Is this too mellow?
 

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote

And that was much quieter than standing near to 001 as she wound up at
Tolouse. 8-] That and some tests with a tank (Challenger II IIRC)
were the loudest noise sources I've ever risked my own ears on.


One of the tests that we did when I was involved in subjective testing
was to choose a low bit-rate codec for in-flight telephone service for
airline passengers.

In order to make the test reasonably authentic it was decided to play a
recording made inside an airliner in flight (first-class cabin of a 747)
at the correct SPL in the listening room whilst the test was being
conducted.

Whilst this hardly reaches the sort of levels you are talking about it
sounded plenty loud enough to us in that room. In order to avoid making
the test subjects jump out of their skins we ramped-up the volume of
the recording over a period of 30 seconds.

I guess that 'pink' and other smooth spectrum types of noise tend to louder
than you think when accustomed to them. I've noticed something similar when
heating an electric kettle. Only notice how loud it is when I realise I
can't hear the kitchen radio.

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

Is this too mellow?
 

UnsteadyKen wrote:
Jim Lesurf said...

And that was much quieter than standing near to 001 as she wound up at
Tolouse. 8-] That and some tests with a tank (Challenger II IIRC) were
the loudest noise sources I've ever risked my own ears on.

Concorde does make the most awesome racket doesn't it, At Farnborough
air show in 79 she came in, touched wheels down and climbed away on
full power, absolutely stupendous. Quite a few people found out why it
is not a good idea to bring a dog to an air show.


At the airshow that takes place at Sandgate the military jets fly over at about
100 ft, stand it on end and blast off into vertically into the sky, it's a
visceral sound experience that generates an instinctive fear even in humans,
dogs and cats run for cover and stay under said cover a long time. This is the
funny thing, the seagulls carry on flying around undisturbed as if *absolutely*
nothing is happening.


--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk
Arny Krueger wrote:

Hmm, one of the outputs from my Studiomaster goes to a
digital subharmonic processor which is then fed to a big
sub [via an amp of course]. I don't have it turned up
particularly loud but I do like the feel of a soupçon of
extra low.

Subharmonic synths give what I think of as a sort of
"Las Vegas" sound to some music. In moderation its
probably fun, but if turned way up, it is clearly an EFX
which you will either love or hate.

Well I suspect that a lot of 'musical' people regard
sub-harmonic synths as an abomination and turned up they
are usually overpowering.

No doubt true given that some musicans consider any non-acoustic instrument
to be an abomination.

I find it impossible to predict
what music they will and won't work with, the most recent
track I was surprised by how good a synth sounded with
was with was Norah Jones's 'Light as a Feather'. [CD
version with all other output being 'pure path' stuff].
As I said before they have to be used in soupçon mode.
Except for the cinema experience of course, I saw 'Alien'
at a cinema with a great sound system turned up *really*
loud and lots of sub-harmonics..a true full body
experience.

Well, that's the nature of EFX - sometimes a given one will work, other
times not so much.

Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:05:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

He preys upon their lack of knowledge and
experience

If you call services rendered for no charge "preying"...

It's the worst sort. When you're paid, customers can
expect standards and fire you if they're not delivered.
A volunteer is hard to get rid of.

I'm sure the world is well-served by your lack of willingness to volunteer,
Laurence. ;-)

Is this too mellow?
 

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , UnsteadyKen
wrote:

Concorde does make the most awesome racket doesn't it, At Farnborough
air show in 79 she came in, touched wheels down and climbed away on
full power, absolutely stupendous.

Indeed it WAS. It was a wonderful piece of engineering and IMO the most
beautiful thing man has ever created. So how in heaven's name did we end
up without even one being able to ever fly again?

I blame the French.

You would also then need to 'blame' them for it actually completing
development as IIRC the UK goverment would have cancelled it but for the
French having written into the agreement that this was not possible!

You could just as easily blame the USA for the way they put up impediments
for many years to it being able to fly in and out of their airports.

However it was developed in a world where oil prices were assumed to be
'low' and that air travel velocity a main selling point for the future.
OPEC and the 747 put paid to that.

I agree that it is a real shame that it no longer flies and that no-one
else did even a replacement, let alone a hypersonic or suborbital. I also
like steam locomotives... :-) But I would now prefer money to be spent on
250 mph trains running the length of the UK and think they'd make more
sense.

In the end I think that BA/AF were just looking for a reason to stop using
it. The final accident gave them a get-out that was convenient for PR
reasons.

However this is all rather OT again... ;-

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

Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:05:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

He preys upon their lack of knowledge and
experience

If you call services rendered for no charge "preying"...

It's the worst sort. When you're paid, customers can expect standards
and fire you if they're not delivered. A volunteer is hard to get rid
of.

Particularly if the wife of that volunteer plays a key role in
the organisation of the church :-))

But, even a volunteer has a responsibility to the people for
whom he is volunteering, to do something which is within
his capabilites, and do it well.

One wonders why Arny does not enrol himself as an
adult first year student on a recorded arts course,
just to learn the basics.

Is this too mellow?
 

"Bob Latham" wrote

You give a list of reasons why some thought it failed commercially but not
a reason why they had to destroy them (at least as far as ever flying is
concerned) and that is the tragedy.

Keeping aircraft of that type and vintage in flying condition is a
seriously, and increasingly, expensive business.

As I recall, when Air France and BA wished to withdraw them from service
Virgin offered to buy them and continue running them as they believed the
wealthy would pay 'what ever' to fly Concorde. The existing owners
couldn't have that could they? So they destroyed them.

I hadn't heard that about Virgin (can you give a cite?) but if they
beleived that the wealthy would pay "whatever" the evidence was against
them. I suspect what really happened was that once Virgin had looked at the
business case they withdrew the offer.

All triggered by the blinking French using the wrong tyres and not looking
after their runways.

Alternatively it was the fault of the Americans for not looking after their
aircraft (after all it was an American plane the debris fell off) and a poor
design of fuel tank.

David.

Is this too mellow?
 

David Looser wrote:
"Bob wrote

You give a list of reasons why some thought it failed commercially but not
a reason why they had to destroy them (at least as far as ever flying is
concerned) and that is the tragedy.

Keeping aircraft of that type and vintage in flying condition is a
seriously, and increasingly, expensive business.

As I recall, when Air France and BA wished to withdraw them from service
Virgin offered to buy them and continue running them as they believed the
wealthy would pay 'what ever' to fly Concorde. The existing owners
couldn't have that could they? So they destroyed them.

I hadn't heard that about Virgin (can you give a cite?) but if they
beleived that the wealthy would pay "whatever" the evidence was against
them. I suspect what really happened was that once Virgin had looked at the
business case they withdrew the offer.

AIUI the Virgin offer was that they would pay BA the same for their
fleet of Concordes as BA paid the Government [or BAE] when they first
took them on. This was [again AIUI] a nominal sum and BA preferred to
dismantle the aircraft and scrap them rather than risk Tricky Dicky
getting his hands on them.

See

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

and

http://www.solarnavigator.net/aviation_and_space_travel/concorde.htm

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

Is this too mellow?
 

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Bob Latham" wrote

You give a list of reasons why some thought it failed commercially but
not a reason why they had to destroy them (at least as far as ever
flying is concerned) and that is the tragedy.

Keeping aircraft of that type and vintage in flying condition is a
seriously, and increasingly, expensive business.

Can you name anything worthwhile that isn't? It is simply a question of
its importance and for some reason the men in grey suits decided it wasn't
important. For a work of beauty and engineering, I would disagree with
them.


You made that obvious enough. There are lots of things that can be done if
you throw enough money at it. Clearly not enough people thought that keeping
Concorde flying was the best way of spending their money. Did you start a
Concorde preservation fund?


I hadn't heard that about Virgin (can you give a cite?)

Someone else has already done this.

Well no they haven't. Somebody else gave me his version of what happened,
that not a "cite".


Then you suspect wrongly.

All we've had here are two peoples' opinions of what happened. We still
don't have anything that might be called a "fact". If you can offer a cite
please do. Otherwise all we have is opinion and hearsay.

All triggered by the blinking French using the wrong tyres and not
looking after their runways.

Alternatively it was the fault of the Americans for not looking after
their aircraft (after all it was an American plane the debris fell off)

Indeed it was but by then the two airlines were looking for an excuse to
shut the service down anyway and the accident answered their prayers.


Nobody had ever made a profit running Concorde. The chances that Virgin
could have done so were vanishingly small, and by now, with fuel costs
significantly higher, and the Concordes older and thus increasingly
difficult and expensive to maintain, even that slim chance would have gone.
Concorde might have been a beautiful piece of engineering, but no machine
lasts for ever, especially one subject to all the stresses that Concorde
did. They ran for 25 years, pretty good innings for an airliner.

David.

Is this too mellow?
 

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Bob Latham" wrote in message


You made that obvious enough. There are lots of things that can be
done if you throw enough money at it. Clearly not enough people
thought that keeping Concorde flying was the best way of spending
their money.

Yes, that is true, but then I live in a world that I don't understand.
Either I'm barking mad or this politically correct, nanny state is and I
don't know which.

You could just as easily say that being "poltically correct" was what kept
Concord flying a 'commercial' sic service for 20 years. BA/AF ran a
service because they were State Flag Carriers and were a mix of pushed into
it and treated it as PR.


All we've had here are two peoples' opinions of what happened. We
still don't have anything that might be called a "fact". If you can
offer a cite please do. Otherwise all we have is opinion and hearsay.

I remember the event as it was of relative importance to me. However,
trawling the web to prove it to you isn't I'm afraid, so I'll let you do
your own research or believe as you wish.

My impression to add to the opinions thus far is as follows:

That Branson would happily use Concord as a PR stick to embarass BA, and I
suspect he knew that either they would not essentially gift it to him, or
that he could stop flying it after a while if - as seems likely - it became
too costly to keep going. As someone who has read Private Eye for years I'm
personally inclined to treat some of what he says in that light.

The reality was, I think, that the cost of keeping it going was bound to
rise as it got older and older. It was already fairly old in terms of what
it had been put through. Hence the risks of in-air failure were also rising
I suspect.

So I can understand why BA/AF decided to give it up. It is a shame in
emotional terms as I'd love it to be still flying. Just as I like the fact
that some steam locos are still running special services.

But if people really cared we'd have better replacements by now, anyway. So
I'm just happy that I had a few chances to ride on it in ye olde days when
it was 'the future'. :-)

They used to run 'trips round the block' in it. So others presumably also
had a go before it was taken out of service. But I trust they had better
seats than I had. :-)

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