The shite wot is writ here...
 

Wally wrote:
wrote:

Ancient technology?
How would you describe something dating back to well over 100 years?

Depends on what it is. If it's a redwood I describe it as new growth.

Since when is a tree "technology"?

Since when is "something" limited to technology?




If it's technology like Photography I describe it as mature. If it's
something like oil painting or sculpting I describe it as timeless. Do
you have or know of any records that are "well over 100 years" old?

Nice collection of straw men.

Nice collection of "somethings." Do you understand the word
"something?"




Just because you claim you can enjoy an LP doesn't mean you have a
grip on reality. That you would use this as an argument suggests you
have a long way to go. Maybe you can provide us with some evidence in
the way of bias controlled listening comparisons?

Take a look at some of your own arguments. (Sheesh! tm)


Learn to read.


Scott

The shite wot is writ here...
 

wrote:

Learn to read.

I can. You shifted the context and presented a bunch of irrelevant
counter-examples. ****-poor effort, dude.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Stress: You wake up screaming and realise you haven't fallen asleep yet.

The shite wot is writ here...
 

Wally wrote:
wrote:

Learn to read.

I can.

Barely.

You shifted the context and presented a bunch of irrelevant
counter-examples. ****-poor effort, dude.

Wrong. Guess again.

Scott

The shite wot is writ here...
 

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:29:40 +0100, "Wally" wrote:

wrote:

Learn to read.

I can. You shifted the context and presented a bunch of irrelevant
counter-examples. ****-poor effort, dude.

Wally, Scott is a troll of the first order - he will constantly shift
his ground and say the most ridiculous things simply to stir an
argument. Do what I have done and bin him - he is one of a pair in my
killfile along with Phil Allison. For very good reasons neither will
be coming out - ever.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

The shite wot is writ here...
 

Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:29:40 +0100, "Wally" wrote:

wrote:

Learn to read.

I can. You shifted the context and presented a bunch of irrelevant
counter-examples. ****-poor effort, dude.

Wally, Scott is a troll of the first order - he will constantly shift
his ground and say the most ridiculous things simply to stir an
argument.

You mean ridiculous things like no LP has ever been made without rolled
off highs and summed bass? Oh wait I didn't say that you did. I am
quite sure the list of ridiculous things you have said about audio is
quite long. Care to cite one specific thing I said that rises to the
same level of ridiculousness as the one I just cited by you?

Do what I have done and bin him - he is one of a pair in my
killfile along with Phil Allison.


Has Phil called you on your bull**** too?


For very good reasons neither will
be coming out - ever.


"Coming out?" Are you fishing for a gay lover? I don' go that way.


Scott

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I was talking about *this* NG.
There are very few fettlers.

Seems to me the 'fettlers' are mainly those who mess about with ancient
technology which by nature *needs* fettling.

:-)) I would hardly call checking the bias on a quad of EL34s every three
months as fettling, Dave. Owning a valve amp is no more demanding than
that. But, I was referring to the people who actually get up off their
backsides and draw and build something, right from scratch.
It takes a lot of dedication - most people take the softer option
of an amp from a cardboard carton:-)

Not that there's anything wrong with that as a hobby.

Or as a profession either. I am sure you know of Patrick Turner,
Erik Lindholm, and many others who make a good living building
bespoke valve amps for a discerning clientele. More importantly
they are happy and totally committed to what they are doing.

Anymore than playing around with old cars,
etc. As long as one retains a hold on reality...

What is reality? Please don't tell me that sound-sync for
TV soaps or recording string quartets has anything to do with
reality :-)))

regards
Iain

The shite wot is writ here...
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
Kef had an even larger driver than the B139, known as the B1814 which
was eighteen by fourteen inches. It was used in the Kef K1 monitor. I
have a pair of these, ex BBC. They can bee seen at:

http://www.kef.com/history/1960/k1monitor.asp

Why do all cabinets of that era look like ( as dull as ) Lockwoods ?

Lockwood, of course, started out as cabinet makers and supplied the BBC
with all sorts of custom made enclosures not only related to audio. Then
ventured into speaker making. For a while they were flavour of the month
for pop monitoring. Dunno if they still exist.


They sounded very good indeed, and were the pop studio monitor
of choice for many years. When Tannoy started their prof division,
production of Lockwood loudspeakers ceased.

Iain