"Paul" grabbed his cock again and typed with one hand:


Yawn Not quite what I had hoped for but pretty much what I had
expected.


Yes, with your abrasive and abusive manner, I'm not surprised you expect
that sort of thing - you must be pretty used to it...



Make that *might* get back to you later - I'm not sure you've typed
anything yet worth reading, let alone replying to....


Not sure? Need more time?


Nope...



...perhaps you could list the kit you use, ...

Nope.


Now, why am I *so* not surprised?

Another *all mouth and no trousers* blow-in with enough yap to silence the
Tokyo Stock Exchange (and not much else)....

Most (not all) of my stuff is he

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/


Some of us ain't too scared to show what we got *whatever* clowns like you
might think of it....



If you have indeed read any of my posts


No, I haven't really - a glimpse of the earliest ones was enough...


Over and out?


Blew in, blew up, blew out and blew over....

In article ,
Paul wrote:
Sockpuppet "Paul" dropped his cock for a moment
and wrote:


Yawn Not quite what I had hoped for but pretty much what I had
expected.

Mr G seems to have a fascination with the male member at the moment.
Perhaps that fits in with his horn fetish.

--
*The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Paul wrote:
Sockpuppet "Paul" dropped his cock for a moment
and wrote:


Yawn Not quite what I had hoped for but pretty much what I had
expected.

Mr G seems to have a fascination with the male member at the moment.
Perhaps that fits in with his horn fetish.



One thing's a *given* in here - mention the word 'cock' and Plowie comes
a'runnin'...!!

:-))

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Paul wrote:
Sockpuppet "Paul" dropped his cock for a
moment and wrote:


Yawn Not quite what I had hoped for but pretty much what I had
expected.

Mr G seems to have a fascination with the male member at the moment.
Perhaps that fits in with his horn fetish.



One thing's a *given* in here - mention the word 'cock' and Plowie comes
a'runnin'...!!

That'll be why you mention it so often?

--
*How much deeper would the oceans be without sponges? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Paul wrote:
Sockpuppet "Paul" dropped his cock for a
moment and wrote:


Yawn Not quite what I had hoped for but pretty much what I had
expected.

Mr G seems to have a fascination with the male member at the moment.
Perhaps that fits in with his horn fetish.



One thing's a *given* in here - mention the word 'cock' and Plowie comes
a'runnin'...!!

That'll be why you mention it so often?


Guess I gotcha again, Plowie!! :-)

(Too easy.....!! :-))


Wanna try *penis* now...???

:-)

Paul wrote:

I couldn't argue with that but reason does tell me that the first and
most important area for examination must be the source (capture and
retrieval). I find it interesting that, at the other end of the
system, we again have immense scope for 'messing up' earlier good
work - another mechanical device.
While I haven't seen them mentioned in this group (perhaps a dirty
word?), what is your view on headphones?

For a moment, there, I thought you were going to say microphones. In a
universe of perfect fidelity, but where the living rooms are too small to
house a live orchestra, where does the aforementioned mechanical device, the
acoustic properties of which are bound by the laws of physics, fit in?

If microphones don't produce perfect fidelity, and if there is no
alternative means of converting sound into some sort of recording medium,
doesn't that mean that 'high fidelity' is actually concerned with 'listening
to microphones'?


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.

I'd agree. However the only real control over that which most of us get is
to choose with the care the LP/CD/broadcasts we listen to. It is one of
the
reasons I am a long-term 'fan' of BBC Radio 3 as their broadcasting people
often do a wonderful job of capturing the sound of a live performance.


True, we are invariably at the mercy of the recording/broadcasting
engineers.
Their efforts will be deemed satisfactory to some and less so to others. Win
some - lose some.
However, as I believe you will agree, our 'job' should be to faithfully
reproduce
the product as closely as we possibly can, be it good or bad.

I am reminded of a friend, many years ago, being upset over a CD he had
bought.
Having listened, I could clearly hear clicks and pops! If nothing else, it
had novelty value!
In this particular case I would imagine that the original masters had been
lost or destroyed.
Rather a shame that a better quality LP was not found but grateful, non the
less, that they did it.
I am in two minds whether any attempt should have been made to
electronically 'clean' it up.
Still, more importantly, the music had been preserved and made available for
the enjoyment of all.


I find it interesting that, at the other end of the system,
we again have immense scope for 'messing up' earlier good work -
another mechanical device. While I haven't seen them mentioned in this
group (perhaps a dirty word?), what is your view on headphones?

Personally, I use them for 'editing' type purposes. But I tend to find
them
uncomfortable for serious listening, and prefer good speakers, carefully
placed in the room. However they can deliver excellent results. Again,
however this depends on the source material as well as the tastes of the
end-user.


I am only on my second set in 30 years. The first, while very good, were
heavy and had a tendency
to fall off! Not a substitute for good speakers perhaps but certainly have
their place.
Ah, 'editing'. I recall the experience of creating my first CD. I recorded
the content as best I could,
balanced tracks, applied necessary EQ etc and mixed down to the final
master. A final listen to
make sure all was well and a few minutes later I had a CD in my hands and a
grin on my face!
Dropping it into my system, I sat back to enjoy the fruits of my labours.
Bang - bubble burst!
I now know the importance of using a descent pair of studio monitors!
I doubt whether all pro studios use the same monitors (and obviously not the
same ears)... best not to think about it!

Paul.

In article ,
Paul wrote:
I doubt whether all pro studios use the same monitors (and obviously not
the same ears)... best not to think about it!

The speakers are often custom built for each individual control room.

So called nearfield monitors are often the same in different studios,
though.

--
*How's my driving? Call 999*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So called nearfield monitors are often the same in different studios,
though.

What is it that makes them 'nearfield'? Do they lose something if they're
used at normal living room distances? IOW, would they be okay as mid/top for
domestic use if the bass was filled by something else?


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

For a moment, there, I thought you were going to say microphones. In a
universe of perfect fidelity, but where the living rooms are too small to
house a live orchestra, where does the aforementioned mechanical device,
the
acoustic properties of which are bound by the laws of physics, fit in?

To my mind, it 'fits' simply because it's the best that can be done (at
present) with regard
air borne sources. Clearly, not relevant to non air borne sources.
Regardless of source, as the final item in the chain is also mechanical, we
will always suffer the impact on the product that physics predicts.
(Until, of course, we are able (and willing) to plug our brains directly
into the system!)
The source signal, regardless of how it is captured, is the source signal
that we have to work with.
Undoubtedly it is tainted by many things (as well as the engineers
preference).
This thing of concern to me is how I can best reproduce the program content
of the master.
Whatever its 'quality', that is the reference by which we determine fidelity
within our systems is it not?
How well a system can faithfully reproduce the signal *presented to it* is
how I determine High Fidelity.

If microphones don't produce perfect fidelity, and if there is no
alternative means of converting sound into some sort of recording medium,
doesn't that mean that 'high fidelity' is actually concerned with
'listening
to microphones'?


No not at all. Hopefully clarified above.
In short: maintaining the fidelity of the master.

Paul