On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 21:45:56 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <9u64rh-qp321.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>,
> Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> > For me it's simple, some people like the whole LP thing. For
>> > whatever reason they like vinyl and all its oddities. Some say
>> > they actually prefer the sound of vinyl to digital and I don't
>> > even have a problem with that. It's only at the point where they
>> > claim vinyl is actually better where I raise an eyebrow.
>> >
>> However, can they actually tell the difference in a double blind
>> test?
>
>I couldn't possibly say what they can hear. :-)
>
>Bob.

"The ear can't hear as high as that,
But it might amuse a passing bat".

(If you's old enough, you'll know who).

Rod.

In article <npc0eg95mg3t8mmdgmhp8e0tlt7aijp643@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 15:14:05 +0000 (UTC), MrSpud_K7dbw0v@ro7.gov.uk wrote:

> >>I've come to assume that the reality is that some/many simply like the
> >>changes than LP cutting and replay make to the audio signals. But then
> >
> >I suspect a lot simply like the ritual of putting on an LP , in a
> >similar way that some like that of making and pouring green tea, an
> >utterly vile brew that seems to have its own mythology around it just
> >like LPs.

> I wonder what percentage of the people with this nostalgic view are old
> enough to remember having to go through the complicated rigmarole of
> playing gramophone records because there was no choice?

I've still got a largish collection my loft waiting for me to have time to
'digitise' them.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <mpd0eg1l7a5omhvhu4sg37ilcl2hb1sehn@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 21:45:56 +0100, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> >In article <9u64rh-qp321.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>,
> > Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
> >> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > For me it's simple, some people like the whole LP thing. For
> >> > whatever reason they like vinyl and all its oddities. Some say
> >> > they actually prefer the sound of vinyl to digital and I don't
> >> > even have a problem with that. It's only at the point where they
> >> > claim vinyl is actually better where I raise an eyebrow.
> >> >
> >> However, can they actually tell the difference in a double blind
> >> test?
> >
> >I couldn't possibly say what they can hear. :-)
> >
> >Bob.

> "The ear can't hear as high as that,
> But it might amuse a passing bat".

> (If you's old enough, you'll know who).

> Rod.
Mud.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 11:24:17 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

>In article <npc0eg95mg3t8mmdgmhp8e0tlt7aijp643@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 15:14:05 +0000 (UTC), MrSpud_K7dbw0v@ro7.gov.uk wrote:
>
>> >>I've come to assume that the reality is that some/many simply like the
>> >>changes than LP cutting and replay make to the audio signals. But then
>> >
>> >I suspect a lot simply like the ritual of putting on an LP , in a
>> >similar way that some like that of making and pouring green tea, an
>> >utterly vile brew that seems to have its own mythology around it just
>> >like LPs.
>
>> I wonder what percentage of the people with this nostalgic view are old
>> enough to remember having to go through the complicated rigmarole of
>> playing gramophone records because there was no choice?
>
>I've still got a largish collection my loft waiting for me to have time to
>'digitise' them.

Ebay has already had first pick at mine, so the remainder only await
my being bothered to take them to Oxfam or similar. All the ones I
ever wanted to hear again were long ago replaced with their CD
equivalents.

I still remember the feeling of surprise on first hearing some of
those replacement CDs, because I was hearing detail I'd never heard
before on recordings I thought I knew well from the LP versions. All I
could hear was the music with none of the previous distortions or
blemishes. And the CDs were less kerfuffle to play. And it wasn't
necessary to turn them over halfway through. And they didn't wear out
just by being played. For me it was no contest and never has been.
There's no romance about old technology even though it can be
interesting. It's possible to maintain an interest in history without
wanting to live in it.

Rod.

On 03/07/2021 10:56, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> I wonder what percentage of the people with this nostalgic view are
> old enough to remember having to go through the complicated rigmarole
> of playing gramophone records because there was no choice?

I am old enough to remember having to change the needle after playing
both sides of a 78rpm record.

:-)

Jim

In article <59463063dbcharles@candehope.me.uk>,
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> I've still got a largish collection my loft waiting for me to have
> time to 'digitise' them.

I hope you get away with that. I've had some 45 singles melt in high
temperatures, maybe your loft doesn't get as hot as the boot of my
car did one day in the seventies.

Bob.

In article <aof0eg9b0cua3ov1hnfmb010e6hqt6tdc0@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> I still remember the feeling of surprise on first hearing some of
> those replacement CDs, because I was hearing detail I'd never heard
> before on recordings I thought I knew well from the LP versions.

To be honest I find that hard to imagine. Yes, vinyl has a host of
failings where CD is very much better but detail certainly isn't one
of them.

As it happens, this last week I've fitted a new power suppply to my
turntable and I've been testing it. Ignoring surface noise and the
odd click I thought it sounded really good and certainly no detail
missing.

Bob.

In article <sbpikq$7v9$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Indy Jess John <savechurchillhouse@SPAMTRAPhotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 03/07/2021 10:56, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> > I wonder what percentage of the people with this nostalgic view are
> > old enough to remember having to go through the complicated rigmarole
> > of playing gramophone records because there was no choice?

> I am old enough to remember having to change the needle after playing
> both sides of a 78rpm record.

Indeed. My parents had such a beast, too.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 03/07/2021 11:09, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> "The ear can't hear as high as that,
> But it might amuse a passing bat".
>
> (If you's old enough, you'll know who).
>
> Rod.
>
Flanders and Swan

Bill

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 12:53:36 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <aof0eg9b0cua3ov1hnfmb010e6hqt6tdc0@4ax.com>,
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I still remember the feeling of surprise on first hearing some of
>> those replacement CDs, because I was hearing detail I'd never heard
>> before on recordings I thought I knew well from the LP versions.
>
>To be honest I find that hard to imagine. Yes, vinyl has a host of
>failings where CD is very much better but detail certainly isn't one
>of them.

It doesn't seem mysterious at all to me. Both the LP and the CD will
have been made from the same master tape, so the only differences will
be differences in subsequent copying procedures. The translation to a
wavy groove by means of an inherently imperfect mechanical procedure
could be expected to introduce errors that would not result from
sampling the signal electronically at more than twice the highest
frequency most people can hear. In some cases, the master tape will
itself be digital so if you think there are any audible distortions
due to electronic sampling, they must apply to all copies regardless
of the published format.

What I mean by "inherently imperfect" would include, for example, the
fact that the groove is cut in a radial path but usually tracked in a
curved one, and the fact that vertical movement of the groove is
followed by a stylus whose vertical movement is actually tilted
forward because the shank of the stylus has to be hinged above the
surface level of the record. Even an absolutely pristine record being
played for the first time will have these distortions, and there are
plenty more it will acquire with subsequent handling and playing. If
properly managed, digital material can be kept unchanged forever.

Rod.

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 13:48:48 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

>In article <sbpikq$7v9$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Indy Jess John <savechurchillhouse@SPAMTRAPhotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 03/07/2021 10:56, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>> > I wonder what percentage of the people with this nostalgic view are
>> > old enough to remember having to go through the complicated rigmarole
>> > of playing gramophone records because there was no choice?
>
>> I am old enough to remember having to change the needle after playing
>> both sides of a 78rpm record.
>
>Indeed. My parents had such a beast, too.

Same here. And cars with manual chokes and no screenwash, and hot
water powered by coal fires, and lightbulbs that burnt your fingers,
and television that was only black and white with a 12" screen in a
huge box, and washing machines that had to be manually switched from
wash to spin, and many more things that some people seem to think had
some nostalgic romance about them. But who could want to go back to
all that except somebody who has never experienced it?

Vorsprung durch technik, otherwise what's the point of it?

Rod.

On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 14:39:52 +0100, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

>On 03/07/2021 11:09, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>> "The ear can't hear as high as that,
>> But it might amuse a passing bat".
>>
>> (If you's old enough, you'll know who).
>>
>> Rod.
>>
>Flanders and Swan
>
>Bill

Yep. They were brilliant, and with one of them in a wheelchair, their
act had 50% "diversity" long before anybody else thought of it.

Rod.

In article <rls0eg1ohfad5htv0fcgiupsrh2mao9sti@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 14:39:52 +0100, williamwright
> <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

> >On 03/07/2021 11:09, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> >
> >> "The ear can't hear as high as that,
> >> But it might amuse a passing bat".
> >>
> >> (If you's old enough, you'll know who).
> >>
> >> Rod.
> >>
> >Flanders and Swan
> >
> >Bill

> Yep. They were brilliant, and with one of them in a wheelchair, their
> act had 50% "diversity" long before anybody else thought of it.

> Rod.

I saw them at the Edinburgh Festival in either 1960 or 1961. The REAL
Festival, not the Fringe.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <4qr0eg1cl0qpp9el22ufghug487016m4r1@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 13:48:48 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
> wrote:

> >In article <sbpikq$7v9$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> > Indy Jess John <savechurchillhouse@SPAMTRAPhotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On 03/07/2021 10:56, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> >
> >> > I wonder what percentage of the people with this nostalgic view are
> >> > old enough to remember having to go through the complicated rigmarole
> >> > of playing gramophone records because there was no choice?
> >
> >> I am old enough to remember having to change the needle after playing
> >> both sides of a 78rpm record.
> >
> >Indeed. My parents had such a beast, too.

> Same here. And cars with manual chokes and no screenwash, and hot
> water powered by coal fires, and lightbulbs that burnt your fingers,
> and television that was only black and white with a 12" screen in a
> huge box, and washing machines that had to be manually switched from
> wash to spin, and many more things that some people seem to think had
> some nostalgic romance about them. But who could want to go back to
> all that except somebody who has never experienced it?

> Vorsprung durch technik, otherwise what's the point of it?

> Rod.

This morning SWMBO started to cut one of our hedges with hand shears. I
asked why she didn't use an electric cutter and was firmly told 'only men
went to use machinery'. However, I have notced a lot of electrically
powered gadgets in the kitchen

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 03/07/2021 15:21, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> cars with manual chokes and no screenwash

I still have a car with a manual choke. It starts when I want it to,
gets me from A to B without breaking down, and it is exempt from "clean
Air Zone" charges because it is a "Historic" vehicle. Why would I want
to change it, especially for something that thinks it knows better than
I do how I want to drive? I had a hire car once that reduced my
acceleration because the exhaust was getting too polluting, which is
exactly what I didn't want when I was part way past a car I was overtaking.

My car has a screenwash of sorts. It is a dashboard mounted manually
operated pump on the opposite end of the useful switches to the choke
control and with the same type of knob, to make the controls and
instruments look symmetrical. It works and I don't have to remember
which stalk it is on.

Of the rest of your list, there are uses for light bulbs that get hot -
how else can you make a Lava Lamp function.

I don't remember washing machines that had to be manually switched from
wash to spin. It either had twin tubs and the washing was physically
moved from one to the other, or a separate spinner was used.

Jim

On 03/07/2021 15:38, charles wrote:

>
> This morning SWMBO started to cut one of our hedges with hand shears. I
> asked why she didn't use an electric cutter and was firmly told 'only men
> went to use machinery'. However, I have noticed a lot of electrically
> powered gadgets in the kitchen
>
That is in anticipation of you doing the cooking :-)

Jim

"Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:5946389107bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
> In article <aof0eg9b0cua3ov1hnfmb010e6hqt6tdc0@4ax.com>,
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I still remember the feeling of surprise on first hearing some of
>> those replacement CDs, because I was hearing detail I'd never heard
>> before on recordings I thought I knew well from the LP versions.
>
> To be honest I find that hard to imagine. Yes, vinyl has a host of
> failings where CD is very much better but detail certainly isn't one
> of them.
>
> As it happens, this last week I've fitted a new power suppply to my
> turntable and I've been testing it. Ignoring surface noise and the
> odd click I thought it sounded really good and certainly no detail
> missing.

I have a few recordings on both vinyl and CD. Without a shadow of a doubt I
can hear things on the CD which are inaudible on the vinyl. Of course the CD
and vinyl masters may be different: the master tapes have have been mixed
differently for producing the CD than for producing the vinyl, because the
latter has less dynamic range between max excursion of groove at one end of
the scale and background "sandpaper" noise of needle on vinyl (plus
dust-tick, scratches etc) at the other end of the scale.

For me, it is the lack of background noise and the ease of playing that
makes CDs so much better than vinyl. The extra dynamic range is an added
bonus.

MP3s... well there's nothing wrong with lossy compression as long as the
losses are things that are inaudible. Sadly, any form of lossy compression
(whether for sound or video) has a compression ratio control and the
bean-counters are inclined to turn it a bit too far, so they begin to
sacrifice quality in order to cram more tracks or videos or channels into a
fixed bandwidth or storage space. For me, 192 or 256 kb/s joint stereo are
indistinguishable *with my ears* from the uncompressed WAV/CD original. 160
is borderline. 128 is indefinably rough and anything less is vile. Other
people may have different limits to mine.

On 03/07/2021 12:03, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> There's no romance about old technology even though it can be
> interesting.

Like you used to hear people say they preferred Medium Wave because it
had a "warmer" sound i.e. none of those nasty higher frequencies and
limiter working hard to make it louder! :-)

In article <sbptul$p3p$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 03/07/2021 15:21, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> > cars with manual chokes and no screenwash

> I still have a car with a manual choke. It starts when I want it to,
> gets me from A to B without breaking down, and it is exempt from "clean
> Air Zone" charges because it is a "Historic" vehicle. Why would I want
> to change it, especially for something that thinks it knows better than
> I do how I want to drive? I had a hire car once that reduced my
> acceleration because the exhaust was getting too polluting, which is
> exactly what I didn't want when I was part way past a car I was overtaking.

> My car has a screenwash of sorts. It is a dashboard mounted manually
> operated pump on the opposite end of the useful switches to the choke
> control and with the same type of knob, to make the controls and
> instruments look symmetrical. It works and I don't have to remember
> which stalk it is on.

> Of the rest of your list, there are uses for light bulbs that get hot -
> how else can you make a Lava Lamp function.

> I don't remember washing machines that had to be manually switched from
> wash to spin. It either had twin tubs and the washing was physically
> moved from one to the other, or a separate spinner was used.

My mother's original Hoover washing machine only had the one tub.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <ffq0egt2pns8h949chj2ki1trp3n8hmq1q@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 12:53:36 +0100, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> >In article <aof0eg9b0cua3ov1hnfmb010e6hqt6tdc0@4ax.com>,
> > Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> I still remember the feeling of surprise on first hearing some
> >> of those replacement CDs, because I was hearing detail I'd never
> >> heard before on recordings I thought I knew well from the LP
> >> versions.
> >
> >To be honest I find that hard to imagine. Yes, vinyl has a host of
> >failings where CD is very much better but detail certainly isn't
> >one of them.

> It doesn't seem mysterious at all to me. Both the LP and the CD
> will have been made from the same master tape, so the only
> differences will be differences in subsequent copying procedures.
> The translation to a wavy groove by means of an inherently
> imperfect mechanical procedure could be expected to introduce
> errors that would not result from sampling the signal
> electronically at more than twice the highest frequency most people
> can hear. In some cases, the master tape will itself be digital so
> if you think there are any audible distortions due to electronic
> sampling, they must apply to all copies regardless of the published
> format.

> What I mean by "inherently imperfect" would include, for example,
> the fact that the groove is cut in a radial path but usually
> tracked in a curved one, and the fact that vertical movement of the
> groove is followed by a stylus whose vertical movement is actually
> tilted forward because the shank of the stylus has to be hinged
> above the surface level of the record. Even an absolutely pristine
> record being played for the first time will have these distortions,
> and there are plenty more it will acquire with subsequent handling
> and playing. If properly managed, digital material can be kept
> unchanged forever.

I don't disagree with any of that, all fine. Just don't find vinyl
has a lack of detail. If vinyl playback is so lacking in detail that
it stands out as your earlier comments suggest, then there is
something wrong with the vinyl playback system or maybe the record is
knackered.

Bob.

In article <sbpu7a$ri1$1@dont-email.me>,
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:5946389107bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
> > In article <aof0eg9b0cua3ov1hnfmb010e6hqt6tdc0@4ax.com>,
> > Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> I still remember the feeling of surprise on first hearing some
> >> of those replacement CDs, because I was hearing detail I'd never
> >> heard before on recordings I thought I knew well from the LP
> >> versions.
> >
> > To be honest I find that hard to imagine. Yes, vinyl has a host
> > of failings where CD is very much better but detail certainly
> > isn't one of them.
> >
> > As it happens, this last week I've fitted a new power suppply to
> > my turntable and I've been testing it. Ignoring surface noise and
> > the odd click I thought it sounded really good and certainly no
> > detail missing.

> I have a few recordings on both vinyl and CD. Without a shadow of a
> doubt I can hear things on the CD which are inaudible on the vinyl.

For all of vinyl's failings and it has plenty, I've never ever
encountered a noticeable lack of detail. I'm therefore forced to
simply disagree.

> Of course the CD and vinyl masters may be different: the
> master tapes have have been mixed differently for producing the CD
> than for producing the vinyl, because the latter has less dynamic
> range between max excursion of groove at one end of the scale and
> background "sandpaper" noise of needle on vinyl (plus dust-tick,
> scratches etc) at the other end of the scale.

> For me, it is the lack of background noise and the ease of playing
> that makes CDs so much better than vinyl. The extra dynamic range
> is an added bonus.

Yes, absolutely, I agree. Noise and distortion are the big drawbacks
with vinyl.

> MP3s... well there's nothing wrong with lossy compression as long
> as the losses are things that are inaudible. Sadly, any form of
> lossy compression (whether for sound or video) has a compression
> ratio control and the bean-counters are inclined to turn it a bit
> too far, so they begin to sacrifice quality in order to cram more
> tracks or videos or channels into a fixed bandwidth or storage
> space. For me, 192 or 256 kb/s joint stereo are indistinguishable
> *with my ears* from the uncompressed WAV/CD original. 160 is
> borderline. 128 is indefinably rough and anything less is vile.
> Other people may have different limits to mine.

These days storage is cheap, so why throw away information that you
can never recover. It's like the B&Q sale, when it's gone it's gone.
Best policy is to maintain your library in flac and make mp3 copies
for portable use - win win.

Bob.

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 21:45:56 +0100, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <9u64rh-qp321.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>,
> > Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
> >> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > For me it's simple, some people like the whole LP thing. For
> >> > whatever reason they like vinyl and all its oddities. Some say
> >> > they actually prefer the sound of vinyl to digital and I don't
> >> > even have a problem with that. It's only at the point where they
> >> > claim vinyl is actually better where I raise an eyebrow.
> >> >
> >> However, can they actually tell the difference in a double blind
> >> test?
> >
> >I couldn't possibly say what they can hear. :-)
> >
> >Bob.
>
> "The ear can't hear as high as that,
> But it might amuse a passing bat".
>
> (If you's old enough, you'll know who).
>
I think I still have my sister's 45rpm EP of that, with the London Bus
one and a couple of others! :-)

--
Chris Green
·

In article <sbpvgu$56o$1@dont-email.me>,
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 03/07/2021 12:03, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> > There's no romance about old technology even though it can be
> > interesting.

> Like you used to hear people say they preferred Medium Wave because it
> had a "warmer" sound i.e. none of those nasty higher frequencies and
> limiter working hard to make it louder! :-)

I remember a tv dealer in Fort William telling me he had to put top cut
filers in tv sets when uhf appeared. Up to then, 405 tv sound could get as
kight a 8kHz (on a good day).

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <v7c6rh-mjc61.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>,
Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 21:45:56 +0100, Bob Latham
> > <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <9u64rh-qp321.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>,
> > > Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
> > >> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > For me it's simple, some people like the whole LP thing. For
> > >> > whatever reason they like vinyl and all its oddities. Some say
> > >> > they actually prefer the sound of vinyl to digital and I don't
> > >> > even have a problem with that. It's only at the point where they
> > >> > claim vinyl is actually better where I raise an eyebrow.
> > >> >
> > >> However, can they actually tell the difference in a double blind
> > >> test?
> > >
> > >I couldn't possibly say what they can hear. :-)
> > >
> > >Bob.
> >
> > "The ear can't hear as high as that,
> > But it might amuse a passing bat".
> >
> > (If you's old enough, you'll know who).
> >
> I think I still have my sister's 45rpm EP of that, with the London Bus
> one and a couple of others! :-)

I've got a 3CD set ;-)

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 03/07/2021 18:07, charles wrote:
> I remember a tv dealer in Fort William telling me he had to put top cut
> filers in tv sets when uhf appeared. Up to then, 405 tv sound could get as
> kight a 8kHz (on a good day).

I heard a week or so that the dealer has closed now.