View Full Version : Dont get stressed if you think your system isn't "Good Enough"...
There's always something "Better", and it's a chase you don't need.
This Guy is a Gem.
https://youtu.be/4b2IOOhJmxw
Enjoy what you have, large or small, the Hobbies all about enjoying your favorite Music :)
https://youtu.be/nfuIKh1UaGU
Opti-cal
21-05-2021, 13:01
There's always something "Better", and it's a chase you don't need.
This Guy is a Gem.
https://youtu.be/4b2IOOhJmxw
Enjoy what you have, large or small, the Hobbies all about enjoying your favorite Music :)
Enjoying this right now (at work) thanks Gaz . . . .
Not sure if I'll feel better or worse about my system afterwards though . . . . actually no I do know . . . conclusion, didn't work hard enough . . . haha
That was good, crazy, but good :)
I've seen videos about that system before, and two questions arise:
[1] Why three speakers at the front?
[2] I presume the four grandfather clocks are not actually working. Having spent all that money on a system, I wouldn't want to hear the "tick-tock" of the clocks interfering with my musical pleasure.
Pigmy Pony
21-05-2021, 21:44
I've seen videos about that system before, and two questions arise:
[1] Why three speakers at the front?
[2] I presume the four grandfather clocks are not actually working. Having spent all that money on a system, I wouldn't want to hear the "tick-tock" of the clocks interfering with my musical pleasure.
The Thompson Twins had three band members. Maybe he likes the Thompson Twins. Though it would be a lot cheaper to get them to come round and play :)
Lawrence001
21-05-2021, 22:41
I've seen videos about that system before, and two questions arise:
[1] Why three speakers at the front?
[2] I presume the four grandfather clocks are not actually working. Having spent all that money on a system, I wouldn't want to hear the "tick-tock" of the clocks interfering with my musical pleasure.He might have a trifield system, Meridian were big on that for a while and apparently it worked well.
Lawrence001
21-05-2021, 22:47
Anyway I'm finally in a position where I think my system is good enough. It's only taken me 30 years [emoji16]
paulf-2007
22-05-2021, 06:55
Whatever floats yer boat. Converting my old classic car to electric is all consuming right now but nice to take some time in the listening room that for me is good enough not to keep looking for something else
I've seen videos about that system before, and two questions arise:
[1] Why three speakers at the front?
[2] I presume the four grandfather clocks are not actually working. Having spent all that money on a system, I wouldn't want to hear the "tick-tock" of the clocks interfering with my musical pleasure.
Yes I've seen this one before too.
1) it's a full surround system, so has a centre channel
2) The clocks do work, you can hear them chiming whilst he's being interviewed. I suppose he mutes them while listening, either that or the system is so loud it drowns them out. Certainly looks capable of it.
Not that keen on his decor, reminds me a bit of Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas.
I have seen most of that film before and if it floats his boat...........
The fun for me having lots of beer money kit and DIY stuff, is chopping and changing once or twice a year to see what nasty surprises and pops and bangs I can induce to amuse myself:eek:
But seriously, I couldn't get on with having just one of everything even more so if each component cost an arm and a leg.
I've been chasing improvement since '67, and whilst I have moved forward, and spent a lot of money and been in anxst about it all, I'm now resigned to what I have.
When you have more invested, a change is more of a financial threat. Speakers are the real potential gain point, and if they are expensive, then probably the next 'gamble comparison' will also be, and it may be that the new ones are a move backwards and a resell is then required. Then to just start the whole process again.
The chap is clearly unwell and deserves any pleasure he can get. I’d rather sacrifice the system and have good health thanks. Btw I’d like both best…
Lol - 'unwell' in what way?:)
An interesting video, Gaz, so thanks for sharing. After watching it, the following struck my mind:
1) The decor is absolutely hideous (total 'showy' bling) and the polar opposite of my own tastes. Macca's point about Caesar's Palace in LV is spot on, and which is why I'm not a fan of LV or other places like it. I've also seen similar decor/architecture in the likes of Dubai - another place I detest for similar reasons, populated with bling (gilt-adorned), soulless palaces for the vulgar nouveau riche!:rolleyes:
2) There was WAY too much chat about specs and how much this or that weighs (or how it was constructed), which I have little interest in, and little about the philosophy behind his choices (the type of sound he likes, how he strives for that and how he thinks he's achieved it), which I'd have been far more interested in, specifically in reference to his T/T, arms, carts and phono stage(s).
Plus, I'd have liked to have heard the system demonstrated, just to get a 'flavour' of how it sounds, much like folks do on YT. Yes, I know the subsequent SQ on such platforms is MP3 at best, but I can generally still tell whether I like it or not.
3) There was little discussion about music or his passion for it, despite having a sizeable music collection, and so he came across as more of a 'sound guy' than a music man. The opposite of the likes of Michael Fremer or Ken Kessler, who have similar 'amazing systems', and have produced similar videos, but for me are much more interesting people. Both have a personality, which this guy didn't. He was a right boring bassa, IMO!
Anyway, yes, interesting to watch, but rather disappointing overall in terms of the content.
Marco.
Lol I had the opposite view in that he doesn't go into enough detail about how it works. I think because he didn't actually do all the nuts and bolts, just knew what he wanted.
That décor is typical high-end American. A lot of them actually think it's the height of good taste, hard to believe I know.
Not that I can talk since I don't really bother with décor at all.
Caesar's Palace is in Las Vegas btw not LA. I can recommend it for breakfast, the valet parking is efficient and some of the slave girls are worth a second look.
Lol I had the opposite view in that he doesn't go into enough detail about how it works (not my job; I'm an audiophile/music lover, not an EE). I think because he didn't actually do all the nuts and bolts, just knew what he wanted.
Lol, indeed.. Shows how our respective minds work, perhaps as a result of the obj/sub thing? I couldn't tell you how much of my system works (not my job; I'm an audiophile/music lover, not an EE), but I certainly know WHY I chose it, and how each individual box or cable contributes to the overall sonic result!:)
That's the sort of stuff that interests me and so what I like to see being discussed.
It's a bit like with hi-fi mags - I detested the stuff in the 70s where reviews of gear were all about specs and measurements [graphs and yawn-inducing bullshit like that], and almost nothing about how reviewers perceived the sound! That's what I 'get off' on, and the main reason why I bought hi-fi mags, and so the reviewers who did that best/had a bit of attitude and personality (didn't come across as a boring boffin) were most able to hold my interest.
That décor is typical high-end American. A lot of them actually think it's the height of good taste, hard to believe I know.
Not that I can talk since I don't really bother with décor at all.
Ha - I know, but I'm the opposite in that respect, so have a BIG interest in how people's rooms (and homes) look! It often provides a real insight into their personalities, which again is something I'm interested in, as I enjoy studying human nature.
Caesar's Palace is in Las Vegas btw not LA. I can recommend it for breakfast, the valet parking is efficient and some of the slave girls are worth a second look.
Yes, sorry, I meant LV, not LA (now amended). All these types of places though fundamentally aren't my thing, as for me they represent the worst excesses of the modern materialistic world, but you know that already.
Marco.
Lol, indeed.. Shows how our respective minds work, perhaps as a result of the obj/sub thing? I couldn't tell you how much of my system works, but I certainly know WHY I chose it, and how each individual box or cable contributes to the overall sonic result!:)
That's the sort of stuff that interests me and so what I like to see being discussed.
It's a bit like with hi-fi mags - I detested the stuff in the 70s where reviews of gear were all about specs and measurements [graphs and yawn-inducing bullshit like that], and almost nothing about how reviewers perceived the sound! That's what I 'get off' on, and the main reason why I bought hi-fi mags, and so the reviewers who did that best/had a bit of attitude and personality.
I like to read about other peoples' subjective perceptions too, especially if, as you say, they are an entertaining writer. I enjoy reading Michael Fremer's stuff for that reason, even though he sometimes talks a lot of bollocks. I like his videos too.
But as a source for worthwhile information about making an audio system, no, not so much use to me.
Most of us, including these subjective reviewers, would agree there's no substitute for trying something in your own system in your own room with your own music. I just use the specs and measurements to decide what to try, instead of the subjective reviews.
I only tend to read the subjective reviews after I've bought whatever it is. Sometimes I agree with them and sometimes I don't. Which says it all, really.
I like to read about other peoples' subjective perceptions too, especially if, as you say, they are an entertaining writer. I enjoy reading Michael Fremer's stuff for that reason, even though he sometimes talks a lot of bollocks. I like his videos too.
But as a source for worthwhile information about making an audio system, no, not so much use to me.
Most of us, including these subjective reviewers, would agree there's no substitute for trying something in your own system in your own room with your own music. I just use the specs and measurements to decide what to try, instead of the subjective reviews.
I only tend to read the subjective reviews after I've bought whatever it is. Sometimes I agree with them and sometimes I don't. Which says it all, really.
Fair enough, each to his or her own. The only times in the 30-odd years I've been into high-end audio that I've looked at specs is when buying cartridges (in terms of output, frequency response and impedance), or electrical value, when buying caps, resistors, etc, when modifying gear (as such things are crucial), but otherwise I've simply used my subjective judgement and gut instincts, particularly the latter, and which have always served me well.
Outside of the areas I've mentioned, specs or measurements for me mean very little, as they rarely provide any real insight into how stuff sounds, and I don't think I've seen a graph yet that I've fully understood the purpose of [i.e. exactly what it's supposed to indicate within the context it represents]!:D
My brain simply isn't wired that way, therefore I tend to 'switch off'/eyes glaze over when I see that kind of stuff, so I'm unlikely to put it to good use.
Plus, to be quite honest, I don't really need anyone's help when making choices or decisions with hi-fi, especially that of so-called 'experts' I don't know from Adam. Yes, technically in their field, the may be, but do they have good ears - and would they be able to demonstrate that to me?
THAT, for me, is the acid test in whether or not I pay any attention to what someone has to say, as I've heard too many bland or mediocre systems, belonging to those of an objectivist/measurements first mindset, to place much importance on specs or what's said 'on paper'. Conversely, I've heard too many great sounding systems, owned by folks like me who's decisions in audio are ultimately governed by the God-given organs at the sides of their heads.
Therefore, can you blame me for thinking like that?:)
Marco.
no of course not, listening and a bit of practical experiment is always necessary, measurements are just a guide to weed out the tat. I don't find subjective reviews do that.
There's the odd exception if someone recommends something to me I might take a punt on it without looking at the engineering. Like the Audiolab transport, I bought that on Gaz's recco as I know he's the sort of bloke who wouldn't have it for five minutes if it wasn't up to the job.
ironically good sounding systems - that is good sounding with all music, not just showcase recordings - always measure well so all roads lead to Rome eventually.
I've heard plenty of average-sounding set-ups put together by the 'just trust your ears' philosophy too so I'm not sure there is any relationship between the two different approaches and how the system turns out.
And there's the personal preference element too. I recall at Scalford one year I thought there was one particular 'objectivist' system that was probably best in show but you weren't keen on it. Sure you recall which one and who it belonged to.
I was struck by his philosophical position, he did make some valid points about ambition and use of time. But I was concerned about what seemed to be an immense amount of material construction executed to the n'th degree, and his bottomless memory of all the material contributions, like an accountants audit. He doesn't seem to eulogise on music as much as on the whole enterprise of construction.
How much he personally put into the speaker design was not made clear, and I'd be interested to know who did the calculations and design procedures.
I would find it easy to think that this wealthy man has just applied 'pissing contest' rules to achieve the best he can, and that he perhaps has neglected the passionate commitment that Lawrence Dickie has, and which has, and does, drive his study and creativity in producing Vivid speakers.
The decor does not appeal to me at all, but does show much material expenditure, perhaps nouveau riche in expression.
This reminds me of my relationship with my Hi-Fi friend who has and income many many times greater than mine, and who visits bringing his latest toy in order to show me how and what should be done. Of course it is easy to buy good sound; I bet Gates would if it interested him, but for me it is trying to do the best I can with limited resources, and by paying attention to the control and ordination of resource usage. He recently appeared with the best Benchmark stuff.
I liken my friend to a man who knows everyone at a racecourse, and asks for tips from those in the know, whereas I find a horse which is cheap but which has potential, and work and train it to try to achieve. He of course wins the race, but I've had a more fulfilling journey, and I've developed in many ways.
Beobloke
14-06-2021, 16:31
Plus, to be quite honest, I don't really need anyone's help when making choices or decisions with hi-fi, especially that of so-called 'experts' I don't know from Adam…..
Eh? What?
What have I done now?!
A slip of the tongue methinks. ;)
no of course not, listening and a bit of practical experiment is always necessary, measurements are just a guide to weed out the tat. I don't find subjective reviews do that.
To an extent I agree, but I've never found anything more than my own judgement (or that of someone I know and trust) needed as a guide to 'weed out the tat'. I certainly agree though that any genuinely good gear will measure well, often simply just as a by-product of good judgement.
There's the odd exception if someone recommends something to me I might take a punt on it without looking at the engineering. Like the Audiolab transport, I bought that on Gaz's recco as I know he's the sort of bloke who wouldn't have it for five minutes if it wasn't up to the job.
Agreed, and there a few more like him on here whose discerning ears I'd pay far more attention to than any specs or measurements.
ironically good sounding systems - that is good sounding with all music, not just showcase recordings - always measure well so all roads lead to Rome eventually.
As I said, I *completely* agree with that. However, the way I go about it is simply to listen to equipment that sounds stunning (trust my ears), and invariably it will also measure well. I don't select gear, based on notionally good specs and expect it to sound great, as often it doesn't.
Now, given what I said earlier that might sound like a contradiction, but for me the best audio designers not only get their kit to measure well (the easy bit), but in the final analysis, VOICE it to sound great (i.e musical, not sterile), by using their ears to tweak/finely adjust the circuit, the effect of which often isn't measurable, but which results in a no-brainer better sound.
It's a process often dismissed by 'measurists', IMO, to their detriment, as that's often where the 'magic' happens!;)
I've heard plenty of average-sounding set-ups put together by the 'just trust your ears' philosophy too so I'm not sure there is any relationship between the two different approaches and how the system turns out.
Yes, I agree, but that philosophy only works if your ears are any good!!:D
And there's the personal preference element too. I recall at Scalford one year I thought there was one particular 'objectivist' system that was probably best in show but you weren't keen on it. Sure you recall which one and who it belonged to.
Was it Serge's? If so, I can't remember why I didn't like it, although normally when we're together we tend to agree on these things.
Marco.
Eh? What?
What have I done now?!
Hahaha... Tis but a saying, dear boy, although some of your likes and dislikes in audio arguably call into question your level of discernment!:D;)
Marco.
I was struck by his philosophical position, he did make some valid points about ambition and use of time. But I was concerned about what seemed to be an immense amount of material construction executed to the n'th degree, and his bottomless memory of all the material contributions, like an accountants audit. He doesn't seem to eulogise on music as much as on the whole enterprise of construction.
How much he personally put into the speaker design was not made clear, and I'd be interested to know who did the calculations and design procedures.
I would find it easy to think that this wealthy man has just applied 'pissing contest' rules to achieve the best he can, and that he perhaps has neglected the passionate commitment that Lawrence Dickie has, and which has, and does, drive his study and creativity in producing Vivid speakers.
The decor does not appeal to me at all, but does show much material expenditure, perhaps nouveau riche in expression.
This reminds me of my relationship with my Hi-Fi friend who has and income many many times greater than mine, and who visits bringing his latest toy in order to show me how and what should be done. Of course it is easy to buy good sound; I bet Gates would if it interested him, but for me it is trying to do the best I can with limited resources, and by paying attention to the control and ordination of resource usage. He recently appeared with the best Benchmark stuff.
I liken my friend to a man who knows everyone at a racecourse, and asks for tips from those in the know, whereas I find a horse which is cheap but which has potential, and work and train it to try to achieve. He of course wins the race, but I've had a more fulfilling journey, and I've developed in many ways.
Great post, Dennis. We're on the same page with many of the points you've raised, but especially the bit in bold. ultimately, he's not really my kind of guy and strikes me as being more of a 'I can do it because I can afford it' type, regardless of whether what he's done is actually necessary or beneficial to what he's trying to achieve.
Marco.
Filterlab
14-06-2021, 18:22
Does he live in a Pottery Barn catalogue?
What's Pottery Barn?:)
Marco.
Lol - 'unwell' in what way
Seems he has ALS which is no joke as a progressively degenerative disease.
I see... Is this what you're referring to: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/amyotrophic-lateral-sclerosis/symptoms-causes/syc-20354022
If so, how would you know - are you a doctor?:)
Marco.
What's Pottery Barn?:)
Rob? Anyone? Never heard of it.
Also, Macca, any thoughts on post 23?:)
Marco.
Rob? Anyone? Never heard of it.
Also, Macca, any thoughts on post 23?:)
Marco.
its an american furnature store chain
Ah right, and they sell the sort of pseudo 'ostentatious' pish that guy had in his gaff? There's no accounting for taste, eh?:doh:
Marco.
Opti-cal
15-06-2021, 08:33
Rob? Anyone? Never heard of it.
Marco.
American (originating from, but I think they were in Europe/UK for a while) furnishing chain. Pop's up infrequently as the 'butt' of a few jokes in various comedies "Friends" etc, I think.
Needless to say very unimaginative, bland and 'vanilla' styling it would seem. When you just want a room decorated to no particular style or taste . . . .
** What Grant said!**
Ah right, and they sell the sort of pseudo 'ostentatious' pish that guy had in his gaff? There's no accounting for taste, eh?:doh:
Marco.
The style is to me indicative of a general, and perhaps increasingly so, a self expression in the form of accoutrements.
Examples for me being widespread buying of SUVs by those who do not, and have no real hope of, using them for their intended purpose, (old Gits my age), and forgive me if I offend, but tattoos and piercings done in extreme, and women using excessive make-up, or in old age having blue or purple hair.
It is as if the external presentation has overridden the importance of inner qualities, which of course can become masked in this noise of ostentatiously loud exhibitionism.
While I'm at it, apparently we on average spend two hours a day on the mobile or texting, and I know from experience that much of this communication is not about the Tractatus, or Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, but is rather of a shallow ephemeral nature, and often poorly written shorthand. The more this becomes the norm, so it will oust anything more serious which will be peripheralised and eventually due to the nature of democracy, become an untrodden path.
I recommend "Twenty One Questions For The Twenty First Century" by Yuval Noah Harari.
Oh my goodness, Dennis, post of the year so far!!:clap:
We are *SO* much on the same page.. Particularly on this:
The style is to me indicative of a general, and perhaps increasingly so, a self expression in the form of accoutrements.
Examples for me being widespread buying of SUVs by those who do not, and have no real hope of, using them for their intended purpose, (old Gits my age), and forgive me if I offend, but tattoos and piercings done in extreme, and women using excessive make-up, or in old age having blue or purple hair.
Indeed! And the latter are both pathetic and risible in the extreme!:lol:
But this is the most sobering truism you've stated:
It is as if the external presentation has overridden the importance of inner qualities, which of course can become masked in this noise of ostentatiously loud exhibitionism.
For me, it's indicative of the superficial and disposable society we're created, largely by becoming unhealthily 'married' to technology, and with it in many cases among the masses, unconsciously (and dangerously) controlled by it.
The Internet has a lot to answer for in that respect, which for me, whilst being an incredible tool, when used in the right way, has (now) fatally eroded our ability to think and make judgements for ourselves, and subsequently created a sheep-like culture, where affirmation from our peers, on the likes of social media, and creating a faux image of oneself of 'success', on such platforms, is vital in order to feel 'accepted' and have any semblance of self-worth.
Slowly going are the free-thinkers, the eccentrics, the 'I don't give a fuck what you think of me, I'll be what *I* WANT' thinkers. Too many now are happy to conform to the system, shun their individuality and become clones, simply to 'fit in' and not rock the boat.
Sad, sad, sad....:(
Marco.
hey, i drive a suv...:steam:;)
Lol... Yes, but not for the same reasons the diddies we're talking about do!
Marco.
Ask yourself the question though (but try and apply a little lateral thinking): *why* do you think that there are so many soulless/nondescript 'SUVs' on the road, and why do modern cars pretty much all look identical [largely born form the same generic/homogenised 'bubble mould']...?
Marco.
Air resistance tests mostly I think. Ie a wind tunnel and a computer.
The little tweaks are to make it look different.
Lol, nah... That's only a tiny part of it, but missing the main point, which is this:
To remove choice by slowly destroying one's ability to be an individual or stand out from the crowd. That's what the powers that be are striving towards in all areas of society. They don't want individuals or free-thinkers, successfully able to express themselves and be different: they want CLONES, as clones are easier to control.
Therefore, via subliminal advertising and many other methods/forms of brainwashing, they condition people to all want the same thing!
Compare today's cars with mobile phones... Remember before smartphones were invented mobile phones all looked different, some rather quirky, such as the little ones that folded in half? Now what are they like? They ALL look the same! And that's no accident.
Could manufacturers make them look different/able to be personalised. yet still retain their current functionality? Without doubt, but they don't because they seek to limit choice. Quite simply, choice promotes freedom, not control, and control is what they want!
Cars have gone the same way, and so have many other things, as the desire is for everything we own to become generic.
That's one of the main reasons why I stick two fingers up to the system, refuse to conform to the norm, and INSIST on leading a different life from the masses (am able to make different choices), and one that allows me to be an INDIVIDUAL, never a clone!
:exactly:
Marco.
The science behind the SUVs no doubt determines the general shape, but as Grant perhaps alludes to, the tweeks are about trying to manipulate the vanity of the public with very fine nuances.
There was a TV prog showing that a full size clay mould is made, and milled to produce fine changes until it was thought to be presumably, attractive and sellable, and thousands of hours were spent on this.
The result is that the public is predatorily manipulated by its vanity needs.
I received a notification window yesterday warning me about social engineering from one of the four protection softwares I use, and after a brief surf had over 3000 trackers and several Mb to remove; we are becoming a commodity.
It is analogous to a drone following us around and relaying all our personal life events to 'big brother'.
Opti-cal
15-06-2021, 11:04
These things are still available. Cars with some character, quality, unique furnishings. It's just that people have been conditioned and encouraged to be lazy regarding the amount of effort needed to obtain said examples.
People have been convinced they will be better off going for the convenient, time saving product should it be available, a view I simply do not share. However I do feel I'm in the minority and have been for some time now.
I enjoy searching out the 'finer' options in both decor and vehicles, hi-fi also to some extent. The shift towards the world being brainwashed/sleepwalking into a void of identical consumer products is a valid observation no doubt, BUT, I like to think that there are still enough passionate individuals remaining (many of them in here I suspect) for markets to still exist for more interesting and culturally satisfying products.
The way I see it - the more the sheep fall in line buying the latest Apple phone and Wireless sound systems - the more interesting 'tat' will be left for me (tube amps galore!!). Then when no one wants 60's Mustangs or bespoke hand-built speakers anymore I'll clean up!
Admittedly it will be a shame when the shift has become so great that NO products of that ilk will be manufactured or available, but I believe we are a long way from that dark day.
Rob? Anyone? Never heard of it.
Also, Macca, any thoughts on post 23?:)
Marco.
I don't agree that there are things that cannot be measured, just that they may be omitted from measurement even if they matter.
I don't agree with the 'golden ears' thing either. Barring some sort of physical hearing impairment this shouldn't be a drawback. I think there are a number of reasons why many 'trust your ears' systems can sound poor:
1) The owner knows it sounds poor but does not know what to do about it.
2) The owner thinks it sounds great even though it doesn't
3) It sounds good with showcase recordings so the owner blames recording quality for why everything else sounds poor.
4) The owner has never heard anything better, or they have heard better but it was ludicrously expensive and they incorrectly assume that level of expenditure is required. They can't afford that so they settle for what they have.
Reasons why it may sound poor:
1) the speakers are poorly engineered - possibly 'designed by ear' or simply not up to the job (e.g small two-way speakers used at high levels and run into distortion).
2) the amplifier is unsuitable - not capable of handling the speaker impedance/reactance load, or does not have enough power and is running in clipping
3) Impedance mis-match between components
4) Gain staging is sub-optimal resulting in clipping on the amplifier input
5) mains power 'cleaning' devices, surge suppression devices etc limiting amplifier's ability to supply power/current.
6) use of 'boutique' components that have audible intermodulation distortion
7) Turntable used as source - badly set up, or just crap to begin with, or stylus past its best but not at the stage yet where it has become so worn it is obvious.
my suv has plenty personality tbh.. its an interesting shape lol. i need a highish car to get into tbh but again not too high. add in the other needed things and im pretty limited to what i can get into, far less drive.. trouble is they are dearer too. I'd love to be able to fit into a fiat 500 or a sports car etc; but its not happening. Marco's bmw is a not much chance job lol. way too low.(maybe the boot would do:ner:
Opti-cal
15-06-2021, 11:24
my suv has plenty personality tbh.. its an interesting shape lol. i need a highish car to get into tbh but again not too high. add in the other needed things and im pretty limited to what i can get into, far less drive.. trouble is they are dearer too. I'd love to be able to fit into a fiat 500 or a sports car etc; but its not happening. Marco's bmw is a not much chance job lol. way too low.(maybe the boot would do:ner:
Absolutely see that perspective Grant, for many these kinds of cars make perfect sense, especially if you're not particularly bothered with the aesthetic (although sounds like you do appreciate some nice design). However, the amount of people driving them probably does not equate to those who actually require their merits (extra space/load capacity/increased visibility etc). I think many have just followed suit due to the volume of said vehicle types showing up on their street and many not wishing to 'appear' unfashionable of behind the times.
I actually may be looking into something quite similar soon with a growing family as they do have a lot of good points, but it will have to look quite cool and maybe be hybrid/electric to satisfy the Mrs' growing moral responsibility to the world! Which I duly offset with various polluting vehicles . . . . fast and fun ones though . . .
my suv has plenty personality tbh.. its an interesting shape lol. i need a highish car to get into tbh but again not too high. add in the other needed things and im pretty limited to what i can get into, far less drive.. trouble is they are dearer too. I'd love to be able to fit into a fiat 500 or a sports car etc; but its not happening. Marco's bmw is a not much chance job lol. way too low.(maybe the boot would do:ner:
BMW?:eek:
Wash thy mouth oot, it's Brabster/Merc!:D;)
Marco.
Some great posts here, chaps. I'll get to them later... Including yours, Martin!;)
Marco.
There was a TV prog showing that a full size clay mould is made, and milled to produce fine changes until it was thought to be presumably, attractive and sellable, and thousands of hours were spent on this.
reminds me of the (possibly apocryphal) story of the full size clay model of a new TVR prototype. A dog took a bite out of it and this 'design change' actually made it through to the finished product.
BMW?:eek:
Wash thy mouth oot, it's Brabster/Merc!:D;)
Marco.
ah yes, merc... error of mind as i was just looking at a beamer as a possible next motor. but will probably not be. might be too dear
rmcin626
15-06-2021, 11:41
ah yes, merc... error of mind as i was just looking at a beamer as a possible next motor. but will probably not be. might be too dear
All the German cars are good, although if you live up a hill a bmw wont make it up the hill in the snow.
ah yes, merc... error of mind as i was just looking at a beamer as a possible next motor. but will probably not be. might be too dear
Lol, no worries. Btw, don't feel that you have to defend your choices, as the points I'm making aren't aimed at you, nor indeed I suspect the vast majority of people on this forum. They're aimed at the brainwashed masses!
However, whilst your CR-V is a little different from the norm (and you know I like it, indeed if I were ever getting an SUV, that's the one I'd have), with its more angular shape, it's still intrinsically born from the same mould [for reasons Dennis has touched upon, which I'll get to later] as almost every modern car.
The fact is, the trend for cars is to be 'big and bulbous', and not just because our society is now populated with more fatties than ever!;)
The best example is that of the Mini... Remember when a mini WAS a MINI? Now it's more a MAXI!! Just compare the original side by side with the current one, ditto the Fiat 500 - and I could go on!
So what do you think is mainly driving this rather 'bulbous'/phat look with modern cars? That's why I prefer my (W204) Merc to current ones, as the shape is squarer and sleeker. I absolutely DETEST this 'phat', bulbous, 'bubble look', which slowly all cars are becoming...:doh:
Jeez, look at the utter MONSTROSITY that they're now calling a 'Rolls Royce'!!:spew: Zero class or sleek elegant lines, as it once had, and now all SHOW and BLING! Just like a BIG BULBOUS [and very ugly] BUS. Dreadful...
Marco.
lol, now its your turn... a chr .... and its not especially bulbous. in fact its a coupe that is on steroids lol
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NwmOo1elj5k/maxresdefault.jpg
https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/toyota-chr-hybrid-crossover-suv-260nw-1927703663.jpg
All the German cars are good, although if you live up a hill a bmw wont make it up the hill in the snow.
lol, yes some; the rear wheel ones are terrible in snow.. the x1 probably would, especially the xdrive version... but no although im high up there are no hills near me
From Marco;
"The fact is, the trend is for everything to be 'big and bulbous"
Have you noticed how big bottoms are in vogue now? Girls deliberately working on their glutes to enlarge their bums.
I asked girl in the gym about this, and she said that it is a trend started by the Kardashians, she even had her boyfriend doing the same exercises. I don't know of one male who wants a big arse.
rmcin626
15-06-2021, 12:10
lol, yes some; the rear wheel ones are terrible in snow.. the x1 probably would, especially the xdrive version... but no although im high up there are no hills near me
Lucky you , the estate we are on has a couple of nasty hills, and we are prone to being hit with snow, one of the reasons I drive a Q5.
From Marco;
"The fact is, the trend is for everything to be 'big and bulbous"
Have you noticed how big bottoms are in vogue now? Girls deliberately working on their glutes to enlarge their bums.
I asked girl in the gym about this, and she said that it is a trend started by the Kardashians, she even had her boyfriend doing the same exercises. I don't know of one male who wants a big arse.
Not sure the Kardashians can take all the credit, Queen were popularizing it back in the early '70s
Opti-cal
15-06-2021, 12:14
Not sure the Kardashians can take all the credit, Queen were popularizing it back in the early '70s
and Cornershop more recently . . . .
so if your a kardashian queen from a corner shop you'll have a gigantic arse:D
Lucky you , the estate we are on has a couple of nasty hills, and we are prone to being hit with snow, one of the reasons I drive a Q5.
There is a slight slope outside my door but its not much.. Ive seen it stop cars tho in past. its about 1:50, so not much.. a bit steeper at bottom but still not much and i dont have to go down there. My c-hr is rather good in snow etc. no idea why as its a auto cvt, but it is heavy.
Where i used to live it was 1:6 and tretcherous. The driveway was similar.
walpurgis
15-06-2021, 12:44
and Cornershop more recently . . . .
Get plenty of big-arse middle aged chav women in leggings in my local cornershop. :D
lol, now its your turn... a chr .... and its not especially bulbous. in fact its a coupe that is on steroids lol
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NwmOo1elj5k/maxresdefault.jpg
https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/toyota-chr-hybrid-crossover-suv-260nw-1927703663.jpg
Mmm... I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on the bulbous factor. I much prefer yours below! The other thing for me is hideous...
What I'm talking about is comparing the size of cars, say during the 60s and 70s, to those now [they were TINY in comparison, just try sitting in one], plus how individually different they were in terms of styling, to the 'homogenised bubbles' now, born from CAD, thus negating any individuality, and also how seemingly with each new iteration, cars are getting ever 'phatter' and phatter/more bulbous...
WHY...? Apparently, it's what people want. No, rather it's what they're being TOLD they're having!;)
Marco.
Yeah in general i agree, they are inclined to look the same, some even close up, if you dont see the badge you cant tell what the hell it is. Some are still fairly individual tho.
Its mostly done due to fuel economy. Its important to punters and its important to get it passed the censors;)
Audi, merc and bmw are usually easy to spot from front anyway, as are the new peugeots. mine is distinctive from back i guess.
But a lot of old cars were pretty hideous too. and drove pretty badly as well.
anthonyTD
15-06-2021, 13:45
Indeed!:)
But a lot of old cars were pretty hideous too. and drove pretty badly as well.
Yeah in general i agree, they are inclined to look the same, some even close up, if you dont see the badge you cant tell what the hell it is.
Exactly my point, and why I'd never own something like that in a month of Sundays, as it's totally devoid of soul! And as I've said, WHY are cars so much bigger and bulkier now than they were 30 or 40 years ago? You still haven't offered an answer...
Unfortunately, they're also becoming nondescript disposable commodities, much like TVs and domestic appliances, a point Geoff has touched upon before, and it totally goes against the grain of people like me who are car *enthusiasts*, thus enjoy personalising/pimping them to our individual spec and tastes, and don't see them as simply a means of getting from A to B, but rather more a reflection of *US* (our personalities)...
Plus, rather crucially, we still ENJOY driving, despite increasingly congested roads and successive governments best attempts at sucking all the FUN out of it!
Driving a nice car, on a quiet open road on a lovely sunny day, surrounded by gorgeous scenery, provides a feel-good factor and level of pleasure that is unequalled by anything else, which is why I insist on indulging in such experiences as regularly as possible.
But a lot of old cars were pretty hideous too. and drove pretty badly as well.
Yes, I totally agree. The argument though isn't about which cars are fundamentally better engineered or more reliable, as if it were, it'd be a non-contest in favour of new ones, but rather which have more 'personality' and arguably were more stylish?
In that respect, you're not telling me that the likes of an E-Type Jag, Alfa Romeo Spider or Jensen Interceptor, weren't (indeed aren't) stylish or sexy in a way that no modern car I can think of gets close to?;)
Quite simply, there's nothing to touch the best vintage cars for stylishness or individuality, all of which was ruined by CAD!
Marco.
To comply with today’s stringent crash regulations – by passing offset, side and roof impact tests, as well as those evaluating pedestrian protection performance – cars require considerable cubic metres of controllably crushable bodywork. (to quote Autocar)
also people are definately bigger now, width and height due to better(or worse) diet and medical care.
Opti-cal
15-06-2021, 13:56
WHY are cars so much bigger and bulkier now than they were 30 or 40 years ago?[/B] You still haven't offered an answer...
Because there are strict laws governing how well pedestrian heads/limbs 'bounce' off bumpers/arches etc. Wasn't a concern in the 70's so you could have some nice angular metal. Now the 'bulbous' appearance aids pedestrian bounce as well as giving the car more road 'presence' which some people seem to like.
**As Grant said (again)**
So effectively more nanny state nonsense!:doh:
Marco.
Opti-cal
15-06-2021, 14:14
So effectively more nanny state nonsense!:doh:
Marco.
I get what you mean and to a certain extent yes.
It's not exactly in the seat-belt/airbag category but it is a death/injury statistic lowering tool and that is what the marketing teams can in turn use to sell cars. It also gets them through regulations more easily which increases their chances of being granted funding or investment to go ahead with new car designs and projects, which all generate money. It's all business after all.
As I said earlier if you want cool looking cars that don't 'conform' to the aforementioned they are still available, just a bit more expensive and require a little more searching for than wondering down to your local car lot.
To comply with today’s stringent crash regulations – by passing offset, side and roof impact tests, as well as those evaluating pedestrian protection performance – cars require considerable cubic metres of controllably crushable bodywork. (to quote Autocar)
also people are definately bigger now, width and height due to better(or worse) diet and medical care.
So why not address the problem instead *at source* by a) properly tacking the obesity problem, thus negating the need to build cars to fit fat arses, and b) taking steps to improve the standard of driving, in order to reduce the likelihood of drivers knocking down folk?;)
My comments are slightly facetious, but also semi-serious, as one of my pet hates is applying 'sticking plasters' to problems, rather than real solutions!
Marco.
So why not instead tackle the problem *at source* by a) properly tacking the obesity problem, thus negating the need to build cars to fit fat arses, and b) improving the standard of driving, to reduce the likelihood of drivers knocking down folk?;)
My comments are slightly facetious, but also semi-serious, as one of my pet hates is employing 'sticking plasters' to problems, rather than offering real solutions!
Marco.
guessing the problen of crashes will be getting addressed... by robotic cars :doh:
Fatties?.. well im one now so im guessing starving them to near death would do the trick... only partially serious:D
I get what you mean and to a certain extent yes.
It's not exactly in the seat-belt/airbag category but it is a death/injury statistic lowering tool and that is what the marketing teams can in turn use to sell cars. It also gets them through regulations more easily which increases their chances of being granted funding or investment to go ahead with new car designs and projects, which all generate money. It's all business after all.
As I said earlier if you want cool looking cars that don't 'conform' to the aforementioned they are still available, just a bit more expensive and require a little more searching for than wondering down to your local car lot.
Yup, Chris, I've still to get to your previous very good point (don't worry I haven't forgotten), so yes I agree with the latter. However, see my response to Grant and the issue of 'sticking plasters'.
Basically, I'm not a fan of having my fun spoiled or choices restricted because some wankers can't drive safely and/or are too fat to fit into acceptably sized cars...
Oh and btw, I accept that people are taller now than they generally were 30 or 40 years ago, and that could *arguably* be down to improved diets (although I have some other theories).
However, the fact is they're also fatter than ever too, mostly due to a slovenly lifestyle, compared with how things were during the eras I've mentioned, where folk MOVED more/engaged in physical exercise, rather than sat on their bums all day, ordering junk food and playing computer games....;)
Marco.
guessing the problen of crashes will be getting addressed... by robotic cars :doh:
Fatties?.. well im one now so im guessing starving them to near death would do the trick... only partially serious:D
Yes, but you have justifiable and underlying reasons for that. Were you fat when you were young, especially as a teenager? I doubt it! I was pencil-thin, because I MOVED and was out all day in the fresh air cycling or playing football, among other things that burned off calories!;)
Look at the lard-arses now in their teens, wobbling about the place... In the absence of some justified medical condition, it's totally inexcusable!:doh:
As for robotic cars, indeed - but best not get me started on that one!! It's simply another example of impending state-imposed mind control.
Marco.
Opti-cal
15-06-2021, 14:35
Yup, Chris, I've still to get to your previous very good point (don't worry I haven't forgotten), so yes I agree with the latter. However, see my response to Grant and the issue of 'sticking plasters'.
Basically, I'm not a fan of my fun being spoiled or my choices restricted because some wankers can't drive safely and/or are too fat to fit into acceptably sized cars...
Oh and btw, I accept that people are taller now than they generally were 30 or 40 years ago, and that could *arguably* be down to improved diets (although I have some other theories), but the fact is they're also fatter than ever too, mostly due to a slovenly lifestyle, compared with how things were during the eras I've mentioned, where folk MOVED more/engaged in physical exercise, rather than sat on their bums all day, ordering junk food and playing computer games....;)
Marco.
Thanks Marco, courteous of you to respond in turn and I understand there's probably a number of things you'd likely want to address all over the site. I only have a finite amount of time to say what I've got to say, so to speak (as I'm trying to sporadically work at the same time!). So I hope you don't feel bombarded with any particular question/answer and obviously no obligation to respond at all but I feel we have some similar views on these kind of things. Hence my eagerness to weigh in on such subjects.
In regards to the height/obesity factors I agree, but I think in reality we both know it would (literally) take a seismic shift in lifestyle and attitude to get a great many to accept the virtues of diet and exercise. I think it's easier for them and indeed the car manufacturers to stick to this short-termist approach of making cars bigger as (part) of the reason for the current trend in designs towards what is deemed by many (including myself) to be unnecessarily big.
Thanks Marco, courteous of you to respond in turn and I understand there's probably a number of things you'd likely want to address all over the site. I only have a finite amount of time to say what I've got to say, so to speak (as I'm trying to sporadically work at the same time!). So I hope you don't feel bombarded with any particular question/answer and obviously no obligation to respond at all but I feel we have some similar views on these kind of things. Hence my eagerness to weigh in on such subjects.
In regards to the height/obesity factors I agree, but I think in reality we both know it would (literally) take a seismic shift in lifestyle and attitude to get a great many to accept the virtues of diet and exercise. I think it's easier for them and indeed the car manufacturers to stick to this short-termist approach of making cars bigger as (part) of the reason for the current trend in designs towards what is deemed by many (including myself) to be unnecessarily big.
Nope, not at all, your input is very welcome, so keep it up when you can - and yes you're right, we're certainly singing from the same hymn sheet on this matter!:)
I've got to scroll back now and reply to Macca, on a topic vaguely relating to the thread topic lol, then work my way forward from there!:lol:
Marco.
From Marco;
"As for robotic cars, indeed - but best not get me started on that one!! It's simply another example of impending state-imposed mind control."
It could just be, ironically, that these will be a massive help in reducing accidents, many of which result from the inattentiveness caused by our narcissistic society preoccupied with self gratification. As a cyclist I'm particularly aware of the neglect of many car drivers of their responsibilities.
Today virtually no-one will go without food for 24 hours, and this actually sabotages senescence; the body cleaning out garbage in the process of autophagy, and which occurs after a 24 hour fast. So the fatties are really getting themselves into trouble.
Robotic cars will massively reduce accidents, no question about it. It's very rare that an accident isn't due to driver error.
There's the interesting question of what the car does in worst case situations though. A child runs out into the road, too late to break, car has to decide between hitting the child and swerving to crash into whatever is at the side of the road, potentially killing or injuring the passenger. Which way do you program it to act?
Robotic cars will massively reduce accidents, no question about it. It's very rare that an accident isn't due to driver error.
So why not spend the money instead on training people to be better drivers/raise standards in that area [making the test much harder to pass for starters, thus reducing incompetence], than installing computers to control a driver's behaviour, which as you say has the potential for disaster and simply killing people in a different way?
Breeding fundamentally better drivers would be far more effective in saving lives, IMO, but I think I know the answer to that question though, and the key lies in the word 'control';)
Marco.
P.S Dennis and others, I'll get to your replies in due course, probably later tonight after the footy, as I've got a mate coming round to watch it with me and have a few beers:cool:
standard of driving etc is down to a few things. excessively busy rds. people on tight schedules due to various causes, including far to much commuting, businesses being determined that if your a minute late you get a warning etc, folk trying to do too much in a short space of time.... the list goes on.. cars becoming just a little too easy to drive, meaning people dont have the skills and also that they are lulled to a sense of stupor... the consistent dropping of regard drivers have for other drivers, and this is mirrored in neighbourhoods where people dont want to have anything to do with their neighbours etc; just want to lock thenselves in their little ivory castles.
From Martin;
"Which way do you program it to act?"
The stats on risks with types of impact will be done, and a decision made on that, I still think it will be a big plus.
From Marco;
"So why not spend the money instead on training people to be better drivers/raise standards in that area [making the test much harder to pass for starters, thus reducing incompetence], than installing computers to control a driver's behaviour, which as you say has the potential for disaster and simply killing people in a different way?
If you have my world view, supported by much evidence, we are headed into a major cultural decline in a massive world revolution instigated and powered by technology, to me Armageddon.
People sense what is going on, and out of their control, and the pervasive sense of inevitability, and the idea of being disciplined does not appeal with all the effort that that entails, and the futility of being, as I am, a heretical loner.
Why bother, just have another fag and a pizza, and watch the telly?"
"I think I know the answer though, and the key lies in the word 'control'""
Yes, those who are self possessed are increasingly a psychopathic class, intent on exploiting the proles, and they pay semi-professionals to do their dirty work in the software.
If you have my world view, supported by much evidence, we are headed into a major cultural decline in a massive world revolution instigated and powered by technology, to me Armageddon.
People sense what is going on, and out of their control, and the pervasive sense of inevitability, and the idea of being disciplined does not appeal with all the effort that that entails, and the futility of being, as I am, a heretical loner.
Why bother, just have another fag and a pizza, and watch the telly?"
Spot on, and also my view. God help us, eh? All I'm hoping for is that it happens after I'm dead and buried.
Yes, those who are self possessed are increasingly a psychopathic class, intent on exploiting the proles, and they pay semi-professionals to do their dirty work in the software.
Indeed, and for me that's the *eventual* reality and exactly what vermin, such as Gates, are all about. Yet say that, and you're automatically labelled as an unhinged 'conspiracy theorist'...:rolleyes:
How is it again that history has always treated heretics and those who refuse to conform to established dogma?;)
Marco.
From Martin;
"Which way do you program it to act?"
The stats on risks with types of impact will be done, and a decision made on that, I still think it will be a big plus.
.
You'd just go by the stats? That's cold, man. But probably rational.
standard of driving etc is down to a few things. excessively busy rds. people on tight schedules due to various causes, including far to much commuting, businesses being determined that if your a minute late you get a warning etc, folk trying to do too much in a short space of time.... the list goes on.. cars becoming just a little too easy to drive, meaning people dont have the skills and also that they are lulled to a sense of stupor... the consistent dropping of regard drivers have for other drivers, and this is mirrored in neighbourhoods where people dont want to have anything to do with their neighbours etc; just want to lock thenselves in their little ivory castles.
Too true, mate. The world's turning more to shit, by the day, with folks running around like headless chickens, trying to make ends meet, and largely failing... Why do you think I left the rat race early, and worked my bollocks off, non stop early doors, to allow me that privilege? I could it see it coming, and I wanted as far as possible to be in control of my future..
If for me life was all about making as much money as possible/amassing endless amounts of material frippery, and so-called 'status symbols' in the process, then I could've continued running my (successful) business and been rich, or at least considerably wealthier than I am now, but would I have been as HAPPY, sacrificing my FREE TIME in the process, which I've enjoyed spending with friends and loved ones, subsequently creating many precious memories?
I think you know the answer to that;)
Too many people today are caught in a trap that they can't escape from, not all of their own fault, but in many cases so, simply because of viewing life or 'success' through a fatally materialistic lens, and worrying way too much about how they're perceived by others [always seeking to 'fit in' and be liked/approved of], often by meaningless strangers... Think social media in particular. It's both deeply sad and bloody bonkers!:doh:
Marco.
Why bother, just have another fag and a pizza, and watch the telly?"
.
Now your making sense. if only more of us had that attitude the world would be a much better place.
:D:eyebrows:What are you like?
I think there are enough of those already, which is why there's a need for bulbous big buses, posing as cars!:ner:
Marco.
From Marco;
"Too many people today are caught in a trap that they can't escape from, not all of their own fault, but in many cases so, simply because of viewing life or 'success' through a fatally materialistic lens, and worrying way too much about how they're perceived by others [always seeking to 'fit in' and be liked/approved of], often by meaningless strangers... Think social media in particular. It's both deeply sad and bloody bonkers!"
Many people, and I include myself in that category, have a poor formative period without much support, and then are trapped in difficult circumstances of survival.
A step from that with a wrong partner resulting in discordance, possibly damaging any children, was a path that terrified me, my having seen what a mess my own parents' marriage had become. So in my 20s I had girlfriends, one of whom was a lovely person, but I was so messed up psychologically that I could not be adult enough to support the development of the relationship. Following that were unsatisfactory relationships, and with not very nice women from a character point of view, and it is only in the last decades that I am sorted out enough to know what I should have done given my convictions.
At least I didn't form a dysfunctional family with damaged children who would need as I had, three years of therapy in my 20s to undo the mess.
But many do not have time or preparation to manage their relationships fully, many are poor and struggling, and their lives are often so desperate that they rely on often damaging props to get by.
Their sense of desperation is often 'played' by capitalism's worst excesses, and they are seduced into materialism as a satisfying way to fulfil themselves. But, like most compulsions, drugs, food, gambling and others, they do not address any real needs as opposed to the wants that have been created in their minds, ultimately by Freud's cousin Edward Bernays, who developed Public Relations. They cannot see the loop they are trapped in, and it can be self perpetuating.
This is made worse by their feeling that they need the approval of peers, based on groupthink, in which a whole herd follow a ridiculous path, and I think few get to break away. Consider the implications of groupthink in a democracy, and more particularly the work of Solomon Asch on ontological security; democracy serves to oppress minorities.
With regard to social media, I regard FB as a platform on which people place what they want others to think about them; an utterly unrepresentative reality.
Firebottle
15-06-2021, 21:57
Their sense of desperation is often 'played' by capitalism's worst excesses, and they are seduced into materialism as a satisfying way to fulfil themselves. But, like most compulsions, drugs, food, gambling and others, they do not address any real needs as opposed to wants created in their minds. (By Freud's cousin Edward Bernays who developed Public Relations). They cannot see the loop they are trapped in, and it can be self perpetuating.
This is made worse by their feeling that they need the approval of peers, based on groupthink, in which a whole herd follow a ridiculous path, and I think few get to break away. Consider the implications of groupthink in a democracy, and more particularly the work of Solomon Asch on ontological security. Democracy serves to oppress minorities.
I see so much truth in this, with capitalism the sad cause of it all.
Opti-cal
16-06-2021, 07:30
Some interesting points you bring to the conversation there Dennis.
I myself have 'grown up' (so a period of around 10 years being the most formative) from just before and therefore during a period incorporating the explosion of mobile phones/social media (a few years later) and the construct of the whole 'online' (mostly fake) persona.
I can see and appreciate the virtues of Facebook and the likes. People do use it as a communication tool, to arrange social events and publicise community gatherings as well as a platform for business' to reach out to customers and provide a point of contact easily accessible by the masses for a great many uses, be them commercial, social or otherwise.
However, the platform has now been irreversibly skewed towards PR and advertising mainly aimed at young (and usually weak willed) people. These people have lot's of time on their hands because the 'demands' of social media erode what would be deemed as 'normal' hobbies, sports, crafts etc. They now exist only on a virtual platform constructed of pictures (mostly heavily edited or fake) of themselves in exotic locations with expensive clothes and accessories. They take their advice upon life and most matters thereof from what are now know as 'Influencers'. A person usually using a fake name or pseudonym with the sole aim of promoting brands and products to these mentally vulnerable people, desperate for validation in some form.
This is where I see exact parallels with what Dennis is saying previously.
Unfortunately this online 'culture' is not just a short phase in childhood or limited to young adults, it seems older generations are being sucked into the same void of permanent commercialism which now pretty much governs their lives.
As a caveat to the above I have to say that most of my friends and family have managed to avoid becoming morphed into these social media drones and still manage to use the platforms as the tools they are in a positive way, myself included. Again, as Dennis rightly touches upon it may be the case that these people are more vulnerable as a result of their upbringing and social environment but whatever the reason they seem to be quite a vast majority now.
This is a real shame because it will encourage large corporate companies to simply further propel the notion that this online projection of oneself is the be all and end all, because ultimately it makes them a lot of money and that as we know, is ALL they are interested in.
never been on social media. this forum is closest i guess. but we try to have real people here for most part
Opti-cal
16-06-2021, 07:42
never been on social media. this forum is closest i guess. but we try to have real people here for most part
There is no 'need' to be Grant, trust me.
This place is far more fun, informative, friendly and above all REAL.
There is no 'need' to be Grant, trust me.
This place is far more fun, informative, friendly and above all REAL.
i agree.. my kids are on it and no doubt their kids too.. i dont see the point; maybe an age thing.
There will be a correlation with age and the use of social media, primarily because it has only evolved over the last few decades, but it is also due to people's fundamental characteristics.
This however raises the criticism that 'we old' just can't keep up, or are not 'hip' or don't get it, and which easily ignores older people's exposure to a greater and more diverse cultural input, and very importantly social norms including etiquette.
Fifty years ago we might all have had these discussions in a pub during an evening, but that seems to have declined as a social meeting place. I regard this discussion as real and true, and perhaps a substitute for the latter.
There is also the tendency for many to avoid the serious stuff because it often deal with unpleasant truths, and hence not conducive to smooth social intercourse.
I am on FB, just my picture and nothing else, and had a friend request from an ex apprentice friend from '65 to '69, which I accepted. After five or so years, and no interaction, I wrote to him saying how much our friendship had enhanced my life. (?)
Yes, Dennis makes some great points (as ever). I always enjoy reading his erudite insight into human behaviourism, as on many levels it's a subject that fascinates me, and I believe he often hits the nail on the head. Among much of the thought-provoking insight he provided yesterday, this in particular struck me:
This is made worse by their feeling that they need the approval of peers, based on groupthink, in which a whole herd follow a ridiculous path, and I think few get to break away.
For me, that's the root of the problem.
As someone who's thankfully always been, from my late teens onwards, a confident, single-minded free-thinker, who really didn't give a damn what others thought who meant nothing, and who had no desire to follow anyone, certainly no-one I didn't know personally or respect [and I've always had more leadership, than follower qualities, anyway], I find it difficult to get my head around the above, especially the issue of 'groupthink'. For me, it's a completely alien concept, as I'm not up for brainwashing, nor do I seek the comfort of surrounding myself with others who all think alike.
So help me out here, if you can, what in anyone's opinion gave birth to the notion of 'groupthink', and why does it seem that so many youngsters today suffer from such a painful lack of confidence and low self-esteem, often to the point of not being able to look people in the eye or speak to them? Jeez, you could never shut me up!:D
Seriously though, the above didn't seem to be as rife in my day, although perhaps that was because I mainly associated with similarly confident people to myself, but the fact is, if you're so easily led or *influenced* (a key word, considering the effect of so-called 'influencers' mentioned on social media) by others and desperate to seek their approval, it leaves you wide open to being controlled and manipulated by those who are seeking to exploit you in some way.
And that is definitely not a good thing!
Marco.
Apologies for my late reply to this..
I don't agree that there are things that cannot be measured, just that they may be omitted from measurement even if they matter.
It's not a case that they cannot be measured (as I believe that every genuine effect we can hear in audio *is* measurable), but rather that the measurement apparatus used wasn't designed to measure for the effect heard, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I'll give you an example, and indeed what I was referring to with regard to the final 'voicing' of equipment by audio engineers, once it's left their test bench and deemed as measuring well to all known parameters, yet when put into a system and tested with MUSIC, is still found slightly wanting, sonically, and it's this:
I've been present and watched, with equipment I know, audio designers making subtle changes to the circuit of their equipment, such as replacing capacitors or resistors in key areas of the signal path, with ones from other manufacturers, of the same electrical value, and so which measure identically, yet clearly sound different!
Certainly enough to notably alter (improve) the overall sound of the equipment in question and subsequently allow it to perform much better at reproducing MUSIC, no matter how well it measured beforehand. However, the interesting and important observation is that the subsequently modified circuit also measured *identically* to what it did before, using all the usual test parameters, yet as I said, clearly sounded different, and indeed judging by the ears of both them and I, far better than before.
Therefore, that proved to me, or at least strongly suggested, that a) there was clearly something REAL happening that wasn't being identified by the measurements taken on said apparatus, and therefore supported my theory of not measuring for the right thing, on stuff not designed to measure for it, and b) validated the benefits of final 'voicing' by ear, no matter how well things measured, as clearly the human ear was more sensitive at revealing certain aspects of the ability of any piece of equipment to faithfully reproduce music signals, than current test apparatus normally used for a different purpose was capable of.
Now, as I've said, that doesn't mean that the effect I'm referring to isn't measurable, but I'd contend simply that the apparatus used wasn't measuring for the right thing, and simply was never designed to measure for it in the first place. Therefore, to successfully identify the effect, which I believe was real, one would need to know *exactly* what to measure for AND use apparatus designed to perform that *specific* task.
Now don't ask me what that is, as I'm not an EE, although it appears to be beyond the ability of an oscilloscope or a spectrum analyser, at least with the parameters that were applied.
However, for me it does provide satisfactory evidence that getting equipment simply to measure well, or notionally 'perfect', using the usual parameters, is no guarantee that results can't still be further improved with some judicious adjustments to the circuit and a pair (or two) of discerning ears, even if superficially the effect isn't measurable!:cool:
Marco.
Firebottle
16-06-2021, 12:22
It's not a case that they cannot be measured (as I believe that every genuine effect we can hear in audio *is* measurable), but rather that the measurement apparatus used wasn't designed to measure for the effect heard, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
However, for me it does provide satisfactory evidence that getting equipment simply to measure well, or notionally 'perfect', using the usual parameters, is no guarantee that results can't still be further improved with some judicious adjustments to the circuit and a pair (or two) of discerning ears, even if superficially the effect isn't measurable!:cool:
Marco.
Firstly I don't think there is anything superficial about effects not being measurable.
I think that there is no measurement equipment that can replicate the information gleaned from a pair of ears, when assessing music, it is after all a very complex train of information, plus ears are uncanny at detecting minute nuances in said music.
Be it phase changes, tonality aspects or timing artefacts, ears are best until electronic kit can do the same. Shall we give it a millennium to catch up?
I agree - no measurement I can thick of can 'quantify' the ability, or not, of a pair of speakers to present a clear soundstage: one where you feel you can walk in amongst and around the performers. Indeed how can you measure perceived depth - again a simple measurement of crosstalk is not enough. I'm sure the measurement of phase comes into it somehow, but I can't think exactly how.
Apropos Marco being able to hear the difference between various resistors, despite each having the same resistance value, that is easily explained because the resistance value is only one of the pertinent parameters. Inductance, power rating, temperature coefficient, the material used for the resistive element, and even the dielectric properties of the protective covering lacquer can have an effect.
Firstly I don't think there is anything superficial about effects not being measurable.
I think that there is no measurement equipment that can replicate the information gleaned from a pair of ears, when assessing music, it is after all a very complex train of information, plus ears are uncanny at detecting minute nuances in said music.
Be it phase changes, tonality aspects or timing artefacts, ears are best until electronic kit can do the same. Shall we give it a millennium to catch up?
Lol, indeed!:D
Now, could you please try and get Macca on the same page (as he rates your views), because I suspect I'm right in presuming that when you build equipment, it's not simply measured as being 'right' on your test bench, left at that and subsequently demonstrated to your clients, but rather 'voiced' first, using your ears and some suitable music, in the context of your system, where any final adjustments to the circuit are made, so that you're happy with the end sonic result?
My argument is that not every audio designer puts their equipment through that last stage of assessment before it's deemed as fit for sale, and you can easily hear the difference between it and equipment that has had discerning ears applied to the process at the final stage of its development.
Would you agree?:)
Marco.
Apropos Marco being able to hear the difference between various resistors, despite each having the same resistance value, that is easily explained because the resistance value is only one of the pertinent parameters. Inductance, power rating, temperature coefficient, the material used for the resistive element, and even the dielectric properties of the protective covering lacquer can have an effect.
Hi Barry,
I should've said that *every* usual electrical value applied to such components was identical (not just resistance) between each one from different manufacturers, which includes all of the above you mention, save perhaps the covering lacquer, and therefore whilst measuring identically in all those respects, each still sounded markedly different when fitted to the same circuit.
The electrical parameters would've had to been identical, between the components, in order to suit the circuit in question, as otherwise it wouldn't have worked.
Some 'posh' caps and resistors, for example, employ vibration damping properties in their casing, which is claimed to effect a change in sonics, so that along with differences in the dielectric used, and as you say covering lacquer, etc, I suspect is responsible for the differences in sound:)
But how would one successfully measure for those effects? And by that, I specifically mean the effect of the subsequent (easily heard and therefore real) sonic improvements, in the equipment in question, after being fitted with the subjectively assessed 'best sounding' components.
Marco.
Firebottle
16-06-2021, 15:24
Lol, indeed!:D
Now, could you please try and get Macca on the same page (as he rates your views), because I suspect I'm right in presuming that when you build equipment, it's not simply measured as being 'right' on your test bench, left at that and subsequently demonstrated to your clients, but rather 'voiced' first, using your ears and some suitable music, in the context of your system, where any final adjustments to the circuit are made, so that you're happy with the end sonic result?
Would you agree?:)
Marco.
Unfortunately I think Macca is a lost cause as far as this is concerned, I'm sure he won't take offence at me saying so ;)
I'm afraid in my case the answer isn't a clear yes or no. I concentrate on implementing best possible circuit design, hence having moved to hybrid design to extract the best combined performance of valves and solid state components.
I have come across quite a few bits of kit, particularly phono stages where the circuit would kindly be described as 'cookbook' circuitry. By that I mean it has just been lifted from a datasheet or 'suggested application'.
There is one particular manufacturer (remaining nameless) who falls into this category and could make the performance so much better with better circuitry.
I do choose the most appropriate type of dielectric for instance, for component positions within the circuit, but the components are usually chosen with a cost constraint. Some 'boutique' component expenditure can be better saved by improving the circuit, incorporating some know 'tips and tricks' that lead to a better performance.
As an example the last phono stage design I did isn't particularly complex but is outperforming anything it is compared with.
It's quite possible that different resistive materials were used as the resistive element: compressed carbon; carbon film; metal oxide; metal film; wirewound tantalum, nichrome etc. Different materials will have different noise properties (both Johnson and 'shot' noise). Was the inductance measured and been shown to be the same between the resistors, and what about the temperature coefficient (how the resistance value changes with temperature)?
I doubt if the various resistor manufacturers quote any of the above (or even measures it). No, the only way is to design the circuit using established and proven circuit theory, build a prototype using good quality (but standard) components, make measurements to show the design has met the the objectives (such as low distortion, intermodulation distortion, low noise, frequency and phase linearity etc.). THEN listen to the performance, and at this stage, assuming it sounds OK, try changing the type and manufacture of some components in key areas (such as at the input stage and in the feedback loops) and listen again each time you make a change.
Laborious, but there is no other way. Computer aided design and analysis programs are becoming more and more sophisticated, but nothing, as yet, beats a good pair of ears. Well respected violin and viola designs by Stradivari or by Guarneri have been 'measured' against lesser examples, and nothing in the measurements shown why the Stradivari and Guarneri sound better than modern products. Some speculate it might be due the varnish used.
Unfortunately I think Macca is a lost cause as far as this is concerned, I'm sure he won't take offence at me saying so ;)
Lol, why is he a lost cause? Surely everyone should be suitably openminded and receptive enough to accept the possibility that their stance on any given matter may not be as correct as they'd first thought?
If not, that just smacks of closedminded arrogance, and I didn't think he was like that...
I'm afraid in my case the answer isn't a clear yes or no. I concentrate on implementing best possible circuit design, hence having moved to hybrid design to extract the best combined performance of valves and solid state components.
I have come across quite a few bits of kit, particularly phono stages where the circuit would kindly be described as 'cookbook' circuitry. By that I mean it has just been lifted from a datasheet or 'suggested application'.
There is one particular manufacturer (remaining nameless) who falls into this category and could make the performance so much better with better circuitry.
Indeed, and quite frankly I find that lazy engineering and a disgrace. However, clearly given the above, and what you've said previously, you believe that ears matter in the final analysis, more than measurements alone, and that by employing better circuitry than that which simply measures accurately or 'does the job' and no more, you can build better sounding equipment?:)
I do choose the most appropriate type of dielectric for instance, for component positions within the circuit, but the components are usually chosen with a cost constraint. Some 'boutique' component expenditure can be better saved by improving the circuit, incorporating some know 'tips and tricks' that lead to a better performance.
As an example the last phono stage design I did isn't particularly complex but is outperforming anything it is compared with.
Sure, and I completely agree. There's nothing to beat a good circuit (often born from the K.I.S.S approach) than any old circuit, pimped with boutique components, However, that doesn't mean that a good circuit, fitted with the best sounding boutique components (presuming that cost was no issue) wouldn't sound EVEN better!;)
Marco.
The early Naim power amps (the NAP200 and NAP250 models) were based on an RCA data sheet. Despite that, they garnered good, if not fanatical reputation for SQ.
Groupthink is a relatively recent phrase used in the media, but it roots lie I think in our insecurity formed in our early years.
We are bombarded from birth with cajoling and criticism, and given directives by many authority figures, such that IMO we are in a state of anxiety and insecurity about our relative value and performance, and this continues.
Asch's work shows the degree to which we look around at the performance of those surrounding us in order to compare our own performance, to see if 'we are OK', and 60% will reject their own perceptions in favour of those of the group, even when the whole group is wrong.
In the sociology of employment this often can result in lesser people adhering to a supposed 'truth', and rejecting the real truth, and then in out casting of the believer in the real truth, and maybe even worse sanctioning. They, the group, feel secure not in their own perceptions, but in the support of many peers having the same view.
I was never confident early on, largely because my Father has a narcissistic personality disorder which resulted in my natural abilities being severely disabled and disrupted, and my development severely impeded. As a result I was not ontologically secure, and subconsciously deferred to my Father's dominance, even though I came first repeatedly at school.
However, my rebellion resulted in my becoming a juvenile delinquent, I and used to burgle Crystal Palace Park Café on a regular basis, but was never caught because I was bright. Gradually I became more confident in my abilities, but became an active rebel, a heretic on many issues, and one example in particular was that whilst at the BBC, I was given by my girlfriend a Parker ball point which had a transparent window on its side. Through this the refill showed conversion units from Imperial to Metric as it revolved, but I put a tape spool label on it showing at each stop; "Get high", "On some", "Truth", "Man", a complete revolution being needed to show the whole message. This caused consternation in my team, and a certain degree of out casting. I have recently purchased a similar one and will replicate that message on it.
In the book i earlier recommended the author states that we can either have power and tell a story to others, or tell the truth and have no power, this is frightening to me, and the next chapter is called "Post Truth". God help us.
I am an objectivist, but this does not dismiss the ear as a final criterion for evaluation of equipment. The well established criteria are a way of eliminating inadequate equipment, but they do not define all aspects of performance. No science is complete, it is an evolving process of discovery which yields useful tools. Where there is an unlikely claimed difference, I support AB testing.
I have been posting on Audio Science Review, and described how when I rebuilt my ESS speakers, I went through a series of cables; 4PR, 4TC, and 8TC. Improvements were made until the 8TC, at which point the bass seemed to be boosted by about 6dB, and the top became fragmented, lacking in focus, and dull. This was actually pointed out first by my audiologist friend, we agreeing that it was so.
The ASR forum is based I presume on a love of the philosophy of science, but I did post a critique of much of the argument and poor English which had impeded clear reasoning and clarity. When I posted the anecdotal cable experience, the group, like a pack of hyenas, pounced on me with derision and denigration, trashing everything I had said. I then stated that all science uses perceptions at its first inception, but to no avail, and I was so bullied that I stopped responding after pointing out numerously the flaws in their arguments; it went on for four pages.
They were in another sense being extremely subjective, by using the philosophy of science to deny the reality of a subjective perception, just because it could not be measured. Many were professionals with up to PhD qualifications, so I am disillusioned now with the forum, and also to an extent academia.
This also illustrates another situation in which pure reasoning was dropped in favour of group bonding, and the group really should know better.
i think people over think things... im not sure hyper intelligence is healthy. From a film..." stupidity has saved many a man from going mad":) i think this is very true.
anthonyTD
16-06-2021, 17:02
Quite agree,
If you start off with a circuit your happy with ie; as far as ticking all or most of the boxes you initialy require, then after testing using known and familiar test measurements, the final test should always be ones ears, Audio equipment should be able to portray musical information in a way that connects deep within ones senses, if not, what's the point ?
It's quite possible that different resistive materials were used as the resistive element: compressed carbon; carbon film; metal oxide; metal film; wirewound tantalum, nichrome etc. Different materials will have different noise properties (both Johnson and 'shot' noise). Was the inductance measured and been shown to be the same between the resistors, and what about the temperature coefficient (how the resistance value changes with temperature)?
I doubt if the various resistor manufacturers quote any of the above (or even measures it). No, the only way is to design the circuit using established and proven circuit theory, build a prototype using good quality (but standard components), make measurements to show the design has met the the objectives (such as low distortion, intermodulation distortion, low noise, frequency and phase linearity etc.0. THEN listen to the performance, and at this stage, assuming it sounds OK, try changing the type and manufacture of some components in key areas (such as at the input stage and in the feedback loops) and listen again each time you make a change.
Laborious, but there is no other way. Computer aided design and analysis programs are becoming more and more sophisticated, but nothing, as yet, beats a good pair of ears. Well respected violin and viola designs by Stradivari or by Guarneri have been 'measured' against lesser examples, and nothing in the measurements shown why the Stradivari and Guarneri sound better than modern products. Some speculate it might be due the varnish used.
It's quite possible that different resistive materials were used as the resistive element: compressed carbon; carbon film; metal oxide; metal film; wirewound tantalum, nichrome etc. Different materials will have different noise properties (both Johnson and 'shot' noise). Was the inductance measured and been shown to be the same between the resistors, and what about the temperature coefficient (how the resistance value changes with temperature)?
Exactly, and yes there were different materials used as outlined, but objectivists would have you believe that such things make no difference, and if any are perceived, they're simply 'imagined'!:rolleyes:
In terms of the highlighted part, yes to the first bit, but I don't recall the second part as having taken place.
No, the only way is to design the circuit using established and proven circuit theory, build a prototype using good quality (but standard components), make measurements to show the design has met the the objectives (such as low distortion, intermodulation distortion, low noise, frequency and phase linearity etc.0. THEN listen to the performance, and at this stage, assuming it sounds OK, try changing the type and manufacture of some components in key areas (such as at the input stage and in the feedback loops) and listen again each time you make a change.
Laborious, but there is no other way. Computer aided design and analysis programs are becoming more and more sophisticated, but nothing, as yet, beats a good pair of ears.
Spot on (on all counts)! And I note that (as expected) Anthony agrees:)
Well respected violin and viola designs by Stradivari or by Guarneri have been 'measured' against lesser examples, and nothing in the measurements shown why the Stradivari and Guarneri sound better than modern products. Some speculate it might be due the varnish used.
Yes, that's an interesting one, isn't it? For me, all of this proves that there's still an awful lot of stuff we can genuinely hear that *currently* can't be measured. However, that doesn't mean in future we won't find some way of measuring it. For the moment though, ears rule!:cool:
Marco.
Firebottle
16-06-2021, 17:54
Lol, why is he a lost cause? Surely everyone should be suitably openminded and receptive enough to accept the possibility that their stance on any given matter may not be as correct as they'd first thought?
If not, that just smacks of closedminded arrogance, and I didn't think he was like that...
Indeed, and quite frankly I find that lazy engineering and a disgrace. However, clearly given the above, and what you've said previously, you believe that ears matter in the final analysis, more than measurements alone, and that by employing better circuitry than that which simply measures accurately or 'does the job' and no more, you can build better sounding equipment?:)
Sure, and I completely agree. There's nothing to beat a good circuit (often born from the K.I.S.S approach) than any old circuit, pimped with boutique components, However, that doesn't mean that a good circuit, fitted with the best sounding boutique components (presuming that cost was no issue) wouldn't sound EVEN better!;)
Marco.
Martin isn't arrogant in my view, he is intelligent and I find good company. However I think he is stuck in a bygone era of (admittedly) good equipment.
Better circuitry definitely gives better performance. 'Better circuitry' is making the active devices work in a much more linear fashion that lowers distortion of all kinds, improves headroom, improves longevity etc.
The real buzz I used to get from my years as a designer was the 'blank sheet of paper' approach, thinking up solutions to the required function.
This spills over to improving 'traditional' approaches to circuit design, for example how to switch between MM and MC input with a small signal relay without the direct cartridge signal passing though the relay? It can and has been done.
In fact I use the minimum of measurements when developing a circuit:
Is there a signal at the output?
Is the gain in the right ballpark?
Does the response look accurate?
Are the frequency extremes as expected? And that's it, believe it or not. Everything else is 'how does it sound?', done by ear.
The best circuit with good parts will get you 98%, the best parts will get you the other 2% but at the same cost that got you to 98% IMO.
Another brilliant post, Dennis! For the sake of brevity, allow me to highlight what I consider are the most salient and pertinent points:
We are bombarded from birth with cajoling and criticism, and given directives by many authority figures, such that IMO we are in a state of anxiety and insecurity about our relative value and performance, and this continues.
Asch's work shows the degree to which we look around at the performance of those surrounding us in order to compare our own performance, to see if 'we are OK', and 60% will reject their own perceptions in favour of those of the group, even when the whole group is wrong.
Interesting and no doubt true. Perhaps as a child, I may have fallen into that 60%, simply as a result of naivety and/or immaturity, but now I'm older, I'm confident I'd be firmly in the other 40%, as without very good reason I *never* reject my own perceptions.
Gut instincts act as the basis for many of my decisions, which often later lead to the forming of my opinions. I'm very much in touch with my instincts, as indeed is any other perceptive human being. I don't need books or some 'expert' to tell me what to do!
In the sociology of employment this often can result in lesser people adhering to a supposed 'truth', and rejecting the real truth, and then in out casting of the believer in the real truth, and maybe even worse sanctioning. They, the group, feel secure not in their own perceptions, but in the support of many peers having the same view.
That for me is one of the most pertinent and valid observations you've made on human behaviourism, or for that matter I've ever seen expressed online.
Furthermore, I can totally relate to it, as I've often been subjected to such myself, especially on forums, simply because I often have rather forthright subjective opinions, which I express confidently because I believe I'm right, and which often irks my rather dogmatic objectivist detractors:eyebrows:
I'm not the type though to sit back and take it, so if I'm confident I'm right, I'll defend my views to the death and bugger the consequences [at least that's what I used to do before I started up this place], so usually ended up being banned!;)
However, my rebellion resulted in my becoming a juvenile delinquent, I and used to burgle Crystal Palace Park Café on a regular basis, but was never caught because I was bright..
Lol, well the best burglars always are! You're a very bad boy, do you know that?:lol:
In the book i earlier recommended the author states that we can either have power and tell a story to others, or tell the truth and have no power, this is frightening to me, and the next chapter is called "Post Truth". God help us.
Indeed... I would always seek to tell the truth (or what I believed as such) in the hope that someone might listen and investigate my claims for themselves. I've also always never been concerned about being disliked because certain people didn't like what I was saying. My view? Too bad - deal with it!!
I am an objectivist, but this does not dismiss the ear as a final criterion for evaluation of equipment. The well established criteria are a way of eliminating inadequate equipment, but they do not define all aspects of performance. No science is complete, it is an evolving process of discovery which yields useful tools.
Exactly my view, and indeed some objectivists who consider themselves as being faithful to the scientific process, and who believe in the opposite (all there is to know is already known), are in fact doing a gross disservice to the scientific process!
The ASR forum is based I presume on a love of the philosophy of science, but I did post a critique of much of the argument and poor English which had impeded clear reasoning and clarity. When I posted the anecdotal cable experience, the group, like a pack of hyenas, pounced on me with derision and denigration, trashing everything I had said. I then stated that all science uses perceptions at its first inception, but to no avail, and I was so bullied that I stopped responding after pointing out numerously the flaws in their arguments; it went on for four pages.
That doesn't surprise me at all (as again in the past I've been subjected to the same), and why I steer well clear of such places. Indeed, if anyone were subjected to such disgraceful behaviour here, the perpetrator(s) would be instantly banned, as we operate a zero-tolerance policy towards that type of gang mentality.
Lastly, this for me is simply incomprehensible...
They were in another sense being extremely subjective, by using the philosophy of science to deny the reality of a subjective perception, just because it could not be measured.
Come again..? REALLY??:eek::mental:
WTF is it with these people - are they THAT scared of anything that dares to challenge their rigidly inflexible dogma, that they have to seek to reject one of the very things that makes us human??:doh:
For me, not only are they total idiots, but mentally ILL!!
Marco.
Martin isn't arrogant in my view, he is intelligent and I find good company. However I think he is stuck in a bygone era of (admittedly) good equipment.
I completely agree [oh and Martin, where are you mate - guess you've had a busy day at work?] However... Why stay stuck in a bygone era? That makes no sense for someone who prides himself on being logical:hmm:
Better circuitry definitely gives better performance. 'Better circuitry' is making the active devices work in a much more linear fashion that lowers distortion of all kinds, improves headroom, improves longevity etc.
The real buzz I used to get from my years as a designer was the 'blank sheet of paper' approach, thinking up solutions to the required function.
This spills over to improving 'traditional' approaches to circuit design, for example how to switch between MM and MC input with a small signal relay without the direct cartridge signal passing though the relay? It can and has been done.
In fact I use the minimum of measurements when developing a circuit:
Is there a signal at the output?
Is the gain in the right ballpark?
Does the response look accurate?
Are the frequency extremes as expected? And that's it, believe it or not. Everything else is 'how does it sound?', done by ear.
Yup, I completely agree. However, what if the last bit of that process were omitted, simply because the accuracy of the measurements taken was considered as sufficient, thus listening was deemed as unnecessary... Would you agree that that would likely lead to achieving a poorer sonic result?:)
Marco.
From Marco;
"Lastly, this for me is simply incomprehensible...
They were in another sense being extremely subjective, by using the philosophy of science to deny the reality of a subjective perception, just because it could not be measured.
Come again..? REALLY??
WTF is it with these people - are they THAT scared of anything that dares to challenge their rigidly inflexible dogma, that they have to seek to reject one of the very things that makes us human??
For me, not only are they total idiots, but mentally ILL!!
Marco."
I was not challenging them, but merely asserting that I heard a difference with the last cables, as would all on this forum IMO. Yes they were scared.
The real crux of this stupidity for me, is that perception is an intrinsic part of all science. We could assert that their perception when reading a voltmeter and providing a reading is invalid because it is subjective and anecdotal"
But the behaviour of those whose whole stance, with a Banner based on and espousing science, then getting so lost in argument, and contradicting the principles of scientifically reasoned argument is an absurdity.
True discoverers spend hours in devoted testing and verification; they are self effacing, very humble, egotism getting in the way of feeling fine nuances, as does arrogance, and it involves perception at every stage.
BTW I was in my teens and it was only chocolate I stole.
Be it phase changes, tonality aspects or timing artefacts, ears are best until electronic kit can do the same. Shall we give it a millennium to catch up?
But are these not all functions of frequency response? And frequency response is pretty trivial to measure.
From Marco;
"Lastly, this for me is simply incomprehensible...
They were in another sense being extremely subjective, by using the philosophy of science to deny the reality of a subjective perception, just because it could not be measured.
Come again..? REALLY??
WTF is it with these people - are they THAT scared of anything that dares to challenge their rigidly inflexible dogma, that they have to seek to reject one of the very things that makes us human??
For me, not only are they total idiots, but mentally ILL!!
Marco."
I was not challenging them, but merely asserting that I heard a difference with the last cables, as would all on this forum IMO. Yes they were scared.
.
I recall that thread and my recollection is that the objection to your claim was that your listening tests on the cables were not done under controlled conditions. Which I think is a perfectly valid objection. It is, after all, a science and engineering forum where unsubstantiated claims are rejected out of hand.
At the very least you would need to provide details of your study, controls implemented, percentage of correct identifications etc. No point even raising the subject there if you don't have that.
I agree - no measurement I can thick of can 'quantify' the ability, or not, of a pair of speakers to present a clear soundstage: one where you feel you can walk in amongst and around the performers. Indeed how can you measure perceived depth - again a simple measurement of crosstalk is not enough. I'm sure the measurement of phase comes into it somehow, but I can't think exactly how.
.
'We can't measure soundstage' is a strawman argument. Soundstage is a collection of various factors. Firstly how the recording is made. If it has no soundstage you can't re-create it later. If it does then how well it is reproduced will depend on factors that are entirely quantifiable:
How much the electronics distort the signal, noise levels obscuring sonic 'clues', distortion from the loudspeakers, position of the loudspeakers relative to the listener, frequency response of the loudspeaker (i.e how 'accurate' is it?) the behaviour of primary and secondary reflections (i,e 'the room') and so forth. We can measure all these things.
Lol, indeed!:D
Now, could you please try and get Macca on the same page (as he rates your views), because I suspect I'm right in presuming that when you build equipment, it's not simply measured as being 'right' on your test bench, left at that and subsequently demonstrated to your clients, but rather 'voiced' first, using your ears and some suitable music, in the context of your system, where any final adjustments to the circuit are made, so that you're happy with the end sonic result?
My argument is that not every audio designer puts their equipment through that last stage of assessment before it's deemed as fit for sale, and you can easily hear the difference between it and equipment that has had discerning ears applied to the process at the final stage of its development.
Would you agree?:)
Marco.
You have a QUAD 306 amplifier, which you rate, but no listening tests of the sort you describe were used in its design, in fact the designer is quite famous for stating that such a process is completely unnecessary.
The problem with using music as a verification is what music to use? We have all heard systems that sound fine with the first ten albums and them album 11 reveals some terrible flaw not shown up by the music on the previous ten. Back to the drawing board!
Martin isn't arrogant in my view, he is intelligent and I find good company. However I think he is stuck in a bygone era of (admittedly) good equipment.
.
Says the man using loudspeakers designed in the 1950s.... ;)
Firebottle
17-06-2021, 07:03
Yup, I completely agree. However, what if the last bit of that process were omitted, simply because the accuracy of the measurements taken was considered as sufficient, thus listening was deemed as unnecessary... Would you agree that that would likely lead to achieving a poorer sonic result?:)
Marco.
The 'accuracy' of my measurements is moot as I don't possess accurate measuring equipment. All tests performed could best be described as checks rather than measurements.
The only real measurement I do is the gain figure so it can be included on the instructions.
I would disagree that not listening would likely lead to achieving a poorer sonic result. The circuit design is key rather than stuffing boutique components into a cookbook circuit.
I would rather put lipstick on a princess than a pig.
Firebottle
17-06-2021, 07:09
But are these not all functions of frequency response? And frequency response is pretty trivial to measure.
No, phase differences are a measure of the phase response which is different. Tonality can be affected by a non linear frequency characteristic of a capacitor, particularly electrolytic. Timing is affected by the slew rate of an amplifier.
I recall that thread and my recollection is that the objection to your claim was that your listening tests on the cables were not done under controlled conditions. Which I think is a perfectly valid objection. It is, after all, a science and engineering forum where unsubstantiated claims are rejected out of hand.
At the very least you would need to provide details of your study, controls implemented, percentage of correct identifications etc. No point even raising the subject there if you don't have that.
Still no excuse though for the way he was treated, unless you condone the gang mentality?
You can debate with someone and disagree without subjecting them to bullying and speaking to them as if they were stupid. I don't live in a world where that sort of behaviour is considered as acceptable, and I'm sure Dennis doesn't either, so you simply don't put up with it. What's wrong with being polite?
These people aren't normal and clearly display mental health issues. As far as I'm concerned, if you're willing to deny your own perceptions, simply because they're not measurable, then you're not right in the head!:mental:
From the sound of them too, they're also disrespectful, cheeky wankers, who wouldn't dare speak to anyone in that manner in real life, without getting a well-deserved slap!!
Marco.
You have a QUAD 306 amplifier, which you rate, but no listening tests of the sort you describe were used in its design, in fact the designer is quite famous for stating that such a process is completely unnecessary.
I didn't say that you couldn't build a decent sounding amplifier without employing the use of listening tests, but rather that the BEST ones are born from such having taken place in the final analysis.
Does the 306 sound good? Yes. Does it sound anywhere near as good as my Copper amp? No, that blows it into the weeds. Does the 306 sound as good as any amp I've heard, at any price, which has been built by a talented designer who believes in using his ears? No.
The Quad is good, but not great. IME, to get great you have to voice stuff by ear at the final stage of it's design, as outlined by Anthony, Alan and others who know what they're talking about and back it up with producing superb sounding kit:)
The problem with using music as a verification is what music to use? We have all heard systems that sound fine with the first ten albums and them album 11 reveals some terrible flaw not shown up by the music on the previous ten. Back to the drawing board!
Nah, that's not how it's generally done. Normally a selection of familiar test tracks are used, which the designer knows inside out, and thus whether the equipment in question is reproducing them correctly as expected, just like you'll do when assessing a new piece of equipment in your system.
I'm sure that you have a selection of similar tracks you use to evaluate gear, which you'll usually reach for, and which comprise of a suitably wide array of music, in order to form accurate conclusions in terms of how that equipment is performing? Well, it's the same for an EE when 'voicing' his equipment.
The only difference is that if any or all of those tracks don't sound quite right (or as good as they should), he'll do something about it to make it so, and if he's any good, the end result will of course be notably better than what he heard previously, despite him having been satisfied that the equipment measured ok. That, IMO, is how you create truly great sounding gear, as opposed to merely the mediocre.
'Good' isn't good enough; I want great!:exactly:
Marco.
I was not challenging them, but merely asserting that I heard a difference with the last cables, as would all on this forum IMO. Yes they were scared.
Yes, scared of entertaining the thought that their rigid and inflexible scientific belief system might be fatally flawed!;)
The real crux of this stupidity for me, is that perception is an intrinsic part of all science. We could assert that their perception when reading a voltmeter and providing a reading is invalid because it is subjective and anecdotal"
Indeed, and the sheer hypocrisy is laughable in the extreme! So it's all right for them to accept and embrace their perceptions, when performing a task, but not for others to do the same on other tasks? You couldn't make it up! But they're so BLIND to reality, by having lived inside their false little bubbles for so long, that they can't see it:D
As you say, a total absurdity.
True discoverers spend hours in devoted testing and verification; they are self effacing, very humble, egotism getting in the way of feeling fine nuances, as does arrogance, and it involves perception at every stage.
Indeed, and exactly as I've always found REAL scientists, not wannabe 'measurists', driven by arrogance and ego, who couldn't lace a scientist's shoes!!
Marco.
anthonyTD
17-06-2021, 08:53
To be honest, where some are concerned, i think your flogging a dead horse, lets just say; measurements are key in getting a circuit to perform, and behave in a certain way ie; most importantly is the circuit stable at all perceivable loads and conditions it will be expected to work in, secondly, is the circuit free [as feasably posible within the design criteria] of noise and osccilations at all and beyond its expected range, once those elements have been established, there should be room for further adjustments within the circuit design to acheive a performance that is not only acceptable on test equipment.
Indeed, but the EARS stage at the end is crucial!;)
Btw, I may be flogging a dead horse, but you simply can't allow those blinkered cretins to behave that way without taking them to task. Plus, it makes me feel better!:D
Marco.
I recall that thread and my recollection is that the objection to your claim was that your listening tests on the cables were not done under controlled conditions. Which I think is a perfectly valid objection. It is, after all, a science and engineering forum where unsubstantiated claims are rejected out of hand.
At the very least you would need to provide details of your study, controls implemented, percentage of correct identifications etc. No point even raising the subject there if you don't have that.
The conditions were similar, except that levels were not controlled to any great extent, but were probably similar, and it is a valid objection only if I was making assertions which were greater than about what we had heard; we made no claim to any rigour, which would, if pursued, follow. Of course to validate/invalidate further the perception would as you say require further work, but it was just a statement of a perception and nothing more, which is perhaps the start of further enquiry and adhesion to testing and measuring procedures.
Would it be acceptable to apply the ASR responses to my asserting; "Last night I thought there were lightning flashes in the sky", which is only a subjective and anecdotal statement? To then denigrate this because of a lack of measurement or quantification is IMO also ridiculous.
A scientist would then construct some supposed means of detection and measurement, wait for similar circumstances, and then hope to be able to derive more info on the situation, rather than ridiculing me.
From Marco;
" IME, to get great you have to voice stuff by ear at the final stage of it's design, as outlined by Anthony, Alan and others who know what they're talking about and back it up with producing superb sounding kit"
I would like to see the long and involved process of taking a good amplifier, and one by one, changing each component for what are deemed to be better or boutique components, and to have a group blind AB the results.
I don't think that the "flogging a dead horse" comment was directed at you Marco re ASR, but about the technical versus subjective ear debate.
Regardless it is much more moral than flogging a live one.
From Marco;
" IME, to get great you have to voice stuff by ear at the final stage of it's design, as outlined by Anthony, Alan and others who know what they're talking about and back it up with producing superb sounding kit"
I would like to see the long and involved process of taking a good amplifier, and one by one, changing each component for what are deemed to be better or boutique components, and to have a group blind AB the results.
Indeed, but IME that's not what happens, nor am I saying that 'boutique components' must be used in order to create a great amp - definitely not!:)
In summary, what generally happens is that a designer will build a circuit using good quality, reliable components he knows and has used many times before, and which are cost effective, then the completed circuit is measured on his test bench, ensuring that all relevant parameters have met the required standards. after which at some point the amp is tested [listened to with familiar music] on his system.
If at that stage the sound needs some further subtle adjustment [wholesale changes shouldn't be required unless the circuit is crap!] he'll do so by employing many different methods, some of which may involve changing the value of one or two components (generally no more), or fitting what he considers are better ones in key areas of the signal path, where the greatest sonic difference is likely to be heard.
That's normally how it goes. It's not about changing each component and replacing it with a 'boutique' one. However, I do have experience of upgrading numerous key components in an already good sounding amp (e.g my Croft preamp), by fitting better and rather more expensive ones that I'd tried and considered as notably improving SQ, and which turned out to be so.
At the end of the day, you must remember that everything is built to a price, so with some judicious fettling to what is basically a good piece of gear (if you know what you're doing), you can successfully release some latent potential in the circuit, by fitting better components - and I've had great success with doing that throughout my system, as listed below. NONE of it is standard!
Therefore, if it was impossible to improve the sound of any of the equipment I use, in its standard form, because it already measured well (which it would've done when it was originally built, and still does now), then I wouldn't have been successfully able to improve its performance further, would I?;)
Marco.
'We can't measure soundstage' is a strawman argument. Soundstage is a collection of various factors. Firstly how the recording is made. If it has no soundstage you can't re-create it later. If it does then how well it is reproduced will depend on factors that are entirely quantifiable:
How much the electronics distort the signal, noise levels obscuring sonic 'clues', distortion from the loudspeakers, position of the loudspeakers relative to the listener, frequency response of the loudspeaker (i.e how 'accurate' is it?) the behaviour of primary and secondary reflections (i,e 'the room') and so forth. We can measure all these things.
Maybe, but you won't be able to pool all of these measurements to predict the perceived sound stage.
Says the man using loudspeakers designed in the 1950s.... ;)
I use speakers designed in the 1950s as well. :)
Opti-cal
17-06-2021, 13:02
I use speakers designed in the 1950s as well. :)
I mean . . . they are the same speakers.
I mean . . . they are the same speakers.
Oh - was Martin referring to your speakers? Quad 57 (sic)?
Opti-cal
17-06-2021, 13:15
Oh - was Martin referring to your speakers? Quad 57 (sic)?
No Alan's, (although I have had 4 pairs of 57's myself and still plan on repairing a current pair sat behind my sofa!) I wasn't sure if you knew you were referencing the very same "50's design" speaker!
A yardstick never beaten (or even equaled) in my and many other's opinion . . . just wish I had a pair that didn't develop faults likely to aggravate my OCD need for speakers to be 'perfect'!! (Mechanically).
No Alan's, (although I have had 4 pairs of 57's myself and still plan on repairing a current pair sat behind my sofa!) I wasn't sure if you knew you were referencing the very same "50's design" speaker!
A yardstick never beaten (or even equaled) in my and many other's opinion . . . just wish I had a pair that didn't develop faults likely to aggravate my OCD need for speakers to be 'perfect'!! (Mechanically).
What is wrong with your Quads - what needs repairing/replacing? Mine have been in constant use for the last 45 years and are still working well; though I'm sure that ideally they could do with an overhaul.
Opti-cal
17-06-2021, 14:38
What is wrong with your Quads - what needs repairing/replacing? Mine have been in constant use for the last 45 years and are still working well; though I'm sure that ideally they could do with an overhaul.
Haha, what's right with them Barry . . . .
Just to save any confusion I'll explain as quickly and concisely as I can.
2015 - Bought my first pair of old Quads. Fell in love even though their output was low but it was evenly low.
2016 - Sold first pair and bought a pair of 'nicer' 57's which sounded even better.
2017 - saved up to get them refurbished - sent them to Quad for full overhaul - Quad returned them and just left them on my front porch upon return, predictably one got nicked. (I still have 1 fully refurbished one).
Due to their stupidity and the threat of legal action Quad provided me with another fully refurbished pair. They were perfect but unfortunately at the time I needed the money and stupidly sold them, but for good money.
2019 - Bought a pair of 63's, again output was beginning to get low.
2020 - Part ex'd my 63's plus some cash for a fully refurbished pair (1 year warranty) with all the upgrades including black gate capacitors and grill upgrades. In the words of One Thing "Probably the best we've heard".
2020 - Been back to One Thing for warranty repair twice as the grills were rattling at certain frequencies. Eventually returned them telling me they are refusing to do any more warranty work as it's costing THEM too much money.
2021 - One of the 63's simply doesn't power on any more and still has a slight rattle from the grill at certain frequencies. (Although hopefully Alan can fix the power issue for me when I pick up my amp from him asap!).
So currently I have a pair of 57's one speaker has very low output and the other one will likely need a refurb too.
I have 1 fully refurbished 57 (done by Quad) which works perfectly.
I have a pair of 63's fully upgraded but 1 now doesn't power on at all. One of them has a grill 'rattle'.
As I say with the 'current' pair of 57's the output is very low on one speaker (even though it had a new treble panel a couple of years ago) I suspect a transformer has fallen out of spec or needs replacing. The panels themselves are in good nick and there is only one tiny tear which has been repaired. I bought them as a 'spares or repair' project a few months ago after promising myself to get another pair after letting my 'perfect' ones go a couple of years ago as I needed the money. So I knew output on one of them was low prior to purchase.
Seems I am the most unlucky Quad owner of all time (although my story is not completely isolated).
I am meticulous in how they are looked after, barely even seeing sunlight and certainly never in any sort of environment with any moisture in the air and they certainly have never been over driven.
I am very sensitive to L to R balance as well as being able to hear the pops and whines from them every so often.
One day I'd love to have them all working again but realistically I don't think it'll ever happen! Not least because the various service departments at both Quad and One Thing seem hopelessly inept.
I don't think I'm too demanding of them . . . just incredibly unlucky.
anthonyTD
17-06-2021, 15:00
Indeed!:)
I don't think that the "flogging a dead horse" comment was directed at you Marco re ASR, but about the technical versus subjective ear debate.
Regardless it is much more moral than flogging a live one.
Wow - that's quite a history. I realise now that I had read of you problems before, and at the time expressed my sympathies and sadness that Quad's aftersales and repair service, which used to be second to none, had fallen to a lamentably low standard, since the company was sold to new owners.
All I can say is that Quad, having sold off the panel assembly jigs to Musikwiedergabe in Germany, when they ceased manufacture of the 57s, now farm out any repair work to One Thing Audio. OTA have their own design of replacement panels, which do not sound the same as the Quad originals. So if you were to have OTA fix the problem, you would need to have both speakers looked at to ensure they were sonically identical; but after your experience with OTA, I can well understand your reluctance to deal with them again.
I think the low output could well be due to problems with the EHT power supply - most likely a failure of a diode in the Cockroft Walton voltage multiplier. I'm sure Alan could diagnose the problem for you.
Oh - was Martin referring to your speakers? Quad 57 (sic)?
I was referring to Alan's comment that I'm using outdated equipment, given he uses ESLs. I mean I like the ESL and if they wern't potentially such a bundle of trouble I'd have had some myself at some point, but people in glass houses and so forth... :D
The oldest bit of kit in my main system is the Krell power amp and that's from 1994 so not exactly geriatric. I mean I'm old enough to consider 1994 as fairly recent, only seems like yesterday to me. And anyway it's an amplifier, they've been a done deal for at least half a century. Plus I've yet to hear an amp I prefer.
No worries. :) Quad 57s are not particularly robust beasts and can be easily damaged. Furthermore, they are not to everyone's tastes (either in capability or looks) as they serve some music better than others.
No worries. :) Quad 57s are not particularly robust beasts and can be easily damaged. Furthermore, they are not to everyone's tastes (either in capability or looks) as they serve some music better than others.
A friend got a set and initially they were fantastic but went downhill fairly fast. Opening them up they were full of dust, the foil was ripped in many places, the wiring had perished so much it was dangerous, plus some other problem which I forget now.
He got a kit from Australia to do the refurb himself but don't know if he ever did. It was a mammoth task.
Opti-cal
17-06-2021, 16:01
A friend got a set and initially they were fantastic but went downhill fairly fast. Opening them up they were full of dust, the foil was ripped in many places, the wiring had perished so much it was dangerous, plus some other problem which I forget now.
He got a kit from Australia to do the refurb himself but don't know if he ever did. It was a mammoth task.
I've come to the conclusion that it's just too much hassle of numerous occasions now.... But then I remember the sound they are capable of. As you elude to much better on some material than others (although with a 'fast' sub setup correctly that range of material is increased). I still haven't heard a speaker do vocals/guitar plucks and overall tonal accuracy anywhere near as well. Otherwise I wouldn't waste so much time and effort on them.
Certainly not a 'fit & forget' or 'jack of all trades' speaker though.... Far from it.
walpurgis
17-06-2021, 16:05
Mine were OK once I rebuilt the rectifiers. That was a long time ago in the late seventies, I sold them to make room for the big Coral full-range horns I was building.
I think that the 57, though old, was very far ahead of the bunch when it appeared, and again the 63 moved it forward, but the inherent proneness to environment is a problem.
If I were to buy any I would choose the larger more recent iterations 2905 and beyond, but if Quad's service is poor, that places question marks for me.
anthonyTD
17-06-2021, 17:09
In my opinion [and please bear in mind it is just my opinion] the Quad 57 over-all is a better speaker than the 63, yes, the 63 has more bass, but i think by doing so, it messed with what the original 57 exceled at, to me the clarity in the mid to top is cleaner on the 57, although the actual flat frequency response is quite limited, the 57 is still capable of exceptional performance within its limitations.
I think that the 57, though old, was very far ahead of the bunch when it appeared, and again the 63 moved it forward, but the inherent proneness to environment is a problem.
If I were to buy any I would choose the larger more recent iterations 2905 and beyond, but if Quad's service is poor, that places question marks for me.
Unfortunetly Tannoy seems to be going the same way since its new owners took control, hopefully that may change once they get more aquainted with what the brand and the products mean to so many.Quad is not the same company as it once was. Like so many small companies bought up by big corporations to add to their portfolio, they quickly lose interest in servicing and repairing older models.
I certainly found it so with Madrigal's attitude to early Mark Levinson gear, and it's a great shame the same is being applied by Quad's new owners. Does anyone have similar experiences with early KEF gear, now that KEF are part of Gold Peak group?
anthonyTD
17-06-2021, 17:19
Unfortunetly Barry Tannoy seems to be going the same way since its new owners took control, hopefully that may change once they get more aquainted with what the brand and the products mean to so many.
Unfortunetly Tannoy seems to be going the same way since its new owners took control, hopefully that may change once they get more aquainted with what the brand and the products mean to so many.Quad is not the same company as it once was. Like so many small companies bought up by big corporations to add to their portfolio, they quickly lose interest in servicing and repairing older models.
I certainly found it so with Madrigal's attitude to early Mark Levinson gear, and it's a great shame the same is being applied by Quad's new owners. Does anyone have similar experiences with early KEF gear, now that KEF are part of Gold Peak group?
Opti-cal
17-06-2021, 17:36
In my opinion [and please bear in mind it is just my opinion] the Quad 57 over-all is a better speaker than the 63, yes, the 63 has more bass, but i think by doing so, it messed with what the original 57 exceled at, to me the clarity in the mid to top is cleaner on the 57, although the actual flat frequency response is quite limited, the 57 is still capable of exceptional performance within its limitations.
Agreed 100%, having owned both, the 57 is more 'special'. 63 is slightly over engineered imo. With a quality pair of subs the 57's can breath. With a proper crossover relieving them of duties under 50-75hz or so
Apologies, Chris. After much delay, I've finally got around to this :doh::D...
These things are still available. Cars with some character, quality, unique furnishings. It's just that people have been conditioned and encouraged to be lazy regarding the amount of effort needed to obtain said examples.
People have been convinced they will be better off going for the convenient, time saving product should it be available, a view I simply do not share. However I do feel I'm in the minority and have been for some time now.
The seismic shift to use whatever is cheapest/most convenient is one thing, and I agree, but what drives us [and by 'us' I generally mean the masses] to believe in the notion that 'newest [as in the supposedly latest and greatest] is always best'?
Can we honestly say, hand on heart, that *every single* new invention, over the years, was no-brainer better than that which it replaced? And if not, especially when deep down we really preferred the old, why the hell did we supposedly 'upgrade' to the new, and not simply stick with what we had and actually preferred?:hmm:
Have a think about how much that's happened to you (I mean everyone here), and specifically which items [doesn't have to be hi-fi related, it can be anything] you'd rather have kept over the years, and which its shiny new replacement didn't turn out to be an 'improvement' at all.
I'll start with lovely coal fires, being ripped out and replaced with clearly inferior gas or electric monstrosities, during the 60s and 70s, which is why we currently use a log fire/wood burner, and wouldn't swap it for anything else!
Or how about furniture that was at one time made by craftsmen and built to last, compared with the tat made now? Or perhaps writing a letter with a beautiful Montblanc pen (or similar), as opposed to using a typewriter for such, least of all a computer?:rolleyes: Is digital photography superior to film, in *every* way?
Or if you'd rather keep it hi-fi related, what about the very best examples of vintage loudspeakers, compared with what's being produced now? Has streaming music really usurped the sound of a reel-to-reel tape machine?
Essentially. how often, over the years, either consciously or unconsciously, have you traded quality for convenience, or simply been a victim of blindly following trends, and worse of all trading feel-good factor (the joy of using and owning something of real quality) ultimately for the opposite?
Or when has a so-called 'labour saving' device ultimately turned out to be something that sucks the fun out of life, and which ultimately has served as a tool to dehumanise you...?
<Discuss>:cool:
Marco.
Opti-cal
18-06-2021, 08:56
Apologies, Chris. After much delay, I've finally got around to this :doh::D...
The seismic shift to use whatever is cheapest/most convenient is one thing, and I agree, but what drives us [and by 'us' I generally mean the masses] to believe in the notion that 'newest [as in the supposedly latest and greatest] is always best'?
Can we honestly say, hand on heart, that *every single* new invention, over the years, was no-brainer better than that which it replaced? And if not, especially when deep down we really preferred the old, why the hell did we supposedly 'upgrade' to the new, and not simply stick with what we had and actually preferred?:hmm:
Have a think about how much that's happened to you (I mean everyone here), and specifically which items [doesn't have to be hi-fi related, it can be anything] you'd rather have kept over the years, and which its shiny new replacement didn't turn out to be an 'improvement' at all.
I'll start with lovely coal fires, being ripped out and replaced with clearly inferior gas or electric monstrosities, during the 60s and 70s, which is why we currently use a log fire/wood burner, and wouldn't swap it for anything else!
Or how about furniture that was at one time made by craftsmen and built to last, compared with the tat made now? Or perhaps writing a letter with a beautiful Montblanc pen (or similar), as opposed to using a typewriter for such, least of all a computer?:rolleyes: Is digital photography superior to film, in *every* way?
Or if you'd rather keep it hi-fi related, what about the very best examples of vintage loudspeakers, compared with what's being produced now? Has streaming music really usurped the sound of a reel-to-reel tape machine?
Essentially. how often, over the years, either consciously or unconsciously, have you traded quality for convenience, or simply been a victim of blindly following trends, and worse of all trading feel-good factor (the joy of using and owning something of real quality) ultimately for the opposite?
When has a 'labour saving' device ultimately turned out to be a fun-sucking one, or one which has ultimately served as a tool to dehumanise you...?
<Discuss>:cool:
Marco.
Haha, no problem Marco, appreciate you coming back to it.
Excuse the somewhat indulgent response (possibly going to be a tad lengthy).
I've always associated with (more) and appreciated the values (and that pretty much covers inventions/technology/furniture etc) of yesteryear. I've spoken to my parents about this subject a little and they and myself, have always concluded I have so much more in common with those born (and whom have grown up) in the 70's/80's, myself having 'grown up' in the 90's. During this period the growth of technology was more linear, from colour TV's, electric mowers, seat warmers in cars, those kind of things.
Then the digital explosion happened, microchips were now just that and the internet came along. Things would never be the same again. The concept of taking a ten pence piece with you or reversing the charges in a phone box to plead with your mum for another 20 minutes down the part playing footie, would be dead an buried. Technology took a turbo-charged leap in all directions, a figurative technological big-bang and with it moving at such a rate, your point about there now being technology almost for technologies sake, is very valid and strikes a chord with me.
The manufacture of pretty much anything was now possible but no one really stopped to ask if these inventions were entirely necessary. Most people are very impressed with new technology for a while but then after that impressive 'shiny, new, must have' period, the initial excitement is over. This is a worry for the companies manufacturing these products and suddenly the PR machine must be cranked into over-drive to ensure that new technology is continuously 'pushed' into the collective consciousness of the masses to ensure continuous profit. This is at the heart of the problem.
Companies now seek to create a market before even releasing a product, if the product is failing there is now a platform to create a false 'buzz' around a product to ensure it will still make a good return for the company. This can be applied to many industries including the film/entertainment industries. The amount of utter tripe that is released on TV and at the cinema, which make it to screen simply because the media tell you it's coming and it's 'going to be big' is deplorable. There will be legions of people flocking to the cinema to see the latest 'Marvel' film (or whatever) no matter how crap the last one was because over the years they have been 'brainwashed' by marketing to accept that this is now the 'brand' that people should be associated with. It's the same with Apple/Nike etc and any number of other huge conglomerates.
Don't get me wrong there are good companies out there which make good quality items that deserve a buzz around them and deserve to do well, but the sea of utter crap swilling around with them 'drowns' a lot of the good products/companies trying to be true to their values and actually trying to make a good product for their customers. We see it in hifi too. Certain brands get all the attention and are 'ever present' in advertisements and front of house in shops, but are they actually good value or can provide the real 'breakthrough' sound they're advertising, categorically no. Unfortunately most of the products that 'rise' to the top (and are therefore accessible to the most amount of people on Amazon etc) are the ones with the most PR marketing and money behind them. They will be the most profitable for the company, not the best item in terms of quality/performance/value etc, those qualities are just not profitable.
People are now conditioned not to question if the company/technology is any good or not. No one is held accountable really. You can't even trust reviews you come across as most things have been heavily edited or are under the campaign of promotion themselves. There are very few completely neutral and unbiased platforms for finding out the necessary information before purchases. Most youtube reviews are paid for by someone (and often utter tosh anyway). The reviews left on companies websites are edited (often by the company themselves) as it seems it's almost against the law to call companies out or speak the truth, as the truth hurts and people/companies can't handle being hurt these days . . . .
Back to your point regarding old wood burning fires etc, yes but unfortunately those 'nostalgic' cornerstones are now subject to 'new world' (woke) restrictions in an attempt to tackle climate change etc. In reality its crap because these things could still be enjoyed IF the carbon/plastic issues were dealt with properly and offset in more positive ways. Instead of banning people having fires/burning wood/ probably having bloody BBQ's in the future, the problems of the 'big' polluters need to be addressed. Stopping a few people burning wood in the UK is going to do sweet FA in the face of China, McDonalds, Coca Cola land filling and felling their way into our oblivion.
It's interesting how technology has moved 'sideways' recently actually. Take mobile phones for example. They were on their way to getting smaller and smaller but even though we could make them microscopic now, the way people have decided to use them now, browsing/watching videos etc, they are arguable as large as they were 15 years ago. Albeit with a large screen replacing any buttons. This is due to the 'way' people use the technology now as our phones have now replaced what maybe 10 years ago people were using a tablet or iPad for. People seem happy enough to get their news/videos/social media from one device, something I can appreciate the convenience of. This is an example of the technology being fine tuned towards the requirements of the masses and tallies somewhat with the SUV argument (although I still don't like them). 'Give the people what they want' to quote a certain Bond film.
Gone slightly off tangent there BUT in summery I think we can see (and everyone here knows this anyway) that the main reason we don't see quality products (or far less of them anymore) is because they are not profitable for the companies that control the finances of the world. Therefore the only products that 'most' people have easy access to (the most important factor to them, or so they are told to think) are designed to be throw-away items which will need replacing/upgrading in the near future. THAT is how they maintain profit.
How do we break the cycle?
Maybe overall we can't as the monster is too big but I believe we can still take heart and enjoyment from seeking out these gems of quality which still do exist in a world of false idols.
anthonyTD
18-06-2021, 09:08
:)
Haha, no problem Marco, appreciate you coming back to it.
Excuse the somewhat indulgent response (possibly going to be a tad lengthy).
I've always associated with (more) and appreciated the values (and that pretty much covers inventions/technology/furniture etc) of yesteryear. I've spoken to my parents about this subject a little and they and myself, have always concluded I have so much more in common with those born (and whom have grown up) in the 70's/80's, myself having 'grown up' in the 90's. During this period the growth of technology was more linear, from colour TV's, electric mowers, seat warmers in cars, those kind of things.
Then the digital explosion happened, microchips were now just that and the internet came along. Things would never be the same again. The concept of taking a ten pence piece with you or reversing the charges in a phone box to plead with your mum for another 20 minutes down the part playing footie, would be dead an buried. Technology took a turbo-charged leap in all directions, a figurative technological big-bang and with it moving at such a rate, your point about there now being technology almost for technologies sake, is very valid and strikes a chord with me.
The manufacture of pretty much anything was now possible but no one really stopped to ask if these inventions were entirely necessary. Most people are very impressed with new technology for a while but then after that impressive 'shiny, new, must have' period, the initial excitement is over. This is a worry for the companies manufacturing these products and suddenly the PR machine must be cranked into over-drive to ensure that new technology is continuously 'pushed' into the collective consciousness of the masses to ensure continuous profit. This is at the heart of the problem.
Companies now seek to create a market before even releasing a product, if the product is failing there is now a platform to create a false 'buzz' around a product to ensure it will still make a good return for the company. This can be applied to many industries including the film/entertainment industries. The amount of utter tripe that is released on TV and at the cinema, which make it to screen simply because the media tell you it's coming and it's 'going to be big' is deplorable. There will be legions of people flocking to the cinema to see the latest 'Marvel' film (or whatever) no matter how crap the last one was because over the years they have been 'brainwashed' by marketing to accept that this is now the 'brand' that people should be associated with. It's the same with Apple/Nike etc and any number of other huge conglomerates.
Don't get me wrong there are good companies out there which make good quality items that deserve a buzz around them and deserve to do well, but the sea of utter crap swilling around with them 'drowns' a lot of the good products/companies trying to be true to their values and actually trying to make a good product for their customers. We see it in hifi too. Certain brands get all the attention and are 'ever present' in advertisements and front of house in shops, but are they actually good value or can provide the real 'breakthrough' sound they're advertising, categorically no. Unfortunately most of the products that 'rise' to the top (and are therefore accessible to the most amount of people on Amazon etc) are the ones with the most PR marketing and money behind them. They will be the most profitable for the company, not the best item in terms of quality/performance/value etc, those qualities are just not profitable.
People are now conditioned not to question if the company/technology is any good or not. No one is held accountable really. You can't even trust reviews you come across as most things have been heavily edited or are under the campaign of promotion themselves. There are very few completely neutral and unbiased platforms for finding out the necessary information before purchases. Most youtube reviews are paid for by someone (and often utter tosh anyway). The reviews left on companies websites are edited (often by the company themselves) as it seems it's almost against the law to call companies out or speak the truth, as the truth hurts and people/companies can't handle being hurt these days . . . .
Back to your point regarding old wood burning fires etc, yes but unfortunately those 'nostalgic' cornerstones are now subject to 'new world' (woke) restrictions in an attempt to tackle climate change etc. In reality its crap because these things could still be enjoyed IF the carbon/plastic issues were dealt with properly and offset in more positive ways. Instead of banning people having fires/burning wood/ probably having bloody BBQ's in the future, the problems of the 'big' polluters need to be addressed. Stopping a few people burning wood in the UK is going to do sweet FA in the face of China, McDonalds, Coca Cola land filling and felling their way into our oblivion.
It's interesting how technology has moved 'sideways' recently actually. Take mobile phones for example. They were on their way to getting smaller and smaller but even though we could make them microscopic now, the way people have decided to use them now, browsing/watching videos etc, they are arguable as large as they were 15 years ago. Albeit with a large screen replacing any buttons. This is due to the 'way' people use the technology now as our phones have now replaced what maybe 10 years ago people were using a tablet or iPad for. People seem happy enough to get their news/videos/social media from one device, something I can appreciate the convenience of. This is an example of the technology being fine tuned towards the requirements of the masses and tallies somewhat with the SUV argument (although I still don't like them). 'Give the people what they want' to quote a certain Bond film.
Gone slightly off tangent there BUT in summery I think we can see (and everyone here knows this anyway) that the main reason we don't see quality products (or far less of them anymore) is because they are not profitable for the companies that control the finances of the world. Therefore the only products that 'most' people have easy access to (the most important factor to them, or so they are told to think) are designed to be throw-away items which will need replacing/upgrading in the near future. THAT is how they maintain profit.
How do we break the cycle?
Maybe overall we can't as the monster is too big but I believe we can still take heart and enjoyment from seeking out these gems of quality which still do exist in a world of false idols.
I've always been, (oh here we go, another media cliché, eclectic, existential, algorithm, nudge, etc.) eclectic, and used this to try to keep the best from the past whilst combining it with the best new developments. Notably, quality of craftsmanship which has often now been lost, but is sometimes being addressed by high quality computer based production, (Mac SE30 cases an example). Surely there is little doubt that discoveries have helped us enormously, some from space research, and superglue is a real help.
To me the crux is in the lack of integrity of producers, who may often take an engineer's good design and then their accountants strip off expensive quality; nuts and bolts changed to pop rivets for example, and there is also a tendency to produce products which do not really take into account the user's quality of experience. I have just bought my third set of salt and pepper grinders in 20 years, all from Cole and Mason, and at last the latest set works well. The makers say that it is their best, and it should be at £50; the others were hopeless.
I have a personal dislike of Dyson products for many reasons, the main one being that plastic bearings are self degenerating once they get grit in them. They may produce purer air and cleaner surfaces, but they are expensive. I bought a Hoover Senior from the tip for £3 in '95, serviced it's bearings and brushes, made new cloth bags from pillow material for it on my 60 year old Singer201, and it is still functioning well. Maybe not as effective, but well built and also the emergence of allergy related to extreme hygiene, seems to counter its extreme pursuit.
At the high end of Hi-Fi, what we seem to get is better mechanics and aesthetics, more so than improved function IMO. I modify much new stuff anticipating weak points of potential failure, and have just built up a titanium bike based on '98 technology, Campag throughout, but using an Apex Grand prix pump from the 60s. Refurbished it is better than the supposedly best current Topic pump, and it has done 55 years of service.
In 1969 I was given a Ronson shaver for my 21st, and it packed up in '96 never having even had a new foil; the company went broke.
There is an old saying; "Possession is nine tenths of the law", my parallel is; "Self possession is nine tenths of achievement", and do not forget the tragedy of Edward Bernays' work.
I rest my case for my stance.
Great answers so far, guys! I'll get to them (probably much) later, as I've got my dad coming round for lunch, and then there's the footy, etc...:)
Chris, you and I are defo kindred spirits!!
Anthony, could I have you views on this please, as I suspect you have some interesting ones of your own, rather than simply concurring with someone else's, and sticking a smiley at the end, which appears to be your trademark these days!:ner::D;)
I'd particularly like to hear your take on which examples of audio equipment, over the years, in your opinion may have represented a genuine technological advancement, but to your ears not an overall sonic one, and why?:)
Marco.
Just to quickly reiterate, folks... I'm not saying that there haven't been some genuine advances with new devices and technology, as undoubtedly there have.
What I'm *specifically* referring to, and what I'd like to see discussed, are new products you've bought, which after a period of use, you reluctantly came to the conclusion that what it replaced was either in some ways better, or simply better overall.
And here I'm NOT talking about price or convenience [how much time it might have saved you], but rather either how well built the item in question was and/or fundamentally good at its core function:)
Marco.
anthonyTD
18-06-2021, 11:13
Cheeky :eek:
I think from my point of view, having grown up watching my Dad salvage Electronic parts from anything electrical or electronic that was thrown away/discarded [and by the way in the 1960's 1970's we were light years away from the throw away world we see today] Hence I aquired a sense of "everything has a value" pretty early on in life, even today i still find it very difficult to part with all kinds of things where i feel may still have some use to someone somewhere, although i draw a line when it come to just hoarding stuff for the sake of it!
Tesla invisaged the mobile phone in the late 1920's, he even stated that in the future we would have a comunication device so small that it would fit in your shirt pocket, and in theory the mobile phone is a brilliant invention, if it is used for the purpose it was intended by those early pioneers like Tesla. Unfortunetly and as we all aware of these days, instead of these devices being used as a tool to help us in our daily life ie; comunication, they have instead enslaved us, people dont seem to be able to drag themselves away for more than a few minutes without checking them, this is just one example of how the increase in some technology can have an adverse or negative affect on society, some will argue that fact, and of course your completely entitled to your opinion.
As to technology that I feel has been a real game changer paticularly in Audio, well, some real game changers would have to be the ability to make and source better components, therefore to be able to build better equipment, and of course the introduction of Digital, although good analogue IMHO still has its place even in the best HI-FI systems of today.
Great answers so far, guys! I'll get to them (probably much) later, as I've got my dad coming round for lunch, and then there's the footy, etc...:)
Anthony, could I have you views on this please, as I suspect you have some interesting ones of your own, rather than simply concurring with someone else's, and sticking a smiley at the end, which appears to be your trademark these days!:ner::D;)
I'd particularly like to hear your take on which examples of audio equipment, over the years, in your opinion may have represented a genuine technological advancement, but to your ears not an overall sonic one, and why?:)
Marco.
Beobloke
18-06-2021, 11:16
I have a personal dislike of Dyson products for many reasons, the main one being that plastic bearings are self degenerating once they get grit in them. They may produce purer air and cleaner surfaces, but they are expensive..
It's interesting you mention Dyson. I must confess I've always been a bit of a fan. I think their older, mains-powered upright cleaners are brilliant and as the owner of a long haired cat and someone who also recorded one of the highest results ever seen by the local hospital for allergy to house dust when my eczema was tested, I appreciate their cleaning abilities and ferocious suck! I have a DC-07 and a DC-14 and they perform superbly and parts are cheap, plentiful and easy to fit when they are required.
However my recent experience with their HD-01 Supersonic hairdryer has royally pissed me off. It is my wife's and is around 5 years old and last year it began cutting in and out as you wave it around. Now given that I have had to re-terminate the mains leads into the above vacuums a number of times, as they perish where they enter the machines, this is most likely the problem.
However, I was shocked to learn recently that the item is no longer supported by Dyson, repair shops won't touch them as they can't get spares and Dyson could offer me no service information. Never mind, I'm an engineer - I'll have a crack at it myself. However, looking at a "tear-down" video of one on the web, it appears that to take it apart, you have to break it (although, I'm obviously still going to give it a go when I get 5 minutes). What a crap piece of design (or an ingenious one, if you're a conspiracy theorist like Marco! ;))
My email to the UK CEO of Dyson was ignored and so, I'm afraid they have lost me as a customer, although I think they had anyway given their move to battery-operated vacuum cleaners. Our friends have one and it's crap. Definitely a perfect example of newer not being better.
Haselsh1
18-06-2021, 11:36
Good enough for what..?
This has been said so many times in the past but your system is an expression of you. It should suit you and no one else. If your system is 'not good enough' then it can only be to your ears as that is what it is tailored towards or are you trying to impress everyone but yourself..? It is your personal expression. It is not for anyone else.
Of course I was just as guilty as anyone else until I changed my outlook on my sound system.
Now I don't give a flying FCUK for how it sounds to other people. Those days are so far behind.
There are things to get really stressed about. Hi-Fi is no longer one of them
Or if you'd rather keep it hi-fi related, what about the very best examples of vintage loudspeakers, compared with what's being produced now? Has streaming music really usurped the sound of a reel-to-reel tape machine?
Essentially. how often, over the years, either consciously or unconsciously, have you traded quality for convenience, or simply been a victim of blindly following trends, and worse of all trading feel-good factor (the joy of using and owning something of real quality) ultimately for the opposite?
Or when has a so-called 'labour saving' device ultimately turned out to be something that sucks the fun out of life, and which ultimately has served as a tool to dehumanise you...?
<Discuss>:cool:
Marco.
other than hi-fi equipment I don't buy anything unless I absolutely have to. Fridge and washing machine were bought used almost 20 years ago, furniture all second hand, either free or cost very little. except for the bed and mattress which I got new again 20 years ago now.
I did buy a new kettle last year, only because a mate was staying and he broke the old one which was 20 years old. Even then it still boils it's just the lid that is bust.
I expect the new one to last 20 years at least which is probably longer than I will.
Never followed trends with these things, don't even know what the trend is so could only follow it by accident/coincidence anyway
Can't recall ever replacing anything where the new one was worse than the old.
Don't really see what the issue is. I suppose if you are the sort who fetishizes ordinary household appliances and objects it might be of some concern but thankfully that's never been me.
walpurgis
18-06-2021, 11:55
The only 'appliance' I've bought in the last few years is an extra freezer in February before last when Covid 19 was getting a foothold here. That was a smart move!
I notice a lot of people, mostly but not exclusively women, like to change the fridge, hoover, furniture, kettle, toaster etc every couple of years even if there's nothing wrong with them.
No idea why but probably explains why Dyson don't make their vacuums easy to repair. Not enough users require that functionality.
There's certainly a gap in the market for a toaster that will accept normal sized slices of bread. I've done the market research and everyone wants one but no-one makes one. What's that all about?
walpurgis
18-06-2021, 12:14
There's certainly a gap in the market for a toaster that will accept normal sized slices of bread. I've done the market research and everyone wants one but no-one makes one. What's that all about?
What's normal sized bread here, is not elsewhere. I expect the British market isn't big enough to cater to, although I believe some toasters are OK. The last LIDL one I had was fine.
I am going to introduce one for British bread then, 70 million potential punters, may not be enough of a market for Rowenta or whoever but reckon I'll still sell enough to make a packet. :D
What's normal sized bread here, is not elsewhere. I expect the British market isn't big enough to cater to, although I believe some toasters are OK. The last LIDL one I had was fine.
yes not many do british bread. obviously ours are bigger. Mine is the usual ;do half and turn over. There were the odd one that did whats known as a "warburton loaf slice"
Modern loo's are a good example. Now too low, and the flush only uses half the water, resulting in you having to flush 10 times and thus using 5 times the water and when old you cant reach them... They wanted to change mine; i chased them!!:D
I am going to introduce one for British bread then, 70 million potential punters, may not be enough of a market for Rowenta or whoever but reckon I'll still sell enough to make a packet. :D
i'll back you.;)
Dualit is your friend, accepts ANY slice of bread you like: https://uk.buymeonce.com/products/dualit-2-slot-classic-toaster?_pos=10&_sid=7c420dba8&_ss=r
And before you tightwads (lol) moan about the price, remember that these things are designed to last for a lifetime (i.e. the 'buy me once' tagline), with EVERY part available for replacement/servicing, and all hand-built in the UK!
Why would you buy anything else?:)
(Much) more later...:cool:
Marco.
i currently have a supermarket one. its ok as in it browns ok and takes wide bread; i use cobs. but it has to be toasted from both ends. i dont toast too much tho
Dualit is your friend, accepts ANY slice of bread you like: https://uk.buymeonce.com/products/dualit-2-slot-classic-toaster?_pos=10&_sid=7c420dba8&_ss=r
And before you tightwads (lol) moan about the price, remember that these things are designed to last for a lifetime (i.e. the 'buy me once' tagline), with EVERY part available for replacement/servicing, and all hand-built in the UK!
Why would you buy anything else?:)
(Much) more later...:cool:
Marco.
Can we see some photos proving it can take a proper size slice of bread? I bet that a bit of it still sticks out the top. Nobody wants that.
It's interesting you mention Dyson. I must confess I've always been a bit of a fan. I think their older, mains-powered upright cleaners are brilliant and as the owner of a long haired cat and someone who also recorded one of the highest results ever seen by the local hospital for allergy to house dust when my eczema was tested, I appreciate their cleaning abilities and ferocious suck! I have a DC-07 and a DC-14 and they perform superbly and parts are cheap, plentiful and easy to fit when they are required.
However my recent experience with their HD-01 Supersonic hairdryer has royally pissed me off. It is my wife's and is around 5 years old and last year it began cutting in and out as you wave it around. Now given that I have had to re-terminate the mains leads into the above vacuums a number of times, as they perish where they enter the machines, this is most likely the problem.
However, I was shocked to learn recently that the item is no longer supported by Dyson, repair shops won't touch them as they can't get spares and Dyson could offer me no service information. Never mind, I'm an engineer - I'll have a crack at it myself. However, looking at a "tear-down" video of one on the web, it appears that to take it apart, you have to break it (although, I'm obviously still going to give it a go when I get 5 minutes). What a crap piece of design (or an ingenious one, if you're a conspiracy theorist like Marco! ;))
My email to the UK CEO of Dyson was ignored and so, I'm afraid they have lost me as a customer, although I think they had anyway given their move to battery-operated vacuum cleaners. Our friends have one and it's crap. Definitely a perfect example of newer not being better.
I have never liked Dyson products. They are over-hyped and badly made: the number of Dyson products I see in the electrical products skip at my local recycling centre is testament to that.
Most new electrical/electronic products are deliberately designed not to be repairable. This may be a consequence of cost cutting: the plastic housings are now designed to 'click' together with barbed attachments, so they cannot be opened without damage. This encourages a 'throw away' mentality, and because many of the products are relatively inexpensive, the public are content to go along with it.
H&S have some part to play in this. I worked in a research laboratory, where the mains leads would be regularly PAT tested (along with the calibration of the test and measurement gear). All mains leads which have a moulded-on plug have an indication of when the lead was made and of its recommended lifetime. Regardless of whether it passed the PAT test or not, the lead would be destroyed (by chopping it up into 6" long pieces) if recommended lifetime had been exceeded.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the major audio manufacturers are no longer interested in supporting products older than, say 20 years. They no longer stock the parts, nor are they interested in supplying advice to anyone who feels they can do the work themselves. I'm old enough to remember a time when many electronic products came with a circuit diagram and list of components as part of the user handbook.
I notice a lot of people, mostly but not exclusively women, like to change the fridge, hoover, furniture, kettle, toaster etc every couple of years even if there's nothing wrong with them.
No idea why but probably explains why Dyson don't make their vacuums easy to repair. Not enough users require that functionality.
There's certainly a gap in the market for a toaster that will accept normal sized slices of bread. I've done the market research and everyone wants one but no-one makes one. What's that all about?
I toast my bread under a grill and do the same with crumpets. I don't have a toaster as that would clutter up the kitchen work surface. Have even retired the coffee maker, as I find using a mokka pot makes better coffee and is just as quick.
I toast my bread under a grill and do the same with crumpets. I don't have a toaster as that would clutter up the kitchen work surface. Have even retired the coffee maker, as I find using a mokka pot makes better coffee and is just as quick.
I got one of those mini-oven things so I use the grill on that. Takes longer than the toaster though and you have to watch it or it gets overdone.
I like my toast rare. Rare but not cold.
https://i.ibb.co/PtjnNb0/kilgore.png (https://ibb.co/XVLgbdM)
I got one of those mini-oven things so I use the grill on that. Takes longer than the toaster though and you have to watch it or it gets overdone.
I like my toast rare. Rare but not cold.
That is the whole point - I can watch how the bread is browning and take it out when it's toasted the way I like it. Admittedly it takes twice as long, as you have to toast each side. But I find the toast settings on all toasters I have tried to be unreliable - so you have to eject the bread to see how well it has toasted, as well as having to put it back upside down so as to toast all of the bread.
That is the whole point - I can watch how the bread is browning and take it out when it's toasted the way I like it. Admittedly it takes twice as long, as you have to toast each side. But I find the toast settings on all toasters I have tried to be unreliable - so you have to eject the bread to see how well it has toasted, as well as having to put it back upside down so as to toast all of the bread.
Yes, and my toaster will solve all these issues. Plus if you move it around crumbs won't pour out of the bottom either.
Yes, and my toaster will solve all these issues. Plus if you move it around crumbs won't pour out of the bottom either.
Another bugbear of mine. :doh:
None of those things happen with the Dualit... Firstly, it has a crumb drawer on the base, which catches all the crumbs, and slides in and out for easy cleaning. When you move the toaster about, no crumbs ever spill out.
Secondly, the toast settings are very reliable, have a good range (from light to very dark toasting), and the colour is always very even on the bread.
Martin, I can take a pic if you like, but as I don't eat cack British sliced 'pan loaf';) I'm not sure how useful it'll be to you. We buy sliced bread from the local Polish deli, which is much better quality and has a distinctive crust.
However. in terms of 'height'. which I think is what you're referring to, i.e. whether or not the slices of bread sit flush with the top of the toaster when inserted inside, in comparison, with 'British bread', the slices of which might be longer, I don't know, although there is no issue with the Polish sliced we use:)
In all respects it's a superb toaster, built like a brick outhouse (oozes quality), very reliable, easy to use and produces very good and consistent results.
Marco.
None of those things happen with the Dualit... Firstly, it has a crumb drawer on the base, which catches all the crumbs, and slides in and out for easy cleaning. When you move the toaster about, no crumbs ever spill out.
Secondly, the toast settings are very reliable, have a good range (from light to very dark toasting), and the colour is always very even on the bread.
Martin, I can take a pic if you like, but as I don't eat cack British sliced 'pan loaf';) I'm not sure how useful it'll be to you. We buy sliced bread from the local Polish deli, which is much better quality and has a distinctive crust.
However. in terms of 'height'. which I think is what you're referring to, i.e. whether or not the slices of bread sit flush with the top of the toaster when inserted inside, in comparison, with 'British bread', the slices of which might be longer, I don't know, although there is no issue with the Polish sliced we use:)
In all respects it's a superb toaster, built like a brick outhouse (oozes quality), very reliable, easy to use and produces very good and consistent results.
Marco.
Yeah you see posh bread is a whole different thing. Round here you can have a blue loaf or a red loaf. Red is thick and blue is really thick. And the slices are normal size not like Nimble or those Danish loaves.
So even if it ticks all the other boxes if you can't fit the bread in then it's a fail.
Pigmy Pony
18-06-2021, 19:53
That is the whole point - I can watch how the bread is browning and take it out when it's toasted the way I like it. Admittedly it takes twice as long, as you have to toast each side. But I find the toast settings on all toasters I have tried to be unreliable - so you have to eject the bread to see how well it has toasted, as well as having to put it back upside down so as to toast all of the bread.
I would like one of those toasters you see in hotel restaurants where the bread trundles along under the heating elements like Thunderbird 2 going to its launch pad. Takes two or three passes to get it sufficiently brown, while the queue of guests behind you tut loudly. But they do take up a lot of space.
I would like one of those toasters you see in hotel restaurants where the bread trundles along under the heating elements like Thunderbird 2 going to its launch pad. Takes two or three passes to get it sufficiently brown, while the queue of guests behind you tut loudly. But they do take up a lot of space.
You know I stayed in a four star hotel in Nottingham and they expected you to make your own toast on one of those things. £120 a night? I want my toast made for me.
I mean isn't that the idea of a hotel? A place where someone else does everything for you? I can stay in my own house and make my own breakfast for nothing.
No-one else seemed to mind of course. They didn't even have any butter out just margarine, I asked for butter and the bird points to the margarine. Sorry but you work the breakfast shift at a 4 star hotel you need to know the difference between butter and margarine at the very least.
okay footies back on.
Yeah you see posh bread is a whole different thing. Round here you can have a blue loaf or a red loaf. Red is thick and blue is really thick. And the slices are normal size not like Nimble or those Danish loaves.
So even if it ticks all the other boxes if you can't fit the bread in then it's a fail.
Ok, I'll buy some 'shite' bread next time I'm at the supermarket, just for a test (I can always use it to make melba toast for pate), and we'll see what happens. Will take a pic:)
Btw, there's nothing posh about the Polish bread we buy. Just good quality bread, with a crust. It's not any dearer than probably anything you buy.
Marco..
Pigmy Pony
18-06-2021, 20:19
Ok, I'll buy some 'shite' bread next time I'm at the supermarket, just for a test (I can always use it to make melba toast for pate), and we'll see what happens. Will take a pic:)
Btw, there's nothing posh about the Polish bread we buy. Just good quality bread, with a crust. It's not any dearer than probably anything you buy.
Marco..
So posh.
Pigmy Pony
18-06-2021, 20:22
You know I stayed in a four star hotel in Nottingham and they expected you to make your own toast on one of those things. £120 a night? I want my toast made for me.
I mean isn't that the idea of a hotel? A place where someone else does everything for you? I can stay in my own house and make my own breakfast for nothing.
No-one else seemed to mind of course. They didn't even have any butter out just margarine, I asked for butter and the bird points to the margarine. Sorry but you work the breakfast shift at a 4 star hotel you need to know the difference between butter and margarine at the very least.
okay footies back on.
See there's the thing - you need 5 star for real butter. Good thing you didn't go three star, you have to bring your own bread.
So posh.
Lol - how so?:D
And what I mean by that is how is the Polish bread I buy posh?
Marco.
Lol - how so?:D
And what I mean by that is how is the Polish bread I buy posh?
Marco.
It;s ethnic so it's posh. Plus I bet a loaf of it doesn't last two weeks before it goes bad. You can easy get that from red bread.
We do have a bakery that does 'proper' bread but it changed hands a couple of years back and now it only opens about 3 hours a week, a bit like in France.
Lol@ it's ethnic so it's posh.. Erm, no!:D
I'll leave you to enjoy bread that's two weeks old... :eek:
Anyway, here's the pertinent question: if I show you a pic of ordinary white UK bread fitting properly for toasting inside the Dualit, will you buy one?
Marco.
I can't I'm supposed to be saving for retirement. That's why I'm eating two week old bread.
I'd still like to know if it fits though. I bet it doesn't.
You know I stayed in a four star hotel in Nottingham and they expected you to make your own toast on one of those things. £120 a night? I want my toast made for me.
I mean isn't that the idea of a hotel? A place where someone else does everything for you? I can stay in my own house and make my own breakfast for nothing.
No-one else seemed to mind of course. They didn't even have any butter out just margarine, I asked for butter and the bird points to the margarine. Sorry but you work the breakfast shift at a 4 star hotel you need to know the difference between butter and margarine at the very least.
I'm guessing it was a chain/corporate type hotel, and not privately owned?
Marco.
I can't I'm supposed to be saving for retirement. That's why I'm eating two week old bread.
I'd still like to know if it fits though. I bet it doesn't.
Ha - very good! Anyway, I'll let you know if it fits:)
Marco.
I'm guessing it was a chain/corporate type hotel, and not privately owned?
Marco.
Yes it was a chain but I'd never heard of them before.
Not to be left out, I have a Russell Hobbs four slice toaster, it has crumb trays, and the variable time is quite good giving repeatable results, but the bread I buy, wholemeal organic from the health shop does protrude a little. It does last well though, and will still be quite acceptable after 2.5 weeks as toast.
Can we do kettles now?
Yes it was a chain but I'd never heard of them before.
I thought so, and doesn't surprise me, as that's generally what happens in those places, as they're geared up for business meetings and such like more than anything else, where they'll hardly see the same customers twice, so self-service buffet thing is often used, as it suits both parties.
However, it's why we don't touch those places with a bargepole, as they're totally soulless and, as you've pointed out, also overpriced. Next time you go anywhere like that, my advice is to do a little research beforehand, and search under something like 'Privately owned hotels in [wherever]', then check out the reviews of whatever comes up on Tripadvisor, and pick the place you think has the best overall reviews.
In general though, the better privately owned establishments focus more on good customer service and are warmer and friendlier [less impersonal] than chains, often cheaper, too!
Marco.
Can we do kettles now?
If you want. I've got a Pulsar and two fake Rolexes, what about you?
I thought so, and doesn't surprise me, as that's generally what happens in those places, as they're geared up for business meetings and such like more than anything else, where they'll hardly see the same customers twice, so self-service buffet thing is often used, as it suits both parties.
However, it's why we don't touch those places with a bargepole, as they're totally soulless and, as you've pointed out, also overpriced. Next time you go anywhere like that, my advice is to do a little research beforehand, and search under something like 'Privately owned hotels in [wherever]', then check out the reviews of whatever comes up on Tripadvisor, and pick the place you think has the best overall reviews.
In general though, the better privately owned establishments focus more on good customer service and are warmer and friendlier [less impersonal] than chains.
Marco.
There wasn't that much choice, it was outskirts of Nottingham. There was a pool and a spa and a gym though, all the stuff I'm never going to use.
Not keen on the family run places, I don't like the lack of anonymity.
Not to be left out, I have a Russell Hobbs four slice toaster, it has crumb trays, and the variable time is quite good giving repeatable results, but the bread I buy, wholemeal organic from the health shop does protrude a little. It does last well though, and will still be quite acceptable after 2.5 weeks as toast.
Can we do kettles now?
Yeah, what have you got?:D
We use one of these: https://barsleys.co.uk/stellar-glass-kettle-17l/p5748
It's superb and very well made. The glass lights up blue, when it's on, which is quite cool. However, when that one goes pop, we're going to get one of these to match our espresso coffee maker: https://www.ecookshop.co.uk/ecookshop/product.asp?pid=KLF04RDUK
Marco.
There wasn't that much choice, it was outskirts of Nottingham. There was a pool and a spa and a gym though, all the stuff I'm never going to use.
Not keen on the family run places, I don't like the lack of anonymity.
Lol - we are just so different!:D
Anonymity is the LAST thing we (Del or I) would want. We hate cold and impersonal places, and instead quite like talking to other people and being made to feel welcome, valued and at 'home' by our hosts, but in a nice way!:cool:
Marco.
I would like one of those toasters you see in hotel restaurants where the bread trundles along under the heating elements like Thunderbird 2 going to its launch pad. Takes two or three passes to get it sufficiently brown, while the queue of guests behind you tut loudly. But they do take up a lot of space.
Yes, and turn your back for a moment and some bugger nicks your toast which is brown enough for him/her. :doh:
Pigmy Pony
19-06-2021, 06:49
Yes, and turn your back for a moment and some bugger nicks your toast which is brown enough for him/her. :doh:
Oh no, we always have a sentry (myself or Mrs. P), the toast is not left unattended. You do get some guests who'll abandon their toast mid-trundle while they go and get some fruit juice. They deserve to lose it for being so disorganised.
Pigmy Pony
19-06-2021, 06:54
Lol - we are just so different!:D
Anonymity is the LAST thing we (Del or I) would want. We hate cold and impersonal places, and instead quite like talking to other people and being made to feel welcome, valued and at 'home' by our hosts, but in a nice way!:cool:
Marco.
What, you out and about and happily mingling with the great unwashed? I'll believe that when I see it on You Tube :)
Oh and Fawlty Towers was a privately owned hotel. Just sayin'.
Ha - very good! Anyway, I'll let you know if it fits:)
Marco.
try a big warburtons loaf.. thats the gold standard sizing:eyebrows: the thick one makes decent toast
Pigmy Pony
19-06-2021, 06:54
Lol - we are just so different!:D
Anonymity is the LAST thing we (Del or I) would want. We hate cold and impersonal places, and instead quite like talking to other people and being made to feel welcome, valued and at 'home' by our hosts, but in a nice way!:cool:
Marco.
What, you out and about and happily mingling with the great unwashed? I'll believe that when I see it on You Tube :)
Oh and Fawlty Towers was a privately owned hotel. Just sayin'. And Bates Motel too.
What, you out and about and happily mingling with the great unwashed? I'll believe that when I see it on You Tube :)
Oh and Fawlty Towers was a privately owned hotel. Just sayin'.
i dont frequent hotels really. when i have, the best i was in was a little best western in hamburg. great service and nice place. could be as cosy or distant as you wanted
https://www.homeessentials.co.uk/shop/breville-vtt570-warburtons-2-slice-stainless-steel-toaster/GF548/product/details/show.action?pdBoUid=4018&optionColour=&optionSize=&promo=6202&cm_mmc=GOOGLE-_-HomeEssentials_-na-_-PRODUCT_GROUP&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=CjwKCAjwq7aGBhADEiwA6uGZpxlrAeQMiFzLwfhTwYjT-MaG-0t3KvjZQPjMvAr7h8qmEGdovZEEdxoCL3YQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
hear you go martin. breville.. do a 2 and 4 slice.
https://youtu.be/5EfciJqJbNc
That's not bad but there's still about a quarter of an inch at the top of the bread that's still raw.
That's not bad but there's still about a quarter of an inch at the top of the bread that's still raw.
dont knit pick :ner:
What, you out and about and happily mingling with the great unwashed? I'll believe that when I see it on You Tube :)
Oh and Fawlty Towers was a privately owned hotel. Just sayin'.
Ha - and we've been in a few belters like that too, where [after a massive argument] I nearly ended up punching the owner, for the sheer incompetence of him and his staff, and the inedible 'food' !
However, generally, we've had good (or great) experiences at top-notch privately run establishments (and here I mainly mean country house hotels), which are blissfully free from chavs or the lower orders:lol:;)
Del, in particular, likes to be pampered/made to feel special, so there are only certain places I'd take her to, or she'd even agree to going to in the first place!:D
Marco.
That's not bad but there's still about a quarter of an inch at the top of the bread that's still raw.
Cut a quarter inch off the bottom, before popping it in. Job done!:D;)
Marco.
If you want. I've got a Pulsar and two fake Rolexes, what about you?
That domain is a special one; watches are a unique domain in which they are almost entirely about vanity. A £3 digital can do the functioning to high accuracy, but we shun that in favour of aesthetics, the magic behind the glass, and yes I am guilty. I have a Seiko titanium solar, which I never wear, but love, and a Casio G Shock in case of WW3, which I never wear because I have managed to program my mind's clock sufficiently well.
Martin, I have a Russell Hobbs from a charity shop for £3 which goes on and on, but which my audiologist friend criticised for having a small dent. It replaced an identical one which failed repeatedly and was sent back. The head of complaints let me into a little secret about Hi-Fi; "If your system is noisy, place a glass of water in front of the tweeter, and it will get rid of it". You have to laugh - or cry, that such a person gets into a senior technical position.
If you want. I've got a Pulsar and two fake Rolexes, what about you?
I didn't know Pulsar or Rolex made kettles. :lol:
That domain is a special one; watches are a unique domain in which they are almost entirely about vanity
True but then you could argue the same about clothes, haircuts, having a beard or moustache and so on.
I've found in business people will check out your watch and make judgements about you based solely on that, could mean the difference between landing a big sale or contract or not. When it comes down to putting food on the table it's foolish to disregard these things as not mattering.
Some women will also use the 'watch check' as one of their parameters in selecting a mate. Humans no different to peacocks in some respects ;)
walpurgis
19-06-2021, 09:20
I've found in business people will check out your watch and make judgements about you based solely on that
I don't wear one. Let them ponder that! :)
True but then you could argue the same about clothes, haircuts, having a beard or moustache and so on.
I've found in business people will check out your watch and make judgements about you based solely on that, could mean the difference between landing a big sale or contract or not. When it comes down to putting food on the table it's foolish to disregard these things as not mattering.
Some women will also use the 'watch check' as one of their parameters in selecting a mate. Humans no different to peacocks in some respects ;)
Good post Martin. :)
ive always been type that if a woman is attracted to a fancy watch etc, then she is not my type i guess. excessively fancy car too. Dont get me wrong i understand the reason why but im not a gold digger or interested in digging one up;)
Business wise, well i cant really comment but it may well be true; thay do say tho that first impressions count.
probably why im poor:D
ive always been type that if a woman is attracted to a fancy watch etc, then she is not my type i guess. excessively fancy car too...
Me, too... Materialistic, superficial shite! I get where Martin's coming from in business, as I've encountered the same, but that's a totally different environment. However, if a woman judged me like that then she'd be kicked into touch before she could say Gucci loafers!:door:
Hey, I guess I managed to pull someone 'not bad', and hold onto them for 25 years, without wearing a fancy watch on the first date?;)
Marco.
Btw, just to be clear... I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with wearing a nice watch, far from it, but rather that I wouldn't entertain ANY female who in the wrong way viewed it as a status symbol. If you want to portray an image of class or good breeding/sophistication, not simply be a show off, then it needs to be done in the right way
Far more important in any case, IME, is to be well groomed and dressed, be polite, have manners/class, and know how to treat a woman/have a good sense of humour/be able to make her relax, which ultimately will go down far better on a first date than any fancy watch:)
Marco.
Btw, just to be clear... I'm not saying that there's anything wrong about wearing a nice watch, far from it, but rather that I wouldn't entertain ANY female who in the wrong way viewed it as a status symbol. I you want to portray an image of class or good breeding, not simply be a show off, then it needs to be done in the right way
Far more important, IME, to be clean and well dressed, be polite, have manners and know how to treat a woman/have a good sense of humour/be able to make them relax, which ultimately will go down far better than any fancy watch:)
Marco.
This is all true but the watch thing is not necessarily a calculated conclusion on the woman's part. You can't decide to be attracted to someone, you either are or you're not and it's going to depend on a host of factors that are not necessarily consciously processed.
Biologically, women are programmed to obtain the best mate possible, the right watch is just one indicator that the prospective mate may be successful and capeable, plus having good and discerning taste too. It's not just going to attract gold diggers or 'shallow' people.
Sure, I agree, but for me, based on my experience at least, it's of limited and superficial importance, and likely only valid up until you open your mouth and she judges what comes out!;)
Marco.
Sure, I agree, but for me, based on my experience at least, it's of limited and superficial importance, and likely only valid until you open your mouth and she judges what comes out!;)
Marco.
lol - but remember that you may/ probably will be in competition with other males, it could still be the thing that tips the balance.
I don't wear one. Let them ponder that! :)
It was your cock ring that sealed it, though:D
Marco.
lol - but remember that you may/ probably will be in competition with other males, it could still be the thing that tips the balance.
Then if that's the case, she's not worth it and I'll look elsewhere. Trust me, I've never had any problem attracting women, so as they say, there's plenty other fish in the sea;)
Marco.
Then if it is, she's not worth it and I'll look elsewhere. Trust me, I've never had any problem attracting women, so as they say, there's plenty other fish in the sea;)
Marco.
we're not talking about you specifically but the species behaviour in general. Like I said these things are not necessarily conscious influencers but they still influence everyone.
I don't disagree, but my point is, if ultimately she cares about that more than ME/who I am, then she's simply not worth it. So yes, an 'influencer', perhaps, but I'd like to think that my nice personality/kind nature would grossly outweigh whatever she initially thought of my watch!:)
Marco.
Hair and clothes are arguably more directly a part of our personal presentation than a watch, which has a separate function and is an additional tool.
I would rather be judged on my character, personality, sensitivity and culture, than on my material acquisitions, and which I've never given pre-eminence to, but this is seemingly the opposite of current bling culture.
ATM I am getting numerous Emails from girls instructing me to look at their pictures, whereas I think that, intimacy, should come later, after social interaction.
With regard to first impressions, which have been touted as foremost in most things for a few decades, there are apparently two types of thinking, fast and slow.
The fast is our instinctual automatic response, and the slow is the analytical data processing conscious self, with which we try to verify. Old saying; "Appearances can be deceptive". It is the relationship of the chosen appearance to the mind of a person which is crucial; "That which is essential is invisible to the eye".
walpurgis
19-06-2021, 11:58
lol - but remember that you may/ probably will be in competition with other males, it could still be the thing that tips the balance.
I didn't bother competing with other blokes. I could always tell when females were interested and it wasn't unknown for them to drop heavy hints or chat me up. My wife was one of the lucky contenders. (not sure I'll ever forgive her :lol:)
Pigmy Pony
19-06-2021, 12:25
https://www.homeessentials.co.uk/shop/breville-vtt570-warburtons-2-slice-stainless-steel-toaster/GF548/product/details/show.action?pdBoUid=4018&optionColour=&optionSize=&promo=6202&cm_mmc=GOOGLE-_-HomeEssentials_-na-_-PRODUCT_GROUP&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=CjwKCAjwq7aGBhADEiwA6uGZpxlrAeQMiFzLwfhTwYjT-MaG-0t3KvjZQPjMvAr7h8qmEGdovZEEdxoCL3YQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
hear you go martin. breville.. do a 2 and 4 slice.
https://youtu.be/5EfciJqJbNc
:eek: That is uncanny! Unable to post pics (and unwilling to learn), I was going to WhatsApp a pic of my toaster to Martin, which is... a Breville 4 slice* toaster. Exactly the same as yours. And I was going to include in pic some Warburtons thick sliced bread. Which gets full coverage.
*Half of our toaster recently packed up, so now it's a rather bulky 2 slice one.
Pigmy Pony
19-06-2021, 12:39
Btw, just to be clear... I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with wearing a nice watch, far from it, but rather that I wouldn't entertain ANY female who in the wrong way viewed it as a status symbol. If you want to portray an image of class or good breeding/sophistication, not simply be a show off, then it needs to be done in the right way
Far more important in any case, IME, is to be well groomed and dressed, be polite, have manners/class, and know how to treat a woman/have a good sense of humour/be able to make her relax, which ultimately will go down far better on a first date than any fancy watch:)
Marco.
I find a balled-up sock down my pants helps :)
When (hopefully not for a while) the other half does, buy a Dualit, which will last for a lifetime:)
Marco [not a shill for Dualit].
Pigmy Pony
19-06-2021, 12:44
Then if that's the case, she's not worth it and I'll look elsewhere. Trust me, I've never had any problem attracting women, so as they say, there's plenty other fish in the sea;)
Marco.
Well most women like the bloke to have a bit of humility. So how on earth did you get round that one :ner:
I find a balled-up sock down my pants helps :)
Only if she's a size queen;)
A mate did that once in holiday, by stuffing a sock down his trunks, unfortunately though when he came out the water, the 'ball' had slipped and shifted to the back of his arse. When he got out the water, some passing girls shrieked, as they thought he'd shat himself.
Marco.
Pigmy Pony
19-06-2021, 12:47
I don't disagree, but my point is, if ultimately she cares about that more than ME/who I am, then she's simply not worth it. So yes, an 'influencer', perhaps, but I'd like to think that my nice personality/kind nature would grossly outweigh whatever she initially thought of my willy!:)
Marco.
Now we're getting to what you hope birds are really attracted to :D
Well most women like the bloke to have a bit of humility. So how on earth did you get round that one :ner:
Lol, and I do. Just stating facts though, as I've never struggled. And that's not because I'm particularly good looking (even though in my yoof I was a 'boybander', lol), but because I'm a charming bastard and generally know what women like!;)
Marco.
I always let the women do the chatting up;)
It was a cool, novel and overly clever idea:D
Now we're getting to what you hope birds are really attracted to :D
Haha - I'm making no comment though on what sealed it for Del:lol:
Marco.
Beobloke
19-06-2021, 12:49
All I can say is that I’m greatly relieved that Ursula clearly doesn’t evaluate partners based on their personality, otherwise I’d have been stuffed.
I can only assume that it was my turntable collection and encyclopaedic knowledge of the Range Rover Classic that attracted her.
;)
When (hopefully not for a while) the other half does, buy a Dualit, which will last for a lifetime:)
Marco [not a shill for Dualit].
may buy a new one eventually. but not til next year at earliest.... saving at moment. in case when i meet Princess she wants CHIPS!!!:)
I always let the women do the chatting up;)
It was a cool, novel and overly clever idea:D
They'd have to fancy you first, though... TBH, I've never really 'chatted up' anyone, just always talked to girls and been myself, and they either liked that or they didn't.
The thing was, unlike a lot of blokes, I was never afraid of knock backs (and I had a few). Didn't phase me one iota, as my view was always nothing ventured, nothing gained/what's the worst that could happen? And I certainly wasn't shy or lacking in confidence!:lol:
Marco.
Pigmy Pony
19-06-2021, 12:58
Lol, and I do. Just stating facts though, as I've never struggled. And that's not because I'm particularly good looking (even though in my yoof I was a 'boybander', lol), but because I'm a charming bastard and generally know what women like!;)
Marco.
I suppose if you genuinely think you are not bragging you may just get away with it :)
may buy a new one eventually. but not til next year at earliest.... saving at moment. in case when i meet Princess she wants CHIPS!!!:)
Lol..! Aye, you'll need to save up if you visit and offer to take her to Chester or Liverpool shopping (if it's a nice day and I'm busy, and she's BORED), as she'll run both you and your credit card ragged:D
Certainly avoid shoe shops at ALL costs...!
Marco,
I suppose if you genuinely think you are not bragging you may just get away with it :)
Lol... I have one golden rule: just BE yourself and be honest, then let fate take care of the rest! Anything else (especially pretending to be someone or something you're not), tends to come back and bite you on the arse.
Marco.
All I can say is that I’m greatly relieved that Ursula clearly doesn’t evaluate partners based on their personality, otherwise I’d have been stuffed.
I can only assume that it was my turntable collection and encyclopaedic knowledge of the Range Rover Classic that attracted her.
;)
Aye, that'll be it:D
Correct me if I'm wrong though, dunno why, but I get the impression Ursula's a bit of a princess, like Del. So if you were able to handle that to her satisfaction, that's probably why she 'okayed the deal', as she thought you'd be up for the job!;)
Marco.
Lol..! Aye, you'll need to save up if you visit and offer to take her to Chester or Liverpool shopping (if it's a nice day and I'm busy, and she's BORED), as she'll run both you and your credit card ragged:D
Certainly avoid shoe shops at ALL costs...!
Marco,
she will have a hard time. i dont have a credit card...
Lol... Hide your wallet then, or say you left it at home!:D
I try that sometimes, and you can probably guess what the outcome is...;)
Marco.
if we go anywhere it will be with your wallet:eyebrows: mine isnt worth a bean... might buy chips tho
Lol - I'm yanking yer chain... She'd just be happy in your company mate [and I'm sure you'll enjoy hers], although chips and ice cream always helps!:eyebrows:
Marco.
I could always stand on a street corner like this to earn the cash...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/82fcfa7f698183e0a59878bcf071799c63d63967.jpg
For reasons expressed earlier I had no confidence with women, and had some very unpleasant experiences.
Before Bowie adopted his (Ziggy?, the one with his painted facial Z), hairstyle, I had it, of my own creating, and in a pub in Bexley a girl came up to me, stroked it and said "I wouldn't be seen dead in that".
Later on another girl came up to me at a party and said, "Where did they dig you up from?"
You can see that I was quite popular
Before Bowie adopted his (Ziggy?, the one with his painted facial Z), hairstyle, I had it, of my own creating, and in a pub in Bexley a girl came up to me, stroked it...
Shame she didn't stroke something else;)
However, I feel for you, although some girls like the shy type, especially MILFs who often like to cuckold or dominate:eyebrows:
Marco.
For reasons expressed earlier I had no confidence with women, and had some very unpleasant experiences.
Before Bowie adopted his (Ziggy?, the one with his painted facial Z), hairstyle, I had it, of my own creating, and in a pub in Bexley a girl came up to me, stroked it and said "I wouldn't be seen dead in that".
Later on another girl came up to me at a party and said, "Where did they dig you up from?"
You can see that I was quite popular
not all women are like that, although such a strange haircut is bound to be the butt of potential scorn at any time; but more so in 70's.
Women are very much different to men; it helps if you can think like they do(to a point obviously)
Look at furniture and then discuss where they can be placed in a room etc (Apu, The Simpsons) ps that like was a joke line, but talking about the meaning of life or stuff like that isnt gonna go down well with 99% of women.:)
You use the same technique as for sales. You ask questions, you listen to the answers, you ask follow-up questions. With most women there won't be any need to talk about yourself at all.
The worst thing is when you do all the talking and don't know when to LISTEN!;)
Marco.
Women are very much different to men; it helps if you can think like they do(to a point obviously)
Too true, and I think I've embraced that notion reasonably well:eyebrows:;)
Marco.
Too true, and I think I've embraced that notion reasonably well:eyebrows:;)
Marco.
your improving for sure :) strange but wonderful creatures(well, some of them);) youve a good un though... just needs a lot of work:ner:
Pigmy Pony
19-06-2021, 15:43
Asking lots of questions (but not like an interrogation, it's a fine line) and be interested in what they have to say always worked ok for me, and long before it was commonly known. I didn't know this at the time, it's just how I was. But if you're genuinely not interested it probably won't work, you can't easily fake that.
your improving for sure :) strange but wonderful creatures(well, some of them);) youve a good un though... just needs a lot of work:ner:
Lol, indeed... As they say though, nothing worth having comes easy!:eek::D
Seriously though, as we've discussed before, I'm bloody lucky.
Marco.
I was on a train years ago and there was this Canadian Special Forces bloke trying to chat up an air-hostess type by telling her his war stories. He was completely oblivious to the fact that the woman was simultaneously bored and embarrassed.
If there's a woman who wants to know about the optimal way to deploy a .50 calibre machine gun I've yet to meet her.
Lol, indeed... As they say though, nothing worth having comes easy!:eek::D
Seriously though, as we've discussed before, I'm bloody lucky.
Marco.
indeed, if i were 20 years younger and a million quid richer i would be helping you to your grave:eyebrows:
na, only joking.... i prefer being friends
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.