The LSi9...is it really that good?

headrott

maximillian wrote: »

BTW, here's a little more info for you on why bigger boxes are better (in relation to MIT cables that is)....

All cables (even lamp power cords) have resistance, inductance, and capacitance. It's called Characteristic impedance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristic_impedance

In reality this is hard to model since each of these 3 components are along the cable length, not as a single point as the pictures in the link suggest. As the MIT video explains, this is a "network". As such, this network has a resonant frequency... it's a frequency where the cable has less impedance than at other frequencies. It acts like a band-pass filter. Think of it as a frequency hump.

So cables will color the sound because its response is different at different frequencies. And since the RLC components vary with many aspects of the cable's construction, all cables are different. Also, how the cable responds also depends on the signal applied to it. This is why some cables don't work well with one person's gear but will with someone else's. It's because the gear's characteristic impedance will interact with the cable's.

So what the MIT box does is add other resonant frequencies by adding RLC components (passive components) inside the box. Each resonant frequency is what they call an articulation pole. The more poles they have the more they can try to overcome the non-linear response of the overall cable and produce as much of a flat frequency response as possible. With fewer poles and you will simply have too few humps to try to simulate a flat response. So the more poles, the more components that are required, thus the bigger the box; but overall a better sounding cable since it no longer attenuates at some frequencies.

Of course, adding bi-wiring and other cable construction changes then makes the network more complicated and they need to add more components to counteract the added affects.

I hope this explanation is correct. Perhaps someone with better knowledge can explain it better. I am an EE, but my mind has already fallen asleep.

I understand what you are saying in this post. I cannot say whether it's correct for certain. I am not an Electronics Engineer, but I do understand what you said. Why Geoff4rfc has not acknowledge your post, I cannot say for sure either. If he's looking for an answer to his question, he should acknowledge and further investigate your post. That's my opinion.

Also, Jesse's analogy makes sense if your motivation is to not discount differences in cables or gear in general.

Greg

Geoff4rfc

headrott wrote: »

I understand what you are saying in this post. I cannot say whether it's correct for certain. I am not an Electronics Engineer, but I do understand what you said. Why Geoff4rfc has not acknowledge your post, I cannot say for sure either. If he's looking for an answer to his question, he should acknowledge and further investigate your post. That's my opinion.

Also, Jesse's analogy makes sense if your motivation is to not discount differences in cables or gear in general.

Greg

Yes, I saw max's post, thank you. I wish that post could have come at the beginning.

Regardless of what h9 and F1 think of me is irrelevant and certainly unimportant to me, as far as the analogy goes, I still don't see how it related to my question, which I had no idea was going to be this difficult to interpret.

At least with amps, the differences are obvious, this one is better for this because it's a solid state, this is better for this, its a tube, this feeds more head room because it puts out more power, etc etc.

Now for a moment, please put yourself in my position. A guy tells me (figuratively speaking) that this particular box does one incredible thing, it serves only one purpose and is primarily aimed in one direction, and once placed in that direction, will achieve these results I've been existing without, welcome to a new and better world.

Then I find out this box is one in a line of 8 better ones, the first box loses some credibility and now I'm looking for some closure.

I tried conveying my curiosity without being a smart a** or getting condescending or without appearing to be a complete idiot.

I first admitted to being a new guy in this area of expertise, that seemed to fly right over one posters head as he promptly accused me of thinking I was an expert after reading one review.

And just because I wasn't satisfied with the analogy, It was implied that I was dumb.

Those that got impatient with me were quick to push me off into the area that I needed to do my research, and then degrade me with condescending remarks.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but don't most of the members here, to one level or another, pride themselves with their understanding for technology and the advancements there of?

If this is true, then I think my question was perfectly valid to ask here on the forum. And if I'm wrong, then I'm sorry for ever asking the question in the first place.

Max's lengthy statement pretty much lines up with Enders brief answer. These guys stuck their necks out and nailed it and I thank them for it. Neither one even came close to degrading me for it or tried making me feel like my question had any validity to it.

The answers those two gave was all I was after, I'm sorry I wasn't able to make that clear to everyone.

BeefJerky

heiney9 wrote: »

Sorry, but you can express whatever you want about my posting style, it's not changing just because you say it should. Talk about a God complex, if you are so bent out of shape, which you clearly are or you wouldn't be carrrying on in mutliple threads, about my posts.........then use the ignore feature as well.

H9

Your posts don't generally bother me, but I've got fairly thick skin. I guess I (and the others who pointed it out) thought that maybe if it was brought to your attention, you might actually want to make an effort to improve yourself. However, feel free to continue being an a**hat in your posts if you want; I'll sit back and occasionally get a good chuckle from the absurdity. I just feel bad for all the new people who come for help, only to receive unhelpful and rude replies from you. It's no wonder we have so many new people who don't stick around.

Geoff4rfc wrote: »

Personally, I don't care about a members post count other than I can generally rely on that members personal experience or advice due to that high count, and not expect to be slandered or insulted about my comprehension, especially when I'm just asking a specific question, that's just rude behavior. One member said I was deliberately obtuse or just an idiot, and then attacked my comprehension level. Another member said I was incapable of simple logic and he would dumb down his answer for me. Now this is coming from members you would expect to show more of a "how can I help you understand" attitude instead of a "how stupid can you be" attitude.

Is asking a member with longstanding membership and experience not a form of research?

I give you two distinct styles;

EndersShadow; Geoff:
If I understand it correctly the more articulation poles the fewer gaps in overall frequency response as the poles provide more overlap the more you have.

PrazVT; I found this interview with Bruce Bryson answered alot of questions regarding the tech MIT uses ..(link provided)

cstmar01; Personally if you want to find out there is a demo program on the forum that is run. Cost of shipping will get them to your door and you can try it in your own system.

Personally in HT I never notice a huge difference with cables. There was some but not as much as when I switched over and did more in my 2 channel. Granted my HT wasn't cheap but it was not nearly like my 2 channel is.

DSkip; Geoff, the technical talk is all great, but it really doesn't help you understand WHY its better. Experience is the only way to go. What has helped me learn is getting together with other Polkies and hearing their comments about this or that. It tipped me off to listen for this or that and made the great gear that much more enjoyable. It's also help me determine what I want/don't want out of a system and narrow down what I want to upgrade next. There is no substitution for experience in this hobby IMO.

heiney9; You obviously don't understand the contents of the box.

F1nut; For the same reason one amp costs $500.00 and another $5,000. Both do the same thing, but one does it better than the other.

Two of these are not like the others. Granted, I did little research but I did watch the companies video explaining what the box did and what was inside it. According to my "level of comprehension", I didn't understand why this box did such a wonderful thing for your music at one price, and then does it again for tens of thousands more.

Hoping for "experienced" members to help connect the dots, I reached out to further my research by asking here.

If I may, thanks to those that put forth the effort to answer my question. Sorry to those that got impatient with me and sorry if I wasted your time.

I learned more than cables here, I learned about character.

Well said. However, H9 is the only one that I've seen repeatedly post with such a poor unhelpful attitude; at least in recent times.

That being said, I don't want to be the eternal pessimist. Most of the members here are great. I would like to especially commend EndersShadow, as he is one of the most helpful members around here.

pyrocyborg wrote: »

MP3, on the other side, are, depending on the bitrate, easy or harder to discernate. 320 lame might score 50/50 versus flac/cd, because there isn't a lot of flaws in there, but after listening a flac, there might be something you like better, even if you can't "point it out". Psychoacoustics effects like masking sure do a good job giving you the impression that you ear something, but on some tracks, it just doesn't make it right.

Agreed. However, H9 adamantly claims that encoders, source and bitrate don't matter; all MP3s suck equally. That was my primary point of contention with him on the subject.

Anyways, using almost every recent methods to compare both formats, there is some bias induced by memory (you can't adequately compare using a memory, even if it is a few minutes old... even a few seconds old makes it all different from what it really is).

True. There is no perfect way to test these things. However, blind tests (specifically double-blind) are the best we have, and do give very accurate results. Placebo effects are very real, and a DBT is a great way to avoid them.

ravaneli wrote: »

placebo.
Demand a blind test.

I find it interesting how the ones who claim the biggest differences are always the first to denounce blind tests. If the difference is that great, what is there to be afraid of? You should be happy to do the blind test and reveal the truth to the skeptics!

pyrocyborg

Well... anyways, I'm a very practical person, logical and sure, a very skeptical one too. It may be due to my scientific formation, and the way I was raised... but I'll assume that. It may biases my actions towards rejecting something potentially true, instead of accepting something false. However, I do not say that "believers" are wrong: I only want to point out that neither physicals (let's say quantitatives) differences or psychoacoustical (qualitatives) ones were really tested in most double blind test. Most of those tests are either flawed, or might let some place to interpretation (i.e. "believers" could say that testers forgot about that and this... etc., and they would be right).

While double blind tests do help against placebo effects, it doesn't help about the memory retieval issues I mentionned before... and it is a relevant problem we cannot deny when you use the same participant to compare both stimuli. I do agree, however, that if I ever see a few well done experiments (i.e. methodologically robust) whose results may tend to conclude that pricier cables are better, with placebo effect ruled out of the equation, then, I might believe. I do not deny that there is some difference in cables, but those seems to result from physicals properties. It may be possible that our mind makes up those differences, independantly of the placebo effect... but right now, I think we couldn't prove it unless a well conducted experiment does it.

And do not tell me that "it's too hard" a phenomenom to understand, that this kind of science is too hard to understand. We studied a lot of things in both cognitive and perception psychology that posed similar "psycho-physical interraction" problems, and were able to draw certain conclusions, modify or rule out theories and reject others hypothesis.

So, my point is, unless a methodologically robust experiment is made and proves either point, we aren't helping each others. Sure, physical properties and cold facts could tend us to believe there is no difference between cable, but we cannot assume anything if we don't study or draw conclusions upon psychological factors that might be part of the game (either placebo; memory issues; or for example, a complex psychoacoustical phenomenom that could effectively makes us perceive better sound if certain physical properties interracts with each others).

And back to topic, LSi are that good!

heiney9

^^^^Blah....Blah.....Blah....

Why not just try it for yourself. I don't get the whole "YOU have to prove to ME YOU hear a difference for me to believe YOU". The best test is to do an evaluation yourself rather than go on and on about how even though you have never tried different cables or whatever.

Try it, if you hear a difference, then continue up the line for cables or whatever it be. If not, sell the cables or whatever and keep the cheapies and THEN relate your experiences.

It's so damn simple, really it is.

H9

P.s. I'll add if you don't trust what you are hearing, then maybe you need to be less invested in a hobby which all the pleasure comes from listening to music.

Erik Tracy

heiney9 wrote: »

I'll add if you don't trust what you are hearing, then maybe you need to be less invested in a hobby which all the pleasure comes from listening to music.

That's the best thing I've read on the internet....ever....

pyrocyborg

H9, it's not about trusting what I am hearing, because I'm hearing differences between amps, other components, sources files and speakers. But because I couldn't hear a difference in a cable of 2 feet long, I should change my hobby? How is that an argument? Just because I tend to be objective, but yet involved in my personal listening experience, I should get out of here? It's like saying that a physician who is objective in his approach can't help you as he doesn't believe the same things than you do, or because he doesn't feel the pain as you do. We can be both passionnate and objective, you know.

While I do agree that the pleasure itself isn't measurable, and we don't care, it wasn't even what I was refering about. I only said that maybe differences between cables are a psychoacoustical effect, something "our mind" makes up from physical properties. On the other hand, maybe it's all made up because we believe so, that we have expectancies and yeah, we all know our mind is that strong.

If either of these are true, it still doesn't change the fact that some people will hear those differences, that those a real for him/her. If he believes in those differences, or if these are "real" (from an objective point of view) doesn't matter... but thing is if these aren't real (i.e. if they are all made up from your biliefs/expectancies), could we at least help people not sink there money in there anymore? Just because I seek some truth in this world full of non-sense (not talking about audio here, but about everything), I should be categorised as a person who cannot help other people, or as someone who has no experience, no passion?

heiney9

If you can't hear a difference that's fine. I would like to ask how many types of cables and how many types of rigs you tried? That's your experience. What I don't understand is why you (and I say you but I mean many others too) want to try and explain away why those of us who can and do hear large differences aren't really hearing them.

I've been in this hobby probably about 30 years since I was about 12-13 years old. I've worked in high end retail stores selling, buying and demoing a lot of different gear. I wasn't always a believer in a lot of things until I took the time and put in the effort to try a lot of different things. I was a skeptical as anyone about cables, power chords, etc. I no longer am after all my own experience I discovered differences exist and then I pursued those that I preferred.

My point is, I have been around the block more than a few times, once was just as jaded and skeptical as anyone and spent years demo'ing, listening, talking with local audio people to get where I am today with my rig. I don't need anyone coming in telling me I don't hear or experience what I do. Or some silly DBT to prove to others who have no vested interest in my listening experience to tell me I'm all wrong, etc. That's when I typically go off the deep-end.

I don't take this hobby lightly, it's a passion and if you are 100% fully invested and really enjoy music the payoff is huge if you keep working at it. If not, if you are a casual listener of don't take it that seriously, not a problem, but one shouldn't be lecturing those who do know about stuff we are already well aware of and have experienced along our journey.

H9

michael1947

I built my first speaker cabinet in 1962. I have heard a lot of systems, built many and still own a few. If I were to summarize the entire post I would say...everyone is right and everyone is wrong. Presumably each of us is on here for enjoyment and enrichment of our lives and that comes by: a little bragg'in a little show'in off and a little help'in out. It is a hobby, it is for fun and it is very very subjective. Please be civil to each other or it can drain the fun for the rest of us. Consider that if you woke up this morning in the land of the free and the home of the brave that you are one lucky duck as many did not. Some of us live in countries where there is no electricity, some with no civil rights and many hundreds or thousands of people did not wake up at all. Many starved to death others were murdered and others just got tired. Please take the time before you post and ask yourself if you have any positive information to ad or if what you are about to write will just ad to an argument. I own MIT cables, LSI-9's and Radio Shack cables and the only one of the 3 to make this month's issue of Stereophile Magazine's recommended list of equipment was the Radio SHack....Your experience, your ears, your money...your happiness and life...enjoy them all.

maximillian

If you don't hear differences then there could be other limiting factors in your system. You don't buy top of the line MIT cables then stick them on $50 speakers. All the components and even the room and source material has to be scrutinized in your trek to find audio bliss.

shack

pyrocyborg wrote:

If either of these are true, it still doesn't change the fact that some people will hear those differences, that those a real for him/her. If he believes in those differences, or if these are "real" (from an objective point of view) doesn't matter... but thing is if these aren't real (i.e. if they are all made up from your biliefs/expectancies), could we at least help people not sink there money in there anymore? Just because I seek some truth in this world full of non-sense (not talking about audio here, but about everything), I should be categorised as a person who cannot help other people, or as someone who has no experience, no passion?

There must be differences or else these arguments would not occur. Under your scenario, the difference is all in one's mind because we want it to be so. Must be mass imagination because there are tens of thousands of people (or more) that are on the side of "I hear a difference" from all different walks of life. Are they all imagining? What about the naysayer who took the time to try to prove there was no difference and heard the difference? Was that person subconsciously trying to prove that they were wrong and therefore heard something that didn't actually exist? Not likely.

Instead of your proposal "but thing is if these aren't real (i.e. if they are all made up from your biliefs/expectancies), could we at least help people not sink there money in there anymore?" in which you think you are HELPING by telling someone there is no difference when you can't prove it either way...encourage someone to try it for themselves and come to their own conclusion. I find the naysayers always want to do as you propose to "save us from the snake oil high end cables" like it is some sort of holy mission to cleanse the audio world.

On the flip side most who can hear the difference tend to be in the following camp:

heiney9 wrote:

Why not just try it for yourself. I don't get the whole "YOU have to prove to ME YOU hear a difference for me to believe YOU". The best test is to do an evaluation yourself rather than go on and on about how even though you have never tried different cables or whatever.

Try it, if you hear a difference, then continue up the line for cables or whatever it be. If not, sell the cables or whatever and keep the cheapies and THEN relate your experiences.

It's so damn simple, really it is.

He is right...it really is that simple.

I for one do not care what YOU hear. Whatever it is...so be it. I am more than willing to offer my experience to anyone who asks and wants to know my opinion and then they are free to accept what I say or not. I am not out to change anyone's mind but only to convey what I hear...AND...I don't need someone to save me from anything when it comes to audio.

pyrocyborg

By the way, I didn't meant to be rude in my last messages. I only wanted to point out that for now, this debate goes nowhere as there is no hard proof for either position. Maybe my sentences where incomplete, or were flawed because I tend to "build up" my sentences using french, then translating them the best I can in english. It can comes out as sentences or expressions that might be good in french, but aren't in english.

If I could try to be brief this time: I know it's utopical, but as it's mostly a matter of beliefs for now (for either position, as we have no facts yet), could we stop saying that people who can't hear what better cables have to offer are limited in their experience, gear, or are hard deaf? Or people arguing that cable is cable could stop saying that everybody else is wrong?

I'm justtrying to nuance, not to point out that someone was right and the other wrong. I was only mentionning that we have no evidence yet that proves or rules anything. People can do whatever they want to. Sure, I seek truth, but I do not detain it, so there is no point for me to go on some sort of holy war, as we have no evidence yet! And even there... just trying to seek some answers!

And please quote me on a sentence where I clearly said there were no difference between two full length cables. I stated that I heard differences between two 10' cables (which were a Crystal Cable and a MIT btw, don't remember the model names) on a MSRP 15 000$ system built by a long date audiophile for demo purpose in his own shop. However, I couldn't tell which one was better, as they sure sounded a little bit different, but in no way better one from each other. I said I didn't hear a difference between the short length 2 feet ones, but that's about all. Do I have a lot of experience in the domain? Hell no, but that gear was revealing enough to show a difference in a 10 feet cable run... but not in a 2 feet one, from what I heard.

Sure, I have a modest rig, and I like most comments and help I am getting from this forum. You helped me a lot, and sure will continue, but all I see is this debate is going nowhere. And I also said, maybe it was in another topic: try by yourself, if you hear a difference, buy it. I don't think I told someone not to buy a pair of cables, except probably when someone with a 500$ gear asked me if he had to buy 500$ worth of cables.

Erik Tracy

:cheesygrin:

cnh

Dudes, give it a rest! The "drinks" are on me!

Happy St. Patrick's Day! Fire up the tubes (if you have them--mine are on!) down a cold one and listen to the tunes ("lossless". that is, or vinyl if you prefer!).

I like the "warm" glow...how comfy. No noise, no dissonance, no debate. Just "music"!

"One good thing about music, when it hits you, you feel no pain."
― Bob Marley

Enjoy!

cnh

gdb

LSi9s to pro amps to cables n' snake oil to drinking n' tunes...........sometimes the end DOES justify the means !

reeltrouble1

at some point the best you can hope for is the occasional snap of bone breaking against the expected dull thud thumping sound.

RT1

teekay0007

I think we can consider this dead horse beaten!

Glad I was only looking on from the sidelines...:rolleyes:

headrott

BeefJerky wrote: »

Well said. However, H9 is the only one that I've seen repeatedly post with such a poor unhelpful attitude; at least in recent times.

In case you forgot, H9 was voted Polkie of the Year. His name is on a plaque at Polk HQ! If he is so unhelpful and rude, why was he voted into such an esteemed group? Brock, IMO is very helpful and those people who think he is rude again IMO take what he says too personally and are easily offended.

Greg

Tour2ma

shack,
I love you bro, but you know that "listen for yourself" is where h9 ends up; it's not where he starts.

heiney9 wrote: »

A wine afficinado doesn't start out with the most expensive wine. Generally you start in the lower middle and with experience and discovering different likes and dislikes you move on up.

Oh dear God... not wine, too... :rolleyes:

BeefJerky wrote: »

Let's do it!

It, AKA the blind test, will never happen.

heiney9 wrote: »

Call Joe Abrams or MIT then you will get the specific answers you crave. At your current level of comprehension I doubt you'll understand any of the terminology or engineering behind the concepts and implementation. But knock yourself out.

Translation: "I have no clue how it works."

DSkip wrote: »

Geoff, the technical talk is all great, but it really doesn't help you understand WHY its better. Experience is the only way to go.

Sorry, but that is just bass-ackwards...

Technical understanding is the why. And in this case the MIT folks go to great lengths to develop technical explanations. Experience is limited to what, i.e., what you hear. You cannot hear why.

maximillian wrote: »

So when did this thread become a gang up on heiney and F1nut thread? If you don't like a user's post, use the "Report Post" function and ask the mods to deal with it. You can also add the user to your Ignore list. Please keep the personal attacks out of the posts.

It would be very arrogant of me to start questioning people with higher post counts and have been here longer. Higher post counts don't necessarily mean better users on some forums, but generally speaking most high post count users here are VERY knowledgeable. You don't have to put them on a pedestal to be worshipped, but don't assume you are smarter than they are when they have been here a lot longer and have helped countless people out.

Maxi, for whatever reason you clearly lack objectivity required to read the thread and see the players as they are. Just look at the h9 quote above. Most folk would consider, "At your current level of comprehension I doubt you'll understand...", an insulting attack.

Questioning is right, not arrogant. It is the reaction of the "high post count posse", rep'd here by h9 and F1, to being questioned that is arrogant. And their frustration with being questioned that leads to their attacking the questioner.

Personal beliefs, no matter the breadth of experience they are based upon, are not "knowledge". They are opinions. To hold those opinions up as facts is arrogant.

maximillian wrote: »

This hobby requires patience. There's many variables involved. Please don't criticize people who have lots of experience and then try to explain it while being criticized. Heiney explained in 3 posts why the cables are better before you accused him of being rude. Since the science behind this is not easy, you may need to experience this just like many people here that already have.

Actually h9 offered up opinion and vague references not an explanation... he did not even attempt an explanation. And as Geoff pointed out, two others did explain MIT principles in far fewer words than h9 used to say absolutely nothing.

F1nut wrote: »

Nor did you understand my amp analogy, although it is exactly the same principle. Like I said, simple logic.

You clearly have no clue what constitutes "logic". What you stated was not a logical premise for the understanding of MIT technology utilizing a discussion of amplifier design. What you constructed was an inference to amplifier that was rejected as it added no insight into how MIT cables work.

F1nut wrote: »

You do realize how silly that comment makes you look, right.

It is astounding that you think you can offer others lessons in self-awareness.

BeefJerky

headrott wrote: »

In case you forgot, H9 was voted Polkie of the Year. His name is on a plaque at Polk HQ! If he is so unhelpful and rude, why was he voted into such an esteemed group? Brock, IMO is very helpful and those people who think he is rude again IMO take what he says too personally and are easily offended.

Greg

I am aware of that. However, if you read back farther, you would see that I and others are referring to a particular attitude change by Brock since he won that "award." F1nut also jumped onto the bandwagon in this thread, though maybe to a lesser extent. I'd go into more detail, but Tour2ma already gave some good examples. The fact that you defend that kind of attitude is bewildering. I know I've been arrogant in my posts a couple of times, and you had no problem calling me out on it. So, why should anyone else (whether H9, F1 or others) get away with it?

headrott

I would argue that saying whether someone is being arrogant is "in the eye of the beholder". Just as what you hear in music is "in the eye of the beholder". You see what the person's intent is or a distorted view of it. IMO, I did not see an arrogant or rude intent behind what was said by F1nut or H9. Granted it was not said towards me, but I don't believe their intent was to be arrogant or rude. However, if people get offended easily by interpreting what people say as rude (even though that may not be the case) then it's the person receiving the message that is putting that perception on what was said; not the person saying it. If the people stating "rude comments" have the (mal) intent of doing that, then that is wrong. As I said, I still don't believe that was the intent though. That is my opinion. Others may have a different one.

Ask yourself if what was said is offensive to you and others, is that because of you or them that you find it offensive? If you view it objectively and honestly then you may find your emotional view of it is different than the objective and honest one.

Greg

ravaneli

Tour2ma wrote: »

...

This guy said it all. Wow, right on the money on every count.

A breath of fresh air.

BeefJerky

headrott wrote: »

I would argue that saying whether someone is being arrogant is "in the eye of the beholder". Just as what you hear in music is "in the eye of the beholder". You see what the person's intent is or a distorted view of it. IMO, I did not see an arrogant or rude intent behind what was said by F1nut or H9. Granted it was not said towards me, but I don't believe their intent was to be arrogant or rude. However, if people get offended easily by interpreting what people say as rude (even though that may not be the case) then it's the person receiving the message that is putting that perception on what was said; not the person saying it. If the people stating "rude comments" have the (mal) intent of doing that, then that is wrong. As I said, I still don't believe that was the intent though. That is my opinion. Others may have a different one.

Ask yourself if what was said is offensive to you and others, is that because of you or them that you find it offensive? If you view it objectively and honestly then you may find your emotional view of it is different than the objective and honest one.

Greg

Well, considering I've never posted anything with intentional malevolence, I suppose that your calling me arrogant and rude was simply an emotional response and not an objective one. Or, at least that is how I'm reading your post. Or, more likely, I was being unintentionally rude and arrogant. That doesn't excuse my behavior, nor should it excuse anyone else's poor behavior. Rudeness is rudeness whether it is intended or not. I deserved to be called out for my behavior, as does Brock.

As far as Brock's responses go, only a few of many were even directed at me. I wasn't personally offended, but know poor behavior when I see it; his posts (especially towards Geoff) were incredibly unhelpful and rude. He resorted to insults against other's intelligence rather than even attempting to help. If he didn't have an answer, then he would have been better off saying so, or just not responding. What's worse is that this isn't an isolated incident; he has been become more and more rude and arrogant in recent times throughout the course of many different threads.