Spherical stylus = sound with *balls*..???
 

I wuz going through my 'spare kit' with a view to putting a few more
things on ****eBay when I happened across my hitherto neglected AKG P6R
cart with is spherical stylus:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/AKGP6R.jpg


....and I thought 'better give this a ride to see if it's any good - if
not, I'll get rid'! So I rigged it up (by eye only - only saps use
protractors and scales :-) and bunged it on my GL72 'Victoria Sponge'
deck:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/myhifi/VicSponge.jpg


Then put on a disc on which I thought might give it a good workout!
******oso mio!!** Furry animals fell out of the trees outside, a car
swerved off the road, the front door fell out and the guy next door put
his house up for sale! :-))

Here's a 'warts 'n' all' snatch/track/snatch which will show you a) how
*not at all bad* this cart is despite its lowly spherical stylus and b)
why vinylistas larf when people bang on about stuff like CD's 'dynamic
range':

First, miked from my TL speakers:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...01%20(mic).mp3


And then recorded direct to hard disk to show what it *should* sound
like I suppose!!

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...20(direct).mp3


Put your best cans on and wick it up as *large* as you can stand; then
take a grip of summat that bolted to the floor!! (Not for the Quad
Squad!! ;-)

(Tell me he's *not* saying 'Vegetables, Fresh Vegetables'....??)

Spherical stylus = sound with *balls*..???
 

"Keith Gormless Git Pommy Idiot "


( snip pile of sickening, narcissistic drivel)



** Wang King is certainly no Chinese city.





......... Phil

Spherical stylus = sound with *balls*..???
 

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:37:38 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


I wuz going through my 'spare kit' with a view to putting a few more
things on ****eBay when I happened across my hitherto neglected AKG P6R
cart with is spherical stylus:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/AKGP6R.jpg


...and I thought 'better give this a ride to see if it's any good - if
not, I'll get rid'! So I rigged it up (by eye only - only saps use
protractors and scales :-) and bunged it on my GL72 'Victoria Sponge'
deck:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/myhifi/VicSponge.jpg


Then put on a disc on which I thought might give it a good workout!
******oso mio!!** Furry animals fell out of the trees outside, a car
swerved off the road, the front door fell out and the guy next door put
his house up for sale! :-))

Here's a 'warts 'n' all' snatch/track/snatch which will show you a) how
*not at all bad* this cart is despite its lowly spherical stylus and b)
why vinylistas larf when people bang on about stuff like CD's 'dynamic
range':

First, miked from my TL speakers:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...01%20(mic).mp3


And then recorded direct to hard disk to show what it *should* sound
like I suppose!!

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...20(direct).mp3


Put your best cans on and wick it up as *large* as you can stand; then
take a grip of summat that bolted to the floor!! (Not for the Quad
Squad!! ;-)

(Tell me he's *not* saying 'Vegetables, Fresh Vegetables'....??)



Mic very close to speaker, yes? And not directly in line with the
tweeter. This the first mic recording of yours where the direct
recording has been brighter than the mic recording. So I'm guessing
you used the IMFs and a pair of cardioids, if not the ribbons.

Dynamic range is good for vinyl at about 50dB, but there's still
better than another 40 to go before you would start seeing a CD
sweating.

d

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

Spherical stylus = sound with *balls*..???
 

Keith G wrote:

I wuz going through my 'spare kit' with a view to putting a few more
things on ****eBay when I happened across my hitherto neglected AKG P6R
cart with is spherical stylus:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/AKGP6R.jpg

...and I thought 'better give this a ride to see if it's any good - if
not, I'll get rid'! So I rigged it up (by eye only - only saps use
protractors and scales :-) and bunged it on my GL72 'Victoria Sponge'
deck:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/myhifi/VicSponge.jpg

Then put on a disc on which I thought might give it a good workout!
******oso mio!!** Furry animals fell out of the trees outside, a car
swerved off the road, the front door fell out and the guy next door put
his house up for sale! :-))

Here's a 'warts 'n' all' snatch/track/snatch which will show you a) how
*not at all bad* this cart is despite its lowly spherical stylus and b)
why vinylistas larf when people bang on about stuff like CD's 'dynamic
range':

Errrr. Let's see now.

You apparently reckon that huge differences between individual cartridges is a
GOOD reason to use vinyl ?

Pure common sense tells us that those huge differences mean that every example
is likely to be highly coloured in fact and finding one you like is akin to a
lottery.


First, miked from my TL speakers:

LOL.

So, we're suppsed to imagine that a 'good sound' is one that survived your dodgy
speakers, your dodgy room acoustics and the influence of an unknown microphone ?

LMAO !

Is the word gullible tattooed on your forehead ?

Graham

Spherical stylus = sound with *balls*..???
 

"Don Pearce" wrote


Mic very close to speaker, yes?


Yes, the usual - about 9 inches, but not the usual mics.


And not directly in line with the
tweeter.


Correct - about in line with the bass units. (It was the *slam* I was
after!)


This the first mic recording of yours where the direct
recording has been brighter than the mic recording. So I'm guessing
you used the IMFs and a pair of cardioids, if not the ribbons.


Yes, the IMFs and my (cardioid) CAD GXL2400s - rebadged OEM Shuaiyin
mics which were cheap and which I use for 'dirty work'; not the ribbon
(also rebadged Shuaiyin) - I only have one of those and I wouldn't
subject it to that sort of behaviour!!



Dynamic range is good for vinyl at about 50dB, but there's still
better than another 40 to go before you would start seeing a CD
sweating.


That's *on paper* - anybody/everybody knows you get much better *phat*
slam in the real world from vinyl!! (This is about *sound* - not
*signal*; you can forget the figures when it comes to hosing the actual
noise about..!! :-)

Spherical stylus = sound with *balls*..???
 

On 15 Oct, 16:30, "Keith G" wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote

Mic very close to speaker, yes?

Yes, the usual - about 9 inches, but not the usual mics.

And not directly in line with the

tweeter.

Correct - about in line with the bass units. (It was the *slam* I was
after!)

This the first mic recording of yours where the direct

recording has been brighter than the mic recording. So I'm guessing
you used the IMFs and a pair of cardioids, if not the ribbons.

Yes, the IMFs and my (cardioid) CAD GXL2400s - rebadged OEM Shuaiyin
mics which were cheap and which I use for 'dirty work'; not the ribbon
(also rebadged Shuaiyin) - I only have one of those and I wouldn't
subject it to that sort of behaviour!!



Dynamic range is good for vinyl at about 50dB, but there's still
better than another 40 to go before you would start seeing a CD
sweating.

That's *on paper* - anybody/everybody knows you get much better *phat*
slam in the real world from vinyl!! (This is about *sound* - not
*signal*; you can forget the figures when it comes to hosing the actual
noise about..!! :-)

Keith

I'm not sure I know what phat slam is, but I know what small changes
to frequency response sound like.

A few years ago I spent ages optimising the loading of my Shure V15/3
and the flatter the response became (within fractions of a dB,
measured with a test disk) the more it sounded like my CD player with
the same album. Very close in the end. So if your AKG cartridge
sounds very different from a CD player it is probably not very good.

I was never able to get the bass as punchy from the LP though (I think
LPs are quite restricted at low frequencies to avoid mis-tracking) and
of course there was always the crackle and pop in the background.

Regards

Paul

Spherical stylus = sound with *balls*..???
 

"Don Pearce" wrote


Mic very close to speaker, yes? And not directly in line with the
tweeter. This the first mic recording of yours where the direct
recording has been brighter than the mic recording. So I'm guessing
you used the IMFs and a pair of cardioids, if not the ribbons.


OK, here's a 'back to normal' for you - this is the setup (as usual):

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/AKG2A3Fidelios.wmv


.....and here's the last two tracks of Side 1 with the same AKG cart, but
back on my 2A3 SET/Fidelios (or 'normal' as I call it) and with the
Oktavas:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/BackToNormal.mp3


More *spanky* than *phat slam* this time (my preference), but do play it
loud!!

(Feck - even the movie's got *clout*!! :-)

Spherical stylus = sound with *balls*..???
 

wrote



I'm not sure I know what phat slam is, but I know what small changes
to frequency response sound like.

A few years ago I spent ages optimising the loading of my Shure V15/3
and the flatter the response became (within fractions of a dB,
measured with a test disk) the more it sounded like my CD player with
the same album. Very close in the end. So if your AKG cartridge
sounds very different from a CD player it is probably not very good.

I was never able to get the bass as punchy from the LP though (I think
LPs are quite restricted at low frequencies to avoid mis-tracking) and
of course there was always the crackle and pop in the background.



OK, then - what bits of QUAD kit do you have...??

:-)

Spherical stylus = sound with *balls*..???
 

In article .com,
wrote:


A few years ago I spent ages optimising the loading of my Shure V15/3
and the flatter the response became (within fractions of a dB, measured
with a test disk) the more it sounded like my CD player with the same
album.

Also my experience with the V15 when comparing classical music on the same
LP/CD.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

Spherical stylus = sound with *balls*..???
 

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote


Mic very close to speaker, yes?


Yes, the usual - about 9 inches, but not the usual mics.


And not directly in line with the
tweeter.


Correct - about in line with the bass units. (It was the *slam* I was
after!)

This means that what you recorded will probably sound quite unrepresentive
of what the sound is like out in the room.


That's *on paper* - anybody/everybody knows you get much better *phat*
slam in the real world from vinyl!! (This is about *sound* - not
*signal*; you can forget the figures when it comes to hosing the actual
noise about..!! :-)

You can certainly ignore the figures, or be ignorant of them, or have no
idea how to interpret what they mean... I don't think that "everybody"
falls into that category, though, although it may be true of many... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

Spherical stylus = sound with *balls*..???
 

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:00:36 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


Mic very close to speaker, yes? And not directly in line with the
tweeter. This the first mic recording of yours where the direct
recording has been brighter than the mic recording. So I'm guessing
you used the IMFs and a pair of cardioids, if not the ribbons.


OK, here's a 'back to normal' for you - this is the setup (as usual):

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/AKG2A3Fidelios.wmv


....and here's the last two tracks of Side 1 with the same AKG cart, but
back on my 2A3 SET/Fidelios (or 'normal' as I call it) and with the
Oktavas:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/BackToNormal.mp3


More *spanky* than *phat slam* this time (my preference), but do play it
loud!!

(Feck - even the movie's got *clout*!! :-)


No good for me :-( we're back in screechy-land again...

d

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

Spherical stylus = sound with *balls*..???
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:00:36 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote


Mic very close to speaker, yes? And not directly in line with the
tweeter. This the first mic recording of yours where the direct
recording has been brighter than the mic recording. So I'm guessing
you used the IMFs and a pair of cardioids, if not the ribbons.


OK, here's a 'back to normal' for you - this is the setup (as usual):

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/AKG2A3Fidelios.wmv


....and here's the last two tracks of Side 1 with the same AKG cart,
but
back on my 2A3 SET/Fidelios (or 'normal' as I call it) and with the
Oktavas:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/BackToNormal.mp3


More *spanky* than *phat slam* this time (my preference), but do play
it
loud!!

(Feck - even the movie's got *clout*!! :-)


No good for me :-( we're back in screechy-land again...


Hokay....

Spherical stylus = sound with *balls*..???
 

Keith G wrote:
Put your best cans on and wick it up as *large* as you can stand; then
take a grip of summat that bolted to the floor!! (Not for the Quad
Squad!! ;-)


Get the 7" of Jocelyn Brown's 'Someone Elses Guy'. Nice bit of dynamics
to the start of that when the bass kicks. Might upset some decks though.

--
Adrian C

Spherical stylus = sound with *balls*..???
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote


Mic very close to speaker, yes?


Yes, the usual - about 9 inches, but not the usual mics.


And not directly in line with the
tweeter.


Correct - about in line with the bass units. (It was the *slam* I was
after!)

This means that what you recorded will probably sound quite
unrepresentive
of what the sound is like out in the room.


Absolutely right.

When I post soundclips they are mostly (usually only) for Don's benefit
as few other have ever commented. I know he is a capable and experienced
listener and can probably *hear through* the obvious
artifacts/distortions. (It normally takes 3 or 4 passes for most people
to break down the *strangeness* of a new 'sound!) But the fact is he's a
*subwoofer user* and I'm not; I have never been able to tolerate one for
more than a few minutes - I don't even use one for movies! Don and I
would never choose the same system - not for vinyl, at least....

(I can and do use 'blameless audio' for radio and movies most of the
time... ;-)




That's *on paper* - anybody/everybody knows you get much better
*phat*
slam in the real world from vinyl!! (This is about *sound* - not
*signal*; you can forget the figures when it comes to hosing the
actual
noise about..!! :-)

You can certainly ignore the figures, or be ignorant of them, or have
no
idea how to interpret what they mean... I don't think that "everybody"
falls into that category, though, although it may be true of many...
:-)


:-)

Even the manufacturers throw the figures out when it comes to
engineering a little 'cut and lift' in here and there to create a
*sound* do they not...??

Valve Sound = sound with *balls*..???
 

"Keith G" wrote


(I can and do use 'blameless audio' for radio and movies most of the
time... ;-)


Er, scrub that - I've just cut Johnny WAD (32Watt KT88 PP amp) into the
equation (rainy day fiddling, like you do) and I foresee changes coming!
On the IMFs with a CD on, it's just kicked the Technics' scrawny (100W?)
SS arse into the weeds! Talk about *adding life* to the procedings - and
no wonder some [1] say a single 'valve Watt' is worth at least *two* 'SS
Watts'..!!

:-)


[1] Actually, the last person to say that to me was L*n Gr*gory, the
Cartridge Man, but let's not go there....!!

Spherical stylus = sound with *balls*..???
 

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


You can certainly ignore the figures, or be ignorant of them, or have
no idea how to interpret what they mean... I don't think that
"everybody" falls into that category, though, although it may be true
of many...
:-)


:-)

Even the manufacturers throw the figures out when it comes to
engineering a little 'cut and lift' in here and there to create a
*sound* do they not...??

Yes, some makers do indeed choose to alter the sound you will get in
deliberate ways. Other may do so without having any clear idea what they
are doing. :-) But that does not mean they all do this, nor intend it. Nor
may the results be what those who made a recording intended.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

Valve Sound = sound with *balls*..???
 

On Oct 16, 7:33 am, "Keith G" wrote:
"Keith G" wrote

(I can and do use 'blameless audio' for radio and movies most of the
time... ;-)

Er, scrub that - I've just cut Johnny WAD (32Watt KT88 PP amp) into the
equation (rainy day fiddling, like you do) and I foresee changes coming!
On the IMFs with a CD on, it's just kicked the Technics' scrawny (100W?)
SS arse into the weeds! Talk about *adding life* to the procedings - and
no wonder some [1] say a single 'valve Watt' is worth at least *two* 'SS
Watts'..!!

:-)

[1] Actually, the last person to say that to me was L*n Gr*gory, the
Cartridge Man, but let's not go there....!!

Phil is right about you, Keith. You're a limp Brit wimp, just like
those pretenders at WAD. Real tubies build real valve amp kits, like
my Velleman K4000, three EL34 per side for 18W in Class A and 101W in
Class B (measured, they claim only 16/96W). Now that is an amp that
leaves hairy footprints. And no cheap pseudo-Chinese **** either. When
you've paid for a K4000, you know your wallet hurts because the K4000
left hairy footprints on it.

Andre Jute

PS The K4000 sounds great too, especially in Class A, and in Class B
is a monster driver for any loudspeaker that can put out decent bass.
Velleman's K4000 leaves not only any solid state amp for dead, but a
lot of precious "golden ear" legends as well, and it does it with such
power and style that this jekyll and hyde of an amp is a superior
match for the refined Quad ESL-63 even on the most revealing music of
all, voices a capella.

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

Spherical stylus = sound with *balls*..???
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


You can certainly ignore the figures, or be ignorant of them, or
have
no idea how to interpret what they mean... I don't think that
"everybody" falls into that category, though, although it may be
true
of many...
:-)


:-)

Even the manufacturers throw the figures out when it comes to
engineering a little 'cut and lift' in here and there to create a
*sound* do they not...??

Yes, some makers do indeed choose to alter the sound you will get in
deliberate ways. Other may do so without having any clear idea what
they
are doing. :-) But that does not mean they all do this, nor intend it.
Nor
may the results be what those who made a recording intended.


The minute you touch the Tone Controls (or Volume Control, come to that)
you start to *tailor* the music to your own requirements....

Spherical stylus = sound with *balls*..???
 

How can a spherical stylus produce sound with 'balls?'












Surely everyone knows happines is egg-shaped? (i.e. eliptical.)




--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

Spherical stylus = sound with *balls*..???
 

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

Even the manufacturers throw the figures out when it comes to
engineering a little 'cut and lift' in here and there to create a
*sound* do they not...??

Yes, some makers do indeed choose to alter the sound you will get in
deliberate ways. Other may do so without having any clear idea what
they are doing. :-) But that does not mean they all do this, nor
intend it. Nor may the results be what those who made a recording
intended.


The minute you touch the Tone Controls (or Volume Control, come to that)
you start to *tailor* the music to your own requirements....

Indeed. Just as moving your listening location or speaker positions. But
the advantage of tone control adjustments is that you can alter them as you
wish even whilst music is playing, or bypass them, and you have detailed
control over the changes. It also allows you to avoid the groove wall
damage which a spherical tip might cause, thus altering the LP when played
again in future even with a different stylus.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

Spherical stylus = sound with *balls*..???
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

Even the manufacturers throw the figures out when it comes to
engineering a little 'cut and lift' in here and there to create a
*sound* do they not...??

Yes, some makers do indeed choose to alter the sound you will get
in
deliberate ways. Other may do so without having any clear idea what
they are doing. :-) But that does not mean they all do this, nor
intend it. Nor may the results be what those who made a recording
intended.


The minute you touch the Tone Controls (or Volume Control, come to
that)
you start to *tailor* the music to your own requirements....

Indeed. Just as moving your listening location or speaker positions.
But
the advantage of tone control adjustments is that you can alter them
as you
wish even whilst music is playing, or bypass them, and you have
detailed
control over the changes. It also allows you to avoid the groove wall
damage which a spherical tip might cause, thus altering the LP when
played
again in future even with a different stylus.



Nope, I didn't understand a word of that....

....unless you meant using different styli/cart to affect tonal
changes...??

In which case I have to say I don't bother (or only very rarely bother)
to do that....

Spherical stylus = sound with *balls*..???
 

"Woody" wrote in message
...
How can a spherical stylus produce sound with 'balls?'



You need a record...

Valve Sound = sound with *balls*..???
 

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...


Phil is right about you, Keith. You're a limp Brit wimp, just like
those pretenders at WAD. Real tubies build real valve amp kits, like
my Velleman K4000, three EL34 per side for 18W in Class A and 101W in
Class B (measured, they claim only 16/96W). Now that is an amp that
leaves hairy footprints. And no cheap pseudo-Chinese **** either. When
you've paid for a K4000, you know your wallet hurts because the K4000
left hairy footprints on it.

Andre. Phil is no more right about Keith than he is about Jim, Don, Nick,
Patrick or anyone else that he attempted to defame over the years.

Phil has the social skills of a raccoon. Most of what he posts to Usenet is
comprised of cut and paste expletives . Every now and again, he
seems to emerge from severe dysfunctionality and does post something
of great interest. Such occurrences are becoming rarer.

Interesting you should mention the Velleman. It is indeed a good sounding
amp. It is a long time since I have seen a K4000, but I seem to recollect
it had four EL34's in push pull parallel per side.

It seems as though the K4000 is discontinued.
I listened to a 4040 not too long ago, with a pair of splendid Tannoy
Canterbury
SE speakers. Very pleasing indeed. The amp was running far below its full
power potential. The noise floor was exceptionally low. Later, a quick
look on the bench revealed the noise floor to be 100µV, so a
SNR of 105dB and at 96W, the THD was only 0.1%

The Belgians know how to make more than just chocolates:-)

Regards
Iain

Valve Sound = sound with *balls*..???
 

"Iain Cherchus"

"Andre Jute"

Phil is right about you, Keith. You're a limp Brit wimp, just like


Andre. Phil is no more right about Keith than he is about Jim, Don, Nick,
Patrick


** I am 100 % right about each of those dangerous morons.

I am also 100 % right about the Iain Cherchus autistic criminal.

Shooting would be far too kind for the likes of him.





........ Phil

Valve Sound = sound with *balls*..???
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...


Phil is right about you, Keith. You're a limp Brit wimp, just like
those pretenders at WAD. Real tubies build real valve amp kits, like
my Velleman K4000, three EL34 per side for 18W in Class A and 101W in
Class B (measured, they claim only 16/96W). Now that is an amp that
leaves hairy footprints. And no cheap pseudo-Chinese **** either.
When
you've paid for a K4000, you know your wallet hurts because the K4000
left hairy footprints on it.

Andre. Phil is no more right about Keith than he is about Jim, Don,
Nick,
Patrick or anyone else that he attempted to defame over the years.


??

Don't tell me I've become a *topic* amongst the Binned? :-)

Anyway, Iain - you do me too much honour to include me with such august
company! I'm only a dabbler who can't/won't commit the few remaining
active braincells I have left to serious *techy* stuff - I need them for
complex tasks like eating toast and tying my shoelaces....



Phil has the social skills of a raccoon. Most of what he posts to
Usenet is
comprised of cut and paste expletives . Every now and again, he
seems to emerge from severe dysfunctionality and does post something
of great interest. Such occurrences are becoming rarer.


The only mildly interesting thing about that clown's posts is the wacky
layout he uses to try and disguise the *seriously tedious* content (or
lack thereof)....

Valve Sound = sound with *balls*..???
 

"Keith G"

( snip self serving abuse & utter ****wit verbal diarrhoea )



** Unlike the Cherchus criminal pedo - Keith G is worth at least one
bullet to the cranium.

On the principle that any defective, dumb animals should be put out of their
misery a quickly as possible .


Baaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh ....





....... Phil

Valve Sound = sound with *balls*..???
 

On Oct 19, 12:11 am, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote

Phil is right about you, Keith. You're a limp Brit wimp, just like
those pretenders at WAD. Real tubies build real valve amp kits, like
my Velleman K4000, three EL34 per side for 18W in Class A and 101W in
Class B (measured, they claim only 16/96W). Now that is an amp that
leaves hairy footprints. And no cheap pseudo-Chinese **** either. When
you've paid for a K4000, you know your wallet hurts because the K4000
left hairy footprints on it.

Andre. Phil is no more right about Keith than he is about Jim, Don, Nick,
Patrick or anyone else that he attempted to defame over the years.

Phil has the social skills of a raccoon. Most of what he posts to Usenet is
comprised of cut and paste expletives . Every now and again, he
seems to emerge from severe dysfunctionality and does post something
of great interest. Such occurrences are becoming rarer.

Phil can stand up for himself, and so can that sturdy builders'
friend, Keith, a biker and clearly not a "limp Brit wimp".

Too bad my little joke misfired.

Andre Jute
Can't win 'em all. Shouldn't even try. Zero failure equals zero risk
equals a chap who's given up.