Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hound.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hound!rfg
From: rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES)
Newsgroups: net.video
Subject: Re: Videophiles
Message-ID: <1128@hound.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-May-85 16:26:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: hound.1128
Posted: Thu May  2 16:26:55 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 3-May-85 05:20:32 EDT
References: <209@ihlpa.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 22

[]
Words, words. What do they mean?
I don't agree with you. While far from what I'd like to see, the quality of a
good tape on a good TV is more than adequate to produce all the required
effects on the viewer, especially if accompanied by a "Hi-Fi" sound track. THere
are movies that are just stunning on the  tube. Two right off: Apocolypse Now
and Blade Runner, both in Beta Hi-Fi - so you know what I'm talking about.
This sort of reasoning may or may not qualify me as a videophile, depending on
the definition you had in mind.
The $ensible Sound in a recent issue distinguishes between audiophiles and
audiophobes, to wit:
An audiophile loves music. He loves to hear it reproduced on fine equipment.
Given a good album he will play it all the way through with enjoyment.
An audiophobe loves to tweak equipment and has no positive feelings for
music one way or the other. Given an album he cannot play it for more than 12
seconds without jumping up to adjust something.
By analogy, then, I think there arelots of videophiles and few videophobes.
Someone else's turn.

-- 

"It's the thought, if any, that counts!"  Dick Grantges  hound!rfg