[paul packer]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 04:52:39 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



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?


Normals don't like TTs, George. It is abnormal to like TTs. Please do
a reassessment of your criteria.

[paul packer]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:52:58 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



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

Good for them. It costs a fortune.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

Agreed.

Is that the punchline?

Agreed. NOt. LOt"S!

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?

Normals don't like TTs, George. It is abnormal to like TTs. Please do
a reassessment of your criteria.

On the contrary, some Normals do like them. It's the compulsion to snot on
all discussions of them that defines the 'borgs, though. If you imagined
infusing your lighthearted bantering on the subject with a grim, grinding
religious crusade, you might begin to resemble a 'borg.




--

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

[Jenn]

In article ,
(paul packer) 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.


Good luck with the cleaning machine.

Thanks. I've had quite good luck with it.

[Jenn]

In article ,
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.




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 all standards of recording and playback and
say he's right too.

In fact, it's easier to just do a lousy job of recording in the first
place and then assume somebody out there will like it.

That seems to happen quite often.


Hell, why not just do a lousy job of conducting the thing, and the
players can all send in their 3 yr olds to play. Somebody will like
it.

The job is to sell recordings. If people would buy it, I'm sure that's
what they would do.


So, do you get in on the lousy quaility at the front end, or just the
playback part?

Neither when I can help it.

You know, kind of slack off since nobody will really
know anyway - and somebody out there will like it.

You're overstating your ridiculous point. My obvious point is that we
all listen to what we think sounds best. We shouldn't listen to
something just because others state that it is better. I WANT CDs to
always sound better than LPs. The convenience factor would be great.
But that fact is that many LPs sound better to me. Obviously I'm not
going to listen to something that sounds inferior to me just because I'm
told that it should sound better to me. That would be quite
counterproductive, right?

[Jenn]

In article .com,
"Jenn" wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

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.
:-)

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.

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

Opps, obviously it should read "LPs that are free of 'ticks and pops'"

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said to RibbitBorg:

You're overstating your ridiculous point. My obvious point is that we
all listen to what we think sounds best. We shouldn't listen to
something just because others state that it is better. I WANT CDs to
always sound better than LPs. The convenience factor would be great.
But that fact is that many LPs sound better to me. Obviously I'm not
going to listen to something that sounds inferior to me just because I'm
told that it should sound better to me. That would be quite
counterproductive, right?

Counterproductive is irrelevant. It would make you a well-behaved Hivie
drone, however.





--

"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:

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
==================================

Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Harry Lavo]

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 07:47:54 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
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.
Ludovic Mirabel


Yeah, I saw that.... grin


So you have a better suggestion as to why a (presumably) competent
engineer would ignore reality and claim that vinyl is superior to CD?

Although, perhaps my presumption of competency is not correct. It's
either that or they were just into selling snake oil.

Oh, and are you both saying that Krell products weren't selling for
very high (and unwarrentedly so) prices?

You may not say it is a better suggestion, but I would suggest that they say
what they say because they believe it to be true. Why is that so hard for
*you* to believe?

And yes, they are competent. Very few, if any, engineers would claim that
Krell or Meitner equipment is incompetently designed or manufactured.

And yes, both product lines sell for very high prices. But unwarrentedly?
Not to the many thousands of people who buy the products and get fantastic
sound, pride of ownership, little obsolesence, and little urge to upgrade.
It's called value. Its called cache'. Yes, it requires a good income; many
people have it, and it is no more extravagant than buying a BMW 325 versus a
Honda Civic.

Perhaps you think all the recording engineers that favor Millenia Media
preamps are also fools, and that the manufacturer is a charlatan? Same for
Grace? Or Manley? Or John Hardy? If so, then I am sad for you.

[[email protected]]

Eeyore wrote:
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 !

And yet amazingly, outside of the intellectual dungeon known as Usenet,
most people agree with me.

Boon

[MiNe 109]

In article .com,
" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
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
==================================

Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.
Ludovic Mirabel

To take this thought to the extreme, any cd (or anything at all) you buy
has been implicitly passed over by every other buyer in the universe.

Stephen

[Jenn]

In article ,
Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:52:58 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



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.


I saw the inside of one at a local shop (it evidently required a lot
of maintainance) and it was a real Rube Goldberg device.

Another company was making less complicated cleaners where you applied
the fluid manually, then put the record on the machine and spun it
yourself while the machine vacuumed off the fluid. This seemed like an
equally valid and much less expensive approach. I bet these machines
lasted longer than the Monks one too.

The Nitty Gritty like that that I had worked perfectly for the 8 years
that I had it. I now have basically the same thing from Audio Advisor
(the "Record Doctor", made for AA by Nitty Gritty). I've had it for
only a year; working perfectly.

[[email protected]]

Eeyore wrote:
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
===================================

Eeyore says:

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

Very ,very different from cds. that every time Mr. Eeyore listens to
them, one and all, transport him straight into acoustic heaven

Ludovic Mirabel

[Jenn]

In article ,
Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:57:43 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


You're overstating your ridiculous point. My obvious point is that we
all listen to what we think sounds best. We shouldn't listen to
something just because others state that it is better. I WANT CDs to

I was overstating it because people didn't seem to be getting the
point.

Sure, it's fine for you to listen to whatever you like, no matter what
it's like.

However, there are some areas where we can have standards. If you then
like something that doesn't meet the standards, it's still fine, but
we might wonder why you like it and whether there's something wrong
there (and what).

Which is exactly what I think about listening to CDs (which I listen to
most of the time, BTW.)



always sound better than LPs. The convenience factor would be great.
But that fact is that many LPs sound better to me. Obviously I'm not
going to listen to something that sounds inferior to me just because I'm
told that it should sound better to me. That would be quite
counterproductive, right?

That has not been my experience, but no, I would not expect you to
listen to something you found to be inferior. In fact, I'd be very
interested in finding out why these CDs sounded inferior to you.

Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every CD. Some are
much better than others; none are good to my ears.


I do, however, have a problem with general statements that vinyl is
better than CD when it can be objectively shown that it is not. (I'm
not saying you were the one making general statements about vinyl vs.
CD.) It can be further shown that vinyl has some major distortions
that can be euphonic. (Similar to what Aphex and BBE add to
recordings.) So it's pretty easy to then speculate that perhaps what
some people like about vinyl is the extra distortion.

I have no problem with that. I'll go for "rightness" (on average) over
"accuracy" every time. The goal is music.


Personally, I would rather not have any added distortions. I like
hearing the music and just the music. :-)

So do I, but you don't get that in any medium.

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius wrote:
Poopie whined:

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

They're successful and you're not.

There's more to it. They design as musically faithful audio equipment
as the state of the art allows.
That remains a complete mystery to the Rao scientology acredited chapel
members. They can't hear any difference so anyone who does is just
trying to impress them.
It does not occur to them that they are hardly worth the effort.
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 10:43:41 -0700, wrote:



Don't expect anyone else to like it though !

And yet amazingly, outside of the intellectual dungeon known as Usenet,
most people agree with me.

Oh, c'mon, you're way off on the fringe of even "high-end" audio.

Hyperbole doesn't win arguments.

Boon

[Harry Lavo]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:57:43 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


You're overstating your ridiculous point. My obvious point is that we
all listen to what we think sounds best. We shouldn't listen to
something just because others state that it is better. I WANT CDs to

I was overstating it because people didn't seem to be getting the
point.

Sure, it's fine for you to listen to whatever you like, no matter what
it's like.

However, there are some areas where we can have standards. If you then
like something that doesn't meet the standards, it's still fine, but
we might wonder why you like it and whether there's something wrong
there (and what).

Which is exactly what I think about listening to CDs (which I listen to
most of the time, BTW.)



always sound better than LPs. The convenience factor would be great.
But that fact is that many LPs sound better to me. Obviously I'm not
going to listen to something that sounds inferior to me just because I'm
told that it should sound better to me. That would be quite
counterproductive, right?

That has not been my experience, but no, I would not expect you to
listen to something you found to be inferior. In fact, I'd be very
interested in finding out why these CDs sounded inferior to you.

Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every CD. Some are
much better than others; none are good to my ears.


I do, however, have a problem with general statements that vinyl is
better than CD when it can be objectively shown that it is not. (I'm
not saying you were the one making general statements about vinyl vs.
CD.) It can be further shown that vinyl has some major distortions
that can be euphonic. (Similar to what Aphex and BBE add to
recordings.) So it's pretty easy to then speculate that perhaps what
some people like about vinyl is the extra distortion.

I have no problem with that. I'll go for "rightness" (on average) over
"accuracy" every time. The goal is music.


Personally, I would rather not have any added distortions. I like
hearing the music and just the music. :-)

So do I, but you don't get that in any medium.

And I'm sure the acousticians at Carnegie thought that by adding concrete
under the stage floor they were improving the "accuracy" of the sound there
as well. Perhaps the same thing that makes us react well to a wooden stage
floor also makes many of us react more to the music on vinyl than on CD. So
call it euphonic distortion, if you want. Many of us call it "musicality".

[[email protected]]

Fella wrote:
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.

++==============================

Mr. Fella you're hitting a wall. One of the less appealing
side-effects of universal elementary education is that pop speaks loud
now and gives voice to its resentment of the minorities that have
different standards. They once resented the "highbrows" and the "pointy
heads', now they are sure that those who do not share their preferences
are just trying to " act superior", are "snobs" and "elitists".

Forget them. Their forefathers hated the "sophists" and made Socrates
drink poison.
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
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
==================================

Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.
Ludovic Mirabel

To take this thought to the extreme, any cd (or anything at all) you buy
has been implicitly passed over by every other buyer in the universe.

Stephen

=====================================
I said:
Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.
Ludovic Mirabel

Stephen responded:
To take this thought to the extreme, any cd (or anything at all) you buy
has been implicitly passed over by every other buyer in the universe.

You can take your thoughts to any of your *extremes* you like but I
did not say "every"- you did.
I said 99.5%.
Granted estimating the proportion of population who visite art museums
or read Marcel Proust or listen to Beethoven's last quartets at 0.5% is
a very rough and perhaps unjust estimate. I'll settle for 1% or 5% if
you wish.
Anything to make everybody happy. That's me.
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
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
==================================

Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.
Ludovic Mirabel

To take this thought to the extreme, any cd (or anything at all) you buy
has been implicitly passed over by every other buyer in the universe.

Stephen
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2nd, thoughts. I gather you read the Upanishads. What proportion of the
population of your country shared your interest, do you think? And do
you care what THEY think about that interest of yours?
Ludovic Mirabel

[MiNe 109]

In article . com,
" wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
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
==================================

Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.
Ludovic Mirabel

To take this thought to the extreme, any cd (or anything at all) you buy
has been implicitly passed over by every other buyer in the universe.

Stephen

=====================================
I said:
Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.
Ludovic Mirabel

Stephen responded:
To take this thought to the extreme, any cd (or anything at all) you buy
has been implicitly passed over by every other buyer in the universe.

You can take your thoughts to any of your *extremes* you like but I
did not say "every"- you did.

Yes, I did, and clearly so.

I said 99.5%.

I implied 99.9999%.

Granted estimating the proportion of population who visite art museums
or read Marcel Proust or listen to Beethoven's last quartets at 0.5% is
a very rough and perhaps unjust estimate. I'll settle for 1% or 5% if
you wish.
Anything to make everybody happy. That's me.

Real Texans don't go to art museums for fear of representational nudity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/ed..._r=1&oref=slog
in

Stephen

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:02:35 GMT, MiNe 109
wrote:

==================================

Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.
Ludovic Mirabel

To take this thought to the extreme, any cd (or anything at all) you buy
has been implicitly passed over by every other buyer in the universe.


He certainly would appear to have unusual tastes. Didn't he say
something about loving everything those geniuses at Romper Room ever
did? He has every Sesame Street album too. :-)
==================================

Mr. Krivis refers to me- or so it seems. :
" He certainly would appear to have unusual tastes. Didn't he say
something about loving everything those geniuses at Romper Room ever
did? He has every Sesame Street album too. :-)

I know what Sesame Street is. My kids loved it when they were kids.

But what on earth is Romper Room.? Is it something on TV that I should
know about? You seem to know more about me than I ever dreamt of. Or
perhaps the dreams are yours.
Ludovic Mirabel

[MiNe 109]

In article .com,
" wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
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
==================================

Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.
Ludovic Mirabel

To take this thought to the extreme, any cd (or anything at all) you buy
has been implicitly passed over by every other buyer in the universe.

Stephen
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2nd, thoughts. I gather you read the Upanishads. What proportion of the
population of your country shared your interest, do you think? And do
you care what THEY think about that interest of yours?

I live in Austin. You can't walk a block without passing a yoga studio.
Well, you can't pass some blocks.

Stephen

[Eeyore]

" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
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
==================================

Since I do not care one little bit for 99.5% of the popular cd-music
successes it bothers me very little that 99.5% of cd buyers do not
care for my choices. Ditto for books, paintings etc.

It has nothing to do with 'popular music' my friend.

It's to do with whether it sounds any good to anyone else's ears.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Harry Lavo wrote:

Perhaps you think all the recording engineers that favor Millenia Media
preamps are also fools

And who exactly does ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

" wrote:

Eeyore says:

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

Very ,very different from cds. that every time Mr. Eeyore listens to
them, one and all, transport him straight into acoustic heaven

Only some of them. It depends on one's mood too.

Ok, so who gets that tingle up the spine from listening to good music ?

I like it best when it's a live performance.

Graham

[Eeyore]

" wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:
Poopie whined:

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

They're successful and you're not.

There's more to it. They design as musically faithful audio equipment
as the state of the art allows.

Yes, digital.

Graham

[[email protected]]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006 23:40:53 -0700, "
wrote:

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.

The digital media, recording and reproduction process is superior to
vinyl records.

Various people during the process are free to screw things up, so
there certainly _are_ terrible LPs and CDs.

What I object to is any statement that vinyl is somehow superior to
CD, because it isn't.

It's possible that there are more good recordings on vinyl, perhaps
for the "golden era" reasons you detail. I wasn't arguing about this.
(I'm not sure it's really true, but it's possible.)

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.

It seems that you always jump in with a bunch of pronouncements, and
then immediately say something like "I'm bored" or "I'm done."

Is that a valid observation?

====================================

Mr. Krivis, you misjudge me. I'm as argumentative as anyone and more.

But it just seems to me that we have little to argue about. Which
"pronouncements" of mine do you object to? I said that I did not think
that all viny is superior to all cds. or vice versa. I said that it
depends on the recording engineer, the studio and the factory use of
equipment.
Do you disagree? If you do I will oblige and argue because I love
argument providing I know what I'm arguing about..

Or do you want me to agree with you that "The digital is superior...."
.. I'd love to sign up but my ears tell me otherwise. I already conceded
that it is just *my* ears.

As for the theory I am not knowledgeable enough to argue but as my
seargent in the Army used to say: "Practice screws theory" (Needless to
say "screws" is my gentrification for your delicate ears)

Ludovic Mirabel

[Mr Fox]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 22:22:57 GMT, MiNe 109
wrote:

you wish.
Anything to make everybody happy. That's me.

Real Texans don't go to art museums for fear of representational nudity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/ed..._r=1&oref=slog
in

This year, suspension. Two years from now, the firing squad

[paul packer]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every CD. Some are
much better than others; none are good to my ears.


It's interesting. The last time I listened to live music (from a
fairly high position in the Concert Hall of the Sydney Opera House) I
was shocked to find that I didn't actually like the sound. There was
an absence of treble and the mid-range sounded hard. Had it been my
system I'd have been doing some major upgrading. Was it because I was
used to listening via the medium of headphones? Don't think so, as I
still listen to speakers occasionally. Is there a problem with the
acoustics? Should I not have being sitting in the high seats? I'm
confused. I only know that I could not happily have listened to that
sound at home. It certainly wasn't euphonic. in fact, apart from the
dull treble, it sounded rather CD-like.

[paul packer]

On 5 Oct 2006 15:35:22 -0700, "
wrote:


But what on earth is Romper Room.?

An OZ kid show, actually for toddlers.

Mr. Magic Mirror, anyone?

[Jenn]

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every CD. Some are
much better than others; none are good to my ears.


It's interesting. The last time I listened to live music (from a
fairly high position in the Concert Hall of the Sydney Opera House) I
was shocked to find that I didn't actually like the sound. There was
an absence of treble and the mid-range sounded hard. Had it been my
system I'd have been doing some major upgrading. Was it because I was
used to listening via the medium of headphones? Don't think so, as I
still listen to speakers occasionally. Is there a problem with the
acoustics? Should I not have being sitting in the high seats? I'm
confused. I only know that I could not happily have listened to that
sound at home. It certainly wasn't euphonic. in fact, apart from the
dull treble, it sounded rather CD-like.

You should save up and get a better seat next time ;-)

Seriously, we've increasingly become used to "hi-fi sound" and become
distant from the sound of live acoustic music. We get hyped highs and
lows and little music.

[paul packer]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:46:14 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



paul packer said:

Agreed.

Is that the punchline?

Agreed. NOt. LOt"S!

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?

Normals don't like TTs, George. It is abnormal to like TTs. Please do
a reassessment of your criteria.

On the contrary, some Normals do like them. It's the compulsion to snot on
all discussions of them that defines the 'borgs, though. If you imagined
infusing your lighthearted bantering on the subject with a grim, grinding
religious crusade, you might begin to resemble a 'borg.


I started to get sucked in but then gave it away. It was the
temptation of annoying Scott really, but I came to my senses just in
time. It won't happen again. :-)

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On 5 Oct 2006 15:35:22 -0700, "
wrote:


But what on earth is Romper Room.?

An OZ kid show, actually for toddlers.

Mr. Magic Mirror, anyone?

Based on a US show that began in 1953, says wiki.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

Eeyore wrote:
" wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:
Poopie whined:

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

They're successful and you're not.

There's more to it. They design as musically faithful audio equipment
as the state of the art allows.

Yes, digital.

Graham

Absolutely. The point was that those two digital designers said in so
many words that they were striving to equal analogue whjich I
interpreted as evidence of unusual integrity.
I was answering the argumnt that they are huckstering marketeers
extracting megabucks.
Your own argument: "those two pricks' goes far byond my sphere of
competence, expertise or interest.

You must have your own sources reporting on their genitalia.
Ludovic Mirabel

..

[paul packer]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:10:32 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every CD. Some are
much better than others; none are good to my ears.


It's interesting. The last time I listened to live music (from a
fairly high position in the Concert Hall of the Sydney Opera House) I
was shocked to find that I didn't actually like the sound. There was
an absence of treble and the mid-range sounded hard. Had it been my
system I'd have been doing some major upgrading. Was it because I was
used to listening via the medium of headphones? Don't think so, as I
still listen to speakers occasionally. Is there a problem with the
acoustics? Should I not have being sitting in the high seats? I'm
confused. I only know that I could not happily have listened to that
sound at home. It certainly wasn't euphonic. in fact, apart from the
dull treble, it sounded rather CD-like.

You should save up and get a better seat next time ;-)

Seriously, we've increasingly become used to "hi-fi sound" and become
distant from the sound of live acoustic music. We get hyped highs and
lows and little music.


And the hardness?

[paul packer]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:24:08 GMT, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On 5 Oct 2006 15:35:22 -0700, "
wrote:


But what on earth is Romper Room.?

An OZ kid show, actually for toddlers.

Mr. Magic Mirror, anyone?

Based on a US show that began in 1953, says wiki.

Stephen


We're very backward here. :-)

[ScottW]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every CD. Some are
much better than others; none are good to my ears.


It's interesting. The last time I listened to live music (from a
fairly high position in the Concert Hall of the Sydney Opera House) I
was shocked to find that I didn't actually like the sound. There was
an absence of treble and the mid-range sounded hard. Had it been my
system I'd have been doing some major upgrading. Was it because I was
used to listening via the medium of headphones? Don't think so, as I
still listen to speakers occasionally. Is there a problem with the
acoustics? Should I not have being sitting in the high seats? I'm
confused. I only know that I could not happily have listened to that
sound at home. It certainly wasn't euphonic. in fact, apart from the
dull treble, it sounded rather CD-like.

You should save up and get a better seat next time ;-)

Seriously, we've increasingly become used to "hi-fi sound" and become
distant from the sound of live acoustic music. We get hyped highs and
lows and little music.

Doesn't bother me at all that my system sounds better to me
than most live music.
I get to listen to it almost anytime I want.

ScottW

[Harry Lavo]

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:10:32 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:04:32 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


Everything above about C6 sounds very bad to me on every CD. Some are
much better than others; none are good to my ears.


It's interesting. The last time I listened to live music (from a
fairly high position in the Concert Hall of the Sydney Opera House) I
was shocked to find that I didn't actually like the sound. There was
an absence of treble and the mid-range sounded hard. Had it been my
system I'd have been doing some major upgrading. Was it because I was
used to listening via the medium of headphones? Don't think so, as I
still listen to speakers occasionally. Is there a problem with the
acoustics? Should I not have being sitting in the high seats? I'm
confused. I only know that I could not happily have listened to that
sound at home. It certainly wasn't euphonic. in fact, apart from the
dull treble, it sounded rather CD-like.

You should save up and get a better seat next time ;-)

Seriously, we've increasingly become used to "hi-fi sound" and become
distant from the sound of live acoustic music. We get hyped highs and
lows and little music.


And the hardness?

Will generally be mid-range reflection off of hard surfaces. But can be
heightened by absence of high and low frequencies, putting unnatural
emphasis on the midrange.

[[email protected]]

paul packer wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:24:08 GMT, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On 5 Oct 2006 15:35:22 -0700, "
wrote:


But what on earth is Romper Room.?

An OZ kid show, actually for toddlers.

Mr. Magic Mirror, anyone?

Based on a US show that began in 1953, says wiki.

Stephen


We're very backward here. :-)

That is all fascinating . But where did Mr. Krivis get his information
about my interest in this TV. show? True it sounds better than most but
I watch TV once a day for 25 minutes: BBC World News.while I do my
treadmill exercise.
Ludovic M.