| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
 Posted - 02/20/2008 : 19:53:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by R o � k G 0 1 f
And, Sean, where do you get CD's from Canada shipped to the lands down under for less than $10US?
From here. It won't be much use to you unless you're interested in underground black metal and folk/pagan metal. Most of the order I received yesterday was Arkona and Pagan Reign (Russian folk metal). |
 |
|
|
RockGolf
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 20:54:47
|
And you paid $4000 for a CD player to pick up the subtle musical nuances of Russian Pagan Metal?
For that kind of money, the player should tune the band's guitars, and at least make the vocalist sound like he cleared his throat before, not throughout singing the song. And I use the words "song" and "singing" loosely.
(Would making a "Sean of the Deaf" joke be going too far?) |
Edited by - RockGolf on 02/20/2008 20:56:03 |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 21:18:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by R o � k G 0 1 f
And, Sean, where do you get CD's from Canada shipped to the lands down under for less than $10US?
From here. It won't be much use to you unless you're interested in underground black metal and folk/pagan metal. Most of the order I received yesterday was Arkona and Pagan Reign (Russian folk metal).
Y'know... I'm starting to think it was quite fortunate you didn't invite me around your place in August  |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 22:36:46
|
 I listen to a lot of styles of music, but am going through a massive metal binge over the last 2-3 years. 
I also listen to stuff like Arvo P�rt, where you can hear the orchestra members turning their score pages, the occasional accidental tap of a violin bow on a stand, and perhaps even hear someone breathing. Late at night on a winter evening with the lights off and eyes shut and a glass or port, is when a decent system really pays for itself. 
One of the reasons I got the CD player that I did instead of one half the price was that sopranos started to sound a bit 'glassy' through the cheaper (but still pretty damn good) player. |
|
|
|
RockGolf
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 23:54:54
|
| OK. Makes more sense. I thought my collection ranging from Vaughn Monroe to Emimem was extreme. |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 01:00:43
|
| What is happening here is that the record business is returning to the pre-rock days, when the single matters more than the album. Good or bad, it's a sea change. |
|
|
|
RockGolf
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 03:37:38
|
Absolutely, Randall, and to my mind a good thing. For too much of the 80's & 90's we were forced to buy albums for one track as there was no other way to get that song. But who could actually listen to a full album of Chumbawomba (Tubthumping), OMC (How Bizarre) or Primitive Radio Gods (Standing Outside A Broken Phone Booth)? The other half was that record companies stopped looking for album-oriented artists who didn't need a hit single. Gone were the long tracks of Yes, Emerson Lake & Palmer or King Crimson. Nowadays everything is between 3:00 and 4:30 except for dance mixes.
In Canada, the Canadian Recording Industry Association is recommending a $5/month surcharge on all internet users, and effectively legalizing peer-to-peer downloading. While I think five bucks is kinda greedy given the number of users who don't download a thing, I could see a $1-2 charge as being reasonable. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/23/2008 : 01:24:56
|
Talking of new technology, I went to see U2 3D tonight and was quite impressed. I couldn't see it in three dimensions, as I can't see anything in three dimensions, but I was expecting to just be watching it in red whereas actually it looked quite normal - both lenses looked the same colour. With the glasses on, I could still faintly see the left-hand image in some places, but only because I was looking for it.
How does it work? And how does it compare to three-dimensional vision in real life? |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 02/23/2008 : 04:55:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
You know what? Skip getting an HD TV, this is what we all need to get...
http://freshome.com/2008/02/07/jeremy-kipnis%e2%80%99-6000000-home-theater/
Nice. Except that it looks ugly.  I'd want all that stuff hidden. Except for the screen obviously. 
I also find it hard to believe that it could have cost anything like $6 million, even for top-of-the range audiophile gear. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 02/23/2008 : 05:11:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Talking of new technology, I went to see U2 3D tonight and was quite impressed. I couldn't see it in three dimensions, as I can't see anything in three dimensions, but I was expecting to just be watching it in red whereas actually it looked quite normal - both lenses looked the same colour. With the glasses on, I could still faintly see the left-hand image in some places, but only because I was looking for it.
How does it work? And how does it compare to three-dimensional vision in real life?
Sorry if I've misunderstood, but I take it you have serious vision impairment in one eye?
3D movies these days work through polarisation, the colourless lenses in the glasses are polarised in different directions and each allows through a slightly different image, the same concept as the old red/green coloured lenses which allow through only a specific colour.
In each case the brain creates a 3D image because each eye sees something slightly different, as it does when looking at real objects. The effect is quite realistic, I distinctly remember ducking at one movie when something came flying out of the screen towards me. I haven't seen a 3D flick for 20 years or so though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 02/23/2008 : 10:35:12
|
I also can't see the full 3D effect in these movies. I believe it may be because of my dyslexia, I see all the red and blue shadows around the images and nothing comes out looking really clear, but I do get some of the depth. I figure my dyslexic brain can't get the two images to work together properly.
I was hoping that technology would fix this but it hasn't. The first 3D movie I saw was at Expo '67 in Montreal - I couldn't see anything at all then. In 1992 at Disneyland there was a Michael Jackson 3D feature (before he got really wierd and scary) and again, I was the only one who didn't enjoy it, but it was a touch better. Then two years ago at Paris Disneyworld there was a Muppet 3D movie. That time I finally got a bit of the depth, but the images were still fuzzy and with the red/blue shadow outlines. Oh well, that's life I guess.
|
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 02/23/2008 : 13:08:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I also can't see the full 3D effect in these movies. I believe it may be because of my dyslexia, I see all the red and blue shadows around the images and nothing comes out looking really clear, but I do get some of the depth. I figure my dyslexic brain can't get the two images to work together properly.
I was hoping that technology would fix this but it hasn't. The first 3D movie I saw was at Expo '67 in Montreal - I couldn't see anything at all then. In 1992 at Disneyland there was a Michael Jackson 3D feature (before he got really wierd and scary) and again, I was the only one who didn't enjoy it, but it was a touch better. Then two years ago at Paris Disneyworld there was a Muppet 3D movie. That time I finally got a bit of the depth, but the images were still fuzzy and with the red/blue shadow outlines. Oh well, that's life I guess.
Actually I heard the director of U23D being interviewed and she said this is a different process of achieving the 3D effect, which most critics have rated above the film's content. So, you and Salopian may find an improvement.
I believe you still have to wear the funny glasses for the moment, but she said the tekkies are working on a way to eliminate them.
I want holograms and I want them now!
|
|
|
|
silly
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 02/23/2008 : 15:14:00
|
We saw 'Meet the Robinsons' and the 3D was quite impressive, not too distracting to me.
I wear glasses all the time, so I was pleasantly surprised that the pair we received to see the movie were oversised and designed to fit over existing glasses. It was the polarised thing, I guess, unless Disney does it any differently. The glasses were substantial enough that we had to pay a buck or so to get them, but they said they'd work for future movies (and probably would if the kids hadn't methodically broken them afterward)
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 02/23/2008 : 16:40:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
You know what? Skip getting an HD TV, this is what we all need to get...
http://freshome.com/2008/02/07/jeremy-kipnis%e2%80%99-6000000-home-theater/
Nice. Except that it looks ugly. I'd want all that stuff hidden. Except for the screen obviously.
I guess the point is that the only time you're in there, the lights are off. Still, I really like the layout- it's OTT and bonkers but very tidy and symmetrical. Seriously, a set up like that, I could happily sit there mouth agape for hours. It's a home cinema geek's wet dream- I mean, what's the point of having that much kit and nobody being able to see any of it? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
And the winner is..... Blu-Ray!
