[Eeyore]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.

Graham


Agreed.

Cool.... more used records available for me.

More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you too.
:-)

U2 - Rattle and Hum.

Graham

[Eeyore]

" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

I said:
I raised his hackles by quoting two respected designers and
manufacturers of high-end transistor audio equipment D'Agostino.and
Meitner. Both had the inegrity (and courage) to say that they hope one
day to equal the quality of tube and vinyl. .

Mr. Eeyore responds;

That's utterly absurd.

Tube circuitry is heavily flawed.

Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.

Graham

There you are : Meitner of Museatex and D'Agostino of Krell on one
side the RAO distinguished chapel members Eeyore and Krivis on the
other. What is a poor nontechnical audiophile to think and do?
Ludovic Mirabel.

Meitner of Museatex and D'Agostino of Krell are clearly mentally defective. I
imagine they can't hear very well too either in order to make such a statement.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

On 4 Oct 2006 10:29:52 -0700, "
wrote:

There you are : Meitner of Museatex and D'Agostino of Krell on one
side the RAO distinguished chapel members Eeyore and Krivis on the
other. What is a poor nontechnical audiophile to think and do?

Perhaps look to see who stands to make the most money from your belief
in foo-foo dust, and then ignore them?

Hint: Meitner and D'Agostino are the ones that have realized that the
higher they price a product, the better some people will think it is.

BTW, what's with your completely wierd style of quoting where you
include everything twice?

Ludo like to perplex.

Graham

[Eeyore]

wrote:

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

Cool.... more used records available for me.

More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you too.
:-)

Maybe you should have taken better care of your records. No wonder
klutzes like you went running toward the CD when it came out.

Maybe he had a life to lead ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:


People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or

So you admit it's down to "I like it."

The guy with his mp3 player turned up to max distort "likes it" too. I
guess he must be right.

There's a guy in uk.rec.audio who's been banging on about his superior valve
amps and home-made speakers who posted some mp3 of the sound it makes. Good
God ! The guy must be stone deaf ! It sounded shockingly bad. I guess that
explains why he doesn't like decent kit.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

Here's some interesting commentary from FVA:

The basic engineering purpose of using the tube is that the summing
node of input and feedback on a reasonable tube circuit will have in
excess of 200 volts of headroom before overload. A typical solid
state device circuit will have 0.2 volts or much less headroom before
the feedback loop clips and fails, all other things being equal.

This is complete unadulterated rubbish !

Graham

[Eeyore]

wrote:

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:

People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or

So you admit it's down to "I like it."

It's always been about personal preference. That's why the
objectivists always sound so foolish.

There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good *objectively* !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Harry Lavo wrote:

wrote in message
Stuart Krivis wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
wrote:
(paul packer) wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.

Graham

Agreed.

Cool.... more used records available for me.

More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you too.
:-)

Maybe you should have taken better care of your records. No wonder
klutzes like you went running toward the CD when it came out.

Boon

Boy, ain't that the truth. I had a Thorens turntable, Pritchard tonearm,
and ADC 25 cartridge shortly after getting out of college, replacing my
Garrard / Shure set up. Kept records dust free, in their covers when not
playing, and tracked at light weights. Most of my records have very little
noise to this day, some 44 years later. I buy used LP's in college towns
(but with my tastes, probably from profs rather than students) and about 1/2
of them are in excellent condition. The other half sound as if they were
tracked for twenty years in a VM changer, at five grams, and sat open in
piles when not being played. The difference is not subtle. And *this* is
what the anti-vinyl fundamentalists quote as the problem with LP's. Little
do they realize that it usually signals a lack of care and sometimes lesser
equipment on their part.

There are *plenty* more problems with vinyl than just the difficulty of decent
care.

Graham

[Harry Lavo]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Stuart Krivis wrote:

On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:


People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or

So you admit it's down to "I like it."

The guy with his mp3 player turned up to max distort "likes it" too. I
guess he must be right.

There's a guy in uk.rec.audio who's been banging on about his superior
valve
amps and home-made speakers who posted some mp3 of the sound it makes.
Good
God ! The guy must be stone deaf ! It sounded shockingly bad. I guess that
explains why he doesn't like decent kit.


He recorded his system? Even the best system in the world, in the best
room, would sound pretty bad once fed back into a microphone/recorder setup
and played back through another pair of speakers? Ever tried it? I have,
just for kicks, years ago, and the end result simply doesn't sound anything
like the system.

[[email protected]]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Stuart Krivis wrote:

On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:


People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or

So you admit it's down to "I like it."

The guy with his mp3 player turned up to max distort "likes it" too. I
guess he must be right.

There's a guy in uk.rec.audio who's been banging on about his superior
valve
amps and home-made speakers who posted some mp3 of the sound it makes.
Good
God ! The guy must be stone deaf ! It sounded shockingly bad. I guess that
explains why he doesn't like decent kit.


He recorded his system? Even the best system in the world, in the best
room, would sound pretty bad once fed back into a microphone/recorder setup
and played back through another pair of speakers? Ever tried it? I have,
just for kicks, years ago, and the end result simply doesn't sound anything
like the system.

Harry, are you really trying to talk sense to a bunch of tech. school
graduates venting their childish views about music reproduction, here,
where no one can stop them?
Let them argue with each other about tube impendances and such. When
they try to venture into the country of the real pioneers of audio they
come up with idiocies like explaining to us why d'Appolito and Meitner
see fit to payi homage to analogue recording . Why? Simple: because
they want to sell their NON_ANALOGUE products for "megabucks".
Incredible as this may sound that's exactly what one of them said. And
repeated.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Eeyore]

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:


People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or

So you admit it's down to "I like it."

The guy with his mp3 player turned up to max distort "likes it" too. I
guess he must be right.

There's a guy in uk.rec.audio who's been banging on about his superior
valve
amps and home-made speakers who posted some mp3 of the sound it makes.
Good
God ! The guy must be stone deaf ! It sounded shockingly bad. I guess that
explains why he doesn't like decent kit.

He recorded his system? Even the best system in the world, in the best
room, would sound pretty bad once fed back into a microphone/recorder setup
and played back through another pair of speakers? Ever tried it? I have,
just for kicks, years ago, and the end result simply doesn't sound anything
like the system.

I'm aware of the problems involved but he did at least use a decent 'reference'
mic for the job.

In short, there was no way what he had could ever have been a decent sounding
setup.

Graham

[Eeyore]

" wrote:

Harry, are you really trying to talk sense to a bunch of tech. school
graduates venting their childish views about music reproduction, here,
where no one can stop them?
Let them argue with each other about tube impendances and such. When
they try to venture into the country of the real pioneers of audio they
come up with idiocies like explaining to us why d'Appolito and Meitner
see fit to payi homage to analogue recording . Why? Simple: because
they want to sell their NON_ANALOGUE products for "megabucks".
Incredible as this may sound that's exactly what one of them said. And
repeated.

What's so special about these 2 pricks d'Appolito and Meitner ?

Do you think no-one else counts ?

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie whined:

What's so special about these 2 pricks d'Appolito and Meitner ?

They're successful and you're not.





--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[[email protected]]

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:

People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or

So you admit it's down to "I like it."

It's always been about personal preference. That's why the
objectivists always sound so foolish.

There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good *objectively* !

There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good subjectively,
either.

Boon

Graham

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 13:49:06 -0700, wrote:



Maybe you should dispense with electronics altogether. I bet you can
find an old Victrola on Ebay or something. Then you can be acoustic
all the way from vinyl to your ears. It's older, so it's just got to
be better.

Maybe you should stick with MP3s then. It's newer, so it has to be
better!

One doesn't really follow from the other. You need to work on your
logic there.

Still, I guess I can be charitable and give you a "touche'" It's close
enough to a snappy comeback to count in rao anyway.

You keep talking about logic, yet you're the one who thinks he knows
what things sound like before he hears them.

Boon

[paul packer]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 13:23:43 -0400, Stuart Krivis
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.

Graham


Agreed.

Cool.... more used records available for me.

More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you too.
:-)


Agreed.

[paul packer]

On 4 Oct 2006 17:56:31 -0700, "Jenn" wrote:


I remember one poster here who refused to believe that I have several
LPs that are of "ticks and pops".

No, I'm quite prepared to believe you "have several
LPs that are of "ticks and pops" :-)

[paul packer]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:51:11 -0400, Stuart Krivis
wrote:


It's a wonder that records work as well as they do, but they really
haven't progressed much since the time of Edison.

Maybe the vinyl lovers here hear as well as Edison did?


"Gentlemen, that's a band!"

"Eh?"

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 19:13:16 -0700, "
wrote:

Let them argue with each other about tube impendances and such. When

Did you mean tube appendages?

they try to venture into the country of the real pioneers of audio they
come up with idiocies like explaining to us why d'Appolito and Meitner
see fit to payi homage to analogue recording . Why? Simple: because
they want to sell their NON_ANALOGUE products for "megabucks".

Ok, so I was wrong. They want to sell their "non-analog" products for
peanuts. Is that better?

You never did explain why you suddenly started haranguing me about
solid state equipment. Did you have a few neurons misfire or
something?

Hmmm... are you trying to claim that you're a real pioneer of audio,
or that D'Agostino and Meitner are? Yeah, Ludo, something else
misfired and you're now talking about a speaker designer instead of
D'Agostino like in the original conversation.

D' Appolito is far more of a designer though, so maybe we should talk
about him. At least he's worthy of respect, instead of just another
charlatan separating people from their money great big chunks at a
time.

We could talk about Lise Meitner. She was a pioneer.
---------------------------------------------
Mr. Krivis , this is getting to be one of those endless RAO gangfights
and I always suffered from proneness to getting easily bored.

I may have given inadvertedly the impression that I want to fight
under the banner of: "everything analogue is better than everything
digital" . I'll repeat what I said recently: there is plenty of awful
cds. and awful lps. around. Many cds sre miles better than many lps.
It depends on the audio engineer, recording location, pressing
manufacture care etc. etc. My impression is that the best lps
especially those from the "golden era" of simple miking and before the
mixing gadgets etc. started to proliferate, before the recording
engineers decided that they will adjust the sound according to their
idea of what the peasants out there like, those best lps are still
unsurpassed. (Some London, some Everest 35mmfilm, some Columbia).
That's my ears and yours may tell you something different.
But I have no patience with "scientific" trumpeting that everything
digital is better than everything analogue. Especially as many who
repeat it do not listen to the music that I value. As is my privilege.

I'm saying all this to you because your recent posting came very
closely to this my point of view. The "my digital is better than your
analogue stance" is , shall I say, not very sophisticated.

But it goes against my grain to be so conciliatory and statesman-like.
So I'll still repeat that you're talking strange logic when you say
that D'Agostino (I don't know how I got Appolito into this. Maybe
because I love the gorgeous sound of those Italian names. You, of
course would spot it) and Meitner praise the virtues of analogue in
order to sell digital .
Also I have Meitner designed amp. and I think that it is an
exceptionally good buy for the money. I don't know where you got
"megabucks" from and why you call him , of all people, a charlatan and
worse.
But these are minor quibbles.

I suggest that this discussion reached the end of its usefulness. Time
to get back to listening to music, reading books etc. But you may feel
differently as is your privilege.
Ludovic Mirabel

[paul packer]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.

Graham


Agreed.

Cool.... more used records available for me.


Good luck with the cleaning machine.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:38:06 -0400, Stuart Krivis
wrote:


Boob

I see you finally signed yourself correctly. :-)



LOL!

[paul packer]

On 4 Oct 2006 10:29:52 -0700, "
wrote:


Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.

Graham

There you are : Meitner of Museatex and D'Agostino of Krell on one
side the RAO distinguished chapel members Eeyore and Krivis on the
other. What is a poor nontechnical audiophile to think and do?
Ludovic Mirabel.


Don't forget me, Ludo! I must tip the balance, surely.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:26:17 -0400, Stuart Krivis
wrote:


You're the one who acts like a Luddite.

Don't you mean Ludo-ite?

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

Cool.... more used records available for me.

More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you too.

Agreed.

Is that the punchline?

Real 'borgs get their spines stiffened by snotting on the very idea that
Normals might like LPs and turntables. What do you get out of it?




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Eeyore]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

Boy, ain't that the truth. I had a Thorens turntable, Pritchard tonearm,
and ADC 25 cartridge shortly after getting out of college, replacing my
Garrard / Shure set up. Kept records dust free, in their covers when not
playing, and tracked at light weights. Most of my records have very little
noise to this day, some 44 years later. I buy used LP's in college towns
(but with my tastes, probably from profs rather than students) and about 1/2
of them are in excellent condition. The other half sound as if they were
tracked for twenty years in a VM changer, at five grams, and sat open in
piles when not being played. The difference is not subtle. And *this* is
what the anti-vinyl fundamentalists quote as the problem with LP's. Little
do they realize that it usually signals a lack of care and sometimes lesser
equipment on their part.

There are *plenty* more problems with vinyl than just the difficulty of decent
care.

Which is why I said "More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and
distortion for you too." in the first place.

It's a wonder that records work as well as they do

It is quite frankly a near miracle that they can indeed sound really quite good if
you can afford decent kit.


, but they really
haven't progressed much since the time of Edison.

Maybe the vinyl lovers here hear as well as Edison did?

I'm increasingly wondering about that !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:30:19 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:
Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 10:29:52 -0700, "
wrote:

There you are : Meitner of Museatex and D'Agostino of Krell on one
side the RAO distinguished chapel members Eeyore and Krivis on the
other. What is a poor nontechnical audiophile to think and do?

Perhaps look to see who stands to make the most money from your belief
in foo-foo dust, and then ignore them?

Hint: Meitner and D'Agostino are the ones that have realized that the
higher they price a product, the better some people will think it is.

BTW, what's with your completely wierd style of quoting where you
include everything twice?

Ludo like to perplex.


Ah, but does he realize he is doing it? :-)

I think it's instinctive. :~)

Graham

[Eeyore]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:32:02 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:
wrote:
Stuart Krivis wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

Cool.... more used records available for me.

More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you too.
:-)

Maybe you should have taken better care of your records. No wonder
klutzes like you went running toward the CD when it came out.

Maybe he had a life to lead ?


Nah, I hang out on Usenet, so I can't have a life anymore than the
rest of the people here.

But how about when you used to play your records ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:
Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:

People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or

So you admit it's down to "I like it."

It's always been about personal preference. That's why the
objectivists always sound so foolish.

There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good *objectively* !

There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good subjectively,
either.

Don't expect anyone else to like it though !

Graham

[Eeyore]

paul packer wrote:

On 4 Oct 2006 17:56:31 -0700, "Jenn" wrote:

I remember one poster here who refused to believe that I have several
LPs that are of "ticks and pops".

No, I'm quite prepared to believe you "have several
LPs that are of "ticks and pops" :-)

I'm surprised that the Parsons/Court soundcheck CD doesn't have these too
!

Graham

[Eeyore]

paul packer wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn wrote:
(paul packer) wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.

Graham

Agreed.

Cool.... more used records available for me.

Good luck with the cleaning machine.

Keith Monks Audio made a really good one btw.

Graham

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
oups.com...

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Stuart Krivis wrote:

On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:


People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better,
or

So you admit it's down to "I like it."

The guy with his mp3 player turned up to max distort "likes it" too. I
guess he must be right.

There's a guy in uk.rec.audio who's been banging on about his superior
valve
amps and home-made speakers who posted some mp3 of the sound it makes.
Good
God ! The guy must be stone deaf ! It sounded shockingly bad. I guess
that
explains why he doesn't like decent kit.


He recorded his system? Even the best system in the world, in the best
room, would sound pretty bad once fed back into a microphone/recorder
setup
and played back through another pair of speakers? Ever tried it? I
have,
just for kicks, years ago, and the end result simply doesn't sound
anything
like the system.

Harry, are you really trying to talk sense to a bunch of tech. school
graduates venting their childish views about music reproduction, here,
where no one can stop them?
Let them argue with each other about tube impendances and such. When
they try to venture into the country of the real pioneers of audio they
come up with idiocies like explaining to us why d'Appolito and Meitner
see fit to payi homage to analogue recording . Why? Simple: because
they want to sell their NON_ANALOGUE products for "megabucks".
Incredible as this may sound that's exactly what one of them said. And
repeated.
Ludovic Mirabel


Yeah, I saw that.... grin

[Fella]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

On 4 Oct 2006 13:03:35 -0700, "Jenn" wrote:


Stuart Krivis wrote:

On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:



People like Krivis will never understand the concept of personal
preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl does so because
they "like it better." No one is saying that vinyl measures better, or

So you admit it's down to "I like it."

Bravo.


You're right, he's free to listen to whatever funky equipment he
likes.



A permission from thy holy self?! Well thank you your holyness (bows
down in deep respect)...


The guy with his mp3 player turned up to max distort "likes it" too. I
guess he must be right.

Does he use his own ear/brain to listen, or does he use others'?


Yeah, we'll just suspend ......

In fact, it's easier to ......
Hell, why not just do a lousy job of conducting .....

So, do you get in on the lousy quaility ......

Why don't you just sock it man, just sock it, ok, why don't you, why?
The (wo)man likes it, prefers it, period. It's not about being right or
wrong, it's about preference, period. Get over it, period. Stop the
bitchin and the naggin and the yammerin about why one is not supposed to
like something you are partialy able to measure as inferior, just stop
the yammerin, ok? Period. Now go measure something, period.

Btw, I very much dislike vinyl too, btw.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

Boy, ain't that the truth. I had a Thorens turntable, Pritchard
tonearm, and ADC 25 cartridge shortly after getting out of
college, replacing my Garrard / Shure set up. Kept records dust
free, in their covers when not playing, and tracked at light
weights. Most of my records have very little noise to this day,
some 44 years later. I buy used LP's in college towns (but with
my tastes, probably from profs rather than students) and about 1/2
of them are in excellent condition. The other half sound as if
they were tracked for twenty years in a VM changer, at five grams,
and sat open in piles when not being played. The difference is
not subtle. And *this* is what the anti-vinyl fundamentalists
quote as the problem with LP's. Little do they realize that it
usually signals a lack of care and sometimes lesser equipment on
their part.

There are *plenty* more problems with vinyl than just the difficulty
of decent care.

Which is why I said "More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and
distortion for you too." in the first place.

It's a wonder that records work as well as they do

It is quite frankly a near miracle that they can indeed sound really
quite good if you can afford decent kit.


, but they really
haven't progressed much since the time of Edison.

Maybe the vinyl lovers here hear as well as Edison did?

I'm increasingly wondering about that !


Nettkkkoping fjukkwit



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:32:02 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:
wrote:
Stuart Krivis wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

Cool.... more used records available for me.

More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you
too.
:-)

Maybe you should have taken better care of your records. No
wonder klutzes like you went running toward the CD when it came
out.

Maybe he had a life to lead ?


Nah, I hang out on Usenet, so I can't have a life anymore than the
rest of the people here.

But how about when you used to play your records ?


thise were the days, eh pooh pooh, you and your GF s playing your 45s
and chatting all night,



nettkkkopn gfjukktard.




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



wrote:

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:30:14 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

Cool.... more used records available for me.

More scratches, pops, ticks, hum, rumble, and distortion for you
too.
:-)

Maybe you should have taken better care of your records. No wonder
klutzes like you went running toward the CD when it came out.

Maybe he had a life to lead ?

Unlike you planespotter



bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Jenn wrote:

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.

Graham

Agreed.

Cool.... more used records available for me.

You might not like the stuff I listen to !


Yeah, "1001 different 737 engines conducted by Sir Simon Rattle"


Planespotter


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:33:00 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

I raised his hackles by quoting two respected designers and
manufacturers of high-end transistor audio equipment
D'Agostino.and Meitner. Both had the inegrity (and courage) to
say that they hope one day to equal the quality of tube and vinyl.
.

That's utterly absurd.

Tube circuitry is heavily flawed.

Vinyl is hopelessly flawed.

Which doesn't bode well for the quality of D'Agostino and Meitner's
_current_ equipment. :-)

"One day our stuff will make it up to the level of being really
crappy."

Actually, I feel it is possible to do a pretty good job with tubes in
some cases. A couple of EEs I respect have said that, as with SS, you
can get good results with tubes if you use them properly. I have
certainly heard good results with some tube preamps, for instance.

A tube PA is totally stuffed by the need to use an output transformer
though.


It appears to me that the best SS and tube gear are all converging on
the same point - neutral and stable operation. The best of each breed
sound very similar.

However, I choose to own SS myself for a number of reasons, with heat
and maintainance being up there at the top.

Good enough reasons, although I did once design a mosfet amp with a
quiscent dissipation of 110W/ch.

oow ,aren't you speshul

You're an even sadder fjuktard than I initially gave you credit for



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



Stuart Krivis wrote:

Here's some interesting commentary from FVA:

The basic engineering purpose of using the tube is that the summing
node of input and feedback on a reasonable tube circuit will have in
excess of 200 volts of headroom before overload. A typical solid
state device circuit will have 0.2 volts or much less headroom before
the feedback loop clips and fails, all other things being equal.

This is complete unadulterated rubbish !


No surprise there, everythng you post is complete unadulterated rubbih

At least you had the god sense to run awya from the other froups that knew
that, though


Pussy netttkkkop



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



" wrote:

Harry, are you really trying to talk sense to a bunch of tech.
school
graduates venting their childish views about music reproduction,
here,
where no one can stop them?
Let them argue with each other about tube impendances and such. When
they try to venture into the country of the real pioneers of audio
they
come up with idiocies like explaining to us why d'Appolito and
Meitner
see fit to payi homage to analogue recording . Why? Simple: because
they want to sell their NON_ANALOGUE products for "megabucks".
Incredible as this may sound that's exactly what one of them said.
And
repeated.

What's so special about these 2 pricks d'Appolito and Meitner ?

Do you think no-one else counts ?


sez the netttkopping brit fjukktard



bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Eeyore wrote in
:



wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:
Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 10:50:56 -0700, wrote:

People like Krivis will never understand the concept of
personal preference. Nearly everyone I know who prefers vinyl
does so because they "like it better." No one is saying that
vinyl measures better, or

So you admit it's down to "I like it."

It's always been about personal preference. That's why the
objectivists always sound so foolish.

There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good
*objectively* !

There's nothing foolish about something that sounds good
subjectively, either.

Don't expect anyone else to like it though !



Jerkofff


bertier