RE: I Agree.........

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Tony Lauck 19:13:11 07/26/09 (126)

The Audio Critic has a different viewpoint.... - deskducker 00:31:52 07/31/09 (11)

So Where Is the "Incontrovertible Evidence?" - Todd Krieger 18:17:29 07/31/09 (1)

Wow! A first has occured in all of science! - kurt s 18:53:13 08/08/09 (0)

RE: The Audio Critic has a different viewpoint.... - Donald North 10:03:11 07/31/09 (1)

"I could let you go... But that wouldn't serve you." - Saw IV (movie). - carcass93 10:51:55 07/31/09 (0)

RE: The Audio Critic has a different viewpoint.... - Tony Lauck 07:24:05 07/31/09 (0)

Stinky homeless guy on the bench in Washington Square in Philly may have different opinion, too. - carcass93 07:15:50 07/31/09 (3)

Bragging about yourself again? (nt) - Richard BassNut Greene 09:32:07 07/31/09 (2)

Was your response audio-related, or funny, or both? - carcass93 10:16:59 07/31/09 (1)

I feel your insult post was not up to your usual "standards" (none) ... - Richard BassNut Greene 13:34:04 07/31/09 (0)

RE: The Audio Critic has a different viewpoint.... - Daverz 06:32:51 07/31/09 (1)

RE: The Audio Critic has a different viewpoint.... - deskducker 10:36:41 07/31/09 (0)

This has serious implications for time coherent speakers as well. - morricab 01:05:06 07/30/09 (0)

Which reminds me that RBCD is barely Hi-Fi, and that - Kristian 13:32:48 07/29/09 (6)

RE: Which reminds me that RBCD is barely Hi-Fi, and that - Phelonious Ponk 19:18:55 07/29/09 (5)

RE: Which reminds me that RBCD is barely Hi-Fi, and that - Donald North 22:41:25 07/30/09 (4)

RE: Which reminds me that RBCD is barely Hi-Fi, and that - Phelonious Ponk 04:18:12 07/31/09 (3)

RE: Which reminds me that RBCD is barely Hi-Fi, and that - Donald North 10:52:05 07/31/09 (0)

RE: Which reminds me that RBCD is barely Hi-Fi, and that - Kristian 10:41:20 07/31/09 (0)

RE: Which reminds me that RBCD is barely Hi-Fi, and that - Tony Lauck 07:16:41 07/31/09 (0)

My (ongoing) response... - Axon 10:07:00 07/28/09 (16)

RE: My (ongoing) response... - Todd Krieger 13:39:03 07/28/09 (8)

RE: My (ongoing) response... - tomservo 08:49:24 07/29/09 (2)

16 bits vs 24 bits - Tony Lauck 09:44:39 07/29/09 (1)

RE: 16 bits vs 24 bits - tomservo 10:00:04 07/29/09 (0)

Well maybe so! - Don Till 23:05:58 07/28/09 (4)

Telarc/Soundstream LPs and Sky-High Expectations for Pure Digital Audio Playback....................... - Todd Krieger 00:45:07 07/29/09 (3)

RE: Seemingly unfathomable - rick_m 08:30:19 07/29/09 (2)

RE: Seemingly unfathomable - Todd Krieger 21:12:16 07/29/09 (1)

RE: Seemingly unfathomable - rick_m 22:27:50 07/29/09 (0)

I don't read Hydrogen Audio - Tony Lauck 11:24:50 07/28/09 (6)

Let me guess... Not a fan of freak shows, either? Too bad... - carcass93 08:08:53 07/29/09 (0)

RE: I don't read Hydrogen Audio - andy19191 00:35:08 07/29/09 (0)

You hang around Todd too much. - Axon 12:30:23 07/28/09 (3)

No, I think it's you who hangs around audio nazis too much. - carcass93 12:58:43 07/28/09 (2)

As opposed to, you know, the context of what I actually say? -nt - Axon 14:21:23 07/28/09 (1)

That's the beauty of it... We all know that nothing you'll say will be "opposed "... - carcass93 18:59:27 07/28/09 (0)

Hasn't stereo itself been proven to be inadequete to ensure transparency... - Don Till 07:07:42 07/28/09 (15)

Hasn't Newtonian Physics (classical mechanics) itself been proven to be inadequete (sic)? - bjh 08:36:56 07/29/09 (7)

Within useful limits it's very appropriate - Don Till 10:32:02 07/29/09 (6)

Tell us about your extensive multi-channel experience... - bjh 12:23:42 07/29/09 (5)

Huh? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the too much is asked of 2 voltage levels.. - Don Till 14:26:35 07/29/09 (4)

So basically when it comes to music reproduction ... none! - bjh 20:17:25 07/29/09 (3)

Lots more relevant to audio than your silly Classical Mechanics comment! - Don Till 09:20:23 07/30/09 (2)

No, just about the same ... that's the point! nt - bjh 14:32:46 07/30/09 (1)

So be it - you've done well proving your talking points are worthless - Don Till 07:55:44 07/31/09 (0)

Maybe So, But.......... - Todd Krieger 13:55:02 07/28/09 (0)

RE: Hasn't stereo itself been proven to be inadequete to ensure transparency... - soulfood 12:27:16 07/28/09 (0)

RE: Hasn't stereo itself been proven to be inadequete to ensure transparency... - Tony Lauck 08:10:27 07/28/09 (1)

Sorry Tony but the technology is 60 years old and you're talking academically! - Don Till 08:40:21 07/28/09 (0)

RE: Hasn't stereo itself been proven to be inadequete to ensure transparency... - rick_m 07:18:26 07/28/09 (2)

Hear, hear - E-Stat 08:55:22 07/28/09 (0)

Good point!. - Don Till 08:50:49 07/28/09 (0)

RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - gymwear5@hotmail.com 14:50:43 07/27/09 (0)

5 microseconds? -- Try 3 milliseconds for bass frequencies - Richard BassNut Greene 08:37:41 07/27/09 (21)

No bass, no BassNut... - Tony Lauck 08:43:44 07/28/09 (3)

Only a liar can "hear" whether a subwoofer was moved half an inch - Richard BassNut Greene 15:07:38 07/31/09 (0)

And, no BassNut, No Troll -t - Sordidman 15:34:34 07/29/09 (1)

Sounds like a reggae song: "No Sordidman, No Cry" (nt) - Richard BassNut Greene 15:09:22 07/31/09 (0)

I think you missed the point. - robert young 11:31:46 07/27/09 (0)

RE: 5 microseconds? -- Try 3 milliseconds for bass frequencies - tomservo 11:22:31 07/27/09 (14)

RE: 5 microseconds? -- Try 3 milliseconds for bass frequencies - Ugly 12:31:37 07/27/09 (13)

RE: 5 microseconds? -- Try 3 milliseconds for bass frequencies - tomservo 15:40:27 07/27/09 (12)

RE: 5 microseconds? -- Try 3 milliseconds for bass frequencies - Ugly 18:05:37 07/27/09 (5)

RE: 5 microseconds? -- Try 3 milliseconds for bass frequencies - tomservo 08:58:50 07/28/09 (1)

RE: 5 microseconds? -- Try 3 milliseconds for bass frequencies - Ugly 21:33:50 07/28/09 (0)

You are to be highly commended - E-Stat 18:28:26 07/27/09 (2)

RE: You are to be highly commended - Ugly 19:33:32 07/27/09 (1)

Sure it is - E-Stat 05:57:40 07/28/09 (0)

Recordings of environmental sounds? - andy_c 16:44:49 07/27/09 (5)

SRC null tests - Tony Lauck 17:53:50 07/27/09 (4)

RE: SRC null tests - andy_c 18:17:45 07/27/09 (3)

RE: SRC null tests - Tony Lauck 19:38:47 07/29/09 (2)

RE: SRC null tests - andy_c 20:42:43 07/29/09 (1)

RE: SRC null tests - Tony Lauck 07:04:36 07/30/09 (0)

RE: 5 microseconds? -- Try 3 milliseconds for bass frequencies - Peter H-son 09:13:39 07/27/09 (0)

Somebody do the math - Feanor 03:27:28 07/27/09 (12)

RE: Somebody do the math - Todd Krieger 18:16:54 07/27/09 (1)

RE: Somebody do the math - Werner 23:41:41 07/27/09 (0)

RE: Somebody do the math - Ugly 10:51:39 07/27/09 (1)

RE: Somebody do the math - Tony Lauck 12:38:06 07/27/09 (0)

The author did. (nt) - Tony Lauck 07:00:59 07/27/09 (7)

Could be, but ... - Feanor 09:14:08 07/27/09 (6)

Looks like high-school Trig to me. nt - Tony Lauck 10:41:39 07/27/09 (3)

RE: Looks like high-school Trig to me. nt - Ugly 10:57:35 07/27/09 (2)

RE: Looks like high-school Trig to me. nt - Tony Lauck 12:17:05 07/27/09 (1)

RE: Looks like high-school Trig to me. nt - Ugly 12:35:07 07/27/09 (0)

Acos(2πf[t + {l + d}/c]) + Acos(2πft) = ? - Richard BassNut Greene 10:34:35 07/27/09 (1)

as you have discovered, the subject line will not ... - Metralla 13:17:38 07/27/09 (0)

RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - andy19191 01:10:24 07/27/09 (12)

RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Tony Lauck 08:06:14 07/27/09 (5)

RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - andy19191 00:19:19 07/29/09 (4)

RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Tony Lauck 08:42:20 07/29/09 (3)

RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - andy19191 14:07:16 07/29/09 (2)

RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Tony Lauck 15:04:29 07/29/09 (1)

RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - andy19191 03:22:15 07/30/09 (0)

RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Todd Krieger 02:25:42 07/27/09 (5)

RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Ugly 11:22:55 07/27/09 (2)

RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Todd Krieger 17:59:32 07/27/09 (1)

RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Ugly 18:07:41 07/27/09 (0)

RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - tomservo 06:37:12 07/27/09 (0)

RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - andy19191 04:52:44 07/27/09 (0)

I Agree......... - Todd Krieger 22:52:58 07/26/09 (12)

RE: I Agree......... - rick_m 07:45:18 07/27/09 (11)

RE: I Agree......... - Todd Krieger 19:22:58 07/27/09 (2)

RE: I Agree......... - rick_m 20:51:03 07/27/09 (1)

RE: I Agree......... - Todd Krieger 21:16:52 07/27/09 (0)

RE: I Agree......... - Ugly 11:12:31 07/27/09 (7)

RE: I Agree......... - rick_m 14:05:40 07/27/09 (6)

RE: I Agree......... - Ugly 18:22:14 07/27/09 (5)

You clever lad! - rick_m 19:36:26 07/27/09 (4)

RE: You clever lad! - Ugly 21:44:48 07/28/09 (3)

RE: You clever lad! - rick_m 23:07:44 07/28/09 (2)

RE: You clever lad! - Ugly 01:42:33 07/29/09 (1)

RE: You clever lad! - rick_m 07:14:05 07/29/09 (0)

RE: 44.1 kHz shown scientifically to be inadequate - Daverz 21:36:15 07/26/09 (0)

Human condition is complex and evolving. - soulfood 20:48:17 07/26/09 (9)

RE: Human condition is complex and evolving. - Tony Lauck 06:46:17 07/27/09 (8)

RE: Human condition is complex and evolving. - soulfood 09:47:37 07/27/09 (5)

RE: Human condition is complex and evolving. - Tony Lauck 10:10:03 07/27/09 (4)

RE: Human condition is complex and evolving. - soulfood 10:57:46 07/27/09 (3)

I'm beginning to believe that you are a troll. nt - Tony Lauck 12:18:23 07/27/09 (2)

OMG, you really didn't know! - nt - soulfood 12:32:25 07/27/09 (1)

:-) - nt - Tony Lauck 12:42:46 07/27/09 (0)

RE: Human condition is complex and evolving. - b.l.zeebub 09:02:54 07/27/09 (1)

RE: Human condition is complex and evolving. - mls-stl 11:52:25 07/27/09 (0)

Follow Ups

RE: I Agree......... - rick_m 14:05:40 07/27/09 (6)

RE: I Agree......... - Ugly 18:22:14 07/27/09 (5)

You clever lad! - rick_m 19:36:26 07/27/09 (4)

RE: You clever lad! - Ugly 21:44:48 07/28/09 (3)

RE: You clever lad! - rick_m 23:07:44 07/28/09 (2)

RE: You clever lad! - Ugly 01:42:33 07/29/09 (1)

RE: You clever lad! - rick_m 07:14:05 07/29/09 (0)

Post a Message!