View Full Version : The vinyl illusion ?
Along with supporting Rangers, lol? :eyebrows:;)
Marco.
only an interested bystander these days. They wont be Rangers until they have a team worthy of the jersey. I know that may sound heresy to some but until that happens then there is no old firm for me(and it may never be judging by what is selected)
As to music, well I just listen to tunes now and dont really worry much about how I can improve it anymore. Sounds decent enough for me.
Fair do's, muchacho :cool:
Marco.
Haselsh1
23-09-2017, 15:14
I think some of you have somewhat 'lost focus' on why we do (or should be doing) what we do!
Marco.
No, seriously do not think that this is the case. As I have said before, my only interest is in emotion derived from the music which is derived from the hi-fi and the way it is reproduced. I am not interested in how accurate or not the system may be. With that in mind though, I certainly would not want a PA in my lounge. Hell, there's a thought ;)
Haselsh1
23-09-2017, 15:16
Yes, but some undoubtedly make music sound more 'real' than others! ;)
Marco.
Quantify real...?
A fully electronic band is only as real as the PA system which will change from one gig to the next. There is no real.
Haselsh1
23-09-2017, 15:18
So you don't want to make your system as realistic as possible? I thought this was the whole idea of an audiophile hifi set up, the goal being to make vocals, instruments and music sound as realistic as possible.
The point of MY hi-fi system is to make a sound that I find emotive and therefore highly acceptable.
Quantify real...?
A fully electronic band is only as real as the PA system which will change from one gig to the next. There is no real.
Not talking about electronic music, Shaun, which I agree is a separate entity, but rather the reproduction of acoustic instruments and voices - and I've already outlined how I do that... "Real", according to my judgement criteria and experience :)
Marco.
Haselsh1
23-09-2017, 15:35
Think I might :D
:eyebrows:
Haselsh1
23-09-2017, 15:36
Not talking about electronic music, Shaun, which I agree is a separate entity, but rather the reproduction of acoustic instruments and voices - and I've already outlined how I do that... "Real", according to my judgement criteria and experience :)
Marco.
OK Marco, that is a totally different thing to which I do not partake.
Haselsh1
23-09-2017, 15:38
Not talking about electronic music, Shaun, which I agree is a separate entity, but rather the reproduction of acoustic instruments and voices - and I've already outlined how I do that... "Real", according to my judgement criteria and experience :)
Marco.
Yeah and 'emotional' according to my judgement criteria and experience
So what steps do you take to make your system present music with the required "emotion"? Essentially, how do you factor that into your system-building process? :)
Marco.
Emotive is rather difficult to quantify and is only one part of a systems ability to convey a musical genre even if it is electronic. I have a friend who listens to a lot of electronic music and indeed it is his first choice in music. His system does emotive but it is vast, extremely powerful and uses speakers with cones made from billet aluminium manufactured by YG.
I have heard electronic sounds from this system that are so emotive they make you want to punch the air and shout ! All the material is played from digital files. He has a very large repatoire of electronica which sounds absolutely stunning. I would suggest his electronic music sounds better than any other type via his system, it seems to be absolutely suited to this type of music.
One small problem, to achieve this it costs mucho mulla, £150,000!:eek:
paulf-2007
23-09-2017, 17:05
Yes, but some undoubtedly make music sound more 'real' than others! ;)
If you don't at least have that goal in mind, in the first place, then why own proper hi-fi [the key words here] system? At this point, I would remind folks of the definition of 'High-Fidelity':
"The reproduction of sound with little distortion, giving a result very similar to the original".
I think some of you have somewhat 'lost focus' on why we do (or should be doing) what we do!
Marco.oh shit the hifi police are going to knock my door in the night. If I don't post again you will know why.
Hi Paul,
I'm sure that the principles and approach I'm advocating are not entirely alien to yours, so worry not! ;)
Marco.
montesquieu
23-09-2017, 21:36
This thread has me a bit bemused. I actually don't care that much about hifi. I've selected kit over many years with the goal of really enjoying the music I put on. Yes that does involve an element striving for accuracy (as in - it's hard to enjoy a viola da gamba that sounds like a badly-recorded cello). But it's not the be all and end all - enjoying the music is.
Peter Walker of Quad put tone controls on his preamps because he was well aware that all too often recording engineers / mastering engineers fail to produce something that sounds decent, enjoyable, listenable. Accuracy fails in my book if any recording can't be listened to with pleasure. Ten years ago I spent time chasing detail - only to find I was barking up the wrong tree altogether. I blew up my system, ever bit of it (Quad ESL, Whest phono stages, Lyra cartridges) and started again.
It's amazing the detail that suddenly appears on a recording if you sit down with the score of the work you are listening to - indeed, usually you find it's all on the record already, what's missing is your attention drawn to a particular element. But as a musician, and sometime conductor, I know (and should have known 10years ago) that not every detail cries out to come to the top screaming attention to itself - often the goal is to blend into the whole and create an overall effect. A system that draws your attention overly into how it reproduces tiny details or obsesses on pin perfect instrument placement, and not into the soul of the music - the harmony, counterpoint, rhythm, musical communication between the performers, micro-expression and articulation of phrasing, and most of all, the overall vibe - is a waste of time.
You know at the opticians where they make the image super sharp, it's almost painful, then they add a lens that doesn't make it blurry as such, but takes the edge off and makes it comfortable - that's what I aim at. Breed out hash, blurring, noise, strange tonal artefacts - yes of course, you need to get to a point where those aren't there, where the sound is clear and there's no rubbish getting in the way. But go too far, use too magnifying a lens, and you can take away soul of of the music.
If I put on a record and it makes my ears bleed, I don't just blame the recording engineer: he has failed, yes but also in some way so has my system. I have quite a few orchestral records that sound like they were recorded in a giant toilet, or have instruments far too closely miked, or some other glaring flaw. Often the performance is dross as well so there's no need ever to play it again. Occasionally though, that crap recording contains some excellent or rare performance - and my system ought to be able to make a decent fist of doing something with it. I can marvel at what my system drags out of 78s - not a hifi medium by any stretch - but enjoyable - yes indeed.
Accuracy - yes, up to a point, Lord Copper.
farflungstar
23-09-2017, 21:51
This thread has me a bit bemused. I actually don't care that much about hifi. I've selected kit over many years with the goal of really enjoying the music I put on. Yes that does involve an element striving for accuracy (as in - it's hard to enjoy a viola da gamba that sounds like a badly-recorded cello). But it's not the be all and end all - enjoying the music is.
Peter Walker of Quad put tone controls on his preamps because he was well aware that all too often recording engineers / mastering engineers fail to produce something that sounds decent, enjoyable, listenable. Accuracy fails in my book if any recording can't be listened to with pleasure. Ten years ago I spent time chasing detail - only to find I was barking up the wrong tree altogether. I blew up my system, ever bit of it (Quad ESL, Whest phono stages, Lyra cartridges) and started again.
It's amazing the detail that suddenly appears on a recording if you sit down with the score of the work you are listening to - indeed, usually you find it's all on the record already, what's missing is your attention drawn to a particular element. But as a musician, and sometime conductor, I know (and should have known 10years ago) that not every detail cries out to come to the top screaming attention to itself - often the goal is to blend into the whole and create an overall effect. A system that draws your attention overly into how it reproduces tiny details or obsesses on pin perfect instrument placement, and not into the soul of the music - the harmony, counterpoint, rhythm, musical communication between the performers, micro-expression and articulation of phrasing, and most of all, the overall vibe - is a waste of time.
You know at the opticians where they make the image super sharp, it's almost painful, then they add a lens that doesn't make it blurry as such, but takes the edge off and makes it comfortable - that's what I aim at. Breed out hash, blurring, noise, strange tonal artefacts - yes of course, you need to get to a point where those aren't there, where the sound is clear and there's no rubbish getting in the way. But go too far, use too magnifying a lens, and you can take away soul of of the music.
If I put on a record and it makes my ears bleed, I don't just blame the recording engineer: he has failed, yes but also in some way so has my system. I have quite a few orchestral records that sound like they were recorded in a giant toilet, or have instruments far too closely miked, or some other glaring flaw. Often the performance is dross as well so there's no need ever to play it again. Occasionally though, that crap recording contains some excellent or rare performance - and my system ought to be able to make a decent fist of doing something with it. I can marvel at what my system drags out of 78s - not a hifi medium by any stretch - but enjoyable - yes indeed.
Accuracy - yes, up to a point, Lord Copper.+1
Hi Tom,
This thread has me a bit bemused. I actually don't care that much about hifi. I've selected kit over many years with the goal of really enjoying the music I put on. Yes that does involve an element striving for accuracy (as in - it's hard to enjoy a viola da gamba that sounds like a badly-recorded cello). But it's not the be all and end all - enjoying the music is.
I completely agree, but for me, the more my ears tell me that my system reproduces the sound of real instruments more faithfully (or accurately), the more I enjoy the music, so the two simply go hand in hand :)
But it's not about creating a 'soulless sound' that majors on detail retrieval, at the expense of musicality. You *can* have BOTH!
Look at the type of cartridges I like, for example (plus when I had SPUs), and also the speakers I use, all of which you're very familiar with yourself - and all of them are inherently musical sounding devices, excelling at tone and timbre, and SOUL. I wouldn't use a Whest or Lyra product if you paid me!! :eek::nono:
So I'm afraid this notion (and the common mindset that prevails amongst some enthusiasts) that if your system is 'accurate' and/or very revealing/detailed, it's somehow 'all hi-fi and no music', is patent nonsense and a complete fallacy. The fact is, what could ever be more musical sounding or enjoyable than the music itself [the original sound]??
That's hi-fi, but it's also music! So getting as close as possible to the sound of the real thing/original *has* to be the goal for any true hi-fi enthusiast and music lover [count me in].
Peter Walker of Quad put tone controls on his preamps because he was well aware that all too often recording engineers / mastering engineers fail to produce something that sounds decent, enjoyable, listenable.
Well that may sometimes be the case (and the 'tone controls' on Quad gear are well-executed and subtle in the effect they produce), but all I can say is that as someone who owns a very large and diverse music collection, of all different genres and on various formats, I've NEVER ONCE felt the need to use tone controls, and so almost every amplifier I've owned hasn't featured any.
For me, there are much better ways of addressing those issues than employing the 'bandage' (something I touched on earlier) of a tone control.
Accuracy fails in my book if any recording can't be listened to with pleasure.
As I've already said, the two (accuracy and pleasure) aren't mutually exclusive!
A system that draws your attention overly into how it reproduces tiny details or obsesses on pin perfect instrument placement, and not into the soul of the music - the harmony, counterpoint, rhythm, musical communication between the performers, micro-expression and articulation of phrasing, and most of all, the overall vibe - is a waste of time.
Agreed, but what about a system that has all (or a goodly dose) of the latter, as well as the same of the former?
As I've said, it CAN be done. It just takes the right mix of equipment and a good pair of ears. It's not rocket science. There is simply no reason to think that you can only have one, but not the other. What you're essentially after, is creating a sound that's as LIFELIKE as possible.
'Accuracy' (I prefer using the word 'faithfulness') doesn't have to mean ear-bleeding, "super sharp", bright or anything else, which makes the listening experience uncomfortable. The listening experience can be perfectly comfortable, whilst at the same time, presenting a sound that's highly resolving of the recording that's being reproduced.
"The soul of the music" (something I'm very BIG on, in terms of how my system has been 'voiced') still remains intact and unhindered in the presence of that 'accuracy' or faithfulness, simply because *nothing* can ever be more musical, enjoyable or SOULFUL, than the music itself.
Think about it this way, in terms of 'accuracy', which is beginning to sound like a dirty word around here...
If your system [let's pretend] was able to 100% faithfully reproduce the sound of a cello, with zero coloration/distortion and unhindered clarity, so that you simply couldn't distinguish between what was coming out of your speakers, and the sound produced by the real thing, then how would that ever be ear-bleeding or uncomfortable?
It could only ever be so if you didn't actually LIKE the sound of the real thing! So...... There is absolutely no reason to 'fear' accuracy or faithfulness to the original sound (what hi-fi is about), *if* what's being judged is genuinely that.
The problem is, that often what is claimed as such, actually isn't [it's simply a bright, forward, super-detailed sound, posing as 'accurate', but ultimately just as coloured as a warm, dull, laid back one], and so that's what gives 'accuracy' a bad name - but that's 'false accuracy', rather than the real thing! ;)
And *that* is what the problem was before you had your "lightbulb" moment.
Marco.
I probably have a low end system , that means I dont really see the difference myself , in the 2 formats !!
I dont have the time to faff around with it , and probably have made my mind up that I dont want to throw silly money at it either !
I have a Project Debut Carbon with the Red cart , but lately prefer to use my old Ferguson belt drive TT with Shure M75-6S cart , as it satisfies my need for interchanging several heads !
Plus the fact ,I am a peasant :eyebrows:
jandl100
24-09-2017, 07:20
.... Ten years ago I spent time chasing detail - only to find I was barking up the wrong tree altogether. I blew up my system, ever bit of it (Quad ESL, Whest phono stages, Lyra cartridges) and started again....
.
Wow.
Fascinating.
Without a shadow of a doubt that modded-Quad ESL system was by far the best I have heard at your place -- and pretty much any other place as well; it did many things astonishingly well, including for me bringing the music realistically alive in a way that the Tannoys at a later visit just totally didn't do (for me).
Different paths indeed. :)
montesquieu
24-09-2017, 08:55
Wow.
Fascinating.
Without a shadow of a doubt that modded-Quad ESL system was by far the best I have heard at your place -- and pretty much any other place as well; it did many things astonishingly well, including for me bringing the music realistically alive in a way that the Tannoys at a later visit just totally didn't do (for me).
Different paths indeed. :)
It did some things beautifully Jerry I'm not denying that. But I had a lightbulb moment when an old school friend came to visit.
We hadn't seen each other for almost 30 years but had been really close friends, played a lot of music together (he was a trumpet player - I recall accompanying him at the piano on Hummel and Haydn trumpet concertos) and aged 14 and 15 we used to get the train through from Motherwell to the Scottish proms at the kelvin hall in Glasgow. Thanks to the wonders of the internet we reconnected around that time.
He came over all the way from Southend and was duly impressed by the lieder and the lute music I put on. I asked him if he wanted to hear anything and he pulled out an old Bruno Walter recording of a Mahler symphony. It totally underwhelmed and I was embarrassed.
After he went home I realised my listening had shrunk. I was only playing music the system liked and avoiding stuff it couldn't handle. It provided a beautiful window onto small scale music, but it didn't energise the room - and with bigger music you can't get away with that.
A pair of Lancasters came up, and having had Tannoys previously I grabbed them. These were a revelation, for all their flaws (the Lancaster cabinet doesn't show the 15in MG at its best, not by a long shot). My wife then told me how much she hated the Quads - she loves to sit off centre sometimes with a huge pile of essays or exam scripts to match, and with Tannoys, you don't need to be in the sweet spot for music to sound good.
Anyway that set me on a path to see what could be done with Tannoys.
You do need to come over Jerry and hear the current incarnation - after my big Radford comes back we'll get another classical music day arranged.
Anything to say about my previous post, Tom?
For me, the reason why you junked the system you've just referred to is because it created a false impression of 'accuracy'; one which I outlined in my previous post. However, there's simply no reason why you can have BOTH (genuine) accuracy, and the 'musicality' you've described and enjoy :)
Marco.
Vinyl sounds 'nicer', but digital / CD is a lot more 'transparent'. This is a problem for digital because it highlights issues with production and mastering a lot more than vinyl does. Get it right (Massive Attack - Mezzanine springs to mind as an example), and CD can sound more real and believable than vinyl. Problem is there is so much poorly-produced / poorly mastered / poorly remastered CDs / files out there, and to make matters worse, we're in the generation where music is made for phone earbuds, not HiFi.
New vinyl has a lot of similar issues, but it isn't as transparent, nor has the dynamic range, of CD, as mentioned it sounds nice, so is more forgiving. A lot of people like the 'euphonic' nature of vinyl, the flaws are liked by many people, sounding more like music. It's a matter of taste really, not that vinyl somehow manages to let the music through more than digital, quite the opposite in fact!
jandl100
24-09-2017, 09:19
Tom,
Interesting again.
Yes, I agree that your mod-Quad system didn't do the Big Stuff, a fair stab at Bruckner when I visited but no more than that.
It was when Bryn Terfel came on with the Vaughan Williams Songs of Travel (solo voice and solo piano) that my senses got seriously re-arranged and set a high water mark for what can be achieved with an audio system.
I'm getting ever closer to achieving that high water mark on that album, but I always have to also be able to get great sounds with big orchestral which used to not be of much (any?) interest to you. So big stuff / little stuff - very serious challenges to both be achieved in one system A work in progress for me. :)
Vinyl sounds 'nicer', but digital / CD is a lot more 'transparent'. This is a problem for digital because it highlights issues with production and mastering a lot more than vinyl does. Get it right (Massive Attack - Mezzanine springs to mind as an example), and CD can sound more real and believable than vinyl. Problem is there is so much poorly-produced / poorly mastered / poorly remastered CDs / files out there, and to make matters worse, we're in the generation where music is made for phone earbuds, not HiFi.
New vinyl has a lot of similar issues, but it isn't as transparent, nor has the dynamic range, of CD, as mentioned it sounds nice, so is more forgiving. A lot of people like the 'euphonic' nature of vinyl, the flaws are liked by many people, sounding more like music. It's a matter of taste really, not that vinyl somehow manages to let the music through more than digital, quite the opposite in fact!
I think you have almost nailed it there Neil. Both have their place it all depends on which one you prefer to listen too and which technology satisfies your listening experience. If you have both then there should be no argument between vinyl and digital, you have the choice and access to a huge selection of music which is really what it should all be about.
montesquieu
24-09-2017, 09:40
Anything to say about my previous post, Tom?
For me, the reason why you junked the system you've just referred to is because it created a false impression of 'accuracy'; one which I outlined in my previous post. However, there's simply no reason why you can have BOTH (genuine) accuracy, and the 'musicality' you've described and enjoy :)
Marco.
Was still pondering a reply Marco.
If I can answer perhaps a little obliquely ... I'm reading a book at the moment called Music, Imagination and Culture by a guy called Nicholas Cook, professor of music at Cambridge who previously worked at my wife's institution, Royal Holloway, University of London, where he directed the Centre for the History and Analysis of Recorded Music (CHARM). (This is really worth a look btw http://www.charm.rhul.ac.uk/index.html )
It's a fascinating book which explores the gap between how music is experienced (by listeners and performers alike) and how it's described, defined, analysed and generally discussed. It's a bit of a paradox of a book - spending the first chapter essentially dissecting the inadequacies of verbal language with regards to music and musical performance, while then going on to spend the next 243 pages attempting just that.
And I think that's what we are running against here. What do we mean by accuracy? (You have attempted to define, but there are several other definitions clearly operating in this thread explicitly or implicitly). What do we mean by enjoyment? Or musicality? Or any of the other key words in the previous 27 pages of this discussion?
What we are really bumping into is a multiplicity of perspectives. We are never going to agree on what words mean if we are all coming from a different direction (or even the same direction but with different vocabularies).
It's a useful conversation though there's always something to learn from people's attempts to articulate their experiences - but consensus, I suspect, will always evade us.
jandl100
24-09-2017, 09:44
^ Hey, I understood some of that. :)
What we also have is a multiplicity of objectives and goals and aspirations.
We are after different things - there isn't a "one fit suits all" system. There isn't a 'right' answer.
Hi Tom,
Good post, and I get where you're coming from (it is also extremely relevant to the discussion), but what I'm getting at goes beyond semantics, and is essentially summed up here:
If your system [let's pretend] was able to 100% faithfully reproduce the sound of a cello, with zero coloration/distortion and unhindered clarity, so that you simply couldn't distinguish between what was coming out of your speakers, and the sound produced by the real thing, then how would that ever be ear-bleeding or uncomfortable?
It could only ever be so if you didn't actually LIKE the sound of the real thing! So...... There is absolutely no reason to 'fear' accuracy or faithfulness to the original sound (what hi-fi is about), *if* what's being judged is genuinely that.
Could you have a go at addressing that bit, specifically if a system were able to achieve the above, then surely that would be everyone's goal, *if* they actually wanted to hear the REAL thing, and not simply a 'nicer' version, tailored to appeal to their own tastes?
For me, you either want to try [the key word here] and achieve (as far as possible) genuine HIGH-FIDELITY, with a system and the music it reproduces (as outlined by the cello example above), or you don't. There is NO grey area! :)
Marco.
To put it simply one persons idea of what constitutes music or great sound will always be different to anothers!
To put it simply one persons idea of what constitutes music or great sound will always be different to anothers!
Yes, but you're missing my point, Jim.
Marco.
I think vinyl is a "fooled you" medium.
Technically, it is measurably poor. And that is because IT IS poor, no other reason. But poor doesn't mean bad sounding. Exactly the reverse for quite a few vinyl recordings, which can pull off the trick of sounding great and more "real" than the digital equivalent. But I believe that's mainly the distortions and the poor noise floor having a positive perceived affect.
There's some stuff I have - a lot of it in fact, that sounds sub standard on my relatively high end TT. On average, I'd be flat out lying if I said analogue does better than digital across a wide band of recordings. And TBH the vast majority of the time I think vinyl sounds great is on 45 rpm records where an entire side is dedicated to one track.
A paradox is I use a technically poor, but expensive DAC. Just because to my ears it works better than all solid state alternatives I have tried. Part of that is because I can alter its sonic signature by swapping valves in and out. But all I am really doing is playing with different kinds of distortion, in the same way a vinyl enthusiast does when swapping carts and arms and doing TT upgrades etc. Only in this case it is a lot easier.
So basically, I conclude, we're just playing distortion modification games when messing around with source components and speakers. That's all there is to it. Nothing is neutral or accurate. And a change is a good as a rest.
walpurgis
24-09-2017, 10:35
Dunno about media and sources, but only electronically generated music 'measures' well, as its tones will be exactly what was dialled in. Acoustic instruments measure 'badly', as their sound is full of distortions and harmonics. Which is why they sound so nice!
montesquieu
24-09-2017, 10:37
Hi Tom,
Good post, and I get where you're coming from (it is also extremely relevant to the discussion), but what I'm getting at goes beyond semantics, and is essentially summed up here:
Could you have a go at addressing that bit, specifically if a system were able to achieve the above, then surely that would be everyone's goal, *if* they actually wanted to hear the REAL thing, and not simply a 'nicer' version, tailored to appeal to their own tastes?
For me, you either want to try [the key word here] and achieve (as far as possible) genuine HIGH-FIDELITY, with a system and the music it reproduces (as outlined by the cello example above), or you don't. There is NO grey area! :)
Marco.
Not sure I 100% agree Marco. We've all been at gigs where the sound is awful (rough, honking saxes, rubbish PA systems, classical concerts where the hall is too big ... almost any music with less than 100 performers sounds shit in the Albert Hall, but even a solo viola da gamba in a small hall like the Wigmore can disappoint - I left Jordi Saval at half time, couldn't hear him). Sometimes it's all too much - not so much the cello you mention but Ive been at Lieder recitals at the Holywell Music Room in Oxford - believed to be the UK's first dedicated concert hall, seats about 250 people - where the dynamic range was such that my ears rattled and distorted in the loud bits, but we were on the edge of seats holding breath for quiet passages, trying not to miss a syllable.
Most jazz recordings sound 'better' than the real thing but to actually see the strain on a performer's face as they execute a difficult passage, to watch the musicians gently communicate in tiny facial expressions, to feel the bass in your gut and the soles of your feet, these more than make up for crap PA systems and duff acoustics - but I don't want crap acoustics reproduced without these cues and I'm not sure any of us do.
So ... 'Live' is simply not the aspiration for me when I listen at home and '100% accurate' again required definition. For 'accurate' I would substitute 'convincing' or 'satisfying'.
So maybe the short answer to your ultimate question is 'I don't'. But neither is that the whole story.
Dunno about media and sources, but only electronically generated music 'measures' well, as its tones will be exactly what was dialled in. Acoustic instruments measure 'badly', as their sound is full of distortions and harmonics. Which is why they sound so nice!
Hm. Interesting assertions. Of course from a playback point of view, that's where the commonly introduced notion of distortion is introduced, not in the source component itself i.e. an acoustic guitar. Which is a mess of harmonics and, if you include misplaced fingers on a fret board as distortion, then lots of that, too. You can detect it even in the best players.
It doesn't always sound good, though, especially in the case of cheap violins and poor players.
One of the things I really like about studio recorded electronic music is it seems to consistently sound good. Far more so that most other genres, in fact. It isn't hard to see why. Where's the market for duff sounding synthetically created sounds? Nowhere, really. Well OK, you might need a bit of it to sound harsh where that's the intent etc etc.
farflungstar
24-09-2017, 11:02
I'm looking for accuracy of timbre and tone, and as much detail extraction from groove as possible BUT I won't sacrifice musicality. Hence my current set up and hatred of all things Naim which screams detail without soul (sorry, just not my thing).
Accuracy is impossible if a system veils information, musicality is relatively easy to achieve, and there are ways and means of maintaining accuracy and musicality together by careful selection of components and a little compromise.
Not sure I 100% agree Marco. We've all been at gigs where the sound is awful (rough, honking saxes, rubbish PA systems, classical concerts where the hall is too big ... almost any music with less than 100 performers sounds shit in the Albert Hall, but even a solo viola da gamba in a small hall like the Wigmore can disappoint - I left Jordi Saval at half time, couldn't hear him). Sometimes it's all too much - not so much the cello you mention but Ive been at Lieder recitals at the Holywell Music Room in Oxford - believed to be the UK's first dedicated concert hall, seats about 250 people - where the dynamic range was such that my ears rattled and distorted in the loud bits, but we were on the edge of seats holding breath for quiet passages, trying not to miss a syllable.
Most jazz recordings sound 'better' than the real thing but to actually see the strain on a performer's face as they execute a difficult passage, to watch the musicians gently communicate in tiny facial expressions, to feel the bass in your gut and the soles of your feet, these more than make up for crap PA systems and duff acoustics - but I don't want crap acoustics reproduced without these cues and I'm not sure any of us do.
So ... 'Live' is simply not the aspiration for me when I listen at home and '100% accurate' again required definition. For 'accurate' I would substitute 'convincing' or 'satisfying'.
So maybe the short answer to your ultimate question is 'I don't'. But neither is that the whole story.
But again you're missing my point. Who said anything about PA systems and gigs featuring such? Not me!
I'm talking purely about reproducing the sound of acoustic instruments, such as the cello I gave as an example. The benchmark, for me, is replicating (as closely as possible) the type of sound Jim described earlier, produced by those street musicians, and its intimacy, immediacy and dynamic impact.
So are you saying, then, that if your system were able to reproduce your favourite acoustic instrument 100% faithfully, you wouldn't want that? :hmm:
It can't of course, nor can mine, but it doesn't stop me striving to achieve it... And for me, that's what HI-FI [the key word here] is all about! :)
Marco.
Accuracy is impossible if a system veils information, musicality is relatively easy to achieve, and there are ways and means of maintaining accuracy and musicality together by careful selection of components and a little compromise.
That's my point in a nutshell, and if we call ourselves 'hi-fi enthusiasts', then our goal should be to remove as much of that veiling as possible, simply to hear MORE of the MUSIC!
Like I said before, you cannot get any more 'musical sounding', 'soulful', 'emotive', or whatever, than the *ACTUAL* SOUND OF THE MUSIC itself, so getting as close as possible to that has to be the goal *if* we're at all interested in achieving HIGH-FIDELITY ...
But that point doesn't seem to be getting through here to some (perhaps intentionally) thick heads ;)
Marco.
Yes, but you're missing my point, Jim.
Marco.
I am certainly with you Marco regarding a systems ability to faithfully resolve a recording in a manner that is as realistic to the actual vocal,instrument or music.
My point there was that no matter how you argue this point other folk will have their own subjective ideal as to what actually constitutes a realistic representation. They may not even care and simply want something that sounds nice.:)
My point there was that no matter how you argue this point other folk will have their own subjective ideal as to what actually constitutes a realistic representation..
Yes, but that's not the argument, hence why you're missing my point ;)
My point is that it's not about creating "a subjective ideal as to what actually constitutes a realistic representation", and what that means to a certain person. Rewind a bit... I'm talking about actually having THE DESIRE to go there in the first place!
It seems that some folk don't actually WANT to create a realistic representation at all, but simply a euphonic effect, which sounds nice - and that fundamentally *isn't* hi-fi. So if that's what you're into, then fine, but don't call yourself a hi-fi enthusiast. All you're doing is kidding yourself on.
Am I making myself any clearer now? :)
Marco.
farflungstar
24-09-2017, 11:42
I don't think anyone can argue that we wouldn't like a cello to sound like a cello - it's the recording process/quality that can get in the way even if we had a completely transparent system. Likewise venue acoustics can destroy our enjoyment, with or without PA. This is why balance between the two extremes is the best option - and it is possible.
I don't think anyone can argue that we wouldn't like a cello to sound like a cello...
Well, you'd hope so, but given the content of some of the posts here, I'm not so sure! ;)
Marco.
But what does a cello sound like? They all vary. Even my acoustic guitars vary a lot depending on which room I am playing them in.
You can't win. This hobby is for losers. And you are right. I am taking the piss a bit. Being an obvious loser myself;)
But what does a cello sound like? They all vary.
Indeed, but now we're getting to the nitty-gritty... *That* is where your ears and experience come in, and the quality of your judgement! :)
I'd contend that those able to get that right the most, will have systems capable of both 'high musicality', high-resolution, and genuine (as far as possible) accuracy, with all the SOUL and emotion you can shake a stick at!
My benchmark in that respect has always been what a professional musician would say when listening to an instrument he knows intimately well, reproduced by my system.
Therefore, I'd invite a professional cellist to my home, and ask him to bring a recording of him playing his own instrument, and if at the end of the demo he tells me that my system makes it sound convincingly real, then job's a good 'un! ;)
I'd certainly take his trained ears as being an accurate arbiter of such, long before I'd do the same with the readouts on any test equipment, deeming my equipment as 'accurate' or otherwise, that's for sure... And that's where so many of us go wrong in this game: trusting measurements or specs, more than our own ears and judgement!
Marco.
No, seriously do not think that this is the case. As I have said before, my only interest is in emotion derived from the music which is derived from the hi-fi and the way it is reproduced. I am not interested in how accurate or not the system may be. With that in mind though, I certainly would not want a PA in my lounge. Hell, there's a thought ;)
So when you print your photographs, you don't bother to focus the enlarger correctly, or perhaps use coloured filters?
paulf-2007
24-09-2017, 16:25
This thread has me a bit bemused. I actually don't care that much about hifi. I've selected kit over many years with the goal of really enjoying the music I put on. Yes that does involve an element striving for accuracy (as in - it's hard to enjoy a viola da gamba that sounds like a badly-recorded cello). But it's not the be all and end all - enjoying the music is.
Peter Walker of Quad put tone controls on his preamps because he was well aware that all too often recording engineers / mastering engineers fail to produce something that sounds decent, enjoyable, listenable. Accuracy fails in my book if any recording can't be listened to with pleasure. Ten years ago I spent time chasing detail - only to find I was barking up the wrong tree altogether. I blew up my system, ever bit of it (Quad ESL, Whest phono stages, Lyra cartridges) and started again.
It's amazing the detail that suddenly appears on a recording if you sit down with the score of the work you are listening to - indeed, usually you find it's all on the record already, what's missing is your attention drawn to a particular element. But as a musician, and sometime conductor, I know (and should have known 10years ago) that not every detail cries out to come to the top screaming attention to itself - often the goal is to blend into the whole and create an overall effect. A system that draws your attention overly into how it reproduces tiny details or obsesses on pin perfect instrument placement, and not into the soul of the music - the harmony, counterpoint, rhythm, musical communication between the performers, micro-expression and articulation of phrasing, and most of all, the overall vibe - is a waste of time.
You know at the opticians where they make the image super sharp, it's almost painful, then they add a lens that doesn't make it blurry as such, but takes the edge off and makes it comfortable - that's what I aim at. Breed out hash, blurring, noise, strange tonal artefacts - yes of course, you need to get to a point where those aren't there, where the sound is clear and there's no rubbish getting in the way. But go too far, use too magnifying a lens, and you can take away soul of of the music.
If I put on a record and it makes my ears bleed, I don't just blame the recording engineer: he has failed, yes but also in some way so has my system. I have quite a few orchestral records that sound like they were recorded in a giant toilet, or have instruments far too closely miked, or some other glaring flaw. Often the performance is dross as well so there's no need ever to play it again. Occasionally though, that crap recording contains some excellent or rare performance - and my system ought to be able to make a decent fist of doing something with it. I can marvel at what my system drags out of 78s - not a hifi medium by any stretch - but enjoyable - yes indeed.
Accuracy - yes, up to a point, Lord Copper.
Like ultra HD picture quality doesn't look like real life. The camera is enhancing the picture beyond reality. Surround sound from movies is another thing I don't like. Can't say I've ever been in a war zone but suspect the sound from films is exaggerated
Like ultra HD picture quality doesn't look like real life. The camera is enhancing the picture beyond reality.
But then, neither does the picture on any TV. It simply creates an illusion of reality, as does a hi-fi system, when reproducing music.
So does that mean we should just watch programmes on a 30-year old portable TV from Tesco, or listen to music on a wind-up gramophone? ;)
Marco.
Why was it a windup, daftee?
The point I'm making is that although it's all ultimately an illusion, you still do your best to make that illusion as 'real' as possible, whether it's the image on a TV set or the sound from a hi-fi system.
You don't just 'not bother' and settle for mediocrity, or worse.
Marco.
That's a windup, yes lol
bloody hell they do wind up tellys??
montesquieu
24-09-2017, 18:13
Why was it a windup, daftee?
The point I'm making is that although it's all ultimately an illusion, you still do your best to make that illusion as 'real' as possible, whether it's the image on a TV set or the sound from a hi-fi system.
You don't just 'not bother' and settle for mediocrity, or worse.
Marco.
I think it was a [bad] pun - all the best ones are bad though. :D
Lol, indeed... That one was so wound up it flew right passed me! :doh:
Marco.
I'm sure Dr Baylis could be approached to design one - he designed the wind-up radio and the wind-up torch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Baylis
paulf-2007
24-09-2017, 20:15
But then, neither does the picture on any TV. It simply creates an illusion of reality, as does a hi-fi system, when reproducing music.
So does that mean we should just watch programmes on a 30-year old portable TV from Tesco, or listen to music on a wind-up gramophone? ;)
Marco.i must have told you a hundred million times not to exaggerate Marco
Haselsh1
25-09-2017, 06:44
So when you print your photographs, you don't bother to focus the enlarger correctly, or perhaps use coloured filters?
Really not sure what your point is with this comment...?
So after 300 posts are you any the wiser Shaun?
There aren't many sound engineers that would disagree with the statement that digital is more accurate to the source than analogue.
That doesn't mean that analogue doesn't sound nice and in many cases adds a desirable effect. I joked about it a while back on another thread, saying it would be nice if they could crack what was special about analogue tape and build a filter to replicate this. Little did I know that mastering engineers and producers have been using devices to achieve this for quite a while. Look up the Burl B2 Bomber ADC and DAC on YouTube and see how they rave about the similarity to the old tape sound. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9CXBcLLR0U
Really not sure what your point is with this comment...?
As stated by you in a previous post:
... As I have said before, my only interest is in emotion derived from the music which is derived from the hi-fi and the way it is reproduced. I am not interested in how accurate or not the system may be. ....
I wondered if your disinterest in the accuracy of your audio system applied to your photography. Not so much with the taking of a photograph (the source), but with the subsequent reproduction of the image. Is the printing of the negative also part of the creative process, or should it be a perfect 'mechanical' reproduction? If not, would you frame your photographs using tinted glass, or view them under a coloured light source?
Probably not a useful analogy thinking about it.
RothwellAudio
25-09-2017, 10:28
There aren't many sound engineers that would disagree with the statement that digital is more accurate to the source than analogue.
That doesn't mean that analogue doesn't sound nice and in many cases adds a desirable effect. I joked about it a while back on another thread, saying it would be nice if they could crack what was special about analogue tape and build a filter to replicate this. Little did I know that mastering engineers and producers have been using devices to achieve this for quite a while. Look up the Burl B2 Bomber ADC and DAC on YouTube and see how they rave about the similarity to the old tape sound. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9CXBcLLR0U
In the recording world - certainly at the smaller studio or amateur end of the spectrum - the term "analogue sound" is almost universally taken to mean "a good thing". At the extreme there are studios that use only analogue gear from start to finish, but more often you'll see people using any number of VST plug-ins which claim to emulate old valve compressors or emulate tape saturation or emulate the EQ of early Neve mixing desks or whatever. The idea of analogue seems to have an enduring appeal mixed with romance and nostalgia for a time before many of today's musicians and recording engineers were even born. Why? Because analogue sounds better? Or is simply because people believe what they want to believe?
As stated by you in a previous post:
I wondered if your disinterest in the accuracy of your audio system applied to your photography. Not so much with the taking of a photograph (the source), but with the subsequent reproduction of the image. Is the printing of the negative also part of the creative process, or should it be a perfect 'mechanical' reproduction? If not, would you frame your photographs using tinted glass, or view them under a coloured light source?
Probably not a useful analogy thinking about it.
I think it's a perfectly good analogy. Shaun's an excellent photographer (I love his work), and so no doubt cares very much about the final quality of his images.
However, it would be interesting to know if he applies equal amounts of attention to detail/diligence with his hi-fi hobby as he does with his photographic one :)
Marco.
Visual appeal is similar to a Sonic one for me. If I take a picture I might well adjust it in a lightroom or in a post studio to achieve what I was after. I might do same with music too is similar way. If I cant do it in studio I might post studio;)
Its the artist in us I guess.... Some want to make stuff using their art to sound as they want it too.
Well, taking photos and developing them and processing them is a creative process, whereas playing someone else's record isn't. I think that is the difference between those two hobbies.
Well, taking photos and developing them and processing them is a creative process, whereas playing someone else's record isn't. I think that is the difference between those two hobbies.
Lol - you've just spectacularly dismissed the core AoS ethos! I think you'll find that it *is* a creative process, if indeed you're capable of lateral thinking, which is why AoS has its name [and every section has an 'arty' theme], the key bit being the 'A'!!! ;)
Marco.
Well, taking photos and developing them and processing them is a creative process, whereas playing someone else's record isn't. I think that is the difference between those two hobbies.
Surely digital photography has taken the developing and processing process away, and replaced it with the likes of Photoshop? Is that still a 'creative' process?
It's a weird thing, photography. Even weirder is photo-realist painting, where paint is used to produce the same effect as a photograph:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorealism
Haselsh1
25-09-2017, 11:23
As stated by you in a previous post:
I wondered if your disinterest in the accuracy of your audio system applied to your photography. Not so much with the taking of a photograph (the source), but with the subsequent reproduction of the image. Is the printing of the negative also part of the creative process, or should it be a perfect 'mechanical' reproduction? If not, would you frame your photographs using tinted glass, or view them under a coloured light source?
Probably not a useful analogy thinking about it.
To a point as I only shoot black and white. I do not use filters because I see no point in putting a thirty quid filter on the front of an eight hundred quid lens, however when I used to print onto a variable contrast paper I had to use a dichroic head of course. These are only in the source of light though so not image forming. The reality is though that I used to mainly use graded fibre based papers for purity at all stages. I guess due to the fact I print in black and white I cannot be interested in accuracy to the source can I...? And of course, now that I only shoot digitally the sky is the limit when it comes to removing oneself from any kind of 'accuracy'. Therefore, I am not interested in photographic accuracy in the same way I am not interested in audio accuracy.
Lol - you've just spectacularly dismissed the core AoS ethos! I think you'll find that it *is* a creative process, if indeed you're capable of lateral thinking, which is why AoS has its name [and every section has an 'arty' theme], the key bit being the 'A'!!! ;)
Marco.
I thought that was just marketing ;)... so what is creative about switching an amplifier on and playing a record? Am I missing something here?
Haselsh1
25-09-2017, 11:34
Yeah, to take Grant's comment, it is the artist in us. Photography is indeed a highly artistic craft displaying one's skills of detail and creativity. Sitting back listening to music is definitely not artistic. You are simply not creating anything as an extension of your artistry however you are moulding together a means by which you can appreciate another's art and musicianship.
I have never looked upon photography as art but I still do look upon photography as a craft. Digital photography, the sort I do now, has a much wider scope for theatrics than traditional silver halide photography. In black and white, my faved form,
the images I can create now especially with my 14mm lens are phenomenally more expressive than I ever could with more traditional means.
OK, I haven't a bloody clue where this is going.
Haselsh1
25-09-2017, 11:35
I thought that was just marketing ;)... so what is creative about switching an amplifier on and playing a record? Am I missing something here?
Yeah... partially the point I was trying to make.
I thought that was just marketing ;)... so what is creative about switching an amplifier on and playing a record? Am I missing something here?
Obviously.
There's the mystical ritual involved in removing a record from its sleeve, handling it by the edges to avoid fingerprints, placing it on the platter, checking the VTA, then slowly lowering the stylus into the groove, sitting back in your reclining chair, tapping your foot as the music starts, reading through the sleeve-notes and admiring the Roger Dean artwork on the cover, listening out for the bit where the drummer hums along, then wondering if maybe a change of speaker cable would help reveal whether his humming is in fact out of tune, then mentally composing a forum post asking for advice about this. As a piece of performance art, there's more creativity in there than in all the Turner prizewinners put together.
Haselsh1
25-09-2017, 11:40
Oh dear, here we go again...
I do not truly believe that digital imaging is actually photography at all. It is IT and the skills set required to do it is completely different. Photography, as in 'true' photography demands a quite in depth knowledge of chemistry. In fact it still does of course especially if you go down the route of formulating your own developers and/or messing with liquid emulsions but I turned my back on all of that because I no longer saw the point. Back to point No1.
. As a piece of performance art, there's more creativity in there than in all the Turner prizewinners put together.
That's not really saying anything though is it?
Haselsh1
25-09-2017, 11:48
I think it's a perfectly good analogy. Shaun's an excellent photographer (I love his work), and so no doubt cares very much about the final quality of his images.
However, it would be interesting to know if he applies equal amounts of attention to detail/diligence with his hi-fi hobby as he does with his photographic one :)
Marco.
Mmmm... let me think...! I am probably as OCD about my sound system as I am about the appearance of my finished images. The thing is though that I became highly disillusioned with trad photography and so moved over to digital whereby I can be massively more expressive and creative with monochrome. Now I certainly do appreciate Marco's previous comments about my images going back quite a few years but I have been let loose with a huge dollop of creativity that I never had with trad means. Regarding the finished article, my images will only ever be seen the way I want them to. I do not sell pieces of paper with an image on them to be put into a Godawful gold frame.
Haselsh1
25-09-2017, 11:49
So after 300 posts are you any the wiser Shaun?
No...!
:eyebrows:
I thought that was just marketing ;)... so what is creative about switching an amplifier on and playing a record? Am I missing something here?
Lol - that's an in-depth subject that would take some time to answer properly, which right now I don't have. So we'll save that for another day. However, if you don't 'get' why it *is* a creative process, then you've missed much of what AoS has been about since its inception...
Out of interest, are you a left side of the brain or right side of the brain, kind of guy? Your answer to that may explain a lot! ;)
Marco.
Haselsh1
25-09-2017, 11:55
Obviously.
There's the mystical ritual involved in removing a record from its sleeve, handling it by the edges to avoid fingerprints, placing it on the platter, checking the VTA, then slowly lowering the stylus into the groove, sitting back in your reclining chair, tapping your foot as the music starts, reading through the sleeve-notes and admiring the Roger Dean artwork on the cover, listening out for the bit where the drummer hums along, then wondering if maybe a change of speaker cable would help reveal whether his humming is in fact out of tune, then mentally composing a forum post asking for advice about this. As a piece of performance art, there's more creativity in there than in all the Turner prizewinners put together.
You'll be telling me next that a DJ is a fucking musician
;)
Stratmangler
25-09-2017, 11:56
Lol - that's an in-depth subject that would take some time to answer properly, which right now I don't have. So we'll save that for another day. However, if you don't 'get' why it is a creative process, then you've missed much of what AoS is about since its inception...
Out of interest, are you a left side of the brain or right side of the brain, kind of guy? Your answer to that may explain a lot! ;)
Marco.
What's the connection to some far fetched and outdated thinking methodology?
https://www.healthline.com/health/left-brain-vs-right-brain#left-brainright-brain-theory2
...
Out of interest, are you a left side of the brain or right side of the brain, kind of guy? Your answer to that may explain a lot! ;)
Marco.
No idea but doing complex maths makes my brain hurt. And I'm crap at arty things like music and painting. Thank God I was born here as in most other countries of the world I would have starved to death by now.
You'll be telling me next that a DJ is a fucking musician
;)
Not after the session the DJ presented on Saturday night at the wedding reception we went to. He was more like a fucking comedian.
No idea but doing complex maths makes my brain hurt. And I'm crap at arty things like music and painting. Thank God I was born here as in most other countries of the world I would have starved to death by now.
I'm good at daydreaming and procrastination.
Haselsh1
25-09-2017, 12:04
The best advice I have ever been given was to only tell people what you want them to know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/04/health/cases-connecting-depression-and-artistry.html?mcubz=1
Haselsh1
25-09-2017, 12:05
Not after the session the DJ presented on Saturday night at the wedding reception we went to. He was more like a fucking comedian.
Was he using an SL1210...?
;)
What's the connection to some far fetched and outdated thinking methodology?
https://www.healthline.com/health/left-brain-vs-right-brain#left-brainright-brain-theory2
Well, I fundamentally believe that it explains a lot about how people think (and also problem-solve), as indeed Martin has alluded to :)
Creative thinking is an art form, and most certainly can be applied to both the design and use of audio equipment.
Marco.
paulf-2007
25-09-2017, 14:02
As stated by you in a previous post:
I wondered if your disinterest in the accuracy of your audio system applied to your photography. Not so much with the taking of a photograph (the source), but with the subsequent reproduction of the image. Is the printing of the negative also part of the creative process, or should it be a perfect 'mechanical' reproduction? If not, would you frame your photographs using tinted glass, or view them under a coloured light source?
Probably not a useful analogy thinking about it. don't get me started on photography, another bullshit subjective interest
You seem in a rather strange mood today, Paul. Is everything ok? :)
Marco.
There aren't many sound engineers that would disagree with the statement that digital is more accurate to the source than analogue.
That doesn't mean that analogue doesn't sound nice and in many cases adds a desirable effect. I joked about it a while back on another thread, saying it would be nice if they could crack what was special about analogue tape and build a filter to replicate this. Little did I know that mastering engineers and producers have been using devices to achieve this for quite a while. Look up the Burl B2 Bomber ADC and DAC on YouTube and see how they rave about the similarity to the old tape sound. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9CXBcLLR0U
Hi Ken how are you?
One Theory put forward by one of the worlds top mastering engineers was that analogue tape actually slows down the transient speed of high end frequencies in particular and the perceived speed of the recording as it hits our ears. Whereas digital recordings due to the sampling procedure actually speed up the sound of a recording especially where a digital system actually moves between the sampled bits. It is only a small effect but is picked up by our brains. This may explain why analogue tape sounds so good?
magiccarpetride
25-09-2017, 18:50
I'm good at daydreaming and procrastination.
Care to join my startup as the Chief Daydreaming and Procrastination Officer (CDPO)?
magiccarpetride
25-09-2017, 18:53
Hi Ken how are you?
One Theory put forward by one of the worlds top mastering engineers was that analogue tape actually slows down the transient speed of high end frequencies in particular and the perceived speed of the recording as it hits our ears. Whereas digital recordings due to the sampling procedure actually speed up the sound of a recording especially where a digital system actually moves between the sampled bits. It is only a small effect but is picked up by our brains. This may explain why analogue tape sounds so good?
I've heard a number of people say that the original analogue master tape sounds closer to a good digital playback than it does to a good vinyl playback. Any truth to that?
Arkless Electronics
25-09-2017, 19:05
Hi Ken how are you?
One Theory put forward by one of the worlds top mastering engineers was that analogue tape actually slows down the transient speed of high end frequencies in particular and the perceived speed of the recording as it hits our ears. Whereas digital recordings due to the sampling procedure actually speed up the sound of a recording especially where a digital system actually moves between the sampled bits. It is only a small effect but is picked up by our brains. This may explain why analogue tape sounds so good?
All complete hogwash I'm afraid.
I've heard a number of people say that the original analogue master tape sounds closer to a good digital playback than it does to a good vinyl playback. Any truth to that?
Charlie Top Oxford Doc is your man to ask that. He's got some masters on RTR I think.
I've heard a number of people say that the original analogue master tape sounds closer to a good digital playback than it does to a good vinyl playback. Any truth to that?
Interestingly Alex I have actually heard a digital system recently that sounds very close to mastertape. I used to listen to quite a lot of 24 track mastertape when I did some contract work for Island records back in the very early eighties and have heard plenty of R2R over the years so know very well how good it can sound. Trying to describe the sound of mastertape recordings is a bit tricky but one aspect I feel is very prominent is the smoothness of the sound,it feels effortless and very natural.
If you want to hear a DAC that can sound like this try and listen to a Chord DAVE.
All complete hogwash I'm afraid.
And of course you are a top mastering engineer with vast digital audio knowledge?
Arkless Electronics
25-09-2017, 19:26
And of course you are a top mastering engineer with vast digital audio knowledge?
Vastly better than that! An EE with electronics knowledge that applies to all forms of electronic signals and who could design the electronics for a studio R2R;)
The stuff you quote is both techno babble and impossible.
Vastly better than that! An EE with electronics knowledge that applies to all forms of electronic signals and who could design the electronics for a studio R2R;)
The stuff you quote is both techno babble and impossible.
Maybe you need to update your technical knowledge. Some of the scientific research being done at the moment into how our brains work suggest there are more neuro transmitters between our brain and ears than between our ears and brain.
Back to R2R and digital recording, so tell me from you immense knowledge how there can be no difference how the brain responds to analogue waveforms and digitally recorded waveforms?
Arkless Electronics
25-09-2017, 19:45
Maybe you need to update your technical knowledge. Some of the scientific research being done at the moment into how our brains work suggest there are more neuro transmitters between our brain and ears than between our ears and brain.
Back to R2R and digital recording, so tell me from you immense knowledge how there can be no difference how the brain responds to analogue waveforms and digitally recorded waveforms?
Ah a different subject eh? I'm talking about transients, rise time etc which is what you originally posted about...
RothwellAudio
25-09-2017, 21:03
One Theory put forward by one of the worlds top mastering engineers was that analogue tape actually slows down the transient speed of high end frequencies in particular...
If transient speed equals the squareness of a square wave - ie how sharp the corners are - then it is directly related to bandwidth. The higher the high frequencies go, the sharper the corners of a square wave.
All complete hogwash I'm afraid.
Yes, as stated, it did sound like hogwash because you can't "sharpen up" just the top end - transients are all top end.
magiccarpetride
25-09-2017, 21:36
Interestingly Alex I have actually heard a digital system recently that sounds very close to mastertape. I used to listen to quite a lot of 24 track mastertape when I did some contract work for Island records back in the very early eighties and have heard plenty of R2R over the years so know very well how good it can sound. Trying to describe the sound of mastertape recordings is a bit tricky but one aspect I feel is very prominent is the smoothness of the sound,it feels effortless and very natural.
If you want to hear a DAC that can sound like this try and listen to a Chord DAVE.
Thanks James. I've never had the privilege to experience the sound you describe, but I'll seek that DAC.
I would totally not be surprised if it turns out to sound quite different form the vinyl playback, though. I feel that vinyl playback is the kingdom unto its own, for some reasons that I cannot articulate.
Arkless Electronics
25-09-2017, 22:32
If transient speed equals the squareness of a square wave - ie how sharp the corners are - then it is directly related to bandwidth. The higher the high frequencies go, the sharper the corners of a square wave.
Yes, as stated, it did sound like hogwash because you can't "sharpen up" just the top end - transients are all top end.
;) Pretty much yes. In the design of Y amplifiers for oscilloscopes virtually it's entire merit can be discerned from just it's step response and settling time! These are pretty much the fastest amps known to man in their ultimate expression in analogue high end Tektronix scopes which are electronic art in its purest form. Look up "T coils" if you want to boggle your mind... Shear wizardry and black magic :cool: Should have been a Noble winner IMHO but the technology was kept secret for decades and only explained to the wider world by Tektronix in the early to mid '80's IIRC!
Haselsh1
26-09-2017, 07:04
Should have been a Noble winner IMHO but the technology was kept secret for decades and only explained to the wider world by Tektronix in the early to mid '80's IIRC!
Would that be Noble or Nobel...?
narabdela
26-09-2017, 08:43
...so tell me from you immense knowledge how there can be no difference how the brain responds to analogue waveforms and digitally recorded waveforms?
What makes you think there can be a difference? Are we straying into technobabble territory again?:scratch:
What makes you think there can be a difference? Are we straying into technobabble territory again?:scratch:
Because the brain is extremely sensitive to digital sampling even information lost in milliseconds can be detected by the ear and brain. Even if you sampled at 100 times the current rate for CD your brain could still detect the difference. Analogue waveforms are infinite and exactly what the brain uses to compute information which is where digital sampling falls down. The theorists can argue technically that digital audio is good enough but the brain can detect the difference. It likes the infinitely smooth waveform of analogue.
An interesting take on Digital here i bookmarked a while ago
http://productionadvice.co.uk/no-stair-steps-in-digital-audio/
I think it's all good and well folks shooting down the use of "technobabble"; undoubtedly some stuff qualifies as that, but you have to make allowances for when audio topics centre around the [extremely valid] ear/brain relationship: how we as humans listen to music and process that information, and subsequently the difficulty in discussing this where, due to the complexity of the subject, it's easy to explain yourself incorrectly and stray into "technobabble".
When it comes to hi-fi, the electronics and technical side may indeed be pretty well understood, but the latter (above) certainly isn't - and that I believe is the area where many of the answers lie in what is claimed as being genuinely heard, and what is currently technically provable.
And folks should be allowed to discuss that, as best as they can within the limits of their understanding, in order to provoke debate and perhaps learn something new, without their views being completely rubbished as "hogwash", by those who think they know it ALL.
They might intimately know about how boxes of electronics function, but the most important thing of all, and huge grey area, in terms of ascertaining WHY we hear what we hear, when processing music signals, and which is defined by the human ear/brain relationship, they know next to nothing - and so in that respect are as much amateurs here as the rest of us! ;)
We learn by exploring ALL credible possibilities, and perhaps making some mistakes along the way, not by arrogantly dismissing that which doesn't neatly fit into our belief system, and that approach is the one we will always practice (and champion) here on AoS.
Marco.
An interesting take on Digital here i bookmarked a while ago
http://productionadvice.co.uk/no-stair-steps-in-digital-audio/
Interesting article Grant but at every stage it just suggests that we cannot hear the difference in digital audio because of certain technical features applied such as dither. But no matter how you quantify or try to technically absolve digitalisation of audio it still does not mean the brain can't hear the difference.
Remember in the early days of digital audio when it sounded absolutely atrocious we were told it was due to jitter then when this was 'resolved' with better clocking it was then brick wall anti aliasing filters,quantisation and dither etc which were not implemented correctly.
So we are where we are now with digital audio and it is all perfect....except each time a Sabre or ESS DAC chip is released it moves digital audio closer to a perfect digital audio experience until the next chip is released and so on and so on.
Now digital audio has cottoned onto timing and transient timing in particular. This is where MQA has found its niche, correcting time domain issues.
There is always another issue with digital audio which needs to be fixed because it never was perfect and still isn't in my book. But that's not to say if other folk think it's fine great use it, after all as we know not all our hearing ability is the same. :)
Just another take on it.. its about 4 years old so stuff might have moved on.
Remember in the early days of digital audio when it sounded absolutely atrocious we were told it was due to jitter then when this was 'resolved' with better clocking it was then brick wall anti aliasing filters,quantisation and dither etc which were not implemented correctly.
So we are where we are now with digital audio and it is all perfect....except each time a Sabre or ESS DAC chip is released it moves digital audio closer to a perfect digital audio experience until the next chip is released and so on and so on.
Now digital audio has cottoned onto timing and transient timing in particular. This is where MQA has found its niche, correcting time domain issues.
:)
All just marketing, trying to sell you the same washing powder over and over again. Digital never sounded awful, the massive take up in CD sales and the rapid decline of tape and vinyl in the late 1980s is surely evidence of that? Classical listeners in particular moved to CD wholesale.
A few isolated incidents of cd players sounding rubbish with extreme flat earth systems got talked up by magazine journalists, and vinyl die-hards (like me, I fully admit it) propagated the myth. That's all that happened there. I mean CD has no audible distortion, so how can it possibly be the cause of a system sounding harsh?
I did my own comparison back in 1990 with 2 systems and vinyl was the clear winner so I rejected digital. In retrospect I was daft to base my decision on just those 2 experiences. On the plus side it did mean I was buying vinyl well into the 'nineties so inadvertently bought what are now some desirable rarities :)
Hi Ken how are you?
One Theory put forward by one of the worlds top mastering engineers was that analogue tape actually slows down the transient speed of high end frequencies in particular and the perceived speed of the recording as it hits our ears. Whereas digital recordings due to the sampling procedure actually speed up the sound of a recording especially where a digital system actually moves between the sampled bits. It is only a small effect but is picked up by our brains. This may explain why analogue tape sounds so good?
Fast moving thread this, I mist your earlier nod James.
I have trouble with the theory about different digital/analogue wave forms, as it all passes through very analogue speakers and the brain is very adept at filling in blanks, with all the senses. The argument that we like 2nd/3rd harmonic distortion in our musical diet is one levied on why we like analogue tape, I don't know that there is any definitive explanation though. I used to think analogue was superior, I'm moving away from that position lately. It certainly sounds pleasing, but listening to live acoustic sets I'm now finding good digital (there is good and bad in both) is more believable, in terms of real voices and instruments and not a coloured facsimile. It's making my decision, of whether to go completely digital or stay analogue with my active crossovers a tough one. I've swapped back and forth many times now, but keep coming back to the digital crossover/source, my Turntable doesn't sound good through it, so I need to work on that. The digital/analogue argument is so much about personal preference, it's like comparing how you like your Steak, at the end of the day, its all meat to be enjoyed. :)
Haselsh1
26-09-2017, 19:05
I love the word facsimile as that is exactly what digital is, a facsimile of analogue. An analogue waveform is sampled into digital which is then merely a facsimile of the original. The same with photography.
paulf-2007
26-09-2017, 19:36
You seem in a rather strange mood today, Paul. Is everything ok? :)
Marco.
Yes Marco I was and still am today:)
narabdela
26-09-2017, 19:37
Because the brain is extremely sensitive to digital sampling even information lost in milliseconds can be detected by the ear and brain. Even if you sampled at 100 times the current rate for CD your brain could still detect the difference. Analogue waveforms are infinite and exactly what the brain uses to compute information which is where digital sampling falls down. The theorists can argue technically that digital audio is good enough but the brain can detect the difference. It likes the infinitely smooth waveform of analogue.
If I was to dismiss this as nonsense I would probably risk the wrath of Marco. So I won't.
Let's just say it's your opinion. My opinion differs.
All just marketing, trying to sell you the same washing powder over and over again. Digital never sounded awful, the massive take up in CD sales and the rapid decline of tape and vinyl in the late 1980s is surely evidence of that? Classical listeners in particular moved to CD wholesale.
A few isolated incidents of cd players sounding rubbish with extreme flat earth systems got talked up by magazine journalists, and vinyl die-hards (like me, I fully admit it) propagated the myth. That's all that happened there. I mean CD has no audible distortion, so how can it possibly be the cause of a system sounding harsh?
I did my own comparison back in 1990 with 2 systems and vinyl was the clear winner so I rejected digital. In retrospect I was daft to base my decision on just those 2 experiences. On the plus side it did mean I was buying vinyl well into the 'nineties so inadvertently bought what are now some desirable rarities :)
One thing I can definitely agree is the sound of CD in itself was OK as I have heard recently digital audio products that have proven this to be the case. Not really sure a lot if the hardware over the last 30 years was really that good hence the proliferation of DACs which come thick and fast every month. As for CDP they are almost extinct?
I think the massive uptake of CD was more due to non audiophiles wanting a more convenient music source that they could take anywhere ie ICE? Walkman? And many bought the 'perfect sound for ever' marketing BS.
magiccarpetride
26-09-2017, 19:52
Interesting article Grant but at every stage it just suggests that we cannot hear the difference in digital audio because of certain technical features applied such as dither. But no matter how you quantify or try to technically absolve digitalisation of audio it still does not mean the brain can't hear the difference.
Remember in the early days of digital audio when it sounded absolutely atrocious we were told it was due to jitter then when this was 'resolved' with better clocking it was then brick wall anti aliasing filters,quantisation and dither etc which were not implemented correctly.
So we are where we are now with digital audio and it is all perfect....except each time a Sabre or ESS DAC chip is released it moves digital audio closer to a perfect digital audio experience until the next chip is released and so on and so on.
Now digital audio has cottoned onto timing and transient timing in particular. This is where MQA has found its niche, correcting time domain issues.
There is always another issue with digital audio which needs to be fixed because it never was perfect and still isn't in my book. But that's not to say if other folk think it's fine great use it, after all as we know not all our hearing ability is the same. :)
My initial attempt to go back into vinyl was a ho-hum experience. I bought the analogue front-end, got me some LPs and then sat down to compare the vinyl playback to the digital playback. Ended up being singularly unimpressed with vinyl, judging it as being 'quaint' and 'a piece of nostalgia'. It just sounded wimpy compared to digital format.
Then, following a suggestion from a vinyl aficionado friend, I sprang some cash for RCM. Holly-molly! Talk about the night-and-day difference...
So I now think that many people who, after listening side by side to vinyl and then digital, conclude that digital is superior, simply listened to LPs that haven't been washed, vacuumed, rinsed, etc. Proper cleaning of vinyl is essential if one wants to give it a fighting chance when comparing it to digital.
I cannot get past the point that when using digital sources or processing, at some point it has to be converted back into an analogue signal to b replayed.
If there are errors due to digital processes, they must be identifiable on the reconstructed analogue waveform, and if there is not difference between that waveform and the source waveform, there can be no corruption.
If you have any information James about deficiencies of ICE, please direct me to a source of that information.
I cannot get past the point that when using digital sources or processing, at some point it has to be converted back into an analogue signal to b replayed.
If there are errors due to digital processes, they must be identifiable on the reconstructed analogue waveform, and if there is not difference between that waveform and the source waveform, there can be no corruption.
If you have any information James about deficiencies of ICE, please direct me to a source of that information.
I was talking about In car entertainment .
An interesting take on why folk still like to listen to vinyl.
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/head-heart-and-hands/
If I was to dismiss this as nonsense I would probably risk the wrath of Marco. So I won't.
If you can categorically prove that it's nonsense, then feel free to support your view with the relevant evidence [and it needs to be conclusive], otherwise it's simply your opinion, which is no more authoritative than Jim's.
Marco.
An interesting take on why folk still like to listen to vinyl.
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/head-heart-and-hands/
Indeed, so thanks for sharing :)
I particularly liked and agreed with these bits:
I would hazard a guess that we all make certain technological choices that we feel are better, even though they may be more difficult or less sophisticated in the first analysis. Manual transmissions. Fountain pens. Espresso machines. Analog wrist watches. Sail boats. The list is endless. And we make these choices in large part because we believe they more fully involve us than an automatic transmission, a ballpoint pen, instant coffee, a digital watch, or a motorboat. They all stimulate our need to think, feel, and sense our world. Perhaps then we need to rethink what it means for a technology to be good, and, instead of letting technology lead us with its objective shiny newness...
Too right! :clap:
And:
The Information Age has resulted in a sense of disconnectedness with the world... And we can easily see a global movement of cultures (including our own) in search of new meanings and connections. The audio hobby too faces these same transformations.
But I do see a great deal of enthusiasm and hope in the generations just now experiencing vinyl for the first time. I think that they exhibit this basic instinct to return to those experiences that celebrate our entwinement with our world. At the end of the day, I do feel as though the “actual” will compel over the “virtual” in the social realm and, yes, in audio too.
Yup, and I believe that's a primary reason why vinyl will never die. Quite simply, it's an innately 'human thing'.
And best of all:
And finally, why do people still listen to records? Because they use the technologies that engage them. Because they like to think and feel and sense their world. Because these are people actively involved in a life worth living.
Hear, hear!! Especially that last sentence.
Unlike the 'zombies' who've effectively disconnected themselves from the real world, and instead inhabit largely a virtual one, with their 'faceless friends' on social media, listening to music on their mobile phones, cocooned within their plastic little bubbles, conducting their plastic existences, largely oblivious of the simple pleasures that make life worth living.
Marco.
magiccarpetride
27-09-2017, 00:53
Indeed, so thanks for sharing :)
I particularly liked and agreed with these bits:
Too right! :clap:
And:
Yup, and I believe that's a primary reason why vinyl will never die. Quite simply, it's an innately 'human thing'.
And best of all:
Hear, hear!! Especially that last sentence.
Unlike the 'zombies' who've effectively disconnected themselves from the real world, and instead inhabit largely a virtual one, with their 'faceless friends' on social media, listening to music on their mobile phones, cocooned within their plastic little bubbles, conducting their plastic existences, largely oblivious of the simple pleasures that make life worth living.
Marco.
I think the key point (for me) of that well thought out article is the fact that we've been collectively duped into conflating easy with good. Convenience is proclaimed to be the highest imaginable good, while in reality convenience is insanely overrated, as most things that make life worth living tend to be extremely inconvenient.
Haselsh1
27-09-2017, 07:27
Us folk who love vinyl have an option. We can place a silver disc onto a tray whereupon it will disappear into a box and the sound will emerge from the speakers or, we can put a large flat piece of vinyl onto a platter and watch and be mesmerised as it plays music. I think that the latter is almost like watching fire. It is old and ancient and has the same kind of spiritual connection.
I won't even mention using a streaming service. There's no point.
I think the key point (for me) of that well thought out article is the fact that we've been collectively duped into conflating easy with good. Convenience is proclaimed to be the highest imaginable good, while in reality convenience is insanely overrated, as most things that make life worth living tend to be extremely inconvenient.
Indeed, Alex, and why do you think that has happened; why has convenience triumphed so spectacularly over quality, to the gross detriment of society...?
Quite simply, because the pressures of modern life mean that few people have TIME to indulge in the simple pleasures that make life worth living. And so why is that...??
Because, and this is a major problem in the UK, poor work/life balances essentially rob people of their freedom, as they have to work all the hours under the sun to pay for 'stuff' they've been told that they must have, in order to be considered a 'success', indicated by the amount of superfluous material possessions they own.
Gross consumerism and a misplaced sense of self-entitlement has eroded our core human values, to the extent that we 'connect' with (feel and sense) the REAL world around us less and less every day, pretty soon with the result that that world will no longer exist.
Anyway, I digress....
Marco.
IMO convenience has flaws.
Usually it is provided by an external agency, and they are not necessarily aware of, or concerned about the user's specific needs or tastes, but are concerned about their own well being rather more.
My experience suggests that the most satisfying things in my life are those involving personal effort, commitment and endeavour, which is a very real connectedness.
Abstract forms of sound reproduction do work, and well, but they tend to the remoteness of the listener from a palpable existence, and with a zeitgeist of personal material self fulfilment we have become relatively isolated beings lacking much sense of community.
I suspect that if we had more of that we could more readily accept abstract remote forms in our lives.
I find all this rhetoric about 'being involved' with things slightly weird when a) we're discussing it virtually on convenient computers that (mostly) 'just work' and b) we're talking about sitting on our backsides listening to music rather than about actually doing anything.
This bit of the tas article in particular made me smile:
'I would hazard a guess that we all make certain technological choices that we feel are better, even though they may be more difficult or less sophisticated in the first analysis. Manual transmissions. Fountain pens. Espresso machines. Analog wrist watches. Sail boats. The list is endless. And we make these choices in large part because we believe they more fully involve us than an automatic transmission, a ballpoint pen, instant coffee, a digital watch, or a motorboat. They all stimulate our need to think, feel, and sense our world.'
I would hazard an alternative guess; that 'we' make these choices in part at least because we fall for the advertising meme that says, in effect, 'Look at this hand-crafted expensive Swiss watch/fountain pen/whatever. Buy one, and you will show the world how sophisticated you are.' That the writer then goes on to criticise more modern technology's 'objective shiny newness' shows that he is occupying that well-know river in Africa.
I fully agree that engagement with the real world is A Good Thing, but the idea that using a fountain pen as opposed to a ballpoint pen, or vinyl records as opposed to streaming or CDs helps you do this is simply laughable.
I find all this rhetoric about 'being involved' with things slightly weird when a) we're discussing it virtually on convenient computers that (mostly) 'just work' and b) we're talking about sitting on our backsides listening to music rather than about actually doing anything.
So you consider that having the TIME to sit back and relax listening to some music, and enjoy yourself, free at that point from anyone making demands of you, is "doing nothing"? Interesting... How about enriching your soul and making you HAPPY? Is that "nothing"?
So does the same apply when you're sitting back reading a book, listening to the radio, watching TV or indulging in any other pleasures in life? You can "sit on your backside" and still achieve something good and very worthwhile, especially if it helps you de-stress... Think about that, and what has been reported recently as being one of the biggest killers of mankind.
And some of us, I'm sure you included, actually 'do' plenty of other stuff, by getting off our backsides, which puts us in touch with the real world, gardening and foreign travel are but two for me - and I can do these things because I have earned having the required TIME to control how *I* wish to live my life!
I am not under pressure to do anything that I don't want to do, which unlike so many folks today, gives me the TIME to enjoy the simple pleasures of life, and which for me is priceless.
I would hazard an alternative guess; that 'we' make these choices in part at least because we fall for the advertising meme that says, in effect, 'Look at this hand-crafted expensive Swiss watch/fountain pen/whatever. Buy one, and you will show the world how sophisticated you are.'
Sure, and as I've said, that's why so many folks today have become hapless victims of consumerism, defined by the material possessions they own, instead of what *really* makes them who they are as people.
I fully agree that engagement with the real world is A Good Thing, but the idea that using a fountain pen as opposed to a ballpoint pen, or vinyl records as opposed to streaming or CDs helps you do this is simply laughable.
Why so? I guess it all depends on how your mind works. When was the last time that most of us used ANY kind of pen to write a letter to someone, instead of typing it up on a computer and sending it via email?
How many of us will be sending 'virtual' Christmas cards this year to our friends and family, as opposed to the real thing, hand-written with a pen and posted with a stamp, if indeed we're liable to send any at all...?
There is no doubt that that the former (and latter) is more personal and 'human', *but* it requires some TIME and EFFORT to do, which are two commodities that are sadly lacking in today's society.
And if you don't 'get' how owning and playing vinyl records engages you more with the real world (and crucially with yourself as a person), than the likes of streaming, then I think that says quite a lot about you.
When you have the time (no pun intended, wink wink), you should watch this video of Michael Fremer's, in which he neatly defines what makes vinyl records a uniquely engaging and 'human' thing:
H07NpWk_Xf8
And if I still have to explain it to you afterwards, then you really are a lost cause! ;)
Marco.
narabdela
27-09-2017, 08:33
If you can categorically prove that it's nonsense, then feel free to support your view with the relevant evidence [and it needs to be conclusive], otherwise it's simply your opinion, which is no more authoritative than Jim's.
Marco.
Correct Marco. That's exactly the point I'm making. :exactly:
Now, regarding indisputable relevant evidence. Please read post #349. There's a sprinkling of fact in there seasoned with a large dose of received wisdom. If that had been presented as an opinion I would have disagreed, but respected it. Presenting it as an apparent statement of fact is a whole different ballgame.
This is a really interesting thread, but when it comes to the subject in question, it's mostly opinion that's going to be chewed over. Facts are thin on the ground.
Correct Marco. That's exactly the point I'm making. :exactly:
Now, regarding indisputable relevant evidence. Please read post #349. There's a sprinkling of fact in there seasoned with a large dose of received wisdom. If that had been presented as an opinion I would have disagreed, but respected it. Presenting it as an apparent statement of fact is a whole different ballgame.
This is a really interesting thread, but when it comes to the subject in question, it's mostly opinion that's going to be chewed over. Facts are thin on the ground.
I'm largely in agreement with you Hugh, and in that instance perhaps Jim should've inserted 'IMHO' at the beginning, or phased his post to make it more obvious that it was simply his view.
However, there's an unwritten rule on forums, certainly here (which if you weren't aware of, please bear in mind in future), that *anything* posted, unless specifically stated otherwise, or is the words of a qualified professional discussing his or her area of expertise, is simply personal opinion.
Realistically, as Jim wasn't qualified in this instance to state facts, how could it have been anything else but simply his view, albeit based on something he'd read? Anyway, it's something for you to bear in mind in future, unless we're to continually plaster our posts all over with 'IMO' or 'IMHO', when it should be taken for granted that's all it is :)
Marco.
narabdela
27-09-2017, 09:11
I'm largely in agreement with you Hugh, and in that instance perhaps Jim should've inserted 'IMHO' at the beginning, or phased his post to make it more obvious that it was simply his view.
However, there's an unwritten rule on forums, certainly here (which if you weren't aware of, please bear in mind in future), that *anything* posted, unless specifically stated otherwise, or is the words of a qualified professional discussing his or her area of expertise, is simply personal opinion.
Realistically, as Jim wasn't qualified in this instance to state facts, how could it have been anything else but simply his view, albeit based on something he'd read? Anyway, it's something for you to bear in mind in future, unless we're to continually plaster our posts all over with 'IMO' or 'IMHO', when it should be taken for granted that's all it is :)
Marco.
And I'm largely in agreement with your reply.(ok, I could nitpick but life's too short :) )
Anyhow, moving on...
Nice one. That's exactly how these sorts of matters should be amicably resolved :thumbsup:
Marco.
Haselsh1
27-09-2017, 09:48
I fully agree that engagement with the real world is A Good Thing, but the idea that using a fountain pen as opposed to a ballpoint pen, or vinyl records as opposed to streaming or CDs helps you do this is simply laughable.
Yes, agree but then what is 'engagement with the real World'...? It kind of sounds like another statement of corporate bollocks like 'going forward'.
RothwellAudio
27-09-2017, 09:52
Yes, agree but then what is 'engagement with the real World'...? It kind of sounds like another statement of corporate bollocks like 'going forward'.
"Going forward" :lol:
That is truly one of most popular "means nothing but sounds quite good" phrases at the moment. I wonder if it will crop up at any of this autumn's political party conferences. :)
Haselsh1
27-09-2017, 09:55
"Going forward" :lol:
That is truly one of most popular "means nothing but sounds quite good" phrases at the moment. I wonder if it will crop up at any of this autumn's political party conferences. :)
I would say it is inevitable. Reminds me of when I was 'empowered'
That was utter bollocks as well.
:eyebrows:
then there is "pushing the envelope", although why one would want to Ive no idea.
narabdela
27-09-2017, 10:03
Yes, agree but then what is 'engagement with the real World'...? It kind of sounds like another statement of corporate bollocks like 'going forward'.
Don't get me started on that one. I had to deal with Health Authorities in another life, and the amount of utterly vacuous oral diahorrea they could spout was mind-boggling.
Yes, agree but then what is 'engagement with the real World'...? It kind of sounds like another statement of corporate bollocks like 'going forward'.
I dunno. I guess broadly speaking it means going outside the house. I must try it some time.
then there is "pushing the envelope", although why one would want to Ive no idea.
How can you think outside the box if you don't push the envelope?
Stratmangler
27-09-2017, 10:12
I dunno. I guess broadly speaking it means going outside the house. I must try it some time.
The bit you're missing is about doing it without having 90% of your attention devoted to an electronic communication device that's permanently in your hand.
The bit you're missing is about doing it without having 90% of your attention devoted to an electronic communication device that's permanently in your hand.
he's not a woman, so must have a fair to even chance;)
So you consider that having the TIME to sit back and relax listening to some music, and enjoy yourself, free at that point from anyone making demands of you, is "doing nothing"? Interesting... How about enriching your soul and making you HAPPY? Is that "nothing"?
So does the same apply when you're sitting back reading a book, listening to the radio, watching TV or indulging in any other pleasures in life? You can "sit on your backside" and still achieve something good and very worthwhile, especially if it helps you de-stress... Think about that, and what has been reported recently as being one of the biggest killers of mankind.
I'm arguing with myself really; much of the time I am 'doing nothing' by those criteria. What I was objecting to was the article's underlying message that, somehow, a fountain pen is more 'real' than a ballpoint pen, especially when the vast majority of us use neither. Similarly with a sail boat as opposed to a motor boat (and I'm guessing that the sort of sail boat the writer means has an engine to fall back on if the winds aren't blowing). The irony I was pointing out lies in the fact that we are reading and discussing the tas article in a virtual space, via computers, rather than writing about it to each other using fancy fountain pens.
The bit you're missing is about doing it without having 90% of your attention devoted to an electronic communication device that's permanently in your hand.
Ah, the smartphone. I don't even own one. In their very early days, I was at a meeting when one of the techy types said he was leaving early 'to investigate hand-held devices in Tottenham Court Road'. He was bemused by the laughter that followed.
Stratmangler
27-09-2017, 10:51
Ah, the smartphone. I don't even own one. In their very early days, I was at a meeting when one of the techy types said he was leaving early 'to investigate hand-held devices in Tottenham Court Road'. He was bemused by the laughter that followed.
Putting it that way, I'm not surprised :D
Last time I was in Manchester city centre I was appalled at the number of youngsters (ie anyone under 30 years of age) that were seemingly oblivious to all that was going on around them.
To the point of it being dangerous.
All it takes is someone behind the wheel of a car who's paying attention to stuff on the phone, and it's a real recipe for disaster.
There's the recent case of the woman who was killed by a cyclist in London.
If she hadn't had her attention on the smartphone she was using, there's a high probability that she would still be around today.
narabdela
27-09-2017, 11:00
Last time I was in Manchester city centre I was appalled at the number of youngsters (ie anyone under 30 years of age) that were seemingly oblivious to all that was going on around them.
To the point of it being dangerous.
It's not only the ones who are looking at their phones. A high proportion of youngsters seem to have a phone permanently clutched in their hand like some sort of security blanket they can't be parted with.
I hate to sound like an old fart (which I am), but I'm glad I had my youth when I did. :wheniwasaboy:
It's not only the ones who are looking at their phones. A high proportion of youngsters seem to have a phone permanently clutched in their hand like some sort of security blanket they can't be parted with.
I hate to sound like an old fart (which I am), but I'm glad I had my youth when I did. :wheniwasaboy:
I know. Added to that we had better music, better football, Formula One was still worth watching and you could smoke in the pub and the cinema. poor bastards don't know what they are missing, no wonder they retreat into their 'phones, it's all they've got.
Back in my parents' time they even had TB and rickets! Sheer bloody luxury mate!
Don't worry, TB has made a comeback now thanks to our exciting immigration policies.
Don't worry, TB has made a comeback now thanks to our exciting immigration policies.
so has rickets in children
Haselsh1
27-09-2017, 12:03
Who mentioned cricket in children..? Hated bloody cricket when I was a kid.
Smart phone, what's that then...?
In my day I had a cheap little Wien cassette player on which I listened to T Rex and Roxy Music around their 'Street Life' phase. I then discovered 'For Your Pleasure' and realised I missed the best bit.
Regarding connecting with the real World, that is something I do on gorgeous days on the Harley with no music other than the Screaming Eagles.
No relation to Don Henley ;)
Firebottle
27-09-2017, 12:24
You can "sit on your backside" and still achieve something good and very worthwhile, especially if it helps you de-stress..
When I sit on my backside enjoying my other hobby of paramotoring it really stirs the spirit. It makes me feel connected to the world through enjoying the alternative viewpoint and achieving what the birds take for granted.
:D
paulf-2007
27-09-2017, 12:55
Don't get me started on that one. I had to deal with Health Authorities in another life, and the amount of utterly vacuous oral diahorrea they could spout was mind-boggling.
I gave up working as a project engineer and went back on the tools self employed due to the utter bullshit talked by these young up and coming stab you in the back twats I had to sit through meetings with.
paulf-2007
27-09-2017, 13:02
I know. Added to that we had better music, better football, Formula One was still worth watching and you could smoke in the pub and the cinema. poor bastards don't know what they are missing, no wonder they retreat into their 'phones, it's all they've got.
That's ok if you're a dirty smoker but not good for a clean living person like myself. The best thing ever was banning smoking in pubs, now I have to suffer the dirty sods in the pub garden in summer time. Long haul flights are almost bearable now.
Arkless Electronics
27-09-2017, 13:07
They should ban non smokers from pubs. it's done harm to the great British pub and most regular drinkers are smokers anyway. I would always blow smoke on any twat who had the temerity to complain of my smoking even though I was outside!
'tis a filthy habit:ner: I wouldn't dream of doing it...................again;)
They should ban non smokers from pubs. it's done harm to the great British pub and most regular drinkers are smokers anyway. I would always blow smoke on any twat who had the temerity to complain of my smoking even though I was outside!
Yes well said. Proper pubs were never intended for non-smokers anyway, that's the point everyone misses. Piss off back to the posh wine bars you bloody health Nazis.
Arkless Electronics
27-09-2017, 14:00
Yes well said. Proper pubs were never intended for non-smokers anyway, that's the point everyone misses. Piss off back to the posh wine bars you bloody health Nazis.
Spot on! I remember once a few months after the ban came in that in a large pub here ended up with the entire clientele stood outside as so few were non smokers! The few who were non smokers came outside as well as there was no one left to talk to inside... other than a couple of boring health nazis...
I'm arguing with myself really; much of the time I am 'doing nothing' by those criteria. What I was objecting to was the article's underlying message that, somehow, a fountain pen is more 'real' than a ballpoint pen, especially when the vast majority of us use neither. Similarly with a sail boat as opposed to a motor boat...
I get what you mean, but how would you *really* know, unless you regularly partake in those activities, as well that offered by modern counterparts, and thus are able to directly compare both experiences?
I've never been a big hand-writer (even before computers were common place, I enjoyed using manual typewriters, an experience that incidentally I found eminently more satisfying than I do now when typing on a computer), but I'd imagine that for enthusiasts of such, a certain satisfaction is derived from selecting and buying the ink, using a beautifully handmade fountain pen (different types of specialist writing paper, etc), and the 'feel' that it gives when writing, and just the whole overall experience, compared with the relatively 'soulless' one, in comparison, of using a ballpoint pen on a piece of 'throwaway paper'.
Similarly, I've never sailed, in any shape or form, but I'd imagine that there'd be a similar 'hands on' satisfaction to be had from sailing in a simple sail boat, compared with in a motor boat, and how 'at one' you were with nature. However, the clear message of the article is that in life it's often when we put the most effort into something, that we get the most reward, and in my experience that's often how it is.
The irony I was pointing out lies in the fact that we are reading and discussing the tas article in a virtual space, via computers, rather than writing about it to each other using fancy fountain pens.
Indeed, but the point is it's not the case that technology hasn't resulted in creating some genuine progress; it has, simply that it's a matter of using it responsibly and not allowing it to take over and control your life (as it has sadly for many today), which is why it's important to have a REAL life, as well as a 'virtual' one! ;)
I certainly know that I'd much more appreciate receiving a hand-written real Christmas or birthday card, than a 'virtual' one, sent via a computer, or a hand-written letter, as opposed to an email. I've always valued the personal touch and a bit of class!
Marco.
RothwellAudio
27-09-2017, 14:08
Piss off back to the posh wine bars you bloody health Nazis.
Spot on!
...there was no one left to talk to inside... other than a couple of boring health nazis...
Flippin'eck - agreement between Macca and Jez! :lol:
Last time I was in Manchester city centre I was appalled at the number of youngsters (ie anyone under 30 years of age) that were seemingly oblivious to all that was going on around them.
To the point of it being dangerous.
All it takes is someone behind the wheel of a car who's paying attention to stuff on the phone, and it's a real recipe for disaster.
There's the recent case of the woman who was killed by a cyclist in London.
If she hadn't had her attention on the smartphone she was using, there's a high probability that she would still be around today.
Indeed, and it's both sad and shocking in equal measure. However, it's the same almost everywhere now, Chris. Folk are glued to their mobile phones and seemingly can't function without them.
Even when I was in church last Sunday, a woman was receiving bleeping text alerts on her phone, during mass, and seemed unperturbed by it, until the priest and a significant proportion of the congregation (me included) gave her a nasty glare, which shamed her into switching the damn thing off!! :doh::rolleyes:
Marco.
Flippin'eck - agreement between Macca and Jez! :lol:
On the common ground of professional Northerness. I can just see them stood outside their respective locals, hands cupped to shelter tab, whippet on lead, cloth cap on head, muffler done up to chin, muttering to themselves.
When I sit on my backside enjoying my other hobby of paramotoring it really stirs the spirit. It makes me feel connected to the world through enjoying the alternative viewpoint and achieving what the birds take for granted.
:D
Yeah, respect for that mate, as it doesn't get much better. I'd love to try it sometime! :cool:
Marco.
RothwellAudio
27-09-2017, 14:21
On the common ground of professional Northerness. I can just see them stood outside their respective locals, hands cupped to shelter tab, whippet on lead, cloth cap on head, muffler done up to chin, muttering to themselves.
Muffler? Is that something that southern softies have? No, they'll be standing outside in string vests :lol:
I get what you mean, but how would you *really* know, unless you regularly partake in those activities, as well that offered by modern counterparts, and thus are able to directly compare both experiences?
I've never been a big hand-writer (even before computers were common place, I enjoyed using manual typewriters, an experience that incidentally I found eminently more satisfying than I do now when typing on a computer), but I'd imagine that for enthusiasts of such, a certain satisfaction is derived from selecting and buying the ink, using a beautifully handmade fountain pen (different types of specialist paper, etc), and the 'feel' that it gives when writing, and just the whole overall experience, compared with the relatively 'soulless' one, in comparison, of using a ballpoint pen on a piece of 'throwaway paper'.
I can't remember the last time I used a fountain pen. Not since I left school, probably. I mostly compose essays and such directly on screen, and have done for (gulp!) 30 years or so, but I make notes using a ballpoint or pencil to save lugging the laptop around. I use hardback notebooks because they're more durable, but if needs must I'll happily make notes on the back of an envelope. For me, pens and paper are tools to do a job, rather than objects of desire/interest, and for extended writing, nothing beats the ability to move text around and edit quickly that a laptop or PC provides. I'm the same with watches; I have only the one, given to me as a birthday present ten years or so ago. It probably cost around £60, but if I'd had to buy one for myself I'd probably have bought something cheaper, as long as it kept time reliably and the face was easy to read.
I know. Added to that we had better music, better football, Formula One was still worth watching and you could smoke in the pub and the cinema. poor bastards don't know what they are missing, no wonder they retreat into their 'phones, it's all they've got.
I know you're being somewhat facetious, but the question you have to ask is WHY is that ALL they've got??
When I was that age, I had both parents who cared about me, and who took me all over the place with them on trips out to the seaside or countryside, and friends I interacted with in REAL life, by playing football with them in the park, going out on long cycles together, listening to music and all sorts. In the summer time I was never in!
These days, that simply doesn't seem to happen, and kids are cooped up inside glued to their phones or xbox, often grossly overweight because of a lack of exercise, and as a result suffer from low self-esteem or ADHD, and you have ask yourself WHY that is..... What has caused such a wholesale change in the world we live in??
Marco.
narabdela
27-09-2017, 14:32
All the best threads wander off topic. :beer:
I can't remember the last time I used a fountain pen. Not since I left school, probably. I mostly compose essays and such directly on screen, and have done for (gulp!) 30 years or so, but I make notes using a ballpoint or pencil to save lugging the laptop around. I use hardback notebooks because they're more durable, but if needs must I'll happily make notes on the back of an envelope. For me, pens and paper are tools to do a job, rather than objects of desire/interest, and for extended writing, nothing beats the ability to move text around and edit quickly that a laptop or PC provides. I'm the same with watches; I have only the one, given to me as a birthday present ten years or so ago. It probably cost around £60, but if I'd had to buy one for myself I'd probably have bought something cheaper, as long as it kept time reliably and the face was easy to read.
Well, that's fair enough, but you also have to accept and appreciate that others might be different. I've always been someone who values the nice things in life, and often the time and effort it takes to get them.
Marco.
I know you're being somewhat facetious, but the question you have to ask is WHY is that all they've got??
When I was that age, I had both parents who cared about me, and who took me all over the place with them on trips out to the seaside or countryside, and friends I interacted with in REAL life, by playing football with them in the park, going out on long cycles together, listening to music and all sorts. In the summer time I was never in!
These days, that simply doesn't seem to happen, and kids are cooped up inside glued to their phones or xbox, often grossly overweight because of a lack of exercise, and as a result suffer from low self-esteem or ADHD, and you have ask yourself WHY that is..... What has caused such a wholesale change in the world we live in??
Marco.
Speaking to parents about this, it seems the main cause is paranoia over kiddy fiddlers and Madeleine Mcann style abductions. I know people who won't even let their children play in their own back garden unsupervised. Now these are not stupid people and they know how small the chance of it happening is. But if they took a chance and it happened they would never be able to forgive themselves. So they won't take any chances.
narabdela
27-09-2017, 14:46
Speaking to parents about this, it seems the main cause is paranoia over kiddy fiddlers and Madeleine Mcann style abductions. I know people who won't even let their children play in their own back garden unsupervised. Now these are not stupid people and they know how small the chance of it happening is. But if they took a chance and it happened they would never be able to forgive themselves. So they won't take any chances.
I remember reading a while back that the incidence of kiddy fiddling/abductions per head of population is pretty much the same now as it was fifty years ago. However the increased media coverage has given rise to the paranoia we see now.
My Mum took me to my first day at Primary School. I was on my own from then on!
I know you're being somewhat facetious, but the question you have to ask is WHY is that ALL they've got??
When I was that age, I had both parents who cared about me, and who took me all over the place with them on trips out to the seaside or countryside, and friends I interacted with in REAL life, by playing football with them in the park, going out on long cycles together, listening to music and all sorts. In the summer time I was never in!
These days, that simply doesn't seem to happen, and kids are cooped up inside glued to their phones or xbox, often grossly overweight because of a lack of exercise, and as a result suffer from low self-esteem or ADHD, and you have ask yourself WHY that is..... What has caused such a wholesale change in the world we live in??
Marco.
Maybe some, I agree(perhaps too many actually) but not all by far. My grandkids are out playing or out with parents etc. Parents rarely get any time to themselves, not that they mind, and thats the way is should be.
Actually their pals are all slim and fit too so its deffo not rife everywhere, but I do see way more fat kids than you used to see.
Think we had 1 fat kid at school and he got teased badly but did lose weight.
They should ban non smokers from pubs. it's done harm to the great British pub and most regular drinkers are smokers anyway. I would always blow smoke on any twat who had the temerity to complain of my smoking even though I was outside!
Jez, you know I like you [I do], but sometimes you write stuff that makes you come across as a selfish, inconsiderate arrogant twat, and I'm sorry, but the above is a case in point! :doh:
I have no objection whatsoever to anyone doing what they want (legally), including smoking, providing I'm not indirectly forced to partake in their activity. So smoke away, as long as I don't have to inhale it or have my clothes stinking of fags, after a night out in a pub, where I all want to do is enjoy a drink (and possibly eat some food).
Thankfully the smoking ban has eradicated the above, and now other non-smokers and I can exercise our right to breathe fresh air, and not go home smelling like an ashtray!!
Of course, the proper way to have dealt with the situation, rather than imposing an outright ban, would've been for the government to have given grants to pubs, which allowed them to build proper segregated areas between smokers and non-smokers, so that both sets of needs were catered for.
However, that's bloody self-serving governments for you, who'd rather spend money on creating financial perks for the rich or on arms to further pointless wars, than making the lives of ordinary people that bit nicer! :rolleyes:
Marco.
Speaking to parents about this, it seems the main cause is paranoia over kiddy fiddlers and Madeleine Mcann style abductions. I know people who won't even let their children play in their own back garden unsupervised. Now these are not stupid people and they know how small the chance of it happening is. But if they took a chance and it happened they would never be able to forgive themselves. So they won't take any chances.
They aint doing their kids any favours doing that. You have to age grade what they are allowed to do and where to go, and you have to talk to them reminding them on protocol etc.
I know its a worry but you risk a lot more damage wrapping them in cotton wool
Yeah, wrapping them up in cotton wool isn't the answer, as then they simply don't learn any proper life skills, so it's no wonder so many youngsters today are shy and introverted, rather than confident and outgoing, certainly as I was at their age - and there are valid reasons for that.
The key is to spend more TIME with your kids and supervise them properly, which might be possible if both parents didn't have to work often ridiculous hours to pay a huge mortgage...
When I grew up, my mum was always at home, looking after the house and me, while dad was at work. That sort of set up is rarely seen these days, because of the pressures of modern life, and *that* is the main problem in all of this.
Also, the reality is, all of what you were referring to [child abduction, etc] was rife 'back in the day', Martin, but it simply wasn't in the spotlight as much, and hence reported on... So in reality, we were no safer then than kids are now!
Marco.
Haselsh1
27-09-2017, 15:19
I gave up working as a project engineer and went back on the tools self employed due to the utter bullshit talked by these young up and coming stab you in the back twats I had to sit through meetings with.
Oh Paul, I so 'connect' with you on this one...!
Haselsh1
27-09-2017, 15:31
Yeah, smokers should be gassed rather more quickly than they actually are doing. I drink loads of beer. My by product is urine. I'm guessing it would be OK to piss all over people because they smoke all over every fucker else...?
Shyness or lack thereof is partly down to genetics, and partly down to upbringing. Some children were shy when I was young, so it's hardly a new phenomenon (indeed, way back in the eighteenth century Jane Austen commented to her sister that children were much less shy than when they were young). People often comment on how 'mouthy' children are these days, compared to the good old days when children didn't speak unless they were spoken to, would never dream of 'answering back' to their parents etc etc. It all illustrates the danger of sticking big labels on people, ignoring the fact that we're all different, that such differences have been there throughout history, and probably always will be there.
Yeah, smokers should be gassed rather more quickly than they actually are doing. I drink loads of beer. My by product is urine. I'm guessing it would be OK to piss all over people because they smoke all over every fucker else...?
So it's you and Marco (in the pissing corner) versus Jez and Macca (in the smoking corner). They could sell tickets for that, show it live on Sky Sports maybe.
Speaking to parents about this, it seems the main cause is paranoia over kiddy fiddlers and Madeleine Mcann style abductions. I know people who won't even let their children play in their own back garden unsupervised. Now these are not stupid people and they know how small the chance of it happening is. But if they took a chance and it happened they would never be able to forgive themselves. So they won't take any chances.
Another factor is of course the huge increase in road traffic since I were a lad. We could 'play out' in the street all day, with only a handful of cars stopping play. Even crossing main roads was no big deal, as there were often long gaps in the traffic allowing you to nip across. It's definitely the case that paranoia has increased though, and I wasn't immune as a parent.
Shyness or lack thereof is partly down to genetics, and partly down to upbringing. Some children were shy when I was young, so it's hardly a new phenomenon (indeed, way back in the eighteenth century Jane Austen commented to her sister that children were much less shy than when they were young). People often comment on how 'mouthy' children are these days, compared to the good old days when children didn't speak unless they were spoken to, would never dream of 'answering back' to their parents etc etc. It all illustrates the danger of sticking big labels on people, ignoring the fact that we're all different, that such differences have been there throughout history, and probably always will be there.
Yes, I agree, but it's not about sticking big labels on people; it's about commenting on the world around you, and observing what you largely see in everyday life, which is all I'm doing.
I agree that some kids are "mouthy", but "mouthy", in the context I'm taking from what you've written, is a rather different thing from confident and outgoing! ;)
Marco.
Yes, I agree, but it's not about sticking big labels on people; it's about commenting on the world around you, and observing what you largely see in everyday life, which is all I'm doing.
I agree that some kids are "mouthy", but "mouthy", in the context I'm taking from what you've written, is a rather different thing from confident and outgoing! ;)
Marco.
Nah, 'confident and outgoing kids' = mouthy brats. Give 'em a clip around the earhole.
Lol, yes, very good! :D
Marco.
I have no objection whatsoever to anyone doing what they want (legally), including smoking, providing I'm not indirectly forced to partake in their activity. So smoke away, as long as I don't have to inhale it or have my clothes stinking of fags, after a night out in a pub, where I all want to do is enjoy a drink (and possibly eat some food).
.
You see that is where you are going wrong. The pubs I am talking about would never serve food, you'd be lucky if they even had crisps or nuts. Everyone who went into those pubs smoked, so did the landlord/landlady and the barstaff. No-one had a problem with it and if some preppy type wandered in by accident he soon wandered out again. So it harmed no-one.
I've smoked in some of those pubs since the smoking ban, because there was no-one in there who would grass the landlord up. But they have since all closed down.
paulf-2007
27-09-2017, 15:58
They should ban non smokers from pubs. it's done harm to the great British pub and most regular drinkers are smokers anyway. I would always blow smoke on any twat who had the temerity to complain of my smoking even though I was outside!
You'd get a smack in the face if you blew smoke in mine
Arkless Electronics
27-09-2017, 16:00
Jez, you know I like you [I do], but sometimes you write stuff that makes you come across as a selfish, inconsiderate arrogant twat, and I'm sorry, but the above is a case in point! :doh:
I have no objection whatsoever to anyone doing what they want (legally), including smoking, providing I'm not indirectly forced to partake in their activity. So smoke away, as long as I don't have to inhale it or have my clothes stinking of fags, after a night out in a pub, where I all want to do is enjoy a drink (and possibly eat some food).
Thankfully the smoking ban has eradicated the above, and now other non-smokers and I can exercise our right to breathe fresh air, and not go home smelling like an ashtray!!
Of course, the proper way to have dealt with the situation, rather than imposing an outright ban, would've been for the government to have given grants to pubs, which allowed them to build proper segregated areas between smokers and non-smokers, so that both sets of needs were catered for.
However, that's bloody self-serving governments for you, who'd rather spend money on creating financial perks for the rich or on arms to further pointless wars, than making the lives of ordinary people that bit nicer! :rolleyes:
Marco.
I mean every word of it. People who have a problem with me smoking EVEN THOUGH I'M OUTSIDE can shove it where the sun don't shine and fuck of while they're doing it.
Arkless Electronics
27-09-2017, 16:02
You'd get a smack in the face if you blew smoke in mine
If you complained to me about my smoking when I'm outside then fight on pal.
paulf-2007
27-09-2017, 16:04
I mean every word of it. People who have a problem with me smoking EVEN THOUGH I'M OUTSIDE can shove it where the sun don't shine and fuck of while they're doing it.what a lovely bloke, here's hoping I never meet you.
I mean every word of it. People who have a problem with me smoking EVEN THOUGH I'M OUTSIDE can shove it where the sun don't shine and fuck of while they're doing it.
Then like Paul said, you'd get the smack in the mouth you richly deserved. I think you should quit now and leave it there, Jez, as selfish, arrogant louts aren't welcome on AoS, so I wouldn't like to think that you were one!
Whether you were outside or not, matters not a jot *if*, for any reason I still have to inhale your smoke, as sometimes happens depending on how the wind is blowing or the set-up outside a particular pub. I also shouldn't be forced to walk past (or on top of) filthy fag ends chucked on the ground, simply because some smokers are too lazy to use the provided ashtrays!! :wanker:
Marco.
what a lovely bloke, here's hoping I never meet you.
Indeed, and if he keeps this up, he'll be saying ta-ta to his membership. He's not doing himself or his business any favours.
Marco.
If you complained to me about my smoking when I'm outside then fight on pal.
lol what a great attitude! intelligent too
You see that is where you are going wrong. The pubs I am talking about would never serve food, you'd be lucky if they even had crisps or nuts. Everyone who went into those pubs smoked, so did the landlord/landlady and the barstaff. No-one had a problem with it and if some preppy type wandered in by accident he soon wandered out again. So it harmed no-one.
Well that's all fine and well, but what if the pub in question served the best beer in town (as is often the case in these types of pubs, Liverpool being a good example), and was where I wanted to drink, but I wanted to do be able to do so without inhaling (potentially) poisonous and stinking cigarette fumes...
Why should I be forced to go to a non-smoking pub, which serves inferior beer?? That's hardly fair! The same would apply to a smoker wanting to eat at the pub in town serving the best food, but that pub was non-smoking... Do you see where I'm going?
Now don't get me wrong, I also don't expect the smokers in the pub you mention, landlord and staff included, to have to stop smoking just for me, so that's why *proper segregation* between smokers and non-smokers, costs funded by the government, should've been introduced in all pubs, rather than an outright ban.
That way, everyone gets what they want, and the landlord gains too, because not only would he receive custom from the smokers, but also from everyone else! ;)
Marco.
I was a smoker when ban came in, and tbh it was the catalyst for stopping. Seeing folk out in rain puffing away like the lepers they were, and i decided to not be one. Didnt think it would do my health any harm either.
Now i find smoking fairly smelly affair and dont know why folk continue. Old habits die hardest
i gave up 2 days ago when i turned 50 ,so far so good,im using the inhaler with the nicotine capsule,it works for me.
Good for you... the vapers also help depending on individuals.
Nice one, Jamie. I have ZERO problem with vaping, as it's VAPOUR, not smoke... A big difference, and thus free from all the thousands of toxins contained in cigarettes! ;)
Also, depending on the flavour of the 'juice' used, the vapour usually smells rather nice :)
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
27-09-2017, 16:51
Then like Paul said, you'd get the smack in the mouth you richly deserved. I think you should quit now and leave it there, Jez, as selfish, arrogant hooligans aren't welcome on AoS, so I wouldn't like to think that you were one!
Marco.
I'm nothing of the sort but will not have health nazis trying to dictate to me whether I smoke etc EVEN OUTSIDE and find them the arrogant, selfish ones. They don't have to follow me outside nor do they have to stand next to me. It's also not exactly unventilated! I hate the smoking ban but accept that it's here and that non smokers in a pub have a right to clean air... IMO this right should finish if they are in a minority... that story I told earlier of 40 smokers stood outside whilst there were only 3 or so non smokers in the whole pub was perfectly true! When they start trying to dictate if I can smoke when I'm outside then that's a whole new kettle of fish:steam: In my local wetherspoons they stupidly made most of the outside smoking area non smoking at the height of summer... surprise surprise there was about 20 people at the two tables that remained smoking and no one else at all outside at the other 6 tables apart from on particularly sunny days... Their experiment soon ended.
I like you also Marco but I have to say that I find your "it's my ball" attitude abhorrent at times... all the "if you don't agree with me on a subject I have strong views on then shut up" stuff. If you were a smoker you would have took my side no doubt.... on politics we strongly agree and so you have no problems with me giving Tories a dogs abuse.... no doubt if you had tory views yourself then all my political comments would have been shut down, censored etc and I'd be told "if you don't stop spouting left wing ideas then you'll be banned..." In this case it seems it's fine for non smokers to call people like myself who do smoke "vile filthy creatures" etc but I'm not allowed to "retaliate" eh?
I'll leave it there... I don't wish to fall out with you or anyone else at the end of the day. :cool:
Arkless Electronics
27-09-2017, 16:56
Well that's all fine and well, but what if the pub in question served the best beer in town (as is often the case in these types of pubs, Liverpool being a good example), and was where I wanted to drink, but I wanted to do be able to do so without inhaling (potentially) poisonous and stinking cigarette fumes...
Why should I be forced to go to a non-smoking pub, which serves inferior beer?? That's hardly fair! The same would apply to a smoker wanting to eat at the pub in town serving the best food, but that pub was non-smoking... Do you see where I'm going?
Now don't get me wrong, I also don't expect the smokers in the pub you mention, landlord and staff included, to have to stop smoking just for me, so that's why *proper segregation* between smokers and non-smokers, funded by the government, should've been introduced in all pubs, rather than an outright ban.
That way, everyone gets what they want, and the landlord gains too, because not only would he receive custom from the smokers, but also from everyone else, too! ;)
Marco.
Now on that we agree! Landlords should have the option to have a smoking room, with ventilation, if their customers want it.
I'm nothing of the sort but will not have health nazis trying to dictate to me whether I smoke etc EVEN OUTSIDE and find them the arrogant, selfish ones. They don't have to follow me outside nor do they have to stand next to me. It's also not exactly unventilated! I hate the smoking ban but accept that it's here and that non smokers in a pub have a right to clean air... IMO this right should finish if they are in a minority... that story I told earlier of 40 smokers stood outside whilst there were only 3 or so non smokers in the whole pub was perfectly true! When they start trying to dictate if I can smoke when I'm outside then that's a whole new kettle of fish:steam: In my local wetherspoons they stupidly made most of the outside smoking area non smoking at the height of summer... surprise surprise there was about 20 people at the two tables that remained smoking and no one else at all outside at the other 6 tables apart from on particularly sunny days... Their experiment soon ended.
I like you also Marco but I have to say that I find your "it's my ball" attitude abhorrent at times... all the "if you don't agree with me on a subject I have strong views on then shut up" stuff. If you were a smoker you would have took my side no doubt.... on politics we strongly agree and so you have no problems with me giving Tories a dogs abuse.... no doubt if you had tory views yourself then all my political comments would have been shut down, censored etc and I'd be told "if you don't stop spouting left wing ideas then you'll be banned..." In this case it seems it's fine for non smokers to call people like myself who do smoke "vile filthy creatures" etc but I'm not allowed to "retaliate" eh?
I'm afraid none of that condones the inflammatory, aggressive and violent behaviour you claimed you'd commit if someone dared (legitimately) complain at having to inhale your cigarette smoke. Nor does it befit the type of person, or trader, I wish to have represented here as a member of this forum.
Behave like a "filthy vile creature" (not my words, btw) and you'll be treated like one. If you're nothing of the sort, then don't act like you are - simple!!
You came across as a mindless lout, especially with the 'fight on pal' comment. Is that a professional way to conduct yourself, and do you think it's liable to enhance your business or generate sales? That's rhetorical, btw!
So unless you apologise for that disgraceful remark, promise you'll never write anything like that here again, then I'll have no option but to ban you, as I'm simply unwilling to share the same webspace as someone like that, and in the process damage the reputation of AoS.
Therefore Jez, think *very carefully* what your next move is, if any.
Marco.
Now on that we agree! Landlords should have the option to have a smoking room, with ventilation, if their customers want it.
That's what I said previously, but you were too incensed with your aggressive behaviour being rightly criticised that you completely missed that bit and just went off on one of your rants! :doh:
Marco.
Arkless Electronics
27-09-2017, 17:10
I'm afraid none of that condones the inflammatory, aggressive and violent behaviour you claimed you'd commit if someone dared (legitimately) complain at having to inhale your cigarette smoke. Nor does it befit the type of person, or trader, I wish to have here as a member of this forum.
Behave like a "filthy creature" (not my words, btw) and you'll be treated like one.
You came across as a mindless lout, especially with the 'fight on pal' comment. Is that a professional way to conduct yourself, and do you think it's liable to enhance your business? That's rhetorical, btw!
So unless you apologise for that disgraceful remark, promise you'll never write anything like that here again, then I'll have no option but to ban you, as I'm simply unwilling to share the same webspace as someone like that, and in the process damage the reputation of AoS.
Therefore, think *very carefully* what your next move is, if any.
Marco.
May I remind you that it was in response to someone who said that if he had a problem with me smoking OUTSIDE (I seem to keep having to repeat the all important outside bit) and complained to me, and I blew smoke at him, he would punch me. That was ok?
I'll not say such a thing again then for the sake of peace and harmony. Sorry.
May I remind you that it was in response to someone who said that if he had a problem with me smoking OUTSIDE (I seem to keep having to repeat the all important outside bit) and complained to me, and I blew smoke at him, he would punch me. That was ok?
No, but there's a BIG difference between simply telling someone that they have a problem with inhaling their cigarette smoke, and the person that's being directed at then rudely blowing smoke in their face, which of course is automatically going to cause an adverse reaction!
*YOUR* inflammatory behaviour would've been responsible for escalating the situation into a potential one of violence, not what they did!! Like someone else said, what if you complained about the behaviour of someone there who was drunk, and they responded by pissing all over you, how would you have reacted to that??
I'll not say such a thing again then for the sake of peace and harmony. Sorry.
Ok, that's fine. But in future please remember that when posting here you are not only representing yourself as Jez, but Arkless Electronics, and also as an AoS trader, so in future you need to learn to curb some of your 'strong views', as I don't want to be having this conversation again. Cheers!
Marco.
montesquieu
27-09-2017, 19:40
There's the recent case of the woman who was killed by a cyclist in London.
If she hadn't had her attention on the smartphone she was using, there's a high probability that she would still be around today.
Missed a lot of the drama here today but not letting this go unchallenged: the woman was NOT on her mobile, that was bollocks thrown up by the cyclist in posts online to try and shift the blame and it was CLEARLY established in court that she was not on the phone at the time she crossed the street.
The idiot cyclist who was out there on a track bike doing 20mph on a busy street at lunchtime with no brakes was 100% to blame let's be in no doubt about that.
Yes there are a few Darwin award winners out there who killed taking selfies or crossing streets glued to whatsapp but this woman was not amongst them.
On the smoking front - I gave up smoking cigarettes (rollups mainly) when my son was born 19 years ago, though I have a pipe (tobaccoo, in case anyone is wondering) that I smoke about once a month when I'm feeling in the mood maybe more often when I'm on holiday. I think it's utter nonsense that we have made pariahs out of smokers.
If you go to Germany pubs have the choice of either being smoking pubs, or non-smoking pubs. The smoking ones (a small minority now less than one in 10) are not allowed to serve food, have a fairly mature staff and clientele, don't have muzak (bliss) and are generally far better/more adult to be in than many non-smoking ones.(There are no brats running around for starters, a curse in these parts). The non-smoking ones are much like pubs in the UK.
The point is people are treated like grown-ups and have CHOICE. Something health fascists are desperate to stamp out (look at those ridiculous packs FFS with their garish photographs).
I was in one of these German smoking pubs, smoking my pipe and enjoying a glass of rotwein, last Christmas day on my way to Bach's Christmas Oratorio at the Michael in Hamburg. And it's a long time since I enjoyed a pub so much.
magiccarpetride
27-09-2017, 19:46
Indeed, Alex, and why do you think that has happened; why has convenience triumphed so spectacularly over quality, to the gross detriment of society...?
Quite simply, because the pressures of modern life mean that few people have TIME to indulge in the simple pleasures that make life worth living. And so why is that...??
Because, and this is a major problem in the UK, poor work/life balances essentially rob people of their freedom, as they have to work all the hours under the sun to pay for 'stuff' they've been told that they must have, in order to be considered a 'success', indicated by the amount of superfluous material possessions they own.
Gross consumerism and a misplaced sense of self-entitlement has eroded our core human values, to the extent that we 'connect' with (feel and sense) the REAL world around us less and less every day, pretty soon with the result that that world will no longer exist.
Anyway, I digress....
Marco.
I am as alarmed as you are, Marco. So I don't think you digress; quite the reverse.
I was shocked when I recently read a study that revealed how our ancestors (say, people who lived more than hundred years or so ago), actually worked much, much less than we do today. It was the invention of steam engine, the light bulb and so on that enabled overlords to harness the unwashed masses and make them work even more than before. Suddenly, thanks to the invention of electricity and the light bulb, we see the emergence of shifts in the workplace.
Today, the electronic leash is the most insidious application of technology ever hoisted upon the population. I've worked with different kinds of teams (meaning, coming from different cultural backgrounds). I've been on projects with mostly European team members, then on projects with mostly Americans, then Asians etc. To me, the most atrocious victims of the 'being busy, staying out of trouble' brainwashing are Americans. They for some reason feel huge rush of imminent panic if they feel, even for a minute, that they're not busy. That's just terrible.
So given that state of affairs in the world today, it's a small wonder that barely anyone has any ability to carve out a few hours of the day to sit in front of the turntable, carefully and lovingly clean their LPs, then lovingly listen to the amazing music pouring out of well positioned speakers.
Funnily, it is always the digital crowds that gets very offended by us, vinyl lovers; rarely it goes the other way around. If someone tries to convince me that digital sound format is superior, I am prone to give them the benefit of a doubt and to sit down and listen to their amazing digital front end. But it doesn't seem to work the other way around -- whenever I claim that some LP sounds better than its digital version, the digital lovers get all tied into a knot. I'm not sure why is that?
This thread has certainly drifted somewhat - in fact I think it could hold the record for maximum thread drift.
I have been a way and have had to do some catching up.
Apropos photography, well most of mine is/has been travel photography. The taking of the photograph was the creative bit: choice of lens; aperture/shutter speed; choice of filmstock; viewpoint; composition. That was it. But the film still had to be developed and beacause my favourite choice of film was Kodachrome 64 (because IMO it had the best colour rendition/accuracy (oops that word again)), it had to be sent to Kodak for processing. The only choice I had in the subsequent 'replay' was to choose a projector with a good lens, free from aberations, using a light source with the correct colour temperature to simulate daylight, and a screen. When I project my slides I feel I can walk into the picture and am immediately reminded of being exactly there when I took the photo.
I do believe the ban on smoking in pubs has greatly increased the demise of the local pub (at least one closes a week), but I also think the increase in the cost of beer has much to answer for (over £5 a pint in London). IMO landlords should have been given the right to choose whether to make their pubs non-smoking family friendly 'gastropubs', to remain an establishment where both the staff were smokers and where smoking clients would be welcome.
I don't know if Shaun's original question/observation has been answered - but it's certainly been an interesting ride!
Barry (a non-smoker, hates digital photography and is comfortable with both analogue and digital music reproduction)
narabdela
27-09-2017, 20:01
Missed a lot of the drama here today but not letting this go unchallenged: the woman was NOT on her mobile, that was bollocks thrown up by the cyclist in posts online to try and shift the blame and it was CLEARLY established in court that she was not on the phone at the time she crossed the street.
The idiot cyclist who was out there on a track bike doing 20mph on a busy street at lunchtime with no brakes was 100% to blame let's be in no doubt about that.
Yes there are a few Darwin award winners out there who killed taking selfies or crossing streets glued to whatsapp but this woman was not amongst them.
It's genuinely worrying how fake news like this gets so easily accepted and quoted as fact. I keep reading the "but she was on her phone" nonsense on internet forums.
We really need to be more critical of what we read these days.
Stratmangler
27-09-2017, 21:08
Missed a lot of the drama here today but not letting this go unchallenged: the woman was NOT on her mobile, that was bollocks thrown up by the cyclist in posts online to try and shift the blame and it was CLEARLY established in court that she was not on the phone at the time she crossed the street.
From what I can find online the case looks to have hinged entirely on the cyclist being on an illegal machine.
Have you got any links to the evidence given in court?
One thing I would disregard is testimony from witnesses - they're notoriously unreliable.
I would expect Oxford Street to have an extremely high density of CCTV cameras, so the incident should have been picked up by one of them.
And don't get me wrong, the cyclist in question got off lightly in my opinion.
I can never think why it was not allowed to have a single smoking room in a pub ,with extractor fans and labelled as such !!
Also ,my pet hate is folks with ear plugs in walking the dog or cycling whilst listening to some loud music ,or whatever . Not using their ears to hear whats coming along the road . You hit them and its you in the cart unless there are witnesses!
Vinyl , yes - its an illusion with the tat that I listen to it , with :)
montesquieu
27-09-2017, 21:15
From what I can find online the case looks to have hinged entirely on the cyclist being on an illegal machine.
Have you got any links to the evidence given in court?
One thing I would disregard is testimony from witnesses - they're notoriously unreliable.
I would expect Oxford Street to have an extremely high density of CCTV cameras, so the incident should have been picked up by one of them.
And don't get me wrong, the cyclist in question got off lightly in my opinion.
Sorry to use the Daily Mail but they had their own reporter at the trial whereas nearly everyone else was using Press Association copy which was very badly written some days. (Speaking as an ex-journalist who used to cover court cases, in shorthand) - it's the only one I could find with the reference to the phone at short notice.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4812962/Cyclist-ploughed-mother-manslaughter.html
'The former courier and scaffolder also said she had been on her phone - but it was proved in court she wasn't.'
Stratmangler
27-09-2017, 21:47
Sorry to use the Daily Mail but they had their own reporter at the trial whereas nearly everyone else was using Press Association copy which was very badly written some days. (Speaking as an ex-journalist who used to cover court cases, in shorthand) - it's the only one I could find with the reference to the phone at short notice.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4812962/Cyclist-ploughed-mother-manslaughter.html
'The former courier and scaffolder also said she had been on her phone - but it was proved in court she wasn't.'
I see the phrase "CCTV footage" several times, yet no reference as to what it showed, other than evidence against the cyclist.
The case has been very poorly covered.
Minstrel SE
28-09-2017, 15:39
Is this still about the vinyl illusion? :D I wish to report a thread hijacking! The thread has turned 180 degrees south with some superfluous transmissions
I've been watching the Michael Fremer videos and I believe in vinyl brothers and sisters..... I believe! :)
Is this still about the vinyl illusion? :D I wish to report a thread hijacking! The thread has turned 180 degrees south with some superfluous transmissions
)
The thread title attracts all the argumentative types and when we are bored arguing about that we argue about something else instead. It beats going home to your family. I think.
narabdela
28-09-2017, 17:50
The thread title attracts all the argumentative types and when we are bored arguing about that we argue about something else instead. It beats going home to your family. I think.
We're in a cynical mood today aren't we? :whistle:
We're in a cynical mood today aren't we? :whistle:
No more than usual :)
Haselsh1
04-10-2017, 18:24
OK, I have suspended our purchasing of all vinyl until I have evaluated vinyl v compact disc for the remainder of this week. Two weeks ago I bought the new Gary Numan album on vinyl and was so blown away by it that I have now bought it on CD so that we may do a direct comparison. Now impressive as it was on vinyl, I am expecting CD to be utterly mind blowing. We shall see.
:cheers:
speedracer
04-10-2017, 18:53
OK, I have suspended our purchasing of all vinyl until I have evaluated vinyl v compact disc for the remainder of this week. Two weeks ago I bought the new Gary Numan album on vinyl and was so blown away by it that I have now bought it on CD so that we may do a direct comparison. Now impressive as it was on vinyl, I am expecting CD to be utterly mind blowing. We shall see.
:cheers:
It is a good album!
paulf-2007
06-10-2017, 08:01
It is a good album!
Fortunately we are all different, I didn't like it. It seems he found some sounds on his gear and played it to death on most of the tracks.
speedracer
06-10-2017, 13:22
Fortunately we are all different, I didn't like it. It seems he found some sounds on his gear and played it to death on most of the tracks.
Well of course everyone will not like it, but it seems a bit churlish to point out that you don't like this particular record. I will say something positive about a subject if I agree with the poster, but if I didn't agree I would just not bother to post, seems an unnecessary thing to do and designed to create friction to me.
Haselsh1
06-10-2017, 13:42
Well of course everyone will not like it, but it seems a bit churlish to point out that you don't like this particular record. I will say something positive about a subject if I agree with the poster, but if I didn't agree I would just not bother to post, seems an unnecessary thing to do and designed to create friction to me.
Hey Brook, it's perfectly OK. It won't cause any friction with me. And yes, I think he overuses some of the sound patches in the same way Depeche Mode do which is why it may well sound very DM like which it does. Compared to the vinyl version,
the CD is just so precise and powerful with the vinyl in my system sounding rather flat and dull. Once again CD rules the roost.
I had a listen the other day. Sounded awesome although not my cuppa tea personally but can see why folk would like it
paulf-2007
06-10-2017, 19:03
Well of course everyone will not like it, but it seems a bit churlish to point out that you don't like this particular record. I will say something positive about a subject if I agree with the poster, but if I didn't agree I would just not bother to post, seems an unnecessary thing to do and designed to create friction to me.most definitely not designed to create friction Brook, if members here only posted if they liked something it would be a pretty boring place to be. Decidedly European, agree with me or sod off basically. Ok I wasn't asked for my opinion sorry it rubbed you up the wrong way.
speedracer
06-10-2017, 19:07
Hi Paul, not rubbed me up any which way really, if you say it wasn't designed the way I said I am happy to believe that, so thanks for the positive reply.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.