|
|
Intelligence and RIAA
In article .com,
Peter Wieck wrote: John: Whoops: http://www.graniteaudio.com/phono/page5.html should get you there. For the record: Whatever positions and suppositions you may take, and from whatever point of view, whichever cutting head and system, the actual subject-at-hand is the *present* RIAA Curve as practiced each day. This is presumably a fixed value both on recording and playback. That curve is at the bottom of the article. The Bass Boost and the Treble Cut on playback cross the Bass Cut and Treble Boost on recording at ~1.2Khz.... not quite what you are writing. References are at the bottom of the article. Peter, this article assumes that a "magnetic" pickup is being used to reproduce the LP. "Magnetic" pickups do not respond directly to the amplitude of the signal recorded in the LP's grooves and requires compensation. Let me attempt to explain, I'm going to assume that you have some knowledge of math and know what differentiation is. Let's consider an LP recording which has had a music signal cut into it. Now in our playback system we need to read the amplitude of the signal cut into the disc and convert it into an electrical signal of varying amplitude to drive our speaker system, while along the way undoing any amplitude equalization that was incorporated when the music signal was originally cut into the disc using the RIAA record equalization. Now you are insisting that RIAA playback equalization involves a large high frequency cut approximating some 38 dB, while I claim that RIAA playback equalization involves the boosting of the amplitude of the high frequency signals cut into the disc by approximately 12 dB. What accounts for the difference in our perspectives? The difference is simply explained by the fact that you are lumping two separate equalization curves together while I am talking about only the equalization necessary to counter the RIAA amplitude equalization applied when the music was cut into the grooves of the record. Then article you cite assumes that the LP is being played with a "magnetic" pickup. It is a characteristic of "magnetic" pickups that they differentiate the amplitude of the music signal cut into the record groove to produce the electrical output. The differentiation of the recorded amplitude causes the signal output of the "magnetic" pickup to be tilted upwards towards the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per octave, which results in a very tinny sound unless this effect is compensated for. To restore the output of the "magnetic" pickup back to a flat representation of the recorded amplitude on the disc, we must pass its output through an integrator circuit. An integrator produces a response which falls towards the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per octave, falling approximately 50 dB at 15 kHz vs. 50 Hz, this is the first part of your equalizer. The second part of your equalizer is the same as my RIAA amplitude equalizer and consists of shelving the high frequencies up by approximately 12 dB using the time constants of 318.3 usec. and 75 usec.. When you combine the "magnetic" pickup equalizer and the RIAA amplitude equalizer into a single composite circuit you have what you call "RIAA equalization". This equalization is the sum of a 50 dB high frequency cut for "magnetic" pickup compensation and a high frequency boost of 12 dB for RIAA amplitude equalization, giving a net high frequency cut of 38 dB for the combined network. Using a pickup that is directly responsive to the recorded groove amplitude, like say an FM pickup, or a strain gauge pickup, eliminates the need for the pickup compensation integrator required with a "magnetic" pickup, and leaves us with the need to provide only the 12 dB high frequency boost required by the RIAA cutting curve. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
Intelligence and RIAA
John Byrns wrote:
the rate at which the stylus moves during its swings - low-frequency signals would be recorded with a much larger swing than high-frequency signals of the same original amplitude. So, the low frequency grooves would be much wider than the grooves on an equalized disk. This is only because you have chosen to take a velocity centric perspective, if you took the more natural groove amplitude view, you would see that the low frequency grooves would be no wider than high frequency grooves, ? Yep, you're a tube guy all right... |
Intelligence and RIAA
On May 15, 5:33 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article .com, Peter Wieck wrote: John: Whoops: http://www.graniteaudio.com/phono/page5.html should get you there. For the record: Whatever positions and suppositions you may take, and from whatever point of view, whichever cutting head and system, the actual subject-at-hand is the *present* RIAA Curve as practiced each day. This is presumably a fixed value both on recording and playback. That curve is at the bottom of the article. The Bass Boost and the Treble Cut on playback cross the Bass Cut and Treble Boost on recording at ~1.2Khz.... not quite what you are writing. References are at the bottom of the article. Peter, this article assumes that a "magnetic" pickup is being used to reproduce the LP. "Magnetic" pickups do not respond directly to the amplitude of the signal recorded in the LP's grooves and requires compensation. Let me attempt to explain, I'm going to assume that you have some knowledge of math and know what differentiation is. Let's consider an LP recording which has had a music signal cut into it. Now in our playback system we need to read the amplitude of the signal cut into the disc and convert it into an electrical signal of varying amplitude to drive our speaker system, while along the way undoing any amplitude equalization that was incorporated when the music signal was originally cut into the disc using the RIAA record equalization. Now you are insisting that RIAA playback equalization involves a large high frequency cut approximating some 38 dB, while I claim that RIAA playback equalization involves the boosting of the amplitude of the high frequency signals cut into the disc by approximately 12 dB. What accounts for the difference in our perspectives? The difference is simply explained by the fact that you are lumping two separate equalization curves together while I am talking about only the equalization necessary to counter the RIAA amplitude equalization applied when the music was cut into the grooves of the record. Then article you cite assumes that the LP is being played with a "magnetic" pickup. It is a characteristic of "magnetic" pickups that they differentiate the amplitude of the music signal cut into the record groove to produce the electrical output. The differentiation of the recorded amplitude causes the signal output of the "magnetic" pickup to be tilted upwards towards the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per octave, which results in a very tinny sound unless this effect is compensated for. To restore the output of the "magnetic" pickup back to a flat representation of the recorded amplitude on the disc, we must pass its output through an integrator circuit. An integrator produces a response which falls towards the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per octave, falling approximately 50 dB at 15 kHz vs. 50 Hz, this is the first part of your equalizer. The second part of your equalizer is the same as my RIAA amplitude equalizer and consists of shelving the high frequencies up by approximately 12 dB using the time constants of 318.3 usec. and 75 usec.. When you combine the "magnetic" pickup equalizer and the RIAA amplitude equalizer into a single composite circuit you have what you call "RIAA equalization". This equalization is the sum of a 50 dB high frequency cut for "magnetic" pickup compensation and a high frequency boost of 12 dB for RIAA amplitude equalization, giving a net high frequency cut of 38 dB for the combined network. Using a pickup that is directly responsive to the recorded groove amplitude, like say an FM pickup, or a strain gauge pickup, eliminates the need for the pickup compensation integrator required with a "magnetic" pickup, and leaves us with the need to provide only the 12 dB high frequency boost required by the RIAA cutting curve. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Fly **** on the left, pepper on the right. John, you cannot _EVER_ admit that you have it wrong, and you search for the exception every time. Every damned pick-up I have from the Ortophon MC-20 & MC-30 through various Shures and Grados is "magnetic". The order-of-discussion is not strain-gauge pick-ups, crystal pick-ups (which do not get RIAA equalization). What is the order-of-discussion is those pick-ups that I have as part of the "great unwashed" and use every damned day. Either on my Revox, or my Rabcos or whatever else I choose to use. So, for those beasts as-used by the bulk of the individuals here, Bass is boosted, Treble is cut. On Playback. And Bass is cut and Treble is boosted. On recording. However much smoke and mirrors you might throw to the contrary, that just happens to be .... the .... way .... it .... is. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA Any other suggestions? |
Intelligence and RIAA
John Byrns wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: John: Whoops: http://www.graniteaudio.com/phono/page5.html should get you there. For the record: Whatever positions and suppositions you may take, and from whatever point of view, whichever cutting head and system, the actual subject-at-hand is the *present* RIAA Curve as practiced each day. This is presumably a fixed value both on recording and playback. That curve is at the bottom of the article. The Bass Boost and the Treble Cut on playback cross the Bass Cut and Treble Boost on recording at ~1.2Khz.... not quite what you are writing. References are at the bottom of the article. Peter, this article assumes that a "magnetic" pickup is being used to reproduce the LP. "Magnetic" pickups do not respond directly to the amplitude of the signal recorded in the LP's grooves and requires compensation. Let me attempt to explain, I'm going to assume that you have some knowledge of math and know what differentiation is. Why makes it so complicated ? The magnetic pickup responds not just to the amplitude of the signal in the groove but it's rate of change too. So a signal of the same amplitude on the disc at say 2kHz will produce a voltage at the pickup that's twice what it would be at 1kHz. Graham |
Intelligence and RIAA/cycling and fitness.
John Byrns wrote: In article , Patrick Turner wrote: When you get lean and fit, the natural heart rate at rest will fall from a common 64BPM down to say 52BPM even if you are 60 like me. A young bloke of 25 who did the exercize I take would benefit even more greatly, and have a HR maybe 45. When I was fit when 40, my HR was 47BPM. But how do you tell time properly if your resting heart rate isn't a nice 60 BPM? Also notice that 60 neatly factors into 2*2*3*5. I have business that runs to TA time, and to extend the days to make more time than other ppl have, i lowered heartrate to 52 which isn't bad for an old codger like me. When I have expired totally, the heart won't have to keep time, and days will stretch infinitely, and I will not have to worry how long anything takes, and can luxuriate my mind by considering all there is to consider that is mathematically beautiful about gain/phase shift/NFB/stability equations. They say the Band Up There needs some better PA gear...... 52 is unlucky, with factors of 2 x 2 x 13. I should watch my step. Patrick Turner. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
Intelligence and RIAA/cycling and fitness.
Keith G wrote: snip, 60 eh? - I'm 60 *tomorrow*!! :-) Look, I lied a bit. I have 2 months to go before 60 arrives. I feel 30 most days Patrick Turner. |
Intelligence and RIAA
In article .com,
Peter Wieck wrote: Fly **** on the left, pepper on the right. John, you cannot _EVER_ admit that you have it wrong, and you search for the exception every time. Peter, you are one sick puppy and a liar to boot. If you truly believe that I cannot _EVER_ admit that I have it wrong, I suggest you check the exchange I had with Henry Pasternack last Friday and Saturday in the thread titled "Stability in Feedback Amplifiers, Part Deux-A" where I opened a posting Saturday afternoon with these words "Hi Henry, You are absolutely correct, I was wrong, the "KAB" network does provide an exact solution for the for the RIAA playback curve as you have demonstrated." What do you make of that? There is no exception here, I am explaining how it works without any exceptions, there is no other way for it to work. Your problem is that you get a distorted view of me because when we disagree you are invariably wrong, as now. Every damned pick-up I have from the Ortophon MC-20 & MC-30 through various Shures and Grados is "magnetic". I have no doubt of that, however there are plenty of pickups in the world that aren't "magnetic". But that is really beside the point as my mention of "magnetic" pickups was simply an attempt to try explaining to you something you apparently don't know about "magnetic" pickups and their equalization requirements. The point I have been making is the relationship between the amplitude of the electric signal coming from the microphone and the amplitude of the modulations etched in the grooves of an LP cut according to the RIAA recording curve. This has nothing to do with the type of pickup that is ultimately used to reproduce the LP, although obviously different types of pickups will have different equalization requirements when playing the same record. Now here is the relevant experiment for you to try. First take an audio frequency sweep generator and feed its output into the cutting system through the RIAA record equalizer and on to the cutting head. Set the generator to sweep from 50 Hz up through 15 kHz with a constant output level at all frequencies, set the level low enough so that it doesn't smoke the cutting head at the high frequency end of the sweep. Next record the frequency sweep onto a disc. Finally by whatever method you prefer, measure the amplitude of the modulations cut into the grooves of the LP at a sufficient number of frequency points so that you can draw a graph of the recorded groove amplitude vs. frequency. Now look at the shape of the groove amplitude graph you have just drawn, which represents the total equalization applied to the constant amplitude frequency sweep signal that you have recorded. What you will see is that the amplitude of the high frequencies cut into the LP's grooves are shelved down by approximately 12 dB, not boosted as you claim. You have provided no evidence to show that what I have said is wrong, you are simply using vigorous assertion to press your position without even bothering to advance a single argument in support your position. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
Intelligence and RIAA
On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:31:24 -0500, John Byrns
wrote: In article , (Don Pearce) wrote: John, are you still insisting that RIAA playback requires high frequency boost? It doesn't. An RIAA phono preamp has a feedback mechanism that provides high frequency cut. I have designed several myself, and studied the circuits and operation of many. Had I (and every other designer on the planet) been getting it wrong all the time, our systems would be muffled and entirely without top. They are not; they play back just fine, and certainly for my own, when I play a white noise track on a test disc (recorded with standard pre-emphasis before you say anything), I recover noise which is flat within about 1dB from 30Hz to 20kHz. *Please* go and do some reading so you can back away gracefully from this ridiculous position you are placing yourself in. Don, yes I am still insisting that RIAA playback requires high frequency boost. Why are you suggesting that I might want to back away from this position? Let me attempt to explain, I'm going to assume that you have some knowledge of math and know what differentiation is. Let's consider an LP recording which has had a music signal cut into it. Now in our playback system we need to read the amplitude of the signal cut into the disc and convert it into an electrical signal of varying amplitude to drive our speaker system, while along the way undoing any amplitude equalization that was incorporated when the music signal was originally cut into the disc using the RIAA record equalization. Now you are insisting that RIAA playback equalization involves a large high frequency cut approximating some 38 dB, while I claim that RIAA playback equalization involves the boosting of the amplitude of the high frequency signals cut into the disc by approximately 12 dB. What accounts for the difference in our perspectives? The difference is simply explained by the fact that you are lumping two separate equalization curves together while I am talking about only the equalization necessary to counter the RIAA amplitude equalization applied when the music was cut into the grooves of the record. You are assuming that the LP is being played with a "magnetic" pickup. It is a characteristic of "magnetic" pickups that they differentiate the amplitude of the music signal cut into the record groove to produce the electrical output. The differentiation of the recorded amplitude causes the signal output of the "magnetic" pickup to be tilted upwards towards the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per octave, which results in a very tinny sound unless this effect is compensated for. To restore the output of the "magnetic" pickup back to a flat representation of the recorded amplitude on the disc, we must pass its output through an integrator circuit. An integrator produces a response which falls towards the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per octave, falling approximately 50 dB at 15 kHz vs. 50 Hz, this is the first part of your equalizer. The second part of your equalizer is the same as my RIAA amplitude equalizer and consists of shelving the high frequencies up by approximately 12 dB using the time constants of 318.3 usec. and 75 usec.. When you combine the "magnetic" pickup equalizer and the RIAA amplitude equalizer into a single composite circuit you have what you call "RIAA equalization". This equalization is the sum of a 50 dB high frequency cut for "magnetic" pickup compensation and a high frequency boost of 12 dB for RIAA amplitude equalization, giving a net high frequency cut of 38 dB for the combined network. Using a pickup that is directly responsive to the recorded groove amplitude, like say an FM pickup, or a strain gauge pickup, eliminates the need for the pickup compensation integrator required with a "magnetic" pickup, and leaves us with the need to provide only the 12 dB high frequency boost required by the RIAA cutting curve. Get it, it's simple once you understand it, the "RIAA phono preamp" you are describing is really doing two equalization jobs, pickup compensation and compensation for the RIAA amplitude response. Regards, John Byrns John, I stopped reading "let me explain", I'm afraid. Don't take this badly, please. I did that because I knew that whatever followed was going to be a catalogue of misunderstanding and error. It isn't too important really what those errors are. What is important is that they are errors, which thirty seconds of research (google for phono preamp sche,matic - that should do it) will show you. You will then be in the enviable position of knowing something that you have been getting completely wrong for years, and being able to learn something new. Please make this small effort before you post again. I promise you won't find it wasted. And do listen and understand when I tell you that those of us who have designed audio gear have never, ever designed an RIAA preamp that boosts rather than reduces high frequencies, Do some web research and see if you can find one. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Intelligence and RIAA
Don Pearce wrote: On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:31:24 -0500, John Byrns wrote: In article , (Don Pearce) wrote: John, are you still insisting that RIAA playback requires high frequency boost? It doesn't. An RIAA phono preamp has a feedback mechanism that provides high frequency cut. I have designed several myself, and studied the circuits and operation of many. Had I (and every other designer on the planet) been getting it wrong all the time, our systems would be muffled and entirely without top. They are not; they play back just fine, and certainly for my own, when I play a white noise track on a test disc (recorded with standard pre-emphasis before you say anything), I recover noise which is flat within about 1dB from 30Hz to 20kHz. *Please* go and do some reading so you can back away gracefully from this ridiculous position you are placing yourself in. Don, yes I am still insisting that RIAA playback requires high frequency boost. Why are you suggesting that I might want to back away from this position? Let me attempt to explain, I'm going to assume that you have some knowledge of math and know what differentiation is. Let's consider an LP recording which has had a music signal cut into it. Now in our playback system we need to read the amplitude of the signal cut into the disc and convert it into an electrical signal of varying amplitude to drive our speaker system, while along the way undoing any amplitude equalization that was incorporated when the music signal was originally cut into the disc using the RIAA record equalization. Now you are insisting that RIAA playback equalization involves a large high frequency cut approximating some 38 dB, while I claim that RIAA playback equalization involves the boosting of the amplitude of the high frequency signals cut into the disc by approximately 12 dB. What accounts for the difference in our perspectives? The difference is simply explained by the fact that you are lumping two separate equalization curves together while I am talking about only the equalization necessary to counter the RIAA amplitude equalization applied when the music was cut into the grooves of the record. You are assuming that the LP is being played with a "magnetic" pickup. It is a characteristic of "magnetic" pickups that they differentiate the amplitude of the music signal cut into the record groove to produce the electrical output. The differentiation of the recorded amplitude causes the signal output of the "magnetic" pickup to be tilted upwards towards the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per octave, which results in a very tinny sound unless this effect is compensated for. To restore the output of the "magnetic" pickup back to a flat representation of the recorded amplitude on the disc, we must pass its output through an integrator circuit. An integrator produces a response which falls towards the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per octave, falling approximately 50 dB at 15 kHz vs. 50 Hz, this is the first part of your equalizer. The second part of your equalizer is the same as my RIAA amplitude equalizer and consists of shelving the high frequencies up by approximately 12 dB using the time constants of 318.3 usec. and 75 usec.. When you combine the "magnetic" pickup equalizer and the RIAA amplitude equalizer into a single composite circuit you have what you call "RIAA equalization". This equalization is the sum of a 50 dB high frequency cut for "magnetic" pickup compensation and a high frequency boost of 12 dB for RIAA amplitude equalization, giving a net high frequency cut of 38 dB for the combined network. Using a pickup that is directly responsive to the recorded groove amplitude, like say an FM pickup, or a strain gauge pickup, eliminates the need for the pickup compensation integrator required with a "magnetic" pickup, and leaves us with the need to provide only the 12 dB high frequency boost required by the RIAA cutting curve. Get it, it's simple once you understand it, the "RIAA phono preamp" you are describing is really doing two equalization jobs, pickup compensation and compensation for the RIAA amplitude response. Regards, John Byrns John, I stopped reading "let me explain", I'm afraid. Don't take this badly, please. I did that because I knew that whatever followed was going to be a catalogue of misunderstanding and error. It isn't too important really what those errors are. What is important is that they are errors, which thirty seconds of research (google for phono preamp sche,matic - that should do it) will show you. You will then be in the enviable position of knowing something that you have been getting completely wrong for years, and being able to learn something new. Please make this small effort before you post again. I promise you won't find it wasted. And do listen and understand when I tell you that those of us who have designed audio gear have never, ever designed an RIAA preamp that boosts rather than reduces high frequencies, Do some web research and see if you can find one. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com Don, baby: You amused me with your barns and rods (should they be roods?) in this thread where Sander fed his slug Amstel, made me wonder if I shouldn't give you another chance, if I hadn't misjudged you as just another humourless purveyor of excessive negative feedback who should be kicked on sight. So, just in case you really aren't an enemy of fidelity, I'm going to give you a tip and hope St Peter is watching and inscribing my incredible generosity in the Big Book Before the Pearly Gates. Save yourself a lot of grinding frustration and anger and either: a) do not argue with John Byrns on this, meaning drop out now, don't even tell him to look it up or b) accept that what you think you know has some pinholes in it to which John has already taken a reamer and, before this is over, will take a bloody great big angle grinder, and therefore go look it up yourself with your prejudices (what you might prefer to call your education and knowledge) put firmly aside in a locked box I've seen John grind down the graduate engineers before, politely, persistently. He never hesitates to apologize when he is wrong, and he will always give your argument full consideration and your goodwill the benefit of the doubt, but I have never seen him fail to understand the warp and weft of something thoroughly before he starts. You might note that Chris Hornbeck, a guy who sees through bull**** and encrustations of hallowed practice to the true fundmentals beneath, has decided that John is right, giving you the key to why John is right: "differences between amplitude and velocity, and *why* they're historically treated differently in cutter-head amplifiers". (Thanks, Chris. I was struggling with whether that is it or whether it is more complicated.). Or, in pure self-protection, Don me old gabbas, you might look up some old RAT threads in which John (ever so politely!) wiped the floor with that toe-rag Pasternack, admittedly a dullard, but a dullard who claims to have a Stanford MSEE and observably has a glib way with the math that often borders on deceit about professional matters, and sometimes deliberately steps over that limit, after which Pasternack usually claims that John drove him to betraying his profession or, even more laughably, "I did it in my zeal to flame Andre". See above for either of two simple acts you may perform to save yourself from landing up in the same position as Plodnick vis a vis John. There, my duty is done. My money is on Mr Byrns to find all the tees that aren't crossed and all the eyes that aren't dotted, and to slot them into a Teflon-covered, Kevlar-armoured argument. Thanks again for the chuckle. Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. --- Mark Twain There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than in thy fondest dreams. --- Will the Shake |
Intelligence and RIAA
Andre Jute wrote: if I hadn't misjudged you as just another humourless purveyor of excessive negative feedback who should be kicked on sight. Define excessive. Graham |
Intelligence and RIAA
Andre Jute wrote:
Don Pearce wrote: On Tue, 15 May 2007 17:31:24 -0500, John Byrns wrote: In article , (Don Pearce) wrote: John, are you still insisting that RIAA playback requires high frequency boost? It doesn't. An RIAA phono preamp has a feedback mechanism that provides high frequency cut. I have designed several myself, and studied the circuits and operation of many. Had I (and every other designer on the planet) been getting it wrong all the time, our systems would be muffled and entirely without top. They are not; they play back just fine, and certainly for my own, when I play a white noise track on a test disc (recorded with standard pre-emphasis before you say anything), I recover noise which is flat within about 1dB from 30Hz to 20kHz. *Please* go and do some reading so you can back away gracefully from this ridiculous position you are placing yourself in. Don, yes I am still insisting that RIAA playback requires high frequency boost. Why are you suggesting that I might want to back away from this position? Let me attempt to explain, I'm going to assume that you have some knowledge of math and know what differentiation is. Let's consider an LP recording which has had a music signal cut into it. Now in our playback system we need to read the amplitude of the signal cut into the disc and convert it into an electrical signal of varying amplitude to drive our speaker system, while along the way undoing any amplitude equalization that was incorporated when the music signal was originally cut into the disc using the RIAA record equalization. Now you are insisting that RIAA playback equalization involves a large high frequency cut approximating some 38 dB, while I claim that RIAA playback equalization involves the boosting of the amplitude of the high frequency signals cut into the disc by approximately 12 dB. What accounts for the difference in our perspectives? The difference is simply explained by the fact that you are lumping two separate equalization curves together while I am talking about only the equalization necessary to counter the RIAA amplitude equalization applied when the music was cut into the grooves of the record. You are assuming that the LP is being played with a "magnetic" pickup. It is a characteristic of "magnetic" pickups that they differentiate the amplitude of the music signal cut into the record groove to produce the electrical output. The differentiation of the recorded amplitude causes the signal output of the "magnetic" pickup to be tilted upwards towards the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per octave, which results in a very tinny sound unless this effect is compensated for. To restore the output of the "magnetic" pickup back to a flat representation of the recorded amplitude on the disc, we must pass its output through an integrator circuit. An integrator produces a response which falls towards the high frequencies at a rate of 6 dB per octave, falling approximately 50 dB at 15 kHz vs. 50 Hz, this is the first part of your equalizer. The second part of your equalizer is the same as my RIAA amplitude equalizer and consists of shelving the high frequencies up by approximately 12 dB using the time constants of 318.3 usec. and 75 usec.. When you combine the "magnetic" pickup equalizer and the RIAA amplitude equalizer into a single composite circuit you have what you call "RIAA equalization". This equalization is the sum of a 50 dB high frequency cut for "magnetic" pickup compensation and a high frequency boost of 12 dB for RIAA amplitude equalization, giving a net high frequency cut of 38 dB for the combined network. Using a pickup that is directly responsive to the recorded groove amplitude, like say an FM pickup, or a strain gauge pickup, eliminates the need for the pickup compensation integrator required with a "magnetic" pickup, and leaves us with the need to provide only the 12 dB high frequency boost required by the RIAA cutting curve. Get it, it's simple once you understand it, the "RIAA phono preamp" you are describing is really doing two equalization jobs, pickup compensation and compensation for the RIAA amplitude response. Regards, John Byrns John, I stopped reading "let me explain", I'm afraid. Don't take this badly, please. I did that because I knew that whatever followed was going to be a catalogue of misunderstanding and error. It isn't too important really what those errors are. What is important is that they are errors, which thirty seconds of research (google for phono preamp sche,matic - that should do it) will show you. You will then be in the enviable position of knowing something that you have been getting completely wrong for years, and being able to learn something new. Please make this small effort before you post again. I promise you won't find it wasted. And do listen and understand when I tell you that those of us who have designed audio gear have never, ever designed an RIAA preamp that boosts rather than reduces high frequencies, Do some web research and see if you can find one. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com Don, baby: You amused me with your barns and rods (should they be roods?) in this thread where Sander fed his slug Amstel, made me wonder if I shouldn't give you another chance, if I hadn't misjudged you as just another humourless purveyor of excessive negative feedback who should be kicked on sight. So, just in case you really aren't an enemy of fidelity, I'm going to give you a tip and hope St Peter is watching and inscribing my incredible generosity in the Big Book Before the Pearly Gates. Save yourself a lot of grinding frustration and anger and either: a) do not argue with John Byrns on this, meaning drop out now, don't even tell him to look it up or b) accept that what you think you know has some pinholes in it to which John has already taken a reamer and, before this is over, will take a bloody great big angle grinder, and therefore go look it up yourself with your prejudices (what you might prefer to call your education and knowledge) put firmly aside in a locked box I've seen John grind down the graduate engineers before, politely, persistently. He never hesitates to apologize when he is wrong, and he will always give your argument full consideration and your goodwill the benefit of the doubt, but I have never seen him fail to understand the warp and weft of something thoroughly before he starts. You might note that Chris Hornbeck, a guy who sees through bull**** and encrustations of hallowed practice to the true fundmentals beneath, has decided that John is right, giving you the key to why John is right: "differences between amplitude and velocity, and *why* they're historically treated differently in cutter-head amplifiers". (Thanks, Chris. I was struggling with whether that is it or whether it is more complicated.). Or, in pure self-protection, Don me old gabbas, you might look up some old RAT threads in which John (ever so politely!) wiped the floor with that toe-rag Pasternack, admittedly a dullard, but a dullard who claims to have a Stanford MSEE and observably has a glib way with the math that often borders on deceit about professional matters, and sometimes deliberately steps over that limit, after which Pasternack usually claims that John drove him to betraying his profession or, even more laughably, "I did it in my zeal to flame Andre". See above for either of two simple acts you may perform to save yourself from landing up in the same position as Plodnick vis a vis John. There, my duty is done. My money is on Mr Byrns to find all the tees that aren't crossed and all the eyes that aren't dotted, and to slot them into a Teflon-covered, Kevlar-armoured argument. Thanks again for the chuckle. Andre Jute The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true. --- Mark Twain There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than in thy fondest dreams. --- Will the Shake I've read and re-read John Byrne's arguments and still think he's wrong. Every RIAA amplifier I've ever designed and every one I've measured has a voltage amplitude response that boosts the bass end and cuts the treble end. The RIAA curve calls for a 19.36dB boost at 20Hz, and a 19.95dB cut at 21kHz. Both are relative to 1kHz. The IEC curve is identical to the RIAA curve with the exception of the extreme low end which is boosted less on replay to act as a built-in rumble filter. No curve I've ever seen has a 12dB boost to the treble. If John is so precise, I can't understand for the life of me what curve he is referring to. You only have to put a generator to any RIAA input stage to see that the curve is as above, with 19 odd dB boost at the bess end and almost 20 dB cut at the top. S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
Intelligence and RIAA
Serge Auckland wrote:
I've read and re-read John Byrne's arguments and still think he's wrong. Every RIAA amplifier I've ever designed and every one I've measured has a voltage amplitude response that boosts the bass end and cuts the treble end. The RIAA curve calls for a 19.36dB boost at 20Hz, and a 19.95dB cut at 21kHz. Both are relative to 1kHz. Of course it does because it is designed to be fed from a magnetic pickup which has a rising output with frequency, that's what the bass boost/top cut are for and the published RIAA replay curve has that assumption built in. The curve does not directly describe the amplitude actually recorded on the disc. Ian |
Intelligence and RIAA
"Serge Auckland" wrote in
message I've read and re-read John Byrne's arguments and still think he's wrong. Every RIAA amplifier I've ever designed and every one I've measured has a voltage amplitude response that boosts the bass end and cuts the treble end. Or if one prefers, a RIAA playback preamp for a magnetic (velocity) cartridge is roughly an integrator above 50 Hz, except for a bump in response between about 500 and 2122 Hz. If one uses a pickup that does not respond to velocity but instead responds to amplitude, then you don't need the integrator, but you do need the bump. The RIAA curve calls for a 19.36dB boost at 20Hz, and a 19.95dB cut at 21kHz. Both are relative to 1kHz. Agreed. The IEC curve is identical to the RIAA curve with the exception of the extreme low end which is boosted less on replay to act as a built-in rumble filter. Agreed. No curve I've ever seen has a 12dB boost to the treble. Agreed. The two possible alternatives for treble cut are either 20 dB cut above 2122 Hz for a velocity-sensitive pickup, or no cut for an amplitude-sensitive one. If John is so precise, I can't understand for the life of me what curve he is referring to. You only have to put a generator to any RIAA input stage to see that the curve is as above, with 19 odd dB boost at the bess end and almost 20 dB cut at the top. Been there done that, many times. |
Intelligence and RIAA
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message ps.com... On May 14, 9:34 pm, Eeyore wrote: You've lost your edge you know. Never had one. Sometimes "bitter" may be ineptly described as "sharp", but the commander is a one-note instrument badly played by Mr. McCoy. There is nothing there of independent mien. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA Who is this McCoy that you refer to so often? Is it AJ? If yes, why do you use McCoy? west |
Intelligence and RIAA
In article mvD2i.9294$yy6.2320@trnddc05, "west"
wrote: "Peter Wieck" wrote in message ps.com... On May 14, 9:34 pm, Eeyore wrote: You've lost your edge you know. Never had one. Sometimes "bitter" may be ineptly described as "sharp", but the commander is a one-note instrument badly played by Mr. McCoy. There is nothing there of independent mien. Who is this McCoy that you refer to so often? Is it AJ? If yes, why do you use McCoy? I find it strange that Peter would refer to Andre as "McCoy", which I believe is the pen name used on some of Andre's novels, as Peter much prefers to call Andre "It", in the process demeaning himself more than Andre. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
Intelligence and RIAA
west wrote: "Peter Wieck" wrote Eeyore wrote: You've lost your edge you know. Never had one. Sometimes "bitter" may be ineptly described as "sharp", but the commander is a one-note instrument badly played by Mr. McCoy. There is nothing there of independent mien. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA Who is this McCoy that you refer to so often? Is it AJ? If yes, why do you use McCoy? It'a one of his psedonyms when writing AIUI. Graham |
Intelligence and RIAA
Poopie snaps at the carrot. Who is this McCoy that you refer to so often? It'a one of his psedonyms when writing AIUI. You're telling one of his sockpuppets about another of his sockpuppets. What does that make you, you dorky donkey? -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
Intelligence and RIAA
"George M. Middius" wrote: Poopie snaps at the carrot. Who is this McCoy that you refer to so often? It'a one of his psedonyms when writing AIUI. You're telling one of his sockpuppets about another of his sockpuppets. Nah. You got that wrong. Your 'brain' seems very unwell these days. Graham |
Intelligence and RIAA
Eeyore wrote:
George M. Middius" wrote: Poopie snaps at the carrot. Who is this McCoy that you refer to so often? It'a one of his psedonyms when writing AIUI. You're telling one of his sockpuppets about another of his sockpuppets. Nah. You got that wrong. Your 'brain' seems very unwell these days. Graham You're a hypocrite and it is your brain needs to be surgically removed and replace with molten lava from Mt. Kilauea. They're offering ticket at discount prices to Hawaii right now, fyi. This window of opportunity will only last you two weeks and I'll even pitch in for your return flight if that's alright.. How about it! |
Intelligence and RIAA
On May 16, 9:49 am, John Byrns wrote:
In article mvD2i.9294$yy6.2320@trnddc05, "west" wrote: "Peter Wieck" wrote in message ups.com... On May 14, 9:34 pm, Eeyore wrote: You've lost your edge you know. Never had one. Sometimes "bitter" may be ineptly described as "sharp", but the commander is a one-note instrument badly played by Mr. McCoy. There is nothing there of independent mien. Who is this McCoy that you refer to so often? Is it AJ? If yes, why do you use McCoy? I find it strange that Peter would refer to Andre as "McCoy", which I believe is the pen name used on some of Andre's novels, as Peter much prefers to call Andre "It", in the process demeaning himself more than Andre. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ Actually, John, whereas I respect you as an audio/electronics historian of considerable note (and peculiar manner), I find McCoy to be naught but a chimera of pretense and pose of no substance whatsoever. So out of respect for human beings in general, I also choose to consider it to be a farce, a pose, an alias for the purposes of venting, not for any activity of substance. True, there must be someone quite clever behind it... but I seriously doubt that the persona we observe here is anything at all like that actual individual. So, whereas I may not *like* you, I must respect you. McCoy I neither like nor dislike as I do not believe there is an actual "there" to deserve such efforts. Tweaking it is great fun, however. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Intelligence and RIAA
George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:
Poopie snaps at the carrot. What does that make you, you dorky donkey? Seems to me that Poopie Stevenson's problem stems precisely from the fact that he is a whole dork short of being one half of an exotic dancer & donkey act. So he became a sound-man for other people's public perversions instead and has resented it ever since, forty long years. Poopie is only Eeyore's bray; the rest of him is mule. Andre Jute Dispensing today |
Intelligence and RIAA
On May 16, 8:49 am, John Byrns wrote:
In article mvD2i.9294$yy6.2320@trnddc05, "west" wrote: "Peter Wieck" wrote in message ups.com... On May 14, 9:34 pm, Eeyore wrote: You've lost your edge you know. Never had one. Sometimes "bitter" may be ineptly described as "sharp", but the commander is a one-note instrument badly played by Mr. McCoy. There is nothing there of independent mien. Who is this McCoy that you refer to so often? Is it AJ? If yes, why do you use McCoy? I find it strange that Peter would refer to Andre as "McCoy", which I believe is the pen name used on some of Andre's novels, as Peter much prefers to call Andre "It", in the process demeaning himself more than Andre. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ 'Scuse if I stutter, the connection is a bit wonkey lately at the DSL switch across the street. John: As it happens, I respect you as an audio/electronic historian of considerable knowledge (and peculiar behavior). It is my considered opinion that McCoy is a chimera of pretense and pose and not any sort of reality. Put another way, I do agree that there is a clever individual behind the smoke and mirrors, but that the persona displayed here is an alias, an empty costume and not any sort of reality, created only for the purpose of venting its maker's frustrations and hiding its limitations. Put another way, I may not like you, but I do have to respect you. McCoy I neither like nor dislike, and certainly do not respect. There is not enough substance, no "there" there worthy of such efforts. But tweaking it is good great fun. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Intelligence and RIAA
Arny Krueger a scris: The Middiot had an. The Middiot out here and raving coneheads, and downhill rapidly there. Now, he take credit completely destroying once-vibrant Usenet group with endless spew cryptic mutterings. I've been trying out this new Krooglish decoder. Arnie makes much more sense when you disregard every thid word he babbles. |
Intelligence and RIAA
Clyde Slick said: I've been trying out this new Krooglish decoder. Arnie makes much more sense when you disregard every thid word he babbles. Is that the one based on the new eco-friendly sewage treatment system? More nitrogen and less oxygen allows for slower disintegration of fecal matter. Just what Arnii needs. ;-) -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
Intelligence and RIAA/cycling and fitness.
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Keith G wrote: snip, 60 eh? - I'm 60 *tomorrow*!! :-) Look, I lied a bit. I have 2 months to go before 60 arrives. I feel 30 most days You're lucky - I barely get to feel more than a couple a month.... |
Intelligence and RIAA
In article . com,
Peter Wieck wrote: True, there must be someone quite clever behind it... but I seriously doubt that the persona we observe here is anything at all like that actual individual. So, whereas I may not *like* you, I must respect you. McCoy I neither like nor dislike as I do not believe there is an actual "there" to deserve such efforts. Tweaking it is great fun, however. Somehow that paragraph seems internally inconsistent. If "Andre" is nothing but a chimera as you believe, but as you say "there must be someone quite clever behind it", then that person would be an actual "there", deserving of either your like or dislike. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
Intelligence and RIAA
John Byrns said to Worthless Wiecky: McCoy I neither like nor dislike as I do not believe there is an actual "there" to deserve such efforts. Somehow that paragraph seems internally inconsistent. If "Andre" is nothing but a chimera as you believe, but as you say "there must be someone quite clever behind it", then that person would be an actual "there", deserving of either your like or dislike. No point in getting all philosophical. The prime directive of Worthlessism is Nothing Shall Make Sense. Tweaking it is great fun That explains a lot, Worthless. Too bad you don't have the stones to make a living at your "hobby". Here's a pic of Worthless's role model: http://www.capohedz.com/typebrighter..._12-793513.jpg -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
Intelligence and RIAA/cycling and fitness.
Keith G wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Keith G wrote: snip, 60 eh? - I'm 60 *tomorrow*!! :-) Look, I lied a bit. I have 2 months to go before 60 arrives. I feel 30 most days You're lucky - I barely get to feel more than a couple a month.... Ah, a statement by one very insipid mind.... Patrick Turner. |
Intelligence and RIAA
Clyde Slick wrote: Arny Krueger a scris: The Middiot had an. The Middiot out here and raving coneheads, and downhill rapidly there. Now, he take credit completely destroying once-vibrant Usenet group with endless spew cryptic mutterings. I've been trying out this new Krooglish decoder. Arnie makes much more sense when you disregard every thid word he babbles. Its a BS converter, ie, babble to sense device that you want. Google BS, and you should find one. Patrick Turner. |
Intelligence and RIAA/cycling and fitness.
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Keith G wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Keith G wrote: snip, 60 eh? - I'm 60 *tomorrow*!! :-) Look, I lied a bit. I have 2 months to go before 60 arrives. I feel 30 most days You're lucky - I barely get to feel more than a couple a month.... Ah, a statement by one very insipid mind.... Works for me - I'll take 'insipid' over *flaky* any time!! We've done the frantic bike-riding, now tell us other ways how you work your celibacy off... |
Intelligence and RIAA/cycling and fitness.
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Peter Wieck wrote: I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead. Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player, Hmmm.... that would be just under 202 pounds, figure at about 5'-9" (1.75 meters) = BMI of 29.8.... Using metric numbers, a BMI of 29.9. Obese is 30. I'm 1.872M x 77Kg, which gives bmi = 21.948, and about the same as i was when 25. but last year in July I was 95Kg, and bmi = 27, and I considered myself overweight. Between last July and January, I rode about 200km a week, or about 5,000km, and my weight reduced from 95Kg to 77Kg and probably I lost 20Kg of fat, about the weight of a seriously good monoblok tube amp, or the equivalent of at least 5 x 4Litre cans of olive oil, and put on about 2 Kg of muscle which keeps me riding as fast as guys 30 years younger. At one stage my daily weight records showed I lost Kgm a week. I amused myself when I stalled trying to ride up some hills last July. The riding is not a leisurely activity just to take in the sights and sounds of nature, but a form of self inflicted pain which is excruciatingly enjoyable, especially when riding up steep long hills with elevated heart rates, or pushing hard along a flat stretch to catch some dude way out in the distance, or to hang on behind the 30 year old. If you ride real slow, say no faster than you'd jog, you get a sore arse and get bored, and the energy consumption is less than walking, good for you, but not nearly as good if you elevate the heart rate for 3 hours straight and could barely talk to anyone if they were present. But not all the time, not while going down hill. At a sweat inducing level, especially on a freezing cold day, one can burn huge amounts of fats. So best value from cycling is in the winter time, and because snow is so very rare here, the cold cloudless skies of about now to September seem to have been designed by God for cyclist pleasure. Even at my age perhaps i burn 600cals per hour and so a 4 hr ride uses 2,400 cals, or about the same amount as I use in a 24hr day of sedentary life. This equals about 200gms of fat, so 8 hrs a week uses 400gms of fat if you still eat the same as when sedentary. So the bicycle can create a calorie deficit. The only way I could lose weight easily without feeling hungry all the time was to cycle, and switch my diet to a big salad each day and a reduction of meat and fat and carbohydrates to a minimum. I completely gave up bread for the 6mths after July. Processed food is the very worst crap you can ever eat, so i don't, and if everyone was like me and couldn't be fooled easily, the whole food producing industry of the world would go stone motherless broke. The excess food that would then be available as natural produce from US and Oz farmers could then feed the rest of the hungry world with ease. When you get lean and fit, the natural heart rate at rest will fall from a common 64BPM down to say 52BPM even if you are 60 like me. A young bloke of 25 who did the exercize I take would benefit even more greatly, and have a HR maybe 45. When I was fit when 40, my HR was 47BPM. Of course when you exercize, the body rebels to the torture, and becomes more efficient about processing the food, so a little food goes a long way, so you won't lose weight if you exercize and eat a pile of crappy fat rich garbage afterwards. I like cabage based salads, 4 apples a day, maybe two bananas and an orange, a large serve of cooked oats and yogurt for breakfast; forget about ham, bacon, sausages, soft drinks, cheeses, white breads, butter margerine, and all that crap in plastic packets with lots of numbers on the label which mean its riddled with dangerous chemicals to make you feel hungry, and eat more. protein comes from eggs, and lean meat and fish, which I cannot get enough of because what is now beiong sold as fish is often not fish, or its really crappy, because mankind has cleaned out the world's oceans of fish. So I feel guilty eating fish from the sea, not to mention its 5 times the price of lean bargain meats selling for $7 a Kg, enough to last me a week. I do use some olive oil. Its good for anyone, and better than the fats which I won't eat, and trim off the meat before I cook it. Animal fat is also where a lot of pesticide and hormone residues end up, so don't eat fats. You don't need them and we didn't evolve to survive off fats. I never buy deep fried chips, or drink coka cola, its all crap. Nathan Pritikin said in his book about nutrition for runners that all you need is to eat so that 80% of the energy comes from complex carbohydrates, 10% from proteins, and 10% from fats. Since most UNREFINED grains or breads made with real wholemeal flour has the whole goodness kept in, not pulled out to get greed driven sales elsewhere, then it has the 20% of protien and fat you need, and the CH slow burning energy. But even most wholemeal wheat breads are now using rapid yeasts and chemicals and I don't eat that anymore, and buy rye natural breads instead, and only need a couple of slices a day. People in the US, UK and Oz are rapidly assuming pig like proportions. When I am at the supermarket, I am appalled at the fat arse queus lining up with trolleys full of crap. Probably they suffer affluenza, the dysfunctional syndrome of living too high and being anxious about everything, so they ain't fit, don't relate well, and don't ****, and feed their mouth instead. I continue to ride about 150km a week and weight has stabilised, and bmi appears to be a lot better in the mirror. I treat myself to the occasional 100gm bar of Lindt 70% cocoa choclate. Its ****ing divine this stuff. Its much better than buying a 600gram milk chocolate bar with less cocoa and piled high with fats and sugar, and chemicals to make you buy more, along with hydrogenated fats to give long shelf life, but which are really terrible for your heart. There are attempts to ban what they are putting into foods now, and as fast as the banners get stuff banned, the chemists with no conscience dream up new chemicals. If I have done 100km on a saturday, I will treat myself to a large serve of Bavarian Apple from Pancake Parlour, with ice cream and cream, and unlike a couple of fat guys who play chess while I am there, I don't have diabetes, and have earned the treat, which won't hurt me. These fatsos don't do anything except sit around, and they are paying the price. Too much sitting on me arse chatting on news groups and typing up website pages and doing electronics had made me heavy. Now when i have to go into a computer shop there are all these young dudes and they all look a bit crook, a bit overweight, and kinda grey, like their PCs have sucked the very life out of them. I played Rugby Union when at school, and frankly it was guys just tumbling over each other, and I went home sore and sorry after most games. Lord knows how many unseen injuries meant trouble later in life. Cycling is much better, unless you fall off, but even if you do, you recover so fast it matters not. Cycling has speed, exhilaration, changing scenery, weather, varied circumstances, and needs alertness, rapid reflexes, careful judgements, and you learn lessons about life. I am really lucky that there are hundreds of Km of cycling paths here to ride on, and that don't include the mountain trails through the bush for which a mountain bike becomes sensible. Mountain biking is about getting hot riding up steep climbs slowly, and descending with care and putting up with a far rougher ride than on the road. Modern bikes have suspension and are useable by folks like me over 50 without enduring injuries. And even though Canberra has 330,000 people I only have to ride 4Km and I am in the middle of sheep paddocks and horse paddocks, and big wide country areas. It ain't like London or NY, or Sydney. If one calculates based on the "average" that individuals undercount their weight by ~5 pounds, or 2kg, it is obese. In McCoy's case, using only 2kg is generous given its love of the truth. No wonder nothing but shadow-pictures, and claims of great height (but only while riding). Rugby player... Peter Wieck So how do you stay fit Peter? Patrick Turner. Wyncote, PA Patrick: I think your regiment is almost ideal for cardio-vascular workouts. Do you not believe that working out for the upper body is also important? There have been many studies that show longevity is best accomplished by free weights. Nautilus equipment come in a close second and for the most part, is more practical. west |
Intelligence and RIAA/cycling and fitness.
Keith G wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Keith G wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Keith G wrote: snip, 60 eh? - I'm 60 *tomorrow*!! :-) Look, I lied a bit. I have 2 months to go before 60 arrives. I feel 30 most days You're lucky - I barely get to feel more than a couple a month.... Ah, a statement by one very insipid mind.... Works for me - I'll take 'insipid' over *flaky* any time!! We've done the frantic bike-riding, now tell us other ways how you work your celibacy off... Nicole and Kylie are both just great, and need my attentions....... One does a great job clipping the hedge, while the other handles the mower on the lawns like a real pro.... Patrick Turner. |
Intelligence and RIAA/cycling and fitness.
west wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Peter Wieck wrote: I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead. Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player, Hmmm.... that would be just under 202 pounds, figure at about 5'-9" (1.75 meters) = BMI of 29.8.... Using metric numbers, a BMI of 29.9. Obese is 30. I'm 1.872M x 77Kg, which gives bmi = 21.948, and about the same as i was when 25. but last year in July I was 95Kg, and bmi = 27, and I considered myself overweight. Between last July and January, I rode about 200km a week, or about 5,000km, and my weight reduced from 95Kg to 77Kg and probably I lost 20Kg of fat, about the weight of a seriously good monoblok tube amp, or the equivalent of at least 5 x 4Litre cans of olive oil, and put on about 2 Kg of muscle which keeps me riding as fast as guys 30 years younger. At one stage my daily weight records showed I lost Kgm a week. I amused myself when I stalled trying to ride up some hills last July. The riding is not a leisurely activity just to take in the sights and sounds of nature, but a form of self inflicted pain which is excruciatingly enjoyable, especially when riding up steep long hills with elevated heart rates, or pushing hard along a flat stretch to catch some dude way out in the distance, or to hang on behind the 30 year old. If you ride real slow, say no faster than you'd jog, you get a sore arse and get bored, and the energy consumption is less than walking, good for you, but not nearly as good if you elevate the heart rate for 3 hours straight and could barely talk to anyone if they were present. But not all the time, not while going down hill. At a sweat inducing level, especially on a freezing cold day, one can burn huge amounts of fats. So best value from cycling is in the winter time, and because snow is so very rare here, the cold cloudless skies of about now to September seem to have been designed by God for cyclist pleasure. Even at my age perhaps i burn 600cals per hour and so a 4 hr ride uses 2,400 cals, or about the same amount as I use in a 24hr day of sedentary life. This equals about 200gms of fat, so 8 hrs a week uses 400gms of fat if you still eat the same as when sedentary. So the bicycle can create a calorie deficit. The only way I could lose weight easily without feeling hungry all the time was to cycle, and switch my diet to a big salad each day and a reduction of meat and fat and carbohydrates to a minimum. I completely gave up bread for the 6mths after July. Processed food is the very worst crap you can ever eat, so i don't, and if everyone was like me and couldn't be fooled easily, the whole food producing industry of the world would go stone motherless broke. The excess food that would then be available as natural produce from US and Oz farmers could then feed the rest of the hungry world with ease. When you get lean and fit, the natural heart rate at rest will fall from a common 64BPM down to say 52BPM even if you are 60 like me. A young bloke of 25 who did the exercize I take would benefit even more greatly, and have a HR maybe 45. When I was fit when 40, my HR was 47BPM. Of course when you exercize, the body rebels to the torture, and becomes more efficient about processing the food, so a little food goes a long way, so you won't lose weight if you exercize and eat a pile of crappy fat rich garbage afterwards. I like cabage based salads, 4 apples a day, maybe two bananas and an orange, a large serve of cooked oats and yogurt for breakfast; forget about ham, bacon, sausages, soft drinks, cheeses, white breads, butter margerine, and all that crap in plastic packets with lots of numbers on the label which mean its riddled with dangerous chemicals to make you feel hungry, and eat more. protein comes from eggs, and lean meat and fish, which I cannot get enough of because what is now beiong sold as fish is often not fish, or its really crappy, because mankind has cleaned out the world's oceans of fish. So I feel guilty eating fish from the sea, not to mention its 5 times the price of lean bargain meats selling for $7 a Kg, enough to last me a week. I do use some olive oil. Its good for anyone, and better than the fats which I won't eat, and trim off the meat before I cook it. Animal fat is also where a lot of pesticide and hormone residues end up, so don't eat fats. You don't need them and we didn't evolve to survive off fats. I never buy deep fried chips, or drink coka cola, its all crap. Nathan Pritikin said in his book about nutrition for runners that all you need is to eat so that 80% of the energy comes from complex carbohydrates, 10% from proteins, and 10% from fats. Since most UNREFINED grains or breads made with real wholemeal flour has the whole goodness kept in, not pulled out to get greed driven sales elsewhere, then it has the 20% of protien and fat you need, and the CH slow burning energy. But even most wholemeal wheat breads are now using rapid yeasts and chemicals and I don't eat that anymore, and buy rye natural breads instead, and only need a couple of slices a day. People in the US, UK and Oz are rapidly assuming pig like proportions. When I am at the supermarket, I am appalled at the fat arse queus lining up with trolleys full of crap. Probably they suffer affluenza, the dysfunctional syndrome of living too high and being anxious about everything, so they ain't fit, don't relate well, and don't ****, and feed their mouth instead. I continue to ride about 150km a week and weight has stabilised, and bmi appears to be a lot better in the mirror. I treat myself to the occasional 100gm bar of Lindt 70% cocoa choclate. Its ****ing divine this stuff. Its much better than buying a 600gram milk chocolate bar with less cocoa and piled high with fats and sugar, and chemicals to make you buy more, along with hydrogenated fats to give long shelf life, but which are really terrible for your heart. There are attempts to ban what they are putting into foods now, and as fast as the banners get stuff banned, the chemists with no conscience dream up new chemicals. If I have done 100km on a saturday, I will treat myself to a large serve of Bavarian Apple from Pancake Parlour, with ice cream and cream, and unlike a couple of fat guys who play chess while I am there, I don't have diabetes, and have earned the treat, which won't hurt me. These fatsos don't do anything except sit around, and they are paying the price. Too much sitting on me arse chatting on news groups and typing up website pages and doing electronics had made me heavy. Now when i have to go into a computer shop there are all these young dudes and they all look a bit crook, a bit overweight, and kinda grey, like their PCs have sucked the very life out of them. I played Rugby Union when at school, and frankly it was guys just tumbling over each other, and I went home sore and sorry after most games. Lord knows how many unseen injuries meant trouble later in life. Cycling is much better, unless you fall off, but even if you do, you recover so fast it matters not. Cycling has speed, exhilaration, changing scenery, weather, varied circumstances, and needs alertness, rapid reflexes, careful judgements, and you learn lessons about life. I am really lucky that there are hundreds of Km of cycling paths here to ride on, and that don't include the mountain trails through the bush for which a mountain bike becomes sensible. Mountain biking is about getting hot riding up steep climbs slowly, and descending with care and putting up with a far rougher ride than on the road. Modern bikes have suspension and are useable by folks like me over 50 without enduring injuries. And even though Canberra has 330,000 people I only have to ride 4Km and I am in the middle of sheep paddocks and horse paddocks, and big wide country areas. It ain't like London or NY, or Sydney. If one calculates based on the "average" that individuals undercount their weight by ~5 pounds, or 2kg, it is obese. In McCoy's case, using only 2kg is generous given its love of the truth. No wonder nothing but shadow-pictures, and claims of great height (but only while riding). Rugby player... Peter Wieck So how do you stay fit Peter? Patrick Turner. Wyncote, PA Patrick: I think your regiment is almost ideal for cardio-vascular workouts. Do you not believe that working out for the upper body is also important? There have been many studies that show longevity is best accomplished by free weights. Nautilus equipment come in a close second and for the most part, is more practical. Nicole and Kylie provide me with ample opportunity for topside exercize. They are very happy with my longevity as well. The Nautilus sounds like a great idea, but I am still searching for a suitable private ocean I can buy to run such a nice sub with all mod cons for me and the gals of course. They like to take turns using my depth sounder. I am negotiating with Captain Nemo, who despite his age is a whiz on the sextant, and thus knows his way around, giant squids permitting.... But we had to tell him he could only play his organ if we all went ashore.... The free weights you mention are not available yet in Oz and the prices here for weights are exorbident. Before being sold in fatness outlets, there was a scam here involving weight supplies, and a dealer offered very long weights online for a low fee, and many people got caught and are still weighting for the weights to arrive years later. Unfortunately, last time I looked in at the gym, I was appalled by the smell, the absurdity, the loud raucus dance music, non audiophile PA gear, and all these ppl working up a sweat but going nowhere, and the far too few women didn't want to dance with anyone. I heard you had to pay to go there! crayzee!!. Patrick Turner. west |
Intelligence and RIAA/cycling and fitness.
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... west wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Peter Wieck wrote: I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead. Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player, Hmmm.... that would be just under 202 pounds, figure at about 5'-9" (1.75 meters) = BMI of 29.8.... Using metric numbers, a BMI of 29.9. Obese is 30. I'm 1.872M x 77Kg, which gives bmi = 21.948, and about the same as i was when 25. but last year in July I was 95Kg, and bmi = 27, and I considered myself overweight. Between last July and January, I rode about 200km a week, or about 5,000km, and my weight reduced from 95Kg to 77Kg and probably I lost 20Kg of fat, about the weight of a seriously good monoblok tube amp, or the equivalent of at least 5 x 4Litre cans of olive oil, and put on about 2 Kg of muscle which keeps me riding as fast as guys 30 years younger. At one stage my daily weight records showed I lost Kgm a week. I amused myself when I stalled trying to ride up some hills last July. The riding is not a leisurely activity just to take in the sights and sounds of nature, but a form of self inflicted pain which is excruciatingly enjoyable, especially when riding up steep long hills with elevated heart rates, or pushing hard along a flat stretch to catch some dude way out in the distance, or to hang on behind the 30 year old. If you ride real slow, say no faster than you'd jog, you get a sore arse and get bored, and the energy consumption is less than walking, good for you, but not nearly as good if you elevate the heart rate for 3 hours straight and could barely talk to anyone if they were present. But not all the time, not while going down hill. At a sweat inducing level, especially on a freezing cold day, one can burn huge amounts of fats. So best value from cycling is in the winter time, and because snow is so very rare here, the cold cloudless skies of about now to September seem to have been designed by God for cyclist pleasure. Even at my age perhaps i burn 600cals per hour and so a 4 hr ride uses 2,400 cals, or about the same amount as I use in a 24hr day of sedentary life. This equals about 200gms of fat, so 8 hrs a week uses 400gms of fat if you still eat the same as when sedentary. So the bicycle can create a calorie deficit. The only way I could lose weight easily without feeling hungry all the time was to cycle, and switch my diet to a big salad each day and a reduction of meat and fat and carbohydrates to a minimum. I completely gave up bread for the 6mths after July. Processed food is the very worst crap you can ever eat, so i don't, and if everyone was like me and couldn't be fooled easily, the whole food producing industry of the world would go stone motherless broke. The excess food that would then be available as natural produce from US and Oz farmers could then feed the rest of the hungry world with ease. When you get lean and fit, the natural heart rate at rest will fall from a common 64BPM down to say 52BPM even if you are 60 like me. A young bloke of 25 who did the exercize I take would benefit even more greatly, and have a HR maybe 45. When I was fit when 40, my HR was 47BPM. Of course when you exercize, the body rebels to the torture, and becomes more efficient about processing the food, so a little food goes a long way, so you won't lose weight if you exercize and eat a pile of crappy fat rich garbage afterwards. I like cabage based salads, 4 apples a day, maybe two bananas and an orange, a large serve of cooked oats and yogurt for breakfast; forget about ham, bacon, sausages, soft drinks, cheeses, white breads, butter margerine, and all that crap in plastic packets with lots of numbers on the label which mean its riddled with dangerous chemicals to make you feel hungry, and eat more. protein comes from eggs, and lean meat and fish, which I cannot get enough of because what is now beiong sold as fish is often not fish, or its really crappy, because mankind has cleaned out the world's oceans of fish. So I feel guilty eating fish from the sea, not to mention its 5 times the price of lean bargain meats selling for $7 a Kg, enough to last me a week. I do use some olive oil. Its good for anyone, and better than the fats which I won't eat, and trim off the meat before I cook it. Animal fat is also where a lot of pesticide and hormone residues end up, so don't eat fats. You don't need them and we didn't evolve to survive off fats. I never buy deep fried chips, or drink coka cola, its all crap. Nathan Pritikin said in his book about nutrition for runners that all you need is to eat so that 80% of the energy comes from complex carbohydrates, 10% from proteins, and 10% from fats. Since most UNREFINED grains or breads made with real wholemeal flour has the whole goodness kept in, not pulled out to get greed driven sales elsewhere, then it has the 20% of protien and fat you need, and the CH slow burning energy. But even most wholemeal wheat breads are now using rapid yeasts and chemicals and I don't eat that anymore, and buy rye natural breads instead, and only need a couple of slices a day. People in the US, UK and Oz are rapidly assuming pig like proportions. When I am at the supermarket, I am appalled at the fat arse queus lining up with trolleys full of crap. Probably they suffer affluenza, the dysfunctional syndrome of living too high and being anxious about everything, so they ain't fit, don't relate well, and don't ****, and feed their mouth instead. I continue to ride about 150km a week and weight has stabilised, and bmi appears to be a lot better in the mirror. I treat myself to the occasional 100gm bar of Lindt 70% cocoa choclate. Its ****ing divine this stuff. Its much better than buying a 600gram milk chocolate bar with less cocoa and piled high with fats and sugar, and chemicals to make you buy more, along with hydrogenated fats to give long shelf life, but which are really terrible for your heart. There are attempts to ban what they are putting into foods now, and as fast as the banners get stuff banned, the chemists with no conscience dream up new chemicals. If I have done 100km on a saturday, I will treat myself to a large serve of Bavarian Apple from Pancake Parlour, with ice cream and cream, and unlike a couple of fat guys who play chess while I am there, I don't have diabetes, and have earned the treat, which won't hurt me. These fatsos don't do anything except sit around, and they are paying the price. Too much sitting on me arse chatting on news groups and typing up website pages and doing electronics had made me heavy. Now when i have to go into a computer shop there are all these young dudes and they all look a bit crook, a bit overweight, and kinda grey, like their PCs have sucked the very life out of them. I played Rugby Union when at school, and frankly it was guys just tumbling over each other, and I went home sore and sorry after most games. Lord knows how many unseen injuries meant trouble later in life. Cycling is much better, unless you fall off, but even if you do, you recover so fast it matters not. Cycling has speed, exhilaration, changing scenery, weather, varied circumstances, and needs alertness, rapid reflexes, careful judgements, and you learn lessons about life. I am really lucky that there are hundreds of Km of cycling paths here to ride on, and that don't include the mountain trails through the bush for which a mountain bike becomes sensible. Mountain biking is about getting hot riding up steep climbs slowly, and descending with care and putting up with a far rougher ride than on the road. Modern bikes have suspension and are useable by folks like me over 50 without enduring injuries. And even though Canberra has 330,000 people I only have to ride 4Km and I am in the middle of sheep paddocks and horse paddocks, and big wide country areas. It ain't like London or NY, or Sydney. If one calculates based on the "average" that individuals undercount their weight by ~5 pounds, or 2kg, it is obese. In McCoy's case, using only 2kg is generous given its love of the truth. No wonder nothing but shadow-pictures, and claims of great height (but only while riding). Rugby player... Peter Wieck So how do you stay fit Peter? Patrick Turner. Wyncote, PA Patrick: I think your regiment is almost ideal for cardio-vascular workouts. Do you not believe that working out for the upper body is also important? There have been many studies that show longevity is best accomplished by free weights. Nautilus equipment come in a close second and for the most part, is more practical. Nicole and Kylie provide me with ample opportunity for topside exercize. They are very happy with my longevity as well. The Nautilus sounds like a great idea, but I am still searching for a suitable private ocean I can buy to run such a nice sub with all mod cons for me and the gals of course. They like to take turns using my depth sounder. I am negotiating with Captain Nemo, who despite his age is a whiz on the sextant, and thus knows his way around, giant squids permitting.... But we had to tell him he could only play his organ if we all went ashore.... The free weights you mention are not available yet in Oz and the prices here for weights are exorbident. Before being sold in fatness outlets, there was a scam here involving weight supplies, and a dealer offered very long weights online for a low fee, and many people got caught and are still weighting for the weights to arrive years later. Unfortunately, last time I looked in at the gym, I was appalled by the smell, the absurdity, the loud raucus dance music, non audiophile PA gear, and all these ppl working up a sweat but going nowhere, and the far too few women didn't want to dance with anyone. I heard you had to pay to go there! crayzee!!. Patrick Turner. To each his own. It's that very smell that attracts characters like Weick. The gym I go to doesn't have a smell. At least it's hardly noticeable. After using an apparatus, rules require the user to spray the equipment and wipe it with a towel. You must have sexy legs but a flabby torso. Look good in shorts as long as you keep your shirt on? west west |
Intelligence and RIAA
"Andre Jute" wrote in message ps.com... west wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote in message ps.com... Patrick Turner wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Seeing all the posts about RIAA filters, I can only say I hope none of the participants passed on the gene of obsessive shortsightedness that draws audiophiles into the wastelands of RIAA. Vinyl discs are bad enough when good clean CD's are available, but RIAA is a bodge to correct another bodge. Two bodges don't make it right. Andre Jute uses only CD and so has time for more music I doubt you really know what you are missing out upon. But all the really keen musically eclectic ppl i know who have vast cd collections indicating a misspent middle age also still enjoy vinyl. Most find that despite the vast sums they have spent on cd players and transports, da converters, isolation platforms and other widgets and gadgets, the humble black disk continues to delight, and give a greater sense of connection to the artist than any CD manages to do. I have been present at a number of AB comparisons where a CD version and vinyl version of the same material from the same grand old master tape was being played, and we could switch from one to the other, and vinyl seemed to have more to offer the audiophile subjectively. Mind you, the whole analog recording process onto tape et all is a huge bodge to. So is FM stereo mulptiplexing. Never mind the bodges, the sound does not seem to suffer, when they do it right, IMHO. Patrick Turner. I used to have c8000 vinyl discs, including some old shellac. I sold the important subcollections and gave the rest away. Vinyl is just too time-consuming. So much music to listen to, so little time. CDs are a boon. I think there is a certain masochism afield among audiophiles. Like Morgan owners, or MG owners, they think that hardship on one's pleasures is a symptom of manliness. I don't. I always preferred Porsche. cars that worked and offered a modicum of comfort, and big- engined fast tourers rather than harsh, loud sports cars. Same in my sound systems. I define what I want the sound to be and to do, and then put it together like that. That is why I think horns and panels are important, and ultra-simple amplifiers -- and CDs, so that chaniging the music is quick and easy. There is nothing wrong with CD sound quality; it is better than good enough. I decided to go over solely to CD on the day Nimbus, who transfer ancient discs to CD, sent me a box of CDs including one of Ponselle that was better than anything you could buy on any other medium, no matter how much money you spent. Andre Jute Our legislators managed to criminalize fox-hunting and smoking; when they will get off their collective fat backside and criminalize negative feedback? It is clearly consumed only by the enemies of fidelity. And I am not taking a position on the vinyl vs.CD debate but I am wondering if the convenience of playing both mediums were equal, which would you prefer? That's a good question, West. I would choose CD because it doesn't wear and it is small. I have 6000 CDs (or so) in a fraction of the space consumed by 8000 LPs. Vinyl is (for me) simply a nuisance unjustified by whatever extra audiophiles claim to hear in the grooves. Next question, if you don't mind ...what are you using to play your CDs? Quad CD66 and CD67, very old, very reliable. Both of mine were on lease to the BBC, then checked over at the factory before they came to me about fifteen years ago. Thanks in advance. west I guess you're not into SACDs or keeping up with the Jones'. Do you use a high efficiency horn or those ESL 57s? I'm trying to picture your system from some of your posts. Perhaps you use 2 systems. west 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 |
Intelligence and RIAA/cycling and fitness.
"west" said: I think your regiment is almost ideal If so, let's send 'em to Iraq ASAP. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
Intelligence and RIAA
On May 17, 8:36 am, John Byrns wrote:
In article . com, Peter Wieck wrote: True, there must be someone quite clever behind it... but I seriously doubt that the persona we observe here is anything at all like that actual individual. So, whereas I may not *like* you, I must respect you. McCoy I neither like nor dislike as I do not believe there is an actual "there" to deserve such efforts. Tweaking it is great fun, however. Somehow that paragraph seems internally inconsistent. If "Andre" is nothing but a chimera as you believe, but as you say "there must be someone quite clever behind it", then that person would be an actual "there", deserving of either your like or dislike. Regards, John Byrns -- Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ Logic chopping. Your specialty. I would like to believe that the entity behind "the real McCoy" is having as much fun as I do, or at least one hopes so. The alternative is too sad to contemplate... again leaving no room for "like" or "dislike"... as the entity is simply not worth it. If my contention is true, perhaps grudging admiration... but not dislike. Dislike I reserve for those worthy of such efforts. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Intelligence and RIAA
On May 17, 8:46 am, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote: John Byrns said to Worthless Wiecky: McCoy I neither like nor dislike as I do not believe there is an actual "there" to deserve such efforts. Somehow that paragraph seems internally inconsistent. If "Andre" is nothing but a chimera as you believe, but as you say "there must be someone quite clever behind it", then that person would be an actual "there", deserving of either your like or dislike. No point in getting all philosophical. The prime directive of Worthlessism is Nothing Shall Make Sense. Tweaking it is great fun That explains a lot, Worthless. Too bad you don't have the stones to make a living at your "hobby". Here's a pic of Worthless's role model:http://www.capohedz.com/typebrighter..._12-793513.jpg -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. Actually I make a very good living at what I enjoy, as it happens, so that I may have hobbies. And I have hobbies such that I can indulge in them without the need to "make a living at them". Imagine you trying to make a living at anything having to do with electronics... much less tubes. As turnabout is fair play, here is "the commander" at work: http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/sha0090l.jpg Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Intelligence and RIAA/cycling and fitness.
west wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... west wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... Peter Wieck wrote: I gave up the car altogether about 1990 and took up bicycling instead. Now I'm 91.5kg, not too far over the days when I was a rugby player, Hmmm.... that would be just under 202 pounds, figure at about 5'-9" (1.75 meters) = BMI of 29.8.... Using metric numbers, a BMI of 29.9. Obese is 30. I'm 1.872M x 77Kg, which gives bmi = 21.948, and about the same as i was when 25. but last year in July I was 95Kg, and bmi = 27, and I considered myself overweight. Between last July and January, I rode about 200km a week, or about 5,000km, and my weight reduced from 95Kg to 77Kg and probably I lost 20Kg of fat, about the weight of a seriously good monoblok tube amp, or the equivalent of at least 5 x 4Litre cans of olive oil, and put on about 2 Kg of muscle which keeps me riding as fast as guys 30 years younger. At one stage my daily weight records showed I lost Kgm a week. I amused myself when I stalled trying to ride up some hills last July. The riding is not a leisurely activity just to take in the sights and sounds of nature, but a form of self inflicted pain which is excruciatingly enjoyable, especially when riding up steep long hills with elevated heart rates, or pushing hard along a flat stretch to catch some dude way out in the distance, or to hang on behind the 30 year old. If you ride real slow, say no faster than you'd jog, you get a sore arse and get bored, and the energy consumption is less than walking, good for you, but not nearly as good if you elevate the heart rate for 3 hours straight and could barely talk to anyone if they were present. But not all the time, not while going down hill. At a sweat inducing level, especially on a freezing cold day, one can burn huge amounts of fats. So best value from cycling is in the winter time, and because snow is so very rare here, the cold cloudless skies of about now to September seem to have been designed by God for cyclist pleasure. Even at my age perhaps i burn 600cals per hour and so a 4 hr ride uses 2,400 cals, or about the same amount as I use in a 24hr day of sedentary life. This equals about 200gms of fat, so 8 hrs a week uses 400gms of fat if you still eat the same as when sedentary. So the bicycle can create a calorie deficit. The only way I could lose weight easily without feeling hungry all the time was to cycle, and switch my diet to a big salad each day and a reduction of meat and fat and carbohydrates to a minimum. I completely gave up bread for the 6mths after July. Processed food is the very worst crap you can ever eat, so i don't, and if everyone was like me and couldn't be fooled easily, the whole food producing industry of the world would go stone motherless broke. The excess food that would then be available as natural produce from US and Oz farmers could then feed the rest of the hungry world with ease. When you get lean and fit, the natural heart rate at rest will fall from a common 64BPM down to say 52BPM even if you are 60 like me. A young bloke of 25 who did the exercize I take would benefit even more greatly, and have a HR maybe 45. When I was fit when 40, my HR was 47BPM. Of course when you exercize, the body rebels to the torture, and becomes more efficient about processing the food, so a little food goes a long way, so you won't lose weight if you exercize and eat a pile of crappy fat rich garbage afterwards. I like cabage based salads, 4 apples a day, maybe two bananas and an orange, a large serve of cooked oats and yogurt for breakfast; forget about ham, bacon, sausages, soft drinks, cheeses, white breads, butter margerine, and all that crap in plastic packets with lots of numbers on the label which mean its riddled with dangerous chemicals to make you feel hungry, and eat more. protein comes from eggs, and lean meat and fish, which I cannot get enough of because what is now beiong sold as fish is often not fish, or its really crappy, because mankind has cleaned out the world's oceans of fish. So I feel guilty eating fish from the sea, not to mention its 5 times the price of lean bargain meats selling for $7 a Kg, enough to last me a week. I do use some olive oil. Its good for anyone, and better than the fats which I won't eat, and trim off the meat before I cook it. Animal fat is also where a lot of pesticide and hormone residues end up, so don't eat fats. You don't need them and we didn't evolve to survive off fats. I never buy deep fried chips, or drink coka cola, its all crap. Nathan Pritikin said in his book about nutrition for runners that all you need is to eat so that 80% of the energy comes from complex carbohydrates, 10% from proteins, and 10% from fats. Since most UNREFINED grains or breads made with real wholemeal flour has the whole goodness kept in, not pulled out to get greed driven sales elsewhere, then it has the 20% of protien and fat you need, and the CH slow burning energy. But even most wholemeal wheat breads are now using rapid yeasts and chemicals and I don't eat that anymore, and buy rye natural breads instead, and only need a couple of slices a day. People in the US, UK and Oz are rapidly assuming pig like proportions. When I am at the supermarket, I am appalled at the fat arse queus lining up with trolleys full of crap. Probably they suffer affluenza, the dysfunctional syndrome of living too high and being anxious about everything, so they ain't fit, don't relate well, and don't ****, and feed their mouth instead. I continue to ride about 150km a week and weight has stabilised, and bmi appears to be a lot better in the mirror. I treat myself to the occasional 100gm bar of Lindt 70% cocoa choclate. Its ****ing divine this stuff. Its much better than buying a 600gram milk chocolate bar with less cocoa and piled high with fats and sugar, and chemicals to make you buy more, along with hydrogenated fats to give long shelf life, but which are really terrible for your heart. There are attempts to ban what they are putting into foods now, and as fast as the banners get stuff banned, the chemists with no conscience dream up new chemicals. If I have done 100km on a saturday, I will treat myself to a large serve of Bavarian Apple from Pancake Parlour, with ice cream and cream, and unlike a couple of fat guys who play chess while I am there, I don't have diabetes, and have earned the treat, which won't hurt me. These fatsos don't do anything except sit around, and they are paying the price. Too much sitting on me arse chatting on news groups and typing up website pages and doing electronics had made me heavy. Now when i have to go into a computer shop there are all these young dudes and they all look a bit crook, a bit overweight, and kinda grey, like their PCs have sucked the very life out of them. I played Rugby Union when at school, and frankly it was guys just tumbling over each other, and I went home sore and sorry after most games. Lord knows how many unseen injuries meant trouble later in life. Cycling is much better, unless you fall off, but even if you do, you recover so fast it matters not. Cycling has speed, exhilaration, changing scenery, weather, varied circumstances, and needs alertness, rapid reflexes, careful judgements, and you learn lessons about life. I am really lucky that there are hundreds of Km of cycling paths here to ride on, and that don't include the mountain trails through the bush for which a mountain bike becomes sensible. Mountain biking is about getting hot riding up steep climbs slowly, and descending with care and putting up with a far rougher ride than on the road. Modern bikes have suspension and are useable by folks like me over 50 without enduring injuries. And even though Canberra has 330,000 people I only have to ride 4Km and I am in the middle of sheep paddocks and horse paddocks, and big wide country areas. It ain't like London or NY, or Sydney. If one calculates based on the "average" that individuals undercount their weight by ~5 pounds, or 2kg, it is obese. In McCoy's case, using only 2kg is generous given its love of the truth. No wonder nothing but shadow-pictures, and claims of great height (but only while riding). Rugby player... Peter Wieck So how do you stay fit Peter? Patrick Turner. Wyncote, PA Patrick: I think your regiment is almost ideal for cardio-vascular workouts. Do you not believe that working out for the upper body is also important? There have been many studies that show longevity is best accomplished by free weights. Nautilus equipment come in a close second and for the most part, is more practical. Nicole and Kylie provide me with ample opportunity for topside exercize. They are very happy with my longevity as well. The Nautilus sounds like a great idea, but I am still searching for a suitable private ocean I can buy to run such a nice sub with all mod cons for me and the gals of course. They like to take turns using my depth sounder. I am negotiating with Captain Nemo, who despite his age is a whiz on the sextant, and thus knows his way around, giant squids permitting.... But we had to tell him he could only play his organ if we all went ashore.... The free weights you mention are not available yet in Oz and the prices here for weights are exorbident. Before being sold in fatness outlets, there was a scam here involving weight supplies, and a dealer offered very long weights online for a low fee, and many people got caught and are still weighting for the weights to arrive years later. Unfortunately, last time I looked in at the gym, I was appalled by the smell, the absurdity, the loud raucus dance music, non audiophile PA gear, and all these ppl working up a sweat but going nowhere, and the far too few women didn't want to dance with anyone. I heard you had to pay to go there! crayzee!!. Patrick Turner. To each his own. It's that very smell that attracts characters like Weick. The gym I go to doesn't have a smell. At least it's hardly noticeable. After using an apparatus, rules require the user to spray the equipment and wipe it with a towel. You must have sexy legs but a flabby torso. Look good in shorts as long as you keep your shirt on? Gee you guys don't do any cycling do you. I don't have a flabby anything and am quite happy with my shape which is almost unchanged and the same weight as I was at 25. I am not a silly fanatic who tries to develop the unatural looking freakish outlines of body builders who strut about without being very useful to anyone, and who, because of their massively muscled upper body can't run or cycle very far because they have such a distorted build and poor distribution of weight for running or cycling. The image making media present to men the same stupid models of vanity to aspire to. Don't, its bad for your health! Humans get made in a range of sizes and shapes, OK. In fact the mindset of the media about how men should look is as stupid as the way Vogue and Cosmopolitan present ideal shapes for women to follow. Women don't so easily tell the world and its messengers to get ****ed so easily as men do hence the surge in eating disorders amoung young women who spend whole lives loathing themselves, and trying desperately to look 13 which is the age of many models in the magazines the women buy. One only has to understand the crappiness of the visual crap one sees for sale in newsagents and see how bereft western ppl are of any deep ideas other than trying to look good. I understand that the mullahs of Iran have a point about being cranky about empty western culture being corruptive. I sure don't need the steroids used by most bodybuilders to get the look they want. I don't give a **** about what anyone else thinks about me, and even when i was 20Kg over what I liked to be it didn't bug me much, and did not bug anyone else, and all the women I met had worse figures so they never had anything to complain about. The fact of life is that nobody treasures you for your body, except yourself, if you are selfish. Women like a man with a good body, but they like any man far better if the man's mind suits theirs, and he earns a trouser load of dollars ready to spend on them. This still doesn't gurantee he gets a really nicely performed BJ once a week, free, no strings. He gets to go down on her though, and is expected, and the of all the trades between humanity and huwomanity, the women always end up with the better side of the deal and never give freebies. "Jus lie down here luvvie, it won't costyer anyfink" is a sentence you will never ever hear uttered to you no matter how long you live. Even if no money changes hands, you end up sweating, she's smilimg, and perhaps it costs you 1/2 a house. Patrick Turner. west west |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:41 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