online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: Torn between morally right & right to be happy
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 46 (view)
 
Torn between morally right & right to be happy
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:50:26 PM
Your last post made sense to me. Chill is the way to go.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 103 (view)
 
Detroit Lions=Worst Football Franchise Ever
Posted: 11/16/2009 10:54:20 PM
I KNEW the Lions would have along, hard road ahead a few years back when they had their previous "changing of the guard," and paid millions of dollars to bring in 2 journeyman quarterbacks.

This most recent lot has not been nearly so boneheaded as far as rebuilding goes, except for how little playing time their best QB (judging by performance), Drew Stanton, has been getting. But a bloody lot of rebuilding they have to do!
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Mention of having been hurt/cheated on in profiles
Posted: 11/4/2009 6:30:25 AM
I'm glad they put that in their profile if that's how they're going to approach it, because I want to avoid overly-negative people straight away.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 64 (view)
 
First Contact: Generic emails vs. Creative Writing
Posted: 11/1/2009 10:18:32 AM
You're very welcome, Cyn!

No worries, the fish was released. Not so much for my sake, but for that of the fish and the fishery. Let 'em go, let 'em grow is my motto, at least for muskies and big pike. Didn't know about vertical holds back then (was new to really targeting the toothy critters), but since the fish wasn't that big, I'm sure he/she was OK. Not out of the water long. >

You'd be surprised how clear the Detroit River is these days. It's actually quite beautiful, at least upstream from Zug Island...
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 57 (view)
 
First Contact: Generic emails vs. Creative Writing
Posted: 11/1/2009 3:32:44 AM
The "simple country guy's" message looked more like a profile than a message, and something like that would turn me off.

But if I got a message that simply said "Hi, you look interesting, I'd love to here more" (sic) from someone whose profile was as interesting as yours, CynthiaMw, I'd certainly be inclined to respond, simple message and "hear/here" brain fart be damned.

Saying it's one's duty to question authority makes up for a lot of misspellings, grammatical errors, and certainly typos in my book. Too bad you're 3000 miles away... and missing the fall Lake St. Clair musky and pike bite.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 20 (view)
 
A difference between men and women OR the truth about sluts and playas.
Posted: 10/31/2009 8:17:34 AM
You stole the words outta my typing finger, Namrael.

Nothing wrong with "sleeping around," provided people are straight about it and aren't endangering others with reckless behavior. I do see a problem with putting up a front of "commitment" to someone without meaning it just to avoid being alone. Those are the real "players."

And the real sluts are those who put on a front of sexual interest in someone just to scam something from them. But if they're straight about the terms of that trade, I don't care. Oldest profession...
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 46 (view)
 
First Contact: Generic emails vs. Creative Writing
Posted: 10/31/2009 7:50:50 AM
I was speaking for myself, and it appears you totally missed my point, CloudHidden. I don't see how the ability to write a sharp, witty message is necessarily a great predictor of how good a companion one might be and the chemistry you might have.

Not everyone who's a good companion is a world-class writer, after all. In fact, I've found that some people who out and out suck at "small talk" are very good companions... and vice-versa. A simple "Hello, I like your profile, drop me a line if you feel the same" is fine, as far as I'm concerned. If you expect every women to write you a composition worthy of Ursula LaGuin, suit yourself.

It's entirely flawed reasoning to expect someone to have good qualities "across the board." In fact, it's more often that the opposite is the case, and people who are exceptional in one area are likely to be way below average in some other respects. That goes for women and men.

If one expects people to be too perfect in all respects before giving them a chance, that will guarantee a lot of disappointment in the dating world... and not just online. Especially as one gets older. This tendency to "over-filter" is one of the main genetic defects of the online dating process, as I see it.

 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 34 (view)
 
Borrowing money after 3 weeks
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:53:04 PM
I sometimes get a kick out of stringing along women who try to play scams like these. Pretend to be the "easy mark nice guy sucker" and see 'em get more and more PO'd when they don't get any.

Failing such an approach, you can always report such scammers to the administrators. Maybe get their IP address flagged. Of course, some unfortunate honest people could get caught in the crossfire if they share a computer with such a scammer.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 39 (view)
 
First Contact: Generic emails vs. Creative Writing
Posted: 10/29/2009 5:33:52 PM
The best thing for a man is to be creative (but not ridiculous in a bad way) and brief. The odds aren't usually too good if you're writing someone who gets hundreds of messages every week, so it's not a good idea to write really long emails unless you really enjoy doing it... and even then it can work against you by giving the appearance of "trying too hard," which is a universal turn-off.

As for women, men don't usually get that many emails. Usually the message doesn't make much of a difference to me on first contact: it's more the profile, including the pics. As for pics, it's best to leave out any bad ones. Just one good face shot and one that includes most of the body is good enough. For subsequent contacts the message means more.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 125 (view)
 
Poll: How do you want your rejection guys? A.Just delete me B.Lie to me C.Be blunt D.Kill me softly?
Posted: 10/26/2009 10:47:58 PM
1st contact, just don't answer the email.

But don't be offended if you get another message from the same guy months later. It's sometimes hard to remember who I did or did not write, though not so much lately, as I've not been sending many messages... mainly just fielding those that get sent to me.

Likewise, don't be offended if a guy who you wrote a long time ago and didn't reply sends you a message. He could have just gotten involved with someone else but hadn't taken his profile down yet, had others in the mix who just "beat you to the punch." A million reasons.

One thing about online matchmaking is that people tend to overdo the forensics in a big way, and read way, way too much into things.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 95 (view)
 
Sweet guy, low income OR abusive guy, high income
Posted: 10/26/2009 2:11:02 AM
Breasts of Pam Anderson? I'll pass... I prefer 'em real, rather than surgically enhanced.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Strange... some behavior I don't understand
Posted: 10/26/2009 1:51:27 AM
Correcto... which is why you should forget her an move on... unless you hear back from her about her accident or whatever.... in which case you should discuss it a bit to verify the story in a way that's not too obvious a cross-examination.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 43 (view)
 
What do you say in a message to get guys to message you back?
Posted: 10/26/2009 1:44:38 AM
Out of date thread, but for the benefit of others who are reading, it's not so much what you say in a message, as whether or not you interest them straight away.

I don't think I've ever gotten a message that made a difference. It's all down to the profile and pics.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Strange... some behavior I don't understand
Posted: 10/26/2009 1:40:07 AM
A million possible reasons, but the most likely are that she encountered someone else who interests her more or some horrible accident happened and she is/was incapacitated.

If the latter and she recovers, she'll contact you again, and most likely tell you what happened. If the former, just forget her and move along. You deserve better.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Musicians, What is your favorite cover tune to play?
Posted: 10/23/2009 3:31:10 AM
As a drummer, it's got to be either "Substitute" or "Sparks" by The Who.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 11 (view)
 
pof chemistry test...
Posted: 10/23/2009 12:45:07 AM
The best relationships I've had were with women who were very poor objective matches. The only real chemistry test is to meet and interact. Which is why this whole online matchmaking thing is very bassackwards...
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 43 (view)
 
How to start a casual relationship?
Posted: 10/23/2009 12:37:19 AM
Bwana217 absolutely nailed it. It looks like the only problem is with terminology: you're looking for a healthy relationship without the psycho/obsessive/compulsive features, but mislabeling it as "casual." Enjoy the here and now. Why waste emotional energy on what's over and done and what's yet to be?
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 34 (view)
 
What do we do when not attracted to our date?
Posted: 10/5/2009 12:56:29 AM
That's why I like to have a first meeting at some public activity / event we could enjoy whether or not we hit it off. Problem solved.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 60 (view)
 
The type of people you attract here?
Posted: 10/5/2009 12:51:07 AM
Mostly smart, very nice women whose stated ages are a bit older than mine and typically look about a generation older and less physically fit than most of the women I've recently dated who I first met in person. Maybe I should have lied about my age, like so many others obviously do.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 28 (view)
 
Is Getting an LTR like Getting a job?
Posted: 10/5/2009 12:34:55 AM
Yes it is. And the process works very badly.

Just as many of the best potential employees are eliminated straight away for the wrong reasons (e.g., one typo on a resume that eluded spell check), so many of the best, most exciting partners are eliminated before they even get to meet up.

Since when does proficiency at small talk correlate with such intangibles as ability to work through situations, emotional maturity, bedroom finesse, and such that require much more intimate interaction to discover?

What of those whose greatest strengths are not revealed until one has to plow through their greatest shortcomings?

Almost everyone I've been involved with were people who would not appear to be such a good "fit" based on objective criteria. But the "vibe" was out of this world and we just plain got along.

The chemistry and true compatibility of 2 people's characters cannot be conjured up by a "shopping list." Compatible people who generate sparks come together online in spite of, not because of, their criteria.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 16 (view)
 
THE WHO || Amazing Journey DVD
Posted: 9/28/2009 8:05:49 AM
Yes, the Kilburn '77 DVD came out... fortunately with "bonus footage" from a blistering 1969 London Coliseum show that should really get top billing on the DVD.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 52 (view)
 
Why do I usually attract men that I'm not attracted to? Annoying!
Posted: 9/27/2009 6:22:12 PM
That's just the odds. If it weren't the case, we'd all just be on the forums, if here at all. I just have to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, and say: "If there's one thing worse than having the wrong people contact you, it's having nobody contact you."

That tends to make me more appreciative of the message from women to whom I'm not attracted or interested. The more of those you get, the better the chances you'll get more messages from those you do find attractive and interesting.

But like the others said, if you don't care much for those who are writing you, start writing those to whom you are attracted. Men tend not to get nearly as many messages, in general, so the odds are most likely better than for most of the guys who write you anyway.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 246 (view)
 
Why are guys afraid to ask women out?
Posted: 9/27/2009 6:14:40 PM
Perhaps I can't find the proper words to express what I'm on about, hardwoods69, but the real thing I'm attempting to get across is that there's a flow that usually tends to be there, and feels "natural": eye contact, exchange smiles, interact a bit, and if there's a connection of sorts, then exchange info.

Most guys who get "shot down" are trying for gals who simply aren't interested straight away, and are just too bloody clueless to get a sense of that. If she's interested, she'll want to get together. Simple, really.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 76 (view)
 
C.D. vs Vinyl....
Posted: 9/27/2009 8:41:35 AM
To my point about the very limited catalog available on SACD or other hi-res digital audio formats such as 192kHz DVD, I put together a short list of favorite recordings I'd like to have on SACD (for reasons of recording/production quality as well as music), and among them, the only one that was available in such formats was Beethoven's 7th conducted by Von Karajan.

Not one of the following on that list, more-or-less in the order I'd like to hear them in the best possible format, were available on SACD, not even the one by that rather notable Liverpool group:

Billy Bragg – Talking With The Taxman About Poetry
The Move – Shazam
Echo & the Bunnymen – Ocean Rain
The Soundtrack Of Our Lives – Behind the Music
Justin Clayton – Limb
King Crimson – Red
Blondie – Eat To the Beat
The Who Sell Out
The Jam -- Sound Affects
Elvis Costello – This Year’s Model
Roxy Music – Country Life
Pogues – Waiting for Herb
Radiohead – OK Computer
Beatles – Abbey Road
Kinks – Lola vs. Powerman and the Moneygoround
Lush – Split
The Joy of Sing-Sing

Some of the ones recorded in the 90s and later may have been digitally recorded on lower resolution equipment, and would have no point being released on analog or hi-res digital formats anyway. And then there are a lot of favorites that were not well enough produced or recorded for me to care much about the format, and one notable recording (Portishead) that I think benefits from the "iciness" of 44.1kHz digital.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Why does the Rock&Roll Hall of fame ignore Progressive Art Rock?
Posted: 9/27/2009 7:14:00 AM
Too "politically correct." "Street cred" counts more than greatness. But, come to think of it, trying too hard to come across as "unpretentious" is pretentious in its own way.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 60 (view)
 
When is it a good time to give up on LOVE
Posted: 9/22/2009 10:41:11 PM
When you're dead. All you need is love, maaaan....

But sex can be a whole 'nother story.... I could see giving up on that... maybe about 40 years from now...
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 172 (view)
 
The problem with Sagittarian men
Posted: 9/22/2009 10:25:12 PM
I find it very hard to fathom how everybody among such a large group of people born within such a large period could have such similar characteristics for any personality generalizations to hold true.

It makes perfect sense that every force acting upon anything has an effect on it. But even within one day the gravitational effects of the sun and the moon vary greatly, and these bodies exert far greater force than any other heavenly bodies that are typically in the sky.

And I'm absolutely convinced people who are born in the late afternoon near the vernal equinox are the best lovers.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 72 (view)
 
AGE DIFFERENCE?
Posted: 9/22/2009 10:16:21 PM
xxxDINOxxx stole the words right out of my typing finger. Whatever works for you, provided you're both consenting adults.

Internet dating is the only place I know of where people have to wear a tag with their age (or what they claim to be) on it. I certainly don't go walking around with one, nor do I ask people how old they are when I meet them.

And yes, I have had good relationships with very compatible people who were more than a decade older than or younger than me.

It's hard enough to find that combination of chemistry and compatibility as it is: why let a couple numbers worsen the odds?????
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 226 (view)
 
Why are guys afraid to ask women out?
Posted: 9/21/2009 9:54:59 PM
It certainly helps your odds by paying more attention to evidence of her interest in you than just "asking out" any random woman to whom you're attracted, preferably through enough interaction to get a good sense of it. And you can weed out a vast majority of the rude and nasty ones (who are often the ones who complain the most about men being "afraid to ask them out," interestingly enough) through observation as well.

My degree of nervousness when asking a woman out directly relates to the level of uncertainty in her interest and the appropriateness of the timing and/or setting. I like to manage situations so that it's just something that naturally happens in the flow of things.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 73 (view)
 
After all these years, they're not yours!!!
Posted: 9/21/2009 5:18:18 AM
Well, seeing as how murdering her wouldn't be very good for the children ( for the benefit of the dry humor challenged), I'd suggest he see a good lawyer and see if it's possible for him to get a divorce with full custody of the children, and perhaps even child support from her.

If he can't at least get joint custody and not be on the hook for child support, looks like he's screwed any way you cut it, and may have to stick it out until they're grown, and then dump her...
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 49 (view)
 
Oh God what have I done?
Posted: 9/21/2009 4:59:54 AM
Taking things way too seriously way too soon, but probably no harm done, because you don't seem to have "slammed the door" on contact 2.

I've learned not to take anything too seriously until meeting and interacting in person. Perhaps my "casual" online attitude might work against me and make me come across as a "player," but however much a person's profile might blow you away, you never know until you meet.

Anyhow, good luck... whoever may be the "lucky gal." ;)
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 20 (view)
 
single or divorce?
Posted: 9/16/2009 4:43:35 PM
If I'm really interested in him I'll read more of his profile to see if I can get any insight into his relationships to date. And if he appears to have never had any type of marital relationship at all I simply go on to the next.

Having had to put someone else's needs first and share space with someone in the past is one thing I want us to have in common.

It often explains a lot of the choices people have made in life and again, rightly or wrongly, tells me whether he has the mindset of an over-indulged only child.

Everybody can be self centred at times but I want someone who hasn't made it a way of life.


Well, I prefer people who do not tend to make incorrect inferences.

I think it's more self-centered to marry somebody than not to marry when it's not the right thing to do. So many people obviously marry just for the experience or because it's expected of them. It's also unselfish to marry when you have things to deal with that you would not want to burden somebody else with, as I had for many years.

I'm not single because I don't understand commitment; I'm single because I DO understand it. If I marry someone, I will not go into it without really wanting to be with them until one or the other dies and actually expecting it to work out that way.

Since I'm no longer with anybody I've been involved with, I feel we made the right choice by not marrying. If that aversion to making insincere and/or hasty commitments puts some people off, so be it.

Perhaps I'm old-fashioned in thinking of marriage as something that implies a lifelong commitment, rather than a big party one has to experience, perhaps even time and time again, and then go right back to serial monogamy, sometimes almost before the bird seed is washed away by the next rain. Perhaps marriage doesn't mean the same thing it did for my parents, grandparents, and most of my aunts and uncles. Maybe we need some sort of relationship celebration that keeps the party without the commitment, because that's the way it seems most "marriages" tend to play out these days...
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 42 (view)
 
Are preferences dealbreakers?
Posted: 9/16/2009 6:12:33 AM
Now you got me curious, crystal_light1111, but I can't write you to ask because I don't (quite) live in Canada...
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 34 (view)
 
Are preferences dealbreakers?
Posted: 9/13/2009 7:43:15 AM
Depends upon the individual. because I've had people who have written me whose profiles listed criteria I did not meet. :)

As for writing others, I treat them as if they are. Time is too precious to waste writing someone who is highly unlikely to write back.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 62 (view)
 
Experiences with cuddle guys
Posted: 9/10/2009 4:13:45 PM
I'm a very sensual man who loves all sorts of affection, but despises the saccharine, overly-sentimental goo, and does not assume anything about a woman's intentions based on some physical contact. What gives?

But then I don't have it splattered all over my profile...
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 169 (view)
 
Approaching women in bars
Posted: 9/9/2009 9:03:08 PM
Sure, some women want some men to approach them in clubs. I've found the best way to tell if they're open to it is the good 'ol smile and eye contact.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 33 (view)
 
am i just an idiot for going with my gut?
Posted: 9/9/2009 8:58:40 PM
PittsburghVixen stole the words outta my typing finger: you would be an idiot for not going with your gut!
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 16 (view)
 
First Dates -> Cinema
Posted: 9/9/2009 8:18:13 PM
DemonDingleBerry and Kay9876 stole the words out of my typing finger. "Being able to talk" is way, way overrated. Unless your date has passed up a promising career in comedy, the setting itself almost guarantees you will be bored half to death and won't want to meet them again.

I'm good with movie first dates, with outcomes infinitely better than "coffee dates." As mentioned above, it can be a good shared experience, and give you something to talk about other than an "interview" type date, which I've found to be a very effective way to kill a "vibe" straight away, especially when you're likely to be "getting to know" things you already know from your profiles and messages.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 37 (view)
 
Persistance can wear a girl down til she gives in - Does it work for guys?
Posted: 9/6/2009 9:58:59 AM
No. Does it really work on women???? To quote the great baseball player and even better philosopher Yogi Berra: "If the people don't want to come out ot the ballpark, nobody's going to stop them."
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 12 (view)
 
When freedom is too much and enough...
Posted: 9/6/2009 8:55:52 AM
I do think there are basically 2 types of people: those who can't stand being alone, and will jump from one relationship to another rather quickly, and those who are a lot more selective as to their partners, and/or can handle being alone much better, and are therefore often single.

I'm single by choice until I find someone to whom I can truly commit. I could be in a relationship easily any time, and all it would take is making an insincere commitment... but I just can't do that to someone who really cares for me with the understanding that I will be faithful to them. So instead I remain single until I'm with someone to whom I really, truly want to commit.

I hear you, wileygy. Sure, it would be nice to have someone with whom to share my life, but I have lots of friends and acquaintances, and plenty of things to do, so I've not much inclination to brood and dwell on what's missing (for now). Maybe it's just down to brain biochemistry: just a tendency to be "up." :)

This also makes me wonder about the logic behind filtering out people who have messaged others seeking intimate encounters or sex. Is it not more honorable for a single person to just have "no strings" sex and be straight about it until someone to whom they truly want to commit comes along than to use someone for sex while pretending to commit to them, as so many do, at least judging from the divorce rates and amount of cheating going on?
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Does This Profile Make Sense To You?
Posted: 9/2/2009 1:08:45 AM
I like the way you take the piss out of the "glass half full" cliche'. Good going!

I don't see any problem with the suit pic. Almost everyone wears jeans (yawn). Looks well coordinated and sharp, and makes you stand out. But a more casual pic doing something you enjoy might be good, though better one good pic than too many not so good pics.

All in all, not bad.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Have at it...
Posted: 9/2/2009 12:55:43 AM
You're welcome, spinnernet (I keep wanting to type "spinnerbait" for some odd reason... fisherman..lol).

Not wrong, as such, but not good strategy, either. Though it beats the hell out of having no pic at all.

People have been conditioned to expect the worst for what we can't see in this alternative universe of online dating ...
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 3 (view)
 
As a guy, would this make you feel insecure?
Posted: 9/2/2009 12:50:13 AM
I'd probably just think she had too much to drink and let her hormones get out of hand the first time, but being poor mind readers that we men tend to be, I'd probably figure she wanted to "take a step back," and would not think she wanted to have sex that 2nd get-together.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Have at it...
Posted: 9/2/2009 12:36:51 AM
If you're not crosseyed I suggest putting up another pic where we can see the whites of your eyes. A true geek should be able to pull that one off.

Otherwise, you should be able to attract the sort of crazy guys you seek...
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 60 (view)
 
C.D. vs Vinyl....
Posted: 9/1/2009 7:24:01 AM

Many times?

The effective limits of LPs at the are 30 Hz - 20 kHz +/- 3 dB, CDs are 20 Hz – 20 kHz ± 0.5 dB. Vinyl can't handle anything below 30hz without jumping out of the groove. The only noticeable difference is how high end cut off effects 16/44.1, ...at 16/48khz they're about equal to even the most critical ears. Too bad the bean counters decided on this instead of listening to the engineers, but this was in order to fit an LP on early CDs. If your speakers can't faithfully reproduce above 20khz/100dBspl, you can't possible hear the difference. Blind and double blind testing with audio "experts" has been very revealing in this regard. Though they do say these tests aren't fair because they aren't told which is which, ...interesting.

This is not true at the low end, ...and if you've ever played with audio in the studio, you'd know that this is where a lot of the phase cancelation/reinforcement inherent in the analog (post D/A) happens. There is a much lower bottom end floor at 16/44.1 that there is on vinyl.


It's hard to explain what I'm on about, late.

I'm not talking about frequencies that are inaudible, but irregularities of the waves on a much, much smaller amplitude (and hence, reproducible), that are finer than audible frequencies, but are perceptible to some people as "texture," "fogginess," "atmosphere," and other such intangibles.

I'll see if I can explain it graphically later...
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 59 (view)
 
C.D. vs Vinyl....
Posted: 9/1/2009 6:36:28 AM
Speaking for myself, the main reason I don't have a SACD player or SACDs is the very, very limited catalog of releases that are available on that format, almost all super-popular albums that don't happen to be among my personal faves.

Mobile fidelity "original master" LPs had a similarly (and sometimes very puzzlingly chosen within artists' bodies of work) limited catalog, but did not require specialized equipment to play them, so the limited catalog was not a factor.

I doubt that SACDs would cost so much if the format were the standard, especially the dual-layer ones playable on standard 44.1 kHz CD players. But the real problem is that sound quality doesn't matter to most people beyond a certain level.

Ironically, the CDs the recording industry pushed so hard with false claims of "perfect sound" when they came out may have been their undoing. Convenience and availability kicked sound quality's ass. Nowadays the typical consumer is even satisfied with mp3 audio...
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 8 (view)
 
A profile review please ..Guys and Girls.. Pic included
Posted: 8/31/2009 12:26:29 AM
Your post had me braced for a barrage of smileys... but the profile's very good. No real suggestions to make, except the basic strategic advice of not to look for too perfect a match, which tends to be the #1 "genetic defect" of online dating. Have fun!
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 47 (view)
 
C.D. vs Vinyl....
Posted: 8/30/2009 10:34:30 PM
I don't think it would make a significant difference in the cost of CDs if a much, much higher sampling rate became the standard, rather than a small audiophile niche. After the initial "retooling" costs, I think the difference in production costs would be negligible, given today's technology. After all, a low-budget home computer can support DVD recording with no difficulty. Not to mention that many artists now produce their recordings with their own gear, and as such could take advantage of the best technology available.

I think the real problems now would be selling the gear to play the stuff back, which would appeal to a small core of audiophile types, such as myself... not to mention the fact that so many recordings from the late 80s to present have been recorded and/or mastered at 44.1 or 48 kHz sampling rates, and as such are inherently limited to that level of quality.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 45 (view)
 
C.D. vs Vinyl....
Posted: 8/30/2009 6:46:37 PM
I was confusing numbers on my last post, my bad, so disregard the 256kHz stuff... though modern computing and drive speeds could do even much better than that, as SACDs do.

The difference in the "texture" of certain recordings from their original analog format to any digital format I've heard is bloody obvious. I've yet to hear SACDs, but would love to experience SACDs of some of the better and better analog recorded music I like.

Sound waves in recordings are not straight sums of perfect sine waves: waves interfere, and the net result is much, much less tidy, especially in the higher frequency / smaller wavelength end.

Again, just because we can't hear 96 kHz doesn't mean even "finer" detail doesn't affect the sound we (well, at least some of us) can hear; just like we can't see the microscopic surface "roughness" that makes the difference between flat and high-gloss paint, but sure as hell can see the difference on a wall... at least I can. As best I can describe it, lack of that detail "slickens up" or "hardens" the sound, "brings it up front," and "clears out the fog."

It's like when I first told people about how making a DAT dub of some analog recordings "cleaned them up," and therefore, the DAT was not a "perfect copy," many said something to the effect that it was "restoring them to the original recording's sound." Utter nonsense. Polishing up a recording is not making a perfect copy! A copy is true to the extent it sounds the same: warts, "haze," and all!

I know when I did the math, comparing the detail a stylus can track vs. the sampling rates of CDs (44.1 kHz), the LP was found to have many times greater potential for tracking detail... and -- without getting all techie about it -- it stands to reason that lower amplitude detail (which it also stands to reason would make up a lot of the "atmosphere" I'm on about) would be less affected by the bandwidth limitations of microphones and other gear in the signal path. Frequency response of microphones and other analog processing gear does not to cut straight off above X kHz, after all... but on the other hand the fine detail of digital recordings is absolutely limited by the sampling rate, and everything above said limitation is complete aliasing junk.

Because of that "hard limitation" of digital recordings for finer waveform detail, it stands to reason they need much higher sampling rate to accommodate all of the sonically useful information.

It still mystifies me that most digital recording is still at or close to 1980s sampling rates while computers have become so many times faster. DVD audio, Pro Tools, etc., may be an improvement, but they're still way, way short of modern technological capabilities, and yes, some of us can hear the difference.
 2ears1mouth
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 41 (view)
 
C.D. vs Vinyl....
Posted: 8/29/2009 1:01:53 AM
well if you'll transfer your LPs collection by recording it at 96KHz/24bit on DVD - you wouldn't be able to distinguish difference of the sound in blind test.


I seriously doubt that 96kHz is sufficient sampling to preserve the "atmosphere" of all-analog recordings. 256kHz might be.

The real test is to dub an analog copy of Days of Future Passed by the Moody Blues to the digital medium and see if the dubbed copy plays back the same in all its hazy, distant-sounding glory, especially the "hazier" tracks, such as "Nights in White Satin." I remember doing that on a DAT and it totally "cleared out the fog" and brought everything out front. That was 48kHz. I don't see upping the sampling rate by a mere factor of 2 could completely preserve that atmosphere.
 
Show ALL Forums