Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Crikey. Is there no end to your talent? Have you 'sat
in' on meetings about ending world poverty too?

Dave, it's sad to see you slowly morphing into a clone
of Arny Kruger.

Two compliments in as many days? What's got into you?

That would be a score, Dave. ;-)

Iain was so unhinged by your response that he was rendered speechless, and
simply sent back a copy of your post.

At this point I think that many of us have figured Iain out. He's all talk,
and no hands-on action.

Iain held some kind of administrative position within the recording
industry that infrequently got his name in the credits sections of a few
albums. But, when it comes to choosing, cabling and positioning recording
equipment, listening, and adjusting knobs until things sound right, Iain has
never ever been allowed by anybody with brains to even try. And, he's lacked
the curiosity and initiative it would to ever try it on his own. Compared
to Iain, Keith is a technical genius.

When Iain shows pictures of equipment that he owns, you can be sure that
someone else actually did any significant hands-on technical work related to
it. His audio gear most seem to be what the car racing people call "Trailer
Queens". Operating a polishing rag would be my estimate of his actual
hands-on involvement with it.

I would be curious to know if Iain even knows how to solder, and if he does,
whether he's ever used that skills to even do something very basic like fix
a broken mic cable.

I wouldn't make such a point of this, except for Iain's excessive puffery
and personal attacks.

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote


I wouldn't make such a point of this, except for Iain's excessive puffery
and personal attacks.

???

Arny, you are such a hypocritical scallywag - I let you out of my ****ter
for a moment and look what I find!

Puffery? Personal attacks? These comments from *you*...??!!

Damn, if ever there was a *blacker* pot/kettle, I've yet to hear of it!

Tempting to let your Pooch out also to kick his arse a few times (I know
he's been sniffing around - my twinkling numbers tell me when he's about),
but I can't treat myself to too much fun in one day - it wouldn't be right!

LOL!

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote


I wouldn't make such a point of this, except for Iain's excessive puffery
and personal attacks.

???

Arny, you are such a hypocritical scallywag - I let you out of my ****ter
for a moment and look what I find!


Scallywag! I like that:-)



Puffery? Personal attacks? These comments from *you*...??!!

Damn, if ever there was a *blacker* pot/kettle, I've yet to hear of it!


Keith

Arny seems to be labouring under the delusion than owning a few
toy shop mics and a cheap mixer, and wheeling them around on a
wobbly hand-.cart makes him a recording engineer.

How does one reconcile this with the fact that Arthur Wilkinson
and Arthur Lilley, two of the finest classical engineers of all time,
despite their countless audio awards, didn't own a mic, a cable
or a wobbly hand-cart between them?? :-)

Puzzled of Putney

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

How does one reconcile this with the fact that Arthur
Wilkinson and Arthur Lilley, two of the finest classical engineers
of all time, despite their countless audio awards, didn't
own a mic, a cable

Prove it, Iain. Prove that ArthurWilkinson and and Arthus Lilley never
owned a mic or a mic cable.

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

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

How does one reconcile this with the fact that Arthur
Wilkinson and Arthur Lilley, two of the finest classical engineers
of all time, despite their countless audio awards, didn't
own a mic, a cable

Prove it, Iain. Prove that ArthurWilkinson and and Arthus Lilley never
owned a mic or a mic cable.



How does he do that, Einstein? Show you the cupboard they *didn't* keep them
in?

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I wouldn't make such a point of this, except for Iain's excessive
puffery and personal attacks.

???

Arny, you are such a hypocritical scallywag - I let you out of my
****ter for a moment and look what I find!

The prat who thinks this is his own blog talks yet again about who he
killfiles. As if anyone cares.

Puffery? Personal attacks? These comments from *you*...??!!

Damn, if ever there was a *blacker* pot/kettle, I've yet to hear of it!

You need to look in the mirror, Kitty.

Tempting to let your Pooch out also to kick his arse a few times (I know
he's been sniffing around - my twinkling numbers tell me when he's
about), but I can't treat myself to too much fun in one day - it
wouldn't be right!

Once again who do you think gives a damn about who you decide to read or
not? The size of your ego is unsurpassed...

LOL!

Only ******s of the greatest magnitude use that expression. QED.

--
*It's o.k. to laugh during sexŒ.Œ.just don't point!

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

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Iain held some kind of administrative position within the recording
industry that infrequently got his name in the credits sections of a few
albums. But, when it comes to choosing, cabling and positioning
recording equipment, listening, and adjusting knobs until things sound
right, Iain has never ever been allowed by anybody with brains to even
try. And, he's lacked the curiosity and initiative it would to ever try
it on his own. Compared to Iain, Keith is a technical genius.

Impossible to assess if Iain's claims are true or not. There are so many.
But then he knows that. All I do know is when he is caught out - like
over the Tannoy Autograph howler - he just ignores it.

--
*It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying.

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

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

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

How does one reconcile this with the fact that Arthur
Wilkinson and Arthur Lilley, two of the finest
classical engineers of all time, despite their
countless audio awards, didn't own a mic, a cable

Prove it, Iain. Prove that ArthurWilkinson and and
Arthus Lilley never owned a mic or a mic cable.

How does he do that, Einstein? Show you the cupboard they
*didn't* keep them in?

Iain made the claim, let him prove it.

What neither of you grasp is the concept of a falsifiable claim.

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article
, Arny
Krueger wrote:
Iain held some kind of administrative position within
the recording industry that infrequently got his name in
the credits sections of a few albums. But, when it comes
to choosing, cabling and positioning recording
equipment, listening, and adjusting knobs until things
sound right, Iain has never ever been allowed by anybody
with brains to even try. And, he's lacked the curiosity
and initiative it would to ever try it on his own.
Compared to Iain, Keith is a technical genius.

Impossible to assess if Iain's claims are true or not.
There are so many. But then he knows that. All I do know
is when he is caught out - like over the Tannoy Autograph
howler - he just ignores it.

Agreed. If Iain were a man of truth, then his words could have some
credibility. But, he dissembles way too much.

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

In article , Arny
Krueger


What neither of you grasp is the concept of a falsifiable claim.

Alas, that is also the case with UK courts. There has been a recent case
where Simon Singh (a science writer) wrote that some claims for types of
'alternative medicine' sic were 'bogus' on the scientific basis that
assessing the experimental trials for relevance, reliability, etc, showed
their results didn't support the claims.

A UK judge decided this was a libel. Apparently on the basis that the judge
required Singh to prove that the practitioners *knew* that their claims
were false. This is essentially impossible to do if they insist they
believe what they assert. Virtually impossible to falsify the assertion
when someone says they *do* believe something, no matter how daft the
asserted belief. And of course irrelevant if your real concern is that the
belief in question may be worthless, or dangerous, or money-grabbing
nonsense.

The Judge apparently ignored the normal scientific basis of dealing with
the evidence for/against the actual claim. Seems this is irrelevant so far
as his reading of UK law is concerned. Disregarding the fact that the
claims were being made on the basis of assertions of 'science', but that
the actual science apparently didn't support them.

The Judge also apparently refused leave to appeal. Wonder if he was
assuming that would mean someone else would have to 'prove he knew he was
making an error' as well... :-)

No wonder that the UK libel laws are regarded in the US and elsewhere as a
shambles. As a result, other people in the UK are now said to be wary of
commenting on quack or delusional claims in case they are taken to court
for daring to point out twaddle. Particularly in cases where the claims are
being made by groups and individuals who make their income on the back of
the claims.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Arny
Krueger


What neither of you grasp is the concept of a falsifiable claim.

Alas, that is also the case with UK courts. There has been a recent case
where Simon Singh (a science writer) wrote that some claims for types of
'alternative medicine' sic were 'bogus' on the scientific basis that
assessing the experimental trials for relevance, reliability, etc, showed
their results didn't support the claims.

A UK judge decided this was a libel. Apparently on the basis that the judge
required Singh to prove that the practitioners *knew* that their claims
were false. This is essentially impossible to do if they insist they
believe what they assert. Virtually impossible to falsify the assertion
when someone says they *do* believe something, no matter how daft the
asserted belief. And of course irrelevant if your real concern is that the
belief in question may be worthless, or dangerous, or money-grabbing
nonsense.

The Judge apparently ignored the normal scientific basis of dealing with
the evidence for/against the actual claim. Seems this is irrelevant so far
as his reading of UK law is concerned. Disregarding the fact that the
claims were being made on the basis of assertions of 'science', but that
the actual science apparently didn't support them.

The Judge also apparently refused leave to appeal. Wonder if he was
assuming that would mean someone else would have to 'prove he knew he was
making an error' as well... :-)

No wonder that the UK libel laws are regarded in the US and elsewhere as a
shambles. As a result, other people in the UK are now said to be wary of
commenting on quack or delusional claims in case they are taken to court
for daring to point out twaddle. Particularly in cases where the claims are
being made by groups and individuals who make their income on the back of
the claims.

Slainte,

Jim


Doesn't seem to stop Ben Goldacre (Bad Science fame) - he seems to
pillory on the basis that it would be reasonable to know nonsense. Don't
think he's ever been sued.

Rob

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article
, Arny
Krueger wrote:
Iain held some kind of administrative position within
the recording industry that infrequently got his name in
the credits sections of a few albums. But, when it comes
to choosing, cabling and positioning recording
equipment, listening, and adjusting knobs until things
sound right, Iain has never ever been allowed by anybody
with brains to even try. And, he's lacked the curiosity
and initiative it would to ever try it on his own.
Compared to Iain, Keith is a technical genius.
Impossible to assess if Iain's claims are true or not.
There are so many. But then he knows that. All I do know
is when he is caught out - like over the Tannoy Autograph
howler - he just ignores it.

Agreed. If Iain were a man of truth, then his words could have some
credibility. But, he dissembles way too much.



You guys!

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


No wonder that the UK libel laws are regarded in the US and elsewhere
as a shambles. As a result, other people in the UK are now said to be
wary of commenting on quack or delusional claims in case they are
taken to court for daring to point out twaddle. Particularly in cases
where the claims are being made by groups and individuals who make
their income on the back of the claims.


Doesn't seem to stop Ben Goldacre (Bad Science fame) - he seems to
pillory on the basis that it would be reasonable to know nonsense. Don't
think he's ever been sued.

The concern is that the judgement is quite recent, so may now affect what
some people will be willing to write/say. Until the judgement the general
basis was assumed that if comments were clearly based on the scientific
evidence then they could not be 'libel' *when commenting on matters
purported to have a 'scientific' basis.* But the situation has - apparently
- now changed.

Ben may be happy to continue. You'd have to ask his views on this case. But
it may deter various other scientists and engineers for expressing critical
opinions in print if they aren't a professional journalist. Note that AIUI
the case was directed to Simon Singh *personally*. Those bringing the suit
did not also sue The Guardian, although they published the item challenged.

Note also that a journalist who is an employee of a newspaper may have them
giving him cover against being sued for what they print under his name.
That may not apply to external specialists who write a column or article.

My experience is that it is a common practice for journalists, etc, to
contact academics and others who are felt to have a background in a topic
to get their considered views, or to explain if a claim is twaddle or not.
The judgement seems to me to increase the risk that those with relevant
expertise will now refuse to comment, or give a bland response.
Particularly in areas when those making the claim may also be making good
incomes from the claims, and so may not want any adverse evidence to
threaten their wealth.

Simply knowing that the evidence shows a claim is twaddle seems - in the UK
- not to be a defence against personally being sued for saying so. Indeed,
it seems you can't even present said evidence to the court! Why risk that
when you can decline to comment?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

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

How does one reconcile this with the fact that Arthur
Wilkinson and Arthur Lilley, two of the finest
classical engineers of all time, despite their
countless audio awards, didn't own a mic, a cable

Prove it, Iain. Prove that ArthurWilkinson and and
Arthus Lilley never owned a mic or a mic cable.

How does he do that, Einstein? Show you the cupboard they
*didn't* keep them in?

Iain made the claim, let him prove it.

What neither of you grasp is the concept of a falsifiable claim.


You got that arse uppards, Arnold B Katzenjammer - if the claim is
falsifiable, it's up to you to prove it....

See here (for the whole horse**** exercise):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

??

(Keeps a whole bunch of East Coast college 'professors' in a nice, comfy
job, I suppose...?? :-)

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article
, Arny
Krueger wrote:
Iain held some kind of administrative position within
the recording industry that infrequently got his name in
the credits sections of a few albums. But, when it comes
to choosing, cabling and positioning recording
equipment, listening, and adjusting knobs until things
sound right, Iain has never ever been allowed by anybody
with brains to even try. And, he's lacked the curiosity
and initiative it would to ever try it on his own.
Compared to Iain, Keith is a technical genius.


I make no claims about 'technical ability'* but if I were you and had
'Domine Pt2' floating about the ether I'd keep very quiet about it,
especially after so much bragging about all the 'pro recording' I'd done,
over the last few decades.

Here, you don't need to hear it (you really don't - it sounds like it was
recorded over the phone) - a quick *look* at it will tell you all you need
to know:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/Recording%20Image1.jpg

(Just *seeing* that has you reaching for the Balance knob, don't it? :-)


*I have had no 'technical' training, education or work experience in
electronics whatsoever, but it didn't stop me building 2 valve amps, a 3 box
valve phono stage and half a dozen pairs of speakers, though....

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

On Thu, 28 May 2009 13:36:12 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
m...
"Keith G" wrote in message

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

How does one reconcile this with the fact that Arthur
Wilkinson and Arthur Lilley, two of the finest
classical engineers of all time, despite their
countless audio awards, didn't own a mic, a cable

Prove it, Iain. Prove that ArthurWilkinson and and
Arthus Lilley never owned a mic or a mic cable.

How does he do that, Einstein? Show you the cupboard they
*didn't* keep them in?

Iain made the claim, let him prove it.

What neither of you grasp is the concept of a falsifiable claim.


You got that arse uppards, Arnold B Katzenjammer - if the claim is
falsifiable, it's up to you to prove it....

See here (for the whole horse**** exercise):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

??

(Keeps a whole bunch of East Coast college 'professors' in a nice, comfy
job, I suppose...?? :-)


The whole point of falsifiability is that in science nothing is ever
proven correct - it is always the latest best version. For an
assertion to achieve the status of a theory it absolutely must be
falsifiable, although the originator is not necessarily the one who
demonstrates this. Anything that is not falsifiable has no place in
science and is generally only found in religion (you just have to
believe it, ok?).

Iain's assertion is clearly falsifiable, because one would only need
to produce a receipt to either of those chaps for a mic or a cable.
But is there good evidence that they didn't? No idea about that.

d

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4a3a8a38.965841015@localhost...
On Thu, 28 May 2009 13:36:12 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
om...
"Keith G" wrote in message

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

How does one reconcile this with the fact that Arthur
Wilkinson and Arthur Lilley, two of the finest
classical engineers of all time, despite their
countless audio awards, didn't own a mic, a cable

Prove it, Iain. Prove that ArthurWilkinson and and
Arthus Lilley never owned a mic or a mic cable.

How does he do that, Einstein? Show you the cupboard they
*didn't* keep them in?

Iain made the claim, let him prove it.

What neither of you grasp is the concept of a falsifiable claim.


You got that arse uppards, Arnold B Katzenjammer - if the claim is
falsifiable, it's up to you to prove it....

See here (for the whole horse**** exercise):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

??

(Keeps a whole bunch of East Coast college 'professors' in a nice, comfy
job, I suppose...?? :-)


The whole point of falsifiability is that in science nothing is ever
proven correct - it is always the latest best version. For an
assertion to achieve the status of a theory it absolutely must be
falsifiable, although the originator is not necessarily the one who
demonstrates this. Anything that is not falsifiable has no place in
science and is generally only found in religion (you just have to
believe it, ok?).


Sure, says all that in the Wiki.



Iain's assertion is clearly falsifiable, because one would only need
to produce a receipt to either of those chaps for a mic or a cable.
But is there good evidence that they didn't? No idea about that.


Yes, but Arny's asking Iain to come up with the receipt (or whatever) to
prove the falsifiability of his own claim - that ain't right, is it?

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Keith G" wrote


Yes, but Arny's asking Iain to come up with the receipt (or whatever) to
prove the falsifiability of his own claim - that ain't right, is it?


No, make that the *falseness* of his own claim; the falsifiability is not an
issue, as you say....

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

On Thu, 28 May 2009 14:25:41 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

The whole point of falsifiability is that in science nothing is ever
proven correct - it is always the latest best version. For an
assertion to achieve the status of a theory it absolutely must be
falsifiable, although the originator is not necessarily the one who
demonstrates this. Anything that is not falsifiable has no place in
science and is generally only found in religion (you just have to
believe it, ok?).


Sure, says all that in the Wiki.


Does it? Didn't read, I'm afraid.



Iain's assertion is clearly falsifiable, because one would only need
to produce a receipt to either of those chaps for a mic or a cable.
But is there good evidence that they didn't? No idea about that.


Yes, but Arny's asking Iain to come up with the receipt (or whatever) to
prove the falsifiability of his own claim - that ain't right, is it?



I don't see it quite that way. Iain made what looked like a pretty big
assertion (claim, if you like) to which there really is no response
but "really?". I mean what are you supposed to do with it? You can
simply take it on faith, which is hard in context because it is being
used to support a different argument. Or of course you can ask for
proof. Absence of a receipt is no good, of course, but it could take
the form of interviews in which they state that they have never owned
mics or cables.

In fact I very much doubt that it is even possibly true - I have never
met anyone with even the most casual interest in sound or recording
who didn't own at least one. No proof - just applying Occam's razor
and coming down on the side of the overwhelmingly more likely.

d

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote


Yes, but Arny's asking Iain to come up with the receipt (or whatever) to
prove the falsifiability of his own claim - that ain't right, is it?


No, make that the *falseness* of his own claim; the falsifiability is not
an issue, as you say....

My point is that the ownership of a shoebox full of
toyshop mics and a budget recording desk wheeled
around on a wobbly handcart and used for volunteer
work at the local church does not make one a
professional recording engineer:-)

In professional recording, for tax reasons, equipment
is owned by companies and not by individuals,
even though of course those individuals are often
shareholders or partners in that company.

Why would skilled rprofessionals like Arthur Lilley
and Aerthur Wilkinson need to "own" anything
when the company can supply their every need,
even mics they coduld no longer be bought for
love or money:-) What they *do* supply is
their skill,. experience ad expertise.

Does a chef own all the pots and pans, dishes and
cutlery in the restaurant in which he works?

Use of the term professional makes two assumptions.

1. That the individual has the formal training and
qualifications recognised in that profession.

2. That the individual relies upon this for employment
which brings him/her the majority of his/her income.


We don't need to seperate the pepper from the fly
excrement here in deciding if an actor also working
as a waiter is a waiter or an actor:-)

Iain

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

Why would skilled rprofessionals like Arthur Lilley
and Aerthur Wilkinson need to "own" anything
when the company can supply their every need,
even mics they coduld no longer be bought for
love or money:-) What they *do* supply is
their skill,. experience ad expertise.


Apologies for typos (cat sitting between
keyboard and monitor!!)

I meant to write:

even mics that chould no longer be bought......

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

Why would skilled rprofessionals like Arthur Lilley
and Aerthur Wilkinson need to "own" anything
when the company can supply their every need,
even mics they coduld no longer be bought for
love or money:-) What they *do* supply is
their skill,. experience ad expertise.


Apologies for typos (cat sitting between
keyboard and monitor!!)

I meant to write:

even mics that chould no longer be bought......
or even "mics that could no longer be bought"...

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Why would skilled rprofessionals like Arthur Lilley
and Aerthur Wilkinson need to "own" anything
when the company can supply their every need,
even mics they coduld no longer be bought for
love or money:-) What they *do* supply is
their skill,. experience ad expertise.


Apologies for typos (cat sitting between
keyboard and monitor!!)

I meant to write:

even mics that chould no longer be bought......

Third G&T of the day, Iain? ;-)

--
*Stable Relationships Are For Horses.

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

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

I make no claims about 'technical ability'* but if I were you and had
'Domine Pt2' floating about the ether I'd keep very quiet about it,
especially after so much bragging about all the 'pro recording' I'd done,
over the last few decades.

Here, you don't need to hear it (you really don't - it sounds like it was
recorded over the phone) - a quick *look* at it will tell you all you need
to know:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/Recording%20Image1.jpg

(Just *seeing* that has you reaching for the Balance knob, don't it? :-)



Keith. Have you listened to the track in question?
It *must* be a hoax!!!

Even dear old Arny couldn't make a pig's ear
of such a simple job (particular when he has
done it 1 000 times befo-)

Iain

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
My point is that the ownership of a shoebox full of
toyshop mics and a budget recording desk wheeled
around on a wobbly handcart and used for volunteer
work at the local church does not make one a
professional recording engineer:-)

'Professional' usually just means getting paid to work.

In professional recording, for tax reasons, equipment
is owned by companies and not by individuals,
even though of course those individuals are often
shareholders or partners in that company.

That might apply to recording studios - but in other areas the recordist
will supply the equipment. Indeed the hire charge often makes up a
considerable part of the fee. This is the norm in feature films, etc.
And since the division between audio equipment and musical instruments has
blurred somewhat a deal of that used may well not be owned by the studio
anymore.

Why would skilled rprofessionals like Arthur Lilley
and Aerthur Wilkinson need to "own" anything
when the company can supply their every need,
even mics they coduld no longer be bought for
love or money:-) What they *do* supply is
their skill,. experience ad expertise.

Does a chef own all the pots and pans, dishes and
cutlery in the restaurant in which he works?

Usually has his own knives.

Use of the term professional makes two assumptions.

1. That the individual has the formal training and
qualifications recognised in that profession.

Most true professions are closed shops. Think lawyers, etc. I very much
doubt the man on the Clapham bendy bus would consider a recording engineer
to be a profession. Quite the reverse.

2. That the individual relies upon this for employment
which brings him/her the majority of his/her income.

Like perhaps a plumber?


We don't need to seperate the pepper from the fly
excrement here in deciding if an actor also working
as a waiter is a waiter or an actor:-)

Most of the famous in this field have had all sorts of jobs while resting.

--
*Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.

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

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4a3b9174.967692140@localhost...

I have never
met anyone with even the most casual interest in sound or recording
who didn't own at least one.

The kind of casbles I am talking about are 50/100m XLR/XLR or
multiway 50/100s on drums. Just the thing for a penthouse in
Swiss Cottage or a posh town house in Brighton:-)

Iain

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

On Thu, 28 May 2009 18:31:21 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4a3b9174.967692140@localhost...

I have never
met anyone with even the most casual interest in sound or recording
who didn't own at least one.

The kind of casbles I am talking about are 50/100m XLR/XLR or
multiway 50/100s on drums. Just the thing for a penthouse in
Swiss Cottage or a posh town house in Brighton:-)

Iain


Well, my Hampstead penthouse (ok, normal house - much better than a
penthouse, I think ;-) has quite a few 100m XLR/XLR cables. They live
in a cupboard under the stairs most of the time.

d

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

In article 4a3daeea.975230593@localhost,
Don Pearce wrote:
Well, my Hampstead penthouse (ok, normal house - much better than a
penthouse, I think ;-) has quite a few 100m XLR/XLR cables. They live
in a cupboard under the stairs most of the time.

We use riggers for that sort of lengths. ;-)

--
*Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

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

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

On Thu, 28 May 2009 17:10:44 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article 4a3daeea.975230593@localhost,
Don Pearce wrote:
Well, my Hampstead penthouse (ok, normal house - much better than a
penthouse, I think ;-) has quite a few 100m XLR/XLR cables. They live
in a cupboard under the stairs most of the time.

We use riggers for that sort of lengths. ;-)

I'm far too clever for that! I keep them rolled up. :-) Actually they
live on drums with the inner first few feet hanging out through a hole
in the side. That way I only have to unroll as much as the job needs -
the rest can stay on the drum under the desk. Much the tidiest way.

Obviously in the TV studio you just grab the right length off the
rack.

d

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

In article 4a3ebad7.978279218@localhost,
Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 17:10:44 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article 4a3daeea.975230593@localhost,
Don Pearce wrote:
Well, my Hampstead penthouse (ok, normal house - much better than a
penthouse, I think ;-) has quite a few 100m XLR/XLR cables. They live
in a cupboard under the stairs most of the time.

We use riggers for that sort of lengths. ;-)

I'm far too clever for that! I keep them rolled up. :-) Actually they
live on drums with the inner first few feet hanging out through a hole
in the side. That way I only have to unroll as much as the job needs -
the rest can stay on the drum under the desk. Much the tidiest way.

Obviously in the TV studio you just grab the right length off the
rack.

Yes - and in general quite short. They only need to reach from the nearest
wallbox. And with a big rig we'd usually run in a snake or three - so use
even shorter singles. 100 metre ones would get into a dreadful tangle. ;-)

--
* I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid

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

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

On Thu, 28 May 2009 17:43:32 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article 4a3ebad7.978279218@localhost,
Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 17:10:44 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article 4a3daeea.975230593@localhost,
Don Pearce wrote:
Well, my Hampstead penthouse (ok, normal house - much better than a
penthouse, I think ;-) has quite a few 100m XLR/XLR cables. They live
in a cupboard under the stairs most of the time.

We use riggers for that sort of lengths. ;-)

I'm far too clever for that! I keep them rolled up. :-) Actually they
live on drums with the inner first few feet hanging out through a hole
in the side. That way I only have to unroll as much as the job needs -
the rest can stay on the drum under the desk. Much the tidiest way.

Obviously in the TV studio you just grab the right length off the
rack.

Yes - and in general quite short. They only need to reach from the nearest
wallbox. And with a big rig we'd usually run in a snake or three - so use
even shorter singles. 100 metre ones would get into a dreadful tangle. ;-)

Luxury! But I'm also a great believer in minimizing the number of
connectors you have to run through - each one is the next failure
point. Snakes are good, but I can go a few hundred yards down the road
and lay hands on one that is still in service despite now having only
three of the original sixteen inners still working.

d

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

In article 4a3fc096.979748921@localhost,
Don Pearce wrote:
Yes - and in general quite short. They only need to reach from the
nearest wallbox. And with a big rig we'd usually run in a snake or
three - so use even shorter singles. 100 metre ones would get into a
dreadful tangle. ;-)

Luxury! But I'm also a great believer in minimizing the number of
connectors you have to run through - each one is the next failure point.
Snakes are good, but I can go a few hundred yards down the road and lay
hands on one that is still in service despite now having only three of
the original sixteen inners still working.

That's what I used to dislike about my occasional flurries to outside
broadcasts - you'd pick up a breakout box with a note on it saying 'X&Y'
not working. Add in faults on the multicore and you might have less than
half the facilities you expected/needed. When I worked in studios we did
our own maintenance for cables, etc, and generally they'd all be fully
operational. But did use the highest military spec connectors. And of
course tended to be looked after. Nothing like having to fix faults
yourself to promote good practice.;-)

--
*Vegetarians taste great*

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

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4a3daeea.975230593@localhost...
On Thu, 28 May 2009 18:31:21 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


The kind of casbles I am talking about are 50/100m XLR/XLR or
multiway 50/100s on drums. Just the thing for a penthouse in
Swiss Cottage or a posh town house in Brighton:-)

Iain


Jeez, no wonder all this wasn't making much sense - somehow Iain, you've
been in the ****ter (with Pucci!!) for some reason and I've not been seeing
your posts!

Also I've got *more off than on* connectivity problems atm!

(I think ADSL24 is trying to *tell me* summat..... :-)

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4a3daeea.975230593@localhost...
On Thu, 28 May 2009 18:31:21 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


The kind of casbles I am talking about are 50/100m XLR/XLR or
multiway 50/100s on drums. Just the thing for a penthouse in
Swiss Cottage or a posh town house in Brighton:-)

Iain


Jeez, no wonder all this wasn't making much sense - somehow Iain, you've
been in the ****ter (with Pucci!!) for some reason and I've not been
seeing your posts!

Those who live by the '****ter' die by it. But it's nice to see it's not
only your 'friend' Iain who can't use something as simple as a newsreader.


Also I've got *more off than on* connectivity problems atm!

(I think ADSL24 is trying to *tell me* summat..... :-)

Hopefully. But I doubt you'll listen.

--
*I brake for no apparent reason.

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

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

In professional recording, for tax reasons, equipment
is owned by companies and not by individuals,
even though of course those individuals are often
shareholders or partners in that company.

That might apply to recording studios - but in other areas the recordist
will supply the equipment.

In staff jobs you don't even need you own pencil.

For independents, music recording projects require
more than one person usually, and so people who work
together regularly form up as a team and often a company.
In this case the company owns eeverything, and may have
bought the equipment from the idividuals.


Indeed the hire charge often makes up a
considerable part of the fee. This is the norm in feature films, etc.
And since the division between audio equipment and musical instruments has
blurred somewhat a deal of that used may well not be owned by the studio
anymore.

I know a number of sound recordists, all of whom work for their
own companies. Peter Handford, (Oscar winner for sound "Out
of Africa") who had been on the staff art Decca, had his own
company. It was, he said, the only way to work, due to the tax
system. He owned nothing, but thecompany hired out the equipment
on which he did the recordings, just as you describe, Dave.

In fact Peter told me that it was not uncommon for people working
together on a lengthy project, a feature film, or a TV series to form
a company together for the duration of that project, just as is done
with film production companies.

Iain

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4a3daeea.975230593@localhost...
On Thu, 28 May 2009 18:31:21 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4a3b9174.967692140@localhost...

I have never
met anyone with even the most casual interest in sound or recording
who didn't own at least one.

The kind of casbles I am talking about are 50/100m XLR/XLR or
multiway 50/100s on drums. Just the thing for a penthouse in
Swiss Cottage or a posh town house in Brighton:-)

Iain


Well, my Hampstead penthouse (ok, normal house - much better than a
penthouse, I think ;-) has quite a few 100m XLR/XLR cables. They live
in a cupboard under the stairs most of the time.


As students, we all owned bits of recording gear.
I had three 4channel Vortexion mixers, stackable
(be worth a fortune these days) a Binson Echorec
(remember those??) some Film Industries M8 mics.
I also had my own portable disc cutting lathe
(photo available for the Baptist disbelievers!)

But then when I got to Decca, and serious recording,
al the above became totally redundant.

Iain

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Why would skilled rprofessionals like Arthur Lilley
and Aerthur Wilkinson need to "own" anything
when the company can supply their every need,
even mics they coduld no longer be bought for
love or money:-) What they *do* supply is
their skill,. experience ad expertise.


Apologies for typos (cat sitting between
keyboard and monitor!!)

I meant to write:

even mics that chould no longer be bought......

Third G&T of the day, Iain? ;-)

No G+T's before 1900 hrs Dave:-)

My cat likes to sit between keyboard
and monitor. He gradually spreads himself
out,. as cats do, until the keyboard is in
my lap and I can't see the screen.

Iain

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Why would skilled rprofessionals like Arthur Lilley
and Aerthur Wilkinson need to "own" anything
when the company can supply their every need,
even mics they coduld no longer be bought for
love or money:-) What they *do* supply is
their skill,. experience ad expertise.


Apologies for typos (cat sitting between
keyboard and monitor!!)

I meant to write:

even mics that chould no longer be bought......

Third G&T of the day, Iain? ;-)

No G+T's before 1900 hrs Dave:-)

My cat likes to sit between keyboard
and monitor. He gradually spreads himself
out,


I think Pucci would like to be able to do that, Iain - pity you live so far
away....

:-)

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Keith G" wrote in message


Yes, but Arny's asking Iain to come up with the receipt
(or whatever) to prove the falsifiability of his own
claim - that ain't right, is it?

Without proof, there is no way to tell truth from lies.

Iain made the claim - let him prove it. Otherwise, he's just talking trash.
Given his track record for talking trash - he's likely talking trash.

BTW Iain's claim - that neither gentleman has ever owned a mic or a mic
cable was a stupid claim to make. It's a negative hypothesis and everybody
with a brain (which excludes many here) knows that negative claims are
difficult or impossible to prove.

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message


My point is that the ownership of a shoebox full of
toyshop mics and a budget recording desk wheeled
around on a wobbly handcart and used for volunteer
work at the local church does not make one a
professional recording engineer:-)

Of course that's true Iain.

However, with that you said nothing about me.

Your idea of a "budget recording desk" seems to be a Yamaha 02R96, which is
a 56 channel digital box with unimpeachable chops.

Your idea of "toyshop mics" include microphones made by Countryman, Audix,
and Shure - some of the leading producers in the world.

The wobbly handcart is a complete fabrication of your twisted mind.


In professional recording, for tax reasons, equipment
is owned by companies and not by individuals,
even though of course those individuals are often
shareholders or partners in that company.

Right Iain, but even professional recording engineers have a little personal
equipment squirreled away, someplace.


Why would skilled professionals like Arthur Lilley
and Arthur Wilkinson need to "own" anything
when the company can supply their every need,
even mics they could no longer be bought for
love or money:-) What they *do* supply is
their skill,. experience ad expertise.

Does a chef own all the pots and pans, dishes and
cutlery in the restaurant in which he works?

Not necessarily, but chefs do have a few pots and pans at home.

You specifically claimed that these "chefs" have neither 1 pot, nor 1 pan,
nor 1 spoon. You're talking rubbish!

Use of the term professional makes two assumptions.

1. That the individual has the formal training and
qualifications recognized in that profession.

I have a BS degree in engineering. What is your degree in, Iain? Do you
even have a University degree, Iain?

2. That the individual relies upon this for employment
which brings him/her the majority of his/her income.

So Iain, you have a copy of my tax return before you?

Otherwise Iain, you are talking trash.