|
|
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
You're entitled to your opinion, Iveson. We are entitled to say your
opinion sounds like ****. Always. The key word in the analogy is "always". A SET which always sounded the same would be a performer and therefore wrongly conceived, executed or applied. What SET does for the oldtimers, who design SET amps and build them and listen to them and *compare their sound to what they hear in concert halls* is simply to sound, on any particular piece of music, more like the sound one heard in the concert hall than other tube topologies (except PP Class A) or any solid state amp. You see, the key argument the silicon slime make is that their responsibility stops at the point wher they can prove that their amps reproduce the master tape perfectly. But that is never the sound one heard in the concert hall. The argument then shifts to the master tape and what it includes or does not include. SET or PP class A amps really have nothing to do with this; it is quite incidental, if fortuitous, that from the same master tape they are better at reproducing the sound *heard in the concert hall* than silicon. A SET amp is not a performer, it is a reproducer. By the way, quite contrary to your statement, real musicians are almost without exception trying to reproduce a sound first heard in the composer's head, or in a practice room several hundred years ago in the presence of the composer. There is virtually no such thing in serious music as a truly original performance, not even the premiere of a brand-new composition; all you need to discover this is to sit in on the rehearsals of a few new compositions and listen to the composer and performers work on the rendition of the score, and then to follow the premiere with auditions of other performers playing the same composition in the same way as the performers who gave the premiere. Originality in classical music proceeds by tiny accretions of variation. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review Ian Iveson wrote: Just strayed to ukra, and tried this: "...I believe you miss the point of the whole SET plot. The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of reproduction. Real musicians playing are not trying to reproduce a previous performance by someone else. Neither is a typical combination of a SET and its speakers. Such a system *is* a live performer, and is optimised for that purpose." Actually I haven't a clue...it's just a desperate guess and I've never even heard a proper SET system, never mind designed one. Is it true? cheers, Ian (To elucidate, maybe, I tried labouring this: The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of reproduction. Therefore systems designed only for reproduction will never produce the "sound of real musicians playing". SET systems are not in general designed primarily for reproduction, but rather for the "sound of real musicians playing". Therefore it is possible that SET systems sound more like the "sound of real musicians playing" than systems designed only for reproduction. Furthermore, some people who have listened say this is true.) |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Mr. McCoy:
For the record, please write for yourself, and use terms such as "me" and "my" when rendering an opinion, not "we"... unless you are claiming Royalty and the "we" that goes with it. If you are making such claims, then fine, I can live with the "we". Otherwise, it is simply arrogant and reduces your already tenuous credibility. Now, I have read what you have written, and the question remains: Is it the purpose of SET-based systems to reproduce what goes into them, or not? It remains a simple question however much smoke and mirrors are used in obfuscation or avoidance of the answer. And, as I am trying to be civil here, not that you have engaged in (much) obfuscation above. So, in light of your absolute statement: A SET amp is not a performer, it is a reproducer. What does a SET amp add/take away from the signal applied to it other than straight-wire amplification? A level of accuracy in the answer would be desirable, I believe I can comprehend imprecise terms if accuracy is achieved. But, as a massive hint, your range-of-answers a A. NO. A SET amp output is indistinguishable from the input excepting volume. B. YES. A SET amp adds certain artifacts or corrects for certain lacks in the original input, and they a (well-defined terms follow). C. IT DEPENDS. Well defined terms on what the dependencies are follow. We are not discussing speakers here, but if speakers are an issue, then please clearly define how-so and why. Are _THEY_ the actual performers in this situation? The AMP is merely an 'enabler'? I agree on the originality piece. Only the first performance is "original", all-that-follow are colored by feedback from that first one... even if only in annotations to the score. Perhaps the greatest appeal of music, classical and otherwise, is its infinite capacity for interpretation, some great some awful, but the capacity remains. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Gee, Useless, first you abuse Mr McCoy for an *excess* of precision,
now you *demand* precision from him, all within ten minutes! Why don't you put your mind in gear before you switch on your computer? Andre Jute Useless Wiecky wrote: Mr. McCoy: For the record, please write for yourself, and use terms such as "me" and "my" when rendering an opinion, not "we"... unless you are claiming Royalty and the "we" that goes with it. If you are making such claims, then fine, I can live with the "we". Otherwise, it is simply arrogant and reduces your already tenuous credibility. Now, I have read what you have written, and the question remains: Is it the purpose of SET-based systems to reproduce what goes into them, or not? It remains a simple question however much smoke and mirrors are used in obfuscation or avoidance of the answer. And, as I am trying to be civil here, not that you have engaged in (much) obfuscation above. So, in light of your absolute statement: A SET amp is not a performer, it is a reproducer. What does a SET amp add/take away from the signal applied to it other than straight-wire amplification? A level of accuracy in the answer would be desirable, I believe I can comprehend imprecise terms if accuracy is achieved. But, as a massive hint, your range-of-answers a A. NO. A SET amp output is indistinguishable from the input excepting volume. B. YES. A SET amp adds certain artifacts or corrects for certain lacks in the original input, and they a (well-defined terms follow). C. IT DEPENDS. Well defined terms on what the dependencies are follow. We are not discussing speakers here, but if speakers are an issue, then please clearly define how-so and why. Are _THEY_ the actual performers in this situation? The AMP is merely an 'enabler'? I agree on the originality piece. Only the first performance is "original", all-that-follow are colored by feedback from that first one... even if only in annotations to the score. Perhaps the greatest appeal of music, classical and otherwise, is its infinite capacity for interpretation, some great some awful, but the capacity remains. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Nope. I "abused" Mr. McCoy for a complete lack of precision and an
abuse of the term. And I am not at all demanding precision, I am searching for accuracy... So, demonstrate your ability and understanding of the terms if you are able. Please. You are the one given to absolute statements, yet have a peculiar habit of avoiding defining what you mean by them. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Mr. McCoy
Write what you will, but you are still both evasive, tiresome and quite stupid as to actually answering a direct question. One might be convinced that you are actually and entirely smoke and mirrors as opposed to the wise and all-knowing oracle such as is your posture. Put some facts on the screen so your wisdom becomes obvious to all, if you are able. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Useless Wiecky makes demands with menaces SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Useless Wiecky wrote: Mr. McCoy Write what you will, but you are still both Okay, that's two. evasive, tiresome and quite stupid No, no, no, Useless. "Evasive", "tiresome" and "stupid" are three items. Three is not a 'both' number. as to actually answering a direct question. We'll return to this vexed "direct question". One might be convinced that you are actually and entirely smoke and mirrors as opposed to the wise and all-knowing oracle such as is your posture. Or both, or neither, of course. You don't have either the brains or the command of the language to discover which, and right after I let you think one or the other I might change my mind just because it is lovely little you. Well, you might be lovely after you take tip about your mouthwash. Put some facts on the screen so your wisdom becomes obvious to all, if you are able. Is this your idea of a "direct question", Useless? A non-specific demand for knowledge, delivered with menaces? Or is it just another excuse to make yourself look important by abusing your betters, eh, Useless? Typical. Peter Wieck Useless. Wyncote, PA Home of the Useless. Unsigned out of contempt Three sets of threats from Useless Wiecky trying to extort information: wrote: Mr. McCoy: For the record, please write for yourself, and use terms such as "me" and "my" when rendering an opinion, not "we"... unless you are claiming Royalty and the "we" that goes with it. If you are making such claims, then fine, I can live with the "we". Otherwise, it is simply arrogant and reduces your already tenuous credibility. Now, I have read what you have written, and the question remains: Is it the purpose of SET-based systems to reproduce what goes into them, or not? It remains a simple question however much smoke and mirrors are used in obfuscation or avoidance of the answer. And, as I am trying to be civil here, not that you have engaged in (much) obfuscation above. So, in light of your absolute statement: A SET amp is not a performer, it is a reproducer. What does a SET amp add/take away from the signal applied to it other than straight-wire amplification? A level of accuracy in the answer would be desirable, I believe I can comprehend imprecise terms if accuracy is achieved. But, as a massive hint, your range-of-answers a A. NO. A SET amp output is indistinguishable from the input excepting volume. B. YES. A SET amp adds certain artifacts or corrects for certain lacks in the original input, and they a (well-defined terms follow). C. IT DEPENDS. Well defined terms on what the dependencies are follow. We are not discussing speakers here, but if speakers are an issue, then please clearly define how-so and why. Are _THEY_ the actual performers in this situation? The AMP is merely an 'enabler'? I agree on the originality piece. Only the first performance is "original", all-that-follow are colored by feedback from that first one... even if only in annotations to the score. Perhaps the greatest appeal of music, classical and otherwise, is its infinite capacity for interpretation, some great some awful, but the capacity remains. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA Another bullying harangue from Useless Wiecky: wrote: Mr. McCoy: You may believe that "Precision is the first scientific virtue", God knows you repeat it often enough (See: The Bellman's Proof). But consider the analogy of the Two Thermometers in the Woods. Little Thermometer A was a wonderful instrument. She could read to four decimal places, Farenheit, Celcius, Kelvin and any scale imposed upon her. She could show digits in Old and New Arabic numerals, Roman Numerals, whatever was asked of her. She prided herself in her precision. She lit up in the dark, and was polarized against sun glare. Altogether a glamorous lady. Little Thermometer B was a much less distinguished a lad. He could only read in full degrees, and had only two scales printed on him, and could not show digits at all, just a line against the printed scales. He neither lit up, nor was shielded against glare. He had no language other than Old Arabic, of course. However, when called upon to actually perform as thermometers, it was rapidly discovered that Ms. A was off the true temperature anywhere from +9 to -6 degrees on any scale, and unpredictably so at that. And the until-now disrespected little Mr. B was always dead-on true temperature. All this only after some serious damage resulted from too much trust in Ms. A... fooled by her glamorous precision. So, precision without accuracy... your particular claim to fame and observed general behavior... can be dangerously worse than useless. Accuracy, even if not terribly precise is of far more value and, dare I say it UTILITY. You should be very careful of the words you use. For all those that you fling about in your psuedo-literate frenzies, you do seem to have at very best a dim sense of their meanings. Much as poor Ms A. above. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA And a bunch of lies from Useless, plus more blustering harangue: wrote: Nope. I "abused" Mr. McCoy for a complete lack of precision and an abuse of the term. And I am not at all demanding precision, I am searching for accuracy... So, demonstrate your ability and understanding of the terms if you are able. Please. You are the one given to absolute statements, yet have a peculiar habit of avoiding defining what you mean by them. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Useless Wiecky makes demands with menaces SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
So many words to mask a poseur.
Mr. McCoy, you are truly a piece of work. Hollow of a certainty. Like termite-ridden wood, and about as substantial. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Useless Wiecky makes demands with menaces SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
wrote: So many words to mask a poseur. Mr. McCoy, you are truly a piece of work. Hollow of a certainty. Like termite-ridden wood, and about as substantial. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA We'll let your thousand words of abuse speak for you, Useless Wiecky: wrote: Mr. McCoy: For the record, please write for yourself, and use terms such as "me" and "my" when rendering an opinion, not "we"... unless you are claiming Royalty and the "we" that goes with it. If you are making such claims, then fine, I can live with the "we". Otherwise, it is simply arrogant and reduces your already tenuous credibility. Now, I have read what you have written, and the question remains: Is it the purpose of SET-based systems to reproduce what goes into them, or not? It remains a simple question however much smoke and mirrors are used in obfuscation or avoidance of the answer. And, as I am trying to be civil here, not that you have engaged in (much) obfuscation above. So, in light of your absolute statement: A SET amp is not a performer, it is a reproducer. What does a SET amp add/take away from the signal applied to it other than straight-wire amplification? A level of accuracy in the answer would be desirable, I believe I can comprehend imprecise terms if accuracy is achieved. But, as a massive hint, your range-of-answers a A. NO. A SET amp output is indistinguishable from the input excepting volume. B. YES. A SET amp adds certain artifacts or corrects for certain lacks in the original input, and they a (well-defined terms follow). C. IT DEPENDS. Well defined terms on what the dependencies are follow. We are not discussing speakers here, but if speakers are an issue, then please clearly define how-so and why. Are _THEY_ the actual performers in this situation? The AMP is merely an 'enabler'? I agree on the originality piece. Only the first performance is "original", all-that-follow are colored by feedback from that first one... even if only in annotations to the score. Perhaps the greatest appeal of music, classical and otherwise, is its infinite capacity for interpretation, some great some awful, but the capacity remains. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA Another bullying harangue from Useless Wiecky: wrote: Mr. McCoy: You may believe that "Precision is the first scientific virtue", God knows you repeat it often enough (See: The Bellman's Proof). But consider the analogy of the Two Thermometers in the Woods. Little Thermometer A was a wonderful instrument. She could read to four decimal places, Farenheit, Celcius, Kelvin and any scale imposed upon her. She could show digits in Old and New Arabic numerals, Roman Numerals, whatever was asked of her. She prided herself in her precision. She lit up in the dark, and was polarized against sun glare. Altogether a glamorous lady. Little Thermometer B was a much less distinguished a lad. He could only read in full degrees, and had only two scales printed on him, and could not show digits at all, just a line against the printed scales. He neither lit up, nor was shielded against glare. He had no language other than Old Arabic, of course. However, when called upon to actually perform as thermometers, it was rapidly discovered that Ms. A was off the true temperature anywhere from +9 to -6 degrees on any scale, and unpredictably so at that. And the until-now disrespected little Mr. B was always dead-on true temperature. All this only after some serious damage resulted from too much trust in Ms. A... fooled by her glamorous precision. So, precision without accuracy... your particular claim to fame and observed general behavior... can be dangerously worse than useless. Accuracy, even if not terribly precise is of far more value and, dare I say it UTILITY. You should be very careful of the words you use. For all those that you fling about in your psuedo-literate frenzies, you do seem to have at very best a dim sense of their meanings. Much as poor Ms A. above. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA And a bunch of lies from Useless, plus more blustering harangue: wrote: Nope. I "abused" Mr. McCoy for a complete lack of precision and an abuse of the term. And I am not at all demanding precision, I am searching for accuracy... So, demonstrate your ability and understanding of the terms if you are able. Please. You are the one given to absolute statements, yet have a peculiar habit of avoiding defining what you mean by them. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Andre Jute wrote: You're entitled to your opinion, Iveson. We are entitled to say your opinion sounds like ****. Always. The key word in the analogy is "always". A SET which always sounded the same would be a performer and therefore wrongly conceived, executed or applied. What SET does for the oldtimers, who design SET amps and build them and listen to them and *compare their sound to what they hear in concert halls* is simply to sound, on any particular piece of music, more like the sound one heard in the concert hall than other tube topologies (except PP Class A) or any solid state amp. You see, the key argument the silicon slime make is that their responsibility stops at the point wher they can prove that their amps reproduce the master tape perfectly. But that is never the sound one heard in the concert hall. The argument then shifts to the master tape and what it includes or does not include. SET or PP class A amps really have nothing to do with this; it is quite incidental, if fortuitous, that from the same master tape they are better at reproducing the sound *heard in the concert hall* than silicon. A SET amp is not a performer, it is a reproducer. Exactly. People in love with silicon can be ever so irrational about triode amps because to know there is a better lover they could have but dare not because modern logic forbids it causes them deep and suppressed anxiety, and having an affair with triodes would have them question their dull marriage to frumpy solid state devices. Some men love soiled state amplifiers and think soiled state must be the focus of their love and mind like those religious zealots must focus on God, and that the only one true faith includes lashings of NFB. They foam at the mouth when they talk of SET, like as if SET amps are the work of the Devil; they just can't let themselves delight in the pleasures of triodes, and flagellate themselves like St Augustine to curb the lust they supress. I really don't care too much about the foamings and BS and lust supressions these emotionally dysfunctional ppl bung on which won't budge anyone who discovers that a few triodes are still the best way of reproducing the sound heard at a live performance after it has been electronically recorded. I have heard music through quite good sounding systems which have included soiled state amplifiers, but its never been better than what I have heard from a few triodes, and the best sound has been through triode amps that have a nice high power ceiling compared to average power level used, and my many experiences with SE amps confirm in my mind that serious ppl designing decent SE amps using triodes, pentodes or beam tetrodes are not wasting their time. 90% of the recorded music in the world is very electronically processed during the performance and following it in the studio, ( rather like meat is treated to produce sausages so that resemblance to meat is removed. ) So we have music being the result of electric guitars with added triode/tetrode/pentode/digital/soiled state distortions, so triode amps at home may not do much better than any other type of amp since the music is crap anyway. What makes AC/DC or Meatloaf sound any good at all? Sorry, but I have no clue. But what is the best amp to use for Dame Joan Sutherland recorded at her best from vinyl in 1963? I'll settle for the triodes thankyou. What brings Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong singing together from about 1953 right into your lounge? What gives the greater sense of emotional engagement? What produces the greatest sense of being there in the recording studio? I don't need Krell or Mark Levinson for that, I am most happy if I have a few triodes, with perhaps one exception, the single j-fet in cascode with the first triode of the phono amp. I trust a fet with a few millivolts, but after that I like to leave the larger signals in the hands of triodes. Patrick Turner. By the way, quite contrary to your statement, real musicians are almost without exception trying to reproduce a sound first heard in the composer's head, or in a practice room several hundred years ago in the presence of the composer. There is virtually no such thing in serious music as a truly original performance, not even the premiere of a brand-new composition; all you need to discover this is to sit in on the rehearsals of a few new compositions and listen to the composer and performers work on the rendition of the score, and then to follow the premiere with auditions of other performers playing the same composition in the same way as the performers who gave the premiere. Originality in classical music proceeds by tiny accretions of variation. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review Ian Iveson wrote: Just strayed to ukra, and tried this: "...I believe you miss the point of the whole SET plot. The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of reproduction. Real musicians playing are not trying to reproduce a previous performance by someone else. Neither is a typical combination of a SET and its speakers. Such a system *is* a live performer, and is optimised for that purpose." Actually I haven't a clue...it's just a desperate guess and I've never even heard a proper SET system, never mind designed one. Is it true? cheers, Ian (To elucidate, maybe, I tried labouring this: The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of reproduction. Therefore systems designed only for reproduction will never produce the "sound of real musicians playing". SET systems are not in general designed primarily for reproduction, but rather for the "sound of real musicians playing". Therefore it is possible that SET systems sound more like the "sound of real musicians playing" than systems designed only for reproduction. Furthermore, some people who have listened say this is true.) |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Patrick Turner wrote: Andre Jute wrote: You're entitled to your opinion, Iveson. We are entitled to say your opinion sounds like ****. Always. The key word in the analogy is "always". A SET which always sounded the same would be a performer and therefore wrongly conceived, executed or applied. What SET does for the oldtimers, who design SET amps and build them and listen to them and *compare their sound to what they hear in concert halls* is simply to sound, on any particular piece of music, more like the sound one heard in the concert hall than other tube topologies (except PP Class A) or any solid state amp. You see, the key argument the silicon slime make is that their responsibility stops at the point wher they can prove that their amps reproduce the master tape perfectly. But that is never the sound one heard in the concert hall. The argument then shifts to the master tape and what it includes or does not include. SET or PP class A amps really have nothing to do with this; it is quite incidental, if fortuitous, that from the same master tape they are better at reproducing the sound *heard in the concert hall* than silicon. A SET amp is not a performer, it is a reproducer. Exactly. People in love with silicon can be ever so irrational about triode amps because to know there is a better lover they could have but dare not because modern logic forbids it causes them deep and suppressed anxiety, and having an affair with triodes would have them question their dull marriage to frumpy solid state devices. Some men love soiled state amplifiers and think soiled state must be the focus of their love and mind like those religious zealots must focus on God, and that the only one true faith includes lashings of NFB. They foam at the mouth when they talk of SET, like as if SET amps are the work of the Devil; they just can't let themselves delight in the pleasures of triodes, and flagellate themselves like St Augustine to curb the lust they supress. I really don't care too much about the foamings and BS and lust supressions these emotionally dysfunctional ppl bung on which won't budge anyone who discovers that a few triodes are still the best way of reproducing the sound heard at a live performance after it has been electronically recorded. I have heard music through quite good sounding systems which have included soiled state amplifiers, but its never been better than what I have heard from a few triodes, and the best sound has been through triode amps that have a nice high power ceiling compared to average power level used, and my many experiences with SE amps confirm in my mind that serious ppl designing decent SE amps using triodes, pentodes or beam tetrodes are not wasting their time. 90% of the recorded music in the world is very electronically processed during the performance and following it in the studio, ( rather like meat is treated to produce sausages so that resemblance to meat is removed. ) So we have music being the result of electric guitars with added triode/tetrode/pentode/digital/soiled state distortions, so triode amps at home may not do much better than any other type of amp since the music is crap anyway. What makes AC/DC or Meatloaf sound any good at all? Sorry, but I have no clue. But what is the best amp to use for Dame Joan Sutherland recorded at her best from vinyl in 1963? I'll settle for the triodes thankyou. What brings Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong singing together from about 1953 right into your lounge? What gives the greater sense of emotional engagement? What produces the greatest sense of being there in the recording studio? I don't need Krell or Mark Levinson for that, I am most happy if I have a few triodes, with perhaps one exception, the single j-fet in cascode with the first triode of the phono amp. I trust a fet with a few millivolts, but after that I like to leave the larger signals in the hands of triodes. Patrick Turner. Absolutely, except for the fet, which I think is unnecessary except if you are counting pennies. But the point isn't description, Patrick, but that they now demand reasons why triodes please so well. And *that* is like standing a dozen men on the edge of a field and noticing that some like daisies and some like lilies, and a few idiots like nettles; then demanding an instant explanation. I'm too busy listening to my tube and solid state amps to bother with those unhappy people. They probably committed some sin to earn their unhappiness. My experience is that the world is, on the whole, a fair and equitable place. People get what they deserve. Some people deserve solid state amps, a minority deserve tubes, and really good people deserve and get triodes. Andre Jute By the way, quite contrary to your statement, real musicians are almost without exception trying to reproduce a sound first heard in the composer's head, or in a practice room several hundred years ago in the presence of the composer. There is virtually no such thing in serious music as a truly original performance, not even the premiere of a brand-new composition; all you need to discover this is to sit in on the rehearsals of a few new compositions and listen to the composer and performers work on the rendition of the score, and then to follow the premiere with auditions of other performers playing the same composition in the same way as the performers who gave the premiere. Originality in classical music proceeds by tiny accretions of variation. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review Ian Iveson wrote: Just strayed to ukra, and tried this: "...I believe you miss the point of the whole SET plot. The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of reproduction. Real musicians playing are not trying to reproduce a previous performance by someone else. Neither is a typical combination of a SET and its speakers. Such a system *is* a live performer, and is optimised for that purpose." Actually I haven't a clue...it's just a desperate guess and I've never even heard a proper SET system, never mind designed one. Is it true? cheers, Ian (To elucidate, maybe, I tried labouring this: The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of reproduction. Therefore systems designed only for reproduction will never produce the "sound of real musicians playing". SET systems are not in general designed primarily for reproduction, but rather for the "sound of real musicians playing". Therefore it is possible that SET systems sound more like the "sound of real musicians playing" than systems designed only for reproduction. Furthermore, some people who have listened say this is true.) |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Andre Jute wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Andre Jute wrote: You're entitled to your opinion, Iveson. We are entitled to say your opinion sounds like ****. Always. The key word in the analogy is "always". A SET which always sounded the same would be a performer and therefore wrongly conceived, executed or applied. What SET does for the oldtimers, who design SET amps and build them and listen to them and *compare their sound to what they hear in concert halls* is simply to sound, on any particular piece of music, more like the sound one heard in the concert hall than other tube topologies (except PP Class A) or any solid state amp. You see, the key argument the silicon slime make is that their responsibility stops at the point wher they can prove that their amps reproduce the master tape perfectly. But that is never the sound one heard in the concert hall. The argument then shifts to the master tape and what it includes or does not include. SET or PP class A amps really have nothing to do with this; it is quite incidental, if fortuitous, that from the same master tape they are better at reproducing the sound *heard in the concert hall* than silicon. A SET amp is not a performer, it is a reproducer. Exactly. People in love with silicon can be ever so irrational about triode amps because to know there is a better lover they could have but dare not because modern logic forbids it causes them deep and suppressed anxiety, and having an affair with triodes would have them question their dull marriage to frumpy solid state devices. Some men love soiled state amplifiers and think soiled state must be the focus of their love and mind like those religious zealots must focus on God, and that the only one true faith includes lashings of NFB. They foam at the mouth when they talk of SET, like as if SET amps are the work of the Devil; they just can't let themselves delight in the pleasures of triodes, and flagellate themselves like St Augustine to curb the lust they supress. I really don't care too much about the foamings and BS and lust supressions these emotionally dysfunctional ppl bung on which won't budge anyone who discovers that a few triodes are still the best way of reproducing the sound heard at a live performance after it has been electronically recorded. I have heard music through quite good sounding systems which have included soiled state amplifiers, but its never been better than what I have heard from a few triodes, and the best sound has been through triode amps that have a nice high power ceiling compared to average power level used, and my many experiences with SE amps confirm in my mind that serious ppl designing decent SE amps using triodes, pentodes or beam tetrodes are not wasting their time. 90% of the recorded music in the world is very electronically processed during the performance and following it in the studio, ( rather like meat is treated to produce sausages so that resemblance to meat is removed. ) So we have music being the result of electric guitars with added triode/tetrode/pentode/digital/soiled state distortions, so triode amps at home may not do much better than any other type of amp since the music is crap anyway. What makes AC/DC or Meatloaf sound any good at all? Sorry, but I have no clue. But what is the best amp to use for Dame Joan Sutherland recorded at her best from vinyl in 1963? I'll settle for the triodes thankyou. What brings Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong singing together from about 1953 right into your lounge? What gives the greater sense of emotional engagement? What produces the greatest sense of being there in the recording studio? I don't need Krell or Mark Levinson for that, I am most happy if I have a few triodes, with perhaps one exception, the single j-fet in cascode with the first triode of the phono amp. I trust a fet with a few millivolts, but after that I like to leave the larger signals in the hands of triodes. Patrick Turner. Absolutely, except for the fet, which I think is unnecessary except if you are counting pennies. But the point isn't description, Patrick, but that they now demand reasons why triodes please so well. Are they? Who? that mob outside with pitchforks? Do we ask why wine of a certain vintage is like nectar? Do we have time to ask why the Mona Lisa is the best painting in the world? ( personally though, some of the gals at the local supermarket check out are deleriously beautiful, so the ML may be the best painting, but I don't care if it is. ) Is there are need to ask why a lily is so nice, or why a rose is such a wonder..... And yes, a 2SK369 does only cost $1.20 at WES components. I think it mauls the sonics less than a transformer. Well at least it isn't worse imho.... And *that* is like standing a dozen men on the edge of a field and noticing that some like daisies and some like lilies, and a few idiots like nettles; then demanding an instant explanation. Well yes, I see you started thinking about flowers, and even nettles, when mobs were about.... I'm too busy listening to my tube and solid state amps to bother with those unhappy people. They probably committed some sin to earn their unhappiness. My experience is that the world is, on the whole, a fair and equitable place. People get what they deserve. Some people deserve solid state amps, a minority deserve tubes, and really good people deserve and get triodes. Yeah, but I wonder what Stalin used? russian pentoads? I know he went along to hear Shostakoviches 9th at a theatre. He didn't just stroll out to a shop and buy the record. It was supposed to be a victory number, but it was a parody, and old uncle Joe wasn't amused by the "Up you Joe theme", and banished Shosta for quite some time. Some time later Stalin died first. Ah, what a relief that was. But depending which recording of that symphony that you may have, it sure can sound well on through triodes, and you can savour the taking of the mickey out of those who are all too serious and puffed up...... :-) All those ppl are still out there and moaning. They'll always be there, but I don't give a damn. Patrick Turner. Andre Jute By the way, quite contrary to your statement, real musicians are almost without exception trying to reproduce a sound first heard in the composer's head, or in a practice room several hundred years ago in the presence of the composer. There is virtually no such thing in serious music as a truly original performance, not even the premiere of a brand-new composition; all you need to discover this is to sit in on the rehearsals of a few new compositions and listen to the composer and performers work on the rendition of the score, and then to follow the premiere with auditions of other performers playing the same composition in the same way as the performers who gave the premiere. Originality in classical music proceeds by tiny accretions of variation. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review Ian Iveson wrote: Just strayed to ukra, and tried this: "...I believe you miss the point of the whole SET plot. The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of reproduction. Real musicians playing are not trying to reproduce a previous performance by someone else. Neither is a typical combination of a SET and its speakers. Such a system *is* a live performer, and is optimised for that purpose." Actually I haven't a clue...it's just a desperate guess and I've never even heard a proper SET system, never mind designed one. Is it true? cheers, Ian (To elucidate, maybe, I tried labouring this: The "sound of real musicians playing" is never the result of reproduction. Therefore systems designed only for reproduction will never produce the "sound of real musicians playing". SET systems are not in general designed primarily for reproduction, but rather for the "sound of real musicians playing". Therefore it is possible that SET systems sound more like the "sound of real musicians playing" than systems designed only for reproduction. Furthermore, some people who have listened say this is true.) |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Definition of a Cult
Every cult can be defined as a group having all of the following 5 characteristics: 1. It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members 2. It forms an elitist totalitarian society 3. Its founder/leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma 4. It believes 'the end justifies the means' in order to solicit funds recruit people 5. Its wealth does not benefit its members or society Does sound suspiciously like SET, doesn't it? a. In order to be 'saved' one must believe it. b. If one believes it, no further explanation is necessary. c. If one questions it in any way, one is considered an apostate. Ah, well. I consider myself one of the blessed unwashed in this case... I will _never_ get it. I do like tubes, though. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
" wrote: Definition of a Cult Every cult can be defined as a group having all of the following 5 characteristics: 1. It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members I could be accused of being in a cult, part of a cult, or even one of its damnable priests, but coercion of ppl to join in an SET cult is something I don't practice. Ppl just discover SET, its akin to meeting a new friend, and one finds that a single triode offers something good. Full technical explanations are not required about friendship; its just there. 2. It forms an elitist totalitarian society Gee, those guys who wax lyrical about the wonders of large solid state amplifiers and who go around smashing triodes whenever they can sure do seem to be an elitist totalitarian society. 3. Its founder/leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma Yeah, just who was it who invented soiled state? But hey, did he have charisma?, I thought he had only dogma, and it could have been run over by the karma.... 4. It believes 'the end justifies the means' in order to solicit funds recruit people Soiled state engineers in many large corporations have been believing that the end justifies the means since about 1947. 5. Its wealth does not benefit its members or society Well where does the wealth go then? Sony or Pioneer shareholders perhaps? Where did all the triodes go, long time passing? Does sound suspiciously like SET, doesn't it? I have to beg humbly to differ sir, I think you have things fractabunt, and its the big cult of Silly Con you are talking about; I started to suspect you likened the SET listeners to a cult, but really they are just like a harmless flower smelling society. If the smell is good, they do not need talk about aroma chemistry. a. In order to be 'saved' one must believe it. Well of course, and the more ppl in a cult, the more beliefs are reinforced, so 99% believe Silly Con is a great religion.... b. If one believes it, no further explanation is necessary. Well that not only applies to cults large or small, but to politics, and mass movements, like Nationalism, or Consumerism.... c. If one questions it in any way, one is considered an apostate. What sticks up, must be bashed down flat Ah, well. I consider myself one of the blessed unwashed in this case... I will _never_ get it. I do like tubes, though. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA Well its encouraging to know you like tubes...... Its a nice start... Patrick Turner. |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Andre Jute wrote:
You see, the key argument the silicon slime make is that their responsibility stops at the point wher they can prove that their amps reproduce the master tape perfectly. But that is never the sound one heard in the concert hall. The argument then shifts to the master tape and what it includes or does not include. SET or PP class A amps really have nothing to do with this; it is quite incidental, if fortuitous, that from the same master tape they are better at reproducing the sound *heard in the concert hall* than silicon. You mean that a SET amplifier is (in effect) a combined effects box and amplifier, that can compensate for arbitrary mistakes made by the recording engineer endeavouring to put the concert hall sound onto the master tape. If so, SETs are indeed remarkable. BugBear |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
You will never get what Mr. McCoy actually means... if he were to go
there, he would have to stand by it. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Yah know....
rec.audio.SET or alt.cult.SET should be NGs in and of themselves. Then 90% of the vituperation and likely 100% of the vulgarity and fulmination displayed here moment-by-moment could find a home and satisfaction amongst like-minded individuals. And those who actually may want to know stuff would know to go elsewhere for repeatable information & techniques. Science and the Scientific Method requires that results that are to be trusted are predictable and repeatable. I see the leading Kult-Keeper here grasping the term "Science" to his bosom, yet feels no need to share his means-and-methods, nor explain his conclusions, nor what he even means by the terms he uses. Patrick, you may not be a priest of the cult, perhaps not even a senior acolyte, but it sure smacks of cult behavior at Mr. McCoy's level. And with him go Allison and Ludwig in some sort of unhappy and terrible lockstep based on mutual loathing. I feel sorry for the bunch of them. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
"bugbear" wrote in message ... Andre Jute wrote: You see, the key argument the silicon slime make is that their responsibility stops at the point wher they can prove that their amps reproduce the master tape perfectly. But that is never the sound one heard in the concert hall. The argument then shifts to the master tape and what it includes or does not include. SET or PP class A amps really have nothing to do with this; it is quite incidental, if fortuitous, that from the same master tape they are better at reproducing the sound *heard in the concert hall* than silicon. You mean that a SET amplifier is (in effect) a combined effects box and amplifier, that can compensate for arbitrary mistakes made by the recording engineer endeavouring to put the concert hall sound onto the master tape. If so, SETs are indeed remarkable. BugBear Hello BB. Is this supposed to be humour? I saw no smiley. As for "arbitrary mistakes made by the recording engineer endeavouring to put the concert hall sound onto the master tape" Your comment suggests that you know little about recording. Anything less "arbitrary" is difficult to imagine. Hopefully you know more about SET amps. Have you ever built, or listened to one? Iain |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
"Iain Churches" wrote in message ... "bugbear" wrote in message ... Andre Jute wrote: You see, the key argument the silicon slime make is that their responsibility stops at the point wher they can prove that their amps reproduce the master tape perfectly. But that is never the sound one heard in the concert hall. The argument then shifts to the master tape and what it includes or does not include. SET or PP class A amps really have nothing to do with this; it is quite incidental, if fortuitous, that from the same master tape they are better at reproducing the sound *heard in the concert hall* than silicon. You mean that a SET amplifier is (in effect) a combined effects box and amplifier, that can compensate for arbitrary mistakes made by the recording engineer endeavouring to put the concert hall sound onto the master tape. If so, SETs are indeed remarkable. BugBear Hello BB. Is this supposed to be humour? I saw no smiley. As for "arbitrary mistakes made by the recording engineer endeavouring to put the concert hall sound onto the master tape" Your comment suggests that you know little about recording. Anything less "arbitrary" is difficult to imagine. Hopefully you know more about SET amps. Have you ever built, or listened to one? I'm with Andre on this - I'm not going to apologise for or try to explain why I like SETs. Maybe, like Jazz (or Joan Baez Vols 1 and 2), they ain't for the Great Unwashed after all....?? **** 'em.... |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Keith G wrote:
I'm with Andre on this - I'm not going to apologise for or try to explain why I like SETs. Interesting approach to a discussion forum. BugBear |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Do we have time to ask why the Mona Lisa is the best painting in the world?
Chinese again ... A Mona Lisa for £7.50? No problem. But a freshly painted Dali may take a little longer http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle339995.ece Mona Lisa for $20? No problem - 25 Jan 2006 - Lifestyle & Leisure http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/6/...ectid=10365204 Or ... Software speculates why Mona Lisa smiles http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journal...g/13578996.htm Nah ... |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
"Iain Churches" wrote in message ... "bugbear" wrote in message ... Keith G wrote: I'm with Andre on this - I'm not going to apologise for or try to explain why I like SETs. Interesting approach to a discussion forum. It's all been said before, BB, and as Patrick Turner says: "Most chefs will never discuss cooking with a mob of ppl who only buy take aways. There is no point." Nicely put:-) Yes, it was!! :-) |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
It's all been said before, BB, and as Patrick Turner says:
"Most chefs will never discuss cooking with a mob of ppl who only buy take aways. There is no point." Let's examine this analogy, as it is so far off the mark in this case. What is a "chef"... as opposed to a "cook"? Well. At the very most basic level, a chef performs artistry with food _On Command_. And does repeat the performance multiple times, also on command, whether they like it (or their customers) or not sometimes. And 100% of their custom are individuals who buy 'take-aways' even if only to the table in the restaurant (at the most basic level (again)) as they do not sit with their customers typically. Oh, or is it that you mean the Music-Hall type chef with the waxed moustache screaming and holding his head... usually winding up with a cream pie in his face? But, following the analogy a bit further, it appears that you who use this analogy are comparing yourselves to "chefs".... otherwise, why use an inept example? So, as Chefs, you must be used to performance-on-command... for others who wish to avail themselves of your cooking. And to do so repeatedly whether you like it or not. Now, speaking for myself and my personal experiences in restaurants from Dubai to Khobar to Manama to Istanbul to London (Yechhh!) to New York, to San Francisco, Montreal, Quebec and more, if one expresses even the slightest interest in the food served, the chef will talk your ears off. In one case, I made a bet with a chef (and was he!) that if I called out every ingredient in his signature soup, he would cook a special meal for us... I did, even to the process. The meal was sublime. He refused to let us pay, but we did make sure that the waiter received his due. (And if anyone wants the recipe... it is for cream-of-mushroom soup from a restaurant in Al-Riffa in Bahrain - takes a minimum of 24 hours to make from scratch). So, if you are well-and-truly chefs, then you are, in fact, artistic servants to the great unwashed. Otherwise, you are merely cooks... preparing likely marginal food using questionable ingredients, as you do not care to discuss them. Somehow, the cream pie and waxed moustache look more and more apt... Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
wrote in message oups.com... It's all been said before, BB, and as Patrick Turner says: "Most chefs will never discuss cooking with a mob of ppl who only buy take aways. There is no point." Let's examine this analogy, as it is so far off the mark in this case. What is a "chef"... as opposed to a "cook"? Well. At the very most basic level, a chef performs artistry with food _On Command_. And does repeat the performance multiple times, also on command, whether they like it (or their customers) or not sometimes. And 100% of their custom are individuals who buy 'take-aways' even if only to the table in the restaurant (at the most basic level (again)) as they do not sit with their customers typically. Oh, or is it that you mean the Music-Hall type chef with the waxed moustache screaming and holding his head... usually winding up with a cream pie in his face? But, following the analogy a bit further, it appears that you who use this analogy are comparing yourselves to "chefs".... otherwise, why use an inept example? So, as Chefs, you must be used to performance-on-command... for others who wish to avail themselves of your cooking. And to do so repeatedly whether you like it or not. Now, speaking for myself and my personal experiences in restaurants from Dubai to Khobar to Manama to Istanbul to London (Yechhh!) to New York, to San Francisco, Montreal, Quebec and more, if one expresses even the slightest interest in the food served, the chef will talk your ears off. In one case, I made a bet with a chef (and was he!) that if I called out every ingredient in his signature soup, he would cook a special meal for us... I did, even to the process. The meal was sublime. He refused to let us pay, but we did make sure that the waiter received his due. (And if anyone wants the recipe... it is for cream-of-mushroom soup from a restaurant in Al-Riffa in Bahrain - takes a minimum of 24 hours to make from scratch). So, if you are well-and-truly chefs, then you are, in fact, artistic servants to the great unwashed. Otherwise, you are merely cooks... preparing likely marginal food using questionable ingredients, as you do not care to discuss them. Somehow, the cream pie and waxed moustache look more and more apt... Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA Entertaining post. Peter. Thanks:-) I put a much more simple interpretation on what Patrick wrote. I saw the analogy between someone who takes pride in making a good soup, which he tastes and flavours, to perfection, in comnparison with those who are happy with a limp pizza or half warm Chinese take-away. By the way, have you noticed how many tube-audiophiles are also very good cooks? I know several. Iain |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Iain:
Words are many things. Tools, weapons, great fun, scalpels, almost anything that can be imagined. I try to pay attention to them, both what is 'written' and if discernable, what is 'meant'. Too often they are not the same. And far too often they are used as a smoke-screen to either hide a lack of understanding or to prevent enlightenment. Both, commonly here, and often by the same person in the same post. So when I see cultists climbing up on a flimsy analogy rather than engage in actual discussion it is great fun to provide that tiny puff of wind... If just to get all feet back on the ground and perhaps clear away the smoke. Keep in mind that the cultists will never understand that they are being tweaked. By the way, have you noticed how many tube-audiophiles are also very good cooks? I know several. The congruences I have noticed a Predominantly (though not exclusively) male Cooking Cats Very good looking women (those who are interested in such) Pendulum Clocks And usually at least one other mechanical hobby (in my case, R/C submarines & boats). And applicable to those who _enjoy_ the _hobby_, not making a religion (or especially a crusade) of it. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
wrote in message oups.com... Iain: Words are many things. Tools, weapons, great fun, scalpels, almost anything that can be imagined. I try to pay attention to them, both what is 'written' and if discernable, what is 'meant'. Too often they are not the same. And far too often they are used as a smoke-screen to either hide a lack of understanding or to prevent enlightenment. Both, commonly here, and often by the same person in the same post. So when I see cultists climbing up on a flimsy analogy rather than engage in actual discussion it is great fun to provide that tiny puff of wind... If just to get all feet back on the ground and perhaps clear away the smoke. Keep in mind that the cultists will never understand that they are being tweaked. Hello Peter. I can't really say I am a SET person (though I have been impressed by what I have heard, with certain small-ensemble classical music) But I am a "bottlehead", and have been for most my life, except for a short excursion in SS-land in the early 1970s. Perhaps it is some kind of an escape for me, from the environ of digital consoles high power SS amplifiers, and digital audio workstations, in which I spend most of my time. But I get huge enjoyment from my tube amps, perhaps because like many "bottleheads" I build my own- much better value for money, and I can get every aesthetic detail just as I want it - right down to the number of inputs, their sensitivity levels - even the engraving on the front logo and knobs. http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches/Pics/C50_002.jpg You were asking the difference between a chef and a cook? Maybe that's it. No take-aways for me:-) There are many dedicated people on RAT, from whom one always gets help advice and encouragement.both on and off group. By the way, have you noticed how many tube-audiophiles are also very good cooks? I know several. The congruences I have noticed a Predominantly (though not exclusively) male Cooking Cats Very good looking women (those who are interested in such) Pendulum Clocks And usually at least one other mechanical hobby (in my case, R/C submarines & boats). Sacre bleu! I am fascinated by all of the above - though not necessarily in the order in which you list them and I would substitute British military history and black powder muskets for your submarine. Though I did once have the chance to look round a Russian nuclear submarine, a sister ship to the ill-fated Kursk, while it was on a goodwill tour of the Baltic ports. And applicable to those who _enjoy_ the _hobby_, not making a religion (or especially a crusade) of it. Why does it have to be a crusade? Why are so many people who enjoy valve/tube audio reluctant to say so? I frequently get e-mails from people who "lurk" on RAT and other groups, but don't have the courage to post or ask questions for fear of being ostracized by others. That's a shame! I count myself fortunate that I have been a recording professional all my working life and have enjoyed every minute of it. Personally, it is not important to me if people choose an SS, a valve/tubePP or valve/tube SET system. What is important, and makes me happy, is that they are listening to and enjoying music. Best regards Iain |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
"Iain Churches" wrote Sacre bleu! I am fascinated by all of the above - though not necessarily in the order in which you list them and I would substitute British military history and black powder muskets for your submarine. Indeed?? I used to own and (as Secretary of Stevenage Rifle Club) regularly shoot: A Parker Hale replica Enfield 1858 two-band .477 Naval Rifle!! http://www.lrml.org/parkerhale/rifles.htm And a 'Cape ???' (forget now) double-barelled 12 bore black-powder shotgun (*not* a 'Cape' combination gun!) http://www.cherrys.com/stokpics/15878the.jpg And a Uberti 'Navy Colt' .44 cap & ball percussion revolver. http://www.uberti.com/firearms/1861-navy.tpl **Excellent fun**!! I think I regret stopping, 'til my 'clay pigeon' mate Len comes round - deef as a beetle now.... Small world though, innit?? And applicable to those who _enjoy_ the _hobby_, not making a religion (or especially a crusade) of it. Why does it have to be a crusade? It isn't a crusade - what we have had in ukra is a prolonged and spirited defence of valves as 'valid audio kit' by a small few (me, mostly until you arrived) against an unending onslaught from a few (not that many) who, having burnt their valves and vinyl boats a few years ago (ie invested heavily in ss and CD), have proceded to twist every favourable comment about valves into a false, 'strawman' arguments about 'fidelity' and 'accuracy'.... (To my knowledge, *no-one* has ever claimed 'valve superiority' in either respect - I certainly haven't!!) Now that valves are back in the shops amd mags, it seems to be that there has been some degree of concession to the latest trend and the *argument* has now shifted to 'SET vs PP'...!! :-)) Why are so many people who enjoy valve/tube audio reluctant to say so? I frequently get e-mails from people who "lurk" on RAT and other groups, but don't have the courage to post or ask questions for fear of being ostracized by others. Yes, I have had *tons* of that....!! |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Iain Churches wrote
It's all been said before No it hasn't. If you despise the new and tire of the old, you may as well die. Progress has no use for you. Perhaps you like to think that what you don't understand is just some code for what you already know, so you can't be arsed to make an effort. Not picking on you in particular...everyone more or less. ... and as Patrick Turner says: "Most chefs will never discuss cooking with a mob of ppl who only buy take aways. There is no point." Nicely put:-) But not very bright coming from a take-away chef. A cook is a lover, a chef is a prostitute. A back-street take-away chef is not a pleasant ****er. cheers, Ian |
SETs and the sound of real musicians playing
Ian Iveson wrote: Iain Churches wrote It's all been said before No it hasn't. If you despise the new and tire of the old, you may as well die. Progress has no use for you. Depends on who says what Ian. Perhaps you like to think that what you don't understand is just some code for what you already know, so you can't be arsed to make an effort. You have an anal fixation...... Not picking on you in particular...everyone more or less. ... and as Patrick Turner says: "Most chefs will never discuss cooking with a mob of ppl who only buy take aways. There is no point." Nicely put:-) But not very bright coming from a take-away chef. A cook is a lover, a chef is a prostitute. A back-street take-away chef is not a pleasant ****er. Where does that place you Ian? Are your the ****ee, or the ****er? Prostitution prospers only when wiling clients pay to consumate the service presented. Marriage was supposed to have been invented so the services of a prostitute can be given without paying money, and given freely. It allows cooking to happen without a chef's fee having to be paid. But since marriage has gone the way of the dodo, women charge men for services of cooking and sex, both supposed to be actions of love. The least said sentance in the english language is " Jus lie down here luvvy, it won't cost yer anyfink " The next least said sentance is "jus you sit down while i cook something nice" But a good chef can be a good cook; the commercial reward for good cooking does not sully a chef' reputation; on the contrary, the great chef will be paid well for his great cooking, rather like the great ****er gets paid well for her exquistite loving. ( Although while her services are not attractive to me since I don't like lining up to be the 49th client in a week, I don't mind being the 49th customer at a restaurant ) I am not desperate to hear much old BS from Ian though. Patrick Turner. cheers, Ian |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk