[JackA]

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:04:20 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 22/04/2016 4:49 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 22/04/2016 06:17, JackA wrote:

... but as Doug Sax claimed, once man had a better handle on mastering
digital sound, CDs may be greatly accepted.

And were even before due to all their other benefits.

Like, Bonus Tracks, not included on the vinyl counterpart!?

Jack



Even the earliest CDs had much better sound quality and were less liable
to damage during playback and transport than the same release on cassette.

As far as the record companies were concerned at the time, CDs were
cheaper to produce

Nope, far more expensive to start with.


and initially were harder to copy than cassettes.

Not at all, copying CD to cassette was no harder than cassette to
cassette, but gave far better results. Almost everybody did it for their
car tapes here before CD players in cars became commonly available.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 11:40:46 AM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:04:20 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 22/04/2016 4:49 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 22/04/2016 06:17, JackA wrote:

... but as Doug Sax claimed, once man had a better handle on mastering
digital sound, CDs may be greatly accepted.

And were even before due to all their other benefits.

Like, Bonus Tracks, not included on the vinyl counterpart!?

Jack



Even the earliest CDs had much better sound quality and were less liable
to damage during playback and transport than the same release on cassette.

As far as the record companies were concerned at the time, CDs were
cheaper to produce

Nope, far more expensive to start with.


and initially were harder to copy than cassettes.

Not at all, copying CD to cassette was no harder than cassette to
cassette, but gave far better results. Almost everybody did it for their
car tapes here before CD players in cars became commonly available.

Trevor.

In response to your top-post, I
could care less about bonus tracks
or a cm. thick booklet of liner
notes. I just want the original
sound, unf___ked with.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 11:45:34 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 11:40:46 AM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:04:20 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 22/04/2016 4:49 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 22/04/2016 06:17, JackA wrote:

... but as Doug Sax claimed, once man had a better handle on mastering
digital sound, CDs may be greatly accepted.

And were even before due to all their other benefits.

Like, Bonus Tracks, not included on the vinyl counterpart!?

Jack



Even the earliest CDs had much better sound quality and were less liable
to damage during playback and transport than the same release on cassette.

As far as the record companies were concerned at the time, CDs were
cheaper to produce

Nope, far more expensive to start with.


and initially were harder to copy than cassettes.

Not at all, copying CD to cassette was no harder than cassette to
cassette, but gave far better results. Almost everybody did it for their
car tapes here before CD players in cars became commonly available.

Trevor.

In response to your top-post, I
could care less about bonus tracks
or a cm. thick booklet of liner
notes. I just want the original
sound, unf___ked with.

What "original" sound? What you heard on AM radio? What you heard on FM radio? What you heard on 45? What you heard on LP? What you heard on Quadraphonic LP?
What you heard on.....?
See my point?

And a primer coming up where some peak trimming improves sound. Stay tuned.

Jack

[geoff]

On 27/04/2016 3:45 a.m., wrote:
r.
In response to your top-post, I
could care less about bonus tracks
or a cm. thick booklet of liner
notes. I just want the original
sound, unf___ked with.

So don't buy a remastered version then, or audition it first to ensure
that the remastering complies with your preconception of what it should be.

The point of remastering is to improve upon the first efforts which may
have been limited (or even compromised) by the technology of the era
when done. In the previous millennium, and early this one, some
remastering was not as good as it can be today.

Your hobby-horse does not require remastering to achieve, and is not a
necessary part of remastering at all. But if you haven't got it yet, I
guess you never will.

geoff

[JackA]

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 5:38:00 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 27/04/2016 3:45 a.m., wrote:
r.
In response to your top-post, I
could care less about bonus tracks
or a cm. thick booklet of liner
notes. I just want the original
sound, unf___ked with.

So don't buy a remastered version then, or audition it first to ensure
that the remastering complies with your preconception of what it should be.

The point of remastering is to improve upon the first efforts which may
have been limited (or even compromised) by the technology of the era
when done. In the previous millennium, and early this one, some
remastering was not as good as it can be today.

Well said.

Jack


Your hobby-horse does not require remastering to achieve, and is not a
necessary part of remastering at all. But if you haven't got it yet, I
guess you never will.

geoff

[JackA]

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 5:38:00 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 27/04/2016 3:45 a.m., wrote:
r.
In response to your top-post, I
could care less about bonus tracks
or a cm. thick booklet of liner
notes. I just want the original
sound, unf___ked with.

So don't buy a remastered version then, or audition it first to ensure
that the remastering complies with your preconception of what it should be.

The point of remastering is to improve upon the first efforts which may
have been limited (or even compromised) by the technology of the era
when done. In the previous millennium, and early this one, some
remastering was not as good as it can be today.

I'll agree with him to some degree.

Like when they remixed this Deep Purple song, sounds way different than it sounded on vinyl! Edited, I like "damnit!" ending...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...okeonwater.mp3

Jack

Your hobby-horse does not require remastering to achieve, and is not a
necessary part of remastering at all. But if you haven't got it yet, I
guess you never will.

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "On 27/04/2016 3:45 a.m., wrote:
r.
In response to your top-post, I
could care less about bonus tracks
or a cm. thick booklet of liner
notes. I just want the original
sound, unf___ked with.

So don't buy a remastered version then, or audition it first to ensure
that the remastering complies with your preconception of what it should be.

The point of remastering is to improve upon the first efforts which may
have been limited (or even compromised) by the technology of the era
when done. In the previous millennium, and early this one, some
remastering was not as good as it can be today."
____
Those maybe the noble points of remastering,
but, as proven by both listening and by DAW
analysis, that is not always what is done and
sold as "remastered"
____

"Your hobby-horse does not require remastering to achieve, and is not a
necessary part of remastering at all. But if you haven't got it yet, I
guess you never will.

geoff "

"My" hobby-horse? Browse through the
original-vs-remaster threads on the Hoffman
and Discogs forums, for once, and see how
many music fans actually share "my" hobby
horse. Expand your horizons a little, Geoff,
and see what's really going on in both sides
of the music business, not just on the
production side.

[geoff]

On 27/04/2016 1:37 p.m., wrote:
"My" hobby-horse? Browse through the original-vs-remaster threads on
the Hoffman and Discogs forums, for once, and see how many music fans
actually share "my" hobby horse. Expand your horizons a little, Geoff,
and see what's really going on in both sides of the music business,
not just on the production side.

I think you'll find that I and most others here loath hyper-compression
just as much or more than you do. The difference is we know that it is
not an unavoidable attribute of remastering, or for that matter mixing,
and do not automatically assume that anything remastered suffers from it.

Myself, I just lost a client (a, shudder, country singer) for whom I
would not make one of her tracks that I recorded/mixed/mastered for her
sound "louder, just like the country radio DJs make it".

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "Myself, I just lost a client (a, shudder, country singer) for whom I
would not make one of her tracks that I recorded/mixed/mastered for her
sound "louder, just like the country radio DJs make it". "

Yeah, too bad that bug has infected that genre. Equally
disturbing is the infusion of RAP into country. The late
Hank Williams and George Jones would shudder!

I enjoy music from all genres geoff - exclusively, if
you get my drift.

[None]

thekma @ dumb****sRtheckmah . shortbus . edu wrote in message
news:a987936f-8817-485c-b134-
"My" hobby-horse? Browse through the
original-vs-remaster threads on the Hoffman
and Discogs forums, for once, and see how
many music fans actually share "my" hobby
horse.

Yeah, go see how Dumb **** Kozicki was beating the rotted corpse of
his hobbyhorse, before his sorry trolling ass was kicked to the curb
and banned for being such a clueless retard. A never-ending lifetime
of utter dumb****ery. Why would anyone want to browse through that
pile of hobby-horse-****?

[None]

thekkkhhhmaaaah! wrote:
geoff wrote: "On 27/04/2016 3:45 a.m., wrote:
But if you haven't got it yet, I guess you never will.
"My" hobby-horse? Browse through the
original-vs-remaster threads on the Hoffman
and Discogs forums,

.... to see the proof that the shortbus dumb**** didn't get it then,
doesn't get it now, and certainly never will. FDFCKWAFA.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 9:38:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
geoff wrote: "On 27/04/2016 3:45 a.m., wrote:
r.
In response to your top-post, I
could care less about bonus tracks
or a cm. thick booklet of liner
notes. I just want the original
sound, unf___ked with.

So don't buy a remastered version then, or audition it first to ensure
that the remastering complies with your preconception of what it should be.

The point of remastering is to improve upon the first efforts which may
have been limited (or even compromised) by the technology of the era
when done. In the previous millennium, and early this one, some
remastering was not as good as it can be today."
____
Those maybe the noble points of remastering,
but, as proven by both listening and by DAW
analysis, that is not always what is done and
sold as "remastered"
____

"Your hobby-horse does not require remastering to achieve, and is not a
necessary part of remastering at all. But if you haven't got it yet, I
guess you never will.

geoff "

"My" hobby-horse? Browse through the
original-vs-remaster threads on the Hoffman
and Discogs forums, for once, and see how
many music fans actually share "my" hobby
horse.

Dear Lord, not Hoffman's forum!
Like Trump would say - clueless!!

Jack


Expand your horizons a little, Geoff,
and see what's really going on in both sides
of the music business, not just on the
production side.

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
Dear Lord, not Hoffman's forum!
Like Trump would say - clueless!!

Jack
- show quoted text -"


Clueless? Not entirely. The folks on
the Hoffman form actually buy and listen
to music. And they don't like some of
what they're hearing. And analysis backs
that up, Jack. You may like super-
compressed, super loud music, and might
even mistake it for remastering, but
most of us know better.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 8:18:47 AM UTC-4, wrote:
JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
Dear Lord, not Hoffman's forum!
Like Trump would say - clueless!!

Jack
- show quoted text -"


Clueless? Not entirely. The folks on
the Hoffman form actually buy and listen
to music. And they don't like some of
what they're hearing. And analysis backs
that up, Jack. You may like super-
compressed, super loud music, and might
even mistake it for remastering, but
most of us know better.

When, I say, when those Hoffman fans address Steve's MCA work, rather than cheer-leading DCC label, THEN I'll believe they are telling the truth!!

Hoffman's work is just like MyPillow, Made in USA garbage. Pay Americans well and they'll lie to your face, while promoting ill products.

Jack

[[email protected]]

I think you'll find that I and most others here loath hyper-compression
just as much or more than you do.


right...

buy yourself an expander, adjust the controls per your taste.

problem solved.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 8:41:08 AM UTC-4, wrote:

I think you'll find that I and most others here loath hyper-compression
just as much or more than you do.


right...

buy yourself an expander, adjust the controls per your taste.

problem solved.

And he doesn't even believe in a graphic equalizer that would tarnish the "original sound"!

Jack

[Trevor]

On 27/04/2016 10:41 PM, wrote:
I think you'll find that I and most others here loath hyper-compression
just as much or more than you do.


right...

buy yourself an expander, adjust the controls per your taste.

problem solved.

If you think you can properly fix hyper-compression that easily you are
as thick as Thekma. My biggest beef is the huge amount of clipping that
is considered normal these days. You can get plug-ins to try and *guess*
what might have been there before it was clipped, but using only 20dB of
a 96dB dynamic range and then clipping just to make it sound louder than
everybody else is just plain stupid IMO. But unlike Thekma, I understand
who is usually pulling the strings. I have delivered good sounding mixes
that were ruined because the client thought they weren't finished until
someone else "mastered" them to death. But not my problem after that. I
even get to listen to my mixes if I want, rather than the commercial
release, and do :-)

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "If you think you can properly fix hyper-compression that easily you are
as thick as Thekma. My biggest beef is the huge amount of clipping that
is considered normal these days. You can get plug-ins to try and *guess*
what might have been there before it was clipped, but using only 20dB of
a 96dB dynamic range and then clipping just to make it sound louder than
everybody else is just plain stupid IMO. But unlike Thekma, I understand
who is usually pulling the strings. I have delivered good sounding mixes
that were ruined because the client thought they weren't finished until
someone else "mastered" them to death. But not my problem after that. I
even get to listen to my mixes if I want, rather than the commercial
release, and do :-)

Trevor. "
________
"Pulling the strings?" I know who's pulling
the strings Trevor. You mentioned them
broadly toward the end of your reply. They
include artists, producers, and labels.


And I also applaud geoff for having the
principles to decline a project over such
a request. Unfortunately, what is at the
root of all this nonsense is MONEY. And
a mix that is even just perceptibly quieter
than all the others auditioned by A&R
will be skipped over, even if it does
sound better.


And something I cannot control is how
Google Groups and/or Usenet truncates
my handle: "thekma(NROCKS).

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 6:42:04 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Trevor wrote: "If you think you can properly fix hyper-compression that easily you are
as thick as Thekma. My biggest beef is the huge amount of clipping that
is considered normal these days. You can get plug-ins to try and *guess*
what might have been there before it was clipped, but using only 20dB of
a 96dB dynamic range and then clipping just to make it sound louder than
everybody else is just plain stupid IMO.


I know it is not that easy to UNdo compression and clipping.

But spending time slaving over a hot DAW working it constructivly is better than whining about it on the Internet.

In fact, if it is such a big issue to many, he might invent a new plug in and get rich.

[[email protected]]

wrote: "In fact, if it is such a big issue to many,..."


Google over-compression or loudness in
music, and the thousands of hits you get
should reveal how "big an issue" it is.


Are you an engineer(mix or mastering)
or a label rep?

[JackA]

On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 9:08:40 AM UTC-4, wrote:
wrote: "In fact, if it is such a big issue to many,..."


Google over-compression or loudness in
music, and the thousands of hits you get
should reveal how "big an issue" it is.

"Hits"? Can you name a few?
Past music - I see no real reason for over-compressing alarm. If anything, it's isolated to more recent "hits" than past hits. Most of what I found on CD of past music - 60's, 70's, etc., has less than proper loudness.

Jack


Are you an engineer(mix or mastering)
or a label rep?

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: ""Hits"? Can you name a few? "

D'OHHH!!

By hits that means returned search
results on Google or other search
engine. Come on, Jack!...

[JackA]

On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 10:59:18 AM UTC-4, wrote:
JackA wrote: ""Hits"? Can you name a few? "

D'OHHH!!

By hits that means returned search
results on Google or other search
engine. Come on, Jack!...

Someone else claims it's loud, and you misinterpret...

http://www.loudmastering.com/

:-)

Jack

[geoff]

On 28/04/2016 10:42 p.m., wrote:


And something I cannot control is how
Google Groups and/or Usenet truncates
my handle: "thekma(NROCKS).

But one thing you could easily control is what newsreader you use.
Your choice.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 28/04/2016 22:30, geoff wrote:
On 28/04/2016 10:42 p.m., wrote:


And something I cannot control is how
Google Groups and/or Usenet truncates
my handle: "thekma(NROCKS).

But one thing you could easily control is what newsreader you use. Your
choice.

As he's using Google groups to post, he has very little choice other
than use their broken interface or get a real news server account and
learning to use a proper newsreader. It is, I believe, possible but
difficult to use Google groups data with a real newsreader, but it's a
PITA as GG keep chaning their API.

That's assuming the owner of the computer he uses lets him install
software. ;-)


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Nil[_2_]]

On 28 Apr 2016, John Williamson
wrote in rec.audio.pro:

As he's using Google groups to post, he has very little choice
other than use their broken interface or get a real news server
account and learning to use a proper newsreader.

It's quite possible to use Google Groups and quote the prior post in
a conventional, understandable and readable way. The method has been
explained to Thickma multiple times, but he chooses to ignore it or
is incapable of following simple directions.

It is, I believe, possible but difficult to use Google groups data
with a real newsreader, but it's a PITA as GG keep chaning their
API.

It's possible to treat "real" (that is, non-Usenet) groups as an
email list. I don't know if you can do that with Usenet groups, but
it would be unwieldy. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure there is no other
way to use Google Groups than to use their web interface, in
particular, you can't use a real newsreader.

[Trevor]

On 28/04/2016 10:42 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 6:42:04 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Trevor wrote: "If you think you can properly fix hyper-compression that easily you are
as thick as Thekma. My biggest beef is the huge amount of clipping that
is considered normal these days. You can get plug-ins to try and *guess*
what might have been there before it was clipped, but using only 20dB of
a 96dB dynamic range and then clipping just to make it sound louder than
everybody else is just plain stupid IMO.


I know it is not that easy to UNdo compression and clipping.

Read *impossible* to do completely.


But spending time slaving over a hot DAW working it constructivly is better than whining about it on the Internet.

That's true at least.


In fact, if it is such a big issue to many, he might invent a new plug in and get rich.

Firstly no-one can ever do it completely, and Thekma would be the last
person who could do it at all. :-)
But I do agree with him that it should not be necessary in the first place.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 29/04/2016 1:53 PM, Nil wrote:
It's possible to treat "real" (that is, non-Usenet) groups as an
email list. I don't know if you can do that with Usenet groups, but
it would be unwieldy. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure there is no other
way to use Google Groups than to use their web interface, in
particular, you can't use a real newsreader.

Since there are free news servers, why would you want to use GG at all?

Trevor.

[Nil[_2_]]

On 29 Apr 2016, Trevor wrote in rec.audio.pro:

Since there are free news servers, why would you want to use GG at
all?

I wouldn't, but I do sometimes when I'm at a computer that's not mine
or can't run a newsreader.

[[email protected]]

Trever wrote: "Firstly no-one can ever do it completely,
and Thekma would be the last who could do it"

I never assumed to know your capabilities
so DON't make ASSumptions about mine!

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "Since there are free news servers,
why would you want to use GG at all? "

Name THREE 'free' ones.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
On 29/04/2016 1:53 PM, Nil wrote:
It's possible to treat "real" (that is, non-Usenet) groups as an
email list. I don't know if you can do that with Usenet groups, but
it would be unwieldy. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure there is no other
way to use Google Groups than to use their web interface, in
particular, you can't use a real newsreader.

Since there are free news servers, why would you want to use GG at all?

For a long time, one might have wanted to use Google Groups because of the
long retention of archived messages. Then they broke the indexing and now
that's useless also.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

On 29/04/2016 10:57, wrote:
Trevor wrote: "Since there are free news servers,
why would you want to use GG at all? "

Name THREE 'free' ones.

news.tornevall.net, www.eternal-september.org, and any of the ones on
this page:-

http://www.freeusenetnews.com/

I happily pay ten Euros a year to news.indivdual.net for their spam
blocking function.

For obvious reasons, free servers tend to be for text only groups, if
you need binary groups, you'll have to pay.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 9:52:13 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 29/04/2016 10:57, wrote:
Trevor wrote: "Since there are free news servers,
why would you want to use GG at all? "

Name THREE 'free' ones.

news.tornevall.net, www.eternal-september.org, and any of the ones on
this page:-

http://www.freeusenetnews.com/

I happily pay ten Euros a year to news.indivdual.net for their spam
blocking function.

For obvious reasons, free servers tend to be for text only groups, if
you need binary groups, you'll have to pay.

So much for "free".

Jack


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 5:57:46 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Trevor wrote: "Since there are free news servers,
why would you want to use GG at all? "

Name THREE 'free' ones.

Easynews offered a web-based forum for (pay) subscribers, but for usenet binaries only! No need for usenet based software.

Just thought I'd toss that in!

Jack

[Phil W]

Trevor:
On 29/04/2016 1:53 PM, Nil wrote:
It's possible to treat "real" (that is, non-Usenet) groups as an
email list. I don't know if you can do that with Usenet groups, but
it would be unwieldy. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure there is no other
way to use Google Groups than to use their web interface, in
particular, you can't use a real newsreader.

Since there are free news servers, why would you want to use GG at all?

Well, because... maybe, it would be too easy to use stuff that´s easy to
get, proven and used by many others, who don´t refuse to understand
anything?!

On the other hand, I don´t care, which method thekma uses to spread his spam
here, as it goes straight to a filter...

[John Williamson]

On 29/04/2016 15:34, JackA wrote:
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 9:52:13 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
For obvious reasons, free servers tend to be for text only groups, if
you need binary groups, you'll have to pay.

So much for "free".

If you want a truly free news server, it's not all that hard to set up
your own.

Then you will find out just how much it costs in money and time to run
one... Bandwidth and your time will be your major expenses, as the
computer you need is fairly basic by modern standards, though you will
need at least a gigabit internet connection both ways, depending on how
many users you have.

TANSTAAFL.

You can offset these costs by asking for donations towards the cost of
running the service, of course, which all the free ones do, counting on
enough people being willing to pay a few dollars a year for the service
to pay the running costs.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 12:12:56 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 29/04/2016 15:34, JackA wrote:
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 9:52:13 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
For obvious reasons, free servers tend to be for text only groups, if
you need binary groups, you'll have to pay.

So much for "free".

If you want a truly free news server, it's not all that hard to set up
your own.

Then you will find out just how much it costs in money and time to run
one... Bandwidth and your time will be your major expenses, as the
computer you need is fairly basic by modern standards, though you will
need at least a gigabit internet connection both ways, depending on how
many users you have.

TANSTAAFL.

You can offset these costs by asking for donations towards the cost of
running the service, of course, which all the free ones do, counting on
enough people being willing to pay a few dollars a year for the service
to pay the running costs.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Early on, you could set-up a FTP client and it could be like these new "clouds". Others could upload and/or download!!

However, I do believe the are off-limits with some cable internet providers, like Comcast.

Jack

[None]

thekma-thekma-thekma! @ omnibus-brevis.k12 wrote in message
...
And something I cannot control is how
Google Groups and/or Usenet truncates
my handle: "thekma(NROCKS).

Countless other users of Gurgle Groups seem to have been able to
figure this out, and some of them are pretty thick-headed. It's not
really that hard. But in the years you've been using google's
"Dumb****'s Interface To Usenet," you've never been able to figure it
out. And you are still utterly unable to respond coherently to a post
without totally ****ing up the formatting, and screwing up the thread.
This is not complicated stuff, but you seem to be so profoundly
moronic that, even after years, you haven't even a semblance of a
clue.

And you blame Google! That's even more hilarious. You're too stupid to
figure out Google, so it's their fault. And you're the one who chooses
to use Google. Dumb****! It's as if you're trying to use a coffee mug
to slice cheese, and it's not working, so you blame the mug rather
than picking up a knife. Clearly, you're deeply dumb****ed.

[None]

thick-mama @ retardedgoofball.org wrote in message
...
Google over-compression or loudness in
music, and the thousands of hits you get
should reveal how "big an issue" it is.

Classic litany of a Usenet crank riding a hobbyhorse:

Google my hobbyhorse! The number of hits will prove ...

That you're right? That you're not a crank obsessing about your
hobbyhorse? What?

It proves nothing. It's a number, and by your own admission on several
occasions, you can't understand numbers. But it does confirm what
everyone knows: you're a crank, and you have a dead hobbyhorse to
flog, and you'd be unable to match wits with a garden slug.