Here we go again!

[Arny Krueger]

http://krakow.msnbc.msn.com:80/archive/2007/08/29/338888.aspx

"There's a good reason for this. In addition to what people remember as the
bad things that LPs provide (scratches, clicks and pops) vinyl discs have
lots of good things going for them. LPs contain close to 100-percent of the
uncompressed music information as originally recorded. CDs contain only
about half of that recorded information. And compressed music files are
left with only a small percentage of the information that's on a CD."

With all due respect to Gary Krakow, he seems to be flaunting his ignorance
of the relevant technologies. I understand that Gary wrote for Stereophile
once upon a time. I don't think that even John Atkinson would tolerate this
kind of technical error, heavy vinylista advertising in Stereophile
notwithstanding.

Information theory (which Gary is obviously appealing to when he says "music
information") states that information can be quantified, based on the
product of bandwidth and dynamic range.

For example, an analog or digital channel with 6 dB more dynamic range is
capable of passing twice as much information. An analog or digital channel
with twice the bandwidth is capable of passing twice as much information.

Applying the most generous weighting factors will allow the claim that the
LP format is capable of about 75 dB dynamic range. In the real world,
disappointing dynamic ranges of even 45 dB are not unheard of when vinyl is
in play.

The CD format is capable of more like 95 dB dynamic range, even when judged
by a stiffer standard - unweighted noise. The clear advantage goes to the
CD format, and by a factor of 10 or more.

BTW, my analysis ignores the fact that LPs are prone to many scratches,
clicks, and pops while CDs are not. Krakow goes further than most
vinylistas in the direction of truth by admitting that these exist.
Scratches, clicks and pops do more than just distract you from the music,
they detract from dynamic range. A good scratch or pop may be louder than
the music, possibly leading to the mind-bending concept of negative dynamic
range.

Therefore, by the most pro-LP-biased of technical evaluations, the music
information leader is as always the CD format, and by a factor of at least
10. This means that if the LP format had far more bandwidth than the CD
format (which as a practical matter it does not) the LP format would need to
have 10 times more bandwidth than the CD format to break even.

It would be a different world if journalists who pretend to be technical
experts by dispensing technical advice had useful amounts of basic audio
engineering training.

[Peter Wieck]

On Aug 30, 9:46 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> Much obvious, but essentially meaningless stuff.

And those who like vinyl will continue to like it. And those who do
not will continue in their ways as well.

Nothing will change and nothing will be learned other than a
monumental waste of bandwidth will transpire if this thread gets legs.
Which it should not IMHO. Even the likes of the "commander" and Bret
should recognize that much and stay under their various rocks.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[GregS[_2_]]

In article m>, Peter Wieck > wrote:
>On Aug 30, 9:46 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> Much obvious, but essentially meaningless stuff.
>
>And those who like vinyl will continue to like it. And those who do
>not will continue in their ways as well.


Not necessarily.

greg

[Keith G]

"Peter Wieck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Aug 30, 9:46 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> Much obvious, but essentially meaningless stuff.
>
> And those who like vinyl will continue to like it. And those who do
> not will continue in their ways as well.


Says it all and I will not add to this thread again other than to say,
having been cornered into the position of 'Sole Defender Of Vinyl' in
UKRA in the recent past, all I ever sought was that a *small few* should
not have had it banned as an 'inadmissible audio topic' - no-one ever
said it was *compulsory*....

[tubegarden]

Uuf Duh! As we say in Minnesota, well, northern Minnesota, anywho ...

It is wonderful to see you monkeys raping other peoples' hobby
horses :) Such Elan! Perspicacity!

Meters can measure stuff very accurately, occasionally, if not every
last picosecond ... several were over before meters were even thunked
up, theoretically. Without meters, how can we know???

I listened to big, floor standing AM radio for years well below the
noise floor. Negative dynamic range? Sure, kids. OK, the ocassional
fake gun shot may have breached the surface, briefly ... unless there
was coincident events in the noise mix ;)

Noise is not meaningful, hence the term: noise.

Signal to Noise Ratio and Noise to Signal Ratio are both measureable,
but, if you are listening to the Lone Ranger and Tonto planning to
outwit those Bad Guys, friends, nobody gives a RAT's ass, you should
pardon ...

I remember the Lone Ranger. I know there was noise, but, frankly, I
forgot it. You guys never have any fun.

Just keep pulling it.

Happy Ears!
Al

[John Byrns]

In article m>,
Peter Wieck > wrote:

> On Aug 30, 9:46 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > Much obvious, but essentially meaningless stuff.
>
> And those who like vinyl will continue to like it. And those who do
> not will continue in their ways as well.
>
> Nothing will change and nothing will be learned other than a
> monumental waste of bandwidth will transpire if this thread gets legs.
> Which it should not IMHO. Even the likes of the "commander" and Bret
> should recognize that much and stay under their various rocks.

I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Peter Wieck]

On Aug 30, 1:38 pm, John Byrns > wrote:

> I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
> capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.

Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both". And even analog tape,
both via the ubiquitous A77 and even ~~SHUDDER~~ cassette or 8-Track.
I do own the mandatory A77, of course. A road-deck as it happens. It
even gets used on occasion. Also a few cassette decks, but never and
no 8-Tracks.

One would think that the sole-and-entire purpose of the hobby is to
have fun with it. Those that perforce must make a living at it, and
those who believe that they are God's Gift to the hobby and its
bleeding edge will see things differently of course. Writing for
myself, I am happy to putter about with what crosses my path, learning
a little as I go and spending a good deal of time being pleasantly
surprised at what I hear and what I do. And I can rest in the certain
knowledge that *nothing* I do will be cause for earth-shattering
revelations... the pressure is 'off' in other words.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Jenn]

In article om>,
Peter Wieck > wrote:

> On Aug 30, 1:38 pm, John Byrns > wrote:
>
> > I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
> > capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.
>
> Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both".

I certainly agree. I personally like them both.

[GregS[_2_]]

In article >, John Byrns > wrote:
>In article m>,
> Peter Wieck > wrote:
>
>> On Aug 30, 9:46 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>> > Much obvious, but essentially meaningless stuff.
>>
>> And those who like vinyl will continue to like it. And those who do
>> not will continue in their ways as well.
>>
>> Nothing will change and nothing will be learned other than a
>> monumental waste of bandwidth will transpire if this thread gets legs.
>> Which it should not IMHO. Even the likes of the "commander" and Bret
>> should recognize that much and stay under their various rocks.
>
>I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
>capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.

I thought there would be a lot of collectors of old jackets, but I have not
seen anything to my knowledge, except that I still have a stack of records,
and of course they are in the jackets.

greg

[Peter Wieck]

On Aug 30, 3:00 pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:

> I agree 8 Tracks are dog****. But, while the Revox was one of the
> better consumer decks, why not ante up for a real one-an AG440 Ampex
> maybe? Or even a 351.

Bret, the Revox A700 is perhaps the best 1/4" tape deck ever made.
Even more so than any Ampex ever, or even the (in)famous Crowns. I
kept one briefly, but frankly, the A77 met my needs, is much more
portable, and with the built in amps and speakers is far more
adaptable to most uses. So I made a nice little profit on the 700, and
kept the A77.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Ethan Winer]

Arny,

> CDs contain only about half of that recorded information.

LOL, I wonder how he came up with "half." Arny, you should email him and ask
for the exact formula he used to determine that. :->)

--Ethan

[Rob[_3_]]

GregS wrote:
> In article >, John Byrns > wrote:
>> In article m>,
>> Peter Wieck > wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 30, 9:46 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Much obvious, but essentially meaningless stuff.
>>> And those who like vinyl will continue to like it. And those who do
>>> not will continue in their ways as well.
>>>
>>> Nothing will change and nothing will be learned other than a
>>> monumental waste of bandwidth will transpire if this thread gets legs.
>>> Which it should not IMHO. Even the likes of the "commander" and Bret
>>> should recognize that much and stay under their various rocks.
>> I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
>> capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.
>
> I thought there would be a lot of collectors of old jackets, but I have not
> seen anything to my knowledge, except that I still have a stack of records,
> and of course they are in the jackets.
>
> greg

I recently sold several hundred LPs (from a 30 quid ebay job lot) to a
bloke who uses the covers to decorate rooms in his stately home in
Yorkshire. He's had frames built in some rooms so he can change the
covers to suit his mood. And why not :-)

Rob

[John Stone]

On 8/30/07 2:00 PM, in article
om, "Bret Ludwig"
> wrote:

> On Aug 30, 12:59 pm, Peter Wieck > wrote:
>> On Aug 30, 1:38 pm, John Byrns > wrote:
>>
>>> I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
>>> capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.
>>
>> Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both". And even analog tape,
>> both via the ubiquitous A77 and even ~~SHUDDER~~ cassette or 8-Track.
>> I do own the mandatory A77, of course. A road-deck as it happens. It
>> even gets used on occasion. Also a few cassette decks, but never and
>> no 8-Tracks.
> I agree 8 Tracks are dog****. But, while the Revox was one of the
> better consumer decks, why not ante up for a real one-an AG440 Ampex
> maybe? Or even a 351.
>
The Ampex units are total overkill for domestic use. I'd take a Revox A700
over an Ampex any day. For speed stability, that direct drive Pabst capstan
motor combined with the electronic servo tensioning, was just unbeatable.
And the electronics were modern and quiet. Plus, unlike the Ampex, the whole
package doesn't take up an entire room.

[dizzy]

Peter Wieck wrote:

>On Aug 30, 1:38 pm, John Byrns > wrote:
>
>> I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
>> capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.
>
>Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both".

Indeed. Many of the arguments would stop if ignorant vinyl-lovers
would stop spewing their ignorance. Seems as though every half-wit
out there thinks they have sufficient knowledge of digital audio to
make bold statements about it's supposed limitations.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article om>,
Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> > Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both". And even analog tape,
> > both via the ubiquitous A77 and even ~~SHUDDER~~ cassette or 8-Track.
> > I do own the mandatory A77, of course. A road-deck as it happens. It
> > even gets used on occasion. Also a few cassette decks, but never and
> > no 8-Tracks.

> I agree 8 Tracks are dog****.

They sounded better than the average cassette of the day due to running at
twice the speed. I've got a rather rare Woolensack recorder with Dolby B
which uses ferrichrome tape. Just as good as a decent 1/4" at 7.5 ips. Of
course they all suffer from the limited track running time.

--
*The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread *

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Ethan Winer <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote:
> > CDs contain only about half of that recorded information.

> LOL, I wonder how he came up with "half." Arny, you should email him and
> ask for the exact formula he used to determine that. :->)

The recording is made up of noughts and ones. Noughts naturally are
nothing so only the ones count. Therefore 50% of the total.

--
*I must always remember that I'm unique, just like everyone else. *

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article om>,
Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> Besides, aren't the Studer versions of the Revox generally easier to
> use and more desireable?

Studer is the name for the pro machines - Revox the domestic ones. Most
are totally different.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

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

[Jenn]

In article >,
dizzy > wrote:

> Peter Wieck wrote:
>
> >On Aug 30, 1:38 pm, John Byrns > wrote:
> >
> >> I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
> >> capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.
> >
> >Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both".
>
> Indeed. Many of the arguments would stop if ignorant vinyl-lovers
> would stop spewing their ignorance. Seems as though every half-wit
> out there thinks they have sufficient knowledge of digital audio to
> make bold statements about it's supposed limitations.

It would also be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl fans of saying
something would actually read the posts of those individuals.

[Richard Crowley]

"Jenn" wrote ...
> dizzy wrote:
>> Indeed. Many of the arguments would stop if ignorant vinyl-lovers
>> would stop spewing their ignorance. Seems as though every half-wit
>> out there thinks they have sufficient knowledge of digital audio to
>> make bold statements about it's supposed limitations.
>
> It would also be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl fans of saying
> something would actually read the posts of those individuals.

There's no lack of outrageous and ignorant claims made by
vinyl-fanatics.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Richard Crowley" > wrote:

> "Jenn" wrote ...
> > dizzy wrote:
> >> Indeed. Many of the arguments would stop if ignorant vinyl-lovers
> >> would stop spewing their ignorance. Seems as though every half-wit
> >> out there thinks they have sufficient knowledge of digital audio to
> >> make bold statements about it's supposed limitations.
> >
> > It would also be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl fans of saying
> > something would actually read the posts of those individuals.
>
> There's no lack of outrageous and ignorant claims made by
> vinyl-fanatics.

Of course, but my point stands.

[Peter Wieck]

On Aug 30, 6:00 pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> > The Ampex units are total overkill for domestic use. I'd take a Revox A700
> > over an Ampex any day. For speed stability, that direct drive Pabst capstan
> > motor combined with the electronic servo tensioning, was just unbeatable.
> > And the electronics were modern and quiet. Plus, unlike the Ampex, the whole
> > package doesn't take up an entire room.
>
> What's better about a Revox than an AG440 or a 351? Besides, aren't
> the Studer versions of the Revox generally easier to use and more
> desireable?
>
> The new head and other part suppliers are geared up to supply Ampex
> parts, morso than anything else.
>
> Plus, 351 transports can be had for free sometimes, and you can build
> your own electronics or use the aftermarket Inovonics units.

Bret:

It becomes increasingly clear from your general driveling and trolling
that you haven't even the faintest actual knowledge or direct
experience of anything audio beyond one (1) Dynaco ST-70 that scared
you as a child, and maybe you observed an Ampex product somewhere,
somehow. You do have a talent for juxtaposing random tidbits culled
from hours of web-wanderings (apparently mostly while intoxicated)
passed off as experienced opinion, but vanishingly little more. You
really need to get some sort of life or you will wind up like Jute...
a superannuated, stroked out never-was posing as as some sort of Audio
Avatar. Oops... you are there already. Sorry.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> http://krakow.msnbc.msn.com:80/archive/2007/08/29/338888.aspx
> It would be a different world if journalists who pretend to be technical
> experts by dispensing technical advice had useful amounts of basic audio
> engineering training.

But such rags are only designed to sell advertising to uneducated suckers.
What really annoys me is when I see similar howlers in technical trade
magazines, and I have unfortunately.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
> Says it all and I will not add to this thread again other than to say,
> having been cornered into the position of 'Sole Defender Of Vinyl' in
> UKRA in the recent past, all I ever sought was that a *small few* should
> not have had it banned as an 'inadmissible audio topic' - no-one ever
> said it was *compulsory*....

But vinyl has NOT been banned. You are still welcome to buy it and listen to
it. What more do you need???
Others are just sick of hearing the same stupid arguments for 25 years!


MrT.

[Mr.T]

"John Byrns" > wrote in message
...
> I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
> capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.

So true. One simply has to decide if the music or the cover art is more
important to them, and buy whatever suits their needs.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in message
...
> > CDs contain only about half of that recorded information.
>
> LOL, I wonder how he came up with "half." Arny, you should email him and
ask
> for the exact formula he used to determine that. :->)

Firstly the quote is "about half", and my guess is he simply believes vinyl
has a possible frequency response to ~40kHz rather than 22 kHz, and doesn't
understand in the slightest the concepts of information theory.
Then he simply ignore the flatness of the response, the bass problems, noise
problems, distortion problems, speed problems and every other bloody problem
associated with vinyl, .

People here seem to forget the most important thing though, such writers are
*PAID* to write such crap for the audio rags.
The people here waste their time endlessly for free.

Who is really smarter then :-)

MrT.

[Peter Wieck]

On Aug 30, 6:53 pm, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
> "Jenn" wrote ...
>
> > dizzy wrote:
> >> Indeed. Many of the arguments would stop if ignorant vinyl-lovers
> >> would stop spewing their ignorance. Seems as though every half-wit
> >> out there thinks they have sufficient knowledge of digital audio to
> >> make bold statements about it's supposed limitations.
>
> > It would also be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl fans of saying
> > something would actually read the posts of those individuals.
>
> There's no lack of outrageous and ignorant claims made by
> vinyl-fanatics.

Oh, fer krissakes... get a grip.

Opinion is just that. And this world would be a terribly dull place if
opinion and "claims" were required to be factually accurate at all
times and in all places. Where failure sets in is when one feels that
one's own "claims" are the only valid facts, and that one's own
opinions are inherently and naturally so much better than another's
that that same 'other' is to shrivel up, give up, and kowtow to such
obviously superior claims.

With respect, what inneffable hogwash.

If you are secure in your opinions and claims, enjoy them. Allow
others to be the same. Arguing them with the expectation of foisting
"yours" on "theirs" is a fool's game, one that Arny and Bret live
for.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Mr.T]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-
> > There's no lack of outrageous and ignorant claims made by
> > vinyl-fanatics.
>
> Of course, but my point stands.

You don't have a point though, only an opinion. You are entitled to it of
course, but how many times do we need to be told you have one?
Who really cares?
You admit you don't care about other opinions either, so surely that is the
end of the argument?

MrT.

[George M. Middius]

Mr.**** said:

> You admit you don't care about other opinions either, so surely that is the
> end of the argument?

You misspoke again, ****. The corrected version reads "You, like other
enlightened individuals, are perfectly justified in ignoring the
opinions of gibbering baboons."

If the shoe fits.....

[George M. Middius]

Mr.**** said:

> You admit you don't care about other opinions either, so surely that is the
> end of the argument?

You misspoke again, ****. The corrected version reads "You, like other
enlightened individuals, are perfectly justified in ignoring the
opinions of gibbering baboons."

If the shoe fits.....




..

[Mr.T]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
>You, like other
> enlightened individuals, are perfectly justified in ignoring the
> opinions of gibbering baboons."

Thank you, I will.

MrT.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-
> > > There's no lack of outrageous and ignorant claims made by
> > > vinyl-fanatics.
> >
> > Of course, but my point stands.
>
> You don't have a point though, only an opinion.

No, the point of my post (which you cut) is very clear: It would also
be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl fans of saying something would
actually read the posts of those individuals. Your posts to me and the
bogus thing you accuse me of are perfect cases making my point.

> You are entitled to it of
> course, but how many times do we need to be told you have one?
> Who really cares?

Here's a question for you: In, say, the past year, other than around
three brief posts about a specific LP that I found, how many times have
I offered an opinion about LPs other than in response to someone else,
mainly Arny?

> You admit you don't care about other opinions either,

Incorrect.

> so surely that is the
> end of the argument?
>
> MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

om...
> > > Of course, but my point stands.
> >
> > You don't have a point though, only an opinion.
>
> No, the point of my post (which you cut)

No I didn't.

>is very clear:

In your mind maybe. Still have no idea what it is.

> It would also
> be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl fans of saying something would
> actually read the posts of those individuals. Your posts to me and the
> bogus thing you accuse me of are perfect cases making my point.

Which is?

> > You are entitled to it of
> > course, but how many times do we need to be told you have one?
> > Who really cares?
>
> Here's a question for you: In, say, the past year, other than around
> three brief posts about a specific LP that I found, how many times have
> I offered an opinion about LPs other than in response to someone else,
> mainly Arny?

No idea, why would I know or care?

> > You admit you don't care about other opinions either,
>
> Incorrect.

What part of "And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either." is
incorrect?

MrT.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
> Firstly the quote is "about half", and my guess is he simply believes
> vinyl has a possible frequency response to ~40kHz rather than 22 kHz,
> and doesn't understand in the slightest the concepts of information
> theory. Then he simply ignore the flatness of the response, the bass
> problems, noise problems, distortion problems, speed problems and every
> other bloody problem associated with vinyl, .

To me the real killer point is if you take any decent source - analogue or
digital - and copy to digital in the CD format and to vinyl, there were be
a *very* noticeable difference between that master and the vinyl but not
between it and the digital copy. Of course *some* will prefer the vinyl
sound. But then come up with all sorts of bull**** as to why.

--
*Just remember...if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off*

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

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Aug, 21:10, Jenn > wrote:
> In article om>,
> Peter Wieck > wrote:
>
> > On Aug 30, 1:38 pm, John Byrns > wrote:
>
> > > I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
> > > capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.
>
> > Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both".
>
> I certainly agree. I personally like them both.

so do i, but i like one even better than the other.

[Adrian C]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> The recording is made up of noughts and ones. Noughts naturally are
> nothing so only the ones count. Therefore 50% of the total.
>

An LP has two sides, a CD only one. 50% difference.

--
Adrian C

[Mr.T]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> To me the real killer point is if you take any decent source - analogue or
> digital - and copy to digital in the CD format and to vinyl, there were be
> a *very* noticeable difference between that master and the vinyl but not
> between it and the digital copy. Of course *some* will prefer the vinyl
> sound. But then come up with all sorts of bull**** as to why.

Yep it's been happening for 25 years and no sign of stopping.

My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic distortions", but can't
possibly accept the fact that they may PREFER something not actually as
technically accurate. They then have to come up with stupid explanations
plausible to themselves, and once they have convinced themselves, feel the
need to be evangelical and convert the rest of the world, just like most
religions :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > > Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both".
> > I certainly agree. I personally like them both.
> so do i, but i like one even better than the other.

Me too, I just like one *FAR* better than the other :-)
(and am especially happy that it's not ALL we have any more)

MrT.

[tony sayer]

In article om>, Bret
Ludwig > scribeth thus
>
>>
>> The Ampex units are total overkill for domestic use. I'd take a Revox A700
>> over an Ampex any day. For speed stability, that direct drive Pabst capstan
>> motor combined with the electronic servo tensioning, was just unbeatable.
>> And the electronics were modern and quiet. Plus, unlike the Ampex, the whole
>> package doesn't take up an entire room.
>
> What's better about a Revox than an AG440 or a 351? Besides, aren't
>the Studer versions of the Revox generally easier to use and more
>desireable?
>
> The new head and other part suppliers are geared up to supply Ampex
>parts, morso than anything else.
>
> Plus, 351 transports can be had for free sometimes, and you can build
>your own electronics or use the aftermarket Inovonics units.
>

Inovonics

Who are they?, AFAIK they make broadcast processor equipment do they or
did they make recording equipment?..
--
Tony Sayer

[roughplanet]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...

>> Says it all and I will not add to this thread again other than to say,
>> having been cornered into the position of 'Sole Defender Of Vinyl' in
>> UKRA in the recent past, all I ever sought was that a *small few* should
>> not have had it banned as an 'inadmissible audio topic' - no-one ever
>> said it was *compulsory*....

> But vinyl has NOT been banned. You are still welcome to buy it and listen
> to
> it. What more do you need???
> Others are just sick of hearing the same stupid arguments for 25 years!

Uh huh. So this is where you hang out these days, still banging the same old
anti-vinyl gong. Different newsgroup, same message. Not much changes, does
it T?

ruff

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Says it all and I will not add to this thread again
>> other than to say, having been cornered into the
>> position of 'Sole Defender Of Vinyl' in UKRA in the
>> recent past, all I ever sought was that a *small few*
>> should not have had it banned as an 'inadmissible audio
>> topic' - no-one ever said it was *compulsory*....

> But vinyl has NOT been banned.

Agreed. Although the trite "I just bought a new LP" posts should be were
that to be possible.

> You are still welcome to
> buy it and listen to it. What more do you need???

Reinforcement that said activity makes him "special".

> Others are just sick of hearing the same stupid arguments
> for 25 years!

Arguments like those presented by Krakow, which are based on a complete
contradiction of established facts, get very tiring, very fact. The real
question is: "Is Krakow knowlegable enough to be lying"? Or, is he merely
mislead?

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com

>> The Ampex units are total overkill for domestic use. I'd
>> take a Revox A700 over an Ampex any day. For speed
>> stability, that direct drive Pabst capstan motor
>> combined with the electronic servo tensioning, was just
>> unbeatable. And the electronics were modern and quiet.

>> Plus, unlike the Ampex, the whole package doesn't take
>> up an entire room.

> What's better about a Revox than an AG440 or a 351?

The A77 had a number of advantages over those old Ampexes especially the
351- size, weight, price, reliability, and availability. All that and
equivalent or better performance.

Unlike you Bret, I've actually seen and touched a 351. The thing is about
the size of a washing machine and about as portable. People who carted 351s
around to record live performances were heroes!

> Besides, aren't the Studer versions of the Revox
> generally easier to use and more desireable?

Only in terms of practical use. ;-)

> The new head and other part suppliers are geared up to
> supply Ampex parts, morso than anything else.

The real problem is that restoring or even maintaining a reel-to-reel
recorder is an act of love, not an act of utility.

> Plus, 351 transports can be had for free sometimes, and
> you can build your own electronics or use the aftermarket
> Inovonics units.

A few years back, I turned down the gift of a PR 99, admittedly in need of
some parts. A friend who lives nearby has a 351 in his basement.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> dizzy > wrote:
>
>> Peter Wieck wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 30, 1:38 pm, John Byrns >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I like them both, the LP has the edge in the
>>>> information carrying capacity of the jacket, while the
>>>> CD has the edge in convenience.
>>>
>>> Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both".
>>
>> Indeed. Many of the arguments would stop if ignorant
>> vinyl-lovers would stop spewing their ignorance. Seems
>> as though every half-wit out there thinks they have
>> sufficient knowledge of digital audio to make bold
>> statements about it's supposed limitations.

> It would also be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl
> fans of saying something would actually read the posts of
> those individuals.

No Jenn you've got it all wrong. We're accusing vinyl fans of distorting
established scientific facts to support their delusional position that the
best sounding LPs sound more lifelike than a well-made CD.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

>
> No, the point of my post (which you cut) is very clear:
> It would also be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl
> fans of saying something would actually read the posts of
> those individuals.

I read your posts, Jenn. Unfortunately they chronicle your futile search for
meaning. Here's a friendly hint - you probably won't find it in a store that
sells LPs, or while sitting next to your turntable daydreaming.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" > wrote in message
ups.com
> On Aug 30, 6:53 pm, "Richard Crowley"
> > wrote:


>> There's no lack of outrageous and ignorant claims made by
>> vinyl-fanatics.
>
> Oh, fer krissakes... get a grip.
>
> Opinion is just that.

Yes, but that wasn't what the OP was about. It was about inverting the
meaning of established scientific facts.

Peter, why are you misreprenting the facts repeatedly? I've come to expect
far better from you!

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u
> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in
> message ...

>> To me the real killer point is if you take any decent
>> source - analogue or digital - and copy to digital in
>> the CD format and to vinyl, there were be a *very*
>> noticeable difference between that master and the vinyl
>> but not between it and the digital copy. Of course
>> *some* will prefer the vinyl sound. But then come up
>> with all sorts of bull**** as to why.

> Yep it's been happening for 25 years and no sign of
> stopping.

My take is that now that the DJ-driven demand for vinyl is falling off, and
sales are already dropping preciptiously, the hype will trail off.

> My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic
> distortions", but can't possibly accept the fact that
> they may PREFER something not actually as technically
> accurate.

I think we need to consider the psychology and sociology of the situation,
By publically fawning all over vinyl, people join what they perceive to be
an elite. The psychology of preferring vinyl despite its warts is similar to
piercing.

> They then have to come up with stupid
> explanations plausible to themselves,

Especially those who have a full-blown addiction, and repeatedly blow $100's
and $1,000's on overpriced upgrades to their vinyl-mangling equipment.

> and once they have
> convinced themselves, feel the need to be evangelical and
> convert the rest of the world, just like most religions
> :-)

Vinylista propaganda is more like an indeology than a religion. Converting
to Vinylism seems to often involve refuting the established claims of
science, as the OP shows Mr. Krakow doing.

[Keith G]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Says it all and I will not add to this thread again other than to
>> say,
>> having been cornered into the position of 'Sole Defender Of Vinyl' in
>> UKRA in the recent past, all I ever sought was that a *small few*
>> should
>> not have had it banned as an 'inadmissible audio topic' - no-one ever
>> said it was *compulsory*....


OK, I've changed my mind and will add to this thread...


>
> But vinyl has NOT been banned. You are still welcome to buy it and
> listen to
> it. What more do you need???


Perfect example of the deliberate distortion that all vinyl bashers need
to forward their agenda - or you really can't distinguish between
banning *vinyl* or the *topic of vinyl* in an audio ng....??

> Others are just sick of hearing the same stupid arguments for 25
> years!


Their problem, not mine....

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> u
>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> Says it all and I will not add to this thread again
>>> other than to say, having been cornered into the
>>> position of 'Sole Defender Of Vinyl' in UKRA in the
>>> recent past, all I ever sought was that a *small few*
>>> should not have had it banned as an 'inadmissible audio
>>> topic' - no-one ever said it was *compulsory*....
>
>> But vinyl has NOT been banned.
>
> Agreed. Although the trite "I just bought a new LP" posts should be
> were that to be possible.


If you are talking about me I would be interested to see such a post -
can you point me to one, or is this another example of the distortion
you vinyl-bashers need to reinforce your hopeless *antivinyl* arguments?


>
>> You are still welcome to
>> buy it and listen to it. What more do you need???
>
> Reinforcement that said activity makes him "special".


Don't be so ridiculous, I'm fed up with seeing/hearing everything being
related to vinyl - all the way down to CDs being made to look like 7
inch 45s....

[George M. Middius]

Mr.**** said:

> > > You admit you don't care about other opinions either,

> > Incorrect.

> What part of "And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either." is
> incorrect?

If this doesn't tell you how futile it is to argue with ****, then you
deserve the coming rounds of "debating trade" you're heading for.

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>> In article >,
>> dizzy > wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Wieck wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 30, 1:38 pm, John Byrns >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I like them both, the LP has the edge in the
>>>>> information carrying capacity of the jacket, while the
>>>>> CD has the edge in convenience.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both".
>>>
>>> Indeed. Many of the arguments would stop if ignorant
>>> vinyl-lovers would stop spewing their ignorance. Seems
>>> as though every half-wit out there thinks they have
>>> sufficient knowledge of digital audio to make bold
>>> statements about it's supposed limitations.
>
>> It would also be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl
>> fans of saying something would actually read the posts of
>> those individuals.
>
> No Jenn you've got it all wrong. We're accusing vinyl fans of
> distorting established scientific facts to support their delusional
> position that the best sounding LPs sound more lifelike than a
> well-made CD.


Which, of course, it does - ask anybody who isn't in *denial*....

[tubegarden]

On Aug 31, 2:19?am, Adrian C > wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > The recording is made up of noughts and ones. Noughts naturally are
> > nothing so only the ones count. Therefore 50% of the total.
>

Not an equal number of ones and zeroes ...

>
> An LP has two sides, a CD only one. 50% difference.
>
> --
> Adrian C


Some LP's had three sides. One side had two grooves, which one you got
was determined by where the stylus fell.

So, 33 to 50%

Actually, I think it was just a way to use up surface space when there
was a shortage of taped master stuff. Three tracks were less than two.

Maybe.

But, nobody makes an acoustic CD player ...

Happy Ears!
Al

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> u
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in
>> message ...
>
>>> To me the real killer point is if you take any decent
>>> source - analogue or digital - and copy to digital in
>>> the CD format and to vinyl, there were be a *very*
>>> noticeable difference between that master and the vinyl
>>> but not between it and the digital copy. Of course
>>> *some* will prefer the vinyl sound. But then come up
>>> with all sorts of bull**** as to why.
>
>> Yep it's been happening for 25 years and no sign of
>> stopping.
>
> My take is that now that the DJ-driven demand for vinyl is falling
> off, and sales are already dropping preciptiously, the hype will trail
> off.


No Arny, you've got that all wrong (unless you are *distorting* again
which, of course, is highly likely) - it's CDs that are disappearing
rapidly. Vinyl continues to chunter on and with the flood of new
hardware (turntables, carts &c.) I supect it will only grow when the
lofts have been emptied and the owners of that hardware want to feed
their investments...


> I think we need to consider the psychology and sociology of the
> situation, By publically fawning all over vinyl, people join what they
> perceive to be an elite. The psychology of preferring vinyl despite
> its warts is similar to piercing.


Studying the psychology of those who feel *excluded* from what is a
fairly commonplace and mundane leisure activity might be more
interesting and then maybe go on to try and fathom why the same
evidenced *denial* is being applied to any new HD audio media??

Readers of a UK newsgroup might want to ask themselves why a foreigner
feels it necessary to pound it relentlessly with *antivinyl
propaganda*?? All I can say is that I believe this group exists
primarily for and is staffed by *UK audio enthusiasts* (not the legions
of Chavs who couldn't care less and who could be sold shrink-wrapped
dog**** with the right marketing hype) and, as far as I can say,
everyone I know locally as such an 'enthusiast' plays LPs on a routine
basis, as do almost all the members of this group who have visited
here - all bar one, I think...

Anyway, like it or not, vinyl will never become *extinct* in ukra while
I can be bothered to subscribe - elsewhere, I couldn't give a rat's
arse....

[Ethan Winer]

> Firstly the quote is "about half", and my guess is he simply believes
> vinyl has a possible frequency response to ~40kHz rather than 22 kHz, and
> doesn't understand in the slightest the concepts of information theory.

Right, with "believe" being the operative word.

> Who is really smarter then :-)

You and me. :->)

[Ethan Winer]

> The recording is made up of noughts and ones.
> An LP has two sides, a CD only one. 50% difference.
> Some LP's had three sides.

LOL, you guys kill me. :->)

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> >
> > No, the point of my post (which you cut) is very clear:
> > It would also be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl
> > fans of saying something would actually read the posts of
> > those individuals.
>
> I read your posts, Jenn. Unfortunately they chronicle your futile search for
> meaning. Here's a friendly hint - you probably won't find it in a store that
> sells LPs, or while sitting next to your turntable daydreaming.

Arny, you views about my life is interesting to me only for their
unintentional humor and for their irony.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > dizzy > wrote:
> >
> >> Peter Wieck wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Aug 30, 1:38 pm, John Byrns >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I like them both, the LP has the edge in the
> >>>> information carrying capacity of the jacket, while the
> >>>> CD has the edge in convenience.
> >>>
> >>> Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both".
> >>
> >> Indeed. Many of the arguments would stop if ignorant
> >> vinyl-lovers would stop spewing their ignorance. Seems
> >> as though every half-wit out there thinks they have
> >> sufficient knowledge of digital audio to make bold
> >> statements about it's supposed limitations.
>
> > It would also be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl
> > fans of saying something would actually read the posts of
> > those individuals.
>
> No Jenn you've got it all wrong. We're accusing vinyl fans of distorting
> established scientific facts to support their delusional position that the
> best sounding LPs sound more lifelike than a well-made CD.

You've missed the point yet again. My point is that I've distorted
NOTHING. You and Mr. T can keep distorting my statements any way you
wish to. I "pity the fools" who can read simple posts.

[Jenn]

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

> Mr.**** said:
>
> > > > You admit you don't care about other opinions either,
>
> > > Incorrect.
>
> > What part of "And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either." is
> > incorrect?
>
> If this doesn't tell you how futile it is to argue with ****, then you
> deserve the coming rounds of "debating trade" you're heading for.

I'm finished. I have no desire to be caught up in yet another endless
loop of this sort.

[Rob[_3_]]

Mr.T wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
> ...
>> To me the real killer point is if you take any decent source - analogue or
>> digital - and copy to digital in the CD format and to vinyl, there were be
>> a *very* noticeable difference between that master and the vinyl but not
>> between it and the digital copy. Of course *some* will prefer the vinyl
>> sound. But then come up with all sorts of bull**** as to why.
>
> Yep it's been happening for 25 years and no sign of stopping.
>
> My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic distortions",

Prefer the sound, OK. I think you just have to take a deep breath,
relax, and get over it. Until then -

>but can't
> possibly accept the fact that they may PREFER something not actually as
> technically accurate.

I don't think 'they' know or care, in general.

>They then have to come up with stupid explanations
> plausible to themselves,

Really? Again, generally people just prefer the sound. The 'why' isn't
particularly important. Knowing why might be interesting, but it's
hardly requisite.

> and once they have convinced themselves, feel the
> need to be evangelical and convert the rest of the world, just like most
> religions :-)
>

Unlike digitypes? ;-)

Rob

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>> u
>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> Says it all and I will not add to this thread again
>>>> other than to say, having been cornered into the
>>>> position of 'Sole Defender Of Vinyl' in UKRA in the
>>>> recent past, all I ever sought was that a *small few*
>>>> should not have had it banned as an 'inadmissible audio
>>>> topic' - no-one ever said it was *compulsory*....
>>
>>> But vinyl has NOT been banned.
>>
>> Agreed. Although the trite "I just bought a new LP"
>> posts should be were that to be possible.
>
>
> If you are talking about me I would be interested to see
> such a post -

Not you, Keith. The offender knows who she is.

> Is this another
> example of the distortion you vinyl-bashers need to
> reinforce your hopeless *antivinyl* arguments?

Vinyl-bashing?

I see playing vinyl for enjoyment sort of like riding in a horse-drawn
carriage for enjoyment.

For practical purposes, vinyl is like a tomb where some interesting music
is entrapped, but can be released if you want to do some work.

>>>You are still welcome to
>>> buy it and listen to it. What more do you need???

>> Reinforcement that said activity makes him "special".

> Don't be so ridiculous, I'm fed up with seeing/hearing
> everything being related to vinyl - all the way down to
> CDs being made to look like 7 inch 45s....

Those funny black CDs tricked up to look like 45s are an interesting trip
down memory lane...

[Keith G]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > foamed at the mouth and said:


>> No Jenn you've got it all wrong. We're accusing vinyl fans of
>> distorting
>> established scientific facts to support their delusional position
>> that the
>> best sounding LPs sound more lifelike than a well-made CD.


Note the 'we' again - not one of these *types* has got the ******** to
stand up and speak only for himself...


>
> You've missed the point yet again. My point is that I've distorted
> NOTHING. You and Mr. T can keep distorting my statements any way you
> wish to. I "pity the fools" who can read simple posts.


Twisting what you have said, putting words into your mouth and ascribing
false claims to general, subjective remarks (opinions, usually) you have
made are the well-known SOP of these *rabid* vinyl-bashers. Their
'scientific arguments' fly out off the window when it comes to the
simple task of listening to the *music* - here's a little test I would
like to see carried out (but CBA to do myself):

Select a number of 'innocent parties' - people who like music but have
no interest in *audio*.

Ask their preference in music or get them to choose or bring a CD.

Sit them in a room (one at a time) with a CD setup, the CD of their
choice, some refreshments and a remote control, tell them they've got
all the time they want and shut the door on them.

Secretly observe them.

Report how many of them listened to the whole disk without skipping/fast
fowarding tracks....

Then, for bonus points, play them the CD and SACD tracks (blind) of the
same music and ask which they thought *better*....

(I make no predictions, but I have my own suspicions... ;-)

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> >> u
> >>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>
> >>>> Says it all and I will not add to this thread again
> >>>> other than to say, having been cornered into the
> >>>> position of 'Sole Defender Of Vinyl' in UKRA in the
> >>>> recent past, all I ever sought was that a *small few*
> >>>> should not have had it banned as an 'inadmissible audio
> >>>> topic' - no-one ever said it was *compulsory*....
> >>
> >>> But vinyl has NOT been banned.
> >>
> >> Agreed. Although the trite "I just bought a new LP"
> >> posts should be were that to be possible.
> >
> >
> > If you are talking about me I would be interested to see
> > such a post -
>
> Not you, Keith. The offender knows who she is.

I get excited about finding good music well recorded. I've posted maybe
5 or six such posts. I've also commented on finding good sounding CDs.
If you don't want to read about music, then don't. It's very simple.

[Keith G]

"Rob" > wrote in message
...
> Mr.T wrote:
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> To me the real killer point is if you take any decent source -
>>> analogue or
>>> digital - and copy to digital in the CD format and to vinyl, there
>>> were be
>>> a *very* noticeable difference between that master and the vinyl but
>>> not
>>> between it and the digital copy. Of course *some* will prefer the
>>> vinyl
>>> sound. But then come up with all sorts of bull**** as to why.
>>
>> Yep it's been happening for 25 years and no sign of stopping.
>>
>> My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic distortions",
>
> Prefer the sound, OK. I think you just have to take a deep breath,
> relax, and get over it. Until then -
>
>>but can't
>> possibly accept the fact that they may PREFER something not actually
>> as
>> technically accurate.
>
> I don't think 'they' know or care, in general.
>
>>They then have to come up with stupid explanations
>> plausible to themselves,
>
> Really? Again, generally people just prefer the sound. The 'why' isn't
> particularly important. Knowing why might be interesting, but it's
> hardly requisite.
>
>> and once they have convinced themselves, feel the
>> need to be evangelical and convert the rest of the world, just like
>> most
>> religions :-)
>>
>
> Unlike digitypes? ;-)


****ing hard to stay out of all this crap, ain't it?

:-)

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>>> u
>>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> Says it all and I will not add to this thread again
>>>>> other than to say, having been cornered into the
>>>>> position of 'Sole Defender Of Vinyl' in UKRA in the
>>>>> recent past, all I ever sought was that a *small few*
>>>>> should not have had it banned as an 'inadmissible audio
>>>>> topic' - no-one ever said it was *compulsory*....
>>>
>>>> But vinyl has NOT been banned.
>>>
>>> Agreed. Although the trite "I just bought a new LP"
>>> posts should be were that to be possible.
>>
>>
>> If you are talking about me I would be interested to see
>> such a post -
>
> Not you, Keith. The offender knows who she is.


OK, I saw myself quoted above and it appeared to relate to what I had
said, so I made an assumption (unsurprisingly) - you will note it
triggered my *aggressive defence* circuits elsewhere, despite a promise
to not get into any 'vinyl debate' as I really couldn't GAS who listens
to what and what they prefer or what medium may or not be superior to
another in any way that may or may not be in any way relevant.

My only problems are to do with oppression and the restrictions some
people want to place on others in this public forum. If it makes a noise
(from MP3 to Bluray) it's all on the menu, AFAIAC - nobody has to like
it *all*....


> Those funny black CDs tricked up to look like 45s are an interesting
> trip down memory lane...


No, as I've said recently elsewhere, I'm heartily sick of seeing the
words 'valvelike' and 'analogue sound' being applied to SS kit and
digital music by silly *hip* magazine writers. If it comes to it, I'll
take 'turgid' over 'florid' any day - I can work the rest out for
myself...

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said to MusicHaterBorg:

> If you don't want to read about music, then don't. It's very simple.

Rumor has it that a future release of Arnii's SnotWare™ will include a
logic loop that will allow him to ignore mentions of music. Until that
happens, though, the Beast will continue to react with violent revulsion
to all posts containing direct references to music.


--


"Music is irrelevant to audio."
A. Krooger (1998, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006)

[tubegarden]

On Aug 31, 7:45?am, "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com>
wrote:
> > The recording is made up of noughts and ones.
> > An LP has two sides, a CD only one. 50% difference.
> > Some LP's had three sides.
>
> LOL, you guys kill me. :->)

Shhh!

There are serious insults being sprayed around ...

Happy Ears!
Al

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>>>> u
>>>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>> Says it all and I will not add to this thread again
>>>>>> other than to say, having been cornered into the
>>>>>> position of 'Sole Defender Of Vinyl' in UKRA in the
>>>>>> recent past, all I ever sought was that a *small few*
>>>>>> should not have had it banned as an 'inadmissible
>>>>>> audio topic' - no-one ever said it was
>>>>>> *compulsory*....
>>>>
>>>>> But vinyl has NOT been banned.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. Although the trite "I just bought a new LP"
>>>> posts should be were that to be possible.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you are talking about me I would be interested to see
>>> such a post -
>>
>> Not you, Keith. The offender knows who she is.

> I get excited about finding good music well recorded.

So do I. OK, so that precludes anything on vinyl because any recording on
vinyl is by definition not well recorded. No skin off my nose.

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message

>
> No, as I've said recently elsewhere, I'm heartily sick of
> seeing the words 'valvelike' and 'analogue sound' being
> applied to SS kit and digital music by silly *hip*
> magazine writers.


Agreed, no reason to slander good SS kit and good digital recordings that
way.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> >>>> u
> >>>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Says it all and I will not add to this thread again
> >>>>>> other than to say, having been cornered into the
> >>>>>> position of 'Sole Defender Of Vinyl' in UKRA in the
> >>>>>> recent past, all I ever sought was that a *small few*
> >>>>>> should not have had it banned as an 'inadmissible
> >>>>>> audio topic' - no-one ever said it was
> >>>>>> *compulsory*....
> >>>>
> >>>>> But vinyl has NOT been banned.
> >>>>
> >>>> Agreed. Although the trite "I just bought a new LP"
> >>>> posts should be were that to be possible.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If you are talking about me I would be interested to see
> >>> such a post -
> >>
> >> Not you, Keith. The offender knows who she is.
>
> > I get excited about finding good music well recorded.
>
> So do I.

Great, what is a recent find?

> OK, so that precludes anything on vinyl because any recording on
> vinyl is by definition not well recorded. No skin off my nose.

Great, so shut up about it.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
Bret Ludwig > wrote:

> On Aug 31, 11:02 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Keith G" > wrote in message
> >
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> > > u
> > > >>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >
> > > >>>> Says it all and I will not add to this thread again
> > > >>>> other than to say, having been cornered into the
> > > >>>> position of 'Sole Defender Of Vinyl' in UKRA in the
> > > >>>> recent past, all I ever sought was that a *small few*
> > > >>>> should not have had it banned as an 'inadmissible audio
> > > >>>> topic' - no-one ever said it was *compulsory*....
> >
> > > >>> But vinyl has NOT been banned.
> >
> > > >> Agreed. Although the trite "I just bought a new LP"
> > > >> posts should be were that to be possible.
> >
> > > > If you are talking about me I would be interested to see
> > > > such a post -
> >
> > > Not you, Keith. The offender knows who she is.
> >
> > I get excited about finding good music well recorded. I've posted maybe
> > 5 or six such posts. I've also commented on finding good sounding CDs.
> > If you don't want to read about music, then don't. It's very simple.- Hide
> > quoted text -
>
>
> Well, you have. But you conveyed the impression to Arny that you
> preferred vinyl because it's vinyl and he has a problem.

Then Arny needs to actually read the posts, because I've said no such
thing.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > Well, you have. But you conveyed the impression to Arny that you
> > preferred vinyl because it's vinyl and he has a problem.

> Then Arny needs to actually read the posts, because I've said no such
> thing.

Apparently, Bratzi is telling us that Arnii got confused about your
meaning. I suggest prefacing all your comments about records you like
with the simple introductory phrase "I know vinyl is inherently crappy,
but I found this recording ..." Then you can go on to discuss how the
album pleases you despite being conveyed on the horribly flawed medium
of vinyl.

Also, it wouldn't hurt to insinuate snidely that the happenstance of a
good-sounding record is most likely accidental. Adding a comment to that
effect will tend to assuage the Beast's fragile ego and distract him
from the obviously hostile overtones of your attack on digital media.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Good old Arns is reverting back to childhood.

On Aug 31, 3:52 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in

> > I get excited about finding good music well recorded.
>
> So do I. OK, so that precludes anything on vinyl because any recording on
> vinyl is by definition not well recorded. No skin off my nose.

Did it work when you were seven, Arns?

New rule: Arns has to whip himself from now on. No more using
chiorboys!

[dizzy]

Jenn wrote:

>In article >,
> dizzy > wrote:
>
>> Peter Wieck wrote:
>>
>> >On Aug 30, 1:38 pm, John Byrns > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
>> >> capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.
>> >
>> >Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both".
>>
>> Indeed. Many of the arguments would stop if ignorant vinyl-lovers
>> would stop spewing their ignorance. Seems as though every half-wit
>> out there thinks they have sufficient knowledge of digital audio to
>> make bold statements about it's supposed limitations.
>
>It would also be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl fans of saying
>something would actually read the posts of those individuals.

I have.

[George M. Middius]

dickless maleclotski said:

> >It would also be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl fans of saying
> >something would actually read the posts of those individuals.

> I have.

Jenn, in case you didn't already know, dickie is a known criminal. He
rips people off by posing as an acoustic engineer. He also duped some
poor woman in Massachusetts into fencing some stolen audio gear for him
on ebay.

[dizzy]

Keith G wrote:

>No Arny, you've got that all wrong (unless you are *distorting* again
>which, of course, is highly likely) - it's CDs that are disappearing
>rapidly.

LOL

Idiot.

[Rob[_3_]]

Keith G wrote:
> "Rob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mr.T wrote:
>>> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> To me the real killer point is if you take any decent source -
>>>> analogue or
>>>> digital - and copy to digital in the CD format and to vinyl, there
>>>> were be
>>>> a *very* noticeable difference between that master and the vinyl but
>>>> not
>>>> between it and the digital copy. Of course *some* will prefer the
>>>> vinyl
>>>> sound. But then come up with all sorts of bull**** as to why.
>>> Yep it's been happening for 25 years and no sign of stopping.
>>>
>>> My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic distortions",
>> Prefer the sound, OK. I think you just have to take a deep breath,
>> relax, and get over it. Until then -
>>
>>> but can't
>>> possibly accept the fact that they may PREFER something not actually
>>> as
>>> technically accurate.
>> I don't think 'they' know or care, in general.
>>
>>> They then have to come up with stupid explanations
>>> plausible to themselves,
>> Really? Again, generally people just prefer the sound. The 'why' isn't
>> particularly important. Knowing why might be interesting, but it's
>> hardly requisite.
>>
>>> and once they have convinced themselves, feel the
>>> need to be evangelical and convert the rest of the world, just like
>>> most
>>> religions :-)
>>>
>> Unlike digitypes? ;-)
>
>
> ****ing hard to stay out of all this crap, ain't it?
>
> :-)
>
>

Well, the weekend had started :-)

This thread is fairly benign. It's when the rant gets ratcheted up to
bits and noise, and CDs simply *must* sound better that I get bemused. A
clear case of autosuggestion.

Rob

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Rob > wrote:
> This thread is fairly benign. It's when the rant gets ratcheted up to
> bits and noise, and CDs simply *must* sound better that I get bemused. A
> clear case of autosuggestion.

The CD *medium* will always sound better than vinyl - if you value audio
quality. Individual CDs are a different matter. Rubbish in rubbish out.
But then that applies to vinyl too. Vinyl lovers tend to give the
impression there are no poorly recorded LPs.

--
*I'm not your type. I'm not inflatable.

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message


> No Arny, you've got that all wrong (unless you are
> *distorting* again which, of course, is highly likely) -
> it's CDs that are disappearing rapidly.

Not in terms of sales percentages.

> Vinyl continues
> to chunter on and with the flood of new hardware
> (turntables, carts &c.)

In the US, LP sales have hit the skids. Again.

>> I think we need to consider the psychology and sociology
>> of the situation, By publically fawning all over vinyl,
>> people join what they perceive to be an elite. The
>> psychology of preferring vinyl despite its warts is
>> similar to piercing.

> Studying the psychology of those who feel *excluded* from
> what is a fairly commonplace and mundane leisure activity
> might be more interesting and then maybe go on to try and
> fathom why the same evidenced *denial* is being applied
> to any new HD audio media??

What are you talking about? Who is being excluded from what fairly
commonplace and mundane leisure activity?

If you're saying that playing vinyl is fairly commonplace and mundane, you
need to get out more! Hardly anybody does that any more. Most people who
have seen it done in the last decade saw it in a dance club. Even among
audiophiles, only a small fraction still mess with vinyl.

If you're saying that people are excluded from playing vinyl against their
will, then you *really* need to get out more! Vinyl used to be the only
game in town, and everybody played it. Now only a few percent of the
population bother with it.

And, if you're talking about me Keith, then you're really going on
ignorantly because I'm one of those few people who have a working vinyl
playback system, and use it to this day, occasionally, to digititize LPs for
friends and acquaintances.

> Readers of a UK newsgroup might want to ask themselves
> why a foreigner feels it necessary to pound it
> relentlessly with *antivinyl propaganda*??

What *antivinyl propaganda*?? Vinyl is what it is - a legacy technology
that has been largely abandoned by music lovers because of its inferior
sonics and practical difficulties.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com
> On Aug 31, 7:11 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com
>>
>>>> The Ampex units are total overkill for domestic use.
>>>> I'd take a Revox A700 over an Ampex any day. For speed
>>>> stability, that direct drive Pabst capstan motor
>>>> combined with the electronic servo tensioning, was just
>>>> unbeatable. And the electronics were modern and quiet.
>>>> Plus, unlike the Ampex, the whole package doesn't take
>>>> up an entire room.
>>> What's better about a Revox than an AG440 or a 351?
>>
>> The A77 had a number of advantages over those old
>> Ampexes especially the 351- size, weight, price,
>> reliability, and availability. All that and equivalent
>> or better performance.
>
> The 351 has big synchronous motors that run on AC and are
> mechanically foolproof if the rubber parts are available.

Ironic that you talk about big synchronous motors (note plural) , when there
is only one motor in a 351 that has any need to synchronize with anything.

Bret are you saying that you have a problem with the Revox solution to the
same basic need, which is a motor that is in a constant-speed servo loop?

>> Unlike you Bret, I've actually seen and touched a 351.
>> The thing is about the size of a washing machine and
>> about as portable. People who carted 351s around to
>> record live performances were heroes!

> For house use, the heavier the better.

351s are awkward to even move around inside a house, especially between
floors.

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> No, as I've said recently elsewhere, I'm heartily sick of
>> seeing the words 'valvelike' and 'analogue sound' being
>> applied to SS kit and digital music by silly *hip*
>> magazine writers.
>
>
> Agreed, no reason to slander good SS kit and good digital recordings
> that way.


Except to *tempt* people to buy it....??

(Think about it...)

[Keith G]

"Dozy" > wrote in message
...
> Keith G wrote:
>
>>No Arny, you've got that all wrong (unless you are *distorting* again
>>which, of course, is highly likely) - it's CDs that are disappearing
>>rapidly.
>
> LOL
>
> Idiot.



If you are posting/crossposting into ukra it's not necessary to declare
your *occupation* Dozy, old bean...

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>
>
>> No Arny, you've got that all wrong (unless you are
>> *distorting* again which, of course, is highly likely) -
>> it's CDs that are disappearing rapidly.
>
> Not in terms of sales percentages.


No? I would have thought a fall in sales revenue of 19.8% in just three
months was a pretty good indicator:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6933632.stm


>
>> Vinyl continues
>> to chunter on and with the flood of new hardware
>> (turntables, carts &c.)
>
> In the US, LP sales have hit the skids. Again.


Wouldn't know, but the phrase 'down, but not out' springs immediately to
mind...??


<snip>

>> Readers of a UK newsgroup might want to ask themselves
>> why a foreigner feels it necessary to pound it
>> relentlessly with *antivinyl propaganda*??
>
> What *antivinyl propaganda*?? Vinyl is what it is - a legacy
> technology that has been largely abandoned by music lovers because of
> its inferior sonics and practical difficulties.


This is my point entirely - I don't think the 'transatlantic view' is
anything like relevant in this UK ng.

You and a *precious few* others (crossposted with only a couple of
indigenous, from what I can see) can hide behind all the *vinyl denial*
you want but the facts are a wee bit different and speak for themselves;
the current issue (Aug 2007) of just one 'UK audio magazine' has a
'vinyl mention' on at least 20 pages - not counting much more stuff
hidden in text and/or small ads.

Here are some quick snaps of the cover and *only* the double-page
spreads, to give you an idea:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/MagCover.jpg

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/DoubleSpread01.JPG

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/DoubleSpread02.JPG

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/DoubleSpread03.JPG

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/DoubleSpread04.JPG

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/DoubleSpread05.JPG

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/DoubleSpread06.JPG


How *legacy* and *abandoned* does that look to you? Really?

And remember the point I made a day or two ago - having bought some of
this hugely expensive kit, the owners are going to want to feed it for a
long time to come so I think it's safe to say that there's still a
future for modern LPs. I don't think many people are paying 4K for
turntables (DoubleSpread05) or 2.3K for carts (DoubleSpread06) just to
play the 80s crap from their lofts or Classics For Pleasure cheepies
from the local charity shop....

Perhaps you are confusing modern LPs with 78s on 'gramophones'....??

[Keith G]

"Rob" > wrote in message
...
> Keith G wrote:


>> ****ing hard to stay out of all this crap, ain't it?
>>
>> :-)
>>
>>
>
> Well, the weekend had started :-)
>
> This thread is fairly benign.


That's because ukra's No.1 Poison Dwarf is no longer with us - you
remember: Two rational posts then rapidly degenerating into invective
and verbal abuse in any 'vinyl thread'!


It's when the rant gets ratcheted up to
> bits and noise, and CDs simply *must* sound better that I get bemused.
> A clear case of autosuggestion.


What? Like 'Vinyl lovers tend to give the impression there are no poorly
recorded LPs.'..??

;-)

[Keith G]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Rob > wrote:
>> This thread is fairly benign. It's when the rant gets ratcheted up to
>> bits and noise, and CDs simply *must* sound better that I get
>> bemused. A
>> clear case of autosuggestion.
>
> The CD *medium* will always sound better than vinyl - if you value
> audio
> quality. Individual CDs are a different matter. Rubbish in rubbish
> out.
> But then that applies to vinyl too. Vinyl lovers tend to give the
> impression there are no poorly recorded LPs.



And CD lovers tend to give the impression there are no poorly recorded
CDs, but you should know better than to go by *impressions*...

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> No, as I've said recently elsewhere, I'm heartily sick
>>> of seeing the words 'valvelike' and 'analogue sound'
>>> being applied to SS kit and digital music by silly *hip*
>>> magazine writers.
>>
>>
>> Agreed, no reason to slander good SS kit and good
>> digital recordings that way.
>
>
> Except to *tempt* people to buy it....??

In fact there's virtually no discussion of SS versus tubed audio gear
anyplace but a few esoteric circles. The days of comparsions between tubed
and SS passed along several decades ago, with SS winning decisively.

Here's your challenge - find a significant (>3% of the market) amount of
newly-produced media, or even media produced produced in the last 30 years,
that didn't pass through at least one SS device.

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> No Arny, you've got that all wrong (unless you are
>>> *distorting* again which, of course, is highly likely) -
>>> it's CDs that are disappearing rapidly.
>>
>> Not in terms of sales percentages.
>
>
> No? I would have thought a fall in sales revenue of 19.8%
> in just three months was a pretty good indicator:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6933632.stm

OK Keith, so you can't tell the difference between a sales percentage for
vinyl, and an indicator of an ongoing transition from one form of digital
media to another form of digital media.

Not my problem!

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message


>
> And CD lovers tend to give the impression there are no
> poorly recorded CDs,


Straw man argument, if not an out-an-out lie!

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>
>
>>
>> And CD lovers tend to give the impression there are no
>> poorly recorded CDs,
>
>
> Straw man argument, if not an out-an-out lie!


Just a little too selectively snipped for me, Arny - go say the same to
Plowie for "Vinyl lovers tend to give the
impression there are no poorly recorded LPs." and we'll maybe continue
the debate....

....but not for a while, I'm off out on me motorcycle while the sun's
shining!! :-)

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, as I've said recently elsewhere, I'm heartily sick
>>>> of seeing the words 'valvelike' and 'analogue sound'
>>>> being applied to SS kit and digital music by silly *hip*
>>>> magazine writers.
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed, no reason to slander good SS kit and good
>>> digital recordings that way.
>>
>>
>> Except to *tempt* people to buy it....??
>
> In fact there's virtually no discussion of SS versus tubed audio gear
> anyplace but a few esoteric circles. The days of comparsions between
> tubed and SS passed along several decades ago, with SS winning
> decisively.


Irrelevant.

>
> Here's your challenge - find a significant (>3% of the market) amount
> of newly-produced media, or even media produced produced in the last
> 30 years, that didn't pass through at least one SS device.


No, that's *your* challenge and I choose to ignore it - I simply don't
care what equipment is used to produce the music I listen to, I only
know how I prefer to listen to it. I fully expect various combinations
of valve and SS, digital and analogue processes to come into it at some
stage, anyway - depending on what the music is, where and when is was
recorded and produced...

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> No Arny, you've got that all wrong (unless you are
>>>> *distorting* again which, of course, is highly likely) -
>>>> it's CDs that are disappearing rapidly.
>>>
>>> Not in terms of sales percentages.
>>
>>
>> No? I would have thought a fall in sales revenue of 19.8%
>> in just three months was a pretty good indicator:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6933632.stm
>
> OK Keith, so you can't tell the difference between a sales percentage
> for vinyl, and an indicator of an ongoing transition from one form of
> digital media to another form of digital media.
>
> Not my problem!


I think it is, unless you are deliberately obfuscating/distorting or, as
others imply, failing to read properly or grasp the meaning of my post -
my point was that it is CDs which are disappearing and I provided
evidence. If you want to relate that simple statement to percentages of
the weekly grocery bill or compare it with sales of leather goods or any
other thing which is not a CD, then it *is* your problem.

(Go ask EMI about this bit in particular: "The British group has been
struggling to survive in the face of falling CD sales - particularly in
the US market.")

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Keith G > wrote:
> > The CD *medium* will always sound better than vinyl - if you value
> > audio
> > quality. Individual CDs are a different matter. Rubbish in rubbish
> > out.
> > But then that applies to vinyl too. Vinyl lovers tend to give the
> > impression there are no poorly recorded LPs.



> And CD lovers tend to give the impression there are no poorly recorded
> CDs, but you should know better than to go by *impressions*...

Lots and lots on here about poor mastering of recent CDs.

Of course had this group existed 30 years ago the complaints would have
been about poor pressings.

--
*Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake.

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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 1, 9:20 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> Here's your challenge - find a significant (>3% of the market) amount of
> newly-produced media, or even media produced produced in the last 30 years,
> that didn't pass through at least one SS device.

Here's your challenge, Arns. Give us the percentage of newly or
recently-produced media that passed through at least one tube device.
Let's exclude instrument amplification, as that will hugely skew the
numbers up.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 31, 3:54 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
> > No, as I've said recently elsewhere, I'm heartily sick of
> > seeing the words 'valvelike' and 'analogue sound' being
> > applied to SS kit and digital music by silly *hip*
> > magazine writers.
>
> Agreed, no reason to slander good SS kit and good digital recordings that
> way.

Still having trouble accepting that others don't see it your way.

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message

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

>>>>

>>> My take is that now that the DJ-driven demand for vinyl is falling off,
>>> and
>>> sales are already dropping preciptiously, the hype will trail off.

>>>>> No Arny, you've got that all wrong (unless you are
>>>>> *distorting* again which, of course, is highly
>>>>> likely) - it's CDs that are disappearing rapidly.

>>>> Not in terms of sales percentages.

>>> No? I would have thought a fall in sales revenue of
>>> 19.8% in just three months was a pretty good indicator:

>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6933632.stm

>> OK Keith, so you can't tell the difference between a
>> sales percentage for vinyl, and an indicator of an
>> ongoing transition from one form of digital media to
>> another form of digital media.

>> Not my problem!

> I think it is, unless you are deliberately
> obfuscating/distorting or, as others imply, failing to
> read properly or grasp the meaning of my post - my point
> was that it is CDs which are disappearing and I provided
> evidence.

I reproduced my OP on the topic above, and it doesn't even mention CDs.
Therefore Keith, your attempt to introduce CD sales, given that CDs are a
form of media that I didn't even mention, is an obvious example of a red
herring argument. It's just another one of your an intentional attempt to
mislead the discussion from its origional intent.

The original intent was to make the point that LP sales have dropped
preciptiously in the US in the past year - about 33%.

[Serge Auckland]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Keith G > wrote:
>> > The CD *medium* will always sound better than vinyl - if you value
>> > audio
>> > quality. Individual CDs are a different matter. Rubbish in rubbish
>> > out.
>> > But then that applies to vinyl too. Vinyl lovers tend to give the
>> > impression there are no poorly recorded LPs.
>
>
>
>> And CD lovers tend to give the impression there are no poorly recorded
>> CDs, but you should know better than to go by *impressions*...
>
> Lots and lots on here about poor mastering of recent CDs.
>
> Of course had this group existed 30 years ago the complaints would have
> been about poor pressings.
>
> --
> *Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake.
>
> Dave Plowman London SW
> To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Poor pressings were ubiquitous at the time. I started buying LPs in the
sixties, and had a system sufficiently good to appreciate pressing quality
by the late 60s. *Every* LP I bought ultimately dissapointed due to surface
clicks and pops. Try listening to the second movement of Beethoven's Emperor
concerto on LP, and see if you can suspend disbelief that you're scraping
the music off the plastic with a rock on the end of a stick. You'll hear
every click and pop. I used to return 5 or 6 LPs for every one I bought, in
a vain attempt to find a quiet one. I wished and prayed for a distribution
medium that would reproduce the master tape without interference. Cassettes
(self recorded from Radio 3) were rather better, but pre-recorded cassettes
weren't as good as LPs as although they didn't have the impulsive noise,
they had all sorts of other shortcomings. When, in 1977, I first heard what
became CD, (I was working for Philips at the time), it was what I had been
waiting for. What was eventually released after Sony got involved was even
better than Philips's own developments. (As an aside, Philips conceived CD
as an in-car medium only, and the first CDs were rather smaller and of lower
quality, so the player could fit into a standard DIN car radio slot)
*Everything* about CD was as improvement over LP and cassette. Even the much
maligned jewel box, I couldn't see much wrong with it once you got the hang
of opening it. Sleeve art aside, CDs came with a booklet, so even the sleeve
notes were often more comprehensive.

No, for me at least, CD did and still does everything I need from a music
carrier, and I play LPs for fun, (I have three turntables) much as I would
drive a 1930s MG, or when the musical content is more important than the
reproduced quality.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>
>>>>>
>
>>>> My take is that now that the DJ-driven demand for vinyl is falling
>>>> off, and
>>>> sales are already dropping preciptiously, the hype will trail off.
>
>>>>>> No Arny, you've got that all wrong (unless you are
>>>>>> *distorting* again which, of course, is highly
>>>>>> likely) - it's CDs that are disappearing rapidly.
>
>>>>> Not in terms of sales percentages.
>
>>>> No? I would have thought a fall in sales revenue of
>>>> 19.8% in just three months was a pretty good indicator:
>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6933632.stm
>
>>> OK Keith, so you can't tell the difference between a
>>> sales percentage for vinyl, and an indicator of an
>>> ongoing transition from one form of digital media to
>>> another form of digital media.
>
>>> Not my problem!
>
>> I think it is, unless you are deliberately
>> obfuscating/distorting or, as others imply, failing to
>> read properly or grasp the meaning of my post - my point
>> was that it is CDs which are disappearing and I provided
>> evidence.
>
> I reproduced my OP on the topic above, and it doesn't even mention
> CDs. Therefore Keith, your attempt to introduce CD sales, given that
> CDs are a form of media that I didn't even mention, is an obvious
> example of a red herring argument. It's just another one of your an
> intentional attempt to mislead the discussion from its origional
> intent.



When you deliberately crosspost into ukra you will get dragged anywhere
us ukranians want to take you. (It's hard, but then life *is* hard -
deal with it....)

AFAIAC and in context, my CD comment was a perfectly valid counter to
the immediately preceding remarks concerning vinyl. I neither know nor
care what was said in the OP - wherever it was and whenever was. (Tbh, I
have been blowing this thread en bloc and have only responded the the
old isolated remark that I have obviously found too difficult to
ignore.)


>
> The original intent was to make the point that LP sales have dropped
> preciptiously in the US in the past year - about 33%.


And this?

Just WTF has that to do with the price of pork chops in Saigon? Like,
who TF *cares* - It wouldn't even bother me if it was true for the UK!!

I wish a) these *transatlantic* crosspostings would end and b) I had the
willpower to resist them entirely...

(But I can't. I'll just have to try and live with it! :-))

[Keith G]

"Serge Auckland" > wrote



> Poor pressings were ubiquitous at the time.


??

I dunno, I must be much more easily pleased - I don't remember *ever*
taking an LP back to the shop!! The nearest to that I actually remember
was complaining to an eBay seller about a ropey Bladerunner I had
bought. He said 'Sorry about that, I'll send you a couple more to see if
you can get a good one out of them and I'll complain to my supplier!' -
and he did! It turns out they were brand new *bootlegs* being knocked
out in Germany somewhere!!

Also, I now remember, Swim bought me Bjork's 'Medullah' on vinyl up in
Scotland a couple of years back. Some distance away from the shop, she
stopped and slipped it out to check it (she's bought more vinyl than
most here, I suspect, and knows the score). There were some 'dimples' on
it, so she took it straight back to swap it only to find the two other
copies the shop had were gone in the 10 minutes or so since she left the
shop! Daft sod then got a refund and the net result is I still don't
have Medullah on vinyl yet!! (Dimples don't bother me either!! ;-)

Real time interruption: Swim has just advised me that Mole Jazz has now
closed down forever!!

:-(



I started buying LPs in the
> sixties, and had a system sufficiently good to appreciate pressing
> quality by the late 60s. *Every* LP I bought ultimately dissapointed
> due to surface clicks and pops. Try listening to the second movement
> of Beethoven's Emperor concerto on LP, and see if you can suspend
> disbelief that you're scraping the music off the plastic with a rock
> on the end of a stick. You'll hear every click and pop. I used to
> return 5 or 6 LPs for every one I bought, in a vain attempt to find a
> quiet one.


Streuth....



> *Everything* about CD was as improvement over LP and cassette. Even
> the much maligned jewel box, I couldn't see much wrong with it once
> you got the hang of opening it.


You're kidding now, Serge - aren't you?


Sleeve art aside, CDs came with a booklet, so even the sleeve
> notes were often more comprehensive.


Whaaat? Even the *Demon Digi***** (who shall remain nameless and who is
no longer with us) readily conceded the artwork/sleeve notes were much
better with LPs. Ain't you got any LPs with all the *words* (and
translations) on nice, big, fold-out booklets? (Stuck for the right
name - 'libretti' doesn't seem right....)



>
> No, for me at least, CD did and still does everything I need from a
> music carrier, and I play LPs for fun, (I have three turntables) much
> as I would drive a 1930s MG, or when the musical content is more
> important than the reproduced quality.


But what if you found yourself driving the MG much more than your
'modern' car...???

[Karl Uppiano]

> So do I. OK, so that precludes anything on vinyl because any recording on
> vinyl is by definition not well recorded. No skin off my nose.

I'm not sure I would go that far. I have been harping on the theoretical
advantages of digital audio since 1976. But I have some LPs dating back to
the early 70s that I would say are very well recorded, and provide the same
level of enjoyment as a well recorded CD, even if there is the occasional
tick or pop. Here are some of my favorite LPs:

- Toto IV - Toto (Columbia)
- Abbey Road - Beatles (Mobile Fidelity)
- Capriccio Italien from the 1812 Overture LP - Tchaikovsky (Telarc)
- Aspen Gold - Kingston Trio (Nautilus)
- Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975 - Eagles (Asylum)

To name a few. Some recordings, such as Rumours by Fleetwood Mac sound
better on the LP. The 1982 CD remaster simply falls flat - not the
technology, but the implementation. On the other hand, the Mirage CD from
the same era sounds great.

[Mr.T]

"George I M A ****" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
> > > > You admit you don't care about other opinions either,
>
> > > Incorrect.
>
> > What part of "And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either." is
> > incorrect?
>
> If this doesn't tell you how futile it is to argue with ****, then you
> deserve the coming rounds of "debating trade" you're heading for.

Yes George, silly isn't it to debate with someone who can actually quote
what you said when you deny it.
You would prefer people with memories shorter than your own, IF they even
exist.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"George IM. ****" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
news:repost.4bued3hje57agm4grbe3tnq0f1aksb87up@4ax .com...
> The corrected version reads "You, like other
> enlightened individuals, are perfectly justified in ignoring the
> opinions of gibbering baboons."

Thanks, I will.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"roughplanet" > wrote in message
u...
> Uh huh. So this is where you hang out these days, still banging the same
old
> anti-vinyl gong.

If I'm so anti vinyl, how come I still have over 1000 LP's?
Face it Ruff, *I* didn't start this or *ANY* other vinyl Vs digital debate.
Can you say the same?

>Different newsgroup, same message. Not much changes, does
> it T?

Nope, some people still can't accept that technology has actually improved.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Here's your challenge, Arns. Give us the percentage of newly or
> recently-produced media that passed through at least one tube device.
> Let's exclude instrument amplification, as that will hugely skew the
> numbers up.

Yes, unlike many of the posters here, most professional guitarists I know
actually accept that there is a difference between musical *production* and
music *reproduction*

Too subtle a concept for many it seems.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
> > No Jenn you've got it all wrong. We're accusing vinyl fans of
> > distorting established scientific facts to support their delusional
> > position that the best sounding LPs sound more lifelike than a
> > well-made CD.
>
>
> Which, of course, it does - ask anybody who isn't in *denial*....

Did you forget the smiley, or the medication :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

et...
> You've missed the point yet again. My point is that I've distorted
> NOTHING. You and Mr. T can keep distorting my statements any way you
> wish to. I "pity the fools" who can read simple posts.

Yep, your posts are so simple they are content free it seems. ANY
interpretation is strongly denied!

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> > Yep it's been happening for 25 years and no sign of
> > stopping.
>
> My take is that now that the DJ-driven demand for vinyl is falling off,
and
> sales are already dropping preciptiously, the hype will trail off.

I'll bet it doesn't, unfortunately.

> Vinylista propaganda is more like an indeology than a religion. Converting
> to Vinylism seems to often involve refuting the established claims of
> science,

Isn't that just what Religion did too? Should we still accept that the sun
and stars revolve around the earth?
Was Darwin right, or just another heretic like Galileo?
And how old is the universe in your religion Arny?
What about the so called "intelligent design", "debate"?

Still let's NOT go down that track in this newsgroup! :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
> No Arny, you've got that all wrong (unless you are *distorting* again
> which, of course, is highly likely) - it's CDs that are disappearing
> rapidly.

Where the hell do YOU live?
But I note you do NOT claim vinyl sales have even reached the most minuscule
percentage of CD sales, or availability.

It's amazing what you can do with statistics though. An Audio rag recently
claimed that turntable sales in England were greater than CD player sales
last year.
Even IF true, what they conveniently ignored was the millions of DVD player,
SACD player, DVDA player and other assorted hybrid player sales, that all
play standard CD disks.
"Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument" is still a widely
accepted philosophy it seems.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Rob" > wrote in message
...
> > My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic distortions",
>
> Prefer the sound, OK. I think you just have to take a deep breath,
> relax, and get over it.

And IF they did, these debates would have finished 25 years ago.
Some people still listen to wax cylinders, without needing to "prove" they
are better than CD

> >but can't
> > possibly accept the fact that they may PREFER something not actually as
> > technically accurate.
>
> I don't think 'they' know or care, in general.

And the ones that don't DO NOT post their opinions here obviously.


> >They then have to come up with stupid explanations
> > plausible to themselves,
>
> Really? Again, generally people just prefer the sound. The 'why' isn't
> particularly important. Knowing why might be interesting, but it's
> hardly requisite.

Sure it is when they are claiming to the world that their *preference* is
technically superior, when all proof is to the contrary.

MrT.

[Rob[_3_]]

Mr.T wrote:
> "Rob" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic distortions",
>> Prefer the sound, OK. I think you just have to take a deep breath,
>> relax, and get over it.
>
> And IF they did, these debates would have finished 25 years ago.
> Some people still listen to wax cylinders, without needing to "prove" they
> are better than CD
>
>>> but can't
>>> possibly accept the fact that they may PREFER something not actually as
>>> technically accurate.
>> I don't think 'they' know or care, in general.
>
> And the ones that don't DO NOT post their opinions here obviously.
>

Mmm. Not sure what you mean. I know that I generally prefer the sound of
vinyl. I don't know why it sounds better than, say, CD. And I post here.

>
>>> They then have to come up with stupid explanations
>>> plausible to themselves,
>> Really? Again, generally people just prefer the sound. The 'why' isn't
>> particularly important. Knowing why might be interesting, but it's
>> hardly requisite.
>
> Sure it is when they are claiming to the world that their *preference* is
> technically superior, when all proof is to the contrary.
>

I don't think anyone on this NG (or elsewhere, come to that) has the
ability to *prove* the inherent technical superiority of one over the
other. It depends on your definition of 'technical', and the
significance of that definition when it comes to the sound. I think.

Rob

[tony sayer]

In article <ddlCi.2291$sf1.250@trnddc01>, Karl Uppiano
> scribeth thus
>> So do I. OK, so that precludes anything on vinyl because any recording on
>> vinyl is by definition not well recorded. No skin off my nose.
>
>I'm not sure I would go that far. I have been harping on the theoretical
>advantages of digital audio since 1976. But I have some LPs dating back to
>the early 70s that I would say are very well recorded, and provide the same
>level of enjoyment as a well recorded CD, even if there is the occasional
>tick or pop. Here are some of my favorite LPs:
>
>- Toto IV - Toto (Columbia)
>- Abbey Road - Beatles (Mobile Fidelity)
>- Capriccio Italien from the 1812 Overture LP - Tchaikovsky (Telarc)
>- Aspen Gold - Kingston Trio (Nautilus)
>- Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975 - Eagles (Asylum)
>
>To name a few. Some recordings, such as Rumours by Fleetwood Mac sound
>better on the LP. The 1982 CD remaster simply falls flat - not the
>technology, but the implementation. On the other hand, the Mirage CD from
>the same era sounds great.
>
>


I remember several years ago being demonstrated some vinyl replay at
the home of Derek Scotland of Audiolab fame. I was very surprised by
just how good it was then!. All down to a very good MM pre-amp stage, he
spent a lot of time getting that designed right!. Good replay system
Audiolab and ESL63's, and most important of all there wasn't one single
pressing from the UK!. All were from Germany or the USA and specialised
suppliers at that!.

I remember his opinion of anything to do with any plastic pressing or
moulding process in the UK as,

...."all we're capable of is making children's **** pots!"......

Meaning sadly amongst many other things that the UK doesn't have such
people as plastics engineers;(....

and this was before the days that record producers had the notion that
CD's should all be the "radio edit" versions!....
--
Tony Sayer

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Rob > wrote:
> Mmm. Not sure what you mean. I know that I generally prefer the sound of
> vinyl. I don't know why it sounds better than, say, CD. And I post here.

You like the added harmonic distortion. Rock guitar players do too. Others
will find it pleasant enough on some material but very objectionable on
others.

> >
> >>> They then have to come up with stupid explanations
> >>> plausible to themselves,
> >> Really? Again, generally people just prefer the sound. The 'why' isn't
> >> particularly important. Knowing why might be interesting, but it's
> >> hardly requisite.
> >
> > Sure it is when they are claiming to the world that their *preference*
> > is technically superior, when all proof is to the contrary.
> >

> I don't think anyone on this NG (or elsewhere, come to that) has the
> ability to *prove* the inherent technical superiority of one over the
> other. It depends on your definition of 'technical', and the
> significance of that definition when it comes to the sound. I think.

Parameters to measure an audio signal have been around and accepted for
many a year - and by the very people who make both the equipment and
sources you listen to. And vinyl doesn't measure well. Of course you can
fool yourself that those parameters aren't important. Provided you are
very selective about which ones.

--
*Speak softly and carry a cellular phone *

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
tony sayer > wrote:
> I remember several years ago being demonstrated some vinyl replay at
> the home of Derek Scotland of Audiolab fame. I was very surprised by
> just how good it was then!. All down to a very good MM pre-amp stage, he
> spent a lot of time getting that designed right!. Good replay system
> Audiolab and ESL63's, and most important of all there wasn't one single
> pressing from the UK!. All were from Germany or the USA and specialised
> suppliers at that!.

I've no doubt he was also careful to select the sort of music which either
masks the inherent distortions or is 'enhanced' by them.

--
*Work is for people who don't know how to fish.

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ups.com...

>> Here's your challenge, Arns. Give us the percentage of newly or
>> recently-produced media that passed through at least one tube device.
>> Let's exclude instrument amplification, as that will hugely skew the
>> numbers up.
>
> Yes, unlike many of the posters here, most professional guitarists I know
> actually accept that there is a difference between musical *production*
> and
> music *reproduction*
>
> Too subtle a concept for many it seems.

Way too subtle for a subintellect like ****R.

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> . ..
>>>>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>> My take is that now that the DJ-driven demand for vinyl is falling
>>>>> off, and
>>>>> sales are already dropping preciptiously, the hype will trail off.
>>
>>>>>>> No Arny, you've got that all wrong (unless you are
>>>>>>> *distorting* again which, of course, is highly
>>>>>>> likely) - it's CDs that are disappearing rapidly.
>>
>>>>>> Not in terms of sales percentages.
>>
>>>>> No? I would have thought a fall in sales revenue of
>>>>> 19.8% in just three months was a pretty good indicator:
>>
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6933632.stm
>>
>>>> OK Keith, so you can't tell the difference between a
>>>> sales percentage for vinyl, and an indicator of an
>>>> ongoing transition from one form of digital media to
>>>> another form of digital media.
>>
>>>> Not my problem!
>>
>>> I think it is, unless you are deliberately
>>> obfuscating/distorting or, as others imply, failing to
>>> read properly or grasp the meaning of my post - my point
>>> was that it is CDs which are disappearing and I provided
>>> evidence.
>>
>> I reproduced my OP on the topic above, and it doesn't even mention CDs.
>> Therefore Keith, your attempt to introduce CD sales, given that CDs are a
>> form of media that I didn't even mention, is an obvious example of a red
>> herring argument. It's just another one of your an intentional attempt to
>> mislead the discussion from its origional intent.

> AFAIAC and in context, my CD comment was a perfectly valid counter to the
> immediately preceding remarks concerning vinyl.

Repeating an intentional distraction doesn't make it less of a distraction.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...

>> No Arny, you've got that all wrong (unless you are *distorting* again
>> which, of course, is highly likely) - it's CDs that are disappearing
>> rapidly.

> Where the hell do YOU live?

Keith seems to spend a lot of time in some other universe - one where there
are actually a signficiant number of people who care about tubes, vinyl,
noisy microphones and tinny-sounding speakers.

> But I note you do NOT claim vinyl sales have even reached the most
> minuscule
> percentage of CD sales, or availability.

Letsee, RIAA statistics show that several hundred million CDs were sold last
year, and Keith thinks that they are "disappearing rapidly"?

You've got to wonder what's in Keith's blood besides blood!

> It's amazing what you can do with statistics though. An Audio rag recently
> claimed that turntable sales in England were greater than CD player sales
> last year.

I'm sitting here thinking that the sales of home optical players has
migrated from CD to DVD so fast that there might even be a bit of truth to
this claim.

> Even IF true, what they conveniently ignored was the millions of DVD
> player,
> SACD player, DVDA player and other assorted hybrid player sales, that all
> play standard CD disks.

Not that much less of a stretch than what Keith was saying - that the fact
that CD sales are being replaced by downloaded music is somehow relevant to
the fact that analog media like the LP went from 100% of the market to only
a percent or two.

> "Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument" is still a widely
> accepted philosophy it seems.

Agreed.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> > Yep it's been happening for 25 years and no sign of
>> > stopping.
>>
>> My take is that now that the DJ-driven demand for vinyl is falling off,
> and
>> sales are already dropping preciptiously, the hype will trail off.
>
> I'll bet it doesn't, unfortunately.
>
>> Vinylista propaganda is more like an indeology than a religion.
>> Converting
>> to Vinylism seems to often involve refuting the established claims of
>> science,
>
> Isn't that just what Religion did too?

Certain religions have done just about anything stupid that you can imagine.

> Should we still accept that the sun
> and stars revolve around the earth?

Remember that established Science taught that for most of recorded history.

> Was Darwin right, or just another heretic like Galileo?

They got more than a few things right.

> And how old is the universe in your religion Arny?

Indefinately long.

> What about the so called "intelligent design", "debate"?

Nothing I support as Science.

> Still let's NOT go down that track in this newsgroup! :-)

I don't think we have any TV evangelists who are saying that their magic
prayer cloth will double the number of molecules of anything you wrap with
it. Do we? ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" > wrote in message
...

> I don't think anyone on this NG (or elsewhere, come to that) has the
> ability to *prove* the inherent technical superiority of one over the
> other.

Sure we do, within the context of audio technology.

> It depends on your definition of 'technical',

Check your dictionary.

> and the significance of that definition when it comes to the sound. I
> think.

Think again.

[Keith G]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>> No Arny, you've got that all wrong (unless you are *distorting* again
>> which, of course, is highly likely) - it's CDs that are disappearing
>> rapidly.
>
> Where the hell do YOU live?
> But I note you do NOT claim vinyl sales have even reached the most
> minuscule
> percentage of CD sales, or availability.


Why should I make any such claim? - I neither know nor care, but think
about this: If 'vinylists' were as *elitist* as some here would have you
believe, then the smaller that percentage, the better - no?


>
> It's amazing what you can do with statistics though. An Audio rag
> recently
> claimed that turntable sales in England were greater than CD player
> sales
> last year.
> Even IF true, what they conveniently ignored was the millions of DVD
> player,
> SACD player, DVDA player and other assorted hybrid player sales, that
> all
> play standard CD disks.


Factor in the 'iPod effect' and you've answered your own question...


> "Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument" is still a
> widely
> accepted philosophy it seems.


Facts? That's an intriguing prospect - we get a lot of 'facts' in here
(ukra)....

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>>> . ..
>>>>>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> My take is that now that the DJ-driven demand for vinyl is
>>>>>> falling off, and
>>>>>> sales are already dropping preciptiously, the hype will trail
>>>>>> off.
>>>
>>>>>>>> No Arny, you've got that all wrong (unless you are
>>>>>>>> *distorting* again which, of course, is highly
>>>>>>>> likely) - it's CDs that are disappearing rapidly.
>>>
>>>>>>> Not in terms of sales percentages.
>>>
>>>>>> No? I would have thought a fall in sales revenue of
>>>>>> 19.8% in just three months was a pretty good indicator:
>>>
>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6933632.stm
>>>
>>>>> OK Keith, so you can't tell the difference between a
>>>>> sales percentage for vinyl, and an indicator of an
>>>>> ongoing transition from one form of digital media to
>>>>> another form of digital media.
>>>
>>>>> Not my problem!
>>>
>>>> I think it is, unless you are deliberately
>>>> obfuscating/distorting or, as others imply, failing to
>>>> read properly or grasp the meaning of my post - my point
>>>> was that it is CDs which are disappearing and I provided
>>>> evidence.
>>>
>>> I reproduced my OP on the topic above, and it doesn't even mention
>>> CDs. Therefore Keith, your attempt to introduce CD sales, given that
>>> CDs are a form of media that I didn't even mention, is an obvious
>>> example of a red herring argument. It's just another one of your an
>>> intentional attempt to mislead the discussion from its origional
>>> intent.
>
>> AFAIAC and in context, my CD comment was a perfectly valid counter to
>> the immediately preceding remarks concerning vinyl.
>
> Repeating an intentional distraction doesn't make it less of a
> distraction.


Repeating complaints in a UK-centric ng about UK responses to
crossposted US irrelevancies doesn't mean they'll stop either...

Now stop bitching or I'll hijack this thread and turn it into a DAB vs,
DAB+ debate and all you Merkins will get to hear about how Brit radio is
going down the *digital tubes* alongside recorded music and TV
transmissions...

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> u...
>>
>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> No Arny, you've got that all wrong (unless you are *distorting*
>>> again
>>> which, of course, is highly likely) - it's CDs that are disappearing
>>> rapidly.
>
>> Where the hell do YOU live?
>
> Keith seems to spend a lot of time in some other universe - one where
> there are actually a signficiant number of people who care about
> tubes, vinyl, noisy microphones and tinny-sounding speakers.


Much as it may irk you, I gather there are *millions* of people on this
planet who do some or even all of those things....


>
>> But I note you do NOT claim vinyl sales have even reached the most
>> minuscule
>> percentage of CD sales, or availability.
>
> Letsee, RIAA statistics show that several hundred million CDs were
> sold last year, and Keith thinks that they are "disappearing rapidly"?


No, you got that wrong - I wouldn't know, I merely posted a link to show
that the BBC (if no-one else) thinks they are....

[Keith G]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
...
>
> "Rob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic distortions",
>>
>> Prefer the sound, OK. I think you just have to take a deep breath,
>> relax, and get over it.
>
> And IF they did, these debates would have finished 25 years ago.
> Some people still listen to wax cylinders, without needing to "prove"
> they
> are better than CD


I don't know a single soul who plays LPs who feels he needs to *prove*
anything....

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> . ..
>>>>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> . ..
>>>>>>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> My take is that now that the DJ-driven demand for vinyl is falling
>>>>>>> off, and
>>>>>>> sales are already dropping preciptiously, the hype will trail off.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No Arny, you've got that all wrong (unless you are
>>>>>>>>> *distorting* again which, of course, is highly
>>>>>>>>> likely) - it's CDs that are disappearing rapidly.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not in terms of sales percentages.
>>>>
>>>>>>> No? I would have thought a fall in sales revenue of
>>>>>>> 19.8% in just three months was a pretty good indicator:
>>>>
>>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6933632.stm
>>>>
>>>>>> OK Keith, so you can't tell the difference between a
>>>>>> sales percentage for vinyl, and an indicator of an
>>>>>> ongoing transition from one form of digital media to
>>>>>> another form of digital media.
>>>>
>>>>>> Not my problem!
>>>>
>>>>> I think it is, unless you are deliberately
>>>>> obfuscating/distorting or, as others imply, failing to
>>>>> read properly or grasp the meaning of my post - my point
>>>>> was that it is CDs which are disappearing and I provided
>>>>> evidence.
>>>>
>>>> I reproduced my OP on the topic above, and it doesn't even mention CDs.
>>>> Therefore Keith, your attempt to introduce CD sales, given that CDs are
>>>> a form of media that I didn't even mention, is an obvious example of a
>>>> red herring argument. It's just another one of your an intentional
>>>> attempt to mislead the discussion from its origional intent.
>>
>>> AFAIAC and in context, my CD comment was a perfectly valid counter to
>>> the immediately preceding remarks concerning vinyl.
>>
>> Repeating an intentional distraction doesn't make it less of a
>> distraction.
>
>
> Repeating complaints in a UK-centric ng about UK responses to crossposted
> US irrelevancies doesn't mean they'll stop either...

I can always tell when you're bleeding pretty badly Keith, because you start
ranting and raving about xenophobic crap like this. Friendly advice: Cut
your losses and run.

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>> u...
>>>
>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> No Arny, you've got that all wrong (unless you are *distorting* again
>>>> which, of course, is highly likely) - it's CDs that are disappearing
>>>> rapidly.
>>
>>> Where the hell do YOU live?
>>
>> Keith seems to spend a lot of time in some other universe - one where
>> there are actually a signficiant number of people who care about tubes,
>> vinyl, noisy microphones and tinny-sounding speakers.
>
>
> Much as it may irk you, I gather there are *millions* of people on this
> planet who do some or even all of those things....
>
>
>>
>>> But I note you do NOT claim vinyl sales have even reached the most
>>> minuscule
>>> percentage of CD sales, or availability.
>>
>> Letsee, RIAA statistics show that several hundred million CDs were sold
>> last year, and Keith thinks that they are "disappearing rapidly"?
>
>
> No, you got that wrong - I wouldn't know, I merely posted a link to show
> that the BBC (if no-one else) thinks they are....

Every large US news organization seems to have at least one writer that is
their resident Looney. Why should the BBC be any different?

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Rob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> > My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic distortions",
>>>
>>> Prefer the sound, OK. I think you just have to take a deep breath,
>>> relax, and get over it.
>>
>> And IF they did, these debates would have finished 25 years ago.
>> Some people still listen to wax cylinders, without needing to "prove"
>> they
>> are better than CD
>
>
> I don't know a single soul who plays LPs who feels he needs to *prove*
> anything....

It is not the playing LPs that indicates a need to prove anything, it is the
continual ranting and raving on audio newsgroups about the technical
superiority of the LP that tells us about their state of mind.

My biggest concern about playing LPs is the ongoing degradation of what
should be archival media.

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>
>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>>> . ..
>>>>>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> . ..
>>>>>>>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My take is that now that the DJ-driven demand for vinyl is
>>>>>>>> falling off, and
>>>>>>>> sales are already dropping preciptiously, the hype will trail
>>>>>>>> off.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No Arny, you've got that all wrong (unless you are
>>>>>>>>>> *distorting* again which, of course, is highly
>>>>>>>>>> likely) - it's CDs that are disappearing rapidly.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not in terms of sales percentages.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No? I would have thought a fall in sales revenue of
>>>>>>>> 19.8% in just three months was a pretty good indicator:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6933632.stm
>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK Keith, so you can't tell the difference between a
>>>>>>> sales percentage for vinyl, and an indicator of an
>>>>>>> ongoing transition from one form of digital media to
>>>>>>> another form of digital media.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not my problem!
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it is, unless you are deliberately
>>>>>> obfuscating/distorting or, as others imply, failing to
>>>>>> read properly or grasp the meaning of my post - my point
>>>>>> was that it is CDs which are disappearing and I provided
>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> I reproduced my OP on the topic above, and it doesn't even mention
>>>>> CDs. Therefore Keith, your attempt to introduce CD sales, given
>>>>> that CDs are a form of media that I didn't even mention, is an
>>>>> obvious example of a red herring argument. It's just another one
>>>>> of your an intentional attempt to mislead the discussion from its
>>>>> origional intent.
>>>
>>>> AFAIAC and in context, my CD comment was a perfectly valid counter
>>>> to the immediately preceding remarks concerning vinyl.
>>>
>>> Repeating an intentional distraction doesn't make it less of a
>>> distraction.
>>
>>
>> Repeating complaints in a UK-centric ng about UK responses to
>> crossposted US irrelevancies doesn't mean they'll stop either...
>
> I can always tell when you're bleeding pretty badly Keith, because you
> start ranting and raving about xenophobic crap like this. Friendly
> advice: Cut your losses and run.


That sort of remark tells me you're the one who's bleeding - believe me,
neither I nor probably anybody else on the planet gives a rat's what
vinyl is *doing* in the US. The fatal error you have made is to
crosspost US irrelevancies into a UK newsgroup.

The only mystery is - *why*??

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Rob" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> > My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic distortions",
>>>>
>>>> Prefer the sound, OK. I think you just have to take a deep breath,
>>>> relax, and get over it.
>>>
>>> And IF they did, these debates would have finished 25 years ago.
>>> Some people still listen to wax cylinders, without needing to
>>> "prove" they
>>> are better than CD
>>
>>
>> I don't know a single soul who plays LPs who feels he needs to
>> *prove* anything....
>
> It is not the playing LPs that indicates a need to prove anything, it
> is the continual ranting and raving on audio newsgroups about the
> technical superiority of the LP that tells us about their state of
> mind.


The only people who combine the words 'technical superiority', 'LP' or
'vinyl' in a sentence *without* the 'couldn't care less' qualifier is
you mostly and occasionally a couple of other people who quite obviously
feel threatened by it all or just want to grab a little 'airtime' on a
deliberately provocative, crossposted thread...

(Congratulations on a good troll, really!! ;-)


>
> My biggest concern about playing LPs is the ongoing degradation of
> what should be archival media.


Your nagging anxieties are not my nagging anxieties...

[Rob[_3_]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article >,
> Rob > wrote:
>> Mmm. Not sure what you mean. I know that I generally prefer the sound of
>> vinyl. I don't know why it sounds better than, say, CD. And I post here.
>
> You like the added harmonic distortion. Rock guitar players do too. Others
> will find it pleasant enough on some material but very objectionable on
> others.
>

That may well be one reason why.

>>>>> They then have to come up with stupid explanations
>>>>> plausible to themselves,
>>>> Really? Again, generally people just prefer the sound. The 'why' isn't
>>>> particularly important. Knowing why might be interesting, but it's
>>>> hardly requisite.
>>> Sure it is when they are claiming to the world that their *preference*
>>> is technically superior, when all proof is to the contrary.
>>>
>
>> I don't think anyone on this NG (or elsewhere, come to that) has the
>> ability to *prove* the inherent technical superiority of one over the
>> other. It depends on your definition of 'technical', and the
>> significance of that definition when it comes to the sound. I think.
>
> Parameters to measure an audio signal have been around and accepted for
> many a year - and by the very people who make both the equipment and
> sources you listen to. And vinyl doesn't measure well. Of course you can
> fool yourself that those parameters aren't important. Provided you are
> very selective about which ones.
>

'Sound' and 'audio signal' are different.

Rob

[Rob[_3_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Rob" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I don't think anyone on this NG (or elsewhere, come to that) has the
>> ability to *prove* the inherent technical superiority of one over the
>> other.
>
> Sure we do, within the context of audio technology.
>

I suspect the context is the problem.

>> It depends on your definition of 'technical',
>
> Check your dictionary.
>

Well, you might check yours and understand that it's an ambiguous word!
Think 'context'.

>> and the significance of that definition when it comes to the sound. I
>> think.
>
> Think again.
>

Just did :-)

Rob

[George M. Middius]

Mr.**** said:

> > > > > You admit you don't care about other opinions either,

> > > > Incorrect.

> > > What part of "And I couldn't give a rat's what YOU prefer either." is
> > > incorrect?

> > If this doesn't tell you how futile it is to argue with ****, then you
> > deserve the coming rounds of "debating trade" you're heading for.

> Yes George, silly isn't it to debate with someone who can actually quote
> what [Jenn] said when [Jenn] deny[sic] it[sic].

Your problem appears to be understanding rather than mere regurgitating,
****. It's not unusual for 'borgs to have language deficiencies; in fact,
all of you known 'borgs have it to some degree.

Why don't you admit the truth, ****? You hate and fear Jenn because she's
female. Krooger admitted it, and so did Terrierborg.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Keith G > wrote:
> I don't know a single soul who plays LPs who feels he needs to *prove*
> anything....

If that were the case, Keith, and you added in valves to that you'd cut
your postings here by about 99.9%.

--
*Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Rob > wrote:
> > Parameters to measure an audio signal have been around and accepted
> > for many a year - and by the very people who make both the equipment
> > and sources you listen to. And vinyl doesn't measure well. Of course
> > you can fool yourself that those parameters aren't important. Provided
> > you are very selective about which ones.
> >

> 'Sound' and 'audio signal' are different.

Perhaps you'd explain that statement? There is no 'sound' from an LP
(apart from needle talk) - just an audio signal.

--
*I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it*

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

[Rob[_3_]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article >,
> Rob > wrote:
>>> Parameters to measure an audio signal have been around and accepted
>>> for many a year - and by the very people who make both the equipment
>>> and sources you listen to. And vinyl doesn't measure well. Of course
>>> you can fool yourself that those parameters aren't important. Provided
>>> you are very selective about which ones.
>>>
>
>> 'Sound' and 'audio signal' are different.
>
> Perhaps you'd explain that statement? There is no 'sound' from an LP
> (apart from needle talk) - just an audio signal.
>

Agreed.

Sound is something experienced by the brain, via the ear and other parts
of the body. An audio signal is something that happens before sound.

Whatever, it doesn't get me any closer to understanding which is
'better' or 'preferred'. I'd do that by listening, not measuring an
audio signal.

Rob

[tony sayer]

In article >, Dave Plowman (News)
> scribeth thus
>In article >,
> tony sayer > wrote:
>> I remember several years ago being demonstrated some vinyl replay at
>> the home of Derek Scotland of Audiolab fame. I was very surprised by
>> just how good it was then!. All down to a very good MM pre-amp stage, he
>> spent a lot of time getting that designed right!. Good replay system
>> Audiolab and ESL63's, and most important of all there wasn't one single
>> pressing from the UK!. All were from Germany or the USA and specialised
>> suppliers at that!.
>
>I've no doubt he was also careful to select the sort of music which either
>masks the inherent distortions or is 'enhanced' by them.
>

You say that but we also had a CD player, quite an early one there, but
it was that good!. I was rather surprised just how good it was at the
time, but the care and quality of the vinyl and pressing it seems made
the difference!...
--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

>Now stop bitching or I'll hijack this thread and turn it into a DAB vs,
>DAB+ debate and all you Merkins will get to hear about how Brit radio is
>going down the *digital tubes* alongside recorded music and TV
>transmissions...
>
>
>

Gone my dear Keith .. not going, just gone;(...
--
Tony Sayer

[Keith G]

"tony sayer" > wrote in message
...
> >Now stop bitching or I'll hijack this thread and turn it into a DAB
> >vs,
>>DAB+ debate and all you Merkins will get to hear about how Brit radio
>>is
>>going down the *digital tubes* alongside recorded music and TV
>>transmissions...
>>
>>
>>
>
> Gone my dear Keith .. not going, just gone;(...


What? DAB+ isn't going to cure all ills then?

(After we've all chucked our 'ordinary' DAB receivers out, of course...)

[Keith G]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Keith G > wrote:
>> I don't know a single soul who plays LPs who feels he needs to
>> *prove*
>> anything....
>
> If that were the case, Keith, and you added in valves to that you'd
> cut
> your postings here by about 99.9%.



Oi oi oi, Plowie - such a *scallywag* you are!! Deliberately distorting
the truth again while you push your
antivalve/antivinyl/antieverythingelseyoudon't like agenda!!

Unless you really haven't seen the recent threads I've started about
microphones, FM tuners, eBay &c. and all the other older threads about
speakers and countless OT subjects??

But, hang on a minute, that's not right - you musta done, you responded
to *all* of them, as you usually do!!

>
> --
> *Out of my mind.


We know....


Back in five minutes.


There's no hurry....



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

[tony sayer]

In article >, Keith G
> scribeth thus
>
>"tony sayer" > wrote in message
...
>> >Now stop bitching or I'll hijack this thread and turn it into a DAB
>> >vs,
>>>DAB+ debate and all you Merkins will get to hear about how Brit radio
>>>is
>>>going down the *digital tubes* alongside recorded music and TV
>>>transmissions...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Gone my dear Keith .. not going, just gone;(...
>
>
>What? DAB+ isn't going to cure all ills then?
>
>(After we've all chucked our 'ordinary' DAB receivers out, of course...)
>
>
>
>

Dunno if it will even happen. What they ought to do is designate DAB as
it is for lo-fi portable and mobile applications, and make the high
bitrate stuff available on satellite where the is plenty of bandwidth
available.

The BBC doesn't even transmit there at high rates, just 192 for Radio
three whereas a lot of German radio is 320 K or better!....
--
Tony Sayer

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Keith G > wrote:
> Oi oi oi, Plowie - such a *scallywag* you are!! Deliberately distorting
> the truth again while you push your
> antivalve/antivinyl/antieverythingelseyoudon't like agenda!!

Not anti anything. Just have a balanced view of them. That's the
difference...

> Unless you really haven't seen the recent threads I've started about
> microphones, FM tuners, eBay &c. and all the other older threads about
> speakers and countless OT subjects??

You manage to work valves into most of those too. Why on earth you're
going for valve mics escapes me.

> But, hang on a minute, that's not right - you musta done, you responded
> to *all* of them, as you usually do!!

--
*My dog can lick anyone

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Rob" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> > My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic distortions",
>>>>>
>>>>> Prefer the sound, OK. I think you just have to take a deep breath,
>>>>> relax, and get over it.
>>>>
>>>> And IF they did, these debates would have finished 25 years ago.
>>>> Some people still listen to wax cylinders, without needing to "prove"
>>>> they
>>>> are better than CD
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know a single soul who plays LPs who feels he needs to *prove*
>>> anything....
>>
>> It is not the playing LPs that indicates a need to prove anything, it is
>> the continual ranting and raving on audio newsgroups about the technical
>> superiority of the LP that tells us about their state of mind.
>
>
> The only people who combine the words 'technical superiority', 'LP' or
> 'vinyl' in a sentence *without* the 'couldn't care less' qualifier is you
> mostly and occasionally a couple of other people who quite obviously feel
> threatened by it all or just want to grab a little 'airtime' on a
> deliberately provocative, crossposted thread...

Convenient Keith how quickly you want to forget the content of the OP that
kicked the whole thread off. It's a published article from MSN claiming
technical superiority for the LP format.

>> My biggest concern about playing LPs is the ongoing degradation of what
>> should be archival media.

> Your nagging anxieties are not my nagging anxieties...

Where did I say anything about nagging anxieties, Keith? Having problem with
an overactive projection gland?

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Rob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> I don't think anyone on this NG (or elsewhere, come to that) has the
>>> ability to *prove* the inherent technical superiority of one over the
>>> other.

>> Sure we do, within the context of audio technology.

> I suspect the context is the problem.

Slippery talk.

>>> It depends on your definition of 'technical',
>>
>> Check your dictionary.

> Well, you might check yours and understand that it's an ambiguous word!

More slippery talk.

> Think 'context'.

More slippery talk.

>>> and the significance of that definition when it comes to the sound. I
>>> think.
>>
>> Think again.

> Just did :-)

You really didn't say anything that had any meaning, Rob. I take it that you
know you are cornered.

[dizzy]

Keith G wrote:

>The only people who combine the words 'technical superiority', 'LP' or
>'vinyl' in a sentence *without* the 'couldn't care less' qualifier is
>you mostly and occasionally a couple of other people who quite obviously
>feel threatened by it all or just want to grab a little 'airtime' on a
>deliberately provocative, crossposted thread...

Wrong, fool. I've seen MANY posts over the years from ignoramuses
claiming that LP is technically superior to CD, which "misses
something" because "it's only 1's and 0's" and other such garbage.

[Keith G]

"tony sayer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Keith G
> > scribeth thus
>>
>>"tony sayer" > wrote in message
...
>>> >Now stop bitching or I'll hijack this thread and turn it into a DAB
>>> >vs,
>>>>DAB+ debate and all you Merkins will get to hear about how Brit
>>>>radio
>>>>is
>>>>going down the *digital tubes* alongside recorded music and TV
>>>>transmissions...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gone my dear Keith .. not going, just gone;(...
>>
>>
>>What? DAB+ isn't going to cure all ills then?
>>
>>(After we've all chucked our 'ordinary' DAB receivers out, of
>>course...)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Dunno if it will even happen. What they ought to do is designate DAB
> as
> it is for lo-fi portable and mobile applications, and make the high
> bitrate stuff available on satellite where the is plenty of bandwidth
> available.
>
> The BBC doesn't even transmit there at high rates, just 192 for Radio
> three whereas a lot of German radio is 320 K or better!....



Hah! I have just uploaded a couple of wobblicam clips for you and there
you are!

Call me daft, but I do like a bit of 'wireless' on a Sunday Night (R2
atm - Malcolm Laycock's excellent 'Swing' programme) and ventured up the
'deep end' at one point - check this out:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/106.8MHz.wmv

And compare it with R3 (bloody speech again - as ever, but you'll get
the idea!):

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Radio3.wmv


Nowhere is safe these days, even UK radio is down the ****ter - DAB *or*
FM, from what I can see!!

[dizzy]

Keith G wrote:

>And CD lovers tend to give the impression there are no poorly recorded
>CDs,

No they don't. Borderline lie, there...

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Rob" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> > My take is that they PREFER the so called "euphonic
>>>>>> > distortions",
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prefer the sound, OK. I think you just have to take a deep
>>>>>> breath,
>>>>>> relax, and get over it.
>>>>>
>>>>> And IF they did, these debates would have finished 25 years ago.
>>>>> Some people still listen to wax cylinders, without needing to
>>>>> "prove" they
>>>>> are better than CD
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know a single soul who plays LPs who feels he needs to
>>>> *prove* anything....
>>>
>>> It is not the playing LPs that indicates a need to prove anything,
>>> it is the continual ranting and raving on audio newsgroups about the
>>> technical superiority of the LP that tells us about their state of
>>> mind.
>>
>>
>> The only people who combine the words 'technical superiority', 'LP'
>> or 'vinyl' in a sentence *without* the 'couldn't care less' qualifier
>> is you mostly and occasionally a couple of other people who quite
>> obviously feel threatened by it all or just want to grab a little
>> 'airtime' on a deliberately provocative, crossposted thread...
>
> Convenient Keith how quickly you want to forget the content of the OP
> that kicked the whole thread off. It's a published article from MSN
> claiming technical superiority for the LP format.


Is it ****. Apart from this tiny bit: "LPs contain close to 100-percent
of the uncompressed music information as originally recorded. CDs
contain only about half of that recorded information." it's no more than
another load of old ******** banging on about 'retro' and 'cool' -
neither of which much bothers an ordinary 'vinylista' like me, or the
dozens of others here who routinely play LPs.

I've told you several times now; I'm as fed up with this sort of thing
as you are - if nothing else, it's pushing up the price of secondhand
records...


>
>>> My biggest concern about playing LPs is the ongoing degradation of
>>> what should be archival media.
>
>> Your nagging anxieties are not my nagging anxieties...
>
> Where did I say anything about nagging anxieties, Keith?


'biggest concern'


Having problem with
> an overactive projection gland?


Me no having problem with any gland (yet)....

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article om>,
Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> But more importantly, almost all pop releases today have audio that
> has been through a tube somewhere.

Does that account for the appalling quality? Optimod type thingie set to
kill?

--
*It's lonely at the top, but you eat better.

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

[Keith G]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Keith G > wrote:
>> Oi oi oi, Plowie - such a *scallywag* you are!! Deliberately
>> distorting
>> the truth again while you push your
>> antivalve/antivinyl/antieverythingelseyoudon't like agenda!!
>
> Not anti anything. Just have a balanced view of them. That's the
> difference...


Don't talk to me about a 'balanced view', Plowie - you've got no idea. I
have here and routinely switch between or choose from:

4 valve amps and 4 SS amps.

A pair of Lowther 'horns' and a pair of IMF TLS80s side by side and both
in constant (daily) use.

Half a dozen turntables and half a dozen CD/DVD players/recorders (at
least)...

A selection of MM and MC carts...

Both SS and valve phono stages...

Both DAB and FM tuners...



They're all on here:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/myhifi/myhifi.htm


*Balanced* enough for you?



>
>> Unless you really haven't seen the recent threads I've started about
>> microphones, FM tuners, eBay &c. and all the other older threads
>> about
>> speakers and countless OT subjects??
>
> You manage to work valves into most of those too. Why on earth you're
> going for valve mics escapes me.


I've got a number of SS mics already (also on the above link), I just
want to try a valve mic to see/hear for myself and get, dare I say it, a
'balanced view'...??

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Rob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Rob" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> I don't think anyone on this NG (or elsewhere, come to that) has
>>>> the ability to *prove* the inherent technical superiority of one
>>>> over the other.
>
>>> Sure we do, within the context of audio technology.
>
>> I suspect the context is the problem.
>
> Slippery talk.



Whaaat?

Mind the Hypocrisy Police don't get you Arny....

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> et...
> > You've missed the point yet again. My point is that I've distorted
> > NOTHING. You and Mr. T can keep distorting my statements any way you
> > wish to. I "pity the fools" who can't (corrected) read simple posts.
>
> Yep, your posts are so simple they are content free it seems. ANY
> interpretation is strongly denied!

Tell me Mr. T: What have I "distorted"?

[Jenn]

In article >,
dizzy > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > dizzy > wrote:
> >
> >> Peter Wieck wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Aug 30, 1:38 pm, John Byrns > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I like them both, the LP has the edge in the information carrying
> >> >> capacity of the jacket, while the CD has the edge in convenience.
> >> >
> >> >Exactly. It is permitted to "like them both".
> >>
> >> Indeed. Many of the arguments would stop if ignorant vinyl-lovers
> >> would stop spewing their ignorance. Seems as though every half-wit
> >> out there thinks they have sufficient knowledge of digital audio to
> >> make bold statements about it's supposed limitations.
> >
> >It would also be helpful if those here who accuse vinyl fans of saying
> >something would actually read the posts of those individuals.
>
> I have.

So do you have problems with my statements about LPs and digital?

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "Rob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "Rob" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think anyone on this NG (or elsewhere, come to that) has the
>>>>> ability to *prove* the inherent technical superiority of one over the
>>>>> other.
>>
>>>> Sure we do, within the context of audio technology.
>>
>>> I suspect the context is the problem.
>>
>> Slippery talk.
>
>
>
> Whaaat?
>
> Mind the Hypocrisy Police don't get you Arny....
>
make that the Born Again Hypocrisy Police:-)

[tony sayer]

>> Dunno if it will even happen. What they ought to do is designate DAB
>> as
>> it is for lo-fi portable and mobile applications, and make the high
>> bitrate stuff available on satellite where the is plenty of bandwidth
>> available.
>>
>> The BBC doesn't even transmit there at high rates, just 192 for Radio
>> three whereas a lot of German radio is 320 K or better!....
>
>
>
>Hah! I have just uploaded a couple of wobblicam clips for you and there
>you are!
>
>Call me daft, but I do like a bit of 'wireless' on a Sunday Night (R2
>atm - Malcolm Laycock's excellent 'Swing' programme) and ventured up the
>'deep end' at one point - check this out:
>
>http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/106.8MHz.wmv

Lite FM from Concrete-a-borough, processed to within an inch of its
life!..

>
>And compare it with R3 (bloody speech again - as ever, but you'll get
>the idea!):
>
>http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Radio3.wmv

Indeed..
>
>
>Nowhere is safe these days, even UK radio is down the ****ter - DAB *or*
>FM, from what I can see!!
>

Go satellite then. Got a Lidel?, near U they do some rather good value
for money satellite stuff from time to time SL65 IIRC. Just needs to see
the *"right" bit of the Sky and avail yourself to some real music radio
in excellent near-as-dammit CD quality:))...




* which can be on the ground!..

--
Tony Sayer

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Keith G > wrote:
>> Oi oi oi, Plowie - such a *scallywag* you are!! Deliberately distorting
>> the truth again while you push your
>> antivalve/antivinyl/antieverythingelseyoudon't like agenda!!
>
> Not anti anything. Just have a balanced view of them. That's the
> difference...
>
>> Unless you really haven't seen the recent threads I've started about
>> microphones, FM tuners, eBay &c. and all the other older threads about
>> speakers and countless OT subjects??
>
> You manage to work valves into most of those too. Why on earth you're
> going for valve mics escapes me.

Don't you have access to any valve mics, Dave?
Neumann U47, U49, U50 are particularly good
They are very expensive, and highly regarded
in classical recording. The only people who don't
like them are those that don't have them:-)

Regards
Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>> But more importantly, almost all pop releases today have audio that
>> has been through a tube somewhere.
>
> Does that account for the appalling quality? Optimod type thingie set to
> kill?
>


I think he means in the recording chain. Tube mic preamps, and
tube compressors are to be found in almost every studio.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Keith G > wrote:
>> > The CD *medium* will always sound better than vinyl - if you value
>> > audio
>> > quality. Individual CDs are a different matter. Rubbish in rubbish
>> > out.
>> > But then that applies to vinyl too. Vinyl lovers tend to give the
>> > impression there are no poorly recorded LPs.
>
>
>
>> And CD lovers tend to give the impression there are no poorly recorded
>> CDs, but you should know better than to go by *impressions*...
>
> Lots and lots on here about poor mastering of recent CDs.

And the sad thing about it is that these poor production
masters are made from perfectly good studio mixes.
As long as the public are generally of the opinion than
"louder is better" with comments like: "It sounds OK
to me, especially in the car", then there is little hope of
improvement.
>
> Of course had this group existed 30 years ago the complaints would have
> been about poor pressings.

A much simpler problem to resolve. I cannot speak for all
companies, but I know that Decca in the UK went to great
lengths to ensure customer sastisfaction, and replaced noisy
pressings when they were brought to the company's notice.
This extra attention to QC greatly enhanced their reputation.

I find it interesting that although there is much talk of poor
CD mastering quality, the number or returns and complaints
received by the record companies is very small indeed.
The expectations of the general public these days are
not high:-(

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Aug 31, 3:54 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > No, as I've said recently elsewhere, I'm heartily sick of
>> > seeing the words 'valvelike' and 'analogue sound' being
>> > applied to SS kit and digital music by silly *hip*
>> > magazine writers.
>>
>> Agreed, no reason to slander good SS kit and good digital recordings that
>> way.
>
> Still having trouble accepting that others don't see it your way.


Just listen to one of Arny's "recordings", and you will understand
why his opinion on recording quality differs from that held by the
many of the rest of us:-)))


Iain

[Eeyore]

Iain Churches wrote:

> Just listen to one of Arny's "recordings", and you will understand
> why his opinion on recording quality differs from that held by the
> many of the rest of us:-)))

Do tell.

Graham

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Keith G > wrote:

> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Keith G > wrote:
> >> Oi oi oi, Plowie - such a *scallywag* you are!! Deliberately
> >> distorting
> >> the truth again while you push your
> >> antivalve/antivinyl/antieverythingelseyoudon't like agenda!!
> >
> > Not anti anything. Just have a balanced view of them. That's the
> > difference...


> Don't talk to me about a 'balanced view', Plowie - you've got no idea. I
> have here and routinely switch between or choose from:

> 4 valve amps and 4 SS amps.

> A pair of Lowther 'horns' and a pair of IMF TLS80s side by side and both
> in constant (daily) use.

> Half a dozen turntables and half a dozen CD/DVD players/recorders (at
> least)...

> A selection of MM and MC carts...

> Both SS and valve phono stages...

> Both DAB and FM tuners...



> They're all on here:

> http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/myhifi/myhifi.htm


> *Balanced* enough for you?



> >
> >> Unless you really haven't seen the recent threads I've started about
> >> microphones, FM tuners, eBay &c. and all the other older threads
> >> about
> >> speakers and countless OT subjects??
> >
> > You manage to work valves into most of those too. Why on earth you're
> > going for valve mics escapes me.


> I've got a number of SS mics already (also on the above link), I just
> want to try a valve mic to see/hear for myself and get, dare I say it, a
> 'balanced view'...??

Not really. To do reasonable comparisons for the real world requires
reasonable hearing and knowing what you're listening for.

By the amount of experimenting you do - with each new project being an
'improvement' - my guess is you have no real idea what you're searching
for or how to achieve it. Really, you seem to be trying to re-invent the
wheel. Things like valve mics/amps and horn speakers were superseded by
modern techniques for a very good reason - not some conspiracy.

Of course there's nothing wrong in starting from basics and arriving at
your own conclusions. Plenty here will have done this in real time rather
than trying to compress it all into a few years.

But like any child who learns by experience you also seem to dislike
hearing 'I told you so'...

--
*I love cats...they taste just like chicken.

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
tony sayer > wrote:
> Go satellite then. Got a Lidel?, near U they do some rather good value
> for money satellite stuff from time to time SL65 IIRC. Just needs to see
> the *"right" bit of the Sky and avail yourself to some real music radio
> in excellent near-as-dammit CD quality:))...

That would be Lidl. ;-)

Worth also getting their larger disc and a rotator. For about 200 quid
(without installation costs if any) you'll get pretty well all the free
stuff.

--
*If only you'd use your powers for good instead of evil.

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Iain Churches > wrote:
> > You manage to work valves into most of those too. Why on earth you're
> > going for valve mics escapes me.

> Don't you have access to any valve mics, Dave?
> Neumann U47, U49, U50 are particularly good
> They are very expensive, and highly regarded
> in classical recording. The only people who don't
> like them are those that don't have them:-)

Or those who require to impress a client. ;-)

However, these are a rather different matter from new chinese ones.

The heart of any condenser mic is the capsule - and always was. This is a
precision device which like all such things has to be properly made. And
that costs money.

--
*I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met *

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Iain Churches > wrote:

> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article om>,
> > Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> >> But more importantly, almost all pop releases today have audio that
> >> has been through a tube somewhere.
> >
> > Does that account for the appalling quality? Optimod type thingie set
> > to kill?

> I think he means in the recording chain. Tube mic preamps, and
> tube compressors are to be found in almost every studio.

Right. So it's these that are responsible for the appalling quality of
much of today's pop output?

--
*Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?

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

[Keith G]

"tony sayer" > wrote in message
...
>>> Dunno if it will even happen. What they ought to do is designate DAB
>>> as
>>> it is for lo-fi portable and mobile applications, and make the high
>>> bitrate stuff available on satellite where the is plenty of
>>> bandwidth
>>> available.
>>>
>>> The BBC doesn't even transmit there at high rates, just 192 for
>>> Radio
>>> three whereas a lot of German radio is 320 K or better!....
>>
>>
>>
>>Hah! I have just uploaded a couple of wobblicam clips for you and
>>there
>>you are!
>>
>>Call me daft, but I do like a bit of 'wireless' on a Sunday Night (R2
>>atm - Malcolm Laycock's excellent 'Swing' programme) and ventured up
>>the
>>'deep end' at one point - check this out:
>>
>>http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/106.8MHz.wmv
>
> Lite FM from Concrete-a-borough, processed to within an inch of its
> life!..
>
>>
>>And compare it with R3 (bloody speech again - as ever, but you'll get
>>the idea!):
>>
>>http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Radio3.wmv
>
> Indeed..
>>
>>
>>Nowhere is safe these days, even UK radio is down the ****ter - DAB
>>*or*
>>FM, from what I can see!!
>>
>
> Go satellite then. Got a Lidel?, near U they do some rather good
> value
> for money satellite stuff from time to time SL65 IIRC. Just needs to
> see
> the *"right" bit of the Sky and avail yourself to some real music
> radio
> in excellent near-as-dammit CD quality:))...
>
>
>
>
> * which can be on the ground!..


Yes, we had a flyer from Lidl's with satellite kit (including 'station
finders') in it only the other day and would expect they are in stock
right now (if not all sold), but I really don't want to go that route -
for the forseeable, anyway.

Despite the various shortcomings, I *do* get by with R2, R3 and Carsick
FM for what limited 'radio time' I get in the evenings. But the holidays
are over (today) and R3 has been not at all bad this morning. (Virtually
no jabber do far!) When the radio is only 'sonic wallpaper' on all day,
I hafta admit I'm not listening too closely (plus in and out all the
time) so 'broadcast quality issues' are not to the forefront!

[Keith G]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Iain Churches > wrote:
>> > You manage to work valves into most of those too. Why on earth
>> > you're
>> > going for valve mics escapes me.
>
>> Don't you have access to any valve mics, Dave?
>> Neumann U47, U49, U50 are particularly good
>> They are very expensive, and highly regarded
>> in classical recording. The only people who don't
>> like them are those that don't have them:-)
>
> Or those who require to impress a client. ;-)
>
> However, these are a rather different matter from new chinese ones.


So are the prices....


>
> The heart of any condenser mic is the capsule - and always was. This
> is a
> precision device which like all such things has to be properly made.
> And
> that costs money.


Did you miss this one:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=110160369247&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=001

??

[Keith G]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Keith G > wrote:



>> I've got a number of SS mics already (also on the above link), I just
>> want to try a valve mic to see/hear for myself and get, dare I say
>> it, a
>> 'balanced view'...??
>
> Not really. To do reasonable comparisons for the real world requires
> reasonable hearing and knowing what you're listening for.


Which is why I post clips for the opinions of other who *supposedly*
know more than I do. They are usually mostly for Don who never fails to
give good advice and FB but, as they are already *up there* in
Cyberspace, I usually mention them here because, let's face it Plowie,
without my *blogging*, your *memoirs* and the odd bit of transatlantic,
crossposted trolling, there wouldn't be a whole lot of traffic in here -
other than the odd, monthly 'helpdesk' enquiry...


>
> By the amount of experimenting you do - with each new project being
> an
> 'improvement' - my guess is you have no real idea what you're
> searching
> for or how to achieve it. Really, you seem to be trying to re-invent
> the
> wheel. Things like valve mics/amps and horn speakers were superseded
> by
> modern techniques for a very good reason - not some conspiracy.


Calm down Plowie - I'm not *re-inventing* anything, I'm simply
investigating for myself. (Or is there some new EEC legislation to
prevent that or summat?)


>
> Of course there's nothing wrong in starting from basics and arriving
> at
> your own conclusions. Plenty here will have done this in real time
> rather
> than trying to compress it all into a few years.


I don't have more than a few years, besides I don't need to know the
various topics down to *molecular level* - some better understanding
than blindly following the instructions on the box is all I need...

>
> But like any child who learns by experience you also seem to dislike
> hearing 'I told you so'...


Damn right I do. Do you know anyone who doesn't - especially when it
comes from one of those *types* who thinks their own *perceived* greater
experience/knowledge gives them leave to be rude, patronising and
condescending to anyone who declares a level of ignorance or
inexperience in the same subject? When your input to one of my topics
has been helpful and not impolite, you have been thanked for it; when
your input has (more commonly) been rude, patronising or insulting, you
have been ignored...

I'm surprised you haven't twigged that yet...

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...

>> Here's your challenge - find a significant (>3% of the market) amount of
>> newly-produced media, or even media produced produced in the last 30
>> years,
>> that didn't pass through at least one SS device.
>
> But more importantly, almost all pop releases today have audio that
> has been through a tube somewhere.

Nonsense.

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
i.fi...
>
> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article om>,
>> Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>>> But more importantly, almost all pop releases today have audio that
>>> has been through a tube somewhere.
>>
>> Does that account for the appalling quality? Optimod type thingie set to
>> kill?

> I think he means in the recording chain. Tube mic preamps, and
> tube compressors are to be found in almost every studio.

Nonsense.

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
ti.fi...
>
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> On Aug 31, 3:54 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > No, as I've said recently elsewhere, I'm heartily sick of
>>> > seeing the words 'valvelike' and 'analogue sound' being
>>> > applied to SS kit and digital music by silly *hip*
>>> > magazine writers.
>>>
>>> Agreed, no reason to slander good SS kit and good digital recordings
>>> that
>>> way.

>> Still having trouble accepting that others don't see it your way.

> Just listen to one of Arny's "recordings", and you will understand
> why his opinion on recording quality differs from that held by the
> many of the rest of us:-)))

I make no pretenses. I generally record amateurs, very often in substandard
halls. I don't happen to have the resources of a multimillion dollar
organization behind me. I primarily make recordings to to help amateur
musicians and non-profit organizations.

In contrast, just listen to one of Iain's recordings - you know a recording
that he made from start to finish, including personally buying all the
equipment and personally arranging for the musicians and venue at his own
personal expense.

That would be an apples-to-apples comparison.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Iain Churches > wrote:
>
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article om>,
>> > Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>> >> But more importantly, almost all pop releases today have audio that
>> >> has been through a tube somewhere.
>> >
>> > Does that account for the appalling quality? Optimod type thingie set
>> > to kill?
>
>> I think he means in the recording chain. Tube mic preamps, and
>> tube compressors are to be found in almost every studio.
>
> Right. So it's these that are responsible for the appalling quality of
> much of today's pop output?
>
If only it was that simple, Dave:-)

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Iain Churches > wrote:
>> > You manage to work valves into most of those too. Why on earth you're
>> > going for valve mics escapes me.
>
>> Don't you have access to any valve mics, Dave?
>> Neumann U47, U49, U50 are particularly good
>> They are very expensive, and highly regarded
>> in classical recording. The only people who don't
>> like them are those that don't have them:-)
>
> Or those who require to impress a client. ;-)

I have yet to see a client cliamber to the top of
a boom to peer at the badge on the microphone:-)
>
> However, these are a rather different matter from new chinese ones.

It would be interesting to make a comparison. Have you done this?

I think it is a very good idea indeed for anyone having tried FET
mics to give a good valve mic an audition. The fact that so many
vintage Neumann mics have beenconverted *back* from FET
is surely food for thought.

Regards
Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> Iain Churches > wrote:
>>> > You manage to work valves into most of those too. Why on earth you're
>>> > going for valve mics escapes me.
>>
>>> Don't you have access to any valve mics, Dave?
>>> Neumann U47, U49, U50 are particularly good
>>> They are very expensive, and highly regarded
>>> in classical recording. The only people who don't
>>> like them are those that don't have them:-)
>>
>> Or those who require to impress a client. ;-)
>>
>> However, these are a rather different matter from new chinese ones.
>
>
> So are the prices....
>
>
>>
>> The heart of any condenser mic is the capsule - and always was. This is a
>> precision device which like all such things has to be properly made. And
>> that costs money.
>
>
> Did you miss this one:
>
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=110160369247&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=001
>
> ??
>
No capsule.
Iain

[Keith G]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
i.fi...
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> Iain Churches > wrote:
>>>> > You manage to work valves into most of those too. Why on earth
>>>> > you're
>>>> > going for valve mics escapes me.
>>>
>>>> Don't you have access to any valve mics, Dave?
>>>> Neumann U47, U49, U50 are particularly good
>>>> They are very expensive, and highly regarded
>>>> in classical recording. The only people who don't
>>>> like them are those that don't have them:-)
>>>
>>> Or those who require to impress a client. ;-)
>>>
>>> However, these are a rather different matter from new chinese ones.
>>
>>
>> So are the prices....
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The heart of any condenser mic is the capsule - and always was. This
>>> is a
>>> precision device which like all such things has to be properly made.
>>> And
>>> that costs money.
>>
>>
>> Did you miss this one:
>>
>> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=110160369247&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=001
>>
>> ??
>>
> No capsule.


No - no microphone! The capsule is a K47 and the seller will even give a
warranty on it, apparently!

[Keith G]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
ti.fi...
>
> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> Iain Churches > wrote:
>>> > You manage to work valves into most of those too. Why on earth
>>> > you're
>>> > going for valve mics escapes me.
>>
>>> Don't you have access to any valve mics, Dave?
>>> Neumann U47, U49, U50 are particularly good
>>> They are very expensive, and highly regarded
>>> in classical recording. The only people who don't
>>> like them are those that don't have them:-)
>>
>> Or those who require to impress a client. ;-)
>
> I have yet to see a client cliamber to the top of
> a boom to peer at the badge on the microphone:-)
>>
>> However, these are a rather different matter from new chinese ones.
>
> It would be interesting to make a comparison. Have you done this?



Has he even heard a Chinese valve mic?? (Other than the Right Channel of
these clips:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Clart01%20-%20Ribbon%20&%20Valve.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Clart02%20-%20Ribbon%20&%20Valve.mp3


....and that one is on its way back to Poole in Dorset as 'not fit for
purpose'!!)

Personally, I doubt it (but I'm always ready to be put right, of course
??) - ordinarily, there's too many people ready to dismiss stuff on
guesswork and hearsay. I at least, get hold of examples and try them for
myself...


>
> I think it is a very good idea indeed for anyone having tried FET
> mics to give a good valve mic an audition.


Absolutely!


The fact that so many
> vintage Neumann mics have beenconverted *back* from FET
> is surely food for thought.


Stuff of legends, AFAIAC - sorry to say!! ;-)

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Iain Churches > wrote:
> > Did you miss this one:
> >
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=110160369247&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=001
> >
> > ??

> No capsule.

Eh? That's exactly what it is - the capsule, mounting and windshield. The
bit missing is the head amp or body.

--
*Gun Control: Use both hands.

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Iain Churches > wrote:
> > However, these are a rather different matter from new chinese ones.

> It would be interesting to make a comparison. Have you done this?

Not with valve mics, no. But have heard plenty of Chinese and Russian
mics. Ok for what they cost but of no use to a pro - unless you need a
disposable mic for any reason.

It's rather like power tools. PPPro etc will be perfectly ok for most DIY
tasks and DIYers who haven't tried Makita. But once you've used a decent
make you won't be satisfied with less.

--
*Reality? Is that where the pizza delivery guy comes from?

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

[Mr.T]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...

> Why don't you admit the truth, ****?

That YOU have absolutely nothing to say other than school boy name calling?

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> Not that much less of a stretch than what Keith was saying - that the fact
> that CD sales are being replaced by downloaded music is somehow relevant
to
> the fact that analog media like the LP went from 100% of the market to
only
> a percent or two.

The vinylistas can only dare to dream it will ever again reach "a percent or
two" of total recorded music sales! :-)

MrT.

[George M. Middius]

The **** has a breakthrough.

> > Why don't you admit the truth, ****?

> That YOU have absolutely nothing to say other than school boy name calling?

That's what you come up with after three days of stewing? No wonder you're
the ****.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Not that much less of a stretch than what Keith was saying - that the fact
> > that CD sales are being replaced by downloaded music is somehow relevant
> to
> > the fact that analog media like the LP went from 100% of the market to
> only
> > a percent or two.
>
> The vinylistas can only dare to dream it will ever again reach "a percent or
> two" of total recorded music sales! :-)
>
> MrT.

Other than the resulting increased selection of new stuff, why would
they care?

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> > Should we still accept that the sun
> > and stars revolve around the earth?
>
> Remember that established Science taught that for most of recorded
history.

Not so. The ancient Greeks pretty much founded the scientific establishment,
and they knew better, as did the Egyptians, some South American cultures and
countless others.
It was only the religious nuts who really changed European thinking for a
millenia. And for much of that, priests promoted themselves as the
"scientific establishment", and holders of all wisdom.

> I don't think we have any TV evangelists who are saying that their magic
> prayer cloth will double the number of molecules of anything you wrap with
> it. Do we? ;-)

No, but they sure have their equivalents, like faith healers etc.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>I neither know nor care, but think
> about this: If 'vinylists' were as *elitist* as some here would have you
> believe, then the smaller that percentage, the better - no?

They must be very happy then - no? :-)


> > It's amazing what you can do with statistics though. An Audio rag
> > recently
> > claimed that turntable sales in England were greater than CD player
> > sales
> > last year.
> > Even IF true, what they conveniently ignored was the millions of DVD
> > player,
> > SACD player, DVDA player and other assorted hybrid player sales, that
> > all
> > play standard CD disks.
>
>
> Factor in the 'iPod effect' and you've answered your own question...

What question?


> > "Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument" is still a
> > widely
> > accepted philosophy it seems.
>
> Facts? That's an intriguing prospect - we get a lot of 'facts' in here
> (ukra)....

Did you forget the smiley?
Here's one for you :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
> I don't know a single soul who plays LPs who feels he needs to *prove*
> anything....

The thousands who post to usenet excepted of course?

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

et...
> Tell me Mr. T: What have I "distorted"?

Nothing at all, since that's all you've said, once all your denials are
taken into account.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"flipper" > wrote in message
...
> Case in point. You can argue all you like about the technical
> inferiority of 8-track and cassette vs other mechanisms but the tapes
> were conveniently compact, simple to use, and you could play them in
> the car.

Yes, unlike CD or MP3's!

>Case closed.

:-) :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

om...
> > > Not that much less of a stretch than what Keith was saying - that the
fact
> > > that CD sales are being replaced by downloaded music is somehow
relevant
> > to
> > > the fact that analog media like the LP went from 100% of the market to
> > only
> > > a percent or two.
> >
> > The vinylistas can only dare to dream it will ever again reach "a
percent or
> > two" of total recorded music sales! :-)
>
> Other than the resulting increased selection of new stuff, why would
> they care?

Yes, they certainly wouldn't want an increase in availability or titles,
would they?
Much prefer to keep playing the same out worn out ones I guess. :-)

MrT.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> et...
> > Tell me Mr. T: What have I "distorted"?
>
> Nothing at all, since that's all you've said, once all your denials are
> taken into account.
>
> MrT.

What denials, Mr. T? Do you believe that I've been less than truthful?
If so, show some honor and point out where I've done so.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> om...
> > > > Not that much less of a stretch than what Keith was saying - that the
> fact
> > > > that CD sales are being replaced by downloaded music is somehow
> relevant
> > > to
> > > > the fact that analog media like the LP went from 100% of the market to
> > > only
> > > > a percent or two.
> > >
> > > The vinylistas can only dare to dream it will ever again reach "a
> percent or
> > > two" of total recorded music sales! :-)
> >
> > Other than the resulting increased selection of new stuff, why would
> > they care?
>
> Yes, they certainly wouldn't want an increase in availability or titles,
> would they?
> Much prefer to keep playing the same out worn out ones I guess. :-)
>
> MrT.

As I said, Mr. T:"other than..."

[Mr.T]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
> The **** has a breakthrough.
>
> > > Why don't you admit the truth, ****?
>
> > That YOU have absolutely nothing to say other than school boy name
calling?
>
> That's what you come up with after three days of stewing? No wonder you're
> the ****.

Unlike you I have better things to do than sit and wait for your next stupid
insult, especially since they are all the same.
Someone with the slightest bit of intelligence could come up with new ones
at least.

Must be a **VERY** boring life you lead George.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

om...
> What denials, Mr. T? Do you believe that I've been less than truthful?
> If so, show some honor and point out where I've done so.

No idea, I did ask you to clarify one statement, but you failed to do so.
I'll accept your denials, so that leaves nothing else to discuss.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

om...
> > > Other than the resulting increased selection of new stuff, why would
> > > they care?
> >
> > Yes, they certainly wouldn't want an increase in availability or titles,
> > would they?
> > Much prefer to keep playing the same out worn out ones I guess. :-)
>
> As I said, Mr. T:"other than..."

So you were just being funny then? If you add a smiley it is more obvious.

MrT.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> om...
> > What denials, Mr. T? Do you believe that I've been less than truthful?
> > If so, show some honor and point out where I've done so.
>
> No idea, I did ask you to clarify one statement, but you failed to do so.
> I'll accept your denials, so that leaves nothing else to discuss.
>
> MrT.

What statement, Mr. T?

[George M. Middius]

**** twittered:

> > > > Why don't you admit the truth, ****?

> > > That YOU have absolutely nothing to say other than school boy name
> calling?

Newsreader incompetence noted.

> > That's what you come up with after three days of stewing? No wonder you're
> > the ****.

> Unlike you I have better things to do than sit and wait for your next stupid

Very quick response time, ****. Do you do everything this quickly when you
put your mind to it?

BTW, Arnii Krooger doesn't respect you at all. To Mr. ****, you're just
another bump in the highway of his bloated ego.

[Mr.T]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
> **** twittered:
> > > > > Why don't you admit the truth, ****?
>>>No wonder you're the ****.
> Very quick response time, ****.

Wow George, what an amazingly limited "intelligence" you have. I'd be really
ashamed to advertise that to the world, but obviously you don't know any
better.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-
> > > What denials, Mr. T? Do you believe that I've been less than
truthful?
> > > If so, show some honor and point out where I've done so.
> >
> > No idea, I did ask you to clarify one statement, but you failed to do
so.
> > I'll accept your denials, so that leaves nothing else to discuss.
>
> What statement, Mr. T?

The one you ignored, asking WHAT your supposed statement actually was, since
you claimed it was not just an opinion, but was not as others claimed it to
be.
Try Google groups *IF* you actually care, I don't any longer, and you
obviously didn't when I asked.

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Why don't you admit the truth, ****?
>
> That YOU have absolutely nothing to say other than school boy name
> calling?

The Middiot has never had anything but childish name-calling to offer. He
calls it ridicule, but most would call it delayed mental and social
development.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> The Middiot has never had anything but childish name-calling to offer. He
> calls it ridicule, but most would call it delayed mental and social
> development.

So true, permanently delayed in his case it seems.

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > Not that much less of a stretch than what Keith was saying - that the
>> > fact
>> > that CD sales are being replaced by downloaded music is somehow
>> > relevant
>> to
>> > the fact that analog media like the LP went from 100% of the market to
>> only
>> > a percent or two.
>>
>> The vinylistas can only dare to dream it will ever again reach "a percent
>> or
>> two" of total recorded music sales! :-)
>>
>> MrT.
>
> Other than the resulting increased selection of new stuff, why would
> they care?

The selection of new LP titles is going to loose a lot, as the sales
continue to drop. Remember, it already fell into a horrifically deep hole
from where it was say 20 years ago.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> om...
>> > > Not that much less of a stretch than what Keith was saying - that the
> fact
>> > > that CD sales are being replaced by downloaded music is somehow
> relevant
>> > to
>> > > the fact that analog media like the LP went from 100% of the market
>> > > to
>> > only
>> > > a percent or two.
>> >
>> > The vinylistas can only dare to dream it will ever again reach "a
> percent or
>> > two" of total recorded music sales! :-)
>>
>> Other than the resulting increased selection of new stuff, why would
>> they care?
>
> Yes, they certainly wouldn't want an increase in availability or titles,
> would they?
> Much prefer to keep playing the same out worn out ones I guess. :-)

The more you play vinyl, the more it sounds like vinyl! ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> u...
>>
>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> No Arny, you've got that all wrong (unless you are *distorting* again
>>> which, of course, is highly likely) - it's CDs that are disappearing
>>> rapidly.
>>
>> Where the hell do YOU live?
>> But I note you do NOT claim vinyl sales have even reached the most
>> minuscule
>> percentage of CD sales, or availability.

> Why should I make any such claim? - I neither know nor care, but think
> about this: If 'vinylists' were as *elitist* as some here would have you
> believe, then the smaller that percentage, the better - no?

No. There is a practical side to all this. If the vinyl market drops to a
tenth of what it is now, which it could in a few years, then the supplies of
new hardware and software are going to really dry up.

>> It's amazing what you can do with statistics though. An Audio rag
>> recently
>> claimed that turntable sales in England were greater than CD player sales
>> last year.
>> Even IF true, what they conveniently ignored was the millions of DVD
>> player,
>> SACD player, DVDA player and other assorted hybrid player sales, that all
>> play standard CD disks.

> Factor in the 'iPod effect' and you've answered your own question...

The battle was never between the LP and the CD, and all the vinylista
propaganda that tried to crap on digital proves it. The battle was between
analog and digital.

>> "Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument" is still a widely
>> accepted philosophy it seems.

> Facts? That's an intriguing prospect - we get a lot of 'facts' in here
> (ukra)....

Facts that are irrelevant to most music lovers, who care not about tubes or
vinyl.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..

>> > Should we still accept that the sun
>> > and stars revolve around the earth?

>> Remember that established Science taught that for most of recorded
> history.

> Not so.

So.

> The ancient Greeks pretty much founded the scientific establishment,
> and they knew better, as did the Egyptians, some South American cultures
> and
> countless others.

The greeks were a diverse lot. Just because some greek someplace thought
that the earth circulated around the sun didn't keep others from believing
that Icaraus flew so close to the sun that the feathers on his arms melted
off.

> It was only the religious nuts who really changed European thinking for a
> millenia.

Science and religion started out being almost completely blended together.
Early technology was practiced by many as a kind of religious rite. Most
universities were run by the Church. Government, Science and Religon were
blended together.

> And for much of that, priests promoted themselves as the
> "scientific establishment", and holders of all wisdom.

That was simply how things were. During the dark ages the churches were the
places where ancient scientific wisdom was preserved and practiced.

>> I don't think we have any TV evangelists who are saying that their magic
>> prayer cloth will double the number of molecules of anything you wrap
>> with
>> it. Do we? ;-)

> No, but they sure have their equivalents, like faith healers etc.

TV faith healers are an aberration, not the mainstream of people of faith.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...

>> I don't know a single soul who plays LPs who feels he needs to *prove*
>> anything....

> The thousands who post to usenet excepted of course?

Right. If they aren't trying to prove something, why don't they keep their
weird religious rites to themselves?

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote


> No. There is a practical side to all this. If the vinyl market drops
> to a tenth of what it is now, which it could in a few years, then the
> supplies of new hardware and software are going to really dry up.


Sorry Arny, deny it all you like, but here in the UK (I can't speak for
anywhere else) the evidence is heavily against you. In addition to the
steady stream of new turntables from existing manufacturers, we are also
seeing new models from established names like Marantz who are starting
to *re-introduce* them after a break of some 20 years (according to the
blurb):

http://uk.gizmodo.com/2006/01/06/marantz_launches_first_turntab.html


And then there are completely new (from scratch) models from
manufacturers with no history of turntable manufacturing - like EAR:

http://www.needledoctor.com/EAR-Disc-Master-Turntable?sc=10


and Creek:

http://whathifi.com/hi-fi/archive/2007/05/21/creek-boosts-analogue-with-new-turntable.aspx


What that tells me is that vinyl is likely to be around for quite a
while yet, irrespective of what *percentage* it may or may not represent
of anything - what does it tell you....??



> The battle was never between the LP and the CD, and all the vinylista
> propaganda that tried to crap on digital proves it. The battle was
> between analog and digital.


Except there is no battle. Most 'vinylista' I know (includes me) use
both regualarly, according to their requirements - sometimes analogue is
best, sometimes digital is more suitable. Same with valves and SS -
there is no 'mutual exclusion', once you get away from neurosis and
irrational prejudice....


>
>>> "Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument" is still a
>>> widely
>>> accepted philosophy it seems.
>
>> Facts? That's an intriguing prospect - we get a lot of 'facts' in
>> here (ukra)....
>
> Facts that are irrelevant to most music lovers, who care not about
> tubes or vinyl.


Facts bother me - so many of them turn out to be nothing more than
someone's *wishful thinking*....

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote


> Science and religion started out being almost completely blended
> together.


They still are - ask Einstein...


> Early technology was practiced by many as a kind of religious rite.
> Most universities were run by the Church. Government, Science and
> Religon were blended together.


Physics always becomes *metaphysics* when the tape measure's too
short....

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> u...
>>
>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> I don't know a single soul who plays LPs who feels he needs to
>>> *prove*
>>> anything....
>
>> The thousands who post to usenet excepted of course?
>
> Right. If they aren't trying to prove something, why don't they keep
> their weird religious rites to themselves?


You never worked out that if you don't *attack* vinyl, people like me
don't have to *defend* it - did you?

Why don't you let yourself off the hook Arny and go put a CD on or
summat? You ain't *never* going to rule this UK newgroup with your
personal phobias - not while I can be arsed to subscribe to it, at any
rate....

(posted from ukra with crossposting deliberately left in...)

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
>
>
>> No. There is a practical side to all this. If the vinyl market drops to a
>> tenth of what it is now, which it could in a few years, then the supplies
>> of new hardware and software are going to really dry up.
>
>
> Sorry Arny, deny it all you like, but here in the UK (I can't speak for
> anywhere else) the evidence is heavily against you.

Not based on any reliable evidence that you've presented.

> In addition to the steady stream of new turntables from existing
> manufacturers, we are also seeing new models from established names like
> Marantz who are starting to *re-introduce* them after a break of some 20
> years (according to the blurb):
>
> http://uk.gizmodo.com/2006/01/06/marantz_launches_first_turntab.html

Hope springs eternal!

Just because you build it, doesn't mean that they are going to come.

> And then there are completely new (from scratch) models from manufacturers
> with no history of turntable manufacturing - like EAR:
>
> http://www.needledoctor.com/EAR-Disc-Master-Turntable?sc=10
>
> and Creek:
>
> http://whathifi.com/hi-fi/archive/2007/05/21/creek-boosts-analogue-with-new-turntable.aspx
>

> What that tells me is that vinyl is likely to be around for quite a while
> yet, irrespective of what *percentage* it may or may not represent of
> anything - what does it tell you....??

New product announcments are just public wishes for business.

>> The battle was never between the LP and the CD, and all the vinylista
>> propaganda that tried to crap on digital proves it. The battle was
>> between analog and digital.

> Except there is no battle.

Except that there is abundant proof otherwise, such as the OP for this
thread.

> Most 'vinylista' I know (includes me) use both regualarly, according to
> their requirements - sometimes analogue is best, sometimes digital is more
> suitable. Same with valves and SS - there is no 'mutual exclusion', once
> you get away from neurosis and irrational prejudice....

Keith, you keep prattling on like I don't have any vinyl playback equipment.

>>>> "Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument" is still a
>>>> widely
>>>> accepted philosophy it seems.
>>
>>> Facts? That's an intriguing prospect - we get a lot of 'facts' in here
>>> (ukra)....
>>
>> Facts that are irrelevant to most music lovers, who care not about tubes
>> or vinyl.

> Facts bother me - so many of them turn out to be nothing more than
> someone's *wishful thinking*....

Doctor, cure yourself!

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>> u...
>>>
>>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> I don't know a single soul who plays LPs who feels he needs to *prove*
>>>> anything....
>>
>>> The thousands who post to usenet excepted of course?
>>
>> Right. If they aren't trying to prove something, why don't they keep
>> their weird religious rites to themselves?
>
>
> You never worked out that if you don't *attack* vinyl, people like me
> don't have to *defend* it - did you?

Keep on denying the OP in this thread Keith. It gives us all a good laugh!

> Why don't you let yourself off the hook Arny and go put a CD on or summat?
> You ain't *never* going to rule this UK newgroup with your personal
> phobias - not while I can be arsed to subscribe to it, at any rate....

I have no interest in ruling any newsgroup. I just like to tell the truth in
the face of lies and distortions like the OP in this thread:

http://krakow.msnbc.msn.com:80/archive/2007/08/29/338888.aspx

"There's a good reason for this. In addition to what people remember as the
bad things that LPs provide (scratches, clicks and pops) vinyl discs have
lots of good things going for them. LPs contain close to 100-percent of the
uncompressed music information as originally recorded. CDs contain only
about half of that recorded information. And compressed music files are
left with only a small percentage of the information that's on a CD."

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg takes umbrage.

> > And CD lovers tend to give the impression there are no
> > poorly recorded CDs,

> Straw man argument, if not an out-an-out lie!

Keith omitted to include the modifier "out loud". Being insane, Arnii, you
may not be aware that human beings cannot read your "thoughts". Nor are we
privy to your private toilet prayers.

[George M. Middius]

**** is enraged.

> > > > > > Why don't you admit the truth, ****?

> >>>No wonder you're the ****.

> > Very quick response time, ****.

> Wow George, what an amazingly limited "intelligence" you have.

Are you referring to my diagnosis of your true identity? I'll be the first
to admit that your ****tiness is as obvious as the turds on Krooger's
dinner plate.

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
>>
>>
>>> No. There is a practical side to all this. If the vinyl market drops
>>> to a tenth of what it is now, which it could in a few years, then
>>> the supplies of new hardware and software are going to really dry
>>> up.
>>
>>
>> Sorry Arny, deny it all you like, but here in the UK (I can't speak
>> for anywhere else) the evidence is heavily against you.
>
> Not based on any reliable evidence that you've presented.


Such *denial* Arny - I could almost (I said *almost) respect you for
it...


>
>> In addition to the steady stream of new turntables from existing
>> manufacturers, we are also seeing new models from established names
>> like Marantz who are starting to *re-introduce* them after a break of
>> some 20 years (according to the blurb):
>>
>> http://uk.gizmodo.com/2006/01/06/marantz_launches_first_turntab.html
>
> Hope springs eternal!
>
> Just because you build it, doesn't mean that they are going to come.


Give these people a shout - they'll ship you one today, if you want and
they're on your doostep aren't they...??

musicdirect
318 North Laflin Street
Chicago, IL 60607
312.433.0200 / (800)449.8333
312-433-0011 fax


(Still with the *denial*!! :-)

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote


> I have no interest in ruling any newsgroup. I just like to tell the
> truth in the face of lies and distortions like the OP in this thread:
>
> http://krakow.msnbc.msn.com:80/archive/2007/08/29/338888.aspx
>
> "There's a good reason for this. In addition to what people remember
> as the
> bad things that LPs provide (scratches, clicks and pops) vinyl discs
> have
> lots of good things going for them. LPs contain close to 100-percent
> of the
> uncompressed music information as originally recorded. CDs contain
> only
> about half of that recorded information. And compressed music files
> are
> left with only a small percentage of the information that's on a CD."


Lies and distortions? Where's your proof?

[Keith G]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
>
>
> **** is enraged.
>
>> > > > > > Why don't you admit the truth, ****?
>
>> >>>No wonder you're the ****.
>
>> > Very quick response time, ****.
>
>> Wow George, what an amazingly limited "intelligence" you have.
>
> Are you referring to my diagnosis of your true identity? I'll be the
> first
> to admit that your ****tiness is as obvious as the turds on Krooger's
> dinner plate.


It seems you can learn from crosspostings after all - I thought the 'T'
in 'Mr T' stood for * Tit *....

??

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
>
>
>> I have no interest in ruling any newsgroup. I just like to tell the truth
>> in the face of lies and distortions like the OP in this thread:

>> http://krakow.msnbc.msn.com:80/archive/2007/08/29/338888.aspx

>> "There's a good reason for this. In addition to what people remember as
>> the
>> bad things that LPs provide (scratches, clicks and pops) vinyl discs have
>> lots of good things going for them. LPs contain close to 100-percent of
>> the
>> uncompressed music information as originally recorded. CDs contain only
>> about half of that recorded information. And compressed music files are
>> left with only a small percentage of the information that's on a CD."

> Lies and distortions? Where's your proof?

With all due respect to Gary Krakow, he seems to be flaunting his ignorance
of the relevant technologies. I understand that Gary wrote for Stereophile
once upon a time. I don't think that even John Atkinson would tolerate this
kind of technical error, heavy vinylista advertising in Stereophile
notwithstanding.

Information theory (which Gary is obviously appealing to when he says "music
information") states that information can be quantified, based on the
product of bandwidth and dynamic range.

For example, an analog or digital channel with 6 dB more dynamic range is
capable of passing twice as much information. An analog or digital channel
with twice the bandwidth is capable of passing twice as much information.

Applying the most generous weighting factors will allow the claim that the
LP format is capable of about 75 dB dynamic range. In the real world,
disappointing dynamic ranges of even 45 dB are not unheard of when vinyl is
in play.

The CD format is capable of more like 95 dB dynamic range, even when judged
by a stiffer standard - unweighted noise. The clear advantage goes to the
CD format, and by a factor of 10 or more.

BTW, my analysis ignores the fact that LPs are prone to many scratches,
clicks, and pops while CDs are not. Krakow goes further than most
vinylistas in the direction of truth by admitting that these exist.
Scratches, clicks and pops do more than just distract you from the music,
they detract from dynamic range. A good scratch or pop may be louder than
the music, possibly leading to the mind-bending concept of negative dynamic
range.

Therefore, by the most pro-LP-biased of technical evaluations, the music
information leader is as always the CD format, and by a factor of at least
10. This means that if the LP format had far more bandwidth than the CD
format (which as a practical matter it does not) the LP format would need to
have 10 times more bandwidth than the CD format to break even.

It would be a different world if journalists who pretend to be technical
experts by dispensing technical advice had useful amounts of basic audio
engineering training.

[Keith G]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>> No. There is a practical side to all this. If the vinyl market
>>>> drops to a tenth of what it is now, which it could in a few years,
>>>> then the supplies of new hardware and software are going to really
>>>> dry up.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry Arny, deny it all you like, but here in the UK (I can't speak
>>> for anywhere else) the evidence is heavily against you.
>>
>> Not based on any reliable evidence that you've presented.
>
>
> Such *denial* Arny - I could almost (I said *almost) respect you for
> it...
>
>
>>
>>> In addition to the steady stream of new turntables from existing
>>> manufacturers, we are also seeing new models from established names
>>> like Marantz who are starting to *re-introduce* them after a break
>>> of some 20 years (according to the blurb):
>>>
>>> http://uk.gizmodo.com/2006/01/06/marantz_launches_first_turntab.html
>>
>> Hope springs eternal!
>>
>> Just because you build it, doesn't mean that they are going to come.
>
>
> Give these people a shout - they'll ship you one today, if you want
> and they're on your doostep aren't they...??
>
> musicdirect
> 318 North Laflin Street
> Chicago, IL 60607
> 312.433.0200 / (800)449.8333
> 312-433-0011 fax
>
>
> (Still with the *denial*!! :-)
>


Here's the link to make it easier for you:

http://www.musicdirect.com/product/73850

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
>>
>>
>>> I have no interest in ruling any newsgroup. I just like to tell the
>>> truth in the face of lies and distortions like the OP in this
>>> thread:
>
>>> http://krakow.msnbc.msn.com:80/archive/2007/08/29/338888.aspx
>
>>> "There's a good reason for this. In addition to what people
>>> remember as the
>>> bad things that LPs provide (scratches, clicks and pops) vinyl discs
>>> have
>>> lots of good things going for them. LPs contain close to
>>> 100-percent of the
>>> uncompressed music information as originally recorded. CDs contain
>>> only
>>> about half of that recorded information. And compressed music files
>>> are
>>> left with only a small percentage of the information that's on a
>>> CD."
>
>> Lies and distortions? Where's your proof?
>
> With all due respect to Gary Krakow, he seems to be flaunting his
> ignorance
> of the relevant technologies. I understand that Gary wrote for
> Stereophile
> once upon a time. I don't think that even John Atkinson would tolerate
> this
> kind of technical error, heavy vinylista advertising in Stereophile
> notwithstanding.
>
> Information theory (which Gary is obviously appealing to when he says
> "music
> information") states that information can be quantified, based on the
> product of bandwidth and dynamic range.
>
> For example, an analog or digital channel with 6 dB more dynamic range
> is
> capable of passing twice as much information. An analog or digital
> channel
> with twice the bandwidth is capable of passing twice as much
> information.
>
> Applying the most generous weighting factors will allow the claim that
> the
> LP format is capable of about 75 dB dynamic range. In the real world,
> disappointing dynamic ranges of even 45 dB are not unheard of when
> vinyl is
> in play.
>
> The CD format is capable of more like 95 dB dynamic range, even when
> judged
> by a stiffer standard - unweighted noise. The clear advantage goes to
> the
> CD format, and by a factor of 10 or more.
>
> BTW, my analysis ignores the fact that LPs are prone to many
> scratches,
> clicks, and pops while CDs are not. Krakow goes further than most
> vinylistas in the direction of truth by admitting that these exist.
> Scratches, clicks and pops do more than just distract you from the
> music,
> they detract from dynamic range. A good scratch or pop may be louder
> than
> the music, possibly leading to the mind-bending concept of negative
> dynamic
> range.
>
> Therefore, by the most pro-LP-biased of technical evaluations, the
> music
> information leader is as always the CD format, and by a factor of at
> least
> 10. This means that if the LP format had far more bandwidth than the
> CD
> format (which as a practical matter it does not) the LP format would
> need to
> have 10 times more bandwidth than the CD format to break even.
>
> It would be a different world if journalists who pretend to be
> technical
> experts by dispensing technical advice had useful amounts of basic
> audio
> engineering training.


No, that's an argument - the question was 'Where's your proof?'...

??

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-
> > > > What denials, Mr. T? Do you believe that I've been less than
> truthful?
> > > > If so, show some honor and point out where I've done so.
> > >
> > > No idea, I did ask you to clarify one statement, but you failed to do
> so.
> > > I'll accept your denials, so that leaves nothing else to discuss.
> >
> > What statement, Mr. T?
>
> The one you ignored, asking WHAT your supposed statement actually was, since
> you claimed it was not just an opinion, but was not as others claimed it to
> be.
> Try Google groups *IF* you actually care, I don't any longer, and you
> obviously didn't when I asked.
>
> MrT.

lol Just as I thought; you don't even know what you're arguing about.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > > What statement, Mr. T?

> > The one you ignored, asking WHAT your supposed statement actually was, since
> > you claimed it was not just an opinion, but was not as others claimed it to be.

> lol Just as I thought; you don't even know what you're arguing about.

The "debating trade" roolz!

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 4, 10:03 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> With all due respect to Gary Krakow, he seems to be flaunting
> his ignorance of the relevant technologies. I understand that
> Gary wrote for Stereophile once upon a time. I don't think that
> even John Atkinson would tolerate this kind of technical error,
> heavy vinylista advertising in Stereophile notwithstanding.

"Dad, why is that old man standing at the side of the
road shouting?"

"He's an Internet ninny, son. Since the advent of the
Web, people who get ignored in usual social
intercourse, who have failed at most everything they
put their hands to, and who, now that they have retired,
have found time weighing heavily on their hands, have
realized that they can shout endlessly in cyberspace."

"But he mentioned your name and your magazine?"

"That's because Mr. Krueger is also a troll, son.
Desperate for attention from those he envies, he drops
their names in a vain attempt to try to get a response.
Trolls are best ignored."

"He's still shouting at you...and everyone else!"

"That's because, having "proved" that those with
preferences different from his own, Mr. Krueger can't
comprehend why those others continue to enjoy
themselves."

"Let's go Dad, the Virgin Megastore has a bunch of
new vinyl."

"Kick-ass, son!"

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> ti.fi...
>>
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> Iain Churches > wrote:
>>>> > You manage to work valves into most of those too. Why on earth you're
>>>> > going for valve mics escapes me.
>>>
>>>> Don't you have access to any valve mics, Dave?
>>>> Neumann U47, U49, U50 are particularly good
>>>> They are very expensive, and highly regarded
>>>> in classical recording. The only people who don't
>>>> like them are those that don't have them:-)
>>>
>>> Or those who require to impress a client. ;-)
>>
>> I have yet to see a client clamber to the top of
>> a boom to peer at the badge on the microphone:-)
>>>
>>> However, these are a rather different matter from new chinese ones.
>>
>> It would be interesting to make a comparison. Have you done this?
>
>
>
> Has he even heard a Chinese valve mic??

(snip)

> Personally, I doubt it (but I'm always ready to be put right, of course
> ??) - ordinarily, there's too many people ready to dismiss stuff on
> guesswork and hearsay. I at least, get hold of examples and try them for
> myself...
>
>> I think it is a very good idea indeed for anyone having tried FET
>> mics to give a good valve mic an audition.
>
>
> Absolutely!
>
Now this has really got the little grey cells working. I shall make a
phone call or two tomorrow to see if I can get some Chinkies on
sale or return.

> The fact that so many
>> vintage Neumann mics have beenconverted *back* from FET
>> is surely food for thought.
>
> Stuff of legends, AFAIAC - sorry to say!! ;-)

The old valve mics with the original power supplies were a bit
of a pain. When I was a 2E, we used to finish the afternoon
session at 1800 hrs, do one hour's playback, and then go for
a late lunch. Then we had to set up for the next day. Sometimes
this would just be some simple changes to the existing set up,
sometimes it would mean a complete strip down and rebuild
of a large multi mic session which could take several hours.
(some conductors like to work facing the other way:-)

Often it was well past the witching hour before we got round
to mic checks. The 2E had to go into the studio and speak on
each mic " On the front 1,2,3,4" and then "On the back 1,2,3,4"
while the senior engineer listened in the control room, and the
assistant twiddled the polarity control on the mic preamp for
the pattern required for that particular mic.

Some mics were not as "cardioid" as one would have wished,
but this was solved by speaking very loudly on the front, and
very softly on the back.

Just had a thought.... I wonder if they did the same to me
when I was in the control room!

Iain

[Dan Drake]

On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 03:57:26 UTC, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > > Should we still accept that the sun
> > > and stars revolve around the earth?
> >
> > Remember that established Science taught that for most of recorded
> history.
>
> Not so. The ancient Greeks pretty much founded the scientific establishment,

Umm, what exactly does this mean? They pretty much began the serious study
of science in the Western world (leaving aside their debt to Babylonians,
the size of which raises some controversy). But I didn't know about this
"establishment" which somehow managed to be the same establishment in
spite of a break of more than half a millennium when it just didn't exist.


> and they knew better,

I guess, then, Aristotle doesn't count as a Greek?

> as did the Egyptians, some South American cultures and
> countless others.

Lotsa claims, no evidence (though lots of nationalist narratives based,
mostly, on the same amount of evidence).

> It was only the religious nuts who really changed European thinking for a
> millenia.

Some of them pretty much stopped it rather than changed it (in relation to
science) for over half a millennium. But the later ones revived it,
following the Greeks (and their Arab successors) very faithfully. Too
faithfully; that was the problem by 1600.

--
Dan Drake

http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com

[Keith G]

"Iain Churches" > wrote


> Now this has really got the little grey cells working. I shall make a
> phone call or two tomorrow to see if I can get some Chinkies on
> sale or return.


Look forward to hearing summat from them!

If I lived where you do I'd hop on a boat and check these people out:

http://violet-design.ee/


Find this link:

http://www.osxrecording.com/mp3/dylan.mp3


....on this page:

http://www.osxrecording.com/Reviews-index-req-showcontent-id-26.html


"I wasn't trying to do a Dylan imitation here, but I do love playing and
singing this one, and have been doing it since I was a kid. I just kind
of sound this way."

(*Not* ****e..!! :-)

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Iain Churches" > wrote
>
>
>> Now this has really got the little grey cells working. I shall make a
>> phone call or two tomorrow to see if I can get some Chinkies on
>> sale or return.
>
>
> Look forward to hearing summat from them!
>
> If I lived where you do I'd hop on a boat and check these people out:
>
> http://violet-design.ee/
>
>
> Find this link:
>
> http://www.osxrecording.com/mp3/dylan.mp3
>
>
> ...on this page:
>
> http://www.osxrecording.com/Reviews-index-req-showcontent-id-26.html
>
>
> "I wasn't trying to do a Dylan imitation here, but I do love playing and
> singing this one, and have been doing it since I was a kid. I just kind of
> sound this way."
>
> (*Not* ****e..!! :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Adam Stouffer]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> The CD format is capable of more like 95 dB dynamic range, even when judged
> by a stiffer standard - unweighted noise. The clear advantage goes to the
> CD format, and by a factor of 10 or more.
>

Too bad they don't take advantage of it

http://georgegraham.com/compress.html

> BTW, my analysis ignores the fact that LPs are prone to many scratches,
> clicks, and pops while CDs are not. Krakow goes further than most
> vinylistas in the direction of truth by admitting that these exist.
> Scratches, clicks and pops do more than just distract you from the music,
> they detract from dynamic range. A good scratch or pop may be louder than
> the music, possibly leading to the mind-bending concept of negative dynamic
> range.
>
> Therefore, by the most pro-LP-biased of technical evaluations, the music
> information leader is as always the CD format, and by a factor of at least
> 10. This means that if the LP format had far more bandwidth than the CD
> format (which as a practical matter it does not) the LP format would need to
> have 10 times more bandwidth than the CD format to break even.
>
> It would be a different world if journalists who pretend to be technical
> experts by dispensing technical advice had useful amounts of basic audio
> engineering training.

I find it amusing you choose to complain here instead of discussing your
opinion with the author of the article. I'll listen to Edison wax
cylinders if I feel like it and theres not a damn thing you can do about it.


Adam

[Mr.T]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
> **** is enraged.
> > > > > > > Why don't you admit the truth, ****?
> > >>>No wonder you're the ****.
> > > Very quick response time, ****.
> I'll be the first to admit that your ****tiness is as obvious as the turds
> on Krooger's dinner plate.

And still having absolutely nothing to say doesn't stop George making a
complete and utter dickhead of himself.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
> It seems you can learn from crosspostings after all - I thought the 'T'
> in 'Mr T' stood for * Tit *....

That would make me quite useful at least, I can't say the same about you or
George unfortunately!

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
> What that tells me is that vinyl is likely to be around for quite a
> while yet, irrespective of what *percentage* it may or may not represent
> of anything - what does it tell you....??

It tells me that people are now paying prices high enough that a few
manufacturers can satisfy a small volume market.
How long that will last is anybody's guess.

MrT.

[Keith G]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It seems you can learn from crosspostings after all - I thought the
>> 'T'
>> in 'Mr T' stood for * Tit *....
>
> That would make me quite useful at least, I can't say the same about
> you or
> George unfortunately!
>
> MrT.


Try it like this:

"That would make me quite useful, at least; I can't say the same about
you or George, unfortunately!"

If you are going to plaster these groups with pointless drivel you may
as well do it properly...

[Keith G]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
> ...
>> **** is enraged.
>> > > > > > > Why don't you admit the truth, ****?
>> > >>>No wonder you're the ****.
>> > > Very quick response time, ****.
>> I'll be the first to admit that your ****tiness is as obvious as the
>> turds
>> on Krooger's dinner plate.
>
> And still having absolutely nothing to say doesn't stop George making
> a
> complete and utter dickhead of himself.
>
> MrT.
>


Pot, kettle....

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
> Give these people a shout - they'll ship you one today, if you want and
> they're on your doostep aren't they...??
>
> musicdirect

For the same price as an average CD player? :-) :-)

MrT.

[Keith G]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
ti.fi...
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Iain Churches" > wrote
>>
>>
>>> Now this has really got the little grey cells working. I shall make
>>> a
>>> phone call or two tomorrow to see if I can get some Chinkies on
>>> sale or return.
>>
>>
>> Look forward to hearing summat from them!
>>
>> If I lived where you do I'd hop on a boat and check these people out:
>>
>> http://violet-design.ee/
>>
>>
>> Find this link:
>>
>> http://www.osxrecording.com/mp3/dylan.mp3
>>
>>
>> ...on this page:
>>
>> http://www.osxrecording.com/Reviews-index-req-showcontent-id-26.html
>>
>>
>> "I wasn't trying to do a Dylan imitation here, but I do love playing
>> and
>> singing this one, and have been doing it since I was a kid. I just
>> kind of
>> sound this way."
>>
>> (*Not* ****e..!! :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


And...??

:-)

[Keith G]

"Adam Stouffer" > wrote in message
news:MtqDi.7009$3R5.965@trnddc05...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> The CD format is capable of more like 95 dB dynamic range, even when
>> judged by a stiffer standard - unweighted noise. The clear advantage
>> goes to the CD format, and by a factor of 10 or more.
>>
>
> Too bad they don't take advantage of it
>
> http://georgegraham.com/compress.html
>
>> BTW, my analysis ignores the fact that LPs are prone to many
>> scratches, clicks, and pops while CDs are not. Krakow goes further
>> than most vinylistas in the direction of truth by admitting that
>> these exist. Scratches, clicks and pops do more than just distract
>> you from the music, they detract from dynamic range. A good scratch
>> or pop may be louder than the music, possibly leading to the
>> mind-bending concept of negative dynamic range.
>>
>> Therefore, by the most pro-LP-biased of technical evaluations, the
>> music information leader is as always the CD format, and by a factor
>> of at least 10. This means that if the LP format had far more
>> bandwidth than the CD format (which as a practical matter it does
>> not) the LP format would need to have 10 times more bandwidth than
>> the CD format to break even.
>>
>> It would be a different world if journalists who pretend to be
>> technical experts by dispensing technical advice had useful amounts
>> of basic audio engineering training.
>
> I find it amusing you choose to complain here instead of discussing
> your opinion with the author of the article. I'll listen to Edison wax
> cylinders if I feel like it and theres not a damn thing you can do
> about it.


Yes there is - he can whine about it....

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> The greeks were a diverse lot. Just because some greek someplace thought
> that the earth circulated around the sun didn't keep others from believing
> that Icaraus flew so close to the sun that the feathers on his arms melted
> off.

True, but most knew the difference between science and mythology.
I'm sure you do too.

> Science and religion started out being almost completely blended together.
> Early technology was practiced by many as a kind of religious rite. Most
> universities were run by the Church. Government, Science and Religon were
> blended together.

Yes, and not necessarily for the better. Anything that contradicted the
current wisdom was considered heresy.

> > And for much of that, priests promoted themselves as the
> > "scientific establishment", and holders of all wisdom.
>
> That was simply how things were. During the dark ages the churches were
the
> places where ancient scientific wisdom was preserved and practiced.

In fact the dark ages was all about them NOT wanting any alternate wisdom to
be preserved.

> TV faith healers are an aberration, not the mainstream of people of faith.

Agreed, just like vinylista's are not the mainstream of music listeners :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
> You never worked out that if you don't *attack* vinyl, people like me
> don't have to *defend* it - did you?

No, since I have NEVER started a digital Vs analog debate in my life, and
would NEVER bother to do so.
Someone sure as hell has been starting them for the last 25 years though,
despite my NOT doing so.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
>
> > I have no interest in ruling any newsgroup. I just like to tell the
> > truth in the face of lies and distortions like the OP in this thread:
> >
> > http://krakow.msnbc.msn.com:80/archive/2007/08/29/338888.aspx
> >
> > "There's a good reason for this. In addition to what people remember
> > as the
> > bad things that LPs provide (scratches, clicks and pops) vinyl discs
> > have
> > lots of good things going for them. LPs contain close to 100-percent
> > of the
> > uncompressed music information as originally recorded. CDs contain
> > only
> > about half of that recorded information. And compressed music files
> > are
> > left with only a small percentage of the information that's on a CD."

> Lies and distortions? Where's your proof?

So you agree with that stupid statement then, where's YOUR proof, or even a
definition of what the hell he's on about?

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> It would be a different world if journalists who pretend to be technical
> experts by dispensing technical advice had useful amounts of basic audio
> engineering training.

They'd just go over the heads of their target audience then, and be replaced
with someone who didn't.
Most people do not wish to learn unfortunately, they only want their biases
reinforced.
Haven't you noticed the same thing happens on Usenet?

MrT.

[Keith G]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Give these people a shout - they'll ship you one today, if you want
>> and
>> they're on your doostep aren't they...??
>>
>> musicdirect
>
> For the same price as an average CD player? :-) :-)
>
> MrT.
>


At least Arny has the sense to shut TF up when his errors have been
pointed out.

What do you call an 'average CD player' anyway? - There's plenty of them
in the UK for a lot more money than that Marantz TT. (Not that it's got
****-all to do with anything....)

[Mr.T]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

et...
> lol Just as I thought; you don't even know what you're arguing about.

I did ask you to explain your position, and you still refuse to do so, so
obviously I have NO idea what YOU are arguing about.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Adam Stouffer" > wrote in message
news:MtqDi.7009$3R5.965@trnddc05...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> > The CD format is capable of more like 95 dB dynamic range, even when
judged
> > by a stiffer standard - unweighted noise. The clear advantage goes to
the
> > CD format, and by a factor of 10 or more.
> >
>
> Too bad they don't take advantage of it

And most of us would agree with that, but I wouldn't want every CD to fully
use 90dB+ dynamic range either, very hard to listen to on anything other
than well sealed headphones or in an anechoic chamber.
The useful benefit is that the system noise floor is always inaudible
regardless of how much or how little dynamic range the actual music has.
The same cannot be said of vinyl unfortunately.

MrT.

[Keith G]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
>>
>> > I have no interest in ruling any newsgroup. I just like to tell the
>> > truth in the face of lies and distortions like the OP in this
>> > thread:
>> >
>> > http://krakow.msnbc.msn.com:80/archive/2007/08/29/338888.aspx
>> >
>> > "There's a good reason for this. In addition to what people
>> > remember
>> > as the
>> > bad things that LPs provide (scratches, clicks and pops) vinyl
>> > discs
>> > have
>> > lots of good things going for them. LPs contain close to
>> > 100-percent
>> > of the
>> > uncompressed music information as originally recorded. CDs contain
>> > only
>> > about half of that recorded information. And compressed music
>> > files
>> > are
>> > left with only a small percentage of the information that's on a
>> > CD."
>
>> Lies and distortions? Where's your proof?
>
> So you agree with that stupid statement then, where's YOUR proof, or
> even a
> definition of what the hell he's on about?
>
> MrT.


So you disagree with that stupid statement then, where's YOUR proof, or
even a definition of what the hell he's on about?

[Keith G]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You never worked out that if you don't *attack* vinyl, people like me
>> don't have to *defend* it - did you?
>
> No, since I have NEVER started a digital Vs analog debate in my life,
> and
> would NEVER bother to do so.
> Someone sure as hell has been starting them for the last 25 years
> though,
> despite my NOT doing so.
>
> MrT.
>


No, you don't strike me as anybody who would stick his dick out far
enought to actually *start* anything - more one of the yapping crowd, I
would say...

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
> What do you call an 'average CD player' anyway?

Average price, highest selling volumes, pick whatever you like that roughly
fits.

>- There's plenty of them
> in the UK for a lot more money than that Marantz TT. (Not that it's got
> ****-all to do with anything....)

You got the last bit right anyway.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
> No, you don't strike me as anybody who would stick his dick out far
> enought to actually *start* anything -

So true, unlike you I've never been into ****ing contests.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
> So you disagree with that stupid statement then,

Yep.

>where's YOUR proof,

See the works of Shannon, and the last 25 years of actual test measurements.

>or even a definition of what the hell he's on about?

Now that I can't give since I already said I have NO idea what the **** he's
on about.

Still waiting for YOUR definition?

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
> If you are going to plaster these groups with pointless drivel you may
> as well do it properly...

OK, I'll leave that to the masters like you then.

MrT.

[Keith G]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>> No, you don't strike me as anybody who would stick his dick out far
>> enought to actually *start* anything -
>
> So true, unlike you I've never been into ****ing contests.
>
> MrT.
>


I've never seen you post in anything *other* than a ****ing contest....

[Keith G]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>> If you are going to plaster these groups with pointless drivel you
>> may
>> as well do it properly...
>
> OK, I'll leave that to the masters like you then.
>
> MrT.
>


If only you would....

[Keith G]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>> What do you call an 'average CD player' anyway?
>
> Average price, highest selling volumes, pick whatever you like that
> roughly
> fits.


As I expected - no real answer...

[George M. Middius]

Keith G said:

> > **** is enraged.

> >> > > > > > Why don't you admit the truth, ****?

> >> >>>No wonder you're the ****.

> >> > Very quick response time, ****.

> >> Wow George, what an amazingly limited "intelligence" you have.

> > Are you referring to my diagnosis of your true identity? I'll be the
> > first to admit that your ****tiness is as obvious as the turds on Krooger's
> > dinner plate.

> It seems you can learn from crosspostings after all - I thought the 'T'
> in 'Mr T' stood for * Tit *....

My first thought was to find a language in which the T stands for "garbage"
because **** is obviously packed to the gills with it. But then I realized
that a smug, ignorant, snotty Kroopologist is clearly a ****.

[Keith G]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>> So you disagree with that stupid statement then,
>
> Yep.
>
>>where's YOUR proof,
>
> See the works of Shannon, and the last 25 years of actual test
> measurements.


No, I said *where's* you proof, not *what* is your proof....

>
>>or even a definition of what the hell he's on about?
>
> Now that I can't give since I already said I have NO idea what the
> **** he's
> on about.
>
> Still waiting for YOUR definition?


No onus of proof on me - I didn't say I agreed with the statements. You
did....

[Mr.T]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
> As expected - no real answer...

So I see.

MrT.

[Keith G]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Keith G said:
>
>> > **** is enraged.
>
>> >> > > > > > Why don't you admit the truth, ****?
>
>> >> >>>No wonder you're the ****.
>
>> >> > Very quick response time, ****.
>
>> >> Wow George, what an amazingly limited "intelligence" you have.
>
>> > Are you referring to my diagnosis of your true identity? I'll be
>> > the
>> > first to admit that your ****tiness is as obvious as the turds on
>> > Krooger's
>> > dinner plate.
>
>> It seems you can learn from crosspostings after all - I thought the
>> 'T'
>> in 'Mr T' stood for * Tit *....
>
> My first thought was to find a language in which the T stands for
> "garbage"
> because **** is obviously packed to the gills with it. But then I
> realized
> that a smug, ignorant, snotty Kroopologist is clearly a ****.


T is a handy abbreviation - Tit, ****, Tosser, Twerp, Twonk, Thicko all
spring immediately to mind, but mostly when I see 'Mr T' I think of the
old joke:

Q: What's got 8 legs and a big, black hairy ****?

A: The A Team....

[Keith G]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>> As expected - no real answer...
>
> So I see.
>
> MrT.
>
>


No, I seriously doubt you do....

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Keith G" > wrote in message
> ...
>> What that tells me is that vinyl is likely to be around for quite a
>> while yet, irrespective of what *percentage* it may or may not represent
>> of anything - what does it tell you....??
>
> It tells me that people are now paying prices high enough that a few
> manufacturers can satisfy a small volume market.
> How long that will last is anybody's guess.

I suspect that a goodly portion of that market are buying their "last"
turntable.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> The greeks were a diverse lot. Just because some greek someplace thought
>> that the earth circulated around the sun didn't keep others from
>> believing
>> that Icaraus flew so close to the sun that the feathers on his arms
>> melted
>> off.
>
> True, but most knew the difference between science and mythology.
> I'm sure you do too.
>
>> Science and religion started out being almost completely blended
>> together.
>> Early technology was practiced by many as a kind of religious rite. Most
>> universities were run by the Church. Government, Science and Religon were
>> blended together.
>
> Yes, and not necessarily for the better. Anything that contradicted the
> current wisdom was considered heresy.

Agreed - why the founders of the US settled on religious freedom and
separation of church and state.

>> > And for much of that, priests promoted themselves as the
>> > "scientific establishment", and holders of all wisdom.

>> That was simply how things were. During the dark ages the churches were
>> the
>> places where ancient scientific wisdom was preserved and practiced.

> In fact the dark ages was all about them NOT wanting any alternate wisdom
> to
> be preserved.

The dark ages were about european culture being forced into dire subsistance
mode by a number of natural and man-made disasters. There was the mini ice
age, and there were plagues due to poorly-designed water supplies,
transportation and housing. There was pressure from the Moslems. Politics
was dominated by people who didn't really know what they were doing
organizationally, and wrapped themselves up in religious rhetoric to cover
the slack.

>> TV faith healers are an aberration, not the mainstream of people of
>> faith.

> Agreed, just like vinylista's are not the mainstream of music listeners
> :-)

We're clearly on the same page here! ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> It would be a different world if journalists who pretend to be technical
>> experts by dispensing technical advice had useful amounts of basic audio
>> engineering training.

> They'd just go over the heads of their target audience then, and be
> replaced
> with someone who didn't.

It is true that cross-cultural writing is not easy.

> Most people do not wish to learn unfortunately, they only want their
> biases
> reinforced.

Well, they want to be uplifted by being told that everything is OK.

> Haven't you noticed the same thing happens on Usenet?

Yup. Ditto for the web.

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Keith G" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
>>>
>>> > I have no interest in ruling any newsgroup. I just like to tell the
>>> > truth in the face of lies and distortions like the OP in this thread:
>>> >
>>> > http://krakow.msnbc.msn.com:80/archive/2007/08/29/338888.aspx
>>> >
>>> > "There's a good reason for this. In addition to what people remember
>>> > as the
>>> > bad things that LPs provide (scratches, clicks and pops) vinyl discs
>>> > have
>>> > lots of good things going for them. LPs contain close to 100-percent
>>> > of the
>>> > uncompressed music information as originally recorded. CDs contain
>>> > only
>>> > about half of that recorded information. And compressed music files
>>> > are
>>> > left with only a small percentage of the information that's on a CD."

>>> Lies and distortions? Where's your proof?

>> So you agree with that stupid statement then, where's YOUR proof, or even
>> a
>> definition of what the hell he's on about?

> So you disagree with that stupid statement then,

Yup.

> where's YOUR proof, or even a definition of what the hell he's on about?

Been there done that, very many times.

Too bad Keith that its against your religion to open a text book about audio
and actually try to understand it.