 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.56.204.230
My guess is it wouldn't. Did the buyer do a double blind test before paying 2.4 million? Or like any audiophile worth a damn, did he just trust his ears.
Follow Ups:
COLLEGE STATION – It was more a beauty contest than a boxing match. And even better, by night's end both contestants won."Some like blondes; some like brunettes. Some like them slim; some like them hefty," Dr. Joseph Nagyvary contended.
Hefty in this case was the 300-year-old Leonardo da Vinci Stradivarius violin, valued as high as $5 million, pitted against a slimly played violin that Nagyvary crafted in just six weeks and completed in August 2003.
In all scores from the audience – whether among those who considered themselves trained musicians or those who are average concert goers – the new Nagyvary violin ranked slightly higher than the ancient Stradivarius.
"There are shock waves going around in the violin business," Nagyvary said. "The expectation was a knock-out victory by the Stradivarius."
Nagyvary, a recently retired Texas A&M University biochemist who spent his career studying Stradivarius violins to the molecular level, willfully accepted the challenge to compare his with the famous violin. MiraMedia, a German company doing a documentary on Antonio Stradivarius, organized the comparison concert, at which a turn-away crowd of 600 judged the two violins.
Both violins were played in each of four selections of music, the order of playing was selected randomly on the spot, and separate scores were given for tone quality (beauty) and projection (power) on a 10-point scale, Nagyvary explained. World-class violinist Dalibor Karvay played the violins behind a screen so that audience participants could not see the instrument.
For those four selections, trained musicians in the audience gave the Stradivarius an average of 8.03 in tone quality and 8.0 for power while the Nagyvary violin got and average of 8.1 for tone quality and 8.33 for power. Other audience participants' votes put the Stradivarius at an average of 7.83 for quality and 7.8 for power while the Nagyvary got 8.03 for quality and 8.23 for power.
"I consider the results a draw for both the untrained and trained audience," Nagyvary said. "This was the first public comparison of a great Stradivari with a new violin in front of a large audience.
In addition to the four blind tests, Karvay played Prokofiev's Sonata in D on one violin and Waxman's Carmen Fantasy on the other – both in full view of the audience who got to choose which piece was played by the Stradivarius.
Nagyvary said 57 people correctly picked the Stradivarius on the Prokofiev piece, 290 guessed wrong and 129 were undecided.
"I personally don't think such a test with different music is fair, but it's worth mentioning," Nagyvary said.
Of the 600 audience ballots, 463 qualified for tabulation (160 trained musicians and 303 average concert-goers), said Nagyvary, who supplied MiraMedia with a duplicate set on the night of the concert, prior to tabulation.
The comparison concert also marked Nagyvary's retirement from Texas A&M University. Selections were also played later on a 10-year-old Nagyvary violin by world-class violinist Regina Buonavenura from Manila, The Philippines.
The researcher plans to continue to make his Nagyvarius violins.
"Antonio Stradivari was at his best in his 70s and 80s," Hungarian-born Nagyvary said. "I'm 69, so perhaps I'm entering the same stage of life."
Nagyvary began in the 1980s using his knowledge of biochemistry to study the intricacies of the famous violins made in the 18th century by Antonio Stradivari. More information is available at http://www.nagyvaryviolins.com
Dr. Greg Reinhart, Texas A&M biochemistry and biophysics department head, said Nagyvary's research is "more likely to be held up as an example for 400 years than most of the experiments the rest of us do."
-30-
Home | Daily news | Features | Issues | Interaction | Search | Site map
Agricultural Communications
Texas A&M University System
2112 TAMUS
College Station, TX 77843-2112
not to rain on the parade, but although this guy's work is showy, he doesn't have much a reputation in the violin world. He's been "uncovering the secret" of the strads for many years now, but nothing has ever seem to come of it beyond many of these types of articles.
*
nt
Wow goes to show that some people have too much money to spend, well, if you have it why not I guess. Me personally if I was rich and loaded, no way. I would invested in something else such as Audiophile gear, lol!
;-P"My guess is it wouldn't. Did the buyer do a double blind test before paying 2.4 million? Or like any audiophile worth a damn, did he just trust his ears."
Actually, the answer is neither. The ones that are used are likely world-class violinists who have heard quite a few from their peers, and figured it was worth it. (Violinists are not necessarily audiophiles in a musical playback sense.) The others are bought for speculative investment. Just think, if he can sell it for $2.7 million, he can buy his dream car or a nice Audio Note system.
nt
I have actually measured a Stradivarius, Guarneri del Gesu and Guadinini with a 1/6th octave RTA. How did I manage this? My ex-girlfriend is a professional soloist on the violin. At one time she was sponsored by wealthy individuals in Zurich, one owned a Strad, one owned a Guarneri and the other later owned the Guadinini. She was playing them to help a buyer decide which one to buy (she later got to play the Strad for about 7 months so I heard it everyday. Before that she played the Guadinini for 10 months and the Guarneri only for some weeks.). Not only do these violins sound RADICALLY different (in the hands of a professional that is) they measure different in terms of the harmonics and overtones as well as the ratio of the intensities. So here is one difference that is easily objectified.Not only do violins sound and measure different, the bow that is used; its weight and stiffness, affect the sound. For example she had one bow that was light and responsive that she liked to use when playing technical pieces like Paganini Caprices or Batsinni. The heavier bow gave richer tone and was better for Romantic works like Brahms.
Once I had a friend over who wanted to hear her play the Strad. The one she had to play on was a good example of the breed and has an incredibly powerful sound. Very rich tonally but brilliant and projection like a laser beam. Now the friend was curious if he could hear the difference in violins so my ex pulls out an inexpensive (only about 2000 euro) violin made in Romania and starts to play on it. Guess what it sounds like? Not so much a violin but a damn hollow box of wood with strings attached!!! With the Strad, the violin is resonating so strongly that it is difficult to tell exactly where the sound is coming from...because its coming from the whole thing!!
My friend and I were stunned, he because he had never heard a GREAT violin compared to a cheap one and I because I had never heard a cheap one before...period (she only got top class instruments to play) and was shocked at how poor it sounded compared to the great ones that had come through our apartment.
In the case of the article, we have a professor who has studied the Stradivarius in great detail over a period of many years. Could it be that he has actually managed to clone the great one? If so, then the audience was hearing in his new violin what audiences heard in the Stradivarius so many years ago. It's a thought that I'm certain many have considered, and it should make the prices of a new Nagyvary violin skyrocket.
Well there was one other violin my ex played on quite a bit and it was an early 20th century strad copy. The interesting this is that it sounded really good...sometimes. It turned out that it was sensitive to seasonal changes and would go from sounding great to terrible over the course of a couple months and then back again!! In the end it never sounded as good as the real thing but it was better than having nothing for the time being. There have been countless copies of Strads made over the last 250+ years. Some quite excellent and some rubbish.Maybe this guy found the secret and maybe he did not. History will tell...
I wonder if you're not simply measuring what the modifications, sometime in the 19thC, do to the sound of each instrument.Strad's - as a group - responded best to these mods.
?
Because he was taking his violin designs in the big concert-hall direction!
Further, it is considered by the experts that these modifications effectively ruined the capacities of many of the old classic violins. Which were then lost for good.
It is a source of considerable amusment to me that modified Stradivarii are worth so MUCH more than any of the far rarer unmodified ones.
Why?
Well, in the case of just about all other sensibly valuable 17/18C antiques modifications are a BIG no no.
I for one will only be able to respect this market's behaviour / values when an ummodified and far rarer Stainer goes for much more money! I have touched the Smithsonian's example - with gloves on - for a longgg nano second!
Now, even classic 50's/60's valve amps 'in unrestored state' are highly sought after, and, necessarily, just to LOOK at! ???? ......
Especially in the asian-tiger economies, now there's a sociographic trend worth some study!
WarmestTimbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio ScroungerAnd gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
Probably because if an instrument is actually played then parts like the neck, bridge and strings wear out and need replacing so they are for sure not original or even very old.
the MODS DO change the sound, they were intended to increase vlume and projection for big concert halls, see my other post to this thread!
WarmestTimbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio ScroungerAnd gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
to which instrument they are using for each and every trial.and, IF David Aitken is right, and I'm pretty sure he is about the distinctively right and encouraging feel of instruments, we may also have to isolate the players' sense of touch, and block their ears too!?
[I'm not an instrumentalist but I was trained as a cathedral chorister under the Royal Society of Church Music's programs, sang for 9 years straight. So, I can assure that it is the same for singers, we work very hard on getting to know and feel all the structures that can affect our sound and clarity. You can eventually just KNOW - to an eighth tone's level of certainty - what notes are possible on a given day, and why you're gonne be able to pull off, and NOT.]
So that they can't KNOW that this IS the BEST one, and thus play really well on it not only becuase it IS a good instrument, but partly because they are being affected by their emotions.
har har har!
Snap! wanna play anudder round!?
WarmestTimbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio ScroungerAnd gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
extensive mods too.they take off the top bit (belly?), the neck, and the fingerboard. The new kneck angles back more, the bridge is replaced with a higher bridge as is the sound post it drives with thicker and stronger one. The new fingerboard will be longer and angled higher up to match the neck and bridge, and the bass-bar which is glued to the back of the body will be stiffer and is often longer.
Also 'the famous glues' are no longer there, for ALL of these changes.
The stringing tension can now be increased substantailly, this IS of course using modern wound-steel and composite/steel-wound strings. The > 'd tension creates stronger sound not a higher pitch!
Fairly fundamental changes to how the main resonant structure is driven, don't you think?
WarmestTimbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio ScroungerAnd gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
Yes the neck, bridge and many other parts have to be replaced due to wear and tear. There is no such thing as an old violin that is completely original. As long as it was not seriously damaged; however, the body is still likely to be original.
nt
Bill Bailey
___________________________________________
See my stereo config
Thanks, it was a great and fun learning experience and taught me a deep appreciation for music, sound and virtuosity of the musician.
That sort of stuff just hammers audio minutae into submission. Thanks for writing such a great letter.
Regards,
Geoff
Your welcome...happy to share my experiences with you all.
Great story. And it's so true of all instruments.We bought a piano last year because the digital rental broke and my son wouldn't quit playing. Man, we shopped and shopped and got more advice than you can imagine from Piano Guild members and tuners.
We wanted an older upright grand if we could find a nice one. That didn't happen. Then we found a store with an old Knabe and a Kimber grand along with the other Yamahas and such. Man, the Asian pianos just sounded like tin cans. And they babies from Europe didn't sound much better. The Kimber was horribly out of tune, but the 1906 Knabe just had great tone.
It turned out that the next tuner I talked to played Jazz with the owner of the store and some other really cool dudes over the last 60 years. Needless to say, the relic is in my living room and being played right about now.
Yeah, they all sound different.
-Rod
Cool. Nice follow up story. I have had the opportunity to hear a Bosendorfer Concert Grand in a rich gentleman's home here in Zurich a number of times (he was the owner of the Guadinini violin) and my ex played two or three house concerts (for other rich Zurchers...I was only there because of my relationship to her) with this piano acting as accompaniment for her. What a sound! Especially in the lower octaves this piano is very special. I have also been fortunate to hear many Steinway pianos as well. Quite different but it is clear why they are more or less the gold standard.
Is there any other way to do these things that makes any sense at all?
...how did the different violins sound from your X's perspective as the player? Did she hear/feel the differences as did you further out into the room?
Oh yes she heard it and feel deeply in love with the sound of the Strad. Alas, it was not hers so it went back to its owner (an excellent musician in his own right). The Guad was also quite satisfying for her but she never really liked the Guarneri...too dark sounding and it went back to its owner not long after.
From my own experience as an amateur classical guitarist, the player definitely hears differences and feels them too. Playing is partly tactile and the overall experience of playing is different to listening. One's sense of the instrument does not come only from what one hears but one definitely hears differences.The player does not hear things as another person would. They're closer, and at a different angle to the soundboard. Instruments aren't perfect omnipolar sources, they have specific radiation patterns, and what the player hears is not going to be what the audience hears because of the difference in proximity to the sound source and that different listening angle. Also what the player hears is heavily weighted towards the direct sound because of their proximity. A listener elsewhere in the room/hall is going to hear a lot more of the room's contribution in what they hear. There will be less of that if you're close to the performer in a small room, but you still won't hear quite what the performer hears and vice versa.
David Aiken
Best regards,
Thanks,BTW, my ex was also an avid Apogee and Acoustat fan. She went with me to several shows and would often walk out of a room within 1 minute if the sound was not to her liking. For her it either had an element of truth to the sound or it was rubbish and she couldn't believe how badly most audiophiles could hear.
I think she would have warmed to soundlabs as well.
...an inmate whose house I visited last night to listen to music told me a story.He was taking piano lessons, IIRC, and in the studio were two identical Yamaha pianos, back to back, only a couple of serial numbers apart.
Yet they sounded very different.
He said it could have been due to any number of things - even the number of particles and their arrangement in the wood of the sounding board, for example.
Would they measure differently?
Who knows.
for their pianos; this is airdried for years before its machined and made into ply, which is cut/bent to piano-frame shape and lacquered. Lacquer can be different thicknesses depending how many coats were needed to achieve the desired finish
The weight and density of Mahogany will vary from tree to tree, board to board, some trees grow in sand and will have sand in their grain and be relatively light and porous; others grow in swamp and that makes for a darker, denser, timber. The pianos could be consecutive frame nos + quite different weights; and may also vary in tone from being stored in different places where temperature and humidity have also played a partEven the *floor* the piano sits on will affect its sound, how its tuned, wear on the hammers.... having different people PLAY the pianos could alter their sound over time
Some pianists are very hard on the instrument; Thelonius Monk being one example, he really *slammed* those keys, Jerry Lee Lewis would have been another great "test pilot" for a Piano company
Grins
Because two different violins played by the violinist on the same day and same location would measure and sound different. In fact, the SAME note on the SAME violin played by the SAME violinist on the SAME day probably would measure different also because no violinist is a robot. Could you use that to determine which violin sounded better? I seriously doubt it.Also, my understanding is that a great violin like a Stradivarius is easier for a great violinist to get the tone he or she wants compared to a lesser instrument, and AFAIK there is not, and probably never will be, any way to measure that subjective feeling of ease in obtaining the desired effect.
However, there is at least a theoretical difference between measuring a musical instrument which is producing a musical note, versus measuring part of a system which is REproducing that same note. Measurements can at least give you a clue when the reproduction is seriously off, i.e. non-flat frequency response, high distortion, etc. To borrow mathematical jargon, reasonably flat frequency response and reasonably low distortion are necessary but not sufficient. What you are measuring and where you are measuring is also important and not always taken into account.
To give an example, some measurement oriented people will argue that SET amplifiers are beyond the pale because of their measurably high distortion at high powers and their high output impedance which results in a non-flat frequency response into a speaker load. However, at the low output power where they are usually listened to, their distortion is usually below the audible limits, and combined with a speaker with complementary frequency response and impedance variations (i.e. where frequency response peaks occur at impedance dips, and vice versa), the combined response of the amplifier and loudspeaker can actually MEASURE and SOUND flatter than if you used a more "accurate" amplifier into that same speaker.
measured.
Violins and other musical instruments don't reproduce music, they are used to make music. How an instrument sounds depends on how it is played. Good instruments do a number of things better than poorer instruments: they offer a wider range of tonal shadings, they offer a wider dynamic range, they project sound better, they are easier to play than really bad instruments but this particular difference should disappear relatively quickly as the quality of the instrument improves.I guess you could measure all of those things but it would be difficult and it would take a long time given the need to 'drive' the instrument with a number of different players, playing styles, and music plus the need to conduct comparison tests on the 'reference instrument' chosen for comparison. You would need to devise some very interesting tests and be able to take into account the slight variations that occur each time a real person plays the same piece another time as well. Your standard frequency response and harmonic distortion tests for a speaker simply would not be up to capturing all of the relevant characteristics of an instrument's sound.
It's also worth noting that the sound of a given instrument does change over time due to factors like the aging of the wood. Even if you could make a new violin physically identical to a Stradivarius in all respects including timber, woodworking, varnish, etc, the new copy would sound different to the several hundred year old original. If you could make a new violin which duplicated the sound of a Stradivarius now, it would sound different to the Strad after some years as a result of changes due to aging.
Finally, what really counts isn't going to be the way the instrument measures. An instrument makes no sound until it's played and how a player feels about an instrument influences how they play. If the player thinks one instrument is superior to another for them, they'll play differently on the 2 instruments and that's going to make a difference to the eventual sound. Performers tend to play better on instruments they're happy with in my experience, and that's experience gained as an amateur classical guitarist plus the comments of other musicians I've known. How you play depends on how you feel and your feelings about the instrument are part of how you feel. Instruments do make a difference to performance. It probably doesn't matter too much whether the player is right about whether or not there is a difference between 2 instruments, but what they think and how they feel about it will make a difference to how they play and the sound they produce.
In the end, a Stradivarius may produce a different sound simply because of the way the player feels about it, but it will produce a different sound.
David Aiken
"Violins and other musical instruments don't reproduce music, they are used to make music. How an instrument sounds depends on how it is played. Good instruments do a number of things better than poorer instruments: they offer a wider range of tonal shadings, they offer a wider dynamic range, they project sound better, they are easier to play than really bad instruments but this particular difference should disappear relatively quickly as the quality of the instrument improves."Actually David, from personal experience I can tell you that this is not the case. Professional violinists hate to be with an inferior instrument because it GREATLY limits what they can do with the sound. It is like asking Gary Kasparov to play chess without some pieces (I was told he played a match once starting a pawn down as a handicap and afterwards swore never to do it again because it was too distressing) or asking a painter to compose a work with only 8 colors in his palette.
According to my ex, the Strad she played on for about 7 months was one of the hardest instruments that she had played, not because it was harder to get good sound, in fact there are many instruments no matter how well played will not sound as good as a Strad even merely competently played, but because the palette is so broad it takes time and talent to master.
She once had three top class instruments to try out: A Stradivarius (and a good example of the breed from the early 1720s), a Guarneri del Gesu (not the best but still world class sound), and a Guadinini (wonderful from about the same period). The sound of the three couldn't have been more different (it was measurable as well and we did it just for fun), The strad was bold and rich with extreme powers of projection. The Guarneri sounded powerful as well but very dark by comparison with comparatively less upper octave energy (this playing the very same notes in the same way). Finally, the Guad was light and airy and quite beautiful sounding but lacking the projection capabilities of the other two, making it better suited to chamber music.
In fact the cheap violins all sounded more similar rather than different. They all sounded more or less like hollow boxes of wood with vibrating strings than what these masterpieces sounded like. No matter how well they were played the beauty of the music was diminished. Musicians go mad to play top instruments because it can literally make or break an audition or concert. Its like riding in the Tour de France on a bike with one wheel!!
"In the end, a Stradivarius may produce a different sound simply because of the way the player feels about it,"
No, it sounds different because it IS different and shockingly better and more powerful sounding than most other violins...the difference in the hands of a professional is not subtle.
nice to hear confirmation from personal experience.
I had hoped that I had made your point that "Professional violinists hate to be with an inferior instrument because it GREATLY limits what they can do with the sound" when I said of good instruments that they "… offer a wider range of tonal shadings, they offer a wider dynamic range, they project sound better…". You definitely said it better than me on that point.You're right about good instruments taking time and effort to master. There's no doubt about that and it also takes skill. A good instrument in the hands of an amateur won't produce anything like what a skilled player can produce from it, even before they spend the time and effort learning to get the best from it.
You're right about cheap instruments sounding similar. It takes skill and effort to make a responsive instrument and good instrument makers work miracles. I had a classical guitar made for me by a local maker over 40 years ago now, and he was very good. Watching him make instruments, lutes and other renaissance fretted instruments as well as guitars, was an education in itself. It also makes a cheap lie out of Sonus Faber's advertising claim that their speakers are made in the tradition of fine instruments. A speaker cabinet and a musical instrument are 2 entirely different things and a lute, violin or guitar built the way Sonus Faber build their cabinets is not an instrument I'd like to own :-)
You quoted my statement "In the end, a Stradivarius may produce a different sound simply because of the way the player feels about it," and responded "No, it sounds different because it IS different and shockingly better and more powerful sounding than most other violins...the difference in the hands of a professional is not subtle."
I agree wholeheartedly. The point I was making was a continuation of my previous paragraph, that even if the Strad and something else 'sounded the same'—whatever that meant by whatever test someone crazily designed to try and prove or disprove that statement—it would still sound different because of the difference in the way the player felt about it. That's simply one of the things that makes trying to measure instruments an almost pointless task. Standardised mechanical playing won't bring out the range of what the instrument can offer, and once you remove the standardisation and let the player include their response to the instrument in the way they play it, you've ensured that they'll do something different with each instrument and you've destroyed comparability again in a different way.
I envy your wife her time with the Strad and the other instruments you mention, and I envy you your time with her and them. I really don't think you hear the best of many instruments in a performance venue. Individually at least, many instruments are best heard and appreciated in a living room, at much closer distances, more moderate levels, and in what is essentially a much more intimate environment in every way. There's something you get there, when there is a personal interaction between the listener and performer, that you can never get elsewhere. Who cares if part of that is simply your emotional response to the moment rather than a real difference in sound, though I'll swear there is that difference. It's those sort of musical moments that keep me coming back to music in other settings, whether live or recorded. It's those moments that give me my reference for how a particular sort of instrument sounds and, more importantly, for how music sounds. They may not be the most brilliant performances but they're the performances that stick in the heart in a special way and show me at least just what the value of music is.
Does that put my comments in a more agreeable perspective for you? :-)))))))))
David Aiken
Hi David,
Thanks for the follow up. I hope I didn't come across too aggressive. I think its great that you have such experience with guitars. I have friend her who plays Flamenco semi-professionally and he just HAD to have a guitar from one of the great makers in Spain. Just sounds better.The acoustic power of a violin is a bit shocking in a moderate sized room. In a big hall it is easy to think it a small sounding instrument. It is not at all and I was stunned more than once when I realized the instrument was pressurizing the whole room! I could feel my ears pulsing physically! I used to sit and listen to her practice for hours. She thought I was nuts but I loved it.
You are right about making the connection with the instrument to get the best sound. It seems that it just has to "feel right" in the hands and under the chin and the action on the strings etc. She also was playing for a short time a Kappa (another very old violin from the 1690s) and it was noticeably smaller than the other violins and for whatever reason she never got comfortable on it and complained about it also sounding small and being difficult to get good sound.
I also took a lot of joy in recording her rehearsals and a couple of concerts (string quartet and solo). I have some nice tapes now of those times (DAT and R2R analog).
whereas the $1000 violin will start falling apart (musically speaking) fairly soon. That's what my friend, professional violin player told me. As to 'measurements', what is that exactly you're going to measure? The spectral characteristics of a sound? They are frozen in time and never reflect the real dynamic. How do you measure the interaction between the instrument and the player? That's another thing about the quality instrument, Stard including: predictability of the response. You don't have to adjust the way you play every time you play. I don't play violin, but I used to play piano, and I know very well the different between the top quality piano like Steinway or Bechstein. The same things. It holds wall, needs minimal tuning, and when you sit in front of, say, Steinway, you can just go ahead and start playing. You know what to expect.
Its true and in fact the great violins have to be played regularly or they too begin to "fall apart" musically.
.
It's people like you that cause unrest. - John Cleese
Yamaha has some current violin models that are clones of original Stradivarius and Guarneri del Gesu models. At a recent public event to show off these violins (I am not entirely sure, but I believe that the YVN200S was what they played) and compare them to a real Stradivarius, I met some of the Yamaha staff who developed the Stradivarius clone. They stated that acoustically it and the real Stradivarius measure pretty much identically (I believe that the measurement bandwidth was 20Hz~20kHz). However, they also said that the sound of their clone is distinguishable from the real Stradivarius, and they admitted that, at least to them, the clone sounds inferior. I got the overall impression that most of the audience present shared this opinion.jcarr
then the subjectivist/objectivist brouhaha/yadayada could begin.All over again...
Still.
"I always play jazz records backwards, they sound better that way"
-Thomas Edison
Play it in a room with a clever little clock.
Can't wait for the inevitable post labeling me a subjectivist.
"a subjectivist" may be one of the more notably polite options...
Bill.
Have to go back to that bait shop. Good stuff.
(and perhaps particularly your contribution) is in any way an accurate reflection of the abilities and temperaments of inmates in this forum, then I view the correspondence as a distinct disincentive for any casual inmate of average intelligence or better to spend valued leisure time in such poor activities...Rather like "Outside"(?), this forum may simply be a natural home for the "intellectually disadvantaged" to be happy being content to exist with others of similar nature and abilities...
If so, so be it...
I say no more...
Bill.
Good
