oldtimer Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Here's a short one: Beerfest (2006)This is one the worst and silliest movies ever made. Therefore it is a must see. Let's face it, movies are a big waste of time, and your time will be supremely wasted on this one. So watch it over and over again. Maybe you thought getting stoned and listening to music was bad for you? Maybe it is but this is worse. I can't recommend it enough it is really that bad. If you haven't seen it yet, when you do, just remember who sent 'ya.Ever hear the one about the dad who told his son "if you don't quit masturbating, you'll go blind?" The son said, "dad, I'm over here." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Ninja Cheerleaders (2008)This movie is billed as a comedy, but is more of a caricature of itself. By the end you are left smiling with maybe a little chuckle for the experience, but it's not so much funny as it is silly. Who cares. What this hour and 21 minute flick has is eye candy! The three ninja cheerleader gals are smokin' hot in a natural way compared to many of the cookie cutter actresses we see too much of these days. You will find yourself picking a favorite as you watch, much like we all did with the original charlie's angels on tv. My personal fave is Trishelle Cannatella, which sounds like something you might order at an italian restaurant. All I can say to that is what a dish! Rent it, steal it, whatever but watch it for some good wholesome fun. Oh yeah, Sulu has a part in it too.Memorable quote: Say it! (I have tiny balls). Say it like you mean it! (I have tiny balls).Easy on the eyes, this one gets a 1 on the 1 to 5 pain scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 For example, George R R Martin has been hailed as the "american Tolkien." Hardly. I'm well into book five of Game of Thrones and he is not even close. If true, it is a sad commentary on american novelists, even fantasy novelists. So, when you render an opinion - a subjective analysis - it is valid. When anyone else does, it is "BS". Is that the point you are making? No. That is not the point I am making. It's all BS (99.9%). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Heavy Metal.This is an animated piece of cinema from 1981 that you might compare as a late 70's early 80's Fantasia for rockers. And you know the general likes his cartoons. It is comprised of several vignettes as narrated by a green glowing orb that is naturally the sum of all evils. Those who are unfortunate enough to hold it are invariably melted. Songs in the show are from such stand-outs as Riggs, Blue Oyster Cult, Donald Fagen, Stevie Nicks, Journey, Cheap Trick, Don Felder, Grand Funk Railroad, Nazareth, Sammy Hagar, Trust, Black Sabbath, and Devo.The animation is definitely retro by today's standards, but hey, it's a retro movie so get over it. There are some super shagadelic psychedelic backgrounds, a la that stuff they put up on screens behind bands from the sixties during live performances.Following the magazine from which it's derived, the stories are all futuristic or post futuristic or just plain fantasy, and include such lovable characters as stoner aliens, cab drivers, geeky scientists, zombies, bizarre aliens, and robots.Memorable quote: earth women who experience sexual ecstasy with the aid of mechanical devices always feel guilty.Ok, it's time for the summary:This film contains boobitecture, cockitecture, and planet of the apesitecture. One vehicle chase, two vehicle crashes.Kung fu, cab fu, sword fu, club fu, B-17 fu, zombie fu, beer mug fu, whip fu, bat fu, and dremel hand fu.3 pu55ies47 breasts28.5 butt cheeks4 beheadingsIn the end, the house blows up, like in all good stories. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 That's nonsensical. So a television or camera can accurately "playback" art, but a good audio system can't. Where do you people come up with this crap, and how and why did you get into this hobby? Dean, pump the brakes. He was clearly referring to audio equipment as visual art. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) "Dean, pump the brakes. He was clearly referring to audio equipment as visual art." I see, then could someone please help me understand how the statement is relevent to the discussion. Edited February 7, 2014 by DeanG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Still looking for the .01% nugget? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) You guys are funny -- the point is simple -- we spend a lot time here talking about things. Some of that time is spent, or should be spent, talking about our systems, and how the things we add or change, effect the sound. For better or worse, we are stuck with words, mostly adjectives, in an attempt to describe what we're hearing. The words fall short, but it's all we have. Are we really dealing with a situation here where people can't even use the most basic of terminology to describe what they like to hear in their systems? If you aren't capable of doing this, or don't believe subjective analysis or opinions have any merit, then can I suggest that you might be on the wrong type of forum. I mean, what is the point of an audio forum -- oh yeah, "hey dude, tighten them screws down a bit". Edited February 7, 2014 by DeanG 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Dean, think of the "visual art" of audio systems as thick, expensive cables proudly displayed on risers, or blue power meters, or shiny cnc'd chassis, etc. Stuff that is irrelevant to sonics, but appeals more to the owners sense of vanity. The language problem is simply conflating engineering and function with the art and interpretation. Some of the more whimsical views expressed by some in this thread require such disregard of the distinction. Edited February 7, 2014 by Ski Bum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Crikey. Mark is still on trying to sell his views on what is objective and what is subjective and is barely being heard over the mosh pit out front. It's a hoot, that's what it is! Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 lol, yeah, pretty much. Ski Bum, yeah, I get it -- but again, what does it have to do with what we're talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Ahhh. It's not the value I or anyone else assigns to their opinion. It's the value others assign. It's subjective eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) So Dave, have you ever read a novel, a book of poetry, or a critique of either? Yep. "Horton Hears a Who," "Mother Goose Rhymes," and "Subjectivity in Kierkegaard: A Reassessment" On the last one, I presume you would believe him to have actually been an objectivist given his statement: "An objective uncertainty held fast in an appropriation-process of the most passionate inwardness is the truth, the highest truth attainable for an existing individual" There you have it, friends. As to the book, I liked it. Dave Edited February 7, 2014 by Mallette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Dear Mark, You really would not like my criteria for sound equipment - acceptable or unacceptable. To me, audiophile glossolalia is unacceptable because it is not precise enough to describe what is heard accurately enough for me to make sense of. For example, "sheen" is not a word descriptive of an audio event; it describes an oil slick floating on water. Sheen is not a good thing, IMO. How about "air". The only relationship to audio is that the musician playing a wind instrument blows air through his instrument in order to make a sound. An examination of the dictionary does give definitions of air as related to music, however. It says "A melody or tune" or "a solo part without accompaniment". Is it any wonder why the majority of people think audio enthusiasts are all a bunch of wierdos? Dear Don, Have you ever read a book of poetry? A novel? A critique of either? Poetry? Not since they made me do that in school. Novels? I recently read a couple of murder mysteries. A critique of either? Why would I even want to read a critique? Edited February 7, 2014 by Don Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Don is very clear. Only the measurements matter. You are unclear. You say you use subjectivity, but I can't see a single sign of it. You are waffling trying to cover both bases. I am trying to get you to commit the way Don has. I never said that. However, I tried to make it clear that measurements are very important when dealing with technical matters. They can also lead to improvements in ones audio system if used properly, a fact that you consistently either miss or dismiss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 How about you, Dave. Have you ever read a book of poetry, a novel, or a critique of either? Dave? How about it? I have...I don't understand how it pertains to cables and speaker wire. In this analogy wouldn't it be like critiquing the paper these opinions were written on? Before repeating a lot of things, have you read all the posts before the one you are quoting? Wow, look who's talking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 We want the playback kit to playback the art and the emotive element it invokes. Isn't music still "art"? Music is art but the components and accessories to play it back isn't unless we are talking about visual art. That's nonsensical. So a television or camera can accurately "playback" art, but a good audio system can't. Where do you people come up with this crap, and how and why did you get into this hobby? You get a D- in reading comprehension. He is talking about a piece of audio equipment that looks good, as many of them do. That's subjective and YMMV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Don, something for you over in the Lounge under "Bumper Stickers and Cables" Dave Edited February 7, 2014 by Mallette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 lol, yeah, pretty much. Ski Bum, yeah, I get it -- but again, what does it have to do with what we're talking about? It's relevant because it made a point I agree with one that just happens to be true. Specifically, the point was that a playback system is a reductive exercise to access the art, not the art itself (unless it is by virtue of being it's own visual art). It's the false attribution of artistic qualities to passive things like speaker wire where the confusion lies. I have yet to see any supporting evidence of how speaker cables would create a more compelling soundstage or liquidity, for example. Yet all of Mark's arguments assume this is the case, and roll with it. It's called 'begging the question' and it's a logical fallacy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) I can always count on Don for a direct answer. Gotta love a guy that isn't afraid of questions. I read critiques before investing my time and money. If you don't, maybe you don't care about your time and money in that regard. That's ok. I research the technical aspects of the equipment that I am interested in buying, then go to a store to examine it in person. Testimonials don't interest me as they can be biased. I am capable of making a rational decision on my own without seeking the approval of others in advance. Edited February 7, 2014 by Don Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.