Living Stereo 60 CD Collection
Marc
I don't think this set has been posted about here yet and it's
certainly worth mentioning, Sony Music in Korea has recently released
what I believe is the entire RCA Living Stereo Series in a beautiful,
relatively inexpensive, small box:
http://www.amazon.com/Living-Stereo-60-Collection-Box/dp/B003UCPEJ2/ref=sr_1_1?
ie=UTF8&qid=1282971444&sr=1-1
There are 55 titles over 60 CDs, all in the most recent DSD (but not
SACD) remasters. Surprisingly I had only about 10 of these already on
CD, and none in the latest sound. What a pleasure to listen for the
first time in years, or ever, to recordings like Reiner's Sheherazade,
Heifetz's Mendelssohn concerto, Munch's La Mer, etc. etc.
If this is the end of the CD era, it seems to be going out in style.
Well done Sony Korea.
Marc Perman
Prince Myshkin
> I'm only occasionally peeking in on what's left of this newsgroup, but
> I don't think this set has been posted about here yet and it's
> certainly worth mentioning, Sony Music in Korea has recently released
> what I believe is the entire RCA Living Stereo Series in a beautiful,
> relatively inexpensive, small box:
>
> ie=UTF8&qid=1282971444&sr=1-1
>
> There are 55 titles over 60 CDs, all in the most recent DSD (but not
> SACD) remasters. Surprisingly I had only about 10 of these already on
> CD, and none in the latest sound. What a pleasure to listen for the
> first time in years, or ever, to recordings like Reiner's Sheherazade,
> Heifetz's Mendelssohn concerto, Munch's La Mer, etc. etc.
>
> If this is the end of the CD era, it seems to be going out in style.
> Well done Sony Korea.
>
> Marc Perman
I don't believe this is the entire RCA Living Stereo series. It
appears to be the entire part of the series that was released in SACD
format a few years ago. The titles all match up. But, as you say, it
doesn't appear that the titles are in the SACD hybrid format this time
around, which is a shame to me. I wish they would have issued them as
such. I would buy it. Or truly do the entire Living Stereo series in
a box. I would have bought that too, even if it was only DSD
remastering.
Romy the Cat
> I don't think this set has been posted about here yet and it's
> certainly worth mentioning, Sony Music in Korea has recently released
> what I believe is the entire RCA Living Stereo Series in a beautiful,
> relatively inexpensive, small box:
>
> ie=UTF8&qid=1282971444&sr=1-1
>
> There are 55 titles over 60 CDs, all in the most recent DSD (but not
> SACD) remasters. Surprisingly I had only about 10 of these already on
> CD, and none in the latest sound. What a pleasure to listen for the
> first time in years, or ever, to recordings like Reiner's Sheherazade,
> Heifetz's Mendelssohn concerto, Munch's La Mer, etc. etc.
>
> If this is the end of the CD era, it seems to be going out in style.
> Well done Sony Korea.
>
> Marc Perman
Marc, what does it mean “recent DSD (but not SACD) remasters”? I do
not think that they are remastered at all. All the you have is most
likely 16-bit PCM masters that were upsampled to SACD. The first years
what RCA pressed the first generation of SACD the people who were
involved in the posses we laughing as those SACD were pressed from 20
bit PCM dubs. The people out there can hear/understand shit anyhow, so
they can get away from anything.
William Sommerwerck
> I do not think that they are remastered at all.
No, you don't think.
> All the you have is most likely 16-bit PCM masters that were
> upsampled to SACD. The first years what RCA pressed the first
> generation of SACD the people who were involved in the posses
> we laughing as those SACD were pressed from 20-bit PCM dubs.
> The people out there can hear/understand shit anyhow, so they
> can get away from anything.
To the best of my knowledge, the recent Living Stereo series is derived from
new DSD transfers.
Again, remember that Romy is someone who has no experience making live
recordings, and he's trying to tell those who have how recordings are
supposed to be made, and what they should sound like. It's not enough that
the recording sounds like the original sound -- he wants the sound altered
in such a way that it provides the kind of subjective experience /he/
prefers. To hell with the scientists and engineers who've been working for
the past 100 years for more-accurate sound reproduction.
I have been told not to attack Mr Cat. Unfortunately, he's the audio
equivalent of the right-wing fundamentalists who are trying to destroy
American government and society.
Gerard
>
> I have been told not to attack Mr Cat. Unfortunately, he's the audio
> equivalent of the right-wing fundamentalists who are trying to destroy
> American government and society.
Hm, what is the Cat trying to destroy?
Doug McDonald
> I have been told not to attack Mr Cat. Unfortunately, he's the audio
> equivalent of the right-wing fundamentalists who are trying to destroy
> American government and society.
>
>
It's not RIGHT wingers are destroying America. it is LEFT
wingers.
2 trillion in debt in 18 months? That's pure left wing.
Sure, Bush had some excess deficit spending late in his term ...
but much of that was loans (which have, it is noted, mostly been paid
back ... much from Obama GIFTS ... and that includes gifts to giant
corporations.)
And the disaster that is Obamacare will, unless repealed or
fixed, be an even greater disaster.
Doug McDonald
mark
Doug provides the standard RW rewrite of history, complete with the
standard adjectives to sweeten the deal.
Bush had "some" excess deficit spending "late in his term." What, to
go along with the massive deficit spending he had in the early and
middle part of his two terms? In reality, bush turned the Clinton
surplus in deficits in very short order, and then proceeded to run up
astronomical deficits. Clinton left office with a $236 BILLION surplus
that was projected to accumulate to a $5.6 TRILLION in surplus in 10
years if his policies had been kept on place.
Bush dumped Clinton's policies and blew through Clinton's surplus in
his first year in office, with his 2004 deficit reaching a then-record
$415 Billion. BTW - the only way Bush got his deficit DOWN to $415B in
2004 was by transferring $150B from the SS retirement fund to paper
over his deficit, which was actually $565B for 2004. The CBO reported
that back in 2004 that minus bush's accounting tricks, the ten-year
accumulated deficit under bush would come to $4.7 TRILLION. Geez,
that's a negative $10.3 Trillion dollar reversal from the surpluses
that the CBO projected for the same 10 years had Clinton's policies
been kept in place. And, the CBO predicted in 2004 that making bush's
tax cuts permanent would add another $3.2 Trillion to the debt, giving
bush a ten-year debt total of a staggering $7.9 TRILLION, which
equates to a $14-Trillion "reversal of fortune" from the surpluses
projected over the same period had Clinton's policies not been
reversed by Junior. (Source: CBO)
As I indicated above, the Obama administration ended the bush practice
of employing accounting tricks to make their deficits appear smaller
than the actually were. In addition to borrowing from the SS
retirement fund: "The New York Times reported that Obama will reject
"four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make
deficit projections look smaller." In 2005, the Washington Post
editorial board called Bush's budget proposal a "farce" for using
accounting tricks. Obama's changes include accounting for the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars (Bush relied on "emergency supplemental" war
spending), assuming the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for
inflation, accounting for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements,
and anticipating inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief.
The result of Obama's openness is a budget that is $2.7 trillion
"deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise
appear." As The Wonk Room explained, "that debt was always there. It
was just being hidden." "For too long, our budget process in
Washington has been an exercise in deception -- a series of accounting
tricks to hide the extent of our spending," Obama remarked
yesterday." (Source: CBO & http://tinyurl.com/yz6x2ph )
Do ya hear that, Doug? Much of Obama's deficit involves accounting for
the expense of the wars he inherited from bush, which bush never
accounted for in his budgets. Much of the deficit is due to Obama
actually accounting for it, rather than trying to hide it, the way
bush did. You guys make me sick with your lying and your bullshit.
Obamacare will save billions of dollars in both the short and long
term. Can the same be said of bush's massive tax cuts WHICH WERE NEVER
PAID FOR or for his two ill-advised wars THAT WERE FUNDED OFF BUDGET?
Give me a break! The country is sick of the RW, your anti-American
policies that fund the rich at the expense of everyone else, your
religious bullshit, your voodoo economics and accounting gimmicks, not
to mention your inability to tell the truth about the economy and even
the President's citizenship, even when it might serve your purposes.
The country has moved past your BS and will continue to move even
further away. You're dodos, scheduled for extinction, and none too
soon.
David Oberman
<markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Give me a break! The country is sick of the RW, your anti-American
>policies that fund the rich at the expense of everyone else, your
>religious bullshit, your voodoo economics and accounting gimmicks, not
>to mention your inability to tell the truth about the economy and even
>the President's citizenship, even when it might serve your purposes.
>
>The country has moved past your BS and will continue to move even
>further away. You're dodos, scheduled for extinction, and none too
>soon.
Mark, I'm guessing that you do not plan to attend Glenn Beck's big
rally in D.C. today?
Gerard
>
> Give me a break! The country is sick of the RW, your anti-American
> policies that fund the rich at the expense of everyone else, your
> religious bullshit, your voodoo economics and accounting gimmicks, not
> to mention your inability to tell the truth about the economy and even
> the President's citizenship, even when it might serve your purposes.
>
> The country has moved past your BS and will continue to move even
> further away. You're dodos, scheduled for extinction, and none too
> soon.
So why do you reply on it with another book?
If "the country is sick" of it, are you going to cure it? Here?
mark
I'd respond if I felt your were interested in an answer. You're not.
Gerard
You have no idea what I am interested in.
Romy the Cat
I was told do not respond to you as you are retarded idiot. I am
sorry, you are not an idiot you are sales whore from hi-fi store who
are too angry by the fact that you was told about prices and lead time
but was not told about availability. To me they all sound oxymoronic.
You forget to tell that I sponsor Osama bin Laben and do not stop my
car before school bus. What a lost Moron!
Bob Harper
(snip)
Clinton left office with a $236 BILLION surplus
> that was projected to accumulate to a $5.6 TRILLION in surplus in 10
> years if his policies had been kept on place.
'his policies'? Rather, those imposed on him by a Republican Congress
(before it, too went off the rails, which led to the Dems comeback and
the even hotter soup we're in).
'(surpluses) projected to accumulate'? Don't make us laugh. No such
thing would ever have happened; you know it, I know it.
>
And oh, yes, 9/11.
Bob Harper
Kip Williams
Here's a chart that shows (bottom line) where the debt would be without
wars started by G.W. Bush and his tax cuts to the wealthy. Figures are
taken from CBPP analysis based on CBO estimates.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-2010-6
Kip W
Oscar Williamson
>
> Marc, what does it mean “recent DSD (but not SACD) remasters”? I do
> not think that they are remastered at all. All the you have is most
> likely 16-bit PCM masters that were upsampled to SACD. The first years
> what RCA pressed the first generation of SACD the people who were
> involved in the posses we laughing as those SACD were pressed from 20
> bit PCM dubs.
Not true. DSD transfers from original analog three-track masters.
Ask SoundMirror, they did 'em all. http://www.soundmirror.com
Oscar Williamson
PS. And yes...there were two-track only recordings for some releases.
SoundMirror went back to original work parts for all reissues in the
2003-2007 SACD campaign. Also, stereo masterings on those hybrid
SACD's are /not/ the same as Living Stereo redbook remasters from late
90's/early 00's.
Romy the Cat
wrote:
Oscar, do know SoundMirror (not a big fun of them, BTW). They did
remastered SOME RCA recording in the begining of the decade. Exactly
at that time there were a lot of controversy that there was much more
SACD discs than was remastered from analog masters. At that time the
people from the industry did come clean and admitted that they run so
called DSD master from 96K PCM dubs. I do not mention that no one
“master” in DSD, they convert them to PCM and then back to stupid
SACD, to please idiots. Mark above said “recent DSD remasters” I do
not think that Sony of Korea has access to anything remote to be
masters and there the not remastered but just copied and pressed.
Romy the Cat
wrote:
> PS. And yes...there were two-track only recordings for some releases.
> SoundMirror went back to original work parts for all reissues in the
> 2003-2007 SACD campaign. Also, stereo masterings on those hybrid
> SACD's are /not/ the same as Living Stereo redbook remasters from late
> 90's/early 00's.
I think there are 4 main versions of those recordings: original
version from 50-60, conversion to PCM in 70-80, conversion to PCM in
90s and some kind SACD conversion after 2000. I do prefer the 50-60
mix and late PCM 90s mix. What they did in after 2000 was horrible
crap – warn you that I judge CD-layer only - I do not care about SACD
or use them.
Doug McDonald
> Oscar, do know SoundMirror (not a big fun of them, BTW). They did
> remastered SOME RCA recording in the begining of the decade. Exactly
> at that time there were a lot of controversy that there was much more
> SACD discs than was remastered from analog masters. At that time the
> people from the industry did come clean and admitted that they run so
> called DSD master from 96K PCM dubs. I do not mention that no one
> “master” in DSD, they convert them to PCM and then back to stupid
> SACD, to please idiots. Mark above said “recent DSD remasters” I do
> not think that Sony of Korea has access to anything remote to be
> masters and there the not remastered but just copied and pressed.
BUT ... these are ANALOG masters!
It simply does not matter what system you use to convert them
to digital. They only possible difference is in the content above
20kHZ. Yes, analog masters may still have content above 20kHz.
But it does not matter unless you are a teenager. You
don't need anywhere NEAR 16 bits for any Living Stereo analog
master.
Doug McDonald
William Sommerwerck
> to digital. They only possible difference is in the content above
> But it does not matter unless you are a teenager. You don't
> need anywhere NEAR 16 bits for any Living Stereo analog master.
You're confusing quantization depth with sampling rate.
I have an SACD player and hundreds of SACD disks. Perhaps the worst thing
about SACD is that I get to hear real surround sound that captures the sound
of the performing hall. What a waste -- who needs it? Maybe I should just
throw out the player and all the disks.
Doug McDonald
>> It simply does not matter what system you use to convert them
>> to digital. They only possible difference is in the content above
>> 20kHz. Yes, analog masters may still have content above 20kHz.
>> But it does not matter unless you are a teenager. You don't
>> need anywhere NEAR 16 bits for any Living Stereo analog master.
>
> You're confusing quantization depth with sampling rate.
No I'm not.
Theoretically you DO get real content above 20 kHz from those
analog tapes. Thus, in theory you would need a higher sampling frequency
than 44.1 kHz. Not in practice.
The signal to noise of those pre-Dolby-A tapes is nowhere near enough to
beed even 16 bits.
>
> I have an SACD player and hundreds of SACD disks.
I have an SACD player and perhaps 15 real SACD disks, some
2, some 3, some 5.1 channel.
> Perhaps the worst thing
> about SACD is that I get to hear real surround sound that captures the sound
> of the performing hall. What a waste -- who needs it? Maybe I should just
> throw out the player and all the disks.
>
I do agree that the surround sound is nice. But that has nothing
to do with remastering 2 channel analog tapes. It does have
something to do with remastering 3 channel analog masters from
Living Stereo or Living Presence sources. I have some of those.
Doug McDonald
Bob Lombard
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:i5c9ka$riv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
civilized thing to do would be to gently place your SACD player and discs by
the curb. College kids are preparing for The Great Adventure, and one of
them might appreciate the offering.
bl
Romy the Cat
> It simply does not matter what system you use to convert them
> to digital. They only possible difference is in the content above
> 20kHZ. Yes, analog masters may still have content above 20kHz.
> But it does not matter unless you are a teenager. You
> don't need anywhere NEAR 16 bits for any Living Stereo analog
> master.
>
you believe and what it is.
mark
Oh, I knew it the second bush was elected.
>
> And oh, yes, 9/11.
bush's oft hapless response to 9/11 is still dragging this country
down. And that's before considering the fact that his laissez-faire
pre-9/11 attitude that didn't take terrorist threats seriously enough.
The correct response was not an all-out war but to treat 9/11 as a
crime and to act appropriately. I believe that the single most-
destructive and -disturbing thing bush ever said was his infamous,
"you're either with us, or agin' us" BS.
BTW - I do give bush credit for the work he did on AIDS in Africa. I
give him tremendous credit for trying to actually deal with
immigration in opposition to the majority in his party, and with his
batting down the people who tried to equate Islam with terrorism 100%
of the time.
But 9/11 happened on his watch, not on his father's, not on Clinton's
and not on Obama's. He failed to protect the country BIG time, and his
economic policies were a disaster whose ripples will be felt for
years.
In other words, George Walker Bush failed catastrophically in the two
most-important responsibilities a president has to his country, which
is why he is rightfully listed as one of the worst presidents in
history by so many reputable historians...and by the American people
as well.
mark
>
> > I'd respond if I felt your were interested in an answer. You're not.
>
> You have no idea what I am interested in.
True, but I'm hardly alone in that, most likely because your typical
responses in these threads shed no light on the subject.
Romy the Cat
> I do agree that the surround sound is nice. But that has nothing
> to do with remastering 2 channel analog tapes. It does have
> something to do with remastering 3 channel analog masters from
> Living Stereo or Living Presence sources. I have some of those.
>
But this is the whole point. The masters 3 channels and remastering
usually imply to PCM them, do mastering then convert to SACD. I think
AudioMirois used Pacific 2x or 4X, partially because it is PCM and
partially because it is 10 times better then SACD native A/D. Sure
then the idiots added for idiots reverberations for surround. They
might add a dram machine as well - the surround Hoi polloi would not
know difference….
mark
> (snip)
>
> Clinton left office with a $236 BILLION surplus
>
> > that was projected to accumulate to a $5.6 TRILLION in surplus in 10
> > years if his policies had been kept on place.
>
> 'his policies'? Rather, those imposed on him by a Republican Congress
> (before it, too went off the rails, which led to the Dems comeback and
> the even hotter soup we're in).
And the attempted rewrite of history by the Rs continues.
Do you really need to be reminded that Clinton's initial budget in
1993 garnered not a single Republican vote, that it passed in the
House by only two votes, and that it passed in the Senate only by VP
Al Gore's tie-breaking vote?
According to Wikipedia, Clinton's 1993 Budget Reform had the following
effect (these numbers are drawn from statistics from the CBO, BLS,
National Economic Council, Census Bureau and other reputable sources):
# Average economic growth of 4.0 percent per year, compared to average
growth of 2.8 percent during the previous years. The economy grew for
116 consecutive months, the most in history.
# Creation of more than 22.5 million jobs—the most jobs ever created
under a single administration, and more than were created in the
previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent,
were in the private sector.
# Economic gains spurred an increase in family incomes for all
Americans. Since 1993, real median family income increased by $6,338,
from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).
# Overall unemployment dropped to the lowest level in more than 30
years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in January
2001. The unemployment rate was below 5 percent for 40 consecutive
months. Unemployment for African Americans fell from 14.2 percent in
1992 to 7.3 percent in 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment
for Hispanics fell from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in
2000, also the lowest rate on record.
# Inflation dropped to its lowest rate since the Kennedy
Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, and fell from 4.7 percent
during the previous administration.
# The homeownership rate reached 67.7 percent near the end of the
Clinton administration, the highest rate on record. In contrast, the
homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981
to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993.
# The poverty rate also declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8
percent in 1999, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30
years. This left 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in
1993.
# The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third
consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.
And what were all of the economic genius Rs saying before the Clinton
budget was passed? hHre ya go!:
On the 1993 deficit reduction package:
Rep. Robert Michel (R-IL), Los Angeles Times, 5/28/93:
They will remember who let loose this deadly virus into our
economic bloodstream.
Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), GOP Press Conference, House TV Gallery,
8/5/93:
I believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the
Democrat machine's recession, and each one of them will be held
personally accountable.
Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), 8/5/93:
Do you know what? This is your package. We will come back here
next year and try to help you when this puts the economy in the
gutter...
Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), CNN, 7/28/93:
This plan will not work. If it was to work, then I'd have to
become a Democrat...
Rep. Robert Dornan (R-CA), 8/5/93:
The problem with our economy is that there is too little
employment and too little growth. This plan will do nothing to improve
that condition and will actually make it worse.
Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA), 5/27/93:
This is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy.
Rep. Thomas Ewing (R-IL), 8/5/93:
...This bill is a disaster waiting to happen.
Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-MN), 3/17/93:
...will stifle economic growth, destroy jobs, reduce revenues, and
increase the deficit.
Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL), 3/18/93:
...a recipe for economic and fiscal disaster.
On jobs:
Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), CNN, 7/28/93:
...We have a stagnant economy and there is nothing down the road
that makes it look like we're going to have the kind of economic
growth that puts people to work.
Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), CNN, 8/2/93:
The impact on job creation is going to be devastating, and the
American young people in particular will suffer a fairly substantial
deferment of their lives because there simply won't be jobs for the
next two to three years to go around to our young graduates across the
country.
Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), 5/27/93:
...your economic program is a job killer.
On interest rates:
Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), 8/5/93:
The economy will sputter along. Dreams will be put off and all
this for the hollow promise of deficit reduction and magical theories
of lower interest rates. Like so many of the President's past
promises, deficit reduction will be another cruel hoax.
Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA), 8/4/93:
The simple fact is that the Clinton plan will not lower interest
rates. It will not lower inflation. It will not create jobs. And it
will no lower the deficit. The Clinton tax plan will spur inflation,
lose jobs, increase the deficit, and hurt our economic growth.
On inflation:
Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH), 5/27/93:
The votes we will take today will not be soon forgotten by the
American voter. [They] will lead to more taxes, higher inflation, and
slower economic growth.
On the deficit:
Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), GOP News Conference, Senate Gallery, 8/3/93:
Come next year... we're going to find out whether we have higher
deficits, we're going to find out whether we have a slower economy,
we're going to find out what's going to happen to interest rates, and
it's our bet that this is a job killer.
Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), CNN, 8/2/93:
Clearly this is a job killer in the short run. The revenues
forecast for this budget will not materialize; the costs of this
budget will be greater than what is forecast. The deficit will be
worse, and it is not a good omen for the American economy.
Rep. Jim Bunning (R-KY), 8/5/93:
It will not cut the deficit. It will not create jobs. And it will
not cut spending.
Rep. Dick Armey, CNN, 2/18/93:
I will tell you, this program will not give you deficit reduction.
It will be a disaster for the performance of the economy.
Rep. Clifford Stearns (R-FL), 3/17/93:
...It will be the kind of impact that this country can't absorb.
It will slow economic growth, contribute to the massive federal
deficit....
Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO), 8/4/93:
...It will raise your taxes, increase the deficit, and kill over
one million jobs.
On Medicare:
Rep. Durward Hall (R-MO), 4/8/65:
...we cannot stand idly by now, as the Nation is urged to embark
on an ill-conceived adventure in government medicine, the end of which
no one can see, and from which the patient is certain to be the
ultimate sufferer.
Rep. James Utt (R-CA):
We are going on the assumption that this is not socialized
medicine. Let me tell you here and now it is socialized medicine.
Rep. Robert Michel (R-IL), 4/8/65:
...I, for one... will be one of those voting for the motion to
substitute the Republican proposal and if that fails, to vote against
the bill on final passage, and hope that it helps to draw attention to
the horrendous tax burden that is going to be thrust upon every
American and every future generation.
Rep. Tim Lee Carter (R-KY), 4/65:
As one of the last country doctors... I ask my colleagues to vote
to recommit... a bill which will within a few years cruelly overburden
the Social Security System and the young workers with growing
families, who will be forced to pay higher Social Security taxes.
Sen. Milward Simpson (R-WY), 7/8/65:
This program could destroy private initiative for our aged to
protect themselves with insurance against the cost of illness.
Presently, over 60 percent of our older citizens purchase hospital
and medical insurance without Government assistance. This private
effort would cease if Government benefits were given to all our older
citizens.
Sen. Thurston B. Morton (R-KY), 7/65:
I have always maintained that if a program is to be successful, it
must... be voluntary... based on need and must not be financed through
a payroll tax.
Sen. Leverett Saltonstall (R-MA), 5/65:
... I personally believe that a voluntary plan financed from
general revenues... is preferable to the Medicare program.
I rest my case.
William Sommerwerck
> surround. They might add a dram machine as well -
> the surround Hoi polloi would not know difference…
Let's build an acoustically dead concert hall for Romy.
William Sommerwerck
> not on Clinton's and not on Obama's. He failed to protect
> the country BIG time, and his economic policies were
> a disaster whose ripples will be felt for years.
Even Dick Cheney said that W was at least partially responsible for 9/11.
But nobody paid attention.
mark
wrote:
> William, beyond the first sentence that response is irrelevant. Anyway, the
> civilized thing to do would be to gently place your SACD player and discs by
> the curb. College kids are preparing for The Great Adventure, and one of
> them might appreciate the offering.
>
Where have you been? College kids today regard CDs the way we all
regarded wax cylinders. ;)
O
<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
I must be dumb.
I thought the Bush tax cuts were supposed to expire this year, yet they
take a bigger and bigger amount in years to come. I thought, well,
this might just be their leftover effect from previous years. But the
amount attributed to TARP, Fannie and Freddie is shut down as of this
year, with no leftover effect from millions of ruined mortgages.
I also note the CBPP "focuses on lower to middle income issues" so does
this mean only the Bush tax cuts to the lower and middle classes are
included here? Also, the CBPP "may be directly involved with the
Democratic Party." Talk about the "ugly truth." I think Barney Frank
must've come up with it.
-Owen
mark
Sorry - all those "65s" should have been 95s (1995).
O
<d5fb0d00-3c6b-4062...@13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
mark <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In other words, George Walker Bush failed catastrophically in the two
> most-important responsibilities a president has to his country, which
> is why he is rightfully listed as one of the worst presidents in
> history by so many reputable historians...and by the American people
> as well.
OK, I'll bite.
Which reputable historians have listed Bush as one of the worst
presidents in history?
-Owen
P.S. I'm quite surprised any reputable historian would have made that
pronouncement so soon.
-O
mark
wrote:
Yeah, but Cheney was hoping Junior would get run out of office so he
(Cheney) could run things overtly, rather than playing the behind-the-
scenes puppet master.
Nick Sun
Hey, didn't I mentioned here couple of years back that me and one of
my colleague discovered that I can hear a pitch of 24KHz when we were
monkey around the test chip I just designed and accidentally made it
unstable and oscillate? Both of us were in our late thirties by then,
not a teenager anymore. As a matter of fact it's not about how
sensitive our ears are, it's about how much energy are left around
that frequency.
Kip Williams
> In article<4mdeo.40334$wJ1....@newsfe08.iad>, Kip Williams
> <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob Harper wrote:
>>> On 8/28/10 10:14 AM, mark wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>> Clinton left office with a $236 BILLION surplus
>>>> that was projected to accumulate to a $5.6 TRILLION in surplus in 10
>>>> years if his policies had been kept on place.
>>>
>>> 'his policies'? Rather, those imposed on him by a Republican Congress
>>> (before it, too went off the rails, which led to the Dems comeback and
>>> the even hotter soup we're in).
>>>
>>> '(surpluses) projected to accumulate'? Don't make us laugh. No such
>>> thing would ever have happened; you know it, I know it.
>>
>> Here's a chart that shows (bottom line) where the debt would be without
>> wars started by G.W. Bush and his tax cuts to the wealthy. Figures are
>> taken from CBPP analysis based on CBO estimates.
>>
>> http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-2010-6
>>
>
> I must be dumb.
>
> I thought the Bush tax cuts were supposed to expire this year, yet they
> take a bigger and bigger amount in years to come. I thought, well,
Following the explanatory link (the highlighted words "according to the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities"), we find footnote 6, which
leads us to this:
"[6] As explained in the technical note at the end of the paper, this
analysis assumes that expiring tax cuts will be extended and new funding
will be provided for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
And indeed, those happy GOP guys are pushing with every fiber and tendon
they have to keep these wonderful tax cuts in effect. It's still an open
question whether they will or not.
> this might just be their leftover effect from previous years. But the
> amount attributed to TARP, Fannie and Freddie is shut down as of this
> year, with no leftover effect from millions of ruined mortgages.
>
> I also note the CBPP "focuses on lower to middle income issues" so does
> this mean only the Bush tax cuts to the lower and middle classes are
> included here? Also, the CBPP "may be directly involved with the
> Democratic Party." Talk about the "ugly truth." I think Barney Frank
> must've come up with it.
Oh, well. If they're involved in the Democratic Party, we need pay no
attention to anything they say. La la la. All is well!
Kip W
mark
> In article
> <d5fb0d00-3c6b-4062-875c-45ce5f467...@13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> mark <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In other words, George Walker Bush failed catastrophically in the two
> > most-important responsibilities a president has to his country, which
> > is why he is rightfully listed as one of the worst presidents in
> > history by so many reputable historians...and by the American people
> > as well.
>
> OK, I'll bite.
>
> Which reputable historians have listed Bush as one of the worst
> presidents in history?
>
"Supervising the survey were historians Douglas Brinkley of Rice
University, Edna Medford of Howard University, and Richard Norton
Smith of George Mason University. Among the historians and political
scientists who participated in the ratings were H. W. Brands, Thomas
Cronin, Robert Dallek, Alvin Felzenberg, Fred Greenstein, and James
McPherson."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/16/opinion/polls/main4728399.shtml
"Jan. 16, 2009 - Bush's Final Approval Rating: 22 Percent"
Jenn
Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
What I can't figure out is why the Rs were so in favor of budget
reconciliation IRT the Bush tax cuts, and so it 9 years later, calling
the process "ramming it down our throats", "socialist", etc.
Oh yeah...hypocrites.
David Oberman
<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>And indeed, those happy GOP guys are pushing with every fiber and tendon
>they have to keep these wonderful tax cuts in effect. It's still an open
>question whether they will or not.
I support conservative economic principles, & yet I always do better
in my personal finance household during a time of implemented liberal
economic principles. So it's very weird for me.
But when this happens, I watch Cocteau movies & listen to the Patrick
Gowers music for "Sherlock Holmes."
David Oberman
<markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>... and James
>McPherson."
Is he married to the poet Sandra McPherson? She's a very nice person.
I took a creative writing class with her at UCD.
mark
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:45:27 -0400, Kip Williams
>
> <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >And indeed, those happy GOP guys are pushing with every fiber and tendon
> >they have to keep these wonderful tax cuts in effect. It's still an open
> >question whether they will or not.
>
> I support conservative economic principles, & yet I always do better
> in my personal finance household during a time of implemented liberal
> economic principles. So it's very weird for me.
>
That's a perfect example of believing received opinion in the face of
facts to the contrary.
You shouldn't be at all surprised that you do better financially when
liberals are in power. The country always, always ALWAYS does better
under liberal economic policies. It's a historic fact. Do the
research.
Why people think the economy does better under Rs is one of those
eternal mysteries:
"During the 20th century, the Dow Jones industrial average rose 7.3
percent per year on average under Republican presidents. Under
Democrats, it rose 10.3 percent - which means that investors gained a
whopping 41 percent more. And the stock market declined further during
George Bush's two terms.
"Moreover, according to research from Professor Larry Bartels of
Princeton, real middle class wage growth is DOUBLE when a Democrat is
president, contrasted to that growth under a Republican president.
"Since World War II, Democratic presidents have increased the national
debt by an average of 3.7 percent per year, and Republican presidents
have increased it an average of 10.1 percent. During the same time
period, the unemployment rate was, on average, 4.8 percent under
Democratic presidents; it was 6.3 percent under Republicans.
"That's the historical record.
"What about economic policies over the past 15 years? The Clinton-Gore
administration presided over the longest peacetime economic expansion
in our history. The national debt was reduced dramatically, the
industrial sector boomed, wages grew and more Americans found jobs.
"How has the Bush-Cheney team fared? In the past seven years, we have
experienced the weakest job creation cycle since the Great Depression,
record deficits, record household debt, a record bankruptcy rate and a
substantial increase in poverty. We have gone from being the nation
with the biggest budget surplus in history to becoming the nation with
the largest deficit in history.
"The Bush administration, supported by Republicans on Capitol Hill,
pushed through a sweeping tax cut in 2001, under which the wealthiest
1 percent of Americans reaped 43 percent of the gain. In less than a
year and a half, the federal government's 10-year projected budget
surplus of $1.6 trillion had vanished. In 2000, we had a surplus of
$236 billion. In 2004, we had a deficit of $413 billion. "
Anybody who wants a good economy - and an economy that benefits ALL
income levels - should be voting for Ds as their default position. In
fact, there is no sane reason to vote for an R if your main issue is
the economy.
The idea that Rs are better stewards and better growers of the economy
is perhaps THE big lie of our times.
David Oberman
<markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>You shouldn't be at all surprised that you do better financially when
>liberals are in power. The country always, always ALWAYS does better
>under liberal economic policies. It's a historic fact. Do the
>research.
But, Mark, I said that _I_ do better. I have no idea what the country
does. The national economic scene is a big confusing mess. At any
point, some consumers are doing well & some aren't; & some businesses
are doing well & some aren't. It's a big mashup of sometimes
contradictory indicators!
I don't talk about Republicans vs. Democrats vis-a-vis the economy. I
think they both spend & waste too much money.
>"Since World War II, Democratic presidents have increased the national
>debt by an average of 3.7 percent per year, and Republican presidents
>have increased it an average of 10.1 percent. During the same time
>period, the unemployment rate was, on average, 4.8 percent under
>Democratic presidents; it was 6.3 percent under Republicans.
My first job in college was with the USDA Soil Conservation Service,
but the Republican president shut down that agency because it was
rather bloated & wasteful, & we all lost our jobs. Mightn't that sort
of thing have something to do with the unemployment rate back then? I
believe in shutting down dozens upon dozens of agencies listed here:
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml
Not all at once, of course!
>"What about economic policies over the past 15 years? The Clinton-Gore
>administration presided over the longest peacetime economic expansion
>in our history.
My household did really well during Clinton's reign: Some aspects,
like my good raises, were only marginally attributable to what was
going on in Washington, but other aspects, like my 401(k)--heavily
invested in growth stocks at the time--prospered in ways that were
more directly attributable to Clinton & his boys.
>"The Bush administration, supported by Republicans on Capitol Hill,
>pushed through a sweeping tax cut in 2001, under which the wealthiest
>1 percent of Americans reaped 43 percent of the gain.
I support tax credits for businesses that hire & retain. But I support
equal tax cuts for all as a direct function of less spending (or more
responsible spending, as it were).
O
<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > I must be dumb.
> >
> > I thought the Bush tax cuts were supposed to expire this year, yet they
> > take a bigger and bigger amount in years to come. I thought, well,
>
> Following the explanatory link (the highlighted words "according to the
> Center on Budget and Policy Priorities"), we find footnote 6, which
> leads us to this:
>
> "[6] As explained in the technical note at the end of the paper, this
> analysis assumes that expiring tax cuts will be extended and new funding
> will be provided for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Well, we've just effectively pulled out of Iraq last week. The chart
indicates constant contribution to the debt for those wars until 2019.
In fact, the only thing that's grown appreciably is the Bush tax cuts,
which have grown monstrously by 2019.
>
> And indeed, those happy GOP guys are pushing with every fiber and tendon
> they have to keep these wonderful tax cuts in effect. It's still an open
> question whether they will or not.
Those happy GOP guys realize that whacking the entire public, including
the poor people, who got a big, big break under Bush, is going to play
a serious number on the economy.
>
> > this might just be their leftover effect from previous years. But the
> > amount attributed to TARP, Fannie and Freddie is shut down as of this
> > year, with no leftover effect from millions of ruined mortgages.
> >
> > I also note the CBPP "focuses on lower to middle income issues" so does
> > this mean only the Bush tax cuts to the lower and middle classes are
> > included here? Also, the CBPP "may be directly involved with the
> > Democratic Party." Talk about the "ugly truth." I think Barney Frank
> > must've come up with it.
>
> Oh, well. If they're involved in the Democratic Party, we need pay no
> attention to anything they say. La la la. All is well!
There's a difference between something coming from the Democratic Party
and something coming directly from the Congressional Budget Office.
May as well be from Fox News..
-Owen
O
<62f4021c-8f3a-4266...@w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
mark <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://politics.usnews.com/news/history/articles/2009/02/17/historians-rank-ge
> orge-w-bush-among-worst-presidents.html
>
> "Supervising the survey were historians Douglas Brinkley of Rice
> University, Edna Medford of Howard University, and Richard Norton
> Smith of George Mason University. Among the historians and political
> scientists who participated in the ratings were H. W. Brands, Thomas
> Cronin, Robert Dallek, Alvin Felzenberg, Fred Greenstein, and James
> McPherson."
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/16/opinion/polls/main4728399.shtml
>
> "Jan. 16, 2009 - Bush's Final Approval Rating: 22 Percent"
Thanks for the cite, Mark.
-owen
mark
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:47:41 -0700 (PDT), mark
>
> >You shouldn't be at all surprised that you do better financially when
> >liberals are in power. The country always, always ALWAYS does better
> >under liberal economic policies. It's a historic fact. Do the
> >research.
>
> But, Mark, I said that _I_ do better. I have no idea what the country
> does. The national economic scene is a big confusing mess. At any
> point, some consumers are doing well & some aren't; & some businesses
> are doing well & some aren't. It's a big mashup of sometimes
> contradictory indicators!
That's why impartial bodies of experts exist like the CBO - to sort
out the contradictory indicators and make sense of it all so it
doesn't end up as a zero net game of he said/she said. Even in the
rosiest of economic times, some people won't do as well as others. The
deception comes when politics enters the picture and the RW claims
that deficits don't matter (at least when Rs run them) or that
redirecting wealth to the top lifts all ships. It doesn't.
>
> I don't talk about Republicans vs. Democrats vis-a-vis the economy. I
> think they both spend & waste too much money.
But here you are making a lazy statement that just reeks of false
equivalency. The point - if you are really interested in getting the
point - is that statistically and historically, Rs waste and spend
much more than Ds, and that the population in general does much better
economically under Ds than it does under Rs. You "don't talk about R v
D vis-a-vis the economy." No, you simply lump them together as if
there's no measurable difference in who is running the economy, when
the historical fact is that the economy is much better under Ds. It's
equivalent to saying, "I don't talk about the Yankees v the Red Sox
when it comes to winning World Series. I think both teams have a too-
high payroll."
> My household did really well during Clinton's reign: Some aspects,
> like my good raises, were only marginally attributable to what was
> going on in Washington, but other aspects, like my 401(k)--heavily
> invested in growth stocks at the time--prospered in ways that were
> more directly attributable to Clinton & his boys.
So did mine, while it was very much downhill under bush.
>
> I support tax credits for businesses that hire & retain. But I support
> equal tax cuts for all as a direct function of less spending (or more
> responsible spending, as it were).
Then you should support a progressive tax system as being the most
equitable.
Look at it this way - if everyone in the country paid a flat tax of
10%, would that be equitable? Well, that would mean that a family of 4
trying to live on $40,000 would be left with $36,000 to live on. A
family of 4 making $100,000 would have $90,000. A family of 4 making
$1MM, $900,000. Is that equitable? Well, have you ever been a family
of 4 trying to live on $36,000? It's tough, so the government gives
them tax breaks. Can a millionaire family get by on $900,000? I'd hope
so, which is why they and the government know that they could get by
just as easily and productively on $800,000 and tax them accordingly.
Look, I've never made over $150k in a given year, but I have never
felt ill-abused by the tax system. I take the deductions that I'm
entitled to, and I usually end up paying a Fed tax of anywhere from
12-15%, which I am fine with as part of the price of citizenship. I'd
probably be fine with paying 20% if most of it wasn't going to fund
the military-industrial complex. If I made a million dollars a year,
I'd be fine paying a 50%tax because to me, keeping $500,000 a year
would be a dream.
But that's just me.
Kip Williams
> In article<_Yieo.26667$1v3....@newsfe20.iad>, Kip Williams
> <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I must be dumb.
>>>
>>> I thought the Bush tax cuts were supposed to expire this year, yet they
>>> take a bigger and bigger amount in years to come. I thought, well,
>>
>> Following the explanatory link (the highlighted words "according to the
>> Center on Budget and Policy Priorities"), we find footnote 6, which
>> leads us to this:
>>
>> "[6] As explained in the technical note at the end of the paper, this
>> analysis assumes that expiring tax cuts will be extended and new funding
>> will be provided for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
>
> Well, we've just effectively pulled out of Iraq last week. The chart
> indicates constant contribution to the debt for those wars until 2019.
> In fact, the only thing that's grown appreciably is the Bush tax cuts,
> which have grown monstrously by 2019.
We're done paying for stuff in Iraq? That's not the way I heard it.
>> And indeed, those happy GOP guys are pushing with every fiber and tendon
>> they have to keep these wonderful tax cuts in effect. It's still an open
>> question whether they will or not.
>
> Those happy GOP guys realize that whacking the entire public, including
> the poor people, who got a big, big break under Bush, is going to play
> a serious number on the economy.
They didn't get a big break under Bush, they got a tip. The big players
got a big break. I remember being around then.
>>> this might just be their leftover effect from previous years. But the
>>> amount attributed to TARP, Fannie and Freddie is shut down as of this
>>> year, with no leftover effect from millions of ruined mortgages.
>>>
>>> I also note the CBPP "focuses on lower to middle income issues" so does
>>> this mean only the Bush tax cuts to the lower and middle classes are
>>> included here? Also, the CBPP "may be directly involved with the
>>> Democratic Party." Talk about the "ugly truth." I think Barney Frank
>>> must've come up with it.
>>
>> Oh, well. If they're involved in the Democratic Party, we need pay no
>> attention to anything they say. La la la. All is well!
>
> There's a difference between something coming from the Democratic Party
> and something coming directly from the Congressional Budget Office.
> May as well be from Fox News..
Except for that part where the figures came from the CBO, of course.
Other than that, it's just exactly like some outfit that makes up stuff
and gives money to the GOP.
Kip W
mark
>
>
>
> mark <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://politics.usnews.com/news/history/articles/2009/02/17/historian...
> > orge-w-bush-among-worst-presidents.html
>
> > "Supervising the survey were historians Douglas Brinkley of Rice
> > University, Edna Medford of Howard University, and Richard Norton
> > Smith of George Mason University. Among the historians and political
> > scientists who participated in the ratings were H. W. Brands, Thomas
> > Cronin, Robert Dallek, Alvin Felzenberg, Fred Greenstein, and James
> > McPherson."
>
>
> > "Jan. 16, 2009 - Bush's Final Approval Rating: 22 Percent"
>
> Thanks for the cite, Mark.
>
> -owen
You're more than welcome.
O
<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> O wrote:
> > In article<_Yieo.26667$1v3....@newsfe20.iad>, Kip Williams
> > <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> I must be dumb.
> >>>
> >>> I thought the Bush tax cuts were supposed to expire this year, yet they
> >>> take a bigger and bigger amount in years to come. I thought, well,
> >>
> >> Following the explanatory link (the highlighted words "according to the
> >> Center on Budget and Policy Priorities"), we find footnote 6, which
> >> leads us to this:
> >>
> >> "[6] As explained in the technical note at the end of the paper, this
> >> analysis assumes that expiring tax cuts will be extended and new funding
> >> will be provided for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
> >
> > Well, we've just effectively pulled out of Iraq last week. The chart
> > indicates constant contribution to the debt for those wars until 2019.
> > In fact, the only thing that's grown appreciably is the Bush tax cuts,
> > which have grown monstrously by 2019.
>
> We're done paying for stuff in Iraq? That's not the way I heard it.
With no combat troops there, it will command the same proportion to the
debt in future years as it does now? Is Obama expected to scale up
Afghanistan to the cost of both wars previously?
According to that chart, we finished up paying for TARP, Freddy and
Fannie this year! It was such a big chunk too!
>
> >> And indeed, those happy GOP guys are pushing with every fiber and tendon
> >> they have to keep these wonderful tax cuts in effect. It's still an open
> >> question whether they will or not.
> >
> > Those happy GOP guys realize that whacking the entire public, including
> > the poor people, who got a big, big break under Bush, is going to play
> > a serious number on the economy.
>
> They didn't get a big break under Bush, they got a tip. The big players
> got a big break. I remember being around then.
When you're poor, a couple of grand is important. Bush's cuts
drastically changed the lower rate taxes, and excluded many from taxes
altogether, who will now be taxed when these cuts expire. The people
who are going to experience the most pain from the expiration of these
cuts are the poor.
The big players always get a big break. With Bush, the little players
did too. FWIW, I think Bush did favor the rich, not in the tax cuts,
but in capital gains treatment. Capital gains are pretty much the
rich's playground, and certainly the poor don't benefit. So I would be
in favor of maintaining those tax cuts except for the cap gains, and
I'd be willing even to let all tax cuts above $250K expire.
>
> >>> this might just be their leftover effect from previous years. But the
> >>> amount attributed to TARP, Fannie and Freddie is shut down as of this
> >>> year, with no leftover effect from millions of ruined mortgages.
> >>>
> >>> I also note the CBPP "focuses on lower to middle income issues" so does
> >>> this mean only the Bush tax cuts to the lower and middle classes are
> >>> included here? Also, the CBPP "may be directly involved with the
> >>> Democratic Party." Talk about the "ugly truth." I think Barney Frank
> >>> must've come up with it.
> >>
> >> Oh, well. If they're involved in the Democratic Party, we need pay no
> >> attention to anything they say. La la la. All is well!
> >
> > There's a difference between something coming from the Democratic Party
> > and something coming directly from the Congressional Budget Office.
> > May as well be from Fox News..
>
> Except for that part where the figures came from the CBO, of course.
> Other than that, it's just exactly like some outfit that makes up stuff
> and gives money to the GOP.
I don't think the CBO will sign on that that chart is a valid
representation.
-Owen
Oscar Williamson
SoundMirror went back to original work parts (two-track and three-
track work parts) and created DSD transfers -- no PCM. FULL STOP.
END OF STORY. Please, call +1-617-522-1412 you do not believe me.
And no, they are not 'idiots'. Erronerous slander. Just because you
think SoundMirror's work was horrible crap' /does not/ make their true
DSD conversion from analog masters untrue.
Romy the Cat
wrote:
> SoundMirror went back to original work parts (two-track and three-
> track work parts) and created DSD transfers -- no PCM. FULL STOP.
> END OF STORY. Please, call +1-617-522-1412 you do not believe me.
> And no, they are not 'idiots'. Erronerous slander. Just because you
> think SoundMirror's work was horrible crap' /does not/ make their true
> DSD conversion from analog masters untrue.
Oscar, what are your problems? I did not call SoundMirror's work as
horrible crap and I did not call them idiots. Read again what I wrote
and my reasons and do not behave like a fool. Your legend of “true
DSD conversion” is a fiction of your mind. At the time when
SoundMirror was working with RCA masters there was no options to edit
in DSD and all editing was done in PCM. Does it make it to be the
“true DSD conversion”? Of cause not but I would not kill myself in
pursue of true DSD conversion? The DSD as it exist today is crap, Sony
killed it in 1999 when move from the Maitner’s original 4-bit DSD
(that I heard) to the 1-bit surrogate. Any more or less qualified
engineer would with 5 min calculate that today 1-bit DSD is a crap
that even theoretically can’t handle what it intend. I wish all those
SoundMirror and others efforts stay in PCM and never go for SACD.
Anyhow, I do not play SACD. The CD layer of SoundMirror’s SACD disks
was horrible. The SoundMirror “mustered” of contemporary pressing LPs.
If you have good LP setups and ear then you know how they all sound. I
do not know if it was SoundMirror fault or it was problems with today
pressing technology but the LPs were crap, the CD layers of SACD are
crap, the SACD format itself is a crap – so what are your tiring to
convince me: in your feeling that SACD transfers are fine? Perhaps,
ten we need to admit that SoundMirror deliberately worsen the CD
layer. This combining with the fact that no one edit in SACD and that
ALL best SACD players of today right after reading the DSD stream
convert it to 384K PCM make me to feel very funny about your believe
of “true DSD conversion”. Oscar, I am not your next Sommerwerck-like
zombie who swallow everything that was stuck into his month.
Gerard
> On Aug 28, 10:42 am, "Gerard" <g_nospam_hendrik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > I'd respond if I felt your were interested in an answer. You're
> > > not.
> >
> > You have no idea what I am interested in.
>
> True, but I'm hardly alone in that, most likely because your typical
> responses in these threads shed no light on the subject.
These threads don't shed any light on any subject.
Unless you'ld write about the Living Stereo Collection.
But "The country is sick of ..." does not shed any light etc.
William Sommerwerck
>> usually imply to PCM them, do mastering then convert to SACD. I think
>> AudioMirois used Pacific 2x or 4X, partially because it is PCM and
>> partially because it is 10 times better then SACD native A/D. Sure
>> then the idiots added for idiots reverberations for surround. They
>> might add a dram machine as well - the surround Hoi polloi would not
>> know difference….
> SoundMirror went back to original work parts (two-track and three-
> track work parts) and created DSD transfers -- no PCM. FULL STOP.
> END OF STORY. Please, call +1-617-522-1412 you do not believe me.
> And no, they are not 'idiots'. Erronerous slander. Just because you
> think SoundMirror's work was horrible crap' /does not/ make their true
> DSD conversion from analog masters untrue.
I've been listening to classical music for almost 45 years. For about a
decade, I made occasional live recordings.
In terms of sounding like "live sound", SACDs come closer than any other
commercial medium I've heard. This might be a coincidence -- either because
they're usually less-heavily miked, and/or they offer surround sound * --
but it pretty much demonstrates that there is nothing horribly wrong with
SACD sound. You can argue all you want about principles and specs, but it
all comes down to fidelity. And SACD is not subjectively inferior to any
other recording system I've heard.
* I've tried shutting off the ambience channels, and you can definitely hear
a difference in the /character/ of the sound. It's not just the loss of
ambience -- there's a change in instrumental timbre.
ivanmaxim
No its not just you - I have been folliwing this conversation and
David is making a very poor showing replying to your detailed and
specific points - maybe thats just how I see it Wagner Fan
ivanmaxim
wrote:
its just Romy the Scat and his usual bullshit Wagner Fan
ivanmaxim
>
> - Show quoted text -
Seconded - I find Marks postings here cogent, well thought out and
informative - which is rare here. Wagner fan
Bob Lombard
"ivanmaxim" <ivanm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b16f82a-a890-419c...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Seconded - I find Marks postings here cogent, well thought out and
informative - which is rare here. Wagner fan
:) On the other hand, it is easy to tell when Mark shoots from the hip; he
is off-target.
bl
Kip Williams
> In article<fBleo.33488$6o7....@newsfe21.iad>, Kip Williams
> <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> O wrote:
>>> In article<_Yieo.26667$1v3....@newsfe20.iad>, Kip Williams
>>> <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I must be dumb.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought the Bush tax cuts were supposed to expire this year, yet they
>>>>> take a bigger and bigger amount in years to come. I thought, well,
>>>>
>>>> Following the explanatory link (the highlighted words "according to the
>>>> Center on Budget and Policy Priorities"), we find footnote 6, which
>>>> leads us to this:
>>>>
>>>> "[6] As explained in the technical note at the end of the paper, this
>>>> analysis assumes that expiring tax cuts will be extended and new funding
>>>> will be provided for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
>>>
>>> Well, we've just effectively pulled out of Iraq last week. The chart
>>> indicates constant contribution to the debt for those wars until 2019.
>>> In fact, the only thing that's grown appreciably is the Bush tax cuts,
>>> which have grown monstrously by 2019.
>>
>> We're done paying for stuff in Iraq? That's not the way I heard it.
>
> With no combat troops there, it will command the same proportion to the
> debt in future years as it does now? Is Obama expected to scale up
> Afghanistan to the cost of both wars previously?
Contractors over there were paid obscenely high wages and such. Are they
all leaving, or are they what's staying behind?
> According to that chart, we finished up paying for TARP, Freddy and
> Fannie this year! It was such a big chunk too!
>>>> And indeed, those happy GOP guys are pushing with every fiber and tendon
>>>> they have to keep these wonderful tax cuts in effect. It's still an open
>>>> question whether they will or not.
>>>
>>> Those happy GOP guys realize that whacking the entire public, including
>>> the poor people, who got a big, big break under Bush, is going to play
>>> a serious number on the economy.
>>
>> They didn't get a big break under Bush, they got a tip. The big players
>> got a big break. I remember being around then.
>
> When you're poor, a couple of grand is important. Bush's cuts
Did you get a couple of grand?
> drastically changed the lower rate taxes, and excluded many from taxes
> altogether, who will now be taxed when these cuts expire. The people
> who are going to experience the most pain from the expiration of these
> cuts are the poor.
>
> The big players always get a big break. With Bush, the little players
They got a tip. Income taxes don't account for all the taxes the less
well-off pay. Sales tax is a big one that hits them disproportionately.
> did too. FWIW, I think Bush did favor the rich, not in the tax cuts,
> but in capital gains treatment. Capital gains are pretty much the
> rich's playground, and certainly the poor don't benefit. So I would be
> in favor of maintaining those tax cuts except for the cap gains, and
> I'd be willing even to let all tax cuts above $250K expire.
I'm all for letting the capital gains taxes resume, and stop the cuts
above $250k. That certainly makes more sense than what's being pressed for.
>>>>> this might just be their leftover effect from previous years. But the
>>>>> amount attributed to TARP, Fannie and Freddie is shut down as of this
>>>>> year, with no leftover effect from millions of ruined mortgages.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also note the CBPP "focuses on lower to middle income issues" so does
>>>>> this mean only the Bush tax cuts to the lower and middle classes are
>>>>> included here? Also, the CBPP "may be directly involved with the
>>>>> Democratic Party." Talk about the "ugly truth." I think Barney Frank
>>>>> must've come up with it.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, well. If they're involved in the Democratic Party, we need pay no
>>>> attention to anything they say. La la la. All is well!
>>>
>>> There's a difference between something coming from the Democratic Party
>>> and something coming directly from the Congressional Budget Office.
>>> May as well be from Fox News..
>>
>> Except for that part where the figures came from the CBO, of course.
>> Other than that, it's just exactly like some outfit that makes up stuff
>> and gives money to the GOP.
>
> I don't think the CBO will sign on that that chart is a valid
> representation.
You know much that is hidden.
Kip W
Doug McDonald
> On Aug 28, 8:52 pm, Doug McDonald<mcdon...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> I do agree that the surround sound is nice. But that has nothing
>> to do with remastering 2 channel analog tapes. It does have
>> something to do with remastering 3 channel analog masters from
>> Living Stereo or Living Presence sources. I have some of those.
>>
>
> usually imply to PCM them, do mastering then convert to SACD. I think
> AudioMirois used Pacific 2x or 4X, partially because it is PCM and
> partially because it is 10 times better then SACD native A/D. Sure
> then the idiots added for idiots reverberations for surround. They
> might add a dram machine as well - the surround Hoi polloi would not
> know difference….
None of the LS or LP remasters to SACD, when played back from the SACD
layer, have anything in the surround channels.
Some are two channel, some are three. That's how they were recorded.
I have no idea whether they added reverb. They sound fine whatever they did.
I have never listened to the non-SACD layer.
Doug McDonald
Kip Williams
> O wrote:
>> I don't think the CBO will sign on that that chart is a valid
>> representation.
>
> You know much that is hidden.
It might have been somewhat funnier, in retrospect, if I'd phrased that
as "You know much that is hidden, O O!"
Live and/or learn.
Kip W
David Oberman
<ivanm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Seconded - I find Marks postings here cogent, well thought out and
>informative - which is rare here. Wagner fan
I like Mark. He's a nice guy!
ivanmaxim
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 03:16:36 -0700 (PDT), ivanmaxim
>
> >Seconded - I find Marks postings here cogent, well thought out and
> >informative - which is rare here. Wagner fan
>
> I like Mark. He's a nice guy!
I don't know (nor care) whether he is "nice" or not - what I most
often see from him are views backed up by evidence to support them =
very refreshing here. Wagner fan
O
<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
The biggest expense is got to be keeping a combat army on the field in
a foreign country.
>
> > According to that chart, we finished up paying for TARP, Freddy and
> > Fannie this year! It was such a big chunk too!
>
> >>>> And indeed, those happy GOP guys are pushing with every fiber and tendon
> >>>> they have to keep these wonderful tax cuts in effect. It's still an open
> >>>> question whether they will or not.
> >>>
> >>> Those happy GOP guys realize that whacking the entire public, including
> >>> the poor people, who got a big, big break under Bush, is going to play
> >>> a serious number on the economy.
> >>
> >> They didn't get a big break under Bush, they got a tip. The big players
> >> got a big break. I remember being around then.
> >
> > When you're poor, a couple of grand is important. Bush's cuts
>
> Did you get a couple of grand?
Over the 8 years of the cuts, sure, easy. Bet you did too.
>
> > drastically changed the lower rate taxes, and excluded many from taxes
> > altogether, who will now be taxed when these cuts expire. The people
> > who are going to experience the most pain from the expiration of these
> > cuts are the poor.
> >
> > The big players always get a big break. With Bush, the little players
>
> They got a tip. Income taxes don't account for all the taxes the less
> well-off pay. Sales tax is a big one that hits them disproportionately.
Mark's example of the typical family-of-four at $40K is going to get
hit particularly hard. There's a lot of people who have lost their jobs
who are at this level.
>
> > did too. FWIW, I think Bush did favor the rich, not in the tax cuts,
> > but in capital gains treatment. Capital gains are pretty much the
> > rich's playground, and certainly the poor don't benefit. So I would be
> > in favor of maintaining those tax cuts except for the cap gains, and
> > I'd be willing even to let all tax cuts above $250K expire.
>
> I'm all for letting the capital gains taxes resume, and stop the cuts
> above $250k. That certainly makes more sense than what's being pressed for.
By both sides. They've turned it into a partisan all-or-nothing deal.
>
> >>>>> this might just be their leftover effect from previous years. But the
> >>>>> amount attributed to TARP, Fannie and Freddie is shut down as of this
> >>>>> year, with no leftover effect from millions of ruined mortgages.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I also note the CBPP "focuses on lower to middle income issues" so does
> >>>>> this mean only the Bush tax cuts to the lower and middle classes are
> >>>>> included here? Also, the CBPP "may be directly involved with the
> >>>>> Democratic Party." Talk about the "ugly truth." I think Barney Frank
> >>>>> must've come up with it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh, well. If they're involved in the Democratic Party, we need pay no
> >>>> attention to anything they say. La la la. All is well!
> >>>
> >>> There's a difference between something coming from the Democratic Party
> >>> and something coming directly from the Congressional Budget Office.
> >>> May as well be from Fox News..
> >>
> >> Except for that part where the figures came from the CBO, of course.
> >> Other than that, it's just exactly like some outfit that makes up stuff
> >> and gives money to the GOP.
> >
> > I don't think the CBO will sign on that that chart is a valid
> > representation.
>
> You know much that is hidden.
That dog won't hunt.
-Owen
Oscar Williamson
> On Aug 29, 2:00 am, Oscar Williamson <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > SoundMirror went back to original work parts (two-track and three-
> > track work parts) and created DSD transfers -- no PCM. FULL STOP.
> > END OF STORY. Please, call +1-617-522-1412 you do not believe me.
> > And no, they are not 'idiots'. Erronerous slander. Just because you
> > think SoundMirror's work was horrible crap' /does not/ make their true
> > DSD conversion from analog masters untrue.
>
> Oscar, what are your problems? I did not call SoundMirror's work as
> horrible crap
You wrote...
<<What they did in after 2000 was HORRIBLE CRAP – warn you that I
judge CD-layer only - I do not care about SACD
or use them.>>
> and I did not call them idiots. Read again what I wrote.
Okay...
<<The masters 3 channels and remastering
usually imply to PCM them, do mastering then convert to SACD. I think
AudioMirois used Pacific 2x or 4X, partially because it is PCM and
partially because it is 10 times better then SACD native A/D. Sure
then the idiots added for IDIOTS reverberations for surround.>>
graham
"Bob Lombard" <thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote in message
news:reteo.99376$iV7....@en-nntp-15.dc1.easynews.com...
That's only because you keep moving them! {;-)
Graham
Romy the Cat
wrote:
One more evidence for a few people with brain at this site that you an
idiot. In my post that you quoted out of context I was not referring
to SoundMirror but to the re-mastered the CD layers of many DSD disks.
(In fact they are not DSD but SACD, DSD discontinue to exist after
2000 and exist only in the imagination of the sales whore with bumper
sticker intelligence - like you)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.classical.recordings/msg/86fdea277c7c4c5c?hl=en
It is time for you to make tattoo on your empty forehead with my
quotes….
Romy the Cat
>
> It is time for you to make tattoo on your empty forehead with my
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oops, Oscar, when I replyed your post, I was under impression that I’m
answering to Sommerwerck (I think my reader screw it up) - that is
why is sound more harsh then I would reply to you as I do not who you
are. Read what I say and do not behave like the Sommerwerck the Cretin.
Kip Williams
Ah. Yeah, over eight years, you're probably right. I was looking at the
annual rate (about $650 for the middle 20%), not the total.
>>> drastically changed the lower rate taxes, and excluded many from taxes
>>> altogether, who will now be taxed when these cuts expire. The people
>>> who are going to experience the most pain from the expiration of these
>>> cuts are the poor.
>>>
>>> The big players always get a big break. With Bush, the little players
>>
>> They got a tip. Income taxes don't account for all the taxes the less
>> well-off pay. Sales tax is a big one that hits them disproportionately.
>
> Mark's example of the typical family-of-four at $40K is going to get
> hit particularly hard. There's a lot of people who have lost their jobs
> who are at this level.
If that $40k family is in the middle 20%, they'll lose about 2% of their
income, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (quoted at
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1811).
>>> did too. FWIW, I think Bush did favor the rich, not in the tax cuts,
>>> but in capital gains treatment. Capital gains are pretty much the
>>> rich's playground, and certainly the poor don't benefit. So I would be
>>> in favor of maintaining those tax cuts except for the cap gains, and
>>> I'd be willing even to let all tax cuts above $250K expire.
>>
>> I'm all for letting the capital gains taxes resume, and stop the cuts
>> above $250k. That certainly makes more sense than what's being pressed for.
>
> By both sides. They've turned it into a partisan all-or-nothing deal.
Yeah, "both sides" have done that. Those darned compromising Democrats
and the take-no-prisoners, obstruct-at-all-costs Republicans must be
equally guilty.
>>>>>>> this might just be their leftover effect from previous years. But the
>>>>>>> amount attributed to TARP, Fannie and Freddie is shut down as of this
>>>>>>> year, with no leftover effect from millions of ruined mortgages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also note the CBPP "focuses on lower to middle income issues" so does
>>>>>>> this mean only the Bush tax cuts to the lower and middle classes are
>>>>>>> included here? Also, the CBPP "may be directly involved with the
>>>>>>> Democratic Party." Talk about the "ugly truth." I think Barney Frank
>>>>>>> must've come up with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, well. If they're involved in the Democratic Party, we need pay no
>>>>>> attention to anything they say. La la la. All is well!
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a difference between something coming from the Democratic Party
>>>>> and something coming directly from the Congressional Budget Office.
>>>>> May as well be from Fox News..
>>>>
>>>> Except for that part where the figures came from the CBO, of course.
>>>> Other than that, it's just exactly like some outfit that makes up stuff
>>>> and gives money to the GOP.
>>>
>>> I don't think the CBO will sign on that that chart is a valid
>>> representation.
>>
>> You know much that is hidden.
>
> That dog won't hunt.
Then explain it. Why don't you think the CBO will approve the use of
their numbers?
Kip W
Oscar Williamson
>
> It is time for you to make tattoo on your empty forehead with my
> quotes….
SoundMirror was the party responsible for creation of new redbook
masters for the stereo redbook layer IN ADDITION TO multi-channel and
stereo SACD programs. All were created using new DSD transfers from
original analog work parts. The stereo programs were /not/ clones of
any other Living Stereo mastering.
There are three unique stereo redbook Living Stereo masterings, all
from the same era (late 90's/early '00s):
Living Stereo RCA
Living Stereo XRCD
Living Stereo RCA SACD (with unique mastering for stereo redbook
layer)
Oscar Williamson
wrote:
>
> Living Stereo RCA
> Living Stereo XRCD
> Living Stereo RCA SACD (with unique mastering for stereo redbook
> layer)
PS. If you think /any/ of these issues sound 'horrible', well, I must
ask how old you are and what your hearing is. I say that with no
offense intended. But there are many men on the web posting about
classical music who are not exactly 'spring chickens', whose opinions
regarding sound quality must be taken with a grain of salt in light of
their age.
Oscar Williamson
PPS. Re XRCD, there are some early editions that are definitely too
bright...however, the ones that have fantastic sound were mastered by
Alan Yoshida at Ocean Way Mastering, Hollywood. Those were mastered
from original stereo two-track masters.
David Oberman
<markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Then you should support a progressive tax system as being the most
>equitable.
I'm really sorry, Mark, but I just don't!
>Can a millionaire family get by on $900,000?
Mark, I have no idea.
>Look, I've never made over $150k in a given year
Holy shit!! That's a FORTUNE to me!! Seriously. You can get by quite
well on $50,000 a year, as far as I'm concerned. If I supported
progressive taxation, I'd have taxed you $100,000. I'm sorry, but
that's how I feel. Nobody NEEDS $150,000 a year.
mark
> mark wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 10:42 am, "Gerard" <g_nospam_hendrik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I'd respond if I felt your were interested in an answer. You're
> > > > not.
>
> > > You have no idea what I am interested in.
>
> > True, but I'm hardly alone in that, most likely because your typical
> > responses in these threads shed no light on the subject.
>
> These threads don't shed any light on any subject.
Uh, the subject under discussion was what you (Gerard) are interested
in, and the fact that none of us have any idea as to what that is.
You're the only person posting in this thread who has a first-person
ability to shed light on that topic. You don't choose to.
mark
>
> > I'm all for letting the capital gains taxes resume, and stop the cuts
> > above $250k. That certainly makes more sense than what's being pressed for.
>
One thing nobody has mentioned is that if the bush tax cuts are kept
up to the $250,000 mark and allowed to expire over that amount,
everyone making $250,000+ will still get the benefit of a tax
reduction for everything they earn below $250,000. In essence, it
means that everybody in the country gets the same tax cut up to
earning $250,000, at which point a higher tax rate kicks in.
If you were to ask 95% of the people in this country who do not make
anywhere close to $250,000 if they thought that was fair, I think
they'd say yes. I mean, I certainly envy people who have to worry
about such things, don't you? And the tax increase we're talking abut
is a measly 3% extra. BFD.
Anyone who is really interested in the difference between Obama's plan
and keeping the bush tax cuts should view Ezra Klein's graph in the
WaPo. ( http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/the_bush_tax_plan_vs_the_obama.html
). You'll see that both plans save the tax payer pretty much the same
amount until you hit the high earners.
For example, if you make $40k, the Obama plan saves you $896 while the
bush tax cuts save you $894. If you make up to $200,000, Obama saves
you $3,766 while bush saves you $3,690. But if you make $500,000-
$1MM, Obama saves you $6,701 while your savings under bush soar to
$17,467. Earn over $1mm and Obama saves you $6,349 while bush saves
you a grotesque $103, 835.
Can anyone doubt the fact that bush's plan favors the wealthy over we
commoners? Both plans save average taxpayers only about $1,000 a year.
But if you're rich, you get a real bonanza from bush, and have been
getting that bonanza for 10 years.
In effect, bush gave each millionaire in the country an entire year's
salary in tax cuts over the past decade ($103,835 X 10 = $1,038,350),
while the average Joe got about $10,000 - enough to buy a cheap used
car.
mark
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:44:53 -0700 (PDT), mark
>
Do you live in a high rent district like NYC or CA? I do, which is why
we get paid higher salaries. The cost-of-living here is ridiculous. I
rent a small 3-bdrm home for $2700 a month. The home is on the market
for $600,000. I can't afford to buy the place, nor any place within 40
miles of my job. Gas is about $3.10 a gallon for regular.
I may make more than you, but I don't keep much of it.
Jenn
<e0223784-881d-497f...@p11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
mark <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
DARN YOU for not providing specifics to back up your points!
;-)
Oscar Williamson
>
> > Holy shit!! That's a FORTUNE to me!! Seriously. You can get by quite
> > well on $50,000 a year, as far as I'm concerned. If I supported
> > progressive taxation, I'd have taxed you $100,000. I'm sorry, but
> > that's how I feel. Nobody NEEDS $150,000 a year.
>
> Do you live in a high rent district like NYC or CA? I do, which is why
> we get paid higher salaries. The cost-of-living here is ridiculous. I
> rent a small 3-bdrm home for $2700 a month. The home is on the market
> for $600,000. I can't afford to buy the place, nor any place within 40
> miles of my job. Gas is about $3.10 a gallon for regular.
Ouch, I work in the music business and live in LA. My rent is $501/
month for one bedroom apartment in the hills of Silver Lake,d walking
distance to restaurants, nightclubs, cafes, with my own parking space
and huge patio. Needless to say, I spend a lot of time buying those
$162 'sweet spot' tickets to Disney Hall, CD's from Amoeba, and hot
dates at swanky restaurants. And thanking the good Lord for my good
fortune.
Gerard
> On Aug 29, 12:43 am, "Gerard" <g_nospam_hendrik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > mark wrote:
> > > On Aug 28, 10:42 am, "Gerard" <g_nospam_hendrik...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > I'd respond if I felt your were interested in an answer.
> > > > > You're not.
> >
> > > > You have no idea what I am interested in.
> >
> > > True, but I'm hardly alone in that, most likely because your
> > > typical responses in these threads shed no light on the subject.
> >
> > These threads don't shed any light on any subject.
>
> Uh, the subject under discussion was what you (Gerard) are interested
> in,
It was not the subject of any discussion.
You made a statement about it - some guess actually - but it was not the
subject.
> and the fact that none of us have any idea as to what that is.
> You're the only person posting in this thread who has a first-person
> ability to shed light on that topic. You don't choose to.
See above. It is not the subject.
mark
> For example, if you make $40k, the Obama plan saves you $896 while the
> bush tax cuts save you $894. If you make up to $200,000, Obama saves
> you $3,766 while bush saves you $3,690. But if you make $500,000-
> $1MM, Obama saves you $6,701 while your savings under bush soar to
> $17,467. Earn over $1mm and Obama saves you $6,349 while bush saves
> you a grotesque $103, 835.
>
> Can anyone doubt the fact that bush's plan favors the wealthy over we
> commoners? Both plans save average taxpayers only about $1,000 a year.
> But if you're rich, you get a real bonanza from bush, and have been
> getting that bonanza for 10 years.
>
> In effect, bush gave each millionaire in the country an entire year's
> salary in tax cuts over the past decade ($103,835 X 10 = $1,038,350),
> while the average Joe got about $10,000 - enough to buy a cheap used
> car.
Just to hammer home the unfairness in the bush tax cuts, the tax cut
for millionaires equates to a 10.3% tax cut.
What would the rest of us have seen as our tax cut if we had also been
given a 10.3% cut? Do the math :
$40,000 X 10.3% = $4120 (as opposed to the $894 bush gave people)
$50,000 X 10.3% = $5150 (under bush, it was $909).
And so it goes.
Financial class warfare, instituted and promoted by the Republican
Party. And they know that most Americans are so stupid that they can
probably keep getting away with it.
mark
>
> >Look, I've never made over $150k in a given year
>
> Holy shit!! That's a FORTUNE to me!! I'm sorry, but
> that's how I feel. Nobody NEEDS $150,000 a year.
I'd also point out that I support a family of 4. A single person
making $50k a year has a lot more to show for it at the end of the
year than do I.
William Sommerwerck
I disagree. My hearing cuts off around 12kHz, but I feel I'm a more
perceptive and critical listener than I was 30 years ago.
Romy the Cat
Yes, you right, I forgot the XRCD but I do not know how they did them.
The XRCD were all bad but they might remove by light-cooking them – it
removed all stupid glitz from them. My ability to hear is absolutely
irrelevant here (even though I have good hearing). I am not called to
RTA duty and I am talking about much different things then exertion in
any of the extremes.
Oscar Williamson
wrote:
>
> I disagree. My hearing cuts off around 12kHz, but I feel I'm a more
> perceptive and critical listener than I was 30 years ago.
Advances in hi-fi and recording sciences during those 30-odd years no
doubt aid your perceptions. Critically, we are always getting more
acute if our playback set-up is decent. The more we hear, the more we
know (or think we know).
Still, septuagenarians and those half that age hear things
differently. Hearing degrades.
Oscar Williamson
>
> Yes, you right, I forgot the XRCD but I do not know how they did them.
> The XRCD were all bad but they might remove by light-cooking them – it
> removed all stupid glitz from them. My ability to hear is absolutely
> irrelevant here (even though I have good hearing). I am not called to
> RTA duty and I am talking about much different things then exertion in
> any of the extremes.
So you think the three unique Living Stereo masterings listed
above...they ALL sound horrible??
William Sommerwerck
>> more perceptive and critical listener than I was 30 years ago.
> Advances in hi-fi and recording sciences during those 30-odd
> years no doubt aid your perceptions. Critically, we are always
> getting more acute if our playback set-up is decent. The more
> we hear, the more we know (or think we know).
Bingo.
> Still, septuagenarians and those half that age hear things
> differently. Hearing degrades.
Deteriorates. Degrades is a transitive verb.
The loss of most of the highest octave /is/ audible. There's no question
that recorded sound is somewhat "sweeter" and not so "incisive" (to me) than
it was 20 years ago.
Oscar Williamson
wrote:
Correction: Not 'as incisive as' it was 20 years ago.
Romy the Cat
wrote:
Oscar, I do not think that anything explicitly prohibitive in CD layer
of SACD. I have some SACD where CD layer is perfectly fine. I did not
listen then in SACD but I have no big complains about CD layer (for
instance Eva Podles Russian Album). However each and single CD layer
that I heard on Living Stereo SACD disk was beyond horrible – it was
completely vandalized.. (Janis playing Rach 2 and 3 for instance). I
have perhaps a dozen of those new Living Stereo SACD and I stopped to
buy them long time ago and they were literally unusable as CDs. I am
an not lie but I did trash a few of them - literally throw them away
out of window of my car. Now, considering that we know what kind sonic
degradation shall take place when you convert what they call DSD to
16/44 and know what kind result thy got I see only two options
available:
1) The DSD transfer were mastered in a way that it was garbage
2) The CD layer was intentionally compromised to make people to switch
to SACD.
In both cases, the crap the they put on CD layer was remarkable in the
same direction as the LP re-matering in 90s, only take much further.
If you have a good copy of 1S originals pressing from 60s and compare
what was released in 90s then you will be willing to vomit. Sure you
need to have a good performing LP setup and proper reference points
for sound assessment. Another ironic fact is that the LP re-matering
in 90 and SACD re-matering in 2000s was done but the same SoundMirros,
and they have both big stupid-industry medals for both endeavors. I
do not accuse SoundMirros but the results are conspicuous….
SoundMirros is right here in Boston, I live Boston. I see a lot of
their work and I have other issues why I am not wild about them. BTW,
the SoundMirros 2X PCM are good and practicly free – you might try
them – they well worth. If they do not use the idiotic poli-mic
techniques they would be 23423456 times better…
Oscar Williamson
What does this mean: 'Another ironic fact is that the LP re-matering
in 90 and SACD re-matering in 2000s was done but the same
SoundMirros...' Classic Records handled LP reissues in the 90's, not
SoundMirror. Very bright mastering by Bernie Grundman, done to spec
per Classic Records. Not to my taste. And yes, I do prefer SACD
multi-channel layer to 1S stereo pressings. I have many 1S vinyl
pressings and decent LP playback, by the way. The narcotic glow of
original vinyl is simply a different listening experience to the more
accurate SACD program. Different strokes.
I think you should call SoundMirror and ask them what went wrong, in
your opinion. I know they would be happy to talk to you. You have
the number.
Oscar Williamson
>
> In both cases, the crap the they put on CD layer was remarkable in the
> same direction as the LP re-matering in 90s, only take much further.
PS. Am I taking you 'out of context' by again pointing out your use of
the word CRAP to describe SoundMirror's work?
William Sommerwerck
news:e27397ee-0a93-4f28...@q2g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
> And yes, I do prefer SACD multi-channel layer to 1S stereo
> pressings. I have many 1S vinyl pressings and decent LP
> playback, by the way. The narcotic glow of original vinyl is
> simply a different listening experience to the more-accurate
> SACD program. Different strokes.
Some months ago I pulled out a pile of high-quality LPs and started
listening to them. (I, too, have good LP playback -- Well-Tempered arm &
table; Ikead direct-coupled MC pickup; Curl Vendetta head amp/equalizer.)
Although the best LPs have awfully good sound, "narcotic glow" is not an
inaccurate description. LPs are euphonically colored in a very pleasing way,
while SACDs can be accurate to the point of sometimes sounding "clinical".
It doesn't help that some classic direct-disk LPs are heavily multi-miked,
and resulting sound, though highly pleasing, bears no relationship to
anything live.
William Sommerwerck
>> no question that recorded sound is somewhat "sweeter"
>> and not so "incisive" (to me) than it was 20 years ago.
> Correction: Not 'as incisive as' it was 20 years ago.
Touché.
Oscar Williamson
wrote:.
>
> Some months ago I pulled out a pile of high-quality LPs and started
> listening to them. (I, too, have good LP playback -- Well-Tempered arm &
> table; Ikead direct-coupled MC pickup; Curl Vendetta head amp/equalizer.)
>
> Although the best LPs have awfully good sound, "narcotic glow" is not an
> inaccurate description. LPs are euphonically colored in a very pleasing way,
> while SACDs can be accurate to the point of sometimes sounding "clinical".
> It doesn't help that some classic direct-disk LPs are heavily multi-miked,
> and resulting sound, though highly pleasing, bears no relationship to
> anything live.
Orig. Living Stereo LP's cut on a Scully lathe have pronounced
limitations in frequency response, dynamic range, and equalization vis-
a-vis the best, Alan Yoshida-mastered XRCD's (from mixdown two-track
masters) and SACD's (remixed from original work parts). IN MY HUMBLE
OPINION, there is no question as to the more realistic -- indeed, TRUE
-- listening experience. I love LP's, have a few thousand. Rock
music sounds better on LP, in general. Rhythm needs to flow and bass
response is better on LP. It's all in the mastering, however. And in
classical music, recording philosophy plays a big part as well.
There's no fixing a crap balance. But back to point: Living Stereo --
there's nobody but nobody who can tell me any of the 90's/00's unique
CD masterings of this legendary material is crap (some XRCD's are too
bright, but crap is not how I would describe them). To think
otherwise is called audiophilia nervosa.
Steve Emerson
<ed162ac1-634d-418b...@13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Marc <marcp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm only occasionally peeking in on what's left of this newsgroup, but
> I don't think this set has been posted about here yet and it's
> certainly worth mentioning, Sony Music in Korea has recently released
> what I believe is the entire RCA Living Stereo Series in a beautiful,
> relatively inexpensive, small box:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Living-Stereo-60-Collection-Box/dp/B003UCPEJ2/ref=sr_
> 1_1?
> ie=UTF8&qid=1282971444&sr=1-1
>
> There are 55 titles over 60 CDs, all in the most recent DSD (but not
> SACD) remasters. Surprisingly I had only about 10 of these already on
> CD, and none in the latest sound. What a pleasure to listen for the
> first time in years, or ever, to recordings like Reiner's Sheherazade,
> Heifetz's Mendelssohn concerto, Munch's La Mer, etc. etc.
>
> If this is the end of the CD era, it seems to be going out in style.
> Well done Sony Korea.
Thanks for the news, Marc. It surprises me these guys think they can
only get $2.50 per disc for this material. They may even be able to get
that much from me.
SE.
Romy the Cat
wrote:
> What does this mean: 'Another ironic fact is that the LP re-matering
> in 90 and SACD re-matering in 2000s was done but the same
> SoundMirros...' Classic Records handled LP reissues in the 90's, not
> SoundMirror. Very bright mastering by Bernie Grundman, done to spec
> per Classic Records. Not to my taste. And yes, I do prefer SACD
> multi-channel layer to 1S stereo pressings. I have many 1S vinyl
> pressings and decent LP playback, by the way. The narcotic glow of
> original vinyl is simply a different listening experience to the more
> accurate SACD program. Different strokes.
>
> I think you should call SoundMirror and ask them what went wrong, in
> your opinion. I know they would be happy to talk to you. You have
>
> - Show quoted text -
I did read that Classic Records 180-200 gram reissues were made with
SoundMirror involment or by SoundMirror. It was mentioned in context
that SoundMirror got a award or nomination for this projects. I do
not remember where I read it as it was years back. I do not need to
call SoundMirror or ask them anything – I have no specific areas of
interest that they can address. In the past when those areas of
interest took pace and I was in contact with them then they acted
incredibly snobby and superior but actually provided wrong
information. I do not know how good the SACD programs compare to 1S
original LP or 15ips dubs. Sorry, I do not believe you or anybody else
to make judgments - I trust only to myself, sometimes. If course I
heard many times the mercury SACD but it always was in context of
somebody else playback and I did not like it. I do not play SACD
home. The question remain the same as it was in the beginning – if
your report is correct and the SACD are fine then why the CD layer of
SACD is such a horrible? Anyhow, I do have my reason to feel that
your report is incorrect….
Romy the Cat
wrote:
> Orig. Living Stereo LP's cut on a Scully lathe have pronounced
> limitations in frequency response, dynamic range, and equalization vis-
> a-vis the best, Alan Yoshida-mastered XRCD's (from mixdown two-track
> masters) and SACD's (remixed from original work parts). IN MY HUMBLE
> OPINION, there is no question as to the more realistic -- indeed, TRUE
> -- listening experience. I love LP's, have a few thousand. Rock
> music sounds better on LP, in general. Rhythm needs to flow and bass
> response is better on LP. It's all in the mastering, however. And in
> classical music, recording philosophy plays a big part as well.
> There's no fixing a crap balance. But back to point: Living Stereo --
> there's nobody but nobody who can tell me any of the 90's/00's unique
> CD masterings of this legendary material is crap (some XRCD's are too
> bright, but crap is not how I would describe them). To think
> otherwise is called audiophilia nervosa.
Oscar, LP is horrible and hugely compromised format but there is a
kink in that format – editing was done by analog means. The today
mastering is digital but the irony is that digital can’t change volume
or to write a crossover slope without compromising a fine texture of a
raw file. One single DSP application and a file is gone - terminally
done. Not pretend the people like SoundMirrors or your Alan Yoshida or
whoever. They do mastering to sell recording and the simple people
would like to have “clean” sound. All Living Stereo recording has own
natural tape hiss. The tape hiss is fine, in early transfers it acted
as natural dithering, not to mention that it was not-harmonic noise
that does not bother brain too much, there is a lot on it but it is
not the place to talk about complex things. Now, nether your Yoshida
or Newton or anybody else let the noise to go to the final products,
so the tape hiss was cleared. Do you want I will tell you how it was
done or you would guess yourself? There is a lot of other aspects that
I might call upon. If we sit in the same listening room then I would
point out the specifics to you and I am sure would be able to
demonstrate and to illustrate the specifies. The point is that that
today master engineers target their products to very much lower common
denominator. The people out there are fucking teenagers with MP3 of
the fucking Sommerwercks with a set of presold delusions between
hears. Why do thing that in this environment anything good would be
possible?
David Oberman
<markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'd also point out that I support a family of 4. A single person
>making $50k a year has a lot more to show for it at the end of the
>year than do I.
Mark, do you have 401(k) tax-deferred savings plan at your place of
employment? Or do you have your own IRA(s). If the latter, do you have
traditional IRAs or Roth IRAs?
Do you have a Roth annuity?
Oscar Williamson
On Aug 29, 7:41 pm, Romy the Cat <R...@goodSoundClub.com> wrote:
>
> All Living Stereo recording has own
> natural tape hiss. The tape hiss is fine, in early transfers it acted
> as natural dithering, not to mention that it was not-harmonic noise
> that does not bother brain too much, there is a lot on it but it is
> not the place to talk about complex things. Now, nether your Yoshida
> or Newton or anybody else let the noise to go to the final products,
> so the tape hiss was cleared. Do you want I will tell you how it was
> done or you would guess yourself?
This is why I ask how old your ears are. Tape hiss is alive and well
on ALL Living Stereo XRCD's...like, a lot of it!! Have you heard any
of them? This is not up for debate. The SACD's have tape hiss, too,
but it is not as prominent as on the XRCD's, which -- as I've already
stated -- were mastered using original two-track mixdown masters from
the 50's and 60's (what 1S LP's were cut from). SoundMirror's SACD's
were created using original two- and three-track work parts, so there
was opportunity to reduce some of the hiss in post-production. It is
hardly offensive, in my humble opinion.
Oscar Williamson
>
> I did read that Classic Records 180-200 gram reissues were made with
> SoundMirror involment or by SoundMirror. It was mentioned in context
> that SoundMirror got a award or nomination for this projects. I do
> not remember where I read it as it was years back.
This information -- or your interpretation of it -- you read was
erroneous. SoundMirror never had a hand in Classic Record's 90's/00's
LP reissues. Bernie Grundman Mastering in Hollywood handled all
lacquer cuttings. Plating and pressing by Record Technology Inc.
O
<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Did you get a couple of grand?
> >
> > Over the 8 years of the cuts, sure, easy. Bet you did too.
>
> Ah. Yeah, over eight years, you're probably right. I was looking at the
> annual rate (about $650 for the middle 20%), not the total.
Didn't Bush also mail out rebate checks to people? So's they know they
got them? I'm trying to remember the amount - was it $1200 per joint
return?
>
> >>> drastically changed the lower rate taxes, and excluded many from taxes
> >>> altogether, who will now be taxed when these cuts expire. The people
> >>> who are going to experience the most pain from the expiration of these
> >>> cuts are the poor.
> >>>
> >>> The big players always get a big break. With Bush, the little players
> >>
> >> They got a tip. Income taxes don't account for all the taxes the less
> >> well-off pay. Sales tax is a big one that hits them disproportionately.
> >
> > Mark's example of the typical family-of-four at $40K is going to get
> > hit particularly hard. There's a lot of people who have lost their jobs
> > who are at this level.
>
> If that $40k family is in the middle 20%, they'll lose about 2% of their
> income, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (quoted at
> http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1811).
I think they'll lose their earned income credit as well and more of
their income will be taxed. Look at the graph on the page www.cbpp.org
(I've added a percentage calculation based on the highest income for
each range):
(High Income Households receive highest dollar benefit from Middle
class tax cuts)
Income (high end) tax benefit 2011 %
10K $53 0.53
20K $387 1.935
30K $771 2.57
40K $896 2.24
50K $916 1.832
75K $1132 1.50
100K $1900 1.90
200K $3766 1.883
500K $6743 1.3486
1M $6701 0.6701
More than 1 million dollars the benefit goes *down*, thus the % would
be much less.
Yeah, people who paid more taxes got more money back. Did the Democrats
expect the 10K taxpayer to get $6701 back? By not giving the
percentages, as I have done, and concentrating on the dollar amounts,
they just work the class envy thing.
>
> >>> did too. FWIW, I think Bush did favor the rich, not in the tax cuts,
> >>> but in capital gains treatment. Capital gains are pretty much the
> >>> rich's playground, and certainly the poor don't benefit. So I would be
> >>> in favor of maintaining those tax cuts except for the cap gains, and
> >>> I'd be willing even to let all tax cuts above $250K expire.
> >>
> >> I'm all for letting the capital gains taxes resume, and stop the cuts
> >> above $250k. That certainly makes more sense than what's being pressed for.
> >
> > By both sides. They've turned it into a partisan all-or-nothing deal.
>
> Yeah, "both sides" have done that. Those darned compromising Democrats
> and the take-no-prisoners, obstruct-at-all-costs Republicans must be
> equally guilty.
I haven't seen any compromising Democrats:
"Hey, we won!"
-Barack Obama
>
> >>>>>>> this might just be their leftover effect from previous years. But the
> >>>>>>> amount attributed to TARP, Fannie and Freddie is shut down as of this
> >>>>>>> year, with no leftover effect from millions of ruined mortgages.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I also note the CBPP "focuses on lower to middle income issues" so
> >>>>>>> does
> >>>>>>> this mean only the Bush tax cuts to the lower and middle classes are
> >>>>>>> included here? Also, the CBPP "may be directly involved with the
> >>>>>>> Democratic Party." Talk about the "ugly truth." I think Barney Frank
> >>>>>>> must've come up with it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Oh, well. If they're involved in the Democratic Party, we need pay no
> >>>>>> attention to anything they say. La la la. All is well!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There's a difference between something coming from the Democratic Party
> >>>>> and something coming directly from the Congressional Budget Office.
> >>>>> May as well be from Fox News..
> >>>>
> >>>> Except for that part where the figures came from the CBO, of course.
> >>>> Other than that, it's just exactly like some outfit that makes up stuff
> >>>> and gives money to the GOP.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think the CBO will sign on that that chart is a valid
> >>> representation.
> >>
> >> You know much that is hidden.
> >
> > That dog won't hunt.
>
> Then explain it. Why don't you think the CBO will approve the use of
> their numbers?
They might approve their numbers, but for the reasons I've given, I
think that chart has things that don't make sense (at least to me) and
believe that it represents some opinions and interpolations that are at
least questionable, and probably fabricated.
How can they clamp down the TARP, Fanny & Freddy effect as losing all
effect this year? Aren't homes still being foreclosed? This looks
more like Democratic propaganda then real statistics, and the fact that
it's forecast into the future implies that, at best, it's only someone
estimate.
-Owen
P.S. I find that when I'm typing now, I'm starting to type more like
Romy the Cat, and it's unintentional.
Romy the Cat
wrote:
The XRCD do not have excessive tape hiss they have brightness of this
own but it might be dealt by flashing the XRCD that make them mach
better. I tend to agree that XRCD are still too hot and a bit too
flat. I do own a couple dozen of XRCD and I am not too thrilled about
them. I have however a VERY hard reading CD player…. Absolutely all
SACD that I heard has substantially lower have tape compare to what I
hears on LPs of better commercial tapes. The SACD has also a wrong in
my view harmonics of the tape hiss, it is not prominent but it is also
unnatural. It obvious that they worked with tape hiss, I do not like
it. Whatever I have seen done to minimize tape hiss did impact sound
negatively and generally I am not bothered by tape hiss. My beloved FM
always has some small noise – it never bothered me.
mark
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:04:23 -0700 (PDT), mark
>
> >I'd also point out that I support a family of 4. A single person
> >making $50k a year has a lot more to show for it at the end of the
> >year than do I.
>
> Mark, do you have 401(k) tax-deferred savings plan at your place of
> employment? Or do you have your own IRA(s). If the latter, do you have
> traditional IRAs or Roth IRAs?
>
> Do you have a Roth annuity?
Had all that, lost it all after bush took over (or I should say,
cashed it in to make ends meet when jobs I was working evaporated).
The record industry was not the place to be once the worm turned on
the CD.