In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

BTW, you haven't addressed the weaknesses in your position.

There is no weakness in my position.

It's just completely wrong. Other than that...

You need to see what
some rock and classical engineers say about their own work.
Check some web sites.

Steve Hoffman forum, prosound forum, that kind of thing? I haven't seen
your viewpoint on those.

I say this, even though the accuracy of my position should
be self evident.

That's called "circular logic."

It would be to anyone but a rock freak.

Take your word for it?

Stephen

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:57:46 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

So, you have an opinion of the Mesa Baron based on actual contact with
it?

If you follow my commentaries (I have to interject this
here, even though you have read it hundreds of times,
because there may be newcomers reading this), you will
understand that for me all good amps, at least up to
clipping levels, sound like all other good amps. To
summarize, we have two possibilities:

1) It was a good amp and therefore sounds like all other
good amps.

2) It was a not so good an amp, and you were mesmerized by a
gimmick.

Obviously you don't know the amp, so there's nothing more to be said,
because anything you'd say from here on out would be based on
ignorance.

Not that that's ever stopped you before...

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:57:46 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

I believe that I said that it didn't do a lot for me. I don't see how
I can be mistaken about my own opinion.

No doubt. However, that opinion can still be in error.

No it can't Howard. If it doesn't do a lot for me it doesn't do a lot
for me. Simple as that. That canot be in error.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:57:46 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

And apparently, you have to spend over $2000 to get a
decent surround sound receiver.

Yep, that is one of the problems we have with modern audio.

And there it is.

Even Mr. Ferstler has bought the megabucks line hook line and sinker.

What is the world coming to?

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:57:46 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

That must suck when you listen to your Brandenburg
Pinnock disk.

I do not have that particular version, but the ones I do
have sound terrific on all three of my systems.

Then you don't have the quintessential performance, as far as I'm
concerned. Of course, the slight tape hiss will probably drive you
nuts. I doubt that you're all that concerned with the perforance per
se anyway, so it's probably a moot point.

I'm talking of course about the Archiv version from the mid-70s (I
think) with the English Concert.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:58:54 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:37:07 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

It must be tough being a rock-music enthusiast when an
upscale set of speakers.

Learn to write, Howard.

Haste makes waste. Nice to know that you are carefully
examining my posts. Shows that you do indeed believe that I
have stature.

Actually, I believe that I wrote "stature". Slightly different.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:20:12 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

That canot be in error.

Learn to write...

dave weil a écrit :
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:20:12 -0600, dave weil
wrote:


That canot be in error.


Learn to write...

....Middius is worst ! He speaks to his mirror.

:-D

Howard Ferstler wrote
George M. Middius" wrote:




Your religious rigmarole gets more and more arcane every week.



The odd thing about you is that while many of the insecure
tweakos who post here at least go on and on about their
preconceptions, ideas, and beliefs, all you mostly do is
interject goofy comments.

Consequently, you are possibly the biggest loser of the
bunch.

Howard Ferstler


Yeah! That is you your are talking about. It's yourself.

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:57:46 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

So, you have an opinion of the Mesa Baron based on actual contact with
it?

If you follow my commentaries (I have to interject this
here, even though you have read it hundreds of times,
because there may be newcomers reading this), you will
understand that for me all good amps, at least up to
clipping levels, sound like all other good amps. To
summarize, we have two possibilities:

1) It was a good amp and therefore sounds like all other
good amps.

2) It was a not so good an amp, and you were mesmerized by a
gimmick.

Obviously you don't know the amp, so there's nothing more to be said,
because anything you'd say from here on out would be based on
ignorance.

Not that that's ever stopped you before...

Dave, after all this time I do believe you still do not have
a clue about just what is involved with good amplifiers when
they do their jobs.

Because all good amps sound identical up to their clipping
points, I DO NOT HAVE TO "know the amp" to be aware of what
it is supposed to do.

Why is it that you tweakos absolutely have to mandate that
amps have some kind of damned performance personalities?

Howard Ferstler

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:57:46 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

I believe that I said that it didn't do a lot for me. I don't see how
I can be mistaken about my own opinion.

No doubt. However, that opinion can still be in error.

No it can't Howard. If it doesn't do a lot for me it doesn't do a lot
for me. Simple as that. That canot be in error.

Dave, if an amp "does something" for you that no other amp
does, either you are deluded (because the amp should be
doing its job no better than how any any other amps could do
it), or else there is something wrong with the amp.

Howard Ferstler

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:57:46 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

And apparently, you have to spend over $2000 to get a
decent surround sound receiver.

Yep, that is one of the problems we have with modern audio.

And there it is.

Even Mr. Ferstler has bought the megabucks line hook line and sinker.

What is the world coming to?

Actually, Dave, spending two, three or even four grand for a
fully integrated, super-capable surround-sound receiver is
not going all that much over the top.

I reviewed a Lexicon DC-1 preamp processor a few years back
that listed for five grand, and that was without any of the
required outboard amplification. (Lexicon also offered
Bryston-built power amps that probably doubled the cost of a
complete, multichannel Lexicon amp/preamp/processor
combination.) Add the seven channels of amp power the unit
required and we are talking about money that goes way beyond
what Ferstler says is required for really good surround
sound. Heck, current Lexicon and Meridian super-surround
preamps cost considerably more than that DC-1 did. I would
not be surprised to see packages by those guys that cost
more than fifteen grand.

So, my standards are basically chump change, Dave.

Howard Ferstler

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:57:46 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

That must suck when you listen to your Brandenburg
Pinnock disk.

I do not have that particular version, but the ones I do
have sound terrific on all three of my systems.

Then you don't have the quintessential performance, as far as I'm
concerned. Of course, the slight tape hiss will probably drive you
nuts. I doubt that you're all that concerned with the perforance per
se anyway, so it's probably a moot point.

I'm talking of course about the Archiv version from the mid-70s (I
think) with the English Concert.

Admittedly, I really, really do not like tape hiss in the
background. Also, some of the microphones used during that
era tended to generate some peakiness in the upper midrange
or treble. Not all, however.

As for performance, well, one guy's best of all time
performance is another guy's "just OK" performance.

Howard Ferstler

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

The last discs I listened to were from EMI's Record of Singing Vol. 4
and a Pearl of Kirsten Flagstadt.

Sounded good.

Great singer. Dated-sound recording. Your speakers should
have revealed the sound deficiencies.

No, they better revealed the felicities of what was there.

And masked the technical defects. Too bad.

Howard Ferstler

It's Sunday, and Brother Horace the Repetitive is repeating himself.

all good amps sound identical

The clerk's-eye view of audio leaves a lot to be desired. Are you wearing a
sackcloth robe for today's sermon, Harold?

EddieM wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote
George M. Middius" wrote:




Your religious rigmarole gets more and more arcane every week.



The odd thing about you is that while many of the insecure
tweakos who post here at least go on and on about their
preconceptions, ideas, and beliefs, all you mostly do is
interject goofy comments.

Consequently, you are possibly the biggest loser of the
bunch.

Howard Ferstler

Yeah! That is you your are talking about. It's yourself.

What? Read that longer sentence again.

Howard Ferstler

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:39:24 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

If you follow my commentaries (I have to interject this
here, even though you have read it hundreds of times,
because there may be newcomers reading this), you will
understand that for me all good amps, at least up to
clipping levels, sound like all other good amps. To
summarize, we have two possibilities:

1) It was a good amp and therefore sounds like all other
good amps.

2) It was a not so good an amp, and you were mesmerized by a
gimmick.

Obviously you don't know the amp, so there's nothing more to be said,
because anything you'd say from here on out would be based on
ignorance.

Not that that's ever stopped you before...

Dave, after all this time I do believe you still do not have
a clue about just what is involved with good amplifiers when
they do their jobs.

Because all good amps sound identical up to their clipping
points, I DO NOT HAVE TO "know the amp" to be aware of what
it is supposed to do.

Why is it that you tweakos absolutely have to mandate that
amps have some kind of damned performance personalities?

Because, in this case, the Mesa Baron is a fairly unique amp in terms
of its capability, and it has a flexibility that few amps offer. You
might want to look it up...

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:41:27 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:57:46 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

I believe that I said that it didn't do a lot for me. I don't see how
I can be mistaken about my own opinion.

No doubt. However, that opinion can still be in error.

No it can't Howard. If it doesn't do a lot for me it doesn't do a lot
for me. Simple as that. That canot be in error.

Dave, if an amp "does something" for you that no other amp
does, either you are deluded (because the amp should be
doing its job no better than how any any other amps could do
it), or else there is something wrong with the amp.

That says nothing about whether my opinion about the amp is right or
wrong.

My opinion is what it is and I'm the only one who can say whether it's
right or wrong.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:46:08 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:57:46 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

And apparently, you have to spend over $2000 to get a
decent surround sound receiver.

Yep, that is one of the problems we have with modern audio.

And there it is.

Even Mr. Ferstler has bought the megabucks line hook line and sinker.

What is the world coming to?

Actually, Dave, spending two, three or even four grand for a
fully integrated, super-capable surround-sound receiver is
not going all that much over the top.

Sure it is. That's not to say that it isn't a good investment in
audio, though.

I reviewed a Lexicon DC-1 preamp processor a few years back
that listed for five grand, and that was without any of the
required outboard amplification. (Lexicon also offered
Bryston-built power amps that probably doubled the cost of a
complete, multichannel Lexicon amp/preamp/processor
combination.) Add the seven channels of amp power the unit
required and we are talking about money that goes way beyond
what Ferstler says is required for really good surround
sound. Heck, current Lexicon and Meridian super-surround
preamps cost considerably more than that DC-1 did. I would
not be surprised to see packages by those guys that cost
more than fifteen grand.

Well darn, you have reviewed George Middius' surround sound processor
(or one close to it) and found that it worked. What's the world coming
to?

So, my standards are basically chump change, Dave.

I agree, Howard.

Brother Horace the Needs-to-be-Intubated said:

Yeah! That is you your are talking about. It's yourself.

What? Read that longer sentence again.

You mean this one?

"many of the insecure tweakos who post here at least go on and on about
their preconceptions, ideas, and beliefs"

That IS you, Clerkie. You have preconceptions about everything, especially
audio. You are impervious to learning new information, you have "opinions"
that are informed almost entirely by religious faith, and you are utterly
and slavishly devoted to idiosyncratic rituals.

You are the King of the Tweako-Freakos.

Howard Ferstler wrote (to dave weil):

snipped

Why is it that you tweakos absolutely have to mandate that
amps have some kind of damned performance personalities?



Howard FYI, the Mesa Baron dave loves so much may be the ultimate
'non-fi' amp. It has switchable "personalities"!

More he

http://tinyurl.com/6eqru

....and all for only $16k

dave weil wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:39:24 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

If you follow my commentaries (I have to interject this
here, even though you have read it hundreds of times,
because there may be newcomers reading this), you will
understand that for me all good amps, at least up to
clipping levels, sound like all other good amps. To
summarize, we have two possibilities:

1) It was a good amp and therefore sounds like all other
good amps.

2) It was a not so good an amp, and you were mesmerized by a
gimmick.

Obviously you don't know the amp, so there's nothing more to be said,
because anything you'd say from here on out would be based on
ignorance.

Not that that's ever stopped you before...

Dave, after all this time I do believe you still do not have
a clue about just what is involved with good amplifiers when
they do their jobs.

Because all good amps sound identical up to their clipping
points, I DO NOT HAVE TO "know the amp" to be aware of what
it is supposed to do.

Why is it that you tweakos absolutely have to mandate that
amps have some kind of damned performance personalities?

Because, in this case, the Mesa Baron is a fairly unique amp in terms
of its capability, and it has a flexibility that few amps offer. You
might want to look it up...

All a power amp has to do is amplify. If it does anything
more than that it is no longer just a power amp. However, if
you want flexibility, hook in a preamp or outboard
processor, or get an integrated amp or killer receiver with
stuff like that built in.

Howard Ferstler

dave weil wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:46:08 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

I reviewed a Lexicon DC-1 preamp processor a few years back
that listed for five grand, and that was without any of the
required outboard amplification. (Lexicon also offered
Bryston-built power amps that probably doubled the cost of a
complete, multichannel Lexicon amp/preamp/processor
combination.) Add the seven channels of amp power the unit
required and we are talking about money that goes way beyond
what Ferstler says is required for really good surround
sound. Heck, current Lexicon and Meridian super-surround
preamps cost considerably more than that DC-1 did. I would
not be surprised to see packages by those guys that cost
more than fifteen grand.

Well darn, you have reviewed George Middius' surround sound processor
(or one close to it) and found that it worked. What's the world coming
to?

I rather doubt that Middius has a DC-1, or any other Lexicon
stuff. He will say anything that makes him look good.

Howard Ferstler

wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote (to dave weil):

snipped

Why is it that you tweakos absolutely have to mandate that
amps have some kind of damned performance personalities?

Howard FYI, the Mesa Baron dave loves so much may be the ultimate
'non-fi' amp. It has switchable "personalities"!

More he

http://tinyurl.com/6eqru

...and all for only $16k

I looked. Haw, haw, haw! What a joke will be played on
anyone who buys that thing for use in an audio system!!

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler wrote:
wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote (to dave weil):

snipped

Why is it that you tweakos absolutely have to mandate that
amps have some kind of damned performance personalities?

Howard FYI, the Mesa Baron dave loves so much may be the ultimate
'non-fi' amp. It has switchable "personalities"!

More he

http://tinyurl.com/6eqru

...and all for only $16k

I looked. Haw, haw, haw! What a joke will be played on
anyone who buys that thing for use in an audio system!!


A fool and his money..... :-0

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

The last discs I listened to were from EMI's Record of Singing Vol. 4
and a Pearl of Kirsten Flagstadt.

Sounded good.

Great singer. Dated-sound recording. Your speakers should
have revealed the sound deficiencies.

No, they better revealed the felicities of what was there.

And masked the technical defects. Too bad.

The Quad ESL 63 didn't become one of the best-regarded speakers of all
time by masking technical defects.

Maybe if you listened to a set you'd understand how a really good
speaker can work. The current 988 is essentially the same speaker, BTW.

Stephen

Brother Horace the Twisted From Envy groused:

Well darn, you have reviewed George Middius' surround sound processor
(or one close to it) and found that it worked. What's the world coming
to?

I rather doubt that Middius has a DC-1, or any other Lexicon
stuff. He will say anything that makes him look good.

You are the King of the Tweako-Freakos.

That made me feel good. You can tell me how it made me look.

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:57:46 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

That must suck when you listen to your Brandenburg
Pinnock disk.

I do not have that particular version, but the ones I do
have sound terrific on all three of my systems.

Then you don't have the quintessential performance, as far as I'm
concerned. Of course, the slight tape hiss will probably drive you
nuts. I doubt that you're all that concerned with the perforance per
se anyway, so it's probably a moot point.

I'm talking of course about the Archiv version from the mid-70s (I
think) with the English Concert.

Probably the 1982 recording. It's digital.

Admittedly, I really, really do not like tape hiss in the
background. Also, some of the microphones used during that
era tended to generate some peakiness in the upper midrange
or treble. Not all, however.

As for performance, well, one guy's best of all time
performance is another guy's "just OK" performance.

But all are worthy of praise because any released performance represents
the best intentions of the performer and producer.

How could you not be familiar with the most central HIP recording
available?

Stephen

a écrit :
Howard Ferstler wrote (to dave weil):

snipped

Why is it that you tweakos absolutely have to mandate that
amps have some kind of damned performance personalities?




Howard FYI, the Mesa Baron dave loves so much may be the ultimate
'non-fi' amp. It has switchable "personalities"!

More he

http://tinyurl.com/6eqru

...and all for only $16k


After years sticked to Arnold Krueger, Dave "Tick" Weil has
decided to change of host.

:-D

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:48:31 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:57:46 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

That must suck when you listen to your Brandenburg
Pinnock disk.

I do not have that particular version, but the ones I do
have sound terrific on all three of my systems.

Then you don't have the quintessential performance, as far as I'm
concerned. Of course, the slight tape hiss will probably drive you
nuts. I doubt that you're all that concerned with the perforance per
se anyway, so it's probably a moot point.

I'm talking of course about the Archiv version from the mid-70s (I
think) with the English Concert.

Admittedly, I really, really do not like tape hiss in the
background. Also, some of the microphones used during that
era tended to generate some peakiness in the upper midrange
or treble. Not all, however.

As for performance, well, one guy's best of all time
performance is another guy's "just OK" performance.

Well, that's why I clearly said, "As far as I am concerned". You're
really missing something if you haven't heard it though. Everything
else to me sounds either too fast, too slow or just out-of-balance.

If you "really really" don't like tape hiss in the background, I
assume that you have eliminated all recordings prior to the mid-80s
from your collection and listening sessions.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:50:49 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

All a power amp has to do is amplify. If it does anything
more than that it is no longer just a power amp. However, if
you want flexibility, hook in a preamp or outboard
processor, or get an integrated amp or killer receiver with
stuff like that built in.

You still have no clue about what is being discussed here.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:52:24 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:46:08 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

I reviewed a Lexicon DC-1 preamp processor a few years back
that listed for five grand, and that was without any of the
required outboard amplification. (Lexicon also offered
Bryston-built power amps that probably doubled the cost of a
complete, multichannel Lexicon amp/preamp/processor
combination.) Add the seven channels of amp power the unit
required and we are talking about money that goes way beyond
what Ferstler says is required for really good surround
sound. Heck, current Lexicon and Meridian super-surround
preamps cost considerably more than that DC-1 did. I would
not be surprised to see packages by those guys that cost
more than fifteen grand.

Well darn, you have reviewed George Middius' surround sound processor
(or one close to it) and found that it worked. What's the world coming
to?

I rather doubt that Middius has a DC-1, or any other Lexicon
stuff. He will say anything that makes him look good.

Well, you would be as wrong about this as you are about most
everything else. It's well-documented that he purchased one from Greg
Singh although, if he had known that you had favorably reviewed it, he
might have thought twice about it. Perhaps he bought it before you
reviewed it.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:55:35 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote (to dave weil):

snipped

Why is it that you tweakos absolutely have to mandate that
amps have some kind of damned performance personalities?

Howard FYI, the Mesa Baron dave loves so much may be the ultimate
'non-fi' amp. It has switchable "personalities"!

More he

http://tinyurl.com/6eqru

...and all for only $16k

Unfortunately, Richard can't read. The Mesa Baron only retailed for
about a grand more than your most expensive Yamaha receiver. Hey Dick,
don't they teach ciphering and reading in the Ozarks these days?

I looked. Haw, haw, haw! What a joke will be played on
anyone who buys that thing for use in an audio system!!

Why would that be a joke? Because you thought that it cost $16K or
because of some intrinsic characteristic of the amp? Is 150 wpc not
enough for you?

Howard Ferstler

On 20 Mar 2005 10:11:22 -0800, wrote:


Howard Ferstler wrote:
wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote (to dave weil):

snipped

Why is it that you tweakos absolutely have to mandate that
amps have some kind of damned performance personalities?

Howard FYI, the Mesa Baron dave loves so much may be the ultimate
'non-fi' amp. It has switchable "personalities"!

More he

http://tinyurl.com/6eqru

...and all for only $16k

I looked. Haw, haw, haw! What a joke will be played on
anyone who buys that thing for use in an audio system!!


A fool and his money..... :-0

Well, since you overstated the price of the amp by a factor of 4, I
guess we know who's the fool.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:38:03 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

a écrit :
Howard Ferstler wrote (to dave weil):

snipped

Why is it that you tweakos absolutely have to mandate that
amps have some kind of damned performance personalities?




Howard FYI, the Mesa Baron dave loves so much may be the ultimate
'non-fi' amp. It has switchable "personalities"!

More he

http://tinyurl.com/6eqru

...and all for only $16k


After years sticked to Arnold Krueger, Dave "Tick" Weil has
decided to change of host.

I'm sorry, you're mumbling. You need to get your head out of my skin.
Perhaps I need to put a hot match to your ass.

Lionel wrote:
a =E9crit :
Howard Ferstler wrote (to dave weil):

snipped

Why is it that you tweakos absolutely have to mandate that
amps have some kind of damned performance personalities?




Howard FYI, the Mesa Baron dave loves so much may be the ultimate
'non-fi' amp. It has switchable "personalities"!

More he

http://tinyurl.com/6eqru

...and all for only $16k


After years sticked to Arnold Krueger, Dave "Tick" Weil has
decided to change of host.
=20
=20
Poor Howard! Perhaps he needs some "weil powder". :-)

On 20 Mar 2005 11:22:08 -0800, wrote:


Lionel wrote:
a écrit :
Howard Ferstler wrote (to dave weil):

snipped

Why is it that you tweakos absolutely have to mandate that
amps have some kind of damned performance personalities?




Howard FYI, the Mesa Baron dave loves so much may be the ultimate
'non-fi' amp. It has switchable "personalities"!

More he

http://tinyurl.com/6eqru

...and all for only $16k


After years sticked to Arnold Krueger, Dave "Tick" Weil has
decided to change of host.


Poor Howard! Perhaps he needs some "weil powder". :-)

Perhap you need some fish. It's brain food you know.

Of course, you're still ****ed off because you think that new CDs cost
$60.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:34:38 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:57:46 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

That must suck when you listen to your Brandenburg
Pinnock disk.

I do not have that particular version, but the ones I do
have sound terrific on all three of my systems.

Then you don't have the quintessential performance, as far as I'm
concerned. Of course, the slight tape hiss will probably drive you
nuts. I doubt that you're all that concerned with the perforance per
se anyway, so it's probably a moot point.

I'm talking of course about the Archiv version from the mid-70s (I
think) with the English Concert.

Probably the 1982 recording. It's digital.

Admittedly, I really, really do not like tape hiss in the
background. Also, some of the microphones used during that
era tended to generate some peakiness in the upper midrange
or treble. Not all, however.

As for performance, well, one guy's best of all time
performance is another guy's "just OK" performance.

But all are worthy of praise because any released performance represents
the best intentions of the performer and producer.

How could you not be familiar with the most central HIP recording
available?

Who woulda thunk that Howard wouldn't be interested in period
instrument recordings?

Of course, by now, he's probably acclimated to some speedy version and
he'd find the Pinnock "too slow".

dave weil wrote:


snipped

Of course, you're still ****ed off because you think that new CDs
cost
$60.


More drug-addled nonsense from RAO's professional sycophant? :-0

On 20 Mar 2005 11:47:26 -0800, wrote:


dave weil wrote:


snipped

Of course, you're still ****ed off because you think that new CDs
cost
$60.


More drug-addled nonsense from RAO's professional sycophant? :-0

Well, since you apparently use a 4 times multiplier for prices, I
guess not.