"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:45:25 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:36:52 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

seen)? As a movie buff yourself, got any recommendations?

Collateral. And hang in for The Layer Cake.

Thanks, but too late - I got Japanese Story and The Four Feathers....

It's about twenty feathers if you count the remakes, isn't it? :-)


Yes and scored thus on the IMDB (year - score):

2002 - 6.2
1977 (TV) - 6.7
1939 - 7.8
1929 - 8.8
1921 - (-)

Kinda parallels my statement about music from the same periods, don't it?

;-)

(Wake up and smell the coffee Pinky - while you've still got some hearing
left.......)

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:10:24 +0100
"Keith G" wrote:

So? News to me, AFAIK I *never* 'presume' - if you think I do, it
shouldn't be too hard to point me to few examples then?

Whats wrong with the example I just quoted? Here it is again for you:-

You wrote:

"'I wouldnt pretend I recall the details of many sounds I heard
when I was 7' implied to me that when one was no longer 7, the
kit was tossed out (and presumably replaced?)"


Can I draw special attention to 'Implied to me' and 'presumably
replaced' in the above paragraph?

You'll have to try harder that to ask for an example of your own text
which you actually quoted in your reply!

at 17 I moved house.

Voluntarily?

Sorry, 18 not 17 - and yes, voluntarily - I went to uni.

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:10:24 +0100
"Keith G" wrote:

So? News to me, AFAIK I *never* 'presume' - if you think I do, it
shouldn't be too hard to point me to few examples then?

Whats wrong with the example I just quoted? Here it is again for you:-

You wrote:

"'I wouldnt pretend I recall the details of many sounds I heard
when I was 7' implied to me that when one was no longer 7, the
kit was tossed out (and presumably replaced?)"


Can I draw special attention to 'Implied to me' and 'presumably
replaced' in the above paragraph?

You'll have to try harder that to ask for an example of your own text
which you actually quoted in your reply!



Semasiology, Mr Molton - I presume nothing about the activities or
proclivities of others, the use of the word 'presumably' above was an
interrogative not a statement.....



at 17 I moved house.

Voluntarily?

Sorry, 18 not 17 - and yes, voluntarily - I went to uni.


....as well you should know, if 'uni' (I hate that word - it's so
immature....) did you any good at all.....!!

Btw, you are the only person I've ever encountered who considers they 'moved
house' when they went up to university...??? (Very odd phrase, if I may say
so...)

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:


If they're looking for a particular 'old' sound, then perhaps. But you
could do this with an FX rack anyway - not the entire fooking desk. And
just how many studios could find full time work for a valve desk - given
the horrendous cost of building a half decent one?

Well there's one studio that is booked up months in advance that uses
mainly valve gear. And, as Paul says, there are certainly a few studios
with the TL Audio desk.

The valve sound is extremely popular these days - I wouldn't be
surprised to find that most recently released records feature sounds
recorded with valves somewhere in the signal chain.

Cheers.

James.

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:54:29 +0100
"Keith G" wrote:

Well Id have to say that a good amp is faithful in its reproduction
of the input signal at its output, wheras a bad one (however
pleasant to listen to) is not.


Mr Molton, you really don't want to get sucked in by all the
'techno********' in the group,

I know some of the other posters from elsewhere (eg., Jim Lesurf) and I
know for a fact that he doesnt talk ********.


OK, I'm glad to see you don't place too much reliance on the ****e spouted
by one or two other loud and mouthy posters here who, don't have a tiny
fraction of Jim's knowledge and experience!



the best amp is the one that *sounds* best to you in your own system.

No, that'd be my *favourite* amp, not (necessarily) the best.


OK, see below....



amplifiers have one job - to amplify a signal - and they are
*everywhere*.


OK, see below....



With the exception of special cases where they are deliberately driven
into clipping for effect, their designers are almost always after the
best linearity they can get within the frequency band they wish to
amplify. The same applies to the v-output amp in my TV as to the
detector amp in my radio, the output amp on my DAC, the cell drivers on
my LCD, etc.

only in audio have I ever seen amps revered for the fact that they DONT
have good linearity.


OK, see below....



Sure, I may prefer the sound of one amp to another, btu the GOOD one is
the linear one.


OK, see below....



And for the obvious example, I *love* the sound of the early valve radio
I have lurking about somewhere (front got smashed a long time ago and I
havent really used it since, sadly). Round, mellow, smooth sound. very
nice indeed. but about as lo-fi as you could get - a cheap set and old
too. I'd NEVER claim it was a good amplifier, but I did like it.


OK, see below....



Incidentally, IF you think Im after the 'best' amp please tell me why I
am bothering to restore my Quad405, rather than buying a newer better
amp ?


Well, I guess the answer to that has to be - No idea, what do you regard
would be a 'better' amp?

OK, I have to say I don't really see the point your are making. You seem to
be well aware that 'best' or 'better' doesn't necessarily mean 'new' or
'expensive' or even necessarily the most linear?? (Am I right? - I wouldn't
want to presume.... ;-) You also seem quite willing to admit there factors
other than 'straightforward specifications' which might come into play when
someone chooses or describes their 'best' amp? In which case you are,
perhaps, not quite so at odds with me as you seem to be so desperately tring
to be???

I'm only interested in the 'best' (by my own standards) sound I can get for
the money I am able/prepared to spend. I'm not a (failed or never was)
'engineer' and don't much care for depth of technicalities that have no real
impact on my appreciation of any kit I use - I leave that to the *real*
engineers and designers (ie those who are actually employed in the
industry - not wannabee bull****ters). I claim *no* technical knowledge or
expertise and never have. I am not even presumtive enough to describe the
sound I get from my own kit as necessarily being any good and rely on the
opinions of others to confirm any 'improvements' to it....

I dip into a small selection of (both valve and ss) amplifiers according to
my needs and like them all for entirely different reasons. Contrary to the
ludicrous claims by someone who has heard none of them, they all sound good
enough (to me) to use and enjoy. There are differences, but none so vast as
to render any of these amps 'unuseable' and I can accomodate anything after
a short while. Although, having said that I was a bit disappointed last
night to realise how much 'not listening' I had done when I cut one of my
little Technics ss amps in and had R3 on...!

Now, I suggest you don't waste any more of your life (it's far too short) in
responding to this somewhat futile thread.....

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:04:41 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) used
to say...

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
(Hmmm, that promps me to ask if 'going it alone' in the construction
industry at the age of 31 with 20K of 'Yakuza' money, a 4 year old kid,
another just so many months old, a mortgage and a *very* worried, but
brave, little missus is *ballsy* enough for yer, tough guy???)

Wonder why it's no surprise you chose an industry already full of cowboys?

As opposed to an industry full of ******s, know nothings and
amigdala-deficient wannabees?


Hey Kurt - that'd be 'amygdala' but I *do* see where you're going! ;-)

Have you noticed Plowie trying to 'attach' to Pinky now? I wonder what's
happened to Arny? Not like him to miss out on a punch-up like this one!
Anybody see any sign of life on other groups, or has he done the decent
thing and croaked?

(Perhaps he finally spotted the 'uk' in 'uk.rec.audio' and the penny's
finally dropped! :-)

Hey, Arny - if you're still alve and kicking (and can see this) sling us an
insult just to let us know you're alright!! :-)

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:25:55 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 05:43:42 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:54:29 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:22:26 +0100
"Keith G" wrote:


Interesting that the qualification 'bad' has to be used to get the
attacks
off the ground isn't it? Who TF knowingly uses *bad* valve amps???

Well Id have to say that a good amp is faithful in its reproduction of the
input signal at its output, wheras a bad one (however pleasant to listen
to) is not.

Mr Molton, you really don't want to get sucked in by all the
'techno********' in the group, the best amp is the one that *sounds* best to
you in your own system - no matter what any 'real audiophiles (and their
Mini Me's) might tell you - otherwise, what's the f*cking point?

Good ones all sound the same - as you'd expect. Bad ones can have all
kinds of sounds, pleasant and otherwise.

Surely that depends on your definition of "bad" doesn't it?

It's a simple definition - if what comes out of an amplifier is not a
larger but otherwise identical version of what went in, then it's a
bad amplfier. Not a difficult concept - it's called high fidelity.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 05:56:02 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 02:56:44 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:02:57 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:12:57 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:44:38 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:26:19 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:56:01 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:40:00 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 06:05:58 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
om to say...

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:44:07 +0100, "Keith G"

wrote:

No, you still don't *geddit* do you? - I'm an 'end user', I'm
only
interested in what comes OUT of my speakers......

Me too - and I like it to bear the closest possible relationship
to
what was on the master tape...............

Would that be the master tape you'd never get to see, much less
hear
(and be able to compare too)?

Well, I do have a Nagra and a CD burner.......................

And?

I have access to a full Protools setup as well as the studio of one
of
Britain's foremost TV music composers, but I still don't have access
to
the master tape of Chris Rea's 'Road To Hell'.

Your point being?

That I can *make* 15 ips analogue master tapes, and compare them
directly to CD-Rs of those tapes.

And? What about the masters of those JVC CDs you always wax lyrical
about. How many of those masters have you heard?

None, but since those CDs are all made from analogue masters, and
since I know what an analogue master of the same quality sounds like,
and a pretty average CD-R made from that master, it's not exactly a
leap of faith to trust that those XRCDs are *very* close to sonically
indistinguishable from the masters............

So in spite of all your pntification about accuracy you are in actual
fact making an assumption that the JVC CDs are accurate to the master
tapes. You make this assumption even though you have no idea what
happened between the master playing and the CD being pressed.

Sure I do, since I know one of the mastering engineers, Dave Collins,
who's even been a guest in my house. It's not rocket science, just 'CD
done right'.

Ah, since I know one of the best lead guitarists in the country I know
how to play guitar do I? Don't be a ******.

You seem to swing regularly between an anally retentive desire for
accuracy and assumptions based on guess work whenever it suits your
argument. Not the best way of enhancing the reputation you would like
for yourself now is it?

If you had a shred of honesty, you'd note that I mentioned 'trust' and
'not exactly a leap of faith' in my statement, nothing to do with
guessing, simply a reasonable extrapolation of my direct experience.
It's analogous to my statement that all competent amplifiers sound the
same, even though I haven't heard them all.

You can wrap it up in as many words as you like it's still assumption.
You don't know, you only think you do.

Now, since don't have *any* such experience, where does that leave
*your* credibility?

You left out quite an important word there, but it seems you are
referring to me. All I can say is you are again making assumptions based
on no factual information. Not very good science is it?

You have no idea how close any of your commercial recordings are to the
original masters. You only think you know and assume that you are
listening to an identical copy.

Nope, I compare master tapes of similar quality (technically, not
musically!) to those '50s and '60s classics, to CD-Rs made from those
masters. It's not rocket science - it's *listening*.

How do you know they are similar quality, you've never heard them? Duh!

Mixdown masters of that era are two-track on 1/4" tape at 15 ips, just
like my Nagra, and Nagras just like mine made many commercial
recordings. Duh.........

FFS, since when did the same equipment have any relevance to how it
sounded. Stick to being a banker!



Er, sorry to pull you up, but I think you'll find he is to 'banker' (other
than the 'Barclays' kind...) what *I* am to 'helicoper pilot'....

(Bet you didn't know he's a fully qualified pilot as well? - Watch him come
running back with that one in his mouth!! :-)

"James Perrett" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:


If they're looking for a particular 'old' sound, then perhaps. But you
could do this with an FX rack anyway - not the entire fooking desk. And
just how many studios could find full time work for a valve desk - given
the horrendous cost of building a half decent one?

Well there's one studio that is booked up months in advance that uses
mainly valve gear. And, as Paul says, there are certainly a few studios
with the TL Audio desk.

The valve sound is extremely popular these days


:-)

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:28:12 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 05:43:43 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 02:49:18 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:54:22 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:08:36 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:28:35 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:48:06 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
Decca records released the first stereo records in 1945 using the
vertical-lateral system. They could not be played well by the current
playback systems.

Who made a commercially available stereo pickup in '45?

No one.

And where exactly did you previously refer to commercially available
anything?

You made an absolute statement about there being no stereo LPs prior to
1954.

You were wrong, it's as simple as that.

Bull****. There were stereo recordings prior to 1954, and there were
LPs prior to 1954, but there were *no* stereo LPs.

There was a stereo vinyl record in 1932.

Which was not a microgroove record, and hence *not* an LP. And of
course irrelevant, since it wasn't available for sale.

I was wondering just went the pedantry would set in.

It started with you, tough that you only like to dish it.......

It was a vinyl record, colloquially known as LP by many many people.

No, they can also be singles, so 'vinyl' definitely does not now and
never did mean LP per se.

Its availability is immaterial. It existed.

No stereo LP existed, as noted above.

Keep digging................

Keep wriggling...............

Plus of course you
are doing a classic bull****ters trick here, since the overall context
is domestic audio, and there were absolutely *no* stereo LPs available
to the public before 1955.

In your original statement you made absolutely no mention of commercial
availability.

Only a pedant (or a loser with no real argument) would require that
qualification to be made explicitly, in a domestic audio newsgroup.

You said quite categorically and without qualification that there were
no stereo LPs before 1954. You were wrong.

As previously noted, this is not rec.audio.pro, it's a *domestic*
audio newsgroup. And you're wrong anyway, because none of those early
stereo recordings were LPs, and the early vinyl LPs launched in 1948
were mono. As I said, there were *no* stereo LPs in 1954.

Keep wriggling...............

No wriggling involved, as you're flat-out wrong, even with the
'commercially available' disclaimer waived.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering