Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message

It will sound different to an experienced/discerning ear when
comparing this AB pair with an adjacent XY pair.
.
"Totally different"? Really?, "TOTALLY different"?

I am confident that, with a good music signal the difference in two
totally different topologies will be cleartly discernible, to
anyone experienced enough to know what to listen for.

Yes I'm sure you are right. So in fact you are agreeing with me that the
word "totally" was totally wrong - thank you

If the difference to an experienced ear is clearly discernible, then
"totally" is not inappropriate.

To paraphrase "Hitch-Hiker" "this is clearly some new meaning of the word
"totally" of which I was previously unaware!"

You agreed that whilst the difference might be just about discernable in a
direct comparison, you would not be able to tell just by hearing one which
method had been used.

No. I state that thwe difference is *clearly* discernible in a
switched comparison, which I have done wirth students doezen
of time over the years. I have, in a reply to Dave, described the
method.

Because of the large nuymbr of variables, location, acoustic etc, it
is not realistic to expect to be able to say which format based upon the
single
pair was used on a particlar recording.

So "totally" is totally wrong.

The compared difference bing *clearly* discernible makes "totally"
totally right:-)

Sorry Iain but your OTT remarks really don't enhance your credibility one
iota.


I look forward to discussing this further with you when you have
actually done the switched comparison.

The next step is even more interesting:-)

Regards
Iain

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
You agreed that whilst the difference might be just about discernable in a
direct comparison, you would not be able to tell just by hearing one which
method had been used.

No. I state that thwe difference is *clearly* discernible in a
switched comparison, which I have done wirth students doezen
of time over the years. I have, in a reply to Dave, described the
method.

Because of the large nuymbr of variables, location, acoustic etc, it
is not realistic to expect to be able to say which format based upon the
single
pair was used on a particlar recording.

You started all this off by saying David couldn't possibly know such and
such a recording was made using a coincident pair. You've finally admitted
you couldn't either. Despite loads and loads of red herrings along the way.

--
*Why can't women put on mascara with their mouth closed?

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

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Iain Churches" wrote

The compared difference bing *clearly* discernible makes "totally"
totally right:-)


Oh no it doesn't! "totally different" means "completely different" - i.e..
lacking any point of similarity. You may understand recording Iain, but you
seem to be having problems with the English language.

Even subtle differences can be "clear" in a switched comparison, especially
to an experienced listener.

David.

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...


Some years ago, American musicologist Jimmy Coleman
said in a lectu "Learn your Bartok, Charles Ives, your
Gershwin, your Ellington, your Schoenberg and no-one
will expect you to stand out in the pouring rain with a
Nagra".

Who's sneering now? This does seem to a one of your traits, Iain, to
sneer
at those whose jobs you think are somehow inferior to yours.

Not I, nor Jimmy Coleman..

No?, then why the sneering reference to "standing in the rain with a Nagra"?

We all make our own
career choices.

Absolutely.

Even back in the good old days of the
ACCT things were tough for sound recordists - not
enough work to go round. Whe classification became
less strict, many worked as camera assistants.

Jimmy Coleman was in fact a very experienced producer/
engineer/lecturer.

So why describe him as a "musicologist"?

But it's clear that, to him, (and no doubt to you) *music* recording is the
pinnacle, and everything else is of lesser status.

David.

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote

The compared difference bing *clearly* discernible makes "totally"
totally right:-)


Oh no it doesn't! "totally different" means "completely different" - i.e..
lacking any point of similarity. You may understand recording Iain, but
you seem to be having problems with the English language.

Even subtle differences can be "clear" in a switched comparison,
especially to an experienced listener.

Most students describe it in the vernacular as "chalk and cheese"
Try for yourself David.

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
You agreed that whilst the difference might be just about discernable
in a
direct comparison, you would not be able to tell just by hearing one
which
method had been used.

No. I state that thwe difference is *clearly* discernible in a
switched comparison, which I have done wirth students doezen
of time over the years. I have, in a reply to Dave, described the
method.

Because of the large nuymbr of variables, location, acoustic etc, it
is not realistic to expect to be able to say which format based upon the
singlnbpair was used on a particlar recording.

You started all this off by saying David couldn't possibly know such and
such a recording was made using a coincident pair.

Yes. That is correct.

You've finally admitted you couldn't either.

Nobody can with certainty, including myself or David.

What I did state was that most people can clearly hear the
difference between AB and XY, and people with listening
experience can usually hear the shortcoming of both
when compared with the "tree" format.


Ian

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...


Some years ago, American musicologist Jimmy Coleman
said in a lectu "Learn your Bartok, Charles Ives, your
Gershwin, your Ellington, your Schoenberg and no-one
will expect you to stand out in the pouring rain with a
Nagra".

Who's sneering now? This does seem to a one of your traits, Iain, to
sneer
at those whose jobs you think are somehow inferior to yours.

Not I, nor Jimmy Coleman..

No?, then why the sneering reference to "standing in the rain with a
Nagra"?

We all make our own
career choices.

Absolutely.

Even back in the good old days of the
ACCT things were tough for sound recordists - not
enough work to go round. Whe classification became
less strict, many worked as camera assistants.

Jimmy Coleman was in fact a very experienced producer/
engineer/lecturer.

So why describe him as a "musicologist"?

But it's clear that, to him, (and no doubt to you) *music* recording is
the pinnacle, and everything else is of lesser status.


Oh dear, this Looser clown isn't learning anything here, is he?

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote


snip squealing and hollering from both sides


Your whole attitude towards me has been confrontational and aggressive. So
sorry Arny but I'm not interested. You can join Keith in my kill-file. And
may you and he enjoy each other's company there.

David.


Killfiles eh? :-)

Perhaps the **** is learning something after all - that you can
dislike/disagree with what someone posts here but ya can't really do a whole
about it other than ignore them or KF them! Pity one or two more fools in
here don't realise it....

Anyone else here notice that these *bitchy types* who have got all the
opinions, comments and criticisms of others never actually start a thread or
post anything new - other than spamming the group with self-publicity from
time to time, or inventing crocky technical problems on their 'friend's'
kit...??

Just a thought...

:-)

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote

The compared difference bing *clearly* discernible makes "totally"
totally right:-)


Oh no it doesn't! "totally different" means "completely different" -
i.e.. lacking any point of similarity. You may understand recording Iain,
but you seem to be having problems with the English language.

Even subtle differences can be "clear" in a switched comparison,
especially to an experienced listener.

Most students describe it in the vernacular as "chalk and cheese"
Try for yourself David.


You are missing the point Iain. Your use of English is simply wrong, please
acknowledge that.

And if the results are "chalk & cheese" how come nobody can tell them apart
without having a direct side-by-side comparison?

David.

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...


Most students describe it in the vernacular as "chalk and cheese"
Try for yourself David.


I've just made myself a cheese sandwich for lunch. I *didn't* need to do a
side-by-side comparison with a block of chalk to decide which was the
cheese! (in other words - don't exaggerate)

And I'm not in a position to try it for myself. I have nothing to record and
nothing suitable to record it with.

David.

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
And I'm not in a position to try it for myself. I have nothing to record
and nothing suitable to record it with.

Oh I'm sure you could book a symphony orchestra and hire in some gear.
That's what Iain would do - apparently - when he sets these little
challenges.

--
*The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully recovered*

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

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
And I'm not in a position to try it for myself. I have nothing to record
and nothing suitable to record it with.

Oh I'm sure you could book a symphony orchestra and hire in some gear.
That's what Iain would do - apparently - when he sets these little
challenges.

A very simple ensemble is all that is required. If David
wanted to do it, he would find a way. Any school or
college of music would probably be willing to help him,
if he made the proper approach.

It's not a challenge, but the finest way to illustrate the
point, much better than just talking.

But the other outstanding matter, the hard hitting
big band, made with a single pair, now that *is*
a challenge, expressly to you Dave. You have
gone very quiet about that:-))

Iain

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
But the other outstanding matter, the hard hitting
big band, made with a single pair, now that *is*
a challenge, expressly to you Dave. You have
gone very quiet about that:-))

Yet another example of a stupid challenge.

But I notice you've failed to answer the point that a big band couldn't
sound good live by your theory. Conveniently, of course. Perhaps you're
one of those who thinks their recording improves on a live performance?

--
*Forget about World Peace...Visualize using your turn signal.

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

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

You started all this off by saying David couldn't possibly know such and
such a recording was made using a coincident pair.

Yes. That is correct.

You've finally admitted you couldn't either.

Nobody can with certainty, including myself or David.

What I did state was that most people can clearly hear the
difference between AB and XY,

Though, as you said earlier, only when you have both available for a direct
comparison.

and people with listening
experience can usually hear the shortcoming of both
when compared with the "tree" format.

It's interesting that, according to you, whilst "most" people can hear the
difference between XY and AB (albeit with the caveat), even some experienced
listeners cannot hear the "shortcoming" of those when compared with the tree
format.

It all suggests that your careless use of the word "totally" was, at the
very minimum, ill-judged. It seems a shame that you are so scared of losing
face cannot simply withdraw it.


David.

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"David Looser" wrote in
message
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message

You started all this off by saying David couldn't
possibly know such and such a recording was made using
a coincident pair.

Yes. That is correct.

You've finally admitted you couldn't either.

Nobody can with certainty, including myself or David.

What I did state was that most people can clearly hear
the difference between AB and XY,

Though, as you said earlier, only when you have both
available for a direct comparison.

and people with listening
experience can usually hear the shortcoming of both
when compared with the "tree" format.

It's interesting that, according to you, whilst "most"
people can hear the difference between XY and AB (albeit
with the caveat), even some experienced listeners cannot
hear the "shortcoming" of those when compared with the
tree format.
It all suggests that your careless use of the word
"totally" was, at the very minimum, ill-judged. It seems
a shame that you are so scared of losing face cannot
simply withdraw it.

Iain is shall we say, a little prone to hyperbole. ;-)

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

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

But the other outstanding matter, the hard hitting
big band, made with a single pair, now that *is*
a challenge, expressly to you Dave. You have
gone very quiet about that:-))

Yet another example of a stupid challenge.

Take it up, and prove me wrong:-)
In trying to do it, you will quickly realise that
due to lack of practical experience, you were
mistaken.

It has been pointed out to me also, that neither you
or any of the rest of us here know what a 1940s
big band actually sounded like live, except from
recordings or revival concerts. Also the
early compositions that Ellington played were so
changed by the 60s and 70s that many people
don't recongnise them as being the same pieces.

Diminuendo and Crescendo in Blue (written and
first performed in 1937) is a very good example.


But I notice you've failed to answer the point that a big band couldn't
sound good live by your theory.

Discussed right at the beginning of this thread.
Without the visual reference of the concert, most people
seem to think they sound less good when recorded with
a simple pair. Try it. Enjoy the concert and then listen to
the recording afterwards. For that reason multi mic has
been used for recording for many years.

Iain

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 12:58:07 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

It has been pointed out to me also, that neither you
or any of the rest of us here know what a 1940s
big band actually sounded like live, except from
recordings or revival concerts

A good point. A friend runs the European "Glenn Miller Memorial
Orchestra". Even when playing the sort of theatres where the
original band would have amplified just vocals, they mic every
instrument. Would an unplugged performance cut it? I'd love him to
try, but fear it would be a mistake.

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 12:58:07 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

It has been pointed out to me also, that neither you
or any of the rest of us here know what a 1940s
big band actually sounded like live, except from
recordings or revival concerts

A good point. A friend runs the European "Glenn Miller Memorial
Orchestra". Even when playing the sort of theatres where the
original band would have amplified just vocals, they mic every
instrument. Would an unplugged performance cut it? I'd love him to
try, but fear it would be a mistake.


I have been trying to make this point to the 'accurists' here for some time
now....

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

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

But the other outstanding matter, the hard hitting
big band, made with a single pair, now that *is*
a challenge, expressly to you Dave. You have
gone very quiet about that:-))

Yet another example of a stupid challenge.

Take it up, and prove me wrong:-)
In trying to do it, you will quickly realise that
due to lack of practical experience, you were
mistaken.

Just once it would be nice to see a post of yours start without an insult.

It has been pointed out to me also, that neither you
or any of the rest of us here know what a 1940s
big band actually sounded like live, except from
recordings or revival concerts.

You need that pointed out to you?

Also the early compositions that Ellington played were so changed by the
60s and 70s that many people don't recongnise them as being the same
pieces.

Diminuendo and Crescendo in Blue (written and
first performed in 1937) is a very good example.


But I notice you've failed to answer the point that a big band couldn't
sound good live by your theory.

Discussed right at the beginning of this thread.
Without the visual reference of the concert, most people
seem to think they sound less good when recorded with
a simple pair. Try it. Enjoy the concert and then listen to
the recording afterwards. For that reason multi mic has
been used for recording for many years.

Again, you miss the point.

--
*If PROGRESS is for advancement, what does that make CONGRESS mean?

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

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 12:58:07 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

It has been pointed out to me also, that neither you
or any of the rest of us here know what a 1940s
big band actually sounded like live, except from
recordings or revival concerts

A good point. A friend runs the European "Glenn Miller
Memorial Orchestra". Even when playing the sort of
theatres where the original band would have amplified
just vocals, they mic every instrument. Would an
unplugged performance cut it? I'd love him to try, but
fear it would be a mistake.

I have been trying to make this point to the 'accurists'
here for some time now....

There's no doubt that we often use electronics as a crutch to address
problems with venues and personnel.

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 12:58:07 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

It has been pointed out to me also, that neither you
or any of the rest of us here know what a 1940s
big band actually sounded like live, except from
recordings or revival concerts

A good point. A friend runs the European "Glenn Miller Memorial
Orchestra".

Isn't that a French outfit?

There was something of a big band revival in the UK in both the
70s and the 90s, with great concerts at QEH, Hammersmith Palais
and The Round House. The BBC even reformed the NDO for
a few concerts.

Here in Scandinvia, and in Sweden in particular, big band and
orchestral jazz music has *always* been strong. Copenhagen,
Stockholm and Helsinki have some great events. There
is aso a very strong interest in this kind of music among students.
Stockholm has some amazing student bands who follow the traditions
of bands such as Harry Arnold and the Swedish Radio Orchestra.

Listen to a great performance of Cherokee:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnSH1ukv9fU

Everyone thought Harry Arnold (real name Harri Persson
was an American. You can tell he was a woodwind player -
listen to the saxophone section:-)

While we are at it, here's one for Keith - Stan Getz' version
of "Dear Old Stockholm"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2qnZ3cW7bw&NR=1


Even when playing the sort of theatres where the
original band would have amplified just vocals, they mic every
instrument.

Precisely.

Would an unplugged performance cut it? I'd love him to
try, but fear it would be a mistake.

It probably would not meet the expectations of a C 21st
audience.

The vast majority of such recordings, whether live concerts
or studio are made multi mic since the 1950s as this gives a
more satisfactory result.

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Iain Churches" wrote


Listen to a great performance of Cherokee:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnSH1ukv9fU


Lovely.


Everyone thought Harry Arnold (real name Harri Persson
was an American. You can tell he was a woodwind player -
listen to the saxophone section:-)

While we are at it, here's one for Keith - Stan Getz' version
of "Dear Old Stockholm"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2qnZ3cW7bw&NR=1


Stan's always good VFM but he's more a 'nightcap' than 'afternoon tea'!! :-)

You've prompted me, now! Slog through this to 1' 26" - that's the tune I
can't find anywhere and I don't know what it is or who it was - any clues?

(Love the *piccanninnies* bit..!!)

Those were the days....

@;-)

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Even when playing the sort of theatres where the
original band would have amplified just vocals, they mic every
instrument.

Precisely.

Would an unplugged performance cut it? I'd love him to
try, but fear it would be a mistake.

It probably would not meet the expectations of a C 21st
audience.

The vast majority of such recordings, whether live concerts
or studio are made multi mic since the 1950s as this gives a
more satisfactory result.

Err, what about the live audience? Perhaps you don't attend many such
events where *everything* is miked up and the PA poor.
Nor does a proper big band need this.

--
*White with a hint of M42*

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

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 16:14:51 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

A good point. A friend runs the European "Glenn Miller Memorial
Orchestra".

Isn't that a French outfit?

British (mostly) musicians, works out of France, largely, I think,
because Frank couldn't get the British "Glenn Miller" franchise.

Dual mono vs. mono mono interrogative...
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 16:14:51 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

A good point. A friend runs the European "Glenn Miller Memorial
Orchestra".

Isn't that a French outfit?

British (mostly) musicians, works out of France, largely, I think,
because Frank couldn't get the British "Glenn Miller" franchise.

Then I have heard them. Excellent.


Iain