"Fleetie" wrote in message
...

He didn't reckon on the fact, when he was rude to me, that
I have a SERIOUSLY nasty streak, pretty much psycopathic,
in fact, and I can have a lot of fun taunting him and making
him foam at the mouth, as I rattle his cage.


Martin. There is hardly a poster on this or any other audio
news-group that Phil has not treated to his cut and paste
invective. Welcome to the club:-) See it for what it is.

You could better spend the time finding the fault in that
valve amp. How is it going?


Iain

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John J Armstrong wrote:
Or for that matter their late 50's stereo tests on a Saturday morning
using BBC TV sound and BBC Third Programme as the two channels. I
remember my dad moving the (very large) radiogram into the correct
position......and my mother's horror!

I do indeed remember them. And given how important accurate phase is
across the full frequency range for decent stereo I wonder why they even
bothered.

--
*People want trepanners like they want a hole in the head*

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

I remember the two FM experiments of the 70s, but not the earlier radio/TV
ones.

As to why bother, I suppose it was probably enthusiasm over ignorance. As a
school-boy, I experimented with stereo using very unmatched channels, and
was nevertheless fascinated by the results. I can imagine BBC engineers
wanting to see what was possible with what they had. I would further assume
that coming out of these experiments was the knowledge that phase matters.
Having read some of Blumlein's papers many years ago, I don't recall that
there was a lot of emphasis on the importance of phase, but a great deal on
amplitude differences and arrival times at the ear.

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Fleetie wrote:
Thanks, Serge.
Interesting stuff. I kinda suspected that the records with
the HF encoding wouldn't've worked really work well with cartridges
of the time.

I was trying to decide whether it was worth buying the quad
version from Ebay, but you suggest what I suspected, which
was that it's basically impossible to get the quad info off
the vinyl and into my room these days.

I'll probably pass on it.


Thanks again.


Martin

I remember the Quad DSOTM. A friend had this but played it on a stereo
system. What we got was effectively a different mix of the album.
Interesting, almost.
Roger Thorpe

"Iain Churches" wrote


"Fleetie" wrote in message
...

He didn't reckon on the fact, when he was rude to me, that
I have a SERIOUSLY nasty streak, pretty much psycopathic,
in fact, and I can have a lot of fun taunting him and making
him foam at the mouth, as I rattle his cage.


Martin. There is hardly a poster on this or any other audio
news-group that Phil has not treated to his cut and paste
invective. Welcome to the club:-) See it for what it is.

You're right, of course, but I notice that he has shut the hell
up dissing me off, at least.

Lack of response noted.

You could better spend the time finding the fault in that
valve amp. How is it going?

The trouble is that the left hand channel often oscillates
when I start the amp up (between 1 and 2 Hz, with bass cone moving
in and out), until it warms. Then if I bounce the power, it
usually shuts up oscillating.

Sometimes, it starts up while playing music, though. It is
a royal PITA.

Because of this oscillation, when I did the valve swap from
RHS to LHS and vice versa, the LHS started oscillating even
worse, so I had to can that idea.

I am pretty sure that it's not dodgy valve contacts causing
the rustling, cos I've wiggled the valves while it was rustling,
and nothing changed.

My guess is a burning-out resistor or MAYBE a bad cap.

I've kind of stalled on it for now, cos I don't have any spare
wirewound big resistors around to swap in to replace the ones
I suspect may be causing the noise.

I'll let you know of any further progress.

Cheers.


Martin

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i...


"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

Sylus is a noun of the second declension (m) model dominus.
The plural is styli.

There is a Latin word " stilus " - but " stylus " is a word in the
English language.

The Oxford Dictionary gives: Stylus (pl: styli)
Origin: Latin - stilus.

I give you, direct from the online OED2:
"Also stilus. Pl. styluses, styli. [a. L. stylus, incorrect form of stilus:
see STYLE n.] "

Both words follow the second declension model
dominus. "Sti", or "sty" is the stem, to which the
nominative plural ending "i" is added for stili or styli.

One can only have a double vowel ending (ii) with
a nous such as "radius", where "radi" is the stem to which
the ending "i" is added giving "radii"


The usual plural of which is " styluses " .

The Oxford dictionary states otherwise.

Either a damned idiot, or a damned liar.....which is it?

If you are going to nitpick, get it _right_.

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churchus = Congenital Mental Defective "

I suspect that most people have had their fill of this crap. I came here to
learn some things, and to be amused by other things. These pointless
arguments are as dreary as dreary can be. *booooooooooring*

"Fleetie" wrote in message
...
[snip]
He's absolutely furious that I have outed his autism, when
he's been using that as his most common insult to others - deploying it as
"chaff" to distract attention to his own
suffering from that socially-crippling condition. And that's
quite obviously what his problem is - he just doesn't have
normal social reactions to people and cannot control himself.
He cannot understand social interaction, and struggles
constantly trying to make sense of other people, and emotions.

What have you hiding in _your_ closet?

He didn't reckon on the fact, when he was rude to me, that
I have a SERIOUSLY nasty streak, pretty much psycopathic,
in fact, and I can have a lot of fun taunting him and making
him foam at the mouth, as I rattle his cage.

I see. So while everyone else is just settling back with a nice pint,
you've dumped yours on the floor, and are dancing in the puddle. Follow my
example, won't you? I figured out that I needed help, and immediately went
and got it.

[snip]

....and now, back to our scheduled show. *please?*

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
[snip]
IIRC There is now a surround-sound version of DSOTM on DVD. No idea how it
compares with the LP, and don't have a multichannel AV system so can't
check.

I believe you are thinking of the 25th anniversary edition on hybrid
SACD...which I have. From Amazon's description:
"The Super Audio CD (SACD) features two disc layers. One layer contains a
standard version of the album that works on any CD player. The other layer
includes high-resolution stereo and a 5.1 surround version of the recording
that works on SACD-compatible DVD players and home theater systems. Both
layers employ SACD's Direct Stream Digital (DSD) encoding process that
samples the music 64 times faster than CD for unprecedented fidelity."

Sadly, the only SACD machine in my collection has a faulty Sony chipset.
Someday....

"Lord Vetinari" wrote in message
...

Pardon me...I only started my meds fifteen days ago, and they haven't really
had a chance to affect my mood just yet.

*NARF*

"Lord Vetinari"
"Phil Allison"

"Iain Churchus = Congenital Mental Defective "

I suspect that most people have had their fill of this crap.


** Since when does an important truth = crap ?

Iain Churches is a rabid nut case and a public menace haunting several NGs
and ****ing them up.


I came here to learn some things,

** Then you just learnt something valuable from me.


and to be amused by other things.

** That is more like it -

you are nothing but a trolling ****** really.



....... Phil