On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, jrsnfld wrote:
> On Nov 12, 1:32 pm, Al Eisner <eis...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012, jrsnfld wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 12:00 pm, Steve Thompson <s...@vgersoft.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012, jrsnfld wrote:
>>>>> But to find that you have a CD you didn't know you had is to
>>>>> experience the joy of discovery and procurement yet again!
>>>> I have been to the store and bought a CD that I simply had to have, only
>>>> to find out later that I already had it.
>>> Consider it a sign of your mental acuity: you came to the same logical
>>> conclusion in two independent situations.
>>> I have been to the store and rejected buying a CD because it didn't
>>> seem necessary, only to find out later that I had it anyway. I have
>>> also returned a CD that I thought I'd errantly bought twice, only to
>>> find out later that I hadn't bought it twice, so I ended up with no
>>> copies of it at all.
>> It's just Murphy's Law: anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
>> Re. your earlier message (quoted above), are you suggesting that people
>> with Alzheimer's are the happiest people in the world? (And thus that
>> Barbra Streisand was wrong?)
> I don't remember saying that....
An extrapolation from what you did say -- poetic license or something. :)
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, jrsnfld wrote:
> > On Nov 12, 1:32 pm, Al Eisner <eis...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012, jrsnfld wrote:
> >>> On Nov 9, 12:00 pm, Steve Thompson <s...@vgersoft.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012, jrsnfld wrote:
> >>>>> But to find that you have a CD you didn't know you had is to
> >>>>> experience the joy of discovery and procurement yet again!
> >>>> I have been to the store and bought a CD that I simply had to have, only
> >>>> to find out later that I already had it.
> >>> Consider it a sign of your mental acuity: you came to the same logical
> >>> conclusion in two independent situations.
> >>> I have been to the store and rejected buying a CD because it didn't
> >>> seem necessary, only to find out later that I had it anyway. I have
> >>> also returned a CD that I thought I'd errantly bought twice, only to
> >>> find out later that I hadn't bought it twice, so I ended up with no
> >>> copies of it at all.
> >> It's just Murphy's Law: anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
> >> Re. your earlier message (quoted above), are you suggesting that people
> >> with Alzheimer's are the happiest people in the world? (And thus that
> >> Barbra Streisand was wrong?)
> > I don't remember saying that....
> An extrapolation from what you did say -- poetic license or something. :)
> [But I did mess up the Streisand connection.]
The Streisand reference blew right by me...what do expect from someone
who can't remember what he wrote five minutes ago?
But if there is a class of people who are the "luckiest people in the
world," surely they are the people to whom we give all those duplicate
CDs we buy by mistake!
On Nov 7, 12:03 pm, weary flake <wearyfl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> American Record Guide in the November issue suggests on
> page 49 that most of us have at least 3000 CDs, that
> seems to be the minimum among their writers and readers.
> Do you own enough, or are you dangerously underwhelmed?
You should post this question on
rec.music.gdead
and see the responses.
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 5:25:06 PM UTC-8, randy...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 9:03:30 AM UTC-8, weary flake wrote:
> > American Record Guide in the November issue suggests on
> > page 49 that most of us have at least 3000 CDs, that
> > seems to be the minimum among their writers and readers.
> > Do you own enough, or are you dangerously underwhelmed?
> I certainly own more than enough.
> Does that mean I will stop buying more. Probably not.
The postman delivered 33 more today - The Eric La Sage Schumann set (13), the Philips Jean Guillou Live Bach recordings from 1999 (12), and an 8 CD Accord set of works by Lully cvonducted by Hugo Reyne.
And the Cortot Edition (40 CDs) is still in transit.
Will I ever stop? I suppose when my ears deteriorate enough.
yoker <yoke...@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following letters to be typed in news:3367262c-bb37-42fd-8b06-987e727c0985
@l7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 7, 12:03 pm, weary flake <wearyfl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> American Record Guide in the November issue suggests on page 49 that most
>> of us have at least 3000 CDs, that seems to be the minimum among their
>> writers and readers. Do you own enough, or are you dangerously
>> underwhelmed?
> You should post this question on
> rec.music.gdead
> and see the responses.
Deadheads would probably understand completely why some of us might have, say, twelve different Furtwängler Beethoven 9ths.
-- Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
Beautiful! We've never done (or had done) any custom work like that. I use ready-made floorstanding shelf units for most of my collection, about 5000 of them. Here's about half of it, in our "breakfast room" which we never actually eat in:
This is the "Nordic/Baltic section": the left rack contains mostly Finns, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians, and the right rack contains Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, and Icelanders. Probably about 3/4 of the discs are in Case Logic sleeves to save space.
The rest of the collection is in two other rooms of the house, with the "mainstream European" countries in the living room (Germany/Austria, France, Russia...)
> Beautiful! We've never done (or had done) any custom work like that. I
> use ready-made floorstanding shelf units for most of my collection,
> about 5000 of them. Here's about half of it, in our "breakfast room"
> which we never actually eat in:
> This is the "Nordic/Baltic section": the left rack contains mostly
> Finns, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians, and the right rack contains
> Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, and Icelanders. Probably about 3/4 of the
> discs are in Case Logic sleeves to save space.
> The rest of the collection is in two other rooms of the house, with the
> "mainstream European" countries in the living room (Germany/Austria,
> France, Russia...)
This reminds me of the listening room at The University of the South,
which is lined with custom shelving hosting a fairly good sized
private collection that was recently donated to the school: something
approaching 10,000 CDs and at least that many LPs as well. Here's one
picture of the shelves for CDs:
> yoker <yoke...@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following letters to be
> typed in news:3367262c-bb37-42fd-8b06-987e727c0985
> @l7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
> > On Nov 7, 12:03 pm, weary flake <wearyfl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> American Record Guide in the November issue suggests on page 49 that most
> >> of us have at least 3000 CDs, that seems to be the minimum among their
> >> writers and readers. Do you own enough, or are you dangerously
> >> underwhelmed?
> > You should post this question on
> > rec.music.gdead
> > and see the responses.
> Deadheads would probably understand completely why some of us might have,
> say, twelve different Furtw ngler Beethoven 9ths.
But would they understand that we paid real money for them in a store,
or maybe online, instead of swapped--by handing a few ounces of
substances to the bootleggers who camped out in a VW bus behind the
Philharmonie?
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, jrsnfld wrote:
> > On Nov 12, 1:32 pm, Al Eisner <eis...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012, jrsnfld wrote:
> >>> On Nov 9, 12:00 pm, Steve Thompson <s...@vgersoft.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012, jrsnfld wrote:
> >>>>> But to find that you have a CD you didn't know you had is to
> >>>>> experience the joy of discovery and procurement yet again!
> >>>> I have been to the store and bought a CD that I simply had to have, only
> >>>> to find out later that I already had it.
> >>> Consider it a sign of your mental acuity: you came to the same logical
> >>> conclusion in two independent situations.
> >>> I have been to the store and rejected buying a CD because it didn't
> >>> seem necessary, only to find out later that I had it anyway. I have
> >>> also returned a CD that I thought I'd errantly bought twice, only to
> >>> find out later that I hadn't bought it twice, so I ended up with no
> >>> copies of it at all.
> >> It's just Murphy's Law: anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
> >> Re. your earlier message (quoted above), are you suggesting that people
> >> with Alzheimer's are the happiest people in the world? (And thus that
> >> Barbra Streisand was wrong?)
> > I don't remember saying that....
> An extrapolation from what you did say -- poetic license or something. :)
Your putative license may soon be revoked (though not by me, I'm
unqualified and I'll probably forget anyway). So just get a few
duplicates...
> On Nov 13, 7:43 pm, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oy @earthlink.net> wrote:
>> yoker <yoke...@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following letters
>> to be typed in news:3367262c-bb37-42fd-8b06-987e727c0985
>> @l7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
>> > On Nov 7, 12:03 pm, weary flake <wearyfl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> American Record Guide in the November issue suggests on page 49 that
>> >> most of us have at least 3000 CDs, that seems to be the minimum among
>> >> their writers and readers. Do you own enough, or are you dangerously
>> >> underwhelmed?
>> > You should post this question on rec.music.gdead and see the
>> > responses.
>> Deadheads would probably understand completely why some of us might
>> have, say, twelve different Furtw ngler Beethoven 9ths.
> But would they understand that we paid real money for them in a store, or
> maybe online, instead of swapped--by handing a few ounces of substances
> to the bootleggers who camped out in a VW bus behind the Philharmonie?
Perhaps, although the Deadheads I have known trade their concert recordings freely, and openly, with the tacit (or overt) assent of the performers.
-- Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
<grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> If you don't have surround, you are truly missing something.
> > I've got the player, I have a 7 channel receiver, it's the rear speakers > > that I'm missing. I have a crappy pair of Sony home theater speakers here. > > Would these be sufficient to give me a taste of surround sound until I get > > something better or would it not be worth the time?
> It might give you a distaste.
> I've had surround sound since 1970. (That's not a typo.) In general, the > rear speakers should be the same as the front speakers. If you own high-end > speakers, this can get pricey. The usual approach is to buy less-expensive > speakers from the same model line (speakers using the same midrange and > tweeter).
> Most surround material is ambience-only. Inexpensive speakers with low > midrange coloration (whether or not from the same manufacturer) will usually > work. When playing "immersive" material (such as EPB at Freiburg, or some of > the Savall and Jacobs recordings) a close front/back match is
preferable.
> Of course, "better" rear speakers will also improve theatrical
sound.
> Surround recordings bring you much closer to the sense that you are hearing > the original performance.
> PS: I finally watched the Blu-ray of the original version of "Little Shop of > Horrors". One of my favorite musicals, one I think G&S would have enjoyed. > Howard Ashman actually rhymed "shang a lang" with "Sturm and Drang". > Wonderful.
Thanks for the info. I think that the thing that has kept me from dipping my toe into the surround waters has been the fact that I don't care much for cimema surround sound. Of course most people buy those awful "home theater in a box" systems but I've also never liked the sound at movie theaters either.
>> On Nov 13, 7:43 pm, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oy @earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> yoker <yoke...@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following letters
>>> to be typed in news:3367262c-bb37-42fd-8b06-987e727c0985
>>> @l7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
>>>> On Nov 7, 12:03 pm, weary flake <wearyfl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> American Record Guide in the November issue suggests on page 49 that
>>>>> most of us have at least 3000 CDs, that seems to be the minimum among
>>>>> their writers and readers. Do you own enough, or are you dangerously
>>>>> underwhelmed?
>>>> You should post this question on rec.music.gdead and see the
>>>> responses.
>>> Deadheads would probably understand completely why some of us might
>>> have, say, twelve different Furtw ngler Beethoven 9ths.
>> But would they understand that we paid real money for them in a store, or
>> maybe online, instead of swapped--by handing a few ounces of substances
>> to the bootleggers who camped out in a VW bus behind the Philharmonie?
> Perhaps, although the Deadheads I have known trade their concert recordings
> freely, and openly, with the tacit (or overt) assent of the performers.
Archive.org has hundreds, maybe thousands, of hours of Grateful Dead concerts (and other acts), with the permission of the band. I saw somewhere that there was a brief period of uncertainty over the arrangement, and then it was agreed not to post recordings made direct from the sound board. I don't know what arrangements were made with other groups. Most of them I haven't heard of, so I haven't looked too closely.
> I think the thing that has kept me from dipping my toe into the surround
> waters has been the fact that I don't care much for cinema surround sound.
The Cinerama monsters will abduct you. Some Cinerama films recorded surround effects live.
> Of course most people buy those awful "home theater in a box" systems
> but I've also never liked the sound at movie theaters either.
On 11/14/2012 11:57 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> I think the thing that has kept me from dipping my toe into the surround
>> waters has been the fact that I don't care much for cinema surround
>> sound.
> The Cinerama monsters will abduct you. Some Cinerama films recorded
> surround effects live.
>> Of course most people buy those awful "home theater in a box" systems
>> but I've also never liked the sound at movie theaters either.
> Do you know what it is you don't like?
It always seemed to be so over-done. Over the top. Like there is too much going on. Add in the fact that most movies are either whisper quiet at moments and blaring loud the next moment. Needless to say, I'm not much of a movie watcher.
I am intrigued by audio only surround though because those extra speakers equal more information for your ears and more information should be a good thing. I have a few of those quad Pentatone SACDs of chamber music and I've been wanting to hear those extra channels.
I also have the multi-channel "Kind Of Blue" but I would guess that the rear channels on that would be faked ambiance?
> On 11/14/2012 11:57 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> I think the thing that has kept me from dipping my toe into the surround
>>> waters has been the fact that I don't care much for cinema surround
>>> sound.
>> The Cinerama monsters will abduct you. Some Cinerama films recorded
>> surround effects live.
>>> Of course most people buy those awful "home theater in a box" systems
>>> but I've also never liked the sound at movie theaters either.
>> Do you know what it is you don't like?
> It always seemed to be so over-done. Over the top. Like there is too much > going on. Add in the fact that most movies are either whisper quiet at > moments and blaring loud the next moment. Needless to say, I'm not much of > a movie watcher.
> I am intrigued by audio only surround though because those extra speakers > equal more information for your ears and more information should be a good > thing. I have a few of those quad Pentatone SACDs of chamber music and > I've been wanting to hear those extra channels.
> I also have the multi-channel "Kind Of Blue" but I would guess that the > rear channels on that would be faked ambiance?
I think most cars today come with factory installed rear speakers. How do you like the sound there when you play any ordinary stereo material? (It's sort of what like all MC recordings do for me.)
> Beautiful! We've never done (or had done) any custom work like that. I
> use ready-made floorstanding shelf units for most of my collection,
> about 5000 of them. Here's about half of it, in our "breakfast room"
> which we never actually eat in:
> This is the "Nordic/Baltic section": the left rack contains mostly
> Finns, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians, and the right rack contains
> Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, and Icelanders. Probably about 3/4 of the
> discs are in Case Logic sleeves to save space.
> The rest of the collection is in two other rooms of the house, with the
> "mainstream European" countries in the living room (Germany/Austria,
> France, Russia...)
I see you have the Bis Sibelius Edition. I'd love to get my hands on that.
> > Beautiful! We've never done (or had done) any custom work like that. I
> > use ready-made floorstanding shelf units for most of my collection,
> > about 5000 of them. Here's about half of it, in our "breakfast room"
> > which we never actually eat in:
> > This is the "Nordic/Baltic section": the left rack contains mostly
> > Finns, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians, and the right rack contains
> > Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, and Icelanders. Probably about 3/4 of the
> > discs are in Case Logic sleeves to save space.
> > The rest of the collection is in two other rooms of the house, with the
> > "mainstream European" countries in the living room (Germany/Austria,
> > France, Russia...)
> I see you have the Bis Sibelius Edition. I'd love to get my hands on that.
I think I also see Berglund's Sibelius box, but otherwise a peculiar
lack of recordings on EMI--not enough red in there!
> > On Nov 7, 12:03 pm, weary flake <wearyfl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> American Record Guide in the November issue suggests on page 49 that most
> >> of us have at least 3000 CDs, that seems to be the minimum among their
> >> writers and readers. Do you own enough, or are you dangerously
> >> underwhelmed?
> > You should post this question on
> > rec.music.gdead
> > and see the responses.
> Deadheads would probably understand completely why some of us might have,
> say, twelve different Furtw ngler Beethoven 9ths.
In article <aa1b7d48-9558-4e9a-b4c7-a2f891174...@v3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 12:10 pm, "Dana John Hill" <d...@danajohnhill.com> wrote:
> > "Jon Bell" <jtb5...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > This is the "Nordic/Baltic section": the left rack contains mostly
> > > Finns, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians, and the right rack contains
> > > Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, and Icelanders. Probably about 3/4 of the
> > > discs are in Case Logic sleeves to save space.
> > I see you have the Bis Sibelius Edition. I'd love to get my hands on that.
That was a "must-have" for me, because I've been a Sibelius fan since I started listening to classical music in high school more than forty years ago, and BIS is one of my favorite labels. Even though I already had all their single-disc Sibelius releases, I double-dipped with the box set, to gather everything together into a single package.
> I think I also see Berglund's Sibelius box, but otherwise a peculiar
> lack of recordings on EMI--not enough red in there!
I don't have much EMI in that area of the repertoire, and I think it's all in sleeves now (e.g. Karajan's Sibelius). I do have several of the EMI budget box sets in the mainstream section: Kempe's Strauss, Jochum's Bruckner, Klemperer's Beethoven, Martinon's Debussy and Ravel.
Also some double fforte twofers.
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:53:31 -0500, "Norman Schwartz"
<n...@optonline.net> wrote:
> I think most cars today come with factory installed rear speakers. How do > you like the sound there when you play any ordinary stereo
material?
It's ok, I guess. I usually adjust the fader to favor the front speakers more.
I would hope that good surround sounds more exciting than that!
>> Do you know what it is you don't like [about surround]?
> It always seemed to be so over-done. Over the top. Like there is too much > going on. Add in the fact that most movies are either whisper quiet at > moments and blaring loud the next moment. Needless to say, I'm not much of > a movie watcher.
> I am intrigued by audio-only [sic] surround though, because those extra > speakers equal more information for your ears and more information should > be a good thing.
Most people like surround precisely because it provides so much more information. I like being surrounded by sound.
> I have a few of those quad Pentatone SACDs of chamber music
> and I've been wanting to hear those extra channels.
You won't "hear" them. Most chamber music uses the rear channels only for ambience. It's "audible" only when you shut it off. "POOMP!" The sound field collapses to the front speakers.
> I also have the multi-channel "Kind Of Blue" but I would guess that the > rear channels on that would be faked ambiance?
Don't know. As the recording dates from 1959, it's unlikely it was more than two channels to begin with.
If you load the disk, the player's display will tell you what the available formats are. What does it say?
> Most people like surround precisely because it provides so much more > information. I like being surrounded by sound.
I've been watching/listening to the BD of Abbado/Orchestra Mozart's live performance of the Brandenburg Concerti. If one likes being surrounded by sound, it surely 'fills the bill'. However it cannot possibly replicate the experience of anyone seated within the audience.
>> Most people like surround precisely because it provides so much more >> information. I like being surrounded by sound.
> I've been watching/listening to the BD of Abbado/Orchestra Mozart's live > performance of the Brandenburg Concerti. If one likes being surrounded by > sound, it surely 'fills the bill'. However it cannot possibly replicate > the experience of anyone seated within the audience.
It isn't supposed to.
The question is... Does it present the music in a "valid" or "insightful" way?
>>> Most people like surround precisely because it provides so much more >>> information. I like being surrounded by sound.
>> I've been watching/listening to the BD of Abbado/Orchestra Mozart's live >> performance of the Brandenburg Concerti. If one likes being surrounded by >> sound, it surely 'fills the bill'. However it cannot possibly replicate >> the experience of anyone seated within the audience.
> It isn't supposed to.
Well, at the very least we (finally) agree on that!
> The question is... Does it present the music in a "valid" or "insightful" > way?
That could be a matter of a given listener's taste and preferences. IMO the disc is outstanding, the quality of the photography is excellent leaving nothing to be desired, and the performers, featurung Giuliano Carmignola as principal violin, are all attractive and a pleasure to watch. IMO the quality of performance matches the photography in its excellence.
On 11/17/2012 10:28 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> If you load the disk, the player's display will tell you what the
> available formats are. What does it say?
All mine says when I insert the disk is "SACD". This is a DVD/SACD player and I don't have it hooked up to a monitor. I've always just used it in Stereo mode.
The packing on my "Kind Of Blue" claims to be multi-channel but it has to be "faked" surround. Someday I'll get things hooked up and find out for sure.
