Impressive Audio Restoration

[JackA]

So, they whine because I digitally enhance audio, and make THIER CDs sound bland. THEY whine about 3kHz, because I was the first to notice it, not them. No wonder why they need fancy and expensive headphones, hoping they will help their sound.

Anyway, here is what THEIR CD sounds like; the dull AM Radio sound; like riding a little pony...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/countmein-so.mp3

Here is what my CD sounds like; the thrill of HQ HD Radio; buckle up, we're breaking the sound barrier!...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/countmein-so.mp3

No wonder why the world is decaying, with so many silly people involved in audio, when flipping burgers at a fast food joint is more their style! :-)

Want to win a Granny, listen to them.
Want to win a Grammy, listen to me!

Thank you for your time.

Jack - Unsurpassed in Audio Restoration

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

"JackA" wrote in message
...

So, they whine because I digitally enhance audio, and make THIER CDs sound
bland. THEY whine about 3kHz, because I was the first to notice it, not
them.





So, lets get this straight.

You digitally enhance audio, particularly around 3kHz, because you *THINK*
CD's sound bland.

Then people who DON'T actually think CD's sound bland whine because of the
amount of 3kHz that has been unnecessarily added?




I think you will find that your posts on at least this Newsgroup raised some
eyebrows precisely because you posted mixed that were unnaturally enhanced
with those frequencies around 3kHz that very few people on this planet like
very much.

Apart from yourself, it would seem.


Have you ever considered you might actually have a problem here?



And I have to ask this - do you have Asperger's or some other similar
condition?



Gareth.

[JackA]

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 5:29:27 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
> "JackA" wrote in message
> ...
>
> So, they whine because I digitally enhance audio, and make THIER CDs sound
> bland. THEY whine about 3kHz, because I was the first to notice it, not
> them.
>
>
>
>
>
> So, lets get this straight.
>
> You digitally enhance audio, particularly around 3kHz, because you *THINK*
> CD's sound bland.
>
> Then people who DON'T actually think CD's sound bland whine because of the
> amount of 3kHz that has been unnecessarily added?
>
>
>
>
> I think you will find that your posts on at least this Newsgroup raised some
> eyebrows precisely because you posted mixed that were unnaturally enhanced
> with those frequencies around 3kHz that very few people on this planet like
> very much.
>
> Apart from yourself, it would seem.
>
>
> Have you ever considered you might actually have a problem here?
>
>
>
> And I have to ask this - do you have Asperger's or some other similar
> condition?

Let's rewind the hands of time. It wasn't YOU, nor John W., nor KMA dude, not Scott Dorsey, not even Mike Rivers, who Mark (participant) here suggesting doing mixing, it was I!

Enjoy your audio to impress toddlers.

Jack
>
>
>
> Gareth.

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

"JackA" wrote in message
...

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 5:29:27 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
> "JackA" wrote in message
> ...
>
> So, they whine because I digitally enhance audio, and make THIER CDs sound
> bland. THEY whine about 3kHz, because I was the first to notice it, not
> them.
>
>
>
>
>
> So, lets get this straight.
>
> You digitally enhance audio, particularly around 3kHz, because you
> *THINK*
> CD's sound bland.
>
> Then people who DON'T actually think CD's sound bland whine because of the
> amount of 3kHz that has been unnecessarily added?
>
>
>
>
> I think you will find that your posts on at least this Newsgroup raised
> some
> eyebrows precisely because you posted mixed that were unnaturally enhanced
> with those frequencies around 3kHz that very few people on this planet
> like
> very much.
>
> Apart from yourself, it would seem.
>
>
> Have you ever considered you might actually have a problem here?
>
>
>
> And I have to ask this - do you have Asperger's or some other similar
> condition?

Let's rewind the hands of time. It wasn't YOU, nor John W., nor KMA dude,
not Scott Dorsey, not even Mike Rivers, who Mark (participant) here
suggesting doing mixing, it was I!

Enjoy your audio to impress toddlers.

Jack
>
>
>
> Gareth.



Hmm, I'll take that as a yes, then.



Cheers,


Gareth.

[JackA]

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 8:19:33 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
> "JackA" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 5:29:27 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
> > "JackA" wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > So, they whine because I digitally enhance audio, and make THIER CDs sound
> > bland. THEY whine about 3kHz, because I was the first to notice it, not
> > them.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > So, lets get this straight.
> >
> > You digitally enhance audio, particularly around 3kHz, because you
> > *THINK*
> > CD's sound bland.
> >
> > Then people who DON'T actually think CD's sound bland whine because of the
> > amount of 3kHz that has been unnecessarily added?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think you will find that your posts on at least this Newsgroup raised
> > some
> > eyebrows precisely because you posted mixed that were unnaturally enhanced
> > with those frequencies around 3kHz that very few people on this planet
> > like
> > very much.
> >
> > Apart from yourself, it would seem.
> >
> >
> > Have you ever considered you might actually have a problem here?
> >
> >
> >
> > And I have to ask this - do you have Asperger's or some other similar
> > condition?
>
> Let's rewind the hands of time. It wasn't YOU, nor John W., nor KMA dude,
> not Scott Dorsey, not even Mike Rivers, who Mark (participant) here
> suggesting doing mixing, it was I!
>
> Enjoy your audio to impress toddlers.
>
> Jack
> >
> >
> >
> > Gareth.
>
>
>
> Hmm, I'll take that as a yes, then.

What, you want me to admit my hearing is shot or I have potatoes growing in my ears?

I offer to have an audio enhancing contest, but no one wants to take me up on it, even with your fancy DAWs!

Thank you as always for your fine comments!

Jack
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Gareth.

[[email protected]]

Garth,
Notice no one else is responding.

[JackA]

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Garth,
> Notice no one else is responding.

As I mentioned 1000 Times, maybe 15% of society can detect HQ sound. Remember, a participant here mentioned a Professor training people to detect HQ sound.

I don't expect a lot of applause in this near dead group.

Jack

[John Williamson]

On 01/04/2016 00:29, JackA wrote:

> Enjoy your audio to impress toddlers.
>
Our mixes impress our clients enough for them to pay us. Your mixes
impress you, and I doubt you or anyone else pays to hear them.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 01/04/2016 04:12, JackA wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>> Garth,
>> Notice no one else is responding.
>
> As I mentioned 1000 Times, maybe 15% of society can detect HQ sound. Remember, a participant here mentioned a Professor training people to detect HQ sound.
>
Detecting HQ sound is being able to detect the difference between
otherwise identical recordings on different formats, such as CD, DVD
audio, 24 bit at high sample rates and so on.

Detecting HQ sound is *not* about having to boost the most unpleasant
frequency range in a recording to painful levels as you do.

> I don't expect a lot of applause in this near dead group.
>
Oddly enough, your threads are not the only ones getting a response on
the group. However, most people here don't see your posts as you are in
their kill files due to the twaddle you continually post.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:10:56 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 01/04/2016 00:29, JackA wrote:
>
> > Enjoy your audio to impress toddlers.
> >
> Our mixes impress our clients enough for them to pay us. Your mixes
> impress you, and I doubt you or anyone else pays to hear them.

Our clients? From when, a few decades ago?
You have no clients, you spend too much time here.

Jack

>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[JackA]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:19:26 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 01/04/2016 04:12, JackA wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> >> Garth,
> >> Notice no one else is responding.
> >
> > As I mentioned 1000 Times, maybe 15% of society can detect HQ sound. Remember, a participant here mentioned a Professor training people to detect HQ sound.
> >
> Detecting HQ sound is being able to detect the difference between
> otherwise identical recordings on different formats, such as CD, DVD
> audio, 24 bit at high sample rates and so on.

See here, you automatically bring digital into the equation for unknown reasons. Maybe you were raised on digital only.
When I'm impressed with a (HQ) recording, I don't ask how it was recorded, my main concern is it was recorded well. I pride myself for being able to detect when a particular recording was made (by sound). Can you?

Jack


>
> Detecting HQ sound is *not* about having to boost the most unpleasant
> frequency range in a recording to painful levels as you do.
>
> > I don't expect a lot of applause in this near dead group.
> >
> Oddly enough, your threads are not the only ones getting a response on
> the group. However, most people here don't see your posts as you are in
> their kill files due to the twaddle you continually post.
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:12:08 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > Garth,
> > Notice no one else is responding.

I had to log in because I am so sick of Jack A.

Jack, you are an asshole. Why do you hang around here and bother these good people? If you have to tell everyone how great you are, well, you aren't so great. If you posted material that people loved, they would praise you. You have not.

You are just a really weird ****ing dude. Go away.

[JackA]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 9:54:44 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:12:08 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > Garth,
> > > Notice no one else is responding.
>
> I had to log in because I am so sick of Jack A.
>
> Jack, you are an asshole. Why do you hang around here and bother these good people?

Okay, I'm stumped. Just where are these "good" people? Lurking?
Did you listen to may latest a-hole audio creation? Your opinion of it, not me, please!!

Thank you!

Notice, I'm about the only one that Thanks or Welcomes, gives you a good idea of the quality of people here!

Jack


If you have to tell everyone how great you are, well, you aren't so great. If you posted material that people loved, they would praise you. You have not.
>
> You are just a really weird ****ing dude. Go away.

[John Williamson]

On 01/04/2016 14:37, JackA wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:19:26 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 01/04/2016 04:12, JackA wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>>>> Garth,
>>>> Notice no one else is responding.
>>>
>>> As I mentioned 1000 Times, maybe 15% of society can detect HQ sound. Remember, a participant here mentioned a Professor training people to detect HQ sound.
>>>
>> Detecting HQ sound is being able to detect the difference between
>> otherwise identical recordings on different formats, such as CD, DVD
>> audio, 24 bit at high sample rates and so on.
>
> See here, you automatically bring digital into the equation for unknown reasons. Maybe you were raised on digital only.
> When I'm impressed with a (HQ) recording, I don't ask how it was recorded, my main concern is it was recorded well. I pride myself for being able to detect when a particular recording was made (by sound). Can you?
>
I started with a portable tape recorder in the 1960s. I graduated from
my first one to an Akai X-IV, which for its time was very advanced, and
produced some very nice recordings, even being able to almost reproduce
later virtual head results, if the microphones were carefully placed.
The gear has improved over the decades, as have the results. Hpwever,
the first relatively affordable high quality equipment that held out the
promise of near perfect sound in the home was digital.

I had a friend on the 1960s who used to let my Dad record the first
playback of any LP he bought on Dad's equipment, as the recording on our
home equipment was noticeably better than the second and subsequent
plays on a normal turntable.

As for guessing when a recording was made, there is a lot of variation
due to fashions in mic placements and processing, though the microphones
have noticeably improved through the years, as has the rest of the
chain. Even so, a first generation recording of a jazz band in the 1950s
can sound remarkably good even by modern standards.

You might be able to guess when a particular recording could first have
been made, but that sound can be and has been emulated at later dates,
if necessary by digging the old gear out of the cupboard. Some modern
pop stuff uses 1950s microphones, for example. Many modern engineers use
old valve preamps, and some companies are now producing replicas which
sound exactly the same as many old preamps and effects units.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Richard Kuschel]

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 2:05:44 PM UTC-6, JackA wrote:
> So, they whine because I digitally enhance audio, and make THIER CDs sound bland. THEY whine about 3kHz, because I was the first to notice it, not them. No wonder why they need fancy and expensive headphones, hoping they will help their sound.
>
> Anyway, here is what THEIR CD sounds like; the dull AM Radio sound; like riding a little pony...
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/countmein-so.mp3
>
> Here is what my CD sounds like; the thrill of HQ HD Radio; buckle up, we're breaking the sound barrier!...
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/countmein-so.mp3
>
> No wonder why the world is decaying, with so many silly people involved in audio, when flipping burgers at a fast food joint is more their style! :-)
>
> Want to win a Granny, listen to them.
> Want to win a Grammy, listen to me!
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Jack - Unsurpassed in Audio Restoration

I think that this is an April Fool Joke.

Those are the same file. No difference. I dropped them into a DAW and inverted polarity- Total null!
If you are hearing a difference, it is total imagination.

[JackA]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:15:05 PM UTC-4, Richard Kuschel wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 2:05:44 PM UTC-6, JackA wrote:
> > So, they whine because I digitally enhance audio, and make THIER CDs sound bland. THEY whine about 3kHz, because I was the first to notice it, not them. No wonder why they need fancy and expensive headphones, hoping they will help their sound.
> >
> > Anyway, here is what THEIR CD sounds like; the dull AM Radio sound; like riding a little pony...
> > http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/countmein-so.mp3
> >
> > Here is what my CD sounds like; the thrill of HQ HD Radio; buckle up, we're breaking the sound barrier!...
> > http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/countmein-so.mp3
> >
> > No wonder why the world is decaying, with so many silly people involved in audio, when flipping burgers at a fast food joint is more their style! :-)
> >
> > Want to win a Granny, listen to them.
> > Want to win a Grammy, listen to me!
> >
> > Thank you for your time.
> >
> > Jack - Unsurpassed in Audio Restoration
>
> I think that this is an April Fool Joke.
>
> Those are the same file. No difference. I dropped them into a DAW and inverted polarity- Total null!
> If you are hearing a difference, it is total imagination.


Yo, Rich, please keep quiet! You know, NULL!

I like how the call my (non exiting) audio enhancements trash, when they are just criticizing other Professionals!!


Jack

[david gourley[_2_]]

said...news:0b0ad032-1835-4169-84ea-
:

> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:12:08 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4,
wrote:
>> > Garth,
>> > Notice no one else is responding.
>
> I had to log in because I am so sick of Jack A.
>
> Jack, you are an asshole. Why do you hang around here and bother these
good people? If you have to tell everyone how great you are, well, you
aren't so great. If you posted material that people loved, they would
praise you. You have not.
>
> You are just a really weird ****ing dude. Go away.
>
>
>

He won't go away because people still reply to him instead of using their
killfile. Fine, that's their prerogative to the detriment of the group
(IMO, YMMV). That's the only time I see the posts. Honestly, his mission
is only to spew crap in every NG that he can.

Making an effort to tell the troll anything of fact and substance is worse
than trying to teach a pig to sing.

david

[JackA]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 01/04/2016 14:37, JackA wrote:
> > On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:19:26 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> >> On 01/04/2016 04:12, JackA wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> >>>> Garth,
> >>>> Notice no one else is responding.
> >>>
> >>> As I mentioned 1000 Times, maybe 15% of society can detect HQ sound. Remember, a participant here mentioned a Professor training people to detect HQ sound.
> >>>
> >> Detecting HQ sound is being able to detect the difference between
> >> otherwise identical recordings on different formats, such as CD, DVD
> >> audio, 24 bit at high sample rates and so on.
> >
> > See here, you automatically bring digital into the equation for unknown reasons. Maybe you were raised on digital only.
> > When I'm impressed with a (HQ) recording, I don't ask how it was recorded, my main concern is it was recorded well. I pride myself for being able to detect when a particular recording was made (by sound). Can you?
> >
> I started with a portable tape recorder in the 1960s. I graduated from
> my first one to an Akai X-IV, which for its time was very advanced, and
> produced some very nice recordings, even being able to almost reproduce
> later virtual head results, if the microphones were carefully placed.
> The gear has improved over the decades, as have the results. Hpwever,
> the first relatively affordable high quality equipment that held out the
> promise of near perfect sound in the home was digital.
>
> I had a friend on the 1960s who used to let my Dad record the first
> playback of any LP he bought on Dad's equipment, as the recording on our
> home equipment was noticeably better than the second and subsequent
> plays on a normal turntable.
>
> As for guessing when a recording was made, there is a lot of variation
> due to fashions in mic placements and processing, though the microphones
> have noticeably improved through the years, as has the rest of the
> chain. Even so, a first generation recording of a jazz band in the 1950s
> can sound remarkably good even by modern standards.
>
> You might be able to guess when a particular recording could first have
> been made, but that sound can be and has been emulated at later dates,
> if necessary by digging the old gear out of the cupboard. Some modern
> pop stuff uses 1950s microphones, for example. Many modern engineers use
> old valve preamps, and some companies are now producing replicas which
> sound exactly the same as many old preamps and effects units.

Do you actually believe valves (vacuum tube technology) can't be totally replicated by solid-state? I know some swear by valves, but I can't personally tell the difference.

And, you mention, Jazz. Boy, Jazz sounds the same today as it did decades ago. Though I'm not a collector of it, sound quality is impressive!

Before switching to CD, I was listening to vinyl records. I found the sound quality impressive, but hated ticks and pops. While I value CDs, they just didn't match what I (audio) experienced with vinyl. Hear me out, please...

I do believe what Scott Dorsey mentions, he calls them tape jockies. Maybe they remixed, but it seems what others did in the past was forgotten with CDs. My guess, in vinyl days, they had a lot more equipment to work with, equalizers, compressors, you name it, and with the absence of it, made CDs sound lifeless.

Even the I don't think much of Steve Hoffman's mastering, I know he stuck and equalizer in-line, and that was a GOOD choice. I still believe the best choice for CD audio is a decent DAW. One heck of a lot cheaper than electronic analogue gear. I do have one or two CDs that used tube (valve) gear for mastering, but my ears weren't excited.

Thanks, John, for the story.

Jack
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[John Williamson]

On 01/04/2016 12:58, JackA wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:10:56 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 01/04/2016 00:29, JackA wrote:
>>
>>> Enjoy your audio to impress toddlers.
>>>
>> Our mixes impress our clients enough for them to pay us. Your mixes
>> impress you, and I doubt you or anyone else pays to hear them.
>
> Our clients? From when, a few decades ago?
> You have no clients, you spend too much time here.
>
I produced a CD last week. The clients were very happy with it.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 5:06:30 PM UTC-4, david gourley wrote:
> said...news:0b0ad032-1835-4169-84ea-
> :
>
> > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:12:08 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> >> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4,
> wrote:
> >> > Garth,
> >> > Notice no one else is responding.
> >
> > I had to log in because I am so sick of Jack A.
> >
> > Jack, you are an asshole. Why do you hang around here and bother these
> good people? If you have to tell everyone how great you are, well, you
> aren't so great. If you posted material that people loved, they would
> praise you. You have not.
> >
> > You are just a really weird ****ing dude. Go away.
> >
> >
> >
>
> He won't go away because people still reply to him instead of using their
> killfile. Fine, that's their prerogative to the detriment of the group
> (IMO, YMMV). That's the only time I see the posts. Honestly, his mission
> is only to spew crap in every NG that he can.
>
> Making an effort to tell the troll anything of fact and substance is worse
> than trying to teach a pig to sing.
>
> david

Well, David, I wish I had YOUR talent to bring numerous, interesting audio topics here.

Funny how those who killfile STILL whine. Tell me I don't know usenet people! :-)

Jack

[JackA]

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Garth,
> Notice no one else is responding.

Sorry, Mark, they're still chiming in!

Jack

[JackA]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 5:20:15 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 01/04/2016 12:58, JackA wrote:
> > On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:10:56 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> >> On 01/04/2016 00:29, JackA wrote:
> >>
> >>> Enjoy your audio to impress toddlers.
> >>>
> >> Our mixes impress our clients enough for them to pay us. Your mixes
> >> impress you, and I doubt you or anyone else pays to hear them.
> >
> > Our clients? From when, a few decades ago?
> > You have no clients, you spend too much time here.
> >
> I produced a CD last week. The clients were very happy with it.

Name? So I can purchase and listen??? Don't be shy :)

Thanks!

Jack
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[JackA]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 9:54:44 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:12:08 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > Garth,
> > > Notice no one else is responding.
>
> I had to log in because I am so sick of Jack A.
>
> Jack, you are an asshole. Why do you hang around here and bother these good people? If you have to tell everyone how great you are, well, you aren't so great. If you posted material that people loved, they would praise you. You have not.
>
> You are just a really weird ****ing dude. Go away.

And, Tom, we are adults here. Maybe you're into the Professional Audio side of Rap music, but can't you keep the profanity at home?

Thanks.

Jack

[John Williamson]

On 01/04/2016 22:51, JackA wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 5:20:15 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> I produced a CD last week. The clients were very happy with it.
>
> Name? So I can purchase and listen??? Don't be shy :)
>
Only available for internal use by the clients, sorry. I do not have
permission to release the recording. The same with most of the previous
ones, and the publicly available ones have all sold out.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 6:15:57 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 01/04/2016 22:51, JackA wrote:
> > On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 5:20:15 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> >> I produced a CD last week. The clients were very happy with it.
> >
> > Name? So I can purchase and listen??? Don't be shy :)
> >
> Only available for internal use by the clients, sorry. I do not have
> permission to release the recording. The same with most of the previous
> ones, and the publicly available ones have all sold out.

Well, when you find a client who is willing to publish something, let me know!

Thanks.

Jack
>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[Trevor]

On 1/04/2016 7:19 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> On 01/04/2016 04:12, JackA wrote:
>> I don't expect a lot of applause in this near dead group.
>>
> Oddly enough, your threads are not the only ones getting a response on
> the group. However, most people here don't see your posts as you are in
> their kill files due to the twaddle you continually post.

But strangely there are still a few who haven't, and even more strangely
see a need to respond to him. Why?

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 2/04/2016 12:54 AM, wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:12:08 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4,
>> wrote:
>>> Garth, Notice no one else is responding.
>
> I had to log in because I am so sick of Jack A.
>
> Jack, you are an asshole. Why do you hang around here and bother
> these good people? If you have to tell everyone how great you are,
> well, you aren't so great. If you posted material that people loved,
> they would praise you. You have not.
>
> You are just a really weird ****ing dude. Go away.

If everyone stopped responding to him he would, at least those of us who
know how to use a kill file wouldn't have to see it anyway. You could be
one of them if you want.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 2/04/2016 6:10 AM, John Williamson wrote:
> I started with a portable tape recorder in the 1960s. I graduated from
> my first one to an Akai X-IV, which for its time was very advanced, .

I had an X-V as a portable when a Nagra was out of my reach.


> produced some very nice recordings, even being able to almost reproduce
> later virtual head results, if the microphones were carefully placed.
> The gear has improved over the decades, as have the results. Hpwever,
> the first relatively affordable high quality equipment that held out the
> promise of near perfect sound in the home was digital.

Of course, since even the most expensive pro analog gear cannot match
todays cheap digital for "near perfect sound". Some still prefer the
analog distortions of course, and they always will, but that is another
matter entirely.

>
> I had a friend on the 1960s who used to let my Dad record the first
> playback of any LP he bought on Dad's equipment, as the recording on our
> home equipment was noticeably better than the second and subsequent
> plays on a normal turntable.

Sadly true for what many called a "normal turntable". (sadly remember
people using pennies on their tone arms to stop them skipping :-(
Certainly not for any quality turntable/cartridge combination.

Trevor.

[JackA]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 9:25:39 PM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
> On 1/04/2016 7:19 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> > On 01/04/2016 04:12, JackA wrote:
> >> I don't expect a lot of applause in this near dead group.
> >>
> > Oddly enough, your threads are not the only ones getting a response on
> > the group. However, most people here don't see your posts as you are in
> > their kill files due to the twaddle you continually post.
>
> But strangely there are still a few who haven't, and even more strangely
> see a need to respond to him. Why?
>
> Trevor.


And, you, Trevor, telling me that Stone Poneys song (album/LP mix) wasn't a different Stereo mix? That how I can tell people don't actually listen and memorize music, maybe just lyrics.

So, you best killfile me since you were in error. I heard no apology.

Thank you.

Jack

[JackA]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 9:28:35 PM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
> On 2/04/2016 12:54 AM, wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:12:08 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> >> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4,
> >> wrote:
> >>> Garth, Notice no one else is responding.
> >
> > I had to log in because I am so sick of Jack A.
> >
> > Jack, you are an asshole. Why do you hang around here and bother
> > these good people? If you have to tell everyone how great you are,
> > well, you aren't so great. If you posted material that people loved,
> > they would praise you. You have not.
> >
> > You are just a really weird ****ing dude. Go away.
>
> If everyone stopped responding to him he would, at least those of us who
> know how to use a kill file wouldn't have to see it anyway. You could be
> one of them if you want.

You know who I want to respond, not the typical crew here, but lurkers, as they call them. Need some fresh ears in this group. One already told me John W. was just teasing!

Jack
>
> Trevor.

[JackA]

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 4:05:44 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
> So, they whine because I digitally enhance audio, and make THIER CDs sound bland. THEY whine about 3kHz, because I was the first to notice it, not them. No wonder why they need fancy and expensive headphones, hoping they will help their sound.
>
> Anyway, here is what THEIR CD sounds like; the dull AM Radio sound; like riding a little pony...
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/countmein-so.mp3
>
> Here is what my CD sounds like; the thrill of HQ HD Radio; buckle up, we're breaking the sound barrier!...


Richard K. was correct! Silly me for copy/pasting links forgetting to change MP3 name!! Try this, Rich...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/countmein-s.mp3

Jack

>
> No wonder why the world is decaying, with so many silly people involved in audio, when flipping burgers at a fast food joint is more their style! :-)
>
> Want to win a Granny, listen to them.
> Want to win a Grammy, listen to me!
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Jack - Unsurpassed in Audio Restoration

[JackA]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:15:05 PM UTC-4, Richard Kuschel wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 2:05:44 PM UTC-6, JackA wrote:
> > So, they whine because I digitally enhance audio, and make THIER CDs sound bland. THEY whine about 3kHz, because I was the first to notice it, not them. No wonder why they need fancy and expensive headphones, hoping they will help their sound.
> >
> > Anyway, here is what THEIR CD sounds like; the dull AM Radio sound; like riding a little pony...
> > http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/countmein-so.mp3
> >
> > Here is what my CD sounds like; the thrill of HQ HD Radio; buckle up, we're breaking the sound barrier!...
> > http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/countmein-so.mp3
> >
> > No wonder why the world is decaying, with so many silly people involved in audio, when flipping burgers at a fast food joint is more their style! :-)
> >
> > Want to win a Granny, listen to them.
> > Want to win a Grammy, listen to me!
> >
> > Thank you for your time.
> >
> > Jack - Unsurpassed in Audio Restoration
>
> I think that this is an April Fool Joke.
>
> Those are the same file. No difference. I dropped them into a DAW and inverted polarity- Total null!
> If you are hearing a difference, it is total imagination.

I apologize for MY screw-up!!!

Jack

[JackA]

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Garth,
> Notice no one else is responding.

Garth disappointed me, he didn't even listen.

Many thanks to Richard K. for pointing out I made an error!

Jack