's was a knee jerk. Perhaps you prefer the term unwarranted abuse?
And, I see that you, rather than going back over the posts to understand exactly what I'm talking about with respect to your treatment of Tony, have spent your time attempting to justify your behavior..
And you expect an apology of someone who is pointing out consistently bad behavior on your part??
Perhaps you should go back over this entire thread, and re-examine how you have reacted throughout...
TTFN, John
[ So, in other words, you are NOT reacting to his posting where he states a lack of correlation between price tag and physics, but to the model you believe Tony has with respect to cables? ]Yes.
I would be foolish indeed if I were to deny the physics, ALL the physics, when properly modeled. Unfortunately even such a proper model would not tell us what it would SOUND like.
I have been posting thoughful replies, not knee jerk. If you go back and look at it without the AR bias voltage applied, perhaps you would see that what I was posting was not quite as 'insulting' as it seems from that biased POV.
I do not consider the "AR" bias in my postings here...There is an obvious history extending far beyond my experience..I see only you degrading Tony's experience, education, understanding..here..You have done so from the first time I saw Tony posting here..
And, you do so from a platform of inacurate understanding of physics, filled with assumptions, suppositions, maybe's...
You stated in a previous post that you consider only postings at AA, without regard to what is done at AR..And I agreed, that you do indeed follow that, w/r to me at least..
Of course, YOU are the one to continue to refer to AR, how you are received there, as a justification for how you treat some here..
""I have been posting thoughful replies, not knee jerk""JR
Hmmm..thoughtful replies??? Do I have to go back to all your posts and copy them here again....the six I copied, and the four more JBC pointed out???
No Jon, what you have done is not thoughtful, not warranted, not useful...You appear to only be responding in that fashion to reduce the stature of those who believe differently from you..
As a fellow forum participant, that would be ok..We are all big boys here..
What you do, however, is not acceptable...Using your position as moderator to quash people who do not agree with you, like Tony..
That is all I ask you to re-think..
""I would be foolish indeed if I were to deny the physics, ALL the physics, when properly modeled.""JR
Nobody has said otherwise....So why do you feel it necessary to say this???
""Unfortunately even such a proper model would not tell us what it would SOUND like.""JR
Again, nobody has said otherwise..
Tony said physics does not correlate to price tag..For you to go on about all this other stuff is diversion...you blasted him six times (ten if you include JBC) over something we all agree with...WHY???
Knee jerk is the automatic reaction to a stimulus...You did so to Tony's post, where none was required..
And you attempt to justify it by categorizing him (your words).
As all can see, you justification falls flat..
TTFN, John
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: