On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:07:49 +0000
Ronnie McKinley wrote:


So would it be safe to say you never actually carried out any research,
or Norwegian case studies, on your own behalf, as you originally
claimed?

I didnt say I *did* the research. I said my knowledge *came* from research.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

Ian Molton wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 02:32:52 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:


Nope, the vast majority of my MP3s are 128K CBR - for best
quality/filesize combination for car/portable mainly but they still
sound fine DACced and VACced!

I cant agree there. I can usually tell a 128kbit CBR mp3. they sound
sorta flat.

I agree... A 128kbps mp3 is usually pretty easy to distinguish from the
original. Once you get to 256 then the mp3 seems indistinguishable from the
source CD. Having said that I always rip at 320 simply because disk space
and bandwidth are so cheap now.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:06:45 +0000
Kurt Hamster wrote:

It's hardly surprising that you are taken literally, until you are
caught out that is.

What, you really thought I went to norway to do the research myself?

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
Ian Molton wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 02:32:52 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:


Nope, the vast majority of my MP3s are 128K CBR - for best
quality/filesize combination for car/portable mainly but they still
sound fine DACced and VACced!

I cant agree there. I can usually tell a 128kbit CBR mp3. they sound
sorta flat.


But elsewhere you said:

"I have found that lower bitrate CBR mp3 (128, 160, 192) tends to 'throw
away' some of what is distracting me, and makes some tracks far more
enjoyable to listen to."

????

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:17:43 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

I cant agree there. I can usually tell a 128kbit CBR mp3. they
sound sorta flat.


But elsewhere you said:

Oh please dont, you'll get kurty boy thinking hes found something to
pick at other than his own spots...

"I have found that lower bitrate CBR mp3 (128, 160, 192) tends to
'throw away' some of what is distracting me, and makes some tracks far
more enjoyable to listen to."

I also added in the same post that that didnt apply to all tracks.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:17:43 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

I cant agree there. I can usually tell a 128kbit CBR mp3. they
sound sorta flat.


But elsewhere you said:

Oh please dont, you'll get kurty boy thinking hes found something to
pick at other than his own spots...

"I have found that lower bitrate CBR mp3 (128, 160, 192) tends to
'throw away' some of what is distracting me, and makes some tracks far
more enjoyable to listen to."

I also added in the same post that that didnt apply to all tracks.


:-)

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:52:26 +0000
The Artist wrote:

Maybe I just misremembered it then. ah well. (mind you, only out by 50p, so not so bad)

Hmmm.. you said it would cost £9 for your family to go flicks, but I
work it out at £19.50 (unless you always do matinee's - in which case
£17.50).

I was working that out as 3ukp per adult and 1.50 per child.

Even so, its only 14ukp as the third child is not that old yet and wont be for some time.

And *I* never brought the rest of the family into it anyhow - I said *I* could go almost 10 times for the price of a full price new DVD release. Which is still not far off (more like 7 times at 3.50 but still)

Can we let this go now? That thread has been dead for at least a day now.
--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:26:01 +0000
Le Artiste wrote:

And *I* never brought the rest of the family into it anyhow - I said *I* could go almost 10 times for the price of a full price new DVD release. Which is still not far off (more like 7 times at 3.50 but still)

Can we let this go now? That thread has been dead for at least a day now.

Only after I've pointed out that you were off by a factor of 10 :-)

sigh

No, I was not.

OTHER people brought the idea of taking 5 people the cinema into this.

I said *I* could go 10 times.

In reality this is about 7 times as I got the price wrong.

that is *NOT* a factor of 10 any way you slice it.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

Its funny how the biggest capitalists dont like competition!"Tumbleweed"
wrote in message
.. .
"The Artist" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ic/3416437.stm


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

And then they'll be complaining later that illegal downloads have
increased.
If you had any moral qualms about downloading, this action should remove
them.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)