If the cap fits
 

Keith G wrote:
"Phil North" wrote in message
...

This ng is part of *usenet*, and it has the
character that is quite typical of that arena - eclectic, informative,
funny, and provokingly no-holds-barred.


That is exactly why I've been lurking on uk.rec.motorcycles for the past 5
years. I know next to bugger all about bikes other than what the wife
tells me, but no other newsgroup has made me laugh or stop and think as
much as UKRM.



Heh heh! I used to post there (under a pseudonym, naturally - I used to
wind them up mercilessly and 'biker boy' threats carry a *lot* more weight
with me than the blusterings of pudgy, hifi nerds.... ;-) is it still as
raggedy-arsed as it was a few years ago?

Ho yuss. It's calmed down somewhat in the last few months but still has
a robust edge to it.

I would like to post there again but I don't have a bike atm and there's no
way I'm a 'wannabee' poster....!!

:-)

Need another bike.....

CG125? MSOHP

Want another bike now.....

Want a BMW.......

One might pop up for sale if you lurk for a while, and you don't need
any more amps do you? :-)

If the cap fits
 

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
It's not *my* standard, it simply exists............

Surely even you cannon claim to be infallible.:-)

"Fader jockey" ?

How little you seem to know about recording:-((
Please come as a visitor to some sessions for a
couple of days, and see what we really do.
It will without doubt open your eyes, and
revolutionise most of what you *thought*
you knew about recording:-)

Perhaps Pinky thinks fader jockey some form of insult.
Can be fun to let an 'engineer' lose on a little bit of simple mixing and
watch them cock it up...

--
*On the other hand, you have different fingers.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

If the cap fits
 

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
Interesting that Radford used a SS pre-amp with their classic STA 25.
And SS design has moved on somewhat since then.

The preamplifier designed by Arthur Radford to match the STA15 and the
STA25 power amplifiers was the SC.22 (opt SC.22 with own psu)

It was a valve unit.

In 1967 when I bought mine the STA25 cost £52.10s and the
SC.22 the princely sum of £35.
I still have the pair, and listen to them almost daily.

The one I saw was most definitely SS. Later version? Would have been
roughly '70.

--
*Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

If the cap fits
 

In article , Keith G
wrote:


Rob, for gawd's sake don't take this personally, but to a number of us
outside 'academia' or the 'corporate ladder environment' the possession
of a degree even a few decades ago (when a degree was supposed to 'mean
something') was no indicator of 'intelligence' or suitability to a
particular rôle in many (but not all) fields.

You may be relieved to know that many of those *inside* 'academia' also
hold the view that degrees are often no indicator of intelligence or
suitability. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

If the cap fits
 

In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


My own command of English is (alas) poor, so I tend to not be aware of
that side of HFW. However, see below... :-)


Journalists refer to this as "aiming low", by which they mean lowering
the editorial standard to suit the readership of the paper/magazine in
question.

In itself, I think it is fair enough for a magazine to have a 'house style'
and adopt an approach that is designed to keep the language and
explanations at a level that will be suitable for the target readership.

FWIW Some years ago I wrote a number of articles for 'New Scientist'
(nothing to do with audio). Their assumption was that the typical reader
was someone in a job like an Ambulance driver who may have no science or
maths A-levels/highers, but was reasonably bright and interested in science
and technology. Then aim the style and content at that sort of readership.

This places serious demands of the authors and editors if the results
genuinely seek to be clear and reliable explanations of technical matters.
It is *much* harder than writing for 'learned journals' where obscure prose
is often regarded as proof that the author must be very clever to
understand such gabble. :-)

New Scientist pay well, though... :-)

The problem is that some audio mag editors and writers not only seem to
regard a 'matey style' as more important than content, but have no real
idea or concern that sometimes they write/print nonsense, or at best
'information free' content. This isn't, I think, a matter of style as such.
It is a matter of how they regard themselves as gurus and their readers
almost like acolytes. I suppose this tends to follow from a
low-pay-by-the-word approach... We don't want it good, we want it Thursday.

One can see this clearly in comparison between The Telegraph
(for instance) and the Daily Mirror :-))

Can't say that I ever read either of the above. :-)

Why read a newspaper when you can read what is going on months or years
earlier somewhere like Private Eye? 8-]

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

If the cap fits
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
Interesting that Radford used a SS pre-amp with their classic STA 25.
And SS design has moved on somewhat since then.

The preamplifier designed by Arthur Radford to match the STA15 and the
STA25 power amplifiers was the SC.22 (opt SC.22 with own psu)

It was a valve unit.

In 1967 when I bought mine the STA25 cost £52.10s and the
SC.22 the princely sum of £35.
I still have the pair, and listen to them almost daily.

The one I saw was most definitely SS. Later version? Would have been
roughly '70.


Hmm! I don't think that Radford had a SS pre-amp that early.
There was an integrated amplifier the SCA-30 which appeared I
think in 1971. It was approximately twice the cost of the STA25
and SC22, and sounded inferior, IMO.

There was also an SC24 control unit (late 1972?)
This is perhaps the unit you remember.
Although the two were on sale at the same time, it
is not really a contemporary of the STA25, as the SPA 50
(solid state power amplifier) was introduced at this time.

Arthur Radford was principally a designer of test equipment.
His distortion measuring equipment is still far more sought
after than anything by HP or Marconi.

He also designed and built a very good valve RIAA stage together
with an inverse RIAA unit, which he supplied to major studios.
This is still regarded by many as a benchmark. He split the
RIAA over three stages. Not only did he get the RIAA right
(including the 3.18µS:-) but the phase response
was also correct.

These are rarer than hens' teeth, and the only one I have ever known
come up for sale, was sold to Japan for a four figure sum!

Iain

If the cap fits
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
It's not *my* standard, it simply exists............

Surely even you cannon claim to be infallible.:-)

"Fader jockey" ?

How little you seem to know about recording:-((
Please come as a visitor to some sessions for a
couple of days, and see what we really do.
It will without doubt open your eyes, and
revolutionise most of what you *thought*
you knew about recording:-)

Perhaps Pinky thinks fader jockey some form of insult.
Can be fun to let an 'engineer' lose on a little bit of simple mixing and
watch them cock it up...


I recall that on one occasion, after I had been working some nine weeks,
night
and day on a complex project, a pert female journalist in a very short
skirt, asked
me sweetly "How many albums to you record in a day?"


But, funny that you should mention putting someone else in the hot seat.
As part of a PR exercise we sometimes used to have a studio "open day"
when people were given a guided tour, and often allowed to sit in on a
session. If a studio was free, we used to set up a 24 track, mark up the
scribble strip so that they knew what was on each track, and could
lift the fader and pan the signal on it to a suitable position in the stereo
picture.
We did not bother with expanders, compressors, limiters, outboard
processors,
EQ, reverb, echo, timelines, or any of that nonsense. Just a simple dry mix.
Without exception, even those who thought they knew all about it,
got into a terrible tangle within minutes.


That's only a simple dry mix. Consider the situation when you have seventy
musicians in the studio, and the clock is ticking.... That really *is*
fun:-))

Iain

If the cap fits
 

Keith G wrote:

"Phil North" wrote in message
...

That is exactly why I've been lurking on uk.rec.motorcycles for the past 5
years. I know next to bugger all about bikes other than what the wife
tells me, but no other newsgroup has made me laugh or stop and think as
much as UKRM.



Heh heh! I used to post there (under a pseudonym, naturally - I used to
wind them up mercilessly and 'biker boy' threats carry a *lot* more weight
with me than the blusterings of pudgy, hifi nerds.... ;-) is it still as
raggedy-arsed as it was a few years ago?

I would like to post there again but I don't have a bike atm and there's no
way I'm a 'wannabee' poster....!!

No sign of merciless wind-ups as far as I can see, unless it is a
wind-up to claim to be an incompetent, incontinent, chip eater.
Maybe Keith is really Sir.Tony.

--
Eiron.

If the cap fits
 

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:33:38 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Iain M Churches wrote:

The 3.18µSec time constant is not mentioned in the RIAA spec, but was
adopted, at least in studios and broadcast, by the mid-late 60's.

During cutting, the RIAA pre-emphasis (cutting curve) cannot be allowed
to continue indefinitely, and so a final constant of 3.18µS was
added to protect the cutter head at supersonic frequencies.

Thanks, I've been made aware of this also by Nick.

Neumann, Westrex, Ortofon, and Lyrec all used a slightly different value to
best suit their own cutter, which explains why the 3.18µS was never
"written in stone"

Yes, it does make me a little doubtful about incorporating this as a
permanent feature, quite aside from the stability implications. It's
almost like going back to the '50s, when phono preamps had *lots* of
equalisation curves from which to choose! :-)

Isn't it just a formalization of the fact that a series-feedback
amplifier can't have a gain of less than 1?

Mine does...... :-)

It's rather late to discuss this now but what was the justification for
the RIAA picking time constants that can't be realized using standard
component values?

Who says they can't? My RIAA preamp uses standard E24 values. Granted,
they're paralleled up in one instance.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

If the cap fits
 

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
But, funny that you should mention putting someone else in the hot seat.
As part of a PR exercise we sometimes used to have a studio "open day"
when people were given a guided tour, and often allowed to sit in on a
session. If a studio was free, we used to set up a 24 track, mark up
the scribble strip so that they knew what was on each track, and could
lift the fader and pan the signal on it to a suitable position in the
stereo picture. We did not bother with expanders, compressors,
limiters, outboard processors, EQ, reverb, echo, timelines, or any of
that nonsense. Just a simple dry mix. Without exception, even those who
thought they knew all about it, got into a terrible tangle within
minutes.

The one I remeber best was at the BBC. It was a multi-track of an actual
live Nationwide, with all the presenters, VTs, OBs etc on separate tracks.
And tone or rubbish on them where there was no programme material. As
would happen in real life. With only few seconds of silence between
wanted bits and that rubbish. And one track of production talkback.

You were given a script about a half hour before the 'test' so you could
have a rough idea of the sequence, and mark it up. Desk already marked up
for you.

The tape was started about 15 minutes before the show with all the changes
in running order from the original script given on talkback. As per
normal. Miss any of these and you got in a right mess. As you would on a
'real' show of that type.

So only a simple switching exercise really - just requiring the correct
fader(s) up at the right time, and closed when not. Easy peasy if you've
been trained to do this. But for those who thought such a task simple
because they'd never done it, a recipe for disaster. ;-)

--
*If work is so terrific, how come they have to pay you to do it?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.