On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 11:30:47 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 18/07/2022 11:00, Scott wrote:
>> I would have thought for most people an on-line searchable archive
>> would be far more useful than a station full of random repeats.
>
>Give me a station that can be received anywhere, including the car, over
>an "on-line searchable archive" any day.
>
BBC Sounds (downloads). Choose what you want not what the BBC playout
system happens to be playing out at the time.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation -
>have probably never heard decent music played through a proper hi-fi
>system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound 'good.'

Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.

Rod.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 18:30:43 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>On Mon 18/07/2022 18:08, Scott wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 11:33:10 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/07/2022 11:02, Scott wrote:
>>>> I think you have answered that point in your last paragraph.
>>>
>>> Not sure what that mean? I listen on a range of broadcast and
>>> non-broadcast frequencies and not noticed any interference. Medium Wave
>>> and Long Wave are so useless that I would not notice.
>>
>> What I mean is that Brian's original post referred to interference to
>> medium wave reception by electronic devices.
>>
>> If you don't listen to medium wave, it follows you are not well placed
>> to comment :-)
>
>Don't forget that Brian is a radio amateur so he may not listen to MW
>radio but he will be listening to many other frequencies in and around
>that band.

This may be so but the posting was about medium wave reception.

On 18/07/2022 20:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation -
>> have probably never heard decent music played through a proper hi-fi
>> system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound 'good.'
>
> Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
> never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
> real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
> you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
> it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.

But, however much it matters to you, it just isn't of any interest to
them at all.

On 18/07/2022 20:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation -
>> have probably never heard decent music played through a proper hi-fi
>> system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound 'good.'
> Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
> never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
> real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
> you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
> it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.
>

The musical genre is irrelevant, doesn't matter if it's just a bloke in
the pub with a guitar, there is nothing that can replicate live music.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:59:09 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>On Mon 18/07/2022 12:09, charles wrote:
>> In article <tb39v1$90um$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>>>> The effect of 'powerline' types of devices is that their impact will vary
>>>> with the details of what they are connected to - inc the house wiring
>>>> details. So may seem fine in some cases but not other. And may seem OK to
>>>> the user, but not for a neighbour.
>>
>>> There can be problems the other way round. Some years ago I put a NAS
>>> box in the spare bedroom out of the way, and connected it to my home
>>> network via a pair of powerline devices. It worked OK until I was using
>>> my laptop and as the battery was running low I powered the laptop with
>>> its charger and the powerline link immediately failed. It restarted when
>>> I turned off the laptop charger. It seems that the OEM charger was
>>> putting interference into the mains sufficient to kill the powerline
>>> carrier.
>>
>>> As an aside, I eventually ran a long ethernet cable and stopped using
>>> the powerlines. I have also replaced the old laptop with a newer one.
>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> I've been using Powerline adaptors quite happily for many years, but
>> suddenly it didn't work well between rings. It was when I had a charge
>> point for my EV fitted that this happened. The charger has an internet
>> connection.
>>
>
>It possible also has an invertor of some sort running at high frequency
>for efficiency to convert the incoming mains to whatever voltage the
>unit uses for charging. I believe something like 90V is common, but for
>example Tesla and Porsche high power units run at silly levels like 800V
>so that the battery can be charged quickly. An invertor should be
>filtered so that it doesn't get into the mains, but it can still radiate.

Actually they are very simple devices, basically a contactor. The
charger sends mains to the car and the car converts the mains to
whatever voltage the battery needs and the charger in the car controls
the charge rate.

There is a simple low frequency communication between the car and the
controller which tells the controller that a car is present so power
can be sent to the car. The controller can also signal to the car how
much power is available so the car can match how much it takes with
how much is available.

On 18/07/2022 21:26, Mark Carver wrote:
> The musical genre is irrelevant, doesn't matter if it's just a bloke in
> the pub with a guitar, there is nothing that can replicate live music.

Good live music but unfortunately most live music is not. I had to
listen twice today to someone with an accordion as I passed through a
local underpass. Then someone in the main square. They might have been
live but would have preferred to not to have to listen to them.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 20:55:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 18/07/2022 20:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation -
>>> have probably never heard decent music played through a proper hi-fi
>>> system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound 'good.'
>>
>> Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
>> never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
>> real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
>> you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
>> it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.
>
>But, however much it matters to you, it just isn't of any interest to
>them at all.

Could it be that it *would* be of interest to them but they've never
experienced it and don't know what they're missing?

Rod.

In article <q7hbdh98fv64io7j3o0pgau1lgtedbena3@4ax.com>,
Bill Taylor <noone@invalid.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:59:09 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:

> >On Mon 18/07/2022 12:09, charles wrote:
> >> In article <tb39v1$90um$1@dont-email.me>,
> >> Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >>
> >>>> The effect of 'powerline' types of devices is that their impact will vary
> >>>> with the details of what they are connected to - inc the house wiring
> >>>> details. So may seem fine in some cases but not other. And may seem OK to
> >>>> the user, but not for a neighbour.
> >>
> >>> There can be problems the other way round. Some years ago I put a NAS
> >>> box in the spare bedroom out of the way, and connected it to my home
> >>> network via a pair of powerline devices. It worked OK until I was using
> >>> my laptop and as the battery was running low I powered the laptop with
> >>> its charger and the powerline link immediately failed. It restarted when
> >>> I turned off the laptop charger. It seems that the OEM charger was
> >>> putting interference into the mains sufficient to kill the powerline
> >>> carrier.
> >>
> >>> As an aside, I eventually ran a long ethernet cable and stopped using
> >>> the powerlines. I have also replaced the old laptop with a newer one.
> >>
> >>> Jim
> >>
> >> I've been using Powerline adaptors quite happily for many years, but
> >> suddenly it didn't work well between rings. It was when I had a charge
> >> point for my EV fitted that this happened. The charger has an internet
> >> connection.
> >>
> >
> >It possible also has an invertor of some sort running at high frequency
> >for efficiency to convert the incoming mains to whatever voltage the
> >unit uses for charging. I believe something like 90V is common, but for
> >example Tesla and Porsche high power units run at silly levels like 800V
> >so that the battery can be charged quickly. An invertor should be
> >filtered so that it doesn't get into the mains, but it can still radiate.

> Actually they are very simple devices, basically a contactor. The
> charger sends mains to the car and the car converts the mains to
> whatever voltage the battery needs and the charger in the car controls
> the charge rate.

> There is a simple low frequency communication between the car and the
> controller which tells the controller that a car is present so power
> can be sent to the car. The controller can also signal to the car how
> much power is available so the car can match how much it takes with
> how much is available.

In my case, there is also a wifi connection to my mobile allowing me to set
charging times. The device can also tell my phone how much power I have
used and also, the state of the battery.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Tue 19/07/2022 08:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 20:55:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> On 18/07/2022 20:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation -
>>>> have probably never heard decent music played through a proper hi-fi
>>>> system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound 'good.'
>>>
>>> Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
>>> never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
>>> real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
>>> you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
>>> it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.
>>
>> But, however much it matters to you, it just isn't of any interest to
>> them at all.
>
> Could it be that it *would* be of interest to them but they've never
> experienced it and don't know what they're missing?
>

Whilst on hols a few weeks back we visit Arundells, the former home of
Edward Heath, in The Close at Salisbury Cathedral. The first room you
walk into houses his grand piano (Steinway of course) and you could hear
music. It was coming from a small and seemingly inconsequential stereo
unit but driving a pair of Quad ESL57 electrostatic loudspeakers - the
originals obviously upgraded by Quad at some point. Although not playing
at any appreciable volume the sound quality was stunning.

It followed of course that in his library next door was a set of Quad 34
series preamp/amp/tuner but I couldn't seen any speakers - perhaps why
there was no music in there!

On 19/07/2022 08:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> Could it be that it*would* be of interest to them but they've never
> experienced it and don't know what they're missing?

That was the great thing about John Peel, you could be listening one
minute to some jazz then pop music followed by classical.

I remember once hearing an American "expert" on broadcasting being
interviewed, he said that a station needs to increase their listening
figures then they should reduce their playlist! Perhaps explains a lot
about commercial radio!

Reductio ad absurdum would mean that a station would only play one track
though must admit that in the car, I quite often have Loreena
McKennitt's Dante's Prayer on loop, usually when one of the more moronic
or camp presenters on Radio 2.

In article <hsednem2oKHKFUj_nZ2dnUU7-WGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> For classical music I record concerts from Freeview Radio 3 on my Humax,
> transfer them with USB to my laptop, and use WavePad to edit and
> convert them to MP3 which I can play on an MP3 player. I think I've got
> pretty much all the pieces I want now; there doesn't seem to be much in
> the forthcoming Proms season that I need.

I gip items from iPlayer. My DAP will play mp4, etc, so if needed I can
simply transfer the result without any conversions and it plays nicely.
However for Proms I also like viewing as well. I liked the John Wilson
Prom. Good start to the season from my POV. :-) The dissapointment is the
low number of Vaughan-Williams items given that it is a '150 years'
celibration of his work this year.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <jjls5fF6jd0U5@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells
<hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> On 18/07/2022 20:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation
> >> - have probably never heard decent music played through a proper
> >> hi-fi system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound
> >> 'good.'
> >
> > Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
> > never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
> > real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
> > you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
> > it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.

> But, however much it matters to you, it just isn't of any interest to
> them at all.

Chicken and egg situation. If someone has never been to a live orchestral
(or Big Band) concert they have no idea of the sheer impact it makes on
you. Not just a question of loudness, either. Experiencing anything like it
via broadcast or recordings requires good kit. Still doesn't match.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <tb5q03$viuu$1@dont-email.me>, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
> Whilst on hols a few weeks back we visit Arundells, the former home of
> Edward Heath, in The Close at Salisbury Cathedral. The first room you
> walk into houses his grand piano (Steinway of course) and you could hear
> music. It was coming from a small and seemingly inconsequential stereo
> unit but driving a pair of Quad ESL57 electrostatic loudspeakers - the
> originals obviously upgraded by Quad at some point. Although not playing
> at any appreciable volume the sound quality was stunning.

> It followed of course that in his library next door was a set of Quad 34
> series preamp/amp/tuner but I couldn't seen any speakers - perhaps why
> there was no music in there!

IIUC QUAD stopped repanelling the 57s a few years ago. But a couple of
other companies have taken on doing so. I think one bought from QUAD the
orginal factory items used to make the panels, etc.

The ESLs still IMHO make the best speakers for sheer accuracy to the
source. Main limits are on deep bass and not doing ear-bustingly loud. The
snag is the need for a refurb every decade or so... but the sound tends to
make the need worth putting up with.

Jim

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 19/07/2022 08:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 20:55:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> On 18/07/2022 20:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation -
>>>> have probably never heard decent music played through a proper hi-fi
>>>> system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound 'good.'
>>>
>>> Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
>>> never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
>>> real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
>>> you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
>>> it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.
>>
>> But, however much it matters to you, it just isn't of any interest to
>> them at all.
>
> Could it be that it *would* be of interest to them but they've never
> experienced it and don't know what they're missing?

My own view is no. I think people, especially of the younger
persuasion, are too involved with more exciting aspects of life with
music as an incidental part rather than at its core.

It's the same reason why young girls no longer sit at home producing
samplers.

On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 10:00:07 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <jjls5fF6jd0U5@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells
><hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> On 18/07/2022 20:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation
>> >> - have probably never heard decent music played through a proper
>> >> hi-fi system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound
>> >> 'good.'
>> >
>> > Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
>> > never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
>> > real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
>> > you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
>> > it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.
>
>> But, however much it matters to you, it just isn't of any interest to
>> them at all.
>
>Chicken and egg situation. If someone has never been to a live orchestral
>(or Big Band) concert they have no idea of the sheer impact it makes on
>you. Not just a question of loudness, either. Experiencing anything like it
>via broadcast or recordings requires good kit. Still doesn't match.
>
>Jim

I used to think that the aim of hi-fi was to replicate the experience
of a live performance, and some of the manufacturers' advertising
seemed to be along those lines ("The closest approach to the original
sound..."), until a friend once said to me that it should best be
regarded as a *reminder* of what the real thing should sound like,
rather than an attempt to replace it. This makes a lot more sense to
me (and is cheaper too).

As long as the reproduced sound doesn't add any extraneous artefacts
that clearly could not be part of the music, it doesn't matter if it
doesn't have the full power or dynamic range or frequency range to
convince you that you are really there, any more than an album of
photographs can be expected to convince you that you are still on
holiday. If it's a good enough reminder of the occasion it can still
give you the pleasure of remembering what it was like.

But in order to be reminded of something you first need the real
experience of the thing you are to be reminded of, otherwise your
knowledge of it will only ever be secondhand. So go to live concerts
when you get the chance, and then enjoy your hi-fi.

Rod.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:41:35 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like
>> classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the money" and
>> allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the impact
>> on quality.
>
>Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people want
>to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for programmes
>with very few listeners and who want higher quality than they can quite
>likely recognise.

What happened to DABSWTFM (Steve) anyway? We need some rebuttal :-)

On 19/07/2022 10:00, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <jjls5fF6jd0U5@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells
> <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> On 18/07/2022 20:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation
>>>> - have probably never heard decent music played through a proper
>>>> hi-fi system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound
>>>> 'good.'
>>>
>>> Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
>>> never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
>>> real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
>>> you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
>>> it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.
>
>> But, however much it matters to you, it just isn't of any interest to
>> them at all.
>
> Chicken and egg situation. If someone has never been to a live orchestral
> (or Big Band) concert they have no idea of the sheer impact it makes on
> you. Not just a question of loudness, either. Experiencing anything like it
> via broadcast or recordings requires good kit. Still doesn't match.

Things that you or I value, though, are not necessarily what others do.

Especially the young who take everything for granted and frankly can't
be arsed unless it involves immediate gratification.

Live performances for them aren't about listening to the quality of the
sound but about being deafened and jumping up and down.

On Tue 19/07/2022 11:35, Scott wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:41:35 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like
>>> classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the money" and
>>> allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the impact
>>> on quality.
>>
>> Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people want
>> to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for programmes
>> with very few listeners and who want higher quality than they can quite
>> likely recognise.
>
> What happened to DABSWTFM (Steve) anyway? We need some rebuttal :-)

And DABSWTFM means....?

On 19/07/2022 12:35, Woody wrote:
> On Tue 19/07/2022 11:35, Scott wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:41:35 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>> DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like
>>>> classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the
>>>> money" and
>>>> allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the
>>>> impact
>>>> on quality.
>>>
>>> Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people want
>>> to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for programmes
>>> with very few listeners and who want higher quality than they can quite
>>> likely recognise.
>>
>> What happened to DABSWTFM (Steve) anyway?  We need some rebuttal :-)
>
> And DABSWTFM means....?

DAB Is Worse Than FM

On 19/07/2022 09:57, MB wrote:
> On 19/07/2022 08:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> Could it be that it*would*  be of interest to them but they've never
>> experienced it and don't know what they're missing?
>
> That was the great thing about John Peel, you could be listening one
> minute to some jazz then pop music followed by classical.
>
> I remember once hearing an American "expert" on broadcasting being
> interviewed, he said that a station needs to increase their listening
> figures then they should reduce their playlist! Perhaps explains a lot
> about commercial radio!

I suspect the way they pay for the music is another reason commercial
stations have such limited playlists. Probably a reduction for quantity,
so it's really cheap to pay for 10,000 plays of one track.

--
Max Demian

On 19/07/2022 10:45, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 10:00:07 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <jjls5fF6jd0U5@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells
>> <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>> On 18/07/2022 20:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation
>>>>> - have probably never heard decent music played through a proper
>>>>> hi-fi system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound
>>>>> 'good.'
>>>>
>>>> Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
>>>> never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
>>>> real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
>>>> you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
>>>> it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.
>>
>>> But, however much it matters to you, it just isn't of any interest to
>>> them at all.
>>
>> Chicken and egg situation. If someone has never been to a live orchestral
>> (or Big Band) concert they have no idea of the sheer impact it makes on
>> you. Not just a question of loudness, either. Experiencing anything like it
>> via broadcast or recordings requires good kit. Still doesn't match.

> I used to think that the aim of hi-fi was to replicate the experience
> of a live performance, and some of the manufacturers' advertising
> seemed to be along those lines ("The closest approach to the original
> sound..."), until a friend once said to me that it should best be
> regarded as a *reminder* of what the real thing should sound like,
> rather than an attempt to replace it. This makes a lot more sense to
> me (and is cheaper too).
>
> As long as the reproduced sound doesn't add any extraneous artefacts
> that clearly could not be part of the music, it doesn't matter if it
> doesn't have the full power or dynamic range or frequency range to
> convince you that you are really there, any more than an album of
> photographs can be expected to convince you that you are still on
> holiday. If it's a good enough reminder of the occasion it can still
> give you the pleasure of remembering what it was like.
>
> But in order to be reminded of something you first need the real
> experience of the thing you are to be reminded of, otherwise your
> knowledge of it will only ever be secondhand. So go to live concerts
> when you get the chance, and then enjoy your hi-fi.

As you get older, your hearing gets worse while the quality of the
equipment you can afford gets better, until there is a crossover and it
doesn't make any difference.

--
Max Demian

On 18/07/2022 21:48, MB wrote:
> On 18/07/2022 21:26, Mark Carver wrote:
>> The musical genre is irrelevant, doesn't matter if it's just a bloke in
>> the pub with a guitar, there is nothing that can replicate live music.

Do pubs have acoustic music? It's a long time since I went to a pub with
live music; then everything was amplified including the drums. You
couldn't order drinks it was so loud.

> Good live music but unfortunately most live music is not.  I had to
> listen twice today to someone with an accordion as I passed through a
> local underpass.  Then someone in the main square.  They might have been
> live but would have preferred to not to have to listen to them.

Buskers are all very well, but amplifiers and recorded accompaniment
should be banned.

--
Max Demian

On 19/07/2022 13:21, Max Demian wrote:
>
> On 19/07/2022 09:57, MB wrote:
>>
>> On 19/07/2022 08:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>> Could it be that it*would*  be of interest to them but they've never
>>> experienced it and don't know what they're missing?
>>
>> That was the great thing about John Peel, you could be listening one
>> minute to some jazz then pop music followed by classical.
>>
>> I remember once hearing an American "expert" on broadcasting being
>> interviewed, he said that a station needs to increase their listening
>> figures then they should reduce their playlist! Perhaps explains a lot
>> about commercial radio!
>
> I suspect the way they pay for the music is another reason commercial
> stations have such limited playlists. Probably a reduction for quantity,
> so it's really cheap to pay for 10,000 plays of one track.

My suspicions are similar but not quite the same: that royalty costs are
per item played, and that's why there's so much excess yakking in
between music items on most or all so-called 'music' programmes - the
yakking takes up time that otherwise would be entailing costs by playing
music. To be more exact, I suspect that every hour of so-called music
programming actually has a limit on the number of royalty-incurring
items it's allowed to play.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/07/2022 12:58, SH wrote:
> On 19/07/2022 12:35, Woody wrote:
>> On Tue 19/07/2022 11:35, Scott wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:41:35 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>> DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like
>>>>> classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the
>>>>> money" and
>>>>> allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the
>>>>> impact
>>>>> on quality.
>>>>
>>>> Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people
>>>> want
>>>> to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for programmes
>>>> with very few listeners and who want higher quality than they can quite
>>>> likely recognise.
>>>
>>> What happened to DABSWTFM (Steve) anyway?  We need some rebuttal :-)
>>
>> And DABSWTFM means....?
>
> DAB Is Worse Than FM

Ah! That's partly why I was confused, should've been DABIWTFM!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk