Sound quality research

[ColinLovesMusic]

Reel to reel scored higher than CD and vinyl?

DVD audio 6x better than CD, SACD 5x....?

That research is bogus. Their math is wrong more detail required methinks......

Not sure how their weird maths have calculated that open-reel tape is better than CD unless they factor-in its ability to record ultrasonic frequencies that no one can hear, but there's no question that it has the potential to trounce vinyl. Even a basic domestic machine like an old Akai 4000DB will rival vinyl on every qualitative test you can throw at it, providing it's well-serviced and you use high-quality tape-stock @7 1/2IPS. Move up to such as a half-track B77 @15IPS and you've left poor old vinyl in the dust.

Reel to Reel can easily better CD. It is a no contest. If we are talking purely domestic listening environment then it is unlikely anyone will house a reel to reel capable though as it needs to be huge spools running at 30ips. Except for classical music, recording onto reel to reel analog tape is still the recording medium of choice in recording studios worldwide. Only the final mastering is done digitally at a very high 32bit/196kHz sampling rate. It doesn't matter whether reel to reel can record supersonic frequencies beyond 20kHz as all output above 20kHz will be 'shelved' 'cut' 'filtered out' during the final mastering process (as is frequencies below 30Hz) That high resolution digital studio master recording then has to be downgraded to 16bit/44.1kHz sampling rate for the CD format. CD was introduced to be a high quality convienience medium with the best digital technology available at the time and is not allowed to be improved upon and still be called (compact disc digital audio). The standard was layed down by Sony/Philips in 1980. CD is itself becoming obsolete and inconvienient. Far better to have about 100hours of 24bit/96kHz or 32bit/196kHz music stored on an external hard drive that can fit in your back pocket than have racks of CDs limited to 16bit/44.1kHz. But I would say Reel to Reel is better left in the recording studio.

 

[ColinLovesMusic]

Research is all well and good in some ways but by what standards and parameters is that research carried out? I am not convinced at all that MP3 is not as good as cassette if a sufficiently high bitrate is used. Rates at 192kbps and up to 320kbps will trance a compact cassette - even a good one. 320kbps will sound as good as CD to most people when played on average audio and even reasonably good hifi equipment. Difference between 320kbps lossy and lossless CD is there but requires a high resolution analogue path after DtoA convertion in the playback equipment to complete its journey as an analogue signal of the highest quality for difference to be obvious. By what measure did the researchers test MP3? MP3 can be anything from 32kbps to 320kbps. 96kbps is just about acceptable for casual non critical listening but below that bitrate MP3 sounds horrible. Cassette can be answerphone quality or sound as good as CD, so what standards did they judge the two by? Reel to Reel can run at a low quality 2inches per second or master tape 30inches per second - a speed that outperforms digital in dynamic range and low level distortion. CD has a limitation in that the 'RED BOOK' CD standard specifies 16bit and 44.1kHz sampling rate and that can never change however good the studio transfer master is. Potentially and if applied right digital download will be the best format because the 'sky is the limit' where quality is concerned and not bogged down by 'Red Book' style standards. MP3 is limited to 320kbps lossy, but there are other digital formats that aren't. I cannot fathom how any researcher can place vinyl anywhere as it depends on how well the studio mastering (back to analog for vinyl pressing) is carried out and how well the record is pressed, and then what turntable it is played on. One person will play their vinyl on a Crosley that is like a childrens toy and sounds as good and another will play same record on something like a LinnLP12 or the like at four figure sums. Frequency response will change with just a change of cartridge and stylus amongst other things. This research is something else to talk about but I wouldn't say the results can be any way set in stone.

 

[ColinLovesMusic]

reel to reel has always been the best source. But its limitations are its downfall! Exc sacd/cd it was the best of all sources once..but i came across a 90s cassette tape of jaque loussier and i must say its rather fab! (why are French recordings so much better?)

I too have noticed this, along with some W German albums on Polydor. Cassettes really did have the potential to sound excellent, and like vinyl, were a truimph of engineering over a compromised design. For example my cassette version of Themes by Vangelis is as enjoyable to listen to as the CD and significantly better than the record, which suffers from the usual compromises they had to make when cramming nearly 30 mins per side, which of course doesn't affect CD and tape. (It's also the only album I ever bought on three different formats, though years apart.) But mostly, and for no other reason than cassettes were aimed at the mass-market lo-fi brigade who now happily download MP3, the quality of most pre-recorded cassettes stank.

Polydor records always were and still are streets ahead of other record companies. When a favourite recording artist of mine is signed to Polydor, that in itself is a reason for celebration. Great attention to detail at the recording studio and then the final pressing or taping facilities pays off big time. Some of Polydor's late 50s and 60s records sound 30 years ahead of their time. An example of very skilled sound recordists overcoming limitations in the technology of the day.

 

[ColinLovesMusic]

In 2009 Newform Research of Midland Canada did a reaserch on sound quality between different mediums. They used mathematical calculations based on "dynamic range", "frequency response", "sampling rates" and "bit equivalents".

We all seem to get very hung up about dynamic range but in reality we never hear recorded music with a dynamic range anywhere near the spec figures of our hifi equipment. All studio recordings go through compression before final transcript. For several reasons but the CD, record or whatever has to be able to be played on the kind of equipment the average joe public uses and not just hifi boffs with deep pockets. Also the trend to try and make music sound loud is achieved by ''digital limiting'. Basically the loudest bits are squashed to bring the main bulk of the recording up in level. With vinyl records if the recording was not compressed the stylus would constantly jump the groove because styli however good cannot cope with very strong bass signal and very loud transients and stay in the groove.

Like any mathematical calculation to generate survey results, they will have needed to apply a 'weighting' to each of the four criteria "dynamic range", "frequency response", "sampling rates" and "bit equivalents", according to how important they consider each one, as a contributor to 'sound quality'. Adjusting these relative weights, can easily modify the order of the results.

Yes, without knowing how they've achieved the figures they're completely meaningless.

Plus it's 7 years old, that's a lifetime in this sort of technology, hence no mention of high-res digital files (only DVD-a and sacd). Also no mention of what bitrate the mp3 was, the result suggests they've used a very compressed form. A high bitrate mp3 should have a dynamic range and frequency response close to CD and certainly on a par with vinyl.

 

[lindsayt]

Reel to reel scored higher than CD and vinyl?

DVD audio 6x better than CD, SACD 5x....?

That research is bogus. Their math is wrong more detail required methinks......

I'll have to take your word Major, I have no experience of reel to reel tape.

I worked with a fella who used videotape as a recording medium to good effect. He integrated his videoplayer into his set. Better than cassette tape by some margin but was still limited in frequency extremes. Bass in particular.....just saying.

This compared to vinyl at the time.

CD will accommodate anything produced on tape or vinyl and vinyl we know is limited to the stylus/turntable used.

So, why did you express such a forthright opinion on something that you have no experience of?

 

[The_Lhc]

Dynamic range

The Dr of CD is already enough to cause permanent deafness at the top end, what more do you think is actually required? The fact that producers choose not to use it is no reason to deny that the format is capable of that sort of range.

The Dr of 24-bit audio, if it could ever actually be reproduced in the home, would give a maximum volume that would actually be fatal. It's a complete waste of time.

 

[hg]

Not sure how their weird maths have calculated that open-reel tape is better than CD unless they factor-in its ability to record ultrasonic frequencies that no one can hear, but there's no question that it has the potential to trounce vinyl. Even a basic domestic machine like an old Akai 4000DB will rival vinyl on every qualitative test you can throw at it, providing it's well-serviced and you use high-quality tape-stock @7 1/2IPS. Move up to such as a half-track B77 @15IPS and you've left poor old vinyl in the dust.

I don't know the details of the OP's review but in the 70s before digital it was common in the engineering industry to run a reel-to-reel tape recorder at high speed with FM to get decent performance. Not sure the music industry ever bothered.

 

[BigH]

Well its all about numbers, most don't have any relevance to what we hear. Yes cd has up to 90db dynamic range and SACD has 105db but considering most cds are around 10db what does that matter. SACD scores highly because of frequency range upto 50khz, cd is only 20khz but then hardly anyone can hear above 20khz.

If mp3 is so bad why can't people hear the difference between that and cd quality?

Here is a test: http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~hockman/documents/Pras_presentation2009.pdf

with mp3 at and above 256kbs they could not pick the difference between mp3 and cd, these were musicians and sound engineers.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

 

Reel to reel scored higher than CD and vinyl?

DVD audio 6x better than CD, SACD 5x....?

That research is bogus. Their math is wrong more detail required methinks......

 

 

I'll have to take your word Major, I have no experience of reel to reel tape.

I worked with a fella who used videotape as a recording medium to good effect. He integrated his videoplayer into his set. Better than cassette tape by some margin but was still limited in frequency extremes. Bass in particular.....just saying.

This compared to vinyl at the time.

CD will accommodate anything produced on tape or vinyl and vinyl we know is limited to the stylus/turntable used.

So, why did you express such a forthright opinion on something that you have no experience of?

Well, the medium.....

Reel to reel is magnetic tape it also requires a machanical device for playback.

This in itself creates issues with regard fidelity. Unwanted noise and deteriorating over time.

Bass though is an issue on tape, it's just a part of the mediums properties and always was when recording onto tape in my experience.(cassette and video)

While I have no experience of reel to reel I do have experience of recording to tape and tape always suffered compared to the original format the sound levels being a major compromise. A CD/digital delivers a near identical copy to the original regardless (although the equ is not equal) and levels will never be compromised to accommodate - in fact you can go 'louder' ......to my ears anyway.

I'm happy to be corrected - just that the format is limited by its design.

We can argue the figures but real world application, I'd love to hear a soundoff reel to reel v CD, I know where my money would go.....

 

[The_Lhc]

Well its all about numbers, most don't have any relevance to what we hear. Yes cd has up to 90db dynamic range and SACD has 105db but considering most cds are around 10db what does that matter.

Nothing at all, you could just as equally apply the awful CD mastering to sacd or hi-res audio and it would sound just as bad. Equally you could use the decent mastering found on many hi-res releases on CD. That's another thing that makes these scores worthless, they're dealing with theoretical maximums, which are never utilized fully.

SACD scores highly because of frequency range upto 50khz, cd is only 20khz but then hardly anyone can hear above 20khz.

Hardly anyone can even hear 20khz, never mind above it, which is why CD's upper limit of 22.05kHz is more than enough.

If mp3 is so bad why can't people hear the difference between that and cd quality?

Here is a test: http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~hockman/documents/Pras_presentation2009.pdf

with mp3 at and above 256kbs they could not pick the difference between mp3 and cd, these were musicians and sound engineers. 

As I said before these figures are 7 years old, it's quite possible they were using 128kbps mp3 or even lower.

 

[The_Lhc]

We can argue the figures but real world application, I'd love to hear a soundoff reel to reel v CD, I know where my money would go.....

What would be the point of any such comparison when you've already made your mind up?

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Well its all about numbers, most don't have any relevance to what we hear. Yes cd has up to 90db dynamic range and SACD has 105db but considering most cds are around 10db what does that matter. SACD scores highly because of frequency range upto 50khz, cd is only 20khz but then hardly anyone can hear above 20khz.

If mp3 is so bad why can't people hear the difference between that and cd quality?

Here is a test: http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~hockman/documents/Pras_presentation2009.pdf

with mp3 at and above 256kbs they could not pick the difference between mp3 and cd, these were musicians and sound engineers. 

I hear what you are saying here but it does depend on the quality of the production on the CD.

MP3 has a 'ceiling' - a poor recording on CD may well be indistinguishable from MP3 - but a really good recording......

The thing with the likes of SACD is its limited by sample rates of the DAC more so than the capacity of the discs.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

We can argue the figures but real world application, I'd love to hear a soundoff reel to reel v CD, I know where my money would go.....

What would be the point of any such comparison when you've already made your mind up?

Well..... I enjoy that sort of comparison and I have no problem being wrong or being corrected.

My views are not cast in stone - I'm cool like that.....

Just that tape was always the bottom of the pile.....

 

[BigH]

Well its all about numbers, most don't have any relevance to what we hear. Yes cd has up to 90db dynamic range and SACD has 105db but considering most cds are around 10db what does that matter.

Nothing at all, you could just as equally apply the awful CD mastering to sacd or hi-res audio and it would sound just as bad. Equally you could use the decent mastering found on many hi-res releases on CD. That's another thing that makes these scores worthless, they're dealing with theoretical maximums, which are never utilized fully.

SACD scores highly because of frequency range upto 50khz, cd is only 20khz but then hardly anyone can hear above 20khz.

Hardly anyone can even hear 20khz, never mind above it, which is why CD's upper limit of 22.05kHz is more than enough.

If mp3 is so bad why can't people hear the difference between that and cd quality?

Here is a test: http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~hockman/documents/Pras_presentation2009.pdf

with mp3 at and above 256kbs they could not pick the difference between mp3 and cd, these were musicians and sound engineers.

As I said before these figures are 7 years old, it's quite possible they were using 128kbps mp3 or even lower.

First point that is what I was saying. Its irrelevant. Second thats what I said, if you read the quote. They were using 320kps, I suggest you read the article:

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/0909/

 

[BigH]

Reel to reel scored higher than CD and vinyl?

DVD audio 6x better than CD, SACD 5x....?

That research is bogus. Their math is wrong more detail required methinks......

I'll have to take your word Major, I have no experience of reel to reel tape.

I worked with a fella who used videotape as a recording medium to good effect. He integrated his videoplayer into his set. Better than cassette tape by some margin but was still limited in frequency extremes. Bass in particular.....just saying.

This compared to vinyl at the time.

CD will accommodate anything produced on tape or vinyl and vinyl we know is limited to the stylus/turntable used.

So, why did you express such a forthright opinion on something that you have no experience of?

Well, the medium.....

Reel to reel is magnetic tape it also requires a machanical device for playback.

This in itself creates issues with regard fidelity. Unwanted noise and deteriorating over time.

Bass though is an issue on tape, it's just a part of the mediums properties and always was when recording onto tape in my experience.(cassette and video)

While I have no experience of reel to reel I do have experience of recording to tape and tape always suffered compared to the original format the sound levels being a major compromise. A CD/digital delivers a near identical copy to the original regardless (although the equ is not equal) and levels will never be compromised to accommodate - in fact you can go 'louder' ......to my ears anyway.

I'm happy to be corrected - just that the format is limited by its design.

We can argue the figures but real world application, I'd love to hear a soundoff reel to reel v CD, I know where my money would go.....

Before digital what do you think they recorded onto? So tape recording has problems with bass, never heard that before.

 

[keeper of the quays]

We can argue the figures but real world application, I'd love to hear a soundoff reel to reel v CD, I know where my money would go.....

What would be the point of any such comparison when you've already made your mind up?

If one extrapolates your point. You could argue there is no point in debate..As everyone involved has a immovable mindset! May I suggest thinking? A new concept possibly? Seems thinking is popular amongst the intelligent people? Have a go? What have you got to lose?

 

[Thompsonuxb]

 

Reel to reel scored higher than CD and vinyl?

DVD audio 6x better than CD, SACD 5x....?

That research is bogus. Their math is wrong more detail required methinks......

 

 

I'll have to take your word Major, I have no experience of reel to reel tape.

I worked with a fella who used videotape as a recording medium to good effect. He integrated his videoplayer into his set. Better than cassette tape by some margin but was still limited in frequency extremes. Bass in particular.....just saying.

This compared to vinyl at the time.

CD will accommodate anything produced on tape or vinyl and vinyl we know is limited to the stylus/turntable used.

So, why did you express such a forthright opinion on something that you have no experience of?

Well, the medium.....

Reel to reel is magnetic tape it also requires a machanical device for playback.

This in itself creates issues with regard fidelity. Unwanted noise and deteriorating over time.

Bass though is an issue on tape, it's just a part of the mediums properties and always was when recording onto tape in my experience.(cassette and video)

While I have no experience of reel to reel I do have experience of recording to tape and tape always suffered compared to the original format the sound levels being a major compromise. A CD/digital delivers a near identical copy to the original regardless (although the equ is not equal) and levels will never be compromised to accommodate - in fact you can go 'louder' ......to my ears anyway.

I'm happy to be corrected - just that the format is limited by its design.

We can argue the figures but real world application, I'd love to hear a soundoff reel to reel v CD, I know where my money would go.....

Before digital what do you think they recorded onto? So tape recording has problems with bass, never heard that before.

'Problems' it's a loose term....not problems.

Its like comparing the sound track on VHS with that of DVD or with a CD.

I'm not saying bass never existed - it's just better now.....

 

[BigH]

Reel to reel scored higher than CD and vinyl?

DVD audio 6x better than CD, SACD 5x....?

That research is bogus. Their math is wrong more detail required methinks......

I'll have to take your word Major, I have no experience of reel to reel tape.

I worked with a fella who used videotape as a recording medium to good effect. He integrated his videoplayer into his set. Better than cassette tape by some margin but was still limited in frequency extremes. Bass in particular.....just saying.

This compared to vinyl at the time.

CD will accommodate anything produced on tape or vinyl and vinyl we know is limited to the stylus/turntable used.

So, why did you express such a forthright opinion on something that you have no experience of?

Well, the medium.....

Reel to reel is magnetic tape it also requires a machanical device for playback.

This in itself creates issues with regard fidelity. Unwanted noise and deteriorating over time.

Bass though is an issue on tape, it's just a part of the mediums properties and always was when recording onto tape in my experience.(cassette and video)

While I have no experience of reel to reel I do have experience of recording to tape and tape always suffered compared to the original format the sound levels being a major compromise. A CD/digital delivers a near identical copy to the original regardless (although the equ is not equal) and levels will never be compromised to accommodate - in fact you can go 'louder' ......to my ears anyway.

I'm happy to be corrected - just that the format is limited by its design.

We can argue the figures but real world application, I'd love to hear a soundoff reel to reel v CD, I know where my money would go.....

Before digital what do you think they recorded onto? So tape recording has problems with bass, never heard that before.

'Problems' it's a loose term....not problems.

Its like comparing the sound track on VHS with that of DVD or with a CD.

I'm not saying bass never existed - it's just better now.....

You said issues. I'm just saying so much was recorded on tape anyway. Where do you think many of these cds come from? Most cd sound quality went down in quality in the last 20 years anyway, I don't find bass better now than before digital, in fact I find over done on many recordings, I suppose that is for taste and what it is generally played on but its not accurate. Even now they are using tape to give a warmer sound to recordings. Some artists prefer analogue tape. The main problem I have with tape is hiss.

 

[stefanom]

Silly or not silly thread, it created discussions. I am worried about the future of the physical format. To be more precise, the research was about the fidelity potential of the format.

Here is a link to article of the research:

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/0909/

p.s. I just upgraded my CD6005 for SA8005 SACD player. Still breaking it in, but out of the box I can hear it's an vast upgrade. Now I can finally enjoy my SACD layer of the 10 hybrid discs I own.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

 

Reel to reel scored higher than CD and vinyl?

DVD audio 6x better than CD, SACD 5x....?

That research is bogus. Their math is wrong more detail required methinks......

 

 

I'll have to take your word Major, I have no experience of reel to reel tape.

I worked with a fella who used videotape as a recording medium to good effect. He integrated his videoplayer into his set. Better than cassette tape by some margin but was still limited in frequency extremes. Bass in particular.....just saying.

This compared to vinyl at the time.

CD will accommodate anything produced on tape or vinyl and vinyl we know is limited to the stylus/turntable used.

So, why did you express such a forthright opinion on something that you have no experience of?

Well, the medium.....

Reel to reel is magnetic tape it also requires a machanical device for playback.

This in itself creates issues with regard fidelity. Unwanted noise and deteriorating over time.

Bass though is an issue on tape, it's just a part of the mediums properties and always was when recording onto tape in my experience.(cassette and video)

While I have no experience of reel to reel I do have experience of recording to tape and tape always suffered compared to the original format the sound levels being a major compromise. A CD/digital delivers a near identical copy to the original regardless (although the equ is not equal) and levels will never be compromised to accommodate - in fact you can go 'louder' ......to my ears anyway.

I'm happy to be corrected - just that the format is limited by its design.

We can argue the figures but real world application, I'd love to hear a soundoff reel to reel v CD, I know where my money would go.....

Before digital what do you think they recorded onto? So tape recording has problems with bass, never heard that before.

'Problems' it's a loose term....not problems.

Its like comparing the sound track on VHS with that of DVD or with a CD.

I'm not saying bass never existed - it's just better now.....

You said issues. I'm just saying so much was recorded on tape anyway. Where do you think many of these cds come from? Most cd sound quality went down in quality in the last 20 years anyway, I don't find bass better now than before digital, in fact I find over done on many recordings, I suppose that is for taste and what it is generally played on but its not accurate. Even now they are using tape to give a warmer sound to recordings. Some artists prefer analogue tape. The main problem I have with tape is hiss.

Im not disagreeing, tape has been around forever I know....

But playing tape loud reveals its limitations.(over done bass? I blame amps with no tone controls)

But maybe it's our taste in music but to me bass now is superior - in terms of range depth, texture.

I remember old bass but New digital bass is better......imo.

But I'm not disagreeing with you....

 

[keeper of the quays]

Silly or not silly thread, it created discussions. I am worried about the future of the physical format. To be more precise, the research was about the fidelity potential of the format.

Here is a link to article of the research:

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/0909/

p.s. I just upgraded my CD6005 for SA8005 SACD player. Still breaking it in, but out of the box I can hear it's an vast upgrade. Now I can finally enjoy my SACD layer of the 10 hybrid discs I own.

I couldn't agree more..yes it has created a interesting response where i have learnt something! I thought for a long while sacd wasn't much of a format and rereleasing old titles from the 50s and 60s was just a exercise to garner more money from old recordings..until Sunday! My mate has got himself another toy..its a musical fidelity kw sacd/cd player and I would like to now say how wrong I was...i have no superlatives to adequately describe the sound of Ella Fitzgerald and louis Armstrong singing! The sound that emanated from the kw is er? Well? Ehmmm? Stonking!!! If I wore a hat? I would take it off to musical fidelity kw sacd/cd player..im converted to sacd I would also say cd replay is probably the finest I have heard too! You can see the shape of the decay of notes which then surround the rest of the music whilst fading away slowly! Giving a entirely different verve to the sound! I'm very jealous..and I don't usually do jealousy? Lol

 

[tonky]

Of course it is. But (inmho) you don't need anywhere near high end type equipment to hear the obvious difference between 320mbs and the CD equivalent. 320 mbs is very nice on spotify and other mp3 storage devices. Very convenient etc. A good system (around 500£) should show up the difference. If other listeners aren't bothered by the difference or don't think there is enough difference to be concerned about - fair play to them. - you pays your money etc

cheers tonky

 

[The_Lhc]

We can argue the figures but real world application, I'd love to hear a soundoff reel to reel v CD, I know where my money would go.....

What would be the point of any such comparison when you've already made your mind up?

If one extrapolates your point. You could argue there is no point in debate..As everyone involved has a immovable mindset! May I suggest thinking? A new concept possibly? Seems thinking is popular amongst the intelligent people? Have a go? What have you got to lose?

Are you suggesting I don't know what debate is? You don't even understand the meaning of the ******* word! Debate is not endlessly shouting your idiotic opinion over and over in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that's your modus operandi, not mine. I'm the one telling other people they need to be more open minded not the other way around.

 

[BigH]

Of course it is. But (inmho) you don't need anywhere near high end type equipment to hear the obvious difference between 320mbs and the CD equivalent. 320 mbs is very nice on spotify and other mp3 storage devices. Very convenient etc. A good system (around 500£) should show up the difference. If other listeners aren't bothered by the difference or don't think there is enough difference to be concerned about - fair play to them. - you pays your money etc

cheers tonky

So why can't people hear the difference then in blind tests?

 

[keeper of the quays]

We can argue the figures but real world application, I'd love to hear a soundoff reel to reel v CD, I know where my money would go.....

What would be the point of any such comparison when you've already made your mind up?

If one extrapolates your point. You could argue there is no point in debate..As everyone involved has a immovable mindset! May I suggest thinking? A new concept possibly? Seems thinking is popular amongst the intelligent people? Have a go? What have you got to lose?

Are you suggesting I don't know what debate is? You don't even understand the meaning of the ******* word! Debate is not endlessly shouting your idiotic opinion over and over in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that's your modus operandi, not mine. I'm the one telling other people they need to be more open minded not the other way around.

Stop swearing lhc!!! The mods will close the thread...try being more descriptive? You need to exhaust all other means of making your point before resorting to expletives..let me see if I can help at all? Instead of expletive! Why not try this.im agog with fury? or I'm very angry with you? or I have carefully considered your comments and strangely find myself agreeing with you? I recommend that one...