'06 Mustang Colors, Part II

Zombywoof > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:51:36 GMT, "351CJ" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ken Zwyers" > wrote in message
...
>>> It's your choice whether to buy it or not, whatever works for you.
>>> However,
>>> I'm not paying for anything that I would otherwise get for free.
>>> For me, XM
>>> has so much more content than I can find on all the AM/FM stations
>>> combined
>>> in Chicago. Being in my mid-40's, there are no AM/FM stations that
>>> play only 60's, 70's or 80's music - without commercials. All the
>>> stations in my
>>> area combined don't play the diversity of music that XM (and I
>>> assume Sirius) have to offer. There are no comedy-only radio
>>> stations. There are
>>> no all-MLB, or all NASCAR (not my style, but it's very popular),
>>> etc. stations. There are no AM/FM stations that I can listen to
>>> throughout an entire driving vacation. And certainly not with the
>>> clarity of satellite radio.
>>>
>>> Like I say, if you don't want the service, there's nothing wrong
>>> with that.
>>> Just don't kid yourself that you can get the same content for free,
>>> because
>>> you can't. It just might not be worth the price to you. The fact
>>> that it is worth it to me doesn't make me less than bright.
>>
>>It absolutely is not worth the price to me. Just like paying extra
>>for a warranty that the manufacture should and DID in the past.
>>provide at no additional cost, with their products.
>>
>>Instead of the sponsors footing the entire bill, now they are getting
>>money from the sponsors and directly from the listeners too. All
>>they have done is repackaged the same old ****, sold it as something
>>new and improved, suckered a bunch of otherwise bright people into
>>paying for what they would otherwise get for free, abracadabra.
>>
>>It will work just like HBO and Showtime did, sell it as a great
>>improvement, NO COMMERCIALS. Get the mindless cattle hooked, add the
>>commercials back in, raise the rates 6-10% per year, now you have
>>network TV for $60+ per month. Same as TiVo, again no Commercials,
>>fast forward right through them, right, get everyone hooked, what's
>>that? Commercials can't be skipped anymore? Surprised?
>>
>>Now they have you thinking you can't live with out their content, what
>>a shame. That's a better racket than the $5 a day Starbucks one. I'm
>>glad you feel you are getting a good deal. It is still a rip-off. I
>>don't care what they are selling I can live a happy full life without
>>it.
>>
>>My point was not that the exact same content was currently available
>>over the air waves for free, it was simply that if nobody was duped
>>into paying for it in the first place, you could get it paid for by
>>the advertisers alone.
>>
>>I'm glad you think it is worth it, as long as you understand the game,
>>then you know what you are getting, no harm no foul. I suppose you
>>like having toll roads along with paying your road taxes too?
>>
>>To each his own, enjoy your pay radio.
>>
> I agree with most of your points and basically feel the same way
> myself. However, there are tons of places that radio reception either
> sucks or there isn't a station worth listening to. In that case I
> usually revert to listening to CD's.
>
> Personally I like classic rock and I'm fortunate enough to have a
> really good Radio station in my area that plays that format. I even
> enjoy some of the Ad's & PSA's. As they let me know about events that
> are happening in my area.
>
> Now all that being said; if I lived in area with ****ty reception or
> limited selection I might actually subscribe to one of the services.
> It would be a lot cheaper then buying even one CD a month.

You still can't beat the fidelity of a CD on a real good system IMO.
Since I make my own CDs from dl'd music (gotta love
alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.complete_cd), my total cost is the CD itself and
the time it takes to make the CD from the mp3s. It's a no-brainer. BTW,
most of the mp3s on that newsgroup are ripped at 192 or higher, so the
fidelity is still right there.

"Joe" > wrote in message
...
>
> You still can't beat the fidelity of a CD on a real good system IMO.
> Since I make my own CDs from dl'd music (gotta love
> alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.complete_cd), my total cost is the CD itself and
> the time it takes to make the CD from the mp3s. It's a no-brainer. BTW,
> most of the mp3s on that newsgroup are ripped at 192 or higher, so the
> fidelity is still right there.

I've been cursing you under my breath ever since you previously mentioned
that group. It consumes *way* too much time trying to keep up with the
posts. There are a lot of posters there supplying a _lot_ of HQ rips. Good
stuff!
--
John C.
'03 Cobra Convt.

"Joe" > wrote in message
...
>
> You still can't beat the fidelity of a CD on a real good system IMO.
> Since I make my own CDs from dl'd music (gotta love
> alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.complete_cd), my total cost is the CD itself and
> the time it takes to make the CD from the mp3s. It's a no-brainer. BTW,
> most of the mp3s on that newsgroup are ripped at 192 or higher, so the
> fidelity is still right there.

I've been cursing you under my breath ever since you previously mentioned
that group. It consumes *way* too much time trying to keep up with the
posts. There are a lot of posters there supplying a _lot_ of HQ rips. Good
stuff!
--
John C.
'03 Cobra Convt.

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:11:14 GMT, Joe > wrote:

>Zombywoof > wrote in
:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:51:36 GMT, "351CJ" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Ken Zwyers" > wrote in message
...
>>>> It's your choice whether to buy it or not, whatever works for you.
>>>> However,
>>>> I'm not paying for anything that I would otherwise get for free.
>>>> For me, XM
>>>> has so much more content than I can find on all the AM/FM stations
>>>> combined
>>>> in Chicago. Being in my mid-40's, there are no AM/FM stations that
>>>> play only 60's, 70's or 80's music - without commercials. All the
>>>> stations in my
>>>> area combined don't play the diversity of music that XM (and I
>>>> assume Sirius) have to offer. There are no comedy-only radio
>>>> stations. There are
>>>> no all-MLB, or all NASCAR (not my style, but it's very popular),
>>>> etc. stations. There are no AM/FM stations that I can listen to
>>>> throughout an entire driving vacation. And certainly not with the
>>>> clarity of satellite radio.
>>>>
>>>> Like I say, if you don't want the service, there's nothing wrong
>>>> with that.
>>>> Just don't kid yourself that you can get the same content for free,
>>>> because
>>>> you can't. It just might not be worth the price to you. The fact
>>>> that it is worth it to me doesn't make me less than bright.
>>>
>>>It absolutely is not worth the price to me. Just like paying extra
>>>for a warranty that the manufacture should and DID in the past.
>>>provide at no additional cost, with their products.
>>>
>>>Instead of the sponsors footing the entire bill, now they are getting
>>>money from the sponsors and directly from the listeners too. All
>>>they have done is repackaged the same old ****, sold it as something
>>>new and improved, suckered a bunch of otherwise bright people into
>>>paying for what they would otherwise get for free, abracadabra.
>>>
>>>It will work just like HBO and Showtime did, sell it as a great
>>>improvement, NO COMMERCIALS. Get the mindless cattle hooked, add the
>>>commercials back in, raise the rates 6-10% per year, now you have
>>>network TV for $60+ per month. Same as TiVo, again no Commercials,
>>>fast forward right through them, right, get everyone hooked, what's
>>>that? Commercials can't be skipped anymore? Surprised?
>>>
>>>Now they have you thinking you can't live with out their content, what
>>>a shame. That's a better racket than the $5 a day Starbucks one. I'm
>>>glad you feel you are getting a good deal. It is still a rip-off. I
>>>don't care what they are selling I can live a happy full life without
>>>it.
>>>
>>>My point was not that the exact same content was currently available
>>>over the air waves for free, it was simply that if nobody was duped
>>>into paying for it in the first place, you could get it paid for by
>>>the advertisers alone.
>>>
>>>I'm glad you think it is worth it, as long as you understand the game,
>>>then you know what you are getting, no harm no foul. I suppose you
>>>like having toll roads along with paying your road taxes too?
>>>
>>>To each his own, enjoy your pay radio.
>>>
>> I agree with most of your points and basically feel the same way
>> myself. However, there are tons of places that radio reception either
>> sucks or there isn't a station worth listening to. In that case I
>> usually revert to listening to CD's.
>>
>> Personally I like classic rock and I'm fortunate enough to have a
>> really good Radio station in my area that plays that format. I even
>> enjoy some of the Ad's & PSA's. As they let me know about events that
>> are happening in my area.
>>
>> Now all that being said; if I lived in area with ****ty reception or
>> limited selection I might actually subscribe to one of the services.
>> It would be a lot cheaper then buying even one CD a month.
>
>You still can't beat the fidelity of a CD on a real good system IMO.
>Since I make my own CDs from dl'd music (gotta love
>alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.complete_cd), my total cost is the CD itself and
>the time it takes to make the CD from the mp3s. It's a no-brainer. BTW,
>most of the mp3s on that newsgroup are ripped at 192 or higher, so the
>fidelity is still right there.
>
Understood, but while I think the prices for store bought CD's to be
to high, I still refuse to obtain the material without paying the
appropriate royalties to the artists. Now if it is the artist
themselves putting their work into the public domain, I have no
problem with obtaining that which the artist him/herself released for
all to enjoy.
--

December 9, 2005 (CNN) While interviewing an anonymous
US Special Forces soldier, a Reuters News agent asked
the soldier what he felt when sniping members of Al Quaeda
in Afghanistan.

The soldier shrugged and replied, "Recoil." (Possible Urban Legend)

You're not making any sense. On the one hand, you say "I'm not paying for
anything that I would otherwise get for free.", meaning that the same
content is available over the airwaves. Then at the end of your post, you
state "My point was not that the exact same content was currently available
over the air waves for free, it was simply that if nobody was duped into
paying for it in the first place, you could get it paid for by the
advertisers alone." Now you're saying that your point wasn't that the
content is the same, despite the fact that your original statement said that
it was the same.

Again, the content isn't the same, and, if it were available over the
airwaves, then of course I wouldn't pay for it. But it isn't available. In
my mind, it's worth the price. If it's not worth it to you, that's your
choice.

The other problem that I have is that you don't seem to just be happy to
have your choice. Sure, you state "To each his own, enjoy your pay radio.".
But you also have to slam anyone who does subscribe to satellite radio: "I
suppose you like having toll roads along with paying your road taxes too?",
and "...suckered a bunch of otherwise bright people ...". Fine, it has no
value to you - that's your choice. So why aren't we allowed to our choice
without having to be insulted by you? I don't agree with your choice
either, but you don't see me insulting you for your choice - because you're
entitled to it, same as I am.

"351CJ" > wrote in message
news:YxgGf.29096$%i3.16851@trnddc02...
>
> "Ken Zwyers" > wrote in message
> ...
> > It's your choice whether to buy it or not, whatever works for you.
> > However,
> > I'm not paying for anything that I would otherwise get for free. For
me,
> > XM
> > has so much more content than I can find on all the AM/FM stations
> > combined
> > in Chicago. Being in my mid-40's, there are no AM/FM stations that play
> > only 60's, 70's or 80's music - without commercials. All the stations
in
> > my
> > area combined don't play the diversity of music that XM (and I assume
> > Sirius) have to offer. There are no comedy-only radio stations. There
> > are
> > no all-MLB, or all NASCAR (not my style, but it's very popular), etc.
> > stations. There are no AM/FM stations that I can listen to throughout
an
> > entire driving vacation. And certainly not with the clarity of
satellite
> > radio.
> >
> > Like I say, if you don't want the service, there's nothing wrong with
> > that.
> > Just don't kid yourself that you can get the same content for free,
> > because
> > you can't. It just might not be worth the price to you. The fact that
it
> > is worth it to me doesn't make me less than bright.
>
> It absolutely is not worth the price to me. Just like paying extra for a
> warranty that the manufacture should and DID in the past. provide at no
> additional cost, with their products.
>
> Instead of the sponsors footing the entire bill, now they are getting
money
> from the sponsors and directly from the listeners too. All they have
done
> is repackaged the same old ****, sold it as something new and improved,
> suckered a bunch of otherwise bright people into paying for what they
would
> otherwise get for free, abracadabra.
>
> It will work just like HBO and Showtime did, sell it as a great
improvement,
> NO COMMERCIALS. Get the mindless cattle hooked, add the commercials back
> in, raise the rates 6-10% per year, now you have network TV for $60+ per
> month. Same as TiVo, again no Commercials, fast forward right through
them,
> right, get everyone hooked, what's that? Commercials can't be skipped
> anymore? Surprised?
>
> Now they have you thinking you can't live with out their content, what a
> shame. That's a better racket than the $5 a day Starbucks one. I'm glad
> you feel you are getting a good deal. It is still a rip-off. I don't
care
> what they are selling I can live a happy full life without it.
>
> My point was not that the exact same content was currently available over
> the air waves for free, it was simply that if nobody was duped into paying
> for it in the first place, you could get it paid for by the advertisers
> alone.
>
> I'm glad you think it is worth it, as long as you understand the game,
then
> you know what you are getting, no harm no foul. I suppose you like having
> toll roads along with paying your road taxes too?
>
> To each his own, enjoy your pay radio.
>
> >
> >
> > "351CJ" > wrote in message
> > news0ZFf.28472$H43.4453@trnddc08...
> >> When I ordered my 2005 loaded F-450, I could not get a CD player that
> > played
> >> MP3's, yet it was available on the $12.000 entry level Kids car. Go
> > figure.
> >>
> >> I couldn't care less about satellite radio. I will never pay for it.
> > It's
> >> just like cable TV and buying coverage for the items you buy. They can
> > only
> >> sell it because a bunch of otherwise bright people pay for what they
> >> would
> >> otherwise get for free...
> >>
> >>
> >> "KJ.Kate" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Ford still isn't offering satellite radio?
> >> > Wow.. even the dimwits at DC offer satellite.
> >> >
> >> > KJK
> >> >
> >> > "Ken Zwyers" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> > : Thanks to everyone for your help. Well, looks like I have some
> >> > decisions
> >> > to
> >> > : make. I live in the Chicago area, but the sun can still beat down
> >> > pretty
> >> > : well during the summer. I think my best bet is to go to a few
> >> > dealerships,
> >> > : see some leather and some cloth seats, then decide which I like
best,
> >> > all
> >> > : things considered. If I prefer the leather seats, I'll go with the
> >> > GT
> >> > : Premium, otherwise I'll go with the GT Deluxe. I'm replacing the
> > stereo
> >> > : with an XM compatible one, so the stereo isn't all that big a
factor
> > to
> >> > me,
> >> > : anyway.
> >> > :
> >> > :
> >> > : > wrote in message
> >> > : ...
> >> > : > On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 11:52:04 -0600, "Ken Zwyers"
> >> > : > > wrote:
> >> > : >
> >> > : > >OK, I need a little more help, if you don't mind.
> >> > : > >
> >> > : > >I'm going to be buying an '06 GT Mustang convertible, with the
> >> > Redfire
> >> > : > >exterior. I kind of think that the black leather seats would go
> > well
> >> > : with
> >> > : > >the bright exterior. Question is, how hot do those seats get
> > during
> >> > the
> >> > : > >summer. Can anyone out there with the black leather seats let
me
> >> > know
> >> > : how
> >> > : > >they like them?
> >> > : > >
> >> > : > >Thanks again for your help!
> >> > : > >
> >> > : > >Ken Zwyers
> >> > : > >
> >> > : >
> >> > : >
> >> > : > Ken,
> >> > : >
> >> > : > A lot of the "hot" depends on where you live. I live in South
> >> > : > Louisiana, and during the summer, it gets "blue blazes hot" here
> >> > : > almost every day, a white car with white interior would "roast"
you
> > on
> >> > : > the way home if it was parked in the sun. My previous 'Stang was
> >> > : > redfire with dark charcoal leather interior, it was MISERABLY
HOT.
> > My
> >> > : > current one has the Light gray interior. I'm not sure there is
> >> > much
> >> > : > difference in temperature, I guess anything above 200 feels about
> > the
> >> > : > same <sigh>
> >> > : >
> >> > : > If you're "up north" then the black/drak gray interior probalbly
> >> > : > would be OK, down here or out west in the desert, well, that's
> > another
> >> > : > story all together.
> >> > : >
> >> > : > Then again, I know people who "insist" on driving a black car
with
> >> > : > black interior, they "endure" because it's what they want to do.
> > Get
> >> > : > what you want, as long as you're "thrilled" with it and enjoy it,
> > the
> >> > : > difference in "seat temperature" won't make much difference. And
> >> > : > then... When you get ready for a new one, hmmmm..... The "hot
> >> > : > seats" will be a deciding factor and get you into the "new car
> > smell"
> >> > : > (which can be hazardous if you're an OLD FART) <wink> LOL
> >> > : >
> >> > : > Hope you enjoy your new pony when you get it
> >> > : >
> >> > : > John
> >> > :
> >> > :
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

"Zombywoof" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:11:14 GMT, Joe > wrote:
>
> >
> >You still can't beat the fidelity of a CD on a real good system IMO.
> >Since I make my own CDs from dl'd music (gotta love
> >alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.complete_cd), my total cost is the CD itself and
> >the time it takes to make the CD from the mp3s. It's a no-brainer. BTW,
> >most of the mp3s on that newsgroup are ripped at 192 or higher, so the
> >fidelity is still right there.
> >
> Understood, but while I think the prices for store bought CD's to be
> to high, I still refuse to obtain the material without paying the
> appropriate royalties to the artists. Now if it is the artist
> themselves putting their work into the public domain, I have no
> problem with obtaining that which the artist him/herself released for
> all to enjoy.

I'm with you on that, up to a point. My rule is: If I own the material on *any*
form of media (LP, cassette or CD), I'll snag the mp3 without a trace of guilt.
I'm certainly not going to pay (again) for a digitally remastered disc of
previously purchased material. If it's new material, and I like it, I buy the
disc. Ripping HQ mp3s from CD is tedious, so even if I have it on CD, I'll snag
the post.
--
John C.
'03 Cobra Convt.

"John C." > wrote in news:%NwGf.209$Pb.49@trndny08:

>
> "Joe" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> You still can't beat the fidelity of a CD on a real good system IMO.
>> Since I make my own CDs from dl'd music (gotta love
>> alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.complete_cd), my total cost is the CD itself
>> and the time it takes to make the CD from the mp3s. It's a
>> no-brainer. BTW, most of the mp3s on that newsgroup are ripped at
>> 192 or higher, so the fidelity is still right there.
>
> I've been cursing you under my breath ever since you previously
> mentioned
> that group. It consumes *way* too much time trying to keep up with
> the posts. There are a lot of posters there supplying a _lot_ of HQ
> rips. Good stuff!

John, there are several things you might do to save time. One would be
to use something like Grabit which lets you search for specifics; the
other would be to look only in the "sub-groups" for specific genres or
time periods. HTH.

"John C." > wrote in newsPEGf.1605$Tb.1223@trndny01:

>
> "Zombywoof" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:11:14 GMT, Joe > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >You still can't beat the fidelity of a CD on a real good system IMO.
>> >Since I make my own CDs from dl'd music (gotta love
>> >alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.complete_cd), my total cost is the CD itself
>> >and the time it takes to make the CD from the mp3s. It's a
>> >no-brainer. BTW, most of the mp3s on that newsgroup are ripped at
>> >192 or higher, so the fidelity is still right there.
>> >
>> Understood, but while I think the prices for store bought CD's to be
>> to high, I still refuse to obtain the material without paying the
>> appropriate royalties to the artists. Now if it is the artist
>> themselves putting their work into the public domain, I have no
>> problem with obtaining that which the artist him/herself released for
>> all to enjoy.
>
> I'm with you on that, up to a point. My rule is: If I own the material
> on *any* form of media (LP, cassette or CD), I'll snag the mp3 without
> a trace of guilt. I'm certainly not going to pay (again) for a
> digitally remastered disc of previously purchased material. If it's
> new material, and I like it, I buy the disc. Ripping HQ mp3s from CD
> is tedious, so even if I have it on CD, I'll snag the post.
> --
> John C.
> '03 Cobra Convt.

At this point I'm not concerned about the "illegality" of dl'ing stuff
from USENET. It's my personal way of thumbing my nose at the recording
industry.

If companies want to charge me ridiculous amounts of money to purchase a
CD, I will simply circumvent the whole thing and get it for nothing from
USENET. When the price of a CD comes down to something reasonable, I will
gladly purchase it.

Most artists make their money from concerts and tours - not CD sales. The
recording/distribution companies are the ones profiting from selling CDs,
which is simply another reason to avoid supporting their ripoff tactics.

Even though the mp3 -> CD process is a bit tedious, I enjoy it as I
"tweak" the recordings with my wave editor to improve the sound to my
liking. A lot of the older recordings (i.e., classic rock) need a bit of
"spice" to compete with today's sound, so I will add a bit of high and low
end, maybe a bit of compression, etc. It's a personal thing, but my CDs
sound awesome.

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 10:28:36 GMT, "John C." > wrote:

>
>"Zombywoof" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:11:14 GMT, Joe > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >You still can't beat the fidelity of a CD on a real good system IMO.
>> >Since I make my own CDs from dl'd music (gotta love
>> >alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.complete_cd), my total cost is the CD itself and
>> >the time it takes to make the CD from the mp3s. It's a no-brainer. BTW,
>> >most of the mp3s on that newsgroup are ripped at 192 or higher, so the
>> >fidelity is still right there.
>> >
>> Understood, but while I think the prices for store bought CD's to be
>> to high, I still refuse to obtain the material without paying the
>> appropriate royalties to the artists. Now if it is the artist
>> themselves putting their work into the public domain, I have no
>> problem with obtaining that which the artist him/herself released for
>> all to enjoy.
>
>I'm with you on that, up to a point. My rule is: If I own the material on *any*
>form of media (LP, cassette or CD), I'll snag the mp3 without a trace of guilt.
>I'm certainly not going to pay (again) for a digitally remastered disc of
>previously purchased material. If it's new material, and I like it, I buy the
>disc. Ripping HQ mp3s from CD is tedious, so even if I have it on CD, I'll snag
>the post.
>
I've followed that rule since the days of vinyl. Once the artist has
gotten my money for the song, I feel I have the right to have multiple
copies. Now I wouldn't want to have to use that as a defense in
court, but I am not doing it from a legal perspective either.
--

December 9, 2005 (CNN) While interviewing an anonymous
US Special Forces soldier, a Reuters News agent asked
the soldier what he felt when sniping members of Al Quaeda
in Afghanistan.

The soldier shrugged and replied, "Recoil." (Possible Urban Legend)

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 12:17:34 GMT, Joe > wrote:

>"John C." > wrote in newsPEGf.1605$Tb.1223@trndny01:
>
>>
>> "Zombywoof" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:11:14 GMT, Joe > wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >You still can't beat the fidelity of a CD on a real good system IMO.
>>> >Since I make my own CDs from dl'd music (gotta love
>>> >alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.complete_cd), my total cost is the CD itself
>>> >and the time it takes to make the CD from the mp3s. It's a
>>> >no-brainer. BTW, most of the mp3s on that newsgroup are ripped at
>>> >192 or higher, so the fidelity is still right there.
>>> >
>>> Understood, but while I think the prices for store bought CD's to be
>>> to high, I still refuse to obtain the material without paying the
>>> appropriate royalties to the artists. Now if it is the artist
>>> themselves putting their work into the public domain, I have no
>>> problem with obtaining that which the artist him/herself released for
>>> all to enjoy.
>>
>> I'm with you on that, up to a point. My rule is: If I own the material
>> on *any* form of media (LP, cassette or CD), I'll snag the mp3 without
>> a trace of guilt. I'm certainly not going to pay (again) for a
>> digitally remastered disc of previously purchased material. If it's
>> new material, and I like it, I buy the disc. Ripping HQ mp3s from CD
>> is tedious, so even if I have it on CD, I'll snag the post.
>> --
>> John C.
>> '03 Cobra Convt.
>
>At this point I'm not concerned about the "illegality" of dl'ing stuff
>from USENET. It's my personal way of thumbing my nose at the recording
>industry.
>
I'm really not either. More of a personal thing.

>If companies want to charge me ridiculous amounts of money to purchase a
>CD, I will simply circumvent the whole thing and get it for nothing from
>USENET. When the price of a CD comes down to something reasonable, I will
>gladly purchase it.
>
>Most artists make their money from concerts and tours - not CD sales. The
>recording/distribution companies are the ones profiting from selling CDs,
>which is simply another reason to avoid supporting their ripoff tactics.
>
I know, I know. A band can expect an average of $1.00 in royalties
for each full-priced ($16.98) CD sold through normal retail channels.
Which I'm here to tell you don't happen all that often. Sometime when
you are bored read http://www.music-law.com/contractbasics.html to get
a real good idea on what's what in % points.

>Even though the mp3 -> CD process is a bit tedious, I enjoy it as I
>"tweak" the recordings with my wave editor to improve the sound to my
>liking. A lot of the older recordings (i.e., classic rock) need a bit of
>"spice" to compete with today's sound, so I will add a bit of high and low
>end, maybe a bit of compression, etc. It's a personal thing, but my CDs
>sound awesome.
>
Ahh a budding re-producer
--

December 9, 2005 (CNN) While interviewing an anonymous
US Special Forces soldier, a Reuters News agent asked
the soldier what he felt when sniping members of Al Quaeda
in Afghanistan.

The soldier shrugged and replied, "Recoil." (Possible Urban Legend)