sound card recommendation

Discussion in 'rec.audio.pro' started by Ken Bouchard, Aug 22, 2003.

  1. Arny Krueger

    Arny Krueger Guest

    "dave weil" <dweil@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:g91kkvc1pkfr21tb493j0sn5t5degg9mej@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:13:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
    > >news:113bd5e2.0308250304.a97be6c@posting.google.com...


    > >> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
    > >> news:<xsWdnRUuGJE4gtSiXTWJiA@comcast.com>...


    > >> > BTW, I notice that this Card Deluxe review site is down...
    > >> > www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?280


    > >> Incorrect. The link works fine; the review is on-line as usual.


    > >Atkinson again shows that he thinks he's omniscient. He obviously can't
    > >comprehend the idea that a link would be down at one time, and restored

    at
    > >another.


    > You don't seem to acknowledge that it could have been a problem on
    > your end.


    Or someplace along the way... For the record I sucessfully visited the site
    maybe an hour later. At the time I wrote the post I had no idea of the full
    domain or total duration of the problem, but I wanted to prepare people for
    the possibility that the link might be down when they tried it.

    >I seem to remember you saying the same thing about *my*
    > connection when I claimed that a link was down on *your* site.


    That's quite a different thing than saying that the report was incorrect.
    Your report was correct, but the problem was obviously someplace between
    your site and my web site as I checked and knew that my site was
    continuously up during that time.

    I'd bet money that Atkinson never personally checked his site's web logs
    before he made his angry little post. I'd bet that he lacks the interest
    and/or ability to do so. But I could be wrong about this.
  2. Girth

    Girth Guest

    "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

    >I'd bet money that Atkinson never personally checked his site's web logs
    >before he made his angry little post.


    This is what Arnii is referring to :

    "Incorrect. The link works fine; the review is on-line as usual."

    Arnii is clearly lying when he says John Atkinson's post was angry.


    --
    S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
  3. dave weil

    dave weil Guest

    On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 09:04:58 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
    wrote:

    >
    >"dave weil" <dweil@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >news:g91kkvc1pkfr21tb493j0sn5t5degg9mej@4ax.com...
    >> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:13:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >"John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
    >> >news:113bd5e2.0308250304.a97be6c@posting.google.com...

    >
    >> >> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
    >> >> news:<xsWdnRUuGJE4gtSiXTWJiA@comcast.com>...

    >
    >> >> > BTW, I notice that this Card Deluxe review site is down...
    >> >> > www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?280

    >
    >> >> Incorrect. The link works fine; the review is on-line as usual.

    >
    >> >Atkinson again shows that he thinks he's omniscient. He obviously can't
    >> >comprehend the idea that a link would be down at one time, and restored

    >at
    >> >another.

    >
    >> You don't seem to acknowledge that it could have been a problem on
    >> your end.

    >
    >Or someplace along the way...


    Fair enough.

    >For the record I sucessfully visited the site
    >maybe an hour later. At the time I wrote the post I had no idea of the full
    >domain or total duration of the problem, but I wanted to prepare people for
    >the possibility that the link might be down when they tried it.


    That's fair as well.

    >>I seem to remember you saying the same thing about *my*
    >> connection when I claimed that a link was down on *your* site.

    >
    >That's quite a different thing than saying that the report was incorrect.
    >Your report was correct, but the problem was obviously someplace between
    >your site and my web site as I checked and knew that my site was
    >continuously up during that time.
    >
    >I'd bet money that Atkinson never personally checked his site's web logs
    >before he made his angry little post.


    Here's the deal. You see it as an angry little post, but it seemed a
    rather disspasionate reporting that there wasn't a problem with the
    link. He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.
    He simply said that your report was incorrect and that there wasn't a
    problem with the link. He didn't make a personal ad hominem comment
    about you at all as you did toward him. If there's any anger in the
    two posts, it seems to have come from your end.

    > I'd bet that he lacks the interest
    >and/or ability to do so. But I could be wrong about this.


    I wouldn't know one way or another. But I think it's just as likely
    that the first thing he might do as an interested party is to have
    checked the link to make sure that something hadn't gotten corrupted.
  4. Arny Krueger

    Arny Krueger Guest

    "dave weil" <dweil@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:mg3kkv0277naih3fes33kt21naf4m77nbm@4ax.com


    >> I'd bet money that Atkinson never personally checked his site's web
    >> logs before he made his angry little post.


    > Here's the deal. You see it as an angry little post, but it seemed a
    > rather disspasionate reporting that there wasn't a problem with the
    > link.


    Weil just to refresh your memory, your bias in any matter involving me is
    like a metaphorical telephone pole in your eye.

    > He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.


    Sure he did. One word: "Wrong".

    > He simply said that your report was incorrect and that there wasn't a
    > problem with the link.


    But my report was correct as stated. Atkinson said straight out that my
    report was wrong. Yet without omniscience, he really has no way of knowing
    whether my report was right or wrong.

    >He didn't make a personal ad hominem comment
    > about you at all as you did toward him.


    Weil, I'm sure that in your personal dream world you have no comprehension
    of the fact that Atkinson and I have what is known as "history".

    >If there's any anger in the
    > two posts, it seems to have come from your end.


    I can come up with a hundred ways that Atkinson could have treated the
    matter more factually and provoked zero heat.

    What Atkinson could know at best is that there were no interruptions of
    service at the server.

    However, I'd bet that he didn't ever bother to check that. He simply tested
    the link when he saw it and globally pronounced my earlier report wrong
    without further investigation. This is BTW a common personality flaw of
    his - he tends to make global pronouncements based on inadequate evidence.
    The bad news is that Atkinson has made a profitable business out of making
    global pronouncements based on inadequate evidence. Large segments of the
    audio business suffer with this kind of bad logic.

    Nailing shallow-thinking bozos like Atkinson on the grounds of claimed
    omniscience is so easy that it has almost stopped being fun.

    >> I'd bet that he lacks the interest
    >> and/or ability to do so. But I could be wrong about this.


    > I wouldn't know one way or another. But I think it's just as likely
    > that the first thing he might do as an interested party is to have
    > checked the link to make sure that something hadn't gotten corrupted.


    ....and as an interested party I checked the link several times over a period
    of several minutes and found that it was broken, but that every other part
    of the web that I tested was working just fine.
  5. dave weil

    dave weil Guest

    On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 09:47:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
    wrote:

    >"dave weil" <dweil@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >news:mg3kkv0277naih3fes33kt21naf4m77nbm@4ax.com
    >
    >
    >>> I'd bet money that Atkinson never personally checked his site's web
    >>> logs before he made his angry little post.

    >
    >> Here's the deal. You see it as an angry little post, but it seemed a
    >> rather disspasionate reporting that there wasn't a problem with the
    >> link.

    >
    >Weil just to refresh your memory, your bias in any matter involving me is
    >like a metaphorical telephone pole in your eye.


    Ummmm, I didn't diss you at all in my post, did I? I could have been
    snide but I tried to be civil.

    You, OTOH, made some pretty snide comments about Mr. Atkinson, a
    subject that you have a pretty big bias against yourself. You have a
    pretty big telephone pole in *your* eye, now don't you?

    >> He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.

    >
    >Sure he did. One word: "Wrong".


    This word doesn't appear *anywhere* in his post.

    >> He simply said that your report was incorrect and that there wasn't a
    >> problem with the link.

    >
    >But my report was correct as stated. Atkinson said straight out that my
    >report was wrong.


    Apparently it *was* globally wrong.

    > Yet without omniscience, he really has no way of knowing
    >whether my report was right or wrong.


    You yourself now imply that it was probably just a glitch in your
    connectivity.

    >>He didn't make a personal ad hominem comment
    >> about you at all as you did toward him.

    >
    >Weil, I'm sure that in your personal dream world you have no comprehension
    >of the fact that Atkinson and I have what is known as "history".


    Well, yes. That's why it's clear that his post wasn't *angry* because
    he didn't make any snide comments about you as he might have. Frankly,
    if there's a chip on somebody's shoulder in this exchange, it's
    clearly on *your* shoulder.

    >>If there's any anger in the
    >> two posts, it seems to have come from your end.

    >
    >I can come up with a hundred ways that Atkinson could have treated the
    >matter more factually and provoked zero heat.


    It's only your thin skin that interprets his simple statement as a
    "heat" producing post.

    >What Atkinson could know at best is that there were no interruptions of
    >service at the server.


    He could also know that the link hadn't been changed or corrupted as
    well.

    >However, I'd bet that he didn't ever bother to check that. He simply tested
    >the link when he saw it and globally pronounced my earlier report wrong
    >without further investigation. This is BTW a common personality flaw of
    >his - he tends to make global pronouncements based on inadequate evidence.


    You mean like betting that he didn't bother checking his own site?

    >The bad news is that Atkinson has made a profitable business out of making
    >global pronouncements based on inadequate evidence. Large segments of the
    >audio business suffer with this kind of bad logic.
    >
    >Nailing shallow-thinking bozos like Atkinson on the grounds of claimed
    >omniscience is so easy that it has almost stopped being fun.


    This shows that your purpose in making this an issue is so that you
    can "nail him".

    >>> I'd bet that he lacks the interest
    >>> and/or ability to do so. But I could be wrong about this.

    >
    >> I wouldn't know one way or another. But I think it's just as likely
    >> that the first thing he might do as an interested party is to have
    >> checked the link to make sure that something hadn't gotten corrupted.

    >
    >...and as an interested party I checked the link several times over a period
    >of several minutes and found that it was broken, but that every other part
    >of the web that I tested was working just fine.


    I remember saying the same thing about a link on your site loading
    slowly and you claimed that it didn't mean that it was a problem on
    your site but simply a problem with my own connectivity. I think the
    same thing can be said here as well about *your* connectivity for a
    few minutes, especially since Mr. Atkinson didn't find anything wrong
    with the link.
  6. imthemanbehindthedrums@hotmail.com (drummer) wrote in message news:<e568ecfa.0308241823.3f652c48@posting.google.com>...
    > i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
    > sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
    > finding something a tad cheaper.


    Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
    optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT Lightpipe
    protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have recorded 8
    channels on my PC using this card and digital input via LightPipe.

    You can find Stereophile's review of the RME Digi96/8 PAD at
    http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?541 and its predecessor, the
    Digi96/8 PRO at http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?299 .

    John Atkinson
    Editor, Stereophile
  7. Brian Takei

    Brian Takei Guest

    Arny Krueger (arnyk@hotpop.com) wrote:
    > "drummer" <imthemanbehindthedrums@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > so is cardeluxe considered one of the best?

    >
    > It is a very good card. One of the best would be the LynxTWO.


    Arny, do you [or anyone] know the minimum buffer size that the LynxTWO
    can generally handle, recording 24/44.1, using its ASIO drivers in
    WinXP? I'm particularly interested if it is reliable with a buffer that
    equates to <=3ms, or hopefully <=1.5ms.

    Lynx's March 2003 driver (v1.30.00.0050) release notes state that
    they've "Optimized the buffer switch code to greatly increase the
    performance of the ASIO driver under Windows NT4/2000/XP". Anyone have
    any real world figures?

    - Brian
  8. Girth

    Girth Guest

    dave weil <dweil@comcast.net> wrote:

    >Ummmm, I didn't diss you at all in my post, did I? I could have been
    >snide but I tried to be civil.


    Dave, I'm increasingly wondering why you are so civil with the
    Stinkin' Sack? Maybe being courteous is your nature, but I cannot help
    but notice that your exchanges with him do not bare fruit.


    --
    S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
  9. dave weil

    dave weil Guest

    On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:36:25 +0100, Girth <signel@lineone.net> wrote:

    >dave weil <dweil@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    >>Ummmm, I didn't diss you at all in my post, did I? I could have been
    >>snide but I tried to be civil.

    >
    >Dave, I'm increasingly wondering why you are so civil with the
    >Stinkin' Sack? Maybe being courteous is your nature, but I cannot help
    >but notice that your exchanges with him do not bare fruit.


    Rotten fruit maybe <g>.

    As you know, I've not always been so civil, but this time I wanted to
    make it clear that I wasn't being unreasonable in pointing out the
    things I did. I was hoping beyond hope that he would return the
    civility, but that didn't, as you put it, bear fruit.
  10. Girth

    Girth Guest

    dave weil <dweil@comcast.net> wrote:

    >>>Ummmm, I didn't diss you at all in my post, did I? I could have been
    >>>snide but I tried to be civil.

    >>
    >>Dave, I'm increasingly wondering why you are so civil with the
    >>Stinkin' Sack? Maybe being courteous is your nature, but I cannot help
    >>but notice that your exchanges with him do not bare fruit.

    >
    >Rotten fruit maybe <g>.


    Rotten fruit? If you said, rotten fruit woven into the matted gristle
    of a decomposing corpse then perhaps! :) [<--- note smiley]

    >As you know, I've not always been so civil, but this time I wanted to
    >make it clear that I wasn't being unreasonable in pointing out the
    >things I did.


    Very reasonable of you, Dave.

    >I was hoping beyond hope that he would return the
    >civility, but that didn't, as you put it, bear fruit.


    Is it bear and not bare? I'm shit at grammar, admittedly.

    The only fruit that Arnii can offer are those of the grape variety,
    grown in his own "back yard". I doubt you would really want a close
    encounter with those particular "cherries", Dave.


    --
    S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
  11. dave weil

    dave weil Guest

    On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:17:35 +0100, Girth <signel@lineone.net> wrote:

    >>I was hoping beyond hope that he would return the
    >>civility, but that didn't, as you put it, bear fruit.

    >
    >Is it bear and not bare? I'm shit at grammar, admittedly.


    Bear means "to produce" in this context (or give birth to).

    Bare would be to uncover, like in "baring ones fangs" for instance.

    At www.dictionary.com "bear fruit" is considered an idiom:

    bear fruit: To come to a satisfactory conclusion or to fruition.
  12. dave weil said:

    > At www.dictionary.com "bear fruit" is considered an idiom:
    >
    > bear fruit: To come to a satisfactory conclusion or to fruition.



    It doesn't give the Krooglish definition? Just as well, I suppose --
    the english language can only stand so much torment.
  13. "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
    news:<9yOdnWjqp8wdjteiXTWJhQ@comcast.com>...
    > "dave weil" <dweil@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:mg3kkv0277naih3fes33kt21naf4m77nbm@4ax.com
    > > He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.

    >
    > Sure he did. One word: "Wrong".


    I didn't use that word, Mr. Krueger. I said that your statement that the
    link to Stereophile's review of the CardDeluxe was not working was
    "incorrect." I said this because, to the best of my knowledge, there were
    no interruptions of service and the link was working both when I checked
    it first thing this morning and the last time I acessed the review, which
    was over the weekend.

    I felt it important to reasure those wanting to access Stereophile's
    on-line archives that the link was working.

    > > If there's any anger in the two posts, it seems to have come from your
    > > end.

    >
    > I can come up with a hundred ways that Atkinson could have treated the
    > matter more factually and provoked zero heat.


    My posting was about as dispassionate as it was possible to make it, Mr.
    Krueger. Yes, my single word "incorrect" was on the blunt side, but it
    was not intended to belittle you.

    > Nailing shallow-thinking bozos like Atkinson on the grounds of claimed
    > omniscience is so easy that it has almost stopped being fun.


    And, as usual, the obligatory parting insult is thrown my way :)

    John Atkinson
    Editor, Stereophile
  14. Arny Krueger

    Arny Krueger Guest

    "John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
    news:113bd5e2.0308251124.465698fd@posting.google.com
    > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
    > news:<9yOdnWjqp8wdjteiXTWJhQ@comcast.com>...
    >> "dave weil" <dweil@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >> news:mg3kkv0277naih3fes33kt21naf4m77nbm@4ax.com


    >>> He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.


    >> Sure he did. One word: "Wrong".


    > I didn't use that word, Mr. Krueger. I said that your statement that
    > the link to Stereophile's review of the CardDeluxe was not working was
    > "incorrect."


    Agreed.

    > I said this because, to the best of my knowledge, there
    > were no interruptions of service and the link was working both when I
    > checked it first thing this morning and the last time I acessed the
    > review, which was over the weekend.


    "The best of my knowledge" admits no knowledge whatsoever at the time and
    place I mentioned the interruption of service, doesn't it Atkinson? No
    doubt, that was your situation. Nice deceptive way to make it seem that you
    knew something that you didn't know!

    > I felt it important to reasure those wanting to access Stereophile's
    > on-line archives that the link was working.


    You could have said that you just checked it and it was working at that time
    and at your place.

    My statement was correct at the time and place I made it, which makes your
    claim that it was false totally incorrect, Atkinson.

    >>> If there's any anger in the two posts, it seems to have come from
    >>> your end.


    >> I can come up with a hundred ways that Atkinson could have treated
    >> the matter more factually and provoked zero heat.


    > My posting was about as dispassionate as it was possible to make it,
    > Mr. Krueger.


    LOL!

    >Yes, my single word "incorrect" was on the blunt side,
    > but it was not intended to belittle you.


    It was a false claim. Why would you possibly start trying to be truthful at
    this late date, Atkinson?
    >
    >> Nailing shallow-thinking bozos like Atkinson on the grounds of
    >> claimed omniscience is so easy that it has almost stopped being fun.

    >
    > And, as usual, the obligatory parting insult is thrown my way :)
    >
    > John Atkinson
    > Editor, Stereophile
  15. dave weil

    dave weil Guest

    On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:36:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
    wrote:

    >"John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
    >news:113bd5e2.0308251124.465698fd@posting.google.com
    >> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
    >> news:<9yOdnWjqp8wdjteiXTWJhQ@comcast.com>...
    >>> "dave weil" <dweil@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:mg3kkv0277naih3fes33kt21naf4m77nbm@4ax.com

    >
    >>>> He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.

    >
    >>> Sure he did. One word: "Wrong".

    >
    >> I didn't use that word, Mr. Krueger. I said that your statement that
    >> the link to Stereophile's review of the CardDeluxe was not working was
    >> "incorrect."

    >
    >Agreed.
    >
    >> I said this because, to the best of my knowledge, there
    >> were no interruptions of service and the link was working both when I
    >> checked it first thing this morning and the last time I acessed the
    >> review, which was over the weekend.

    >
    >"The best of my knowledge" admits no knowledge whatsoever at the time and
    >place I mentioned the interruption of service, doesn't it Atkinson? No
    >doubt, that was your situation. Nice deceptive way to make it seem that you
    >knew something that you didn't know!
    >
    >> I felt it important to reasure those wanting to access Stereophile's
    >> on-line archives that the link was working.

    >
    >You could have said that you just checked it and it was working at that time
    >and at your place.
    >
    >My statement was correct at the time and place I made it, which makes your
    >claim that it was false totally incorrect, Atkinson.
    >
    >>>> If there's any anger in the two posts, it seems to have come from
    >>>> your end.

    >
    >>> I can come up with a hundred ways that Atkinson could have treated
    >>> the matter more factually and provoked zero heat.

    >
    >> My posting was about as dispassionate as it was possible to make it,
    >> Mr. Krueger.

    >
    >LOL!
    >
    >>Yes, my single word "incorrect" was on the blunt side,
    >> but it was not intended to belittle you.

    >
    >It was a false claim. Why would you possibly start trying to be truthful at
    >this late date, Atkinson?
    >>
    >>> Nailing shallow-thinking bozos like Atkinson on the grounds of
    >>> claimed omniscience is so easy that it has almost stopped being fun.

    >>
    >> And, as usual, the obligatory parting insult is thrown my way :)
    >>
    >> John Atkinson
    >> Editor, Stereophile


    Unbelievable!

    Mr. Krueger is obviously out to pick a fight however he can...
  16. dave weil

    dave weil Guest

    On 25 Aug 2003 12:24:59 -0700, Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com (John
    Atkinson) wrote:

    >"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
    >news:<9yOdnWjqp8wdjteiXTWJhQ@comcast.com>...
    >> "dave weil" <dweil@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >> news:mg3kkv0277naih3fes33kt21naf4m77nbm@4ax.com
    >> > He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.

    >>
    >> Sure he did. One word: "Wrong".

    >
    >I didn't use that word, Mr. Krueger. I said that your statement that the
    >link to Stereophile's review of the CardDeluxe was not working was
    >"incorrect." I said this because, to the best of my knowledge, there were
    >no interruptions of service and the link was working both when I checked
    >it first thing this morning and the last time I acessed the review, which
    >was over the weekend.
    >
    >I felt it important to reasure those wanting to access Stereophile's
    >on-line archives that the link was working.
    >
    >> > If there's any anger in the two posts, it seems to have come from your
    >> > end.

    >>
    >> I can come up with a hundred ways that Atkinson could have treated the
    >> matter more factually and provoked zero heat.

    >
    >My posting was about as dispassionate as it was possible to make it, Mr.
    >Krueger. Yes, my single word "incorrect" was on the blunt side, but it
    >was not intended to belittle you.


    Notice how he tired to make it seem even *more* plunt by originally
    accusing you of saying "Wrong"? At least he's admitted that he was
    incorrect, but I think that this goes to the issue that he is hellbent
    to pick a fight with you - so hellbent that his reality actually
    warps. He seemed to actually have read "Wrong" (which would have been
    an even more "blunt" form of address) in your post.

    >> Nailing shallow-thinking bozos like Atkinson on the grounds of claimed
    >> omniscience is so easy that it has almost stopped being fun.

    >
    >And, as usual, the obligatory parting insult is thrown my way :)


    Yep. He can surely make a mountain out of a molehill and toss a few
    grenades while he's at it...
  17. dave weil

    dave weil Guest

    On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:51:41 -0500, dave weil <dweil@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    >On 25 Aug 2003 12:24:59 -0700, Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com (John
    >Atkinson) wrote:
    >
    >>"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
    >>news:<9yOdnWjqp8wdjteiXTWJhQ@comcast.com>...
    >>> "dave weil" <dweil@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:mg3kkv0277naih3fes33kt21naf4m77nbm@4ax.com
    >>> > He didn't address you in any dismissive way like you did to him.
    >>>
    >>> Sure he did. One word: "Wrong".

    >>
    >>I didn't use that word, Mr. Krueger. I said that your statement that the
    >>link to Stereophile's review of the CardDeluxe was not working was
    >>"incorrect." I said this because, to the best of my knowledge, there were
    >>no interruptions of service and the link was working both when I checked
    >>it first thing this morning and the last time I acessed the review, which
    >>was over the weekend.
    >>
    >>I felt it important to reasure those wanting to access Stereophile's
    >>on-line archives that the link was working.
    >>
    >>> > If there's any anger in the two posts, it seems to have come from your
    >>> > end.
    >>>
    >>> I can come up with a hundred ways that Atkinson could have treated the
    >>> matter more factually and provoked zero heat.

    >>
    >>My posting was about as dispassionate as it was possible to make it, Mr.
    >>Krueger. Yes, my single word "incorrect" was on the blunt side, but it
    >>was not intended to belittle you.

    >
    >Notice how he tired to make it seem even *more* plunt


    Or "blunt" even...

    > by originally
    >accusing you of saying "Wrong"? At least he's admitted that he was
    >incorrect, but I think that this goes to the issue that he is hellbent
    >to pick a fight with you - so hellbent that his reality actually
    >warps. He seemed to actually have read "Wrong" (which would have been
    >an even more "blunt" form of address) in your post.
    >
    >>> Nailing shallow-thinking bozos like Atkinson on the grounds of claimed
    >>> omniscience is so easy that it has almost stopped being fun.

    >>
    >>And, as usual, the obligatory parting insult is thrown my way :)

    >
    >Yep. He can surely make a mountain out of a molehill and toss a few
    >grenades while he's at it...
  18. dave weil said:

    > >"The best of my knowledge" admits no knowledge whatsoever at the time and
    > >place I mentioned the interruption of service, doesn't it Atkinson? No
    > >doubt, that was your situation. Nice deceptive way to make it seem that you
    > >knew something that you didn't know!


    > >My statement was correct at the time and place I made it, which makes your
    > >claim that it was false totally incorrect, Atkinson.


    > >LOL!


    > >It was a false claim. Why would you possibly start trying to be truthful at
    > >this late date, Atkinson?


    > Unbelievable!


    Surely not. Only a newbie might think that.

    > Mr. Krueger is obviously out to pick a fight however he can...


    Yes, the borganoia seems to have metastasized beyond projections.
    Perhaps an encounter with some randy bears is in order for the Kroo.

  19. >> Well, the Card Deluxe is only a 2-track card so if you want to record or
    >> play back more than 2 channels at a time, there's no comparison.

    >
    >i thought the playback was just 2 outs for stereo, and you could
    >listen to all the tracks you mwant to at the same time.


    Yup.
  20. On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:58:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
    wrote:

    >If the recording software you use does an internal mix of the multiple
    >tracks (many do, example Cool Edit Pro) then you only need 2 sound card
    >channels for playback. But, strictly speaking you're not playing back
    >multiple tracks, you're playing back a 2-track mixdown of them. In some
    >cases this can make a difference. If it doesn't for you, then the Card
    >Deluxe can work for you.
    >


    That's a rather individual reading of the terms "Track" and "Channel"
    as applied to multi-track audio recorders.

    Could you quote the recording software that DOESN'T offer a stereo
    mix?

Share This Page