"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


I can enjoy tubes for what they are - a technological
sentimental journey, and a technological backwater for
people who can't master the more difficult art of
building SS power amps.

Who would bother to do such a thing?

Obviously, people who are interested in taking a sentimental journey, and
want to have the fun of building amps without having to be really adept.

SS amps are as cheap as chips.

The Chinese seem to be doing their part for tubed amps...

Has the reason why people build tube amps
totally escaped you?

One thing is for sure, nobody builds tubed amps because they are the best
way to achieve sonic accuracy. Tubed amps fit into three categories

(1) Basically EFX boxes, examples: most SETs and guitar amps. Note that
these are both major areas of interest in tubes, and remain niche markets
with some substance to them.

(2) Wannabee, barely-are sonically transparent amps - leading example would
be the Dyna 70. Kinda of marginally built on the best day of its life, but
can get the job done under more ideal circumstances.

(3) Honest-to-goodness solidly sonically transparent tube amps - I'll leave
the examples up to the reader. I'm thinking of amps by CJ, AR, Mc, Manley,
etc.

Stewart used the term "spearing fish in a barrel" and
you stated that it was your duty to keep Patrick Turner
under control (rather a sad deluded statement, as the
level of Patrick's knowledge is at least 60dB above
your own!)

In your dreams Iain, even your alleged level of
technical knowlege is 144 db above mine.

db? (Both letters lower case) There you go again:-) It's
a good thing you are not a musician Arny. You could not
write Gb dim and expect people to know that you meant Gb
Aug.

Nahh Iain, you just like to whine.

Both of you, as I recall used the term "feet of clay"
to describe others on the group.

Oh come on Iain don't be shy. I used "feet of clay" to
describe you.

You replied, I am told, to my BBC pal in identical terms
earlier. I presume that you got the term from Stewart -
it is unlikely you could have thought it up on your own.

Hint: it orginated in the Bible.

But whatever your agenda, together with Stewart, you
succeeded in driving away some good people, before
Stewart's rather sudden demise.

Prove it.

I correspond regularly with people who have left
Usenet because of their aversion to "John the Baptist" (that's you Arny:-)
Some ten names come to mind in just a
few seconds. That's something for a true Christian to be
proud of!

Given your propensity to lying and hyperbole Iain, that's just noise and
rumor.


Prove it.

Simply reading the posts is all the proof required.

See my former comment.

And now you talk about "harm and discomfort in others"

A phrase that trolled you quite effectively, Iain.
Thanks for indicting yourself again!

Your choice of phrase illustrates how well you live up to
your reputation as a sanctimonious born-again hypocrite.

Simply reading your posts is all the proof that is needed, Iain.

But, I must admit you *are* consistent:-)

Further discussion with you on this matter is pointless.

Iain, then stop whining, already. No, you like to spew bile. That's why you
just keep on being you.

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Another of those bitchy comments you say you hate so much in others.
Including boasting on how much you earn. How very juvenile.

As you well know. Dave, levels of pay in our industry are skill related.

Sorry to be late in replying.

You don't work in my industry, Iain.

--
*Toilet stolen from police station. Cops have nothing to go on.

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

In article i,
Iain Churches wrote:
Another of those bitchy comments you say you hate so much in others.
Including boasting on how much you earn. How very juvenile.

Dave. I have just remembered, I have an e-mail from you written some
time ago, in which you were very keen indeed to know the rates of pay
for your kind of work in this part of the EBU region. I think the info I
was able to supply came as a bit of a shock to you. You did not think
it juvenile then:-)))

A private enquiry about general pay rates is rather a different matter
than boasting about how much one earns etc on a newsgroup. However I'd
guess that too subtle for you.

I am told that "the problem in the UK is that there are few staff jobs in
broadcast, and a large number of people are competing for the same
work as freelances at a standard-rate on a take-it-or-leave-it basis."

As is the case in any industry employing a largely freelance workforce.
Individual bargaining for each one would be impossible.

--
*We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


I can enjoy tubes for what they are - a technological
sentimental journey, and a technological backwater for
people who can't master the more difficult art of
building SS power amps.

Who would bother to do such a thing?

Obviously, people who are interested in taking a sentimental journey, and
want to have the fun of building amps without having to be really adept.

Arny. Your dyslexia gets worse by the day. I was asking: "who would
bother to build SS amps?"

Discussion with you is pointless.
I would rather spend my time with
Emma Kirkby - a much more attractive proposition.:-)

Iain

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Another of those bitchy comments you say you hate so much in others.
Including boasting on how much you earn. How very juvenile.

As you well know. Dave, levels of pay in our industry are skill related.

Sorry to be late in replying.

You don't work in my industry, Iain.

I have probably mixed and edited music for more TV documentaries
and corporate programmes than you would imagine. The transition
from music recording/editing to TV post is interesting and not difficult.
A transition in the opposite direction is not so easy.

Iain

In article i,
Iain Churches wrote:
You don't work in my industry, Iain.

I have probably mixed and edited music for more TV documentaries
and corporate programmes than you would imagine. The transition
from music recording/editing to TV post is interesting and not difficult.
A transition in the opposite direction is not so easy.

You really are a patronising git, Iain.

You wouldn't have a clue how to set up the comms for even a minor
sporting event TV coverage, for example.

There's a lot more to TV sound than simple music balancing. Kids on
computers do that these days. With no training.

*My* industry is basically all aspects of 'live' TV. And you've just
proved you know nothing about it. Or perhaps you don't realise that
music plays only a small part in TV. And that the background music
you've been involved with is usually hated by the viewer. ;-)

--
*All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article i,
Iain Churches wrote:
Another of those bitchy comments you say you hate so much in others.
Including boasting on how much you earn. How very juvenile.

Dave. I have just remembered, I have an e-mail from you written some
time ago, in which you were very keen indeed to know the rates of pay
for your kind of work in this part of the EBU region. I think the info I
was able to supply came as a bit of a shock to you. You did not think
it juvenile then:-)))

A private enquiry about general pay rates is rather a different matter
than boasting about how much one earns etc on a newsgroup. However I'd
guess that too subtle for you.

No boast on my part , no subtlety on yours:-) I simply stated that you
might find the pay slip very much to your liking. Those working in a sector
of the industry where supply exceeds demand, don't seem to get a fair
deal.


I am told that "the problem in the UK is that there are few staff jobs in
broadcast, and a large number of people are competing for the same
work as freelances at a standard-rate on a take-it-or-leave-it basis."

As is the case in any industry employing a largely freelance workforce.
Individual bargaining for each one would be impossible.

Not so. Producers, directors, editors, writers, also freelance, are
treated as individuals, as are many of those involved in post production.
They are picked for their skills, as the best possible person for that
particular production. Why cannot a sound recordist be deserving
of the same notice?

The legendary Gus Dudgeon, a talented man who became
highly successful, made some interesting comments on just this
situation within our industry. He stressed the importance of knowing
your own value. Some years ago, a good friend of mine in the UK
who was rushed off his feet, but was reluctant to turn anyone down,
decided to raise his rate by 35%. This resulted in a reduction of
hours worked of 12%. I will leave you to do the maths and see
the benefit:-) The jobs that he did not get were those he would
have liked to turn down anyway:-)

Iain

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article i,
Iain Churches wrote:
You don't work in my industry, Iain.

I have probably mixed and edited music for more TV documentaries
and corporate programmes than you would imagine. The transition
from music recording/editing to TV post is interesting and not difficult.
A transition in the opposite direction is not so easy.

You really are a patronising git, Iain.

If it "were" easy, then many people would do it, as it is generally
seen as a considerable step forward. I wonder why TV
companies "hire in" a music editor if a freelance TV sound
recordist could do the job much more cheaply?


You wouldn't have a clue how to set up the comms for even a minor
sporting event TV coverage, for example.

Comms for a minor sporting event? Sounds like an excellent
cure for insomnia:-)

There's a lot more to TV sound than simple music balancing. Kids on
computers do that these days. With no training.

Not symphony or jazz orchestras they don't:-))

*My* industry is basically all aspects of 'live' TV. And you've just
proved you know nothing about it. Or perhaps you don't realise that
music plays only a small part in TV. And that the background music
you've been involved with is usually hated by the viewer. ;-)

I am talking about music composed for the production
and recorded to picture. Most people in TV sound seem
to regard the role of music as paramount. There is no better
way to "set the atmosphere" for a sequence. One of my
tutors, Bernard Hermann, who wrote the music for most of
the Hitchcock films, illustrated this on many many occasions.
Is there any film buff who does not instantly recognise the "Eeek,
Eeek, Eeek" strings from the shower sequence in Psycho?

Another classic example is the film "The White Deer", with music
by Einar Englund.

What I *do* realise, Dave, is that for the most part, people
working in TV live sound are playing second fiddle to the
camera crew, and so do not and can not get the best possible
results. Not too satisfying:-(( But most TV programmes
are viewed once only, so maybe it doesn't matter too much.

Iain
..

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article i,
Iain Churches wrote:
You don't work in my industry, Iain.

I have probably mixed and edited music for more TV documentaries and
corporate programmes than you would imagine. The transition from
music recording/editing to TV post is interesting and not difficult.
A transition in the opposite direction is not so easy.

You really are a patronising git, Iain.

If it "were" easy, then many people would do it, as it is generally
seen as a considerable step forward. I wonder why TV
companies "hire in" a music editor if a freelance TV sound
recordist could do the job much more cheaply?

They hire in IT people too. And of course most production managers don't
know the total skills of the people they employ. But pigeon hole them.
It's one major thin I dislike about being freelance - you tend to get
asked back for the same sort of prog you've been working on. Takes will to
refuse and branch out - even although you've got the experience for other
things.


You wouldn't have a clue how to set up the comms for even a minor
sporting event TV coverage, for example.

Comms for a minor sporting event? Sounds like an excellent
cure for insomnia:-)

You didn't quite get the bit about patronising, did you, regardless of the
smiley?
Lets put it this way. I'd make a fair fist of any music recording such
that the average punter would be happy. You wouldn't know where to start
with the sound facilities for even a small current affairs or sport
programme, etc, so the average punter wouldn't be able to judge your
results as it simply couldn't be made.

There's a lot more to TV sound than simple music balancing. Kids on
computers do that these days. With no training.

Not symphony or jazz orchestras they don't:-))

Most can sling a stereo pair and get acceptable results from a symphony
ork in a good hall. Jazz is often quite simple too as the band is
internally balanced. Of course you like to surround it with mystery...

*My* industry is basically all aspects of 'live' TV. And you've just
proved you know nothing about it. Or perhaps you don't realise that
music plays only a small part in TV. And that the background music
you've been involved with is usually hated by the viewer. ;-)

I am talking about music composed for the production
and recorded to picture. Most people in TV sound seem
to regard the role of music as paramount. There is no better
way to "set the atmosphere" for a sequence. One of my
tutors, Bernard Hermann, who wrote the music for most of
the Hitchcock films, illustrated this on many many occasions.
Is there any film buff who does not instantly recognise the "Eeek,
Eeek, Eeek" strings from the shower sequence in Psycho?

Ah - right. So suddenly your corporates have become feature films?

But it again shows your lack of knowledge of TV - most use library music.

Another classic example is the film "The White Deer", with music
by Einar Englund.

What I *do* realise, Dave, is that for the most part, people
working in TV live sound are playing second fiddle to the
camera crew, and so do not and can not get the best possible
results. Not too satisfying:-(( But most TV programmes
are viewed once only, so maybe it doesn't matter too much.

And I'd guess if you were recording a live gig you'd play second fiddle
to the front of house boys. So what? Even you will not produce perfection
every time, and getting a decent result in spite of not being the priority
of a production in some circumstances is still very satisfying
professionally. If you'd ever worked on radio drama *and* location TV or
film you'd soon realise that.

--
*You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers

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