|
|
Another 'dual mono' question....
OK, pending my marching orders from Arny (or anybody else, come to that)
I've got another 'dual mono' question to ask: This don't look right to me: http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/HeejusDin.jpg Is it dual mono? Is it possible to tell by just looking at the waveform? |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Keith G" wrote in message
... OK, pending my marching orders from Arny (or anybody else, come to that) I've got another 'dual mono' question to ask: This don't look right to me: http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/HeejusDin.jpg Is it dual mono? Is it possible to tell by just looking at the waveform? They are similar but not identical, the bottom channel looks as if it is has a lower db recording signature...Stereo/ dual mono??? -- Regards p.mc |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... I can recall playing a very warped bit of mono vinyl, and if you did switch from stereo to mono you could hear the changes in phase presumably. Are we saying then, that some mono recordings are cut in stereo and that the engineering is such that they can get the balance badly wrong? See below. I suppose this could occur where stereo and mono tracks are being cut on the same disc. However it gets even worse as it was of course a regular practice in the bad old days to 'synthesize the stero using echo, delays, phase and tone changes. That's not a vinyl recording Brian, it's purportedly a live recording from one of the self-styled *meister-yappers* here who considers himself a bit of a 'recordist' and good enough at it, apparently, to try and put a true industry professional like Iain Churches in his place - constantly aided and abetted by his trusty pooch, of course! What I see is that, for a supposed 'stereo recording', the tracks *appear* nearly identical throughout which would suggest to me that either the mics are too far away from the recording target or the target material is completely homogenous, left to right - whatever, but the channel imbalance can only be real *sloppiness* at some point, whether it be down to poor mic placement, poor level settings or some cock-up in post processing...?? Anyway, here's what it sounds like (completely unadulterated by me): http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/HeejusDin.wav Terrible racket, ain't it? God only knows where the nasty, *tinny* sound comes from - ****e mics, ****e mic choices or recorded over the *phone* possibly? LOL! |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... Are we saying then, that some mono recordings are cut in stereo and that the engineering is such that they can get the balance badly wrong? In the UK at least, cutting facilities used a separate mono cutter head.. Both EMI and Decca had lathes fitted permanenty with mono cutters on which replacement masters for mono material, and also mono singles were cut. I suppose this could occur where stereo and mono tracks are being cut on the same disc. However it gets even worse as it was of course a regular practice in the bad old days to 'synthesize the stero using echo, delays, phase and tone changes. This is a very old can of worms, that you are now re-opening, Brian:-) In the 70's due to requirements of the Trades Descriptions Act, or somesuch, the great minds of the record industry in the UK decided that, with the exception of important classical archive recordings, they would release no futher mono material. This was also of course a great money saver, as it removed the necessity for duplicity at the pressing plants with two presses being required for simultaneous pressing of mono and stereo versions of the same LP. As you mention, there were some pretty awful efforts at "electronic stereo" particularly on pop records, the simplest of which was to switch in BP (bass phase) so that all material below 100 Hz was common and stayed in the centre and then equalise the left channel to boost the HF from about 5k upwards and the right channel to boost the low mids and LF. There are many variation of this basic ideas, and all of which sounded pretty hideous. However, there were other approaches that were much more accepable, and when switched mono dropped back into the centre giving total compatibility with the original mono signal. There was considerable demand from third party clients for this work, and the studios where I worked had a suite specifically set up to cater for it. The method itself was kept secret:-)) No one claimed or even suggested it was genuine stereo, but it certainly gave the spatial effect that many people seemed to want, with the advantage of compatibility if you wished to listen mono. In digital, the same result can be achieved more easily but using the same principles. I have some "before and after" samples, to which I will post a link, a) if there is an interest, b) if I can find them. Regards Iain |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Keith G" wrote in message
OK, pending my marching orders from Arny (or anybody else, come to that) I've got another 'dual mono' question to ask: This don't look right to me: http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/HeejusDin.jpg Is it dual mono? Could be. Is it possible to tell by just looking at the waveform? The tolerance on visual examination of waveforms is on the order of 1%, depending on how you line up and magnify things. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
In article , Iain Churches
wrote: In the 70's due to requirements of the Trades Descriptions Act, or somesuch, the great minds of the record industry in the UK decided that, with the exception of important classical archive recordings, they would release no futher mono material. This was also of course a great money saver, as it removed the necessity for duplicity at the pressing plants with two presses being required for simultaneous pressing of mono and stereo versions of the same LP. I hope you didn't actually mean "duplicity". :-) I was never a fan of EMI pressings, but I don't know if I'd go that far. Slainte, Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , Iain Churches wrote: In the 70's due to requirements of the Trades Descriptions Act, or somesuch, the great minds of the record industry in the UK decided that, with the exception of important classical archive recordings, they would release no futher mono material. This was also of course a great money saver, as it removed the necessity for duplicity at the pressing plants with two presses being required for simultaneous pressing of mono and stereo versions of the same LP. I hope you didn't actually mean "duplicity". :-) I was never a fan of EMI pressings, but I don't know if I'd go that far. Gosh sorry. I was not thinking in English, and was trying to avoid the word duplication. as it has other meanings in the production context. Just to put the record straight I meant that it avoided the necessity of having two presses producing different versions of the same LP. Iain |
Another 'dual mono' question....
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote: Are we saying then, that some mono recordings are cut in stereo and that the engineering is such that they can get the balance badly wrong? In the UK at least, cutting facilities used a separate mono cutter head.. Both EMI and Decca had lathes fitted permanenty with mono cutters on which replacement masters for mono material, and also mono singles were cut. On say a compilation album where some of the tracks were mono and some stereo, would this still apply? If so how? -- *42.7% of statistics are made up. Sorry, that should read 47.2% * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Iain Churches wrote: Are we saying then, that some mono recordings are cut in stereo and that the engineering is such that they can get the balance badly wrong? In the UK at least, cutting facilities used a separate mono cutter head.. Both EMI and Decca had lathes fitted permanenty with mono cutters on which replacement masters for mono material, and also mono singles were cut. On say a compilation album where some of the tracks were mono and some stereo, would this still apply? If so how? These would have to be cut on a stereo lathe. For the mono material the cut would have only lateral excursion and the cutter could work at nominal fixed depth. Iain |
Another 'dual mono' question....
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Iain Churches wrote: Are we saying then, that some mono recordings are cut in stereo and that the engineering is such that they can get the balance badly wrong? In the UK at least, cutting facilities used a separate mono cutter head.. Both EMI and Decca had lathes fitted permanenty with mono cutters on which replacement masters for mono material, and also mono singles were cut. On say a compilation album where some of the tracks were mono and some stereo, would this still apply? If so how? These would have to be cut on a stereo lathe. For the mono material the cut would have only lateral excursion and the cutter could work at nominal fixed depth. Indeed. Are you then saying this method is flawed in mono? -- *Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Iain Churches wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Iain Churches wrote: Are we saying then, that some mono recordings are cut in stereo and that the engineering is such that they can get the balance badly wrong? In the UK at least, cutting facilities used a separate mono cutter head.. Both EMI and Decca had lathes fitted permanenty with mono cutters on which replacement masters for mono material, and also mono singles were cut. On say a compilation album where some of the tracks were mono and some stereo, would this still apply? If so how? These would have to be cut on a stereo lathe. For the mono material the cut would have only lateral excursion and the cutter could work at nominal fixed depth. Indeed. Are you then saying this method is flawed in mono? Stop playing your silly cat and mouse games, Dave, and read Brian's question to Keith's original post. Interesting it was assumed to be a poorly cut disc of a mono recording, where the question was asked: " the engineering is such that they can get the balance badly wrong?" When in in fact it was a recording made with a stereo pair by our very own expert, Arny :-))) |
Another 'dual mono' question....
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote: On say a compilation album where some of the tracks were mono and some stereo, would this still apply? If so how? These would have to be cut on a stereo lathe. For the mono material the cut would have only lateral excursion and the cutter could work at nominal fixed depth. Indeed. Are you then saying this method is flawed in mono? Stop playing your silly cat and mouse games, Dave, and read Brian's question to Keith's original post. No cat and mouse. Just trying to find out which one of the two contradicting views you gave you consider correct. Either you can cut a satisfactory mono signal with a stereo lathe or you can't. -- *Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Iain Churches wrote: On say a compilation album where some of the tracks were mono and some stereo, would this still apply? If so how? These would have to be cut on a stereo lathe. For the mono material the cut would have only lateral excursion and the cutter could work at nominal fixed depth. Indeed. Are you then saying this method is flawed in mono? Stop playing your silly cat and mouse games, Dave, and read Brian's question to Keith's original post. No cat and mouse. Just trying to find out which one of the two contradicting views you gave you consider correct. Either you can cut a satisfactory mono signal with a stereo lathe or you can't. Hah! First time Poochie's pooted summat of interest! As a total 'non industry/non techy' I would say sure, why not? But mono' isnt as straightforward as many would think - start here and look for mentions of 'lateral' and 'hill and dale' mono: http://members.myactv.net/~je205d/mono.htm (Iain - note the LP sleeves!! :-) I'll tidy his stoopid sig away, in appreciation, this time... |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Keith G" wrote in message
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... I can recall playing a very warped bit of mono vinyl, and if you did switch from stereo to mono you could hear the changes in phase presumably. Are we saying then, that some mono recordings are cut in stereo and that the engineering is such that they can get the balance badly wrong? See below. I suppose this could occur where stereo and mono tracks are being cut on the same disc. However it gets even worse as it was of course a regular practice in the bad old days to 'synthesize the stero using echo, delays, phase and tone changes. That's not a vinyl recording Brian, He never said it was. He said that it was a result that might be obtained by that means. Can you distinguish the difference between those two situations, Kitty? It's purportedly a live recording from one of the self-styled *meister-yappers* here who considers himself a bit of a 'recordist' and good enough at it, apparently, to try and put a true industry professional like Iain Churches in his place - constantly aided and abetted by his trusty pooch, of course! Note the lame and childish attempt to turn a purported technical question into yet another stage of Kitty's ongoing personal vendetta(s). What I see is that, for a supposed 'stereo recording', the tracks *appear* nearly identical throughout which would suggest to me that either the mics are too far away from the recording target Since you've identified the source of the recording Kitty, let's talk about the source of the recording, and the purpose that it served. The recording was of a really pretty good high school chorus, made in a high school auditorium, with the goal of coming as close as possible to the sound heard by the adjudication panel that was presiding over the event. or the target material is completely homogenous, left to right - whatever, but the channel imbalance can only be real *sloppiness* at some point, whether it be down to poor mic placement, poor level settings or some cock-up in post processing...?? The first problem with the analysis provided is that it is based on what was inherently a snapshot of just a portion of the entire event. Contrary to your apparent belief Kitty, music is not static, and the balance and any similarity between the 2 channels are not constant but rather varies. That means that at any point in time, the channels are likely to not be in perfect balance. Anyway, here's what it sounds like (completely unadulterated by me): http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/HeejusDin.wav Childish attempt to editorialize and prejudice listeners by means of a taunting and insulting file name noted. Terrible racket, ain't it? Compared to some of your previous posts here Kitty, really not all that bad. More to the point, it is what it is. The thing you want to compare the recording to is not available to you, Kitty. What you need to hear to make a reasonable comparison to is the sound heard by the adjudication panel that was presiding over the event. Do you know where the adjudication panel were seated, Kitty? Do tell. God only knows where the nasty, *tinny* sound comes from - ****e mics, ****e mic choices or recorded over the *phone* possibly? The mic was a Rode NT-4. http://www.rodemic.com/microphone.php?product=NT4 . The sound quality came from the same basic place that many of the sonic miscegenations that you have posted links to here have come from, Kitty. The source. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message "Brian Gaff" wrote in message ... I can recall playing a very warped bit of mono vinyl, and if you did switch from stereo to mono you could hear the changes in phase presumably. Are we saying then, that some mono recordings are cut in stereo and that the engineering is such that they can get the balance badly wrong? See below. I suppose this could occur where stereo and mono tracks are being cut on the same disc. However it gets even worse as it was of course a regular practice in the bad old days to 'synthesize the stero using echo, delays, phase and tone changes. That's not a vinyl recording Brian, He never said it was. He said that it was a result that might be obtained by that means. ??? WTF is Amy going on about - is he *loosing* it...??? rest snipped - all looks a bit wacky to me.... |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Iain Churches wrote: On say a compilation album where some of the tracks were mono and some stereo, would this still apply? If so how? These would have to be cut on a stereo lathe. For the mono material the cut would have only lateral excursion and the cutter could work at nominal fixed depth. Indeed. Are you then saying this method is flawed in mono? Stop playing your silly cat and mouse games, Dave, and read Brian's question to Keith's original post. No cat and mouse. Just trying to find out which one of the two contradicting views you gave you consider correct. There is nothing contradictory. Is it not perfectly obvious? A recording containing some stereo material has to be cut on a stereo lathe if you want the listener to hear it in stereo. Either a stereo lathe (with a stereo or mono cutter head) or a mono lathe can be used for mono. That was precisely the reason for electronic stereo, so that such material could be cut on a stereo lathe. I promised that I would find somedemo material form Brian if he is interested to hear it. Either you can cut a satisfactory mono signal with a stereo lathe or you can't. Of course you can, but in the days when both stereo and mono were being cut, it made no sense in tying up a stereo lathe to do it. Iain |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Since you've identified the source of the recording Kitty, let's talk about the source of the recording, and the purpose that it served. The recording was of a really pretty good high school chorus, Is that "really pretty good" in your opinion Arny? made in a high school auditorium, with the goal of coming as close as possible to the sound heard by the adjudication panel that was presiding over the event. Unless your adjudicators each had only one ear (mono), with severe HF distortion, then you failed miserably in your attempt to reach the goal. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote: No cat and mouse. Just trying to find out which one of the two contradicting views you gave you consider correct. There is nothing contradictory. Is it not perfectly obvious? A recording containing some stereo material has to be cut on a stereo lathe if you want the listener to hear it in stereo. Either a stereo lathe (with a stereo or mono cutter head) or a mono lathe can be used for mono. That was precisely the reason for electronic stereo, so that such material could be cut on a stereo lathe. Eh? That doesn't make sense. -- *Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
... In article , Iain Churches wrote: No cat and mouse. Just trying to find out which one of the two contradicting views you gave you consider correct. There is nothing contradictory. Is it not perfectly obvious? A recording containing some stereo material has to be cut on a stereo lathe if you want the listener to hear it in stereo. Either a stereo lathe (with a stereo or mono cutter head) or a mono lathe can be used for mono. That was precisely the reason for electronic stereo, so that such material could be cut on a stereo lathe. Eh? That doesn't make sense. Well no, it makes no sense at all. Clearly mono *can* be cut on a stereo lathe. After all mono is just stereo in which the difference signal happens to be zero. AIUI "electronic stereo" was basically a marketing device, a way of selling existing mono material to a new market. David. -- *Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"David Looser" wrote in message ... AIUI "electronic stereo" was basically a marketing device, a way of selling existing mono material to a new market. The record companies decided to discontinue the pressing of mono and stereo versions of the same LP, requiring two presses for the same job, at a time when the demand for mono LPs was fallling rapidly. The law at that time stated that mono tracks could not be included in an LP that was marketed as stereo. The record companies also decided in their wisdom that the huge amount of already existing popular mono material could be made to sound better alongside genuine stereo material by electronic reprocessing. There was a considerable demand for such reprocessed tracks in compliations and "Best Of", releases, and also leased material issued by companies such as Readers Digest, and K-Tel. In these enlightened days, mono tracks are simply identified with an asterisk, and a footnote. Iain |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote That's not a vinyl recording Brian, OK Amy, Iain's response this morning prompts me to re-visit your reply to me and try to work through it all. He never said it was. He said that it was a result that might be obtained by that means. Can you distinguish the difference between those two situations, Kitty? Still no idea what that means. I don't do Krooglish. It's purportedly a live recording from one of the self-styled *meister-yappers* here who considers himself a bit of a 'recordist' and good enough at it, apparently, to try and put a true industry professional like Iain Churches in his place - constantly aided and abetted by his trusty pooch, of course! Note the lame and childish attempt to turn a purported technical question into yet another stage of Kitty's ongoing personal vendetta(s). What I do note is the lame and childish bleating from someone who can dish it out alright (and does so continuously), but can't take it.... What I see is that, for a supposed 'stereo recording', the tracks *appear* nearly identical throughout which would suggest to me that either the mics are too far away from the recording target Since you've identified the source of the recording Kitty, let's talk about the source of the recording, and the purpose that it served. What, that the source of the recording served? The recording was of a really pretty good high school chorus, Pity you turned them into crap then, isn't it? made in a high school auditorium, with the goal of coming as close as possible to the sound heard by the adjudication panel that was presiding over the event. I didn't see the horse, but I can see where its been.... or the target material is completely homogenous, left to right - whatever, but the channel imbalance can only be real *sloppiness* at some point, whether it be down to poor mic placement, poor level settings or some cock-up in post processing...?? The first problem with the analysis provided is that it is based on what was inherently a snapshot of just a portion of the entire event. My analysis was based on the *entire* portion that you posted. If you had somehow managed to record a another portion that didn't sound quite so dire then more fool you for not posting it! Contrary to your apparent belief Kitty, music is not static, and the balance and any similarity between the 2 channels are not constant but rather varies. That means that at any point in time, the channels are likely to not be in perfect balance. Anyway, here's what it sounds like (completely unadulterated by me): http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/HeejusDin.wav Childish attempt to editorialize and prejudice listeners by means of a taunting and insulting file name noted. I note that you noted it. Terrible racket, ain't it? Compared to some of your previous posts here Kitty, really not all that bad. No comparison with anything needed, Amy - it's a terrible racket. Period. (As the Merkins would say....) More to the point, it is what it is. Indeed it is - a terrible racket. The thing you want to compare the recording to is not available to you, Kitty. What you need to hear to make a reasonable comparison to is the sound heard by the adjudication panel that was presiding over the event. Er no, I don't need to compare it with anything - like I said sad, it's crap in its own right. Do you know where the adjudication panel were seated, Kitty? Is that a serious question? :-) Do tell. Grasping at straws now, ain'tcha? :-) God only knows where the nasty, *tinny* sound comes from - ****e mics, ****e mic choices or recorded over the *phone* possibly? The mic was a Rode NT-4. Attempt to distract the readers noted. http://www.rodemic.com/microphone.php?product=NT4 . The sound quality came from the same basic place that many of the sonic miscegenations that you have posted links to here have come from, Kitty. The source. Babbling now. Lost it completely I would say. What Amy doesn't realise is that when you set yourself up as an expert or *authority* in this world you'd better be pretty good and all he's done is demonstrate that he very definitely *isn't* after years of 'authoritative yap' in this ng..... He can't win this - the clip is **** and will always be ****, he needs to stop digging.... |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
... "David Looser" wrote in message ... AIUI "electronic stereo" was basically a marketing device, a way of selling existing mono material to a new market. The record companies decided to discontinue the pressing of mono and stereo versions of the same LP, requiring two presses for the same job, at a time when the demand for mono LPs was fallling rapidly. Not really relevant to the point. The were two reasons for selling mono versions of stereo LPs. One was to provide different mixes optimised for mono and stereo listening. The other to cater for the buyers who had older record players fitted with cartridges that had no vertical compliance. By the time most mono record players were fitted with cartridges that *did* have vertical compliance "mono" listeners could simply buy stereo LPs, assuming the stereo mix was designed to work well when reduced to mono. So a single stereo disc would meet all requirements. The law at that time stated that mono tracks could not be included in an LP that was marketed as stereo. The record companies also decided in their wisdom that the huge amount of already existing popular mono material could be made to sound better alongside genuine stereo material by electronic reprocessing. There was a considerable demand for such reprocessed tracks in compliations and "Best Of", releases, and also leased material issued by companies such as Readers Digest, and K-Tel. ie. what I said about it being a marketing device. David. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message In article , Iain Churches wrote: A recording containing some stereo material has to be cut on a stereo lathe if you want the listener to hear it in stereo. Either a stereo lathe (with a stereo or mono cutter head) or a mono lathe can be used for mono. So far so good. That was precisely the reason for electronic stereo, so that such material could be cut on a stereo lathe. Eh? That doesn't make sense. Right. Electronic stereo was a lame attempt to give a false sense of spaciousness to mono recordings. It usually involved things like equalization and/or delays applied differently to the 2 signals that were sent to the cutting amplifier. If you want to cut a mono LP with a stereo head, its just a matter of properly matrixing the signals that are applied to the amplifier that drives the cutter. This isn't electronic stereo, its just electrical algebra in the service of geometry. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
"David Looser" wrote in message ... AIUI "electronic stereo" was basically a marketing device, a way of selling existing mono material to a new market. The record companies decided to discontinue the pressing of mono and stereo versions of the same LP, requiring two presses for the same job, at a time when the demand for mono LPs was fallling rapidly. You don't need two different presses to make the mono and stereo versions of the same LP. You just use different dies. Furthermore, it was not unusual to use more than one press at the same time for LPs that sold in high volumes. The major pressure for eliminating mono came from the retailers, who were greatly inconvenienced by the need to maintain dual stocks. Consumers would not infrequently erroneously buy the wrong version and be disappointed when they played them at home. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message "David Looser" wrote in message ... AIUI "electronic stereo" was basically a marketing device, a way of selling existing mono material to a new market. The record companies decided to discontinue the pressing of mono and stereo versions of the same LP, requiring two presses for the same job, at a time when the demand for mono LPs was fallling rapidly. You don't need two different presses to make the mono and stereo versions of the same LP. You just use different dies. OK, where's the 'pedant' cry when you want one, then? Furthermore, it was not unusual to use more than one press at the same time for LPs that sold in high volumes. Er, or for factories *all round the world* to be pushing out the same album 24/7 on 'more than one press' while it was *hot*....!! The major pressure for eliminating mono came from the retailers, who were greatly inconvenienced by the need to maintain dual stocks. Consumers would not infrequently erroneously buy the wrong version and be disappointed when they played them at home. Oh, I'm sure 'dual stocks' were a commonplace thing in the 'post war prosperous' US of A', but my memory is/was that back in the heyday of vinyl in still skint, still morgaged up to the arse, 60s Britanistan, it was very much an either/or, take it or leave it thing in most record shops - don't know about anyone else here, but I was *never* asked 'Would sir like that in stereo or mono?'...!! In reality, I don't think most ordinary people gave a rat's about 'stereo' until the players became widely available, affordably cheap and pretty much the only choice in the shops, like HD TV (I believe) is today and also like where Bluray is right now - definitely on its way but no way yet *universal* and not set to displace DVDs for a good while. Further also, some of the utter crap that's getting re-released on Bluray atm and very poorly done is a good parallel for some of the dodgy 'stereo effect' albums that are the subject of debate here. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
In article ,
Keith G wrote: In reality, I don't think most ordinary people gave a rat's about 'stereo' until the players became widely available, affordably cheap and pretty much the only choice in the shops, Well yes. Not much point in buying the stereo version if you only had mono to play it on. -- *No radio - Already stolen. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Keith G" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message "David Looser" wrote in message ... AIUI "electronic stereo" was basically a marketing device, a way of selling existing mono material to a new market. The record companies decided to discontinue the pressing of mono and stereo versions of the same LP, requiring two presses for the same job, at a time when the demand for mono LPs was fallling rapidly. You don't need two different presses to make the mono and stereo versions of the same LP. You just use different dies. OK, where's the 'pedant' cry when you want one, then? I was just commenting on how ludicrous Iain's comment about "two presses" was. He obviously has no clue about how LP production plants work. Furthermore, it was not unusual to use more than one press at the same time for LPs that sold in high volumes. Er, or for factories *all round the world* to be pushing out the same album 24/7 on 'more than one press' while it was *hot*....!! I was again just commenting on how ludicrous Iain's comment about "two presses" was. He obviously has no clue about how LP production plant works. The major pressure for eliminating mono came from the retailers, who were greatly inconvenienced by the need to maintain dual stocks. Consumers would not infrequently erroneously buy the wrong version and be disappointed when they played them at home. Oh, I'm sure 'dual stocks' were a commonplace thing in the 'post war prosperous' US of A', but my memory is/was that back in the heyday of vinyl in still skint, still morgaged up to the arse, 60s Britanistan, it was very much an either/or, take it or leave it thing in most record shops - don't know about anyone else here, but I was *never* asked 'Would sir like that in stereo or mono?'...!! By the 60s record stores in the US were largely using the "self serve" model, with open bins of stock fully accessible to the customers. Therefore, questions like 'Would sir like that in stereo or mono?' were already completely moot. The usual question was "Will you be paying for that with cash, check or charge?" In reality, I don't think most ordinary people gave a rat's about 'stereo' until the players became widely available, affordably cheap and pretty much the only choice in the shops, By the mid/late 1960s that was pretty much the case in the US. If memory serves, we started converting to stereo in dead earnest by 1960, by 1965 FM stereo was the rule, and by 1968 the US was pretty much an all-stereo world, both media and equipment. like HD TV (I believe) is today and also like where Bluray is right now - definitely on its way but no way yet *universal* and not set to displace DVDs for a good while. I have heard questions as to whether or not Blu Ray has already flopped on the marketplace. The two questions I hear are "where is Blu Ray version of my favorite movie?", and "OK, I've got the movie, why did they want such a premium for such mediocre video?" Further also, some of the utter crap that's getting re-released on Bluray atm and very poorly done is a good parallel for some of the dodgy 'stereo effect' albums that are the subject of debate here. That could be the case. DVD at 720 x 480 is close enough to mediocre HD to make some people wonder why they should pay a premium for HD. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: In reality, I don't think most ordinary people gave a rat's about 'stereo' until the players became widely available, affordably cheap and pretty much the only choice in the shops, Well yes. Not much point in buying the stereo version if you only had mono to play it on. Read this bit again: "but my memory is/was that back in the heyday of vinyl in still skint, still morgaged up to the arse, 60s Britanistan, it was very much an either/or, take it or leave it thing in most record shops - don't know about anyone else here, but I was *never* asked 'Would sir like that in stereo or mono?'...!!" My point is that it *was* either mono or stereo but never both, at least out in the sticks where I lived (nearest towns Hertford, Stevenage) - you either bought the copy they had in stock or you didn't. So you well indeed may have bought the stereo version to play on a deck with a *compatible mono cartridge, ask your dealer if you are not sure* - IOW, with the correct stylus radius. I don't think Joe Simple even *noticed* stereo until they'd been busting their guts for a while to produce all the ping-pong 'stereo samplers' that were mentioned in the original mono/dual mono/stereo thread.... -- *No radio - Already stolen. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
In article ,
Keith G wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: In reality, I don't think most ordinary people gave a rat's about 'stereo' until the players became widely available, affordably cheap and pretty much the only choice in the shops, Well yes. Not much point in buying the stereo version if you only had mono to play it on. Read this bit again: "but my memory is/was that back in the heyday of vinyl in still skint, still morgaged up to the arse, 60s Britanistan, it was very much an either/or, take it or leave it thing in most record shops - don't know about anyone else here, but I was *never* asked 'Would sir like that in stereo or mono?'...!!" They probably expected you to ask for what you wanted - like when singles were available in 78 and 45. My point is that it *was* either mono or stereo but never both, at least out in the sticks where I lived (nearest towns Hertford, Stevenage) - you either bought the copy they had in stock or you didn't. So you well indeed may have bought the stereo version to play on a deck with a *compatible mono cartridge, ask your dealer if you are not sure* - IOW, with the correct stylus radius. I don't think Joe Simple even *noticed* stereo until they'd been busting their guts for a while to produce all the ping-pong 'stereo samplers' that were mentioned in the original mono/dual mono/stereo thread.... Not if he only had a Dansette. Those who had a reasonable system would know about stereo - the BBC did enough tests for everyone to at least have heard of it. Incidentally the one actual ping pong track I've heard had excellent audience ambience on it. But if you put one speaker either side of the room as most did you'd not have noticed. -- *Why don't you ever see the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery"? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: In reality, I don't think most ordinary people gave a rat's about 'stereo' until the players became widely available, affordably cheap and pretty much the only choice in the shops, Well yes. Not much point in buying the stereo version if you only had mono to play it on. Read this bit again: "but my memory is/was that back in the heyday of vinyl in still skint, still morgaged up to the arse, 60s Britanistan, it was very much an either/or, take it or leave it thing in most record shops - don't know about anyone else here, but I was *never* asked 'Would sir like that in stereo or mono?'...!!" They probably expected you to ask for what you wanted - like when singles were available in 78 and 45. My strongest recollection is when I asked if the record shop in Stevenage New Town centre (called The Recod Shop) had anything by a new group called Queen? The guy behind the counter said 'Ooo?' and shuffled off to look. They actually had a (stereo?) copy of Brighton Rock which I bought! My point is that it *was* either mono or stereo but never both, at least out in the sticks where I lived (nearest towns Hertford, Stevenage) - you either bought the copy they had in stock or you didn't. So you well indeed may have bought the stereo version to play on a deck with a *compatible mono cartridge, ask your dealer if you are not sure* - IOW, with the correct stylus radius. I don't think Joe Simple even *noticed* stereo until they'd been busting their guts for a while to produce all the ping-pong 'stereo samplers' that were mentioned in the original mono/dual mono/stereo thread.... Not if he only had a Dansette. Those who had a reasonable system would know about stereo - the BBC did enough tests for everyone to at least have heard of it. The very early part of the 60s era for me was one of finally being allowed to mess with the 'stereogram' and, when I had got the *bug* I remember hankering after a Pioneer PL12D with a Shure M75ED2 on it, but had to settle for a mail order turntable/receiver + separate speakers thing with a BSR deck in it!!! Which was nice... In the early 70s I got a Philips GA212 deck with an Ortofon cart, a Cambridge P50 amp and AR4Xa speakers. Incidentally the one actual ping pong track I've heard had excellent audience ambience on it. But if you put one speaker either side of the room as most did you'd not have noticed. I have seen speaker pairs in all sorts of congurations which only confirms/confirmed that Joe Ordinaire didn't have a clue or even care about 'stereo' back then. The trouble with the whole 'stereo roll out', as I see now, is that that they were peddling stereo to people with only mediocre kit to start with, to play hideous bloody sample records like this one: http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/TotalSound.jpg ....that had a hideous, wide-ranging cocktail of ****ed-up 'tribute music' garnered from various other albums currently in the catalogue: http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...lSoundRear.jpg (Excuse the stain - I guess its previous owner got a little excited when he bought the disc! :-) Which sounded summat like this (Side 2, Track 2): http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/StereoClip.mp3 For 'Dad' to make himself look a complete tit and bore the crap out of everybody with and somehow get him to prioritise a 'proper' hifi system over a little tinny secondhand car to take the family to the seaside on bank holidays or summat like! (All that said, If I had the chance I'd be back there *like a shot* - fitwer possible...!! :-) |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote Oh, I'm sure 'dual stocks' were a commonplace thing in the 'post war prosperous' US of A', but my memory is/was that back in the heyday of vinyl in still skint, still morgaged up to the arse, 60s Britanistan, it was very much an either/or, take it or leave it thing in most record shops - don't know about anyone else here, but I was *never* asked 'Would sir like that in stereo or mono?'...!! By the 60s record stores in the US were largely using the "self serve" model, with open bins of stock fully accessible to the customers. Therefore, questions like 'Would sir like that in stereo or mono?' were already completely moot. The usual question was "Will you be paying for that with cash, check or charge?" IIRC, in the 60s no-one had a credit or charge card here and no shop would take a cheque off anyone they didn't already know! In reality, I don't think most ordinary people gave a rat's about 'stereo' until the players became widely available, affordably cheap and pretty much the only choice in the shops, By the mid/late 1960s that was pretty much the case in the US. We were probably the better part of a decade behind the US in such things back then - if its toxic debt, obesity, street violence or drug-related crime, we are about a fortnight behind you these days.... If memory serves, we started converting to stereo in dead earnest by 1960, by 1965 FM stereo was the rule, and by 1968 the US was pretty much an all-stereo world, both media and equipment. Googleable of course, but off the top of my head I don't know when we went over to FM stereo. like HD TV (I believe) is today and also like where Bluray is right now - definitely on its way but no way yet *universal* and not set to displace DVDs for a good while. I have heard questions as to whether or not Blu Ray has already flopped on the marketplace. The two questions I hear are "where is Blu Ray version of my favorite movie?", and "OK, I've got the movie, why did they want such a premium for such mediocre video?" OK. First off, there's no much doubt Bluray will succeed - HD everything is the name of the game now and the big studio names are well behind it. Most important though, LoveFilm do not charge extra for Bluray rental over ordinary DVDs - first sign in a long while where I think a big organisation has shown a bit of long-term common sense conquering the all-too familiar short-term greed! Amazon and other retailers still need to spot that people aren't exactly *rushing* to pay through the nose for 'HD anything'!! Further also, some of the utter crap that's getting re-released on Bluray atm and very poorly done is a good parallel for some of the dodgy 'stereo effect' albums that are the subject of debate here. That could be the case. DVD at 720 x 480 is close enough to mediocre HD to make some people wonder why they should pay a premium for HD. Maybe, but that's certainly not the case with anybody overhead projecting BD and DVDs with a 1080p PJ like we are - if the differences are not so sharply defined with the new breed of LED and OLED panel TVs then you may well be right. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Keith G" wrote blah blah blah http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/TotalSound.jpg ...that had a hideous, wide-ranging cocktail of ****ed-up 'tribute music' garnered from various other albums currently in the catalogue: http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...lSoundRear.jpg (Excuse the stain - I guess its previous owner got a little excited when he bought the disc! :-) Which sounded summat like this (Side 2, Track 2): http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/StereoClip.mp3 I have since 'monoed' and 'dual monoed' this clip for some fairly interesting comparisons and made one or two discoveries that I won't mention in case anyone (??) wants to compare them for themselves: http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/MonoClip.mp3 http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...alMonoClip.mp3 http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/StereoClip.mp3 I would love to compare some stereo and mono recordings made simultaneously but separately of the same event! |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Keith G" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote Oh, I'm sure 'dual stocks' were a commonplace thing in the 'post war prosperous' US of A', but my memory is/was that back in the heyday of vinyl in still skint, still morgaged up to the arse, 60s Britanistan, it was very much an either/or, take it or leave it thing in most record shops - don't know about anyone else here, but I was *never* asked 'Would sir like that in stereo or mono?'...!! By the 60s record stores in the US were largely using the "self serve" model, with open bins of stock fully accessible to the customers. Therefore, questions like 'Would sir like that in stereo or mono?' were already completely moot. The usual question was "Will you be paying for that with cash, check or charge?" IIRC, in the 60s no-one had a credit or charge card here and no shop would take a cheque off anyone they didn't already know! Well, at least the shops you frequented, Kitty! ;-) In reality, I don't think most ordinary people gave a rat's about 'stereo' until the players became widely available, affordably cheap and pretty much the only choice in the shops, By the mid/late 1960s that was pretty much the case in the US. We were probably the better part of a decade behind the US in such things back then - if its toxic debt, obesity, street violence or drug-related crime, we are about a fortnight behind you these days.... Not a bad place to be... However, all those factors depend considerably exactly where in the US you live. For example, the murder rate in the city immediately south of here is about 100 per 100,000 per year. In my town and those around it on all other sides, less than 1 per 100,000 per year. Same gun control laws in all places. If memory serves, we started converting to stereo in dead earnest by 1960, by 1965 FM stereo was the rule, and by 1968 the US was pretty much an all-stereo world, both media and equipment. Googleable of course, but off the top of my head I don't know when we went over to FM stereo. Google would probably show when FM stereo was available in the UK. Market penetration stats would be tougher to find. like HD TV (I believe) is today and also like where Bluray is right now - definitely on its way but no way yet *universal* and not set to displace DVDs for a good while. I have heard questions as to whether or not Blu Ray has already flopped on the marketplace. The two questions I hear are "where is Blu Ray version of my favorite movie?", and "OK, I've got the movie, why did they want such a premium for such mediocre video?" OK. First off, there's no much doubt Bluray will succeed - HD everything is the name of the game now and the big studio names are well behind it. Most important though, LoveFilm do not charge extra for Bluray rental over ordinary DVDs - first sign in a long while where I think a big organisation has shown a bit of long-term common sense conquering the all-too familiar short-term greed! The problem with lack of BluRay titles to rent or buy remains a big drag. Amazon and other retailers still need to spot that people aren't exactly *rushing* to pay through the nose for 'HD anything'!! Exactly. Ditto for the cable providers. Further also, some of the utter crap that's getting re-released on Bluray atm and very poorly done is a good parallel for some of the dodgy 'stereo effect' albums that are the subject of debate here. That could be the case. DVD at 720 x 480 is close enough to mediocre HD to make some people wonder why they should pay a premium for HD. Maybe, but that's certainly not the case with anybody overhead projecting BD and DVDs with a 1080p PJ like we are - Sometimes the problem is that the displayed picture is not large enough, but often the problem is that the program material just isn't that good. if the differences are not so sharply defined with the new breed of LED and OLED panel TVs then you may well be right. The problem with many HDTVs is that the screen just isn't large enough given the viewing distance. Habits and preferences have been oriented around masking the limitations of NTSC and PAL. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote Oh, I'm sure 'dual stocks' were a commonplace thing in the 'post war prosperous' US of A', but my memory is/was that back in the heyday of vinyl in still skint, still morgaged up to the arse, 60s Britanistan, it was very much an either/or, take it or leave it thing in most record shops - don't know about anyone else here, but I was *never* asked 'Would sir like that in stereo or mono?'...!! By the 60s record stores in the US were largely using the "self serve" model, with open bins of stock fully accessible to the customers. Therefore, questions like 'Would sir like that in stereo or mono?' were already completely moot. The usual question was "Will you be paying for that with cash, check or charge?" IIRC, in the 60s no-one had a credit or charge card here and no shop would take a cheque off anyone they didn't already know! Well, at least the shops you frequented, Kitty! ;-) Starting the insults and name-calling again, Amy? Pity the *judgementalists* here haven't been able to pick up on that you and your devoted little pal *always* start the ****fests here. What they don't seem to be able to forgive is that I give as good as I get - I've only said 'I pay in the same coin as I am paid' about 28,000 times.... Now, do I even read the rest or do I just ignore it? We'll see... In reality, I don't think most ordinary people gave a rat's about 'stereo' until the players became widely available, affordably cheap and pretty much the only choice in the shops, By the mid/late 1960s that was pretty much the case in the US. We were probably the better part of a decade behind the US in such things back then - if its toxic debt, obesity, street violence or drug-related crime, we are about a fortnight behind you these days.... Not a bad place to be... However, all those factors depend considerably exactly where in the US you live. For example, the murder rate in the city immediately south of here is about 100 per 100,000 per year. In my town and those around it on all other sides, less than 1 per 100,000 per year. Same gun control laws in all places. If memory serves, we started converting to stereo in dead earnest by 1960, by 1965 FM stereo was the rule, and by 1968 the US was pretty much an all-stereo world, both media and equipment. Googleable of course, but off the top of my head I don't know when we went over to FM stereo. Google would probably show when FM stereo was available in the UK. Market penetration stats would be tougher to find. like HD TV (I believe) is today and also like where Bluray is right now - definitely on its way but no way yet *universal* and not set to displace DVDs for a good while. I have heard questions as to whether or not Blu Ray has already flopped on the marketplace. The two questions I hear are "where is Blu Ray version of my favorite movie?", and "OK, I've got the movie, why did they want such a premium for such mediocre video?" OK. First off, there's no much doubt Bluray will succeed - HD everything is the name of the game now and the big studio names are well behind it. Most important though, LoveFilm do not charge extra for Bluray rental over ordinary DVDs - first sign in a long while where I think a big organisation has shown a bit of long-term common sense conquering the all-too familiar short-term greed! The problem with lack of BluRay titles to rent or buy remains a big drag. Amazon and other retailers still need to spot that people aren't exactly *rushing* to pay through the nose for 'HD anything'!! Exactly. Ditto for the cable providers. Further also, some of the utter crap that's getting re-released on Bluray atm and very poorly done is a good parallel for some of the dodgy 'stereo effect' albums that are the subject of debate here. That could be the case. DVD at 720 x 480 is close enough to mediocre HD to make some people wonder why they should pay a premium for HD. Maybe, but that's certainly not the case with anybody overhead projecting BD and DVDs with a 1080p PJ like we are - Sometimes the problem is that the displayed picture is not large enough, but often the problem is that the program material just isn't that good. if the differences are not so sharply defined with the new breed of LED and OLED panel TVs then you may well be right. The problem with many HDTVs is that the screen just isn't large enough given the viewing distance. Habits and preferences have been oriented around masking the limitations of NTSC and PAL. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
In article , Arny
Krueger wrote: "Keith G" wrote in message per 100,000 per year. Same gun control laws in all places. If memory serves, we started converting to stereo in dead earnest by 1960, by 1965 FM stereo was the rule, and by 1968 the US was pretty much an all-stereo world, both media and equipment. Googleable of course, but off the top of my head I don't know when we went over to FM stereo. Google would probably show when FM stereo was available in the UK. Market penetration stats would be tougher to find. Hard to give meaningful answers for the above in the UK. The coverage was for many years limited to just a few areas. And tended to be only on Radio 3 in those areas. And was only a few programmes per week. So it was quite some time between the first Radio 3 sheduled stereo broadcasts in the London area and when most of the UK population were provided with tranmissions on a routine multi-station basis. The main problem IIRC was that during much the same period Colour TV was also being rolled out, and the BBC simply gave that priority. FWIW when I 'emigrated' up to Scotland we weren't provided with BBC Radio 4 on FM. So no stereo here for radio 4. This was in the 1980s and early 1990s. Slainte, Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
Another 'dual mono' question....
In article ,
Keith G wrote: Well, at least the shops you frequented, Kitty! ;-) Starting the insults and name-calling again, Amy? Pity the *judgementalists* here haven't been able to pick up on that you and your devoted little pal *always* start the ****fests here. Kitty, you first called me Plowie or whatever ages before I christened you Kitty. Sauce for the goose etc. As I said before if you treat people with respect you should get it back. But if like you try and put them down expect the same in return. -- *Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: Well, at least the shops you frequented, Kitty! ;-) Starting the insults and name-calling again, Amy? Pity the *judgementalists* here haven't been able to pick up on that you and your devoted little pal *always* start the ****fests here. Kitty, you first called me Plowie or whatever ages before I christened you Kitty. Sauce for the goose etc. ??? How very strange that you have apparently taken offence (for *years*??) at the 'familiar' name Plowie when no offence was ever meant only goes to prove you are indeed a pathetic little ********** and that nothing has been lost by it.... As I said before if you treat people with respect you should get it back. But if like you try and put them down expect the same in return. And the same goes for you, but I don't need or want your respect Poochie Poos and there's no way under heaven you could ever get mine, so just stop whining and dry yer eyes - there's a nice new *serious troll* with your name all over it waiting for a response, why don't you have a good long think and see if you can come with summat nice and scathing.... (Then I'll have hooked both of this group's biggest *****s* with one cast!! :-) Ay oop, his pathetic little sig generator has stuck as well - that's about the tenth time this crap has appeared this week: -- *Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
In article ,
Keith G wrote: Starting the insults and name-calling again, Amy? Pity the *judgementalists* here haven't been able to pick up on that you and your devoted little pal *always* start the ****fests here. Kitty, you first called me Plowie or whatever ages before I christened you Kitty. Sauce for the goose etc. ??? How very strange that you have apparently taken offence (for *years*??) at the 'familiar' name Plowie when no offence was ever meant only goes to prove you are indeed a pathetic little ********** and that nothing has been lost by it.... *You* meant no offence? Just wanted to be familiar? Excuse me while I throw up. That's the best whine I've read for a while. But you didn't offend me by name calling - I've been insulted by experts. And you're no Oscar Wilde. But you obviously hate being called Kitty which gives much pleasure. As I said before if you treat people with respect you should get it back. But if like you try and put them down expect the same in return. And the same goes for you, but I don't need or want your respect Poochie Poos Is that another example of you trying to be familiar, Kitty? and there's no way under heaven you could ever get mine, so just stop whining and dry yer eyes - there's a nice new *serious troll* with your name all over it waiting for a response, why don't you have a good long think and see if you can come with summat nice and scathing.... Could run that by me again in English? (Then I'll have hooked both of this group's biggest *****s* with one cast!! :-) Ay oop, his pathetic little sig generator has stuck as well - that's about the tenth time this crap has appeared this week: Glad you read it with such relish. You certainly comment on it enough. -- *Great groups from little icons grow * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Another 'dual mono' question....
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: Starting the insults and name-calling again, Amy? Pity the *judgementalists* here haven't been able to pick up on that you and your devoted little pal *always* start the ****fests here. Kitty, you first called me Plowie or whatever ages before I christened you Kitty. Sauce for the goose etc. ??? How very strange that you have apparently taken offence (for *years*??) at the 'familiar' name Plowie when no offence was ever meant only goes to prove you are indeed a pathetic little ********** and that nothing has been lost by it.... *You* meant no offence? Just wanted to be familiar? Good oh - Pucciwankaboy's here to give me a break from seriously boring movie.... Excuse me while I throw up. Been down the pub again, then..?? That's the best whine I've read for a while. Don't you mean *wine*.....??? But you didn't offend me by name calling - I've been insulted by experts. Oh, I'm *sure* you have. LOL! And you're no Oscar Wilde. No, but I strongly suspect you swing that way, dear.... But you obviously hate being called Kitty which gives much pleasure. Knock yourself out Pucciwankaboy - like I could care less..?? As I said before if you treat people with respect you should get it back. But if like you try and put them down expect the same in return. And the same goes for you, but I don't need or want your respect Poochie Poos Is that another example of you trying to be familiar, Kitty? and there's no way under heaven you could ever get mine, so just stop whining and dry yer eyes - there's a nice new *serious troll* with your name all over it waiting for a response, why don't you have a good long think and see if you can come with summat nice and scathing.... Could run that by me again in English? Go wash your face with cold water and read it again. (Then I'll have hooked both of this group's biggest *****s* with one cast!! :-) Ay oop, his pathetic little sig generator has stuck as well - that's about the tenth time this crap has appeared this week: Glad you read it with such relish. Relish? Like Patum Peperium you mean..?? You certainly comment on it enough. It is puerile and pathetic, yet it is almost always the best thing in your posts.... -- *Great groups from little icons grow * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:02 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