Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message ...

No it doesn't - don't you ever read anything here? You can transcribe an
LP to CD and I defy anyone to tell the difference.

I've tried this and found degradation.

Tim

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article ,
Tim Anderson wrote:
No it doesn't - don't you ever read anything here? You can transcribe
an LP to CD and I defy anyone to tell the difference.

I've tried this and found degradation.

You're probably using a poor sound card - they're not all the same.

--
*You! Off my planet!

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:36:37 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

snip

Tell you what Julian, drag your CDP and a few disks round to mine and we'll
have a 'shoot out' (or 'Circle Jerk' as it is known in some quarters)

I wonder why

- I'm
fully prepared to put my needle where my mouth is.

Warning - my £350 'Disco Deck' and cheapo Ortofon cart held off and still
had a slight edge over the best (£3K) CDP I have ever heard, my new £1,350
RPM9/Shure V15 rig will blow your CDs into the weeds, I promise you. - You
will tell me that, however, I *never* make these claims, I leave it to the
'victims'! (Never failed yet! ;-)

Contact me off-group and we'll do it on the sly. I never mention it here -
one of the less regular posters here popped in last week to hear the killer
'valves & vinyl' combination. He didn't even say he liked it (already a
confirmed 'vinylist' mind) but he made it plain he would call in again
'soon' with more LPs*. (I can only assume he didn't 'hate' it too
much.....???? :-)

.... see my previous comments about religious fervour -- do you expect
me to have some kind of Road to Damascus experience?? I'm not going
to insult your preferences by asserting that *if only* you could hear
the X- Y- and Z- factors of CD reproduction you're suddenly going to
be convinced that it really is, after all, a better medium than vinyl.
I've heard enough medium- and high-end vinyl systems to know what they
sound like, thanks very much.

Julian


--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ray Keattch wrote:
The next night we sat in front of the deck for a couple of hours. First
thing was 'blimey dad - that bass is really deep'! They then started
talking about 'lifelike', 'live', 'like being there' - why?

If their description of the bass 'being really deep' on your record
player, but not on your CD, one is faulty - forget any nuances. If it
happens on all nominally the same recordings.


Neither the CD or deck are flawed.

If you listen to CD for a while and then go to vinyl, it will sound coloured
but very weighty. If you listen to vinyl for a while and then go to CD, it
will sound tinny and flat.

The ears have to 'de-tune' from one format, before the other will sound
good.

MrBitsy.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Tim Anderson" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...

If it were more lifelike than CD then it would be able to imitate live
sounds better. This it certainly can't, in any test you care to try
where
direct comparison, rather than your poor hearing memory, is involved.

I'd like to try this direct comparison. How do I go about it?

Tim

Whatever you do, make sure you give enough time for your ears to 'de-tune'
from one format, before listening to the other.

Both the CD and vinyl will sound pretty dire when you swap!

MrBitsy.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 08:41:27 +0100, "Ray Keattch"
wrote:

snip

If you listen to CD for a while and then go to vinyl, it will sound coloured
but very weighty. If you listen to vinyl for a while and then go to CD, it
will sound tinny and flat.

The ears have to 'de-tune' from one format, before the other will sound
good.

HRYK ... unfortunately, psychology of perception 101 will teach you
that the human ear/brain is capable of a great deal of adjustment to
external stimuli. Basicly you're subconciously both filtering out
what you don't like, and reinforcing (or even creating) what you do.
If I was to grab a couple of cassettes my initial reaction would be to
hear the hiss, lack of dynamic range, NR artifacts, etc. After an
hour I wouldn't be noticing these at all, unless I actively set out to
listen out for them.

Maybe this is *all* about psychology after all - if I switch back to
CD after listening to something on cassette or vinyl I don't find it
in the least "tinny and flat" -- my reaction is more likely to be
"S**T -- I can hear all the music again" :-)

Julian


--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article ,
Ray Keattch wrote:
If you listen to CD for a while and then go to vinyl, it will sound
coloured but very weighty.

I've noticed the coloured part but not the 'weighty'. ;-)

If you listen to vinyl for a while and then
go to CD, it will sound tinny and flat.

I'd not describe the difference as tinny or flat. More like removing
cotton wool from ears...

--
*Why is it that most nudists are people you don't want to see naked?*

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article ,
Ray Keattch wrote:
If their description of the bass 'being really deep' on your record
player, but not on your CD, one is faulty - forget any nuances. If it
happens on all nominally the same recordings.


Neither the CD or deck are flawed.

Given your hate of anything technical, how would you know?

--
*Heart attacks... God's revenge for eating his animal friends

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ray Keattch wrote:
If their description of the bass 'being really deep' on your record
player, but not on your CD, one is faulty - forget any nuances. If it
happens on all nominally the same recordings.


Neither the CD or deck are flawed.

Given your hate of anything technical, how would you know?

So where do you want to go with this one? Would it help if I invited you to
my place to satisfy you my system isn't flawed? Quite simple really. The CD
sounds good and the deck sounds good. It takes a while to tune in to a
different format.

Mr Plowman, your being a tit for the sake of trolling.

MrBitsy.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Anderson wrote:
No it doesn't - don't you ever read anything here? You can transcribe
an LP to CD and I defy anyone to tell the difference.

I've tried this and found degradation.

You're probably using a poor sound card - they're not all the same.

More likely the problem is that he didn't do a time-synched, level-matched,
bias controlled test.

He *knew* that the DAT degraded the sound, and by gum it did (in his
perceptions).

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Ray Keattch" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article ,

Ray Keattch wrote:
If their description of the bass 'being really deep' on your record
player, but not on your CD, one is faulty - forget any nuances. If
it
happens on all nominally the same recordings.

Neither the CD or deck are flawed.

Given your hate of anything technical, how would you know?

So where do you want to go with this one?

Speaks to state of mind.

Would it help if I invited you to
my place to satisfy you my system isn't flawed? Quite simple really. The
CD
sounds good and the deck sounds good. It takes a while to tune in to a
different format.

Mr Plowman, your being a tit for the sake of trolling.

You're obviously perceptually deaf to the coloration, noise and distortion
that is inherent in LP playback.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article ,
Ray Keattch wrote:
Neither the CD or deck are flawed.

Given your hate of anything technical, how would you know?

So where do you want to go with this one? Would it help if I invited you
to my place to satisfy you my system isn't flawed? Quite simple really.
The CD sounds good and the deck sounds good. It takes a while to tune in
to a different format.

Mr Plowman, your being a tit for the sake of trolling.

I'd suggest you train your ears - or those of your children - how to
recognise and describe sound artifacts. If the bass *really* does sound
substantially different between an LP and a CD, then it could easily be
measured, and the reason found out as to why. But I'd guess at a
pickup/arm resonance. Which any caring vinyl enthusiast would try to fix.

But like I said you don't understand - or want to understand - such things.

As for trolling, I'm not the one originating all these threads on a vinyl
only group, and would welcome it if only to get shot of those who can't
admit to its flaws. From those who appreciate old technology, and wish to
get the very best of it, I personally love to read things. 'Cause I'm
interested in this as well, but not blind to its flaws.

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

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article ,
Tim Anderson wrote:
You're probably using a poor sound card - they're not all the same.

Not using a sound card; this is a DAT recording.

Well, not all DATs sound the same - some domestic types had poor analogue
sections.

And I'd ask just how carefully you matched levels etc when doing the
comparison? This can make a vast difference to the perceived sound quality.

--
*Oh, what a tangled website we weave when first we practice *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 12:36:37 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .

As I've said before, I suspect that you and I read different
newsgroups (albeit both labelled uk.rec.audio).


Kinda looks like it! Mine's full of mile-long 'vinyl is crap' threads -
what's yours got?

I realize now that I get a somewhat skewed view of this group simply
because of those that I've kill-filed -- not because of their pro- or
anti-vinyl stances, but because they're foul-mouthed idiots ... no
prizes for guessing for who I might mean :-)

Maybe the 100s of posts I never see really are fill of "vinyl is crap"
messages!

Julian

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

Dave Plowman wrote in message ...
In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
They've been done to death on here, but the vinyl nerds don't listen.
They have a hearing problem.

No mate, you have a problem with what we like to hear.

For the umpteenth time I don't. But do have a problem with all the crap
talked about how superior it is. Because it isn't by any measure.

Except the measure of human hearing.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

wrote in message
om
Dave Plowman wrote in message
...
In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
They've been done to death on here, but the vinyl nerds don't
listen. They have a hearing problem.

No mate, you have a problem with what we like to hear.

For the umpteenth time I don't. But do have a problem with all the
crap talked about how superior it is. Because it isn't by any
measure.

Except the measure of human hearing.

Wrong. Many humans such as myself hear the rather obvious imperfections in
vinyl.

I think you really mean "Except by the measure of my perceptions."

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message


On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 08:52:18 -0400, Arny Krueger used
to say...

You're obviously perceptually deaf to the coloration, noise and
distortion that is inherent in LP playback.

If he were "perceptually deaf" he wouldn't be able to hear and
recognise the difference now would he?

Wrong since his evauations aren't bias-controlled.

His posts have shown that he can do both.

Wrong.

Very weak Arny, even for you.

Simply not true. You may be ignorant and blinkered enough to be fooled Kurt,
but not all of us are. Make that about 99.5% of us...

Enjoy your tiny noisy minority, Kurt. I hope that when you get your own
ghetto I mean group, we'll be rid of your posturing, horrendous forays into
misquoting, misunderstandings of simple English, and misplaced priorities.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message


On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 08:22:53 -0400, Arny Krueger used
to say...

More likely the problem is that he didn't do a time-synched,
level-matched, bias controlled test.

Is that your equivalent of Om Mani Padmi Um?

No because its intent is to stimulate thought, not eliminate it.

But thanks for sharing the explanation for your blinkered posts, Kurt. You
are trying not to think! Explains lots!

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message ...
In article ,
Tim Anderson wrote:

Well, not all DATs sound the same - some domestic types had poor analogue
sections.

And I'd ask just how carefully you matched levels etc when doing the
comparison? This can make a vast difference to the perceived sound quality.

Testing is difficult, agreed. That makes it even more dangerous IMO to
pronouce confidently that such-and-such a thing (like copying vinyl
to CD) makes no audible difference. IME it does make a difference.

Tim

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Ray Keattch" wrote in message ...

If it were more lifelike than CD then it would be able to imitate live
sounds better. This it certainly can't, in any test you care to try
where
direct comparison, rather than your poor hearing memory, is involved.

Whatever you do, make sure you give enough time for your ears to 'de-tune'
from one format, before listening to the other.

Both the CD and vinyl will sound pretty dire when you swap!

However, vinyl vs CD is not the issue here. The claim is that "in any test you
care to try", CD sounds more like the live original.

I'd love to try this test, especially as I've experienced vinyl creating a better
illusion of a live sound than CDs. However, as far as I know the test is
impossible. I have to hear a live sound, have it recorded and pressed to
vinyl and also made into a CD. Then I have to remember the live sound
while doing the experiment; or repeat the live sound if it is repeatable.

Thus, "in any test you care to try" is deceptive - I care to try the test, but
I cannot.

Tim

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Tim Anderson" wrote in message

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Anderson wrote:

Well, not all DATs sound the same - some domestic types had poor
analogue sections.

And I'd ask just how carefully you matched levels etc when doing the
comparison? This can make a vast difference to the perceived sound
quality.

Testing is difficult, agreed. That makes it even more dangerous IMO to
pronouce confidently that such-and-such a thing (like copying vinyl
to CD) makes no audible difference. IME it does make a difference.

Please tell us about the outcomes of your time-synchronized, level-matched,
bias-controlled listening tests.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Tim Anderson" wrote in message

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...

If it were more lifelike than CD then it would be able to imitate
live sounds better. This it certainly can't, in any test you care to
try where direct comparison, rather than your poor hearing memory,
is involved.

I'd like to try this direct comparison. How do I go about it?

Tim, please tell us how you do this with vinyl, and we'll modify the
procedure for use with CDs.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...

Please tell us about the outcomes of your time-synchronized, level-matched,
bias-controlled listening tests.

Exactly.

Tim

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...

Tim, please tell us how you do this with vinyl, and we'll modify the
procedure for use with CDs.

Sorry, I've not found any way to do it.

Tim

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article ,
Tim Anderson wrote:
Testing is difficult, agreed. That makes it even more dangerous IMO to
pronouce confidently that such-and-such a thing (like copying vinyl
to CD) makes no audible difference. IME it does make a difference.

I've got a very carefully level - and everything else - matched system
whereby I can record to CD (or anything else) from vinyl and replay it
within about 0.5 dB of the original. And by syncing the two up and
switching, I can't tell the difference, and neither can anyone I've tested
- including some pretty extreme vinyl enthusiasts.

--
*Warning: Dates in Calendar are closer than they appear.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message ...
In article ,

I've got a very carefully level - and everything else - matched system
whereby I can record to CD (or anything else) from vinyl and replay it
within about 0.5 dB of the original. And by syncing the two up and
switching, I can't tell the difference, and neither can anyone I've tested
- including some pretty extreme vinyl enthusiasts.

Like anything else, YMMV. I've not found this in my tests, but I imagine
there are many, many differences in the components in use.

Tim

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message ...
In article ,
Tim Anderson wrote:

Agreed it's more difficult with vinyl, but not impossible. As you say you
need a repeatable live source, and a human voice is fine for this - if a
system can reproduce male speech accurately, it will be ok on pretty well
anything. Unless you like the heavily coloured 'rock system' sound.

That's OK if you just want to establish that it sounds pretty much like a
human voice. But if you are really comparing with a live source, you need
to here the original in the same acoustic environment. Plus of course all
the usual factors around how to record it convincingly.

Tim

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
wrote in message
om
Dave Plowman wrote in message
...
In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
They've been done to death on here, but the vinyl nerds don't
listen. They have a hearing problem.

No mate, you have a problem with what we like to hear.

For the umpteenth time I don't. But do have a problem with all the
crap talked about how superior it is. Because it isn't by any
measure.

Except the measure of human hearing.

Wrong. Many humans such as myself hear the rather obvious imperfections in
vinyl.

I think you really mean "Except by the measure of my perceptions."

I don't know anyone (other than a few one here) who still believes the
lie that CD (16 bit/44.1Khz) sounds better than a decent analogue
replay system.

Everyone I know much prefers vinyl reproduction to CD, because it
sounds more realistic and enjoyable.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
wrote in message
om
Dave Plowman wrote in message
...
In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
They've been done to death on here, but the vinyl nerds don't
listen. They have a hearing problem.

No mate, you have a problem with what we like to hear.

For the umpteenth time I don't. But do have a problem with all the
crap talked about how superior it is. Because it isn't by any
measure.

Except the measure of human hearing.

Wrong. Many humans such as myself hear the rather obvious imperfections in
vinyl.

You must listen to c**p vinyl systems then.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article ,
wrote:
Everyone I know much prefers vinyl reproduction to CD, because it
sounds more realistic and enjoyable.

You need to get out more.

--
*A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
om
Dave Plowman wrote in message
...
In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
They've been done to death on here, but the vinyl nerds don't
listen. They have a hearing problem.

No mate, you have a problem with what we like to hear.

For the umpteenth time I don't. But do have a problem with all the
crap talked about how superior it is. Because it isn't by any
measure.

Except the measure of human hearing.

Wrong. Many humans such as myself hear the rather obvious
imperfections in vinyl.

I think you really mean "Except by the measure of my perceptions."

I don't know anyone (other than a few one here) who still believes the
lie that CD (16 bit/44.1Khz) sounds better than a decent analogue
replay system.

You need to get out more.

I don't know anyone (other than a few on Usenet) who still believes the lie
that LP playback sounds better than CD (16 bit/44.1Khz). I have a number
of friends with really pretty good turntables, but they either don't use
them at all or they use them for making digital transcriptions.


Everyone I know much prefers vinyl reproduction to CD, because it
sounds more realistic and enjoyable.

You need to get out more. I notice that a major used LP shop around here
just cut its floorspace in half.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message

In article ,
wrote:
Everyone I know much prefers vinyl reproduction to CD, because it
sounds more realistic and enjoyable.

You need to get out more.

Agreed.

Birds of a feather...

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...

The kind of tests that are doable suggest very strongly that well-made CDs
don't change sound quality.

The interesting conclusion would be that SACD and DVDA (for hi-res stereo)
is a waste of time and a marketing con. However many people claim to hear
improved sound. I realise this could be psychological, or due to better mixing
or mastering.

Tim

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:50:12 +0100, "Tim Anderson"
wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...

The kind of tests that are doable suggest very strongly that well-made CDs
don't change sound quality.

The interesting conclusion would be that SACD and DVDA (for hi-res stereo)
is a waste of time and a marketing con.

Yep (AKA another way for record companies to sell their back catalogs
again and again and again ...).

However many people claim to hear
improved sound. I realise this could be psychological, or due to better mixing
or mastering.

In many cases its the last of these ... not sure where there are *any*
cases where an SACD and a "regular" CD are known to be taken from the
same master - and, if so, whether there's any discernable difference.
Actual re*mixing* is rare (although there are exceptions).

OTOH, if selling SACDs at a premium allows the record companies to do
a *proper* mastering job on back catalog material, this may be a Good
Thing. Someone cited the poor mastering of the CD version of Ry
Cooder's "Bop Til You Drop" recently - if WB can charge full price for
an SACD remaster (when the standard CD has been mid-price for years)
then maybe this'll get them to pull their finger out and get a decent
version into the market. The availability of SACD software that is
recognized to be a real improvement over standard CD issues would, I
guess, push up the sales of SACD hardware.

The other issue is whether SACD *players* have any discernable
differences in sound from their regular/redbook cousins - either in
terms of reduced read errors from the disc, improved techniques for
masking such errors, or even introduction of artifacts that are not in
the recording but "make it sound better" to the average listener.

Julian


--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Tim Anderson" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The kind of tests that are doable suggest very strongly that
well-made CDs don't change sound quality.

The interesting conclusion would be that SACD and DVDA (for hi-res
stereo) is a waste of time and a marketing con.

Yes.

However many people claim to hear improved sound.

I see no time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled listening tests with
any such results.


I realize this could be psychological, or due to better mixing or
mastering.

Right. To properly evaluate the sonic performance of a media format, you
need to compare the same artistic work. It appears that the SACD and DVD-A
proponents have gone out of their way to avoid doing such a thing.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

Dave Plowman wrote in message ...
In article ,
wrote:
Everyone I know much prefers vinyl reproduction to CD, because it
sounds more realistic and enjoyable.

You need to get out more.

Why?

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...


You need to get out more.

What has that to do with anything? Do you know how often I go out?
What makes you think that using childish rejoinders will advance your
case? Please explain.


I don't know anyone (other than a few on Usenet) who still believes the lie
that LP playback sounds better than CD (16 bit/44.1Khz).

So, repeating what I wrote but changing a few words is supposed to
make a good point? Hmmm...telling.

I have a number
of friends with really pretty good turntables,

Apparently not that good.

but they either don't use
them at all or they use them for making digital transcriptions.

I know lots of people who prefer the convenience of CD too. Doesn't
make it sound any better.



Everyone I know much prefers vinyl reproduction to CD, because it
sounds more realistic and enjoyable.

You need to get out more. I notice that a major used LP shop around here
just cut its floorspace in half.

Probably because the best stuff is bought up so quickly that they are
running out of stock. I buy a lot from charity shops. One pound a disc
for great classical recordings that walk all over most current CD
versions. Most of the people I know who listen to music avidly are
musicians, and it is those people who seem most convinced of the
superiority of analogue/vinyl over digital/CD.

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"Dave Plowman" wrote in message

In article ,
wrote:
Everyone I know much prefers vinyl reproduction to CD, because it
sounds more realistic and enjoyable.

You need to get out more.

Agreed.

Birds of a feather...

Like you and Mr. Plowman, for instance?

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

wrote in message
om...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman" wrote in message

In article ,
wrote:
Everyone I know much prefers vinyl reproduction to CD, because it
sounds more realistic and enjoyable.

You need to get out more.

Agreed.

Birds of a feather...

Like you and Mr. Plowman, for instance?



'You need to get out more' from those two saddos?

Now that's good (if not just a little passé) - that's *extremely* good
coming from them! They're on here 24/7, grinding out the same dreary old
********. They have been for sodding years, running the same old routine -
feeding on the endless supply of nooby fodder.

Join the club........

Ref the RFD for uk.rec.audio.vinyl
 

In article , Ronnie McKinley
writes
In uk.rec.audio "Keith G" wrote:


Which is a shame because you could have taken in the 'Leicestor Investor' on
your way down and blown his Gyro to smithereens as well!


Speaking of smithereens, have you tried this one ....


Go the Google search page and type in "weapons of mass destruction"
(minus the quotation marks).
Hit the "I feel lucky" button.
Read the error message carefully.





And "French military victories"...
--
Tony Sayer