|
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
|
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
Barry wrote in
: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../01/BU2618GKE7. DTL&nopu=1 What's an iPod? My youngest son once asked me, "Dad, why was the world black and white when you were a kid? (referring to old family photos.) One of those priceless gems that makes you smile years later. |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
I am sleepy, fixin to cut the light and git my beauty sleep.Move over
doggy,,, you wand a cookie? WOO WOO WOOF! cuhulin |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
On Jul 1, 3:57*pm, Barry wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...7/01/BU2618GKE.... What's an iPod? I read the article also. Most people look at the cassette as equivalent withthe 8-track tape. But I bet these same people would be shocked to find out that some of the better cassette decks had way better specs than a Ipod. I have seen some of the Naks with freq. response to 27 khz and my Denon, which was a mid-level deck, has freq. response to 23 or 24 which I know is more than you can squeeze from digital at even the highest bit rate. I'm just sayin'.......... |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
On Jul 2, 3:28*am, Bob Dobbs wrote:
LukeP wrote: On Jul 1, 3:57*pm, Barry wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...7/01/BU2618GKE.... What's an iPod? I read the article also. *Most people look at the cassette as equivalent withthe *8-track tape. *But I bet these same people would be shocked to find out that some of the better cassette decks had way better specs than a Ipod. *I have seen some of the Naks with freq. response to 27 khz and my Denon, which was a mid-level deck, has freq. response to 23 or 24 which I know is more than you can squeeze from digital at even the highest bit rate. *I'm just sayin'.......... Not a Nakamichi, nor a Denon, but an admittedly above average Sony, mine will wind off a bit of tape from the spool, record two tones, rewind and evaluate to determine the exact bias for that particular formula tape, and when combined with the headroom expanding version of Dolby (HX-Pro) can deliver frequencies way above my current range. The sound level meter shows output from the speakers buy I can't hear it. -- Operator Bob Echo Charlie 42 I think I mentioned this kid six or seven months ago in here. But there is this kid on youtube, goes by "CassetteMaster"....he definitely has a love for bringing back to life older cassette players / eight tracks....just about anything. It's good to see IMO, a kid with the love he has for the older electronics. |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
elaich wrote:
Barry wrote in : http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../01/BU2618GKE7. DTL&nopu=1 What's an iPod? My youngest son once asked me, "Dad, why was the world black and white when you were a kid? (referring to old family photos.) One of those priceless gems that makes you smile years later. Your youngest son needs remedial ed. |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
LukeP wrote:
On Jul 1, 3:57 pm, Barry wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...7/01/BU2618GKE... What's an iPod? I read the article also. Most people look at the cassette as equivalent withthe 8-track tape. But I bet these same people would be shocked to find out that some of the better cassette decks had way better specs than a Ipod. I have seen some of the Naks with freq. response to 27 khz and my Denon, which was a mid-level deck, has freq. response to 23 or 24 which I know is more than you can squeeze from digital at even the highest bit rate. I'm just sayin'.......... Sad. You can't hear much above 10 K; why do you care about 24? You can buy a credible MP3 player for $20 that'll run circles around your POS Nakamichi. |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
In article ,
says... LukeP wrote: On Jul 1, 3:57 pm, Barry wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...7/01/BU2618GKE... What's an iPod? I read the article also. Most people look at the cassette as equivalent withthe 8-track tape. But I bet these same people would be shocked to find out that some of the better cassette decks had way better specs than a Ipod. I have seen some of the Naks with freq. response to 27 khz and my Denon, which was a mid-level deck, has freq. response to 23 or 24 which I know is more than you can squeeze from digital at even the highest bit rate. I'm just sayin'.......... Sad. You can't hear much above 10 K; why do you care about 24? Speak for yourself. I can still hear over 20K with my right, and over 17K with my left. You can buy a credible MP3 player for $20 that'll run circles around your POS Nakamichi. Except the Nak sounds way, way better. Even high bitrate MP3's sound pretty bad, if you can still hear. They do sound a lot better than satellite radio though. -- BDK.. Leader of the nonexistent paid shills. Non Jew Jew Club founding member. Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod. |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
On Jul 2, 2:08*am, LukeP wrote:
On Jul 1, 3:57*pm, Barry wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...7/01/BU2618GKE.... What's an iPod? I read the article also. *Most people look at the cassette as equivalent withthe *8-track tape. *But I bet these same people would be shocked to find out that some of the better cassette decks had way better specs than a Ipod. *I have seen some of the Naks with freq. response to 27 khz and my Denon, which was a mid-level deck, has freq. response to 23 or 24 which I know is more than you can squeeze from digital at even the highest bit rate. *I'm just sayin'.......... Get yourself a Super-Audio CD player and buy SA-CDs. Now that will blow your socks off! SA-CDs are the closest sound to the original studio master tapes: www.sa-cd.net |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
On Jul 2, 7:44*am, dave wrote:
Sad. *You can't hear much above 10 K; *why do you care about 24? You can buy a credible MP3 player for $20 that'll run circles around your POS Nakamichi. LOL! LMFAO! HEIL HITLER Professor DaviD! ROTFLMAO! |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
"dave" wrote in message m... Sad. You can't hear much above 10 K; why do you care about 24? You can buy a credible MP3 player for $20 that'll run circles around your POS Nakamichi. 1) One cares about whether one can get 24KHz reproduction out of a tape machine (or any other reproducer) beause the flat response curve at the high end actually affects the sound at lower frequencies (the characteristics of musical instruments are that many carry large numbers of harmonics, which, even if you cannot hear the harmonic itself, would change the intrinsic sound were they not there at all) 2) There is NO mp3 player that can as accurately reproduce a complex audio waveform as well as a high end cassette machine. I don't care how many samples you take of a complex waveform with an ADC/DAC system, the resultant playback waveform will never represent the original analog waveform as well as a high end analog device. Even a simple 1000 Hz sine wave will not come out as a pure sine wave after digital conversion, it will be a series of stepped square waves. You may not be able to tell the difference with your ear, as long as there are enough of those little steps, but that's not the point. The point is, it will not "run circles around" a high end analog device. |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
On 07/02/09 15:48, Brenda Ann wrote:
2) There is NO mp3 player that can as accurately reproduce a complex audio waveform as well as a high end cassette machine. I don't care how many samples you take of a complex waveform with an ADC/DAC system, the resultant playback waveform will never represent the original analog waveform as well as a high end analog device. Even a simple 1000 Hz sine wave will not come out as a pure sine wave after digital conversion, it will be a series of stepped square waves. You may not be able to tell the difference with your ear, as long as there are enough of those little steps, but that's not the point. The point is, it will not "run circles around" a high end analog device. If you take a look at a 1khz square wave after digital conversion, you'll see ringing at both ends of the flat top. You'll see that same ringing wherever there is a hard rise or fall. Is it audible? Oh yeah. More so on a naked square wave. Less so in complex music. But you can hear it. You'll see this wherever there is hard digital filtering, such as anti-aliasing on CD players. You'll see it where there is copious amount of data loss, as in MP3. An MP3, at it's best is a 4:1 data loss. The songs on iTunes and elsewhere are mostly 10:1 data loss. Sometimes more, sometimes less. Noise may be reduced, but it's hardly high fidelity audio. And though cassettes have their many flaws, a properly set up Nak will have more noise, but far less digital artifacting and zero data loss than any MP3. |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
I have a few old reel to reel tape recorders/players.Two of them were
made by Webcor, they look just alike each other.One of my other reel to reel tape recorders/player is larger than the Webcors and it has three speeds.I own several other old much smaller reel to reel tape recorders/players too.I bought all of them at thrift stores and flea markets years and years ago. cuhulin |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
On Jul 2, 3:48*pm, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
I don't care how many samples you take of a complex waveform with an ADC/DAC system, the resultant playback waveform will never represent the original analog waveform as well as a high end analog device. Even a simple 1000 Hz sine wave will not come out as a pure sine wave after digital conversion, it will be a series of stepped square waves. You may not be able to tell the difference with your ear, as long as there are enough of those little steps, but that's not the point. The point is, it will not "run circles around" a high end analog device. Nonsense. Format 1 bit DSD (Direct Stream Digital) Sampling frequency 2.8224 MHz Dynamic range 120 dB Frequency range 20 Hz - 50 kHz The SACD format is capable of delivering a dynamic range of 120 dB from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and an extended frequency response up to 100 kHz! Try to duplicate that with any "high-end analog device". Quantum physicists state the universe is digital. It is your inferior sensory organs which can not resolve the digital universe. Get over it! Radio is the enemy - ANALog is dead! |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
"0baMa0 Tse Dung" wrote in message ... On Jul 2, 3:48 pm, "Brenda Ann" wrote: I don't care how many samples you take of a complex waveform with an ADC/DAC system, the resultant playback waveform will never represent the original analog waveform as well as a high end analog device. Even a simple 1000 Hz sine wave will not come out as a pure sine wave after digital conversion, it will be a series of stepped square waves. You may not be able to tell the difference with your ear, as long as there are enough of those little steps, but that's not the point. The point is, it will not "run circles around" a high end analog device. Nonsense. Format 1 bit DSD (Direct Stream Digital) Sampling frequency 2.8224 MHz Dynamic range 120 dB Frequency range 20 Hz - 50 kHz The SACD format is capable of delivering a dynamic range of 120 dB from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and an extended frequency response up to 100 kHz! Try to duplicate that with any "high-end analog device". Sorry. Apples and oranges. I once built a two transistor pre-amp that was flat from 10 Hz to over 2 MHz. Thing is, it didn't have all that good of a distortion figure. Digitally reproduced analog waveforms have distortion. There is simply no way around it. You cannot make a true, perfect sine waveform out of a bunch of square waves. It can't be done. Further, the universe is most certainly not digital. About the closest thing you get to digital in the universe is a hydrogen atom. But even the radio frequency wave output from a hydrogen atom is a sine wave: analog. Digital can only be a representation, in various degrees of fidelity, of an analog signal. |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
Brenda Ann wrote:
"0baMa0 Tse Dung" wrote in message ... On Jul 2, 3:48 pm, "Brenda Ann" wrote: I don't care how many samples you take of a complex waveform with an ADC/DAC system, the resultant playback waveform will never represent the original analog waveform as well as a high end analog device. Even a simple 1000 Hz sine wave will not come out as a pure sine wave after digital conversion, it will be a series of stepped square waves. You may not be able to tell the difference with your ear, as long as there are enough of those little steps, but that's not the point. The point is, it will not "run circles around" a high end analog device. Nonsense. Format 1 bit DSD (Direct Stream Digital) Sampling frequency 2.8224 MHz Dynamic range 120 dB Frequency range 20 Hz - 50 kHz The SACD format is capable of delivering a dynamic range of 120 dB from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and an extended frequency response up to 100 kHz! Try to duplicate that with any "high-end analog device". Sorry. Apples and oranges. I once built a two transistor pre-amp that was flat from 10 Hz to over 2 MHz. Thing is, it didn't have all that good of a distortion figure. Digitally reproduced analog waveforms have distortion. There is simply no way around it. You cannot make a true, perfect sine waveform out of a bunch of square waves. It can't be done. Yes, but the error from a perfect sine wave may be extremely small. In fact much lower than the noise in most analog recording methods. Further, the universe is most certainly not digital. About the closest thing you get to digital in the universe is a hydrogen atom. But even the radio frequency wave output from a hydrogen atom is a sine wave: analog. Digital can only be a representation, in various degrees of fidelity, of an analog signal. The same can be said for analog recording systems. They also introduce noise and distortion into the analog signal. |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
Those cats with the LOUD sound systems in their cars,,,, just think what
that is doing to their hearing. cuhulin |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
|
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
In article
, 0baMa0 Tse Dung wrote: On Jul 2, 3:48*pm, "Brenda Ann" wrote: I don't care how many samples you take of a complex waveform with an ADC/DAC system, the resultant playback waveform will never represent the original analog waveform as well as a high end analog device. Even a simple 1000 Hz sine wave will not come out as a pure sine wave after digital conversion, it will be a series of stepped square waves. You may not be able to tell the difference with your ear, as long as there are enough of those little steps, but that's not the point. The point is, it will not "run circles around" a high end analog device. Nonsense. Format 1 bit DSD (Direct Stream Digital) Sampling frequency 2.8224 MHz Dynamic range 120 dB Frequency range 20 Hz - 50 kHz The SACD format is capable of delivering a dynamic range of 120 dB from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and an extended frequency response up to 100 kHz! Try to duplicate that with any "high-end analog device". Quantum physicists state the universe is digital. It is your inferior sensory organs which can not resolve the digital universe. Get over it! Radio is the enemy - ANALog is dead! The universe is analog not digital so you get over it. Quantum physics stating the universe is digital is an oversimplification at best and I'm being very generous. By the way, you have already been assimilated by the analog borg. Radio is my hobby. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
In article , joe
wrote: D. Peter Maus wrote: On 07/02/09 15:48, Brenda Ann wrote: 2) There is NO mp3 player that can as accurately reproduce a complex audio waveform as well as a high end cassette machine. I don't care how many samples you take of a complex waveform with an ADC/DAC system, the resultant playback waveform will never represent the original analog waveform as well as a high end analog device. Even a simple 1000 Hz sine wave will not come out as a pure sine wave after digital conversion, it will be a series of stepped square waves. You may not be able to tell the difference with your ear, as long as there are enough of those little steps, but that's not the point. The point is, it will not "run circles around" a high end analog device. If you take a look at a 1khz square wave after digital conversion, you'll see ringing at both ends of the flat top. You'll see that same ringing wherever there is a hard rise or fall. Is it audible? Oh yeah. More so on a naked square wave. Less so in complex music. But you can hear it. You'll see this wherever there is hard digital filtering, such as anti-aliasing on CD players. You'll see it where there is copious amount of data loss, as in MP3. An MP3, at it's best is a 4:1 data loss. The songs on iTunes and elsewhere are mostly 10:1 data loss. Sometimes more, sometimes less. Isn't equating compression ration or data rates to data loss a bit misleading? Sure, MP3 and AAC are lossy codecs, but a lossless codec such as FLAC reduces the data rate without loss of the original content. The amount of original signal lost by the use of AAC or MP3 compression is much less than you imply with your numbers. Noise may be reduced, but it's hardly high fidelity audio. And though cassettes have their many flaws, a properly set up Nak will have more noise, but far less digital artifacting and zero data loss than any MP3. I would expect an analog system to have no digital artifacts. But, you admit there is more noise, isn't that also a loss of 'data'. But you also ignore any reduction in bandwidth that occurs with magnetic recording. Also, at its best the Nak may have higher distortion than a high end MP3 player. Cassette decks have their BW specified at -20 db because at higher levels, head/media saturation limit useful bandwidth. There are several technical criteria that must be met with digital recording so that it can equal analog. These criteria must be met in both directions, analog to digital, and then digital back to analog being a complete process. The sampling rate must be twice the highest frequency you want to record so if the analog frequency is 22 KHz then the minimum sample rate is 44 KHz. A higher sample rate is better. For this sampling scheme to work well the conversion in either direction should be low pass filtered. This scheme has the 22 KHz sine wave represented by two steps, which is very coarse. The analog filtering will help the reproduced analog look like the original recorded analog signal but the conversion sampling has several types of imprecision to contend with besides sample rate. Just as important are sample levels. The smaller the sample level the more precise the reproduced analog will be. So the two main parameters are the number of samples made in time and voltage or to look on a sine wave on a graph the horizontal and vertical axis. The smaller the steps in either axis the closer the digital stepped waveform approximate the analog. Then a low pass filter smoothes out the tiny steps as a way of "polishing" the digital waveform to look even more like the analog. The problem with the above conversion scheme is the sample imprecision in time and voltage, which leads to conversion noise and distortion. The precision can be improved with an increased number of steps in either axis. Increasing the number of voltage steps means the sampling number must be numerically larger and increasing the sampling rate increases the number of samples that must be processed and stored for the same length of the recording so higher quality means bigger numbers and more of them. This is a big problem for digital recording, storage, and reproduction. If you want high quality you need the electronics to operate rapidly and generate more data requiring larger storage. The electronics operating rapidly consumes power and large data storage also costs more money so the solution is low sample rates and small sample numbers. Along with small sample numbers and low sample rates, data storage requirements are further reduced with compression algorithms that are lossy or in other words further distort the data. Here "lossy" means some of the data is thrown out and not saved to storage. The financial cost of these problems also burdens the transmission of digital data similar for the digital storage cost. Higher quality means higher transmission rates similar to larger storage requirements. Higher transmission rates means the signal must occupy more spectrum. For this reason and others the IBOC and DRM sounding "better" in the same band space is just plain BS. So basically, regardless of the sample size and rate used you have inherent sampling and anti-alias filtering distortion so the converted analog waveform can never be as good as the original but using more power, band space, and storage it can be close. We are all used to the continual improvement in electronics where they run faster with less power and storage becoming cheaper, smaller, and lighter with time, so with time all this can be overcome except the amount of band space needed for transmission. Here improvements in electronics cannot overcome basic physics. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
In article 4a4e64c4.303406@chupacabra,
Bob Dobbs wrote: Telamon wrote: The universe is analog not digital so you get over it. The universe IS digital so you get used to it. That your personal biochemistry can't resolve the refresh rate only tends to mislead you into thinking it's analog. IOW: If you drive fast enough on a washboard road the bumps will only seem to go away as your suspension does its thing. Quantum physics stating the universe is digital is an oversimplification at best and I'm being very generous. You need to be more generous to yourself and not be so quick to dismiss things that overwhelm your intellect. You are clearly the one overwhelmed. We don't operate at the quantum level and neither do objects larger than the chained molecular level that we interact with so don't be so stupid to conjecture that because the science of fundamental matter has quanta energy levels that is the way macro physics world operates because it doesn't. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
In article 4a4e64c4.303406@chupacabra,
Bob Dobbs wrote: Telamon wrote: The universe is analog not digital so you get over it. The universe IS digital so you get used to it. That your personal biochemistry can't resolve the refresh rate only tends to mislead you into thinking it's analog. IOW: If you drive fast enough on a washboard road the bumps will only seem to go away as your suspension does its thing. Quantum physics stating the universe is digital is an oversimplification at best and I'm being very generous. You need to be more generous to yourself and not be so quick to dismiss things that overwhelm your intellect. This is a good analogy to your missive. http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickc...l_uc/crbal2009 0702 "Some parts of Carl's thinking think other parts are pretty nuts." "You gotta be kiddin' " -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
On Jul 3, 10:08*am, dave wrote:
IN THE BRAIN the ELECTRICAL IMPULSES are translated into SOUNDS which we recognize and understand. Your nutsack hasn't understood anything since your accident. |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
Sound that is too LOUD will blow off some of those tiny little hairs in
the Ear canal.That impairs hearing too. Eh, what did you say? I can't hear you! Clean that nasty old wax out of your ears and you might hear something,,,, and stop pickin them boogers out of your nose! Eh, hold out your cup and catch this booger. ///KLINK/// cuhulin |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
On Jul 2, 5:44*am, dave wrote:
LukeP wrote: On Jul 1, 3:57 pm, Barry wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...7/01/BU2618GKE.... What's an iPod? I read the article also. *Most people look at the cassette as equivalent withthe *8-track tape. *But I bet these same people would be shocked to find out that some of the better cassette decks had way better specs than a Ipod. *I have seen some of the Naks with freq. response to 27 khz and my Denon, which was a mid-level deck, has freq. response to 23 or 24 which I know is more than you can squeeze from digital at even the highest bit rate. *I'm just sayin'.......... Sad. *You can't hear much above 10 K; *why do you care about 24? You can buy a credible MP3 player for $20 that'll run circles around your POS Nakamichi. Reality check! I have yet to respond to any post on this group in over a year, but after 34 years in high end audio (sales, technical sales training, product planning and development on three continents...) I couldn't resist... Frequency range has very little to do with it. ANYTHING that compresses by any form of digital "bit grooming" can loose vital information. Case in point... A fairly high priced MP3 recorder/ player with minidisc and computer MP3 capabilities managed to lose the bells (actually a glockenspiel, I believe) at the beginning of a Phoebe Snow track that I used as a demo for years (many other examples, but this is a case in point). Digital compression can lose textures, details, imaging, transient information in ways that is COMPLETELY foreign to the human psycho-acoustic mechanism. Our ears and brain can "fill in" information lost by anything as natural and simple as bandwidth limiting, BECAUSE IT HAPPENS IN NATURE ALL THE TIME! If we, as a species, have had to deal with bandwidth limiting by something as simple as distance or intervening materials such as a drape or some walls, etc., WE HAVE ACHIEVED THE ABILITY TO RECONSTRUCT THE MISSING HARMONIC INFORMATION. And we can pull information out of the noise floor of analog recordings by dithering. I used one of the few decks that can trump all of those mentioned above (although the Nakamichi units were excellent), the Tandberg 3014A, and have been able to produce recordings that (on over $60,000.00 of amps and speakers) rivaled the very best digital technology available at the time (2005 or so), and was only lacking compared to an excellent virgin vinyl LP on $10,000 worth of turntable. As for bandwidth and digital technology... Anything that has a bit rate as high as SACD or Meridian lossless packing on DVD Audio can produce a bandwidth of 50 kHz and beyond. And that is your best hope of achieving a recording that can compete with high end analog, PERIOD! I have some SACD remasters of mid-1960 Rolling Stones recordings that sound BETTER than the British virgin vinyl recordings of the exact same performances. Of course, digital is quieter, but I've already mentioned that we can dither significant information that is below the noise floor in an analog recording. The "noise floor" in a digital recording is the point of no return. NOTHING exists there, it's all truncated. Ignored! I know of NO MP3 device that can compete with the best Tandberg, Nakamichi, Harman Kardon 400 series CD recorder regardless of the bit rate. THEY DO NOT EXIST! And a truly audiophile turntable with a moving coil cartridge can trump any of the above in most respects, but that's another subject... |
Walkman, at 30, a mystery to teen
On Jul 3, 10:09*pm, guyo wrote:
And a truly audiophile turntable with a moving coil cartridge can trump any of the above in most respects, but that's another subject... Maybe so but the price is prohibitive except for the elite billionaire. For far, far less dinero a very decent SA-CD player, a modest 5.1 channel surround sound amplifier, and 5 mid-priced full range speakers and subwoofer will equal the best mucho dinero mega-bucks elite vinyl sound system TO THE VAST MAJORITY of listeners. A very good Universal SACD/CD/DVD player can be had for for $200-$600 A very good 5.1 / 7.1 channel home theatre amplifier can be had for $1000-$2000 A very good set of 5 indentical full-range speakers can be had for about $2500 used (recommended on a budget) or at least double for new speakers. A very good subwoofer for about $1000. TOTAL for an very good "audiophile system for the rest of us" - less than $10,000. And if you are prudent you can do it for half that price. (Used audiophile speakers are a bargain.) Well within reach of most "working" music lovers. If you are foolish enough to spent money on a vinyl LP system and expect to surpass the above $5K-$10K system than you had better take on a second or third job. Marry into a wealthy family. Pray and play the lottery or rob a bank - LOL! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com