Intelligence and RIAA

[Andre Jute]

Seeing all the posts about RIAA filters, I can only say I hope none of
the participants passed on the gene of obsessive shortsightedness that
draws audiophiles into the wastelands of RIAA. Vinyl discs are bad
enough when good clean CD's are available, but RIAA is a bodge to
correct another bodge. Two bodges don't make it right.

Andre Jute
uses only CD and so has time for more music

[Peter Wieck]

On May 13, 5:33 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> Seeing all the posts about RIAA filters, I can only say I hope none of
> the participants passed on the gene of obsessive shortsightedness that
> draws audiophiles into the wastelands of RIAA. Vinyl discs are bad
> enough when good clean CD's are available, but RIAA is a bodge to
> correct another bodge. Two bodges don't make it right.
>
> Andre Jute
> uses only CD and so has time for more music

It's waning crescent, so McCoy will be howling at its loudest. Nothing
of substance but lots of self-aggrandizing, self-serving lies.

Time to get its meds ajdusted... once again.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Clyde Slick]

Peter Wieck a scris:
> On May 13, 5:33 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> > Seeing all the posts about RIAA filters, I can only say I hope none of
> > the participants passed on the gene of obsessive shortsightedness that
> > draws audiophiles into the wastelands of RIAA. Vinyl discs are bad
> > enough when good clean CD's are available, but RIAA is a bodge to
> > correct another bodge. Two bodges don't make it right.
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > uses only CD and so has time for more music
>
> It's waning crescent, so McCoy will be howling at its loudest. Nothing
> of substance but lots of self-aggrandizing, self-serving lies.
>
> Time to get its meds ajdusted... once again.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Wyncote, PA

I thought you kill filed him.
uyou keep telling everyone else to do that.

[Jon Yaeger]

in article . com, Andre Jute
at wrote on 5/13/07 6:33 PM:

> Seeing all the posts about RIAA filters, I can only say I hope none of
> the participants passed on the gene of obsessive shortsightedness that
> draws audiophiles into the wastelands of RIAA. Vinyl discs are bad
> enough when good clean CD's are available, but RIAA is a bodge to
> correct another bodge. Two bodges don't make it right.
>
> Andre Jute
> uses only CD and so has time for more music
>


Jute,

More bad fiction from you.

What media doesn't require some bit of tinkering? FM transmission has
pre-emphasis; tape has NAB equalization. Even your beloved CDs have a layer
for Reed-Solomon error correction, sampling rates, and D/A conversion.

Better stick to bike rides and pasta.

Jon

[Peter Wieck]

On May 13, 6:58 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> Peter Wieck a scris:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 5:33 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> > > Seeing all the posts about RIAA filters, I can only say I hope none of
> > > the participants passed on the gene of obsessive shortsightedness that
> > > draws audiophiles into the wastelands of RIAA. Vinyl discs are bad
> > > enough when good clean CD's are available, but RIAA is a bodge to
> > > correct another bodge. Two bodges don't make it right.
>
> > > Andre Jute
> > > uses only CD and so has time for more music
>
> > It's waning crescent, so McCoy will be howling at its loudest. Nothing
> > of substance but lots of self-aggrandizing, self-serving lies.
>
> > Time to get its meds ajdusted... once again.
>
> > Peter Wieck
> > Wyncote, PA
>
> I thought you kill filed him.
> uyou keep telling everyone else to do that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

McCoy bears watching.... much as Kudzu, deer ticks or toadstools.
Unlike the Morein coterie, it pretends to have something to say.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Patrick Turner]

Andre Jute wrote:
>
> Seeing all the posts about RIAA filters, I can only say I hope none of
> the participants passed on the gene of obsessive shortsightedness that
> draws audiophiles into the wastelands of RIAA. Vinyl discs are bad
> enough when good clean CD's are available, but RIAA is a bodge to
> correct another bodge. Two bodges don't make it right.
>
> Andre Jute
> uses only CD and so has time for more music

I doubt you really know what you are missing out upon.

But all the really keen musically eclectic ppl i know who have vast cd
collections
indicating a misspent middle age also still enjoy vinyl.
Most find that despite the vast sums they have spent on
cd players and transports, da converters, isolation platforms and
other widgets and gadgets, the humble black disk continues to delight,
and
give a greater sense of connection to the artist than any CD manages to
do.

I have been present at a number of AB comparisons where a CD version
and vinyl version of the same material from the same grand old master
tape
was being played, and we could switch from one to the other,
and vinyl seemed to have more to offer the audiophile subjectively.

Mind you, the whole analog recording process onto tape et all is a huge
bodge to.

So is FM stereo mulptiplexing.

Never mind the bodges, the sound does not seem to suffer, when they do
it right, IMHO.

Patrick Turner.

[Andre Jute]

Patrick Turner wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> > Seeing all the posts about RIAA filters, I can only say I hope none of
> > the participants passed on the gene of obsessive shortsightedness that
> > draws audiophiles into the wastelands of RIAA. Vinyl discs are bad
> > enough when good clean CD's are available, but RIAA is a bodge to
> > correct another bodge. Two bodges don't make it right.
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > uses only CD and so has time for more music
>
> I doubt you really know what you are missing out upon.
>
> But all the really keen musically eclectic ppl i know who have vast cd
> collections
> indicating a misspent middle age also still enjoy vinyl.
> Most find that despite the vast sums they have spent on
> cd players and transports, da converters, isolation platforms and
> other widgets and gadgets, the humble black disk continues to delight,
> and
> give a greater sense of connection to the artist than any CD manages to
> do.
>
> I have been present at a number of AB comparisons where a CD version
> and vinyl version of the same material from the same grand old master
> tape
> was being played, and we could switch from one to the other,
> and vinyl seemed to have more to offer the audiophile subjectively.
>
> Mind you, the whole analog recording process onto tape et all is a huge
> bodge to.
>
> So is FM stereo mulptiplexing.
>
> Never mind the bodges, the sound does not seem to suffer, when they do
> it right, IMHO.
>
> Patrick Turner.

I used to have c8000 vinyl discs, including some old shellac. I sold
the important subcollections and gave the rest away. Vinyl is just too
time-consuming. So much music to listen to, so little time. CDs are a
boon.

I think there is a certain masochism afield among audiophiles. Like
Morgan owners, or MG owners, they think that hardship on one's
pleasures is a symptom of manliness. I don't. I always preferred
Porsche. cars that worked and offered a modicum of comfort, and big-
engined fast tourers rather than harsh, loud sports cars. Same in my
sound systems. I define what I want the sound to be and to do, and
then put it together like that. That is why I think horns and panels
are important, and ultra-simple amplifiers -- and CDs, so that
chaniging the music is quick and easy.

There is nothing wrong with CD sound quality; it is better than good
enough. I decided to go over solely to CD on the day Nimbus, who
transfer ancient discs to CD, sent me a box of CDs including one of
Ponselle that was better than anything you could buy on any other
medium, no matter how much money you spent.

Andre Jute
Our legislators managed to criminalize fox-hunting and smoking; when
they will get off their collective fat backside and criminalize
negative feedback? It is clearly consumed only by the enemies of
fidelity.

[Keith G]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Patrick Turner wrote:


>> But all the really keen musically eclectic ppl i know who have vast
>> cd
>> collections
>> indicating a misspent middle age also still enjoy vinyl.
>> Most find that despite the vast sums they have spent on
>> cd players and transports, da converters, isolation platforms and
>> other widgets and gadgets, the humble black disk continues to
>> delight,
>> and
>> give a greater sense of connection to the artist than any CD manages
>> to
>> do.


Crazy old ****er's not wrong there....



> I think there is a certain masochism afield among audiophiles. Like
> Morgan owners, or MG owners, they think that hardship on one's
> pleasures is a symptom of manliness. I don't. I always preferred
> Porsche. cars that worked and offered a modicum of comfort, and big-
> engined fast tourers rather than harsh, loud sports cars. Same in my
> sound systems.


You do? I saw some rather good pix you posted recently and a couple of
your bike with a *heartrate monitor* (?) did I not?

Here's a picture of my current bike:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/mybikes/Suzuki%20GSX1400.jpg


It allows me to do 0 to *very naughty* whenever I can or want without
even breaking a sweat!! ;-)


I define what I want the sound to be and to do, and
> then put it together like that. That is why I think horns and panels
> are important, and ultra-simple amplifiers


OK, we are back on the same track again.....

All is good, all is calm....

[Gerry[_2_]]

On May 13, 6:33 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> Seeing all the posts about RIAA filters, I can only say I hope none of
> the participants passed on the gene of obsessive shortsightedness that
> draws audiophiles into the wastelands of RIAA. Vinyl discs are bad
> enough when good clean CD's are available, but RIAA is a bodge to
> correct another bodge. Two bodges don't make it right.
>
> Andre Jute
> uses only CD and so has time for more music

What the hell is "bodge"????

[Serge Auckland]

Gerry wrote:
> On May 13, 6:33 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>> Seeing all the posts about RIAA filters, I can only say I hope none of
>> the participants passed on the gene of obsessive shortsightedness that
>> draws audiophiles into the wastelands of RIAA. Vinyl discs are bad
>> enough when good clean CD's are available, but RIAA is a bodge to
>> correct another bodge. Two bodges don't make it right.
>>
>> Andre Jute
>> uses only CD and so has time for more music
>
> What the hell is "bodge"????
>
A very expressive English word meaning a crude fix, a makeshift arrangement.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Patrick Turner]

Gerry wrote:
>
> On May 13, 6:33 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> > Seeing all the posts about RIAA filters, I can only say I hope none of
> > the participants passed on the gene of obsessive shortsightedness that
> > draws audiophiles into the wastelands of RIAA. Vinyl discs are bad
> > enough when good clean CD's are available, but RIAA is a bodge to
> > correct another bodge. Two bodges don't make it right.
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > uses only CD and so has time for more music
>
> What the hell is "bodge"????

Andre will have his answer, but when he or someone else uses the term
they mean you have to make the signal from the microphone through to the
speaker via vinyl go through a roller coaster ride of "enfrightenment".

Why can't they just record the mic signal after amplifying with a linear
amp,
cutting record with a linear amplitude amp, and having playback
with a flat amp?

There are piles of reasons, and its difficult to get a band to behave
for
25minutes max and play perfectly so a direct to disc can be cut.
This would remove the bodge that is involved with all analog tape
recording.
Lots of AC bias at 38kHz, and lots of eq...bah, that's bodging the
signal.

In fact, analog is one big bodge after another.
NFB is a bodge where one trys to correct amplifier errors by
comparing the input and output signals and amplifying the difference to
cancel the errors
while you amplify the wanted signal. In my book,
just because such skulduggery looks cunningly evil, it does seem
only regretable, rather than being criminal, and afaiac, NFB bodging
does work
when done properly.

But at the end of the day, all the frequencies present at recording need
only
be at quite close to the same relationship at the speaker on replay and
we have hi-fi,
and the bodges make all that more effortlessly possible, as well as
reducing noise.
THD and IMD are introduced, but can be kept to tolerable levels
so low you don't realize they are present.

CD gave us convenience. I don't find all of them to be sonically
virtuous.

I have only to think about the gross eq and bodging done by guys in the
post recording processing
and I shudder....

I do know guys who would never use vinyl, but have someone record off
old records to make
a decent digital file, then they play it back using a reasonable
transport,
then use a DA converter costing a bomb made in limited numbers and with
much better sound than the DA in most generic CD players. They say they
get better sound this way
compared to fussing around with a real TT and phono amp, and keeping
records clean.
My tip would be to try something from
http://www.lavryengineering.com/index_flash.html

Not all digital sounds the same.

Patrick Turner.

[Keith G]

"Serge Auckland" > wrote in message
...
> Gerry wrote:
>> On May 13, 6:33 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
>>> Seeing all the posts about RIAA filters, I can only say I hope none
>>> of
>>> the participants passed on the gene of obsessive shortsightedness
>>> that
>>> draws audiophiles into the wastelands of RIAA. Vinyl discs are bad
>>> enough when good clean CD's are available, but RIAA is a bodge to
>>> correct another bodge. Two bodges don't make it right.
>>>
>>> Andre Jute
>>> uses only CD and so has time for more music
>>
>> What the hell is "bodge"????
>>
> A very expressive English word meaning a crude fix, a makeshift
> arrangement.



No, that's Wrongipedia for 'botch' - bodge means making chair legs or
summat. See:

http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-bod1.htm

[George M. Middius]

Gerry said:

> > RIAA is a bodge to correct another bodge.

> What the hell is "bodge"????

It's obviously some bit of Brit slang. I've never heard it before but
the meaning is plain.

My suggestion is to find a 12-year-old child who earns a B average in
school and ask the child to clue you in.



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:04:28 +0100, "Keith G" >
wrote:

>No, that's Wrongipedia for 'botch' - bodge means making chair legs or
>summat. See:

In the usage I know, "botch" is pejorative, it implies making a mess
of the job. "Bodge" is more neutral. "It's a bodge, but it's held up
very well." cf "Jury-rigged".

The woodworking derivation is interesting, but doesn't prove much :-)

[Keith G]

"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:04:28 +0100, "Keith G" >
> wrote:
>
>>No, that's Wrongipedia for 'botch' - bodge means making chair legs or
>>summat. See:
>
> In the usage I know, "botch" is pejorative, it implies making a mess
> of the job. "Bodge" is more neutral. "It's a bodge, but it's held up
> very well." cf "Jury-rigged".
>
> The woodworking derivation is interesting, but doesn't prove much :-)



Eau cointreau, a Bodger is/was 'real person' (ie existed once) - see:

http://www.bodgers.org.uk/


I'm surprised Pat *Turner* doesn't appear to know that.

Likewise, a 'sagger maker' is/was a real person (I have seen saggers
myself) - as was a 'sagger maker's bottom knocker'....

HTH

[Keith G]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:04:28 +0100, "Keith G" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>No, that's Wrongipedia for 'botch' - bodge means making chair legs or
>>>summat. See:
>>
>> In the usage I know, "botch" is pejorative, it implies making a mess
>> of the job. "Bodge" is more neutral. "It's a bodge, but it's held
>> up
>> very well." cf "Jury-rigged".
>>
>> The woodworking derivation is interesting, but doesn't prove much :-)
>
>
>
> Eau cointreau, a Bodger is/was 'real person' (ie existed once) - see:
>
> http://www.bodgers.org.uk/



Here's another for the crossposted Yanks (mentions Kentucky):

http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/13/messages/1247.html

[Arny Krueger]

"Jon Yaeger" > wrote in message


> What media doesn't require some bit of tinkering?

Digital media.

> FM transmission has pre-emphasis;

Ignoring the complexities of stereo, which are significant.

> tape has NAB equalization.

And bias.

> Even your beloved CDs have a layer for Reed-Solomon error correction,

Irrelevant because it has nothing but positive effects on signal quality.

> sampling rates,

Which have been rasied to insane levels of ovekill

> and D/A conversion.

Which is one of the most perfected processed in audio.

> Better stick to bike rides and pasta.

Better stick to something that you understand, Jon. That leaves audio out of
your diet.

[Arny Krueger]

"Patrick Turner" > wrote in message

> Andre Jute wrote:
>>
>> Seeing all the posts about RIAA filters, I can only say
>> I hope none of the participants passed on the gene of
>> obsessive shortsightedness that draws audiophiles into
>> the wastelands of RIAA. Vinyl discs are bad enough when
>> good clean CD's are available, but RIAA is a bodge to
>> correct another bodge. Two bodges don't make it right.
>>
>> Andre Jute
>> uses only CD and so has time for more music
>
> I doubt you really know what you are missing out upon.
>
> But all the really keen musically eclectic ppl i know who
> have vast cd collections
> indicating a misspent middle age also still enjoy vinyl.
> Most find that despite the vast sums they have spent on
> cd players and transports, da converters, isolation
> platforms and other widgets and gadgets, the humble black
> disk continues to delight, and
> give a greater sense of connection to the artist than any
> CD manages to do.
>
> I have been present at a number of AB comparisons where a
> CD version and vinyl version of the same material from
> the same grand old master tape
> was being played, and we could switch from one to the
> other,
> and vinyl seemed to have more to offer the audiophile
> subjectively.
>
> Mind you, the whole analog recording process onto tape et
> all is a huge bodge to.
>
> So is FM stereo mulptiplexing.
>
> Never mind the bodges, the sound does not seem to suffer,
> when they do it right, IMHO.

If you can't hear the damage that vinyl and analog tape do, then maybe you
can even personally defend the use of tubes.

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:23:55 +0100, "Keith G" >
wrote:

>
>"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:04:28 +0100, "Keith G" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>No, that's Wrongipedia for 'botch' - bodge means making chair legs or
>>>>summat. See:
>>>
>>> In the usage I know, "botch" is pejorative, it implies making a mess
>>> of the job. "Bodge" is more neutral. "It's a bodge, but it's held
>>> up
>>> very well." cf "Jury-rigged".
>>>
>>> The woodworking derivation is interesting, but doesn't prove much :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Eau cointreau, a Bodger is/was 'real person' (ie existed once) - see:
>>
>> http://www.bodgers.org.uk/
>
>
>
>Here's another for the crossposted Yanks (mentions Kentucky):
>
>http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/13/messages/1247.html
>
>
>
>
That's all very interesting for the etymology of the word, but the
meaning in context here is to do a job by some other means than the
official one - without any sort of judgement as to how good the result
is. Botch is another thing entirely. You could be doing the job
exactly as recommended, but if you do it poorly, you have botched it.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Keith G]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:23:55 +0100, "Keith G" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:04:28 +0100, "Keith G"
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>No, that's Wrongipedia for 'botch' - bodge means making chair legs
>>>>>or
>>>>>summat. See:
>>>>
>>>> In the usage I know, "botch" is pejorative, it implies making a
>>>> mess
>>>> of the job. "Bodge" is more neutral. "It's a bodge, but it's held
>>>> up
>>>> very well." cf "Jury-rigged".
>>>>
>>>> The woodworking derivation is interesting, but doesn't prove much
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eau cointreau, a Bodger is/was 'real person' (ie existed once) -
>>> see:
>>>
>>> http://www.bodgers.org.uk/
>>
>>
>>
>>Here's another for the crossposted Yanks (mentions Kentucky):
>>
>>http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/13/messages/1247.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
> That's all very interesting for the etymology of the word, but the
> meaning in context here is to do a job by some other means than the
> official one - without any sort of judgement as to how good the result
> is. Botch is another thing entirely. You could be doing the job
> exactly as recommended, but if you do it poorly, you have botched it.



No, what you are describing is contemporary *misuse* of the word which
once had real meaning - like, say, to 'flog' something when you mean
sell it. Once the modern idiom is admitted all bets are off - see:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:42:26 +0100, "Keith G" >
wrote:

>
>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:23:55 +0100, "Keith G" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:04:28 +0100, "Keith G"
>>>>> >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>No, that's Wrongipedia for 'botch' - bodge means making chair legs
>>>>>>or
>>>>>>summat. See:
>>>>>
>>>>> In the usage I know, "botch" is pejorative, it implies making a
>>>>> mess
>>>>> of the job. "Bodge" is more neutral. "It's a bodge, but it's held
>>>>> up
>>>>> very well." cf "Jury-rigged".
>>>>>
>>>>> The woodworking derivation is interesting, but doesn't prove much
>>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eau cointreau, a Bodger is/was 'real person' (ie existed once) -
>>>> see:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bodgers.org.uk/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Here's another for the crossposted Yanks (mentions Kentucky):
>>>
>>>http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/13/messages/1247.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> That's all very interesting for the etymology of the word, but the
>> meaning in context here is to do a job by some other means than the
>> official one - without any sort of judgement as to how good the result
>> is. Botch is another thing entirely. You could be doing the job
>> exactly as recommended, but if you do it poorly, you have botched it.
>
>
>
>No, what you are describing is contemporary *misuse* of the word which
>once had real meaning - like, say, to 'flog' something when you mean
>sell it. Once the modern idiom is admitted all bets are off - see:
>
>http://www.urbandictionary.com/
>
>
>

No, it isn't misuse - that is the new meaning; the word has mutated.

I heard a homosexual chap on the radio the other day moaning that
today's kids had hijacked the word "gay" to mean rubbish (it was after
Chris Moyles had used it that way on the radio). I had to laugh.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Keith G]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:42:26 +0100, "Keith G" >
> wrote:


>>No, what you are describing is contemporary *misuse* of the word which
>>once had real meaning - like, say, to 'flog' something when you mean
>>sell it. Once the modern idiom is admitted all bets are off - see:
>>
>>http://www.urbandictionary.com/
>>
>>
>>
>
> No, it isn't misuse - that is the new meaning; the word has mutated.
>
> I heard a homosexual chap on the radio the other day moaning that
> today's kids had hijacked the word "gay" to mean rubbish (it was after
> Chris Moyles had used it that way on the radio). I had to laugh.


The trouble with 'mutation' is that the whole point of a *language* is
lost - it starts to fail as a means of communcation. Savvy?

(Although, various words like 'homosexual chap' and 'gay' are not too
bad because we all know they mean *poof*....)

No, if you want a chuckle - I have crapped copious amounts of blood this
morning trying to get my Nuvistor laptop to record from a pair of mics.
So far, I have finally managed to get a *stereo* recording (not easy)
but have also managed to swap the previous machine's intermittent
'heartbeat' for a consistent/continual loud (in the Plowie sense)
*buzz*...!!

And no, I can't post a sample because my FTP programme's grace period
expired today! (Fekkin' telling me summat it is....)

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 14 May 2007 13:06:18 +0100, "Keith G" >
wrote:

>
>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:42:26 +0100, "Keith G" >
>> wrote:
>
>
>>>No, what you are describing is contemporary *misuse* of the word which
>>>once had real meaning - like, say, to 'flog' something when you mean
>>>sell it. Once the modern idiom is admitted all bets are off - see:
>>>
>>>http://www.urbandictionary.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, it isn't misuse - that is the new meaning; the word has mutated.
>>
>> I heard a homosexual chap on the radio the other day moaning that
>> today's kids had hijacked the word "gay" to mean rubbish (it was after
>> Chris Moyles had used it that way on the radio). I had to laugh.
>
>
>The trouble with 'mutation' is that the whole point of a *language* is
>lost - it starts to fail as a means of communcation. Savvy?
>
>(Although, various words like 'homosexual chap' and 'gay' are not too
>bad because we all know they mean *poof*....)
>
>No, if you want a chuckle - I have crapped copious amounts of blood this
>morning trying to get my Nuvistor laptop to record from a pair of mics.
>So far, I have finally managed to get a *stereo* recording (not easy)
>but have also managed to swap the previous machine's intermittent
>'heartbeat' for a consistent/continual loud (in the Plowie sense)
>*buzz*...!!
>
>And no, I can't post a sample because my FTP programme's grace period
>expired today! (Fekkin' telling me summat it is....)
>
>
>

Did you say Nuvistor? You know what that REALLY means, don't you?

http://www.thevalvepage.com/valvetek/Nuvistor/nuvistor.htm

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Nick Gorham]

Keith G wrote:

> No, if you want a chuckle - I have crapped copious amounts of blood this
> morning trying to get my Nuvistor laptop to record from a pair of mics.
> So far, I have finally managed to get a *stereo* recording (not easy)
> but have also managed to swap the previous machine's intermittent
> 'heartbeat' for a consistent/continual loud (in the Plowie sense)
> *buzz*...!!
>
> And no, I can't post a sample because my FTP programme's grace period
> expired today! (Fekkin' telling me summat it is....)
>
>
>
>
Go to the command prompt and type

ftp myserver.pipex.net

Should do the job.

--
Nick

[Keith G]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 13:06:18 +0100, "Keith G" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:42:26 +0100, "Keith G"
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>No, what you are describing is contemporary *misuse* of the word
>>>>which
>>>>once had real meaning - like, say, to 'flog' something when you mean
>>>>sell it. Once the modern idiom is admitted all bets are off - see:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.urbandictionary.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, it isn't misuse - that is the new meaning; the word has mutated.
>>>
>>> I heard a homosexual chap on the radio the other day moaning that
>>> today's kids had hijacked the word "gay" to mean rubbish (it was
>>> after
>>> Chris Moyles had used it that way on the radio). I had to laugh.
>>
>>
>>The trouble with 'mutation' is that the whole point of a *language* is
>>lost - it starts to fail as a means of communcation. Savvy?
>>
>>(Although, various words like 'homosexual chap' and 'gay' are not too
>>bad because we all know they mean *poof*....)
>>
>>No, if you want a chuckle - I have crapped copious amounts of blood
>>this
>>morning trying to get my Nuvistor laptop to record from a pair of
>>mics.
>>So far, I have finally managed to get a *stereo* recording (not easy)
>>but have also managed to swap the previous machine's intermittent
>>'heartbeat' for a consistent/continual loud (in the Plowie sense)
>>*buzz*...!!
>>
>>And no, I can't post a sample because my FTP programme's grace period
>>expired today! (Fekkin' telling me summat it is....)
>>
>>
>>
>
> Did you say Nuvistor? You know what that REALLY means, don't you?
>
> http://www.thevalvepage.com/valvetek/Nuvistor/nuvistor.htm
>


If this was ukrm (uk.rec.munchkin) someone would have responded:

**whooosh**

[Keith G]

"Nick Gorham" > wrote in message
...
> Keith G wrote:
>
>> No, if you want a chuckle - I have crapped copious amounts of blood
>> this morning trying to get my Nuvistor laptop to record from a pair
>> of mics. So far, I have finally managed to get a *stereo* recording
>> (not easy) but have also managed to swap the previous machine's
>> intermittent 'heartbeat' for a consistent/continual loud (in the
>> Plowie sense) *buzz*...!!
>>
>> And no, I can't post a sample because my FTP programme's grace period
>> expired today! (Fekkin' telling me summat it is....)
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Go to the command prompt and type
>
> ftp myserver.pipex.net
>
> Should do the job.


No, all I got was 'unknown host'...??

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 14 May 2007 13:43:08 +0100, "Keith G" >
wrote:

>
>"Nick Gorham" > wrote in message
...
>> Keith G wrote:
>>
>>> No, if you want a chuckle - I have crapped copious amounts of blood
>>> this morning trying to get my Nuvistor laptop to record from a pair
>>> of mics. So far, I have finally managed to get a *stereo* recording
>>> (not easy) but have also managed to swap the previous machine's
>>> intermittent 'heartbeat' for a consistent/continual loud (in the
>>> Plowie sense) *buzz*...!!
>>>
>>> And no, I can't post a sample because my FTP programme's grace period
>>> expired today! (Fekkin' telling me summat it is....)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Go to the command prompt and type
>>
>> ftp myserver.pipex.net
>>
>> Should do the job.
>
>
>No, all I got was 'unknown host'...??
>
>
>
There's tons of free ftp progs out there. Here's one.
http://www.coreftp.com/screens/index.html

And I think you were supposed to insert your own details in place of
"myserver" (makes yer eyes water).

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[dave weil]

On 13 May 2007 19:17:07 -0700, Andre Jute > wrote:

>I define what I want the sound to be and to do

As long as you don't define it for anyone else.

Oh wait, that's pretty much what you did.

[Keith G]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 13:43:08 +0100, "Keith G" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Nick Gorham" > wrote in message
...
>>> Keith G wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, if you want a chuckle - I have crapped copious amounts of blood
>>>> this morning trying to get my Nuvistor laptop to record from a pair
>>>> of mics. So far, I have finally managed to get a *stereo* recording
>>>> (not easy) but have also managed to swap the previous machine's
>>>> intermittent 'heartbeat' for a consistent/continual loud (in the
>>>> Plowie sense) *buzz*...!!
>>>>
>>>> And no, I can't post a sample because my FTP programme's grace
>>>> period
>>>> expired today! (Fekkin' telling me summat it is....)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Go to the command prompt and type
>>>
>>> ftp myserver.pipex.net
>>>
>>> Should do the job.
>>
>>
>>No, all I got was 'unknown host'...??
>>
>>
>>
> There's tons of free ftp progs out there. Here's one.
> http://www.coreftp.com/screens/index.html


I've got that one and 'Coffee Cup' waiting to go. The one I was on was
IPSwitch (30 day Free Trial) and I quite liked it, but not enough to pay
for it!! :-)


>
> And I think you were supposed to insert your own details in place of
> "myserver" (makes yer eyes water).


Oops - like 'your name' when swearing in a bunch of recruits! (a la
Blazing Saddles? :-)

I didn't think of that!

[John Byrns]

In article om>,
Gerry > wrote:

> On May 13, 6:33 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> > Seeing all the posts about RIAA filters, I can only say I hope none of
> > the participants passed on the gene of obsessive shortsightedness that
> > draws audiophiles into the wastelands of RIAA. Vinyl discs are bad
> > enough when good clean CD's are available, but RIAA is a bodge to
> > correct another bodge. Two bodges don't make it right.
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > uses only CD and so has time for more music
>
> What the hell is "bodge"????

It may not be completely accurate, but as a working definition I think
of "bodge" as a British synonym for "kludge".


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Nick Gorham]

Keith G wrote:
> "Nick Gorham" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Keith G wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No, if you want a chuckle - I have crapped copious amounts of blood
>>>this morning trying to get my Nuvistor laptop to record from a pair
>>>of mics. So far, I have finally managed to get a *stereo* recording
>>>(not easy) but have also managed to swap the previous machine's
>>>intermittent 'heartbeat' for a consistent/continual loud (in the
>>>Plowie sense) *buzz*...!!
>>>
>>>And no, I can't post a sample because my FTP programme's grace period
>>>expired today! (Fekkin' telling me summat it is....)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Go to the command prompt and type
>>
>>ftp myserver.pipex.net
>>
>>Should do the job.
>
>
>
> No, all I got was 'unknown host'...??
>
>
>
>

Err, I meant that you should replace the myserver.pipex.net with your
actual servers name. You must have specified it when you setup the ftp
client that isn't working.

--
Nick

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >I define what I want the sound to be and to do

> As long as you don't define it for anyone else.
> Oh wait, that's pretty much what you did.

Nonconformity is a cardinal sin in the Hive. But you knew that.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[John Byrns]

In article >,
Patrick Turner > wrote:

> Gerry wrote:
> >
> > What the hell is "bodge"????
>
> Andre will have his answer, but when he or someone else uses the term
> they mean you have to make the signal from the microphone through to the
> speaker via vinyl go through a roller coaster ride of "enfrightenment".
>
> Why can't they just record the mic signal after amplifying with a linear
> amp,
> cutting record with a linear amplitude amp, and having playback
> with a flat amp?

What are a few of the reasons? I assume the main reason the RIAA
recording curve shelves down the high frequency groove amplitude is
because if the high frequencies weren't reduced while cutting the record
the groove velocity, and acceleration, at high frequencies would be too
much for the playback pickup to cope with. Cutting the high frequency
amplitude during recording also would reduce the "pinch" effect. Maybe
an expert can tell us the reasons why the high frequency amplitude is
shelved down when cutting a record following the RIAA recording curve?
The down side is that a "bodge" in the form of a complementary high
frequency amplitude boost must be applied during playback, which
accentuates the high frequency noise.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Keith G]

"Nick Gorham" > wrote in message
...
> Keith G wrote:
>> "Nick Gorham" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Keith G wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>No, if you want a chuckle - I have crapped copious amounts of blood
>>>>this morning trying to get my Nuvistor laptop to record from a pair
>>>>of mics. So far, I have finally managed to get a *stereo* recording
>>>>(not easy) but have also managed to swap the previous machine's
>>>>intermittent 'heartbeat' for a consistent/continual loud (in the
>>>>Plowie sense) *buzz*...!!
>>>>
>>>>And no, I can't post a sample because my FTP programme's grace
>>>>period expired today! (Fekkin' telling me summat it is....)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Go to the command prompt and type
>>>
>>>ftp myserver.pipex.net
>>>
>>>Should do the job.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, all I got was 'unknown host'...??
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Err,


'Err'...??

[Eiron]

John Byrns wrote:
> In article >,
> Patrick Turner > wrote:
>
>
>>Gerry wrote:
>>
>>>What the hell is "bodge"????
>>
>>Andre will have his answer, but when he or someone else uses the term
>>they mean you have to make the signal from the microphone through to the
>>speaker via vinyl go through a roller coaster ride of "enfrightenment".
>>
>>Why can't they just record the mic signal after amplifying with a linear
>>amp,
>>cutting record with a linear amplitude amp, and having playback
>>with a flat amp?
>
>
> What are a few of the reasons? I assume the main reason the RIAA
> recording curve shelves down the high frequency groove amplitude is
> because if the high frequencies weren't reduced while cutting the record
> the groove velocity, and acceleration, at high frequencies would be too
> much for the playback pickup to cope with. Cutting the high frequency
> amplitude during recording also would reduce the "pinch" effect. Maybe
> an expert can tell us the reasons why the high frequency amplitude is
> shelved down when cutting a record following the RIAA recording curve?
> The down side is that a "bodge" in the form of a complementary high
> frequency amplitude boost must be applied during playback, which
> accentuates the high frequency noise.

You have that graph upside down. HF is boosted for disc cutting
and reduced on playback to reduce noise (among other reasons).

Not many people know that preemphasis is also an option for CDs.

--
Eiron.

May contain traces of irony.

[Serge Auckland]

John Byrns wrote:
> In article >,
> Patrick Turner > wrote:
>
>> Gerry wrote:
>>> What the hell is "bodge"????
>> Andre will have his answer, but when he or someone else uses the term
>> they mean you have to make the signal from the microphone through to the
>> speaker via vinyl go through a roller coaster ride of "enfrightenment".
>>
>> Why can't they just record the mic signal after amplifying with a linear
>> amp,
>> cutting record with a linear amplitude amp, and having playback
>> with a flat amp?
>
> What are a few of the reasons? I assume the main reason the RIAA
> recording curve shelves down the high frequency groove amplitude is
> because if the high frequencies weren't reduced while cutting the record
> the groove velocity, and acceleration, at high frequencies would be too
> much for the playback pickup to cope with. Cutting the high frequency
> amplitude during recording also would reduce the "pinch" effect. Maybe
> an expert can tell us the reasons why the high frequency amplitude is
> shelved down when cutting a record following the RIAA recording curve?
> The down side is that a "bodge" in the form of a complementary high
> frequency amplitude boost must be applied during playback, which
> accentuates the high frequency noise.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John Byrns
>
The reason the HF is turned down by the RIAA EQ is to reduce surface
noise. LPs are essentially a constant velocity system, so higher
frequencies can be boosted on record as their amplitude on the record is
reducing, and cut back on playback, together with the surface noise.

Low frequencies are turned down by the RIAA EQ to reduce their amplitude
so as to ensure the 20 minutes or so playing time per side. If they
were cut flat, the increasing amplitude would mean that much more space
would have to be left between grooves, reducing the playing time very
significantly.

This is an example of " necessity being the mother of invention" It was
necessary to reduce low frequency amplitude, so also deriving the
benefit of reducing HF surface noise too.

This principle was applied later to FM radio, where an HF
preemphasis/deemphasis reduces noise at the expense of HF headroom.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[John Byrns]

In article >,
Eiron > wrote:

> John Byrns wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Patrick Turner > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Gerry wrote:
> >>
> >>>What the hell is "bodge"????
> >>
> >>Andre will have his answer, but when he or someone else uses the term
> >>they mean you have to make the signal from the microphone through to the
> >>speaker via vinyl go through a roller coaster ride of "enfrightenment".
> >>
> >>Why can't they just record the mic signal after amplifying with a linear
> >>amp,
> >>cutting record with a linear amplitude amp, and having playback
> >>with a flat amp?
> >
> >
> > What are a few of the reasons? I assume the main reason the RIAA
> > recording curve shelves down the high frequency groove amplitude is
> > because if the high frequencies weren't reduced while cutting the record
> > the groove velocity, and acceleration, at high frequencies would be too
> > much for the playback pickup to cope with. Cutting the high frequency
> > amplitude during recording also would reduce the "pinch" effect. Maybe
> > an expert can tell us the reasons why the high frequency amplitude is
> > shelved down when cutting a record following the RIAA recording curve?
> > The down side is that a "bodge" in the form of a complementary high
> > frequency amplitude boost must be applied during playback, which
> > accentuates the high frequency noise.
>
> You have that graph upside down. HF is boosted for disc cutting
> and reduced on playback to reduce noise (among other reasons).

No, I have the graph exactly the correct way around. The RIAA disk
cutting curve reduces the high frequency groove amplitude by roughly 12
dB using a shelving equalizer with time constants of 318.3 usec. and 75
usec. You are the one that has his RIAA groove amplitude graph upside
down, I suggest doing a little homework before making further comment so
as not to embarrass yourself in public.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[John Byrns]

In article >,
Serge Auckland > wrote:

> John Byrns wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Patrick Turner > wrote:
> >
> >> Gerry wrote:
> >>> What the hell is "bodge"????
> >> Andre will have his answer, but when he or someone else uses the term
> >> they mean you have to make the signal from the microphone through to the
> >> speaker via vinyl go through a roller coaster ride of "enfrightenment".
> >>
> >> Why can't they just record the mic signal after amplifying with a linear
> >> amp,
> >> cutting record with a linear amplitude amp, and having playback
> >> with a flat amp?
> >
> > What are a few of the reasons? I assume the main reason the RIAA
> > recording curve shelves down the high frequency groove amplitude is
> > because if the high frequencies weren't reduced while cutting the record
> > the groove velocity, and acceleration, at high frequencies would be too
> > much for the playback pickup to cope with. Cutting the high frequency
> > amplitude during recording also would reduce the "pinch" effect. Maybe
> > an expert can tell us the reasons why the high frequency amplitude is
> > shelved down when cutting a record following the RIAA recording curve?
> > The down side is that a "bodge" in the form of a complementary high
> > frequency amplitude boost must be applied during playback, which
> > accentuates the high frequency noise.
> >
> The reason the HF is turned down by the RIAA EQ is to reduce surface
> noise.

No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces
the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high
frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface
noise.

> LPs are essentially a constant velocity system, so higher
> frequencies can be boosted on record as their amplitude on the record is
> reducing, and cut back on playback, together with the surface noise.

No, No, a thousand times NO, LP's are essentially a constant amplitude
system with the high frequency groove amplitude shelved down by
approximately 12 dB, LP's are nowhere near a constant velocity system.
Viewed as a constant velocity system approximately 38 dB of equalization
would have to be applied. 12 dB vs. 38 dB makes LP's essentially a
constant amplitude system.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 14 May 2007 09:21:32 -0500, John Byrns >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Serge Auckland > wrote:
>
>> John Byrns wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > Patrick Turner > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Gerry wrote:
>> >>> What the hell is "bodge"????
>> >> Andre will have his answer, but when he or someone else uses the term
>> >> they mean you have to make the signal from the microphone through to the
>> >> speaker via vinyl go through a roller coaster ride of "enfrightenment".
>> >>
>> >> Why can't they just record the mic signal after amplifying with a linear
>> >> amp,
>> >> cutting record with a linear amplitude amp, and having playback
>> >> with a flat amp?
>> >
>> > What are a few of the reasons? I assume the main reason the RIAA
>> > recording curve shelves down the high frequency groove amplitude is
>> > because if the high frequencies weren't reduced while cutting the record
>> > the groove velocity, and acceleration, at high frequencies would be too
>> > much for the playback pickup to cope with. Cutting the high frequency
>> > amplitude during recording also would reduce the "pinch" effect. Maybe
>> > an expert can tell us the reasons why the high frequency amplitude is
>> > shelved down when cutting a record following the RIAA recording curve?
>> > The down side is that a "bodge" in the form of a complementary high
>> > frequency amplitude boost must be applied during playback, which
>> > accentuates the high frequency noise.
>> >
>> The reason the HF is turned down by the RIAA EQ is to reduce surface
>> noise.
>
>No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces
>the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high
>frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface
>noise.
>

This is news to me, and a thousand audio designers for the last
seventy-odd years.

>> LPs are essentially a constant velocity system, so higher
>> frequencies can be boosted on record as their amplitude on the record is
>> reducing, and cut back on playback, together with the surface noise.
>
>No, No, a thousand times NO, LP's are essentially a constant amplitude
>system with the high frequency groove amplitude shelved down by
>approximately 12 dB, LP's are nowhere near a constant velocity system.
>Viewed as a constant velocity system approximately 38 dB of equalization
>would have to be applied. 12 dB vs. 38 dB makes LP's essentially a
>constant amplitude system.
>

LPs are a combination of constant velocity and constant amplitude,
depending on the frequency range.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Eiron]

John Byrns wrote:

> In article >,
> Eiron > wrote:

>>You have that graph upside down. HF is boosted for disc cutting
>>and reduced on playback to reduce noise (among other reasons).
>
>
> No, I have the graph exactly the correct way around. The RIAA disk
> cutting curve reduces the high frequency groove amplitude by roughly 12
> dB using a shelving equalizer with time constants of 318.3 usec. and 75
> usec. You are the one that has his RIAA groove amplitude graph upside
> down, I suggest doing a little homework before making further comment so
> as not to embarrass yourself in public.

I suggest doing a little homework before making further comment
so as not to embarrass yourself even more in public.
And just to get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

--
Eiron.

May contain traces of irony.

[Jenn]

On May 13, 7:17 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> Patrick Turner wrote:
> > Andre Jute wrote:
> I used to have c8000 vinyl discs, including some old shellac. I sold
> the important subcollections and gave the rest away. Vinyl is just too
> time-consuming. So much music to listen to, so little time. CDs are a
> boon.

Gee, once an LP gets well cleaned when purchased, putting one on to
play takes, what, less than 30 seconds?

>
> I think there is a certain masochism afield among audiophiles.
<snip>

Or perhaps some people simply like the sound of some LPs.

[Andre Jute]

Keith G wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> > I think there is a certain masochism afield among audiophiles. Like
> > Morgan owners, or MG owners, they think that hardship on one's
> > pleasures is a symptom of manliness. I don't. I always preferred
> > Porsche. cars that worked and offered a modicum of comfort, and big-
> > engined fast tourers rather than harsh, loud sports cars. Same in my
> > sound systems.
>
>
> You do? I saw some rather good pix you posted recently and a couple of
> your bike with a *heartrate monitor* (?) did I not?

I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead.
Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player,
and officially certified to have "the heart of an ox". The heartrate
monitor is to keep my heart beating in the aerobic regions; when the
HRM beeps those who cycle with me know to slow down.

More about my bikes at
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html

> Here's a picture of my current bike:
>
> http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/mybikes/Suzuki%20GSX1400.jpg

Uh-huh. An overage hooligan -- says Andre who is still an honorary
president of the Johannesburg Hell's Angels. (It cost me a
containerload of beer but was cheap at the price because it also saved
me a beating. How the hell was I to know that the guy whose
policeman's hat I lifted was an Angel?)

> It allows me to do 0 to *very naughty* whenever I can or want without
> even breaking a sweat!! ;-)

Sweat is precisely the point. 91.5Kg...

> I define what I want the sound to be and to do, and
> > then put it together like that. That is why I think horns and panels
> > are important, and ultra-simple amplifiers

> OK, we are back on the same track again.....
>
> All is good, all is calm....

I'm so fit that, when people bother me, my blood pressure goes *down*.

Andre Jute
"You don't need global feedback to build a good-sounding amplifier."
-- Henry Pasternack

[Andre Jute]

Gerry wrote:
> On May 13, 6:33 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> > Seeing all the posts about RIAA filters, I can only say I hope none of
> > the participants passed on the gene of obsessive shortsightedness that
> > draws audiophiles into the wastelands of RIAA. Vinyl discs are bad
> > enough when good clean CD's are available, but RIAA is a bodge to
> > correct another bodge. Two bodges don't make it right.
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > uses only CD and so has time for more music
>
> What the hell is "bodge"????

I think John Byrns has already given the American as "kludge".

Though I seem to recall that I first heard the word "bodge" used by
one of my mechanics at Talladega when I was young and reckless enough
to ask "Why?" It turned out there was a man called Bodger, though I
want to stress immediately that I never met him, just in case he turns
out to be a street myth.

My own bodger, kept in my hot rod toolchest (I used to hotrod old
Bentleys), was given to me by an American mechanic. It is a First
World War British Army knife. The bodger part is the fold-out bayonet.
These knives were once seen in every mechanic's toolbox. A common
American version with the younger mechanics, until they had the money
to buy the British Army knife, was tire iron ground round and to a
spiky point at one end.

HTH.

Andre Jute
Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the
Borg. -- Robert Casey

[Andre Jute]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Gerry said:
>
> > > RIAA is a bodge to correct another bodge.
>
> > What the hell is "bodge"????
>
> It's obviously some bit of Brit slang. I've never heard it before but
> the meaning is plain.
>
> My suggestion is to find a 12-year-old child who earns a B average in
> school and ask the child to clue you in.
> --
>
> Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

I can glance up at about 16 shelf-feet of computer manuals still in
shrinkwrap. When a new programme arrives, I put the manuals on the
shelf and give the discs to a teenager and tell him to come back in a
week and tell me how it works. Never fails. Also works for
televisions, DVD recorders and all kinds of electronics that, even if
you have the time to fartarse around with the instructions, require an
intimate understanding of Japlish as translated from Korean via
Chinese by a dyslexic.

Andre Jute
The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what
they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain

[John Byrns]

In article >,
Eiron > wrote:

> John Byrns wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Eiron > wrote:
>
> >>You have that graph upside down. HF is boosted for disc cutting
> >>and reduced on playback to reduce noise (among other reasons).
> >
> >
> > No, I have the graph exactly the correct way around. The RIAA disk
> > cutting curve reduces the high frequency groove amplitude by roughly 12
> > dB using a shelving equalizer with time constants of 318.3 usec. and 75
> > usec. You are the one that has his RIAA groove amplitude graph upside
> > down, I suggest doing a little homework before making further comment so
> > as not to embarrass yourself in public.
>
> I suggest doing a little homework before making further comment
> so as not to embarrass yourself even more in public.
> And just to get you started:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization


It is always best to read the Wikipedia with a jaundiced eye. In this
case they have omitted an explanation of some of their unstated
assumptions. The first two paragraphs are OK, but the graph and the
following paragraphs can't be correctly interpreted without
understanding the assumptions made by the Wikipedia article. The
primary problem is that the article fails to mention that they are
assuming a velocity responsive pickup that gives an output that rises at
6 dB/octave with increasing frequency, for a constant recorded groove
amplitude. If you compensate the playback curve graph shown in the
Wikipedia article for this effect you will end up with a playback curve
that is exactly the complement of the recording curve I described, where
in playback the groove amplitude must be compensated by boosting the
high frequencies by approximately 12 dB.

I know from past discussions here that the nature of the groove
amplitude cut on an RIAA equalized LP is a difficult concept for most in
this group to get their minds around, but if you drop your prejudices,
and take some time to do your homework as I suggested, understanding can
be achieved.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Andre Jute]

Don Pearce wrote:

> That's all very interesting for the etymology of the word, but the
> meaning in context here is to do a job by some other means than the
> official one - without any sort of judgement as to how good the result
> is.

Rubbish! I used the word at the start of this thread precisely to mean
that the official way, RIAA compensation, is a bodge to fix a
recording bodge; both are the official methods of a venerable
institution. A tech near you offers remedial English courses, Pearce;
you might profit by them.

>Botch is another thing entirely. You could be doing the job
> exactly as recommended, but if you do it poorly, you have botched it.

That's more like it.

> d

Andre Jute
Our legislators managed to criminalize fox-hunting and smoking; when
they will get off their collective fat backside and criminalize
negative feedback? It is clearly consumed only by thickoes.

[Nick Gorham]

Andre Jute wrote:
>
>
> Uh-huh. An overage hooligan -- says Andre who is still an honorary
> president of the Johannesburg Hell's Angels. (It cost me a
> containerload of beer but was cheap at the price because it also saved
> me a beating. How the hell was I to know that the guy whose
> policeman's hat I lifted was an Angel?)
>
>

Now that I very much doubt, I can imagine the beer saving you from a
beating, but I can see it providing you any membership rights.

Care to show us a picture of your rockers?

--
Nick

[Andre Jute]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:04:28 +0100, "Keith G" >
> wrote:
>
> >No, that's Wrongipedia for 'botch' - bodge means making chair legs or
> >summat. See:
>
> In the usage I know, "botch" is pejorative, it implies making a mess
> of the job. "Bodge" is more neutral. "It's a bodge, but it's held up
> very well." cf "Jury-rigged".
>
> The woodworking derivation is interesting, but doesn't prove much :-)

Laurence has got it spot on. A bodger might be used to line up two
intransigent holes so components can be bolted together.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Keith G]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Keith G wrote:
>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>> > I think there is a certain masochism afield among audiophiles. Like
>> > Morgan owners, or MG owners, they think that hardship on one's
>> > pleasures is a symptom of manliness. I don't. I always preferred
>> > Porsche. cars that worked and offered a modicum of comfort, and
>> > big-
>> > engined fast tourers rather than harsh, loud sports cars. Same in
>> > my
>> > sound systems.
>>
>>
>> You do? I saw some rather good pix you posted recently and a couple
>> of
>> your bike with a *heartrate monitor* (?) did I not?
>
> I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead.
> Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player,
> and officially certified to have "the heart of an ox".


I've only got the dick of an ox... :-)

[Keith G]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> George M. Middius wrote:
>> Gerry said:
>>
>> > > RIAA is a bodge to correct another bodge.
>>
>> > What the hell is "bodge"????
>>
>> It's obviously some bit of Brit slang. I've never heard it before but
>> the meaning is plain.
>>
>> My suggestion is to find a 12-year-old child who earns a B average in
>> school and ask the child to clue you in.
>> --
>>
>> Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.
>
> I can glance up at about 16 shelf-feet of computer manuals still in
> shrinkwrap.


*ding*

[Andre Jute]

dave weil wrote:
> On 13 May 2007 19:17:07 -0700, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
> >I define what I want the sound to be and to do
>
> As long as you don't define it for anyone else.
>
> Oh wait, that's pretty much what you did.

I write for intelligent people, Dave. They make up their own minds
whether what I say makes sense. I wouldn't expect someone like you to
be able to follow in my footsteps.

Unsigned for the usual reason

[George M. Middius]

Andre Jute said:

> > What the hell is "bodge"????

> I think John Byrns has already given the American as "kludge".

The correct spelling is "kluge" (rhymes with stooge).



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Andre Jute]

John Byrns wrote:
> In article om>,
> Gerry > wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 6:33 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> > > Seeing all the posts about RIAA filters, I can only say I hope none of
> > > the participants passed on the gene of obsessive shortsightedness that
> > > draws audiophiles into the wastelands of RIAA. Vinyl discs are bad
> > > enough when good clean CD's are available, but RIAA is a bodge to
> > > correct another bodge. Two bodges don't make it right.
> > >
> > > Andre Jute
> > > uses only CD and so has time for more music
> >
> > What the hell is "bodge"????
>
> It may not be completely accurate, but as a working definition I think
> of "bodge" as a British synonym for "kludge".

I would say it is more than "a working definition". "Kludge" is an
exact equivalent of "bodge". However, as I explained elsewhere,
personal experience (I haven't looked it up yet) inclines me not to
believe too much in a strict line of demarcation down the middle of
the Atlantic on this one. Both words appear in my experience to have
currency on both sides of the Atlantic.
>
> Regards,
>
> John Byrns
>
> --
> Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

Andre Jute
"Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the
world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that
but not with all those flies and death and stuff."
--- Mariah Carey.

[Don Pearce]

On 14 May 2007 09:21:29 -0700, Andre Jute > wrote:

>
>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> That's all very interesting for the etymology of the word, but the
>> meaning in context here is to do a job by some other means than the
>> official one - without any sort of judgement as to how good the result
>> is.
>
>Rubbish! I used the word at the start of this thread precisely to mean
>that the official way, RIAA compensation, is a bodge to fix a
>recording bodge; both are the official methods of a venerable
>institution. A tech near you offers remedial English courses, Pearce;
>you might profit by them.
>

Here's a scenario that may help - it is fictitious, so don't worry too
much about my well-being.

I was driving home when the heater hose sprang a leak. I didn't have a
spare with me, so I bodged it with some duct tape. That was good
enough to get me home.

I was driving home when the heater hose sprang a leak. I called the
RAC and the chap fitted a new one, but he botched it by leaving a
Jubilee clip loose, so I lost all the water again.

See the usage of the two words?

As for your usage - matching a curve with its precise complement and
describing that as a bodge is ********; there's another alliterative
word for you.

Happy to see, by the way, that today you are a Hell's Angel. Are you
pedalling your bike around the garden and going Vroom Vroom? I must
have missed the day you were an astronaut - when was that? What are
you going to be tomorrow, I wonder?

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[George M. Middius]

Andre Jute said:

> > My suggestion is to find a 12-year-old child who earns a B average in
> > school and ask the child to clue you in.

> I can glance up at about 16 shelf-feet of computer manuals still in
> shrinkwrap. When a new programme arrives, I put the manuals on the
> shelf and give the discs to a teenager and tell him to come back in a
> week and tell me how it works. Never fails.

Fortunately, such shenanigans are largely no longer necessary for
software apps. One of the few good things about Microsoft's dominion is
the standardization of user-accessible controls.

> Also works for
> televisions, DVD recorders and all kinds of electronics that, even if
> you have the time to fartarse around with the instructions, require an
> intimate understanding of Japlish as translated from Korean via
> Chinese by a dyslexic.

I was ever so annoyed to discover that my second cell phone (around '97
or so) had a markedly different interface from my previous one.
Fortunately, cell phones are gravitating toward a certain amount of
standardization, as mass-market electronics have already done. Probably
the last holdout for idiosyncratic support will be "high end" audio,
whose manuals still include some terribly crude ones.

Speaking of unspeakably awful interfaces, check out the bastion of
Kroofulness at http://www.pcabx.com/.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Andre Jute said:

> > >I define what I want the sound to be and to do

> > As long as you don't define it for anyone else.
> > Oh wait, that's pretty much what you did.

> I write for intelligent people, Dave. They make up their own minds
> whether what I say makes sense. I wouldn't expect someone like you to
> be able to follow in my footsteps.

You mistook what dave meant.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Patrick Turner]

Andre Jute wrote:
>
> Laurence Payne wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:04:28 +0100, "Keith G" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >No, that's Wrongipedia for 'botch' - bodge means making chair legs or
> > >summat. See:
> >
> > In the usage I know, "botch" is pejorative, it implies making a mess
> > of the job. "Bodge" is more neutral. "It's a bodge, but it's held up
> > very well." cf "Jury-rigged".
> >
> > The woodworking derivation is interesting, but doesn't prove much :-)
>
> Laurence has got it spot on. A bodger might be used to line up two
> intransigent holes so components can be bolted together.

A metal spike used to place into two bolt holes of overlapping
steel plates by a rigger so he can insert a bolt into two
other holes that could be then be lined up was called a podger when I
was building.
The podger came in various sizes and had the tapered spike one end and a
spanner head at the other.
so that after getting a nut started on a bolt the podger was removed and
used to tighten the nut.


In about 1957, when some young folks discovered rock and roll and
delighted in making themselves
look utterly repugnant and stoopid to their fogie old parents with a
greasy hair do with a mop
of hair out in front and hanging forward, and with black shiny pointed
shoes,
and stove pipe trousers, they called themselves bodgies.

There were Widgies as well, but I never knew any.

There is no accounting for style.

Patrick Turner.

o
>
> Andre Jute
> Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
> "wonderfully well written and reasoned information
> for the tube audio constructor"
> John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
> "an unbelievably comprehensive web site
> containing vital gems of wisdom"
> Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[west[_4_]]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Patrick Turner wrote:
> > Andre Jute wrote:
> > >
> > > Seeing all the posts about RIAA filters, I can only say I hope none of
> > > the participants passed on the gene of obsessive shortsightedness that
> > > draws audiophiles into the wastelands of RIAA. Vinyl discs are bad
> > > enough when good clean CD's are available, but RIAA is a bodge to
> > > correct another bodge. Two bodges don't make it right.
> > >
> > > Andre Jute
> > > uses only CD and so has time for more music
> >
> > I doubt you really know what you are missing out upon.
> >
> > But all the really keen musically eclectic ppl i know who have vast cd
> > collections
> > indicating a misspent middle age also still enjoy vinyl.
> > Most find that despite the vast sums they have spent on
> > cd players and transports, da converters, isolation platforms and
> > other widgets and gadgets, the humble black disk continues to delight,
> > and
> > give a greater sense of connection to the artist than any CD manages to
> > do.
> >
> > I have been present at a number of AB comparisons where a CD version
> > and vinyl version of the same material from the same grand old master
> > tape
> > was being played, and we could switch from one to the other,
> > and vinyl seemed to have more to offer the audiophile subjectively.
> >
> > Mind you, the whole analog recording process onto tape et all is a huge
> > bodge to.
> >
> > So is FM stereo mulptiplexing.
> >
> > Never mind the bodges, the sound does not seem to suffer, when they do
> > it right, IMHO.
> >
> > Patrick Turner.
>
> I used to have c8000 vinyl discs, including some old shellac. I sold
> the important subcollections and gave the rest away. Vinyl is just too
> time-consuming. So much music to listen to, so little time. CDs are a
> boon.
>
> I think there is a certain masochism afield among audiophiles. Like
> Morgan owners, or MG owners, they think that hardship on one's
> pleasures is a symptom of manliness. I don't. I always preferred
> Porsche. cars that worked and offered a modicum of comfort, and big-
> engined fast tourers rather than harsh, loud sports cars. Same in my
> sound systems. I define what I want the sound to be and to do, and
> then put it together like that. That is why I think horns and panels
> are important, and ultra-simple amplifiers -- and CDs, so that
> chaniging the music is quick and easy.
>
> There is nothing wrong with CD sound quality; it is better than good
> enough. I decided to go over solely to CD on the day Nimbus, who
> transfer ancient discs to CD, sent me a box of CDs including one of
> Ponselle that was better than anything you could buy on any other
> medium, no matter how much money you spent.
>
> Andre Jute
> Our legislators managed to criminalize fox-hunting and smoking; when
> they will get off their collective fat backside and criminalize
> negative feedback? It is clearly consumed only by the enemies of
> fidelity.
>
Andre: I am not taking a position on the vinyl vs.CD debate but I am
wondering if the convenience of playing both mediums were equal, which would
you prefer?
Next question, if you don't mind ...what are you using to play your CDs?
Thanks in advance.

west

[Andre Jute]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Andre Jute said:
>
> > > What the hell is "bodge"????
>
> > I think John Byrns has already given the American as "kludge".
>
> The correct spelling is "kluge" (rhymes with stooge).
>

Is that right? Jenn and Bob Morein will enjoy this. In the movies
there a transition called a few-gew by moom pitcher pipple and a fewg
by anyone else, and spelled fugue by both parties. An example is when
you hear a phone ring in one scene and in the next scene see it ring
in a diffeerent setting; that's a few-gew.

All the same I think I'll stick with kludge because I would hate for
people I need to consider me stuck-up.

On your analogy, perhaps a bodge should be pronounced "booger" by us
edjicated people.

Andre Jute
"Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the
world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that
but not with all those flies and death and stuff."
--- Mariah Carey.

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 14 May 2007 12:27:53 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george
@ comcast . net> wrote:

>
>
>Andre Jute said:
>
>> > What the hell is "bodge"????
>
>> I think John Byrns has already given the American as "kludge".
>
>The correct spelling is "kluge" (rhymes with stooge).

There is a separate British word kludge, with its own provenance. I
think the two have become confused over the past few years.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Andre Jute]

west wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >
> > Patrick Turner wrote:
> > > Andre Jute wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Seeing all the posts about RIAA filters, I can only say I hope none of
> > > > the participants passed on the gene of obsessive shortsightedness that
> > > > draws audiophiles into the wastelands of RIAA. Vinyl discs are bad
> > > > enough when good clean CD's are available, but RIAA is a bodge to
> > > > correct another bodge. Two bodges don't make it right.
> > > >
> > > > Andre Jute
> > > > uses only CD and so has time for more music
> > >
> > > I doubt you really know what you are missing out upon.
> > >
> > > But all the really keen musically eclectic ppl i know who have vast cd
> > > collections
> > > indicating a misspent middle age also still enjoy vinyl.
> > > Most find that despite the vast sums they have spent on
> > > cd players and transports, da converters, isolation platforms and
> > > other widgets and gadgets, the humble black disk continues to delight,
> > > and
> > > give a greater sense of connection to the artist than any CD manages to
> > > do.
> > >
> > > I have been present at a number of AB comparisons where a CD version
> > > and vinyl version of the same material from the same grand old master
> > > tape
> > > was being played, and we could switch from one to the other,
> > > and vinyl seemed to have more to offer the audiophile subjectively.
> > >
> > > Mind you, the whole analog recording process onto tape et all is a huge
> > > bodge to.
> > >
> > > So is FM stereo mulptiplexing.
> > >
> > > Never mind the bodges, the sound does not seem to suffer, when they do
> > > it right, IMHO.
> > >
> > > Patrick Turner.
> >
> > I used to have c8000 vinyl discs, including some old shellac. I sold
> > the important subcollections and gave the rest away. Vinyl is just too
> > time-consuming. So much music to listen to, so little time. CDs are a
> > boon.
> >
> > I think there is a certain masochism afield among audiophiles. Like
> > Morgan owners, or MG owners, they think that hardship on one's
> > pleasures is a symptom of manliness. I don't. I always preferred
> > Porsche. cars that worked and offered a modicum of comfort, and big-
> > engined fast tourers rather than harsh, loud sports cars. Same in my
> > sound systems. I define what I want the sound to be and to do, and
> > then put it together like that. That is why I think horns and panels
> > are important, and ultra-simple amplifiers -- and CDs, so that
> > chaniging the music is quick and easy.
> >
> > There is nothing wrong with CD sound quality; it is better than good
> > enough. I decided to go over solely to CD on the day Nimbus, who
> > transfer ancient discs to CD, sent me a box of CDs including one of
> > Ponselle that was better than anything you could buy on any other
> > medium, no matter how much money you spent.
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > Our legislators managed to criminalize fox-hunting and smoking; when
> > they will get off their collective fat backside and criminalize
> > negative feedback? It is clearly consumed only by the enemies of
> > fidelity.
> >
> Andre: I am not taking a position on the vinyl vs.CD debate but I am
> wondering if the convenience of playing both mediums were equal, which would
> you prefer?

That's a good question, West. I would choose CD because it doesn't
wear and it is small. I have 6000 CDs (or so) in a fraction of the
space consumed by 8000 LPs. Vinyl is (for me) simply a nuisance
unjustified by whatever extra audiophiles claim to hear in the
grooves.

> Next question, if you don't mind ...what are you using to play your CDs?

Quad CD66 and CD67, very old, very reliable. Both of mine were on
lease to the BBC, then checked over at the factory before they came to
me about fifteen years ago.

> Thanks in advance.
>
> west

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[George M. Middius]

Don Pearce said:

> >The correct spelling is "kluge" (rhymes with stooge).

> There is a separate British word kludge, with its own provenance. I
> think the two have become confused over the past few years.

That spelling mandates a short vowel sound, like "fudge" or "nudge".




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 14 May 2007 13:49:05 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george
@ comcast . net> wrote:

>
>
>Don Pearce said:
>
>> >The correct spelling is "kluge" (rhymes with stooge).
>
>> There is a separate British word kludge, with its own provenance. I
>> think the two have become confused over the past few years.
>
>That spelling mandates a short vowel sound, like "fudge" or "nudge".

Yup.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 14 May 2007 13:49:05 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george
@ comcast . net> wrote:

>
>
>Don Pearce said:
>
>> >The correct spelling is "kluge" (rhymes with stooge).
>
>> There is a separate British word kludge, with its own provenance. I
>> think the two have become confused over the past few years.
>
>That spelling mandates a short vowel sound, like "fudge" or "nudge".

Where bodge would be a makeshift attempt at repair, kludge has more
the flavour of the way the thing is actually made, but looks like a
bodge.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[George M. Middius]

Don Pearce said:

> Where bodge would be a makeshift attempt at repair, kludge has more
> the flavour of the way the thing is actually made, but looks like a
> bodge.

Have you Brits adopted "Krooge" yet? ;-)





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 14 May 2007 15:02:47 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george
@ comcast . net> wrote:

>
>
>Don Pearce said:
>
>> Where bodge would be a makeshift attempt at repair, kludge has more
>> the flavour of the way the thing is actually made, but looks like a
>> bodge.
>
>Have you Brits adopted "Krooge" yet? ;-)

We haven't even adopted the kilogramme. We got a high court ruling
just a couple of days ago that it will remain legal to sell goods in
pounds and ounces, despite EU membership (which thankfully gets more
tenuous by the day).

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[robert casey]

Patrick Turner wrote:
>
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
>>Seeing all the posts about RIAA filters, I can only say I hope none of
>>the participants passed on the gene of obsessive shortsightedness that
>>draws audiophiles into the wastelands of RIAA. Vinyl discs are bad
>>enough when good clean CD's are available, but RIAA is a bodge to
>>correct another bodge. Two bodges don't make it right.
>>

> I have been present at a number of AB comparisons where a CD version
> and vinyl version of the same material from the same grand old master
> tape
> was being played, and we could switch from one to the other,
> and vinyl seemed to have more to offer the audiophile subjectively.
>

I myself never could get my vinyl to sound excellent, but I probably
have made some fundamental mistake in setting up my turntable (a Sony
from 1977 and an Empire cart). And some of my records just seem to be
badly manufactured (45 singles seem to be particularly awful, over
modulated more often than not). Some of the music (yes, top 40 pop from
the 60's and 70's) I wanted can be found only on crappy singles until CD
compilations came out. CDs are a lot less fussy (though it is possible
to muck up a CD (dirt, hair, scratches)).

[robert casey]

>
>
> We haven't even adopted the kilogramme. We got a high court ruling
> just a couple of days ago that it will remain legal to sell goods in
> pounds and ounces, despite EU membership (which thankfully gets more
> tenuous by the day).
>

And I thought only the USA and some 3rd world country were the only
nations that haven't gone metric. In a sense, the USA is metric, as the
inch and such are defined in terms of the metric system. Like "One inch
is equal to 2.54cm". And nowadays stuff sold in supermarkets have
both english units and metric units. Which I find nice, as I can never
remember exactly if it's 12 oz to a pound, or was it 16? And I was born
here. And how many pints in a gallon, this gets to be a PITA. Coke now
is sold in liter bottles here. Directly, not as "X oz of Coke, which
happens to be a liter".

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 14 May 2007 20:13:45 GMT, robert casey >
wrote:

>
>>
>>
>> We haven't even adopted the kilogramme. We got a high court ruling
>> just a couple of days ago that it will remain legal to sell goods in
>> pounds and ounces, despite EU membership (which thankfully gets more
>> tenuous by the day).
>>
>
>And I thought only the USA and some 3rd world country were the only
>nations that haven't gone metric. In a sense, the USA is metric, as the
>inch and such are defined in terms of the metric system. Like "One inch
> is equal to 2.54cm". And nowadays stuff sold in supermarkets have
>both english units and metric units. Which I find nice, as I can never
>remember exactly if it's 12 oz to a pound, or was it 16? And I was born
>here. And how many pints in a gallon, this gets to be a PITA. Coke now
>is sold in liter bottles here. Directly, not as "X oz of Coke, which
>happens to be a liter".

This was all about street market traders who wanted to continue
selling in pounds to the old ladies. A couple were prosecuted when we
went metric and the government went a bit ballistic in its enthusiasm.
But their guild took the government to court over the matter, saying
it was restricting their trade and denying customers their rights to
buy however they liked. The court has found in their favour. Pretty
much nothing in the shops has Imperial units marked any more, although
typically liquid measures still show pints as well as litres.

Interestingly, all of Europe and Scandinavia have maintained the
pound, the inch and the foot alongside metres and kilograms throughout
the last five hundred years - they just aren't quite the same as ours.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Gerry[_2_]]

On May 14, 7:08 am, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Gerry said:
>
> > > RIAA is a bodge to correct another bodge.
> > What the hell is "bodge"????
>
> It's obviously some bit of Brit slang. I've never heard it before but
> the meaning is plain.
>
> My suggestion is to find a 12-year-old child who earns a B average in
> school and ask the child to clue you in.
>

It was not 'obvious' at all. I seriously doubt that any 12-year-old
American child has ever heard or used that word before. What I'm
gathering from others' interpretations is that it would seem to mean
"cobble together", but the meaning was not at all clear in the
original post.

[George M. Middius]

Gerry said:

> > > > RIAA is a bodge to correct another bodge.

> > > What the hell is "bodge"????

> > It's obviously some bit of Brit slang. I've never heard it before but
> > the meaning is plain.
> > My suggestion is to find a 12-year-old child who earns a B average in
> > school and ask the child to clue you in.

> It was not 'obvious' at all.

Yes it was.

> I seriously doubt that any 12-year-old
> American child has ever heard or used that word before.

Not the point.

> What I'm
> gathering from others' interpretations is that it would seem to mean
> "cobble together",

Sort of, but not precisely. Is English not your first language?

> but the meaning was not at all clear in the original post.

Was too. Blazingly obvious.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Ian Bell]

Gerry wrote:

> On May 14, 7:08 am, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
> net> wrote:
>> Gerry said:
>>
>> > > RIAA is a bodge to correct another bodge.
>> > What the hell is "bodge"????
>>
>> It's obviously some bit of Brit slang. I've never heard it before but
>> the meaning is plain.
>>
>> My suggestion is to find a 12-year-old child who earns a B average in
>> school and ask the child to clue you in.
>>
>
> It was not 'obvious' at all. I seriously doubt that any 12-year-old
> American child has ever heard or used that word before. What I'm
> gathering from others' interpretations is that it would seem to mean
> "cobble together", but the meaning was not at all clear in the
> original post.

From wikipedia


Bodge is British slang for a clumsy, messy, inelegant or inadequate solution
to a problem. (See also Kludge.)

IAn

[robert casey]

>
>>>RIAA is evil.... :-)
>
>
>>What the hell is "bodge"????
>
>
> It's obviously some bit of Brit slang. I've never heard it before but
> the meaning is plain.
>
> My suggestion is to find a 12-year-old child who earns a B average in
> school and ask the child to clue you in.
>
Sounds like our word "Kludge". To throw something together to do
something, even though it won't be elegant or efficient from a systems
level point of view.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Don Pearce said:
>
> > Where bodge would be a makeshift attempt at repair, kludge has more
> > the flavour of the way the thing is actually made, but looks like a
> > bodge.
>
> Have you Brits adopted "Krooge" yet? ;-)

You've lost your edge you know.

Graham

[Eeyore]

robert casey wrote:

> And how many pints in a gallon, this gets to be a PITA.

How many fl oz in a pint ? It's different if it's a US or Imperial pint.

Then again.....

A pint of beer in Australia or New Zealand is 570 mL, except in South Australia
where a pint is 425 mL and 570 mL is called an imperial pint.

A 375 mL bottle of liquor in the US and the Canadian maritime provinces is
referred to as a “pint”, hearkening back to the days when liquor came in actual
US pints, quarts, and half-gallons.

United Kingdom, Commonwealth of Nations (Imperial)
1 pint = 20 fluid ounces = 568.26125 mL ? 568 mL

United States
1 pint (wet) = 16 fluid ounces = 2 cups ? 473 mL

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

I should point out that litres should actually be written as a lower case l
(letter L) in fact.


Graham

[robert casey]

Eeyore wrote:

>
> robert casey wrote:
>
>
>>And how many pints in a gallon, this gets to be a PITA.
>
>
> How many fl oz in a pint ? It's different if it's a US or Imperial pint.
>
> Then again.....
>
> A pint of beer in Australia or New Zealand is 570 mL, except in South Australia
> where a pint is 425 mL and 570 mL is called an imperial pint.
>
> A 375 mL bottle of liquor in the US and the Canadian maritime provinces is
> referred to as a “pint”, hearkening back to the days when liquor came in actual
> US pints, quarts, and half-gallons.
>
> United Kingdom, Commonwealth of Nations (Imperial)
> 1 pint = 20 fluid ounces = 568.26125 mL ? 568 mL
>
> United States
> 1 pint (wet) = 16 fluid ounces = 2 cups ? 473 mL
>

Just imagine if electricity and electronics happened before the metric
system was invented. There'd be some screwball Imperial or english term
and differing measurement for voltage or current, watts and so on.
"There's 12 whatevers in a baappap, and one baappap = 2.67 volts, but
current comes in pytts, and 4 of those in a flupp, and a flupp = 7.3065
amps. ...... :-(

[Nick Gorham]

flipper wrote:

> Hehe.
>
> Well, in order to have 'units' you have to be able to 'measure', by
> some 'standard', and there are reasons why those archaic units came
> into being. (hand, thumb, foot, etc.)
>
> There's also nothing particularly 'special' about metric. It's using
> powers that makes it mathematically convenient but the powers could
> just as easily be powers of 2, 5, 16, or whatever. But we've got 10
> fingers so I imagine even metric comes from an archaic measuring tool.
>
> Btw, 12 was so popular because it's evenly divisible by 2, 3 and 4,
> which makes it mathematically 'convenient' for the mathematically
> challenged (if you've got 3 people it's a heck of a lot easier to
> divide up a dozen eggs than 10). Next 'convenient' number is 60 as
> it's evenly divisible by 2, 3, 4, *and* 5. Hmm, now where have I seen
> that one before?

One little nugget I like is the use of the spaces between the fingers to
count. That gives you a base eight system.

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

--
Nick

[Gerry[_2_]]

On May 14, 4:42 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Gerry said:
>
> > > > > RIAA is a bodge to correct another bodge.
> > > > What the hell is "bodge"????
> > > It's obviously some bit of Brit slang. I've never heard it before but
> > > the meaning is plain.
> > > My suggestion is to find a 12-year-old child who earns a B average in
> > > school and ask the child to clue you in.
> > It was not 'obvious' at all.
>
> Yes it was.

No - it was not. It's an archaic word not used on a regular basis in
America. Webster's 1956 Dictionary describes bodge as an obsolete
version of the word botch.

>
> > I seriously doubt that any 12-year-old
> > American child has ever heard or used that word before.
>
> Not the point.

YOU brought it up...

>
> > What I'm
> > gathering from others' interpretations is that it would seem to mean
> > "cobble together",
>
> Sort of, but not precisely. Is English not your first language?

American English is.

>
> > but the meaning was not at all clear in the original post.
>
> Was too. Blazingly obvious.

The whole initial post is rather muddled and unclear because of such
uncommon verbiage as bodge.

[Peter Wieck]

On May 14, 9:34 pm, Eeyore >
wrote:

> You've lost your edge you know.

Never had one. Sometimes "bitter" may be ineptly described as "sharp",
but the commander is a one-note instrument badly played by Mr. McCoy.
There is nothing there of independent mien.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> "George M. Middius" wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce said:
>>
>>> Where bodge would be a makeshift attempt at repair,
>>> kludge has more the flavour of the way the thing is
>>> actually made, but looks like a bodge.
>>
>> Have you Brits adopted "Krooge" yet? ;-)
>
> You've lost your edge you know.

The Middiot never had an edge. The Middiot started out here ranting and
raving about coneheads, and went downhill rapidly from there. Now, he can
take credit for completely destroying a once-vibrant Usenet audio group with
his endless spew of cryptic mutterings.

[Andre Jute]

robert casey wrote:
> Just imagine if electricity and electronics happened before the metric
> system was invented. There'd be some screwball Imperial or english term
> and differing measurement for voltage or current, watts and so on.
> "There's 12 whatevers in a baappap, and one baappap = 2.67 volts, but
> current comes in pytts, and 4 of those in a flupp, and a flupp = 7.3065
> amps. ...... :-(

Ha! The one I liked was mhos, made by spelling ohms backwards, now
renamed siemens presumably because the measurement is sponsored by the
German electronics Gmbh.

Andre Jute
Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the
Borg. -- Robert Casey, a great Irishman

[Eeyore]

robert casey wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > robert casey wrote:
> >
> >>And how many pints in a gallon, this gets to be a PITA.
> >
> > How many fl oz in a pint ? It's different if it's a US or Imperial pint.
> >
> > Then again.....
> >
> > A pint of beer in Australia or New Zealand is 570 mL, except in South Australia
> > where a pint is 425 mL and 570 mL is called an imperial pint.
> >
> > A 375 mL bottle of liquor in the US and the Canadian maritime provinces is
> > referred to as a “pint”, hearkening back to the days when liquor came in actual
> > US pints, quarts, and half-gallons.
> >
> > United Kingdom, Commonwealth of Nations (Imperial)
> > 1 pint = 20 fluid ounces = 568.26125 mL ? 568 mL
> >
> > United States
> > 1 pint (wet) = 16 fluid ounces = 2 cups ? 473 mL
> >
>
> Just imagine if electricity and electronics happened before the metric
> system was invented. There'd be some screwball Imperial or english term
> and differing measurement for voltage or current, watts and so on.
> "There's 12 whatevers in a baappap, and one baappap = 2.67 volts, but
> current comes in pytts, and 4 of those in a flupp, and a flupp = 7.3065
> amps. ...... :-(

Don't get me started on gauss, Oersteds, millimaxwells, lines of force and Tesla.

Graham

[Peter Wieck]

> I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead.
> Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player,

Hmmm.... that would be just under 202 pounds, figure at about
5'-9" (1.75 meters) = BMI of 29.8.... Using metric numbers, a BMI of
29.9. Obese is 30.

If one calculates based on the "average" that individuals undercount
their weight by ~5 pounds, or 2kg, it is obese. In McCoy's case,
using only 2kg is generous given its love of the truth.

No wonder nothing but shadow-pictures, and claims of great height (but
only while riding).

Rugby player...

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 15 May 2007 12:24:35 GMT, Eeyore
> wrote:

>
>
>robert casey wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> > robert casey wrote:
>> >
>> >>And how many pints in a gallon, this gets to be a PITA.
>> >
>> > How many fl oz in a pint ? It's different if it's a US or Imperial pint.
>> >
>> > Then again.....
>> >
>> > A pint of beer in Australia or New Zealand is 570 mL, except in South Australia
>> > where a pint is 425 mL and 570 mL is called an imperial pint.
>> >
>> > A 375 mL bottle of liquor in the US and the Canadian maritime provinces is
>> > referred to as a “pint”, hearkening back to the days when liquor came in actual
>> > US pints, quarts, and half-gallons.
>> >
>> > United Kingdom, Commonwealth of Nations (Imperial)
>> > 1 pint = 20 fluid ounces = 568.26125 mL ? 568 mL
>> >
>> > United States
>> > 1 pint (wet) = 16 fluid ounces = 2 cups ? 473 mL
>> >
>>
>> Just imagine if electricity and electronics happened before the metric
>> system was invented. There'd be some screwball Imperial or english term
>> and differing measurement for voltage or current, watts and so on.
>> "There's 12 whatevers in a baappap, and one baappap = 2.67 volts, but
>> current comes in pytts, and 4 of those in a flupp, and a flupp = 7.3065
>> amps. ...... :-(
>
>Don't get me started on gauss, Oersteds, millimaxwells, lines of force and Tesla.
>
>Graham
>

Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Eeyore]

Gerry wrote:

> On May 14, 4:42 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
> net> wrote:
> > Gerry said:
> >
> > > > > > RIAA is a bodge to correct another bodge.
> > > > > What the hell is "bodge"????
> > > > It's obviously some bit of Brit slang. I've never heard it before but
> > > > the meaning is plain.
> > > > My suggestion is to find a 12-year-old child who earns a B average in
> > > > school and ask the child to clue you in.
> > > It was not 'obvious' at all.
> >
> > Yes it was.
>
> No - it was not. It's an archaic word not used on a regular basis in
> America. Webster's 1956 Dictionary describes bodge as an obsolete
> version of the word botch.

Well yes.

A bodge is a kind of half-botched fix-up.

Graham

[Sander deWaal]

(Don Pearce) said:


>>Don't get me started on gauss, Oersteds, millimaxwells, lines of force and Tesla.


>Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though?


Hah! Did you know the average snail travels 3 furlongs per fortnight?

Bet you didn't! ;-)

--

- Maggies are an addiction for life. -

[John Phillips]

On 2007-05-15, Don Pearce > wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 12:24:35 GMT, Eeyore
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>robert casey wrote:
>>
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> > robert casey wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>And how many pints in a gallon, this gets to be a PITA.
>>> >
>>> > How many fl oz in a pint ? It's different if it's a US or Imperial pint.
>>> >
>>> > Then again.....
>>> >
>>> > A pint of beer in Australia or New Zealand is 570 mL, except in South Australia
>>> > where a pint is 425 mL and 570 mL is called an imperial pint.
>>> >
>>> > A 375 mL bottle of liquor in the US and the Canadian maritime provinces is
>>> > referred to as a “pint”, hearkening back to the days when liquor came in actual
>>> > US pints, quarts, and half-gallons.
>>> >
>>> > United Kingdom, Commonwealth of Nations (Imperial)
>>> > 1 pint = 20 fluid ounces = 568.26125 mL ? 568 mL
>>> >
>>> > United States
>>> > 1 pint (wet) = 16 fluid ounces = 2 cups ? 473 mL
>>>
>>> Just imagine if electricity and electronics happened before the metric
>>> system was invented. There'd be some screwball Imperial or english term
>>> and differing measurement for voltage or current, watts and so on.
>>> "There's 12 whatevers in a baappap, and one baappap = 2.67 volts, but
>>> current comes in pytts, and 4 of those in a flupp, and a flupp = 7.3065
>>> amps. ...... :-(
>>
>>Don't get me started on gauss, Oersteds, millimaxwells, lines of force and Tesla.
>>
> Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though?

I have a friend who quotes integrated circuit die areas in nanoacres.
Another quotes speed in milli-furlongs per micro-fortnight.

Is this normal or do I have some unusual friends?
--
John Phillips

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 15 May 2007 14:53:44 +0200, Sander deWaal >
wrote:

(Don Pearce) said:
>
>
>>>Don't get me started on gauss, Oersteds, millimaxwells, lines of force and Tesla.
>
>
>>Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though?
>
>
>Hah! Did you know the average snail travels 3 furlongs per fortnight?
>
>Bet you didn't! ;-)

Well, I just looked it up, and they do 0.03mph - which is about 80
furlongs per fortnight. You have slow snails!

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

> robert casey wrote:
> > Just imagine if electricity and electronics happened before the metric
> > system was invented. There'd be some screwball Imperial or english term
> > and differing measurement for voltage or current, watts and so on.
> > "There's 12 whatevers in a baappap, and one baappap = 2.67 volts, but
> > current comes in pytts, and 4 of those in a flupp, and a flupp = 7.3065
> > amps. ...... :-(
>
> Ha! The one I liked was mhos, made by spelling ohms backwards, now
> renamed siemens presumably because the measurement is sponsored by the
> German electronics Gmbh.

No sunshine. It's in recognition of the work of Ernst Werner von Siemens.

You knew that of course didn't you but felt compelled to make an anti-German
remark ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Werner_von_Siemens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_(unit)

It's pronouncded zeemens not seamens btw.

Graham

[Don Pearce]

On 15 May 2007 12:57:18 GMT, John Phillips
> wrote:

>On 2007-05-15, Don Pearce > wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 May 2007 12:24:35 GMT, Eeyore
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>robert casey wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> > robert casey wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>And how many pints in a gallon, this gets to be a PITA.
>>>> >
>>>> > How many fl oz in a pint ? It's different if it's a US or Imperial pint.
>>>> >
>>>> > Then again.....
>>>> >
>>>> > A pint of beer in Australia or New Zealand is 570 mL, except in South Australia
>>>> > where a pint is 425 mL and 570 mL is called an imperial pint.
>>>> >
>>>> > A 375 mL bottle of liquor in the US and the Canadian maritime provinces is
>>>> > referred to as a “pint”, hearkening back to the days when liquor came in actual
>>>> > US pints, quarts, and half-gallons.
>>>> >
>>>> > United Kingdom, Commonwealth of Nations (Imperial)
>>>> > 1 pint = 20 fluid ounces = 568.26125 mL ? 568 mL
>>>> >
>>>> > United States
>>>> > 1 pint (wet) = 16 fluid ounces = 2 cups ? 473 mL
>>>>
>>>> Just imagine if electricity and electronics happened before the metric
>>>> system was invented. There'd be some screwball Imperial or english term
>>>> and differing measurement for voltage or current, watts and so on.
>>>> "There's 12 whatevers in a baappap, and one baappap = 2.67 volts, but
>>>> current comes in pytts, and 4 of those in a flupp, and a flupp = 7.3065
>>>> amps. ...... :-(
>>>
>>>Don't get me started on gauss, Oersteds, millimaxwells, lines of force and Tesla.
>>>
>> Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though?
>
>I have a friend who quotes integrated circuit die areas in nanoacres.
>Another quotes speed in milli-furlongs per micro-fortnight.
>
>Is this normal or do I have some unusual friends?

I am perfectly normal; every one of my friends is unusual. I suspect
I'm not alone in this.


d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Sander deWaal]

(Don Pearce) said:


>>>Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though?


>>Hah! Did you know the average snail travels 3 furlongs per fortnight?

>>Bet you didn't! ;-)


>Well, I just looked it up, and they do 0.03mph - which is about 80
>furlongs per fortnight. You have slow snails!


We feed 'em beer, so they're mostly running around in circles.

--

- Maggies are an addiction for life. -

[Andre Jute]

Gerry wrote:
> On May 14, 4:42 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
> net> wrote:
> > Gerry said:

Actually Gerry didn't, and wouldn't want to, say:
> > > > > > RIAA is a bodge to correct another bodge.

I said it.

What Gerry said was
> > > > > What the hell is "bodge"????

And then George replied:
> > > > It's obviously some bit of Brit slang. I've never heard it before but
> > > > the meaning is plain.
> > > > My suggestion is to find a 12-year-old child who earns a B average in
> > > > school and ask the child to clue you in.

And Gerry stubbornly insisted:
> > > It was not 'obvious' at all.

George:
> > Yes it was.

Gerry:
> No - it was not. It's an archaic word not used on a regular basis in
> America. Webster's 1956 Dictionary describes bodge as an obsolete
> version of the word botch.

Some snips of childishness for bandwidth, then George asks, reasonably
in the circumstances:
> > Sort of, but not precisely. Is English not your first language?

Gerry:
> American English is.
> > > but the meaning was not at all clear in the original post.

George:
> > Was too. Blazingly obvious.

Gerry:
> The whole initial post is rather muddled and unclear because of such
> uncommon verbiage as bodge.

Lovely.

Yo, Gerry, I'm a professional communicator. I say exactly what I mean,
no more, no less. If you do not follow, it is because either a) I
intended for you not to understand or b) you are a thicko below my
horizon. You might consider that everyone else understood what I
meant. The only acceptable excuse for not understanding me when I
speak that plainly is that you are unfamiliar with the technicalities
underlying RIAA emphasis and de-emphasis, in which case you should,
rather than attack my language, say you don't understand, and you will
receive a courteous explanation from the few remaining on RAT who
still honour the open-door principles of the ARRL.

Andre Jute
The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what
they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain

[John Phillips]

On 2007-05-15, Don Pearce > wrote:
> On 15 May 2007 12:57:18 GMT, John Phillips
> wrote:
>> I have a friend who quotes integrated circuit die areas in nanoacres.
>> Another quotes speed in milli-furlongs per micro-fortnight.
>>
>> Is this normal or do I have some unusual friends?
>
> I am perfectly normal; every one of my friends is unusual. I suspect
> I'm not alone in this.

To conjugate the irregular verb:
- I have an independent mind
- You're eccentric
- He's round the bend

--
John Phillips

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

> Yo, Gerry, I'm a professional communicator.

You mean windbag.

Graham

[Don Pearce]

On 15 May 2007 13:17:26 GMT, John Phillips
> wrote:

>On 2007-05-15, Don Pearce > wrote:
>> On 15 May 2007 12:57:18 GMT, John Phillips
> wrote:
>>> I have a friend who quotes integrated circuit die areas in nanoacres.
>>> Another quotes speed in milli-furlongs per micro-fortnight.
>>>
>>> Is this normal or do I have some unusual friends?
>>
>> I am perfectly normal; every one of my friends is unusual. I suspect
>> I'm not alone in this.
>
>To conjugate the irregular verb:
>- I have an independent mind
>- You're eccentric
>- He's round the bend

Or in the northern idiom." All folks is queer 'cept thee and me. And
I'm not so sure about thee!".

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[George M. Middius]

Andre Jute said:

> > > Gerry said:

> Actually Gerry didn't, and wouldn't want to, say:

Running short of nits to pick?

> > > > but the meaning was not at all clear in the original post.

> > > Was too. Blazingly obvious.

> > The whole initial post is rather muddled and unclear because of such
> > uncommon verbiage as bodge.

> Lovely.

Gerry is one of those clods who blunders around wearing a "Kick Me"
sign, then complains whenever somebody kicks him.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Eiron]

John Byrns wrote:

> In article >,
> Eiron > wrote:
>
>
>>John Byrns wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Eiron > wrote:
>>
>>>>You have that graph upside down. HF is boosted for disc cutting
>>>>and reduced on playback to reduce noise (among other reasons).
>>>
>>>
>>>No, I have the graph exactly the correct way around. The RIAA disk
>>>cutting curve reduces the high frequency groove amplitude by roughly 12
>>>dB using a shelving equalizer with time constants of 318.3 usec. and 75
>>>usec. You are the one that has his RIAA groove amplitude graph upside
>>>down, I suggest doing a little homework before making further comment so
>>>as not to embarrass yourself in public.
>>
>>I suggest doing a little homework before making further comment
>>so as not to embarrass yourself even more in public.
>>And just to get you started:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization
>
>
>
> It is always best to read the Wikipedia with a jaundiced eye. In this
> case they have omitted an explanation of some of their unstated
> assumptions. The first two paragraphs are OK, but the graph and the
> following paragraphs can't be correctly interpreted without
> understanding the assumptions made by the Wikipedia article. The
> primary problem is that the article fails to mention that they are
> assuming a velocity responsive pickup that gives an output that rises at
> 6 dB/octave with increasing frequency, for a constant recorded groove
> amplitude. If you compensate the playback curve graph shown in the
> Wikipedia article for this effect you will end up with a playback curve
> that is exactly the complement of the recording curve I described, where
> in playback the groove amplitude must be compensated by boosting the
> high frequencies by approximately 12 dB.
>
> I know from past discussions here that the nature of the groove
> amplitude cut on an RIAA equalized LP is a difficult concept for most in
> this group to get their minds around, but if you drop your prejudices,
> and take some time to do your homework as I suggested, understanding can
> be achieved.

Your previous answer to Serge Auckland explains your confusion.
The rest of the world is not wrong and understands perfectly that
the signal is represented by the stylus velocity, not its displacement.

--
Eiron.

May contain traces of irony.

[John Byrns]

In article . com>,
Andre Jute > wrote:

> I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead.
> Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player,
> and officially certified to have "the heart of an ox". The heartrate
> monitor is to keep my heart beating in the aerobic regions; when the
> HRM beeps those who cycle with me know to slow down.

Did the wife also give up the car, or does she still use it?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Eiron]

Sander deWaal wrote:

> (Don Pearce) said:

>>Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though?

> Hah! Did you know the average snail travels 3 furlongs per fortnight?

A furlong per fortnight is very nearly 1cm/minute, so a useful measure.

--
Eiron.

May contain traces of irony.

[Patrick Turner]

Peter Wieck wrote:
>
> > I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead.
> > Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player,
>
> Hmmm.... that would be just under 202 pounds, figure at about
> 5'-9" (1.75 meters) = BMI of 29.8.... Using metric numbers, a BMI of
> 29.9. Obese is 30.

I'm 1.872M x 77Kg, which gives bmi = 21.948, and about the same as i was
when 25.
but last year in July I was 95Kg, and bmi = 27, and I considered myself
overweight.

Between last July and January, I rode about 200km a week, or about
5,000km,
and my weight reduced from 95Kg to 77Kg and probably I lost 20Kg of fat,
about the weight of a seriously good monoblok tube amp,
or the equivalent of at least 5 x 4Litre cans of olive oil, and put on
about 2 Kg of muscle
which keeps me riding as fast as guys 30 years younger.
At one stage my daily weight records showed I lost Kgm a week.
I amused myself when I stalled trying to ride up some hills last July.
The riding is not a leisurely activity just to take in the sights and
sounds of nature,
but a form of self inflicted pain which is excruciatingly enjoyable,
especially when riding up steep long hills with elevated heart rates,
or pushing hard along a flat stretch to catch some dude way out in the
distance,
or to hang on behind the 30 year old.

If you ride real slow, say no faster than you'd jog, you get a sore arse
and get bored, and the energy consumption
is less than walking, good for you, but not nearly as good if you
elevate the heart rate
for 3 hours straight and could barely talk to anyone if they were
present.
But not all the time, not while going down hill.
At a sweat inducing level, especially on a freezing cold day, one can
burn huge amounts of fats.
So best value from cycling is in the winter time, and because snow is so
very rare here,
the cold cloudless skies of about now to September seem to have been
designed by God for cyclist
pleasure.

Even at my age perhaps i burn 600cals per hour and so a 4 hr ride uses
2,400 cals,
or about the same amount as I use in a 24hr day of sedentary life.
This equals about 200gms of fat, so 8 hrs a week uses 400gms of fat
if you still eat the same as when sedentary.

So the bicycle can create a calorie deficit.
The only way I could lose weight easily without feeling hungry all the
time
was to cycle, and switch my diet to a big salad each day and a reduction
of meat and fat and carbohydrates to a minimum.
I completely gave up bread for the 6mths after July.
Processed food is the very worst crap you can ever eat, so i don't, and
if everyone was like me
and couldn't be fooled easily, the whole food producing industry of the
world
would go stone motherless broke.
The excess food that would then be available as natural
produce from US and Oz farmers could then feed the rest of the hungry
world
with ease.

When you get lean and fit, the natural heart rate at rest will fall from
a common 64BPM down to
say 52BPM even if you are 60 like me. A young bloke of 25 who did the
exercize I take would
benefit even more greatly, and have a HR maybe 45.
When I was fit when 40, my HR was 47BPM.
Of course when you exercize, the body rebels to the torture, and becomes
more efficient about
processing the food, so a little food goes a long way, so you won't lose
weight if you exercize and
eat a pile of crappy fat rich garbage afterwards.
I like cabage based salads, 4 apples a day, maybe two bananas and an
orange,
a large serve of cooked oats and yogurt for breakfast; forget about ham,
bacon, sausages,
soft drinks, cheeses, white breads, butter margerine, and all that crap
in plastic packets
with lots of numbers on the label which mean its riddled with dangerous
chemicals to make you feel hungry, and eat more.
protein comes from eggs, and lean meat and fish, which I cannot get
enough of
because what is now beiong sold as fish is often not fish, or its really
crappy,
because mankind has cleaned out the world's oceans of fish.
So I feel guilty eating fish from the sea, not to mention its 5 times
the price
of lean bargain meats selling for $7 a Kg, enough to last me a week.
I do use some olive oil. Its good for anyone, and better than the fats
which I won't eat, and trim off the meat
before I cook it. Animal fat is also where a lot of pesticide and
hormone residues end up,
so don't eat fats. You don't need them and we didn't evolve to survive
off fats.
I never buy deep fried chips, or drink coka cola, its all crap.

Nathan Pritikin said in his book about nutrition for runners that all
you need is
to eat so that 80% of the energy comes from complex carbohydrates,
10% from proteins, and 10% from fats.

Since most UNREFINED grains or breads made with real wholemeal flour has
the whole goodness kept in, not pulled out to get greed driven sales
elsewhere,
then it has the 20% of protien and fat you need, and the CH slow burning
energy.
But even most wholemeal wheat breads are now using rapid yeasts and
chemicals and
I don't eat that anymore, and buy rye natural breads instead, and only
need a
couple of slices a day.


People in the US, UK and Oz are rapidly assuming pig like proportions.


When I am at the supermarket, I am appalled at the fat arse queus lining
up with
trolleys full of crap.
Probably they suffer affluenza, the dysfunctional syndrome of living too
high
and being anxious about everything, so they ain't fit, don't relate
well, and don't ****,
and feed their mouth instead.


I continue to ride about 150km a week and weight has stabilised,
and bmi appears to be a lot better in the mirror.
I treat myself to the occasional 100gm bar of Lindt 70% cocoa choclate.
Its ****ing divine this stuff.
Its much better than buying a 600gram milk chocolate bar with less cocoa
and piled high with fats and sugar,
and chemicals to make you buy more, along with hydrogenated fats to give
long shelf life,
but which are really terrible for your heart.
There are attempts to ban what they are putting into foods now, and as
fast as the banners get stuff
banned, the chemists with no conscience dream up new chemicals.

If I have done 100km on a saturday, I will treat myself to a large serve
of Bavarian Apple from Pancake Parlour, with ice cream and cream,
and unlike a couple of fat guys who play chess while I am there, I don't
have diabetes, and
have earned the treat, which won't hurt me.
These fatsos don't do anything except sit around, and they are paying
the price.

Too much sitting on me arse chatting on news groups and typing up
website
pages and doing electronics had made me heavy.
Now when i have to go into a computer shop there are all these young
dudes and they all look a bit crook,
a bit overweight, and kinda grey, like their PCs have sucked the very
life out of them.

I played Rugby Union when at school, and frankly it was guys just
tumbling over each other,
and I went home sore and sorry after most games. Lord knows how many
unseen injuries meant trouble later in life. Cycling is much better,
unless you fall off, but even if you do, you recover so fast it matters
not.
Cycling has speed, exhilaration, changing scenery, weather, varied
circumstances,
and needs alertness, rapid reflexes, careful judgements, and you learn
lessons
about life.

I am really lucky that there are hundreds of Km of cycling paths here to
ride on,
and that don't include the mountain trails through the bush for which a
mountain bike becomes sensible.
Mountain biking is about getting hot riding up steep climbs slowly, and
descending
with care and putting up with a far rougher ride than on the road.
Modern bikes have suspension and are useable by folks like me over 50
without
enduring injuries.

And even though Canberra has 330,000 people I only have to ride 4Km and
I am
in the middle of sheep paddocks and horse paddocks, and big wide country
areas.
It ain't like London or NY, or Sydney.

>
> If one calculates based on the "average" that individuals undercount
> their weight by ~5 pounds, or 2kg, it is obese. In McCoy's case,
> using only 2kg is generous given its love of the truth.
>
> No wonder nothing but shadow-pictures, and claims of great height (but
> only while riding).
>
> Rugby player...
>
> Peter Wieck

So how do you stay fit Peter?

Patrick Turner.


> Wyncote, PA

[John Byrns]

In article >,
Patrick Turner > wrote:

> When you get lean and fit, the natural heart rate at rest will fall from
> a common 64BPM down to
> say 52BPM even if you are 60 like me. A young bloke of 25 who did the
> exercize I take would
> benefit even more greatly, and have a HR maybe 45.
> When I was fit when 40, my HR was 47BPM.

But how do you tell time properly if your resting heart rate isn't a
nice 60 BPM? Also notice that 60 neatly factors into 2*2*3*5.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Peter Wieck]

On May 14, 10:21 am, John Byrns > wrote:

> No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces
> the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high
> frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface
> noise.

From: RIAA Equalization Curve for Phonograph Records
By: Don Hoglund

http://www.graniteaudio.com/page5.html

However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude
swings of the original signal into velocity - the rate at which the
stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be
recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the
same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much
wider than the grooves on an equalized disk. Wider grooves take up
more room which reduces the available recording time. They are also
much harder for the cartridge to track which increases distortion.
***The solution is to reduce the amplitude of low frequencies during
disk cutting and then boost them with a reverse curve during playback.
***

Another problem is distortion and signal-to-noise ratios in the high
frequencies. Early disc recording equipment did not have the extended
high frequency capabilities of today's modern equipment. However, as
disk cutters improved during the 1940's through the 1960's the need to
address the high frequencies increased.*** The solution was to boost
the high frequencies during cutting and then reduce them during
playback.*** Now there was a high and low curve with a "knee"
frequency.

Asterisks are mine.

The two curves superimposed at the end of the article are interesting.
*Boosted* on recording. *Reduced* on playback.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Andre Jute]

John Byrns wrote:
> In article . com>,
> Andre Jute > wrote:
>
> > I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead.
> > Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player,
> > and officially certified to have "the heart of an ox". The heartrate
> > monitor is to keep my heart beating in the aerobic regions; when the
> > HRM beeps those who cycle with me know to slow down.
>
> Did the wife also give up the car, or does she still use it?

My wife is one of those people who resist driving. I bought her a nice
new Volvo estate when our son was born but, since I work at home, I
was always available to drive her. When we came to Ireland over a
quarter-century ago, we could bring only one car taxfree. I would have
had to pay an enormous amount of import duty for my Citroen SM (a
grand tourer with a Maserati engine and hydraulic suspension, both
impossible to service here back then) and so chose to bring the new,
virtually unused Volvo; I breathed on the Volvo engine and suspension
to make it suitable for enthusiastic driving. But we live in a village
because I wanted my son to have the same sort of country upbringing I
had. We walk to the shops and the shopkeepers deliver and carry the
parcels into the kitchen; our son walked to a school less than five
minutes away. People tend to come to me when they want me, or to pick
me up and drive me to social occasions, because otherwise I don't go,
so in about fifteen years the Volvo was used about 30k miles, mainly
for going to the UK or the Continent or driving visitors around
Ireland; every time I wanted to use it, I had to fit a new battery
because it was used so infrequently. It was like new when I sold it.
It's probably amazing to you but I don't miss the car; I just don't
lead a car-based life.

Andre Jute
Greener than thou

[Keith G]

"Patrick Turner" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Peter Wieck wrote:
>>
>> > I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead.
>> > Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player,
>>
>> Hmmm.... that would be just under 202 pounds, figure at about
>> 5'-9" (1.75 meters) = BMI of 29.8.... Using metric numbers, a BMI of
>> 29.9. Obese is 30.
>
> I'm 1.872M x 77Kg, which gives bmi = 21.948, and about the same as i was
> when 25.
> but last year in July I was 95Kg, and bmi = 27, and I considered myself
> overweight.
>
> Between last July and January, I rode about 200km a week, or about
> 5,000km,
> and my weight reduced from 95Kg to 77Kg and probably I lost 20Kg of fat,
> about the weight of a seriously good monoblok tube amp,
> or the equivalent of at least 5 x 4Litre cans of olive oil, and put on
> about 2 Kg of muscle
> which keeps me riding as fast as guys 30 years younger.
> At one stage my daily weight records showed I lost Kgm a week.
> I amused myself when I stalled trying to ride up some hills last July.
> The riding is not a leisurely activity just to take in the sights and
> sounds of nature,
> but a form of self inflicted pain which is excruciatingly enjoyable,
> especially when riding up steep long hills with elevated heart rates,
> or pushing hard along a flat stretch to catch some dude way out in the
> distance,
> or to hang on behind the 30 year old.
>
> If you ride real slow, say no faster than you'd jog, you get a sore arse
> and get bored, and the energy consumption
> is less than walking, good for you, but not nearly as good if you
> elevate the heart rate
> for 3 hours straight and could barely talk to anyone if they were
> present.
> But not all the time, not while going down hill.
> At a sweat inducing level, especially on a freezing cold day, one can
> burn huge amounts of fats.
> So best value from cycling is in the winter time, and because snow is so
> very rare here,
> the cold cloudless skies of about now to September seem to have been
> designed by God for cyclist
> pleasure.
>
> Even at my age perhaps i burn 600cals per hour and so a 4 hr ride uses
> 2,400 cals,
> or about the same amount as I use in a 24hr day of sedentary life.
> This equals about 200gms of fat, so 8 hrs a week uses 400gms of fat
> if you still eat the same as when sedentary.
>
> So the bicycle can create a calorie deficit.
> The only way I could lose weight easily without feeling hungry all the
> time
> was to cycle, and switch my diet to a big salad each day and a reduction
> of meat and fat and carbohydrates to a minimum.
> I completely gave up bread for the 6mths after July.
> Processed food is the very worst crap you can ever eat, so i don't, and
> if everyone was like me
> and couldn't be fooled easily, the whole food producing industry of the
> world
> would go stone motherless broke.
> The excess food that would then be available as natural
> produce from US and Oz farmers could then feed the rest of the hungry
> world
> with ease.
>
> When you get lean and fit, the natural heart rate at rest will fall from
> a common 64BPM down to
> say 52BPM even if you are 60 like me.



60 eh? - I'm 60 *tomorrow*!! :-)



A young bloke of 25 who did the
> exercize I take would
> benefit even more greatly, and have a HR maybe 45.
> When I was fit when 40, my HR was 47BPM.
> Of course when you exercize, the body rebels to the torture, and becomes
> more efficient about
> processing the food, so a little food goes a long way, so you won't lose
> weight if you exercize and
> eat a pile of crappy fat rich garbage afterwards.
> I like cabage based salads, 4 apples a day, maybe two bananas and an
> orange,
> a large serve of cooked oats and yogurt for breakfast; forget about ham,
> bacon, sausages,
> soft drinks, cheeses, white breads, butter margerine, and all that crap
> in plastic packets
> with lots of numbers on the label which mean its riddled with dangerous
> chemicals to make you feel hungry, and eat more.
> protein comes from eggs, and lean meat and fish, which I cannot get
> enough of
> because what is now beiong sold as fish is often not fish, or its really
> crappy,
> because mankind has cleaned out the world's oceans of fish.
> So I feel guilty eating fish from the sea, not to mention its 5 times
> the price
> of lean bargain meats selling for $7 a Kg, enough to last me a week.
> I do use some olive oil. Its good for anyone, and better than the fats
> which I won't eat, and trim off the meat
> before I cook it. Animal fat is also where a lot of pesticide and
> hormone residues end up,
> so don't eat fats. You don't need them and we didn't evolve to survive
> off fats.
> I never buy deep fried chips, or drink coka cola, its all crap.
>
> Nathan Pritikin said in his book about nutrition for runners that all
> you need is
> to eat so that 80% of the energy comes from complex carbohydrates,
> 10% from proteins, and 10% from fats.
>
> Since most UNREFINED grains or breads made with real wholemeal flour has
> the whole goodness kept in, not pulled out to get greed driven sales
> elsewhere,
> then it has the 20% of protien and fat you need, and the CH slow burning
> energy.
> But even most wholemeal wheat breads are now using rapid yeasts and
> chemicals and
> I don't eat that anymore, and buy rye natural breads instead, and only
> need a
> couple of slices a day.
>
>
> People in the US, UK and Oz are rapidly assuming pig like proportions.
>
>
> When I am at the supermarket, I am appalled at the fat arse queus lining
> up with
> trolleys full of crap.
> Probably they suffer affluenza, the dysfunctional syndrome of living too
> high
> and being anxious about everything, so they ain't fit, don't relate
> well, and don't ****,
> and feed their mouth instead.
>
>
> I continue to ride about 150km a week and weight has stabilised,
> and bmi appears to be a lot better in the mirror.
> I treat myself to the occasional 100gm bar of Lindt 70% cocoa choclate.
> Its ****ing divine this stuff.
> Its much better than buying a 600gram milk chocolate bar with less cocoa
> and piled high with fats and sugar,
> and chemicals to make you buy more, along with hydrogenated fats to give
> long shelf life,
> but which are really terrible for your heart.
> There are attempts to ban what they are putting into foods now, and as
> fast as the banners get stuff
> banned, the chemists with no conscience dream up new chemicals.
>
> If I have done 100km on a saturday, I will treat myself to a large serve
> of Bavarian Apple from Pancake Parlour, with ice cream and cream,
> and unlike a couple of fat guys who play chess while I am there, I don't
> have diabetes, and
> have earned the treat, which won't hurt me.
> These fatsos don't do anything except sit around, and they are paying
> the price.
>
> Too much sitting on me arse chatting on news groups and typing up
> website
> pages and doing electronics had made me heavy.
> Now when i have to go into a computer shop there are all these young
> dudes and they all look a bit crook,
> a bit overweight, and kinda grey, like their PCs have sucked the very
> life out of them.
>
> I played Rugby Union when at school, and frankly it was guys just
> tumbling over each other,
> and I went home sore and sorry after most games. Lord knows how many
> unseen injuries meant trouble later in life. Cycling is much better,
> unless you fall off, but even if you do, you recover so fast it matters
> not.
> Cycling has speed, exhilaration, changing scenery, weather, varied
> circumstances,
> and needs alertness, rapid reflexes, careful judgements, and you learn
> lessons
> about life.
>
> I am really lucky that there are hundreds of Km of cycling paths here to
> ride on,
> and that don't include the mountain trails through the bush for which a
> mountain bike becomes sensible.
> Mountain biking is about getting hot riding up steep climbs slowly, and
> descending
> with care and putting up with a far rougher ride than on the road.
> Modern bikes have suspension and are useable by folks like me over 50
> without
> enduring injuries.
>
> And even though Canberra has 330,000 people I only have to ride 4Km and
> I am
> in the middle of sheep paddocks and horse paddocks, and big wide country
> areas.
> It ain't like London or NY, or Sydney.
>
>>
>> If one calculates based on the "average" that individuals undercount
>> their weight by ~5 pounds, or 2kg, it is obese. In McCoy's case,
>> using only 2kg is generous given its love of the truth.
>>
>> No wonder nothing but shadow-pictures, and claims of great height (but
>> only while riding).
>>
>> Rugby player...
>>
>> Peter Wieck
>
> So how do you stay fit Peter?



He probably lost a couple of hundred calories scrolling through this post!!
:-)

[Peter Wieck]

On May 15, 11:17 am, Andre Jute > wrote:

> People tend to come to me when they want me,

That explains a great deal of your behavior here.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Ian Bell]

Gerry wrote:

> On May 14, 4:42 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
> net> wrote:
>> Gerry said:
>>
>> > > > > RIAA is a bodge to correct another bodge.
>> > > > What the hell is "bodge"????
>> > > It's obviously some bit of Brit slang. I've never heard it before but
>> > > the meaning is plain.
>> > > My suggestion is to find a 12-year-old child who earns a B average in
>> > > school and ask the child to clue you in.
>> > It was not 'obvious' at all.
>>
>> Yes it was.
>
> No - it was not. It's an archaic word not used on a regular basis in
> America. Webster's 1956 Dictionary describes bodge as an obsolete
> version of the word botch.
>

You American's keep forgetting that the USA is only a small part of the
world. The word 'bodge' is in common parlance throughout the British
Commonwealth which is just a tad bigger than the USA.

IAn

[John Byrns]

In article om>,
Peter Wieck > wrote:

> On May 14, 10:21 am, John Byrns > wrote:
>
> > No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces
> > the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high
> > frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface
> > noise.
>
> From: RIAA Equalization Curve for Phonograph Records
> By: Don Hoglund
>
> http://www.graniteaudio.com/page5.html

Peter, that URL is dead, it doesn't work! That aside, it isn't clear
what the point of your post is? Are you trying to say that my statement
which you have quote above is wrong? If that is so just spit it out and
tell me exactly what I said that is factually wrong?

> However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude
> swings of the original signal into velocity -

This is not true, at least historically. IIRC in the early days of
electrical recording the cutters were constant amplitude below the
"turnover" frequency and constant amplitude above the "turnover"
frequency. This response was a result of carefully damped resonances
which were inherent in the design of the cutter head. Early stereo disc
cutters had a response which looked like a mountain peak with a
resonance in the middle of the audio band. Aassuming these curves were
velocity referenced, this would again imply constant amplitude operation
in the area to the left of the mountain peak. I have no knowledge of
the response of contemporary disc cutters, perhaps Iain could chime in
here, but I would be very surprised if their response was anything near
the perfect velocity response you assume. As a result of all this the
electrical equalizers used in disc cutting produce a curve that looks
nothing like the RIAA recording curve commonly presented on web sites,
as they must compensate for the mechanical effects of the cutter head.

You have also failed to consider the old crystal cutter heads that were
used in home disc cutting setups, as well as in some semipro equipment.
Even an ideal cutter head of this type would not produce a constant
velocity recording from a constant amplitude input signal.

> the rate at which the
> stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be
> recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the
> same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much
> wider than the grooves on an equalized disk.


This is only because you have chosen to take a velocity centric
perspective, if you took the more natural groove amplitude view, you
would see that the low frequency grooves would be no wider than high
frequency grooves, and that in fact the amplitude of the high frequency
grooves would have to be reduced, as they are in discs cut to the RIAA
curve by some 12 dB, in order to prevent excessive groove velocity from
occurring at high frequencies. Grooves cut with excessive velocity are
difficult for playback pickups to track without creating excessive
distortion.

The high frequency amplitude cut incorporated into the RIAA recording
curve necessitates that a complimentary high frequency boost be
incorporated into the playback curve. This high frequency boost during
playback decreases the signal to noise ratio of the LP by emphasizing
the high frequency surface noise by some 12 dB.

Peter, don't be one of the sheep, take a moment and think for yourself
for once. If you can't do that at least make it clear what the point of
your post was and tell me specifically what part of my previous post it
is that you take issue with?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[John Byrns]

In article om>,
Andre Jute > wrote:

> John Byrns wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > Andre Jute > wrote:
> >
> > > I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead.
> > > Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player,
> > > and officially certified to have "the heart of an ox". The heartrate
> > > monitor is to keep my heart beating in the aerobic regions; when the
> > > HRM beeps those who cycle with me know to slow down.
> >
> > Did the wife also give up the car, or does she still use it?
>
> My wife is one of those people who resist driving. I bought her a nice
> new Volvo estate when our son was born but, since I work at home, I
> was always available to drive her. When we came to Ireland over a
> quarter-century ago, we could bring only one car taxfree. I would have
> had to pay an enormous amount of import duty for my Citroen SM (a
> grand tourer with a Maserati engine and hydraulic suspension, both
> impossible to service here back then) and so chose to bring the new,
> virtually unused Volvo; I breathed on the Volvo engine and suspension
> to make it suitable for enthusiastic driving. But we live in a village
> because I wanted my son to have the same sort of country upbringing I
> had. We walk to the shops and the shopkeepers deliver and carry the
> parcels into the kitchen; our son walked to a school less than five
> minutes away. People tend to come to me when they want me, or to pick
> me up and drive me to social occasions, because otherwise I don't go,
> so in about fifteen years the Volvo was used about 30k miles, mainly
> for going to the UK or the Continent or driving visitors around
> Ireland; every time I wanted to use it, I had to fit a new battery
> because it was used so infrequently. It was like new when I sold it.
> It's probably amazing to you but I don't miss the car; I just don't
> lead a car-based life.

Not amazing at all, in my ideal world cars would not be necessary for
day to day transportation, cars would essentially be toys reserved for
sport and pleasure, sort of like the horses that preceded them into
transportation history. Unfortunately we still have a very lot of work
to do before we will have a workable mass transit system here in the US.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:52:53 GMT, John Byrns >
wrote:

>In article om>,
> Peter Wieck > wrote:
>
>> On May 14, 10:21 am, John Byrns > wrote:
>>
>> > No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces
>> > the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high
>> > frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface
>> > noise.
>>
>> From: RIAA Equalization Curve for Phonograph Records
>> By: Don Hoglund
>>
>> http://www.graniteaudio.com/page5.html
>
>Peter, that URL is dead, it doesn't work! That aside, it isn't clear
>what the point of your post is? Are you trying to say that my statement
>which you have quote above is wrong? If that is so just spit it out and
>tell me exactly what I said that is factually wrong?
>
>> However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude
>> swings of the original signal into velocity -
>
>This is not true, at least historically. IIRC in the early days of
>electrical recording the cutters were constant amplitude below the
>"turnover" frequency and constant amplitude above the "turnover"
>frequency. This response was a result of carefully damped resonances
>which were inherent in the design of the cutter head. Early stereo disc
>cutters had a response which looked like a mountain peak with a
>resonance in the middle of the audio band. Aassuming these curves were
>velocity referenced, this would again imply constant amplitude operation
>in the area to the left of the mountain peak. I have no knowledge of
>the response of contemporary disc cutters, perhaps Iain could chime in
>here, but I would be very surprised if their response was anything near
>the perfect velocity response you assume. As a result of all this the
>electrical equalizers used in disc cutting produce a curve that looks
>nothing like the RIAA recording curve commonly presented on web sites,
>as they must compensate for the mechanical effects of the cutter head.
>
>You have also failed to consider the old crystal cutter heads that were
>used in home disc cutting setups, as well as in some semipro equipment.
>Even an ideal cutter head of this type would not produce a constant
>velocity recording from a constant amplitude input signal.
>
>> the rate at which the
>> stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be
>> recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the
>> same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much
>> wider than the grooves on an equalized disk.
>
>
>This is only because you have chosen to take a velocity centric
>perspective, if you took the more natural groove amplitude view, you
>would see that the low frequency grooves would be no wider than high
>frequency grooves, and that in fact the amplitude of the high frequency
>grooves would have to be reduced, as they are in discs cut to the RIAA
>curve by some 12 dB, in order to prevent excessive groove velocity from
>occurring at high frequencies. Grooves cut with excessive velocity are
>difficult for playback pickups to track without creating excessive
>distortion.
>
>The high frequency amplitude cut incorporated into the RIAA recording
>curve necessitates that a complimentary high frequency boost be
>incorporated into the playback curve. This high frequency boost during
>playback decreases the signal to noise ratio of the LP by emphasizing
>the high frequency surface noise by some 12 dB.
>
>Peter, don't be one of the sheep, take a moment and think for yourself
>for once. If you can't do that at least make it clear what the point of
>your post was and tell me specifically what part of my previous post it
>is that you take issue with?
>
>
>Regards,
>
>John Byrns

John, are you still insisting that RIAA playback requires high
frequency boost? It doesn't. An RIAA phono preamp has a feedback
mechanism that provides high frequency cut. I have designed several
myself, and studied the circuits and operation of many. Had I (and
every other designer on the planet) been getting it wrong all the
time, our systems would be muffled and entirely without top. They are
not; they play back just fine, and certainly for my own, when I play a
white noise track on a test disc (recorded with standard pre-emphasis
before you say anything), I recover noise which is flat within about
1dB from 30Hz to 20kHz.

*Please* go and do some reading so you can back away gracefully from
this ridiculous position you are placing yourself in.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[George M. Middius]

Time for Poopie's p.m. feeding.

> You mean windbag.

High-class donkeys don't bray in public, you filthy equine monstrosity.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:02:56 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

>On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:52:53 GMT, John Byrns >
>wrote:
>
>>In article om>,
>> Peter Wieck > wrote:
>>
>>> On May 14, 10:21 am, John Byrns > wrote:
>>>
>>> > No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces
>>> > the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high
>>> > frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface
>>> > noise.
>>>
>>> From: RIAA Equalization Curve for Phonograph Records
>>> By: Don Hoglund
>>>
>>> http://www.graniteaudio.com/page5.html
>>
>>Peter, that URL is dead, it doesn't work! That aside, it isn't clear
>>what the point of your post is? Are you trying to say that my statement
>>which you have quote above is wrong? If that is so just spit it out and
>>tell me exactly what I said that is factually wrong?
>>
>>> However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude
>>> swings of the original signal into velocity -
>>
>>This is not true, at least historically. IIRC in the early days of
>>electrical recording the cutters were constant amplitude below the
>>"turnover" frequency and constant amplitude above the "turnover"
>>frequency. This response was a result of carefully damped resonances
>>which were inherent in the design of the cutter head. Early stereo disc
>>cutters had a response which looked like a mountain peak with a
>>resonance in the middle of the audio band. Aassuming these curves were
>>velocity referenced, this would again imply constant amplitude operation
>>in the area to the left of the mountain peak. I have no knowledge of
>>the response of contemporary disc cutters, perhaps Iain could chime in
>>here, but I would be very surprised if their response was anything near
>>the perfect velocity response you assume. As a result of all this the
>>electrical equalizers used in disc cutting produce a curve that looks
>>nothing like the RIAA recording curve commonly presented on web sites,
>>as they must compensate for the mechanical effects of the cutter head.
>>
>>You have also failed to consider the old crystal cutter heads that were
>>used in home disc cutting setups, as well as in some semipro equipment.
>>Even an ideal cutter head of this type would not produce a constant
>>velocity recording from a constant amplitude input signal.
>>
>>> the rate at which the
>>> stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be
>>> recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the
>>> same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much
>>> wider than the grooves on an equalized disk.
>>
>>
>>This is only because you have chosen to take a velocity centric
>>perspective, if you took the more natural groove amplitude view, you
>>would see that the low frequency grooves would be no wider than high
>>frequency grooves, and that in fact the amplitude of the high frequency
>>grooves would have to be reduced, as they are in discs cut to the RIAA
>>curve by some 12 dB, in order to prevent excessive groove velocity from
>>occurring at high frequencies. Grooves cut with excessive velocity are
>>difficult for playback pickups to track without creating excessive
>>distortion.
>>
>>The high frequency amplitude cut incorporated into the RIAA recording
>>curve necessitates that a complimentary high frequency boost be
>>incorporated into the playback curve. This high frequency boost during
>>playback decreases the signal to noise ratio of the LP by emphasizing
>>the high frequency surface noise by some 12 dB.
>>
>>Peter, don't be one of the sheep, take a moment and think for yourself
>>for once. If you can't do that at least make it clear what the point of
>>your post was and tell me specifically what part of my previous post it
>>is that you take issue with?
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>John Byrns
>
>John, are you still insisting that RIAA playback requires high
>frequency boost? It doesn't. An RIAA phono preamp has a feedback
>mechanism that provides high frequency cut. I have designed several
>myself, and studied the circuits and operation of many. Had I (and
>every other designer on the planet) been getting it wrong all the
>time, our systems would be muffled and entirely without top. They are
>not; they play back just fine, and certainly for my own, when I play a
>white noise track on a test disc (recorded with standard pre-emphasis
>before you say anything), I recover noise which is flat within about
>1dB from 30Hz to 20kHz.
>
>*Please* go and do some reading so you can back away gracefully from
>this ridiculous position you are placing yourself in.
>
>d

John, my apologies. I have only just noticed that you are posting from
rec.audio.tubes as your prime group. Ignore everything I wrote above -
you are right and I am wrong. Just as Alice found when she stepped
through the mirror into looking glass land, everything there works
backwards from the real world.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Peter Wieck]

On May 15, 12:52 pm, John Byrns > wrote:
> In article om>,
> Peter Wieck > wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 10:21 am, John Byrns > wrote:
>
> > > No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces
> > > the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high
> > > frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface
> > > noise.
>
> > From: RIAA Equalization Curve for Phonograph Records
> > By: Don Hoglund
>
> >http://www.graniteaudio.com/page5.html
>
> Peter, that URL is dead, it doesn't work! That aside, it isn't clear
> what the point of your post is? Are you trying to say that my statement
> which you have quote above is wrong? If that is so just spit it out and
> tell me exactly what I said that is factually wrong?
>
> > However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude
> > swings of the original signal into velocity -
>
> This is not true, at least historically. IIRC in the early days of
> electrical recording the cutters were constant amplitude below the
> "turnover" frequency and constant amplitude above the "turnover"
> frequency. This response was a result of carefully damped resonances
> which were inherent in the design of the cutter head. Early stereo disc
> cutters had a response which looked like a mountain peak with a
> resonance in the middle of the audio band. Aassuming these curves were
> velocity referenced, this would again imply constant amplitude operation
> in the area to the left of the mountain peak. I have no knowledge of
> the response of contemporary disc cutters, perhaps Iain could chime in
> here, but I would be very surprised if their response was anything near
> the perfect velocity response you assume. As a result of all this the
> electrical equalizers used in disc cutting produce a curve that looks
> nothing like the RIAA recording curve commonly presented on web sites,
> as they must compensate for the mechanical effects of the cutter head.
>
> You have also failed to consider the old crystal cutter heads that were
> used in home disc cutting setups, as well as in some semipro equipment.
> Even an ideal cutter head of this type would not produce a constant
> velocity recording from a constant amplitude input signal.
>
> > the rate at which the
> > stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be
> > recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the
> > same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much
> > wider than the grooves on an equalized disk.
>
> This is only because you have chosen to take a velocity centric
> perspective, if you took the more natural groove amplitude view, you
> would see that the low frequency grooves would be no wider than high
> frequency grooves, and that in fact the amplitude of the high frequency
> grooves would have to be reduced, as they are in discs cut to the RIAA
> curve by some 12 dB, in order to prevent excessive groove velocity from
> occurring at high frequencies. Grooves cut with excessive velocity are
> difficult for playback pickups to track without creating excessive
> distortion.
>
> The high frequency amplitude cut incorporated into the RIAA recording
> curve necessitates that a complimentary high frequency boost be
> incorporated into the playback curve. This high frequency boost during
> playback decreases the signal to noise ratio of the LP by emphasizing
> the high frequency surface noise by some 12 dB.
>
> Peter, don't be one of the sheep, take a moment and think for yourself
> for once. If you can't do that at least make it clear what the point of
> your post was and tell me specifically what part of my previous post it
> is that you take issue with?
>
> Regards,
>
> John Byrns
>
> --
> Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

John:

Whoops: http://www.graniteaudio.com/phono/page5.html

should get you there.

For the record: Whatever positions and suppositions you may take, and
from whatever point of view, whichever cutting head and system, the
actual subject-at-hand is the *present* RIAA Curve as practiced each
day. This is presumably a fixed value both on recording and playback.

That curve is at the bottom of the article. The Bass Boost and the
Treble Cut on playback cross the Bass Cut and Treble Boost on
recording at ~1.2Khz.... not quite what you are writing.

References are at the bottom of the article.

Some interesting stuff also on cartridge loading (impedance and
capacitance), something that I have kept in mind for now over 30
years, and something that few of the more recent converts to vinyl do
not understand. Back in the day, better components would list input
capacitance at a given impedance. Some even had adjustments, and ways
to vary both to a fixed value as needed. Most good TTs listed the
capacitance of their cables as well. So it is not just the phono-stage
but what feeds it as well that has effects on the overall results.

John, sometimes your experience and history vastly overcomplicate what
is a pretty simple issue. What 'should be' in the best of all possible
worlds simply ain't necessarily so.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Peter Wieck]

On May 15, 1:08 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

> John, my apologies. I have only just noticed that you are posting from
> rec.audio.tubes as your prime group. Ignore everything I wrote above -
> you are right and I am wrong. Just as Alice found when she stepped
> through the mirror into looking glass land, everything there works
> backwards from the real world.


Don:

Be careful. John is a literalist.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[John Byrns]

In article >,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

> On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:02:56 GMT, (Don Pearce)
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:52:53 GMT, John Byrns >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article om>,
> >> Peter Wieck > wrote:
> >>
> >>> On May 14, 10:21 am, John Byrns > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces
> >>> > the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high
> >>> > frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface
> >>> > noise.
> >>>
> >>> From: RIAA Equalization Curve for Phonograph Records
> >>> By: Don Hoglund
> >>>
> >>> http://www.graniteaudio.com/page5.html
> >>
> >>Peter, that URL is dead, it doesn't work! That aside, it isn't clear
> >>what the point of your post is? Are you trying to say that my statement
> >>which you have quote above is wrong? If that is so just spit it out and
> >>tell me exactly what I said that is factually wrong?
> >>
> >>> However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude
> >>> swings of the original signal into velocity -
> >>
> >>This is not true, at least historically. IIRC in the early days of
> >>electrical recording the cutters were constant amplitude below the
> >>"turnover" frequency and constant amplitude above the "turnover"
> >>frequency. This response was a result of carefully damped resonances
> >>which were inherent in the design of the cutter head. Early stereo disc
> >>cutters had a response which looked like a mountain peak with a
> >>resonance in the middle of the audio band. Aassuming these curves were
> >>velocity referenced, this would again imply constant amplitude operation
> >>in the area to the left of the mountain peak. I have no knowledge of
> >>the response of contemporary disc cutters, perhaps Iain could chime in
> >>here, but I would be very surprised if their response was anything near
> >>the perfect velocity response you assume. As a result of all this the
> >>electrical equalizers used in disc cutting produce a curve that looks
> >>nothing like the RIAA recording curve commonly presented on web sites,
> >>as they must compensate for the mechanical effects of the cutter head.
> >>
> >>You have also failed to consider the old crystal cutter heads that were
> >>used in home disc cutting setups, as well as in some semipro equipment.
> >>Even an ideal cutter head of this type would not produce a constant
> >>velocity recording from a constant amplitude input signal.
> >>
> >>> the rate at which the
> >>> stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be
> >>> recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the
> >>> same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much
> >>> wider than the grooves on an equalized disk.
> >>
> >>This is only because you have chosen to take a velocity centric
> >>perspective, if you took the more natural groove amplitude view, you
> >>would see that the low frequency grooves would be no wider than high
> >>frequency grooves, and that in fact the amplitude of the high frequency
> >>grooves would have to be reduced, as they are in discs cut to the RIAA
> >>curve by some 12 dB, in order to prevent excessive groove velocity from
> >>occurring at high frequencies. Grooves cut with excessive velocity are
> >>difficult for playback pickups to track without creating excessive
> >>distortion.
> >>
> >>The high frequency amplitude cut incorporated into the RIAA recording
> >>curve necessitates that a complimentary high frequency boost be
> >>incorporated into the playback curve. This high frequency boost during
> >>playback decreases the signal to noise ratio of the LP by emphasizing
> >>the high frequency surface noise by some 12 dB.
> >>
> >>Peter, don't be one of the sheep, take a moment and think for yourself
> >>for once. If you can't do that at least make it clear what the point of
> >>your post was and tell me specifically what part of my previous post it
> >>is that you take issue with?
> >
> >John, are you still insisting that RIAA playback requires high
> >frequency boost? It doesn't. An RIAA phono preamp has a feedback
> >mechanism that provides high frequency cut. I have designed several
> >myself, and studied the circuits and operation of many. Had I (and
> >every other designer on the planet) been getting it wrong all the
> >time, our systems would be muffled and entirely without top. They are
> >not; they play back just fine, and certainly for my own, when I play a
> >white noise track on a test disc (recorded with standard pre-emphasis
> >before you say anything), I recover noise which is flat within about
> >1dB from 30Hz to 20kHz.
> >
> >*Please* go and do some reading so you can back away gracefully from
> >this ridiculous position you are placing yourself in.
>
> John, my apologies. I have only just noticed that you are posting from
> rec.audio.tubes as your prime group. Ignore everything I wrote above -
> you are right and I am wrong. Just as Alice found when she stepped
> through the mirror into looking glass land, everything there works
> backwards from the real world.

Don, I don't understand what the prime group I am posting from has to do
with this issue and your sudden understanding? Could you please explain?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Gerry[_2_]]

On May 15, 9:08 am, Andre Jute > wrote:

> Yo, Gerry, I'm a professional communicator. I say exactly what I mean,
> no more, no less. If you do not follow, it is because either a) I
> intended for you not to understand or b) you are a thicko below my
> horizon. You might consider that everyone else understood what I
> meant. The only acceptable excuse for not understanding me when I
> speak that plainly is that you are unfamiliar with the technicalities
> underlying RIAA emphasis and de-emphasis, in which case you should,
> rather than attack my language, say you don't understand, and you will
> receive a courteous explanation from the few remaining on RAT who
> still honour the open-door principles of the ARRL.
>
> Andre Jute

Oh, I see. You would rather show off how edjumicated you are rather
than be kind enough to share information and write in laymen's terms
so EVERYone can understand. You are a Professional elitist snob,
apparently. Rude son-of-a-bitch, too.

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:56:32 GMT, John Byrns >
wrote:

>In article >,
> (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:02:56 GMT, (Don Pearce)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:52:53 GMT, John Byrns >
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article om>,
>> >> Peter Wieck > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On May 14, 10:21 am, John Byrns > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > No, you have that exactly backwards, the RIAA recording curve reduces
>> >>> > the groove amplitude at high frequencies, requiring a complimentary high
>> >>> > frequency boost in playback, which increases the effects of surface
>> >>> > noise.
>> >>>
>> >>> From: RIAA Equalization Curve for Phonograph Records
>> >>> By: Don Hoglund
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.graniteaudio.com/page5.html
>> >>
>> >>Peter, that URL is dead, it doesn't work! That aside, it isn't clear
>> >>what the point of your post is? Are you trying to say that my statement
>> >>which you have quote above is wrong? If that is so just spit it out and
>> >>tell me exactly what I said that is factually wrong?
>> >>
>> >>> However, because the cutter head's movements translate the amplitude
>> >>> swings of the original signal into velocity -
>> >>
>> >>This is not true, at least historically. IIRC in the early days of
>> >>electrical recording the cutters were constant amplitude below the
>> >>"turnover" frequency and constant amplitude above the "turnover"
>> >>frequency. This response was a result of carefully damped resonances
>> >>which were inherent in the design of the cutter head. Early stereo disc
>> >>cutters had a response which looked like a mountain peak with a
>> >>resonance in the middle of the audio band. Aassuming these curves were
>> >>velocity referenced, this would again imply constant amplitude operation
>> >>in the area to the left of the mountain peak. I have no knowledge of
>> >>the response of contemporary disc cutters, perhaps Iain could chime in
>> >>here, but I would be very surprised if their response was anything near
>> >>the perfect velocity response you assume. As a result of all this the
>> >>electrical equalizers used in disc cutting produce a curve that looks
>> >>nothing like the RIAA recording curve commonly presented on web sites,
>> >>as they must compensate for the mechanical effects of the cutter head.
>> >>
>> >>You have also failed to consider the old crystal cutter heads that were
>> >>used in home disc cutting setups, as well as in some semipro equipment.
>> >>Even an ideal cutter head of this type would not produce a constant
>> >>velocity recording from a constant amplitude input signal.
>> >>
>> >>> the rate at which the
>> >>> stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be
>> >>> recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the
>> >>> same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much
>> >>> wider than the grooves on an equalized disk.
>> >>
>> >>This is only because you have chosen to take a velocity centric
>> >>perspective, if you took the more natural groove amplitude view, you
>> >>would see that the low frequency grooves would be no wider than high
>> >>frequency grooves, and that in fact the amplitude of the high frequency
>> >>grooves would have to be reduced, as they are in discs cut to the RIAA
>> >>curve by some 12 dB, in order to prevent excessive groove velocity from
>> >>occurring at high frequencies. Grooves cut with excessive velocity are
>> >>difficult for playback pickups to track without creating excessive
>> >>distortion.
>> >>
>> >>The high frequency amplitude cut incorporated into the RIAA recording
>> >>curve necessitates that a complimentary high frequency boost be
>> >>incorporated into the playback curve. This high frequency boost during
>> >>playback decreases the signal to noise ratio of the LP by emphasizing
>> >>the high frequency surface noise by some 12 dB.
>> >>
>> >>Peter, don't be one of the sheep, take a moment and think for yourself
>> >>for once. If you can't do that at least make it clear what the point of
>> >>your post was and tell me specifically what part of my previous post it
>> >>is that you take issue with?
>> >
>> >John, are you still insisting that RIAA playback requires high
>> >frequency boost? It doesn't. An RIAA phono preamp has a feedback
>> >mechanism that provides high frequency cut. I have designed several
>> >myself, and studied the circuits and operation of many. Had I (and
>> >every other designer on the planet) been getting it wrong all the
>> >time, our systems would be muffled and entirely without top. They are
>> >not; they play back just fine, and certainly for my own, when I play a
>> >white noise track on a test disc (recorded with standard pre-emphasis
>> >before you say anything), I recover noise which is flat within about
>> >1dB from 30Hz to 20kHz.
>> >
>> >*Please* go and do some reading so you can back away gracefully from
>> >this ridiculous position you are placing yourself in.
>>
>> John, my apologies. I have only just noticed that you are posting from
>> rec.audio.tubes as your prime group. Ignore everything I wrote above -
>> you are right and I am wrong. Just as Alice found when she stepped
>> through the mirror into looking glass land, everything there works
>> backwards from the real world.
>
>Don, I don't understand what the prime group I am posting from has to do
>with this issue and your sudden understanding? Could you please explain?
>
>
>Regards,
>
>John Byrns

Don't worry, John. Peter just put me straight.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Gerry[_2_]]

On May 15, 9:20 am, Eeyore >
wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > Yo, Gerry, I'm a professional communicator.
>
> You mean windbag.
>
> Graham

Precisely!

[George M. Middius]

John Byrns said:

> > John, my apologies. I have only just noticed that you are posting from
> > rec.audio.tubes as your prime group. Ignore everything I wrote above -
> > you are right and I am wrong. Just as Alice found when she stepped
> > through the mirror into looking glass land, everything there works
> > backwards from the real world.

> Don, I don't understand what the prime group I am posting from has to do
> with this issue and your sudden understanding? Could you please explain?

He say you toobies live in Bizarro world. Him stay, you go home! Har!




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
Sander deWaal > wrote:

> (Don Pearce) said:
>
>
> >>>Did you know there are 2.5 * 10^29 Barns in a square Rod, though?
>
>
> >>Hah! Did you know the average snail travels 3 furlongs per fortnight?
>
> >>Bet you didn't! ;-)
>
>
> >Well, I just looked it up, and they do 0.03mph - which is about 80
> >furlongs per fortnight. You have slow snails!
>
>
> We feed 'em beer, so they're mostly running around in circles.

Lucky Lager was especially good for that.

Stephen

[Nick Gorham]

Gerry wrote:
> On May 15, 9:08 am, Andre Jute > wrote:
>
>
>>Yo, Gerry, I'm a professional communicator. I say exactly what I mean,
>>no more, no less.

I see, said Alice.

--
Nick

[John Byrns]

In article >,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

> John, are you still insisting that RIAA playback requires high
> frequency boost? It doesn't. An RIAA phono preamp has a feedback
> mechanism that provides high frequency cut. I have designed several
> myself, and studied the circuits and operation of many. Had I (and
> every other designer on the planet) been getting it wrong all the
> time, our systems would be muffled and entirely without top. They are
> not; they play back just fine, and certainly for my own, when I play a
> white noise track on a test disc (recorded with standard pre-emphasis
> before you say anything), I recover noise which is flat within about
> 1dB from 30Hz to 20kHz.
>
> *Please* go and do some reading so you can back away gracefully from
> this ridiculous position you are placing yourself in.


Don, yes I am still insisting that RIAA playback requires high frequency
boost. Why are you suggesting that I might want to back away from this
position?

Let me attempt to explain, I'm going to assume that you have some
knowledge of math and know what differentiation is. Let's consider an
LP recording which has had a music signal cut into it. Now in our
playback system we need to read the amplitude of the signal cut into the
disc and convert it into an electrical signal of varying amplitude to
drive our speaker system, while along the way undoing any amplitude
equalization that was incorporated when the music signal was originally
cut into the disc using the RIAA record equalization. Now you are
insisting that RIAA playback equalization involves a large high
frequency cut approximating some 38 dB, while I claim that RIAA playback
equalization involves the boosting of the amplitude of the high
frequency signals cut into the disc by approximately 12 dB. What
accounts for the difference in our perspectives? The difference is
simply explained by the fact that you are lumping two separate
equalization curves together while I am talking about only the
equalization necessary to counter the RIAA amplitude equalization
applied when the music was cut into the grooves of the record.

You are assuming that the LP is being played with a "magnetic" pickup.
It is a characteristic of "magnetic" pickups that they differentiate the
amplitude of the music signal cut into the record groove to produce the
electrical output. The differentiation of the recorded amplitude causes
the signal output of the "magnetic" pickup to be tilted upwards towards
the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per octave, which results in a
very tinny sound unless this effect is compensated for. To restore the
output of the "magnetic" pickup back to a flat representation of the
recorded amplitude on the disc, we must pass its output through an
integrator circuit. An integrator produces a response which falls
towards the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per octave, falling
approximately 50 dB at 15 kHz vs. 50 Hz, this is the first part of your
equalizer. The second part of your equalizer is the same as my RIAA
amplitude equalizer and consists of shelving the high frequencies up by
approximately 12 dB using the time constants of 318.3 usec. and 75
usec.. When you combine the "magnetic" pickup equalizer and the RIAA
amplitude equalizer into a single composite circuit you have what you
call "RIAA equalization". This equalization is the sum of a 50 dB high
frequency cut for "magnetic" pickup compensation and a high frequency
boost of 12 dB for RIAA amplitude equalization, giving a net high
frequency cut of 38 dB for the combined network.

Using a pickup that is directly responsive to the recorded groove
amplitude, like say an FM pickup, or a strain gauge pickup, eliminates
the need for the pickup compensation integrator required with a
"magnetic" pickup, and leaves us with the need to provide only the 12 dB
high frequency boost required by the RIAA cutting curve.

Get it, it's simple once you understand it, the "RIAA phono preamp" you
are describing is really doing two equalization jobs, pickup
compensation and compensation for the RIAA amplitude response.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[John Byrns]

In article . com>,
Peter Wieck > wrote:

> John:
>
> Whoops: http://www.graniteaudio.com/phono/page5.html
>
> should get you there.
>
> For the record: Whatever positions and suppositions you may take, and
> from whatever point of view, whichever cutting head and system, the
> actual subject-at-hand is the *present* RIAA Curve as practiced each
> day. This is presumably a fixed value both on recording and playback.
>
> That curve is at the bottom of the article. The Bass Boost and the
> Treble Cut on playback cross the Bass Cut and Treble Boost on
> recording at ~1.2Khz.... not quite what you are writing.
>
> References are at the bottom of the article.


Peter, this article assumes that a "magnetic" pickup is being used to
reproduce the LP. "Magnetic" pickups do not respond directly to the
amplitude of the signal recorded in the LP's grooves and requires
compensation.

Let me attempt to explain, I'm going to assume that you have some
knowledge of math and know what differentiation is. Let's consider an
LP recording which has had a music signal cut into it. Now in our
playback system we need to read the amplitude of the signal cut into the
disc and convert it into an electrical signal of varying amplitude to
drive our speaker system, while along the way undoing any amplitude
equalization that was incorporated when the music signal was originally
cut into the disc using the RIAA record equalization. Now you are
insisting that RIAA playback equalization involves a large high
frequency cut approximating some 38 dB, while I claim that RIAA playback
equalization involves the boosting of the amplitude of the high
frequency signals cut into the disc by approximately 12 dB. What
accounts for the difference in our perspectives? The difference is
simply explained by the fact that you are lumping two separate
equalization curves together while I am talking about only the
equalization necessary to counter the RIAA amplitude equalization
applied when the music was cut into the grooves of the record.

Then article you cite assumes that the LP is being played with a
"magnetic" pickup. It is a characteristic of "magnetic" pickups that
they differentiate the amplitude of the music signal cut into the record
groove to produce the electrical output. The differentiation of the
recorded amplitude causes the signal output of the "magnetic" pickup to
be tilted upwards towards the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per
octave, which results in a very tinny sound unless this effect is
compensated for. To restore the output of the "magnetic" pickup back to
a flat representation of the recorded amplitude on the disc, we must
pass its output through an integrator circuit. An integrator produces a
response which falls towards the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per
octave, falling approximately 50 dB at 15 kHz vs. 50 Hz, this is the
first part of your equalizer. The second part of your equalizer is the
same as my RIAA amplitude equalizer and consists of shelving the high
frequencies up by approximately 12 dB using the time constants of 318.3
usec. and 75 usec.. When you combine the "magnetic" pickup equalizer
and the RIAA amplitude equalizer into a single composite circuit you
have what you call "RIAA equalization". This equalization is the sum of
a 50 dB high frequency cut for "magnetic" pickup compensation and a high
frequency boost of 12 dB for RIAA amplitude equalization, giving a net
high frequency cut of 38 dB for the combined network.

Using a pickup that is directly responsive to the recorded groove
amplitude, like say an FM pickup, or a strain gauge pickup, eliminates
the need for the pickup compensation integrator required with a
"magnetic" pickup, and leaves us with the need to provide only the 12 dB
high frequency boost required by the RIAA cutting curve.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[dizzy]

John Byrns wrote:

>> the rate at which the
>> stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be
>> recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the
>> same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much
>> wider than the grooves on an equalized disk.
>
>
>This is only because you have chosen to take a velocity centric
>perspective, if you took the more natural groove amplitude view, you
>would see that the low frequency grooves would be no wider than high
>frequency grooves,

?

Yep, you're a tube guy all right...

[Peter Wieck]

On May 15, 5:33 pm, John Byrns > wrote:
> In article . com>,
> Peter Wieck > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > John:
>
> > Whoops: http://www.graniteaudio.com/phono/page5.html
>
> > should get you there.
>
> > For the record: Whatever positions and suppositions you may take, and
> > from whatever point of view, whichever cutting head and system, the
> > actual subject-at-hand is the *present* RIAA Curve as practiced each
> > day. This is presumably a fixed value both on recording and playback.
>
> > That curve is at the bottom of the article. The Bass Boost and the
> > Treble Cut on playback cross the Bass Cut and Treble Boost on
> > recording at ~1.2Khz.... not quite what you are writing.
>
> > References are at the bottom of the article.
>
> Peter, this article assumes that a "magnetic" pickup is being used to
> reproduce the LP. "Magnetic" pickups do not respond directly to the
> amplitude of the signal recorded in the LP's grooves and requires
> compensation.
>
> Let me attempt to explain, I'm going to assume that you have some
> knowledge of math and know what differentiation is. Let's consider an
> LP recording which has had a music signal cut into it. Now in our
> playback system we need to read the amplitude of the signal cut into the
> disc and convert it into an electrical signal of varying amplitude to
> drive our speaker system, while along the way undoing any amplitude
> equalization that was incorporated when the music signal was originally
> cut into the disc using the RIAA record equalization. Now you are
> insisting that RIAA playback equalization involves a large high
> frequency cut approximating some 38 dB, while I claim that RIAA playback
> equalization involves the boosting of the amplitude of the high
> frequency signals cut into the disc by approximately 12 dB. What
> accounts for the difference in our perspectives? The difference is
> simply explained by the fact that you are lumping two separate
> equalization curves together while I am talking about only the
> equalization necessary to counter the RIAA amplitude equalization
> applied when the music was cut into the grooves of the record.
>
> Then article you cite assumes that the LP is being played with a
> "magnetic" pickup. It is a characteristic of "magnetic" pickups that
> they differentiate the amplitude of the music signal cut into the record
> groove to produce the electrical output. The differentiation of the
> recorded amplitude causes the signal output of the "magnetic" pickup to
> be tilted upwards towards the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per
> octave, which results in a very tinny sound unless this effect is
> compensated for. To restore the output of the "magnetic" pickup back to
> a flat representation of the recorded amplitude on the disc, we must
> pass its output through an integrator circuit. An integrator produces a
> response which falls towards the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per
> octave, falling approximately 50 dB at 15 kHz vs. 50 Hz, this is the
> first part of your equalizer. The second part of your equalizer is the
> same as my RIAA amplitude equalizer and consists of shelving the high
> frequencies up by approximately 12 dB using the time constants of 318.3
> usec. and 75 usec.. When you combine the "magnetic" pickup equalizer
> and the RIAA amplitude equalizer into a single composite circuit you
> have what you call "RIAA equalization". This equalization is the sum of
> a 50 dB high frequency cut for "magnetic" pickup compensation and a high
> frequency boost of 12 dB for RIAA amplitude equalization, giving a net
> high frequency cut of 38 dB for the combined network.
>
> Using a pickup that is directly responsive to the recorded groove
> amplitude, like say an FM pickup, or a strain gauge pickup, eliminates
> the need for the pickup compensation integrator required with a
> "magnetic" pickup, and leaves us with the need to provide only the 12 dB
> high frequency boost required by the RIAA cutting curve.
>
> Regards,
>
> John Byrns
>
> --
> Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Fly **** on the left, pepper on the right.

John, you cannot _EVER_ admit that you have it wrong, and you search
for the exception every time.

Every damned pick-up I have from the Ortophon MC-20 & MC-30 through
various Shures and Grados is "magnetic".

The order-of-discussion is not strain-gauge pick-ups, crystal pick-ups
(which do not get RIAA equalization). What is the order-of-discussion
is those pick-ups that I have as part of the "great unwashed" and use
every damned day. Either on my Revox, or my Rabcos or whatever else I
choose to use. So, for those beasts as-used by the bulk of the
individuals here, Bass is boosted, Treble is cut. On Playback. And
Bass is cut and Treble is boosted. On recording.

However much smoke and mirrors you might throw to the contrary, that
just happens to be .... the .... way .... it .... is.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Any other suggestions?

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

> Peter Wieck > wrote:
> > John:
> >
> > Whoops: http://www.graniteaudio.com/phono/page5.html
> >
> > should get you there.
> >
> > For the record: Whatever positions and suppositions you may take, and
> > from whatever point of view, whichever cutting head and system, the
> > actual subject-at-hand is the *present* RIAA Curve as practiced each
> > day. This is presumably a fixed value both on recording and playback.
> >
> > That curve is at the bottom of the article. The Bass Boost and the
> > Treble Cut on playback cross the Bass Cut and Treble Boost on
> > recording at ~1.2Khz.... not quite what you are writing.
> >
> > References are at the bottom of the article.
>
> Peter, this article assumes that a "magnetic" pickup is being used to
> reproduce the LP. "Magnetic" pickups do not respond directly to the
> amplitude of the signal recorded in the LP's grooves and requires
> compensation.
>
> Let me attempt to explain, I'm going to assume that you have some
> knowledge of math and know what differentiation is.

Why makes it so complicated ?

The magnetic pickup responds not just to the amplitude of the signal in the
groove but it's rate of change too.

So a signal of the same amplitude on the disc at say 2kHz will produce a voltage
at the pickup that's twice what it would be at 1kHz.

Graham

[Patrick Turner]

John Byrns wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Patrick Turner > wrote:
>
> > When you get lean and fit, the natural heart rate at rest will fall from
> > a common 64BPM down to
> > say 52BPM even if you are 60 like me. A young bloke of 25 who did the
> > exercize I take would
> > benefit even more greatly, and have a HR maybe 45.
> > When I was fit when 40, my HR was 47BPM.
>
> But how do you tell time properly if your resting heart rate isn't a
> nice 60 BPM? Also notice that 60 neatly factors into 2*2*3*5.

I have business that runs to TA time, and to extend the days to make
more time
than other ppl have, i lowered heartrate to 52 which isn't bad for an
old codger like me.
When I have expired totally, the heart won't have to keep time, and days
will stretch
infinitely, and I will not have to worry how long anything takes, and
can luxuriate
my mind by considering all there is to consider that is mathematically
beautiful
about gain/phase shift/NFB/stability equations.

They say the Band Up There needs some better PA gear......

52 is unlucky, with factors of 2 x 2 x 13.

I should watch my step.

Patrick Turner.



>
> Regards,
>
> John Byrns
>
> --
> Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Patrick Turner]

Keith G wrote:
snip,
>
> 60 eh? - I'm 60 *tomorrow*!! :-)

Look, I lied a bit.

I have 2 months to go before 60 arrives.
I feel 30 most days

Patrick Turner.

[John Byrns]

In article . com>,
Peter Wieck > wrote:

> Fly **** on the left, pepper on the right.
>
> John, you cannot _EVER_ admit that you have it wrong, and you search
> for the exception every time.

Peter, you are one sick puppy and a liar to boot. If you truly believe
that I cannot _EVER_ admit that I have it wrong, I suggest you check the
exchange I had with Henry Pasternack last Friday and Saturday in the
thread titled "Stability in Feedback Amplifiers, Part Deux-A" where I
opened a posting Saturday afternoon with these words "Hi Henry, You are
absolutely correct, I was wrong, the "KAB" network does provide an exact
solution for the for the RIAA playback curve as you have demonstrated."
What do you make of that? There is no exception here, I am explaining
how it works without any exceptions, there is no other way for it to
work.

Your problem is that you get a distorted view of me because when we
disagree you are invariably wrong, as now.

> Every damned pick-up I have from the Ortophon MC-20 & MC-30 through
> various Shures and Grados is "magnetic".

I have no doubt of that, however there are plenty of pickups in the
world that aren't "magnetic". But that is really beside the point as my
mention of "magnetic" pickups was simply an attempt to try explaining to
you something you apparently don't know about "magnetic" pickups and
their equalization requirements.

The point I have been making is the relationship between the amplitude
of the electric signal coming from the microphone and the amplitude of
the modulations etched in the grooves of an LP cut according to the RIAA
recording curve. This has nothing to do with the type of pickup that is
ultimately used to reproduce the LP, although obviously different types
of pickups will have different equalization requirements when playing
the same record.

Now here is the relevant experiment for you to try. First take an audio
frequency sweep generator and feed its output into the cutting system
through the RIAA record equalizer and on to the cutting head. Set the
generator to sweep from 50 Hz up through 15 kHz with a constant output
level at all frequencies, set the level low enough so that it doesn't
smoke the cutting head at the high frequency end of the sweep. Next
record the frequency sweep onto a disc. Finally by whatever method you
prefer, measure the amplitude of the modulations cut into the grooves of
the LP at a sufficient number of frequency points so that you can draw a
graph of the recorded groove amplitude vs. frequency. Now look at the
shape of the groove amplitude graph you have just drawn, which
represents the total equalization applied to the constant amplitude
frequency sweep signal that you have recorded. What you will see is
that the amplitude of the high frequencies cut into the LP's grooves are
shelved down by approximately 12 dB, not boosted as you claim.

You have provided no evidence to show that what I have said is wrong,
you are simply using vigorous assertion to press your position without
even bothering to advance a single argument in support your position.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:31:24 -0500, John Byrns >
wrote:

>In article >,
> (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>> John, are you still insisting that RIAA playback requires high
>> frequency boost? It doesn't. An RIAA phono preamp has a feedback
>> mechanism that provides high frequency cut. I have designed several
>> myself, and studied the circuits and operation of many. Had I (and
>> every other designer on the planet) been getting it wrong all the
>> time, our systems would be muffled and entirely without top. They are
>> not; they play back just fine, and certainly for my own, when I play a
>> white noise track on a test disc (recorded with standard pre-emphasis
>> before you say anything), I recover noise which is flat within about
>> 1dB from 30Hz to 20kHz.
>>
>> *Please* go and do some reading so you can back away gracefully from
>> this ridiculous position you are placing yourself in.
>
>
>Don, yes I am still insisting that RIAA playback requires high frequency
>boost. Why are you suggesting that I might want to back away from this
>position?
>
>Let me attempt to explain, I'm going to assume that you have some
>knowledge of math and know what differentiation is. Let's consider an
>LP recording which has had a music signal cut into it. Now in our
>playback system we need to read the amplitude of the signal cut into the
>disc and convert it into an electrical signal of varying amplitude to
>drive our speaker system, while along the way undoing any amplitude
>equalization that was incorporated when the music signal was originally
>cut into the disc using the RIAA record equalization. Now you are
>insisting that RIAA playback equalization involves a large high
>frequency cut approximating some 38 dB, while I claim that RIAA playback
>equalization involves the boosting of the amplitude of the high
>frequency signals cut into the disc by approximately 12 dB. What
>accounts for the difference in our perspectives? The difference is
>simply explained by the fact that you are lumping two separate
>equalization curves together while I am talking about only the
>equalization necessary to counter the RIAA amplitude equalization
>applied when the music was cut into the grooves of the record.
>
>You are assuming that the LP is being played with a "magnetic" pickup.
>It is a characteristic of "magnetic" pickups that they differentiate the
>amplitude of the music signal cut into the record groove to produce the
>electrical output. The differentiation of the recorded amplitude causes
>the signal output of the "magnetic" pickup to be tilted upwards towards
>the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per octave, which results in a
>very tinny sound unless this effect is compensated for. To restore the
>output of the "magnetic" pickup back to a flat representation of the
>recorded amplitude on the disc, we must pass its output through an
>integrator circuit. An integrator produces a response which falls
>towards the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per octave, falling
>approximately 50 dB at 15 kHz vs. 50 Hz, this is the first part of your
>equalizer. The second part of your equalizer is the same as my RIAA
>amplitude equalizer and consists of shelving the high frequencies up by
>approximately 12 dB using the time constants of 318.3 usec. and 75
>usec.. When you combine the "magnetic" pickup equalizer and the RIAA
>amplitude equalizer into a single composite circuit you have what you
>call "RIAA equalization". This equalization is the sum of a 50 dB high
>frequency cut for "magnetic" pickup compensation and a high frequency
>boost of 12 dB for RIAA amplitude equalization, giving a net high
>frequency cut of 38 dB for the combined network.
>
>Using a pickup that is directly responsive to the recorded groove
>amplitude, like say an FM pickup, or a strain gauge pickup, eliminates
>the need for the pickup compensation integrator required with a
>"magnetic" pickup, and leaves us with the need to provide only the 12 dB
>high frequency boost required by the RIAA cutting curve.
>
>Get it, it's simple once you understand it, the "RIAA phono preamp" you
>are describing is really doing two equalization jobs, pickup
>compensation and compensation for the RIAA amplitude response.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>John Byrns

John, I stopped reading "let me explain", I'm afraid. Don't take this
badly, please. I did that because I knew that whatever followed was
going to be a catalogue of misunderstanding and error. It isn't too
important really what those errors are. What is important is that they
are errors, which thirty seconds of research (google for phono preamp
sche,matic - that should do it) will show you. You will then be in the
enviable position of knowing something that you have been getting
completely wrong for years, and being able to learn something new.

Please make this small effort before you post again. I promise you
won't find it wasted. And do listen and understand when I tell you
that those of us who have designed audio gear have never, ever
designed an RIAA preamp that boosts rather than reduces high
frequencies, Do some web research and see if you can find one.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Andre Jute]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:31:24 -0500, John Byrns >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > (Don Pearce) wrote:
> >
> >> John, are you still insisting that RIAA playback requires high
> >> frequency boost? It doesn't. An RIAA phono preamp has a feedback
> >> mechanism that provides high frequency cut. I have designed several
> >> myself, and studied the circuits and operation of many. Had I (and
> >> every other designer on the planet) been getting it wrong all the
> >> time, our systems would be muffled and entirely without top. They are
> >> not; they play back just fine, and certainly for my own, when I play a
> >> white noise track on a test disc (recorded with standard pre-emphasis
> >> before you say anything), I recover noise which is flat within about
> >> 1dB from 30Hz to 20kHz.
> >>
> >> *Please* go and do some reading so you can back away gracefully from
> >> this ridiculous position you are placing yourself in.
> >
> >
> >Don, yes I am still insisting that RIAA playback requires high frequency
> >boost. Why are you suggesting that I might want to back away from this
> >position?
> >
> >Let me attempt to explain, I'm going to assume that you have some
> >knowledge of math and know what differentiation is. Let's consider an
> >LP recording which has had a music signal cut into it. Now in our
> >playback system we need to read the amplitude of the signal cut into the
> >disc and convert it into an electrical signal of varying amplitude to
> >drive our speaker system, while along the way undoing any amplitude
> >equalization that was incorporated when the music signal was originally
> >cut into the disc using the RIAA record equalization. Now you are
> >insisting that RIAA playback equalization involves a large high
> >frequency cut approximating some 38 dB, while I claim that RIAA playback
> >equalization involves the boosting of the amplitude of the high
> >frequency signals cut into the disc by approximately 12 dB. What
> >accounts for the difference in our perspectives? The difference is
> >simply explained by the fact that you are lumping two separate
> >equalization curves together while I am talking about only the
> >equalization necessary to counter the RIAA amplitude equalization
> >applied when the music was cut into the grooves of the record.
> >
> >You are assuming that the LP is being played with a "magnetic" pickup.
> >It is a characteristic of "magnetic" pickups that they differentiate the
> >amplitude of the music signal cut into the record groove to produce the
> >electrical output. The differentiation of the recorded amplitude causes
> >the signal output of the "magnetic" pickup to be tilted upwards towards
> >the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per octave, which results in a
> >very tinny sound unless this effect is compensated for. To restore the
> >output of the "magnetic" pickup back to a flat representation of the
> >recorded amplitude on the disc, we must pass its output through an
> >integrator circuit. An integrator produces a response which falls
> >towards the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per octave, falling
> >approximately 50 dB at 15 kHz vs. 50 Hz, this is the first part of your
> >equalizer. The second part of your equalizer is the same as my RIAA
> >amplitude equalizer and consists of shelving the high frequencies up by
> >approximately 12 dB using the time constants of 318.3 usec. and 75
> >usec.. When you combine the "magnetic" pickup equalizer and the RIAA
> >amplitude equalizer into a single composite circuit you have what you
> >call "RIAA equalization". This equalization is the sum of a 50 dB high
> >frequency cut for "magnetic" pickup compensation and a high frequency
> >boost of 12 dB for RIAA amplitude equalization, giving a net high
> >frequency cut of 38 dB for the combined network.
> >
> >Using a pickup that is directly responsive to the recorded groove
> >amplitude, like say an FM pickup, or a strain gauge pickup, eliminates
> >the need for the pickup compensation integrator required with a
> >"magnetic" pickup, and leaves us with the need to provide only the 12 dB
> >high frequency boost required by the RIAA cutting curve.
> >
> >Get it, it's simple once you understand it, the "RIAA phono preamp" you
> >are describing is really doing two equalization jobs, pickup
> >compensation and compensation for the RIAA amplitude response.
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >John Byrns
>
> John, I stopped reading "let me explain", I'm afraid. Don't take this
> badly, please. I did that because I knew that whatever followed was
> going to be a catalogue of misunderstanding and error. It isn't too
> important really what those errors are. What is important is that they
> are errors, which thirty seconds of research (google for phono preamp
> sche,matic - that should do it) will show you. You will then be in the
> enviable position of knowing something that you have been getting
> completely wrong for years, and being able to learn something new.
>
> Please make this small effort before you post again. I promise you
> won't find it wasted. And do listen and understand when I tell you
> that those of us who have designed audio gear have never, ever
> designed an RIAA preamp that boosts rather than reduces high
> frequencies, Do some web research and see if you can find one.
>
> d
>
> --
> Pearce Consulting
> http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don, baby:

You amused me with your barns and rods (should they be roods?) in this
thread where Sander fed his slug Amstel, made me wonder if I shouldn't
give you another chance, if I hadn't misjudged you as just another
humourless purveyor of excessive negative feedback who should be
kicked on sight. So, just in case you really aren't an enemy of
fidelity, I'm going to give you a tip and hope St Peter is watching
and inscribing my incredible generosity in the Big Book Before the
Pearly Gates.

Save yourself a lot of grinding frustration and anger and either:
a) do not argue with John Byrns on this, meaning drop out now, don't
even tell him to look it up
or
b) accept that what you think you know has some pinholes in it to
which John has already taken a reamer and, before this is over, will
take a bloody great big angle grinder, and therefore go look it up
yourself with your prejudices (what you might prefer to call your
education and knowledge) put firmly aside in a locked box

I've seen John grind down the graduate engineers before, politely,
persistently. He never hesitates to apologize when he is wrong, and he
will always give your argument full consideration and your goodwill
the benefit of the doubt, but I have never seen him fail to understand
the warp and weft of something thoroughly before he starts. You might
note that Chris Hornbeck, a guy who sees through bull**** and
encrustations of hallowed practice to the true fundmentals beneath,
has decided that John is right, giving you the key to why John is
right: "differences between amplitude and velocity, and *why* they're
historically treated differently in cutter-head amplifiers". (Thanks,
Chris. I was struggling with whether that is it or whether it is more
complicated.). Or, in pure self-protection, Don me old gabbas, you
might look up some old RAT threads in which John (ever so politely!)
wiped the floor with that toe-rag Pasternack, admittedly a dullard,
but a dullard who claims to have a Stanford MSEE and observably has a
glib way with the math that often borders on deceit about professional
matters, and sometimes deliberately steps over that limit, after which
Pasternack usually claims that John drove him to betraying his
profession or, even more laughably, "I did it in my zeal to flame
Andre". See above for either of two simple acts you may perform to
save yourself from landing up in the same position as Plodnick vis a
vis John.

There, my duty is done. My money is on Mr Byrns to find all the tees
that aren't crossed and all the eyes that aren't dotted, and to slot
them into a Teflon-covered, Kevlar-armoured argument.

Thanks again for the chuckle.

Andre Jute
The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what
they know for certain that isn't true. --- Mark Twain

There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than in thy
fondest dreams. --- Will the Shake

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

> if I hadn't misjudged you as just another humourless purveyor of excessive
> negative feedback who should be kicked on sight.

Define excessive.

Graham

[Serge Auckland]

Andre Jute wrote:
> Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:31:24 -0500, John Byrns >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> (Don Pearce) wrote:
>>>
>>>> John, are you still insisting that RIAA playback requires high
>>>> frequency boost? It doesn't. An RIAA phono preamp has a feedback
>>>> mechanism that provides high frequency cut. I have designed several
>>>> myself, and studied the circuits and operation of many. Had I (and
>>>> every other designer on the planet) been getting it wrong all the
>>>> time, our systems would be muffled and entirely without top. They are
>>>> not; they play back just fine, and certainly for my own, when I play a
>>>> white noise track on a test disc (recorded with standard pre-emphasis
>>>> before you say anything), I recover noise which is flat within about
>>>> 1dB from 30Hz to 20kHz.
>>>>
>>>> *Please* go and do some reading so you can back away gracefully from
>>>> this ridiculous position you are placing yourself in.
>>>
>>> Don, yes I am still insisting that RIAA playback requires high frequency
>>> boost. Why are you suggesting that I might want to back away from this
>>> position?
>>>
>>> Let me attempt to explain, I'm going to assume that you have some
>>> knowledge of math and know what differentiation is. Let's consider an
>>> LP recording which has had a music signal cut into it. Now in our
>>> playback system we need to read the amplitude of the signal cut into the
>>> disc and convert it into an electrical signal of varying amplitude to
>>> drive our speaker system, while along the way undoing any amplitude
>>> equalization that was incorporated when the music signal was originally
>>> cut into the disc using the RIAA record equalization. Now you are
>>> insisting that RIAA playback equalization involves a large high
>>> frequency cut approximating some 38 dB, while I claim that RIAA playback
>>> equalization involves the boosting of the amplitude of the high
>>> frequency signals cut into the disc by approximately 12 dB. What
>>> accounts for the difference in our perspectives? The difference is
>>> simply explained by the fact that you are lumping two separate
>>> equalization curves together while I am talking about only the
>>> equalization necessary to counter the RIAA amplitude equalization
>>> applied when the music was cut into the grooves of the record.
>>>
>>> You are assuming that the LP is being played with a "magnetic" pickup.
>>> It is a characteristic of "magnetic" pickups that they differentiate the
>>> amplitude of the music signal cut into the record groove to produce the
>>> electrical output. The differentiation of the recorded amplitude causes
>>> the signal output of the "magnetic" pickup to be tilted upwards towards
>>> the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per octave, which results in a
>>> very tinny sound unless this effect is compensated for. To restore the
>>> output of the "magnetic" pickup back to a flat representation of the
>>> recorded amplitude on the disc, we must pass its output through an
>>> integrator circuit. An integrator produces a response which falls
>>> towards the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per octave, falling
>>> approximately 50 dB at 15 kHz vs. 50 Hz, this is the first part of your
>>> equalizer. The second part of your equalizer is the same as my RIAA
>>> amplitude equalizer and consists of shelving the high frequencies up by
>>> approximately 12 dB using the time constants of 318.3 usec. and 75
>>> usec.. When you combine the "magnetic" pickup equalizer and the RIAA
>>> amplitude equalizer into a single composite circuit you have what you
>>> call "RIAA equalization". This equalization is the sum of a 50 dB high
>>> frequency cut for "magnetic" pickup compensation and a high frequency
>>> boost of 12 dB for RIAA amplitude equalization, giving a net high
>>> frequency cut of 38 dB for the combined network.
>>>
>>> Using a pickup that is directly responsive to the recorded groove
>>> amplitude, like say an FM pickup, or a strain gauge pickup, eliminates
>>> the need for the pickup compensation integrator required with a
>>> "magnetic" pickup, and leaves us with the need to provide only the 12 dB
>>> high frequency boost required by the RIAA cutting curve.
>>>
>>> Get it, it's simple once you understand it, the "RIAA phono preamp" you
>>> are describing is really doing two equalization jobs, pickup
>>> compensation and compensation for the RIAA amplitude response.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> John Byrns
>> John, I stopped reading "let me explain", I'm afraid. Don't take this
>> badly, please. I did that because I knew that whatever followed was
>> going to be a catalogue of misunderstanding and error. It isn't too
>> important really what those errors are. What is important is that they
>> are errors, which thirty seconds of research (google for phono preamp
>> sche,matic - that should do it) will show you. You will then be in the
>> enviable position of knowing something that you have been getting
>> completely wrong for years, and being able to learn something new.
>>
>> Please make this small effort before you post again. I promise you
>> won't find it wasted. And do listen and understand when I tell you
>> that those of us who have designed audio gear have never, ever
>> designed an RIAA preamp that boosts rather than reduces high
>> frequencies, Do some web research and see if you can find one.
>>
>> d
>>
>> --
>> Pearce Consulting
>> http://www.pearce.uk.com
>
> Don, baby:
>
> You amused me with your barns and rods (should they be roods?) in this
> thread where Sander fed his slug Amstel, made me wonder if I shouldn't
> give you another chance, if I hadn't misjudged you as just another
> humourless purveyor of excessive negative feedback who should be
> kicked on sight. So, just in case you really aren't an enemy of
> fidelity, I'm going to give you a tip and hope St Peter is watching
> and inscribing my incredible generosity in the Big Book Before the
> Pearly Gates.
>
> Save yourself a lot of grinding frustration and anger and either:
> a) do not argue with John Byrns on this, meaning drop out now, don't
> even tell him to look it up
> or
> b) accept that what you think you know has some pinholes in it to
> which John has already taken a reamer and, before this is over, will
> take a bloody great big angle grinder, and therefore go look it up
> yourself with your prejudices (what you might prefer to call your
> education and knowledge) put firmly aside in a locked box
>
> I've seen John grind down the graduate engineers before, politely,
> persistently. He never hesitates to apologize when he is wrong, and he
> will always give your argument full consideration and your goodwill
> the benefit of the doubt, but I have never seen him fail to understand
> the warp and weft of something thoroughly before he starts. You might
> note that Chris Hornbeck, a guy who sees through bull**** and
> encrustations of hallowed practice to the true fundmentals beneath,
> has decided that John is right, giving you the key to why John is
> right: "differences between amplitude and velocity, and *why* they're
> historically treated differently in cutter-head amplifiers". (Thanks,
> Chris. I was struggling with whether that is it or whether it is more
> complicated.). Or, in pure self-protection, Don me old gabbas, you
> might look up some old RAT threads in which John (ever so politely!)
> wiped the floor with that toe-rag Pasternack, admittedly a dullard,
> but a dullard who claims to have a Stanford MSEE and observably has a
> glib way with the math that often borders on deceit about professional
> matters, and sometimes deliberately steps over that limit, after which
> Pasternack usually claims that John drove him to betraying his
> profession or, even more laughably, "I did it in my zeal to flame
> Andre". See above for either of two simple acts you may perform to
> save yourself from landing up in the same position as Plodnick vis a
> vis John.
>
> There, my duty is done. My money is on Mr Byrns to find all the tees
> that aren't crossed and all the eyes that aren't dotted, and to slot
> them into a Teflon-covered, Kevlar-armoured argument.
>
> Thanks again for the chuckle.
>
> Andre Jute
> The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what
> they know for certain that isn't true. --- Mark Twain
>
> There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than in thy
> fondest dreams. --- Will the Shake
>



I've read and re-read John Byrne's arguments and still think he's wrong.
Every RIAA amplifier I've ever designed and every one I've measured has
a voltage amplitude response that boosts the bass end and cuts the
treble end. The RIAA curve calls for a 19.36dB boost at 20Hz, and a
19.95dB cut at 21kHz. Both are relative to 1kHz. The IEC curve is
identical to the RIAA curve with the exception of the extreme low end
which is boosted less on replay to act as a built-in rumble filter.

No curve I've ever seen has a 12dB boost to the treble.

If John is so precise, I can't understand for the life of me what curve
he is referring to. You only have to put a generator to any RIAA input
stage to see that the curve is as above, with 19 odd dB boost at the
bess end and almost 20 dB cut at the top.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Ian Bell]

Serge Auckland wrote:
>
>
> I've read and re-read John Byrne's arguments and still think he's wrong.
> Every RIAA amplifier I've ever designed and every one I've measured has
> a voltage amplitude response that boosts the bass end and cuts the
> treble end. The RIAA curve calls for a 19.36dB boost at 20Hz, and a
> 19.95dB cut at 21kHz. Both are relative to 1kHz.

Of course it does because it is designed to be fed from a magnetic pickup
which has a rising output with frequency, that's what the bass boost/top
cut are for and the published RIAA replay curve has that assumption built
in. The curve does not directly describe the amplitude actually recorded on
the disc.

Ian

[Arny Krueger]

"Serge Auckland" > wrote in
message

> I've read and re-read John Byrne's arguments and still
> think he's wrong. Every RIAA amplifier I've ever designed
> and every one I've measured has a voltage amplitude
> response that boosts the bass end and cuts the treble
> end.

Or if one prefers, a RIAA playback preamp for a magnetic (velocity)
cartridge is roughly an integrator above 50 Hz, except for a bump in
response between about 500 and 2122 Hz.

If one uses a pickup that does not respond to velocity but instead responds
to amplitude, then you don't need the integrator, but you do need the bump.

> The RIAA curve calls for a 19.36dB boost at 20Hz, and a 19.95dB cut at
> 21kHz. Both are relative to 1kHz.

Agreed.

The IEC
> curve is identical to the RIAA curve with the exception
> of the extreme low end which is boosted less on replay to
> act as a built-in rumble filter.

Agreed.

> No curve I've ever seen has a 12dB boost to the treble.

Agreed. The two possible alternatives for treble cut are either 20 dB cut
above 2122 Hz for a velocity-sensitive pickup, or no cut for an
amplitude-sensitive one.

> If John is so precise, I can't understand for the life of
> me what curve he is referring to. You only have to put a
> generator to any RIAA input stage to see that the curve
> is as above, with 19 odd dB boost at the bess end and
> almost 20 dB cut at the top.

Been there done that, many times.

[west[_4_]]

"Peter Wieck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On May 14, 9:34 pm, Eeyore >
> wrote:
>
> > You've lost your edge you know.
>
> Never had one. Sometimes "bitter" may be ineptly described as "sharp",
> but the commander is a one-note instrument badly played by Mr. McCoy.
> There is nothing there of independent mien.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Wyncote, PA

Who is this McCoy that you refer to so often? Is it AJ? If yes, why do you
use McCoy?

west
>

[John Byrns]

In article <mvD2i.9294$yy6.2320@trnddc05>, "west" >
wrote:

> "Peter Wieck" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > On May 14, 9:34 pm, Eeyore >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > You've lost your edge you know.
> >
> > Never had one. Sometimes "bitter" may be ineptly described as "sharp",
> > but the commander is a one-note instrument badly played by Mr. McCoy.
> > There is nothing there of independent mien.
>
> Who is this McCoy that you refer to so often? Is it AJ? If yes, why do you
> use McCoy?

I find it strange that Peter would refer to Andre as "McCoy", which I
believe is the pen name used on some of Andre's novels, as Peter much
prefers to call Andre "It", in the process demeaning himself more than
Andre.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Eeyore]

west wrote:

> "Peter Wieck" wrote
> > Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > > You've lost your edge you know.
> >
> > Never had one. Sometimes "bitter" may be ineptly described as "sharp",
> > but the commander is a one-note instrument badly played by Mr. McCoy.
> > There is nothing there of independent mien.
> >
> > Peter Wieck
> > Wyncote, PA
>
> Who is this McCoy that you refer to so often? Is it AJ? If yes, why do you
> use McCoy?

It'a one of his psedonyms when writing AIUI.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie snaps at the carrot.

> > Who is this McCoy that you refer to so often?

> It'a one of his psedonyms when writing AIUI.

You're telling one of his sockpuppets about another of his sockpuppets.
What does that make you, you dorky donkey?




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Poopie snaps at the carrot.
>
> > > Who is this McCoy that you refer to so often?
>
> > It'a one of his psedonyms when writing AIUI.
>
> You're telling one of his sockpuppets about another of his sockpuppets.

Nah.

You got that wrong.

Your 'brain' seems very unwell these days.

Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> George M. Middius" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> Poopie snaps at the carrot.
>>
>>>> Who is this McCoy that you refer to so often?
>>
>>> It'a one of his psedonyms when writing AIUI.
>>
>> You're telling one of his sockpuppets about another of his
>> sockpuppets.
>
> Nah.
>
> You got that wrong.
>
> Your 'brain' seems very unwell these days.
>
> Graham


You're a hypocrite and it is your brain needs to be surgically
removed and replace with molten lava from Mt. Kilauea.

They're offering ticket at discount prices to Hawaii right now, fyi.
This window of opportunity will only last you two weeks and I'll
even pitch in for your return flight if that's alright.. How about it!

[Peter Wieck]

On May 16, 9:49 am, John Byrns > wrote:
> In article <mvD2i.9294$yy6.2320@trnddc05>, "west" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Peter Wieck" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > > On May 14, 9:34 pm, Eeyore >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > You've lost your edge you know.
>
> > > Never had one. Sometimes "bitter" may be ineptly described as "sharp",
> > > but the commander is a one-note instrument badly played by Mr. McCoy.
> > > There is nothing there of independent mien.
>
> > Who is this McCoy that you refer to so often? Is it AJ? If yes, why do you
> > use McCoy?
>
> I find it strange that Peter would refer to Andre as "McCoy", which I
> believe is the pen name used on some of Andre's novels, as Peter much
> prefers to call Andre "It", in the process demeaning himself more than
> Andre.
>
> Regards,
>
> John Byrns
>
> --
> Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

Actually, John, whereas I respect you as an audio/electronics
historian of considerable note (and peculiar manner), I find McCoy to
be naught but a chimera of pretense and pose of no substance
whatsoever. So out of respect for human beings in general, I also
choose to consider it to be a farce, a pose, an alias for the purposes
of venting, not for any activity of substance.

True, there must be someone quite clever behind it... but I seriously
doubt that the persona we observe here is anything at all like that
actual individual. So, whereas I may not *like* you, I must respect
you. McCoy I neither like nor dislike as I do not believe there is an
actual "there" to deserve such efforts. Tweaking it is great fun,
however.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Andre Jute]

George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote:

> Poopie snaps at the carrot.
> What does that make you, you dorky donkey?

Seems to me that Poopie Stevenson's problem stems precisely from the
fact that he is a whole dork short of being one half of an exotic
dancer & donkey act. So he became a sound-man for other people's
public perversions instead and has resented it ever since, forty long
years.

Poopie is only Eeyore's bray; the rest of him is mule.

Andre Jute
Dispensing today

[Peter Wieck]

On May 16, 8:49 am, John Byrns > wrote:
> In article <mvD2i.9294$yy6.2320@trnddc05>, "west" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Peter Wieck" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > > On May 14, 9:34 pm, Eeyore >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > You've lost your edge you know.
>
> > > Never had one. Sometimes "bitter" may be ineptly described as "sharp",
> > > but the commander is a one-note instrument badly played by Mr. McCoy.
> > > There is nothing there of independent mien.
>
> > Who is this McCoy that you refer to so often? Is it AJ? If yes, why do you
> > use McCoy?
>
> I find it strange that Peter would refer to Andre as "McCoy", which I
> believe is the pen name used on some of Andre's novels, as Peter much
> prefers to call Andre "It", in the process demeaning himself more than
> Andre.
>
> Regards,
>
> John Byrns
>
> --
> Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

'Scuse if I stutter, the connection is a bit wonkey lately at the DSL
switch across the street.

John:

As it happens, I respect you as an audio/electronic historian of
considerable knowledge (and peculiar behavior). It is my considered
opinion that McCoy is a chimera of pretense and pose and not any sort
of reality. Put another way, I do agree that there is a clever
individual behind the smoke and mirrors, but that the persona
displayed here is an alias, an empty costume and not any sort of
reality, created only for the purpose of venting its maker's
frustrations and hiding its limitations.

Put another way, I may not like you, but I do have to respect you.
McCoy I neither like nor dislike, and certainly do not respect. There
is not enough substance, no "there" there worthy of such efforts. But
tweaking it is good great fun.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:
>
> The Middiot had an. The Middiot out here and
> raving coneheads, and downhill rapidly there. Now, he
> take credit completely destroying once-vibrant Usenet group with
> endless spew cryptic mutterings.

I've been trying out this new Krooglish decoder. Arnie makes much
more sense when you disregard every thid word he babbles.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> I've been trying out this new Krooglish decoder. Arnie makes much
> more sense when you disregard every thid word he babbles.

Is that the one based on the new eco-friendly sewage treatment system?
More nitrogen and less oxygen allows for slower disintegration of fecal
matter. Just what Arnii needs. ;-)




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Keith G]

"Patrick Turner" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Keith G wrote:
> snip,
>>
>> 60 eh? - I'm 60 *tomorrow*!! :-)
>
> Look, I lied a bit.
>
> I have 2 months to go before 60 arrives.
> I feel 30 most days


You're lucky - I barely get to feel more than a couple a month....

[John Byrns]

In article om>,
Peter Wieck > wrote:

>
> True, there must be someone quite clever behind it... but I seriously
> doubt that the persona we observe here is anything at all like that
> actual individual. So, whereas I may not *like* you, I must respect
> you. McCoy I neither like nor dislike as I do not believe there is an
> actual "there" to deserve such efforts. Tweaking it is great fun,
> however.

Somehow that paragraph seems internally inconsistent. If "Andre" is
nothing but a chimera as you believe, but as you say "there must be
someone quite clever behind it", then that person would be an
actual "there", deserving of either your like or dislike.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[George M. Middius]

John Byrns said to Worthless Wiecky:

> > McCoy I neither like nor dislike as I do not believe there is an
> > actual "there" to deserve such efforts.

> Somehow that paragraph seems internally inconsistent. If "Andre" is
> nothing but a chimera as you believe, but as you say "there must be
> someone quite clever behind it", then that person would be an
> actual "there", deserving of either your like or dislike.

No point in getting all philosophical. The prime directive of
Worthlessism is Nothing Shall Make Sense.

> > Tweaking it is great fun

That explains a lot, Worthless. Too bad you don't have the stones to
make a living at your "hobby".

Here's a pic of Worthless's role model:
http://www.capohedz.com/typebrighter/uploaded_images/photo_12-793513.jpg





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Patrick Turner]

Keith G wrote:
>
> "Patrick Turner" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Keith G wrote:
> > snip,
> >>
> >> 60 eh? - I'm 60 *tomorrow*!! :-)
> >
> > Look, I lied a bit.
> >
> > I have 2 months to go before 60 arrives.
> > I feel 30 most days
>
> You're lucky - I barely get to feel more than a couple a month....

Ah, a statement by one very insipid mind....

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> Arny Krueger a scris:
> >
> > The Middiot had an. The Middiot out here and
> > raving coneheads, and downhill rapidly there. Now, he
> > take credit completely destroying once-vibrant Usenet group with
> > endless spew cryptic mutterings.
>
> I've been trying out this new Krooglish decoder. Arnie makes much
> more sense when you disregard every thid word he babbles.

Its a BS converter, ie, babble to sense device that you want.
Google BS, and you should find one.

Patrick Turner.

[Keith G]

"Patrick Turner" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Keith G wrote:
>>
>> "Patrick Turner" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> > Keith G wrote:
>> > snip,
>> >>
>> >> 60 eh? - I'm 60 *tomorrow*!! :-)
>> >
>> > Look, I lied a bit.
>> >
>> > I have 2 months to go before 60 arrives.
>> > I feel 30 most days
>>
>> You're lucky - I barely get to feel more than a couple a month....
>
> Ah, a statement by one very insipid mind....



Works for me - I'll take 'insipid' over *flaky* any time!!

We've done the frantic bike-riding, now tell us other ways how you work
your celibacy off...

[west[_4_]]

"Patrick Turner" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Peter Wieck wrote:
> >
> > > I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead.
> > > Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player,
> >
> > Hmmm.... that would be just under 202 pounds, figure at about
> > 5'-9" (1.75 meters) = BMI of 29.8.... Using metric numbers, a BMI of
> > 29.9. Obese is 30.
>
> I'm 1.872M x 77Kg, which gives bmi = 21.948, and about the same as i was
> when 25.
> but last year in July I was 95Kg, and bmi = 27, and I considered myself
> overweight.
>
> Between last July and January, I rode about 200km a week, or about
> 5,000km,
> and my weight reduced from 95Kg to 77Kg and probably I lost 20Kg of fat,
> about the weight of a seriously good monoblok tube amp,
> or the equivalent of at least 5 x 4Litre cans of olive oil, and put on
> about 2 Kg of muscle
> which keeps me riding as fast as guys 30 years younger.
> At one stage my daily weight records showed I lost Kgm a week.
> I amused myself when I stalled trying to ride up some hills last July.
> The riding is not a leisurely activity just to take in the sights and
> sounds of nature,
> but a form of self inflicted pain which is excruciatingly enjoyable,
> especially when riding up steep long hills with elevated heart rates,
> or pushing hard along a flat stretch to catch some dude way out in the
> distance,
> or to hang on behind the 30 year old.
>
> If you ride real slow, say no faster than you'd jog, you get a sore arse
> and get bored, and the energy consumption
> is less than walking, good for you, but not nearly as good if you
> elevate the heart rate
> for 3 hours straight and could barely talk to anyone if they were
> present.
> But not all the time, not while going down hill.
> At a sweat inducing level, especially on a freezing cold day, one can
> burn huge amounts of fats.
> So best value from cycling is in the winter time, and because snow is so
> very rare here,
> the cold cloudless skies of about now to September seem to have been
> designed by God for cyclist
> pleasure.
>
> Even at my age perhaps i burn 600cals per hour and so a 4 hr ride uses
> 2,400 cals,
> or about the same amount as I use in a 24hr day of sedentary life.
> This equals about 200gms of fat, so 8 hrs a week uses 400gms of fat
> if you still eat the same as when sedentary.
>
> So the bicycle can create a calorie deficit.
> The only way I could lose weight easily without feeling hungry all the
> time
> was to cycle, and switch my diet to a big salad each day and a reduction
> of meat and fat and carbohydrates to a minimum.
> I completely gave up bread for the 6mths after July.
> Processed food is the very worst crap you can ever eat, so i don't, and
> if everyone was like me
> and couldn't be fooled easily, the whole food producing industry of the
> world
> would go stone motherless broke.
> The excess food that would then be available as natural
> produce from US and Oz farmers could then feed the rest of the hungry
> world
> with ease.
>
> When you get lean and fit, the natural heart rate at rest will fall from
> a common 64BPM down to
> say 52BPM even if you are 60 like me. A young bloke of 25 who did the
> exercize I take would
> benefit even more greatly, and have a HR maybe 45.
> When I was fit when 40, my HR was 47BPM.
> Of course when you exercize, the body rebels to the torture, and becomes
> more efficient about
> processing the food, so a little food goes a long way, so you won't lose
> weight if you exercize and
> eat a pile of crappy fat rich garbage afterwards.
> I like cabage based salads, 4 apples a day, maybe two bananas and an
> orange,
> a large serve of cooked oats and yogurt for breakfast; forget about ham,
> bacon, sausages,
> soft drinks, cheeses, white breads, butter margerine, and all that crap
> in plastic packets
> with lots of numbers on the label which mean its riddled with dangerous
> chemicals to make you feel hungry, and eat more.
> protein comes from eggs, and lean meat and fish, which I cannot get
> enough of
> because what is now beiong sold as fish is often not fish, or its really
> crappy,
> because mankind has cleaned out the world's oceans of fish.
> So I feel guilty eating fish from the sea, not to mention its 5 times
> the price
> of lean bargain meats selling for $7 a Kg, enough to last me a week.
> I do use some olive oil. Its good for anyone, and better than the fats
> which I won't eat, and trim off the meat
> before I cook it. Animal fat is also where a lot of pesticide and
> hormone residues end up,
> so don't eat fats. You don't need them and we didn't evolve to survive
> off fats.
> I never buy deep fried chips, or drink coka cola, its all crap.
>
> Nathan Pritikin said in his book about nutrition for runners that all
> you need is
> to eat so that 80% of the energy comes from complex carbohydrates,
> 10% from proteins, and 10% from fats.
>
> Since most UNREFINED grains or breads made with real wholemeal flour has
> the whole goodness kept in, not pulled out to get greed driven sales
> elsewhere,
> then it has the 20% of protien and fat you need, and the CH slow burning
> energy.
> But even most wholemeal wheat breads are now using rapid yeasts and
> chemicals and
> I don't eat that anymore, and buy rye natural breads instead, and only
> need a
> couple of slices a day.
>
>
> People in the US, UK and Oz are rapidly assuming pig like proportions.
>
>
> When I am at the supermarket, I am appalled at the fat arse queus lining
> up with
> trolleys full of crap.
> Probably they suffer affluenza, the dysfunctional syndrome of living too
> high
> and being anxious about everything, so they ain't fit, don't relate
> well, and don't ****,
> and feed their mouth instead.
>
>
> I continue to ride about 150km a week and weight has stabilised,
> and bmi appears to be a lot better in the mirror.
> I treat myself to the occasional 100gm bar of Lindt 70% cocoa choclate.
> Its ****ing divine this stuff.
> Its much better than buying a 600gram milk chocolate bar with less cocoa
> and piled high with fats and sugar,
> and chemicals to make you buy more, along with hydrogenated fats to give
> long shelf life,
> but which are really terrible for your heart.
> There are attempts to ban what they are putting into foods now, and as
> fast as the banners get stuff
> banned, the chemists with no conscience dream up new chemicals.
>
> If I have done 100km on a saturday, I will treat myself to a large serve
> of Bavarian Apple from Pancake Parlour, with ice cream and cream,
> and unlike a couple of fat guys who play chess while I am there, I don't
> have diabetes, and
> have earned the treat, which won't hurt me.
> These fatsos don't do anything except sit around, and they are paying
> the price.
>
> Too much sitting on me arse chatting on news groups and typing up
> website
> pages and doing electronics had made me heavy.
> Now when i have to go into a computer shop there are all these young
> dudes and they all look a bit crook,
> a bit overweight, and kinda grey, like their PCs have sucked the very
> life out of them.
>
> I played Rugby Union when at school, and frankly it was guys just
> tumbling over each other,
> and I went home sore and sorry after most games. Lord knows how many
> unseen injuries meant trouble later in life. Cycling is much better,
> unless you fall off, but even if you do, you recover so fast it matters
> not.
> Cycling has speed, exhilaration, changing scenery, weather, varied
> circumstances,
> and needs alertness, rapid reflexes, careful judgements, and you learn
> lessons
> about life.
>
> I am really lucky that there are hundreds of Km of cycling paths here to
> ride on,
> and that don't include the mountain trails through the bush for which a
> mountain bike becomes sensible.
> Mountain biking is about getting hot riding up steep climbs slowly, and
> descending
> with care and putting up with a far rougher ride than on the road.
> Modern bikes have suspension and are useable by folks like me over 50
> without
> enduring injuries.
>
> And even though Canberra has 330,000 people I only have to ride 4Km and
> I am
> in the middle of sheep paddocks and horse paddocks, and big wide country
> areas.
> It ain't like London or NY, or Sydney.
>
> >
> > If one calculates based on the "average" that individuals undercount
> > their weight by ~5 pounds, or 2kg, it is obese. In McCoy's case,
> > using only 2kg is generous given its love of the truth.
> >
> > No wonder nothing but shadow-pictures, and claims of great height (but
> > only while riding).
> >
> > Rugby player...
> >
> > Peter Wieck
>
> So how do you stay fit Peter?
>
> Patrick Turner.
>
>
> > Wyncote, PA

Patrick: I think your regiment is almost ideal for cardio-vascular
workouts. Do you not believe that working out for the upper body is also
important? There have been many studies that show longevity is best
accomplished by free weights. Nautilus equipment come in a close second and
for the most part, is more practical.

west

[Patrick Turner]

Keith G wrote:
>
> "Patrick Turner" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Keith G wrote:
> >>
> >> "Patrick Turner" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Keith G wrote:
> >> > snip,
> >> >>
> >> >> 60 eh? - I'm 60 *tomorrow*!! :-)
> >> >
> >> > Look, I lied a bit.
> >> >
> >> > I have 2 months to go before 60 arrives.
> >> > I feel 30 most days
> >>
> >> You're lucky - I barely get to feel more than a couple a month....
> >
> > Ah, a statement by one very insipid mind....
>
> Works for me - I'll take 'insipid' over *flaky* any time!!
>
> We've done the frantic bike-riding, now tell us other ways how you work
> your celibacy off...

Nicole and Kylie are both just great, and need my attentions.......

One does a great job clipping the hedge,
while the other handles the mower on the lawns like a real pro....

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

west wrote:
>
> "Patrick Turner" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Peter Wieck wrote:
> > >
> > > > I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead.
> > > > Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player,
> > >
> > > Hmmm.... that would be just under 202 pounds, figure at about
> > > 5'-9" (1.75 meters) = BMI of 29.8.... Using metric numbers, a BMI of
> > > 29.9. Obese is 30.
> >
> > I'm 1.872M x 77Kg, which gives bmi = 21.948, and about the same as i was
> > when 25.
> > but last year in July I was 95Kg, and bmi = 27, and I considered myself
> > overweight.
> >
> > Between last July and January, I rode about 200km a week, or about
> > 5,000km,
> > and my weight reduced from 95Kg to 77Kg and probably I lost 20Kg of fat,
> > about the weight of a seriously good monoblok tube amp,
> > or the equivalent of at least 5 x 4Litre cans of olive oil, and put on
> > about 2 Kg of muscle
> > which keeps me riding as fast as guys 30 years younger.
> > At one stage my daily weight records showed I lost Kgm a week.
> > I amused myself when I stalled trying to ride up some hills last July.
> > The riding is not a leisurely activity just to take in the sights and
> > sounds of nature,
> > but a form of self inflicted pain which is excruciatingly enjoyable,
> > especially when riding up steep long hills with elevated heart rates,
> > or pushing hard along a flat stretch to catch some dude way out in the
> > distance,
> > or to hang on behind the 30 year old.
> >
> > If you ride real slow, say no faster than you'd jog, you get a sore arse
> > and get bored, and the energy consumption
> > is less than walking, good for you, but not nearly as good if you
> > elevate the heart rate
> > for 3 hours straight and could barely talk to anyone if they were
> > present.
> > But not all the time, not while going down hill.
> > At a sweat inducing level, especially on a freezing cold day, one can
> > burn huge amounts of fats.
> > So best value from cycling is in the winter time, and because snow is so
> > very rare here,
> > the cold cloudless skies of about now to September seem to have been
> > designed by God for cyclist
> > pleasure.
> >
> > Even at my age perhaps i burn 600cals per hour and so a 4 hr ride uses
> > 2,400 cals,
> > or about the same amount as I use in a 24hr day of sedentary life.
> > This equals about 200gms of fat, so 8 hrs a week uses 400gms of fat
> > if you still eat the same as when sedentary.
> >
> > So the bicycle can create a calorie deficit.
> > The only way I could lose weight easily without feeling hungry all the
> > time
> > was to cycle, and switch my diet to a big salad each day and a reduction
> > of meat and fat and carbohydrates to a minimum.
> > I completely gave up bread for the 6mths after July.
> > Processed food is the very worst crap you can ever eat, so i don't, and
> > if everyone was like me
> > and couldn't be fooled easily, the whole food producing industry of the
> > world
> > would go stone motherless broke.
> > The excess food that would then be available as natural
> > produce from US and Oz farmers could then feed the rest of the hungry
> > world
> > with ease.
> >
> > When you get lean and fit, the natural heart rate at rest will fall from
> > a common 64BPM down to
> > say 52BPM even if you are 60 like me. A young bloke of 25 who did the
> > exercize I take would
> > benefit even more greatly, and have a HR maybe 45.
> > When I was fit when 40, my HR was 47BPM.
> > Of course when you exercize, the body rebels to the torture, and becomes
> > more efficient about
> > processing the food, so a little food goes a long way, so you won't lose
> > weight if you exercize and
> > eat a pile of crappy fat rich garbage afterwards.
> > I like cabage based salads, 4 apples a day, maybe two bananas and an
> > orange,
> > a large serve of cooked oats and yogurt for breakfast; forget about ham,
> > bacon, sausages,
> > soft drinks, cheeses, white breads, butter margerine, and all that crap
> > in plastic packets
> > with lots of numbers on the label which mean its riddled with dangerous
> > chemicals to make you feel hungry, and eat more.
> > protein comes from eggs, and lean meat and fish, which I cannot get
> > enough of
> > because what is now beiong sold as fish is often not fish, or its really
> > crappy,
> > because mankind has cleaned out the world's oceans of fish.
> > So I feel guilty eating fish from the sea, not to mention its 5 times
> > the price
> > of lean bargain meats selling for $7 a Kg, enough to last me a week.
> > I do use some olive oil. Its good for anyone, and better than the fats
> > which I won't eat, and trim off the meat
> > before I cook it. Animal fat is also where a lot of pesticide and
> > hormone residues end up,
> > so don't eat fats. You don't need them and we didn't evolve to survive
> > off fats.
> > I never buy deep fried chips, or drink coka cola, its all crap.
> >
> > Nathan Pritikin said in his book about nutrition for runners that all
> > you need is
> > to eat so that 80% of the energy comes from complex carbohydrates,
> > 10% from proteins, and 10% from fats.
> >
> > Since most UNREFINED grains or breads made with real wholemeal flour has
> > the whole goodness kept in, not pulled out to get greed driven sales
> > elsewhere,
> > then it has the 20% of protien and fat you need, and the CH slow burning
> > energy.
> > But even most wholemeal wheat breads are now using rapid yeasts and
> > chemicals and
> > I don't eat that anymore, and buy rye natural breads instead, and only
> > need a
> > couple of slices a day.
> >
> >
> > People in the US, UK and Oz are rapidly assuming pig like proportions.
> >
> >
> > When I am at the supermarket, I am appalled at the fat arse queus lining
> > up with
> > trolleys full of crap.
> > Probably they suffer affluenza, the dysfunctional syndrome of living too
> > high
> > and being anxious about everything, so they ain't fit, don't relate
> > well, and don't ****,
> > and feed their mouth instead.
> >
> >
> > I continue to ride about 150km a week and weight has stabilised,
> > and bmi appears to be a lot better in the mirror.
> > I treat myself to the occasional 100gm bar of Lindt 70% cocoa choclate.
> > Its ****ing divine this stuff.
> > Its much better than buying a 600gram milk chocolate bar with less cocoa
> > and piled high with fats and sugar,
> > and chemicals to make you buy more, along with hydrogenated fats to give
> > long shelf life,
> > but which are really terrible for your heart.
> > There are attempts to ban what they are putting into foods now, and as
> > fast as the banners get stuff
> > banned, the chemists with no conscience dream up new chemicals.
> >
> > If I have done 100km on a saturday, I will treat myself to a large serve
> > of Bavarian Apple from Pancake Parlour, with ice cream and cream,
> > and unlike a couple of fat guys who play chess while I am there, I don't
> > have diabetes, and
> > have earned the treat, which won't hurt me.
> > These fatsos don't do anything except sit around, and they are paying
> > the price.
> >
> > Too much sitting on me arse chatting on news groups and typing up
> > website
> > pages and doing electronics had made me heavy.
> > Now when i have to go into a computer shop there are all these young
> > dudes and they all look a bit crook,
> > a bit overweight, and kinda grey, like their PCs have sucked the very
> > life out of them.
> >
> > I played Rugby Union when at school, and frankly it was guys just
> > tumbling over each other,
> > and I went home sore and sorry after most games. Lord knows how many
> > unseen injuries meant trouble later in life. Cycling is much better,
> > unless you fall off, but even if you do, you recover so fast it matters
> > not.
> > Cycling has speed, exhilaration, changing scenery, weather, varied
> > circumstances,
> > and needs alertness, rapid reflexes, careful judgements, and you learn
> > lessons
> > about life.
> >
> > I am really lucky that there are hundreds of Km of cycling paths here to
> > ride on,
> > and that don't include the mountain trails through the bush for which a
> > mountain bike becomes sensible.
> > Mountain biking is about getting hot riding up steep climbs slowly, and
> > descending
> > with care and putting up with a far rougher ride than on the road.
> > Modern bikes have suspension and are useable by folks like me over 50
> > without
> > enduring injuries.
> >
> > And even though Canberra has 330,000 people I only have to ride 4Km and
> > I am
> > in the middle of sheep paddocks and horse paddocks, and big wide country
> > areas.
> > It ain't like London or NY, or Sydney.
> >
> > >
> > > If one calculates based on the "average" that individuals undercount
> > > their weight by ~5 pounds, or 2kg, it is obese. In McCoy's case,
> > > using only 2kg is generous given its love of the truth.
> > >
> > > No wonder nothing but shadow-pictures, and claims of great height (but
> > > only while riding).
> > >
> > > Rugby player...
> > >
> > > Peter Wieck
> >
> > So how do you stay fit Peter?
> >
> > Patrick Turner.
> >
> >
> > > Wyncote, PA
>
> Patrick: I think your regiment is almost ideal for cardio-vascular
> workouts. Do you not believe that working out for the upper body is also
> important? There have been many studies that show longevity is best
> accomplished by free weights. Nautilus equipment come in a close second and
> for the most part, is more practical.

Nicole and Kylie provide me with ample opportunity
for topside exercize.
They are very happy with my longevity as well.

The Nautilus sounds like a great idea, but
I am still searching for a suitable private ocean I can buy
to run such a nice sub with all mod cons for me and the gals of course.
They like to take turns using my depth sounder.

I am negotiating with Captain Nemo, who despite his age is a whiz on the
sextant,
and thus knows his way around, giant squids permitting....

But we had to tell him he could only play his organ if we all went
ashore....

The free weights you mention are not available yet in Oz and the prices
here
for weights are exorbident. Before being sold in fatness outlets,
there was a scam here involving weight supplies,
and a dealer offered very long weights online for a low fee, and many
people got caught and are
still weighting for the weights to arrive years later.

Unfortunately, last time I looked in at the gym, I was appalled by the
smell, the absurdity,
the loud raucus dance music, non audiophile PA gear, and all these ppl
working up a sweat but going nowhere,
and the far too few women didn't want to dance with anyone.
I heard you had to pay to go there! crayzee!!.

Patrick Turner.




>
> west

[west[_4_]]

"Patrick Turner" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> west wrote:
> >
> > "Patrick Turner" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Wieck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling
instead.
> > > > > Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby
player,
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm.... that would be just under 202 pounds, figure at about
> > > > 5'-9" (1.75 meters) = BMI of 29.8.... Using metric numbers, a BMI of
> > > > 29.9. Obese is 30.
> > >
> > > I'm 1.872M x 77Kg, which gives bmi = 21.948, and about the same as i
was
> > > when 25.
> > > but last year in July I was 95Kg, and bmi = 27, and I considered
myself
> > > overweight.
> > >
> > > Between last July and January, I rode about 200km a week, or about
> > > 5,000km,
> > > and my weight reduced from 95Kg to 77Kg and probably I lost 20Kg of
fat,
> > > about the weight of a seriously good monoblok tube amp,
> > > or the equivalent of at least 5 x 4Litre cans of olive oil, and put on
> > > about 2 Kg of muscle
> > > which keeps me riding as fast as guys 30 years younger.
> > > At one stage my daily weight records showed I lost Kgm a week.
> > > I amused myself when I stalled trying to ride up some hills last July.
> > > The riding is not a leisurely activity just to take in the sights and
> > > sounds of nature,
> > > but a form of self inflicted pain which is excruciatingly enjoyable,
> > > especially when riding up steep long hills with elevated heart rates,
> > > or pushing hard along a flat stretch to catch some dude way out in the
> > > distance,
> > > or to hang on behind the 30 year old.
> > >
> > > If you ride real slow, say no faster than you'd jog, you get a sore
arse
> > > and get bored, and the energy consumption
> > > is less than walking, good for you, but not nearly as good if you
> > > elevate the heart rate
> > > for 3 hours straight and could barely talk to anyone if they were
> > > present.
> > > But not all the time, not while going down hill.
> > > At a sweat inducing level, especially on a freezing cold day, one can
> > > burn huge amounts of fats.
> > > So best value from cycling is in the winter time, and because snow is
so
> > > very rare here,
> > > the cold cloudless skies of about now to September seem to have been
> > > designed by God for cyclist
> > > pleasure.
> > >
> > > Even at my age perhaps i burn 600cals per hour and so a 4 hr ride uses
> > > 2,400 cals,
> > > or about the same amount as I use in a 24hr day of sedentary life.
> > > This equals about 200gms of fat, so 8 hrs a week uses 400gms of fat
> > > if you still eat the same as when sedentary.
> > >
> > > So the bicycle can create a calorie deficit.
> > > The only way I could lose weight easily without feeling hungry all the
> > > time
> > > was to cycle, and switch my diet to a big salad each day and a
reduction
> > > of meat and fat and carbohydrates to a minimum.
> > > I completely gave up bread for the 6mths after July.
> > > Processed food is the very worst crap you can ever eat, so i don't,
and
> > > if everyone was like me
> > > and couldn't be fooled easily, the whole food producing industry of
the
> > > world
> > > would go stone motherless broke.
> > > The excess food that would then be available as natural
> > > produce from US and Oz farmers could then feed the rest of the hungry
> > > world
> > > with ease.
> > >
> > > When you get lean and fit, the natural heart rate at rest will fall
from
> > > a common 64BPM down to
> > > say 52BPM even if you are 60 like me. A young bloke of 25 who did the
> > > exercize I take would
> > > benefit even more greatly, and have a HR maybe 45.
> > > When I was fit when 40, my HR was 47BPM.
> > > Of course when you exercize, the body rebels to the torture, and
becomes
> > > more efficient about
> > > processing the food, so a little food goes a long way, so you won't
lose
> > > weight if you exercize and
> > > eat a pile of crappy fat rich garbage afterwards.
> > > I like cabage based salads, 4 apples a day, maybe two bananas and an
> > > orange,
> > > a large serve of cooked oats and yogurt for breakfast; forget about
ham,
> > > bacon, sausages,
> > > soft drinks, cheeses, white breads, butter margerine, and all that
crap
> > > in plastic packets
> > > with lots of numbers on the label which mean its riddled with
dangerous
> > > chemicals to make you feel hungry, and eat more.
> > > protein comes from eggs, and lean meat and fish, which I cannot get
> > > enough of
> > > because what is now beiong sold as fish is often not fish, or its
really
> > > crappy,
> > > because mankind has cleaned out the world's oceans of fish.
> > > So I feel guilty eating fish from the sea, not to mention its 5 times
> > > the price
> > > of lean bargain meats selling for $7 a Kg, enough to last me a week.
> > > I do use some olive oil. Its good for anyone, and better than the fats
> > > which I won't eat, and trim off the meat
> > > before I cook it. Animal fat is also where a lot of pesticide and
> > > hormone residues end up,
> > > so don't eat fats. You don't need them and we didn't evolve to survive
> > > off fats.
> > > I never buy deep fried chips, or drink coka cola, its all crap.
> > >
> > > Nathan Pritikin said in his book about nutrition for runners that all
> > > you need is
> > > to eat so that 80% of the energy comes from complex carbohydrates,
> > > 10% from proteins, and 10% from fats.
> > >
> > > Since most UNREFINED grains or breads made with real wholemeal flour
has
> > > the whole goodness kept in, not pulled out to get greed driven sales
> > > elsewhere,
> > > then it has the 20% of protien and fat you need, and the CH slow
burning
> > > energy.
> > > But even most wholemeal wheat breads are now using rapid yeasts and
> > > chemicals and
> > > I don't eat that anymore, and buy rye natural breads instead, and only
> > > need a
> > > couple of slices a day.
> > >
> > >
> > > People in the US, UK and Oz are rapidly assuming pig like proportions.
> > >
> > >
> > > When I am at the supermarket, I am appalled at the fat arse queus
lining
> > > up with
> > > trolleys full of crap.
> > > Probably they suffer affluenza, the dysfunctional syndrome of living
too
> > > high
> > > and being anxious about everything, so they ain't fit, don't relate
> > > well, and don't ****,
> > > and feed their mouth instead.
> > >
> > >
> > > I continue to ride about 150km a week and weight has stabilised,
> > > and bmi appears to be a lot better in the mirror.
> > > I treat myself to the occasional 100gm bar of Lindt 70% cocoa
choclate.
> > > Its ****ing divine this stuff.
> > > Its much better than buying a 600gram milk chocolate bar with less
cocoa
> > > and piled high with fats and sugar,
> > > and chemicals to make you buy more, along with hydrogenated fats to
give
> > > long shelf life,
> > > but which are really terrible for your heart.
> > > There are attempts to ban what they are putting into foods now, and as
> > > fast as the banners get stuff
> > > banned, the chemists with no conscience dream up new chemicals.
> > >
> > > If I have done 100km on a saturday, I will treat myself to a large
serve
> > > of Bavarian Apple from Pancake Parlour, with ice cream and cream,
> > > and unlike a couple of fat guys who play chess while I am there, I
don't
> > > have diabetes, and
> > > have earned the treat, which won't hurt me.
> > > These fatsos don't do anything except sit around, and they are paying
> > > the price.
> > >
> > > Too much sitting on me arse chatting on news groups and typing up
> > > website
> > > pages and doing electronics had made me heavy.
> > > Now when i have to go into a computer shop there are all these young
> > > dudes and they all look a bit crook,
> > > a bit overweight, and kinda grey, like their PCs have sucked the very
> > > life out of them.
> > >
> > > I played Rugby Union when at school, and frankly it was guys just
> > > tumbling over each other,
> > > and I went home sore and sorry after most games. Lord knows how many
> > > unseen injuries meant trouble later in life. Cycling is much better,
> > > unless you fall off, but even if you do, you recover so fast it
matters
> > > not.
> > > Cycling has speed, exhilaration, changing scenery, weather, varied
> > > circumstances,
> > > and needs alertness, rapid reflexes, careful judgements, and you learn
> > > lessons
> > > about life.
> > >
> > > I am really lucky that there are hundreds of Km of cycling paths here
to
> > > ride on,
> > > and that don't include the mountain trails through the bush for which
a
> > > mountain bike becomes sensible.
> > > Mountain biking is about getting hot riding up steep climbs slowly,
and
> > > descending
> > > with care and putting up with a far rougher ride than on the road.
> > > Modern bikes have suspension and are useable by folks like me over 50
> > > without
> > > enduring injuries.
> > >
> > > And even though Canberra has 330,000 people I only have to ride 4Km
and
> > > I am
> > > in the middle of sheep paddocks and horse paddocks, and big wide
country
> > > areas.
> > > It ain't like London or NY, or Sydney.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If one calculates based on the "average" that individuals undercount
> > > > their weight by ~5 pounds, or 2kg, it is obese. In McCoy's case,
> > > > using only 2kg is generous given its love of the truth.
> > > >
> > > > No wonder nothing but shadow-pictures, and claims of great height
(but
> > > > only while riding).
> > > >
> > > > Rugby player...
> > > >
> > > > Peter Wieck
> > >
> > > So how do you stay fit Peter?
> > >
> > > Patrick Turner.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Wyncote, PA
> >
> > Patrick: I think your regiment is almost ideal for cardio-vascular
> > workouts. Do you not believe that working out for the upper body is also
> > important? There have been many studies that show longevity is best
> > accomplished by free weights. Nautilus equipment come in a close second
and
> > for the most part, is more practical.
>
> Nicole and Kylie provide me with ample opportunity
> for topside exercize.
> They are very happy with my longevity as well.
>
> The Nautilus sounds like a great idea, but
> I am still searching for a suitable private ocean I can buy
> to run such a nice sub with all mod cons for me and the gals of course.
> They like to take turns using my depth sounder.
>
> I am negotiating with Captain Nemo, who despite his age is a whiz on the
> sextant,
> and thus knows his way around, giant squids permitting....
>
> But we had to tell him he could only play his organ if we all went
> ashore....
>
> The free weights you mention are not available yet in Oz and the prices
> here
> for weights are exorbident. Before being sold in fatness outlets,
> there was a scam here involving weight supplies,
> and a dealer offered very long weights online for a low fee, and many
> people got caught and are
> still weighting for the weights to arrive years later.
>
> Unfortunately, last time I looked in at the gym, I was appalled by the
> smell, the absurdity,
> the loud raucus dance music, non audiophile PA gear, and all these ppl
> working up a sweat but going nowhere,
> and the far too few women didn't want to dance with anyone.
> I heard you had to pay to go there! crayzee!!.
>
> Patrick Turner.

To each his own. It's that very smell that attracts characters like Weick.
The gym I go to doesn't have a smell. At least it's hardly noticeable. After
using an apparatus, rules require the user to spray the equipment and wipe
it with a towel.
You must have sexy legs but a flabby torso. Look good in shorts as long as
you keep your shirt on?

west
>
>
>
>
> >
> > west

[west[_4_]]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> west wrote:
> > "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> > ps.com...
> > >
> > > Patrick Turner wrote:
> > > > Andre Jute wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Seeing all the posts about RIAA filters, I can only say I hope
none of
> > > > > the participants passed on the gene of obsessive shortsightedness
that
> > > > > draws audiophiles into the wastelands of RIAA. Vinyl discs are bad
> > > > > enough when good clean CD's are available, but RIAA is a bodge to
> > > > > correct another bodge. Two bodges don't make it right.
> > > > >
> > > > > Andre Jute
> > > > > uses only CD and so has time for more music
> > > >
> > > > I doubt you really know what you are missing out upon.
> > > >
> > > > But all the really keen musically eclectic ppl i know who have vast
cd
> > > > collections
> > > > indicating a misspent middle age also still enjoy vinyl.
> > > > Most find that despite the vast sums they have spent on
> > > > cd players and transports, da converters, isolation platforms and
> > > > other widgets and gadgets, the humble black disk continues to
delight,
> > > > and
> > > > give a greater sense of connection to the artist than any CD manages
to
> > > > do.
> > > >
> > > > I have been present at a number of AB comparisons where a CD version
> > > > and vinyl version of the same material from the same grand old
master
> > > > tape
> > > > was being played, and we could switch from one to the other,
> > > > and vinyl seemed to have more to offer the audiophile subjectively.
> > > >
> > > > Mind you, the whole analog recording process onto tape et all is a
huge
> > > > bodge to.
> > > >
> > > > So is FM stereo mulptiplexing.
> > > >
> > > > Never mind the bodges, the sound does not seem to suffer, when they
do
> > > > it right, IMHO.
> > > >
> > > > Patrick Turner.
> > >
> > > I used to have c8000 vinyl discs, including some old shellac. I sold
> > > the important subcollections and gave the rest away. Vinyl is just too
> > > time-consuming. So much music to listen to, so little time. CDs are a
> > > boon.
> > >
> > > I think there is a certain masochism afield among audiophiles. Like
> > > Morgan owners, or MG owners, they think that hardship on one's
> > > pleasures is a symptom of manliness. I don't. I always preferred
> > > Porsche. cars that worked and offered a modicum of comfort, and big-
> > > engined fast tourers rather than harsh, loud sports cars. Same in my
> > > sound systems. I define what I want the sound to be and to do, and
> > > then put it together like that. That is why I think horns and panels
> > > are important, and ultra-simple amplifiers -- and CDs, so that
> > > chaniging the music is quick and easy.
> > >
> > > There is nothing wrong with CD sound quality; it is better than good
> > > enough. I decided to go over solely to CD on the day Nimbus, who
> > > transfer ancient discs to CD, sent me a box of CDs including one of
> > > Ponselle that was better than anything you could buy on any other
> > > medium, no matter how much money you spent.
> > >
> > > Andre Jute
> > > Our legislators managed to criminalize fox-hunting and smoking; when
> > > they will get off their collective fat backside and criminalize
> > > negative feedback? It is clearly consumed only by the enemies of
> > > fidelity.
> > >
> > Andre: I am not taking a position on the vinyl vs.CD debate but I am
> > wondering if the convenience of playing both mediums were equal, which
would
> > you prefer?
>
> That's a good question, West. I would choose CD because it doesn't
> wear and it is small. I have 6000 CDs (or so) in a fraction of the
> space consumed by 8000 LPs. Vinyl is (for me) simply a nuisance
> unjustified by whatever extra audiophiles claim to hear in the
> grooves.
>
> > Next question, if you don't mind ...what are you using to play your CDs?
>
> Quad CD66 and CD67, very old, very reliable. Both of mine were on
> lease to the BBC, then checked over at the factory before they came to
> me about fifteen years ago.
>
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > west

I guess you're not into SACDs or keeping up with the Jones'. Do you use a
high efficiency horn or those ESL 57s? I'm trying to picture your system
from some of your posts. Perhaps you use 2 systems.

west
>
> Andre Jute
> Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
> "wonderfully well written and reasoned information
> for the tube audio constructor"
> John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
> "an unbelievably comprehensive web site
> containing vital gems of wisdom"
> Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review
>

[George M. Middius]

"west" said:

> I think your regiment is almost ideal

If so, let's send 'em to Iraq ASAP.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Peter Wieck]

On May 17, 8:36 am, John Byrns > wrote:
> In article om>,
> Peter Wieck > wrote:
>
>
>
> > True, there must be someone quite clever behind it... but I seriously
> > doubt that the persona we observe here is anything at all like that
> > actual individual. So, whereas I may not *like* you, I must respect
> > you. McCoy I neither like nor dislike as I do not believe there is an
> > actual "there" to deserve such efforts. Tweaking it is great fun,
> > however.
>
> Somehow that paragraph seems internally inconsistent. If "Andre" is
> nothing but a chimera as you believe, but as you say "there must be
> someone quite clever behind it", then that person would be an
> actual "there", deserving of either your like or dislike.
>
> Regards,
>
> John Byrns
>
> --
> Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

Logic chopping. Your specialty.

I would like to believe that the entity behind "the real McCoy" is
having as much fun as I do, or at least one hopes so. The alternative
is too sad to contemplate... again leaving no room for "like" or
"dislike"... as the entity is simply not worth it.

If my contention is true, perhaps grudging admiration... but not
dislike. Dislike I reserve for those worthy of such efforts.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Peter Wieck]

On May 17, 8:46 am, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> John Byrns said to Worthless Wiecky:
>
> > > McCoy I neither like nor dislike as I do not believe there is an
> > > actual "there" to deserve such efforts.
> > Somehow that paragraph seems internally inconsistent. If "Andre" is
> > nothing but a chimera as you believe, but as you say "there must be
> > someone quite clever behind it", then that person would be an
> > actual "there", deserving of either your like or dislike.
>
> No point in getting all philosophical. The prime directive of
> Worthlessism is Nothing Shall Make Sense.
>
> > > Tweaking it is great fun
>
> That explains a lot, Worthless. Too bad you don't have the stones to
> make a living at your "hobby".
>
> Here's a pic of Worthless's role model:http://www.capohedz.com/typebrighter/uploaded_images/photo_12-793513.jpg
>
> --
>
> Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Actually I make a very good living at what I enjoy, as it happens, so
that I may have hobbies. And I have hobbies such that I can indulge in
them without the need to "make a living at them". Imagine you trying
to make a living at anything having to do with electronics... much
less tubes.

As turnabout is fair play, here is "the commander" at work:

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/sha0090l.jpg

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Patrick Turner]

west wrote:
>
> "Patrick Turner" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > west wrote:
> > >
> > > "Patrick Turner" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Peter Wieck wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling
> instead.
> > > > > > Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby
> player,
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmmm.... that would be just under 202 pounds, figure at about
> > > > > 5'-9" (1.75 meters) = BMI of 29.8.... Using metric numbers, a BMI of
> > > > > 29.9. Obese is 30.
> > > >
> > > > I'm 1.872M x 77Kg, which gives bmi = 21.948, and about the same as i
> was
> > > > when 25.
> > > > but last year in July I was 95Kg, and bmi = 27, and I considered
> myself
> > > > overweight.
> > > >
> > > > Between last July and January, I rode about 200km a week, or about
> > > > 5,000km,
> > > > and my weight reduced from 95Kg to 77Kg and probably I lost 20Kg of
> fat,
> > > > about the weight of a seriously good monoblok tube amp,
> > > > or the equivalent of at least 5 x 4Litre cans of olive oil, and put on
> > > > about 2 Kg of muscle
> > > > which keeps me riding as fast as guys 30 years younger.
> > > > At one stage my daily weight records showed I lost Kgm a week.
> > > > I amused myself when I stalled trying to ride up some hills last July.
> > > > The riding is not a leisurely activity just to take in the sights and
> > > > sounds of nature,
> > > > but a form of self inflicted pain which is excruciatingly enjoyable,
> > > > especially when riding up steep long hills with elevated heart rates,
> > > > or pushing hard along a flat stretch to catch some dude way out in the
> > > > distance,
> > > > or to hang on behind the 30 year old.
> > > >
> > > > If you ride real slow, say no faster than you'd jog, you get a sore
> arse
> > > > and get bored, and the energy consumption
> > > > is less than walking, good for you, but not nearly as good if you
> > > > elevate the heart rate
> > > > for 3 hours straight and could barely talk to anyone if they were
> > > > present.
> > > > But not all the time, not while going down hill.
> > > > At a sweat inducing level, especially on a freezing cold day, one can
> > > > burn huge amounts of fats.
> > > > So best value from cycling is in the winter time, and because snow is
> so
> > > > very rare here,
> > > > the cold cloudless skies of about now to September seem to have been
> > > > designed by God for cyclist
> > > > pleasure.
> > > >
> > > > Even at my age perhaps i burn 600cals per hour and so a 4 hr ride uses
> > > > 2,400 cals,
> > > > or about the same amount as I use in a 24hr day of sedentary life.
> > > > This equals about 200gms of fat, so 8 hrs a week uses 400gms of fat
> > > > if you still eat the same as when sedentary.
> > > >
> > > > So the bicycle can create a calorie deficit.
> > > > The only way I could lose weight easily without feeling hungry all the
> > > > time
> > > > was to cycle, and switch my diet to a big salad each day and a
> reduction
> > > > of meat and fat and carbohydrates to a minimum.
> > > > I completely gave up bread for the 6mths after July.
> > > > Processed food is the very worst crap you can ever eat, so i don't,
> and
> > > > if everyone was like me
> > > > and couldn't be fooled easily, the whole food producing industry of
> the
> > > > world
> > > > would go stone motherless broke.
> > > > The excess food that would then be available as natural
> > > > produce from US and Oz farmers could then feed the rest of the hungry
> > > > world
> > > > with ease.
> > > >
> > > > When you get lean and fit, the natural heart rate at rest will fall
> from
> > > > a common 64BPM down to
> > > > say 52BPM even if you are 60 like me. A young bloke of 25 who did the
> > > > exercize I take would
> > > > benefit even more greatly, and have a HR maybe 45.
> > > > When I was fit when 40, my HR was 47BPM.
> > > > Of course when you exercize, the body rebels to the torture, and
> becomes
> > > > more efficient about
> > > > processing the food, so a little food goes a long way, so you won't
> lose
> > > > weight if you exercize and
> > > > eat a pile of crappy fat rich garbage afterwards.
> > > > I like cabage based salads, 4 apples a day, maybe two bananas and an
> > > > orange,
> > > > a large serve of cooked oats and yogurt for breakfast; forget about
> ham,
> > > > bacon, sausages,
> > > > soft drinks, cheeses, white breads, butter margerine, and all that
> crap
> > > > in plastic packets
> > > > with lots of numbers on the label which mean its riddled with
> dangerous
> > > > chemicals to make you feel hungry, and eat more.
> > > > protein comes from eggs, and lean meat and fish, which I cannot get
> > > > enough of
> > > > because what is now beiong sold as fish is often not fish, or its
> really
> > > > crappy,
> > > > because mankind has cleaned out the world's oceans of fish.
> > > > So I feel guilty eating fish from the sea, not to mention its 5 times
> > > > the price
> > > > of lean bargain meats selling for $7 a Kg, enough to last me a week.
> > > > I do use some olive oil. Its good for anyone, and better than the fats
> > > > which I won't eat, and trim off the meat
> > > > before I cook it. Animal fat is also where a lot of pesticide and
> > > > hormone residues end up,
> > > > so don't eat fats. You don't need them and we didn't evolve to survive
> > > > off fats.
> > > > I never buy deep fried chips, or drink coka cola, its all crap.
> > > >
> > > > Nathan Pritikin said in his book about nutrition for runners that all
> > > > you need is
> > > > to eat so that 80% of the energy comes from complex carbohydrates,
> > > > 10% from proteins, and 10% from fats.
> > > >
> > > > Since most UNREFINED grains or breads made with real wholemeal flour
> has
> > > > the whole goodness kept in, not pulled out to get greed driven sales
> > > > elsewhere,
> > > > then it has the 20% of protien and fat you need, and the CH slow
> burning
> > > > energy.
> > > > But even most wholemeal wheat breads are now using rapid yeasts and
> > > > chemicals and
> > > > I don't eat that anymore, and buy rye natural breads instead, and only
> > > > need a
> > > > couple of slices a day.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > People in the US, UK and Oz are rapidly assuming pig like proportions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > When I am at the supermarket, I am appalled at the fat arse queus
> lining
> > > > up with
> > > > trolleys full of crap.
> > > > Probably they suffer affluenza, the dysfunctional syndrome of living
> too
> > > > high
> > > > and being anxious about everything, so they ain't fit, don't relate
> > > > well, and don't ****,
> > > > and feed their mouth instead.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I continue to ride about 150km a week and weight has stabilised,
> > > > and bmi appears to be a lot better in the mirror.
> > > > I treat myself to the occasional 100gm bar of Lindt 70% cocoa
> choclate.
> > > > Its ****ing divine this stuff.
> > > > Its much better than buying a 600gram milk chocolate bar with less
> cocoa
> > > > and piled high with fats and sugar,
> > > > and chemicals to make you buy more, along with hydrogenated fats to
> give
> > > > long shelf life,
> > > > but which are really terrible for your heart.
> > > > There are attempts to ban what they are putting into foods now, and as
> > > > fast as the banners get stuff
> > > > banned, the chemists with no conscience dream up new chemicals.
> > > >
> > > > If I have done 100km on a saturday, I will treat myself to a large
> serve
> > > > of Bavarian Apple from Pancake Parlour, with ice cream and cream,
> > > > and unlike a couple of fat guys who play chess while I am there, I
> don't
> > > > have diabetes, and
> > > > have earned the treat, which won't hurt me.
> > > > These fatsos don't do anything except sit around, and they are paying
> > > > the price.
> > > >
> > > > Too much sitting on me arse chatting on news groups and typing up
> > > > website
> > > > pages and doing electronics had made me heavy.
> > > > Now when i have to go into a computer shop there are all these young
> > > > dudes and they all look a bit crook,
> > > > a bit overweight, and kinda grey, like their PCs have sucked the very
> > > > life out of them.
> > > >
> > > > I played Rugby Union when at school, and frankly it was guys just
> > > > tumbling over each other,
> > > > and I went home sore and sorry after most games. Lord knows how many
> > > > unseen injuries meant trouble later in life. Cycling is much better,
> > > > unless you fall off, but even if you do, you recover so fast it
> matters
> > > > not.
> > > > Cycling has speed, exhilaration, changing scenery, weather, varied
> > > > circumstances,
> > > > and needs alertness, rapid reflexes, careful judgements, and you learn
> > > > lessons
> > > > about life.
> > > >
> > > > I am really lucky that there are hundreds of Km of cycling paths here
> to
> > > > ride on,
> > > > and that don't include the mountain trails through the bush for which
> a
> > > > mountain bike becomes sensible.
> > > > Mountain biking is about getting hot riding up steep climbs slowly,
> and
> > > > descending
> > > > with care and putting up with a far rougher ride than on the road.
> > > > Modern bikes have suspension and are useable by folks like me over 50
> > > > without
> > > > enduring injuries.
> > > >
> > > > And even though Canberra has 330,000 people I only have to ride 4Km
> and
> > > > I am
> > > > in the middle of sheep paddocks and horse paddocks, and big wide
> country
> > > > areas.
> > > > It ain't like London or NY, or Sydney.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If one calculates based on the "average" that individuals undercount
> > > > > their weight by ~5 pounds, or 2kg, it is obese. In McCoy's case,
> > > > > using only 2kg is generous given its love of the truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > No wonder nothing but shadow-pictures, and claims of great height
> (but
> > > > > only while riding).
> > > > >
> > > > > Rugby player...
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter Wieck
> > > >
> > > > So how do you stay fit Peter?
> > > >
> > > > Patrick Turner.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Wyncote, PA
> > >
> > > Patrick: I think your regiment is almost ideal for cardio-vascular
> > > workouts. Do you not believe that working out for the upper body is also
> > > important? There have been many studies that show longevity is best
> > > accomplished by free weights. Nautilus equipment come in a close second
> and
> > > for the most part, is more practical.
> >
> > Nicole and Kylie provide me with ample opportunity
> > for topside exercize.
> > They are very happy with my longevity as well.
> >
> > The Nautilus sounds like a great idea, but
> > I am still searching for a suitable private ocean I can buy
> > to run such a nice sub with all mod cons for me and the gals of course.
> > They like to take turns using my depth sounder.
> >
> > I am negotiating with Captain Nemo, who despite his age is a whiz on the
> > sextant,
> > and thus knows his way around, giant squids permitting....
> >
> > But we had to tell him he could only play his organ if we all went
> > ashore....
> >
> > The free weights you mention are not available yet in Oz and the prices
> > here
> > for weights are exorbident. Before being sold in fatness outlets,
> > there was a scam here involving weight supplies,
> > and a dealer offered very long weights online for a low fee, and many
> > people got caught and are
> > still weighting for the weights to arrive years later.
> >
> > Unfortunately, last time I looked in at the gym, I was appalled by the
> > smell, the absurdity,
> > the loud raucus dance music, non audiophile PA gear, and all these ppl
> > working up a sweat but going nowhere,
> > and the far too few women didn't want to dance with anyone.
> > I heard you had to pay to go there! crayzee!!.
> >
> > Patrick Turner.
>
> To each his own. It's that very smell that attracts characters like Weick.
> The gym I go to doesn't have a smell. At least it's hardly noticeable. After
> using an apparatus, rules require the user to spray the equipment and wipe
> it with a towel.
> You must have sexy legs but a flabby torso. Look good in shorts as long as
> you keep your shirt on?

Gee you guys don't do any cycling do you.

I don't have a flabby anything and am quite happy with my shape which
is almost unchanged and the same weight as I was at 25.

I am not a silly fanatic who tries to develop the unatural looking
freakish
outlines of body builders who strut about without being very useful to
anyone,
and who, because of their massively muscled upper body can't run or
cycle very far
because they have such a distorted build and poor distribution of weight
for
running or cycling.
The image making media present to men the same stupid models of vanity
to aspire to.
Don't, its bad for your health!
Humans get made in a range of sizes and shapes, OK.
In fact the mindset of the media about how men should look is as stupid
as the way Vogue and Cosmopolitan
present ideal shapes for women to follow. Women don't so easily
tell the world and its messengers to get ****ed so easily as men do
hence the surge in eating disorders
amoung young women who spend whole lives loathing themselves, and trying
desperately
to look 13 which is the age of many models in the magazines the women
buy.
One only has to understand the crappiness of the visual crap one sees
for sale in newsagents
and see how bereft western ppl are of any deep ideas other than trying
to look good.

I understand that the mullahs of Iran have a point about being cranky
about empty western culture being
corruptive.

I sure don't need the steroids used by most bodybuilders to get the look
they want.

I don't give a **** about what anyone else thinks about me, and even
when i was
20Kg over what I liked to be it didn't bug me much, and did not bug
anyone else,
and all the women I met had worse figures so they never had anything to
complain about.

The fact of life is that nobody treasures you for your body,
except yourself, if you are selfish.

Women like a man with a good body,
but they like any man far better if the man's mind suits theirs, and he
earns a trouser load of dollars
ready to spend on them.

This still doesn't gurantee he gets a really nicely performed BJ once a
week, free, no strings.
He gets to go down on her though, and is expected, and the of all the
trades between
humanity and huwomanity, the women always end up with the better side of
the deal
and never give freebies.

"Jus lie down here luvvie, it won't costyer anyfink" is a sentence you
will
never ever hear uttered to you no matter how long you live.
Even if no money changes hands, you end up sweating, she's smilimg, and
perhaps it costs you 1/2 a house.

Patrick Turner.








>
> west
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > west

[Andre Jute]

west wrote:
> > west
:
> > > Next question, if you don't mind ...what are you using to play your CDs?

> > > "Andre Jute" :
> > Quad CD66 and CD67, very old, very reliable. Both of mine were on
> > lease to the BBC, then checked over at the factory before they came to
> > me about fifteen years ago.

west:
> I guess you're not into SACDs or keeping up with the Jones'. Do you use a
> high efficiency horn or those ESL 57s? I'm trying to picture your system
> from some of your posts. Perhaps you use 2 systems.
>
> west

SACD is an irrelevance, another case the Himalayan Wasting Disease, of
engineers doing something because they can, when, if they had first
put their minds in gear, they would have discovered that it is
unnecessary.

I don't know who these Jones people are who expect me to follow
whatever fashion they have succumbed to this week. I make it a
principle never to do what people expect simply because they expect
it. The expectations of little people are an attempt to drag their
betters down to their level.

I don't have systems in the sense you mean, as in someone having a
listening room with a fixed setup; I don't have time to sit in a
listening room; I listen to music in my study and studio as I work; my
son has his own i-Pod/computer based system and my wife prefers to
read in silence though we could play music on the DVD player in her
room. I have ESL57, ESL63, horns of my own manufacture but built on
the Lowther Fidelio factory-cut wood with Lowther PM6Å, bigger
tractrix horns of my own design, various quarterwave pipes (I have for
instance a pair spefically tuned long to enhance the bass on Gregorian
Chant), Bang & Olufsen S25 (a copy of a very fine Goodmans bentback
bookshelf speaker of the 1960s), little Coral drivers in coconuts that
a Swiss designer sent me as computer speaks, ditto some from Apple,
and probably some more. I just play whichever speakers seem suitable
for whatever amp I want to use; in the middle of the night I often use
Sennheiser or Stax (electrostatic) earphones (I'm using Stax now -- I
have various tube and silicon amps both bought and of my own devising
specifically for driving earphones). In tubes I have SE amps from
about a third of a watt to about 80W, and PP amps from around 10W in
Class Å to over 100W in Class AB, plus of course silicon amps from
c10W to 150W, either of my own design and construction or from Quad
and Audiolab. The only speakers I have permanently rigged are ESL63,
which I use as a reference; the only amp I have permanently rigged is
Quad 405 MkII with an accompanying Quad 34 control amp (the last is
very useful for having a mono-ing button, to test amps of which you
have built only one channel, or a single speaker). I have more CD
players than the Quad 66 and 67 but I never use them; the Quads are
just too good to bother swapping players in and out, so they to are
permanently in use. Stuff I don't use is just packed up in boxes or
stands on the floor; I don't bother with "audiophile" conditioning of
the room -- book and CD lines walls do me fine, together with thick
carpets and throwmats for extra absobency anywhere I am likely to sit;
I live in a Georgian house at least 200 years old so the rooms have
high ceilings and abutments for fireplaces, which are all good, and
the converted attic where I spend most of my time has a sloping roof,
which is even better. I've been threatening for years to hide all the
cables and move the surplus gear out of sight into another room and
get a glass desk and a leather captain's seat (I sit on a cloth
covered high-backed chair office I designed and licensed to a company
which sells ergonomic gear) and become elegant but there is always new
work and no idle time in which to lounge elegantly. Maybe when I'm old
I'll be elegant and have an "audiophile system" and take myself and it
very seriously.

HTH.

Still working my way through my Handel disks. Now playing Fabio
Biondi's world premiere recording of Poro with Europa Galante (Opus
111).

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[west[_4_]]

> > > True, there must be someone quite clever behind it... but I seriously
> > > doubt that the persona we observe here is anything at all like that
> > > actual individual. So, whereas I may not *like* you, I must respect
> > > you. McCoy I neither like nor dislike as I do not believe there is an
> > > actual "there" to deserve such efforts. Tweaking it is great fun,
> > > however.
> >
> > Somehow that paragraph seems internally inconsistent. If "Andre" is
> > nothing but a chimera as you believe, but as you say "there must be
> > someone quite clever behind it", then that person would be an
> > actual "there", deserving of either your like or dislike.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John Byrns
> >
> > --
> > Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
>
> Logic chopping. Your specialty.
>
> I would like to believe that the entity behind "the real McCoy" is
> having as much fun as I do, or at least one hopes so. The alternative
> is too sad to contemplate... again leaving no room for "like" or
> "dislike"... as the entity is simply not worth it.
>
> If my contention is true, perhaps grudging admiration... but not
> dislike. Dislike I reserve for those worthy of such efforts.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Wyncote, PA

Did you forget the email you recently sent me saying how you truly hate me
and McCoy? Realizing that you are totally whipped and undressed for all to
see, you try to temper your loosing position. Now there's only 2 things I
don't like about you ... and that's your face.

UOOContempt
>

[Peter Wieck]

On May 20, 4:54 pm, "west" > wrote:
> > > > True, there must be someone quite clever behind it... but I seriously
> > > > doubt that the persona we observe here is anything at all like that
> > > > actual individual. So, whereas I may not *like* you, I must respect
> > > > you. McCoy I neither like nor dislike as I do not believe there is an
> > > > actual "there" to deserve such efforts. Tweaking it is great fun,
> > > > however.
>
> > > Somehow that paragraph seems internally inconsistent. If "Andre" is
> > > nothing but a chimera as you believe, but as you say "there must be
> > > someone quite clever behind it", then that person would be an
> > > actual "there", deserving of either your like or dislike.
>
> > > Regards,
>
> > > John Byrns
>
> > > --
> > > Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
>
> > Logic chopping. Your specialty.
>
> > I would like to believe that the entity behind "the real McCoy" is
> > having as much fun as I do, or at least one hopes so. The alternative
> > is too sad to contemplate... again leaving no room for "like" or
> > "dislike"... as the entity is simply not worth it.
>
> > If my contention is true, perhaps grudging admiration... but not
> > dislike. Dislike I reserve for those worthy of such efforts.
>
> > Peter Wieck
> > Wyncote, PA
>
> Did you forget the email you recently sent me saying how you truly hate me
> and McCoy? Realizing that you are totally whipped and undressed for all to
> see, you try to temper your loosing position. Now there's only 2 things I
> don't like about you ... and that's your face.
>
> UOOContempt
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You poor, sad, benighted idiot. Neither you nor your idol are worth
the effort of hate. And let the record show that I have stated that
repeatedly. It is the behavior of a Timmee-in-training to make up
facts and opinions when the reality is unsatisfying for their wasted
needs. Contempt at best, hatred I reserve for those who actually
deserve it... and neither of you even distantly approach that
condition.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Peter Wieck]

On May 20, 5:54 pm, "west" > wrote:

> Did you forget the email you recently sent me saying how you truly hate me
> and McCoy? Realizing that you are totally whipped and undressed for all to
> see, you try to temper your loosing position. Now there's only 2 things I
> don't like about you ... and that's your face.

Perhaps the curious in the group might like to see your e-mail to me
together with my two replies....
__________________________________________________ _
Your note:

This is exactly the kind of garbage spewing that Iain so kindly asked
for you to stop. My skin is thick so you're only making yourself look
foolish. But you are most likely being sucessful at chasing away those
learned posters who shy away from this Ng because of ppl like you. So
many have already left as Mr. Churches aptly pointed out. Rodents are
missing a wealth of information because of it. Please clean up your
act. Try to control yourself. If you feel that you just have to get it
out of your system, perhaps you can send it via private email.

Cordially,
west
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Wieck
Newsgroups: rec.audio.tubes
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: Caring For Your LPs


On May 6, 7:11 pm, "west" > wrote:
> I would like some practical advice on how to clean and care for my LPs. A
> colleague told me he just uses soap and water. I don't think that this is a
> good idea especially because the water in Florida is very hard. I owned a
> VPI 16 that bit the dust a few years ago. Looking at some of the prices for
> auto cleaning machines and the various specialized fluids seem outlandish.
> Yet some of my records are (to me) irreplaceable. How do you care for your
> vinyl? Thanks in advance.
>
> Cordially,
> west

Oh, for krissakes....

There is so damned much good information out there on the care and
feeding of vinyl that for you to ask such a question without doing the
primary research yourself is irresponsible, lazy and just plain
stupid.

For one claiming to have daughters 'who went on to West
Point' (dubious at best.... especially the daughter part... making you
a parent... YIKES!), that would require that you are old enough to be
of the vinyl generation at least towards its end. And, at the end of
the vinyl generation, its care and feeding was pretty sophisticated.
Meaning you are being disingenuous at best.

So, give it a rest and do some real work for once. Start with the
obvious. Start with the most basic implications of the species.

a) keep the records clean. Scrupulously clean.
b) do not play them more than once in 24 hours. Can you guess why? I
doubt it.
c) keep them free of static to the extent possible.
d) use the proper stylus.
e) make damned sure that the stylus is in good condition.
f) track at the proper force.
g) use the best damned tone-arm you can afford, preferably linear.

After that, there isn't a whole helluvalot more to do about it. And,
for the record, "Young professional" and "daughters went on to West
Point" are mutually exclusive. So, which is it?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
_____________________________________________
Reply 1:

With all due respect, you are a fool. Worse, you are an obtuse fool
with the insight of a warthog. For all your puling, whining, claims of
sensitivity and attempts at cleverness, until you think before you
"send", you will continue to be a fool.


It is quite rare that I engage in no-holds-barred vituperation and
invective, but if ever there were a coterie of smug little idiots, it
would be you and your idol, and the accretion of vermin that buzz
about you. The saddest part about the entire situation is that between
the group of you, there is not enough genuine knowledge of tube lore
or the care and feeding of tube equipment to support a one-tube
Crosley Pup radio.

You deserve what you get, you ask for it, you revel in it, so quit
bitching when it happens.

Peter Wieck
________________________________________________
Reply 2:

Of course, if you actually want to learn something about vintage
equipment, audio and otherwise, and you stop feeling sorry for
yourself long enough to do something about it:

http://www.dvhrc.org/gallery06.cfm

http://www.renningers.com/kutzradio.htm

.... would be a worthwhile endeavor for you. Lots of material, parts,
information, tubes, caps, bits, pieces dibs and dabs, bits and bobs.
And a lot of equipment. I run a diagnostic clinic, others with design
and production expertise and DEEP knowledge of tube lore from its very
roots are in attendance and more than willing to talk, help, give
advice, even hands-on help... all without the slighest need to blow
their own horns or pontificate about their former years as an advisor
to heads of state.... And later on this crew will swap tales and save
the world over a bottle of good single-malt... or cheap beer, or
bottled water, whatever works. Patrick Turner would be right at home;
Andre(w) would be first laughed at, then ignored. Were it to persist,
finally ridden out on a rail.

Keep in mind that the art of tubes has not advanced in 40 years other
than around the edges. So a good grounding in essential designs and
successful executions of these designs is imperative if you wish to
move forward in the hobby. Which is why I have suggested on several
occasions that you start with something basic and well-understood,
such as a Dyna 70 or similar and rebuild it to the many permutations
and combinations of designs that are out there and made for it. Get
those under your belt and much will become clear. Better yet, start
with a simple 5-tube, no-transformer radio. Rebuild that back to the
best it can be, and you will have learned: Amplification, rF
reception, feedback circuitry, transformer (output) matching and
loading, alignment, the effect of capacitor sizes on tone, lead
dressing, hum-loops.... all with five little (cheap) tubes. Basic sh*t
that without it being part of your thinking process will trip you
every time if ignored. Too often, one behaves as your idol expecting a
design to spring like Athena fully armored from its fevered brow.

And that sort of thinking is incredibly dangerous... as well as being
a singularly powerful and attractive force of ignorance.

You need to get out more.

Peter Wieck
_____________________________________________

Nothing much about hatred... just an abiding contempt, but some hope
that you might break the thrall McCoy has over you and start thinking
for yourself... little hope of that.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[west[_4_]]

How can you be such an ASS and say that amplitude and frequency are
analogous? You have to be a total clueless idiot to even think along those
lines. Perhaps you were better off with Heath-Kits.

west

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> John Byrns wrote:
>
> > Peter Wieck > wrote:
> > > John:
> > >
> > > Whoops: http://www.graniteaudio.com/phono/page5.html
> > >
> > > should get you there.
> > >
> > > For the record: Whatever positions and suppositions you may take, and
> > > from whatever point of view, whichever cutting head and system, the
> > > actual subject-at-hand is the *present* RIAA Curve as practiced each
> > > day. This is presumably a fixed value both on recording and playback.
> > >
> > > That curve is at the bottom of the article. The Bass Boost and the
> > > Treble Cut on playback cross the Bass Cut and Treble Boost on
> > > recording at ~1.2Khz.... not quite what you are writing.
> > >
> > > References are at the bottom of the article.
> >
> > Peter, this article assumes that a "magnetic" pickup is being used to
> > reproduce the LP. "Magnetic" pickups do not respond directly to the
> > amplitude of the signal recorded in the LP's grooves and requires
> > compensation.
> >
> > Let me attempt to explain, I'm going to assume that you have some
> > knowledge of math and know what differentiation is.
>
> Why makes it so complicated ?
>
> The magnetic pickup responds not just to the amplitude of the signal in
the
> groove but it's rate of change too.
>
> So a signal of the same amplitude on the disc at say 2kHz will produce a
voltage
> at the pickup that's twice what it would be at 1kHz.
>
> Graham
>

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article . com>,
Peter Wieck > wrote:
> On May 20, 5:54 pm, "west" > wrote:

> > Did you forget the email you recently sent me saying how you truly
> > hate me and McCoy? Realizing that you are totally whipped and
> > undressed for all to see, you try to temper your loosing position. Now
> > there's only 2 things I don't like about you ... and that's your face.

> Perhaps the curious in the group might like to see your e-mail to me
> together with my two replies....
> __________________________________________________ _
> Your note:

> This is exactly the kind of garbage spewing that Iain so kindly asked
> for you to stop. My skin is thick so you're only making yourself look
> foolish. But you are most likely being sucessful at chasing away those
> learned posters who shy away from this Ng because of ppl like you. So
> many have already left as Mr. Churches aptly pointed out. Rodents are
> missing a wealth of information because of it.

It's a theme Iain Churches likes to propagate. I've not seen any
indication of it, though. This wealth of talent waiting in the sidelines
for better behavoir.

--
*El nino made me do it

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Eeyore]

west wrote:

> How can you be such an ASS and say that amplitude and frequency are
> analogous?

Jeez.

How can you be so stupid as to think that's what I said.

[George M. Middius]

Poopie said:

> > How can you be such an ASS and say that amplitude and frequency are
> > analogous?

> How can you be so stupid as to think that's what I said.

To be fair, Poopie, you do say a lot of stupid things.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Ian Bell]

west wrote:

> How can you be such an ASS and say that amplitude and frequency are
> analogous? You have to be a total clueless idiot to even think along those
> lines. Perhaps you were better off with Heath-Kits.
>


He didn't. Read it again.

Ian