On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 6:55:54 PM, vhorowitz wrote:
>
> You might get answers from the “experts” if your posts were a bit less filled with wild conjecture
> and assumptions. I will answer one question. Ward Marston’s Naxos Rachmaninoff (and anything
> else for them) are newly transferred. Naxos has never altered what he has provided them. As far as
> your other statements….you pay your money and use your ears. Then perhaps if you ask nicely, some
> of the experts won’t be put off by your abrasive attitude and will chime in with more information.

No, _your_ assumptions!! The Ward Marston Rachmaninov to which Pup refers is the RCA Gold Seal integrale of Rach's recordings for Victor. Previously issued on LPs in 1973, tt was spread over 10 CDs and Mr. Marston only _transferred_ the source material into the digital domain. He did _not_ turn the dials at the mastering stage. That was done by RCA house engineers, who royally screwed the pooch, butchered—butchered!–the music using the CEDAR noise reduction system, and left Marston's sterling work sounding just plain strange. Fuzzy, opaque, indistinct. Total crapola! One of the more infamous hack jobs in the history of archival restorations.

Thought you'd know that story. Guess I assumed incorrectly.

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 6:55:54 PM UTC-8, vhorowitz wrote:
>
> ….you pay your money and use your ears.
>

better yet, use one's ears
before paying the money.

dk

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 4:05:37 PM UTC-8, drh8h wrote:
>
> As for experts, I surely am not one,
> and if you gathered them all in a
> room, I doubt there would much
> agreement even about the weather.

If all the experts are gathered in one
room the only possible outcome is a
thermonuclear reaction.

dk

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 10:43:00 PM UTC-6, Oscar wrote:
> On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 6:55:54 PM, vhorowitz wrote:
> >
> > You might get answers from the “experts” if your posts were a bit less filled with wild conjecture
> > and assumptions. I will answer one question. Ward Marston’s Naxos Rachmaninoff (and anything
> > else for them) are newly transferred. Naxos has never altered what he has provided them. As far as
> > your other statements….you pay your money and use your ears. Then perhaps if you ask nicely, some
> > of the experts won’t be put off by your abrasive attitude and will chime in with more information.
> No, _your_ assumptions!! The Ward Marston Rachmaninov to which Pup refers is the RCA Gold Seal integrale of Rach's recordings for Victor. Previously issued on LPs in 1973, tt was spread over 10 CDs and Mr. Marston only _transferred_ the source material into the digital domain. He did _not_ turn the dials at the mastering stage. That was done by RCA house engineers, who royally screwed the pooch, butchered—butchered!–the music using the CEDAR noise reduction system, and left Marston's sterling work sounding just plain strange. Fuzzy, opaque, indistinct. Total crapola! One of the more infamous hack jobs in the history of archival restorations.
>
> Thought you'd know that story. Guess I assumed incorrectly.

Sorry if I was unclear, but that 10 cd set is what I was referring to as well, and I know the story well. He did more than merely transfer it to the digital domain, but yes, it was royally screwed up indeed in the final mastering stage. Some people reported that a later repressing sounds different, but I’ve never been able to confirm that. The first pressings also developed an odd sort of “rot” on the discs making them unplayable. Perhaps some of us remember the VERY first RCA/BMG single CD in the early days of CDs with the 2nd and 3rd concerti (https://www.discogs.com/release/15890785-Rachmaninoff-Stokowski-OrmandyPhiladelphia-Orchestra-Rachmaninoff-Plays-Rachmaninoff-Concertos-Nos-2)….it was an unbelievable botch job…off pitch, seemingly played w/ an lp stylus…...it was quickly withdrawn and Ward was actually asked to do a replacement which was quietly substituted. I think that was his first work for them. Some of us I’m sure also remember how they goofed up one of the older Monteux sets (15 cds??) and one disc ended up about a major 3rd sharp….that Was corrected, but guess which one made it to the later (but very OOP nonetheless) 40 cd Monteux edition? Yes, the SHARP one!! And that never was corrected! Was it D’Indy? Can’t recall now.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Dan Koren wrote:

> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 4:05:37 PM UTC-8, drh8h wrote:
>>
>> As for experts, I surely am not one,
>> and if you gathered them all in a
>> room, I doubt there would much
>> agreement even about the weather.
>
> If all the experts are gathered in one
> room the only possible outcome is a
> thermonuclear reaction.
>
> dk

Have you informed Lawrence Livermoer Lab of this?
--
Al Eisner

On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 3:48:47 PM UTC-8, Al Eisner wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Dan Koren wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 4:05:37 PM UTC-8, drh8h wrote:
> >>
> >> As for experts, I surely am not one,
> >> and if you gathered them all in a
> >> room, I doubt there would much
> >> agreement even about the weather.
> >
> > If all the experts are gathered in one
> > room the only possible outcome is a
> > thermonuclear reaction.
>
> Have you informed Lawrence Livermoer Lab of this?

They've known this for a long time.
This is exactly what happened
when they assembled all the
experts at Los Alamos in
1945.

dk

On 2023-01-28 20:11:29 +0000, Dan Koren said:

> On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 3:48:47 PM UTC-8, Al Eisner wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Dan Koren wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 4:05:37 PM UTC-8, drh8h wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As for experts, I surely am not one,
>>>> and if you gathered them all in a
>>>> room, I doubt there would much
>>>> agreement even about the weather.
>>>
>>> If all the experts are gathered in one
>>> room the only possible outcome is a
>>> thermonuclear reaction.
>>
>> Have you informed Lawrence Livermoer Lab of this?
>
> They've known this for a long time.
> This is exactly what happened
> when they assembled all the
> experts at Los Alamos in
> 1945.
>

Uh...the 1945 bombs was the original atomic (fission) bomb. A
thermonuclear reaction is a hydrogen (fusion) bomb. Lawrence Livermore
knows this, but don't tell anyone else (shhhh....)

-Owen

On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 15:19:12 UTC+11, Owen Hartnett wrote:
> On 2023-01-28 20:11:29 +0000, Dan Koren said:
>
> > On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 3:48:47 PM UTC-8, Al Eisner wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Dan Koren wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 4:05:37 PM UTC-8, drh8h wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> As for experts, I surely am not one,
> >>>> and if you gathered them all in a
> >>>> room, I doubt there would much
> >>>> agreement even about the weather.
> >>>
> >>> If all the experts are gathered in one
> >>> room the only possible outcome is a
> >>> thermonuclear reaction.
> >>
> >> Have you informed Lawrence Livermoer Lab of this?
> >
> > They've known this for a long time.
> > This is exactly what happened
> > when they assembled all the
> > experts at Los Alamos in
> > 1945.
> >
> Uh...the 1945 bombs was the original atomic (fission) bomb. A
> thermonuclear reaction is a hydrogen (fusion) bomb. Lawrence Livermore
> knows this, but don't tell anyone else (shhhh....)
>
> -Owen

Little Boy was U235, whereas Fat Man was Plutonium. Trinity (U235) was actually more successful than both, and nobody got killed.

Ray Hall, Taree

On 2023-01-29 04:40:50 +0000, raymond....@gmail.com said:

> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 15:19:12 UTC+11, Owen Hartnett wrote:
>> On 2023-01-28 20:11:29 +0000, Dan Koren said:
>>
>>> On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 3:48:47 PM UTC-8, Al Eisner wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Dan Koren wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 4:05:37 PM UTC-8, drh8h wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for experts, I surely am not one,
>>>>>> and if you gathered them all in a
>>>>>> room, I doubt there would much
>>>>>> agreement even about the weather.
>>>>>
>>>>> If all the experts are gathered in one
>>>>> room the only possible outcome is a
>>>>> thermonuclear reaction.
>>>>
>>>> Have you informed Lawrence Livermoer Lab of this?
>>>
>>> They've known this for a long time.
>>> This is exactly what happened
>>> when they assembled all the
>>> experts at Los Alamos in
>>> 1945.
>>>
>> Uh...the 1945 bombs was the original atomic (fission) bomb. A
>> thermonuclear reaction is a hydrogen (fusion) bomb. Lawrence Livermore
>> knows this, but don't tell anyone else (shhhh....)
>>
>> -Owen
>
> Little Boy was U235, whereas Fat Man was Plutonium. Trinity (U235) was
> actually more successful than both, and nobody got killed.

(Can't seem to edit out the quotes below. My comment not Ray's!)

> Yes, but Trinity, Little boy and Fat Man were fission bombs. Little
> Boy was a gun style (shoot a block of uranium into more uranium), where
> Fat Man used shaped charges to compress the plutonium. Thermonuclear,
> where a fission bomb was used to ignite a nuclear fusion bomb (the
> nuclear power the sun uses), and much higher megaton yields, came a few
> years after the war.
>

-Owen