Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Science Fiction » alt.fan.starwars » To All You Pompous Morons...
To All You Pompous Morons... [message #261520] Do, 04 Mai 2006 23:55
Aphelion  
.... who kept insisting the original versions of the OT were lost forever,
and GL would never, ever release them, as if you had set up camp inside his
head, and were all Lucasfilm VPs:

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/star-wars20.html

Suck bantha dong. It's called money, nimrods, and it was only a matter of
time.

Yours truly,
everyone who ever posted asking about the original version DVDs.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #261524 ] Fr, 05 Mai 2006 02:43
Grue  
"Aphelion" <sonship [at] twcny.rr.com> wrote in
news:GLu6g.22876$ZQ3.17889 [at] twister.nyroc.rr.com:

> Suck bantha dong. It's called money, nimrods, and it was only a
> matter of time.
>
> Yours truly,
> everyone who ever posted asking about the original version DVDs.

Yeah, I'm glad they're being put out too, so everyone will stop bitching
about it. But you realize they are giong to suck, right?

The DVDs are going to be released individually, as two-disc editions, one
disc will be the original, unaltered theatrical versions, and the other
disc will be the 2004 versions...and the unaltered versions will have 2.0
sound, and will be made using the print from 1993.

IMHO, these new DVDs will suck. Enjoy them!
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #261527 ] Fr, 05 Mai 2006 04:44
MDChubb  
"But you realize they are going to suck, right?"

Are they?

"...the unaltered versions will have 2.0 sound..."

Well, that's only an issue if your surround sound system sucks. If you
have Pro Logic II, which was designed to create a virtually discrete
soundfield from ANY two channel source, it should be fine.

"...and will be made using the print from 1993."

The source for the THX laserdiscs? How bad could that be?
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #261532 ] Fr, 05 Mai 2006 08:53
Anybody  
In article <GLu6g.22876$ZQ3.17889 [at] twister.nyroc.rr.com>, "Aphelion"
<sonship [at] twcny.rr.com> wrote:

> ... who kept insisting the original versions of the OT were lost forever,
> and GL would never, ever release them, as if you had set up camp inside his
> head, and were all Lucasfilm VPs:
>
> http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/star-wars20.html
>
> Suck bantha dong. It's called money, nimrods, and it was only a matter of
> time.
>
> Yours truly,
> everyone who ever posted asking about the original version DVDs.

Here we go again. :-\

A. It's now old news that's been posted all over the Internet
for the last two days.

B. Yes, I have said the original movies weren't available on DVD,
and yes I probably did say "never going to be released" on DVD
... so I was wrong, whoop-de-doo.

C. George Lucas does NOT need money - it has nothing to do with
money. It has to do with TRYING to satisfy whining morons who
complained they couldn't buy the original movies on DVD ... of
course most of those fools will NEVER be happy and as above are
already complaining about the sound.

From a few recent silly decisions George Lucas appears to be now
folding to the whiners and pushy idiots, something he purposely left
Hollyweird to get away from ... either that or Rick McCallum is taking
over and is just a big of an idiot as Star Trek's Beavis & Butthead and
will drag Star Wars into the toilet. :-(
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #261533 ] Fr, 05 Mai 2006 10:19
Solon  
_Aphelion_ spoke thusly on 04/05/2006 5:55 PM:
> ... who kept insisting the original versions of the OT were lost forever,
> and GL would never, ever release them, as if you had set up camp inside his
> head, and were all Lucasfilm VPs:
>
> http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/star-wars20.html
>
> Suck bantha dong. It's called money, nimrods, and it was only a matter of
> time.

Perhaps you should read through a newsgroup before posting and calling
people morons.
--
usenetsolon [at] gmail.com
Firefox 1.5 is out! <http://www.mozilla.com>
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #261535 ] Fr, 05 Mai 2006 15:43
John Duncan Yoyo  
On Thu, 4 May 2006 22:44:23 -0400, MDChubb [at] webtv.net (Michael Chubb)
wrote:

>"But you realize they are going to suck, right?"
>
>Are they?
>
>"...the unaltered versions will have 2.0 sound..."
>
>Well, that's only an issue if your surround sound system sucks. If you
>have Pro Logic II, which was designed to create a virtually discrete
>soundfield from ANY two channel source, it should be fine.
>
>"...and will be made using the print from 1993."
>
>The source for the THX laserdiscs? How bad could that be?

Well that ain't the original theatrical version of Star Wars now is
it. Damn I was hoping for the 1976 release.
--
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Brought to you by the Binks for Senate campaign comittee.
Coruscant is far, far away from wesa on Naboo.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #261536 ] Fr, 05 Mai 2006 15:42
Grue  
MDChubb [at] webtv.net (Michael Chubb) wrote in news:13569-445ABC07-110
[at] storefull-3318.bay.webtv.net:

> Well, that's only an issue if your surround sound system sucks. If you
> have Pro Logic II, which was designed to create a virtually discrete
> soundfield from ANY two channel source, it should be fine.

Oh, I have Pro Logic II, but I have a 6.1 system, and II only goes up to
5.1, and anyone will tell you, converting a 2-channel signal to 5.1 doesn't
give you nearly the same quality sound as the movie being encoded with
multi-channel sound.

> The source for the THX laserdiscs? How bad could that be?

Laserdiscs are analog video, contrary to popular belief; just like a
videotape. If you want to shell out for all three movies AGAIN, and get a
sub-par DVD with crap picture and crap sound...go for it.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #261538 ] Fr, 05 Mai 2006 17:38
Gus Chiggins  
" C. George Lucas does NOT need money - it has nothing to do with
money. It has to do with TRYING to satisfy whining morons who
complained they couldn't buy the original movies on DVD ... of
course most of those fools will NEVER be happy and as above are
already complaining about the sound."

You are right, he doesn't NEED the money. But to say it has nothing to do
with money isn't exactly correct. If it doesn't have anything to do with
money, then why wouldn't he just package the 3 discs together, without the
2004 versions that are already out, and sell it for $30.00 or $40.00? Why
would he split them up and sell them with the 2004 version for $30.00?
People that are going to buy these are the die hards. He knows this. Your
average Joe that has already bought the 2004 versions isn't going to pony up
$90.00 plus tax for the same movies again just so they can get the
"originals" as well. I can't see many people buying just Empire or Hope and
not buying the other movies. It's almost all about money.

But you are right in the fact about the fools never being happy. I think
the only way to satisfy them is to put them in the movie, that and have
George sign their lunchbox circa 1977.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #262207 ] Sa, 06 Mai 2006 04:13
Grue  
"Gus Chiggins" <guschiggins [at] aol.com> wrote in
news:7d195$445b720e$d8447881$14298 [at] FUSE.NET:

> But you are right in the fact about the fools never being happy. I
> think the only way to satisfy them is to put them in the movie, that
> and have George sign their lunchbox circa 1977.

I can be made plenty happy. What I'm not happy about, is owning 4
different copies of the the same movie trilogy. I've got the THX VHS
boxset, The Special Edition VHS boxset, The Special edition re-release
VHS boxset, the 2004 DVD boxset, and now if I want the movies the way
they originally came out, I have to pony up the cash and buy a 5th
version, which is the one coming out on Sept 12th.

I've even skipped a few boxsets...there was that whole "Family Value
Pack" 3 disc DVD set that came out last year...Potentially I could be on
my fifth version working on my sixth. Thank God I never owned a laser
disc player. I could be on my seventh or eighth version by now.

With selective purchases, I've managed to only have 3 VHS boxsets and
will manage, after buying these new ones on Sept. 12th, to *only* have
two DVD boxsets. Keeping in mind, that the new versions come with the
2004 version included, so, on Sept 12th I will be the proud owner of 6
copies of ANH, 6 copies of ESB, and 6 copies of ROTJ, in one home video
format or another.

Now think about this: If Goerge hadn't screwed with the old trilogy...*at
all*...We could have had one VHS version, and when DVD came along...had
one *ONE!!!!!* DVD version and been done with it. Instead, these three
little films take up 9 spots in my VHS rack, and will be taking up 6
spots on my DVD rack.

I'm sorry....I just feel a little bit abused when it comes to owning six
copies of something, and all of them missing something or coming up short
somehow, so George can justify putting out *another* version in two
years.

Keep your eyes out, folks! Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are just around the corner,
So expect the "High Definition" Original Trilogy, then the "High
Definition" Special Editions, and after that will come the 3-D Original
Trilogy, then the 3-D Original Trilogy Special Edition, the the High
Definition" 3-d Special Edition, then a boxset of the regular Special
Editions with a disc of *bonus material* including deleted scenes, then a
Super Special Edition with the deleted scenes added into the films, then
a 3-D edition of the Super Special Editions....Then a "High Definition"
3-D edition of the Super Special Editions, then a Saga Boxset of all six
films...then a 12 disc collection of all six films in 3-D packed with the
original films as they were shown in theaters...

I guess that's why he's a billionaire, and I'm not...He made these three
movies, and has sold them in 11 different versions: The regular VHS
releases, the THX VHS 4:3 release, the THX VHS Letterbox release, The
Special Edition 4:3 VHS Release, the Special Edition Letterbox VHS
release, The Special Edition 4:3 VHS Re-Release, The Special Edition
Letterbox VHS Re-release, The 2004 4:3 DVD release, the 2004 Widescreen
DVD Release, the 2005 4:3 DVD release, The 2005 Widescreen DVD
Release...I'm not even counting the Laserdisc versions....

And you better bet, the new ones will be released in both 4:3 and 16:9,
too.

And nobody thinks that 15 versions of the same movie is a bit redundant?
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #262208 ] Sa, 06 Mai 2006 04:48
MDChubb  
"...anyone will tell you, converting a 2-channel signal to 5.1 doesn't
give you nearly the same sound quality as the movie being encoded with
multichannel sound."

Anyone? That all depends on how those two channels are encoded. If it's
Dolby Digital 2.0, I'd agree. But if it's a two channel PCM track
matrixed into 5 channels, it would have much better sound quality than
the data reduced Dolby Digital version (the audio isn't just compressed,
some of it is completely thrown out using an algorithm based on human
hearing and what we supposedly don't hear). The only distinct advantage
true 5.1 may have is discrete directional cues in the soundfield.

"Laserdiscs are analog video, contrary to popular belief... with crap
picture..."

I'm not saying they'll use the laserdisc as the source, but the master
tape used to make the laserdisc, which may well be digital.

I've got the laserdiscs, which look fine, and I can't say I'll have a
working LD player for as long as I wish to continue viewing them, but
DVD players will continue to be available a bit longer... Probably.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #262216 ] Sa, 06 Mai 2006 11:00
Turo Juurakko  
"Grue" <a [at] a.com> kirjoitti viestissä:Xns97BAE26128B3Daacom [at] 81.174.50.80...
> "Gus Chiggins" <guschiggins [at] aol.com> wrote in
> news:7d195$445b720e$d8447881$14298 [at] FUSE.NET:
>
>> But you are right in the fact about the fools never being happy. I
>> think the only way to satisfy them is to put them in the movie, that
>> and have George sign their lunchbox circa 1977.
>
> I can be made plenty happy. What I'm not happy about, is owning 4
> different copies of the the same movie trilogy. I've got the THX VHS
> boxset, The Special Edition VHS boxset, The Special edition re-release
> VHS boxset, the 2004 DVD boxset, and now if I want the movies the way
> they originally came out, I have to pony up the cash and buy a 5th
> version, which is the one coming out on Sept 12th.
>
> I've even skipped a few boxsets...there was that whole "Family Value
> Pack" 3 disc DVD set that came out last year...Potentially I could be on
> my fifth version working on my sixth. Thank God I never owned a laser
> disc player. I could be on my seventh or eighth version by now.

I've owned only one copy of the first Star Wars (the first widescreen
laserdisc) and two copies of The Empire Strikes Back (the same
release as the first Star Wars and then later remastered THX version). Never
owned an original copy of Return of the Jedi (neither on VHS or LD).
I'll probably copy these new releases for FREE and Lucas can
kiss my ass.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #262218 ] Sa, 06 Mai 2006 17:34
Grue  
MDChubb [at] webtv.net (Michael Chubb) wrote in
news:19343-445C0E76-807 [at] storefull-3311.bay.webtv.net:

> Anyone? That all depends on how those two channels are encoded. If
> it's Dolby Digital 2.0, I'd agree. But if it's a two channel PCM track
> matrixed into 5 channels, it would have much better sound quality than
> the data reduced Dolby Digital version (the audio isn't just
> compressed, some of it is completely thrown out using an algorithm
> based on human hearing and what we supposedly don't hear). The only
> distinct advantage true 5.1 may have is discrete directional cues in
> the soundfield.

I couldn't agree with you more. You 100% on the money. Incidentally, the
new DVDs are going to be...in Dolby Digital 2.0.

> I'm not saying they'll use the laserdisc as the source, but the master
> tape used to make the laserdisc, which may well be digital.

Possibly.

> I've got the laserdiscs, which look fine, and I can't say I'll have a
> working LD player for as long as I wish to continue viewing them, but
> DVD players will continue to be available a bit longer... Probably.

Hopefully. Isn't i just the way...when it gets down to where its
accepted and affordable by the masses, they have to come up with
something new.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #262224 ] Sa, 06 Mai 2006 23:37
George Lucas  
Turo Juurakko wrote:

> I'll probably copy these new releases for FREE and Lucas can
> kiss my ass.

I am sending the FBI (my Stormtroopers) to your house now.

George
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #262244 ] So, 07 Mai 2006 16:07
Guest  
"Grue" <a [at] a.com> wrote in message news:Xns97BB761F9F8C9aacom [at] 81.174.50.80...
> MDChubb [at] webtv.net (Michael Chubb) wrote in
> news:19343-445C0E76-807 [at] storefull-3311.bay.webtv.net:
>
>> Anyone? That all depends on how those two channels are encoded. If
>> it's Dolby Digital 2.0, I'd agree. But if it's a two channel PCM track
>> matrixed into 5 channels, it would have much better sound quality than
>> the data reduced Dolby Digital version (the audio isn't just
>> compressed, some of it is completely thrown out using an algorithm
>> based on human hearing and what we supposedly don't hear). The only
>> distinct advantage true 5.1 may have is discrete directional cues in
>> the soundfield.
>
> I couldn't agree with you more. You 100% on the money. Incidentally, the
> new DVDs are going to be...in Dolby Digital 2.0.

2.0 is not surround sound. We audio/video purists know that matrixing the
sound is no good subsitute for true surround sound. If you want
uncompressed audio, get an HD-DVD or Blue Ray. I doube if Star Wars comes
out on those formats until about 3 years froms now when the units have come
down in price and sold enough. From early discs, it already appears as if
we are being set up once again for the 'special edition'(buy it two or three
times) trick.

>
>> I'm not saying they'll use the laserdisc as the source, but the master
>> tape used to make the laserdisc, which may well be digital.
>
> Possibly.
>
>> I've got the laserdiscs, which look fine, and I can't say I'll have a
>> working LD player for as long as I wish to continue viewing them, but
>> DVD players will continue to be available a bit longer... Probably.
>
> Hopefully. Isn't i just the way...when it gets down to where its
> accepted and affordable by the masses, they have to come up with
> something new.
>
>
>
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #262245 ] So, 07 Mai 2006 16:11
Guest  
"Turo Juurakko" <turo.juu.ei.rakko [at] validi.invalid> wrote in message
news:4c36u9F13smanU1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "Grue" <a [at] a.com> kirjoitti viestissä:Xns97BAE26128B3Daacom [at] 81.174.50.80...
>> "Gus Chiggins" <guschiggins [at] aol.com> wrote in
>> news:7d195$445b720e$d8447881$14298 [at] FUSE.NET:
>>
>>> But you are right in the fact about the fools never being happy. I
>>> think the only way to satisfy them is to put them in the movie, that
>>> and have George sign their lunchbox circa 1977.
>>
>> I can be made plenty happy. What I'm not happy about, is owning 4
>> different copies of the the same movie trilogy. I've got the THX VHS
>> boxset, The Special Edition VHS boxset, The Special edition re-release
>> VHS boxset, the 2004 DVD boxset, and now if I want the movies the way
>> they originally came out, I have to pony up the cash and buy a 5th
>> version, which is the one coming out on Sept 12th.
>>
>> I've even skipped a few boxsets...there was that whole "Family Value
>> Pack" 3 disc DVD set that came out last year...Potentially I could be on
>> my fifth version working on my sixth. Thank God I never owned a laser
>> disc player. I could be on my seventh or eighth version by now.
>
> I've owned only one copy of the first Star Wars (the first widescreen
> laserdisc) and two copies of The Empire Strikes Back (the same
> release as the first Star Wars and then later remastered THX version).
> Never
> owned an original copy of Return of the Jedi (neither on VHS or LD).
> I'll probably copy these new releases for FREE and Lucas can
> kiss my ass.
>

I just hope that they have the original movie posters on the boxes. As to
that other guy, why would you buy all versions? Especially two different
aspect ratios?
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #262249 ] So, 07 Mai 2006 16:36
JGordon452  
>>>>Anybody wrote:

Here we go again. :-\

A. It's now old news that's been posted all over the Internet
for the last two days.


B. Yes, I have said the original movies weren't available on DVD,
and yes I probably did say "never going to be released" on DVD
... so I was wrong, whoop-de-doo.


C. George Lucas does NOT need money - it has nothing to do with
money. It has to do with TRYING to satisfy whining morons who
complained they couldn't buy the original movies on DVD ... of
course most of those fools will NEVER be happy and as above are
already complaining about the sound.


>From a few recent silly decisions George Lucas appears to be now
folding to the whiners and pushy idiots, something he purposely left
Hollyweird to get away from ... either that or Rick McCallum is taking
over and is just a big of an idiot as Star Trek's Beavis & Butthead and

will drag Star Wars into the toilet. :-( <<<<<<

And here we go again, with Anybody once again having his arrogance come
back to bite him on the ass. His response? "Oh, it was a stupid
decision to release the original versions, because it showed me wrong
yet again....I mean, I mean....they're all whiners and I'm smarter than
everyone!!!!!!"

Why don't you go join C'Pi whereever he went? Seriously, you need an
ego check. What have you ever done to warrant having such a high
opinion of yourself?
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #262256 ] So, 07 Mai 2006 21:46
Grue  
"Guest" <llcoolj [at] comcast.com> wrote in
news:6en7g.1260$zR3.544 [at] newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:

> I just hope that they have the original movie posters on the boxes.
> As to that other guy, why would you buy all versions? Especially two
> different aspect ratios?

Well, I didn't have a widescreen TV to begin with, but now I do. I don't
own all the different versions, but I do have all the VHS in 4:3, and the
DVDs I own are mostly in widescreen. I have the Special Editions VHS in 4:3
and the reissue Special Editions also in 4:3, but I can't remember why I
bought them again...maybe some promotional "behind the scenes" Episode 1
material or interview or something. I might have even got them as a gift.
In any case, the movie content is exactly the same between the two, aspect
ratio and all.

The only DVD I own in 4:3 is AOTC, and that was strictly because the place
I was buying it from was completely out of widescreen on release day, and I
wasn't willing to wait, or go from store to store looking.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #262257 ] So, 07 Mai 2006 22:03
Grue  
"Guest" <llcoolj [at] comcast.com> wrote in news:Kan7g.1170$zR3.1014
[at] newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:

> 2.0 is not surround sound.

Correct. I don't remember anyone ever saying that it was.

> We audio/video purists know that matrixing the
> sound is no good subsitute for true surround sound.

I prefer to have directional audio cues and such in my surround.

> If you want
> uncompressed audio, get an HD-DVD or Blue Ray. I doube if Star Wars
> comes out on those formats until about 3 years froms now when the
> units have come down in price and sold enough. From early discs, it
> already appears as if we are being set up once again for the 'special
> edition'(buy it two or three times) trick.

I'm not worried about any of it, really. I just really wish that there
was more attention being paid to this than there is. Basically, we're
getting the THX videotapes on DVD. 2.0 sound is horrible. Purists might
rejoice, because thats the way it originally came out, but if you're
going by that credo, I say forgo the THX master, and put it on disc with
grain and everything. And since some theaters got versions in mono in
1977, I say the audio on these new DVDs should be like that, too.

I own a bunch of bottom shelf, cut price DVDs that are in 2.0..."Clash of
the Titans" comes to mind, as does "Labyrinth", "Swamp Thing" and a few
others, and these discs come with DD 2.0 as their only audio option; and
they sound horrible matrixed.

I guess if they don't tamper with the audio any, we'll be able to hear
the 'fanfare' again, though.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #262264 ] Mo, 08 Mai 2006 00:24
MDChubb  
"2.0 is not surround sound."

That all depends on what's on those 2.0 channels. If it's the orignal
Dolby Stereo mix, then it IS surround sound, encoded into the two
channels and waiting to be decoded into the four surround channels
(left, center, right, and monaural rear. the sub channel is DERIVED from
the two channels rather a separately encoded channel ). There WAS
surround before Dolby Digital.

"We audio/video purists know that matrixing is no good substitute for
true surround sound."

I would think an "audio/video purist" would know the difference between
stereo, Dolby Stereo (aka: Dolby Surround/ Pro-Logic), and discrete
digital surround. Also, an "audio/video purist"would know that matrixing
is the only way to decode a Dolby Stereo soudtrack for "true surround
sound".

Besides, how much of an advantage does discrete have over matixed
surround anyway?
True stereo surrounds? While Pro Logic's was mono, Pro Logic II can
generate stereo surrounds. A discrete subwoofer channel and full range
performance on all channels? Since many use a barely adequate sub and
teeny weeny satellites, they'll never see any advantage, if there is any
at all (did you know some DVD releases are 5.0, with no sub channel at
all?) Like I said, the only REAL advantage of discrete digital surround
over matrixed is better localization of spacial cues in the soundfield.
But an "audio/video purist" would KNOW that.

Beyond that, the "purist" in you should DEMAND that the soundtrack be
it's original Dolby Stereo mix on full data rate PCM tracks instead of
the truncated discrete digital. Or if you're old enough to have seen
"Star Wars" it's original theatrical run, you may have seen it in dead
straight mono. Do you want that to relive the "good old days" that way?

If you want it with the most up to date technology and quality, just say
so, but don't call yourself a "purist". A true "purist" would want to
remain true to the source, not the latest greatest technological
innovations.

BTW, 2.0 does not necessarily mean STEREO. In some cases it's DUAL MONO
(which I seem to recall "Clash of the Titans" IS). You have to know the
format of the original release to determine whether it's suitable for
surround decoding. Apparently what I should have said is: Pro Logic II
can derive a virtually discrete soundfield from any STEREO source, since
it obviously won't work with mono, dual or otherwise.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263231 ] Mo, 08 Mai 2006 20:09
Guest  
"Michael Chubb" <MDChubb [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21557-445E7396-1058 [at] storefull-3312.bay.webtv.net...
> "2.0 is not surround sound."
>
> That all depends on what's on those 2.0 channels. If it's the orignal
> Dolby Stereo mix, then it IS surround sound, encoded into the two
> channels and waiting to be decoded into the four surround channels
> (left, center, right, and monaural rear. the sub channel is DERIVED from
> the two channels rather a separately encoded channel ). There WAS
> surround before Dolby Digital.

First, with the rest of your tirade, you are invloving yourself in a case of
'taking it too far.'

I know that there was surround sound before Dolby Digital. Dolby Digital is
called that for a reason - it's digital! All surround modes before that
were analog. I have the first release of Scarface on DVD and that was in
Dolby Surround and it's audio is not up to par. A DD 2.0 would sound
sonically better than DS. The issue is not if the 'original' sound trach is
included, but the LACK of DD surround sound. It is no problem to include
both tracks.

>
> "We audio/video purists know that matrixing is no good substitute for
> true surround sound."
>
> I would think an "audio/video purist" would know the difference between
> stereo, Dolby Stereo (aka: Dolby Surround/ Pro-Logic), and discrete
> digital surround.

I do, but you never asked. If you were a purist, then you would not be
happy with DD 2.0. I have the movie "Superfly" on DVD. It's soundtrack won
Grammy's and was huge, but they only put it in mono! At the least it should
have been in stereo. The movie was huge back in it's day, but the
soundtrack went way past the film and they did not even bother to make that
music stand out.

Also, an "audio/video purist"would know that matrixing
> is the only way to decode a Dolby Stereo soudtrack for "true surround
> sound".

Ok, i think I get what you are getting at. Let me be clear, when I say
surround sound, I am talking modern DTS/DD and it's variations. That is 5.1
or greater. With EACH channel being dedicated to a particualr effect, not
just sound in speakers that 'surround' you as was the case with DS/DPL.
Besides, the analog sound does not cut it today. You know what I mean, but
like a comupter geek, you want to let people know what you know.

>
> Besides, how much of an advantage does discrete have over matixed
> surround anyway?
> True stereo surrounds? While Pro Logic's was mono, Pro Logic II can
> generate stereo surrounds. A discrete subwoofer channel and full range
> performance on all channels? Since many use a barely adequate sub and
> teeny weeny satellites, they'll never see any advantage, if there is any
> at all (did you know some DVD releases are 5.0, with no sub channel at
> all?) Like I said, the only REAL advantage of discrete digital surround
> over matrixed is better localization of spacial cues in the soundfield.
> But an "audio/video purist" would KNOW that.

Maybe you don't know what you are talking about...

>
> Beyond that, the "purist" in you should DEMAND that the soundtrack be
> it's original Dolby Stereo mix on full data rate PCM tracks instead of
> the truncated discrete digital.

I did not say that I was a purist of wanting a movie soundtrack to be as it
was when it came out! I meant making the DVD/Digital experience as good as
it could be with the current technology. that includes DTS/DD. Chaning the
film itself was bad, but there is nothing wrong with changing the sound to
current technolgy formats.

Or if you're old enough to have seen
> "Star Wars" it's original theatrical run, you may have seen it in dead
> straight mono. Do you want that to relive the "good old days" that way?

Well, I was old enough to have seen it back in the day, but way too young to
even be in the slightest bit concerned about the sound. Back then, I did
not know about stereo and like most people, I could care less about the
sound as long as it was heard.

>
> If you want it with the most up to date technology and quality, just say
> so, but don't call yourself a "purist". A true "purist" would want to
> remain true to the source, not the latest greatest technological
> innovations.

Don't redefine my descriptions for me. I say purist not as in wanting the
film as original as possible, but with the best in audio and video. You
took it too far...

>
> BTW, 2.0 does not necessarily mean STEREO. In some cases it's DUAL MONO
> (which I seem to recall "Clash of the Titans" IS). You have to know the
> format of the original release to determine whether it's suitable for
> surround decoding.

That does not seem to matter much as Terminator I was mono and then they
DD'd it with better results than most films origianlly recorded in DD.
Clearly the original sound format is not a factor.

Apparently what I should have said is: Pro Logic II
> can derive a virtually discrete soundfield from any STEREO source, since
> it obviously won't work with mono, dual or otherwise.
>
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263239 ] Di, 09 Mai 2006 03:23
MDChubb  
"A DD 2.0 would sound sonically better than DS."

You're kidding, right? If you took a full data rate two channel
recording and encoded it in DD 2.0, then compared it to the original
recording. you'd find the DD tracks sorely lacking. It's data reduced,
remember? Less can be more, but not in this case.

"...when I say surround sound, I am talking modern DTS/DD and it's
variations. That is 5.1 or greater. With EACH channel being dedicated to
a particular effect..."

So you're not talking about actual SONIC quality, but whizz-bang spatial
effects?

"...the analog sound does not cut it today."

Digital of any sort is only just reaching the sonic benchmark set by
analog in the form of SACD, and Dolby Digital comes nowhere close to
that level. It may be fine for films, but it's far from the hallmark of
sonic purity.

BTW, Pro Logic II can be implemented purely in the digital domain, so
technically, it's not analog sound (in that circumstance).
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263241 ] Di, 09 Mai 2006 08:30
Guest  
"Michael Chubb" <MDChubb [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13568-445FEEFF-1043 [at] storefull-3318.bay.webtv.net...
> "A DD 2.0 would sound sonically better than DS."
>
> You're kidding, right? If you took a full data rate two channel
> recording and encoded it in DD 2.0, then compared it to the original
> recording. you'd find the DD tracks sorely lacking. It's data reduced,
> remember? Less can be more, but not in this case.

Actually, I am not kidding. Analog sound to digital sound, compressed or
not digital will sound more pleasurable to the ear. Just because something
is not compressed does not mean that it is better. HDTV is compressed. Is
it better than standard def TV?

>
> "...when I say surround sound, I am talking modern DTS/DD and it's
> variations. That is 5.1 or greater. With EACH channel being dedicated to
> a particular effect..."
>
> So you're not talking about actual SONIC quality, but whizz-bang spatial
> effects?

I am talking sonic quality in surround sound applications. We are talking
films;so let's not try and take it to music.

>
> "...the analog sound does not cut it today."
>
> Digital of any sort is only just reaching the sonic benchmark set by
> analog in the form of SACD, and Dolby Digital comes nowhere close to
> that level. It may be fine for films, but it's far from the hallmark of
> sonic purity.

I am only talking films. This is a Star Wars newsgroup, not a Beatles
newsgroup.

>
> BTW, Pro Logic II can be implemented purely in the digital domain, so
> technically, it's not analog sound (in that circumstance).
>
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263254 ] Mi, 10 Mai 2006 05:11
MDChubb  
"Analog to digital sound, compressed or not digital will sound more
pleasurable to the ear."

Maybe you should reconsider that, considering virtually the entire audio
industry disagrees with (and I don't mean the likes of Yamaha and Bose).
"Analog sound" is the benchmark to which digital aspires. If you can
find someone who has a good analog rig, and compare, say the 180 gram
vinyl rereleases of AC-DCs albums vs the CD counterparts, you'd discover
how good digital isn't (yet). Or, a less likely possibilty, compare the
analog multitrack master of an older film (prior to the mixdown to two
track Dolby Stereo), and compared that to the discrete DD mix, you'd
find it extremely enlightening.

"Just because something is not compressed doesn't mean it is better."

But if it's not data reduced (a good portion of data removed and thrown
out completely, like DD), it IS better. DD is not just compressed, it's
data reduced.

"We are talking films, so let's not try and take it to music."

Because there's no music in films, after all.

Maybe if your tastes hadn't matured in the digital age, and you hadn't
bought the digital propaganda hook, line, and sinker, you'd have a
better perspective. Currently, discrete digital surround may have a
slight advantage in placing audio effects within the soundstage, but
even that's not always been the case. The precursor to modern surround,
Quadraphonic sound, had some releases in a discrete four channel format
(JVC's CD-4, for one). "Apocalypse Now"s 70mm release featured a
discrete "quintaphonic" mix on it's (analog) optical track (which was
the basis of the DD tracks for the second THX laserdisc release).
There's plenty of examples of discrete ANALOG surround if you'd care to
look.

Analog still sounds better than even uncompressed digital audio. In the
early days of DD, the magazine "Widescreen Review" did a comparison of a
discrete full data digtal mix (using a multitrack ADAT machine) and the
5.1 DD mix from a Laserdisc, and found a definite loss of clarity in the
DD tracks (while they were not opponents of digital sound, though they
had reservations about the sonic quality of DD, which were justified).

Before you make blanket statement like "digital is better" (especially
in regards to surround), perhaps you should learn a little more about
the technology and it's history.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263259 ] Mi, 10 Mai 2006 09:34
Brett McConnie  
"Guest" <llcoolj [at] comcast.com> wrote in message
news:6en7g.1260$zR3.544 [at] newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

> I just hope that they have the original movie posters on the boxes. As to
> that other guy, why would you buy all versions? Especially two different
> aspect ratios?

I think they would have the original posters but it's possible they'll be
the SE posters. As for owning all versions including different aspect
ratios; I've the same. I've got 2 VHS copies of the original trilogy 1 wide,
1 full; 3 VHS copies of the SE trilogy 2 wide, 1 full, 2 VHS copies of TPM,
1 wide, 1 full; 1 VHS copy each of AOTC and ROTS, both fullscreen; 2 DVD
copies of the prequel trilogy 1 wide, 1 full; 2 DVD copies of the post-SE
version of the original trilogy 1 wide, 1 full; 1 VCD copy of the SE trilogy
and 1 VCD copy of TPM. It's a lot but it looks great on the shelf.
--
"Where does he get those wonderful toys?"

http://esnips.com/web/MyStarWarsToys
http://groups.msn.com/MyStarWarsCollection/shoebox.msnw
http://www.alt.fan.starwars.freeservers.com/
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263273 ] Mi, 10 Mai 2006 20:01
Guest  
"Michael Chubb" <MDChubb [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17667-446159ED-1255 [at] storefull-3317.bay.webtv.net...
> "Analog to digital sound, compressed or not digital will sound more
> pleasurable to the ear."
>
> Maybe you should reconsider that, considering virtually the entire audio
> industry disagrees with (and I don't mean the likes of Yamaha and Bose).
> "Analog sound" is the benchmark to which digital aspires. If you can
> find someone who has a good analog rig, and compare, say the 180 gram
> vinyl rereleases of AC-DCs albums vs the CD counterparts, you'd discover
> how good digital isn't (yet). Or, a less likely possibilty, compare the
> analog multitrack master of an older film (prior to the mixdown to two
> track Dolby Stereo), and compared that to the discrete DD mix, you'd
> find it extremely enlightening.
>
> "Just because something is not compressed doesn't mean it is better."
>
> But if it's not data reduced (a good portion of data removed and thrown
> out completely, like DD), it IS better. DD is not just compressed, it's
> data reduced.
>
> "We are talking films, so let's not try and take it to music."
>
> Because there's no music in films, after all.
>
> Maybe if your tastes hadn't matured in the digital age, and you hadn't
> bought the digital propaganda hook, line, and sinker, you'd have a
> better perspective. Currently, discrete digital surround may have a
> slight advantage in placing audio effects within the soundstage, but
> even that's not always been the case. The precursor to modern surround,
> Quadraphonic sound, had some releases in a discrete four channel format
> (JVC's CD-4, for one). "Apocalypse Now"s 70mm release featured a
> discrete "quintaphonic" mix on it's (analog) optical track (which was
> the basis of the DD tracks for the second THX laserdisc release).
> There's plenty of examples of discrete ANALOG surround if you'd care to
> look.
>
> Analog still sounds better than even uncompressed digital audio. In the
> early days of DD, the magazine "Widescreen Review" did a comparison of a
> discrete full data digtal mix (using a multitrack ADAT machine) and the
> 5.1 DD mix from a Laserdisc, and found a definite loss of clarity in the
> DD tracks (while they were not opponents of digital sound, though they
> had reservations about the sonic quality of DD, which were justified).
>
> Before you make blanket statement like "digital is better" (especially
> in regards to surround), perhaps you should learn a little more about
> the technology and it's history.
>

Actually my friend, what sounds good is what sounds good to YOU, not a
magazine review where these people get really technical using machines to
measure sound visually. To get this great analog sound that you speak of,
you would have to spend a good $100,000 or more on such a system. On top of
that, what medium would you use to get new material? So again, you have
taken it too far. What high level analog system do you have...?

Oh yeah, people who prefer analog to digital are usually old-school people
who grew up listening to record and are used to that sound and hate change.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263275 ] Mi, 10 Mai 2006 23:51
Darth Mura  
Guest wrote:
>
> Actually my friend, what sounds good is what sounds good to YOU, not a
> magazine review where these people get really technical using machines to
> measure sound visually. To get this great analog sound that you speak of,
> you would have to spend a good $100,000 or more on such a system. On top of
> that, what medium would you use to get new material? So again, you have
> taken it too far. What high level analog system do you have...?
>
> Oh yeah, people who prefer analog to digital are usually old-school people
> who grew up listening to record and are used to that sound and hate change.


As if you expected something more? This is the same guy who lives in a
world where there is no EU, only the movies.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263276 ] Do, 11 Mai 2006 01:27
MDChubb  
"... not a magazine review where these people get really technical uisng
machines to measure sound visually."

Hmm? The used an ADAT (a multitrack digital recorder that uses DAT tapes
to record audio) so they could have the 5.1 audio stored and played back
discretely, to make a valid comparison to the data reduced DD. It was a
listening evaluation.

"To get this great analog sound that you speak of, you would have to
spend 100,000 or more on a such a system."

Even at new retail prices, I'd venture to say you could get a very
musical and listenable system for 5% of that figure or less. If you're
willing to take the time and do the research (haunting pawn and thrift
shops), you could set up a good analog rig for mere hundreds.

"On top of that, what medium would you use to get new material?"

Is that a trick question? Vinyl. Even though the selection is sparse,
new titles are released on vinyl all the time. Check out the "Hot Topic"
store in your nearest mall. You'd be suprised.

"What high level analog system do you have...?"

Two channel or surround? My stereo rig is an 80's vintage Marantz
turntable w/ Audio Technica cartridge, NAD 3020 integrated amp (well
regarded and sought after to this day), and Snell Acoustics E/III
speakers (on Stereophile magazine's recommended components list from '89
to '95). Not the greatest in the world, but with a good record it's
darned good. Since I got it ALL used, the cost was well under $200. The
heart of my surround rig is a Fosgate Audionics Model 4 analog surround
processor, designed by surround guru Jim Fosgate (who created Pro Logic
II). Although in terms of money, it was the step down form the THX
approved Model 3a processor, it actually sounded a little better without
all the extra circuitry of it's bigger brother. The system is rounded
out with a Rotel multi-channel amp (for the 5.1 channels), dbx active
crossover and Toshiba amp (for an extra pair of subs in the custom
bi-amped right and left tower speakers, for a total of THREE subs in the
system, BOOM!)

"...people who prefer analog to digital are usually old-school who grew
up listening to record and are used to that sound and hate change."

Ah, the ever insightful vast and sweeping generalization. You mean like:
People who prefer digital to analog because they simply haven't heard
good analog and they think everything that came before them is beneath
them?

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy digital media (CDs, DVDs, et al), but
there's still something very right about analog sound that digital sound
has yet to capture. It's getting closer all the time, but not in the
form of a data challenged format like Dolby Digital. The belief that a
format that is literally LESS could be better, is simply unwarranted.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263279 ] Do, 11 Mai 2006 04:40
Solon  
_Michael Chubb_ spoke thusly on 10/05/2006 7:27 PM:
> Hmm? The used an ADAT (a multitrack digital recorder that uses DAT tapes
> to record audio)

ADATs use SVHS tapes, not DAT tapes.
--
usenetsolon [at] gmail.com
Firefox 1.5 is out! <http://www.mozilla.com>
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263280 ] Do, 11 Mai 2006 05:50
Guest  
"Solon" <usenetsolon [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:t-qdnXuZLd6mOf_ZRVn-pA [at] giganews.com...
> _Michael Chubb_ spoke thusly on 10/05/2006 7:27 PM:
>> Hmm? The used an ADAT (a multitrack digital recorder that uses DAT tapes
>> to record audio)
>
> ADATs use SVHS tapes, not DAT tapes.
> --

On top of that, it's digital...

> usenetsolon [at] gmail.com
> Firefox 1.5 is out! <http://www.mozilla.com>
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263281 ] Do, 11 Mai 2006 05:53
Guest  
"Michael Chubb" <MDChubb [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
news:7692-446276FA-75 [at] storefull-3316.bay.webtv.net...
> "... not a magazine review where these people get really technical uisng
> machines to measure sound visually."
>
> Hmm? The used an ADAT (a multitrack digital recorder that uses DAT tapes
> to record audio) so they could have the 5.1 audio stored and played back
> discretely, to make a valid comparison to the data reduced DD. It was a
> listening evaluation.
>
> "To get this great analog sound that you speak of, you would have to
> spend 100,000 or more on a such a system."
>
> Even at new retail prices, I'd venture to say you could get a very
> musical and listenable system for 5% of that figure or less. If you're
> willing to take the time and do the research (haunting pawn and thrift
> shops), you could set up a good analog rig for mere hundreds.
>
> "On top of that, what medium would you use to get new material?"
>
> Is that a trick question? Vinyl. Even though the selection is sparse,
> new titles are released on vinyl all the time. Check out the "Hot Topic"
> store in your nearest mall. You'd be suprised.
>
> "What high level analog system do you have...?"
>
> Two channel or surround? My stereo rig is an 80's vintage Marantz
> turntable w/ Audio Technica cartridge, NAD 3020 integrated amp (well
> regarded and sought after to this day), and Snell Acoustics E/III
> speakers (on Stereophile magazine's recommended components list from '89
> to '95). Not the greatest in the world, but with a good record it's
> darned good. Since I got it ALL used, the cost was well under $200. The
> heart of my surround rig is a Fosgate Audionics Model 4 analog surround
> processor, designed by surround guru Jim Fosgate (who created Pro Logic
> II). Although in terms of money, it was the step down form the THX
> approved Model 3a processor, it actually sounded a little better without
> all the extra circuitry of it's bigger brother. The system is rounded
> out with a Rotel multi-channel amp (for the 5.1 channels), dbx active
> crossover and Toshiba amp (for an extra pair of subs in the custom
> bi-amped right and left tower speakers, for a total of THREE subs in the
> system, BOOM!)
>
> "...people who prefer analog to digital are usually old-school who grew
> up listening to record and are used to that sound and hate change."
>
> Ah, the ever insightful vast and sweeping generalization. You mean like:
> People who prefer digital to analog because they simply haven't heard
> good analog and they think everything that came before them is beneath
> them?
>
> Don't get me wrong, I enjoy digital media (CDs, DVDs, et al), but
> there's still something very right about analog sound that digital sound
> has yet to capture. It's getting closer all the time, but not in the
> form of a data challenged format like Dolby Digital. The belief that a
> format that is literally LESS could be better, is simply unwarranted.
>

My point was proven. You are an old school analog lover. Nothing wrong
with that, but just don't go out of your way to say that analog is better
than digital. I think you mistake 'looser' bass in analog for precise bass
in digital which does not wash out the sound as analog does. I guess you
like that. Tight, precise bass is why I fell in love with a CD when I first
heard one.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263286 ] Do, 11 Mai 2006 09:04
Darth Mura  
Michael Chubb wrote:


>
> "...people who prefer analog to digital are usually old-school who grew
> up listening to record and are used to that sound and hate change."
>
> Ah, the ever insightful vast and sweeping generalization.

You mean like these two, posted here not too long ago:

"[EU] fans clamor for every bit of EU lore that explains every vague
point and insiginificant detail in the films."

"EU is merely wishful thinking and published fanboy fiction."
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263291 ] Do, 11 Mai 2006 12:40
MDChubb  
"ADATs use SVHS tapes, not DATs"

My bad.

"On top of that, it's digital..."

I never said it wasn't. They used it as a point of comparison between
standard full data rate digital and DD, since the felt DD's fidelity was
supsect. They needed a recording format that could maintain the 5.1
channels discretely for a valid comparison.

If analog is better than standard digital, and standard digital is
better than DD, then analog is signifcantly better than DD. That's what
I was getting at.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263292 ] Do, 11 Mai 2006 12:43
MDChubb  
"... 'looser' bass in analog..."

That's ALL that makes digital better?
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263299 ] Fr, 12 Mai 2006 03:01
Guest  
"Michael Chubb" <MDChubb [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8724-4463149F-98 [at] storefull-3312.bay.webtv.net...
> "ADATs use SVHS tapes, not DATs"
>
> My bad.
>
> "On top of that, it's digital..."
>
> I never said it wasn't. They used it as a point of comparison between
> standard full data rate digital and DD, since the felt DD's fidelity was
> supsect. They needed a recording format that could maintain the 5.1
> channels discretely for a valid comparison.
>
> If analog is better than standard digital,

Only on some points. Not for dynamic range and clarity.

and standard digital is
> better than DD,

No doubt. I suppose you mean something like a wav file?

then analog is signifcantly better than DD. That's what
> I was getting at.
>

You should have said that in the first place. Although the high quality
analog that you speak of is impractical. DD make lack in some departments,
but to there is DTS.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263300 ] Fr, 12 Mai 2006 03:02
Guest  
"Darth Mura" <shridurga [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147331071.331350.44340 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Michael Chubb wrote:
>
>
>>
>> "...people who prefer analog to digital are usually old-school who grew
>> up listening to record and are used to that sound and hate change."
>>
>> Ah, the ever insightful vast and sweeping generalization.
>
> You mean like these two, posted here not too long ago:
>
> "[EU] fans clamor for every bit of EU lore that explains every vague
> point and insiginificant detail in the films."
>
> "EU is merely wishful thinking and published fanboy fiction."
>

Full quote please. I wonder if you have me mixed up.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263302 ] Fr, 12 Mai 2006 05:44
Darth Mura  
Guest wrote:
> "Darth Mura" <shridurga [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1147331071.331350.44340 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Michael Chubb wrote:

> >>
> >> "...people who prefer analog to digital are usually old-school who grew
> >> up listening to record and are used to that sound and hate change."
> >>
> >> Ah, the ever insightful vast and sweeping generalization.
> >
> > You mean like these two, posted here not too long ago:
> >
> > "[EU] fans clamor for every bit of EU lore that explains every vague
> > point and insiginificant detail in the films."
> >
> > "EU is merely wishful thinking and published fanboy fiction."
> >
>
> Full quote please. I wonder if you have me mixed up.


I believe it might be you who is mixed up. Check the attribution
quotes. It's Mr Chubb who's waging his finger at you for making
generalizations, something he's not hesitant to do when it suits his
purpose (as the quotes from Mr Chubb clearly demonstrate).
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263328 ] So, 14 Mai 2006 15:40
MDChubb  
"My point was proven. You are an old school analog lover."

Proven? Based on what? I've said nothing to lead you to that conclusion,
have I?

Truth be told, in my youth I did listen to records and, god forbid,
8-track tapes, but only because that was the only game in town. And the
music was my primary interest, not the fideltiy. As prerecorded
cassettes took the market, I shifted over to them. Once again, not for
their fidelity, but for the music and their convenience (it was portable
in a way vinyl never could be). Initially I resisted CDs. Not for any
fidelity issues, but the simple practical matter of cost. When CDs and
digital finally came down to an affordable level I adopted it, and I had
few complaints (there were a few titles that owing to their mastering,
were vitrually unlistenable, but they were the exception). But the funny
thing is, I kept hearing about how analog was still better than digital.
Old scratchy vinyl better than "perfect sound forever" CD? So I made a
minimal investment in a turntable ($25 for that used Marantz turntable,
which was infinitely better than the "record player" I'd used in the
past).Every old record I had that I threw on the turntable, sprang to
life with a quality I never suspected was there. The thing that finally
nailed it was Nirvana's breakthrough album "Nevermind". The CD release
was being heralded among audiophiles as one of the best sounding
recordings of day, but the vinyl version was even better. So I tracked
down a copy, and I'll be darned it it wasn't!

So, as you see, that analog is better is not a foregone conclusion on
my part, as you've implied, but a journey of discovery (REdiscovery,
actually). What direct comparisons have you made to acheive your
conclusion (and on what system)?

"I think you mistake 'looser' bass in analog for precise bass in
digital..."

That'd be an awefully big 'mistake'. In that above mentioned journey of
discovery, I found that your appraisal of analog's bass is definitively
NOT true. I was as shocked as anyone to discover the quick, taught,
tuneful bass on my records from music I wasn't aware had any bass at
all. Maybe digital has the advantage in extension (all the way down 0
hz), but that's a matter of quantity, not quality.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263330 ] So, 14 Mai 2006 15:59
Darth Mura  
Michael Chubb wrote:
> "My point was proven. You are an old school analog lover."
>
> Proven? Based on what?

If a poster provides enough information to draw a conclusion without
any extraneous input (and he does), then one could consider the matter
explained.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263339 ] Mo, 15 Mai 2006 03:41
MDChubb  
"If a poster provides enough information to draw a conclusion without
any extraneous input (and he does), then one could consider the matter
explained."

Indeed. However, I did not provide enough information to conclude that I
am an "old school lover of analog sound". I did provide for the
following conclusions:

1) A good analog rig needn't cost $100,000.

2) If there is a BEST in matrixed analog surround, it sprang from the
mind of Jim Fosgate (designer of Pro Logic II), and I have a suround
processor that takes full advantage of his designing prowess (his
company made it).

3) I am extremely frugal (or perhaps, a cheap bastard) in that much of
my gear was aquired used, and at a small fraction of original retail.

Since I did not mention the CD player in my two channel rig, one might
assume (wrongly) that I didn't give digital a "fair shake". I only
omitted mention of it as it had no bearing on the economy of analog
sound.

Also note, I did not provide the nature of any of the sources in my
surround rig (VCR, WebTV box, and DVD/LD player). If one concluded that
my two channel rig did not have a digital source, then my surround rig
must have no sources at all.

While I did provide enough information to draw certain conclusions, as
illustrated above, his singular conclusion regarding the nature of my
relation to analog sound is wholly unsubstantiated.
Re: To All You Pompous Morons... [message #263346 ] Mo, 15 Mai 2006 13:04
Darth Mura  
Michael Chubb wrote:
> "If a poster provides enough information to draw a conclusion without
> any extraneous input (and he does), then one could consider the matter
> explained."
>
> Indeed. However, I did not provide enough information to conclude ....

Yes, yes. It's obvious to _you_. Please continue.

No where's my pillow?
Vorheriges Thema:how come.......
Nächstes Thema:Was George Lucas a fan of the Hammer Films?
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 05:24:46 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,14126 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered