Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation?
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:49:53 -0400, "GT" wrote:
"ric" wrote in message ... But for *others*, the no risk venture into SACDs is highly worth considering. Sure, if all you're willing to settle for is limited choices. Only if you find that 'rare' SACD player that won't play CDs. ;-) Kal |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Still more bad news for ric
"-GT-" wrote in message ...
Of course now I see ric is strangely silent about these latest developments below.... Ric? Silent? Never. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation?
GT wrote:
And this has *what* to do with your assertion that you "thought you said you were 'right'" ?? I *never* said that SACD is *the* future, or that everything will be released as hybrid SACDs. What I have *constantly* said was since SACD players also play normal CDs and/or DVDs, and since hybrid SACDs play on normal CD players, that there is no risk in getting involved in SACDs. I also said that most *SACDs* will be released as hybrid SACDs. Those "articles" address NONE of these issues, and your assertion that they somehow prove me wrong is just ludicrous. Only *some* have been released as hybrids, ric. Not all. Reading disorder strikes again? Please note above that I said *most will*, not *all have*. Again, this has *nothing* to do with your statement "Who are we to believe? You?" since I have not offered an opinion on the subject. Of course you haven't. You don't have an opinion on the matter because you know I'm right. That statement is so idiotic, it's as if sum1 made it. I obviously don't know which format will become dominant, since I got a player that plays both DVD-A and SACD. I have only said that I prefer SACDs over DVD-As. But you know this. You've been told countless times. You just enjoy acting obtuse. I mentioned that in very first post I made to that thread. You mentioned *what* ?? That I have a player that plays both DVD-A and SACD? That I prefer SACDs over DVD-As? You sure don't express yourself very well. Why? I have no vested interest in either format. Again, and you know this already, my player plays BOTH formats. The only comment *I* have is that the actual sales figures are a better barometer than is a poll of 2900 consumers (much like telephone election polls versus the actual election results. Only the actual results really count.) But, again, you already know this. Well if you have no vested interest in either format, then why are you arguing with me? Because you keep making asinine statements like: * "They are formats for anal-retentive audiophiles who obsess over every note." * "Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to cover everything." * "You'll be stuck with the equivalent of an old laserdisc or DAT player." * "And how many models are out there that'll cover everything? One? Two? Three?" * "And those that are stuck with the losers product, wind up with a pile of unstandardized junk." * "And yes, there is a difference, I never said there wasn't. But not enough for me to justify replacing my current collection with expensive SACD versions * "No, you were making a suggestion that by default, he go out and spend lots of money and turn himself into an audiophile." * "You are missing out on great sound...." How 'bout saving on the pocketbook, ric." * "All one has to do is look back and see what happend [sic] to formats like Beta, DAT, MiniDisc (in the U.S.), Laserdisc, Videodisc (and maybe some others that I can't remember offhand) where consumers thought they had a good thing, only to see it ripped out from under them after only a few years." That's one of my favorites, since the backward compatibility of SACD has been explained to you countless times, and none of the above were anywhere close to being backward compatible. Not to mention your opposing statements, such as in one breath saying that "obsessing over every last note" is for "anal-retentive audiophiles", but later complaining that "hybrid" players don't get the "maximum *aual* [sic] benefit" from SACDs, DVD-As, etc. Then there's your "GTisms" such as "six times less" in price. That one provided more than a few chuckles. Add to that the URLs that you posted, saying they showed I wasn't right, when in fact they did no such thing. And your reading comprehension problems, such as claiming that I said that I "taught a statistics class". My statement clearly stated that "I was taught in a statistics class that..." Man, there is so much more. But onward.... Obviously you have something at stake here.... If it's so obvious, tell us what it is. Give it up, ric. You're not gonna sell me on it. You should already know this by now. I'm not trying to sell *you* on it. Just trying to post some FACTS (such as backwards compatibility, pricing, etc.) to counter some of the utter nonsense that you are posting. Why should I try to convince you? Your listening room is your car. At "little or no extra cost"? You mean the $1,000 dollar + amps and the $10,000 + speakers to go with it? Ignorance again. You don't need the above any more for an SACD system than you do for a normal CD system. Then you play your SACDs as SACDs on your SACD player, or as CDs on your CD player, and continue to use your SACD player as a CD player, and/or as a DVD player (as most are.) See, your comparison to DIVX is quite ludicrous. Well assuming that most people already have a good CD player out there, maybe one that isn't SACD capable, then the SACD machine would be moot. My neighbor's DVD player was SACD compatible (many are) and he didn't even realize it. He knew it played CDs, but he was clue less about SACDs. People buy new DVD or CD players all the time. Getting SACD compatibility at little extra cost is just a bonus. It's the future, ric. Better get used to it. I know many of you audiophiles were having withdrawl symptoms when the LP went out of style. It was so bad, some of you all needed rabies shots. Rabies shots, eh. For withdrawal symptoms? [My new favorite "GTism"] But for *others*, the no risk venture into SACDs is highly worth considering. Sure, if all you're willing to settle for is limited choices. How's that? It'll play all that a normal CD player will, plus SACDs. That's *more* choice, not "limited choices." You *do* have a comprehension problem, don't you? And you wonder why I continue to answer your posts... |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation?
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
Sure, if all you're willing to settle for is limited choices. Only if you find that 'rare' SACD player that won't play CDs. ;-) Quite rare. I think I've seen a $1000+ tube player that wasn't recommended for regular CDs. -- Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey... |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation?
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:49:53 -0400, "GT" wrote: "ric" wrote in message ... But for *others*, the no risk venture into SACDs is highly worth considering. Sure, if all you're willing to settle for is limited choices. Only if you find that 'rare' SACD player that won't play CDs. ;-) Or that even rarer CD player that won't play SACDs. /;^) |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation?
"ric" wrote in message ... GT wrote: And this has *what* to do with your assertion that you "thought you said you were 'right'" ?? I *never* said that SACD is *the* future, or that everything will be released as hybrid SACDs. What I have *constantly* said was since SACD players also play normal CDs and/or DVDs, and since hybrid SACDs play on normal CD players, that there is no risk in getting involved in SACDs. I also said that most *SACDs* will be released as hybrid SACDs. Those "articles" address NONE of these issues, and your assertion that they somehow prove me wrong is just ludicrous. Only *some* have been released as hybrids, ric. Not all. Reading disorder strikes again? Please note above that I said *most will*, not *all have*. Semantics again, ric.... semantics.... I know what you said, but *I'm* saying it. For your benefit. Again, this has *nothing* to do with your statement "Who are we to believe? You?" since I have not offered an opinion on the subject. Of course you haven't. You don't have an opinion on the matter because you know I'm right. That statement is so idiotic, it's as if sum1 made it. Hey, it's true. Oh well.... (head-shaking...) I obviously don't know which format will become dominant, since I got a player that plays both DVD-A and SACD. I have only said that I prefer SACDs over DVD-As. But you know this. You've been told countless times. You just enjoy acting obtuse. I mentioned that in very first post I made to that thread. You mentioned *what* ?? That I have a player that plays both DVD-A and SACD? That I prefer SACDs over DVD-As? You sure don't express yourself very well. Well obviously I've expressed myself well enough that I've gotten your attention for the last 50 posts or so. Why? I have no vested interest in either format. Again, and you know this already, my player plays BOTH formats. The only comment *I* have is that the actual sales figures are a better barometer than is a poll of 2900 consumers (much like telephone election polls versus the actual election results. Only the actual results really count.) But, again, you already know this. Well if you have no vested interest in either format, then why are you arguing with me? Because you keep making asinine statements like: No vested interest.... Are you sure that's all, dude...? * "They are formats for anal-retentive audiophiles who obsess over every note." * "Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to cover everything." * "You'll be stuck with the equivalent of an old laserdisc or DAT player." * "And how many models are out there that'll cover everything? One? Two? Three?" * "And those that are stuck with the losers product, wind up with a pile of unstandardized junk." * "And yes, there is a difference, I never said there wasn't. But not enough for me to justify replacing my current collection with expensive SACD versions * "No, you were making a suggestion that by default, he go out and spend lots of money and turn himself into an audiophile." * "You are missing out on great sound...." How 'bout saving on the pocketbook, ric." * "All one has to do is look back and see what happend [sic] to formats like Beta, DAT, MiniDisc (in the U.S.), Laserdisc, Videodisc (and maybe some others that I can't remember offhand) where consumers thought they had a good thing, only to see it ripped out from under them after only a few years." That's one of my favorites, since the backward compatibility of SACD has been explained to you countless times, and none of the above were anywhere close to being backward compatible. I know you've been repeating "backward compatible" for quite some time, but so what.... There's still plenty of SACD-only discs around. Tower Records has little section of them off all by themselves, in one little corner. Funny those say "SACD-only" on the covers.... In fact, some of them have a little black sticker on the front explaining how they will only play in SACD players. Hmmm.... Not to mention your opposing statements, such as in one breath saying that "obsessing over every last note" is for "anal-retentive audiophiles", but later complaining that "hybrid" players don't get the "maximum *aual* [sic] benefit" from SACDs, DVD-As, etc. Yes, that's true. With the former statement, I was being true to myself, with the latter statement, I was playing the devil's advocate... Then there's your "GTisms" such as "six times less" in price. That one provided more than a few chuckles. Add to that the URLs that you posted, saying they showed I wasn't right, when in fact they did no such thing. I said there's *no consensus* out there, ric. That was the main point. That's why I asked; "What's going on, ric?" And your reading comprehension problems, such as claiming that I said that I "taught a statistics class". My statement clearly stated that "I was taught in a statistics class that..." More patronizing again, ric? Obviously you have something at stake here.... If it's so obvious, tell us what it is. I dunno, ric. You tell me. You're the one that's been slowly getting more and more hysterical with each subsequent post. Give it up, ric. You're not gonna sell me on it. You should already know this by now. I'm not trying to sell *you* on it. Just trying to post some FACTS (such as backwards compatibility, pricing, etc.) to counter some of the utter nonsense that you are posting. Why should I try to convince you? Your listening room is your car. You over a format that I don't believe will be around in 5 years? I don't think that's utter nonsense at all and I've told why I believe so. Why don't you just accept that? At "little or no extra cost"? You mean the $1,000 dollar + amps and the $10,000 + speakers to go with it? Ignorance again. You don't need the above any more for an SACD system than you do for a normal CD system. Oh but aren't 'we' back to getting back to the 'full, aural benefit' of SACD thing, again? Yes? No? Well assuming that most people already have a good CD player out there, maybe one that isn't SACD capable, then the SACD machine would be moot. My neighbor's DVD player was SACD compatible (many are) and he didn't even realize it. He knew it played CDs, but he was clue less about SACDs. Well isn't there a little logo they emboss on the front of each SACD player? Isn't it printed on the outside of the cardboard box? I would think since SACD is the considered the 'second coming of Christ', they would at least make that selling point known to the general public. I guess it's sort of analgous to the SACD not being embossed on the front of those Stones remasters... Or why amazon.com buries that feature down in the middle of their description on their webpage.... The 'fine-print', huh ric... People buy new DVD or CD players all the time. Getting SACD compatibility at little extra cost is just a bonus. Yes and wonder how many new (or reissue) CDs are coming out every week that are non-SACD compatible.... As opposed to those that are.... It's the future, ric. Better get used to it. I know many of you audiophiles were having withdrawl symptoms when the LP went out of style. It was so bad, some of you all needed rabies shots. Rabies shots, eh. For withdrawal symptoms? [My new favorite "GTism"] Human rabies, ric. It was pretty bad. Maybe they should've been put to sleep.... (laughs) But for *others*, the no risk venture into SACDs is highly worth considering. Sure, if all you're willing to settle for is limited choices. How's that? It'll play all that a normal CD player will, plus SACDs. That's *more* choice, not "limited choices." You *do* have a comprehension problem, don't you? Let's see what....2,000 titles where one can take advantage of the SACD benefit...out of out of tens of thousands...millions..... Yeah that sounds like a lot of big choices all right.... And you wonder why I continue to answer your posts... Whatever you say, ric.....whatever you say..... |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation?
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 23:35:32 -0700, ric wrote:
Kalman Rubinson wrote: Sure, if all you're willing to settle for is limited choices. Only if you find that 'rare' SACD player that won't play CDs. ;-) Quite rare. I think I've seen a $1000+ tube player that wasn't recommended for regular CDs. Not recommended is not the same as not compatible. Kal |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation?
-GT wrote:
Only *some* have been released as hybrids, ric. Not all. Reading disorder strikes again? Please note above that I said *most will*, not *all have*. Semantics again, ric.... semantics.... Changing my written "most" to "all" is semantics? No, it's dishonesty, sum1 style. No vested interest.... Are you sure that's all, dude...? Another statement that makes no sense. What are you trying to say, dude? * "They are formats for anal-retentive audiophiles who obsess over every note." * "Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to cover everything." * "You'll be stuck with the equivalent of an old laserdisc or DAT player." * "And how many models are out there that'll cover everything? One? Two? Three?" * "And those that are stuck with the losers product, wind up with a pile of unstandardized junk." * "And yes, there is a difference, I never said there wasn't. But not enough for me to justify replacing my current collection with expensive SACD versions * "No, you were making a suggestion that by default, he go out and spend lots of money and turn himself into an audiophile." * "You are missing out on great sound...." How 'bout saving on the pocketbook, ric." * "All one has to do is look back and see what happend [sic] to formats like Beta, DAT, MiniDisc (in the U.S.), Laserdisc, Videodisc (and maybe some others that I can't remember offhand) where consumers thought they had a good thing, only to see it ripped out from under them after only a few years." That's one of my favorites, since the backward compatibility of SACD has been explained to you countless times, and none of the above were anywhere close to being backward compatible. I know you've been repeating "backward compatible" for quite some time, but so what.... There's still plenty of SACD-only discs around. Tower Records has little section of them off all by themselves, in one little corner. Funny those say "SACD-only" on the covers.... In fact, some of them have a little black sticker on the front explaining how they will only play in SACD players. Hmmm.... So, if you have any of the non hybrid discs, you simply play them in your SACD player, as always. Is this so hard to understand? Where is the problem? Not to mention your opposing statements, such as in one breath saying that "obsessing over every last note" is for "anal-retentive audiophiles", but later complaining that "hybrid" players don't get the "maximum *aual* [sic] benefit" from SACDs, DVD-As, etc. Yes, that's true. With the former statement, I was being true to myself, with the latter statement, I was playing the devil's advocate... So you will take the side that fits your need at the time? Is your last name Kerry? And your reading comprehension problems, such as claiming that I said that I "taught a statistics class". My statement clearly stated that "I was taught in a statistics class that..." More patronizing again, ric? No, it's called ridiculing. I'm not trying to sell *you* on it. Just trying to post some FACTS (such as backwards compatibility, pricing, etc.) to counter some of the utter nonsense that you are posting. Why should I try to convince you? Your listening room is your car. You over a format that I don't believe will be around in 5 years? I don't think that's utter nonsense at all and I've told why I believe so. Why don't you just accept that? Your "opinion" that it won't be around in 5 years I can accept. It's your other asinine statements (listed above) with which I take issue. At "little or no extra cost"? You mean the $1,000 dollar + amps and the $10,000 + speakers to go with it? Ignorance again. You don't need the above any more for an SACD system than you do for a normal CD system. Oh but aren't 'we' back to getting back to the 'full, aural benefit' of SACD thing, again? Yes? No? No. In fact, I enjoy SACDs the most with just headphones (NO amps or speakers needed.) But the improvement in sound is quite evident on my 15 year old, $150 dollar speakers as well. You are again without a clue. [that, too, was ridicule] Well isn't there a little logo they emboss on the front of each SACD player? Isn't it printed on the outside of the cardboard box? I would think since SACD is the considered the 'second coming of Christ', they would at least make that selling point known to the general public. Congratulations! You've now offended the Christians as well as the audiophiles. Are you suggesting that you knew, or cared, what all of the little logos on the box of your, say VCR, meant? Of course not. People buy new DVD or CD players all the time. Getting SACD compatibility at little extra cost is just a bonus. Yes and wonder how many new (or reissue) CDs are coming out every week that are non-SACD compatible.... As opposed to those that are.... Non-SACD compatible? What is that? Any CD or SACD being released will play in a SACD compatible player. Another example of you not expressing yourself very well, GT. Rabies shots, eh. For withdrawal symptoms? [My new favorite "GTism"] Human rabies, ric. It was pretty bad. Maybe they should've been put to sleep.... (laughs) Yeah, stupid, laugh it off. That doesn't change the fact that your rabies shots for withdrawl symptoms comment made no sense. Sure, if all you're willing to settle for is limited choices. How's that? It'll play all that a normal CD player will, plus SACDs. That's *more* choice, not "limited choices." You *do* have a comprehension problem, don't you? Let's see what....2,000 titles where one can take advantage of the SACD benefit...out of out of tens of thousands...millions..... Yeah that sounds like a lot of big choices all right.... But you weren't referring to "just" SACD advantages. You were saying that having a SACD compatible CD player gives you limited choices when compared to a standard CD player. Another asinine statement on your part. Does anyone hear banjo music? -- Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey... |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation?
"ric" wrote in message ... -GT wrote: Only *some* have been released as hybrids, ric. Not all. Reading disorder strikes again? Please note above that I said *most will*, not *all have*. Semantics again, ric.... semantics.... Changing my written "most" to "all" is semantics? No, it's dishonesty, sum1 style. The amount of SACD hybrids out there is very small, ric. I'm being very honest about how I see it. You think it's 'wrong' and that's fine. What you're being blindsided with is your unremitting optimism about it. No vested interest.... Are you sure that's all, dude...? Another statement that makes no sense. What are you trying to say, dude? C'mon, what's the REAL reason why you've gone with me this long? I know you've been repeating "backward compatible" for quite some time, but so what.... There's still plenty of SACD-only discs around. Tower Records has little section of them off all by themselves, in one little corner. Funny those say "SACD-only" on the covers.... In fact, some of them have a little black sticker on the front explaining how they will only play in SACD players. Hmmm.... So, if you have any of the non hybrid discs, you simply play them in your SACD player, as always. Is this so hard to understand? Where is the problem? But I don't have an SACD player, ric. I'm afraid your 'backwards compatible logic' isn't working here..... (laughing) Not to mention your opposing statements, such as in one breath saying that "obsessing over every last note" is for "anal-retentive audiophiles", but later complaining that "hybrid" players don't get the "maximum *aual* [sic] benefit" from SACDs, DVD-As, etc. Yes, that's true. With the former statement, I was being true to myself, with the latter statement, I was playing the devil's advocate... So you will take the side that fits your need at the time? Absolutely. I take the devil's advocate from time to time to illustrate my point. If it got lost on you, that's your problem, not mine... No, it's called ridiculing. Yes I've run into sore losers before. When all else fails, the argument of last resort. You over a format that I don't believe will be around in 5 years? I don't think that's utter nonsense at all and I've told why I believe so. Why don't you just accept that? Your "opinion" that it won't be around in 5 years I can accept. It's your other asinine statements (listed above) with which I take issue. Well finally some progress, ric. I can accept all the 'backwards compatibility' hangups you mention, but they're meaningless unless SACD catches on to the public at large. And I mean the SACD layer itself, ric. Not the piggyback hybrid the SACDphiles are desperately using in order to keep this by-the-wayside format alive with. At "little or no extra cost"? You mean the $1,000 dollar + amps and the $10,000 + speakers to go with it? Ignorance again. You don't need the above any more for an SACD system than you do for a normal CD system. Oh but aren't 'we' back to getting back to the 'full, aural benefit' of SACD thing, again? Yes? No? No. In fact, I enjoy SACDs the most with just headphones (NO amps or speakers needed.) But the improvement in sound is quite evident on my 15 year old, $150 dollar speakers as well. You are again without a clue. [that, too, was ridicule] Ah, a *subjective difference* on ric's headphones. Very good. [yes, that too was ridicule] Well isn't there a little logo they emboss on the front of each SACD player? Isn't it printed on the outside of the cardboard box? I would think since SACD is the considered the 'second coming of Christ', they would at least make that selling point known to the general public. Congratulations! You've now offended the Christians as well as the audiophiles. Pray for me. Are you suggesting that you knew, or cared, what all of the little logos on the box of your, say VCR, meant? Of course not. Well obviously your neighbor didn't. So unless he happens to be terribly unusual, I suspect that's also the case with the public at large. Human rabies, ric. It was pretty bad. Maybe they should've been put to sleep.... (laughs) Yeah, stupid, laugh it off. That doesn't change the fact that your rabies shots for withdrawl symptoms comment made no sense. Uh-oh, more ad hominem attacks from ric. The argument of last resort, again.... (yawn...) Sure, if all you're willing to settle for is limited choices. How's that? It'll play all that a normal CD player will, plus SACDs. That's *more* choice, not "limited choices." You *do* have a comprehension problem, don't you? Let's see what....2,000 titles where one can take advantage of the SACD benefit...out of out of tens of thousands...millions..... Yeah that sounds like a lot of big choices all right.... But you weren't referring to "just" SACD advantages. You were saying that having a SACD compatible CD player gives you limited choices when compared to a standard CD player. Another asinine statement on your part. It does give the one geared towards SACD a limited choice. Based on your logic, if you had an SACD hybrid player, I'm sure you'd want to take advantage of that SACD feature. Would you play an SACD hybrid CD in an SACD hybrid player in the CD mode? You're starting to bore me again, ric. Please do little jig for us.... (laughs) -- |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation?
-GT wrote:
Changing my written "most" to "all" is semantics? No, it's dishonesty, sum1 style. The amount of SACD hybrids out there is very small, ric. I'm being very honest about how I see it. You think it's 'wrong' and that's fine. What you're being blindsided with is your unremitting optimism about it. As usual, your reply has nothing to do with the question at hand. I used the word "most will be". You changed it to "all". If you would bother looking, you would see hybrid SACDs outnumber non hybrid CDs in new releases. But then you would have to admit your error, or try to change what I said, again. I suspect the latter. C'mon, what's the REAL reason why you've gone with me this long? Because you're such an easy target with all your asinine statements. So, if you have any of the non hybrid discs, you simply play them in your SACD player, as always. Is this so hard to understand? Where is the problem? But I don't have an SACD player, ric. I'm afraid your 'backwards compatible logic' isn't working here..... (laughing) GT strategy: Losing a point of debate, make a joke and laugh. Sophomoric. Your "opinion" that it won't be around in 5 years I can accept. It's your other asinine statements (listed above) with which I take issue. Well finally some progress, ric. I can accept all the 'backwards compatibility' hangups you mention, but they're meaningless unless SACD catches on to the public at large. Wrong again, Einstein. The fact that I can play my CDs on my SACD compatible player, SACDs on my SACD compatible player, or my hybrid SACDs on any CD or SACD player is true whether or not *anyone else* buys SACD format equipment. It's irrelevant, like many of your arguments. No. In fact, I enjoy SACDs the most with just headphones (NO amps or speakers needed.) But the improvement in sound is quite evident on my 15 year old, $150 dollar speakers as well. You are again without a clue. [that, too, was ridicule] Ah, a *subjective difference* on ric's headphones. Very good. [yes, that too was ridicule] Nice try, but you've never heard a SACD with headphones, have you? Do you have headphones in your car? I'm beginning to suspect that you've never heard a SACD at all. Are you suggesting that you knew, or cared, what all of the little logos on the box of your, say VCR, meant? Of course not. Well obviously your neighbor didn't. So unless he happens to be terribly unusual, I suspect that's also the case with the public at large. Thank you for making my point. Yeah, stupid, laugh it off. That doesn't change the fact that your rabies shots for withdrawl symptoms comment made no sense. Uh-oh, more ad hominem attacks from ric. No, just a fact. When you make no sense (which is often), I'm not gonna sugar coat it. But you weren't referring to "just" SACD advantages. You were saying that having a SACD compatible CD player gives you limited choices when compared to a standard CD player. Another asinine statement on your part. It does give the one geared towards SACD a limited choice. Based on your logic, if you had an SACD hybrid player, I'm sure you'd want to take advantage of that SACD feature. I would rather have a SACD compatible player and have the CHOICE to listen to SACD recordings when available than have a standard CD player and NOT have that choice. Now, twist that around to mean something completely different. That's the only way your argument ends up as being correct. -- Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey... |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation?
"ric" wrote in message ... -GT wrote: As usual, your reply has nothing to do with the question at hand. I used the word "most will be". You changed it to "all". If you would bother looking, you would see hybrid SACDs outnumber non hybrid CDs in new releases. But then you would have to admit your error, or try to change what I said, again. I suspect the latter. And if you bothered looking, you would see that new standard CD releases vastly outnumber SACD releases, hybrid or otherwise. But then you would have to admit to your error, or try to change what I said. C'mon, what's the REAL reason why you've gone with me this long? Because you're such an easy target with all your asinine statements. Well I will admit to one thing, ric. I've been laughing a lot at you the last 10 posts or so. That I will admit to. (more laughs) So, if you have any of the non hybrid discs, you simply play them in your SACD player, as always. Is this so hard to understand? Where is the problem? But I don't have an SACD player, ric. I'm afraid your 'backwards compatible logic' isn't working here..... (laughing) GT strategy: Losing a point of debate, make a joke and laugh. Sophomoric. What point, ric... That I'm laughing at you? Ok, I'm laughing at you.... And I don't feel bad about that at all. Wrong again, Einstein. The fact that I can play my CDs on my SACD compatible player, SACDs on my SACD compatible player, or my hybrid SACDs on any CD or SACD player is true whether or not *anyone else* buys SACD format equipment. It's irrelevant, like many of your arguments. Yes and most players are still being made *without* the SACD capability. What about them? And what about DVD-A? There are still very few players out there that will play both. The cheap-o Pioneer and the expensive Denons are the only ones I know of. But I'm sure you'll come up with some audiophile makes, designed to blow the consumer's wallet wide open. Ah, a *subjective difference* on ric's headphones. Very good. [yes, that too was ridicule] Nice try, but you've never heard a SACD with headphones, have you? Do Nope. Never have. I hate headphones. I never use them. you have headphones in your car? I'm beginning to suspect that you've never heard a SACD at all. Uh-oh, more stupid jumping-to-conclusions. When I do happen to listen to music at home, it's through my computer's CD drive which also doesn't have SACD capability. I haven't tried hybrids with that, but then why bother when the standard CD or mp3s are readily available. I don't need to buy a hybrid to replace it. Are you suggesting that you knew, or cared, what all of the little logos on the box of your, say VCR, meant? Of course not. Well obviously your neighbor didn't. So unless he happens to be terribly unusual, I suspect that's also the case with the public at large. Thank you for making my point. What point? That SACD isn't a big marketing point among manufacturers out there? If that's your point, then you're right. The fact that it isn't was also my point. Yeah, stupid, laugh it off. That doesn't change the fact that your rabies shots for withdrawl symptoms comment made no sense. Uh-oh, more ad hominem attacks from ric. No, just a fact. When you make no sense (which is often), I'm not gonna sugar coat it. Did I hurt your touchy-feely feelings, ric? Aww... Me so saw-wee.... But you weren't referring to "just" SACD advantages. You were saying that having a SACD compatible CD player gives you limited choices when compared to a standard CD player. Another asinine statement on your part. It does give the one geared towards SACD a limited choice. Based on your logic, if you had an SACD hybrid player, I'm sure you'd want to take advantage of that SACD feature. I would rather have a SACD compatible player and have the CHOICE to listen to SACD recordings when available than have a standard CD player and NOT have that choice. Now, twist that around to mean something completely different. But I don't need that choice, ric. That's a choice for audiophiles who know that the only way their precious format will survive is to piggyback it on to the CD format. It can't stand on it's own an *you* know it. They probably don't emphasize the hybrid fact because it would confuse the average buyer out there even more. If they see the SACD format emphasized (even on a hybrid), then they might pass up buying it thinking that the CD wouldn't even be compatible with their players, which would lead to less sales overall than they would get if they stuck to a CD-only format. I'll bet 99% of those hybrid buyers will never get the chance to listen to the SACD layer. It's only on there to kiss the audiophiles ass. People who are anal-retentive, who worry about every drop-out, every pop, every tape-hiss, every artifact that shows up in the original source material. They forget that it is the music itself that should be enjoyed for what it is, instead of crybabying because something isn't perfect. Whaaa...whaaa... That's the only way your argument ends up as being correct. It's a phyrric choice, ric. Looks good, but it won't last. -- |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation?
Perhaps I could interject a question he
Is there such a thing as a hybrid SACD/CD in which the SACD layer is 5.1 channel surround sound? If so, does such a disc also include a DVD compatible Dolby Digital surround sound version of the SACD track? DVD-A discs usually include a DD track so that one can play surround sound on an ordinary DVD player as well as a DVD-A player. Thanks, Norm Strong |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation?
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:29:15 GMT, "normanstrong"
wrote: Perhaps I could interject a question he Is there such a thing as a hybrid SACD/CD in which the SACD layer is 5.1 channel surround sound? Your question seems vague. The SACD layer can accommodate a stereo track and a multichannel track of up to 6 channels, including 5.1 channels. If so, does such a disc also include a DVD compatible Dolby Digital surround sound version of the SACD track? AFAIK, there are no DD tracks on any SACD. DVD-A discs usually include a DD track so that one can play surround sound on an ordinary DVD player as well as a DVD-A player. True. Kal Thanks, Norm Strong |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation?
-GT wrote:
As usual, your reply has nothing to do with the question at hand. I used the word "most will be". You changed it to "all". If you would bother looking, you would see hybrid SACDs outnumber non hybrid SACDs in new releases. But then you would have to admit your error, or try to change what I said, again. I suspect the latter. And if you bothered looking, you would see that new standard CD releases vastly outnumber SACD releases, hybrid or otherwise. But then you would have to admit to your error, or try to change what I said. As usual, your reply has *nothing* to do with what I said. I said new hybrid SACD releases outnumber non hybrid SACD releases, contrary to what you wrote. Your commenting on the number of non SACD releases is about as relevant as comparing it to DVD releases. Totally irrelevant. You were wrong, so you changed the subject. Typical. Wrong again, Einstein. The fact that I can play my CDs on my SACD compatible player, SACDs on my SACD compatible player, or my hybrid SACDs on any CD or SACD player is true whether or not *anyone else* buys SACD format equipment. It's irrelevant, like many of your arguments. Yes and most players are still being made *without* the SACD capability. What about them? And what about DVD-A? There are still very few players out there that will play both. The cheap-o Pioneer and the expensive Denons are the only ones I know of. Again, irrelevant to the point being discussed. You said that the backwards compatibility of SACDs depends on if the SACD "catches on to the public at large." That's what my above reply is about. Again, you were wrong so you attempted to change the subject. How transparent. Uh-oh, more ad hominem attacks from ric. No, just a fact. When you make no sense (which is often), I'm not gonna sugar coat it. Did I hurt your touchy-feely feelings, ric? Aww... Me so saw-wee.... *YOU'RE* the one moaning about attacks, not me. What a moron. I would rather have a SACD compatible player and have the CHOICE to listen to SACD recordings when available than have a standard CD player and NOT have that choice. Now, twist that around to mean something completely different. But I don't need that choice, ric. That's a choice for audiophiles who know that the only way their precious format will survive is to piggyback it on to the CD format. It can't stand on it's own an *you* know it. Again, this has *NOTHING* to do with your erroneous statement that getting a SACD compatible player limits one's choice. Again, you try to change the subject because your original statement was erroneous and could not be defended. Notice a pattern here? Anybody else hear banjos? -- Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey... |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation?
"ric" wrote in message ...
As usual, your reply has *nothing* to do with what I said. I said new hybrid SACD releases outnumber non hybrid SACD releases, contrary to what you wrote. Your commenting on the number of non SACD releases is about as relevant as comparing it to DVD releases. Totally irrelevant. You were wrong, so you changed the subject. Typical. No ric, I was mocking your previous statement. Gee, did that need to be spelled out for ya... Again, irrelevant to the point being discussed. You said that the backwards compatibility of SACDs depends on if the SACD "catches on to the public at large." That's what my above reply is about. Again, you were wrong so you attempted to change the subject. How transparent. No ric. You keep talking about "backwards compatibility". I'm talking about *marketing* it to the public. I'm talking about 'apples', you're talking about 'oranges'. Jesus you're an even bigger dumbass than I first thought. Uh-oh, more ad hominem attacks from ric. No, just a fact. When you make no sense (which is often), I'm not gonna sugar coat it. Did I hurt your touchy-feely feelings, ric? Aww... Me so saw-wee.... *YOU'RE* the one moaning about attacks, not me. What a moron. Gee maybe I should've put it in CAPS on it and made it sound more melodramatic for ric. Do you think that would make me sound like I was "moaning" for ya? Get a ****ing clue, dude.... I would rather have a SACD compatible player and have the CHOICE to listen to SACD recordings when available than have a standard CD player and NOT have that choice. Now, twist that around to mean something completely different. But I don't need that choice, ric. That's a choice for audiophiles who know that the only way their precious format will survive is to piggyback it on to the CD format. It can't stand on it's own an *you* know it. Again, this has *NOTHING* to do with your erroneous statement that getting a SACD compatible player limits one's choice. Again, you try to change the subject because your original statement was erroneous and could not be defended. Sure it does. With SACD-only CDs, your choices are limited. With only 2,000 titles available, I don't see how the **** you can deny that. Unless your head is stuck so far up your ass in denial that you can't pull it out... Notice a pattern here? Anybody else hear banjos? Whatsa matter, ric? Forgot to take your medication? Or is it only the SACD player you forgot to turn off.... |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation?
-GT* wrote:
As usual, your reply has *nothing* to do with what I said. I said new hybrid SACD releases outnumber non hybrid SACD releases, contrary to what you wrote. Your commenting on the number of non SACD releases is about as relevant as comparing it to DVD releases. Totally irrelevant. You were wrong, so you changed the subject. Typical. No ric, I was mocking your previous statement. Gee, did that need to be spelled out for ya... Your statement, "And if you bothered looking, you would see that new standard CD releases vastly outnumber SACD releases, hybrid or otherwise" is mocking? Hardly. Just you making a comment that is irrelevant to what I said. Say something irrelevant, GT. We're getting used to it. Again, irrelevant to the point being discussed. You said that the backwards compatibility of SACDs depends on if the SACD "catches on to the public at large." That's what my above reply is about. Again, you were wrong so you attempted to change the subject. How transparent. No ric. You keep talking about "backwards compatibility". I'm talking about *marketing* it to the public. I'm talking about 'apples', you're talking about 'oranges'. You start by saying SACD equipment will become a "pile of unstandardized junk," and when its backwards compatibility is explained to you for the umpteenth time, you claim to be talking about marketing? No, backwards compatibility has *NOTHING* to do with marketing. Again, this has *NOTHING* to do with your erroneous statement that getting a SACD compatible player limits one's choice. Again, you try to change the subject because your original statement was erroneous and could not be defended. Sure it does. With SACD-only CDs, your choices are limited. With only 2,000 titles available, I don't see how the **** you can deny that. Unless your head is stuck so far up your ass in denial that you can't pull it out... Your reading disability is showing again, GT. SACD compatible player. They play normal CDs, too. They're not limited to only SACD releases. They have just as many choices, and more, than a regular CD player. You are such a moron. Anybody else hear banjos? Whatsa matter, ric? Forgot to take your medication? I suggest you watch the movie "Deliverance." Every time you post, banjos play. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation?
"ric" wrote in message ... -GT* wrote: As usual, your reply has *nothing* to do with what I said. I said new hybrid SACD releases outnumber non hybrid SACD releases, contrary to what you wrote. Your commenting on the number of non SACD releases is about as relevant as comparing it to DVD releases. Totally irrelevant. You were wrong, so you changed the subject. Typical. No ric, I was mocking your previous statement. Gee, did that need to be spelled out for ya... Your statement, "And if you bothered looking, you would see that new standard CD releases vastly outnumber SACD releases, hybrid or otherwise" is mocking? Hardly. Just you making a comment that is irrelevant to what I said. Say something irrelevant, GT. We're getting used to it. Well it was mocking, ric. And you say I have a "reading comprehension" problem? Again, irrelevant to the point being discussed. You said that the backwards compatibility of SACDs depends on if the SACD "catches on to the public at large." That's what my above reply is about. Again, you were wrong so you attempted to change the subject. How transparent. No ric. You keep talking about "backwards compatibility". I'm talking about *marketing* it to the public. I'm talking about 'apples', you're talking about 'oranges'. You start by saying SACD equipment will become a "pile of unstandardized junk," and when its backwards compatibility is explained to you for the umpteenth time, you claim to be talking about marketing? No, backwards compatibility has *NOTHING* to do with marketing. Well it it doesn't have anything to do with marketing ric, then there shouldn't be any need for hybrids being made, now should there... Again, this has *NOTHING* to do with your erroneous statement that getting a SACD compatible player limits one's choice. Again, you try to change the subject because your original statement was erroneous and could not be defended. Sure it does. With SACD-only CDs, your choices are limited. With only 2,000 titles available, I don't see how the **** you can deny that. Unless your head is stuck so far up your ass in denial that you can't pull it out... Your reading disability is showing again, GT. SACD compatible player. They play normal CDs, too. Once again, ric. Not *all* of them do. As mentioned before, the market share for SACD, hybrid or full, is absymal. But you refuse to see that. They're not limited to only SACD releases. They have just as many choices, and more, than a regular CD player. I'm talking about the CDs now ric, not the players. 2,000 is still a small number. Are you really that *dense* or what.... You are such a moron. Have you looked in mirror, lately.... (duhhh....) Anybody else hear banjos? Whatsa matter, ric? Forgot to take your medication? I suggest you watch the movie "Deliverance." Every time you post, banjos play. I suggest you take your meds, ric. You're hearing things.... |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation?
-GT* wrote:
Your statement, "And if you bothered looking, you would see that new standard CD releases vastly outnumber SACD releases, hybrid or otherwise" is mocking? Hardly. Just you making a comment that is irrelevant to what I said. Say something irrelevant, GT. We're getting used to it. Well it was mocking, ric. Maybe you ought to look up "mocking" in the dictionary. (That's the thick book with all the definitions in it, GT.) You start by saying SACD equipment will become a "pile of unstandardized junk," and when its backwards compatibility is explained to you for the umpteenth time, you claim to be talking about marketing? No, backwards compatibility has *NOTHING* to do with marketing. Well it it doesn't have anything to do with marketing ric, then there shouldn't be any need for hybrids being made, now should there... This comment makes absolutely no sense. Backwards compatibility is engineering, not marketing. Please try again, GT. Your reading disability is showing again, GT. SACD compatible player. They play normal CDs, too. Once again, ric. Not *all* of them do. As mentioned before, the market share for SACD, hybrid or full, is absymal. But you refuse to see that. Name the model number for one that doesn't. And the market share for SACDs is completely irrelevant as to whether or not SACD compatible players will play normal CDs. You're in a rut, GT. All of your statements are either asinine or irrelevant. They're not limited to only SACD releases. They have just as many choices, and more, than a regular CD player. I'm talking about the CDs now ric, not the players. 2,000 is still a small number. Are you really that *dense* or what.... If the players played *only* SACDs, you'd have a point. But they don't, so you don't. Quit with your obtuse act. (I *hope* it is just an act.) In summary: SACDs are a low cost way to hear improved sound out of your present stereo system. SACD compatible players will play normal CDs, too (so your choice of music is not limited) and often DVDs as well. There is no danger of owning a "pile of unstandardized junk" in 5 years. In addition, hybrid SACDs (which constitute the majority of new SACD releases) will play in standard CD players. The retail price of SACDs is now about the same as for standard CDs, and SACD compatible CD and DVD players are not very expensive, starting at less than $150. One need not purchase new expensive speakers or amplifiers to enjoy the improved sound of SACDs. SACD improvements can even be heard using headphones. SACD/DVD-A universal players (starting at less than $500) are also available for those of you who want to enjoy both SACDs and DVD-As. For more information: http://www.superaudiocd.philips.com/...lId=N2598A3463 You may have the last word, GT. Give us your best asinine, irrelevant comments. Then go practice your banjo. You shall now enter my "sum1 file" (kill file.) It's been fun. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation?
"ric" wrote in message ... -GT* wrote: Your statement, "And if you bothered looking, you would see that new standard CD releases vastly outnumber SACD releases, hybrid or otherwise" is mocking? Hardly. Just you making a comment that is irrelevant to what I said. Say something irrelevant, GT. We're getting used to it. Well it was mocking, ric. Maybe you ought to look up "mocking" in the dictionary. (That's the thick book with all the definitions in it, GT.) Aw, whatsa matter, ric... you're not gonna start pouting on me, are ya now.... Jeeez.... You start by saying SACD equipment will become a "pile of unstandardized junk," and when its backwards compatibility is explained to you for the umpteenth time, you claim to be talking about marketing? No, backwards compatibility has *NOTHING* to do with marketing. Well if it doesn't have anything to do with marketing ric, then there shouldn't be any need for hybrids being made, now should there... This comment makes absolutely no sense. Backwards compatibility is engineering, not marketing. Please try again, GT. And what's engineering if you can't sell it and make a profit off of it. Those profits go back into more engineering, ric. It's called marketing. You know all that. Wise-up. Your reading disability is showing again, GT. SACD compatible player. They play normal CDs, too. Once again, ric. Not *all* of them do. As mentioned before, the market share for SACD, hybrid or full, is absymal. But you refuse to see that. Name the model number for one that doesn't. And the market share for SACDs is completely irrelevant as to whether or not SACD compatible players will play normal CDs. You're in a rut, GT. All of your statements are either asinine or irrelevant. Without market share, it WON'T SURVIVE, ric. It'll be history. Nada. Zilch. You can have the best enginereed product out there, but if it doesn't sustain a market share that it'll survive on....well you can just kiss it goodbye... Besides, it wouldn't surprise me at all if SACD CDs, full or hybrid, are selling at a loss. That's only way they'll be able to clear rack space. They're not limited to only SACD releases. They have just as many choices, and more, than a regular CD player. I'm talking about the CDs now ric, not the players. 2,000 is still a small number. Are you really that *dense* or what.... If the players played *only* SACDs, you'd have a point. But they don't, so you don't. Quit with your obtuse act. (I *hope* it is just an act.) Even if they played CDs, ric, you still wouldn't get the full range of SACD numbers you would with standard CDs. All you'd wind up with is a glorified CD player that would have a marginal format included with it. In summary: SACDs are a low cost way to hear improved sound out of your present stereo system. SACD compatible players will play normal CDs, too (so your choice of music is not limited) and often DVDs as well. There is Your choice of SACD hybrids are limited, ric. 2,000 titles? That's not limited? Forget *backwards compatibility* for a minute, if you can. Only 2,000 titles that you'll be listen to in the SACD format. no danger of owning a "pile of unstandardized junk" in 5 years. In addition, hybrid SACDs (which constitute the majority of new SACD releases) will play in standard CD players. But they won't constitute the majority of new CD releases, ric. The vast majority of new releases will not be SACDs, hybrid or otherwise. Therefore, I still see limited benefit except amoung audiophiles. The retail price of SACDs is now about the same as for standard CDs, and SACD compatible CD and DVD players are not very expensive, starting at less than $150. One need not purchase new expensive speakers or amplifiers to enjoy the improved sound of SACDs. SACD improvements can even be heard using headphones. SACD/DVD-A universal players (starting at less than $500) are also available for those of you who want to enjoy both SACDs and DVD-As. Yeah they're cutting their prices to see if SACD will catch on. Only thing is Warner announced DVD-A has cut their prices too. Both of 'em are desperate. For more information: http://www.superaudiocd.philips.com/...lId=N2598A3463 You may have the last word, GT. Give us your best asinine, irrelevant comments. Then go practice your banjo. Really ric, you should take your meds on schedule so you won't hear voices or banjos in your head. Might be better for you instead of acting like a sore loser.... You know I'm right. You know there's no future in SACD but you refuse to listen because you've been brainwashed into buying a bill of goods. You shall now enter my "sum1 file" (kill file.) It's been fun. I'll just my alter my name, dude. You know how the *game's* played. If you ignore me, that'll be your temptation at work, not mine. So you better have a big kill file. You're gonna need it. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation?
Oh and just in case you killfiled me a little too soon, ric....
---- "ric" wrote in message ... -GT* wrote: Your statement, "And if you bothered looking, you would see that new standard CD releases vastly outnumber SACD releases, hybrid or otherwise" is mocking? Hardly. Just you making a comment that is irrelevant to what I said. Say something irrelevant, GT. We're getting used to it. Well it was mocking, ric. Maybe you ought to look up "mocking" in the dictionary. (That's the thick book with all the definitions in it, GT.) Aw, whatsa matter, ric... you're not gonna start pouting on me, are ya now.... Jeeez.... You start by saying SACD equipment will become a "pile of unstandardized junk," and when its backwards compatibility is explained to you for the umpteenth time, you claim to be talking about marketing? No, backwards compatibility has *NOTHING* to do with marketing. Well if it doesn't have anything to do with marketing ric, then there shouldn't be any need for hybrids being made, now should there... This comment makes absolutely no sense. Backwards compatibility is engineering, not marketing. Please try again, GT. And what's engineering if you can't sell it and make a profit off of it. Those profits go back into more engineering, ric. It's called marketing. You know all that. Wise-up. Your reading disability is showing again, GT. SACD compatible player. They play normal CDs, too. Once again, ric. Not *all* of them do. As mentioned before, the market share for SACD, hybrid or full, is absymal. But you refuse to see that. Name the model number for one that doesn't. And the market share for SACDs is completely irrelevant as to whether or not SACD compatible players will play normal CDs. You're in a rut, GT. All of your statements are either asinine or irrelevant. Without market share, it WON'T SURVIVE, ric. It'll be history. Nada. Zilch. You can have the best enginereed product out there, but if it doesn't sustain a market share that it'll survive on....well you can just kiss it goodbye... Besides, it wouldn't surprise me at all if SACD CDs, full or hybrid, are selling at a loss. That's only way they'll be able to clear rack space. They're not limited to only SACD releases. They have just as many choices, and more, than a regular CD player. I'm talking about the CDs now ric, not the players. 2,000 is still a small number. Are you really that *dense* or what.... If the players played *only* SACDs, you'd have a point. But they don't, so you don't. Quit with your obtuse act. (I *hope* it is just an act.) Even if they played CDs, ric, you still wouldn't get the full range of SACD numbers you would with standard CDs. All you'd wind up with is a glorified CD player that would have a marginal format included with it. In summary: SACDs are a low cost way to hear improved sound out of your present stereo system. SACD compatible players will play normal CDs, too (so your choice of music is not limited) and often DVDs as well. There is Your choice of SACD hybrids are limited, ric. 2,000 titles? That's not limited? Forget *backwards compatibility* for a minute, if you can. Only 2,000 titles that you'll be listen to in the SACD format. no danger of owning a "pile of unstandardized junk" in 5 years. In addition, hybrid SACDs (which constitute the majority of new SACD releases) will play in standard CD players. But they won't constitute the majority of new CD releases, ric. The vast majority of new releases will not be SACDs, hybrid or otherwise. Therefore, I still see limited benefit except amoung audiophiles. The retail price of SACDs is now about the same as for standard CDs, and SACD compatible CD and DVD players are not very expensive, starting at less than $150. One need not purchase new expensive speakers or amplifiers to enjoy the improved sound of SACDs. SACD improvements can even be heard using headphones. SACD/DVD-A universal players (starting at less than $500) are also available for those of you who want to enjoy both SACDs and DVD-As. Yeah they're cutting their prices to see if SACD will catch on. Only thing is Warner announced DVD-A has cut their prices too. Both of 'em are desperate. For more information: http://www.superaudiocd.philips.com/...lId=N2598A3463 You may have the last word, GT. Give us your best asinine, irrelevant comments. Then go practice your banjo. Really ric, you should take your meds on schedule so you won't hear voices or banjos in your head. Might be better for you instead of acting like a sore loser.... You know I'm right. You know there's no future in SACD but you refuse to listen because you've been brainwashed into buying a bill of goods. You shall now enter my "sum1 file" (kill file.) It's been fun. I'll just my alter my name, dude. You know how the *game's* played. If you ignore me, that'll be your temptation at work, not mine. So you better have a big kill file. You're gonna need it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bose 901 Review | General | |||
sound card recommendation | General | |||
Stereo Amp Recommendation? | General | |||
Heavy Guitar sound? | General |