D to A then back to D why? how?

[crabtwins]

Hello this is my first post.

Hope its not a loaded question folks. Just reading a Bob Katz book and maybe I should finish the book first but how is this done? You would output say from PC to tape? then record back to PC just to get that elusive ANALOG sound? Just wondering if that is the idea.

thanks

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by crabtwins

Just reading a Bob Katz book and maybe I should finish the book first but how is this done? You would output say from PC to tape? then record back to PC just to get that elusive ANALOG sound? Just wondering if that is the idea.

Why? To be able to use excellent analog outboard gear. There's no point in having great analog EQs and compressors if you can't use them. Going to tape happens sometimes, but it's far less common than just going to analog outboard.

How? With the best set of converters you can afford. The DAC that feeds the analog chain is just as important as your monitoring DAC, if not more. And you need an excellent A to D to get back to digital while preserving all that nice analog work you just did.

[crabtwins]

hey thanks alot that makes sense. I do everything in the DAW world so i was confused when I read this. thanks again

[arf]

Originally Posted by crabtwins

hey thanks alot that makes sense. I do everything in the DAW world so i was confused when I read this. thanks again

Having mastered only digitally with Weiss digital outboard for 10 successful years, it wasn't until I had finally built up enough to acquire LavryGold conversion for the round-trip to analog that I really felt the d/a/d route was worth doing. The analog loop has required a steep financial investment but that's what it takes for it to beat the best all-digital processing. You need the highest-rated analog pieces and the best possible conversion. The proverbial YMMV.

www.arfdigital.com

[lucey]

Originally Posted by crabtwins

Hello this is my first post.

Hope its not a loaded question folks. Just reading a Bob Katz book and maybe I should finish the book first but how is this done? You would output say from PC to tape? then record back to PC just to get that elusive ANALOG sound? Just wondering if that is the idea.

thanks

In addition to analog processing options, analog loops avoid digital sample rate conversion.

[Andy Krehm]

Originally Posted by lucey

In addition to analog processing options, analog loops avoid digital sample rate conversion.

That's an interesting point.

My question and concern would be that since most audio being mastered needs to have some digital processing after the DAC, possibly eq, or maybe just a gain change and almost always some kind of a peak limiter, wouldn't that be better accomplished at the same sample rate as the session and then lastly SRC to 16b/44.1k?

I'm asking because I just bought a Lavry 3000s real time SRC and that is how I planned to use it. However, it sounds like you are saying that going into my LavryGold ADC at 16b/44.1k, followed by whatever digital processing is needed would sound better because there would be no SRC.

I'd be interested in comments on this.

Thanks,

Andy,

Silverbirch Productions.

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by Andy Krehm

I'm asking because I just bought a Lavry 3000s real time SRC and that is how I planned to use it. However, it sounds like you are saying that going into my LavryGold ADC at 16b/44.1k, followed by whatever digital processing is needed would sound better because there would be no SRC.

There are times when capturing at 44.1 kHz after the analog chain is preferable, but there is no reason to capture at 16 bit as opposed to 24 bits. The wordlength reduction is not the same as SRC (Sample Rate Conversion) and is simply accomplished with the dither of your choice. This preserves resolution for any fades, crossfades, or last minute gain changes you may be doing after your processing chain once it's in your DAW.

However, with something like the Lavry 3000, I wouldn't worry too much about the SRC. That's certainly one of the finest available. I used one for a couple years when DC and I worked together. Doing your A to D at 96k, following that with digital limiting also at 96k, and then using the Lavry 3000 to SRC to 44.1 (but still 24 bit - don't reduce bit depth to 16 'til you're making the DDP or CD from your DAW) could offer an advantage, especially with certain limiters. Some of the artifacts (distortion from nonlinear processes like compression and limiting) will actually be filtered out at the time of SRC and you may actually see an improvement.

This won't necessarily work with any old cheap SRC however, and YMMV depending on your exact gear and application. However, this is worth trying. If you have a Weiss EQ or limiter, staying at 96k in the chain will prevent the internal upsample/dpwnsample as well, and this could conceivably offer an advantage since you will only have one SRC at the end. There are many variables as you can see. It's hard to make sweeping generalizations, but there are several things to recommend both approaches in certain cases, so see what works best with your chain and your workflow. I use both techniques at different times.

[Andy Krehm]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

There are times when capturing at 44.1 kHz after the analog chain is preferable, but there is no reason to capture at 16 bit as opposed to 24 bits. The wordlength reduction is not the same as SRC (Sample Rate Conversion) and is simply accomplished with the dither of your choice. This preserves resolution for any fades, crossfades, or last minute gain changes you may be doing after your processing chain once it's in your DAW.

However, with something like the Lavry 3000, I wouldn't worry too much about the SRC. That's certainly one of the finest available. I used one for a couple years when DC and I worked together. Doing your A to D at 96k, following that with digital limiting also at 96k, and then using the Lavry 3000 to SRC to 44.1 (but still 24 bit - don't reduce bit depth to 16 'til you're making the DDP or CD from your DAW) could offer an advantage, especially with certain limiters. Some of the artifacts (distortion from nonlinear processes like compression and limiting) will actually be filtered out at the time of SRC and you may actually see an improvement.

This won't necessarily work with any old cheap SRC however, and YMMV depending on your exact gear and application. However, this is worth trying. If you have a Weiss EQ or limiter, staying at 96k in the chain will prevent the internal upsample/dpwnsample as well, and this could conceivably offer an advantage since you will only have one SRC at the end. There are many variables as you can see. It's hard to make sweeping generalizations, but there are several things to recommend both approaches in certain cases, so see what works best with your chain and your workflow. I use both techniques at different times.

Jay:

Thanks for your very thoughtful response.

Normally, I would just try these variations myself but I'm a bit boxed in at the moment.

Although every piece of outboard gear in my studio is top of the line pro mastering caliber, I'm still using Pro Tools HD and Mac OSX, but only to play and record. I don't have any issues with the sound of the HD system but the software does not allow recording multiple sample rates into the same session and therefore if I'm mastering a 24b/96k session and recording back in to PTs, it has to remain at the same rate. I do have the option to dither on the way back in, of course, but that's it.

With this set-up, I can only sample rate convert with software and the Lavry 3000s will remain in its box until I decide to either replace the computer and software with something that will allow me to SRC in real time or until I decide to get a 2nd computer to record into. In fact, I probably wouldn't have bought the 3000s at the moment except that by buying it, a round trip of Gold and the DA 10 I got a great price and could not resist! So now, I have to figure out the best way to implement this fine looking unit.

I have refined my version of the PTs software, except for writing CDs (Waveburner as a sequencing//writing program works fine for me), and have tricked it into thinking it is mastering software. However, now I can see that I have pushed it as far as it can go, at least if I want to get into the subtleties of real time SRC!

Andy,

Silverbirch Productions.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by lucey

In addition to analog processing options, analog loops avoid digital sample rate conversion.

Which is not always a GOOD thing. D/A/D is a losssy process just as much as an SRC.

There's been an interesting progression in digital technology and in converter technology over the past 20 years. In the beginning, a D/A/D chain was far better-sounding (and more transparent) than the earliest SRCs that were available. As the years progressed, the SRCs beat the sound of a D/A/D. This transition occurred around 2000 or so with the advent of the Weiss and DCS SRC boxes. Now, it's coming around again, as D/A and A/D converters have gotten audibly better, the classic idea that a D/A/D chain is very lossy has gotten to be less of a problem, and now a top-notch D/A/D chain can give a good SRC a run for the money, but let's get into more detail on what that means.

Both SRC and D/A/D involve requantizing. You'll find many engineers, including me, who've done the tests and it can be shown that a modern-day SRC (on the order of a Weiss) is more transparent sonically than going D/A/D, even with the world's best D/A/D chain. If the ONLY thing you are doing is trying to accomplish a transparent SRC with no other processing, then objectively (and subjectively) then I recommend an SRC on the order of Weiss or R8Brain, DCS, and a couple of others. However, if you are needing to analog process, or looking for a slight or strong coloration, and if the slight coloration of the D/A/D chain sounds better to you, then an excellent D/A/D chain does a very nice job and may subjectively sound better to you than the SRC (though less transparent).

For example.... For some reason (probably having to do with euphonic distortion), over here, patching through the HEDD (process bypassed) and a pair of Trakkers (process bypassed) seems to widen the sound and make it slightly warmer. Sometimes this warmth (or loss of transparency, if you will) is very attractive, and sometimes it's not. I have to make that decision individually for each project I do. But that D/A/D path is definitely not "transparent", it's just a "nice-sounding and desirable analog chain".

To my listening tests (and many other mastering engineers will agree with me) there is no D/A/D chain that's audibly as transparent as a Weiss or DCS SRC. So don't denigrate a good digital SRC; the best of them are far more transparent and often don't take the sound downhill as much as a D/A/D chain. To summarize, if you are looking for transparency, get the best standalone digital SRC possible. If you are looking for desirable color, get the best D/A/D chain possible. Less than the best of either of the above and you get into arguments over which loss sounds less worse :-)

[lucey]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Which is not always a GOOD thing. D/A/D is a losssy process just as much as an SRC. ...

If you are looking for desirable color, get the best D/A/D chain possible. Less than the best of either of the above and you get into arguments over which loss sounds less worse :-)

Yes, got the Weiss or Lavry or such converters...


Yet great analog EQ and comp/lims have a qualitatively positive effect on the signal that is not available digitally. To call that "color" is naive and disrespectful to that technology.

Great analog makes any potential loss from the loop a moot point. Not to mention that 95 out of 100 people will never hear the loss with a great loop ... AND any single knob turn in processing will be more powerful than most HQ analog mastering loops.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by lucey

Yes, got the Weiss or Lavry or such converters...


Yet great analog EQ and comp/lims have a qualitatively positive effect on the signal that is not available digitally. To call that "color" is naive and disrespectful to that technology.

I guess you feel offended by the dryness of the words I chose to use to make it short and sweet (who's got the time to sit and type all day). Just because I boiled it down to the words "colored" or "euphonically colored" doesn't mean that spending $15,000 on an equalizer isn't worth it! I LOVE MY CRANESONG Trakkers! Does that make you feel better ;-)

Great analog makes any potential loss from the loop a moot point.

That's BS. Totally untrue. I never add salt and pepper automatically to my food without tasting it. Around here we carefully evaluate the choice of chain depending on the mix and the source. And the analog chain wins sometimes, the digital chain or the hybrid chain others.

You're also denigrating the many fine mastering engineers who get and have gotten not just good, but absolutely GREAT results from an all-digital chain. You're offending Glenn Meadows, Bob Ludwig, Ted Jensen, Bob Katz, Alan Silverman, all of whom have and often use(d) all-digital chains and are not afraid to talk about it. I get plenty of recordings and especially 1/2" analog mixes that have gone through "just enough analog gear", and which benefit from a more transparent approach to the mastering chain. I also get recordings which benefit from a hybrid chain.

Same is true for the source. Once in a while, a client's 9624 mixdown is the better choice for the source than the 1/2" they also send.

A really good digital processing chain operated by a knowledgeable operator can sound "warm, full and beautiful and spacious" (like those words?). The magic is in the skill of the user. With a properly-skilled mastering engineer, you would not be able to tell what kind of processing was used on any master. Around here it's NEVER a win-win situation.

The digital tools are available to get sonic greatness---if you have the skill set to use them. For example, try the System 6000's MD4 in parallel compression mode, adding a dB or two of low frequency bias on the gains. Magic? No... but "analog" warmth--yes indeed.

BK

[lucey]

Originally Posted by bob katz

I guess you feel offended by the dryness of the words I chose to use to make it short and sweet (who's got the time to sit and type all day). Just because I boiled it down to the words "colored" or "euphonically colored" doesn't mean that spending $15,000 on an equalizer isn't worth it! I LOVE MY CRANESONG Trakkers! Does that make you feel better ;-)

The Trakkers are cool limiters, but they lacked something and I sold mine 3-4 years ago for the STC-8, then sold that last year for the TFPRO p38 (cleaner) and the Requisite L2M (transformers and tubes) and the LTD-2s (aggressive mids with transformers - grabby).

As you're well known as a digital guy ("Digital Domain", right?) I was just pointing out that analog loops are not by definition a loss, they're often a gain.... and analog processing is not just "color", as in distortion ... it can also be a 'quality' change that masks the source in a good way. Assuming the same operator and eq/limiting direction, digital is at best a qualitative neutrality. Analog can mask the recording process for good or bad, and often bump it up with a better chain than was used initially. That's the kind of work I get. Never yet heard something that was good enough or smashed enough to stay digital.

That's BS. Totally untrue. I never add salt and pepper automatically to my food without tasting it.

I never said you did, but you have a digital bias in the language.

Around here we carefully evaluate the choice of chain depending on the mix and the source. And the analog chain wins sometimes, the digital chain or the hybrid chain others.

Um, right ... and do you think you're the only ME working that way?

Further, do you think a pair of Trakkers or an STC-8 qualifies as an analog mastering chain that imparts a major upgrade in sound quality over D-D? Have you tried everything analog? I haven't tried nearly as many digital things as you have but I doubt you've heard as many analog chains in combo as I have.

You're also denigrating the many fine mastering engineers who get and have gotten not just good, but absolutely GREAT results from an all-digital chain. You're offending Glenn Meadows, Bob Ludwig, Ted Jensen, Bob Katz, Alan Silverman, all of whom have and often use(d) all-digital chains and are not afraid to talk about it. I get plenty of recordings and especially 1/2" analog mixes that have gone through "just enough analog gear", and which benefit from a more transparent approach to the mastering chain. I also get recordings which benefit from a hybrid chain.

"Denigrating" and "offending" ??? Wow Bob, chill out. I'm offending no one. You're now name dropping to try and prove some point about digital that is lost on me at this juncture. What is your point?

My simple point was that an analog loop is not a distortion or "color" device, and a digital pass is not perfection. Each has it's thing. You used a pro-digital bias in the language above that I refuted, and then I agreed with you that the DA and AD are very important to making analog loops work.

Same is true for the source. Once in a while, a client's 9624 mixdown is the better choice for the source than the 1/2" they also send.

Assuming a good mixer and if they mixed it listening to Repro that's unlikely, as the tape is part of the mix ... if they mixed it listening to the converters, yes that's very likely, as the tape is distorting the intended mix. You wouldn't put tape on a mix last minute just like you wouldn't put a compressor on it last minute, and not expect it to change.

A really good digital processing chain operated by a knowledgeable operator can sound "warm, full and beautiful and spacious" (like those words?). The magic is in the skill of the user. With a properly-skilled mastering engineer, you would not be able to tell what kind of processing was used on any master. Around here it's NEVER a win-win situation.

The digital tools are available to get sonic greatness---if you have the skill set to use them. For example, try the System 6000's MD4 in parallel compression mode, adding a dB or two of low frequency bias on the gains. Magic? No... but "analog" warmth--yes indeed.

Sure, digtal works fine amazing source material, or for heavily smashed source material.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by lucey

As you're well known as a digital guy ("Digital Domain", right?)

Hey, Lucey, your tone struck me as abrasive and I responded as cooly as I could. I did the opposite from you, I replaced my STC-8s with a pair of Trakkers, so you can see we each have our opinions.

To get a picture of how I think and not leap to conclusions like you have in the past couple of posts, you'd have to read my book cover to cover. That's the fullest context you can get. You'll find customized and rebuilt analog tube electronics here as well as souped-up digital gear.

My objection was to your saying that a good analog processing chain ALWAYS (my interpretation of your words) makes up for the losses of the converters. Because it does not. Mastering is the art of compromise, and it boggles the mind to conceive that the compromise always falls ont he side of the analog processing chain. The losses of the D/A/D portion of the chain have to be made up by the analog processing tools inserted in that chain, but it is rarely a win-win situation---that's where we disagree.

Demonstration of compromise:

Oh, the transients are a bit less defined in that patch, but oh, so sweet the sound. I'll go with the analog, because overall it sounds better.

I've taken apart and rebuilt and designed so much analog AND digital gear that I know where most of the bodies are buried.

Just remember that my writing speaks for itself and context is everything, which is why you must not take my short post out of context with abrasive remarks, especially "digital bias".

If they mixed it in Repro, that's unlikely, as the tape is part of the mix ... if they mixed it listening to the converters, yes that's very likely, as the tape is distorting (or your word "coloring") the mix. You wouldn't put tape on a mix last minute just like you wouldn't put a compressor on it last minute.

Implying that the mix engineer's work is always so perfect that their original decision to prefer analog tape over digital is always the right one? Not always. Clients come to me with both options because they respect my opinion. Opinions made not lightly in a room with far-more refined acoustics and equipment than in the average mixing room.

Sure, digtal works fine amazing source material, or for heavily smashed source material.

And the world of in-between? You're painting with much too broad strokes; "digital works fine" implies there is a single sound called "digital". I wish it were that simple.

Context, context, context.

[lucey]

Um, please explain how my posts were "abrasive" and "leaping to conclusions" and "insulting" ... seems to me you're leaping. I'm commenting on your posts and the topic at hand.

If anything your tone here is authoritative on subjective topics and condescending to other MEs. That was my beef in that other topic today: stop insulting MEs who do what clients ask for, limiting. My beef in this post is: stop assuming that analog is inferior. If you dont mean that your words do lean that way.

And thanks for the plug on your book, I was unaware you wrote one


p.s. My tone is NOW becoming abrasive

[AdamJay]

:::: gets popcorn ::::

[lucey]

Originally Posted by AdamJay

:::: gets popcorn ::::

not today bro ... back hurts, and music to be made

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by lucey

Um, please explain how my posts were "abrasive" and "leaping to conclusions" and "insulting" ... seems to me you're leaping. I'm commenting on your posts and the topic at hand.

Let's start with your calling me "naive"... if you want to insult someone who's got a list of credits six pages long, call him naive.

And you tend to read apparent meanings into my posts out of context. My post was aimed directly at mastering engineers who default to "loud" strictly for pecuniary reasons, even before the client asks for it, and not esthetic ones. If the shoe fits, then the insult applies.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Let's start with your calling me "naive"... if you want to insult someone who's got a list of credits six pages long, call him naive.

And you tend to read apparent meanings into my posts out of context. My post was aimed directly at mastering engineers who default to "loud" strictly for pecuniary reasons, even before the client asks for it, and not esthetic ones. If the shoe fits, then the insult applies.

Hi Bob...

First please please please understand how much 99.99% of the Gearslutz audience loves having you here.

It is a downright honor and pleasure reading your posts (I go out of my way to track your new posts down just like I do with a few other GS members). I know it can get frustrating around these parts from time to time but I think I speak for most when I say thank you for taking time to post here!!

Please remember to take some posts with a grain of salt. Written word can be very confusing and intentions can be easily misconstrued as I am sure you know. I just don't want you to be chased away from here as a few other high class and highly talented people have been by a few difficult posts.



Peace love and Woodstock!

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by not_so_new

Hi Bob...

First please please please understand how much 99.99% of the Gearslutz audience loves having you here.

It is a downright honor and pleasure reading your posts (I go out of my way to track your new posts down just like I do with a few other GS members). I know it can get frustrating around these parts from time to time but I think I speak for most when I say thank you for taking time to post here!!

Please remember to take some posts with a grain of salt. Written word can be very confusing and intentions can be easily misconstrued as I am sure you know. I just don't want you to be chased away from here as a few other high class and highly talented people have been by a few difficult posts.

Peace love and Woodstock!

Hi, Michael. Thanks for your wonderful thoughts and summary. It's a very nice community here, and once in a while, just through the use of simple words, someone is going to rub someone else the wrong way. For example, my use of the word "color" as a general overall "shortcut term" to describe the wonderful world of analog rubbed Brian the wrong way. But I got very angry at his use of "naive" and "disrespectful" and it affected the entire tone and emotion that I used to respond to his points.

If you look back at the thread. It started with some excellent replies by Jay Frigoletto that answered the original question and stood very well on its own. I didn't feel I had any reason to add anything until Lucey, with an obvious entirely-analog bias (do you feel it?) made claims that say:

----you can only get "the sound" through an analog chain (which is not true---"ONLY" is the problem here)

---digital processing is only at best good for transparent or neutral results (which is patently untrue)

---the compromise of a D/A/D patch is ALWAYS made up by the advantages of the analog processors in the patch (which is also untrue). In fact, mastering is the art of balancing objective degradation against subjective improvement. And it would be "naive" and "disrespectful to the technology" to say that a D/A/D chain is always going to make the sound better.

In the process of trying to stuff his point down my throat, he ignored one of the most powerful short posts I've ever made, which tells you how to warm up a recording using a multiband parallel compressor. It doesn't have to be digital, but there isn't currently any multiband parallel compressor on the market. The Drawmer analog crossover box (very clever) would allow you to build one yourself, though. I use the MD4 for this purpose quite often, and it often completely replaces several stages in my analog chain, quite well, thank you! It's simultaneously transparent, invisible, and can be "colored", all at the same time.

I'm technology-neutral. I've spent my entire life studying and even philosophying how and why each piece of analog and digital gear and technology produces the sounds that it does---and I think I've come closer than many people, to describing in print how the gear works, how to use the gear and get the sounds you are looking for. In the past few months, on little sleep, mostly on furtive weekends and with the help of my assistant so I could earn a living in the mastering room, I've---

---custom-built a D/A converter in a box using a board from Dave Hill, built a custom multi-frequency Sample rate converter using the Crystal Semiconductor 8421 eval board and some glue logic, replaced the coupling capacitors in an aging piece of tube gear, written a monthly article for Resolution Magazine, and still managed to do posting here.

Talk about burnout. I'm sorry if I offended Brian Lucey or hurt the tone of this excellent place---but it was in response to feeling rather offended by his manner and some patently arguable points of logic and untrue statements on his part.

BK

[Nigel Jopson]

Originally Posted by bob katz

In the process of trying to stuff his point down my throat, he ignored one of the most powerful short posts I've ever made, which tells you how to warm up a recording using a multiband parallel compressor.
BK

Bob - that was one seriously, seriously good tip. The MD4/TC has it's flaws, but your advice on using it in this way just demonstrates that it ain't just the gear ... it's how you use it!

You will just have to cheer yourself up by opening a King James Version and turning to Matthew 7:6 ...

[not_so_new]

Hi Bob.

Great post and great points.

Talk about burnout. I'm sorry if I offended Brian Lucey or hurt the tone of this excellent place---but it was in response to feeling rather offended by his manner and some patently arguable points of logic and untrue statements on his part.

How to put this. First I like reading Brian's posts as well as yours, seems like a good guy. Let's just say that he can be a bit abrasive in some of his posts (sorry Brian it is true but I don't say it to call you out). I think he is probably a great guy in person but his words are misconstrued in print and that can cause a little hostility where there was none intended (at least I think it usually starts out with good intentions).

Anyway I just don't want you to feel that you are not appreciated here, you are.

Thanks again for posting and contributing.

[Masterer]

Originally Posted by bob katz

In fact, mastering is the art of balancing objective degradation against subjective improvement.

Hits nail on head.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by bob katz

Talk about burnout. I'm sorry if I offended Brian Lucey or hurt the tone of this excellent place---but it was in response to feeling rather offended by his manner and some patently arguable points of logic and untrue statements on his part.
BK

Bob I was never offended, I was just disagreeing with you. I'm also sorry if you're offended by my tone. I'm direct, but I dont mean to offend. I would think some debate with your strong views would add to this excellent place? No? If your opinions are water tight there is nothing but gain for you to have a debate patsy, right?

Let's start with your calling me "naive"... if you want to insult someone who's got a list of credits six pages long, call him naive.

To have one thought, is not to be naive in the whole. I never called you a naive person, but you do make mistakes, right? My point was that IF analog is being chosen to process for it's sound, and great AD DA is being used, the chain is a NET GAIN and any 'loss' that would be saved with D-D is non-existent. Period. Simple. The End.

Some people carry the view that once digitized, even by a shitty converter, audio is somehow 'perfected' and D-D processing after that point is inherently better and any DA AD is a loss. If great analog is used this is untrue. Untrue UNLESS the initial audio is AMAZINGLY AMAZING in the first place or SMASHED BADLY to where any analog processing will only make it worse. That was my point.

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by Masterer

Hits nail on head
In fact, mastering is the art of balancing objective degradation against subjective improvement.

I believe that's a Bob Olhsson quote!

DC

[crabtwins]

Hey guys,

Just imagine how I feel. I'm just learning about mastering and producing and here all this action. The question was spawned from the Katz book and here he comes answering some questions. Whoa.... anyway this is a great forum hope to learn more.

thanks

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by dcollins

I believe that's a Bob Olhsson quote!

DC

Yes it is. And I give him a big headline with it in my book. It's one of the best one-liners I've seen in a long time. I didn't quote him in my particular post, but usually I do if I use the line. I almost never quote someone without giving him/her credit, unless it would completely spoil the flow of the conversation.

How about a good, juicy quote from DC that's that good it should go in a book?

BK

[Masterer]

Originally Posted by Masterer

Hits nail on head.

[Bob O.] hits nail on head!


Sorry for the brief pissing contest interruption.

Continue please.


P.S. For what it's worth BK, I agree with your view on this.

Whatever.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by Masterer

P.S. For what it's worth BK, I agree with your view on this.

Whatever.

I also agree with Bob O ... that's a great thought.

[alexstringer]

I like to watch titans fighting...
I've loved it since the first time i saw the Black and White version of King Kong ( fighting the Dinausor )when i was a kid ...

[Haigbabe]

I thought that all of what Bob Katz said was lucid, instructive and very helpful.

And I thank him for taking his time to post.

Haigbabe

PS I love my Weiss SFC2!

PPS I love my Gambits and wish I could get the DNA as I've tried the K-stereo system on it and love it! Bravo Bob.