"Ruud Broens" wrote in message


Well, there is also to consider the fact that a lot of material
has, up to now, only been published in LP format

Given that LPs were about all we had from about 1950 to 1983, why would this
be significant?

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:

Since there is and probably always will be a division on the
subject of LP playback vs. CD playback, let's see if we can
describe how we each hear a given recording that we have in
common.

I listen to *music*, not a format.
I want to have both formats to sound as good as they can, however.

I was thinking of the people who seem to think that LP is the
superior format. Trying to figure out what they get from that that
the believe is missing from CD.

I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago:
Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs with
LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps.

One of Jim's failings was that he gave way too much quarter to
idiots. In the end it got him, he let himself be bought.

On Usenet, vinylphilia and tubophilia are just a ways that some poor
lost people have of expressing their desire to be special.

In real life, they are probably mostly about sentimentality but
again the "I'm special because I have tubes and/or vinyl" theme is
there.

Another helpful and friendly response from Arny.

As if your typical response to be is friendly, Sander.

Now do you understand what gets him into trouble?

So far Sander the only trouble I've been in was getting sued for libel by
Scott. This put him out a fair amount of time and money. If I could get into
that kind of trouble with a few other of you bozos, it would be fine with
me!

LOL!

"Arny Krueger" said:

Another helpful and friendly response from Arny.

As if your typical response to be is friendly, Sander.

Order in words make Arnold random whatsoever sense no.

Now do you understand what gets him into trouble?

So far Sander the only trouble I've been in was getting sued for libel by
Scott. This put him out a fair amount of time and money. If I could get into
that kind of trouble with a few other of you bozos, it would be fine with
me!

A real masochist is hard to please.

LOL!

ROTFLMEEEOOOWW etc! ;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

I've just been listening to Lauryn Hill's "Miseducation of.."
album..
perhaps you have some comments about instrument placement in the
soundstage... ;-)

Not an album I own.

What albums have you got?

By Lauren Hill? None. Probably a oversight. When she sings as she did
in
Sister Act II, she is ****ing amazing. It's the rap stuff I simply
don't
care for.

Buy the album - it's a classic. Skip the rapz. The melodic refrain of
"To Zion", once heard a few times, shall be imprinted on thy inner
half brain permanently.

I hope it's better than the Alicia Keyes disk I recently purchased.

Buy it and find out.

Crushing sameness, thumping bass, but then Lauren has ten times the voice.

I couldn't say Lauren has "ten times the voice" of Alicia Keys, but
she makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck.

Not much in the way of a mix.

???

Give me something like Astral Weeks,
Moondance, or Santana and I'm a happy audiophile and a happy listener.

Bleugh!
It's what I grew up with, much like a major portion of what you like is.

Compared to the mix on the Alicia Keyes album, they are light years ahead.

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message


"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Sander deWaal Said :

I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago:
Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs with
LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps.

jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist wrote:
In article ,

The visceral reaction to the out-of-phase low frequency sounds
(i.e. rumble) that flood the room, providing auditory cues of
"you're in a large space", the intertrack IM distortions that
create new images and enhance the originally recorded ones, the
low random HF noise level that creates a sense of 'something
is happening', etc, etc.

IOW, if you want to run your entire musical experience through a musician's
EFX box, get tubed audio equipment.

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message


"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

Sander deWaal Said :

I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago:
Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs
with LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps.

jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist wrote:
In article ,

The visceral reaction to the out-of-phase low frequency sounds
(i.e. rumble) that flood the room, providing auditory cues of
"you're in a large space", the intertrack IM distortions that
create new images and enhance the originally recorded ones, the
low random HF noise level that creates a sense of 'something
is happening', etc, etc.

IOW, if you want to run your entire musical experience through a
musician's EFX box, get tubed audio equipment.

No.. not in-other-words what you just said.

Letsee what your logic is here, Dormer. My statement isn't because I said it
is true, but instead it is false because you said its false. So, who
promoted you to God?

The subject JJ was talking about was the euphonics of vinyl that make
people feel good :-)

I guess you'd die if you ever thought deeply about the cosmic meaning of
euphonics, or anything for that matter, Dormer.

The basic fallacy of euphonic audio reproduction equipment is that it
diminishes the role of musicians and production people. Musicans are
supposed to make good sounding music. Production people are supposed to make
good sounding recordings. Listeners are supposed to have audio systems that
expose the inner goodness of music and recordings, not slavishly apply a
gloss coat to everything.

I'll bet you always heavily salt your food in resturants, Dormer.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
: "Paul Dormer" wrote in message
: "Paul Dormer" wrote in message
:
:
: "Michael McKelvy" emitted :
:
: Sander deWaal Said :
:
: I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago:
: Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs
: with LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps.
:
: jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist wrote:
: In article ,
:
: The visceral reaction to the out-of-phase low frequency sounds
: (i.e. rumble) that flood the room, providing auditory cues of
: "you're in a large space", the intertrack IM distortions that
: create new images and enhance the originally recorded ones, the
: low random HF noise level that creates a sense of 'something
: is happening', etc, etc.
:
: IOW, if you want to run your entire musical experience through a
: musician's EFX box, get tubed audio equipment.
:
: No.. not in-other-words what you just said.
:
: Letsee what your logic is here, Dormer. My statement isn't because I
said it
: is true, but instead it is false because you said its false. So, who
: promoted you to God?
:
: The subject JJ was talking about was the euphonics of vinyl that make
: people feel good :-)
:
: I guess you'd die if you ever thought deeply about the cosmic meaning
of
: euphonics, or anything for that matter, Dormer.
:
: The basic fallacy of euphonic audio reproduction equipment is that it
: diminishes the role of musicians and production people. Musicans are
: supposed to make good sounding music. Production people are supposed to
make
: good sounding recordings. Listeners are supposed to have audio systems
that
: expose the inner goodness of music and recordings, not slavishly apply
a
: gloss coat to everything.

But then, one could just as easily say it is slavish to belief the
mixdown done by
some people, somewhere, on some occasion is *the autority* on capturing
the essence of the performance at hand.
Rudy

: I'll bet you always heavily salt your food in resturants, Dormer.
:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" wrote in message
:
:
: Well, there is also to consider the fact that a lot of material
: has, up to now, only been published in LP format
:
: Given that LPs were about all we had from about 1950 to 1983, why would this
: be significant?
:
Ehhm, if the question is : "why would people *want* to keep using record
players in the age of CD & DVD "
it seems to be clear enough..
Rudy

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 20:53:22 +0000, Paul Dormer
wrote:

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

Since there is and probably always will be a division on the
subject of LP playback vs. CD playback, let's see if we can
describe how we each hear a given recording that we have in common.

I listen to *music*, not a format.
I want to have both formats to sound as good as they can, however.

I was thinking of the people who seem to think that LP is the
superior format. Trying to figure out what they get from that that
the believe is missing from CD.

I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago:
Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs with
LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps.

One of Jim's failings was that he gave way too much quarter to idiots. In
the end it got him, he let himself be bought.

This is what's known as stabbing someone in the back.

Well, he didn't have a very high opinion of Arnold by the end of his
time here, so stabbing in the back is a stretch. In fact, Arnold is
one of the reasons that he eventually left.

"Arny Krueger" said:

The visceral reaction to the out-of-phase low frequency sounds
(i.e. rumble) that flood the room, providing auditory cues of
"you're in a large space", the intertrack IM distortions that
create new images and enhance the originally recorded ones, the
low random HF noise level that creates a sense of 'something
is happening', etc, etc.

IOW, if you want to run your entire musical experience through a musician's
EFX box, get tubed audio equipment.

OSAF.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 07:00:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Letsee what your logic is here, Dormer. My statement isn't because I said it
is true, but instead it is false because you said its false. So, who
promoted you to God?

The subject JJ was talking about was the euphonics of vinyl that make
people feel good :-)

I guess you'd die if you ever thought deeply about the cosmic meaning of
euphonics, or anything for that matter, Dormer.

The basic fallacy of euphonic audio reproduction equipment is that it
diminishes the role of musicians and production people. Musicans are
supposed to make good sounding music. Production people are supposed to make
good sounding recordings. Listeners are supposed to have audio systems that
expose the inner goodness of music and recordings, not slavishly apply a
gloss coat to everything.

Who promoted YOU to god?

"Arny Krueger" said:

Listeners are supposed to have audio systems that
expose the inner goodness of music and recordings, not slavishly apply a
gloss coat to everything.

So, who promoted you to God?

I'll bet you always heavily salt your food in resturants, Dormer.

I do, but I'm a well-known barbarian.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"Ruud Broens" said:

But then, one could just as easily say it is slavish to belief the
mixdown done by
some people, somewhere, on some occasion is *the autority* on capturing
the essence of the performance at hand.

Your not supposed, to think for yourself, Brown's.

NOT! ;-(

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 16:15:42 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

"Arny Krueger" said:

Listeners are supposed to have audio systems that
expose the inner goodness of music and recordings, not slavishly apply a
gloss coat to everything.

So, who promoted you to God?

At 16:14:16:42 - 0600, I wrote:

The basic fallacy of euphonic audio reproduction equipment is that it
diminishes the role of musicians and production people. Musicans are
supposed to make good sounding music. Production people are supposed to make
good sounding recordings. Listeners are supposed to have audio systems that
expose the inner goodness of music and recordings, not slavishly apply a
gloss coat to everything.

Who promoted YOU to god?

Now THAT is scary.

dave weil said:

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 16:15:42 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

"Arny Krueger" said:

Listeners are supposed to have audio systems that
expose the inner goodness of music and recordings, not slavishly apply a
gloss coat to everything.

So, who promoted you to God?

At 16:14:16:42 - 0600, I wrote:

The basic fallacy of euphonic audio reproduction equipment is that it
diminishes the role of musicians and production people. Musicans are
supposed to make good sounding music. Production people are supposed to make
good sounding recordings. Listeners are supposed to have audio systems that
expose the inner goodness of music and recordings, not slavishly apply a
gloss coat to everything.

Who promoted YOU to god?

Now THAT is scary.

Some weird sockpuppet conspiracy theory will surface any moment now.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" said:
:
: But then, one could just as easily say it is slavish to belief the
: mixdown done by
: some people, somewhere, on some occasion is *the autority* on capturing
: the essence of the performance at hand.
:
: Your not supposed, to think for yourself, Brown's.
:
: NOT! ;-(
:
: --
: Sander de Waal
: " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

I'm just a puppet on a string - but who or what is pullin' ??
Rudy

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The basic fallacy of euphonic audio reproduction equipment is that it
diminishes the role of musicians and production people. Musicans are
supposed to make good sounding music. Production people are supposed
to make good sounding recordings. Listeners are supposed to have
audio systems that expose the inner goodness of music and
recordings, not slavishly apply a gloss coat to everything.

But then, one could just as easily say it is slavish to belief the
mixdown done by
some people, somewhere, on some occasion is *the autority* on
capturing the essence of the performance at hand.

Obviously, you've never done much mixing, Ruud. I've mixed 100's of hours of
music. Figure 8 hours and up of mixing time for every hour of finished
recording.Tat little bit of experience leaves me at the tyro level, but I
have some idea of how the game goes, based on hands-on expereince.

If you blow it in the mix, you've very likely wounded the music in ways that
no LP mastering job or so-called euphonic tubed amp can fix.

IOW, if some people on some occasion blow the mixdown phase, you really have
little choice but to take their work for what it is worth.

It is possible to do some fixup in the mastering step, but you can only go
so far. Often one longs for the raw tracks to work with.

Perhaps someday raw tracks of great legacy recordings will be released, so
that people with the time and energy can have it their way.

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message


Well, there is also to consider the fact that a lot of material
has, up to now, only been published in LP format

Given that LPs were about all we had from about 1950 to 1983, why
would this be significant?

Ehhm, if the question is : "why would people *want* to keep using
record players in the age of CD & DVD "
it seems to be clear enough..

In fact almost nobody wants to use record players in the age of CD & DVD.
Now that people can transcribe their old LPs to digital formats, LP
playback will become even rarer.

Sander deWaal wrote:


dave weil said:

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 16:15:42 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

"Arny Krueger" said:

Listeners are supposed to have audio systems that
expose the inner goodness of music and recordings, not slavishly apply a
gloss coat to everything.

So, who promoted you to God?

At 16:14:16:42 - 0600, I wrote:

The basic fallacy of euphonic audio reproduction equipment is that it
diminishes the role of musicians and production people. Musicans are
supposed to make good sounding music. Production people are supposed to
make
good sounding recordings. Listeners are supposed to have audio systems that

expose the inner goodness of music and recordings, not slavishly apply a
gloss coat to everything.

Who promoted YOU to god?

Now THAT is scary.

Some weird sockpuppet conspiracy theory will surface any moment now.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "








The latest wierd theory is that because somebody *imagines* they were
"attacked" without provocation 7 years ago, they now have a license to term all
new attacks that *they* make "provoked".
Part of Krueger's new rationalization story for smearing others.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


The latest wierd theory is that because somebody *imagines* they were
"attacked" without provocation 7 years ago, they now have a license
to term all new attacks that *they* make "provoked".

Thanks Richman for admitting that you are so delusional that you think that
you haven't attacked me not even once for the past 6 years and 360 odd days.

Arny said:

I've mixed 100's of hours of
music.

Would you figure out once and for all that this is not the proper way to write
this, you ****ing idiot? How many years do we have to make fun of you before
you finally realize your mistake and fix it?

Boon

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

Arny said:

I've mixed 100's of hours of
music.

Would you figure out once and for all that this is not the proper way
to write this, you ****ing idiot? How many years do we have to make
fun of you before you finally realize your mistake and fix it?

This is informal writing, Phillips. If you want to play English Composition
teacher, get a degree in teaching and find a job in your local school
system.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


The latest wierd theory is that because somebody *imagines* they
were "attacked" without provocation 7 years ago, they now have a
license to term all new attacks that *they* make "provoked".

Thanks Richman for admitting that you are so delusional that you
think that you haven't attacked me not even once for the past 6
years and 360 odd days.


Thanks, Krueger for demonstrating the following:

(1) Your reading comprehension problems prevent you from responding
in a relevant or logical way to what I've written above.

Inability to perceive relevance of an obviously relevant comment noted.

(2) You think that you are qualified to evaluate delusions in other
people, even though many of those here have long ago concluded you
are out of touch with reality.

How many of those so-called "many people" are in fact sockpuppets, Richman?

(3) Thanks also for demonstrating that your tendency to try and lie
about what others have said is almost always present.

Where's the lie, Richman? Are you saying that seven years isn't
approximately the same as six years and 360 odd days?

Nothing in what I've said above has snything to do with Krueger's
comments.

Thanks for admitting your inablity to make a relevant comment, Richman.

Krueger has recently claimed that he is justified in
attacking people because they've attacked him in the past.

Not at all, Richman. I simply said that since you attack me on a repetititve
ongoing basis, any comment a turn back at you is hardly unprovoked.

Therefore, he hypocritically considers all attacks upon him as
"provoked" by virture of past history.

Wrong.

Using this standard, a long
list of people - as documented in the classic thread "Have You Had A
Bad Krueger Experience" - plus many more added since then - are fully
justified in attacking Krueger whenever they wish.

If you need a formal justification for attacking me Richman, you are really
one tightly wound piece of work.

Krueger has recently attacked a post of mine containing just one
word, "test".

Actually your post contained far more information than just one word,
Richman. regrettably your understanding of Usenet posts is so incomplete and
superficial that you don't know this well-known fact.

This is the extent to which RAO's most hated and
despised poster will go to meet his compuilsive need to lie about
others and attack them.

There was no lie in my post, Richman. Richman's congenital inability to
discern the truth, noted.

Since I've never claimed that I have not attacked Krueger in the
past, his statement above is clearly the product of a diseased mind
that can't distinguish between facts and the fiction he constantly
tries to create to misinform others.

Richman's inability to discern the implications of his statements, noted.
Your implied claim that only a post 7 years ago is relevant, and the
hundreds if not thousands of attacks you've made against me since then are
not relevant, is perfectly ludicrous.

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
: Arny said:
:
: I've mixed 100's of hours of
: music.
:
: Would you figure out once and for all that this is not the proper way to
write
: this, you ****ing idiot? How many years do we have to make fun of you
before
: you finally realize your mistake and fix it?
:
: Boon

he, i've mixed 100's of hours of banana's. is there a price for that :-) ??
RB

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 1/8/2005 11:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The basic fallacy of euphonic audio reproduction equipment is that it
diminishes the role of musicians and production people. Musicans are
supposed to make good sounding music. Production people are supposed
to make good sounding recordings. Listeners are supposed to have
audio systems that expose the inner goodness of music and
recordings, not slavishly apply a gloss coat to everything.

But then, one could just as easily say it is slavish to belief the
mixdown done by
some people, somewhere, on some occasion is *the autority* on
capturing the essence of the performance at hand.

Obviously, you've never done much mixing, Ruud. I've mixed 100's of hours of
music. Figure 8 hours and up of mixing time for every hour of finished
recording.Tat little bit of experience leaves me at the tyro level, but I
have some idea of how the game goes, based on hands-on expereince.

Doesn't make your opinion any more valid really.



If you blow it in the mix, you've very likely wounded the music in ways that
no LP mastering job or so-called euphonic tubed amp can fix.

If you "blow it" perhaps. But the bottom line is there is a vast grey area
between an ideal mix and a "blown mix."



IOW, if some people on some occasion blow the mixdown phase, you really have
little choice but to take their work for what it is worth.

No, the mastering engineer can still make improvements. Better is better.



It is possible to do some fixup in the mastering step, but you can only go
so far.

Actually some mastering engineers have worked miracles and some have turned
good recordings into garbage.Different masterings of the same recordings have
been known to cover the range of awful to wonderful.

Often one longs for the raw tracks to work with.

Sometimes mastering engineers get them.



Perhaps someday raw tracks of great legacy recordings will be released, so
that people with the time and energy can have it their way.

Actually in some cases they have been made available to some very talented
mastering engineers and the results have been stunning. I would rather leave
that job to such experts.

Scott Wheeler.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" wrote in message
:
:
: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message
: ...
:
: Perhaps someday raw tracks of great legacy recordings will be released, so
: that people with the time and energy can have it their way.
:
Now, there you are saying something ! But why just narrow it down to
legacy recordings? In fact, why not publish all material on a multitrack
basis, where the player can select a stereo, 5.1 mix from reading a header
file AND have some player models, where listeners can make their
own mixdown ? Of course, karaoke is a doddle when voices are on sep.
tracks, too...
Rudy

"ThePorkyGeorge" wrote in message


Our local legal genius Scott Wheeler apparently has a new alias. Presmably
it is self-descriptive.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 1/8/2005 11:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


Obviously, you've never done much mixing, Ruud. I've mixed 100's of
hours of music. Figure 8 hours and up of mixing time for every hour
of finished recording.That little bit of experience leaves me at the
tyro level, but I have some idea of how the game goes, based on
hands-on expereince.

Doesn't make your opinion any more valid really.

Out-of-hand, unqualified, unjustified dismissal of significiant hands-on
experience with mixing noted.

If you blow it in the mix, you've very likely wounded the music in
ways that no LP mastering job or so-called euphonic tubed amp can
fix.

If you "blow it" perhaps. But the bottom line is there is a vast grey
area between an ideal mix and a "blown mix."

True, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand because we're not talking
about the grey area between an ideal mix and a blown mix. Instead we're
trying to understand an apparent claim that a bad or undesireable mix can be
repaired by the use of what amounts to being arbitraily-designed EFX boxes,
AKA vacuum tube audio equipment.

Specifically, a stereo mix of a common multitrack master is the result of a
many-to-few process. Considerable information is in essence irretrievably
lost during mixdown.

For example, I am in the habit of mixing down 12 (twleve) 32/44,100 Hz
sample rate channels down into two channels of 16/44,100 audio (normal CD
audio). The input infomation rate is 16,934,400 bits per second (bps) but
the output information rate is merely 1,411,200 bps.

The claim has in essence been made that a more-or-less arbitraily designed
EFX box otherwise known as a vacuum tube amplifier can somehow recover some
or all of the missing 15,52,3200 bps. This is of course completely
ludicrous. But, it is the kind of claim that Scott Wheeler might make.

IOW, if some people on some occasion blow the mixdown phase, you
really have little choice but to take their work for what it is
worth.

No, the mastering engineer can still make improvements. Better is
better.

Given the huge amounts of information that are lost in the mixdown process,
the purported improvment is like spitting into the wind.

It is possible to do some fixup in the mastering step, but you can
only go so far.

Actually some mastering engineers have worked miracles and some have
turned good recordings into garbage.Different masterings of the same
recordings have been known to cover the range of awful to wonderful.

Again, the amount of data loss that is inherent in the mixing process puts
severe constraints on the improvements that can be made during remastering
of an existing recording.

Often one longs for the raw tracks to work with.

Sometimes mastering engineers get them.

If they do, then they aren't mastering, they are mixing. Scott, I suggest
that you try to keep the technical terminology straight. Unfortunately you
are trying to pretend to having expertise in an area that is far from your
real-world occupation or formal training. I've never seen you even claim to
have any hands-on experience at all with any phase of audio production. Why
are you trying to contradict people who have been doing various kinds of
audio production for decades?

At any rate, the vacuum tube amplifier that you have been recommending as a
means for correcting or changing mixdowns is a far cry from an intelligent
mixing engineer working with many times as much information. OTOH Scott,
perhaps the mixing or mastering engineers that you have been conversing with
are no more intelligent than a vacuum tube amplifier.

Perhaps someday raw tracks of great legacy recordings will be
released, so that people with the time and energy can have it their
way.

Actually in some cases they have been made available to some very
talented mastering engineers and the results have been stunning. I
would rather leave that job to such experts.

Given your demonstrated lack of audio technical expertise Scott, I agree
that you should not even think about trying to do a mixdown, should somehow
a proper set of audio tracks fall into the demented regime of your acutely
limited technical capabilities. I suggest that you stick to the practice of
law. At least you can make vain attempts at legal action.

Scott, I seriously doubt that you can even make vain attempts at mixing down
a multitrack master as you practice audio technology in accordance with your
backward preferences using outdated retro-technology.

Scott, I am amusiing myself with the thought of you trying to record or mix
down a multrack master to modern standards with your hobby-horse outdated
vacuum tube technology. For one thing there never were any appreciable
number of multitrack vacuum tube analog tape recorders with anything like
modern capabilities. The world upgraded to solid state before the track
count became large enough to be interesting by modern standards.
Historically speaking, most vacuum tube tape recorders for audio production
had two tracks, or less.

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Perhaps someday raw tracks of great legacy recordings will be
released, so that people with the time and energy can have it their
way.

Now, there you are saying something ! But why just narrow it down to
legacy recordings? In fact, why not publish all material on a
multitrack basis, where the player can select a stereo, 5.1 mix from
reading a header file AND have some player models, where listeners
can make their own mixdown ? Of course, karaoke is a doddle when
voices are on sep. tracks, too...

Agreed. A few people have been playing with this concept:

http://raw-tracks.com/v-web/portal/cms/index.php

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message


Well, there is also to consider the fact that a lot of material
has, up to now, only been published in LP format

Given that LPs were about all we had from about 1950 to 1983, why
would this be significant?

Ehhm, if the question is : "why would people *want* to keep using
record players in the age of CD & DVD "
it seems to be clear enough..

In fact almost nobody wants to use record players in the age of CD &
DVD. Now that people can transcribe their old LPs to digital
formats, LP playback will become even rarer.

oo, let's give the man a hand.. and the transcription is done by
???

Both do-it-yourself and independent contractors.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 1/8/2005 7:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"ThePorkyGeorge" wrote in message


Our local legal genius Scott Wheeler apparently has a new alias. Presmably
it is self-descriptive.

Idiots make many such stupid presumptions. It's the name of our Bulldog.



From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 1/8/2005 11:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


Obviously, you've never done much mixing, Ruud. I've mixed 100's of
hours of music. Figure 8 hours and up of mixing time for every hour
of finished recording.That little bit of experience leaves me at the
tyro level, but I have some idea of how the game goes, based on
hands-on expereince.

Doesn't make your opinion any more valid really.

Out-of-hand, unqualified, unjustified dismissal of significiant hands-on
experience with mixing noted.

It wasn't dismisal just a basic fact. Many people with a little hands on
experience are still fools.



If you blow it in the mix, you've very likely wounded the music in
ways that no LP mastering job or so-called euphonic tubed amp can
fix.

If you "blow it" perhaps. But the bottom line is there is a vast grey
area between an ideal mix and a "blown mix."

True, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand because we're not talking
about the grey area between an ideal mix and a blown mix. Instead we're
trying to understand an apparent claim that a bad or undesireable mix can be
repaired by the use of what amounts to being arbitraily-designed EFX boxes,
AKA vacuum tube audio equipment.

Wrong on every count. A Blown mix to one person may be a moderately bad mix to
another. The point of tubes inst to balance bad mixes in recordings though it
is to balance the playback end of things.



Specifically, a stereo mix of a common multitrack master is the result of a
many-to-few process.

Not really sure what you are trying to say here.

Considerable information is in essence irretrievably
lost during mixdown.

Multitrack recordings are recorded usually with a mix down in mind. Some
information is lost on purpose. But there in lies the vagueness of the whole
thing. One's blown mix is another person's masterpiece. The thing is not all
artists have good ears for sound.



For example, I am in the habit of mixing down 12 (twleve) 32/44,100 Hz
sample rate channels down into two channels of 16/44,100 audio (normal CD
audio). The input infomation rate is 16,934,400 bits per second (bps) but
the output information rate is merely 1,411,200 bps.

The claim has in essence been made that a more-or-less arbitraily designed
EFX box otherwise known as a vacuum tube amplifier can somehow recover some
or all of the missing 15,52,3200 bps.

Really? Who claimed that? Cite a quote please. I'll get in line right behind
you and call them on that, if that is the actual claim.

This is of course completely
ludicrous. But, it is the kind of claim that Scott Wheeler might make.

Nonsense.



IOW, if some people on some occasion blow the mixdown phase, you
really have little choice but to take their work for what it is
worth.

No, the mastering engineer can still make improvements. Better is
better.

Given the huge amounts of information that are lost in the mixdown process,
the purported improvment is like spitting into the wind.


That is highly subjective.



It is possible to do some fixup in the mastering step, but you can
only go so far.

Actually some mastering engineers have worked miracles and some have
turned good recordings into garbage.Different masterings of the same
recordings have been known to cover the range of awful to wonderful.

Again, the amount of data loss that is inherent in the mixing process puts
severe constraints on the improvements that can be made during remastering
of an existing recording.

Not at all. Maybe you don't really get the idea behind multitrack recording. It
is a means to an end. In the ideal mix all the information there is all that is
desired. With the multitude of mixes that are somewhere inbetween blown and
ideal there is more than enough information on the tape for the mastering
engineer to make a good or a bad final product



Often one longs for the raw tracks to work with.

Sometimes mastering engineers get them.

If they do, then they aren't mastering, they are mixing.

Did I say otherwise?

Scott, I suggest
that you try to keep the technical terminology straight.

I suggest you work on your reading comprehension.

Unfortunately you
are trying to pretend to having expertise in an area that is far from your
real-world occupation or formal training.

No. But you are. That's funny.

I've never seen you even claim to
have any hands-on experience at all with any phase of audio production.

That's because I haven't. OTOH for you to claim your dabbling somehow makes you
some kind of expert is quite laughable. The thing is, one does not have to have
any hands on experience to have a legitimate opinion on the quality of work and
a little bit of hobbyist hands on experience doesn't give one's opinion any
more legitimacy. Infact standing on a soapbox built out of a little amateur
dabbling only hurts your credibility. Not that you had any left.



Why
are you trying to contradict people who have been doing various kinds of
audio production for decades?

The question is why are you doing it? I'm just disagreeing with an amateur
wannabe who never was.



At any rate, the vacuum tube amplifier that you have been recommending as a
means for correcting or changing mixdowns is a far cry from an intelligent
mixing engineer working with many times as much information.

I have made no such recomendation. You are completely out of touch with
reality.

OTOH Scott,
perhaps the mixing or mastering engineers that you have been conversing with
are no more intelligent than a vacuum tube amplifier.

The ones I converse with are proven pros who have produced great sounding
commercial releases. What have you done Arny?



Perhaps someday raw tracks of great legacy recordings will be
released, so that people with the time and energy can have it their
way.

Actually in some cases they have been made available to some very
talented mastering engineers and the results have been stunning. I
would rather leave that job to such experts.

Given your demonstrated lack of audio technical expertise Scott, I agree
that you should not even think about trying to do a mixdown, should somehow
a proper set of audio tracks fall into the demented regime of your acutely
limited technical capabilities. I suggest that you stick to the practice of
law.

Um, I am a makeup artist Arny, and I intend to stick with it. You OTOH seem to
be getting more and more out of touch with reality.

At least you can make vain attempts at legal action.

Scott, I seriously doubt that you can even make vain attempts at mixing down
a multitrack master as you practice audio technology in accordance with your
backward preferences using outdated retro-technology.

I seriously doubt you could ever do a decent job of mixing down any sort of
multitrack recording yourself. At least I don't pretend to be a legitimate
mixing engineer. Man, get a life. If you think you got the chops to be a
recording/mixing engineer get outin the real world and prove yourself. Home
brewed amateurs are a dime a dozen.



Scott, I am amusiing myself with the thought of you trying to record or mix
down a multrack master to modern standards with your hobby-horse outdated
vacuum tube technology.

I find it amusing that you would confuse an Audio Research D-115 Mk II amp and
SP 10 preap with a mixing console. You really are losing it.

For one thing there never were any appreciable
number of multitrack vacuum tube analog tape recorders with anything like
modern capabilities. The world upgraded to solid state before the track
count became large enough to be interesting by modern standards.

Oh really? So you think commercial recordings were sounding better after SS
multitrack consoles were widely used? That's funny.


Historically speaking, most vacuum tube tape recorders for audio production
had two tracks, or less.

And they tended to produce better sounding final product.

Scott Wheeler

"ThePorkyGeorge" wrote in message


From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 1/8/2005 7:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"ThePorkyGeorge" wrote in message


Our local legal genius Scott Wheeler apparently has a new alias.
Presumably it is self-descriptive.

Idiots make many such stupid presumptions. It's the name of our
Bulldog.

Like I said, self-descriptive.

The last guy I recall from around here to pick his alias up from a dog, came
to a kind of unfortunate even cataclysmic end.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 1/8/2005 11:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Obviously, you've never done much mixing, Ruud. I've mixed 100's of
hours of music. Figure 8 hours and up of mixing time for every hour
of finished recording.That little bit of experience leaves me at
the tyro level, but I have some idea of how the game goes, based on
hands-on experience.

Doesn't make your opinion any more valid really.

Out-of-hand, unqualified, unjustified dismissal of significant
hands-on experience with mixing noted.

It wasn't dismissal just a basic fact.

Your idea of facts is pretty strange, Scott. Ask the California Superior
Court if you need a reminder about that.

Many people with a little hands on experience are still fools.

Which makes people who talk big based on zero hands-on experience like you
Scott, exactly what?

If you blow it in the mix, you've very likely wounded the music in
ways that no LP mastering job or so-called euphonic tubed amp can
fix.

If you "blow it" perhaps. But the bottom line is there is a vast
gray area between an ideal mix and a "blown mix."

True, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand because we're not
talking about the gray area between an ideal mix and a blown mix.
Instead we're trying to understand an apparent claim that a bad or
undesirable mix can be repaired by the use of what amounts to being
arbitrarily-designed EFX boxes, AKA vacuum tube audio equipment.

Wrong on every count. A Blown mix to one person may be a moderately
bad mix to another.

Scott, your inane continuing to blather about blown mixes doesn't make them
relevant.

The point of tubes inst to balance bad mixes in
recordings though it is to balance the playback end of things.

This isn't a comprehendible sentence, Scott. Go talk to your buddy Marc
Phillips and learn how to write. He's begging for people to ask him how to
write, since he doesn't seem to have a lot to say about audio.

Specifically, a stereo mix of a common multitrack master is the
result of a many-to-few process.

Not really sure what you are trying to say here.

I explain it in more detail Scott, but I get the feeling its way over your
head. Not much math in your educational background, right?

Considerable information is in essence irretrievably
lost during mixdown.

Multitrack recordings are recorded usually with a mix down in mind.

Doooh!

Some information is lost on purpose.

Dooh!

But there in lies the vagueness of the whole thing.

Nope. A multitrack master arguably has far more detail and far more
information in it than what a person will hear in an equivalent live
performance. The name of the game is to select the information contained
therein in such a way that you result in a believable and useful
representation of the live performance.

Now Scott, you can't possibly have any real world experience with this, so I
understand why these words are incomprehensible to you.

One's blown mix is another person's masterpiece.

I don't think so. There is a range of mixes that are acceptable, but some
will be preferable over others to various people based on individual tastes.
A truly blown mix will be missing information that is required to make the
mix to anybody who understands the music.

The thing is not all artists have good ears for sound.

To some degree, multitrack mixing steps around many aspects of that problem.
For example, if a member of a vocal group is not singing well (e.g. off
key), they can be pretty much excluded from the mix. If one or more members
of the group are singing too loud, a proper balance can generally be put
back into the mix. It's very difficult or impossible to do these things in
the mastering phase.

For example, I am in the habit of mixing down 12 (twelve) 32/44,100
Hz sample rate channels down into two channels of 16/44,100 audio
(normal CD audio). The input information rate is 16,934,400 bits per
second (bps) but the output information rate is merely 1,411,200 bps.

The claim has in essence been made that a more-or-less arbitrarily
designed EFX box otherwise known as a vacuum tube amplifier can
somehow recover some or all of the missing 15,52,3200 bps.

Really? Who claimed that?

You did Scott. Not in exactly those words, but that's the probably essence
of what you were trying to say with this almost unintelligible mess:

"The point of tubes inst to balance bad mixes in recordings though it is to
balance the playback end of things."

Cite a quote please. I'll get in line right
behind you and call them on that, if that is the actual claim.

You can start cleaning up your act any time, Scott. Please start out by
limiting your discussion to things you have at least the foggiest notion
about.

This is of course completely
ludicrous. But, it is the kind of claim that Scott Wheeler might
make.

Nonsense.

Agreed, nonsense or completely ludicrous.

IOW, if some people on some occasion blow the mixdown phase, you
really have little choice but to take their work for what it is
worth.

No, the mastering engineer can still make improvements. Better is
better.

Given the huge amounts of information that are lost in the mixdown
process, the purported improvement is like spitting into the wind.

That is highly subjective.

Actually its pretty factual and agreed upon by mixing engineers.

It is possible to do some fixup in the mastering step, but you can
only go so far.

Actually some mastering engineers have worked miracles and some have
turned good recordings into garbage.Different masterings of the same
recordings have been known to cover the range of awful to wonderful.

Again, the amount of data loss that is inherent in the mixing
process puts severe constraints on the improvements that can be made
during remastering of an existing recording.

Not at all.

For sure.

Maybe you don't really get the idea behind multitrack
recording. It is a means to an end.

Agreed.

In the ideal mix all the
information there is all that is desired. With the multitude of mixes
that are somewhere in between blown and ideal there is more than
enough information on the tape for the mastering engineer to make a
good or a bad final product

First off Scott, you've got the context wrong. very little mixing is done
off of tapes any more. I guess you never heard of Pro Tools or DAWs, but
they do exist and they are pretty much how things are done these days. Of
course you may not be aware of them because you live in a dream world where
tubes are all that matter.

Often one longs for the raw tracks to work with.

Sometimes mastering engineers get them.

If they do, then they aren't mastering, they are mixing.

Did I say otherwise?

Yes, Scott you said that mastering engineers get them. As soon as a
mastering engineer gets stops working with a multitrack master he stops
mastering and starts mixing. Perhaps that isn't how things are in your
all-tubes dream world, but back in the real world...

Scott, I suggest
that you try to keep the technical terminology straight.

I suggest you work on your reading comprehension.

Reading comprehension can't fix the fact that you don't really understand
what you are talking about, Scott. Your recent confusion of mastering and
mixing is just another example of your limited understanding of audio
production.

Unfortunately you
are trying to pretend to having expertise in an area that is far
from your real-world occupation or formal training.

No. But you are. That's funny.

Wrong again Scott. Perhaps you missed John Atkinson's evaluation of one of
my multitrack projects?

I've never seen you even claim to
have any hands-on experience at all with any phase of audio
production.

That's because I haven't.

I'll bet that telling that much truth hurt your mouth, Scott.

OTOH for you to claim your dabbling somehow
makes you some kind of expert is quite laughable.

I specifically excluded such a claim earlier in this thread. Thanks for your
tacit admission that your memory is so short that you've already forgotten
it, Scott. Do I need to repeat it, or can you find it on your own?

The thing is, one does not have to have any hands on experience to have a
legitimate
opinion on the quality of work

This isn't about quality of work Scott, its about what various steps in the
production process can possibly accomplish well. You've already proven that
you are confused about the difference between mixing and mastering, so your
comments are just errors and trash.

and a little bit of hobbyist hands on
experience doesn't give one's opinion any more legitimacy.

Fact is Scott that I've actually done 100's of mixdowns, which while small
compared to an experienced professional, is a lot more than a little bit.
Given that you are yet to do your first mixdown, I can see why you have no
appreciation for what I'm saying.

Infact
standing on a soapbox built out of a little amateur dabbling only
hurts your credibility. Not that you had any left.

Scott, accusing me of your grotesque technical errors and misapprehensions
isn't going to help you. Maybe you should get Richman, Middius or Phillips
to add a lot of trashy posts to this thread right away so that people won't
see all over your ridiculous errors and ignorant claims.

Why
are you trying to contradict people who have been doing various
kinds of audio production for decades?

The question is why are you doing it?

I'm not doing that, Scott. I'm just disagreeing with you and your confused
perceptions about audio production.

I'm just disagreeing with an amateur wannabe who never was.

It is true that you are even disagreeing with your recent statements, Scott.
So I agree, you are just disagreeing with an amateur wannabe who never was.

At any rate, the vacuum tube amplifier that you have been
recommending as a means for correcting or changing mixdowns is a far
cry from an intelligent mixing engineer working with many times as
much information.

I have made no such recommendation. You are completely out of touch
with reality.

Come on Scott, you tell us that vacuum tubes rule and that they can fix up
badly mixed recordings.

OTOH Scott,
perhaps the mixing or mastering engineers that you have been
conversing with are no more intelligent than a vacuum tube amplifier.

The ones I converse with are proven pros who have produced great
sounding commercial releases. What have you done Arny?

I'm sorry that you've missed some fairly significant things that have been
posted on RAO, Scott.

Perhaps someday raw tracks of great legacy recordings will be
released, so that people with the time and energy can have it their
way.

Actually in some cases they have been made available to some very
talented mastering engineers and the results have been stunning. I
would rather leave that job to such experts.

Given your demonstrated lack of audio technical expertise Scott, I
agree that you should not even think about trying to do a mixdown,
should somehow a proper set of audio tracks fall into the demented
regime of your acutely limited technical capabilities. I suggest
that you stick to the practice of law.

Um, I am a makeup artist Arny, and I intend to stick with it.

No Scott, you've claimed that you are qualified "..to have a legitimate
opinion on the quality of work (on mixdowns and mastering)".

You OTOH seem to be getting more and more out of touch with reality.

All the RAO Middius dupes and Richman drone-alikes say stuff like that.
Yawn!

At least you can make vain attempts at legal action.

Scott won't own up to his failed libel suit against me, that he filed and
attempted to try in California Superior Court. He believed on the basis of
his readings that he would be able to prevail in my absence by default. In
fact, his case was thrown out of court and he lost his legal costs

Scott, I seriously doubt that you can even make vain attempts at
mixing down a multitrack master as you practice audio technology in
accordance with your backward preferences using outdated
retro-technology.

I seriously doubt you could ever do a decent job of mixing down any
sort of multitrack recording yourself.

Go argue with Atkinson, Scott.

At least I don't pretend to be a legitimate mixing engineer.

But you do claim to be a legitimate critic and audio expert, Scott.

Man, get a life. If you think you got
the chops to be a recording/mixing engineer get outin the real world
and prove yourself. Home brewed amateurs are a dime a dozen.

Scott, I am out in the real world. I've even been in Los Angeles in the past
week.

Scott, I am amusing myself with the thought of you trying to record
or mix down a multrack master to modern standards with your
hobby-horse outdated vacuum tube technology.

I find it amusing that you would confuse an Audio Research D-115 Mk
II amp and SP 10 preamp with a mixing console. You really are losing it.

I never did such a thing Scott. I specifically excluded that possibility
when I said that you had zero experience or tools in your possession for
mixing.

For one thing there never were any appreciable
number of multitrack vacuum tube analog tape recorders with anything
like modern capabilities. The world upgraded to solid state before
the track count became large enough to be interesting by modern
standards.

Oh really? So you think commercial recordings were sounding better
after SS multitrack consoles were widely used? That's funny.

That's the real world Scott. That's the genesis of the vast majority of
mainstream recordings.

Historically speaking, most vacuum tube tape recorders for audio
production had two tracks, or less.

And they tended to produce better sounding final product.

Irrelevant since almost all recordings are made from multitrack masters, and
therefore are produced almost entirely or entirely on SS equipment. How do
you erase the imprint of SS that you have so many misapprehensions about
from the recordings you listen to, Scott?

Arny said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

Arny said:

I've mixed 100's of hours of
music.

Would you figure out once and for all that this is not the proper way
to write this, you ****ing idiot? How many years do we have to make
fun of you before you finally realize your mistake and fix it?

This is informal writing, Phillips. If you want to play English Composition
teacher, get a degree in teaching and find a job in your local school
system.









"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

Arny said:

I've mixed 100's of hours of
music.

Would you figure out once and for all that this is not the proper way
to write this, you ****ing idiot? How many years do we have to make
fun of you before you finally realize your mistake and fix it?

This is informal writing, Phillips.

No, it's not, you ****ing moron.

If you want to play English Composition
teacher, get a degree in teaching and find a job in your local school
system.

And make half as much money as I do now? Would that be known as The Krueger
Plan?

Boon

Arny said:

Our local legal genius Scott Wheeler apparently has a new alias. Presmably
it is self-descriptive.


No, it's a take on his bulldog, you ****ing moron. Scott Wheeler is tall and
thin.

Boon

Arny said:

This isn't a comprehendible sentence, Scott. Go talk to your buddy Marc
Phillips and learn how to write. He's begging for people to ask him how to
write, since he doesn't seem to have a lot to say about audio.

Prove it, moron.

Boon

Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message





While it is admittedly hard to define nad rather vague, I think that you'll
find that a lot of vinyl enthusiasts will tell you that compared to
the sound of live performances, vinyl comes closer. IOW, it sounds more
"real".


That's part of the problem I have with such descriptions, how can more
distorted sound more real?

In reality, part of the problem here is due to your interminable confusion
resulting from your inability to read simple sentence structure. I admit
that as I read further into your many responses, the more torpidly freaky
you become. You are so timid to absorb what you read and thus,
senselessly mind**** yourself unnecessarily too many times.

" ... IOW, it sounds more 'real'." See that? How many
ways do you think should reality depict sound freq betw 20 - 20kHz ?

I suspect this has to do with a mixture of both depth perception re. the
soundstage in many cases, and also a sense of more "body", whether it be
in the sound of the vocalist or of instruments. While these things are
difficult to operationally define in terms of specific measurements, these
observations appear to be quite common among vinyl enthusiasts. It also
appears that this experience occurs among some younger listeners, who,
after hearing some vinyl comparisons vs. digital playback of the same
material, decide to invest in
vinyl playback equipment.

Another variable that sometimes is raised, although less so in newer
digital recordings, is the well-known "digititis" or overly bright sound of
some digital recordings compared to the same recordings on vinyl. This, of
course, is a matter of taste, as well.


And most likely has to with the fact that digital can record and playback
such sounds with much more accuracy.

Do you mean to say that digital can record and playback well-known
"digititis" much more accurately?

Then the problem becomes how well can the speakers handle such sounds.

How well do you think they should?


Personally, I have many enjoyable examples in my own collection of both
formats, as well as some real lousy recordings in both.


There's no way to get a sows ear to become a silk purse, unless of course
you remix or re-record.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message



I think Jim Johnston gave us a possible answer years ago:
Some people actually like the "euphonic distortion" that occurs with
LP playback, and, in a different way, in most tube amps.

One of Jim's failings was that he gave way too much quarter to idiots. In
the end it got him, he let himself be bought.

On Usenet, vinylphilia and tubophilia are just a ways that some poor lost
people have of expressing their desire to be special.

You are so vain and very bitter again. Why do you castigate other people's
love of audio gears that are not similar to yours?


In real life, they are probably mostly about sentimentality but again the
"I'm special because I have tubes and/or vinyl" theme is there.

Do you still go to church on Sunday? Are you no longer Catholic?

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

Arny said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

Arny said:

I've mixed 100's of hours of
music.

Would you figure out once and for all that this is not the proper
way to write this, you ****ing idiot? How many years do we have to
make fun of you before you finally realize your mistake and fix it?

This is informal writing, Phillips. If you want to play English
Composition teacher, get a degree in teaching and find a job in your
local school system.

This post obviously unhinged Phillips so much that he gratuitously repeated
it below.


"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

Arny said:

I've mixed 100's of hours of
music.

Would you figure out once and for all that this is not the proper
way to write this, you ****ing idiot? How many years do we have to
make fun of you before you finally realize your mistake and fix it?

This is informal writing, Phillips.

No, it's not, you ****ing moron.

If you want to play English Composition
teacher, get a degree in teaching and find a job in your local school
system.

And make half as much money as I do now?

I'm talking real government money Phillips, not the imaginary play money
that you throw around Usenet.

"JBorg" wrote in message
m

Are you no longer Catholic?

Never was, and that is pretty well known. Get back with us when you beg,
borrow, steal or buy your first clue, Borg.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Marc Phillips said:

Our local legal genius Scott Wheeler apparently has a new alias.
Presmably it is self-descriptive.

No, it's a take on his bulldog, you ****ing moron. Scott Wheeler is
tall and thin.

Arnii hasn't had his daily ham sandwich yet, so he's a little stupider
than regular.

You're externalizing again, Middius. Now be a good boy and finish your eggs
and pork sausage for breakfast.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

JBorg said to ****-for-Brains:

Do you still go to church on Sunday? Are you no longer Catholic?

As we all know, Mr. ****...

The well-known Middius coprophilia strikes again!