Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:12:36 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: When someone says "live acoustic music" the implication is "concert hall" --not a studio. There's your other problem. Which seat is the reference? Is the AC system on or off? Is the hall full of bodies or empty (or half-full)? All of your points are correct, at least in theory. In practice, if one mixes a multi-track pop recording in a studio over a particular set of speakers to get the producer's "intended effect", that sound becomes the reference -- and if the listener doesn't have the same playback setup, he will not hear that sound with "correct" fidelity. That's part of my point. A person reading a review and trying to evaluate a component or a system has, by necessity, to use a bit of extrapolation. On the other hand, one can record a live performance with at least the intent of creating a recording that accurately captures what is in front of the mics, that is not dependent on the sound of a particular playback system to appear life-like, realistic, etc. And how often does this occur these days? And who is the judge of this "reality"? The producer? The artist? The end consumer? |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... George M. Middius wrote: William Sommerwerck said to Thing: You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". You're missing the point of what I wrote and how Mr. Middius responded. There's a vast gulf between buying something simply because you like it, and having an "expert" justify your purchase. Good luck getting Thing's teeth marks off your shoes. :-( Thus Middius tries to distract us from the fact that his response was some place between irrelevant and redundant. Your responses are some place between irrelevant and incorrect. |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Morein said to the Big ****: Your responses are some place between irrelevant and incorrect. And he forget to chant his mantra: "Fecal obsession. Fecal obsession. Fecal obsession...." |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Thus Middius tries to distract us from the fact that his response was some place between irrelevant and redundant. Your responses are some place between irrelevant and incorrect. Arny's responses are somewhere in downtown ****sville. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote:
Sander deWaal wrote: Howard Ferstler said: Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". What's wrong with that? By your standards, this means that juke boxes in red-neck bars are on the same audio-quality level as the very best Wilson WAMM systems. Hear tell that the very best WAMM systems aren't all that grand sounding, once the hype is stripped away. Yeah. I have heard that, too, and from some seriously expert audio engineers. I was basically trying to make a point with people who probably think that Wilson speakers are the alpha and omega of speaker design. Doesn't that depend on the person judging the system? Ferstler did say red-neck, didn't he? Yep. I definitely do live in that part of the country. Actually, while I am not going to defend the juke-box sound, it is kind of pleasant to sit and listen to that stuff while nursing a few beers. The more beers, the better. Howard Ferstler |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
|
#167
|
|||
|
|||
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Obviously, none of those is what most of the universe considers "acoustic music", which is usually defined as music emanating from non-electrical instruments. Once a circuit gets in the mix (pun intended), then the idea of "acoustic" is thrown out the window since there's no absolute standard anymore (which is the point of demanding it in the first place). Well, Arny, et al (he hasn't been posting recently), would point out that the electronic signal eventually is converted to audible sound, and that sound is "acoustic". Agreed. Furhtermore, I distinguish between the acoustic output of an instrument that is inherently fed through its own specialized amplifier (e.g. electric guitar or electronic piano), the sound of an ensemble of instruments and voices mixed together and amplified (e.g. the sound system of a rock band). To me most if not all amplified instruments are just electronic analogs of a traditional musical instrument. They work a lot like traditional instruments, except that some or all of their functioning is replaced by electronics and/or software. I'd argue though that even with acoustic music, you still have the issue of microphone/recording medium/recording console/studio playback monitors/production values and the recording room itself that keeps there from being a true absolute standard anyway, which is why I think that the idea of using "live, acoustic music" as the only standard is not the great idea that it sounds like on first blush. Agreed. It's a fine idea if you make your own recordings! Not at all. The same kinds of compromises slip in, regardless. When someone says "live acoustic music" the implication is "concert hall" -- not a studio. Well, some kind of larger-scale performance space with an audience of some size. |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
robert casey wrote why don't you go off to idaho and start a minimalist audio cult? North Dakota. No neighbors, so we can blast the music and nobody will complain.... ;-) Now I remember who you are. You are that numbnut from about a year or so ago who proudly told everyone about your insatiable hots for jesus or Lord was it, and then went on and on talking about your addiction to religion 'cause you always thought there was something wrong about yourself from the beginning. Would it have been better if you instead directed your interest into something like maybe, hmm say, homegrown potatoes? |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Now I remember who you are. You are that numbnut from about a year or so ago who proudly told everyone about your insatiable hots for jesus or Lord was it, and then went on and on talking about your addiction to religion 'cause you always thought there was something wrong about yourself from the beginning. Would it have been better if you instead directed your interest into something like maybe, hmm say, homegrown potatoes? Not me. Don't know who that was, but it wasn't me. :-) |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... William Sommerwerck wrote: George M. Middius wrote: William Sommerwerck said: Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make. You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". You're missing the point of what I wrote and how Mr. Middius responded. There's a vast gulf between buying something simply because you like it, and having an "expert" justify your purchase. What? "Middius" asked: "If you value 'realistic' sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it?". I asked essentially the same question, but changed 'realistic' sound (the old SP paradigm) to 'good' sound (the new SP paradigm). IOW, if you do not need a reviewer to tell you what sounds "realistic", why would you need a reviewer to tell you what sounds "good"? At least "realistic" sound has some sort of objective standard, so you have an idea of where the reviewer is coming from. "Good" sound is *completely* subjective. What sounds "good" to you (or JA or someone else) may not sound "good" to me. Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she has read in a review. But with so much equipment on offer, a amagazine can give useful pointers. But the buyer has to make up his own mind. Luckily I jknow my local dealer well, and he will let me borrow equipment for tests at home. I have a vintage British valve amp which for which he is keen to find me a modern replacement so that he can buy it from me:-) Iain |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:53:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: I'd argue though that even with acoustic music, you still have the issue of microphone/recording medium/recording console/studio playback monitors/production values and the recording room itself that keeps there from being a true absolute standard anyway, which is why I think that the idea of using "live, acoustic music" as the only standard is not the great idea that it sounds like on first blush. Agreed. This is almost a first. Arnold agrees with something I've said without trying to play words games with it, simply because it's me saying it. Kudos for getting past the personal stuff. |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
"jeffc" wrote in message m... "Iain M Churches" wrote in message ... Any editor who receives letters from dis-satisfied readers in large numbers will certainly not ignore them. But, an editor who receives little or no feedback will assume that the readers are happy with the magazine, as long as circulation figures are maintained. Right, so what good does it do to listen to the readers? All that matters is the circulation numbers. If it drops, lower the subscription price. I really don't believe that any editor worth his salt is interested only in the size of the circulation. I am sure journalists and editors read other publications, and can judge from them the standing of their own magazine. The public are quick to complain, but to the wrong people:-) Iain |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
"Signal" wrote in message ... "Scott Dorsey" emitted : If anything, the DIY phenomenon should be taking off. But it's dying. Why? Because there's little or no for motivation for up and coming generations. Why bother? Because you wind up with something that perfectly matches your exact needs, instead of a product that someone in marketing decided would meet most users' needs. Can you give an example? I'm struggling to think of a D.I.Y. electronics project that would impress a young person now. A tube amp is the prime example:-) Iain |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
It's a fine idea if you make your own recordings!
Not at all. The same kinds of compromises slip in, regardless. I have to disagree. First, you're hearing the original sound that is supposed to serve as the reference. Second, you start to understand the ways in which recordings differ from live sound. This is quite different from listening to an "engineered" recording in which the sound is deliberately manipulated to produce some effect. When someone says "live acoustic music" the implication is "concert hall" -- not a studio. Well, some kind of larger-scale performance space with an audience of some size. Which is why I put "concert hall" in quotes. |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
Iain M Churches wrote: wrote in message oups.com... William Sommerwerck wrote: George M. Middius wrote: William Sommerwerck said: Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make. You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". You're missing the point of what I wrote and how Mr. Middius responded. There's a vast gulf between buying something simply because you like it, and having an "expert" justify your purchase. What? "Middius" asked: "If you value 'realistic' sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it?". I asked essentially the same question, but changed 'realistic' sound (the old SP paradigm) to 'good' sound (the new SP paradigm). IOW, if you do not need a reviewer to tell you what sounds "realistic", why would you need a reviewer to tell you what sounds "good"? At least "realistic" sound has some sort of objective standard, so you have an idea of where the reviewer is coming from. "Good" sound is *completely* subjective. What sounds "good" to you (or JA or someone else) may not sound "good" to me. Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she has read in a review. It happens more often than you think, Iain. But with so much equipment on offer, a magazine can give useful pointers. Yes, a magazine can give useful pointers, but not when the interests of the advertisers are put above the interests of the readers. But the buyer has to make up his own mind. But glowing reviews of totally useless items such as Shakti Stones and Shun Mook Mpingo, high $ power cords, etc., discs make intelligent decisions more difficult, don't they? |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
Iain M Churches said to Little ****: Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she has read in a review. But with so much equipment on offer, a amagazine can give useful pointers. But the buyer has to make up his own mind. Looks like you're not familiar with the Hivie 'borgma Thing is espousing here. The gist of your assertion is that human beings have free will. This is an alien concept in the Hive. To Them, there are no choices, only mindless obedience. Why dickie the anonyrodent tries to blame Stereophile for the ****ty-sounding equipment he's stuck with is somewhat of a mystery. One might reasonably speculate that at some time in the past, before Thing joined the Hive, he tried to invest his latent obeisance in the magazine. Then, when his fortunes turned, perhaps he had to sell his expensive equipment at a loss. For that debacle, he blames Stereophile. If he were a human being, he might understand that choices have consequences; but since he does not believe in the ability to make a choice, he is forced to deny he ever made one. Hence the cause of his misfortunes must be laid at somebody else's doorstep. For more illustrations of this philosophy of self-abnegation, see the ponderous prattle of H. Ferstler or the duplicitous bloviations of Arnii "Debating Trade" Krooger. |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
Thing finally admits his problem is that he's just plain stupid. But the buyer has to make up his own mind. But glowing reviews of totally useless items such as Shakti Stones and Shun Mook Mpingo, high $ power cords, etc., discs make intelligent decisions more difficult, don't they? LOL. But seriously.... Not unless one is retarded, which I take it you are. |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
Iain M Churches wrote:
Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she has read in a review. But with so much equipment on offer, a amagazine can give useful pointers. But the buyer has to make up his own mind. Luckily I jknow my local dealer well, and he will let me borrow equipment for tests at home. I have a vintage British valve amp which for which he is keen to find me a modern replacement so that he can buy it from me:-) Unfortunately I have seen a lot of people spend a lot of money entirely based on reviews. As a reviewer, I find it it kind of terrifying. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey said: Unfortunately I have seen a lot of people spend a lot of money entirely based on reviews. As a reviewer, I find it it kind of terrifying. Use your power wisely, then, lest in a future life you are called to answer for your crimes. |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
Iain M Churches wrote:
I really don't believe that any editor worth his salt is interested only in the size of the circulation. I am sure journalists and editors read other publications, and can judge from them the standing of their own magazine. The public are quick to complain, but to the wrong people:-) There are editors like that. For a while I wrote some articles for a now-defunct electronics magazine. I remember the editor giving me an assignment, and I pointed out that RF Design had done an identical article the previous month. He said, "Our readers don't read RF Design. It's a totally different group of people." I'm not sure how true that really was. This is another example of editors who misjudge the positioning and standing. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ups.com... Iain M Churches wrote: Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she has read in a review. It happens more often than you think, Iain. Are people really that insecure/indecisive? But with so much equipment on offer, a magazine can give useful pointers. Yes, a magazine can give useful pointers, but not when the interests of the advertisers are put above the interests of the readers. Agreed But the buyer has to make up his own mind. But glowing reviews of totally useless items such as Shakti Stones and Shun Mook Mpingo, high $ power cords, etc., discs make intelligent decisions more difficult, don't they? Indeed, and also make it difficult to take any other reviews by the same write seriously. So any potential buyer should borrow a set and listen. After you have paid big bucks for them, they will certainly make a huge improvement:-) But, as far as I am concerned, if people think they can hear an improvement with their Shakti Stones, and solid silver 20A power cords, then good luck to them. It's picking out the fact from the fiction that makes audio such an interesting pastime:-) Iain |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Iain M Churches wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Iain M Churches wrote: Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she has read in a review. It happens more often than you think, Iain. Are people really that insecure/indecisive? The reviewer is seen as an authority/expert in their field. People buy a magazine, book, etc., to tap into the "expertise" of the writers. When the writer is either non compos mentis, cynical or corrupt, the "expertise" is just about worthless, at best. But with so much equipment on offer, a magazine can give useful pointers. Yes, a magazine can give useful pointers, but not when the interests of the advertisers are put above the interests of the readers. Agreed But the buyer has to make up his own mind. But glowing reviews of totally useless items such as Shakti Stones and Shun Mook Mpingo, high $ power cords, etc., discs make intelligent decisions more difficult, don't they? Indeed, and also make it difficult to take any other reviews by the same writer seriously. Exactly! And this is one big reason that rags like Stereophile have zero credibility. So any potential buyer should borrow a set and listen. But if the "expert" said he/she heard a big improvement using, for example, Shakti Stones, many consumers are "conned" into hearing a difference, too. Classic example of "the Emperor's New Clothes". After you have paid big bucks for them, they will certainly make a huge improvement:-) Agreed. IMO, many audio scammers count on this effect. But, as far as I am concerned, if people think they can hear an improvement with their Shakti Stones, and solid silver 20A power cords, then good luck to them. I guess.... It's picking out the fact from the fiction that makes audio such an interesting pastime:-) And it was easier when the magazines and reviewers were both more competent and more honest. |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
Phil Allison a écrit : "Jocelyn Major" Phil Allison ** What gives you the right to completely change someone's post before adding your asinine reply ?? ???? I simply don't understand what is your problem. ** Answer the question - bitch: Ok poor little idiot. I will try to explain something that I am not sure that your poor tiny brain will fully understand. First: You show that you are a dumb misogynist. Just for that you prove that you totally suffer brain damage at birth. Second: If you can read (at least you can do that) you will see that my email address is from Videotron in Canada. Videotron is a Québec Internet Provider. The point is that I live in a french speaking place. And as you cannot understand (since you suffer from a severe lack of oxigen at birth) Jocelyn is in french a MAN name. So poor little Phil you where telling to a 6 feet tall 200 pound MAN that he is a bitch. I am pretty sure that you would never have told this if I was right in front of you. Of course not. Like the little idiot coward that you are, several little boy (that like you **** in their bed at night) are always hiding behind something or someone when the insult others. You hide behind your computer now. Where you hiding behind your little sister when when a toddler want to beat you in college? And if you really want to know who you where trying to insult just click on the following link http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawac...a-3ebc3dee9f94 For your info I am his son and like him, better not get me mad. Have a GREAT day poor little girly boy It is the last time I waste my time reading your stupid words. |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Little **** is still whining about Stereophile. And this is one big reason that rags like Stereophile have zero credibility. No credibility with you, or with people who are actually interested in purchasing audio equipment? A bottom-feeder like you can buy whackoff magazines anywhere. |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
Iain M Churches wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... Iain M Churches wrote: Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she has read in a review. It happens more often than you think, Iain. Are people really that insecure/indecisive? The more relevant i-word would be ignorant. But with so much equipment on offer, a magazine can give useful pointers. Yes, a magazine can give useful pointers, but not when the interests of the advertisers are put above the interests of the readers. Agreed But the buyer has to make up his own mind. But glowing reviews of totally useless items such as Shakti Stones and Shun Mook Mpingo, high $ power cords, etc., discs make intelligent decisions more difficult, don't they? Indeed, and also make it difficult to take any other reviews by the same write seriously. Agreed. So any potential buyer should borrow a set and listen. After you have paid big bucks for them, they will certainly make a huge improvement:-) Borrow from whom? But, as far as I am concerned, if people think they can hear an improvement with their Shakti Stones, and solid silver 20A power cords, then good luck to them. Good luck for them would involve learning enough about audio to have good judgement. It's picking out the fact from the fiction that makes audio such an interesting pastime:-) Having a leading magazine in the field that is full of so much muck makes it a lot tougher on the newbies, and others who simply don't know what to believe. |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Stereophile is a corporate sell-out rag, designed to give raving reviews of
all of its advertisers don't feed the trolls by responding to any Stereophile related post just killfile the sender |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Iain M Churches said: Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she has read in a review. It happens more often than you think, Iain. Are people really that insecure/indecisive? That's not the usual problem why people buy overpriced audio stuff. Fact is, there's high noise-to-signal ratio in audio marketing. Somehow or other (but not because of Stereophile), audio has acquired a mystique among people who are new to the arena. The array of choices is daunting. The noise you get at the mass-market box stores can give a beginner all kinds of wrongheaded notions about what to look for. Sad to say, the class war constantly being raged on Usenet by the downtrodden of the world is also seen in somewhat high relief in audio. The main reason for that is that the utilitarian stuff is priced to fit 90% of consumers' budgets, but the fancy stuff has prices that go through the roof. Even the big box stores have engaged in the higher-price-equals-better game, although not so much any more because now it's TVs that command the lion's share of the budget. And the notion of "better" is fuzzy too, because it can apply to sound quality, build quality, ergonomics, feature set, warranty, etc. If you've never helped guide a newbie through the portals of consumer audio, give it a try. (Especially a female.) Then you'll see all the pitfalls that can lead to a bad decision. |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
cowboy wrote: Stereophile is a corporate sell-out rag, designed to give raving reviews of all of its advertisers Succinct and to the point. The best summation of Stereophile in years! :-)) |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
|
#190
|
|||
|
|||
On 6/20/05 12:36 PM, in article , "Iain M
Churches" wrote: Are people really that insecure/indecisive? No Iain, just unconcionably inconsiderate by continuing to crosspost across groups that have NO desire for this thread! Let's edit those crosspost headers! Thanks! |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
|
#192
|
|||
|
|||
|
#193
|
|||
|
|||
|
#194
|
|||
|
|||
|
#195
|
|||
|
|||
"SSJVCmag" wrote in message ... On 6/20/05 12:36 PM, in article , "Iain M Churches" wrote: Are people really that insecure/indecisive? No Iain, just unconcionably inconsiderate by continuing to crosspost across groups that have NO desire for this thread! Let's edit those crosspost headers! Thanks! Yes Indeed!!! Just how clueless can you be? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
"SSJVCmag" wrote in message ... On 6/20/05 6:04 PM, in article , " wrote: cowboy wrote: Stereophile is a corporate sell-out rag, designed to give raving reviews of all of its advertisers Succinct and to the point. The best summation of Stereophile in years! :-)) BEN! it's yet ANOTHER thread on a magazine discussion that ha NO PLACE being crossposted where it's going! Let's Kill It Now! Thanks! We thank you for NOT firing the first shot! ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
"SSJVCmag" wrote in message ... On 6/20/05 1:08 PM, in article , " wrote: And it was easier when the magazines and reviewers were both more competent and more honest. Ben, it was easier when folks paid attention to where they sent posts, and weren;t just unconscionably inconsiderate by continuing to crosspost across groups that have NO desire for this thread! Let's edit those crosspost headers! Thanks! Come on Guru! Show us how!!! ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
"SSJVCmag" wrote in message ... On 6/20/05 1:57 PM, in article , "George Middius" wrote: A bottom-feeder like you can buy whackoff magazines anywhere. Charming helpful post there George, it'd help if folks paid attention to where they sent posts, and weren;t just unconscionably inconsiderate by continuing to crosspost across groups that have NO desire for this thread! Let's edit those crosspost headers! Thanks! We didn't hear you! Say it agin to four more groups, six more times!!! ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:36:46 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote: Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she has read in a review. It happens more often than you think, Iain. Are people really that insecure/indecisive? You are looking ridiculous, refusing to admit the obvious, i.e. that a lot of equipment is purchased because of a good review. |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Cain wrote in
: Phil Allison wrote: "Jocelyn Major" Phil Allison ** What gives you the right to completely change someone's post before adding your asinine reply ?? ???? I simply don't understand what is your problem. ** Answer the question - bitch: Phil's (and Sokolich's, aka The Ghost) problem: http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/fsckhead.html Bob Appears to be a pretty accurate description of your problem, Bob. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The problem with Stereophile, in a nutshell | Pro Audio | |||
Some Recording Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
CLC: More | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Does anyone know of this challenge? | High End Audio | |||
Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions |