Ban me! Options

[jdechamp]

I just read the Todd Krieger thread and I really thought you were joking. I got a good laugh out of it. When I realized you were serious it became obvious that this forum is populated by robots, not music lovers or even music listeners. Please ban me so that even if I become lost or am drunk I cannot be part of whatever you all are doing here.

Thanks!

Joe

[pdq]

I just read the Todd Krieger thread and I really thought you were joking. I got a good laugh out of it. When I realized you were serious it became obvious that this forum is populated by robots, not music lovers or even music listeners. Please ban me so that even if I become lost or am drunk I cannot be part of whatever you all are doing here.

Thanks!

Joe

Link please?

[Nick.C]

This one.

[Sunhillow]

The thread was from 2005

[lvqcl]

...And only 3 pages long. Compare it to 42-pages long "Why We Need Audiophiles"

[Zarggg]

This is only your second post here, and you're already making non-specific assumptions about a seven year-old community based on a single four year-old thread?

[probedb]

This is only your second post here, and you're already making non-specific assumptions about a seven year-old community based on a single four year-old thread?

Probably an 'audiophile'....they don't need evidence for making any sort of judgement...

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

This is only your second post here, and you're already making non-specific assumptions about a seven year-old community based on a single four year-old thread?

I hope Axon's attitude and reliable perceptions have improved in the past 4 years. This comment kinda lept out of the page at me:

"Krueger is still adamant that N=16 is always sufficient."

[Axon]

The OP's actually referring to this thread from 2004, no doubt on account of this thread from 10 days ago on Audio Asylum - quite obviously started by B0RK - where Todd repeated his sob story.

It seems harsh but I think dev0 called it right. Look deeply at the AA archives and you really will find that Todd is a troll (who's baited both myself and Woodinville on occasion).

Besides, we do not hold quarter for people who are truly mistaken in signal processing and have no desire to learn, as Todd has repeatedly shown himself to be, both on this forum and elsewhere. And that's not even counting him not using DBTs.

In my experience, Joe, the people on HA are just as passionate about music as on other forums; we are just more levelheaded - and civil - about it. How can you think that Todd's handling was objectionable given what passes for civil discussion at Propellerhead Plaza?

This post has been edited by Axon: May 5 2009, 19:21

[Axon]

This is only your second post here, and you're already making non-specific assumptions about a seven year-old community based on a single four year-old thread?

I hope Axon's attitude and reliable perceptions have improved in the past 4 years. This comment kinda lept out of the page at me:

"Krueger is still adamant that N=16 is always sufficient."

I'd need to look deeper to dig up the specific quote which made me think that, but I totally disagree with that statement now.

[greynol]

Ban me because I have no self control.

Well, we don't ban people just because they ask, sorry.

[2Bdecided]

The OP's actually referring to this thread from 2004, no doubt on account of this thread from 10 days ago on Audio Asylum - quite obviously started by B0RK - where Todd repeated his sob story.

The guy is amazing - he configures a plug-in to multiply every audio sample by 1 (!!!!) then tells everyone how much this improves the audio.

Five years later, instead of being desperately embarrassed by this silly little episode, he's linking to it as a badge of honour.


But note that plenty of people "over there" are looking at the bad behaviour and silly comments in the current "audiophile" thread, and using that as an excuse to ignore HA and everything it stands for. I'm sure most of them would have done that anyway, but it irks me that we've given them good reason.

Cheers,
David.

[krabapple]

The OP's actually referring to this thread from 2004, no doubt on account of this thread from 10 days ago on Audio Asylum - quite obviously started by B0RK - where Todd repeated his sob story.

The guy is amazing - he configures a plug-in to multiply every audio sample by 1 (!!!!) then tells everyone how much this improves the audio.

In a way, that would be a beautiful distillation of the audiophile ethos (or mythos). I applaud him for that, while also pointing and laughing. There are many, many audiophile gems on the AA thread, though, which could stand in competition. E.g."I must say, however, that I entirely agree with him about MP3. I would much prefer to listen to FM radio than an IPOD. I do own one but have only used it once."

But note that plenty of people "over there" are looking at the bad behaviour and silly comments in the current "audiophile" thread, and using that as an excuse to ignore HA and everything it stands for. I'm sure most of them would have done that anyway, but it irks me that we've given them good reason.

Cheers,
David.

It doesn't irk me -- HA needn't seek the approval of 'plenty of people' on Audio Asylum , and there are a good number on that thread who seem quite sympathetic to the HA philosophy -- and anyway *their* glass house is made of much thinner and more transparent stuff than ours.

Are Stereophile and TAS reviewers still posting to AA?

This post has been edited by krabapple: May 6 2009, 15:34

[2Bdecided]

Oh, I don't think HA needs to seek the approval of anyone on AA.

My point was that people should be wary of posting things that are incorrect. Especially (but not only!) when it helps people on places like AA make an unwarranted attack. We don't need to do their deluded little job for them.

Cheers,
David.

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

This is only your second post here, and you're already making non-specific assumptions about a seven year-old community based on a single four year-old thread?

I hope Axon's attitude and reliable perceptions have improved in the past 4 years. This comment kinda lept out of the page at me:

"Krueger is still adamant that N=16 is always sufficient."

I'd need to look deeper to dig up the specific quote which made me think that, but I totally disagree with that statement now.

Then we're good. ;-)