/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
|
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 7891011 57> |
| Author | ||||||||||||||
oliverstoned 
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
 Posted: September 12 2011 at 04:08 |
|||||||||||||
|
"The use of tube for better mids and highs
This is a fallacy and "better" is a subjective observation - the objective observation is that valve amplifiers are "different". Valve amplifiers add distortion in both the voltage and the time domain, this results in increased harmonic distortion and non-linear frequency response (caused predominately by the output transformer but also by the valve voltage-to-voltage transfer characteristic - the creation of the pentode valve was an attempt to overcome these characteristics in triodes but even that was not 100% successful). This distortion is more prevalent (ie noticable) at mid and higher frequencies, also the construction of the output transformer and the poor impedance matching at low frequencies makes valve amplifiers less "good" for low frequencies (through poor damping factor) even though the resulting mids can be described as "warmer" (poor low frequency response should make the mids "brighter", not "warmer") - this dichotomy is caused by the increase in even-harmonics in the distorted signal (resulting in warm flute-like tones) at the mid and high frequecies (this distortion is still present at low frequecies but we are less able to notice it). Many people like this kind of distortion but that does not make it better - valve amplifiers are not "fidelity" - they do not reproduce the sound that the record producer recorded in the studio so are not hi-fi (high-fidelity) by definition. Solid-state amplifiers out perform valves in every respect and create a near-perfect audio sound stage - unfortunately many people do not like this 100% transparency but prefer the colourisation created by the imperfect valve amplifier. It is possible to recreate the "valve-sound" in a solid state amplifier using complex filtering to dynamically alter the colouration of the audio spectrum - this is not common in hi-fi amplifiers because filters are considered to be a "no-no" in this environment, however in guitar amplifiers "valve modelling" is common and can be achived easily using digital processing techniques. Note that here the DSP adds colour to a colourless (ie transparent) amplifier - it adds distortion. If anyone likes that distortion best then they still cannot claim that a valve amp is better than a solid state amp, it's just "different" and certainly cannot be called "transparent". Valve is more transparent in the mid/highs than solid state: you'll hear extreme highs details that you'll not hear with solid state. This is a good illustration of the difference between theories and experiment. Anyway, if, according to you, one can't claim that something sounds better than something else, you should not discuss anymore about Hifi. Edited by oliverstoned - September 12 2011 at 09:34 |
||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: September 12 2011 at 03:42 |
|||||||||||||
|
You wrote a lot but did not replied to the essential question: why my system would work better considering that nothing affects nothing?
Everybody agrees that my system has nothing common with an ordinary one. So what's different? |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 11 2011 at 10:25 |
|||||||||||||
|
I have covered all these points in the past, but for clarity I will repeat myself:
This is a fallacy and "better" is a subjective observation - the objective observation is that valve amplifiers are "different".
Valve amplifiers add distortion in both the voltage and the time domain, this results in increased harmonic distortion and non-linear frequency response (caused predominately by the output transformer but also by the valve voltage-to-voltage transfer characteristic - the creation of the pentode valve was an attempt to overcome these characteristics in triodes but even that was not 100% successful). This distortion is more prevalent (ie noticable) at mid and higher frequencies, also the construction of the output transformer and the poor impedance matching at low frequencies makes valve amplifiers less "good" for low frequencies (through poor damping factor) even though the resulting mids can be described as "warmer" (poor low frequency response should make the mids "brighter", not "warmer") - this dichotomy is caused by the increase in even-harmonics in the distorted signal (resulting in warm flute-like tones) at the mid and high frequecies (this distortion is still present at low frequecies but we are less able to notice it). Many people like this kind of distortion but that does not make it better - valve amplifiers are not "fidelity" - they do not reproduce the sound that the record producer recorded in the studio so are not hi-fi (high-fidelity) by definition. Solid-state amplifiers out perform valves in every respect and create a near-perfect audio sound stage - unfortunately many people do not like this 100% transparency but prefer the colourisation created by the imperfect valve amplifier.
It is possible to recreate the "valve-sound" in a solid state amplifier using complex filtering to dynamically alter the colouration of the audio spectrum - this is not common in hi-fi amplifiers because filters are considered to be a "no-no" in this environment, however in guitar amplifiers "valve modelling" is common and can be achived easily using digital processing techniques. Note that here the DSP adds colour to a colourless (ie transparent) amplifier - it adds distortion. If anyone likes that distortion best then they still cannot claim that a valve amp is better than a solid state amp, it's just "different" and certainly cannot be called "transparent".
There is no sound reason for doing this and it does not affect the audible quality of the play-back. It is fundamentally impossible to affect the audio information contained within the digitally encoded signal, even with pseudoscience and alchemy - this would be like changing the contents of a letter by drawing on the envelope - a neat conjuring trick, but not real magic. It is impossible to isolate the digital and the analogue domains because at some point in the path the digital signal has to be decoded and this happens in the DAC converter, not in the drive (hereafter called "the transport").
However, there is a good logical reason for separating the transport from the electronics - transports are mechanical devices that are subject to mechanical failure and they will eventually break - in most cases a "dead" CD player will have a broken transport while the electronics will continue to work perfectly. Being able to replace a broken transport while keeping the same DAC converter makes perfect sense.
All the transports in the world are made by a couple of major manufacturers - small hi-fi manufacturers do not make the transport mechanics or the laser/lens assemblies, they buy them in bulk as OEM assemblies and re-box them - the same transport hardware will be used in expensive CD players as in the cheap $40 ones from Amazon.
Similarly, smaller hi-fi manufacturers do not have the resources and capabilities to design and fabricate their own sigma-delta codecs, they buy them in from major manufacturers (Panasonic, Linear, Sony, Wolfson, Burr-Brown/TI etc) and design them into their own PCBs - a high-priced DAC separate will use the same electronic components as a $40 CD player (or mp3 player) from Amazon.
As with headphone amplifiers you are not paying extra for "better" electronics, you are paying for a name badge and an expensive aluminium box.
This is also true of DVD, home cinema and Blu-ray systems - smaller "audiophile" and top-end manufactures do not have the resources and capabilities to design and build these units - they buy the pre-assembled chassis from one of the major electronics companies (often Sony, Philips or Panasonic) and re-badge them with their own front-panel.
Ah, yes.
 Erm.  I admit I have done this, although I do not believe the benefits are measurable or noticeable - it is purely esthetic's - it looks more impressive to have separate pre-amp and power amp (and preferably two separate mono power amps). I have even built a system with a separate power supply for each amplifier (resulting in 6 boxes instead of 1) simply because I could. However this system would sound exactly the same if I had constructed it into one single chassis.However there is no sound reason for doing this and properly designed there is no reason why an integrated amplifier will sound any different to separate pre and power amplifiers. Hi-fi design engineers are fully aware of the interaction between stages and design the power supply filtering to ensure signal isolation, or in some units having separate supplies for pre and power stages. A well designed integrated amplifiers will be "better" than two poorly designed separates.
Separate pre and power amps are purely a "fashion" thing - by having two boxes instead of one it gives the impression of having more for your money (although it will cost you twice as much) and of course is another means that equipment manufacturers use to separate an audiophilist from their wallet. Personally (as an electronics engineer), I find the arrogance of untrained amateur audiophilists knowing better than qualified professional audio design engineers mildly insulting while simultaneously being highly amusing. (fortunately my ability to laugh is far more acute than my sensitivity to being insulted)
I will also admit to owning a separate phono amplifier on one of my systems - this is not for improved sound quality (for there is none) by a simple matter of necessity - the amplifier I am using does not have a phono input stage.
We've been here before and this is a really poor understanding of basic electrical theory. The reasons Oliver puts forward for this are too embarrassing to repeat and I'll not dwell on it further. Seriously - if you've the money to waste on doing this go ahead, but as someone who does understand power distibution and the power requirements of even the heaviest of domestic hi-fi I'll spend my spare cash on CDs thank you.
I have said this time and time again - vibration isolation of electro-mechanical components is a "good thing" - applying that to components that have no electro-mechanical properties is a waste of time and money.
Loudspeakers - yes - these are electro-mechanical devices so power used to move the box is power that is not being used to move the speaker cone - this does affect the sound output from the speakers and will drastically (ie measurably) change the performance of the speakers. I recomend that everyone tries this on their speakers - anything that stops the cabinet from vibrating will result in a positive improvement in the sound.
Turntables - yes/maybe - these are electro-mechanical devices - the stylus cartridge converts mechanical vibrations into electrical signals - it is common sense to isolate the platter, cartridge and tone-arm from external vibrations - this sense is so
 ing common that every turntable manufacturer in the world knows this so they design their equipment to provide sufficient vibration isolation for most uses, however they cannot tailor their equipment to every domestic environment so adding extra anti-vibration is not a "bad thing", though often a redundancy.Tape-decks - no - while at first glance these appear to be mechanical devices, they are not electro-mechanical as such so are immune from acoustic vibration interfering with the analogue signal. There is more chance of vibration from the capstan and spool motors than there is of external vibrations, and the equipment designers have isolated that cause in the basic design. It is impossible for the amateur to improve on this with bituminous foil, isolation cones and a concrete dais to stand it on.
Pre-amps, power-amps, receivers, CD transports, etc - no - really, just no. There are no electro-mechanical devices in these so any anti-vibration isolation is pointless and a waste of cash and effort. I will make small allowance for valve amplifiers, but honestly any valve that is microphonic should be replaced because the grid wires have worn loose - however given the cost of audio quality valves some isolation will lengthen their useful life so is a useful temporary stop-gap.
Cables and connectors - no - this is bad science - induced currents caused by vibrating wires are too small to make any difference and any cable or connector that is microphonic should be thrown away because it is broken.
We've been here a million times before and nothing changes.
When a cable manufacturer or audiophilist claims James Randi's million dollars then I may reconcider my views on audio interconnects, but until that day my stance is unchanged:
Upgrade your interconnects from the nasty $2 RCA cables that come supplied free with audio components to something of better quality by all means, but do not spend stupid money on unproven over-priced interconnects. All of the claims made by these cable manufacturers are meaningless and unproveable. The same is true of loudspeaker cables - any cable that is thicker than bell-wire (the wire that once was used to wire door-bells) will give an improvement, but going beyond that to esoteric custom speaker cable is a waste of money. Claims made by these cable manufacturers cannot be proven or measured - any percieved improvement is the result of confirmation bias.
Such as? Please do not mention "burn-in" - I work in the military and aero-space industry where burn-in is a matter of course, my knowledge and understanding in this field goes far beyond anything that an amateur audiophilist can ever dream of knowing and audiophile "burn-in" is a terrible misapplication of a poor understanding of this science. Similarly do not mention cable polarity - that is nothing more than paranormal activity masquerading as a poor pseudoscience.
You have no concept of how my system sounds so any comparative claims you make are unfounded. I have never (nor ever will) make any claims about my system relative to anyone else's - I'm not that arrogant or conceited. I am happy with my set ups (I do have more than one) and you are happy with yours that is the beginning, the end and all there is to say on the subject.
What makes your system different from an ordinary one? It is an ordinary one, nothing is custom made, it's all available from the typical high-end hi-fi retailer or pre-owned off eBay. The changes and so-called modifications you have made have improved nothing, by your own admission your system sounded good before these changes, any further improvement you think you have made is the result of confirmation bias.
In your opinion - you cannot backup that statement with any rational scientific argument, nor can you demonstrate any one of those "claims" under a controlled experimental conditions.
Did those people hear your system "out of the box"? (ie without your so-called improvements). Did you subject them to a double-blind comparison?
No it isn't. Empirical science involves application of the scientific method: hypothesis, observation and analysis/review. Observation alone is not empirical, it has to be in support of a hypothesis and be backed-up by comparative analysis - even pseudoscience attempts to be scientific by proposing an hypothesis even if it cannot be supported by repeatable observation and analysis. Audiophilists are not employing the scientific method - they are doing the equivalent of looking at the Moon and concluding it is made of cream cheese - which is neither empiric nor is it scientific. Edited by Dean - September 11 2011 at 10:58 |
||||||||||||||
|
What?
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 11 2011 at 03:36 |
|||||||||||||
Hardy-har-har, very funny, you're a laugh a minute. You know exactly what I mean here so stop trying to be clever. If you must try and score points off me then this is a childish way of doing it.
Did Jean-Marie hear your system with "standard" low-cost cables, zero anti-vibration modifications on amplifiers, CD transports, cables and recievers and without the unnecessary power filtering?
If so did you subject him to true double-blind listening tests?
So? I have said before, and I will undoubtedly say again: anti-vibration spikes on speakers is a proven "good idea", acoustic isolation of a turntable is another proven "good idea" - however applying that "fix" to hi-fi components that have no electro-mechanical properties such as receivers, amplifiers, tape-decks, cables, CD transports and DACs is pointless and redundant.
At last we are getting somewhere. You may not have noticed this, but I have refrained from making any comments or jokes regarding the "pushing walls" statement in this or any other thread simply because I did not fully understand what Oliver meant by it - in the past when I have asked him to explain all those non-technical poetic terms and phrases he uses I did not get any adequate explanations so this time I simply applied my own definition. By this explanation my system also pushes walls, however I would not use that phrase myself - when I listen to music I hear the music, not the room or the individual hi-fi components - clarity, definition and sound-staging is something I am highly aware of through mixing and producing music with my home studio equipment - I could not achieve that if I could not "hear" that on play-back through my domestic hi-fi set-up.
Kind of... but not really. This sounds more like you have a solid state sub-bass woofer to compensate for the poor low-frequency response of the valve amplifier (a property of the output transformer, not the valves themselves). Personally I would not miss-match the power rating of the two amplifiers quite so drastically, however I doubt you are running the solid-state amplifier at 6 times the volume of the valve amp (unless you are a 13 year old adolescent male listening to drum'n'bass and hip-hop in their bedroom). Edited by Dean - September 11 2011 at 17:37 |
||||||||||||||
|
What?
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 10 2011 at 20:25 |
|||||||||||||
...yours for just $485 each...
|
||||||||||||||
|
What?
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 10 2011 at 20:18 |
|||||||||||||
This isn't so much hard to believe as nigh on impossible to believe. Sadly this is one of the more widely documented audiophilist hoaxes that is less believable than the emperor's new clothes. The "green-pen" has no effect on the audio quality contained within the digitally encoded signal read from the CD - that is a bankable fact. Moreover, it has no effect on the digital signal read back from the CD surface. We can go into the physics of this if you wish, but frankly it's a waste of my time.
This two misconceptions bundled into one throw-away comment, so let's look at them individually:
1. Even if there was ferrous compounds in the CD materials (which is highly debatable anyway) it cannot affect the optical properties of the reflective aluminium surface whether they are magnetised or not - this is just bad science badly applied and there is no excuse for this.
2. In cables and contacts the minuscule amounts of ferric compounds in the copper and gold conductors have the same effect on the electrical conduction whether they are magnetised or not - signal transmission is by electrical conduction not by electro-magnetic propagation so any magnetic properties are irrelevant - iron is a poor conductor, it remains a poor conductor when magnetised and when demagnetised. Again, demagnetising conductors is bad science badly applied and there is no excuse for this.
The currents induced in the cable are so small as to be below the noise floor of any system, regardless of how "audiophile" that system is. There is more effect from stray cosmic particles hitting the cabling than from any electro-magnetic induction. Isolating cabling from vibration is more bad science badly applied and there is no excuse for this.
Contacts that are affected by vibration should be cleaned or replaced, not fudged to make then less susceptible. I honestly do not believe that you would have a set-up that has such poor contacts.
|
||||||||||||||
|
What?
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: September 08 2011 at 10:43 |
|||||||||||||
Considering that you claim that the followings points cannot produce an audible difference The use of tube for better mids and highs The use of separate drive/converter digital set up The use of separate preamp/amp stages Power optimization Vibration control optimization Cabling and contacts and so many other things My system is made up of all this so why would it sound better than any "normal" system like yours? I run modest speakers so it doesn't comes from it, and i used to own 3 pairs of first price Mission Loudspeakers before and my system was already like it is today in term of electronics and was already extraordinary sounding. So, what would make my home system better than an ordinary one? And it does, thanks to all the things quoted up. Jean Marie would tell that it's day and night, no comparison with anything else, first time in his life he listen to such sound. And everybody reacts the same to my system. That's empiric science. Edited by oliverstoned - September 09 2011 at 14:04 |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member 
VIP Member Joined: December 23 2009 Location: Emerald City Status: Online Points: 17846 |
Posted: September 07 2011 at 17:33 |
|||||||||||||
|
I love this thread......I have learned so much
|
||||||||||||||
  
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: September 07 2011 at 17:06 |
|||||||||||||
Well, the links are gone now but apparently not long ago wooden volume knobs were sold that were supposed to improve the audio experience due to lower vibration and distortion  Edited by The T - September 07 2011 at 17:07 |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: September 07 2011 at 07:54 |
|||||||||||||
|
Small format and small sound, that's the way it is.
The only way to compensate is to work with big digital, separate drive/converters or very very big integrated players. It's better, but will never match analog. But we must admit that Cd is very convenient. |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
awaken77
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2008 Status: Offline Points: 374 |
Posted: September 07 2011 at 07:44 |
|||||||||||||
|
digital thing lacks one aspect - getting in closer touch with performer
When I go to the concert, and I like the music, I usually buy CD , and get autographs of musician(s) on the booklet. Some of them write not just the signature, but also some warm words.. that's so nice to have and collect such things How would you imagine getting autograph on a flash memory card with mp3 ? Edited by awaken77 - September 07 2011 at 07:44 |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: September 07 2011 at 07:19 |
|||||||||||||
|
Which Discman is it? I'm using the 1989 Sony D25 S, a fine sounding one, among the world top three, features a good direct line output, perfect to plug to a portable amp 
The absolute best sounding Discman ever being the Sony D555  Edited by oliverstoned - September 07 2011 at 07:31 |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
awaken77
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2008 Status: Offline Points: 374 |
Posted: September 07 2011 at 05:13 |
|||||||||||||
|
I discovered my old portable Cd player (which I not used for 2 years), and revived it.
it was not functional due to oxidized battery contacts - I cleaned it, and now enjoying 2 Nathan Mahl CDs all day |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: September 07 2011 at 05:05 |
|||||||||||||
|
Ys, being at the heart of the sound, so the walls vanish...
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
jean-marie
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 27 2010 Location: FRANCE Status: Offline Points: 2585 |
Posted: September 07 2011 at 04:18 |
|||||||||||||
|
Push the walls means creating a soundscape, a sonic space....imho
 Edited by jean-marie - September 07 2011 at 04:28 |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: September 07 2011 at 04:10 |
|||||||||||||
I know it's hard to belive, but when a system really works, very litlle modifications affect the sound. So, i've tried the green marker but the improvment is very subbtle but real. I prefer using a CD demagnetizer which is more efficient and convenient (and works for all cables and contacts as well). The cable's lifting works but instead i use free bullpack under my cables and it indeed works, subbtle but real improvment. IMO the explanation is that it avoid extra vibration on contacts at the cable's end, but i'm not sure. Not sure what you allude to with the volume knob? Another thing i want to point out is the classic argument about room acoustic being a limitative factor: "It's useless to invest on big hifi becausey ou're limited by the room". Jean marie heard that my system was going very deep, fast and clean in the lows and the room (which is normal) stands it so it isn't a problem at all. Better a good system in a bad room than the reverse. |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
oliverstoned
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 26 2004 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6308 |
Posted: September 07 2011 at 03:31 |
|||||||||||||
There you're totally wrong. My system is a choosed combination of devices and accessories which are essential for the whole result. I don't talk about tubes, you can't have the fantastic highs i've got without tubes. Without the cables, filters, vib cancelling devices, the system doesn't work at all. Sean will come and hear all that and i'll give him a set of cones so he'll be abble to try quietly on his own system and compare. And no,"push the walls" doesn't mean loud, not but not at all... The magic of my system, among others, is the use of 200w solid state to get real extreme low and low coupled with 30w tube to do all the rest (low medium, medium, highs and extreme highs) the part of the sonic spectrum we're more sensitive to). This is a kind of bi amplification. Edited by oliverstoned - September 07 2011 at 03:36 |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: September 06 2011 at 10:59 |
|||||||||||||
Talking about headphones and amps, remember my HD650? So, if I connect it directly to an IPHONE (of all things, such a powerful amplifier) it still has amazingly clear sound, yet of course the volume is reduced. Now, I needed headphones with a more natural, transparent, classical-music-ready sound so I got a pair of Audio Technica ATH-W5000, amazing things, you can hear details that lesser headphones don't reveal. And you know what? I'm still powering them with my e-bay-bought little 200 USD (for me it was 120) V-can headphone amp (in this case the impedance match is better since these headphones have an impedance of 40, not 300 like the Sennheisers). I wouldn't spend 1000 USD in a headphone amp. If my little V-can dies, I'll replace it with something similar. And yes I would never re-cable it as so many people in head-fi.org do with their headphones. What the hell is the point of that? The only thing one can change in a system to obtain a clear audible difference is the speakers (or headphones). Better speakers are better speakers, period. And even at that, some cheap speakers are quite good, too. Some suit some musical styles better than others, but in the end, is the only part of the system where difference can be detected by anyone with normal ears and not "golden ears". Yes, they will sound the same even with 20000 USD 6-feet Audioquest Everest speaker cable....
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: September 06 2011 at 10:52 |
|||||||||||||
|
I want Oliver, our audiophile-in-campus, to tell me with all honesty, lest lightning might fall on his pushing-walls system, if he has used audiophile tweaks like the legendary green marker for cds or the volume knobs or the cable lifters/raisers. I want to hear it from somebody that has actually bought such............. devices.
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Joined: April 29 2004 Location: Heart of Europe Status: Online Points: 20240 |
Posted: September 06 2011 at 09:58 |
|||||||||||||
These have been outlawed in Belgium around two years ago...
mmmmhhh!!!.... I'm driving by Paris on my way to Albi for the RIO fest of Sept 16 to 18,
Soooooo, I guess I'll have to ring Olivier to see if I can get my eardrums abused for a minute (read hour) or two
  Olivier, will you be home on Friday 16th in the morning ( I got to be in Albi around 19h00).... or Thursday 20 around late afternoon/early evening??
I'll PM you!!
If you want something from North Holland, I'd be glad to deliver it personally
 |
||||||||||||||
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 7891011 57> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
New decade, end of the CD?
Topic Options
oliverstoned wrote:
