drmatt wrote:
> So bipolar Arny is back. It's just not allowed to hold a view that
> disagrees with yours, is it?
>
> Do you have any successful interpersonal relationships in your life?
> Seems likely the only one is with your shrink.
>
> The "dr" is not an affectation, it is my title. So
drmatt wrote:
>
>
> All along.
>
> They appear to be on the verge of a new series of chips rumored to be
> called "Zen FX".
>
> The pitch is that they will be 1-chip low powered solutions that can
> offer dedicated game console graphics and games on a laptop.
>
> > > >
> > Intel's next
I didnt even care what your background was, I didn't even care if you
were actually the pope or indeed someone nice in real life, I just think
it's pretty plain to see which direction the willfully insulting
language is flowing in this thread, as with so many others in the past.
I stand by my
Could we please focus on facts instead of engaging in silly personal
attacks?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
drmatt wrote:
> So bipolar Arny is back. It's just not allowed to hold a view that
> disagrees with yours, is it?
>
You must be delusional, "DrMatt". How can I keep you from holding or
expression a view that I disagree with? Am I a moderator? Do I have
malware planted on your computer?
If
arnyk wrote:
> Good, congratulations on avoiding that common illusion/delusion.
>
>
>
>
> In a way I agree with that. The real problem is that so many of the
> original masters were made with just tons of wasted bits in the name of
> fashion and style.
>
>
>
> Statements like this make
pablolie wrote:
> And while I don't subscribe to the theory that resources stand in the
> way of wider 24/192 acceptance...
>
> I agree with those that say that hearing a difference between 16/44 and
> 24/192 with the exact identical original master source is a futile
> exercise. And yet, I do
drmatt wrote:
> That makes two of us then.. and I never heard any difference between
> redbook and "hi-res" either,
>
Good, congratulations on avoiding that common illusion/delusion.
>
> I just don't see any point in down-sampling for consumer delivery.
>
In a way I agree with that. The
pablolie wrote:
> And while I don't subscribe to the theory that resources stand in the
> way of wider 24/192 acceptance...
That makes two of us then..
drmatt's Profile:
pablolie wrote:
> When even Intel declares Moore's Law in hiatus, you know semiconductor
> advances have slowed a fair amount when it comes to some design
> parameters - but not all of them.
Note that we don't talk about CPU speed anymore. Intel nixed that years
ago.
pablolie wrote:
> I
Again 2 posts of reason from you pablolie :)
With that you show that one can be lucky with his music and mix in some
recent hardware to play with when you want to have some new toys.
I doubt you fool yourself in hearing differences in about every update
you do and declare others for deaf if they
And while I don't subscribe to the theory that resources stand in the
way of wider 24/192 acceptance...
I agree with those that say that hearing a difference between 16/44 and
24/192 with the exact identical original master source is a futile
exercise. And yet, I do own some 24/192 and other
Other than unnecessary personal vitriol, I wonder about the discussion
in performance improvements, and how it impacts music reproduction
technology.
Here are a few personal opinions:
* When even Intel declares Moore's Law as in hiatus, you know
semiconductor advances have slowed a fair amount
drmatt wrote:
> So you accept there have been dramatic performance improvements, but you
> state the overall performance is still very slow.
>
Is your reading comprehension that bad or is impossible for you to be
honest about what you read? Let's see if the basic ideas can be
restated to
arnyk wrote:
> You're like a little boy who blithely wanders from train wreck to train
> wreck that you caused, ignoring all of the damage that you do by making
> false claim after false claim and trying to make the corrections seem to
> be what you meant all along.
Not that this is a surprise
arnyk wrote:
> If that was what you were saying then you're wrong. [] the overall
> system performance remains very slow in many critical areas despite
> dramatic performance improvements in many other areas.
So you accept there have been dramatic performance improvements, but you
state the
Suspect the former...
21704
Please Read Arny.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html
-(They even back up what they are saying scientifically...)-
drmatt wrote:
> I can't decide whether you actually just enjoy arguments, or just don't
> understand how you sound to the reader.
>
I enjoy people who are totally un self conscious and don't see how
childish and desperate their personal attacks like theone above make
them look.
>
> I was
I can't decide whether you actually just enjoy arguments, or just don't
understand how you sound to the reader.
I was simply saying that computer systems have improved in performance
drastically while the data movement requirements of audio processing
have not. That was only a side show to the
drmatt wrote:
> Not many 10mb modems around any more.
As usual "Dr Matt" you try to deceptively focus sole attention on a
controversial point and skip over the facts that falsify your basic
claim that many areas of PC technology is much faster then it was 5
years ago. Improvements in isolated
Not many 10mb modems around any more. Even bog standard ADSL quotes "up
to 16mbit" these days so has to ship with 100mbit or higher on its
outgoing ports. In fact they have Gb now.
My BT fibre modem has a 100Mbit link, the cable modem I had before it
had a 1Gb port (though restricted by
drmatt wrote:
> It's also true that a 2016 device is quicker than a 2011 device. .
For LANs, the law of the weakest link, which was the 10BT or 100BTX
link, was generally applicable in 2011. It still is. A small number of
maximum speed file transfers (usually 1 on a home LAN) run LAN limited.
arnyk wrote:
> Not really. 10BT 100BTX and Gigibit ethernet were just as fast 5 years
> ago as they are today. We had SSD's 5 years ago, and for sequential I/O
> 7200 rpm high density drives are at least aas fast as SSD's get in real
> world applications.
>
>
http://www.blu-ray.com/
Be selective about what you buy..
I have seen blu rays that are nothing more than upsampled DVD material,
which sucks. At least it's (hopefully) professionally de interlaced.
drmatt's Profile:
drmatt wrote:
> Agree completely. That's why I like to buy/watch blu rays given a choice
> because as we all know for lossy compression the more bits the merrier..
Thing is, the program material on BD diskcs often doesn't exploit the
media. Lots of it pales in comparison to a well-made DVD.
arnyk wrote:
> You may find this hard to believe, but a professional engineer waiting
> for excessively large files to transfer, copy and back up makes him a
> lot more impatient than it does a home hobbyist.
>
> Especially true for live recording, which is often done while enslaved
> to a
arnyk wrote:
> Looks like another example of FLAC being unable to further compress real
> world files in ways that capitalize on non-trivial interchannel
> redundancy.
Sounds about right. Binary audio data has extremely high entropy and
always compresses poorly by traditional numerical methods.
drmatt wrote:
> Yeah it takes about six hours or so to load the 40GB of
> (compressed)music I carry on my phone. This is over WiFi. I guess I
> could plug it in and do it more quickly, but frankly I almost never do
> this - just updates when I add new stuff or remove stuff.
>
> This aspect is
arnyk wrote:
> Whether the 4K UHD streaming have any additional real world resolution
> when streamed is not a given, I don't think. I see a lot of so-called
> enhnacment artifacts, but not a lot of better video.
Agree completely. That's why I like to buy/watch blu rays given a choice
because
Julf wrote:
> So you agree that the reason 24-bit material doesn't compress as well as
> 16 bit material is because the bottom 8 bits is basically random noise,
> not correlated between left and right channel (and thus also not
> correlated with the music)?
No, I agree that random noise
Julf wrote:
> So you agree that the reason 24-bit material doesn't compress as well as
> 16 bit material is because the bottom 8 bits is basically random noise,
> not correlated between left and right channel (and thus also not
> correlated with the music)?
I took the 16/44 file from Fremer
drmatt wrote:
> This is true because flac takes advantage of some of the correlation
> between left and right channel in a stereo music scenario.
So you agree that the reason 24-bit material doesn't compress as well as
16 bit material is because the bottom 8 bits is basically random noise,
not
Yeah it takes about six hours or so to load the 40GB of
(compressed)music I carry on my phone. This is over WiFi. I guess I
could plug it in and do it more quickly, but frankly I almost never do
this - just updates when I add new stuff or remove stuff.
This aspect is not trivial, but for the
drmatt wrote:
> Yes it's disk space and processing load, of course. But both are still
> trivial in a world with 4k UHD streaming a regular occurrence it really
> doesn't matter.
Whether the 4K UHD streaming have any additional real world resolution
when streamed is not a given, I don't think.
drmatt wrote:
> This is true because flac takes advantage of some of the correlation
> between left and right channel in a stereo music scenario. Got a decent
> pink noise generator? Run some tests.
I tested it and found it to be at least partially *false.*
It appears that not unexpectedly
This is true because flac takes advantage of some of the correlation
between left and right channel in a stereo music scenario. Got a decent
pink noise generator? Run some tests.
drmatt's Profile:
drmatt wrote:
> Well, 24/48k would be less than twice the capacity.
I'm interested to know what the typical FLAC file size is at 24/48k
compared to 16/44.1k. I'd expect the 24/48k to be a lot larger than the
ratio of the uncompressed bit-rates (1.6:1) might suggest.
I only have 16/44.1k FLAC
I agree, that would be sufficient. But, I do still like to buy media and
don't see me changing that, *yet*. Digital downloads don't feel
permanent enough for my money.
drmatt's Profile:
drmatt wrote:
> Well, 24/48k would be less than twice the capacity. But I just don't see
> this mattering. For the home user buying media the cost of getting them
> a 24/48 version on e.g. DVD-A is basically the same as doing a 16/44
> version for them. I was disappointed that DVD-A didn't get
Julf wrote:
> Yes and no - three times the cost is still three times the cost, even if
> that cost keeps getting lower.
Well, 24/48k would be less than twice the capacity. But I just don't see
this mattering. For the home user buying media the cost of getting them
a 24/48 version on e.g. DVD-A
drmatt wrote:
> Ultimately, there is no killer reason to increase, so I can see I'll
> never convince you that it's worth it, but equally I don't think it's
> worth NOT doing it. Storage and bandwidth are trivial, just wait six
> months and the space increase will be accommodated at the same
Ultimately, there is no killer reason to increase, so I can see I'll
never convince you that it's worth it, but equally I don't think it's
worth NOT doing it. Storage and bandwidth are trivial, just wait six
months and the space increase will be accommodated at the same price.
The only thing
drmatt wrote:
> Music playback from so-called hi res (or better yet the mastering rate
> 24/48k if that is the norm) within someone's house is trivial. I'm not
> interested in streaming but even that is not exactly hard. If they
> wanted to offer it, it would happen.
Even if you don't stream,
Well, I don't stream music other than radio, and yes of course I'm aware
measures were taken by the big TV streamers to provide infrastructure as
locally as possible to each network segment.
Music playback from so-called hi res (or better yet the mastering rate
24/48k if that is the norm) within
drmatt wrote:
> Yes it's disk space and processing load, of course. But both are still
> trivial in a world with 4k UHD streaming a regular occurrence it really
> doesn't matter.
Yes and no. Are you aware of all the special content network
infrastructure that has been put in place specifically
I'd be happy to play around... :)
Some artists do actually do mix-your-own multi-track sources.
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread:
Yes it's disk space and processing load, of course. But both are still
trivial in a world with 4k UHD streaming a regular occurrence it really
doesn't matter.
drmatt's Profile:
drmatt wrote:
> Don't be silly. I just don't think I'd care if my music collection took
> twice as much disk space and I would be confident that even an inept
> mastering engineer or downsampling process probably couldn't mess up the
> data I received.
But isn't the logical next step then that
drmatt wrote:
> (see edit)
see edit :)
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
Julf wrote:
> I am glad you have faith in evolution, and think human hearing range and
> acuity will increase significantly in the future.
Don't be silly. I just don't think I'd care if my music collection took
twice as much disk space and I would be confident that even an inept
mastering
drmatt wrote:
> Surely 640KB is enough for anyone? ;)
I am glad you have faith in evolution, and think human hearing range and
acuity will increase significantly in the future.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the
Surely 640KB is enough for anyone? ;)
drmatt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=59498
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106593
pablolie wrote:
> Nyquist in theory requires you to get a *perfect* sample of a signal.
> The quantification error is the issue with implementing the Nyquist
> theorem in digital audio - not the kHz.
Right. Nyquist works just fine even with finite resolution, but the
finite resolution produces
Julf wrote:
> Have you seen actual scientific research showing we need more than 16
> bits for *storing* the music? We do need more than 16 for *recording* to
> ensure sufficient headroom, but once the recording has been normalized,
> that is not an issue.
>
> I would also love to see pointers
pablolie wrote:
> I don't think there is anything problematic about 16/44.1, personally.
> But the major objection with more scientific backing is that is should
> be 20 rather than 16. DR stuff with far more valid arguments behind it.
> I have read far more tests claiming we need 20 bits than
Julf wrote:
> And what do you feel is problematic about it?
I don't think there is anything problematic about 16/44.1, personally.
But the major objection with more scientific backing is that is should
be 20 rather than 16. DR stuff with far more valid arguments behind it.
I have read far more
Some may argue it's not "music", but I have a large collection of Aphex
Twin with a good complement of near- square waves in it (heavily clipped
sub bass tones in some cases). Of course, since no-one knows what those
synth notes are attempting to sound like, no-one can intuitively say
that what a
pablolie wrote:
> But... how are "squarewaves of any frequency" relevant to music
> reproduction?
The aren't. There's an old saying among people who analyze dynamic
systems which I learned from a grizzed old pH D back when I was a buck
engineer. He said "The universe is well analyzed as if it
pablolie wrote:
> BTW I find it interesting that so much discussion has focused on the
> bandwidth needs of music. Arguably the more problematic aspect is the
> digitization/quantizing of the sample itself. :-)
And what do you feel is problematic about it?
"To try to judge the real from the
Julf wrote:
> I am happy with that, thanks! :)
But... how are "squarewaves of any frequency" relevant to music
reproduction? And if you like square waves, why bother transform them to
the analog domain? Digital is pretty good at square waves. :-)
BTW I find it interesting that so much
Jeff07971 wrote:
> Arnyk, Julf, Slarti
>
> OK I apologise, my reference to FFT was not very well though out.
>
> I should have said something like "To correctly pass a squarewave of any
> frequency an infinite bandwidth is required" can we agree to that ?
>
> and Arnyk I apologise
Jeff07971 wrote:
> I should have said something like "To correctly pass a squarewave of any
> frequency an infinite bandwidth is required" can we agree to that ?
I am happy with that, thanks! :)
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high
arnyk wrote:
> Many different music instruments create acoustical signals > 20 KHz.
> Cymbals are actually not the best sources of ultrasonic sound, their
> energy is typically concentrated in the 6=16 KHz range. Many tambourines
> will vastly outproduce cymbals when it comes to ultrasonic sound
Arnyk, Julf, Slarti
OK I apologise, my reference to FFT was not very well though out.
I should have said something like "To correctly pass a squarewave of any
frequency an infinite bandwidth is required" can we agree to that ?
and Arnyk I apologise specifically to you for "Maybe you should
Jeff07971 wrote:
> DC is in inverted commas for a reason, means 0 frequecy
>
> Edit: I see where the confusion arises, FFT is frequency domain not time
> domain
> to simplify to pass a true squarewave an infinite bandwidth is required.
Yet another error. FFT is a well known mathematical
Jeff07971 wrote:
> Maybe you should learn to read !
>
> From the link
Yet another error - The quoted text is completely irrelevant to the
comment of mine that it purports to correct.
You should really stop with this nonsense while you are only a little
bit behind!
Jeff07971 wrote:
> DC is in inverted commas for a reason, means 0 frequecy
DC soes not need to be in inverted commas to mean zero frequency. The
flat top is produced by adding the odd harmonics up to infinity.
Infinite bandwidth does not have to start from zero. In this case it
starts from the
Jeff07971 wrote:
> however the Nyquist limit is only true when the signal is purely
> sinusoidal
This has already been addressed by others, but just wanted to make very
clear that this statement is somewhat misleading in being kind of the
wrong way around.
What Nyquist-Shannon states is that
Julf wrote:
> Wrong on both counts.
DC is in inverted commas for a reason, means 0 frequecy
*Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3,Receiver,SqueezePlayer,PiCorePlayer
x3,Wandboard
*Server:* LMS Version: 7.9.0 - 1475786002 on Centos 7 VM on ESXi 6 on
Dell T320
*Plugins:*
Jeff07971 wrote:
> The flat top of a square wave is in effect a "DC" it cannot be flat if
> you cannot pass "DC"
Wrong on both counts.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will
arnyk wrote:
> False claim. The commonly-seen tilt of a square wave's top is due to
> phase shift. When you avoid having significant amounts of that phase
> shift, perhaps by using a relatively high fundamental frequency, the
> wave top is flat.
>
> BTW, I can also confirm the post that says
Jeff07971 wrote:
> The flat top of a square wave is in effect a "DC" it cannot be flat if
> you cannot pass "DC"
>
> The rising edge is effectively a very high freq nearly in
> contrast to the fundemental
>
> 2169721698
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave
I'm not sure what you
Jeff07971 wrote:
> The flat top of a square wave is in effect a "DC" it cannot be flat if
> you cannot pass "DC"
>
False claim. The commonly-seen tilt of a square wave's top is due to
phase shift. When you avoid having significant amounts of that phase
shift, perhaps by using a relatively
slartibartfast wrote:
> I do not understand why an FFT of a square wave would require sines of
> 1/ - Hz. The lowest frequency present in a square wave is
> the fundamental. Square waves with a frequency of 1/ Hz are
> definitely rare in music.
>
> Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
The flat
Jeff07971 wrote:
> Getting really off topic now !
Yes , I drop out now , unless someone says something weird about cat5-8
cables regarding better separation between instruments :P or some other
analog attribution ( fundamental miss understanding of how digital works
).
Getting really off topic now !
*Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3,Receiver,SqueezePlayer,PiCorePlayer
x3,Wandboard
*Server:* LMS Version: 7.9.0 - 1475786002 on Centos 7 VM on ESXi 6 on
Dell T320
*Plugins:* AutoRescan/BBCiPlayer/PowerSave/PowerSwitchIII/Squeezecloud
*Remotes:*
> Um been there done that, last time I used a $19.95 ultrasonic cleaner.
> However, that OT in this discussion.
Not sure how piezo actuators are relevant to Microphones and sensors ?
I used these microphones to record sounds at 96Khz bandwidth. We
captured 5 seconds per shot at 256Ksps 16 Bit.
Jeff07971 wrote:
> I was trying to keep it simple so I'll rephrase
>
> "And mr fourier was also rigth any other wave form is made by sums of
> sinus waves." Yes but an FFT of a square wave would require sines of
> 1/ - Hz to properly represent. Thankfully squarewaves are
> rare in music.
I do
Jeff07971 wrote:
> Mnyb we agree entirely
>
> Arnyk you miss my point.
>
>
I didn't miss it, I corrected it. You seem to have a lot of incorrect
perhaps fanciful ideas about digital and audio. I also sense that you
never "lose any arguments".
>
> If you limit the bandwidth to what you
Well I think we can let this drop now, I just think that the technical
standard should not be so close to the average human limits.
Any way if we did up the sample rates and bit depth we'd need CAT9
cables :)
*Players:* SliMP3,Squeezebox3 x3,Receiver,SqueezePlayer,PiCorePlayer
x3,Wandboard
For us old dudes 20kHz bandwidth is more than enough:) 16k for n most
cases .
Last time i checked an audiophiles whas not a teenage girl musical
prodigy :) they may actually hear 20k.
I think the 20-20kHz bw includes most humans it would be truly
exceptional very rare . And only applicable to
> hence 24/96 is the highest semi sensible rate to sell must at imo.
Mnyb we agree entirely
> (1) make a recording with say twice the bandpass of a regular CD - iOW
> the 24/96 that you are trying to ram down my throat. The equipment to do
> this is off the shelf and the techniques are simple
Sorry i meant 20bit >50k sampling if inwas unclear .
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3
sub.
Bedroom/Office: Boom
Jeff07971 wrote:
> I was trying to keep it simple so I'll rephrase
>
>
> So you agree that 20Khz is not enough to accurately REPRODUCE any of the
> examples you make ! I.e. You cant REPRODUCE the 100Khz signal from a
> trumpet (wether we can "Hear" it or not) with a 20Khz limited system.
>
"Yes" recordings can be done at 96kHz for producing purposes .
We are limited by our hearing usually below 20kHz so we reproduce what
we can hear .
Some argue that 44.1 kHz is a close shave hence 48kHz is/was used in
recording studios the last decades .
Thats a bit off the history i don't know
> DC is a property of asymmetric waves, and by definition a square wave is
> symmetrical around the zero line.
I was trying to keep it simple so I'll rephrase
"And mr fourier was also rigth any other wave form is made by sums of
sinus waves." Yes but an FFT of a square wave would require sines
Mnyb wrote:
> Nyqist is true for a properly bandwidth limited signal . No signal above
> 1/2 fs .
> It does not have to be sinus , you can argue that the 20kHz content
> actualy is sinusoidal .
>
> And mr fourier was also rigth any other wave form is made by sums of
> sinus waves.
>
> The
Nyqist is true for a properly bandwidth limited signal . No signal above
1/2 fs .
It does not have to be sinus , you can argue that the 20kHz content
actualy is sinusoidal .
And mr fourier was also rigth any other wave form is made by sums of
sinus waves.
The nitpicking begins with how to
pablolie wrote:
> Indeed. The DAC is about the D in the first iteration... and any signal
> is the same in D, and the initial conversion to A follows the
> universally accepted Nyquist rule... so we have a perfect reproduction
> of the original signal thanks to Nyquist. Q1: Does anyone dispute
And even the analog part is relitively deterministic and one dimensional
compared to the mechanical converters in the audio system ?
Microphones and speakers and acoustics .( or pickups and turntables if
one wants another mechanical thing in the audio chain ).
With really skilled engineering
philippe_44 wrote:
> As a (very) occasional reader (and even less commenter) of such threads,
> I'm afraid that it's hopeless to try to give the correct explanation.
> Most people do not understand the fundamental difference between
> analogue and digital. As said in another thread, you can
pablolie wrote:
> All totally correct. We should all be aware there are far more critical
> applications out there, and bit loss would be unacceptable (which is why
> one also has correction and error detection codes thrown in). The stuff
> works, period. And there's absolutely no way the same
arnyk wrote:
> I see no evidence that Mnyb has said that he owns gear that uses a
> transfer method that he doesn't believe in.
>
> As I understnd his older posts, the Meridian gear he owns was made and
> sold long before MQA was put on the market - years if not decades.
>
>
>
>
> Totally
edwardthern wrote:
> Yes I know what the topic is about. But I am asking YOU why did you
> purchase gear that uses a transfer method that you don't believe in?
>
I see no evidence that Mnyb has said that he owns gear that uses a
transfer method that he doesn't believe in.
As I understnd his
Mnyb wrote:
> Short version.
> I believe in digital tranfer methods so much that i dont atribute "
> analog characterists " to them ( ie sweeter treble ).
> And they work perfectly and transparently with good spec normal cables
> nothingfancy needed.
> The asyncrounus tranfers merhods and mostly
Short version.
I believe in digital tranfer methods so much that i dont atribute "
analog characterists " to them ( ie sweeter treble ).
And they work perfectly and transparently with good spec normal cables
nothingfancy needed.
The asyncrounus tranfers merhods and mostly the ethernet
edwardthern wrote:
> Yes I know what the topic is about. But I am asking YOU why did you
> purchase gear that uses a transfer method that you don't believe in?
>
> MQA is nothing more than audiophile gimmick.
Then you missunderstod completely. ( sorry for the rubbish spelling, I
used the phone
I have to say, you all showed your true colors too soon.
Like a bunch of Vampires waiting for a real human to show up so you can
pounce on himyou pose as Audiophiles, waiting in an otherwise dead
forum for people to wonder in and post so you can attack.
Why don't you Mud-Ears go and make
I laid down the facts.
You people are all TROLLS. I proved it and you proved it. Here you are
posing as Audiophiles, waiting for true Audiophiles to post so you can
pounce on them with ridicule. You are all FAKE and at least one of you
is a double posting liar.
edwardthern wrote:
> I post here so that FINALLY there can be good content here, you should
> thank me
Promises, promises.
So when are you going to make a 180 degree turn in what you are doing
and start posting content that is worth the dynamite to blow it to
?
I am willing to wait the
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
