[Don Pearce]

Just done a small job where I was forced to use an analogue cassette. I
used one of the best portable - the Sony Walkman Pro WM-D6C, but the
result sounded more unbalanced and missing top than I expected.

So, (OK you all know by now what I do) I measured it. I used a Cr02
tape, and tried it on all three bias settings to see what would happen.
The Cr02 setting was the best, but I was surprised at just how far off
the others were - didn't know there was such a difference.

I also recorded some silence to see how the noise was.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/cassette.gif

The three curves are orange Normal bias, green Cr02 bias and purple
Metal bias. Signal levels are identical 0dB (+4VU) white noise for all
three.

The pale blue is the noise.

Nobody is really using these things any more, are they?

d

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

Just done a small job where I was forced to use an
analogue cassette. I used one of the best portable - the
Sony Walkman Pro WM-D6C, but the result sounded more
unbalanced and missing top than I expected.
So, (OK you all know by now what I do) I measured it. I
used a Cr02 tape, and tried it on all three bias settings
to see what would happen. The Cr02 setting was the best,
but I was surprised at just how far off the others were -
didn't know there was such a difference.
I also recorded some silence to see how the noise was.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/cassette.gif

The three curves are orange Normal bias, green Cr02 bias
and purple Metal bias. Signal levels are identical 0dB
(+4VU) white noise for all three.

I'm surprised that it is that good.

Too bad you didn't have proper samples of the three kinds of tape so you
could test it as it was designed to be used.

The pale blue is the noise.

Nobody is really using these things any more, are they?

No, but I owned one and enjoyed it very much "in the day". I loaned it to
my late son in the late 90s, and that was the last that I ever saw of it.
:-(

[Don Pearce]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message

Just done a small job where I was forced to use an
analogue cassette. I used one of the best portable - the
Sony Walkman Pro WM-D6C, but the result sounded more
unbalanced and missing top than I expected.
So, (OK you all know by now what I do) I measured it. I
used a Cr02 tape, and tried it on all three bias settings
to see what would happen. The Cr02 setting was the best,
but I was surprised at just how far off the others were -
didn't know there was such a difference.
I also recorded some silence to see how the noise was.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/cassette.gif

The three curves are orange Normal bias, green Cr02 bias
and purple Metal bias. Signal levels are identical 0dB
(+4VU) white noise for all three.

I'm surprised that it is that good.


I wasn't expecting it to drop by 6dB from about 3kHz.


Too bad you didn't have proper samples of the three kinds of tape so you
could test it as it was designed to be used.

The pale blue is the noise.

Nobody is really using these things any more, are they?

No, but I owned one and enjoyed it very much "in the day". I loaned it to
my late son in the late 90s, and that was the last that I ever saw of it.
:-(



And just to complete the picture, here is the effect of Dolby B and C
compared to normal recording.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/dolby.gif

That seems to work very convincingly.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:
Just done a small job where I was forced to use an analogue cassette. I
used one of the best portable - the Sony Walkman Pro WM-D6C, but the
result sounded more unbalanced and missing top than I expected.

So, (OK you all know by now what I do) I measured it. I used a Cr02
tape, and tried it on all three bias settings to see what would happen.
The Cr02 setting was the best, but I was surprised at just how far off
the others were - didn't know there was such a difference.

It's a complete and total difference. Not only that, if you actually
set the bias up for precisely the tape you are using, you will notice as
great an improvement.

The number one problem with cassettes is that nobody EVER has the machine
calibrated properly for the exact brand of tape they are using.

The number two problem is that the azimuth is always wrong.

Nobody is really using these things any more, are they?

A surprising number of folks doing voice-grade applications are using
them. You can drive a cassette over with a truck and still be able to
recover good audio from it. I'd like to see you try THAT with a compact
flash card.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Just done a small job where I was forced to use an analogue cassette. I
used one of the best portable - the Sony Walkman Pro WM-D6C, but the
result sounded more unbalanced and missing top than I expected.

So, (OK you all know by now what I do) I measured it. I used a Cr02
tape, and tried it on all three bias settings to see what would happen.
The Cr02 setting was the best, but I was surprised at just how far off
the others were - didn't know there was such a difference.

It's a complete and total difference. Not only that, if you actually
set the bias up for precisely the tape you are using, you will notice as
great an improvement.


Yes, I've got a Denon DRM-800A here that has adjustable bias. As it has
three heads it was always an easy job to set it flat before use. Two
samples of the same tape were different enough to need a change. It's a
long time since I've used it.

As for azimuth, of course if all you are doing is recording then playing
back an hour later, it is unlikely to be a problem. It doesn't really
matter if it is a bit off, provided it is the same both times.

The number one problem with cassettes is that nobody EVER has the machine
calibrated properly for the exact brand of tape they are using.

The number two problem is that the azimuth is always wrong.

Nobody is really using these things any more, are they?

A surprising number of folks doing voice-grade applications are using
them. You can drive a cassette over with a truck and still be able to
recover good audio from it. I'd like to see you try THAT with a compact
flash card.

Actually, my money is on the compact flash in that situation.

d

[Peter A. Stoll[_2_]]

Don Pearce wrote in
:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
You can drive a cassette over with a truck and still be able
to recover good audio from it. I'd like to see you try THAT with a
compact flash card.

Actually, my money is on the compact flash in that situation.

d
I suspect Scott may mean that you are more easily able get audio off a tape
from a smashed cassette than from a smashed CF card, with which I agree.
But I agree with you that for a specific insult level of being rolled over,
I'd bet on the CF card being immediately useable when the cassette needs
tender loving repacking into a new shell.

I have a cassette and a CF card I'm willing to sacrifice to science, but
lack a truck. Would a rollover test using my car be of interest?

[Don Pearce]

Peter A. Stoll wrote:
Don Pearce wrote in
:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
You can drive a cassette over with a truck and still be able
to recover good audio from it. I'd like to see you try THAT with a
compact flash card.
Actually, my money is on the compact flash in that situation.

d
I suspect Scott may mean that you are more easily able get audio off a tape
from a smashed cassette than from a smashed CF card, with which I agree.
But I agree with you that for a specific insult level of being rolled over,
I'd bet on the CF card being immediately useable when the cassette needs
tender loving repacking into a new shell.

I have a cassette and a CF card I'm willing to sacrifice to science, but
lack a truck. Would a rollover test using my car be of interest?


A great deal depends on the road surface. If it is nice and smooth, the
card will take no damage but the cassette case will be crushed. If the
surface is rough and the card happens to be lying on a lump, it tooo
will be wrecked. At that point I would put money on the cassette being
recoverable, and the card not.

d

[Mark]

On Jun 27, 2:01*pm, Don Pearce wrote:
Peter A. Stoll wrote:
Don Pearce wrote in
:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
* You can drive a cassette over with a truck and still be able
to recover good audio from it. *I'd like to see you try THAT with a
compact flash card.
Actually, my money is on the compact flash in that situation.

d
I suspect Scott may mean that you are more easily able get audio off a tape
from a smashed cassette than from a smashed CF card, with which I agree.. *
But I agree with you that for a specific insult level of being rolled over,
I'd bet on the CF card being immediately useable when the cassette needs
tender loving repacking into a new shell.

I have a cassette and a CF card I'm willing to sacrifice to science, but
lack a truck. *Would a rollover test using my car be of interest?

A great deal depends on the road surface. If it is nice and smooth, the
card will take no damage but the cassette case will be crushed. If the
surface is rough and the card happens to be lying on a lump, it tooo
will be wrecked. At that point I would put money on the cassette being
recoverable, and the card not.

d- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

try your frequency response run again at -10 or -15 VU. You can't do
a freq response run at 0VU on a tap machine. That is one big reason
alone why people though CDs were too bright, becasue they CAN
reproduce flat to 20 kHz at full scale.... no tape system can do
that (well maybe at 30ips it can).

But I agree, a cheap MP3 recorder that runs on a AA battery will beat
out any casatte tape based system any day.

Mark

[RDOGuy]

On Jun 27, 12:15*pm, "Peter A. Stoll"
wrote:

I have a cassette and a CF card I'm willing to sacrifice to science, but
lack a truck. *Would a rollover test using my car be of interest?

Audio Mythbusters! Cool! : )

[RDOGuy]

On Jun 27, 10:21*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

The number one problem with cassettes is that nobody EVER has the machine
calibrated properly for the exact brand of tape they are using.

The number two problem is that the azimuth is always wrong.

Quite so, Scott. Although we should probably amend that to say that
CONSUMERS never have (or had) the machine set up properly for the
tape. Most pros I've ever encountered at least knew that it
mattered... but I'll admit that too many of them didn't go to the
trouble of dealing with it properly.

I had a Nakamichi 682ZX pass through my hands recently, and its
ability to automatically deal with these issues was very cool.
Towards the end of the cassette era, I had an inexpensive Pioneer deck
(actually I think it's still around here somewhere) that did the same
thing. Made amazingly good recordings for its cost. I'm certain that
it didn't align the azimuth and bias as well as it could be done on
the bench, but the the feature was quite useful.

[Steve L.[_3_]]

RDOGuy so you saynews:d3497616-7404-431b-a778-86b944841448@
26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com:

I had a Nakamichi 682ZX pass through my hands recently, and its
ability to automatically deal with these issues was very cool.


OT but I remmeber as a teenager recording in my garage (with the door open)
amd knowing little about what i doing... I had a nakamichi cm100 battery
powered mic and played Black Mountainside with my takamine 12 string
through it to casstte .. I forget what deck it was .. maybe Sansui..
anyhow .. It sounded great to me at the time and my family didn't even
believe it was me playing.

The best part of that memory was when the cute girl down the street came
over and introduced herself.

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Just done a small job where I was forced to use an analogue cassette. I
used one of the best portable - the Sony Walkman Pro WM-D6C, but the
result sounded more unbalanced and missing top than I expected.

So, (OK you all know by now what I do) I measured it. I used a Cr02
tape, and tried it on all three bias settings to see what would happen.
The Cr02 setting was the best, but I was surprised at just how far off
the others were - didn't know there was such a difference.

It's a complete and total difference. Not only that, if you actually
set the bias up for precisely the tape you are using, you will notice as
great an improvement.

The number one problem with cassettes is that nobody EVER has the machine
calibrated properly for the exact brand of tape they are using.

The number two problem is that the azimuth is always wrong.


Nevermind that, most consumer tape decks played back fast (why I don't know)

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message...

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Just done a small job where I was forced to use an analogue cassette. I
used one of the best portable - the Sony Walkman Pro WM-D6C, but the
result sounded more unbalanced and missing top than I expected.

So, (OK you all know by now what I do) I measured it. I used a Cr02
tape, and tried it on all three bias settings to see what would happen.
The Cr02 setting was the best, but I was surprised at just how far off
the others were - didn't know there was such a difference.

Am I missing something, or shouldn't the Cr02 tape actually sound best
using the Cr02 tape setting? ;-)

It's a complete and total difference. Not only that, if you actually
set the bias up for precisely the tape you are using, you will notice as
great an improvement.

The number one problem with cassettes is that nobody EVER has the machine
calibrated properly for the exact brand of tape they are using.

The number two problem is that the azimuth is always wrong.


Nevermind that, most consumer tape decks played back fast (why I don't know)

To keep up with radio station "DJ tempo".... get in that extra couple
of songs per hour. No one will notice it's a quarter step higher and
a few more beats per minute... especially when everyone's cassette
player sounds just like the radio station.


DM

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:19:10 -0500, Romeo Rondeau
wrote:

Nevermind that, most consumer tape decks played back fast (why I don't know)

Their little DC capstan motors would speed up as the brushes aged.

I'm drawing a blank on the chain of reasoning... maybe that
the brushes were in the internal servo's feedback path.

But it was certainly true.


Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Fred[_8_]]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:19:10 -0500, Romeo Rondeau
wrote:

Nevermind that, most consumer tape decks played back fast (why I don't know)

Their little DC capstan motors would speed up as the brushes aged.

I'm drawing a blank on the chain of reasoning... maybe that
the brushes were in the internal servo's feedback path.

The servo in those cheap tape motors was actually just an adjustable
voltage regulator. So as the brushes wore in and the resistance of the
brush - commutator interface dropped, the current would go up and the
motor would run faster. But the brushes were actually just spring wires
that contacted the commutator, so the wear didn't have all that great an
effect.

Usually wear in the cheap bearings would effectively counteract that
and the speed would stay within +/- 0.5% for months if not years. But
it was standard practice to set the speed on consumer decks 0.5% fast
from the get-go, because people notice flat right away but don't notice
sharp until it gets pretty serious. And a deck would have to slow down
more than half a percent before it would actually be slow or (Aargh) flat,
that way.

Fred

But it was certainly true.


It's all true if you're in the right frame of mind. ;-)

Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Mark]

The servo in those cheap tape motors was actually just an adjustable
voltage regulator.

No they are not actually servos, they are small circuits with positive
feedback that look like a negative resistance to the motor. That
combines with the positive resistance of the windings to try to get a
net zero source impedance to the effective motor which holds the speed
constant against varying load. The biggest variation in load and
spped is due to the slip clutch that drives the take up reel. So they
tend to run fast when the takup reel is near empty and spinnging fast
and run slower as the take up reel fills up and runs slower and the
slip clutch loads the drive motor more heavily.

Mark

[Richard Kuschel]

On Jun 27, 1:19 pm, Romeo Rondeau wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Just done a small job where I was forced to use an analogue cassette. I
used one of the best portable - the Sony Walkman Pro WM-D6C, but the
result sounded more unbalanced and missing top than I expected.

So, (OK you all know by now what I do) I measured it. I used a Cr02
tape, and tried it on all three bias settings to see what would happen.
The Cr02 setting was the best, but I was surprised at just how far off
the others were - didn't know there was such a difference.

It's a complete and total difference. Not only that, if you actually
set the bias up for precisely the tape you are using, you will notice as
great an improvement.

The number one problem with cassettes is that nobody EVER has the machine
calibrated properly for the exact brand of tape they are using.

The number two problem is that the azimuth is always wrong.

Nevermind that, most consumer tape decks played back fast (why I don't know)

I do know why.
In the race to sell more stuff to consumers, the tape companies found
out that it the machine played a little fast, the music sounded
brighter and more exciting.
If two systems had essentially identical sound otherwise, the sound
that was brighter was preferred.
One more thing happened. If the machine was playing at the correct
speed when it left the factory, it would speed up slightly as it broke
in. The parts loosened up and it would play slightly faster. Since
consumers never calibrated their machines, high speed became the norm.

Cassette specs for speed were + or- 1%. I never saw one run slow
though. Because of this, I calibrated my machines as close as I
could get to accurate speed but never on the slow side.

One more thing because consumer machines played fast, the tape
companies made their tapes extra long. A 90 minute Maxell was really
closer to 95 minutes when played on a machine with accurate speed. My
duplication cassettes were accurate in length, so I used c-95 to
duplicate consumer c-90's.

[Geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:


A surprising number of folks doing voice-grade applications are using
them. You can drive a cassette over with a truck and still be able to
recover good audio from it. I'd like to see you try THAT with a
compact flash card.

I tried it with a CD (inadvertently) and that was OK. I was lucky, but it
wasn't an important CD anyway.

geoff

[Badmuts]

You can drive a cassette over with a truck and still be able to
recover good audio from it. I'd like to see you try THAT with a compact
flash card.

Tried just that with an SD card. Wasn't a problem.

Bm

[Meindert Sprang]

"Badmuts" wrote in message
...
You can drive a cassette over with a truck and still be able to
recover good audio from it. I'd like to see you try THAT with a compact
flash card.

Tried just that with an SD card. Wasn't a problem.

Of course it isn't. People overestimate the force of a truck on a small
area. When a truck tyre is pressurized with, say 8 bar, the force on one cm2
is only 8 kg. That amounts to roughly 120 kg on the entire CF card.

Meindert

[Geoff]

Meindert Sprang wrote:
"Badmuts" wrote in message
...
You can drive a cassette over with a truck and still be able to
recover good audio from it. I'd like to see you try THAT with a
compact flash card.

Tried just that with an SD card. Wasn't a problem.

Of course it isn't. People overestimate the force of a truck on a
small area. When a truck tyre is pressurized with, say 8 bar, the
force on one cm2 is only 8 kg. That amounts to roughly 120 kg on the
entire CF card.

Which is why they call the smaller SD cards 'secure' .

geoff

[Misifus[_2_]]

Meindert Sprang wrote:
"Badmuts" wrote in message
...
You can drive a cassette over with a truck and still be able to
recover good audio from it. I'd like to see you try THAT with a compact
flash card.
Tried just that with an SD card. Wasn't a problem.

Of course it isn't. People overestimate the force of a truck on a small
area. When a truck tyre is pressurized with, say 8 bar, the force on one cm2
is only 8 kg. That amounts to roughly 120 kg on the entire CF card.

Meindert





Interesting, but if the truck weighs 4500 KG, and is supported by six
tyres, the average weight on each tyre must be 750kg. For the larger 10
tyre type trucks, the mass increases proportionately to something like a
minimum of 9000 kilos, which makes the load per tyre 900kg.

-Raf

--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert

blog: http://rafsrincon.blogspot.com/
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com

[Paul Stamler]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
Just done a small job where I was forced to use an analogue cassette. I
used one of the best portable - the Sony Walkman Pro WM-D6C, but the
result sounded more unbalanced and missing top than I expected.

So, (OK you all know by now what I do) I measured it. I used a Cr02
tape, and tried it on all three bias settings to see what would happen.
The Cr02 setting was the best, but I was surprised at just how far off
the others were - didn't know there was such a difference.

It's huge; the three types of cassette tape (Fe, CrO2 & metal particle)
required drastically different levels of bias. Also, Fe was typically played
back with a 120uS curve, the others with 70uS.

I also recorded some silence to see how the noise was.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/cassette.gif

The three curves are orange Normal bias, green Cr02 bias and purple
Metal bias. Signal levels are identical 0dB (+4VU) white noise for all
three.

White noise at 0 VU on a cassette recorder is likely to saturate the high
frequencies.

The pale blue is the noise.

Nobody is really using these things any more, are they?

Very little. I still use a particular cassette recorder for phone
interviews, primarily because it has a useful AGC circuit. I also feed the
output of the cassette recorder into my computer so I'll have a copy already
loaded as a .wav file, but I have the cassette for backup. Please note,
however, that these interviews are *only* for transcription into text;
they're *not* intended for listening by anyone but the transcriber.

All that said, I keep a working cassette deck handy for transcribing
material which only comes in on cassette. It's a screaming pain in the butt.

Peace,
Paul

[Les Cargill]

Don Pearce wrote:
Just done a small job where I was forced to use an analogue cassette. I
used one of the best portable - the Sony Walkman Pro WM-D6C, but the
result sounded more unbalanced and missing top than I expected.

So, (OK you all know by now what I do) I measured it. I used a Cr02
tape, and tried it on all three bias settings to see what would happen.
The Cr02 setting was the best, but I was surprised at just how far off
the others were - didn't know there was such a difference.

I also recorded some silence to see how the noise was.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/cassette.gif


For cassette, that's really not bad.

The three curves are orange Normal bias, green Cr02 bias and purple
Metal bias. Signal levels are identical 0dB (+4VU) white noise for all
three.

The pale blue is the noise.

Nobody is really using these things any more, are they?

d

I have rock band recordings that started life on a Tascam 488 MkII -
3.75 ips, dbx - that are eminently useable. Cassette with dbx provides
plenty of dynamic range for that, and it does interesting things with
transients.

--
Les Cargill

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:43:13 +0100, Don Pearce
wrote:

http://81.174.169.10/odds/cassette.gif

Cassette tapes were always something of a "two-legged dog";
it wasn't so much how wonderful they walked, it was that
they *could* walk.

Measurements of frequency response on cassette machines
were made at -20VU, because higher levels would give
errors from saturation. Hey, it's 1 7/8 ips - that's the dealt
hand. (Although some Nak's could make non-standard 3 3/4
ips recordings.)

As you've found, it was a super-fiddly system. Everything
had to be tweeked just right, and there was little margin
for professional reliability. None, actually....

But it was a product of its time. You could play them in
your car! You could even play them while walking down the street!

Pretty cool, huh?!!! And they sounded just fine for their
time and intended purpose. We're spoilt these days, IMO.


Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Les Cargill]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:43:13 +0100, Don Pearce
wrote:

http://81.174.169.10/odds/cassette.gif

Cassette tapes were always something of a "two-legged dog";
it wasn't so much how wonderful they walked, it was that
they *could* walk.

Measurements of frequency response on cassette machines
were made at -20VU, because higher levels would give
errors from saturation. Hey, it's 1 7/8 ips - that's the dealt
hand. (Although some Nak's could make non-standard 3 3/4
ips recordings.)


Tasc(am)s too.

As you've found, it was a super-fiddly system. Everything
had to be tweeked just right, and there was little margin
for professional reliability. None, actually....


I'm looking at it right now, and I would still be unafraid to
track bass/drums/guitar on it. Not much *point* in that, but....


But it was a product of its time. You could play them in
your car! You could even play them while walking down the street!


Or that you could record at all.

Pretty cool, huh?!!! And they sounded just fine for their
time and intended purpose. We're spoilt these days, IMO.


And it hasn't done "us" all that much good, I am afraid.


Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

--
Les Cargill

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:46:44 -0400, Les Cargill
wrote:

But it was a product of its time. You could play them in
your car! You could even play them while walking down the street!

Or that you could record at all.

Theologians will someday argue about this, but my first
known recordings were on cassette. Music critics may well
argue, amongst themselves, whether or not they were my
best. I wouldn't want to prejudice History by commenting.
'Nuf said. Maybe too much...

Pretty cool, huh?!!! And they sounded just fine for their
time and intended purpose. We're spoilt these days, IMO.

And it hasn't done "us" all that much good, I am afraid.

Never trust any recording under Thirty!




But seriously, much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Les Cargill]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:46:44 -0400, Les Cargill
wrote:

But it was a product of its time. You could play them in
your car! You could even play them while walking down the street!

Or that you could record at all.

Theologians will someday argue about this, but my first
known recordings were on cassette.

Part of the problem is that I still have mine like
that. And they don't sound all that bad.

Music critics may well
argue, amongst themselves, whether or not they were my
best. I wouldn't want to prejudice History by commenting.
'Nuf said. Maybe too much...

Pretty cool, huh?!!! And they sounded just fine for their
time and intended purpose. We're spoilt these days, IMO.
And it hasn't done "us" all that much good, I am afraid.

Never trust any recording under Thirty!



Constraints are the mother's milk of creation. We are
at our best like a weed growing around a concrete block.



But seriously, much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

--
Les Cargill

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:12:04 -0400, Les Cargill
wrote:

my first known recordings were on cassette.

Part of the problem is that I still have mine like
that. And they don't sound all that bad.

Of course they sound bad. They're not digital. It's an
open-'n-shut case. And everybody's Portastudio recordings
from back when their technique was somewhat, shall we
say, lesser, but their hearts were on fire, should just be
dumpstered. There's no music there.

And while we're at it, there're a lot of recordings
of old American roots guys (yeah, mostly guys) from
before the war, like Henry Thomas and John Hurt and
Blind Willie Johnson and the Louvin Brothers and
Sister Rosetta Tharpe, and after the war, like Reverend
Gary Davis and both the Sonny Boy's (both direct descendants
of Heaven) that don't meet the test of true fidelity.

So I'll need to stop listening to their music.
As if.


Constraints are the mother's milk of creation. We are
at our best like a weed growing around a concrete block.

The single most "beautiful" (contextual) description of
capital-A Art that I've ever read.

If I could figure out how to make this pathetic newsgroup
reader print a "sig file" I'd make this a permanent part of
my posts. Sadly, ain't happenin'. But you know what ya' wrote.


Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

"Constraints are the mother's milk of creation. We are
at our best like a weed growing around a concrete block."
-Les Cargill

References also to Carlos Casteneda's story of the plant
growing in the path: "That was its fate", from an early book.