«

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >> >> You self-profess to be an expert in market research by visual
> >> >> observation on airplanes and extrapolation of bogus data. You are the
> >> >> coat hanger of market research.
> >> >
> >> >nonsense. you refuse to believe what's actually happening in this
> >> >industry, even when the evidence is staring at you in the face. what
> >> >better way than to actually observe it than by going out into the real
> >> >world and looking around, rather than mindlessly point to meaningless
> >> >numbers that can be spun to mean anything you want them to mean.
> >>
> >> I'm enough of an expert in market research to know that someone
> >> walking down the aisle of an airplane and counting brand usage is
> >> producing nothing but meaningless numbers if he projects those numbers
> >> to some sort of market share conclusion.
> >
> >then you aren't as expert as you think you are. first of all and as i
> >said back then, it's not solely on airplanes, it's everywhere.
>
> Oh, yeah. I forgot that you also visually estimate Apple's market
> share based on what you see at Starbucks.

nope.

> >second,
> >just look at apple's financials. how do you reconcile the fact that a
> >company with such a tiny market share by your numbers has had
> >consistent growth outpacing the market for many years
>
> The total market is huge. Apple's share is a very respectable number,
> but it is still a small percentage of the total market.

and as i explained last summer, that number has little relevance to
what's actually happening in the real world. i don't know why you hold
it in such high regard.

> > and is now the
> >most valuable tech company based on market cap?
>
> >obviously, a lot of people are buying their products, which explains
> >why they are so commonly seen in a wide variety of venues. if apple
> >really did have as tiny a share as you seem to think, then one wouldn't
> >expect to see anywhere near as many, and that's clearly not the case.
>
> The total number of units is huge. A small percentage of the total is
> still a lot of units.

it's not about total units, it's about percentages. you do understand
the difference, right?

> >> >it doesn't matter what type of music was used. wire is wire. the laws
> >> >of physics apply regardless of what type of music it is.
> >>
> >> Of course the type of music makes a difference.
> >
> >nonsense. it makes no difference whatsoever.
> >
> >if two pieces of wire are electrically identical, there won't be any
> >difference in what you hear no matter what is played through them. how
> >could there be?
>
> There are some types of music that if a badly scratched CD of the
> music was played you wouldn't notice the scratch.

there you go twisting things. i'm talking about speaker *wire*, not
cds, scratched or not.

minor scratches won't be noticed due to error correction. even an
unscratched cd will have some number of correctable read errors. if a
scratch is bad enough to cause uncorrectable errors, then the cd player
will mistrack. that *will* be noticed.

> >> You are talking about
> >> the reproduction of sound and discerning the clarity of what you hear
> >> compared to what it should sound like or what it sounds like on the
> >> other system. There is some "music" that would sound the same no
> >> matter what wire was use.
> >
> >*all* music will sound the same if the wires have the same electrical
> >characteristics. ultimately, it's nothing more than electrons bouncing
> >around and they don't care what music it is, or that it is even music
> >at all. it could be dc.
>
> If that was the case, all music would sound the same coming from your
> laptop's onboard speakers as it would coming from a set of Bang &
> Olufsen high-end speakers.

there you go twisting things. i'm talking about speaker *wire*, not
speakers. seriously, do try to stay on topic.

wires just carry an electrical current. speakers convert that
electrical current into movement of air. you do understand the
difference, right?

In article <jgvo1e$mt0$>, Trevor <>
wrote:

> Better than you understand the concept of "arguing from the general to the
> particular" being a debating fallacy obviously.
> If YOU can't state what you *actually* mean, don't expect us to read your
> mind (what there is of it) correctly.

i did state what i meant, several times.

why do you insist on flawed slanted comparisons? afraid of the truth?

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:090220120159407078%...
> i did state what i meant, several times.

Rubbish! ONLY in your very last post did you change your argument to ONLY at
320kbs.


> why do you insist on flawed slanted comparisons? afraid of the truth?

You haven't got a clue of the truth since you refuse to even try it for
yourself, and have ABSOLUTELY no idea what others can hear, but will keep
claiming yourself as an authority hoping someone might believe you. Fact is
nobody else cares what you think. They simply make up their own minds what
to listen to and why.

Trevor.

"Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Nothing wrong with a NAIM amp if its connected to a normal
> resistive/inductive load. It's when it is connected to a
> resistive/capacitive load that it got into trouble. This was never a
> problem until it ran into the fad for fancy cables.

What crap, most electrostatic speakers will be harder to drive than any
speaker cable, as well as some electrodynamics with poorly designed
crossovers for that matter.


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naim_Audio
> "The company's pre- and power- amplifiers, especially, are
> electrically matched and are designed to be used together."

Irrelevant to speaker cable, and more likely to be a ploy to sell both
components, especially if the used non standard levels and impedance to
force you to do so. Usually a good enough reason for me to go elsewhere!


> "Dire
> warnings attach to experimentation with other manufacturers
> components,[6] particularly in the case for some "high-end"
> loudspeaker cables, whose inductance/capacitance characteristics
> present unstable loads to the high-current devices used inside Naim
> power amplifiers - these have been documented to cause damage to
> same.[5]"
>

Probably didn't use load compensation on the output like most other
manufacturers. More of an amplifier problem than a cable problem IMO.

Trevor.

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:38:14 -0500, nospam <>
wrote:

>
>> >second,
>> >just look at apple's financials. how do you reconcile the fact that a
>> >company with such a tiny market share by your numbers has had
>> >consistent growth outpacing the market for many years
>>
>> The total market is huge. Apple's share is a very respectable number,
>> but it is still a small percentage of the total market.
>
>and as i explained last summer, that number has little relevance to
>what's actually happening in the real world. i don't know why you hold
>it in such high regard.
>
>> > and is now the
>> >most valuable tech company based on market cap?
>>
>> >obviously, a lot of people are buying their products, which explains
>> >why they are so commonly seen in a wide variety of venues. if apple
>> >really did have as tiny a share as you seem to think, then one wouldn't
>> >expect to see anywhere near as many, and that's clearly not the case.
>>
>> The total number of units is huge. A small percentage of the total is
>> still a lot of units.
>
>it's not about total units, it's about percentages. you do understand
>the difference, right?

This is the kind of statement that destroys your credibility. In
reply to a comment about "...one wouldn't expect to see anywhere near
as many...", I wrote "The total number of units is huge" and you
idiotically replied "it's not about total units, it's about
percentages".

Your whole argument is based on the number of total units. You feel
that because you see a lot of units in use that Apple has a greater
share - percentage - of the market. Not seeing that a huge market
results in a lot of units in use of a brand that holds a small share
of the total market is almost unbelievably dense.


>> >> >it doesn't matter what type of music was used. wire is wire. the laws
>> >> >of physics apply regardless of what type of music it is.
>> >>
>> >> Of course the type of music makes a difference.
>> >
>> >nonsense. it makes no difference whatsoever.
>> >
>> >if two pieces of wire are electrically identical, there won't be any
>> >difference in what you hear no matter what is played through them. how
>> >could there be?
>>
>> There are some types of music that if a badly scratched CD of the
>> music was played you wouldn't notice the scratch.
>
>there you go twisting things. i'm talking about speaker *wire*, not
>cds, scratched or not.

You are talking about the clarity of sound as heard delivered by two
different systems. You can't *hear* the music using just wire of any
kind. The clarity of sound is dependent on all of the components of
the system.

>minor scratches won't be noticed due to error correction. even an
>unscratched cd will have some number of correctable read errors. if a
>scratch is bad enough to cause uncorrectable errors, then the cd player
>will mistrack. that *will* be noticed.
>
>> >> You are talking about
>> >> the reproduction of sound and discerning the clarity of what you hear
>> >> compared to what it should sound like or what it sounds like on the
>> >> other system. There is some "music" that would sound the same no
>> >> matter what wire was use.
>> >
>> >*all* music will sound the same if the wires have the same electrical
>> >characteristics. ultimately, it's nothing more than electrons bouncing
>> >around and they don't care what music it is, or that it is even music
>> >at all. it could be dc.
>>
>> If that was the case, all music would sound the same coming from your
>> laptop's onboard speakers as it would coming from a set of Bang &
>> Olufsen high-end speakers.
>
>there you go twisting things. i'm talking about speaker *wire*, not
>speakers. seriously, do try to stay on topic.

Read what I wrote above.

Are you seriously claiming that the laptop and the B&O systems would
reproduce sound the same if both used the same wire?

>wires just carry an electrical current. speakers convert that
>electrical current into movement of air. you do understand the
>difference, right?

Read what I wrote above.

You make inane statements and unsupportable claims and then whine that
any contradiction of those statements or claims is "twisting" what you
say. Pitiful.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:39:41 +1100, "Trevor" <> wrote:

>
>"nospam" <> wrote in message
>news:090220120159407078%.. .
>> i did state what i meant, several times.
>
>Rubbish! ONLY in your very last post did you change your argument to ONLY at
>320kbs.
>
>
>> why do you insist on flawed slanted comparisons? afraid of the truth?
>
>You haven't got a clue of the truth since you refuse to even try it for
>yourself, and have ABSOLUTELY no idea what others can hear, but will keep
>claiming yourself as an authority hoping someone might believe you. Fact is
>nobody else cares what you think. They simply make up their own minds what
>to listen to and why.
>
nospam is a "self-professed" authority.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article <>, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

> There have been tests where one type of cable has been substituted for
> another with the result that there has been an audible change in the
> sound of the music. That's what I meant when I said that different
> cables have different 'sounds'.

cite one.

In article <jh00nt$8cl$>, Trevor <>
wrote:

> > i did state what i meant, several times.
>
> Rubbish! ONLY in your very last post did you change your argument to ONLY at
> 320kbs.

i didn't change a thing, nor did i say only 320k. some things are
obvious and don't have to be explicitly spelled out. one is that you
must pick the best of each for a fair comparison. anything else will
skew the results, which is what it looks like you want to do.

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >> >obviously, a lot of people are buying their products, which explains
> >> >why they are so commonly seen in a wide variety of venues. if apple
> >> >really did have as tiny a share as you seem to think, then one wouldn't
> >> >expect to see anywhere near as many, and that's clearly not the case.
> >>
> >> The total number of units is huge. A small percentage of the total is
> >> still a lot of units.
> >
> >it's not about total units, it's about percentages. you do understand
> >the difference, right?
>
> This is the kind of statement that destroys your credibility. In
> reply to a comment about "...one wouldn't expect to see anywhere near
> as many...", I wrote "The total number of units is huge" and you
> idiotically replied "it's not about total units, it's about
> percentages".
>
> Your whole argument is based on the number of total units.

no it isn't and it never was. don't twist what i've said.

> You feel
> that because you see a lot of units in use that Apple has a greater
> share - percentage - of the market. Not seeing that a huge market
> results in a lot of units in use of a brand that holds a small share
> of the total market is almost unbelievably dense.

nope. what i said was those 'official' market share numbers don't match
reality.

apple stock broke 490 today, which means apple is now worth more than
microsoft and google *combined*, further proof that those 'official'
numbers don't mean a whole lot.

> >> >if two pieces of wire are electrically identical, there won't be any
> >> >difference in what you hear no matter what is played through them. how
> >> >could there be?
> >>
> >> There are some types of music that if a badly scratched CD of the
> >> music was played you wouldn't notice the scratch.
> >
> >there you go twisting things. i'm talking about speaker *wire*, not
> >cds, scratched or not.
>
> You are talking about the clarity of sound as heard delivered by two
> different systems. You can't *hear* the music using just wire of any
> kind. The clarity of sound is dependent on all of the components of
> the system.

of course all of the components matter to the sound. nobody said
otherwise. yet another diversion.

the issue that started this thread is about speaker cable, not other
components. in particular, it was monster cable versus coat hanger. you
are bringing up scratched cds, laptop speakers and who knows what else
you have in mind.

> >> >> You are talking about
> >> >> the reproduction of sound and discerning the clarity of what you hear
> >> >> compared to what it should sound like or what it sounds like on the
> >> >> other system. There is some "music" that would sound the same no
> >> >> matter what wire was use.
> >> >
> >> >*all* music will sound the same if the wires have the same electrical
> >> >characteristics. ultimately, it's nothing more than electrons bouncing
> >> >around and they don't care what music it is, or that it is even music
> >> >at all. it could be dc.
> >>
> >> If that was the case, all music would sound the same coming from your
> >> laptop's onboard speakers as it would coming from a set of Bang &
> >> Olufsen high-end speakers.
> >
> >there you go twisting things. i'm talking about speaker *wire*, not
> >speakers. seriously, do try to stay on topic.
>
> Read what I wrote above.
>
> Are you seriously claiming that the laptop and the B&O systems would
> reproduce sound the same if both used the same wire?

i never said that. read what i wrote above.

> >wires just carry an electrical current. speakers convert that
> >electrical current into movement of air. you do understand the
> >difference, right?
>
> Read what I wrote above.
>
> You make inane statements and unsupportable claims and then whine that
> any contradiction of those statements or claims is "twisting" what you
> say. Pitiful.

all my statements are supportable and i provide links when necessary.
what's pitiful is you keep twisting what i say and adding all sorts of
unrelated things in a desperate attempt to show that something i said
was wrong. it isn't working and it is making you look incredibly
foolish.

In article <>, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

> >> > i did state what i meant, several times.
> >>
> >> Rubbish! ONLY in your very last post did you change your argument to ONLY
> >> at 320kbs.
> >
> >i didn't change a thing, nor did i say only 320k. some things are
> >obvious and don't have to be explicitly spelled out. one is that you
> >must pick the best of each for a fair comparison. anything else will
> >skew the results, which is what it looks like you want to do.
>
> I picked that which was commercially available which, in the case of
> MP3, generally wasn't 320k.

256k aac is readily available and the difference between that and 320k
is negligible. regardless, if you use anything lower than the best of
each, you are skewing the results.