Archive through August 02, 2004
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1473 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, Do not post those files. You can't even read the page numbers. They are obviously in MP3 format. I will see if I can find CD or DVD-A versions. I assume the originals were ink-on-paper, the now-obsolete analogue format. Not many people can read that, now, they don't have the right computer. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1475 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, I forgot to reply re the Yamaha NS10M. My point is you don't need to know anything about the speakers to spot the flaw in the argument "bad speakers are good for testing the quality of the rest of your system". I wonder if anyone went out and auditioned some, after reading that, but settled for Bose because the Yamahas failed to live up to the promise, by sounding quite good. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 486 Registered: Dec-03 | JOHN i didn't want to post this on the definitions thread as to not get off the track. but it is killing me to understand what you meant by. "Help, Kegger! This is supposed to be definitions, and people are starting to quote Hamlet...." i don't know hamlet and for the life of me can't figure out what you mean and it's eating at me. so please explain for me sir! thanks! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1488 Registered: Dec-03 | Kegger, everyone, Sorry, it is "Macbeth", not "Hamlet". (Shakespeare, which is why I thought of our original discussion, way back) "Tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow..." I can recite it. They drummed it it into me at school. I just get the plays mixed up. it happens to "old dogs", I expect. peach's quote on that thread is from the end of that speech. It is about how life is not much different from a play, and just as pointless if people don't understand each other. He says it better than that, of course.... |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1672 Registered: Dec-03 | On another thread, goldenarrow provides a link to this excellent "FAQ" on surround sound, formats, bass management, and much else. Frequently Asked Questions About Surround Sound. Old Dogs may get a buzz of adrenaline from the introduction (BTW "Quad" is a manufacturer; they probably mean "quadraphonic"):- 1.1 Why is surround sound better than stereo? Surround Sound is almost universally acclaimed to be a more realistic experience than stereo. This applies to just about any type of program, from music to motion pictures to television. People that can't tell the difference between mono and stereo can immediately hear and appreciate the difference between surround and stereo. 1.2 Are there a lot of consumers with surround systems? More and more. It is projected that there will be in excess of 55 million homes with home theater systems in the United States alone, which represents a penetration of nearly 35%. 1.3 How does the surround sound of today differ from Quad? The Quad systems of the 70's were flawed in two ways. First of all, there was a format war that confused consumers and discouraged them from buying into Quad. Secondly, if the placement of the speakers wasn't exactly right then the listener had phantom images drifting around the room which resulted in a less that satisfying experience. The surround sound of today is built upon the premise of three speakers across the front, with the center speaker providing an anchor for the sound, which eliminates any moving phantom images and improves the imaging. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | PSHAW!!! Bullballs! Format wars? Speaker placement? He must not remember the Shibatta stylus. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 746 Registered: Dec-03 | well it all sounds good to me! exspecially the part about the center speaker! lol |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1680 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, Can I join your club, please? I have phantom images. They come from the center channel. Or from phantoms. A "less than satifying experience". I definitely want a tube 5.1 system. Better, 4.0. Do not believe the hype. Surround has something to offer, despite those guys' attempts to discredit it. Please, what was the Shibatta stylus? It's just great when old dogs rattle their cages... |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 325 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, Your PSHAW was much too kind. Please feel free to bark louder. |
|
J. vigne Unregistered guest | Before we start, a quotation I found while looking for some information: "Audiophilia One of the things that bugs me the most in this world are people classified as "audiophiles" in the worst sense of the word (reviewers for some snooty audio magazines, for example). Equipment-crazed lunatics who don't know a second thing nor care the least bit about music they play, willing to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to eke the last bit of sound from a recording while never caring for the music in the first place. They talk night and day about soundstage and breaking in their new equipment and how their wires cost them over $5,000. It is true that the next level up might be achievable with another couple thousand, but in this world of severely diminishing returns, it all stops mattering when you're happy to just sit down and listen to your music. When you've got enough money to buy that next step up and it'll make music that much more enjoyable, go for it, but if every time you're sitting down to listen and you just hear the flaws in the electronics, perhaps consider a different hobby. Not that I don't appreciate quality equipment, but music should be what it's all about." A Shibatta stylus was used to decode CD4 records. CD4 was the discrete version of quadraphonic sound in the 70's. It was available on four track open reel tape, eight track tape that was, instead of four sets of two channels, two four channel tracks, or CD4 records which required a specific stylus type to decode. The LP was recorded with four tracks, two in each side of the groove and layered on top of each other. Along with the music a 30kHz carrier signal was recorded and this is what "turned on" the internal electronics of the processors to decode or separate the tracks. The Shibatta stylus was similar to an eliptical stylus in that it was asymetrical. On the edges that road in the record groove the sides of the cartridge had been extended with a slight flare that meant smaller contact area over the groove surface. The smaller the contact area in the groove, the higher the frequency response the stylus could trace. As the stylus had a very small footprint when new it would track the 30kHz carrier signal for most of the record. A slight warp or off center record or simple mistracking of the stylus would loose the carrier and there would go the turn on signal to the demodulator. This was also the day of replacable styli so any misalignment of the cartridge or stylus assembly would not contact the groove properly over the entire record. Turn on, turn off, turn on ... could get bothersome over the course of a symphony. The larger problem with the Shibatta stylus was that two things wear when you play a record. The stylus and the record. It didn't take long and you had not only worn the stylus down to where it could no longer trace the 30kHz signal but you had worn the 30kHz signal completely off the record. Planned obsolescence! Format wars my Aunt Lucia! God rest her soul. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1686 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan. I think we need to discuss tactics in the forthcoming battle. I can maybe provide some cover while you go in, or vice versa. We can take it in turns. These systems were all what we now call "matrixed", I think - you write of the demodulator. A straight 4.0 (or 5.1) DVD-A is genuine four (or six) track. I stick to my guns on this, despite what those clowns say. One stupid piece of nonsense further down their web page is: In a studio that services mostly Pop and Rock clients, all five speakers are usually matched direct radiators with a second system utilizing dipoles as a consumer reference. In a studio that services mostly Classical and Jazz clients, the front speakers will be identical direct radiators but the rear channels may be dipoles. This is because these genres of music utilize the rear speakers mostly for ambient information and dipoles tend to work better in this application. Totally the reverse of the truth, in my opinion. "Ambient information" means "no-one is listening". Loved your quote. Yes, it is the music. Re planned obsolescence, I see in HFN (Barry Fox) there is a plan to bring out light-sensitive, biodegradable, paper-based discs which play only n times and then you throw them away. "The environment" is a new religeon, in my view (though there are some real issues, of course). The best thing for the biosphere would be to produced only stuff that lasts for ever. People would be happy with it. Leave it to their chiildren. Would spend their time listening to music, instead. Even playing it. I salute you, and the memory of your Aunt Lucia. She saw the light. If you had an Aunt Cecelia, too, your pedigree would be complete! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Sorry, Aunt Dorothy, Helen, Mary and Irene. Some say my grandfather married wrong. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1695 Registered: Dec-03 | IMHO He did OK for grandsons, nuns notwithstanding. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1696 Registered: Dec-03 |  Diagram of what Jan gets with stereo, not showing reflections from the room he, and the speakers, are in. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1697 Registered: Dec-03 |  Diagram of what Jan could get from holophony (4.0 "surround sound"). |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1698 Registered: Dec-03 |  Diagram of what John gets from stereo. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1699 Registered: Dec-03 |  Diagram of what John gets from DVD-A of "The Sixteen" Spem in Alium CORDVD1, and would have heard in All Saints', Tooting, if he had been there. |
|
Bronze Member Username: GoldenarrowPost Number: 46 Registered: Jun-04 | Everyone, I have not kept up on this on-going discussion but it seems to me that there is a bigger issue going on with the promise of multichannel. It seems that all of us have an analog point of view. What we need is a Digital World View. John A. mentioned to me on another thread that this discussion is something I should read. I will try to read it this weekend but something hit me as I skimmed the comments. No one that I could tell has brought up the issue of ultimate control of the virtual soundspace. Computer technology will change the way sound is reproduced, in fact it is already doing that. Just the fact that there is so much discussion about the truth of being pure to the original sound vs. what a sound engineer would do to it shows how much control we are trying to assert to our music experience. Imagine the home sound room 50 years from now. A super computer with A/V receiver functions will call up a digitized recording of your favorite band. This is not just a recording, however. It is a complete, square inch by square inch, representation of the sound space when the band recorded the music. That is because it was not recorded with point-source microphones. It was recorded with membrane-like material that covered the entire inside of the recording studio. All of this info is fed, in real-time, to a recording engineer's super computer which has calculated every waveform in every square inch of the building. The WHOLE soundspace is measured and known creating a virtual soundspace that can be manipulated at will. So, back to your couch at home. You decide you want to sit in the virtual soundspace in the middle of an auditorium of your choice. That is a nice standard way to listen. As you listen, your spouse comes in and wants to hear a different perspective, so she presses a few buttons and voila, you are now sitting or even standing in the first row at an outdoor arena. The same kind of membrane-like panels that recorded your music are reproducing the music from an infinite number of points in the room. This is what I believe it means to have a Digital World View. Computers exist because we want complete control over our environment. This is how you use computers (or TRY to as in the case of Microsoft). The whole stereo vs. multichannel perception thing will fall into place once you can have a virtual 1000.x system as opposed to little incremental increases in point source radiation. In other words, every single square inch of a recording room or a listening room becomes a listening or a radiating point source. The "ambiance" and math tricks used to recreate surround sound today will give way to a much more straight-forward and more comprehensive way to control ALL of the sound in ALL of the soundspace. This vision of the future depends upon our assumption that computers exist to control as much of our environment for us as possible, with the touch of a button. This sort of echoes Kegger's comments of May 23 where he describes knowing about computer technology and trying to keep up with it. It occured to me that he needed to take the idea further to the nth degree and see how to consumerize that kind of control. It is my contention that computers are taking us where we don't want to go but once we get there, it will seem like a no-brainer. I don't know if I will be able to keep up with this discussion but I just wanted to put my thoughts out here for all you good people to contemplate.  goldenarrow |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1701 Registered: Dec-03 | goldenarrow, Writing as the co-starter of this thread, along with Jan Vigne, let me say you are very welcome here. Your point is a very good one, in my opinion. No-one could read the whole if this thread, not and stay sane (...!). One of the pleasures of this discussion has been trying to take a long view. I can certainly remember when music-lovers were saying about stereo what they are saying, today, about "Surround sound". On June 19, I posted the words of a nice 1959 patter and song expressing scepticism about stereo... The basic starting-point of this thread was Jan's remark that he thought music almost always sound better in stereo. Always having delighted in stereo, myself, I can see the point, and think the problem is the hype, what the recording engineers do with multichannel, and the proliferating number of channels. The last point alone indicates to me that people have not thought about what they want the medium to do. My absolute, definitive surround recording is that one linked just above, after the fourth diagram. It is in 4.0. It had to be. It is fairly esoteric (but still wonderful music), recreating a sound that was really written (in the 16th C) to be performed all around the listener, and has probably never been heard that way, from a recording, until that disc. However, I also maintain that surround, properly done, offers a whole new experience of music, even when the performers themselves are just in front of you, simply because so much of what we hear at a performance is reflections and reverberation. The there are folk like Kegger who aren't so bothered with re-creating a real performance, and I know he speaks for many. That's OK, but I feel it may get more important to have reality as a reference as time goes on. That's one area where "the industry" cannot alter our perceptions. Digital changes, many things, you are correct. One thing that is new is that copying is 100% faithful to the original files: there is no difference between the copy and the original. With analogue there was always some degradation of sound quality each time something was re-recorded. Also, copying is easy, you don't have to play the recording in real time, and cheap. Then there is networking, including the internet. What the recording industry is seeking, desperately, is a way of charging for content, not for the physical thing that carries it. When CD came in, no-one except manufacturers could burn CDs; copying was not a problem for them, then. This brings in the Orwellian aspect, which is what I personally fear: encryption. As someone who depends on satellite reception of broadcasting, the "switch to digital" really made no different to sound and picture quality, but it has certainly decreased the range of "free-to-air" broadcasts, and "rights issues" mean, at least in Europe, that trans-national reception has been severely curtained. I am told it is actually illegal for me to receive certain simple public service channels, and I cannot legally purchase even the de-ecryption keys without a particular residential address. The "rights issues" means that broadcasters dare not simply "broadcast"; they have to guarantee that reception is restricted in some way, otherwise the content providers will not have multiple customers. The political implications of having unidentified and unaccountable people deciding what we may listen to or watch are one thing. If you put this kind of control in the hands of the great dictators of the 20th C the consequences would have been serious. Analogue AM broadcasts brought "nation unto nation" for many decades; you could tell the bad guys right throughout the cold war, they jammed incoming signals, so their population could not hear what the rest of the world had to say. For the last few years, good old analogue, AM, 1500 meters domestic BBC is jammed in continental Europe by what I think is a commercial, Czech disco channel. They should show some gratitude, historical awareness, and find another wavelength...! As regards music, it is commercial interests that are shaping digital recording and broadcasting to determien what may or may not be listened to, by whom, and where. I am not sure that is any better. DVD "regionalisation" is mostly a commercial con, I think. I have no idea where sound (and vision) reproduction in the home will be in 50 years. Your scenario reminds me of "Minority Report", interesting and fun, but a completely daft movie in many respects, with some very simple, and large, blunders about what is possible. Probably you are correct about the digital data itself, especially with WiFi networks (this message starts its journey from a simple one, in my home). It all still needs amplifiers and transducers (speakers), of course, to get real, analogue sound. These are never going to be so cheap that you can just buy as many as you feel like, not unless some currently imaginable new technology come along. End of ramble. Thanks again for joining the Old Dogs. Jan is about the oldest and wisest, here, imho. I am waiting for his hackles to rise, again, with eager anticipation.... |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1703 Registered: Dec-03 | There is some fascinating stuff on "which way will the industry go?" from the point of view of EMI, a big player, on 1 July 2004: Digital music investor day, London. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 329 Registered: Dec-03 | JohnA., I will second that opinion about Jan. I'm not so sure about the oldest part. No debate on part two. I like old dogs. Glad I'm one. I find them great company. Cheers to you my friend, and all old dogs....... |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1704 Registered: Dec-03 | Rick, Thank you. I am glad you agree. Let us resist the temptation to delve into such trivial matters as date of birth... I have learned so much here, from so many, and particularly on this thread. Cheers. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1705 Registered: Dec-03 | Rick, Thinking about making a diagram such as the ones above, but with "Rick listening to Don Giovanni", it occurs to me that listening in two-channel stereo must give the effect of being in an opera box (do you have those over there?), namely, you miss all first-order reflections from behind you, hearing only reflections of those reflections (i.e. second-order reflections) as a cue to the size etc. of the opera house. I have only once been in an opera box, for a performance of Boris Godounov (sp?). I remember chiefly that it had an awful lot of bass-baritones, and was in Russian. Also, a chorus whose tune I recognised from one of the Beethoven "Rasumovsky" quartets. When it is your turn to host the Old Dogs' convention, you really must take us all to the Met. I promise not to bring an SPL meter. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 330 Registered: Dec-03 | JohnA., I have had the pleasure of being in an opera box several times. Don Giovanni is one of my favorites. You would honor me with your diagram. As far as hosting in New York City, it would indeed be my honor and pleasure. Nothing would please me more, than for all to get together one day. Now that would be an event to treasure forever. Cheers! |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 767 Registered: Dec-03 | hey john i could go for one of those diagrams as well. listening to the front three speakers center back a little farther than the fronts. and the four rears, with surrounds being just slightly behind you and out to the side same distance from listening position as fronts and rears. with the 2 rears being behind the listening position and spread apart about 9 feet. and me in the center listening to some steely dan with a cold beverage. you da man. what are you using to create those? |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Thank you all for your kind words, I'll try to live up to the latter and not feel like the former. I haven't had time to read all of John's post from EMI. They are a label I have respected for years but the marketplace has changed dramatically over the past two decades as computers are influencing our lives more and more. Of course the entire world is aware of our upcoming election this November and the constant polling results given by our twenty four hour news cycle. He's ahead by three, he's down by five, but on this issue he's pulling ahead and he's losing ground on this issue. And it is all driven by the ability to pull numbers out of a computer and say he needs to focus more on this issue when he's in this part of that state. I'm fearing that the entire world is going to be "managed" in the same manner. And so, when I read the projections of companies such as EMI, I can't help but feel we are being manipulated by every computerized so and so on the palnet. I'm not trying to be anymore cynical than I am about most things (the nuns come in the night when they get wind of that) but I have trouble finding consolation in companies such as EMI, that once seemed a stalwart of integrity, as they project where the world will take us in the ensuing years. There seems to have been that paradigm shift that says, "Trust us, we know what is best for you". And the sheep go, "Baaaaa". Well, we here in the U.S. did trust them eighteen months ago and now 80% feel we made a mistake. (Nobody listened when some said we shouldn't rush to judgement.) Not to get political on this forum, but, I feel the group think method is upon us. And it is not limited to going to war (against any people or ideology). So, thinking digitally with my decidedly analogue brain cells (1 + 1 = 1 + 1 until I'm convinced otherwise) I am not convinced that Goldenarrow's predictions will be any more a reality than the flying cars and stress free lives we were promised in the 60's. (What is the Raymond Massey film, something like "Things to Come" that was made in the 30's and predicted wild things that were interesting but not (mostly) a reality. Though if I remember correctly there was a war time persident in that flick. For my money, "Metropolis" is still the future that we will see. And certainly Chaplin's "Modern Times" was as prophetic as any film.) There is a dumming down of the masses that is represented in the future of audio as much as in the politics of the elite. (I hate that word. That is one the forum shouldn't allow [sorry, realelitefan].) The question is on the forum now about how to record for the "best" quality without using too much space on MP3 format. Duh! That is an oxymoron that makes someone who still has a Revox 10 1/2" open reel recorder flinch. (Of course it's STEREO, you need to ask?) Sympathetic membranes may be interesting to discuss but I doubt they stand a chance against the music (and information) that will be implanted in our brains. Why waste the time developing a technology where you and the misses can still argue about what seating position you wish to position your posteriors into when with a very simple procedure the two of you can be listening to completely different source material from different perspectives. (Oh, that word "perspectives". When it comes to information ... it will make Kegger's simplified choice of whether he likes it or not seem moot. Accuracy, once again ... PSHAW!) So as the rest of the world slips toward how many files they can store in the least amount of space, I will sit here in my dark little space and wonder if, when I pull the Revox and the tapes out of their closeted space, will the tape shed its oxide and I will no longer have the information I remember from years gone past. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1706 Registered: Dec-03 | I've just done a Rick diagram. Will come back to later posts, Kegger and Jan, much appreciated. All the best.  |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Has anyone taken the time to read: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/accessories/62252.html from the main page of this forum? |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 768 Registered: Dec-03 | jan that is a good read. and this: By way of explanation: Studios are, for the most part, usually tightly controlled environments, designed specifically to record instruments in close proximity to each other. Studio acoustics have changed drastically since the advent of multi-track recording. Studios were originally designed to compliment and acoustically enhance musical ensembles (groups, bands or orchestras et cetera) playing live with their performance being documented on either mono or, later, stereo tape. Today, studios are more like workshops, were musical performances are no longer documented with all the musicians playing together in the same room as a norm, but created instrument by instrument, track by track. Rather they are recorded piecemeal. More common is that instruments are recorded just for tracking purposes - getting the structure of the song down - and replaced later, with more concentration being paid to the performance. The caveat to this is that, in order to have control over the instruments and record them on separate tracks with as many musical options as possible, the studio acoustics must be controlled and can be quite dead, sterile and lacking in kinetic energy (i.e: excitement). It is not hard to imagine the sound of one or two 100 watt guitar amplifiers, a bass amplifier and a full drum set all in the same room. If that room was live, that is, without any acoustic treatment, the sound would most probably be uncontrollable, albeit exciting, depending on your point of view. To counter this, many studios have what are called Iso (Isolation) Rooms or individual smaller soundproof rooms within the studio area in which to put instruments to ensure that they can be recorded with a high degree of acoustic isolation from other instruments. In mixing, the separate instruments are recombined to make them sound like they were playing live in a huge room without acoustic damping. pretty much explains what i was telling john on the definitions thread. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1709 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, Really must go. But don't worry! You, me, Kegger, goldenarrow, Rick, My Rantz, JOHN S...and the rest. International subversion. We'll keep 'em in their place. Ministry of Truth: "Eurasia is at war with Eastasia; they have WMDs" Us: "No it ain't, sunshine". Winston Smith: "Wish I'd met you guys before". Will think about the Kegger diagram, a tough call. Cheers. PS Go listen to some Shostakovich. That survives, therefore anything is possible. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1801 Registered: Dec-03 | There is a review of the KEF "Instant Theater" system in August Hi-fi News. It is not as bad as we feared, but not for serious listeners to music in "surround sound", more HT people who want minimum fuss and cables. Though it ought to sound good for stereo. It is really an "Old Dogs" issue. The KEF "KIT" has great stereo imaging, and NO CENTER CHANNEL - the processor distributes its signal to the two Uni-Q mains. I think this is good if you believe "Stereo rules". The bad news, of you like "holophony", is that the surround channels are projected out into the room and rely of reflections, on the assumption that rear channel sound is ambient and can be diffuse. Apparently it does this well, too, but that are obvious, inherent limitations if you want good imaging from all around. The reviewer concludes the KEF "KIT" is too up-market for its target audience, and stereotypes them as readers of certain tabloid newspapers etc. It seems like snobbery, to me. Each to his own. I know not to buy it, but I respect other people's right to have priorities which differ from my own. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1802 Registered: Dec-03 | There is a review of the KEF "Instant Theater" system in August Hi-fi News. It is not as bad as we feared, but not for serious listeners to music in "surround sound", more HT people who want minimum fuss and cables. Though it ought to sound good for stereo. It is really an "Old Dogs" issue. The KEF "KIT" has great stereo imaging, and NO CENTER CHANNEL - the processor distributes its signal to the two Uni-Q mains. I think this is good if you believe "Stereo rules". The bad news, of you like "holophony", is that the surround channels are projected out into the room and rely of reflections, on the assumption that rear channel sound is ambient and can be diffuse. Apparently it does this well, too, but that are obvious, inherent limitations if you want good imaging from all around. The reviewer concludes the KEF "KIT" is too up-market for its target audience, and stereotypes them as readers of certain tabloid newspapers etc. It seems like snobbery, to me. Each to his own. I know not to buy it, but I respect other people's right to have priorities which differ from my own. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1805 Registered: Dec-03 | The forum software has definitely gone flakey. The double post was nothing to do with me - I even checked to see if the first one had arrived, and it hadn't. Furthermore, I have e-mail notification of a post here from Jan, but it is not yet actually posted. Probably will be by the time this one gets through. If it ever does. As regards old dogs and new tricks, we are now attempting to navigate the world of audio by means of the Political Compass. I forget my precise coordinate values, when I first did it. However, my location on the map coincided almost exactly with that of Mahatma Ghandi. My wife and older children were completely incredulous, even suggesting I might have cheated; a notion never entertained this household, before, or since. From numerous dinner time converstations, they had me confidently assigned to somewhere slightly to the right of Attilla the Hun. This illustrates the perils of subjective assessment unsupported by hard data (Gregory...?). That was a gratuitous wind-up ploy, which could be the reason for the discrepancy. Anyway, in expectation of Jan's post, here is the definitve guide to classical music, all in one graph. Source: Political Compass. A key libertatian/authoritarian question here might be "Anyone should be allowed to post and download music files for free: by any means, at any time, and anywhere. Personally, I would tick "strongly agree". They have got Elgar totally wrong. He would have strongly agreed, too. I am also amazed at where they put Mahler. I would make Mahler and Elgar swap positions. Two Cents....? I would also move Britten up and to the right, both by quite a lot; and Beethoven down, with a lower authoritarian value than any.  |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1806 Registered: Dec-03 | BTW I have just come back from deep immersion in work and caught Jan's and Kegger's wonderful posts of July 11. Scroll back; recommended. So much to comment on, there.... Kegger's quote about the industry's fondness for isolating musicians, so that it has "control", is chilling, and seems to me to be a perfect example of the approaching dystopia, which I view in the same way as Jan. Strike a blow for freedom and dignity; learn a musical instrument. Play it with friends. Never wear headphones, they are the tools of solipcists and authoritarians. Jan, your open-reel tapes should be OK. Humidity is the main problem softening thin layers of iron oxide, as I recall. A Revox, eh? Awesome. In 1979, having held out for years, I eventually caved in and bought an audio cassette player. What a stupid invention. Dolby noise reduction, huh. Just say 'No' to comprexxion..... |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 891 Registered: Dec-03 | to get back to the recording thing john. that might explain my position on the, whether we are hear or their thing. i listen to mainly studio recorded rock which in most cases if not all is recording each indivdual piece of the band seperatly then the mixing engineer along with the producer usually, put the final product together. so in my oppinnion their is nothing to recreate. you have no live event to recreate. so when i am listening to studio rock albums i am enjoying how it sounds mostly by equalization and what they are actually playing not by how it makes me feel that i am at an event or an event is at my place. and by how good the actual recording is. "clean and clear" so surround to me is more of a new dimension to music listening because i now get a larger sound area than i am use to listening to. now i'm not saying that how studio rock albums are recorded is better or the right way to do it. it's just that is what i'm use to hearing. and maybe why i generally don't like live recorded events but prefer the studio version. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1821 Registered: Dec-03 | You make this case very clearly, Kegger. I seems to me it all depends on what people want from the recording. I don't think it depends on genre, not at all. I have seen clips of Bernstein conducting at a recording where every member of the orchestra is wearing enclosing headphones, peering at their music. It is as if the recording people would prefer each person to be playing in a different rooms/locations, following the conductor on a video link, and they are only all in one room just for conveninece, to save someone money. To me that is exactly what music is NOT all about. Then you have got great rock concerts, recorded live. That DVD "The Last Walz" captures the excitement of the event, shows you that the "electricity" comes from the interactions between the performers. To me that is what music IS all about. Plus the interaction with the audience, though you can't have that with the listener to a recording, so the communication between the performers is enough. And it is often enough for them. Just being witness to that is enough for me; I do not want the illusion of being part of an audience, it is just that it usually sounds better, and more convincing, that way. Watch any real musicians, performing together. They are looking, listening, giving out signals, maybe just facial expressions, taking them in, maybe talking to each other, as you see and hear most clearly in jazz and other sorts of improvised music. But all music, right at the basis of everything, is communication. That is what musical instruments are for, and as, I said, it doesn't matter whether it is a Gibson, or a Steinway; a Fender or a Stradivarius. Take those all apart, isolate them, and, yes, you can more easily exert the control of a conductor or a recording engineer. This is where the political compass comes in. I see and hear big orchestras, such as playing Mahler or Count Basie, and I admire the skill and discipline, but it is too reminiscent of the stupid things people do in large groups, expecially classical, where the strings seem like the infantry, the wind like the cavalry, and so on. And I always want to poke fun at the control freak at the front, whether he has a big stick or is directing operations from the piano. In the modern, techno-recording, I see something just as scary, a soulless sort of world where people are just robots, each doing no more and no less than he is she is allowed to, all under constant surveillance of some engineer or someone who always knows best how everything should sound, in the end, and wants the sort of top-down control that never comes from honestly-earned respect. I guess when a small band works together with an director and engineer they all know and respect, it all gels. The Beatles and George Martin are a good case; he actually fills in parts on a lot of their recordings. If Sem's talented friend Alan Parsons was the technician, at Abbey Road, I can see it all fitting together, as it obviously did. I'll still bet they all were looking, joking, LISTENING to each other in those sessions. As we all agree, in the end, there is no right and wrong in this business, it is just what we each prefer. We probably approach music with different expectations, you and I. Then, of course, whether the recording itself is "clean and clear" is a completely separate issue. I think we see eye to eye on that one, OK. Except I would maybe add that hi-res recording more effectively captures real sound and real music. Midi systems and synthesizers can make nice pure tones with very little storage, bandwidth, sampling frequency, and resolution. But, yes, getting clear signal of real sound is essential, whatever it is. The job of audio gear is to give us that, not try to get in on the act. Though some people seem to want that, too, from reading ads for hi-fi stuff, and from what you can read on this forum. That's their choice, too. I guess it would help if the "consumer electronics" industry was clear about what its products are designed to do. That's about all I can say on that. I think we probably agree there, too. I keep thinking we need that Old Dogs Workshop. We could each make a short presentation, play some examples of recordings on wonderful gear to make the point, sponsored by the top makers, of course, then all have plenty of discussion and beer. Or Shiraz, or whatever, or special refreshments, for those inclined. Maybe take a visit to one live concert representing each genre. Or just go down the pub. Mind, you might not escape performance, even there. I knew a great jazz pub once. Wonder if it is still there. All the best. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 893 Registered: Dec-03 | john i think we are starting to understand each other better lately. but i do believe what and how we listen to music. is very much influenced by what we were brought up listening to. my dad only listens to rock so that is what i grew up listening to. i try new music as much as i can and have enjoyed a much wider range of music than i use to. but i still come back to my roots so to speak of rock. i love listening to well performed and well recorded rock groups. it just gets me going like no other music does. i understand your passion for what you like and understand the recreation you crave. but you see from what i listen too that a well recorded studio rock and roll album for me doesn't really create anything. and that also may be were we differ on our thoughts on the center channel. like you said neither one of us is right or wrong it's just what works best for what we are trying to achieve. chears buddy. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1822 Registered: Dec-03 | Kegger, Yes, I agree. Cheers. I've been listening to new things, too. But I don't have any roots that I know of, not musical ones. Just what my happened to be on the radio at home. My parents never listened to anything. The idea of them playing music, or singing or anything, is absurd, they just were not that sort. My older brother was into jazz, but only listening, and he left his record player and LPs around. I learned trumpet and played all sorts of music on that, from about age 11 to 16. Then soon after, guitar (sort of folk-blues stuff), but I was never any good, and don't so much care for that sort of music now. All my musical interest started from there, I think, though it is difficult to know. That's about it. And it is a long time ago. I tried to give our children some sort of musical start I felt I never got myself, compared with guys, here, like Gregory, but I don't think it has worked. Our children know a bit, but it does not look like music will be important to them, as it was to me. I also think mothers have more influence than fathers, probably. The piano I got for the kids to have around (I never did) had an even lower WAF than speakers, it took up too much space. I made many friends though music, as a teenager, but that was rebellion, not doing what was done at home. I've dabbled in practically everything. Except C&W, of course; there are limits. I was also very late into audio, compared with most of my friends; never had any sort of record player in my teens and most of my twenties. So I guess I was a "musician" (though never much good) long before I began listening to recordings, and playing was always social, not solitary. That could be the difference between us. I've always tried to move on, too. I know guys my age who still play the sort of blues band stuff they played in their teens. I hear loud, bass-guitar 12-bar riffs coming from fifty-somethings and kind of envy the stability in their lives, but think there is much more to music than going on doing the same thing. I don't think there is any special sort of music listened to by "people like me". "Original instruments" was a craze I had and still go for, that was a "my generation" thing, but you need to be rich to do that properly, and the whole "early music" scene has about the same share of freaks and odd-balls as anything else, I think. It is great to compare notes with people here. Thanks for taking the time. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | John - Do you know of Steeleye Span? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1833 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan - I know the name. Probably I would recognise some songs. Have no records. Late 60s/early 70s Brit folk/rock, I think, probably some link with Jethro Tull. I was more into Pentangle and its members, a bit earlier. Before that came Euan Mcgregor, Martin Carthy (as big and influence on Dylan as Woody Guthrie), Ralph McTell, The Watersons. Went to "Cousins" folk club just once, to hear John Martyn before he was propelled into fame by Richard Branson. I chiefly remember the girl I went there with. How old I feel. There will be experts and devotees who know Steeleye Span inside out, I am sure. Jack of all trades, that's me. Proficiency at claw-hammer is the sign of a mis-spent youth. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 949 Registered: Dec-03 | I now have 3 high rez green eggs and ham disks. and they are all really good. |
|
J. vigne Unregistered guest | Green eggs and ham? Impressed I am. |
|
Bronze Member Username: WryterNaples, FL US Post Number: 86 Registered: Jul-04 | The My Rantz Shocker: Well, by now most or all of you have read about My Rantz and his defection from this forum. I posted a belated "farewell" on his thread, and hope that he will, at some point, read it. I, too, have been the object of irrational postings on another forum - which I left. I, too, have been called wrong-headed by a forum member on another thread, which I signed off on after it became clear that this person was not allowing me any personal choices: I was wrong and he was right - period! Well, I have my reservations about many comments on this forum - and I'm sure that many of you have reservations about some of my rantings. But I hope that I may continue to learn here - I have already learned a lot from you, regarding both music and the electronics of sound which continues to baffle me. I do not have the luxury of unlimited time on the Internet: I have a writing and editing business at home to attend to, though it isn't as demanding as I'd hoped! GRIN Writing is a peculiar art form: the reader may take comments in a manner different from what the writer intended - thus I often put one of my simple "GRIN" annotations after a phrase I need to have understood as tongue-in-cheek or humorous. As we don't "know" each other, I hope that ALL of my comments are taken in the correct manner - and that I may never contribute to a defection or misunderstanding such as obviously happened to our Aussie friend, My Rantz. And that, sirs, is the end of MY rants! Respectfully - Larry R. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 979 Registered: Dec-03 | larry i have someone on this forum right now that his oppinion is the spoken truth and if yours differs than you are WRONG. i try to avoid him or at least respond back in as gentlemenly as i can but sometimes the personal attacks on ones self get to you, that you just have to vent it out. and if you see a response by this poster that to you is just incorrect you feel the need to respond with your own views but fear the arguement that might result. and i don't want to feel like i have to watch and see if this person is in the thread. so i have to just go about my usual postings but it sucks to feel you need to walk on eggshells on every post in fear that this person may jump in at anytime and attack something you may not have worded just right. it just seems so many forums end up with people like that from time to time. they can't just post their oppinion and maybe a reason to support without attacking others that may differ. peace. |
|
Bronze Member Username: WryterNaples, FL US Post Number: 87 Registered: Jul-04 | Kegger: Good points all, my friend. Sigh. I try to "turn the other cheek," but (grin) sometimes the cheek I want to turn towards the attacker is not of the facial variety! Hmmm. . . Larry R. |
|
Silver Member Username: Black_mathPost Number: 152 Registered: Dec-03 | I think you need to look at several things here. Some people use this forum as an information source and some use it as a conversation place. I see a lot of conversations in these forums that would be better served via e-mail. If somebody is upsetting you and/or flaming you either stick up for yourself or quit. If you decide to quit, we don't need to see it made into a production (no offense M.R.). |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 353 Registered: Dec-03 | I think an open forum should take shape and direction from it's participants, within the guidelines of the administration. Doesn't information come from conversation? |
|
Bronze Member Username: WryterNaples, FL US Post Number: 88 Registered: Jul-04 | Rick J. et al Information and conversation are often quite the same thing. I find a wealth of both on these forum threads - and although much of what is said goes over my head (tech-talk) I try my best to glean whatever I think might be of value to me. Conversation without information is mere "chat," and information without conversation is, well, usually pretty boring! Good that we have both, though sometimes I have to agree with Ben that it gets a bit "me and you" and leaves most of us in the cold. As to making a "production" out of leaving - well, if I were to leave I'd like to think that y'all would at least hear me out on my reasons. Respectfully - Larry R. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 988 Registered: Dec-03 | I have no problem debating and coresponding back and forth with someone. to get at an understanding of the disagreement. but it doesn't have to get nasty. I also enjoy good niegberly conversation on the proper thread. "not where someone is asking good questions in the need of help or oppinion." you know within reason. I feal our little clan does it pretty well! the thing that gets me is when someone disagrees they feel the need to belittle the other person or throw out insults or just plain say you have no idea what you are doing. "major disrespect towards others" thats all i'm saying, if you come accross as a d!ck it's just being rude. and theres no need for that! |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 354 Registered: Dec-03 | Larry, Thank you for your reply, but my question was a rhetorical one. Cheers! |
|
Bronze Member Username: WryterNaples, FL US Post Number: 89 Registered: Jul-04 | Kegger: As usual, sir, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head. You, as you say, were raised with Rock music. I was raised with opera and classical music. Thus, we naturally differ. But I think we all have made conscious efforts to factor in our backgrounds, and thus, have made major inroads into each other's ideas and concepts. I hope that a few, uh, "diicks," and their narrow-minded ideas destroy what many of us try very hard to build up: a repository of idea-exchange in a mannerly fashion. It is hard enough just being "civil" in today's world, what with the dumbind-down of our civilization by "majority-wins" thinking. I value ALL of the inputs on these threads, and hope that, in some small way, I may have an impact FOR GOOD as well. OK - let's all give this another try, and forget petty differences (which will always exist) and go for the gold that is within us all. Very respectfully - Larry R. |
|
Bronze Member Username: WryterNaples, FL US Post Number: 91 Registered: Jul-04 | Rick: Yo - rhetorical is always good. Re Prof. Chaim Bernstein, Univ. of Nebraska graduate school, circa 1960: "I've closed all the blinds in this classroom because I make all the light that's needed here!" well, yep, to him that's right - and thus I extrapolate: "information comes from conversation." (whether or not you close the blinds to outside influence) Anyway - I'm in the presence of high intellect, and thus give way to better interpretors of the psyche than my humble self. G R I N L R |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 355 Registered: Dec-03 | LR, Thank you my dear Watson. Yes, Berstein,I recall the name. Rather cheeky chap as I remember. As to you my good man, anyone who even knows the meaning of extrapolate, demonstrates a classical education, good breeding, and higher intellect. I extend my hand along with an invitation, to you sir, to formally join the esteemed forums's society of "Old Dogs". Very truly yours, RB |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | To Old Dogs and Young Pups - Unfortunately, I feel, from Larry R.'s post, I now realize yet once again why I remain in the dark about so many things. But, my dear man, I can't seem to recall a nun called Sister Bernstein. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 356 Registered: Dec-03 | Quite right my dear Vigne. When I was a pup I thought I knew all the answers. Now I can't even understand the questions. Sister Bernstein? No, I don't think she was the one my good man. Watson, my pipe please. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Sister Bernstein was a man? Oh, The Voices are coming back again. Oh, everything is geting dark .......... ! . |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 357 Registered: Dec-03 | Watson I told you to speedy express that prescription for Ranger. I do hope he takes it in time. Do we have an more leads on that nun? Hurry man! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1876 Registered: Dec-03 | Ben makes a good point about people coming here for different things - information and conversation. The problem is, what counts as "information"? Disgreements, on that question, lead to conversation. We can only stop conversation if we stop disagreement. We can only stop disagreement if we all agree. Or someone forces us to. Kegger is correct, there have been some really appalling cases where people have posted with something like "I know I am right; you are all fools" and then becomes abusive. The question "but how can we know you are right?" makes them even more angry. I guess they want blind obedience, and get upset that other people want to make up their own minds. My Rantz has been about the most civilized "chairman" I could imagine, on a number of threads. "NAD - to be or not to be" was just amazing. I always have views, and tend to come out fighting. We all need more of My Rantz and his kind, in my opinion. They are rare. They have more patience, and generosity, than I, for one. Humour is a treacherous area. It often does not translate, people can take offence where none was intended. I solemnly try to explain jokes, here, sometimes, just to try to guard against that. It kind of takes the shine off, though, for example, when corresponding with the Lone Ranger, here. I recently told a long anecdote on "Twilight of the CD...?" I think, about different religions. It was probably not a good idea, in the context of an audio forum; the relevance was probably unclear to most people. And that topic is a minefield if you want to be sure not to give offence. You guys set me up too often, and I can't resist. E.g. it is almost impossible not to comment on sister Chaim Bernstein. I could effortlessly offend a lot of people by following that. Yes, welcome, finally, to "Old Dogs", Larry. I was just spoiling for a good argument with someone who does not see that opera is complete cr*p. See what I mean? Look it up. It is spelt "I.R.O.N.Y." For Larry, the original intention of this thread was to discuss the following rhetorical question. "As an aside, am I the only one who thinks music almost always sounds better when you listen just in stereo. How old I feel." - J. Vigne, April 25, vide supra, as they say. So far, opinion is divided on whether what Jan thinks is correct. Therefore he is not the only one who thinks it. We've got that far. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1877 Registered: Dec-03 | Sorry about that leaden post. It illustrates the important of accurate phasing. Jan and Rick, I have had to threaten, before, to unleash a few nun jokes. Please do not tempt me. There would only be me and Kegger left. Apologies, Larry. You have been spared the story so far, and the rest of us have lost the plot (except vide proxima supra). I think we are getting our roles, and metaphors, mixed. Masked man, for goodness sake, don't take Watson's medication, it is from Room 101. You will sleep. The first thing you will see on waking could just be Kegger. Instead, have a nice cup of tea. And some Wensleydale and crackers. Holmes, can you stop playing that blo*ody violin.....? |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 993 Registered: Dec-03 | and i will tell you that you don't want the first thing you see when you wake up to be kegger. trust me on this it's not a pretty scene. did you see the picks on discoveries? |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | .................... Music ...................... ....in my head .................. oh ............ violin music ........................ violin music ........ ??? .......... BAD VIOLIN MUSIC IN MY HEAD ........ music bad ................................................................................ .. got meds from Silver ........... hope those were meds ................................................... nuns not jokes ............. nuns serious business .......... LONG HALLWAY AHEAD ............. room ................................................................................ ................................................................................ ................................................................................ .........................................need nun joke |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | SSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! nuns are listening SSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! quietly Tonto? |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Tonto ............................. why are you looking at me like that? ............ who? ............... who did you call me? Moriarty? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1879 Registered: Dec-03 | Well, there were two, riding bicycles down a cobbled street, and one said to the other.... No sorry, this is the kind of thing that must have been too much for MR. Jan, I keep wanting to be nice and liberal and say "please try to see it from the nun's point of view". But I suspect you already have, and that is part of the problem. Please read carefully my recent, long, complicated and tedious story about relativism on The twilight of the CD...?. That will get you soundly to sleep. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 994 Registered: Dec-03 | someone get that man to the hospital! i think he ate! the, green eggs and ham. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | it appears i've boogered it, must sleep now g'nite |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1880 Registered: Dec-03 | [I think it's safe to go. He'll be OK] |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 358 Registered: Dec-03 | We can't hear you Tonto, you're in parenthisees. Come along Watson. |
|
Bronze Member Username: WryterNaples, FL US Post Number: 92 Registered: Jul-04 | Rick Barnes, et al. I think I'm on safe ground here by saying "thank you" for your kind invitation to jump aboard the Old Dogs bandwagon? Not sure, after reading your overnight posts. From them, I deduce that there is here a group of folk who are both sleep-deprived and over-medicated. Hmmm. . . If I am to believe the oft-apocalyptic, seldom-simple scribes herein referenced, I'd have to say that I must away to the "Electronics for Dummies" book, and begin (again). New tubes, old tubes, no tubes - ah, yes! I see the light - or is it the glow from the 6L6s of my youth? Alas, poor ___ I knew him well! The Bernstein of my grad school days would find solace here on this threat, er, "thread." You gentlemen all have shown your own light, and it is alternately blinding and course-defining. I doubt that I shall remain long on this mind-expanding romp, for I am simple of thought and shallow of expression - yet I am drawn like the classic moth to the flame. So - write on! I shall attempt to follow in slow, measured steps. On another forum, I got into deep, angst-filled trouble for initially pooh-poohing the "Ah!" CD player. Was linked to its ad - and about fell off my chair, laughing. What?!? A tube-filled player with an unpronounceable name? Comes with "De Mat" disc stabilizer - AND - some soft-feet? AND (for a few hundred dollars more) a tube-studded upgrade sure to smooth out everything? Well. . . did I ever catch the proverbial, uh, "flak!" For Kegger and all who love to tweak, the Ah! might just be your cup of tea. For me, the very thought of taking apart and - what do they call it, oh, yes "modding" a piece of electronic gear is akin to self-surgery sans ether. Where am I going? (how the heck do I know?) Oh, yes - I think I was leading up to a simple: "youze guyz have expanded my thoughts and made me take new looks at old ideas." But you're still sleep-deprived and over-medicated! G R I N Respectfully - Larry R. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 360 Registered: Dec-03 | Welcome to the party pal! LOL!!! Over-medicated? Not unless Ranger took one of Silvers worm pills.................... |
|
Silver Member Username: SemNew York USA Post Number: 193 Registered: Mar-04 | I must have been away longer than I thought. Or maybe I strolled into the wrong room. Excuse me, I'll leave now and go find out what's behind door #2. Wait!!! What's this???? Crazy. Over the rainbow, I am crazy. Bars in the window. There must have been a door there in the wall. When I came in. . . Crazy. Over the rainbow, he is crazy...... |
|
Bronze Member Username: WryterNaples, FL US Post Number: 93 Registered: Jul-04 | There once was a man named Sem, Who began to see things he called "them." Behind door number two, they're waiting for you. You're crazy, indeed - ahem. . . |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1881 Registered: Dec-03 | Larry, I think that was Pink Floyd. I think we need limericks about as much as we need nun jokes. Careful with "crazy"! You don't have to be crazy to post here. But, probably, it helps... A while ago I promised a Kegger diagram. I've thought about it. Here it is. A 16.x system, where x is unknown. I can't figure out how many subs. They are useful for putting beer on.... Each loudspeaker will have a badge bearing a picture of the most appropriate politican or world statesman (statesperson....?). See political compass. Just joking, Kegger! Well,...  There is a bit of a problem with phasing, I think you will agree. |
|
Bronze Member Username: WryterNaples, FL US Post Number: 95 Registered: Jul-04 | John A. My use of the word "crazy" was only in reference to Sem's self-appellation in a previous post - not my label. And OK - no more limericks. You're a tough task-master. LR |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Wait a minute! You can write crazy, screw and nuns on this forum but you still can't write - * G-A-Y * ..............................................? |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Nope, you can't. Well, Silver will have something to contribute to this discussion. |
|
Bronze Member Username: WryterNaples, FL US Post Number: 96 Registered: Jul-04 | JV - well, now! Stephen Foster (rest his soul) could never have contributed to this forum! Remember his song? "The sun shines bright on the little cabin floor. . . It's summer - the darkies are ggay." Nope - wouldn't work fer dat guy probably would get gigged for "darkies," as well, U suppose? LR |
|
Bronze Member Username: WryterNaples, FL US Post Number: 97 Registered: Jul-04 | . . .and furthermore - (No, not Poe, that was "nevermore") Ain't it strange, living in a country where gunplay is revered - and foreplay is obscene? At least according to our fine censors of things movie-like. LR |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 995 Registered: Dec-03 | john i Like it! that would be awsome, FOR ME! |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Uh - Kegger, which one? |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 996 Registered: Dec-03 | jan the pic john drew. john i'd say 4 subs 1 in each corner. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1882 Registered: Dec-03 | Kegger, OK. 16.4 it is. How are you going to get in and out? As I said before, suppose you're sitting there, and someone puts on some C&W.....?  |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Kegger - I thought you were referring to gunplay and foreplay. My bad! |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1003 Registered: Dec-03 | GOOD ONE JAN. LOL john i said before. on one set of the larger back speakers you build a latter that goes up and over. really simple , cmon! what were you thinking. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | OK, my question is, where do you put the Tap? |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1004 Registered: Dec-03 | jan that's a pretty stupid question! it's on the end of the hose that is conected to the keg in the fridge outside the wall of speakers. sshhheeaasshh some people! you wonder how they manage to tie their shoes. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1887 Registered: Dec-03 | I just realised I posted some replies referring to the above posts on "Twilight of the CD..." Sorry about that. Readers on that thread may be puzzled. I know I am. Kegger, I remember the ladder, now you mention it. It not so dramatic as parachuting in. You could have a rocket back-pack for when you've had a load of beer and need a break, and an ejector seat in case of C&W. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Kegger - Well see my question realy was getting to what makes the beer taste better? PVC tubing or oxygen free copper tubing? I've been to stores that try to sell me expensive pipes that they say will make everything better but I just think a pipe is a pipe. What are your thoughts on this? Do I really need to spend my money on tubing? Will I really taste a difference or is this just sales hype? If I need expensive tubing what kind do you recommend and are ther different types I should use for different beers? Is there a difference between Busch tubing and Fosters tubing? If so, what kind of differences am I likely to find? Any assistance you can give me would be greatly appreciated. I'm a newbe here and don't want to go wrong. Also, is there a way for me to get around the WAF so I can have a really killer tubing set up? Thanks in advance. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1007 Registered: Dec-03 | well jan unfortunitly you have been given bad advice. probably from some ultra high end salon sales person. that just wanted to sell you what they had. the preferred "by many astute drinkers" is 1 1/2 inch diam. clear flexable tubing "can be had at your local hardware supply store" the main reason for clear is to see the amount of foam being generated by your tank/pressure unit. you have adjustments at both ends the regulator at the starting point and the pinch/overflow valve at the release point.the latter for unwanted head/foam "i know some people have to get the head just right" to me any head is good head. the reason for flexable hose is you want the line to flow from a point about 1 foot above the final destination but allowing the line to be on the floor for about 1/3 the distance it has to cover with no more than a 45 degree angle at any point. also the flexable end aids in bleeding/pressure release when needed. and no there is no speciel hose for certain beers. some though if they are using a thicker beer, say a guiness may use a 3 piece hose with a light screen at each end. the screen can be removed and cleaned or replaced if needed. then the section of hose between the screens at each end can be taken out and cleaned. personally i use the three piece hose even though my brews tend to be on the lighter side. i just find it's a lttle more cleanly that way. one thing that iv'e done to help on the BAF "b!tch acceptence factor" no wife hear, is run the tube through the couch up into the little compartment where some couches have the phone. just put the phone on the coffee table for now. the little compartment is grade i've insulated it and keep a bag of ice in there to keep the beer that might be their for any length of time cold plus works great for those mixed drinks. party on garth! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1889 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, It is good you raise the issue of tubing. Many brands have arrows printed on them, and it is claimed the beer tastes much better if it flows in the direction of the arrows. Now the industry is moving away from analogue beer, you also have to consider the sort of tubing through which separate cans pass through, from one end to the other. I have sampled beer from cans that have been transferred using "high-end" tubing and it seems to me that the taste of the beer is much the same as that coming from cans that have passed through unbranded pipes from e.g. a local home brew shop. But, of course, I might not be able to tell, because I am using cheap beer glasses. And, anyway, the difference is only apparant with the very best sorts of beer, so it is claimed. Just counting the numbers of cans going in and coming out, and making sure they are the same ("lossless" packaging) is not good enough, you have to consider the cans may change their shape in transit. There is no satisfactory optical tubing for cans, yet; there seems to be no solution to the problem of unwanted reflections. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1009 Registered: Dec-03 | well john is using a different method all together which i do not perscribe to. I for one am strictly analog my beer goes straight from keg to my mug. no cans no conversion straight pure beer. all those conversions pewey! everytime you convert you loose a little taste. but to each there own. sure theres less chance of spillage with johns setup. but i prefer the old simple ways. it just tastes better to me. smoother, more enjoyable to the pallet. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1893 Registered: Dec-03 | Yes, Kegger, I prefer analogue beer myself. If possible, moved with hand pumps, not under pressure of carbon dioxide, which spoils the taste and inflates you, like the Michelin Man. But the mass market likes cans and bottles, they are certainly more "convenient", and the industry has told everyone that cans contain "perfect beer that last forever". Also you can carry them around with you, drink them in cars etc. Until recently, the cans were too small and they did not come though the pipe fast enough. The new hi-res format pipes are a big improvement. But, in the end, beer is liquid, so why mess about with it, that's what I always say. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1014 Registered: Dec-03 | AGREED JOHN CONVENIENCE IS NOT NECASARALY BETTER. |
|
J. Vigne Unregistered guest | Awesome, guys!!! Thanx alot.but I just went ahead nad got sdome stuff to make evertyhing work as I was really lookimg for my system to get up and reunning and I didbnt want to wait fir yu to asnwer. I got everytihng really cheap and it works better than all my buddys stuff. Awesome!!! So thnx again for the help even toh I didb't us it. Hey can yu tell me now to hook it all up sos it works great, i got a manual but it's not where I csn read it even if ii wanted to. Thanx agaim in davance. |
|
Silver Member Username: WryterNaples, FL US Post Number: 121 Registered: Jul-04 | J. Vigne: Sigh - thought we were above that sort of stuff. Respectfully, LR |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1018 Registered: Dec-03 | jan that's another slam on my english i see. man you just can't leave me alone. yur such a d!ck. on the other hand if yur just drunk then fax me a copy of the manual at BFEFUQ@AOSMELL.C U M and i'll see if i can help you out. |
|
Silver Member Username: WryterNaples, FL US Post Number: 122 Registered: Jul-04 | Sorry, Kegger - In my long life, I have often noted that intelligence has no direct connection to "class." What more can I say? I apologize for my colleague's lack of tact, and hope for better correspondence in the future. BTW - I was always a very good speller - but lost a spelling bee to a chap from suburban Detroit once. Seems you're in a good place - just remember: "non illigitimi carborundum" - don't let the B....rds grind you down! Larry R. |
|
Gold Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 1023 Registered: Dec-03 | LARRY YOU DO KNOW JAN AND I WERE JOKING RIGHT? i hope so. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Arnold_layneMadridSpain Post Number: 35 Registered: Jun-04 | Back to the subject, I have seen some recent arguments for pouring the beer in up to 16 different glasses. Or even separating the malt-rich parts of the beer into several additional larger barrels. I have my doubts if this really increase the quality of the drinking experience. As we are born with only two hands, it could be that our brain is not capable of handling more than two glasses at the same time. Extra sources may just make us confused, even if we achieve that the liquids reach our mouth at the same time. At the most, we could add a third source, putting a glass between our knees. (The latter was actually the original idea when multibeverage was invented several decades ago.) Furthermore, it is said that we fully enjoy malt substance without perceiving whether it arrives from glass or barrel. But science has not been able to determine what percentage should be considered as malty and apt for barrel feed. But the most important issue is actually that we reach the limits of W acceptance capacitance, which could bring about unexpected resistance peaks. Especially after prolonged exposure to high volumes, when we hastily stand up and move towards PC with the urge to write a review, and then stumble and fall because of the f***ing tubes. Cheers (or should I say: To your health) AL |
|
Silver Member Username: WryterNaples, FL US Post Number: 126 Registered: Jul-04 | Kegger: No, I did not know that. Outta here - - - Larry R. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics