RAHE has reduced latency

[Arny Krueger]

Since RAHE now again has 2 moderators, the latency for posting is greatly
reduced.

I think that the motivations of many RAO posters is demonstrated by their
lack of tolerance for a flame-reduced forum.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Since RAHE now again has 2 moderators, the latency for posting is greatly
> reduced.
>
> I think that the motivations of many RAO posters is demonstrated by their
> lack of tolerance for a flame-reduced forum.

As a half-joke I just suggested AAPLS should have a moderator. I nominated
Phil Allison for the position.

Graham

[TT]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Since RAHE now again has 2 moderators, the latency for posting is greatly
>> reduced.
>>
>> I think that the motivations of many RAO posters is demonstrated by their
>> lack of tolerance for a flame-reduced forum.
>
> As a half-joke I just suggested AAPLS should have a moderator. I nominated
> Phil Allison for the position.
>
> Graham
>
A really good joke would be to lock both Arny and Philthy in the same padded
cell and withhold their meds for a few days. Of course, straight jackets
and chastity belts would be mandatory as we wouldn't want them to breed in
captivity, would we ;-)

Cheers TT :-))

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" > wrote in message

> "Eeyore" > wrote

> A really good joke would be to lock both Arny and Philthy
> in the same padded cell and withhold their meds for a few
> days.

Terry, you seem to have a lot of strange expectations for blood pressure
meds and Prilosec. That's all I've ever taken. Up until about 2003, I took
no meds at all.

So Terry, in the interest of full disclosure, what are your favorite drugs,
recreational and otherwise?



> Of course, straight jackets and chastity belts
> would be mandatory as we wouldn't want them to breed in
> captivity, would we ;-)

Well Terry, lets talk about kids. How many degrees and advanced degrees are
there among your legitimate offspring? My family's next generation score is
4 BS, 1 MBA and 2 PhD.

Come to think of it Terry, your sexual preferences don't tend to produce
*any* offspring, now do they?

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "TT" > wrote in message
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>
>> A really good joke would be to lock both Arny and Philthy
>> in the same padded cell and withhold their meds for a few
>> days.
>
> Terry, you seem to have a lot of strange expectations for blood pressure
> meds and Prilosec. That's all I've ever taken. Up until about 2003, I took
> no meds at all.
>
> So Terry, in the interest of full disclosure, what are your favorite
> drugs, recreational and otherwise?
>
Favourite drug of choice is adrenaline followed by alcohol. Since I am in
the middle of of one of the finest wine growing regions in the World I am
quite partial to the odd drop of red.
>
>> Of course, straight jackets and chastity belts
>> would be mandatory as we wouldn't want them to breed in
>> captivity, would we ;-)
>
> Well Terry, lets talk about kids.

A favourite subject of yours and I knew you wouldn't let it drop :-(

> How many degrees and advanced degrees are there among your legitimate
> offspring?

"0" At this stage, 1 undergrad and 1 still in high school.

My family's next generation score is
> 4 BS, 1 MBA and 2 PhD.
>
They take after their mother eh? ;-) So in Detroit how hard is it to get
these where there is 47% adult illiteracy? Do they come in crisp packets or
what?

> Come to think of it Terry, your sexual preferences don't tend to produce
> *any* offspring, now do they?

Sigh.............. You won't stop will you?

TT

[Eeyore]

TT wrote:

> >> A really good joke would be to lock both Arny and Philthy
> >> in the same padded cell and withhold their meds for a few
> >> days.

You nearly had me rolling around on the floor there !

Grahama

[TT]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> TT wrote:
>
>> >> A really good joke would be to lock both Arny and Philthy
>> >> in the same padded cell and withhold their meds for a few
>> >> days.
>
> You nearly had me rolling around on the floor there !
>
> Grahama

The ultimate reality TV show :-))

Cheers TT

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" > wrote in message
. au
> "Eeyore" > wrote
> in message ...
>>
>>
>> TT wrote:
>>
>>>>> A really good joke would be to lock both Arny and
>>>>> Philthy in the same padded cell and withhold their
>>>>> meds for a few days.
>>
>> You nearly had me rolling around on the floor there !
>>
>> Grahama
>
> The ultimate reality TV show :-))

Nahh.

I think it would be funny to see Terry, Art, and the Middiot locked in a
room, where all they had to do it put together a Lego toy to save their
lives.

[Clyde Slick]

On 21 Iul, 11:58, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:


> Well Terry, lets talk about kids. How many degrees and advanced degrees are
> there among your legitimate offspring? My family's next generation score is
> 4 BS, 1 MBA and 2 PhD.
>

LOL!!!1
You're lucky I am behaving myself.

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" > wrote in message

>> Come to think of it Terry, your sexual preferences don't
>> tend to produce *any* offspring, now do they?

> Sigh.............. You won't stop will you?

As if you have stopped with any particular ludicrous thing you've tried to
do.

I was curious, as I know a little bit about animal husbandry - the books say
that humans and sheep can't breed and produce living offspring.

But thanks for not giving a proper answer Terry, as it shows that you are
actually ashamed of at last one thing that you've done.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> On 21 Iul, 11:58, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>> Well Terry, lets talk about kids. How many degrees and
>> advanced degrees are there among your legitimate
>> offspring? My family's next generation score is 4 BS, 1
>> MBA and 2 PhD.
>>
>
> LOL!!!1

> You're lucky I am behaving myself.

Perhaps Art you will get cancer, and your miserable life will be extended by
some discovery by one of my kids. Revenge enough for me! ;-)

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "TT" > wrote
> > "Eeyore" > wrote
>
> > A really good joke would be to lock both Arny and Philthy
> > in the same padded cell and withhold their meds for a few
> > days.
>
> Terry, you seem to have a lot of strange expectations

No, just a funny sense of humour. Brits and their derivatives tend to have that
trait.

Graham

[Eeyore]

TT wrote:

> Sigh.............. You won't stop will you?

See AAPLS, not that Arny is by any means the only offender there by a long way
and has even behaved quite well at times.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> I was curious, as I know a little bit about animal husbandry - the books say
> that humans and sheep can't breed and produce living offspring.

Give them time !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Perhaps Art you will get cancer

NO !

Don't resort to Allison style talk.

Graham

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Poofie dusts off his trusty Kroopologist Suit.

> > Perhaps Art you will get cancer

> Don't resort to Allison style talk.

Yes, Arnii, please behave in such a way that doesn't make your "friends"
cringe in disgust.

Poofie, I'm sure you misspoke. What you doubtless meant to say was,
"Arnii, shut your pie hole, you stinking pile of ****."

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Perhaps Art you will get cancer, and your miserable life will be extended
>> by
some discovery by one of my kids.

> NO !

> Don't resort to Allison style talk.

Art, Middus and Paul talk like that all the time. I think ****R do so, as
well.

Remember, I was hoping that when Art gets cancer, which is inevitable should
he live long enough, there will be a ready cure for his affliction.

Art, Middius, and Paul have been asking me to commit suicide or perhaps die
by other means, for about a decade.

What kids! ;-)

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "TT" wrote
> > "Eeyore" wrote
> >> TT wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> A really good joke would be to lock both Arny and
> >>>>> Philthy in the same padded cell and withhold their
> >>>>> meds for a few days.
> >>
> >> You nearly had me rolling around on the floor there !
> >>
> >> Grahama
> >
> > The ultimate reality TV show :-))
>
> Nahh.
>
> I think it would be funny to see Terry, Art, and the Middiot locked in a
> room, where all they had to do it put together a Lego toy to save their
> lives.

Well it would be funny for sure. I doubt anyone can deny that!


Graham

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Poofie dusts off his trusty Kroopologist Suit.
>
> > > Perhaps Art you will get cancer
>
> > Don't resort to Allison style talk.
>
> Yes, Arnii, please behave in such a way that doesn't make your "friends"
> cringe in disgust.

I expect such **** of Allison.

I DO NOT expect it of Arny. He really needs to get a grip. And he can. One
thing that would help is YOU stopping ceaselesssly taunting him.

I doubt it'll happen though.

Graham

[Clyde Slick]

On 21 Iul, 14:11, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "TT" > wrote in message
>
> . au
>
> > "Eeyore" > wrote
> > in ...
>
> >> TT wrote:
>
> >>>>> A really good joke would be to lock both Arny and
> >>>>> Philthy in the same padded cell and withhold their
> >>>>> meds for a few days.
>
> >> You nearly had me rolling around on the floor there !
>
> >> Grahama
>
> > The ultimate reality TV show :-))
>
> Nahh.
>
> I think it would be funny to see Terry, Art, and the Middiot locked in a
> room, where all they had to do it put together a Lego toy to save their
> lives.


Free pass #19

[Clyde Slick]

On 21 Iul, 14:21, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "TT" > wrote in message
> >> Come to think of it Terry, your sexual preferences don't
> >> tend to produce *any* offspring, now do they?
> > Sigh.............. You won't stop will you?
>
> As if you have stopped with any particular ludicrous thing you've tried to
> do.
>
> I was curious, as I know a little bit about animal husbandry - the books say
> that humans and sheep can't breed and produce living offspring.
>
> But thanks for not giving a proper answer Terry, as it shows that you are
> actually ashamed of *at last one thing that you've done.

Free pass #20

[Clyde Slick]

On 21 Iul, 14:24, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On 21 Iul, 11:58, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> Well Terry, lets talk about kids. How many degrees and
> >> advanced degrees are there among your legitimate
> >> offspring? My family's next generation score is 4 BS, 1
> >> MBA and 2 PhD.
>
> > LOL!!!1 Good thing I am behaving myself.
>
> Perhaps Art you will get cancer, and your miserable life will be extended by
> some discovery by one of my kids. *Revenge enough for me! ;-)

You would think at least one of them would go into psychiatry and try
to cure Daddy.

[Clyde Slick]

On 21 Iul, 16:22, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> >> Perhaps Art you will get cancer, and your miserable life will be extended
> >> by
>
> some discovery by one of my kids.
>
> > NO !
> > Don't resort to Allison style talk.
>
> Art, Middus and Paul talk like that all the time. I think ****R do so, as
> well.
>


Free pass #21

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Poofie shrieks in terror at the onslaught of reality.

> > Poofie dusts off his trusty Kroopologist Suit.
> >
> > > > Perhaps Art you will get cancer
> >
> > > Don't resort to Allison style talk.
> >
> > Yes, Arnii, please behave in such a way that doesn't make your "friends"
> > cringe in disgust.
>
> I expect such **** of Allison.

Izzat so?

> I DO NOT expect it of Arny. He really needs to get a grip. And he can. One
> thing that would help is YOU stopping ceaselesssly taunting him.

Oh, right. You're totally right. That is just sooooooo true. What brilliant
insights festoon your donkey brain.

> I doubt it'll happen though.

Arnii Krooger is a pillar of ****. Agree or disagree?

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Poofie shrieks in terror at the onslaught of reality.
>
> > > Poofie dusts off his trusty Kroopologist Suit.
> > >
> > > > > Perhaps Art you will get cancer
> > >
> > > > Don't resort to Allison style talk.
> > >
> > > Yes, Arnii, please behave in such a way that doesn't make your "friends"
> > > cringe in disgust.
> >
> > I expect such **** of Allison.
>
> Izzat so?
>
> > I DO NOT expect it of Arny. He really needs to get a grip. And he can. One
> > thing that would help is YOU stopping ceaselesssly taunting him.
>
> Oh, right. You're totally right. That is just sooooooo true. What brilliant
> insights festoon your donkey brain.
>
> > I doubt it'll happen though.
>
> Arnii Krooger is a pillar of ****. Agree or disagree?

FYI - I disagree. He may have certain personal issues that he might or ought to
learn to tame but he is no Allison.

Regds, Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >> Perhaps Art you will get cancer, and your miserable life will be extended
> >> by some discovery by one of my kids.
>
> > NO !
>
> > Don't resort to Allison style talk.
>
> Art, Middus and Paul talk like that all the time. I think ****R do so, as
> well.

That's not the Christian approach.


> Remember, I was hoping that when Art gets cancer, which is inevitable should
> he live long enough, there will be a ready cure for his affliction.
>
> Art, Middius, and Paul have been asking me to commit suicide or perhaps die
> by other means, for about a decade.
>
> What kids! ;-)

Arny, about age 8 I realised Christiany was ****. Didn't mean I threw the baby
out with the bath water.

Examine your own behaviour.

Graham

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> Free pass #20

Enough already. It's become meaningless.

[Eeyore]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> On 21 Iul, 14:24, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > > On 21 Iul, 11:58, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > >> Well Terry, lets talk about kids. How many degrees and
> > >> advanced degrees are there among your legitimate
> > >> offspring? My family's next generation score is 4 BS, 1
> > >> MBA and 2 PhD.
> >
> > > LOL!!!1 Good thing I am behaving myself.
> >
> > Perhaps Art you will get cancer, and your miserable life will be extended by
> > some discovery by one of my kids. Revenge enough for me! ;-)
>
> You would think at least one of them would go into psychiatry and try
> to cure Daddy.

Blame Allison for the cancer crap. Arny should know vastly better than to copy it.

Graham

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> Free pass #20

Enough already. It's become meaningless.

[Eeyore]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> Free pass #20

Not having been here for a while, I've missed out on these 'free passes'.

Care to explain ?

Graham

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 21, 4:43*pm, Eeyore >
wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Eeyore" *wrote
> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > >> Perhaps Art you will get cancer, and your miserable life will be extended
> > >> by some discovery by one of my kids.
>
> > > NO !
>
> > > Don't resort to Allison style talk.
>
> > Art, Middus and Paul talk like that all the time. I think ****R do so, as
> > well.

Please cite an instance.

I think you're disgusting, insane, nasty, thin-skinned, hypocritical,
a liar, a terrible excuse for a human, and several other things. I've
never referred to any of the things that Jenn has recently asked
people not to mention, for example. Nor have I wished that you die a
slow, painful death.

So you're lying. What else is new?

> That's not the Christian approach.

GOIA is also a poor excuse for a christian.

> > Remember, I was hoping that when Art gets cancer, which is inevitable should
> > he live long enough, *there will be a ready cure for his affliction.

Ah, so your wish for Clyde should be construed as a "happy" wish.

More crazy talk from GOIA.

> > Art, Middius, and Paul have been asking me to commit suicide or perhaps die
> > by other means, for about a decade.

Take that up with them and leave me out of it.

Besides, you're bringing up a false accusation against somebody who
you don't think actually exists which seems a bit, er, ah, um,
crazy. ;-)

> Examine your own behaviour.

Introspection is not one of GOIA's strong points. ;-)

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Poofie keeps trying to hide from reality.

> > Arnii Krooger is a pillar of ****. Agree or disagree?
>
> FYI - I disagree. He may have certain personal issues that he might or ought to
> learn to tame but he is no Allison.

You're saying, I believe, that no matter how ****ful the Krooborg is, you
still find Allison more repugnant. Is that what you're saying, Poofie?

[Clyde Slick]

On 21 Iul, 17:38, Eeyore >
wrote:

>
> FYI - I disagree. He may have certain personal issues that he might or ought to
> learn to tame but he is no Allison.
>
>

Fortunately, he is seeking professional help for that

http://tinyurl.com/6qhwoy

[Clyde Slick]

On 21 Iul, 17:46, Eeyore >
wrote:

least one of them would go into psychiatry and try
> > to cure Daddy.
>
> Blame Allison for the cancer crap. Arny should know vastly better than to copy it.
>
> Graham-

Do you mean to tell us that Arny lacks even enough
creativity to come up with something like that on his own?

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Poofie keeps trying to hide from reality.
>
> > > Arnii Krooger is a pillar of ****. Agree or disagree?
> >
> > FYI - I disagree. He may have certain personal issues that he might or ought to
> > learn to tame but he is no Allison.
>
> You're saying, I believe, that no matter how ****ful the Krooborg is, you
> still find Allison more repugnant. Is that what you're saying, Poofie?

Since you ask .... in essence - yes. Phil often contributes posts of great value but
his other posts leave him looking shameful.

Graham

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Poofie shows us the piercing intellect that impels him to raise a fousing
defense of Arnii Turdborg.

> > Poofie keeps trying to hide from reality.
> >
> > > > Arnii Krooger is a pillar of ****. Agree or disagree?
> > >
> > > FYI - I disagree. He may have certain personal issues that he might or ought to
> > > learn to tame but he is no Allison.
> >
> > You're saying, I believe, that no matter how ****ful the Krooborg is, you
> > still find Allison more repugnant. Is that what you're saying, Poofie?
>
> Since you ask .... in essence - yes. Phil often contributes posts of great value but
> his other posts leave him looking shameful.

Why don't you drag Arnii Kroofeces over to Phil's favorite groups so
everybody will learn how not-so-bad Turdborg is by comparison to Phil?
Otherwise your excuses for Mr. **** are exceedingly lame. "Not as bad as
Allison" is the most damning of faint praise I've ever heard.

[TT]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
> On 21 Iul, 17:46, Eeyore
> >
> wrote:
>
> least one of them would go into psychiatry and try
>> > to cure Daddy.
>>
>> Blame Allison for the cancer crap. Arny should know
>> vastly better than to copy it.
>>
>> Graham-
>
> Do you mean to tell us that Arny lacks even enough
> creativity to come up with something like that on his own?


Arny is not very original as that is one of Philthy's
favourite sayings "Get cancer and die". Do a Google and see
how many hits you get for it.

Cheers TT

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Poofie shows us the piercing intellect that impels him to raise a fousing
> defense of Arnii Turdborg.
>
> > > Poofie keeps trying to hide from reality.
> > >
> > > > > Arnii Krooger is a pillar of ****. Agree or disagree?
> > > >
> > > > FYI - I disagree. He may have certain personal issues that he might or ought to
> > > > learn to tame but he is no Allison.
> > >
> > > You're saying, I believe, that no matter how ****ful the Krooborg is, you
> > > still find Allison more repugnant. Is that what you're saying, Poofie?
> >
> > Since you ask .... in essence - yes. Phil often contributes posts of great value but
> > his other posts leave him looking shameful.
>
> Why don't you drag Arnii Kroofeces over to Phil's favorite groups so
> everybody will learn how not-so-bad Turdborg is by comparison to Phil?
> Otherwise your excuses for Mr. **** are exceedingly lame. "Not as bad as
> Allison" is the most damning of faint praise I've ever heard.

Just out of interest, how did you come to loathe him so ? His on-topic audio posts are
generally first class.

Graham

[Vinylanach]

On Jul 21, 1:55�pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 21 Iul, 14:24, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > > On 21 Iul, 11:58, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > >> Well Terry, lets talk about kids. How many degrees and
> > >> advanced degrees are there among your legitimate
> > >> offspring? My family's next generation score is 4 BS, 1
> > >> MBA and 2 PhD.
>
> > > LOL!!!1 � Good thing I am behaving myself.
>
> > Perhaps Art you will get cancer, and your miserable life will be extended by
> > some discovery by one of my kids. �Revenge enough for me! ;-)
>
> You would think at least one of them would go into psychiatry and try
> to cure Daddy.

Children often overachieve to compensate for inadequate or
embarrassing parents. It's a "sins of the father" sort of thing.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Poofie tries to open his eyes but all he can manage is an arthritic
squint.

> > Poofie shows us the piercing intellect that impels him to raise a fousing
> > defense of Arnii Turdborg.
> >
> > > > Poofie keeps trying to hide from reality.
> > > >
> > > > > > Arnii Krooger is a pillar of ****. Agree or disagree?
> > > > >
> > > > > FYI - I disagree. He may have certain personal issues that he might or ought to
> > > > > learn to tame but he is no Allison.
> > > >
> > > > You're saying, I believe, that no matter how ****ful the Krooborg is, you
> > > > still find Allison more repugnant. Is that what you're saying, Poofie?
> > >
> > > Since you ask .... in essence - yes. Phil often contributes posts of great value but
> > > his other posts leave him looking shameful.
> >
> > Why don't you drag Arnii Kroofeces over to Phil's favorite groups so
> > everybody will learn how not-so-bad Turdborg is by comparison to Phil?
> > Otherwise your excuses for Mr. **** are exceedingly lame. "Not as bad as
> > Allison" is the most damning of faint praise I've ever heard.
>
> Just out of interest, how did you come to loathe him so ? His on-topic audio posts are
> generally first class.

I knew it! There's somebody stupider than duh-Scottie!

I happen to disagree about Mr. ****'s "audio posts". To me, they're
utterly worthless. I know that several knowledgeable individuals have
said that Turdborg can be informative on occasion, so at least some
others agree with you. But not me! I don't care about technical issues.
Have you noticed that this is rec.audio.OPINION and not rec.audio.tech?
One of the Krooborg's kalling kards is klaiming this or that RAO Normal
is "technically-ignorant".

Anyway, Poofie, if you really don't know why Krooger is widely despised
(not just by me), you're incurably dense.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > Just out of interest, how did you come to loathe him so ? His on-topic audio posts are
> > generally first class.
>
> I happen to disagree about Mr. ****'s "audio posts". To me, they're
> utterly worthless. I know that several knowledgeable individuals have
> said that Turdborg can be informative on occasion, so at least some
> others agree with you.

True.


> But not me! I don't care about technical issues.

For any particular reason ?


> Have you noticed that this is rec.audio.OPINION and not rec.audio.tech?
> One of the Krooborg's kalling kards is klaiming this or that RAO Normal
> is "technically-ignorant".

Opinion is always an subjective thing but most people would seek to objectifiy their opinion
in order to validate it.

Would you care to elaborate on your opinion(s) of audio and how you arrived at them ? I'd
seriously love to know.

Graham

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Poofie tries strenuously to keep missing the point.

> > Have you noticed that this is rec.audio.OPINION and not rec.audio.tech?
> > One of the Krooborg's kalling kards is klaiming this or that RAO Normal
> > is "technically-ignorant".
>
> Opinion is always an subjective thing but most people would seek to objectifiy their opinion
> in order to validate it.

Do you really believe that? If you do, you're a deluded first-order nerd.
If you don't, why do you go to such ridiculous lengths to prop up the
Krooborg?

Now please address the real issue: Regardless of how much technical
content should or shouldn't be posted to RAO, the Krooborg has frequently
uttered the slur that this or that RAO Normal is "technically-ignorant".
That comment, and the many other bits of "debating trade" sliminess,
constitute the chief reason the Krooborg is nearly universally despised.
That you are afraid or unwilling to accept this fact casts doubt on your
own sanity.

> Would you care to elaborate on your opinion(s) of audio and how you arrived at them ? I'd
> seriously love to know.

If you don't know, you haven't been paying attention.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Poofie tries strenuously to keep missing the point.
>
> > > Have you noticed that this is rec.audio.OPINION and not rec.audio.tech?
> > > One of the Krooborg's kalling kards is klaiming this or that RAO Normal
> > > is "technically-ignorant".
> >
> > Opinion is always an subjective thing but most people would seek to objectifiy their > opinion
> in order to validate it.
>
> Do you really believe that?

At least to some degreee, yes I do. There has to be some rationale for an opinion.


> If you do, you're a deluded first-order nerd.
> If you don't, why do you go to such ridiculous lengths to prop up the
> Krooborg?

I comment mostly on factual matters. It doesn't matter who the person is.


> Now please address the real issue: Regardless of how much technical
> content should or shouldn't be posted to RAO, the Krooborg has frequently
> uttered the slur that this or that RAO Normal is "technically-ignorant".
> That comment, and the many other bits of "debating trade" sliminess,
> constitute the chief reason the Krooborg is nearly universally despised.
> That you are afraid or unwilling to accept this fact casts doubt on your
> own sanity.

Well, I avoid such posts the moment I see them degenerate, so I am unqualified to comment.


> > Would you care to elaborate on your opinion(s) of audio and how you arrived at them > ? I'd
> seriously love to know.
>
> If you don't know, you haven't been paying attention.

I'd rather you answered the question. It can't be that difficult surely ?

Graham

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

The Witless One bounds in barking furiously in the Krooborg's defense.

> > Poofie tries strenuously to keep missing the point.
> >
> > > > Have you noticed that this is rec.audio.OPINION and not rec.audio.tech?
> > > > One of the Krooborg's kalling kards is klaiming this or that RAO Normal
> > > > is "technically-ignorant".
> >
> > > Opinion is always an subjective thing but most people would seek to objectifiy their opinion
> > > in order to validate it.
> >
> > Do you really believe that? If you do, you're a deluded first-order nerd.
> > If you don't, why do you go to such ridiculous lengths to prop up the
> > Krooborg?
> >
> > Now please address the real issue: Regardless of how much technical
> > content should or shouldn't be posted to RAO, the Krooborg has frequently
> > uttered the slur that this or that RAO Normal is "technically-ignorant".
>
> YAPYAPYAP!

What's that, Scottie?

> Woof! Woof-yap-bark-GROWL! YAPYAPYAP!

Sorry, you're breaking up. Try to relax and make an effort to speak more
clearly.

> GROWF! BARK! yip-yip--whimper-YAPYAPYAP! BARKBARKBARK!

I give up. Maybe you should have your people take you to the beach or
something. You're clearly suffering from heavy stress.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Poofie, you're disgusting.

> > Poofie tries strenuously to keep missing the point.
> >
> > > > Have you noticed that this is rec.audio.OPINION and not rec.audio.tech?
> > > > One of the Krooborg's kalling kards is klaiming this or that RAO Normal
> > > > is "technically-ignorant".
> > >
> > > Opinion is always an subjective thing but most people would seek to objectifiy their > opinion
> > in order to validate it.
> >
> > Do you really believe that?
>
> At least to some degreee, yes I do. There has to be some rationale for an opinion.

No there does not. Personal experience is a perfectly valid way to form an
opinion about audio equipment. How dim are you, anyway?

> > If you do, you're a deluded first-order nerd.
> > If you don't, why do you go to such ridiculous lengths to prop up the
> > Krooborg?
>
> I comment mostly on factual matters. It doesn't matter who the person is.

Permit me to spit upon your preference. You're pathetic.

> > Now please address the real issue: Regardless of how much technical
> > content should or shouldn't be posted to RAO, the Krooborg has frequently
> > uttered the slur that this or that RAO Normal is "technically-ignorant".
> > That comment, and the many other bits of "debating trade" sliminess,
> > constitute the chief reason the Krooborg is nearly universally despised.
> > That you are afraid or unwilling to accept this fact casts doubt on your
> > own sanity.
>
> Well, I avoid such posts the moment I see them degenerate, so I am unqualified to comment.

I know you've seen many, many, many of Krooger's snot-posts. Stop being a
****.

> > > Would you care to elaborate on your opinion(s) of audio and how you arrived at them > ? I'd
> > seriously love to know.
> >
> > If you don't know, you haven't been paying attention.
>
> I'd rather you answered the question. It can't be that difficult surely ?

**** off, you vile Kroopologist.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in
message

> Now please address the real issue: Regardless of how much
> technical content should or shouldn't be posted to RAO,
> the Krooborg has frequently uttered the slur that this or
> that RAO Normal is "technically-ignorant".

A true statement, and one that applies especially well to the Middiot
himself.

In fact calling the Middiot technically-ignorant misses the point - The
Middiot in fact has no serious interest in audio as his fascination with OT
political posts shows quite clearly.

However the most serious problem with the Middiot is that he is
ethically-deficient, as recent discussions his past postings have clearly
shown.

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> However the most serious problem with the Middiot is that he is
> ethically-deficient, as recent discussions his past postings have clearly
> shown.
Oh dear! IMHO you are to ethics what a Rabi is to Pork Pie recipes!

TT

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" > wrote in message
. au


> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..

>> However the most serious problem with the Middiot is
>> that he is ethically-deficient, as recent discussions
>> his past postings have clearly shown.

> Oh dear! IMHO you are to ethics what a Rabi(sic) is to Pork
> Pie recipes!

Very typical of your high-quality audio-related posts, Terry.

Highly ethical of you!

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "TT" > wrote in message
> . au
>
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>
>>> However the most serious problem with the Middiot is
>>> that he is ethically-deficient, as recent discussions
>>> his past postings have clearly shown.
>
>> Oh dear! IMHO you are to ethics what a Rabi(sic) is to Pork
>> Pie recipes!
>
> Very typical of your high-quality audio-related posts, Terry.

Where's your audio related post?

>
> Highly ethical of you!
>
Thank you. Here's me thinking that you would be offended by it ;-)

BTW when I discuss audio with you usually stamp your little feet and run off
in a huff.

So will you explain now why a CDP101 can play CDs better than an tape
machine that the CD was mastered from? Come on Arny you've had a few more
days now to think on this?

TT

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" > wrote in message
. au

> So will you explain now why a CDP101 can play CDs better
> than an tape machine that the CD was mastered from?

Straw man. At the time the CD came out, there was already a sizable
inventory of all-digital master tapes. A goodly number of LPs had been
mastered from digital masters, going back maybe 5 years from 1983.

Furthermore, audiophiles never had access to the original analog masters, so
citing them as a reference is yet another straw man.

The competition for CDs were LPs as well as 7.5 & 3.75 ips quarter-track
analog tapes, cassettes and 8 tracks made on high speed copying machines.
They are all pretty poor copies of the master tape. A 7.5 ips quarter track
could have been the best of the lot, but they were becoming rare, and they
still weren't anything like exact copies.

Furthermore, even if you had a 1:1 analog tape dupe of a high-speed master
tape, it was more degraded from the master tape than a CD cut from the same
master tape. That's because of the added generation of tape copying, which
was bypassed by making a CD.

<snip snide, childish comments>

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "TT" > wrote in message
> . au
>
>> So will you explain now why a CDP101 can play CDs better
>> than an tape machine that the CD was mastered from?
>
> Straw man. At the time the CD came out, there was already a sizable
> inventory of all-digital master tapes. A goodly number of LPs had been
> mastered from digital masters, going back maybe 5 years from 1983.
>
> Furthermore, audiophiles never had access to the original analog masters,
> so citing them as a reference is yet another straw man.
>
> The competition for CDs were LPs as well as 7.5 & 3.75 ips quarter-track
> analog tapes, cassettes and 8 tracks made on high speed copying machines.
> They are all pretty poor copies of the master tape. A 7.5 ips quarter
> track could have been the best of the lot, but they were becoming rare,
> and they still weren't anything like exact copies.
>
> Furthermore, even if you had a 1:1 analog tape dupe of a high-speed master
> tape, it was more degraded from the master tape than a CD cut from the
> same master tape. That's because of the added generation of tape copying,
> which was bypassed by making a CD.
>
> <snip snide, childish comments>
>
>

Well lets talk about some current trends then? Like how professional analog
recordings are made *on tape*, then mixed/edited at 32/192 or 24/96 before
being down sampled to 16/44.1 for CD release. So you claim that the CDP101
plying these CDs will still out perform the original analogue tape?

When formulating how you will wriggle out of this remember you said "While
the CDP101 did not deliver the CD format's potential for total sonic
accuracy, it reproduced music far more accurately then the best vinyl or
analog tape systems ever have."

Don't forget the "ever have" part? Oh and I won't even remind you off the
authoring process for CDs like compressors, limiters, brick wall filters,
added EQ etc, etc.

Still want to pit the CDP101 against an analog tape machine? Or do you like
the sound of an archaic POS with a single shared DAC playing a medium that
has usually had the life squeezed out of it before you buy it?

TT

[Eeyore]

TT wrote:

> Well lets talk about some current trends then? Like how professional analog
> recordings are made *on tape*, then mixed/edited at 32/192 or 24/96 before
> being down sampled to 16/44.1 for CD release. So you claim that the CDP101
> plying these CDs will still out perform the original analogue tape?

You think many modern recordings are made on *tape* ? Got a surpise for you
there. Almost all hard disk unless someone's trying to replicate the 'old
sound'.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" > wrote in message
. au

> Well lets talk about some current trends then? Like how
> professional analog recordings are made *on tape*, then
> mixed/edited at 32/192 or 24/96 before being down sampled
> to 16/44.1 for CD release. So you claim that the CDP101
> playing these CDs will still out perform the original
> analogue tape?

We just had this discussion. I'll replay the highlights:

Audiophiles never had access to the original analog masters, so
citing them as a reference is still a straw man.

Even if you had a 1:1 analog tape dupe of a high-speed master
tape, it was more degraded from the master tape than a CD cut from the same
master tape. That's because of the added generation of tape copying, which
was bypassed by making a CD.


> When formulating how you will wriggle out of this
> remember you said "While the CDP101 did not deliver the
> CD format's potential for total sonic accuracy, it
> reproduced music far more accurately then the best vinyl
> or analog tape systems ever have."

By that I rather obviously meant recordings that are available to music
lovers in volumes greater than just one.

> Don't forget the "ever have" part? Oh and I won't even
> remind you off the authoring process for CDs like
> compressors, limiters, brick wall filters, added EQ etc, etc.

The word you want to use Terry is mastering, not authoring.

As far as mastering systems go, if you're cutting a LP then you *must* use
limiters, high pass filters, low pass filters, added EQ etc, etc.

But, if you are preparing a CD master, all of those things are the mastering
engineer's personal choice. There's no technical need or benefit for using
them.


> Still want to pit the CDP101 against an analog tape
> machine?

Sure, the 1/4 inch, quarter track 7 1/2 ips or 3 3/4 ips machine of your
choice. That was the distribution format with the greatest potential for
sound quality prior to the advent of the CD.

> Or do you like the sound of an archaic POS with
> a single shared DAC playing a medium that has usually had
> the life squeezed out of it before you buy it?

None of those things are necessarily true. If some mastering engineer thinks
he's the son of Frankenstein and wants to equalize, reverb, and compress the
heck out of the music, that's a choice he gets to make. Unlike the LP
format, there's nothing about the CD format that obliges him to do that.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message

> "Eeyore" > wrote
> in message ...
>>
>>
>> TT wrote:
>>
>>> Well lets talk about some current trends then? Like
>>> how professional analog recordings are made *on tape*,
>>> then mixed/edited at 32/192 or 24/96 before being down
>>> sampled to 16/44.1 for CD release. So you claim that
>>> the CDP101 plying these CDs will still out perform the
>>> original analogue tape?
>>
>> You think many modern recordings are made on *tape* ?
>> Got a surpise for you there. Almost all hard disk unless
>> someone's trying to replicate the 'old sound'.
>
> And why does any give a hoot how a CDP101 performed?
> It has no relevance today.

It's still true that as a distribution format reproducer , the CDP 101
outperforms all distribution formats that were available in its day. It also
outperforms a high speed, half track copy of the origional master tape. It
even outperforms the master tape recorder.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>>> in message ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well lets talk about some current trends then? Like
>>>>> how professional analog recordings are made *on tape*,
>>>>> then mixed/edited at 32/192 or 24/96 before being down
>>>>> sampled to 16/44.1 for CD release. So you claim that
>>>>> the CDP101 plying these CDs will still out perform the
>>>>> original analogue tape?
>>>>
>>>> You think many modern recordings are made on *tape* ?
>>>> Got a surpise for you there. Almost all hard disk
>>>> unless someone's trying to replicate the 'old sound'.
>>>
>>> And why does any give a hoot how a CDP101 performed?
>>> It has no relevance today.
>>
>> It's still true that as a distribution format reproducer
>> , the CDP 101 outperforms all distribution formats that
>> were available in its day. It also outperforms a high
>> speed, half track copy of the origional master tape. It
>> even outperforms the master tape recorder.
>
> The problem with CD has never been in the ability of the
> format playback of 16/44.

Agreed. It's a format that vastly exceeds the music it is used for.

> It was in the mixing, mastering, dithering which has
> largely been solved IMO.

Pretty close. The dithering is part of the format, so there never was a
problem to be solved there.

In the early days, some people had the mixing and mastering working well,
but others didn't. To some degree that hasn't changed overall, because
considerable hypercompression is being done during mastering of some CDs,
with problematical results for people with high quality systems.

The CD format is just a tool. While it is an excellent tool, it can't keep
itself from being abused.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>> "Eeyore" > wrote
> >>>> in message ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> TT wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Well lets talk about some current trends then? Like
> >>>>>> how professional analog recordings are made *on tape*,
> >>>>>> then mixed/edited at 32/192 or 24/96 before being down
> >>>>>> sampled to 16/44.1 for CD release. So you claim that
> >>>>>> the CDP101 plying these CDs will still out perform the
> >>>>>> original analogue tape?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You think many modern recordings are made on *tape* ?
> >>>>> Got a surpise for you there. Almost all hard disk
> >>>>> unless someone's trying to replicate the 'old sound'.
> >>>>
> >>>> And why does any give a hoot how a CDP101 performed?
> >>>> It has no relevance today.
> >>>
> >>> It's still true that as a distribution format reproducer
> >>> , the CDP 101 outperforms all distribution formats that
> >>> were available in its day. It also outperforms a high
> >>> speed, half track copy of the origional master tape. It
> >>> even outperforms the master tape recorder.
> >>
> >> The problem with CD has never been in the ability of the
> >> format playback of 16/44.
> >
> > Agreed. It's a format that vastly exceeds the music it is used for.
> >
> >> It was in the mixing, mastering, dithering which has
> >> largely been solved IMO.
> >
> > Pretty close. The dithering is part of the format, so there never was a
> > problem to be solved there.
>
> Dithering back to 16 bits during mixing was a problem that
> was not solved in early attempts at digital mixing.
>
> >
> > In the early days, some people had the mixing and mastering working well,
> > but
> > others didn't. To some degree that hasn't changed overall, because
> > considerable hypercompression is being done during mastering of some CDs,
> > with
> > problematical results for people with high quality systems.
>
> As I argued with Bob, a new format digital format is not a necessary
> solution.
> I'm hoping that if lossless digital downloads become prevalent, alternative
> mixes might be an option as a few full DR cds have been offered with LPs.
> Or maybe builtin compression in audio and boom boxes becomes std the
> motivation
> to *******ize the recordings will diminish.
>
> ScottW

I sure hope so. I truly hate the sound of so many pop CDs that I
hear..."flat affect" compression. No life. Bland. And so many of the
acts are making music to match. My other audio ****er presently is
pitch correction.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> "Eeyore" >
>>>>> wrote in message ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well lets talk about some current trends then? Like
>>>>>>> how professional analog recordings are made *on
>>>>>>> tape*, then mixed/edited at 32/192 or 24/96 before
>>>>>>> being down sampled to 16/44.1 for CD release. So
>>>>>>> you claim that the CDP101 plying these CDs will
>>>>>>> still out perform the original analogue tape?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You think many modern recordings are made on *tape* ?
>>>>>> Got a surpise for you there. Almost all hard disk
>>>>>> unless someone's trying to replicate the 'old sound'.
>>>>>
>>>>> And why does any give a hoot how a CDP101 performed?
>>>>> It has no relevance today.
>>>>
>>>> It's still true that as a distribution format
>>>> reproducer , the CDP 101 outperforms all distribution
>>>> formats that were available in its day. It also
>>>> outperforms a high speed, half track copy of the
>>>> origional master tape. It even outperforms the master
>>>> tape recorder.
>>>
>>> The problem with CD has never been in the ability of the
>>> format playback of 16/44.
>>
>> Agreed. It's a format that vastly exceeds the music it
>> is used for.
>>> It was in the mixing, mastering, dithering which has
>>> largely been solved IMO.

>> Pretty close. The dithering is part of the format, so
>> there never was a problem to be solved there.

> Dithering back to 16 bits during mixing was a problem that
> was not solved in early attempts at digital mixing.

I would need to see documentation of that. But even if so, it was a
production implementation problem, not a format problem.

Current wisdom is that normal music has so much noise that 16 bit format
dithering doesn't matter. So its a moot point.

>> In the early days, some people had the mixing and
>> mastering working well, but others didn't. To some
>> degree that hasn't changed overall, because considerable
>> hypercompression is being done during mastering of some
>> CDs, with problematical results for people with high
>> quality systems.
>
> As I argued with Bob, a new format digital format is not
> a necessary solution.

Agreed. The market has said that it agrees with that.

> I'm hoping that if lossless digital
> downloads become prevalent, alternative mixes might be an
> option as a few full DR cds have been offered with LPs.

Examples?

> Or maybe builtin compression in audio and boom boxes
> becomes std the motivation to *******ize the recordings
> will diminish.

Now there is an idea whose time should come!

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
Jenn > wrote:

> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > >
> > >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > >>>
> > >>>> "Eeyore" > wrote
> > >>>> in message ...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> TT wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Well lets talk about some current trends then? Like
> > >>>>>> how professional analog recordings are made *on tape*,
> > >>>>>> then mixed/edited at 32/192 or 24/96 before being down
> > >>>>>> sampled to 16/44.1 for CD release. So you claim that
> > >>>>>> the CDP101 plying these CDs will still out perform the
> > >>>>>> original analogue tape?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> You think many modern recordings are made on *tape* ?
> > >>>>> Got a surpise for you there. Almost all hard disk
> > >>>>> unless someone's trying to replicate the 'old sound'.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> And why does any give a hoot how a CDP101 performed?
> > >>>> It has no relevance today.
> > >>>
> > >>> It's still true that as a distribution format reproducer
> > >>> , the CDP 101 outperforms all distribution formats that
> > >>> were available in its day. It also outperforms a high
> > >>> speed, half track copy of the origional master tape. It
> > >>> even outperforms the master tape recorder.
> > >>
> > >> The problem with CD has never been in the ability of the
> > >> format playback of 16/44.
> > >
> > > Agreed. It's a format that vastly exceeds the music it is used for.
> > >
> > >> It was in the mixing, mastering, dithering which has
> > >> largely been solved IMO.
> > >
> > > Pretty close. The dithering is part of the format, so there never was a
> > > problem to be solved there.
> >
> > Dithering back to 16 bits during mixing was a problem that
> > was not solved in early attempts at digital mixing.
> >
> > >
> > > In the early days, some people had the mixing and mastering working well,
> > > but
> > > others didn't. To some degree that hasn't changed overall, because
> > > considerable hypercompression is being done during mastering of some CDs,
> > > with
> > > problematical results for people with high quality systems.
> >
> > As I argued with Bob, a new format digital format is not a necessary
> > solution.
> > I'm hoping that if lossless digital downloads become prevalent, alternative
> > mixes might be an option as a few full DR cds have been offered with LPs.
> > Or maybe builtin compression in audio and boom boxes becomes std the
> > motivation
> > to *******ize the recordings will diminish.
> >
> > ScottW
>
> I sure hope so. I truly hate the sound of so many pop CDs that I
> hear..."flat affect" compression. No life. Bland. And so many of the
> acts are making music to match. My other audio ****er presently is
> pitch correction.

I was surprised to learn on RAPro that the "Cher effect" really was
Auto-tune after all. The producers supposedly lied in a magazine article
by saying they did it another way.

The most unexpected place I've heard pitch-correction was Lebanese pop
music.

Stephen

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Jenn > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > >> ...
> > > >>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> "Eeyore" > wrote
> > > >>>> in message ...
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> TT wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Well lets talk about some current trends then? Like
> > > >>>>>> how professional analog recordings are made *on tape*,
> > > >>>>>> then mixed/edited at 32/192 or 24/96 before being down
> > > >>>>>> sampled to 16/44.1 for CD release. So you claim that
> > > >>>>>> the CDP101 plying these CDs will still out perform the
> > > >>>>>> original analogue tape?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> You think many modern recordings are made on *tape* ?
> > > >>>>> Got a surpise for you there. Almost all hard disk
> > > >>>>> unless someone's trying to replicate the 'old sound'.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> And why does any give a hoot how a CDP101 performed?
> > > >>>> It has no relevance today.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> It's still true that as a distribution format reproducer
> > > >>> , the CDP 101 outperforms all distribution formats that
> > > >>> were available in its day. It also outperforms a high
> > > >>> speed, half track copy of the origional master tape. It
> > > >>> even outperforms the master tape recorder.
> > > >>
> > > >> The problem with CD has never been in the ability of the
> > > >> format playback of 16/44.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. It's a format that vastly exceeds the music it is used for.
> > > >
> > > >> It was in the mixing, mastering, dithering which has
> > > >> largely been solved IMO.
> > > >
> > > > Pretty close. The dithering is part of the format, so there never was a
> > > > problem to be solved there.
> > >
> > > Dithering back to 16 bits during mixing was a problem that
> > > was not solved in early attempts at digital mixing.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In the early days, some people had the mixing and mastering working
> > > > well,
> > > > but
> > > > others didn't. To some degree that hasn't changed overall, because
> > > > considerable hypercompression is being done during mastering of some
> > > > CDs,
> > > > with
> > > > problematical results for people with high quality systems.
> > >
> > > As I argued with Bob, a new format digital format is not a necessary
> > > solution.
> > > I'm hoping that if lossless digital downloads become prevalent,
> > > alternative
> > > mixes might be an option as a few full DR cds have been offered with LPs.
> > > Or maybe builtin compression in audio and boom boxes becomes std the
> > > motivation
> > > to *******ize the recordings will diminish.
> > >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > I sure hope so. I truly hate the sound of so many pop CDs that I
> > hear..."flat affect" compression. No life. Bland. And so many of the
> > acts are making music to match. My other audio ****er presently is
> > pitch correction.
>
> I was surprised to learn on RAPro that the "Cher effect" really was
> Auto-tune after all. The producers supposedly lied in a magazine article
> by saying they did it another way.
>
> The most unexpected place I've heard pitch-correction was Lebanese pop
> music.
>
> Stephen

I was stunned this week by its use on TV. I tuned into "High School
Musical", yet another musical competition show. In the first round,
just about all of the contestants sang BADLY out of tune. Suddenly in
the second round, it was like they ALL obtained perfect pitch! Fraud,
IMO.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
Jenn > wrote:

> > > I sure hope so. I truly hate the sound of so many pop CDs that I
> > > hear..."flat affect" compression. No life. Bland. And so many of the
> > > acts are making music to match. My other audio ****er presently is
> > > pitch correction.
> >
> > I was surprised to learn on RAPro that the "Cher effect" really was
> > Auto-tune after all. The producers supposedly lied in a magazine article
> > by saying they did it another way.
> >
> > The most unexpected place I've heard pitch-correction was Lebanese pop
> > music.

> I was stunned this week by its use on TV. I tuned into "High School
> Musical", yet another musical competition show. In the first round,
> just about all of the contestants sang BADLY out of tune. Suddenly in
> the second round, it was like they ALL obtained perfect pitch! Fraud,
> IMO.

In the good old days, someone would have to splice a comp track.

Stephen

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> > TT wrote:
> >
> >> Well lets talk about some current trends then? Like how professional analog
> >> recordings are made *on tape*, then mixed/edited at 32/192 or 24/96 before
> >> being down sampled to 16/44.1 for CD release. So you claim that the CDP101
> >> plying these CDs will still out perform the original analogue tape?
> >
> > You think many modern recordings are made on *tape* ? Got a surpise for you
> > there. Almost all hard disk unless someone's trying to replicate the 'old
> > sound'.
>
> And why does any give a hoot how a CDP101 performed?
> It has no relevance today.

I couldn't agree more. I was not impressed. Maybe it was a faulty one ?

First CD player I bought was a Denon 1700, dual BB DACs with a clever offset
arrangement IIRC to help improve low bit resolution and linearity and 4 x
oversampling. Chalk and cheese. Well, that's what it sounded like too me !

I still have it. Nice piece of kit. They really don't make them like that any more.
It's had one service at Hayden Labs and I'm sure it'll deserve another.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> It's still true that as a distribution format reproducer , the CDP 101
> outperforms all distribution formats that were available in its day.

It's day was very short.


> It also outperforms a high speed, half track copy of the origional master
> tape. It
> even outperforms the master tape recorder.

Analog or digital ? With or without Apogee filter cards ? Sony, Studer or
Mitsubishi ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> "Arny Krueger"
> > "ScottW"
> >> "Eeyore"
> >>> TT wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Well lets talk about some current trends then? Like
> >>>> how professional analog recordings are made *on tape*,
> >>>> then mixed/edited at 32/192 or 24/96 before being down
> >>>> sampled to 16/44.1 for CD release. So you claim that
> >>>> the CDP101 plying these CDs will still out perform the
> >>>> original analogue tape?
> >>>
> >>> You think many modern recordings are made on *tape* ?
> >>> Got a surpise for you there. Almost all hard disk unless
> >>> someone's trying to replicate the 'old sound'.
> >>
> >> And why does any give a hoot how a CDP101 performed?
> >> It has no relevance today.
> >
> > It's still true that as a distribution format reproducer , the CDP 101
> > outperforms all distribution formats that were available in its day. It also
> > outperforms a high speed, half track copy of the origional master tape. It
> > even outperforms the master tape recorder.
>
> The problem with CD has never been in the ability of the format
> playback of 16/44.
> It was in the mixing, mastering, dithering which has largely
> been solved IMO.

Very largely.

Sorry these aren't freely downloadable but lets say I had at least a small
influence in the practical product that resulted..
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5478
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=4816

http://www.fullersound.com/equip.htm
"Neve DTC Console"

It was purpose designed for digital mastering.

Graham


Graham

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> Dithering back to 16 bits during mixing was a problem that
> was not solved in early attempts at digital mixing.

That's why Neve did their own AMD based 'bitslice processor' cards. I forget how
many bits wide they were. Maybe 16 + 4 mantissa ? Might have been wider still.
Definitely floating point though IIRC.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

> "ScottW" > wrote:
> > I'm hoping that if lossless digital downloads become prevalent, alternative
> > mixes might be an option as a few full DR cds have been offered with LPs.
> > Or maybe builtin compression in audio and boom boxes becomes std the
> > motivation to *******ize the recordings will diminish.
>
> I sure hope so. I truly hate the sound of so many pop CDs that I
> hear..."flat affect" compression. No life. Bland. And so many of the
> acts are making music to match.

Vile isn't it ?


> My other audio ****er presently is pitch correction.

Tell me more. Maybe I've missed it ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "TT" > wrote in message
>
> > Still want to pit the CDP101 against an analog tape
> > machine?
>
> Sure, the 1/4 inch, quarter track 7 1/2 ips or 3 3/4 ips machine of your
> choice. That was the distribution format with the greatest potential for
> sound quality prior to the advent of the CD.

How about a 30 ips 1" headstack stereo Ampex ATR102. I know a studio that has
one. The ATR 1XXs were something else. I don't think they were ever bettered by
any other product in their class. Rich man's toy basically. He also has FIVE
Studer A800s.

Graham

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > I'm hoping that if lossless digital downloads become prevalent,
> > > alternative
> > > mixes might be an option as a few full DR cds have been offered with LPs.
> > > Or maybe builtin compression in audio and boom boxes becomes std the
> > > motivation to *******ize the recordings will diminish.
> >
> > I sure hope so. I truly hate the sound of so many pop CDs that I
> > hear..."flat affect" compression. No life. Bland. And so many of the
> > acts are making music to match.
>
> Vile isn't it ?

Yep.

>
>
> > My other audio ****er presently is pitch correction.
>
> Tell me more. Maybe I've missed it ?

Software that corrects bad intonation in performance. When abused it
sounds awful. Think Cher on "Believe" and all Britany Spears. Fraud.
Sing in tune, or don't.

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> "Arny Krueger"
> >> > "ScottW"
> >> >> "Eeyore"
> >> >>> TT wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Well lets talk about some current trends then? Like
> >> >>>> how professional analog recordings are made *on tape*,
> >> >>>> then mixed/edited at 32/192 or 24/96 before being down
> >> >>>> sampled to 16/44.1 for CD release. So you claim that
> >> >>>> the CDP101 plying these CDs will still out perform the
> >> >>>> original analogue tape?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> You think many modern recordings are made on *tape* ?
> >> >>> Got a surpise for you there. Almost all hard disk unless
> >> >>> someone's trying to replicate the 'old sound'.
> >> >>
> >> >> And why does any give a hoot how a CDP101 performed?
> >> >> It has no relevance today.
> >> >
> >> > It's still true that as a distribution format reproducer , the CDP 101
> >> > outperforms all distribution formats that were available in its day. It
> >> > also
> >> > outperforms a high speed, half track copy of the origional master tape. It
> >> > even outperforms the master tape recorder.
> >>
> >> The problem with CD has never been in the ability of the format
> >> playback of 16/44.
> >> It was in the mixing, mastering, dithering which has largely
> >> been solved IMO.
> >
> > Very largely.
> >
> > Sorry these aren't freely downloadable but lets say I had at least a small
> > influence in the practical product that resulted..
> > http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5478
> > http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=4816
> >
> > http://www.fullersound.com/equip.htm
> > "Neve DTC Console"
> >
> > It was purpose designed for digital mastering.
>
> Can you put a lock or at least a limiter on the compressor? :).

You expect me to remember from 21 years ago ? The DSP guys said doing compression
well in digital wan't easy btw.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> > Jenn wrote:
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > I'm hoping that if lossless digital downloads become prevalent,
> > > > alternative
> > > > mixes might be an option as a few full DR cds have been offered with LPs.
> > > > Or maybe builtin compression in audio and boom boxes becomes std the
> > > > motivation to *******ize the recordings will diminish.
> > >
> > > I sure hope so. I truly hate the sound of so many pop CDs that I
> > > hear..."flat affect" compression. No life. Bland. And so many of the
> > > acts are making music to match.
> >
> > Vile isn't it ?
>
> Yep.
>
> > > My other audio ****er presently is pitch correction.
> >
> > Tell me more. Maybe I've missed it ?
>
> Software that corrects bad intonation in performance. When abused it
> sounds awful. Think Cher on "Believe" and all Britany Spears. Fraud.
> Sing in tune, or don't.

OK, that's why I've not heard it then !

Now if you like alternative goth rock (which I quite suspect you may not) and want
your very hairs to stand on end check out the Sisters of Mercy. Rarely tour any
more but WOW, the energy. I MUST see them live one day.
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=sister+mercy+suzanne&search_type=&aq=f

Unlesss it's changed the first clip is the best. Pretent you're 25 again.

Also http://youtube.com/watch?v=IuezNswtRfo&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ROnXv7Z7v28&feature=related
and loads more.

This is music to drive at speed at ! (keep legal though).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sisters_of_Mercy

More to your liking may be www.cavendishstringquartet.co.uk which I knocked up for
a neighbour.

My taste in music is eclectic to say the least.

Graham

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> > Software that corrects bad intonation in performance. When abused it
> > sounds awful. Think Cher on "Believe" and all Britany Spears. Fraud.
> > Sing in tune, or don't.
>
> OK, that's why I've not heard it then !

It's widely used in country. Go figure.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Jenn wrote:

>> My other audio ****er presently is pitch correction.

> Tell me more. Maybe I've missed it ?

One word: Autotune

http://www.antarestech.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_tune

Also:

Melodyne

http://www.celemony.com/cms/

Think of them as pain-killers that can be marginally effective in some
cases. IOW the cure can be worse than the disease. But used with care and
taste.

I've never done pitch correction during editing, but I have surely done
extensive correction of bad timing and missed notes. I've had plenty of raw
material to work with, and I do mean raw.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>

>>> As I argued with Bob, a new format digital format is not
>>> a necessary solution.
>>
>> Agreed. The market has said that it agrees with that.
>>
>>> I'm hoping that if lossless digital
>>> downloads become prevalent, alternative mixes might be
>>> an option as a few full DR cds have been offered with
>>> LPs.
>>
>> Examples?
>
> http://www.boogiebobsrecords.com/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=34262&category_id=101&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1

Oh yes, thanks for the reminder. I've seen this before.

>>> Or maybe builtin compression in audio and boom boxes
>>> becomes std the motivation to *******ize the recordings
>>> will diminish.
>
> I meant to say car audio.

Yes, a big market that still has a lot of life in it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message

> Sorry these aren't freely downloadable but lets say I had
> at least a small influence in the practical product that
> resulted.. http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5478

Dated 1989.

Way late.

> http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=4816

> http://www.fullersound.com/equip.htm
> "Neve DTC Console"

16 bit hardware used in double-precision mode. IOW 32 bit floating point, 24
bit mantissas. Overkill dynamic range, but a very logical and reasonble way
to use the available hardware, as 16 bit fixed point arithmetic is
inadequate to provide 16 bit performance over a typical range of functions.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message


> Can you put a lock or at least a limiter on the
> compressor? :).

Just don't punch it in.

Historically professional equipment has bypass switches for non-trivial
processing. Manually-operated attenuators are trivial, compressors and
equalizers are non-trivial.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> It's still true that as a distribution format reproducer
>> , the CDP 101 outperforms all distribution formats that
>> were available in its day.
>
> It's day was very short.

It was arguably a later-generation lab prototype that made it into volume
production to meet a schedule.

>> It also outperforms a high speed, half track copy of the
>> original master tape. It
>> even outperforms the master tape recorder.

> Analog or digital ?

Analog. If you go back up the thread, analog tape was the issue.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "TT" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Still want to pit the CDP101 against an analog tape
>>> machine?
>>
>> Sure, the 1/4 inch, quarter track 7 1/2 ips or 3 3/4 ips
>> machine of your choice. That was the distribution format
>> with the greatest potential for sound quality prior to
>> the advent of the CD.
>
> How about a 30 ips 1" headstack stereo Ampex ATR102.

Very likely fairly easy to detect in an ABX comparison over just one
generation.

If you put analog tape, even of the highest quality, under the sort of
analysis we take for granted with modern digital gear, analog tape was very
unstable. Tape overall gain would vary by goodly fractions of a dB from end
to tend, more subtle parameters would vary even more.

IOW, if you set even the best analog tape machines up at the beginning of
the tape, you really wanted to tweak again, further on down the spool. The
best machine in the world is only as good as the best media, and the media
was the main stumbling block from the 70s onward, if not earlier. The
machine would have like 80 dB or better dynamic range until the tape started
moving.

> I know a studio that has one. The ATR 1XXs were something
> else. I don't think they were ever bettered by any other
> product in their class. Rich man's toy basically. He also
> has FIVE Studer A800s.

ATR100s were head and shoulders above contemporary equipment. Near the end
of life of the analog tape market people like Otari were pretty well
matching or beating it. But that was many years later.

Compared to even really good analog tape equipment for the home like a Revox
A77, the ATR1xx machines were like science fiction.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > Eeyore > wrote:
> > > Jenn wrote:
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > I'm hoping that if lossless digital downloads become prevalent,
> > > > > alternative
> > > > > mixes might be an option as a few full DR cds have been offered with
> > > > > LPs.
> > > > > Or maybe builtin compression in audio and boom boxes becomes std the
> > > > > motivation to *******ize the recordings will diminish.
> > > >
> > > > I sure hope so. I truly hate the sound of so many pop CDs that I
> > > > hear..."flat affect" compression. No life. Bland. And so many of the
> > > > acts are making music to match.
> > >
> > > Vile isn't it ?
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > > > My other audio ****er presently is pitch correction.
> > >
> > > Tell me more. Maybe I've missed it ?
> >
> > Software that corrects bad intonation in performance. When abused it
> > sounds awful. Think Cher on "Believe" and all Britany Spears. Fraud.
> > Sing in tune, or don't.
>
> OK, that's why I've not heard it then !

It's used more and more in all genres, it seems. Almost none in
professional level classical (but some, I hear), and of course no need
in solo instrumental (piano, guitar). But it's nearly everywhere.
Stupid.

>
> Now if you like alternative goth rock (which I quite suspect you may not)

You'd be correct ;-)

> and
> want
> your very hairs to stand on end check out the Sisters of Mercy. Rarely tour
> any
> more but WOW, the energy. I MUST see them live one day.
> http://youtube.com/results?search_query=sister+mercy+suzanne&search_type=&aq=f
>
> Unlesss it's changed the first clip is the best. Pretent you're 25 again.
>
> Also http://youtube.com/watch?v=IuezNswtRfo&feature=related
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=ROnXv7Z7v28&feature=related
> and loads more.
>
> This is music to drive at speed at ! (keep legal though).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sisters_of_Mercy

I'll check it out, thanks. I'm always open to new (to me) things.

>
> More to your liking may be www.cavendishstringquartet.co.uk which I knocked
> up for
> a neighbour.
>
> My taste in music is eclectic to say the least.

Which is a happy thing, IMO. The same applies to me.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article >,
> Eeyore > wrote:
>
> > > Software that corrects bad intonation in performance. When abused it
> > > sounds awful. Think Cher on "Believe" and all Britany Spears. Fraud.
> > > Sing in tune, or don't.
> >
> > OK, that's why I've not heard it then !
>
> It's widely used in country. Go figure.
>
> Stephen

Yep. It's insidious.

[TT]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> TT wrote:
>
>> Well lets talk about some current trends then? Like how professional
>> analog
>> recordings are made *on tape*, then mixed/edited at 32/192 or 24/96
>> before
>> being down sampled to 16/44.1 for CD release. So you claim that the
>> CDP101
>> plying these CDs will still out perform the original analogue tape?
>
> You think many modern recordings are made on *tape* ? Got a surpise for
> you
> there. Almost all hard disk unless someone's trying to replicate the 'old
> sound'.
>
> Graham
>
I can't win here :-( I had this very discussion elsewhere recently and I
said "recording to tape was dead and it's all hard disc now." Well as you
would expect a recording engineer jumped and explained to me the system I
just related. He records to tape, copies to HD and then edits in digital.
I am buggered if I can understand the reasoning but he (and others) are
convinced it is the way to go to produce these great recordings.

Also I am sure you must have the odd the SACD or DVD-A that has been
re-mastered from an analogue source?

Regardless, Arny's clapped out Sony CDP101 just won't cut it.


Cheers TT

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
Signal > wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
>
> >> > > > I'm hoping that if lossless digital downloads become prevalent,
> >> > > > alternative
> >> > > > mixes might be an option as a few full DR cds have been offered with
> >> > > > LPs.
> >> > > > Or maybe builtin compression in audio and boom boxes becomes std the
> >> > > > motivation to *******ize the recordings will diminish.
> >> > >
> >> > > I sure hope so. I truly hate the sound of so many pop CDs that I
> >> > > hear..."flat affect" compression. No life. Bland. And so many of
> >> > > the
> >> > > acts are making music to match.
> >> >
> >> > Vile isn't it ?
> >>
> >> Yep.
> >>
> >> > > My other audio ****er presently is pitch correction.
> >> >
> >> > Tell me more. Maybe I've missed it ?
> >>
> >> Software that corrects bad intonation in performance. When abused it
> >> sounds awful. Think Cher on "Believe" and all Britany Spears. Fraud.
> >> Sing in tune, or don't.
> >
> >OK, that's why I've not heard it then !
>
> Of course you've heard it, tons of artists use it.
>
> Jenn- in the case of Cher it was a vocoder, not pitch correction like
> Autotune.

You must have missed my post: the Cher producers lied about not using
Autotune! According to RAP posters, anyway.

Stephen


> >Now if you like alternative goth rock (which I quite suspect you may not)
> >and want
> >your very hairs to stand on end check out the Sisters of Mercy.
>
> Aah.. The Sisters.. we may share some musical interests
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
Signal > wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
>
> >> > > > I'm hoping that if lossless digital downloads become prevalent,
> >> > > > alternative
> >> > > > mixes might be an option as a few full DR cds have been offered with
> >> > > > LPs.
> >> > > > Or maybe builtin compression in audio and boom boxes becomes std the
> >> > > > motivation to *******ize the recordings will diminish.
> >> > >
> >> > > I sure hope so. I truly hate the sound of so many pop CDs that I
> >> > > hear..."flat affect" compression. No life. Bland. And so many of
> >> > > the
> >> > > acts are making music to match.
> >> >
> >> > Vile isn't it ?
> >>
> >> Yep.
> >>
> >> > > My other audio ****er presently is pitch correction.
> >> >
> >> > Tell me more. Maybe I've missed it ?
> >>
> >> Software that corrects bad intonation in performance. When abused it
> >> sounds awful. Think Cher on "Believe" and all Britany Spears. Fraud.
> >> Sing in tune, or don't.
> >
> >OK, that's why I've not heard it then !
>
> Of course you've heard it, tons of artists use it.
>
> Jenn- in the case of Cher it was a vocoder, not pitch correction like
> Autotune.

There's some debate about that.

>
> >Now if you like alternative goth rock (which I quite suspect you may not)
> >and want
> >your very hairs to stand on end check out the Sisters of Mercy.
>
> Aah.. The Sisters.. we may share some musical interests
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" > wrote in message
. au
> "Eeyore" > wrote
> in message ...
>>
>>
>> TT wrote:
>>
>>> Well lets talk about some current trends then? Like
>>> how professional analog
>>> recordings are made *on tape*, then mixed/edited at
>>> 32/192 or 24/96 before
>>> being down sampled to 16/44.1 for CD release. So you
>>> claim that the CDP101
>>> plying these CDs will still out perform the original
>>> analogue tape?
>>
>> You think many modern recordings are made on *tape* ?
>> Got a surprise for you
>> there. Almost all hard disk unless someone's trying to
>> replicate the 'old sound'.
>>
>> Graham
>>
> I can't win here :-(

Well Terry do you want to win all the time, or do you want to have fun
playing the game?

Based on what you're saying, you want to win all of the time.

> I had this very discussion
> elsewhere recently and I said "recording to tape was dead
> and it's all hard disc now."

+/- a little hyperbole, true.

> Well as you would expect a
> recording engineer jumped and explained to me the system
> I just related.

In the trade, we call guys like that "nuts".

Recording analog, transcribing at 192 and then downsampling to 44 is
hysterical. He's obviously got way too much time on his hands.

He could put that extra time to a good use by doing an ABX comparison of
transcribing at 192 and downsampling to 44, versus simply recording at 44.

The analog tape step is just plain nuts. One gets the best quality by going
from the real world to 44.1. If he was transcribing from LPs then he might
get some benefit, as it is said that some noise reduction algorithms work
better, the wider the bandwidth of the tics and pops from the LPs.

> He records to tape, copies to HD and then edits in digital.

That's a choice he gets to make. I hope he gets paid by the hour, so someone
else is paying for the time he wastes.

> I am buggered if I can understand
> the reasoning but he (and others) are convinced it is the
> way to go to produce these great recordings.

If that's what's required for him to achieve a certain state of Zen, then
whatever floats his boat.

> Also I am sure you must have the odd the SACD or DVD-A
> that has been re-mastered from an analogue source?

I have a few of each, but I think they are almost all DDD.

> Regardless, Arny's clapped out Sony CDP101 just won't cut it.

Says someone who has never ever heard it.

Actually, no CD player will ever "cut it". The laser is a non-contact
transducer, and any cutting of the media that might occur would be
completely unintentional, and even a little dysfunctional.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in
>
> > Sorry these aren't freely downloadable but lets say I had
> > at least a small influence in the practical product that
> > resulted.. http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5478
>
> Dated 1989.
>
> Way late.
>
> > http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=4816
>
> > http://www.fullersound.com/equip.htm
> > "Neve DTC Console"
>
> 16 bit hardware used in double-precision mode. IOW 32 bit floating point, 24
> bit mantissas. Overkill dynamic range, but a very logical and reasonble way
> to use the available hardware, as 16 bit fixed point arithmetic is
> inadequate to provide 16 bit performance over a typical range of functions.

Ah yes, it sort of comes back to me now.

ISTR that even 24 bit mantissas gve troublesome side effects with very low freq
EQ.

Graham

[Eeyore]

TT wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote
> >
> > You think many modern recordings are made on *tape* ? Got a surpise for
> > you there. Almost all hard disk unless someone's trying to replicate the
> 'old
> > sound'.
> >
> I can't win here :-( I had this very discussion elsewhere recently and I
> said "recording to tape was dead and it's all hard disc now." Well as you
> would expect a recording engineer jumped and explained to me the system I
> just related. He records to tape, copies to HD and then edits in digital.
> I am buggered if I can understand the reasoning but he (and others) are
> convinced it is the way to go to produce these great recordings.

Maybe the idea is to get the analog 'colour' and then stop it degrading.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > FYI - I disagree. He may have certain personal issues that he might or ought to
> > learn to tame but he is no Allison.
>
> Fortunately, he is seeking professional help for that
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6qhwoy

How did your own sessions work out ?

Graham

[MINe109]

On Jul 24, 10:52 am, Signal > wrote:
> Jenn > wrote:
> >> Jenn- in the case of Cher it was a vocoder, not pitch correction like
> >> Autotune.
>
> >There's some debate about that.
>
> Looking into it now.
>
> I have the Sound on Sound mag with the original article in it kicking
> around somewhere..

Two birds, one stone:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb99/articles/tracks661.htm

STOP PRESS! Historical Footnote

Cher's 'Believe' (Dec 1998) was the first commercial recording to
feature the audible side-effects of Antares Auto-tune software used as
a deliberate creative effect. The (now) highly recognisable tonal
mangling occurs when the pitch correction speed is set too fast for
the audio that it is processing and it became one of the most over-
used production effects of the following years.

In February 1999, when this Sound On Sound article was published, the
producers of this recording were apparently so keen to maintain their
'trade secret' process that they were willing to attribute the effect
to the (then) recently-released Digitech Talker vocoder pedal. As most
people are now all-too familiar with the 'Cher effect', as it became
known, we have maintained the article in its original form as an
interesting historical footnote.
--

Stephen

[Eeyore]

Signal wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
>
> >> > > > I'm hoping that if lossless digital downloads become prevalent,
> >> > > > alternative
> >> > > > mixes might be an option as a few full DR cds have been offered with LPs.
> >> > > > Or maybe builtin compression in audio and boom boxes becomes std the
> >> > > > motivation to *******ize the recordings will diminish.
> >> > >
> >> > > I sure hope so. I truly hate the sound of so many pop CDs that I
> >> > > hear..."flat affect" compression. No life. Bland. And so many of the
> >> > > acts are making music to match.
> >> >
> >> > Vile isn't it ?
> >>
> >> Yep.
> >>
> >> > > My other audio ****er presently is pitch correction.
> >> >
> >> > Tell me more. Maybe I've missed it ?
> >>
> >> Software that corrects bad intonation in performance. When abused it
> >> sounds awful. Think Cher on "Believe" and all Britany Spears. Fraud.
> >> Sing in tune, or don't.
> >
> >OK, that's why I've not heard it then !
>
> Of course you've heard it, tons of artists use it.

Maybe not those I tend to listen to. It's the kind of thing I can very much imagine
Britney using. And very much not listening to.


> Jenn- in the case of Cher it was a vocoder, not pitch correction like
> Autotune.
>
> >Now if you like alternative goth rock (which I quite suspect you may not) and want
> >your very hairs to stand on end check out the Sisters of Mercy.
>
> Aah.. The Sisters.. we may share some musical interests

Do feel free to elaborate.

Graham

[Eeyore]

MiNe 109 wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
>
> > > Software that corrects bad intonation in performance. When abused it
> > > sounds awful. Think Cher on "Believe" and all Britany Spears. Fraud.
> > > Sing in tune, or don't.
> >
> > OK, that's why I've not heard it then !
>
> It's widely used in country. Go figure.

Uhuh. Another reason I've not heard it knowingly.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>> in
>>
>>> Sorry these aren't freely downloadable but lets say I
>>> had at least a small influence in the practical product
>>> that resulted..
>>> http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5478
>>
>> Dated 1989.
>>
>> Way late.
>>
>>> http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=4816
>>
>>> http://www.fullersound.com/equip.htm
>>> "Neve DTC Console"
>>
>> 16 bit hardware used in double-precision mode. IOW 32
>> bit floating point, 24 bit mantissas. Overkill dynamic
>> range, but a very logical and reasonble way to use the
>> available hardware, as 16 bit fixed point arithmetic is
>> inadequate to provide 16 bit performance over a typical
>> range of functions.
>
> Ah yes, it sort of comes back to me now.
>
> ISTR that even 24 bit mantissas gve troublesome side
> effects with very low freq EQ.

I don't know if they are audible, but they do produce unexpectedly
less-than-24 bit results.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Iul, 14:38, Eeyore >
wrote:
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
>
> > > FYI - I disagree. He may have certain personal issues that he might or ought to
> > > learn to tame but he is no Allison.
>
> > Fortunately, he is seeking professional help for that
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/6qhwoy
>
> How did your own sessions work out ?
>

I called Mistress Jenn the last time I was in SD,
but she couldn't see me.

[TT]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> TT wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>> >
>> > You think many modern recordings are made on *tape* ? Got a surpise for
>> > you there. Almost all hard disk unless someone's trying to replicate
>> > the
>> 'old
>> > sound'.
>> >
>> I can't win here :-( I had this very discussion elsewhere recently and I
>> said "recording to tape was dead and it's all hard disc now." Well as
>> you
>> would expect a recording engineer jumped and explained to me the system I
>> just related. He records to tape, copies to HD and then edits in
>> digital.
>> I am buggered if I can understand the reasoning but he (and others) are
>> convinced it is the way to go to produce these great recordings.
>
> Maybe the idea is to get the analog 'colour' and then stop it degrading.
>
> Graham
>

Probably a bit like putting toobs on CD players ;-)

Cheers TT

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "TT" > wrote in message
> . au
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>> in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>> TT wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well lets talk about some current trends then? Like
>>>> how professional analog
>>>> recordings are made *on tape*, then mixed/edited at
>>>> 32/192 or 24/96 before
>>>> being down sampled to 16/44.1 for CD release. So you
>>>> claim that the CDP101
>>>> plying these CDs will still out perform the original
>>>> analogue tape?
>>>
>>> You think many modern recordings are made on *tape* ?
>>> Got a surprise for you
>>> there. Almost all hard disk unless someone's trying to
>>> replicate the 'old sound'.
>>>
>>> Graham
>>>
>> I can't win here :-(
>
> Well Terry do you want to win all the time, or do you want to have fun
> playing the game?

"It's not how you play the game it's whether you win or lose." Your theory
I believe Arny.

>
> Based on what you're saying, you want to win all of the time.
>
No, I wish to correctly informed as to the true and accurate nature of
things in general. BTW that includes reproduced music as well.

>> I had this very discussion
>> elsewhere recently and I said "recording to tape was dead
>> and it's all hard disc now."
>
> +/- a little hyperbole, true.
>

Hyperbole!? I read an article 12-18 months ago where the last magnetic tape
manufacturer had ceased production. I assumed it was a dead format.
Apparently someone has started up again.

>> Well as you would expect a
>> recording engineer jumped and explained to me the system
>> I just related.
>
> In the trade, we call guys like that "nuts".
>
Haha. You're claiming professional status again? Guys in the trade call
what you do amateurish.

> Recording analog, transcribing at 192 and then downsampling to 44 is
> hysterical. He's obviously got way too much time on his hands.
>
This is unfortunate here because we actually agree on this :-( Try not to
make this a habit Arny as I ;-)

> He could put that extra time to a good use by doing an ABX comparison of
> transcribing at 192 and downsampling to 44, versus simply recording at 44.
>
We both know 44.1 and 16 bit lacks the required resolution for those that
still have their hearing.

> The analog tape step is just plain nuts. One gets the best quality by
> going from the real world to 44.1. If he was transcribing from LPs then
> he might get some benefit, as it is said that some noise reduction
> algorithms work better, the wider the bandwidth of the tics and pops from
> the LPs.
>
It was live recordings.

>> He records to tape, copies to HD and then edits in digital.
>
> That's a choice he gets to make. I hope he gets paid by the hour, so
> someone else is paying for the time he wastes.
>
I can't comment.

>> I am buggered if I can understand
>> the reasoning but he (and others) are convinced it is the
>> way to go to produce these great recordings.
>
> If that's what's required for him to achieve a certain state of Zen, then
> whatever floats his boat.
>
He was convinced it was what he needed to do to achieve the end result.

>> Also I am sure you must have the odd the SACD or DVD-A
>> that has been re-mastered from an analogue source?
>
> I have a few of each, but I think they are almost all DDD.
>
>> Regardless, Arny's clapped out Sony CDP101 just won't cut it.
>
> Says someone who has never ever heard it.
>
No, not never just not recently.

> Actually, no CD player will ever "cut it". The laser is a non-contact
> transducer, and any cutting of the media that might occur would be
> completely unintentional, and even a little dysfunctional.
>
"Cut it" = make the grade, achieve a satisfactory result etc. And you
accuse me of being deliberately dumb!

TT

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> I called Mistress Jenn the last time I was in SD,
> but she couldn't see me.

You make it sound like you were hoping to schedule a "discipline" session.

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" > wrote in message

> "Eeyore" > wrote
> in message ...
>>
>>
>> TT wrote:
>>
>>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> You think many modern recordings are made on *tape* ?
>>>> Got a surpise for you there. Almost all hard disk
>>>> unless someone's trying to replicate the
>>> 'old
>>>> sound'.
>>>>
>>> I can't win here :-( I had this very discussion
>>> elsewhere recently and I said "recording to tape was
>>> dead and it's all hard disc now." Well as you
>>> would expect a recording engineer jumped and explained
>>> to me the system I just related. He records to tape,
>>> copies to HD and then edits in digital.
>>> I am buggered if I can understand the reasoning but he
>>> (and others) are convinced it is the way to go to
>>> produce these great recordings.
>>
>> Maybe the idea is to get the analog 'colour' and then
>> stop it degrading.

Right, degrade it a little with the analog tape, and take advantage that the
digital domain need not add any noise or distortion. Sort of like putting
only a little rat poison on your fish and chips before eating it.

> Probably a bit like putting toobs on CD players ;-)

Art eats that sort of crap up.

[Eeyore]

TT wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote
> >
> > Maybe the idea is to get the analog 'colour' and then stop it degrading.
>
> Probably a bit like putting toobs on CD players ;-)
>
> Cheers TT

Sounds a bit like it.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> TT wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>>>
>>> Maybe the idea is to get the analog 'colour' and then
>>> stop it degrading.
>>
>> Probably a bit like putting toobs on CD players ;-)
>>
>> Cheers TT
>
> Sounds a bit like it.
>

Actually toobs can sound a whole lot better than a gratuitous trip through
analog tape.

There is a fair amount of toob equipment that is sonically transparent, or
darn close.

Analog tape always leaves its audible footprints on the sound. But it can
be tons better than vinyl.

There is one case where analog tape can help, and that is if you have a
badly clipped recording. Push analog tape into saturation and it does some
neat kinds of compression and band limiting that can be euphonic.

Anybody who says their recordings need a pass through analog tape to sound
their best is implicitly saying that they can't avoid clipping while
recording. IOW, they are incompetent, or they think they are.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "TT" > wrote in message
> > "Eeyore" > wrote
> >> TT wrote:
> >>> "Eeyore" > wrote
> >>>>
> >>>> You think many modern recordings are made on *tape* ?
> >>>> Got a surpise for you there. Almost all hard disk
> >>>> unless someone's trying to replicate the
> >>> 'old sound'.
> >>>>
> >>> I can't win here :-( I had this very discussion
> >>> elsewhere recently and I said "recording to tape was
> >>> dead and it's all hard disc now." Well as you
> >>> would expect a recording engineer jumped and explained
> >>> to me the system I just related. He records to tape,
> >>> copies to HD and then edits in digital.
> >>> I am buggered if I can understand the reasoning but he
> >>> (and others) are convinced it is the way to go to
> >>> produce these great recordings.
> >>
> >> Maybe the idea is to get the analog 'colour' and then
> >> stop it degrading.
>
> Right, degrade it a little with the analog tape, and take advantage that the
> digital domain need not add any noise or distortion.

Exactly so.


> Sort of like putting only a little rat poison on your fish and chips before
> eating it.

LOL. In the day, there was considerable concern that repeated spooling of the
tape whilst mixing degraded the signal(s), especially HF loss IIRC, so there is
some sense to it.


> > Probably a bit like putting toobs on CD players ;-)
>
> Art eats that sort of crap up.

Glass isn't good for the stomach and intentistines.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote
> > TT wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" > wrote
> >>>
> >>> Maybe the idea is to get the analog 'colour' and then
> >>> stop it degrading.
> >>
> >> Probably a bit like putting toobs on CD players ;-)
> >>
> >> Cheers TT
> >
> > Sounds a bit like it.
>
> Actually toobs can sound a whole lot better than a gratuitous trip through
> analog tape.
>
> There is a fair amount of toob equipment that is sonically transparent, or
> darn close.
>
> Analog tape always leaves its audible footprints on the sound. But it can
> be tons better than vinyl.
>
> There is one case where analog tape can help, and that is if you have a
> badly clipped recording. Push analog tape into saturation and it does some
> neat kinds of compression and band limiting that can be euphonic.

Very true. Still popular AIUI for drums.


> Anybody who says their recordings need a pass through analog tape to sound
> their best is implicitly saying that they can't avoid clipping while
> recording. IOW, they are incompetent, or they think they are.

Well, at least it clips softly and that's part of the sound.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "TT" > wrote in message
>>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>> "Eeyore" >
>>>>> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You think many modern recordings are made on *tape* ?
>>>>>> Got a surpise for you there. Almost all hard disk
>>>>>> unless someone's trying to replicate the
>>>>> 'old sound'.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I can't win here :-( I had this very discussion
>>>>> elsewhere recently and I said "recording to tape was
>>>>> dead and it's all hard disc now." Well as you
>>>>> would expect a recording engineer jumped and explained
>>>>> to me the system I just related. He records to tape,
>>>>> copies to HD and then edits in digital.
>>>>> I am buggered if I can understand the reasoning but he
>>>>> (and others) are convinced it is the way to go to
>>>>> produce these great recordings.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the idea is to get the analog 'colour' and then
>>>> stop it degrading.
>>
>> Right, degrade it a little with the analog tape, and
>> take advantage that the digital domain need not add any
>> noise or distortion.
>
> Exactly so.
>
>
>> Sort of like putting only a little rat poison on your
>> fish and chips before eating it.
>
> LOL. In the day, there was considerable concern that
> repeated spooling of the tape whilst mixing degraded the
> signal(s), especially HF loss IIRC, so there is some
> sense to it.

Back in the day, I spent a lot more time than I care to admit, trying to
squeeze more performance out of my Revox A77.

I eventually discovered that the *real* problem was the brown floppy stuff
that ran through it.

>>> Probably a bit like putting toobs on CD players ;-)

>> Art eats that sort of crap up.

> Glass isn't good for the stomach and intentistines.

Doesn't help the sonics either, but Art has made some fantastic claims about
resale value. I must be stupid because I buy audio gear to use it, not sell
it again as soon as possible.

BTW, how long do you think it will be before Art, ****R, or the Middiot post
a quote of the sentence above, butchered and out of context?



> Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>>> TT wrote:
>>>> "Eeyore" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the idea is to get the analog 'colour' and then
>>>>> stop it degrading.
>>>>
>>>> Probably a bit like putting toobs on CD players ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers TT
>>>
>>> Sounds a bit like it.
>>
>> Actually toobs can sound a whole lot better than a
>> gratuitous trip through analog tape.
>>
>> There is a fair amount of toob equipment that is
>> sonically transparent, or darn close.
>>
>> Analog tape always leaves its audible footprints on the
>> sound. But it can be tons better than vinyl.
>>
>> There is one case where analog tape can help, and that
>> is if you have a badly clipped recording. Push analog
>> tape into saturation and it does some neat kinds of
>> compression and band limiting that can be euphonic.
>
> Very true. Still popular AIUI for drums.
>
>
>> Anybody who says their recordings need a pass through
>> analog tape to sound their best is implicitly saying
>> that they can't avoid clipping while recording. IOW,
>> they are incompetent, or they think they are.
>
> Well, at least it clips softly and that's part of the
> sound.

I must be very old-fashioned - I think the best clipping is no clipping.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Iul, 19:29, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > I called Mistress Jenn the last time I was in SD,
> > but she couldn't see me.
>
> You make it sound like you were hoping to schedule a "discipline" session.

"at least" she would keep a good meter in her whipping sessions.
and she knows how to handle a baton.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Signal said:

> >> Well, at least it clips softly and that's part of the
> >> sound.
> >
> >I must be very old-fashioned - I think the best clipping is no clipping.
>
> You listen with your brain instead of your heart. Perhaps that has
> something to do with it?

As you well know, the Krooborg's soul was excised when it was transmuted
from a biologic into a metron. Do you really need to rub it in?

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> Back in the day, I spent a lot more time than I care to
>> admit, trying to squeeze more performance out of my
>> Revox A77.
>>
>> I eventually discovered that the *real* problem was the
>> brown floppy stuff that ran through it.
>
> Dropping stools into your tape deck is not the solution.

Obviously Paul, you had to do that experiment for yourself, to believe that
this would be true.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

IKYABWAIBorg is unable to admit he's been bested.

> >> brown floppy stuff that ran through it.
> >
> > Dropping stools into your tape deck is not the solution.
>
> Obviously Paul, you had to do that experiment for yourself, to believe that
> this would be true.

You brought it up, TurdBorg. Given™ your well-known addiction to all
things fecal, there was no doubt at all what you meant.

[Eeyore]

Signal wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > I'm hoping that if lossless digital downloads become prevalent,
> >> >> > > > alternative
> >> >> > > > mixes might be an option as a few full DR cds have been offered with LPs.
> >> >> > > > Or maybe builtin compression in audio and boom boxes becomes std the
> >> >> > > > motivation to *******ize the recordings will diminish.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I sure hope so. I truly hate the sound of so many pop CDs that I
> >> >> > > hear..."flat affect" compression. No life. Bland. And so many of the
> >> >> > > acts are making music to match.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Vile isn't it ?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep.
> >> >>
> >> >> > > My other audio ****er presently is pitch correction.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Tell me more. Maybe I've missed it ?
> >> >>
> >> >> Software that corrects bad intonation in performance. When abused it
> >> >> sounds awful. Think Cher on "Believe" and all Britany Spears. Fraud.
> >> >> Sing in tune, or don't.
> >> >
> >> >OK, that's why I've not heard it then !
> >>
> >> Of course you've heard it, tons of artists use it.
> >
> >Maybe not those I tend to listen to. It's the kind of thing I can very much imagine
> >Britney using. And very much not listening to.
>
> For excessive use of a creative technique, how about the compression
> on Eric Pryds Call on Me?

Yet another mystery to me. Blame British radio networking.


> At volume, it sucks the air out of your lungs.. :-)
>
> http://www.zippyvideos.com/6732002112277716/ericprydz_-_call_on_me_videoclip/
>
> >> Jenn- in the case of Cher it was a vocoder, not pitch correction like
> >> Autotune.
> >>
> >> >Now if you like alternative goth rock (which I quite suspect you may not) and want
> >> >your very hairs to stand on end check out the Sisters of Mercy.
> >>
> >> Aah.. The Sisters.. we may share some musical interests
> >
> >Do feel free to elaborate.
>
> I'll email you my music list if I can find it.

Thanks.


> Went to the Albert Hall
> gig they put out as "Wake", great fun...
>
> Going to see Control tonight. It's had some cracking reviews.

I need to get more up to date. Any and all advice welcome. After all if you like the
Sisters ..... !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Signal wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> >>
> >> Of course you've heard it, tons of artists use it.
> >
> >Maybe not those I tend to listen to. It's the kind of thing I can very much imagine
> >Britney using. And very much not listening to.
>
> For excessive use of a creative technique, how about the compression
> on Eric Pryds Call on Me?
>
> At volume, it sucks the air out of your lungs.. :-)
>
> http://www.zippyvideos.com/6732002112277716/ericprydz_-_call_on_me_videoclip/

Oh dear how NOT to uise a compressor/expander. That's horrid.

No, I wouldn't have listened to that for long. You can hear control bleedthrough FFS.

Where do they get these kids from ? Oh deary, deary me !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Signal wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >Back in the day, I spent a lot more time than I care to admit, trying to
> >squeeze more performance out of my Revox A77.
> >
> >I eventually discovered that the *real* problem was the brown floppy stuff
> >that ran through it.
>
> Dropping stools into your tape deck is not the solution.

LMFAO ! I hope that was a joke.

Mind you, 'in the day' it was more black than brown.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Signal wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >"Eeyore" > wrote in
> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>
> >>> Anybody who says their recordings need a pass through
> >>> analog tape to sound their best is implicitly saying
> >>> that they can't avoid clipping while recording. IOW,
> >>> they are incompetent, or they think they are.
> >>
> >> Well, at least it clips softly and that's part of the
> >> sound.
> >
> >I must be very old-fashioned - I think the best clipping is no clipping.
>
> You listen with your brain instead of your heart. Perhaps that has
> something to do with it?

Can anyone provide a drum track treated both ways ?

Graham

[TT]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Signal wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Of course you've heard it, tons of artists use it.
>> >
>> >Maybe not those I tend to listen to. It's the kind of thing I can very
>> >much imagine
>> >Britney using. And very much not listening to.
>>
>> For excessive use of a creative technique, how about the compression
>> on Eric Pryds Call on Me?
>>
>> At volume, it sucks the air out of your lungs.. :-)
>>
>> http://www.zippyvideos.com/6732002112277716/ericprydz_-_call_on_me_videoclip/
>
> Oh dear how NOT to uise a compressor/expander. That's horrid.
>

There was music on it? I didn't notice ;-)

> No, I wouldn't have listened to that for long. You can hear control
> bleedthrough FFS.
>

I watched it a couple of times (with volume down).

> Where do they get these kids from ? Oh deary, deary me !
>
Yes, I am asking myself this question right now as well. BTW If there are
any spare, I'll take a couple :-)

Cheers TT

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> I eventually discovered that the *real* problem was the brown floppy stuff
> that ran through it.

Arny this is **YOUR** problem as well! You're so full of it! (And I don't
mean analog tape either!)

TT

[TT]

"Signal" > wrote in message
...
> "TT" > wrote:
>
>>>> >> Of course you've heard it, tons of artists use it.
>>>> >
>>>> >Maybe not those I tend to listen to. It's the kind of thing I can very
>>>> >much imagine
>>>> >Britney using. And very much not listening to.
>>>>
>>>> For excessive use of a creative technique, how about the compression
>>>> on Eric Pryds Call on Me?
>>>>
>>>> At volume, it sucks the air out of your lungs.. :-)
>>>>
>>>> http://www.zippyvideos.com/6732002112277716/ericprydz_-_call_on_me_videoclip/
>>>
>>> Oh dear how NOT to uise a compressor/expander. That's horrid.
>>>
>>
>>There was music on it? I didn't notice ;-)
>>
>>> No, I wouldn't have listened to that for long. You can hear control
>>> bleedthrough FFS.
>>>
>>
>>I watched it a couple of times (with volume down).
>>
>>> Where do they get these kids from ? Oh deary, deary me !
>>>
>>Yes, I am asking myself this question right now as well. BTW If there are
>>any spare, I'll take a couple :-)
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about. :-)
>
> This ones quite catchy... not much eye candy, but Great lyrics!!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-jFKW4vrCw
>
>
Young, nubile, scantily clad, little hotties with good voices singing about
lesbian tendencies :-) (Drool)

Yep, I'm just a shallow mere male who can't balance his laptop at the moment
:-))

Cheers TT