Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
"Keith G" wrote in message ... "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message ... "Rob" wrote in message ... My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic distortions", Prefer the sound, OK. I think you just have to take a deep breath, relax, and get over it. And IF they did, these debates would have finished 25 years ago. Some people still listen to wax cylinders, without needing to "prove" they are better than CD I don't know a single soul who plays LPs who feels he needs to *prove* anything.... It is not the playing LPs that indicates a need to prove anything, it is the continual ranting and raving on audio newsgroups about the technical superiority of the LP that tells us about their state of mind. My biggest concern about playing LPs is the ongoing degradation of what should be archival media. |
#122
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Keith G" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Keith G" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Keith G" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Keith G" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Keith G" wrote in message My take is that now that the DJ-driven demand for vinyl is falling off, and sales are already dropping preciptiously, the hype will trail off. No Arny, you've got that all wrong (unless you are *distorting* again which, of course, is highly likely) - it's CDs that are disappearing rapidly. Not in terms of sales percentages. No? I would have thought a fall in sales revenue of 19.8% in just three months was a pretty good indicator: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6933632.stm OK Keith, so you can't tell the difference between a sales percentage for vinyl, and an indicator of an ongoing transition from one form of digital media to another form of digital media. Not my problem! I think it is, unless you are deliberately obfuscating/distorting or, as others imply, failing to read properly or grasp the meaning of my post - my point was that it is CDs which are disappearing and I provided evidence. I reproduced my OP on the topic above, and it doesn't even mention CDs. Therefore Keith, your attempt to introduce CD sales, given that CDs are a form of media that I didn't even mention, is an obvious example of a red herring argument. It's just another one of your an intentional attempt to mislead the discussion from its origional intent. AFAIAC and in context, my CD comment was a perfectly valid counter to the immediately preceding remarks concerning vinyl. Repeating an intentional distraction doesn't make it less of a distraction. Repeating complaints in a UK-centric ng about UK responses to crossposted US irrelevancies doesn't mean they'll stop either... I can always tell when you're bleeding pretty badly Keith, because you start ranting and raving about xenophobic crap like this. Friendly advice: Cut your losses and run. That sort of remark tells me you're the one who's bleeding - believe me, neither I nor probably anybody else on the planet gives a rat's what vinyl is *doing* in the US. The fatal error you have made is to crosspost US irrelevancies into a UK newsgroup. The only mystery is - *why*?? |
#123
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message ... "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message ... "Rob" wrote in message ... My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic distortions", Prefer the sound, OK. I think you just have to take a deep breath, relax, and get over it. And IF they did, these debates would have finished 25 years ago. Some people still listen to wax cylinders, without needing to "prove" they are better than CD I don't know a single soul who plays LPs who feels he needs to *prove* anything.... It is not the playing LPs that indicates a need to prove anything, it is the continual ranting and raving on audio newsgroups about the technical superiority of the LP that tells us about their state of mind. The only people who combine the words 'technical superiority', 'LP' or 'vinyl' in a sentence *without* the 'couldn't care less' qualifier is you mostly and occasionally a couple of other people who quite obviously feel threatened by it all or just want to grab a little 'airtime' on a deliberately provocative, crossposted thread... (Congratulations on a good troll, really!! ;-) My biggest concern about playing LPs is the ongoing degradation of what should be archival media. Your nagging anxieties are not my nagging anxieties... |
#124
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Rob wrote: Mmm. Not sure what you mean. I know that I generally prefer the sound of vinyl. I don't know why it sounds better than, say, CD. And I post here. You like the added harmonic distortion. Rock guitar players do too. Others will find it pleasant enough on some material but very objectionable on others. That may well be one reason why. They then have to come up with stupid explanations plausible to themselves, Really? Again, generally people just prefer the sound. The 'why' isn't particularly important. Knowing why might be interesting, but it's hardly requisite. Sure it is when they are claiming to the world that their *preference* is technically superior, when all proof is to the contrary. I don't think anyone on this NG (or elsewhere, come to that) has the ability to *prove* the inherent technical superiority of one over the other. It depends on your definition of 'technical', and the significance of that definition when it comes to the sound. I think. Parameters to measure an audio signal have been around and accepted for many a year - and by the very people who make both the equipment and sources you listen to. And vinyl doesn't measure well. Of course you can fool yourself that those parameters aren't important. Provided you are very selective about which ones. 'Sound' and 'audio signal' are different. Rob |
#125
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message ... I don't think anyone on this NG (or elsewhere, come to that) has the ability to *prove* the inherent technical superiority of one over the other. Sure we do, within the context of audio technology. I suspect the context is the problem. It depends on your definition of 'technical', Check your dictionary. Well, you might check yours and understand that it's an ambiguous word! Think 'context'. and the significance of that definition when it comes to the sound. I think. Think again. Just did :-) Rob |
#126
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Note to Jenn
Mr.**** said: You admit you don't care about other opinions either, Incorrect. What part of "And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either." is incorrect? If this doesn't tell you how futile it is to argue with ****, then you deserve the coming rounds of "debating trade" you're heading for. Yes George, silly isn't it to debate with someone who can actually quote what [Jenn] said when [Jenn] deny[sic] it[sic]. Your problem appears to be understanding rather than mere regurgitating, ****. It's not unusual for 'borgs to have language deficiencies; in fact, all of you known 'borgs have it to some degree. Why don't you admit the truth, ****? You hate and fear Jenn because she's female. Krooger admitted it, and so did Terrierborg. |
#127
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
In article ,
Keith G wrote: I don't know a single soul who plays LPs who feels he needs to *prove* anything.... If that were the case, Keith, and you added in valves to that you'd cut your postings here by about 99.9%. -- *Out of my mind. Back in five minutes. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#128
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
In article ,
Rob wrote: Parameters to measure an audio signal have been around and accepted for many a year - and by the very people who make both the equipment and sources you listen to. And vinyl doesn't measure well. Of course you can fool yourself that those parameters aren't important. Provided you are very selective about which ones. 'Sound' and 'audio signal' are different. Perhaps you'd explain that statement? There is no 'sound' from an LP (apart from needle talk) - just an audio signal. -- *I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#129
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Rob wrote: Parameters to measure an audio signal have been around and accepted for many a year - and by the very people who make both the equipment and sources you listen to. And vinyl doesn't measure well. Of course you can fool yourself that those parameters aren't important. Provided you are very selective about which ones. 'Sound' and 'audio signal' are different. Perhaps you'd explain that statement? There is no 'sound' from an LP (apart from needle talk) - just an audio signal. Agreed. Sound is something experienced by the brain, via the ear and other parts of the body. An audio signal is something that happens before sound. Whatever, it doesn't get me any closer to understanding which is 'better' or 'preferred'. I'd do that by listening, not measuring an audio signal. Rob |
#130
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus In article , tony sayer wrote: I remember several years ago being demonstrated some vinyl replay at the home of Derek Scotland of Audiolab fame. I was very surprised by just how good it was then!. All down to a very good MM pre-amp stage, he spent a lot of time getting that designed right!. Good replay system Audiolab and ESL63's, and most important of all there wasn't one single pressing from the UK!. All were from Germany or the USA and specialised suppliers at that!. I've no doubt he was also careful to select the sort of music which either masks the inherent distortions or is 'enhanced' by them. You say that but we also had a CD player, quite an early one there, but it was that good!. I was rather surprised just how good it was at the time, but the care and quality of the vinyl and pressing it seems made the difference!... -- Tony Sayer |
#131
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
Now stop bitching or I'll hijack this thread and turn it into a DAB vs,
DAB+ debate and all you Merkins will get to hear about how Brit radio is going down the *digital tubes* alongside recorded music and TV transmissions... Gone my dear Keith .. not going, just gone;(... -- Tony Sayer |
#132
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
"tony sayer" wrote in message ... Now stop bitching or I'll hijack this thread and turn it into a DAB vs, DAB+ debate and all you Merkins will get to hear about how Brit radio is going down the *digital tubes* alongside recorded music and TV transmissions... Gone my dear Keith .. not going, just gone;(... What? DAB+ isn't going to cure all ills then? (After we've all chucked our 'ordinary' DAB receivers out, of course...) |
#133
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: I don't know a single soul who plays LPs who feels he needs to *prove* anything.... If that were the case, Keith, and you added in valves to that you'd cut your postings here by about 99.9%. Oi oi oi, Plowie - such a *scallywag* you are!! Deliberately distorting the truth again while you push your antivalve/antivinyl/antieverythingelseyoudon't like agenda!! Unless you really haven't seen the recent threads I've started about microphones, FM tuners, eBay &c. and all the other older threads about speakers and countless OT subjects?? But, hang on a minute, that's not right - you musta done, you responded to *all* of them, as you usually do!! -- *Out of my mind. We know.... Back in five minutes. There's no hurry.... Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#134
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
In article , Keith G
scribeth thus "tony sayer" wrote in message ... Now stop bitching or I'll hijack this thread and turn it into a DAB vs, DAB+ debate and all you Merkins will get to hear about how Brit radio is going down the *digital tubes* alongside recorded music and TV transmissions... Gone my dear Keith .. not going, just gone;(... What? DAB+ isn't going to cure all ills then? (After we've all chucked our 'ordinary' DAB receivers out, of course...) Dunno if it will even happen. What they ought to do is designate DAB as it is for lo-fi portable and mobile applications, and make the high bitrate stuff available on satellite where the is plenty of bandwidth available. The BBC doesn't even transmit there at high rates, just 192 for Radio three whereas a lot of German radio is 320 K or better!.... -- Tony Sayer |
#135
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
In article ,
Keith G wrote: Oi oi oi, Plowie - such a *scallywag* you are!! Deliberately distorting the truth again while you push your antivalve/antivinyl/antieverythingelseyoudon't like agenda!! Not anti anything. Just have a balanced view of them. That's the difference... Unless you really haven't seen the recent threads I've started about microphones, FM tuners, eBay &c. and all the other older threads about speakers and countless OT subjects?? You manage to work valves into most of those too. Why on earth you're going for valve mics escapes me. But, hang on a minute, that's not right - you musta done, you responded to *all* of them, as you usually do!! -- *My dog can lick anyone Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#136
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
"Keith G" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message ... "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message ... "Rob" wrote in message ... My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic distortions", Prefer the sound, OK. I think you just have to take a deep breath, relax, and get over it. And IF they did, these debates would have finished 25 years ago. Some people still listen to wax cylinders, without needing to "prove" they are better than CD I don't know a single soul who plays LPs who feels he needs to *prove* anything.... It is not the playing LPs that indicates a need to prove anything, it is the continual ranting and raving on audio newsgroups about the technical superiority of the LP that tells us about their state of mind. The only people who combine the words 'technical superiority', 'LP' or 'vinyl' in a sentence *without* the 'couldn't care less' qualifier is you mostly and occasionally a couple of other people who quite obviously feel threatened by it all or just want to grab a little 'airtime' on a deliberately provocative, crossposted thread... Convenient Keith how quickly you want to forget the content of the OP that kicked the whole thread off. It's a published article from MSN claiming technical superiority for the LP format. My biggest concern about playing LPs is the ongoing degradation of what should be archival media. Your nagging anxieties are not my nagging anxieties... Where did I say anything about nagging anxieties, Keith? Having problem with an overactive projection gland? |
#137
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
"Rob" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Rob" wrote in message ... I don't think anyone on this NG (or elsewhere, come to that) has the ability to *prove* the inherent technical superiority of one over the other. Sure we do, within the context of audio technology. I suspect the context is the problem. Slippery talk. It depends on your definition of 'technical', Check your dictionary. Well, you might check yours and understand that it's an ambiguous word! More slippery talk. Think 'context'. More slippery talk. and the significance of that definition when it comes to the sound. I think. Think again. Just did :-) You really didn't say anything that had any meaning, Rob. I take it that you know you are cornered. |
#138
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
Keith G wrote:
The only people who combine the words 'technical superiority', 'LP' or 'vinyl' in a sentence *without* the 'couldn't care less' qualifier is you mostly and occasionally a couple of other people who quite obviously feel threatened by it all or just want to grab a little 'airtime' on a deliberately provocative, crossposted thread... Wrong, fool. I've seen MANY posts over the years from ignoramuses claiming that LP is technically superior to CD, which "misses something" because "it's only 1's and 0's" and other such garbage. |
#139
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
"tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G scribeth thus "tony sayer" wrote in message ... Now stop bitching or I'll hijack this thread and turn it into a DAB vs, DAB+ debate and all you Merkins will get to hear about how Brit radio is going down the *digital tubes* alongside recorded music and TV transmissions... Gone my dear Keith .. not going, just gone;(... What? DAB+ isn't going to cure all ills then? (After we've all chucked our 'ordinary' DAB receivers out, of course...) Dunno if it will even happen. What they ought to do is designate DAB as it is for lo-fi portable and mobile applications, and make the high bitrate stuff available on satellite where the is plenty of bandwidth available. The BBC doesn't even transmit there at high rates, just 192 for Radio three whereas a lot of German radio is 320 K or better!.... Hah! I have just uploaded a couple of wobblicam clips for you and there you are! Call me daft, but I do like a bit of 'wireless' on a Sunday Night (R2 atm - Malcolm Laycock's excellent 'Swing' programme) and ventured up the 'deep end' at one point - check this out: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/106.8MHz.wmv And compare it with R3 (bloody speech again - as ever, but you'll get the idea!): http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Radio3.wmv Nowhere is safe these days, even UK radio is down the ****ter - DAB *or* FM, from what I can see!! |
#140
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
Keith G wrote:
And CD lovers tend to give the impression there are no poorly recorded CDs, No they don't. Borderline lie, there... |
#141
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Keith G" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message ... "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message ... "Rob" wrote in message ... My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic distortions", Prefer the sound, OK. I think you just have to take a deep breath, relax, and get over it. And IF they did, these debates would have finished 25 years ago. Some people still listen to wax cylinders, without needing to "prove" they are better than CD I don't know a single soul who plays LPs who feels he needs to *prove* anything.... It is not the playing LPs that indicates a need to prove anything, it is the continual ranting and raving on audio newsgroups about the technical superiority of the LP that tells us about their state of mind. The only people who combine the words 'technical superiority', 'LP' or 'vinyl' in a sentence *without* the 'couldn't care less' qualifier is you mostly and occasionally a couple of other people who quite obviously feel threatened by it all or just want to grab a little 'airtime' on a deliberately provocative, crossposted thread... Convenient Keith how quickly you want to forget the content of the OP that kicked the whole thread off. It's a published article from MSN claiming technical superiority for the LP format. Is it ****. Apart from this tiny bit: "LPs contain close to 100-percent of the uncompressed music information as originally recorded. CDs contain only about half of that recorded information." it's no more than another load of old ******** banging on about 'retro' and 'cool' - neither of which much bothers an ordinary 'vinylista' like me, or the dozens of others here who routinely play LPs. I've told you several times now; I'm as fed up with this sort of thing as you are - if nothing else, it's pushing up the price of secondhand records... My biggest concern about playing LPs is the ongoing degradation of what should be archival media. Your nagging anxieties are not my nagging anxieties... Where did I say anything about nagging anxieties, Keith? 'biggest concern' Having problem with an overactive projection gland? Me no having problem with any gland (yet).... |
#142
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
In article . com,
Bret Ludwig wrote: But more importantly, almost all pop releases today have audio that has been through a tube somewhere. Does that account for the appalling quality? Optimod type thingie set to kill? -- *It's lonely at the top, but you eat better. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#143
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: Oi oi oi, Plowie - such a *scallywag* you are!! Deliberately distorting the truth again while you push your antivalve/antivinyl/antieverythingelseyoudon't like agenda!! Not anti anything. Just have a balanced view of them. That's the difference... Don't talk to me about a 'balanced view', Plowie - you've got no idea. I have here and routinely switch between or choose from: 4 valve amps and 4 SS amps. A pair of Lowther 'horns' and a pair of IMF TLS80s side by side and both in constant (daily) use. Half a dozen turntables and half a dozen CD/DVD players/recorders (at least)... A selection of MM and MC carts... Both SS and valve phono stages... Both DAB and FM tuners... They're all on he http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/myhifi/myhifi.htm *Balanced* enough for you? Unless you really haven't seen the recent threads I've started about microphones, FM tuners, eBay &c. and all the other older threads about speakers and countless OT subjects?? You manage to work valves into most of those too. Why on earth you're going for valve mics escapes me. I've got a number of SS mics already (also on the above link), I just want to try a valve mic to see/hear for myself and get, dare I say it, a 'balanced view'...?? |
#144
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Rob" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Rob" wrote in message ... I don't think anyone on this NG (or elsewhere, come to that) has the ability to *prove* the inherent technical superiority of one over the other. Sure we do, within the context of audio technology. I suspect the context is the problem. Slippery talk. Whaaat? Mind the Hypocrisy Police don't get you Arny.... |
#145
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
In article ,
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message et... You've missed the point yet again. My point is that I've distorted NOTHING. You and Mr. T can keep distorting my statements any way you wish to. I "pity the fools" who can't (corrected) read simple posts. Yep, your posts are so simple they are content free it seems. ANY interpretation is strongly denied! Tell me Mr. T: What have I "distorted"? |
#146
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
In article ,
dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , dizzy wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: On Aug 30, 1:38 pm, John Byrns wrote: I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience. Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both". Indeed. Many of the arguments would stop if ignorant vinyl-lovers would stop spewing their ignorance. Seems as though every half-wit out there thinks they have sufficient knowledge of digital audio to make bold statements about it's supposed limitations. It would also be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl fans of saying something would actually read the posts of those individuals. I have. So do you have problems with my statements about LPs and digital? |
#147
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
"Keith G" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Rob" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Rob" wrote in message ... I don't think anyone on this NG (or elsewhere, come to that) has the ability to *prove* the inherent technical superiority of one over the other. Sure we do, within the context of audio technology. I suspect the context is the problem. Slippery talk. Whaaat? Mind the Hypocrisy Police don't get you Arny.... make that the Born Again Hypocrisy Police:-) |
#148
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
Dunno if it will even happen. What they ought to do is designate DAB
as it is for lo-fi portable and mobile applications, and make the high bitrate stuff available on satellite where the is plenty of bandwidth available. The BBC doesn't even transmit there at high rates, just 192 for Radio three whereas a lot of German radio is 320 K or better!.... Hah! I have just uploaded a couple of wobblicam clips for you and there you are! Call me daft, but I do like a bit of 'wireless' on a Sunday Night (R2 atm - Malcolm Laycock's excellent 'Swing' programme) and ventured up the 'deep end' at one point - check this out: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/106.8MHz.wmv Lite FM from Concrete-a-borough, processed to within an inch of its life!.. And compare it with R3 (bloody speech again - as ever, but you'll get the idea!): http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Radio3.wmv Indeed.. Nowhere is safe these days, even UK radio is down the ****ter - DAB *or* FM, from what I can see!! Go satellite then. Got a Lidel?, near U they do some rather good value for money satellite stuff from time to time SL65 IIRC. Just needs to see the *"right" bit of the Sky and avail yourself to some real music radio in excellent near-as-dammit CD quality)... * which can be on the ground!.. -- Tony Sayer |
#149
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: Oi oi oi, Plowie - such a *scallywag* you are!! Deliberately distorting the truth again while you push your antivalve/antivinyl/antieverythingelseyoudon't like agenda!! Not anti anything. Just have a balanced view of them. That's the difference... Unless you really haven't seen the recent threads I've started about microphones, FM tuners, eBay &c. and all the other older threads about speakers and countless OT subjects?? You manage to work valves into most of those too. Why on earth you're going for valve mics escapes me. Don't you have access to any valve mics, Dave? Neumann U47, U49, U50 are particularly good They are very expensive, and highly regarded in classical recording. The only people who don't like them are those that don't have them:-) Regards Iain |
#150
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article . com, Bret Ludwig wrote: But more importantly, almost all pop releases today have audio that has been through a tube somewhere. Does that account for the appalling quality? Optimod type thingie set to kill? I think he means in the recording chain. Tube mic preamps, and tube compressors are to be found in almost every studio. |
#151
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: The CD *medium* will always sound better than vinyl - if you value audio quality. Individual CDs are a different matter. Rubbish in rubbish out. But then that applies to vinyl too. Vinyl lovers tend to give the impression there are no poorly recorded LPs. And CD lovers tend to give the impression there are no poorly recorded CDs, but you should know better than to go by *impressions*... Lots and lots on here about poor mastering of recent CDs. And the sad thing about it is that these poor production masters are made from perfectly good studio mixes. As long as the public are generally of the opinion than "louder is better" with comments like: "It sounds OK to me, especially in the car", then there is little hope of improvement. Of course had this group existed 30 years ago the complaints would have been about poor pressings. A much simpler problem to resolve. I cannot speak for all companies, but I know that Decca in the UK went to great lengths to ensure customer sastisfaction, and replaced noisy pressings when they were brought to the company's notice. This extra attention to QC greatly enhanced their reputation. I find it interesting that although there is much talk of poor CD mastering quality, the number or returns and complaints received by the record companies is very small indeed. The expectations of the general public these days are not high:-( Iain |
#152
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com... On Aug 31, 3:54 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Keith G" wrote in message No, as I've said recently elsewhere, I'm heartily sick of seeing the words 'valvelike' and 'analogue sound' being applied to SS kit and digital music by silly *hip* magazine writers. Agreed, no reason to slander good SS kit and good digital recordings that way. Still having trouble accepting that others don't see it your way. Just listen to one of Arny's "recordings", and you will understand why his opinion on recording quality differs from that held by the many of the rest of us:-))) Iain |
#153
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
Iain Churches wrote: Just listen to one of Arny's "recordings", and you will understand why his opinion on recording quality differs from that held by the many of the rest of us:-))) Do tell. Graham |
#154
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
In article ,
Keith G wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: Oi oi oi, Plowie - such a *scallywag* you are!! Deliberately distorting the truth again while you push your antivalve/antivinyl/antieverythingelseyoudon't like agenda!! Not anti anything. Just have a balanced view of them. That's the difference... Don't talk to me about a 'balanced view', Plowie - you've got no idea. I have here and routinely switch between or choose from: 4 valve amps and 4 SS amps. A pair of Lowther 'horns' and a pair of IMF TLS80s side by side and both in constant (daily) use. Half a dozen turntables and half a dozen CD/DVD players/recorders (at least)... A selection of MM and MC carts... Both SS and valve phono stages... Both DAB and FM tuners... They're all on he http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/myhifi/myhifi.htm *Balanced* enough for you? Unless you really haven't seen the recent threads I've started about microphones, FM tuners, eBay &c. and all the other older threads about speakers and countless OT subjects?? You manage to work valves into most of those too. Why on earth you're going for valve mics escapes me. I've got a number of SS mics already (also on the above link), I just want to try a valve mic to see/hear for myself and get, dare I say it, a 'balanced view'...?? Not really. To do reasonable comparisons for the real world requires reasonable hearing and knowing what you're listening for. By the amount of experimenting you do - with each new project being an 'improvement' - my guess is you have no real idea what you're searching for or how to achieve it. Really, you seem to be trying to re-invent the wheel. Things like valve mics/amps and horn speakers were superseded by modern techniques for a very good reason - not some conspiracy. Of course there's nothing wrong in starting from basics and arriving at your own conclusions. Plenty here will have done this in real time rather than trying to compress it all into a few years. But like any child who learns by experience you also seem to dislike hearing 'I told you so'... -- *I love cats...they taste just like chicken. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#155
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
In article ,
tony sayer wrote: Go satellite then. Got a Lidel?, near U they do some rather good value for money satellite stuff from time to time SL65 IIRC. Just needs to see the *"right" bit of the Sky and avail yourself to some real music radio in excellent near-as-dammit CD quality)... That would be Lidl. ;-) Worth also getting their larger disc and a rotator. For about 200 quid (without installation costs if any) you'll get pretty well all the free stuff. -- *If only you'd use your powers for good instead of evil. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#156
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote: You manage to work valves into most of those too. Why on earth you're going for valve mics escapes me. Don't you have access to any valve mics, Dave? Neumann U47, U49, U50 are particularly good They are very expensive, and highly regarded in classical recording. The only people who don't like them are those that don't have them:-) Or those who require to impress a client. ;-) However, these are a rather different matter from new chinese ones. The heart of any condenser mic is the capsule - and always was. This is a precision device which like all such things has to be properly made. And that costs money. -- *I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#157
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article . com, Bret Ludwig wrote: But more importantly, almost all pop releases today have audio that has been through a tube somewhere. Does that account for the appalling quality? Optimod type thingie set to kill? I think he means in the recording chain. Tube mic preamps, and tube compressors are to be found in almost every studio. Right. So it's these that are responsible for the appalling quality of much of today's pop output? -- *Why don't sheep shrink when it rains? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#158
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
"tony sayer" wrote in message ... Dunno if it will even happen. What they ought to do is designate DAB as it is for lo-fi portable and mobile applications, and make the high bitrate stuff available on satellite where the is plenty of bandwidth available. The BBC doesn't even transmit there at high rates, just 192 for Radio three whereas a lot of German radio is 320 K or better!.... Hah! I have just uploaded a couple of wobblicam clips for you and there you are! Call me daft, but I do like a bit of 'wireless' on a Sunday Night (R2 atm - Malcolm Laycock's excellent 'Swing' programme) and ventured up the 'deep end' at one point - check this out: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/106.8MHz.wmv Lite FM from Concrete-a-borough, processed to within an inch of its life!.. And compare it with R3 (bloody speech again - as ever, but you'll get the idea!): http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Radio3.wmv Indeed.. Nowhere is safe these days, even UK radio is down the ****ter - DAB *or* FM, from what I can see!! Go satellite then. Got a Lidel?, near U they do some rather good value for money satellite stuff from time to time SL65 IIRC. Just needs to see the *"right" bit of the Sky and avail yourself to some real music radio in excellent near-as-dammit CD quality)... * which can be on the ground!.. Yes, we had a flyer from Lidl's with satellite kit (including 'station finders') in it only the other day and would expect they are in stock right now (if not all sold), but I really don't want to go that route - for the forseeable, anyway. Despite the various shortcomings, I *do* get by with R2, R3 and Carsick FM for what limited 'radio time' I get in the evenings. But the holidays are over (today) and R3 has been not at all bad this morning. (Virtually no jabber do far!) When the radio is only 'sonic wallpaper' on all day, I hafta admit I'm not listening too closely (plus in and out all the time) so 'broadcast quality issues' are not to the forefront! |
#159
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Iain Churches wrote: You manage to work valves into most of those too. Why on earth you're going for valve mics escapes me. Don't you have access to any valve mics, Dave? Neumann U47, U49, U50 are particularly good They are very expensive, and highly regarded in classical recording. The only people who don't like them are those that don't have them:-) Or those who require to impress a client. ;-) However, these are a rather different matter from new chinese ones. So are the prices.... The heart of any condenser mic is the capsule - and always was. This is a precision device which like all such things has to be properly made. And that costs money. Did you miss this one: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...MEWA:IT&ih=001 ?? |
#160
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Here we go again!
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: I've got a number of SS mics already (also on the above link), I just want to try a valve mic to see/hear for myself and get, dare I say it, a 'balanced view'...?? Not really. To do reasonable comparisons for the real world requires reasonable hearing and knowing what you're listening for. Which is why I post clips for the opinions of other who *supposedly* know more than I do. They are usually mostly for Don who never fails to give good advice and FB but, as they are already *up there* in Cyberspace, I usually mention them here because, let's face it Plowie, without my *blogging*, your *memoirs* and the odd bit of transatlantic, crossposted trolling, there wouldn't be a whole lot of traffic in here - other than the odd, monthly 'helpdesk' enquiry... By the amount of experimenting you do - with each new project being an 'improvement' - my guess is you have no real idea what you're searching for or how to achieve it. Really, you seem to be trying to re-invent the wheel. Things like valve mics/amps and horn speakers were superseded by modern techniques for a very good reason - not some conspiracy. Calm down Plowie - I'm not *re-inventing* anything, I'm simply investigating for myself. (Or is there some new EEC legislation to prevent that or summat?) Of course there's nothing wrong in starting from basics and arriving at your own conclusions. Plenty here will have done this in real time rather than trying to compress it all into a few years. I don't have more than a few years, besides I don't need to know the various topics down to *molecular level* - some better understanding than blindly following the instructions on the box is all I need... But like any child who learns by experience you also seem to dislike hearing 'I told you so'... Damn right I do. Do you know anyone who doesn't - especially when it comes from one of those *types* who thinks their own *perceived* greater experience/knowledge gives them leave to be rude, patronising and condescending to anyone who declares a level of ignorance or inexperience in the same subject? When your input to one of my topics has been helpful and not impolite, you have been thanked for it; when your input has (more commonly) been rude, patronising or insulting, you have been ignored... I'm surprised you haven't twigged that yet... |