Pristine release: Horenstein conducts Bruckner 7, Berlin Phil 1928 (Obert-Thorn transfer)
Andrew Rose
BRUCKNER Symphony No. 7 in E major
Pristine Audio PASC 203
Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra
conducted by Jascha Horenstein
Recorded in 1928
Producer and Audio Restoration Engineer: Mark Obert-Thorn
Cover artwork based on a photograph of Jascha Horenstein
Total duration: 58:58
�2009 Pristine Audio
The first electrical recording of Bruckner's 7th Symphony
"One of the finest-sounding recordings of its era" - Mark Obert-Thorn
* Bruckner Symphony No. 7 in E
1st mvt. - Allegro moderato (17:21)
(Matrices: 964 bm, 965 bm, 966 � bm, 967 bm)
2nd mvt. - Adagio: Sehr feierlich und sehr langsam (21:44)
(Matrices: 1270 bm, 1271 bm, 1272 bm, 1273 bm, 1274 � bm)
3rd mvt. - Scherzo: Sehr schnell; Trio; Etwas langsamer (9:17)
(Matrices: 1275 � bm, 1330 � bm, 1275 � bm)
4th mvt. - Finale: Bewegt, doch nicht schnell (10:36)
(Matrices: 1331 � bm, 1332 � bm, 1333 � bm)
Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra
conductor Jascha Horenstein
First issued on Grammophon/Polydor 66802 through 66808
"Grammophon have some interesting records not duplicated in the
Decca catalogue. There is Bruckner's Seventh Symphony for those who like
the rather diffuse eloquence of this composer. English conductors and
orchestras treat us badly over Bruckner: they are too gentle with him.
Few could resist him as he is played in Germany, where his love of noise
and his sentimentality are given full play. Surprisingly enough,
however, Bruckner gets away with it, as owners of these records
(Grammophon 66802LM-66808LM) will see. The symphony is played by the
Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Jascha Horenstein."
from "Some Interesting German Records", The Gramophone, December 1935
Sample: http://tinyurl.com/PASC203 - 1st mvt, long excerpt
Notes on the recordings:
There are two particularly remarkable things about this Bruckner
Seventh. The first is that Grammophon/Polydor entrusted this premi�re
electrical recording of a complete Bruckner symphony to the 30-year-old
Jascha Horenstein. At a time when that label was also making records
with Furtw�ngler, Fried (who had made the first, acoustic, recording of
the work several years earlier), Klemperer (who had recorded the Adagio
acoustically), Pfitzner, Kleiber, and Richard Strauss, this was high
praise, indeed, and a vote of confidence in the young maestro�s future
career.
The second remarkable feature is the recorded sound that the original
engineers were able to capture. Having transferred many orchestral discs
from the late 1920s, I found it to be one of the finest-sounding
recordings of its era. This is greatly aided by the quiet surfaces of
the German Polydor pressings used for this transfer.
As the matrix numbers indicate, this was recorded over three separate
sessions: the first movement in one session, the second movement and the
first part of the Scherzo in the second, and the Scherzo�s Trio and the
Finale in the third. Each session was recorded at a different speed,
with the first two being well above the �standard� 78.26 rpm and the
last being below it. The pitches have all been corrected here.
Like some other recordings of the 78 rpm period which featured A � B � A
movements spread over three sides (the Scherzo in Mengelberg�s recording
of the Schubert Ninth comes to mind), it was assumed that the listener
would replay the first side of the Scherzo after the Trio side ended,
since that side was not included twice in the set.
Mark Obert-Thorn
--
Andrew Rose
Pristine Classical: "The destination for people interested in historic
recordings..." (Gramophone)
Andrew Rose
http://www.pristineclassical.com/LargeWorks/Orchestral/PASC203.php
Frank Berger
Presumably, this is the same recording I have on Koch. A comparison of your
mastering to that would be useful.
Paul
> Presumably, this is the same recording I have on Koch. A comparison of your
> mastering to that would be useful.
Weren't there some pitch issues with the Koch transfer? I seem to
recal that the Unicorn LP was better in that respect.
Paul
Frank Berger
I don't know. I did see a review of the Koch that praised the sound
quality.
Lionel Tacchini
> Presumably, this is the same recording I have on Koch. A comparison of your
> mastering to that would be useful.
The Koch transfer by Ward Marston sounds tiny and faint in comparison.
I always found it disappointing and possibly it was due to the source
material then available or to the technical means of the early 90s.
I find the excerpt I am listening to now more enjoyable and this ought
to be a better way of realising how fine this performance is.
Horenstein's reading is noble and tasteful, avoiding all the exagerated
weight often added to the music and making good use of the required
flexibility.
He even gets the tempo right at the beginning of the 1st movement.
Lionel Tacchini
td
wrote:
> Presumably, this is the same recording I have on Koch. A comparison of your
> mastering to that would be useful.
This recording, which EMI rejected in 1996 in their Bruckner
historical recordings sets in favour of one with the Munich
Philharmonic under Oswald Kabasta from 1938, has also appeared before
even the Koch-Marston transfer on CD. It was released on a single LP
by Unicorn Records on Unicorn Records UNI 111. I don't own this
reissue, I think, so I cannot say who did the transfer, but I imagine
that Unicorn succeeded in getting the measure of these 78s.
I feel sure also that MOT has succeeded in the same fashion. Not much
you can really do with this old stuff, in my opinion. Just play the
78s on pitch, make the side joins as smooth as possible, and suffer
the results, which will never be like anything anyone really wants to
listen to today, I would think. Specially when we have WF and EJ and
BH in this repertoire.
TD
Bob Harper
> *BH*
in this repertoire.
>
> TD
>
Only in my most Walter-Mittyish moments :)
Bob Harper
td
Are you drunk on cheap wine, Bob?
TD
Bill Anderson
>
"Julius Pruwer's nice 'Hebrides' - in 'excellent' sound..."
Another collaboration Frank? It's a long weekend and I got some
time... :-)
Love those Polydors!
- Bill
Lionel Tacchini
> On 1996 27, 12:04ï¿œpm, "Frank Berger" <frank.d.ber...@dal.frb.org>
> wrote:
>> Presumably, this is the same recording I have on Koch. ï¿œA comparison of your
>> mastering to that would be useful.
>
> This recording, which EMI rejected in 1996 in their Bruckner
> historical recordings sets in favour of one with the Munich
> Philharmonic under Oswald Kabasta from 1938, has also appeared before
> even the Koch-Marston transfer on CD. It was released on a single LP
> by Unicorn Records on Unicorn Records UNI 111. I don't own this
> reissue, I think, so I cannot say who did the transfer, but I imagine
> that Unicorn succeeded in getting the measure of these 78s.
>
> I feel sure also that MOT has succeeded in the same fashion. Not much
> you can really do with this old stuff, in my opinion. Just play the
> 78s on pitch, make the side joins as smooth as possible, and suffer
> the results, which will never be like anything anyone really wants to
> listen to today, I would think. Specially when we have WF and EJ and
> BH in this repertoire.
I find Horenstein's interpretation of the work preferable to that of
Furtwï¿œngler or Jochum, being actually rather complementary in approach
and actually closer to Kabasta, whom I would rank even higher.
Of course, I am still waiting to hear a later performance of the 7th by
him, which I would assume to exist in modern sound in the BBC archives.
There are airchecks of all other Bruckner symphonies by Horenstein and
either the BBC SO or the Northern BBC SO from the late 50s to the early
70s but I have never been made aware of a 7th from this time.
Lionel Tacchini
Andrew Rose
> td wrote:
>> This recording, which EMI rejected in 1996 in their Bruckner
>> historical recordings sets in favour of one with the Munich
>> Philharmonic under Oswald Kabasta from 1938, has also appeared before
>> even the Koch-Marston transfer on CD. It was released on a single LP
>> by Unicorn Records on Unicorn Records UNI 111. I don't own this
>> reissue, I think, so I cannot say who did the transfer, but I imagine
>> that Unicorn succeeded in getting the measure of these 78s.
>>
>> I feel sure also that MOT has succeeded in the same fashion. Not much
>> you can really do with this old stuff, in my opinion.
What a pile of crap.
I'm sorry, but there's nothing more to say with regard to someone whose
mind is so totally and utterly closed.
Bill Anderson
> Yummy Yummy - dining out on Kraut Popcorn in front of the electric
> fire?!
Sure - it's a fine way to spend quality weekend time! (and they're
Polydors, not HMV's - thank god! Altho I've noticed that playing HMV
78's on a weekend decreases my craving for bacon)
Jeff
> New release today:
>
> BRUCKNER Symphony No. 7 in E major
> Pristine Audio PASC 203
>
> Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra
> conducted by Jascha Horenstein
> Recorded in 1928
>
> Producer and Audio Restoration Engineer: Mark Obert-Thorn
> Cover artwork based on a photograph of Jascha Horenstein
>
> Total duration: 58:58
>
> The first electrical recording of Bruckner's 7th Symphony
>
> "One of the finest-sounding recordings of its era" - Mark Obert-Thorn
>
> * Bruckner Symphony No. 7 in E
>
> 1st mvt. - Allegro moderato (17:21)
>
> 2nd mvt. - Adagio: Sehr feierlich und sehr langsam (21:44)
>
> 3rd mvt. - Scherzo: Sehr schnell; Trio; Etwas langsamer (9:17)
>
> 4th mvt. - Finale: Bewegt, doch nicht schnell (10:36)
>
> Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra
> conductor Jascha Horenstein
> First issued on Grammophon/Polydor 66802 through 66808
>
> "Grammophon have some interesting records not duplicated in the
> Decca catalogue. There is Bruckner's Seventh Symphony for those who like
> the rather diffuse eloquence of this composer. English conductors and
> orchestras treat us badly over Bruckner: they are too gentle with him.
> Few could resist him as he is played in Germany, where his love of noise
> and his sentimentality are given full play. Surprisingly enough,
> however, Bruckner gets away with it, as owners of these records
> (Grammophon 66802LM-66808LM) will see. The symphony is played by the
> Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Jascha Horenstein."
>
> from "Some Interesting German Records", The Gramophone, December 1935
>
>
> Notes on the recordings:
>
> There are two particularly remarkable things about this Bruckner
> electrical recording of a complete Bruckner symphony to the 30-year-old
> Jascha Horenstein. At a time when that label was also making records
> the work several years earlier), Klemperer (who had recorded the Adagio
> acoustically), Pfitzner, Kleiber, and Richard Strauss, this was high
> career.
>
> The second remarkable feature is the recorded sound that the original
> engineers were able to capture. Having transferred many orchestral discs
> from the late 1920s, I found it to be one of the finest-sounding
> recordings of its era. This is greatly aided by the quiet surfaces of
> the German Polydor pressings used for this transfer.
>
> As the matrix numbers indicate, this was recorded over three separate
> sessions: the first movement in one session, the second movement and the
> Finale in the third. Each session was recorded at a different speed,
> last being below it. The pitches have all been corrected here.
>
> movements spread over three sides (the Scherzo in Mengelberg’s recording
> of the Schubert Ninth comes to mind), it was assumed that the listener
> would replay the first side of the Scherzo after the Trio side ended,
> since that side was not included twice in the set.
>
> Mark Obert-Thorn
>
> --
> Andrew Rose
>
> Pristine Classical: "The destination for people interested in historic
> recordings..." (Gramophone)
>
> www.pristineclassical.com
Obert-Thorn's commentary here has a factual error: Klemperer's
acoustic Adagio-only recording was from the Eighth Symphony, not the
Seventh.
Jeff
Bill Anderson
> On 27 Nov, 21:23, Bill Anderson <willem.ander...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Love those Polydors!
>
> OK - anything for a cheap laugh..
>
> Found two Pruwer's 'intacto' - Hebrides (B61328) - Very long sides
> & Suppe: Galathea - in a Czech pressing...also BPO (B 61325)
>
> There's an 'unidentified' O Straus: 'Waltzdream' too (B61455).
Whenever you're ready, Frank. Send those flacs flyin'
Steve de Mena
> Bob Harper wrote:
>> td wrote:
>>> This recording, which EMI rejected in 1996 in their Bruckner
>>> historical recordings sets in favour of one with the Munich
>>> Philharmonic under Oswald Kabasta from 1938, has also appeared before
>>> even the Koch-Marston transfer on CD. It was released on a single LP
>>> by Unicorn Records on Unicorn Records UNI 111. I don't own this
>>> reissue, I think, so I cannot say who did the transfer, but I imagine
>>> that Unicorn succeeded in getting the measure of these 78s.
>>>
>>> I feel sure also that MOT has succeeded in the same fashion. Not much
>>> you can really do with this old stuff, in my opinion.
>
> What a pile of crap.
>
> I'm sorry, but there's nothing more to say with regard to someone whose
> mind is so totally and utterly closed.
Listening to the extended segment of the Bruckner 7th on your site.
It is very listenable. I purchased both this and the Bernard Herman
concert in FLACs.
Steve
Mark Obert-Thorn
> This recording, which EMI rejected in 1996 in their Bruckner
> historical recordings sets in favour of one with the Munich
> Philharmonic under Oswald Kabasta from 1938
Since those two sets featured only EMI recordings and the Horenstein
was a DG recording, it's a stretch to say that this performance was
"rejected" by EMI.
Mark O-T
Mark Obert-Thorn
> Obert-Thorn's commentary here has a factual error: Klemperer's
> acoustic Adagio-only recording was from the Eighth Symphony, not the
> Seventh.
You're right. My memory was faulty on that one.
Mark O-T
Bob Harper
while *bad* is not necessarily coterminous with *cheap*, I still find it
safer to go up the scale a little bit. Fortunately I live in one of the
great wine-making areas, so I have an abundance of delicious choices. In
fact, we're headed up to one of them tomorrow morning.
Bob Harper
td
> Thomas Le Sage imagines too much.
>
> The Unicorn transfer (by persons unknown - possibly The Bosch?)) is
> absolutely crappy.
> There's a vestige of surface noise remaining, but the transfer
> completely flattens any dynamics - & it sounds like its being wafted
> in from far-away Seeley Bay...thus rendering the BPO's playing as
> utterly seedy and incompetent (which it might well have been!!)..
>
> Anyway - it doesn't at all replicate the sonics of the tiny number of
> BPO Polydor's I have of that era (eg; Julius Pruwer's nice
> 'Hebrides' - in 'excellent' sound) .
The opinions of this poster are sufficiently extreme that they cannot
be taken seriously.
TD
td
> Bob Harper wrote:
> > td wrote:
> >> This recording, which EMI rejected in 1996 in their Bruckner
> >> historical recordings sets in favour of one with the Munich
> >> Philharmonic under Oswald Kabasta from 1938, has also appeared before
> >> even the Koch-Marston transfer on CD. It was released on a single LP
> >> by Unicorn Records on Unicorn Records UNI 111. I don't own this
> >> reissue, I think, so I cannot say who did the transfer, but I imagine
> >> that Unicorn succeeded in getting the measure of these 78s.
>
> >> I feel sure also that MOT has succeeded in the same fashion. Not much
> >> you can really do with this old stuff, in my opinion.
>
> What a pile of crap.
>
> I'm sorry, but there's nothing more to say with regard to someone whose
> mind is so totally and utterly closed.
Certainly closed tight and shut to the crap - your word, not mine -
which Mr. Rose puts out on a regular basis in order to flog his wares
in this forum. Which, by the way, is NOT the place for commercial
enterprises to sell their goods.
TD
td
A recording from 1928? What about this recording is not "free of
copyright"?
TD
td
Agreed. I never drink the stuff. Full of preservatives.
> while *bad* is not necessarily coterminous with *cheap*, I still find it
> safer to go up the scale a little bit. Fortunately I live in one of the
> great wine-making areas, so I have an abundance of delicious choices. In
> fact, we're headed up to one of them tomorrow morning.
California wine? Delicious choices?
Hmmmmmmm.
TD
>
> Bob Harper
Romy the Cat
file, before it was destroyed by your “Natural Sound” restoration
techniques?
Rgs, Romy
Bob Harper
>>> Are you drunk on cheap wine, Bob?
>>> TD
>> Not at all. As you know, Tom, life is too short to drink bad wine,
>
> Agreed. I never drink the stuff. Full of preservatives.
>
>> while *bad* is not necessarily coterminous with *cheap*, I still find it
>> safer to go up the scale a little bit. Fortunately I live in one of the
>> great wine-making areas, so I have an abundance of delicious choices. In
>> fact, we're headed up to one of them tomorrow morning.
>
> California wine? Delicious choices?
>
> Hmmmmmmm.
>
> TD
As you know, Tom, I live in the Pacific Northwest. A very different, and
finer, place to make wine than CA. So yes, an abundance of delicious
choices. If you are not familiar with this area's wines you are missing
some very fine offerings.
Bob Harper
wagnerfan
news:25e04234-e972-4691...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Andrew, is it possible to buy the initial first read from 78s, the raw
techniques?
Rgs, Romy
Another idiot crawls out of the woodwork. Wagner fan
Romy the Cat
Look, I do not know what kind rules and conventions you have here at
this forum. Perhaps it is customary for you to label those who have
more familiarity on the subject as “idiot”. Good luck with that.
Well, I know that web as a wild place and there are a lot of the
Brainless Morons out there, perhaps you are one of them. Most
certainly you are…
AN
Did you listen to the sample and not like it?
Mark Obert-Thorn
Romy, Andrew does not do anything to change the sound of the masters I
send in. If you don't like it, you can blame me.
Mark O-T
Romy the Cat
Yes, AN, I did listen the sample, I like it, but it does not address
the essence of the question (not to mention that Pristine’s mp3 are
always better then the final uncompressed product). The fact that the
current Horenstein’s release sounds “better” than other bad releases
does not indicate that this Horenstein’s release is done properly. I
do know what Pristine does and what damage the RX restoration
techniques inflict to sound. That why I would like to have the “raw”
file as I find the Pristine’s in-house RX is very disappointing, not
to say devastating.
Bob Lombard
>> Another idiot crawls out of the woodwork. Wagner fan
>
> Look, I do not know what kind rules and conventions you have here at
> this forum. Perhaps it is customary for you to label those who have
> Well, I know that web as a wild place and there are a lot of the
> Brainless Morons out there, perhaps you are one of them. Most
>
>
>
"Brainless Moron" is a fairly common phrase around here, though it
usually originates misspelled from a single source.
Anyway, I would be willing to pay Andrew, say, $0.99 ea. for a 'raw'
file or two, though not from 1928. The flac version of a wav file,
recorded at 44.1KHz, 24 bit depth would do. Just to play with.
bl
Romy the Cat
> send in. If you don't like it, you can blame me.
>
> Mark O-T
Mark,
I do not know what the relationship you have with Andrew’s company but
it was my understanding that unfortunately anything that Pristine does
nowadays is vandalized by the Pristine’s “Natural Sound”. In the link
that Andrew offered there was clearly stated: “A Pristine Audio
Natural Sound XR restoration”. I am not against your or Andrew’s re-
mastering but I would like to skip the “Natural Sound XR restoration”,
this why I was asking about the original, raw, pre-mastered file.
Rgs, Romy
Romy the Cat
> file or two, though not from 1928. The flac version of a wav file,
> recorded at 44.1KHz, 24 bit depth would do. Just to play with.
>
> bl
Bob,
Yes, the 'raw' files would be very nice. I was advocating this with
Andrew a few years back but at that time he was way behind
understanding of it. He did not what to sell the 24-bit and insist
that the “raw” files he would sell will be castrated to 16 bit. I
notice that he smarten up and nowadays he does offers the 24-bit
files. Still, I see two problems. The RX processing is a major no go –
absolutely barbaric techniques and those who have some listening
consciousness need to point it out to him. The second problem is the
44.1KHz that you propose. Even those it is a perfectly acceptable rate
for a recording from 1927 but the 'raw' file that Andrew get from his
A/D after reading the 78 is most likely at higher sampling rate.
Sorry, I do not trust to his rate conversion and would like to have
the original file that he got right after A/D. I would be very willing
to pay more for it….
The Cat
Bill Anderson
Andrew and Mark have agreed that Mark's transfer work is not to be
further processed. There was a comment on this a while back when the
relationship was first disclosed, and the first files made available
for download.
- Bill
Romy the Cat
Bill,
Thanks, that is very good news. If Mark's transfer work is not
exposed to Andrew’s RX processing then Andrew shall take down the note
about RX processing from the Mark's releases as it attributes faulty
credit to RX. If Mark does not use RX then is any information about
his processing avalable and is any way for me to familiarize myself
with Mark's own catalog?
Rgs, Romy
Andrew Rose
>> Anyway, I would be willing to pay Andrew, say, $0.99 ea. for a 'raw'
>> file or two, though not from 1928. The flac version of a wav file,
>> recorded at 44.1KHz, 24 bit depth would do. Just to play with.
>>
>> bl
>
> Bob,
>
> Yes, the 'raw' files would be very nice. I was advocating this with
> Andrew a few years back but at that time he was way behind
> understanding of it. He did not what to sell the 24-bit and insist
> notice that he smarten up and nowadays he does offers the 24-bit
> absolutely barbaric techniques and those who have some listening
> consciousness need to point it out to him. The second problem is the
> 44.1KHz that you propose. Even those it is a perfectly acceptable rate
> for a recording from 1927 but the 'raw' file that Andrew get from his
> A/D after reading the 78 is most likely at higher sampling rate.
> Sorry, I do not trust to his rate conversion and would like to have
> the original file that he got right after A/D. I would be very willing
Given that (a) Mark Obert-Thorn has the records, (b) he transferred
them, (c) he remastered them and (d) then posted a CD master to me which
I have made available without any personal intervention whatsoever
beyond ripping the CD and converting it to FLAC and MP3 files, what is
all this rubbish about.
You haven't bothered to read about the release, and you've littered this
comment with simple errors. What is RX? Is it anything to do with XR?
The recordings were made in 1928, not 1927. It's available as a 16-bit
download only. It's not had XR remastering applied to it.
Please go back to your rather peurile blog.
Bill Anderson
Mark's transfer work -something about hidden in plain site!
http://www.pristineclassical.com/MOT.html
Some of the M-O-T CD print material does have XR logo on the insert,
but that maybe a Pristine template or print format issue. Possibly
Mark of Andrew can comment.
- Bill
Andrew Rose
>> Andrew and Mark have agreed that Mark's transfer work is not to be
>> further processed. There was a comment on this a while back when the
>> relationship was first disclosed, and the first files made available
>> for download.
>
> Bill,
>
> Thanks, that is very good news. If Mark's transfer work is not
> about RX processing from the Mark's releases as it attributes faulty
> credit to RX. If Mark does not use RX then is any information about
> his processing avalable and is any way for me to familiarize myself
> with Mark's own catalog?
>
Use your ears, you idiot.
Matthew�B.�Tepper
letters to be typed in news:d26b9201-2fb4-4e3b-ae91-
e49409...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
An attorney who is a cat? Or properly, a cat who is an attorney? Maybe you
could express your opinion on this pending case in Florida:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20091120/1627157035.shtml
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Matthew�B.�Tepper
letters to be typed in
> Not at all. As you know, Tom, life is too short to drink bad wine, and
> while *bad* is not necessarily coterminous with *cheap*, I still find it
> safer to go up the scale a little bit. Fortunately I live in one of the
> great wine-making areas, so I have an abundance of delicious choices. In
> fact, we're headed up to one of them tomorrow morning.
Enjoy your trip, and the wines!
Matthew�B.�Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:_ybQm.260799$Xw3.74373@en-nntp-
04.dc1.easynews.com:
> Romy the Cat wrote:
>>> Another idiot crawls out of the woodwork. Wagner fan
>>
>> Look, I do not know what kind rules and conventions you have here at
>> this forum. Perhaps it is customary for you to label those who have
>> more familiarity on the subject as �idiot�. Good luck with that.
>> Well, I know that web as a wild place and there are a lot of the
>> Brainless Morons out there, perhaps you are one of them. Most
>> certainly you are�
>
> "Brainless Moron" is a fairly common phrase around here, though it
> usually originates misspelled from a single source.
I'm reminded of this:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-moran.htm
> Anyway, I would be willing to pay Andrew, say, $0.99 ea. for a 'raw'
> file or two, though not from 1928. The flac version of a wav file,
> recorded at 44.1KHz, 24 bit depth would do. Just to play with.
--
Bill Anderson
oops - I meant to type
Possibly Mark or Andrew can comment.
Andrew Rose
This is there in error - and looks like neither Mark nor I spotted it!
It's to be found on the inside flap of the front cover - the place where
I guess we're both too busy checking the text for any errors to notice
the "furniture" around it. I'll be replacing these now they've been
pointed out to me.
Romy the Cat
> comment with simple errors. What is RX? Is it anything to do with XR?
> The recordings were made in 1928, not 1927. It's available as a 16-bit
> download only. It's not had XR remastering applied to it.
>
> Please go back to your rather peurile blog.
If the XR remastering was not applied with Mark's transfers then you
must not use the XR promotion in the Mark's transfers. It scares the
people who have ears, no matter how little of them you are familiar
with. Good luck with your version of peurile sound.
http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=12342
The Cat
Andrew Rose
> Romy the Cat wrote:
>>> Andrew and Mark have agreed that Mark's transfer work is not to be
>>> further processed. There was a comment on this a while back when the
>>> relationship was first disclosed, and the first files made available
>>> for download.
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>> Thanks, that is very good news. If Mark's transfer work is not
>> exposed to Andrew�s RX processing then Andrew shall take down the note
>> about RX processing from the Mark's releases as it attributes faulty
>> credit to RX. If Mark does not use RX then is any information about
>> his processing avalable and is any way for me to familiarize myself
>> with Mark's own catalog?
>>
>
> Use your ears, you idiot.
>
>
I should qualify this statement. This person has been harassing me on
and off for a number of years. He claims some kind of audio expertise,
though I've no idea what beyond the apparent ability to afford
ridiculously expensive hi-fi equipment. He has a website and blog - I
received an e-mail just this week with a link to his latest
contribution, a lengthy and incoherent rant which made little sense but
which sought to belittle me and the work I do. I have no idea why and
did not respond. Perhaps that's why he's tracked me down to here?
Either way, the correspondence I've received from him over the years has
led me to pigeon-hole him somewhere alongside another well-known expert
in musical sound from around these parts...
Andrew Rose
How did I know that link was coming next?
I just wonder quite where I'm using "the XR promotion in the Mark's
transfers"?
Bill Anderson
Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse were in divorce court and the judge said
to Mickey, "You say here that your wife is crazy."
Mickey replied, "No I didn't, I said she was f*%king Goofy."
Romy the Cat
> Use your ears, you idiot.
> --
> Andrew Rose
I do, I do and I am trying to teach you, the fool.
An idiot is a person who reacts to a specific constructive criticism
as to a personal insult. If you are so afraid the among of your crony
army of ignorant and deaf ass-kissers there are voices who very
critical to what you do then it says nothing then just informs that
you are lightweight.
http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=12342
Andrew Rose
Could you post this link a couple more dozen times before you go?
Matthew�B.�Tepper
letters to be typed in news:4b1162bf$0$898$ba4a...@news.orange.fr:
> I should qualify this statement. This person has been harassing me on and
> off for a number of years. He claims some kind of audio expertise, though
> I've no idea what beyond the apparent ability to afford ridiculously
> expensive hi-fi equipment. He has a website and blog - I received an e-mail
> just this week with a link to his latest contribution, a lengthy and
> incoherent rant which made little sense but which sought to belittle me and
> the work I do. I have no idea why and did not respond. Perhaps that's why
> he's tracked me down to here?
>
> Either way, the correspondence I've received from him over the years has
> led me to pigeon-hole him somewhere alongside another well-known expert
> in musical sound from around these parts...
This is the sort of thing for which a killfile would be an ideal solution.
Matthew�B.�Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:f6ed49b0-a9e2-4615-969f-
e89e3d...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
Gawrshk!
Romy the Cat
> and off for a number of years. He claims some kind of audio expertise,
> though I've no idea what beyond the apparent ability to afford
> ridiculously expensive hi-fi equipment. He has a website and blog - I
> received an e-mail just this week with a link to his latest
> contribution, a lengthy and incoherent rant which made little sense but
> which sought to belittle me and the work I do. I have no idea why and
> did not respond. Perhaps that's why he's tracked me down to here?
>
> Either way, the correspondence I've received from him over the years has
> led me to pigeon-hole him somewhere alongside another well-known expert
> in musical sound from around these parts...
To qualify this statement? We have exchange 2-3 emails over 9 years –
would it considered as a harassing? I made no more than 5 posts at
your former forum – was it harassing? The ONLY subject of all my
communications with you was to inquire when you will be offering the
“raw” files. I do not trust your mastering, I have some of your
commercial releases and I consider then crap – completely vandalized
by the pretentious “well-known expert”. If this gives you a reason to
call me “idiot” then probably it gives to me a justification to call
you an Ignorant Frighten Moron. Put the “Made by the Ignorant Frighten
Moron” ™ as a trade mark of your own so-called mastering. The reason I
replayed to this thread was because I would like to have the recording
- this was exactly what I was asking originally – it is possible to
have it not fu-ck-ed by you. Thankfully it is not your – thank God.
http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=12342
wagnerfan
news:4b1162bf$0$898$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
Exacttly right -I spotted this idiot with a bug up his ass a mile away -
another "sound expert" shows up out of nowhere with more nonsense. Many
others agree with me that the masterings from Pristine are wonderful - e.g.
I have heard the 1935 Walkure Act One in every form form 78s to Cd and NONE
sound as good as the Pristine mastering. Agree - right to the Plonk file
along with our other "experts". Wagner fan
Romy the Cat
>
> Could you post this link a couple more dozen times before you go?
Do not worry I would go – the conversation with you is not as
stimulating as you think. I very much intentionally posted the link to
point out the attention of the PUBLICto YOUR page where you
demonstrate the advantage of you “RX” mastering. The people with sense
would be shamed declare that crap as “advantage”.
Now, I less care about your cheap popularity and phony publicity but I
do care about the virtue of Sound. If you do not understand it 9or
pretend that you do) then you well underqualified to deal with me.
The Cat
Romy the Cat
>
> How did I know that link was coming next?
>
The link did need to come next, in fact I did not use it. The link was
my response to your fraudulent desire to declare me as some kind of
psycho who “harass” you. The links indicate that I have a well-formed
position and well-defined standing on the subject. Something that you
do not have, as you load the generally uninformed public with any
sonic mideocracy that they are able to swallow.
The Cat
Andrew Rose
>>> http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=12342
>> Could you post this link a couple more dozen times before you go?
>
> stimulating as you think. I very much intentionally posted the link to
> point out the attention of the PUBLICto YOUR page where you
> would be shamed declare that crap as �advantage�.
>
> Now, I less care about your cheap popularity and phony publicity but I
> do care about the virtue of Sound. If you do not understand it 9or
> pretend that you do) then you well underqualified to deal with me.
>
> The Cat
Plonk
M forever
I have two questions:
I agree that in general, unjudicious use of audio restoration and
noise reduction software can affect the audio content of a recording
negatively, and even create audible digital artifacts. I have heard
many "restorations" in which that is the case, e.g. Kondrashin's
Shostakovich symphonies in that edition by that Korean studio (can't
remember their name right now, the one that came in the brown box with
the magnetic lid).
OK. Anyway, you said that this recording was destroyed by RX but, if I
understand the contributions above correctly - it turns out that RX
was not actually used in this restoration and only advertised by
error.
So that means that *you* can't actually tell by listening to a
recording if RX was used or not, doesn't it?
My other question is this: why are you so insistent on 24 instead of
16 bit and higher sample rates? The dynamic range and frequency
information contained in a recording of that vintage is so restricted
to begin with that it doesn't make an audible difference at all if it
is encoded in 16 or 24 bit. In theory, the higher the bitrate, the
finer the dynamic graduations that can be resolved within the bit
frame, but that doesn't make any difference for a recording with as
restricted a dynamic range as one from 1928.
Actually, I have a third question. I downloaded the demo file, too. so
can you give specific examples for where you hear the negative effects
of the restoration? I haven't heard the "raw" recording either, but I
have to say, I was surprised how - relatively - good and "natural" the
track sounded. Of course, it sounds neither really "good" nor
"natural", but it sounds relatively better than a lot of recordings of
that age that I have heard, and it does allow the listener to get a
fairly good idea of the sonorities of the orchestra.
Kip Williams
> Bill Anderson<willem....@comcast.net> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in news:f6ed49b0-a9e2-4615-969f-
> e89e3d...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
>> An old joke, as we drift off topic:
>>
>> Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse were in divorce court and the judge said
>> to Mickey, "You say here that your wife is crazy."
>>
>> Mickey replied, "No I didn't, I said she was f*%king Goofy."
>
> Gawrshk!
NSFW:
http://www.ep.tc/realist/74/12.html
(_Realist_ poster by Wallace Wood, 1967)
Kip W
M forever
> California wine? Delicious choices?
>
> Hmmmmmmm.
>
> TD
Hmmmmm...looks like wine is another of those subjects in which TD
fakes expertise and relies on his smartass techniques to bully people
into not questioning said expertise. But it's probably just another
area in which he would fail miserably in a blind test. Would he be
able to tell those California wines apart from those from other
regions? Probably not.
Of course, it could be that he is quite the wine expert, but given how
transparently fake most of his contributions about music are, I don't
think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Now you can make your Nazi remarks again, Deacon.
M forever
> On Nov 27, 4:35 pm, Andrew Rose <and...@pristineaudio.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bob Harper wrote:
> > > td wrote:
> > >> This recording, which EMI rejected in 1996 in their Bruckner
> > >> historical recordings sets in favour of one with the Munich
> > >> Philharmonic under Oswald Kabasta from 1938, has also appeared before
> > >> even the Koch-Marston transfer on CD. It was released on a single LP
> > >> by Unicorn Records on Unicorn Records UNI 111. I don't own this
> > >> reissue, I think, so I cannot say who did the transfer, but I imagine
> > >> that Unicorn succeeded in getting the measure of these 78s.
>
> > >> I feel sure also that MOT has succeeded in the same fashion. Not much
> > >> you can really do with this old stuff, in my opinion.
>
> > What a pile of crap.
>
> > I'm sorry, but there's nothing more to say with regard to someone whose
> > mind is so totally and utterly closed.
>
> Certainly closed tight and shut to the crap - your word, not mine -
> which Mr. Rose puts out on a regular basis in order to flog his wares
> in this forum. Which, by the way, is NOT the place for commercial
> enterprises to sell their goods.
>
> TD
But it's a good place to discuss these "goods". I don't like the
advertising part either, but I think it's a good thing that Mr Rose is
open to such discussion and constructive criticism.
Gerard
> On Nov 28, 9:06 am, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
> > California wine? Delicious choices?
> >
> > Hmmmmmmm.
> >
> > TD
>
> Hmmmmm...looks like wine is another of those subjects in which TD
> fakes expertise and relies on his smartass techniques to bully people
> into not questioning said expertise. But it's probably just another
> area in which he would fail miserably in a blind test. Would he be
> able to tell those California wines apart from those from other
> regions? Probably not.
So what?
>
> Of course, it could be that he is quite the wine expert, but given how
> transparently fake most of his contributions about music are, I don't
> think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Now you can make your Nazi remarks again, Deacon.
Do you have AD?
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:c3ff8fbf-3b71-410f-a624-
84b9cf...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
> To qualify this statement? We have exchange 2-3 emails over 9 years �
> would it considered as a harassing?
I don't know the legal definition of "harrassment," but the dictionary one
uses the word indicates threats or bullying which take place "repeatedly."
The first email I got from "John Thorneycroft" (one of the identities of the
troll I call "Proty") was the only one to which I replied -- telling him to
perform an impossible physical act of sexual union with himself -- but he
followed it up with a couple more before I set my ISP's filter to block him.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:4b118195$0$934$ba4a...@news.orange.fr:
> Romy the Cat wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Plonk
What took you so long?
Romy the Cat
> noise reduction software can affect the audio content of a recording
> negatively, and even create audible digital artifacts. I have heard
> many "restorations" in which that is the case, e.g. Kondrashin's
> Shostakovich symphonies in that edition by that Korean studio (can't
> remember their name right now, the one that came in the brown box with
> the magnetic lid).
> OK. Anyway, you said that this recording was destroyed by RX but, if I
> understand the contributions above correctly - it turns out that RX
> was not actually used in this restoration and only advertised by
> error.
It is a bit incorrect dynamic of events. Since I saw that the recoding
on the Pristine’s site was advertised as RX processed and I asked if
it was possible to get it without RX. Then I was informed that, thanks
God, the B7 was not by Andrew Rose but by another purpose and as a
part of agreement Andrew will not screw up with those recordings.
Since then I do not question the B7 from the RX standpoint, in fact I
might buy it.
> So that means that *you* can't actually tell by listening to a
> recording if RX was used or not, doesn't it?
Yes and now. I can tell you most certainly if the sound was ruined but
I not necessary might allocate the RX to blame. There are zillion bad
restoration techniques and there are zillion idiots out there who
fancy themselves as big-time records re-masters. I have seen quite
many of them and heard many of their results. Sometime I might
identify the problem and sometimes it is too hard to be certain. The
RX processing is very simple case and the Pristine’s recordings that I
have were unfortunately were instantly recognizable and were waste of
money. I presume if the very same RX techniques were moderately and
sensibly apply then it might be usefully but looking at the Mr. Ross
reaction in this thread is it demonstrable that there is a fu-ck-ing
retard behind the curtain and there is no one there to talk with.
> My other question is this: why are you so insistent on 24 instead of
> 16 bit and higher sample rates? The dynamic range and frequency
> information contained in a recording of that vintage is so restricted
> to begin with that it doesn't make an audible difference at all if it
> is encoded in 16 or 24 bit. In theory, the higher the bitrate, the
> finer the dynamic graduations that can be resolved within the bit
> frame, but that doesn't make any difference for a recording with as
> restricted a dynamic range as one from 1928.
Yes, I would agree that 16 bit is in most case is enough for the
dynamic range from 1928 but it was not my motivation. Pay attention
that Pristine’s MP3 are much better then this 16 bit files
(respectfully to the format). The 16 bit files are truly crap, why?
Well, I presume that the Mr. Ross in his McDonalds Audio shop “master”
it on extremely crappy equipment, and very knowledgeably. The masters
that he gets are most likely in 24 bit, then when he slice it to
customers he truncate the last 8 bits and port it to 16 bit. It looks
like to kill the last not used bits is simple – juts round it and it
would be it. Did you ever tried to do it? Did you have a chance do not
loose quality of sound during a simple conversion from 24 to 16 bit?
If you know how to do it then tech me, because I do not know how,
nether the Mr. Ross.
> Actually, I have a third question. I downloaded the demo file, too. so
> can you give specific examples for where you hear the negative effects
> of the restoration? I haven't heard the "raw" recording either, but I
> have to say, I was surprised how - relatively - good and "natural" the
> track sounded. Of course, it sounds neither really "good" nor
> "natural", but it sounds relatively better than a lot of recordings of
> that age that I have heard, and it does allow the listener to get a
> fairly good idea of the sonorities of the orchestra.
Look at my reply # 44 to Bill Anderson. My comment about RX was not
about the given B7 (since it was Mark Obert-Thorn mastering) but about
the fact the B7 might be good as it was not RX mastered. The Pristine
has the RX demo at this site; feel free to try them and to educate
yours. BTW, at this point, I am sure that the chip scam of the Mr.
Ross level will from now to fake the demo files at his site. It is not
about the sound and it about the ugly small-time whore had become a
little pimp and she will do anything to preserve own status quo.
Rgs, The Cat
Dil
with so much contempt, why seek any product from him at all?? Is that
old 1928 Bruckner recording so important to you that you have to go to
the “devil” himself to get it –unprocessed or not?? Why not move on
with your own collective efforts and leave Andrew alone?
Dil.
Romy the Cat
Dil,
I do not seek any products from Pristine. I was attracted to the B7
and my love to the work is well known. All that I asked it was if
possible to get a copy before the RX. There are many mastering shops
in the world why do accommodate me without any cheap hysteria as this
French guy ignited around himself. What I asked I did not know that
this B7 has no RX crap on it, in contrary to what was posted in the
Pristine site. Trust there is no obsession with Pristine on my site. I
am obsessed that accidental and mostly moronic people do audio but it
is a whole another subject.
Rgs, Romy
Taffy Brendel
> On Nov 27, 7:19 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > td wrote:
> > > On Nov 27, 4:08 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> td wrote:
> > >>> On 1996 27, 12:04 pm, "Frank Berger" <frank.d.ber...@dal.frb.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> Presumably, this is the same recording I have on Koch. A comparison of your
> > >>>> mastering to that would be useful.
> > >>> This recording, which EMI rejected in 1996 in their Bruckner
> > >>> historical recordings sets in favour of one with the Munich
> > >>> Philharmonic under Oswald Kabasta from 1938, has also appeared before
> > >>> even the Koch-Marston transfer on CD. It was released on a single LP
> > >>> by Unicorn Records on Unicorn Records UNI 111. I don't own this
> > >>> reissue, I think, so I cannot say who did the transfer, but I imagine
> > >>> that Unicorn succeeded in getting the measure of these 78s.
> > >>> I feel sure also that MOT has succeeded in the same fashion. Not much
> > >>> 78s on pitch, make the side joins as smooth as possible, and suffer
> > >>> the results, which will never be like anything anyone really wants to
> > >>> listen to today, I would think. Specially when we have WF and EJ and
> > >>> *BH*
> > >> in this repertoire.
>
> > >>> TD
> > >> Only in my most Walter-Mittyish moments :)
>
> > > Are you drunk on cheap wine, Bob?
>
> > > TD
>
> > Not at all. As you know, Tom, life is too short to drink bad wine,
>
> Agreed. I never drink the stuff. Full of preservatives.
Apparently, as has been pointed out by others, you know as much
about wine as you do about music. Next time, you grab for a bottle
or most likely in your case a box of wine see if it contains sulfides
which
most wines do contain. You will be and will have been consuming
wine just chock full or preservatives. "You try sprays, you try
powders..."
>
> > while *bad* is not necessarily coterminous with *cheap*, I still find it
> > safer to go up the scale a little bit. Fortunately I live in one of the
> > great wine-making areas, so I have an abundance of delicious choices. In
> > fact, we're headed up to one of them tomorrow morning.
>
> California wine? Delicious choices?
>
> Hmmmmmmm.
>
> TD
>
>
>
> > Bob Harper
Bob Harper
> Bob Harper <bob.h...@comcast.net> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in
>
>> Not at all. As you know, Tom, life is too short to drink bad wine, and
>> safer to go up the scale a little bit. Fortunately I live in one of the
>> great wine-making areas, so I have an abundance of delicious choices. In
>> fact, we're headed up to one of them tomorrow morning.
>
>
We did, but the expenditure will limit any CD purchases for a while :)
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
>> I should qualify this statement. This person has been harassing me on
>> and off for a number of years. He claims some kind of audio expertise,
>> though I've no idea what beyond the apparent ability to afford
>> ridiculously expensive hi-fi equipment. He has a website and blog - I
>> received an e-mail just this week with a link to his latest
>> contribution, a lengthy and incoherent rant which made little sense but
>> which sought to belittle me and the work I do. I have no idea why and
>> did not respond. Perhaps that's why he's tracked me down to here?
>>
>> Either way, the correspondence I've received from him over the years has
>> led me to pigeon-hole him somewhere alongside another well-known expert
>> in musical sound from around these parts...
>
> would it considered as a harassing? I made no more than 5 posts at
> communications with you was to inquire when you will be offering the
> commercial releases and I consider then crap � completely vandalized
> by the pretentious �well-known expert�. If this gives you a reason to
> call me �idiot� then probably it gives to me a justification to call
> you an Ignorant Frighten Moron. Put the �Made by the Ignorant Frighten
> Moron� � as a trade mark of your own so-called mastering. The reason I
> replayed to this thread was because I would like to have the recording
> have it not fu-ck-ed by you. Thankfully it is not your � thank God.
>
> http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=12342
Well, while you do not type *quite* as badly as Jeffrey, you manage to
be almost as incoherent. When you can calmly explain what you don't care
for about his productions, by all means do so (I went to your blog, and
other than calling people idiots it didn't seem to me to have much to
say). Until then, I hope you will pardon me if I give little credence to
your rantings much.
Bob Harper
M forever
It's still not clear though what it actually is that you don't like
about the transfers Mr Rose offers.
It is true that a lot of people "do audio" who don't know and
understand much about what they are doing, be it on the musical or the
technical side, and you have repeated that many times over, but that
does not automatically mean that you know better and/or that Mr Rose
doesn't.
You would have to be a bit more specific and to the point in your
criticism. So far, all we have been able to learn from you is that you
damned this particular transfer because you thought it had been
processed involving "RX crap" which it turns out it hasn't. Whatever
you say, that makes you look a lot like someone who doesn't really
know what he is talking about either and who just declares his "strong
opinon" loudly based on - in this case, apparently false - prejudices.
So, can you offer any more specific and fact-based criticism of this
clip, or even better, can you post a transfer/restoration that Mr Rose
has done alongside one which you have done yourself, so that we can
see that you do actually know better than he does?
O
Harper <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Well, while you do not type *quite* as badly as Jeffrey, you manage to
> be almost as incoherent. When you can calmly explain what you don't care
> for about his productions, by all means do so (I went to your blog, and
> other than calling people idiots it didn't seem to me to have much to
> say). Until then, I hope you will pardon me if I give little credence to
> your rantings much.
Apparently, Mr. Cat wants to know if Mr. Rose will sell him a copy of a
recording in a particular state which he does not currently offer for
sale. The answer, equally apparently, is no. Not much more to
discuss.
-Owen
Romy the Cat
> about the transfers Mr Rose offers.
> It is true that a lot of people "do audio" who don't know and
> understand much about what they are doing, be it on the musical or the
> technical side, and you have repeated that many times over, but that
> does not automatically mean that you know better and/or that Mr Rose
> doesn't.
> You would have to be a bit more specific and to the point in your
> criticism. So far, all we have been able to learn from you is that you
> damned this particular transfer because you thought it had been
> processed involving "RX crap" which it turns out it hasn't. Whatever
> you say, that makes you look a lot like someone who doesn't really
> know what he is talking about either and who just declares his "strong
> opinon" loudly based on - in this case, apparently false - prejudices.
> So, can you offer any more specific and fact-based criticism of this
> clip, or even better, can you post a transfer/restoration that Mr Rose
> has done alongside one which you have done yourself, so that we can
M forever,
If you paid attention then you might discover that even at my site I
did not go to details explaining in detail the reasons for my
disproval of the RX mastering. There was a motive for it – I would
like you and you-like to use your own mind to assess what RX does to
Sound. If you are not able to discriminate sonic results yourself then
what would be the purpose for me to waste my time to educate you?
Particularly if so far you demonstrated disability to follow the flow
of the thread.
Anyhow, learning about the RX - it will be your homework. I do not
looking for sophomoric popularity at this forum, I will leave it to
some local Mr. Rose-like clowns who do.
The Romy
Romy the Cat
> recording in a particular state which he does not currently offer for
> sale. The answer, equally apparently, is no. Not much more to
> discuss.
Well, it is true there is not much more to discuss in context of
Pristine - the Rosy clown has exposed himself sufficient enough. The
only subject left to ask if Mr. Obert-Thorn has any avenues to sell
his transfers by other means then Pristine destitution. If somebody
knows where else the Obert-Thorn’s files available then please let me
know. Mr. Rose might go screw himself and to die with his little
pathetic secret.
The Cat
Romy the Cat
> be almost as incoherent.
My typing techniques are legendary…
http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=3823
> When you can calmly explain what you don't care
> for about his productions, by all means do so (I went to your blog, and
> other than calling people idiots it didn't seem to me to have much to
> say). Until then, I hope you will pardon me if I give little credence to
> your rantings much.
Read my reply to M forever, the post #69.
Rgs, the Cat
M forever
There is really no "flow" in this thread. It's a pretty disjointed
collection of posts, many of which are rather long and in themselves
disjointed posts by you i which you repeat over and over and over and
over and over again what a total fake Mr Rose is and how your
knowledge of all these things is so enormously superior, but you don't
really say why you think that is.
Your reply here is also exceedingly lame. I didn't ask you anyway to
break down into detail what your reservations about RX in general are.
It is funny though that someone like you who proclaims his "opinions"
in such dramatic rhetoric suddenly shies away when asked to be more
detailed and specific.
I don't think you want people to make up their minds themselves, and
so you don't want to "influence" them. I think you don't really know
what you are talking about. I think you don't have the ability to
pinpoint the things you say yourself, as we have seen in the case of
this clip which you were convinced had bee processed in a certain way
which it hasn't. I think you just decided it has to be nasty because
Mr Rose is associated with it. Apparently, you have a big problem with
his work, but you aren't able to explain to us why.
That we should discover that ourselves is one of the lamest things I
have ever read in a discussion like this. Seriously, it doesn't get
any lamer than that, and any more pathetic. If you have strong
opinions, then you also have to be able to back them up.
It's not that you don't want to explain your opinions, it's that you
are simply afraid to expose them to critical scrutiny.
> Anyhow, learning about the RX - it will be your homework. I do not
> looking for sophomoric popularity at this forum, I will leave it to
> some local Mr. Rose-like clowns who do.
You have already made yourself into a big clown here. And some people,
like me, even tried to take you seriously and invited you to make a
good, fact-based case here, to provide a basis for a detailed
discussion. You have completely failed.
Lots of rhetoric, but no substance. You have proven that you are not
able to actually hear the things you criticize. You have not provided
any details about what it is that you think is so bad in Mr Rose's
work. You have not provided any examples for how it is done better.
When challenged, you hide behind lame excuses. You are a hoax, and a
coward on top of that.
Sol L. Siegel
you with experience."
"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."
I have no idea what brought that on.
--
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Romy the Cat
>
> - Show quoted text -
M forever, when your complete your homework and evolve up to the point
when you able to shape a challenge with your adolescent questions then
you get my attention. Grow up.
The Cat
Dave Cook
> When challenged, you hide behind lame excuses. You are a hoax, and a
> coward on top of that.
That about sums it up. Time to put Romy the Cat to sleep.
Dave Cook
Romy the Cat
> That about sums it up. Time to put Romy the Cat to sleep.
Do not worry. You look like never was awaken anyhow. The presence of
the cretins like you have made the current form of Pristine possible.
The Andrew Gebels eggs were implanted in the fretful but deserving
soul…That is it..
The Cat
Andrew Rose
Unfortunately Romy's recollection of the number of e-mails he's sent me
is somewhat wide of the mark. It also ignores the string of messages he
posted on our online forum which were generally in a similar vein to his
posts here, where he become more and more abusive until eventually was
banned and his posts removed.
Sol L. Siegel wrote:
> "Never argue with an idiot. He drags you down to his level and then beats
> you with experience."
Never a truer word spoken...
Gerard
What is "post #69"?
This is usenet. Posts don't have numbers.
Gerard
Maybe you've missed this one:
---------------------------------------------
Mr. Rose might go screw himself and to die with his little
pathetic secret.
The Cat
---------------------------------------------
Romy the Cat
> >>> and off for a number of years. He claims some kind of audio expertise,
> >>> though I've no idea what beyond the apparent ability to afford
> >>> ridiculously expensive hi-fi equipment. He has a website and blog - I
> >>> received an e-mail just this week with a link to his latest
> >>> contribution, a lengthy and incoherent rant which made little sense but
> >>> which sought to belittle me and the work I do. I have no idea why and
> >>> did not respond. Perhaps that's why he's tracked me down to here?
Absolute lie! It looks like you are a live-form who would very low to
play ignorant public at this forum. I am done with you. Your case is
too clear and unfortunately too filthy. At this point there is no
surprise why you and your RX are a good much. Hazrat Inayat Khan in
his “Mysticism of Sound and Music” did suggested that while tasting
food it is possible to detect what was in the head of the cook when
the food was cooking. The sonic surrogate that you put out and your
mastering is a perfect reflection of what your have in your head. It
is shame that such great performances are being vandalized by such a
frighten and low-class piece of scam as you are. It was the last time
I replied to you decently.
Me.
Romy the Cat
> This is usenet. Posts don't have numbers.
Gerard, I do not use the usenet and I am getting the messages as a
nice hierarchical graphic interface with posts numbered. Oops, I just
realized that those numbers are not being preserved. Well, I do not
know how to refer to the old posts and writing the same things
multiple times is too tedious. If you care then dig into the posts
from yesterday. Sorry.
The Cat
M forever
Even lamer! There is nothing "adolescent" at all about my questions. I
asked you to back up your statements and explain your criticism of Mr
Rose's work in detail. I don't need to do any "homework" before I can
ask these questions. They are the simplest and most basic questions
one can ask in such a discussion, and the natural starting point.
Neither did I "shape up a challenge". You are the one who challenged
the quality of Rose's work, remember? Now you don't want to back up
your challenge. So you are a blowhard and a coward, as well as a fake.
If you really wanted to "let people judge for themselves" without
"wasting your time to educate them", then you could simply post a
sample of a restoration that you have done vs. one that Rose has done.
How about that, coward? Why not let your superior abilities speak for
themselves?
Bob Lombard
>
> If you really wanted to "let people judge for themselves" without
> "wasting your time to educate them", then you could simply post a
> sample of a restoration that you have done vs. one that Rose has done.
> How about that, coward? Why not let your superior abilities speak for
> themselves?
Michael, after a careful analysis of 'Romy' posts, and considering
data provided by Mr. Rose, I have determined that 'Romy' is a nutcase.
Unfortunately, his particular form of 'nutcaseness' is neither
creative nor entertaining. So... I will ignore further posts from
and/or about him. I respectfully suggest that you do the same - if
only to reduce the trash :: relevant ratio. RMCR already enjoys a
plenitude of nutcase regulars, without adding this one.
bl
Romy the Cat
> data provided by Mr. Rose, I have determined that 'Romy' is a nutcase.
> Unfortunately, his particular form of 'nutcaseness' is neither
> creative nor entertaining. So... I will ignore further posts from
> and/or about him. I respectfully suggest that you do the same - if
> only to reduce the trash :: relevant ratio. RMCR already enjoys a
> plenitude of nutcase regulars, without adding this one.
Here is the problem – your “careful analysis of 'Romy' posts” was
idiotic idea to begin with. The internet yahoos have incredibly low
expectation from each other, as anybody judge on own merit. The only
person who has an internal itch to write about 'Romy' and to assess
who he was is you and the few local fools like you. The subject was
very much not bout Romy. Pristine at their site has wonderful demo and
any person with IQ higher then pterodactyl would not “careful analysis
of 'Romy' posts” but to listen and to learn about the relational of
Romy dissatisfaction with Pristine RX. The only “nutcaseness” that
Romy has was an assumption that idiots will be able to look outside
the boundaries of own identity. Still, plenty people getting this
forum and I am glad that many will have a motivation do not bark BS at
this site but to pay more focus attention to the way how another
idiots in headphones screams about himself as Mother Teresa of audio
restoration but act as Charly Manson.
Matthew Silverstein
> As you know, Tom, I live in the Pacific Northwest. A very different, and
> finer, place to make wine than CA.
Right. I do love all of those Oregon Cabernets. Oh, wait . . .
Matty
Matthew�B.�Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:1XvQm.268626$8m4.192841@en-nntp-
07.dc1.easynews.com:
> Michael, after a careful analysis of 'Romy' posts, and considering data
> provided by Mr. Rose, I have determined that 'Romy' is a nutcase.
> Unfortunately, his particular form of 'nutcaseness' is neither creative nor
> entertaining. So... I will ignore further posts from and/or about him. I
> respectfully suggest that you do the same - if only to reduce the trash ::
> relevant ratio. RMCR already enjoys a plenitude of nutcase regulars,
> without adding this one.
A certain well-known sound has now been generated from my killfile.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Dil
Serious question: are you posting through one of those web-
translators?
Dil.
Frank Berger
> I'll have to try out a couple of Pristine CDs <LP-78s**> (any
> 'illegal' ripped-freebies going? - not paying 'their' outrageous
> prices!!) as the only Pristine issue I've commented adversely about
> was the 'truly crappy-sounding' Mitropoulos NYPSO Mendelssohn 5 - as a
> 'raw' 224 mp3 excerpt - (as in: 'raw' but-run-through-a de-noising-
> circuit) - and that wasn't 'possibly' Mr Rose's doing.
>
> Still, I don't understand why folks are prepared to pay for 'mucked-
> about-with' LPs; 78s are a somewhat different story if you demand 'CD
> silence', I suppose.
>
> Still no word from Mr Rose about which equipment he uses for his 78/
> mono transfers - & he has been asked this before...with no response!
Perhaps he's protecting a process that is making him money. Is there
something wrong with that?
M forever
Very colorful and entertaining prose, if a little cryptic at times.
You are correct - the subject here is not you. The subject, raised by
you, is the quality of the audio restorations offered by Rose - or the
lack thereof, according to you.
So don't make it into a personality thing. It's not. I don't think
anybody here is interested in your person or your colorful prose in
delightfully broken English.
Let's just stay with the facts. You proclaim Rose's work is very
deficient. OK. You proclaim having a lot of in-depth knowledge of
audio processing. Great. Then you can also explain in musical and
technical terms why you hold that opinion. Please provide concrete
examples. An A-B comparison of one of his tracks with one you did
would probably be most instructive.
If you devote only about 1/10 of the verbal resources you spend on
insulting Rose and everybody else to actually discussing the subject
in terminology appropriate to the subject, it will save you a lot of
time and enrichen the discussion considerably.
Just saying "I can hear stuff nobody else can and if you don't agree
it's simply because you can't hear what I can" is very childish. I
have met many professional musicians and audio people, but I have
never met any real expert who would have to hide behind a veil of
undefined nonsense like you do.
So let's see if there is anything behind your statements.