Is this too mellow?
 

"Contemporary" seems to be used in so many ways that, out of context,
it's practically meaningless. One way in the classical field - and
they can't agree whether it means post-tonal or post-1970. Then
there's "Adult Contemporary" describing a type of radio playlist.
There's "Christian Contemporary" for the sort of watered-down rock
that infects some churches.

I don't see any references to it meaning "current popular music",
which is what someone outside the field might expect it to mean.

At least the world (except Arny) agrees pretty well on the definition
of Sub-bass, Bass, Midrange etc. :-)

Is this too mellow?
 

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

Arny Krueger wrote:

'Who Groves is'....???

Well Kitty, I can take that as a claim by you that there never was a
person named Grove who was related to this work:



Somebody open a window, please....




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grove_D..._and_Musicians

Grove's Dictionary
It was first published as A Dictionary of Music and Musicians in four
volumes (1878, 1880, 1883, 1899) edited by Sir George Grove with an
Appendix edited by J. A. Fuller Maitland and an Index edited by Mrs.
Edmund Wodehouse.

LOL!

He's got no ****ing idea has he? Wot a bull****ter!!

Speaking in the vernacular around here is a ton of fun.

Wot a great way to bait the local pedants!

LOL!


Nice try Amy - keep wriggling if you want, but it isn't working...

Nice try? I think it's very sad:-(

Is this too mellow?
 

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:10:19 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

As far as the festival work goes, down to whatever a NT4 does. ;-)

I've got one of these, and find it makes rather boring recordings, (if
that's understandable :-) Is it a favourite of yours? I'd love to
hear some short examples.

Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:10:19 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

As far as the festival work goes, down to whatever a NT4
does. ;-)

I've got one of these, and find it makes rather boring
recordings, (if that's understandable :-) Is it a
favourite of yours?

Let's put it this way, for me the NT4 is a tool of commerce.

I'd love to hear some short examples.

I've said what I'm going to say about that until there's real change around
here.

Is this too mellow?
 

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:26:28 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

With the level of musicians that I work, I would suspect that less than a
third of the adults and almost none of the children know what Grove's is.

Wake up, Arny! You're not talking to them, you're talking to us.
Appropriate language gets your meaning across in both cases.

Is this too mellow?
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


So one and all, read Bobby's book about mixing, but it
will be a cosmic waste of time unless you actually go
hands one with a mixing console fairly often. Good fun
for technical voyeurs, and there's nothing wrong with
that. But, its not me. For me mixing fair-sized events
is a participant sport that I play several times a
week.
The way I have it is you record only the one ensemble -
no?
If you are talking about the church thing,

Yes, 'the church thing' I suppose...

there are actually two overapping
ensembles, the traditional ensemble and the contemporary
ensemble. There is also the speech, the drama, and
production and some authoring of audio and video that is
used various ways, including accompianment.

And they want/need *everything* recorded...??

Part of the job.

(Don't they ever get fed up of the mics??)

If there were no mics and the technology behind them, many of them would
never be heard by the audience.



But don't they ever get fed up of the mics?



The band and choir festival thing which is starting
shortly, involves well over 100 ensembles per year.

Sorry, I don't understand what that means - the festival
is a year's recordings...??

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


snip


Cut & pastes from the Wiki is the last refuge of a scoundrel...

:-)

Is this too mellow?
 

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:32:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


I've got one of these, and find it makes rather boring
recordings, (if that's understandable :-) Is it a
favourite of yours?

Let's put it this way, for me the NT4 is a tool of commerce.

Well, at least you're doing SOME paying work :-)


I'd love to hear some short examples.

I've said what I'm going to say about that until there's real change around
here.

I don't think there will be, until you display some results to back up
all your opinions. Careful proof-reading of your posts might help.
If you're going to use standard terms in a non-standard way, explain
them BEFORE you're picked up on it :-) Else you just have to bluster
or wriggle, as the phrase "I stand corrected" doesn't seem to be in
your vocabulary.

Of course, if you can display some stunning results, you'll be
immediately forgiven your strange ideas.

Is this too mellow?
 

Iain Churches wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

'Who Groves is'....???
Well Kitty, I can take that as a claim by you that there never was a
person named Grove who was related to this work:


Somebody open a window, please....



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grove_D..._and_Musicians

Grove's Dictionary
It was first published as A Dictionary of Music and Musicians in four
volumes (1878, 1880, 1883, 1899) edited by Sir George Grove with an
Appendix edited by J. A. Fuller Maitland and an Index edited by Mrs.
Edmund Wodehouse.

LOL!
He's got no ****ing idea has he? Wot a bull****ter!!
Speaking in the vernacular around here is a ton of fun.

Wot a great way to bait the local pedants!

LOL!

Nice try Amy - keep wriggling if you want, but it isn't working...

Nice try? I think it's very sad:-(





Sad?

Hilarious more like! - In his attempts to avoid plain-spoken
*factualities* he relies more on 'hints and allegations' than Paul Simon!!

:-)

Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:32:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


I've got one of these, and find it makes rather boring
recordings, (if that's understandable :-) Is it a
favourite of yours?

Let's put it this way, for me the NT4 is a tool of
commerce.

Well, at least you're doing SOME paying work :-)


I'd love to hear some short examples.

I've said what I'm going to say about that until there's
real change around here.

I don't think there will be, until you display some
results to back up all your opinions.

The ability of certain members of this forum to ignore reliable references
is well-known. Since they have backed up many of my opinons in the past, the
futility of expecting any real change around here is pretty obvious.

You ain't my daddies, Laurence, Kitty, Iain.

Is this too mellow?
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

If you are talking about the church thing,

Yes, 'the church thing' I suppose...

there are actually two overapping
ensembles, the traditional ensemble and the
contemporary ensemble. There is also the speech, the
drama, and production and some authoring of audio and
video that is used various ways, including
accompianment.

And they want/need *everything* recorded...??

Part of the job.

(Don't they ever get fed up of the mics??)

If there were no mics and the technology behind them,
many of them would never be heard by the audience.

But don't they ever get fed up of the mics?

We all (that is everybody who actually touches such things early and often)
get fed up with mics, even those of us who choose and plant them.

Necessary evil.

Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:26:28 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

With the level of musicians that I work, I would suspect
that less than a third of the adults and almost none of
the children know what Grove's is.

Wake up, Arny! You're not talking to them, you're
talking to us.

And your whining proves that you exactly understood what I said, but are on
yet another one of your pedantic binges.

Binge on, dude! ;-)

Is this too mellow?
 

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:58:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The ability of certain members of this forum to ignore reliable references
is well-known. Since they have backed up many of my opinons in the past, the
futility of expecting any real change around here is pretty obvious.

I don't understand a word of that. YOU'RE ignoring the accepted
definitions of certain terms. "Backed up"? Eh?



You ain't my daddies, Laurence, Kitty, Iain.
Oh yes I am! :-)

Is this too mellow?
 

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:48:12 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

BTW Humans can also 'hear' "frequencies as low as 0.1 Hz". All this
requires is for the pressure variations to be large enough to be sensed and
to allow for the sensation in your ears to qualify as 'hear'.

Interesting to discuss whether "hear" is the right term. Do we "see"
infra-red?

Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:48:12 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

BTW Humans can also 'hear' "frequencies as low as 0.1 Hz". All this
requires is for the pressure variations to be large enough to be sensed
and
to allow for the sensation in your ears to qualify as 'hear'.

Interesting to discuss whether "hear" is the right term.

That's probably why Jim put it in quotes.

Do we "see"
infra-red?

No, nor can we sense it with our eyes. If you sense IR at all it is only
because of the warming effect it has on the skin. OTOH you can be aware of
air-borne infra-bass because the air-movements are detected by the eardrum.
Certainly the sensation is quite different from normal hearing, but then we
don't know what it "sounds" like to a pigeon either :-)

David.

Is this too mellow?
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
bcoombes

BTW Pigeons can hear frequencies as low as .1 Hz, or one vibration every
ten seconds, so if any of the peeps reading this is a pigeon that
statement is miles out.

BTW Humans can also 'hear' "frequencies as low as 0.1 Hz". All this
requires is for the pressure variations to be large enough

I guess that's why the Lord Mayor of Hiroshima said "What the f**k was that".

BTW2 Can you give me a reference for what you say about pigeons? I can
check my own observation from having sensed such changes. But I'm not a
pigeon. (Honest!) :-)

Tis here, it's a really interesting page.[I thought, maybe I'm easily entertained].
http://www.philtulga.com/MSSActivities.html

Above said, it isn't clear to me what relevance it would have for something
like recordings or broadcasts of music/speech.

Non whatsoever, that I can think of...but there are more things under heaven and
earth etc..

--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:48:12 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

BTW Humans can also 'hear' "frequencies as low as 0.1 Hz". All this
requires is for the pressure variations to be large enough to be
sensed and to allow for the sensation in your ears to qualify as
'hear'.

Interesting to discuss whether "hear" is the right term.

That's probably why Jim put it in quotes.

Yes.

Do we "see" infra-red?

No, nor can we sense it with our eyes.

Not quite correct. I can certainly 'sense' infrared with my 'eyes'. But the
sensation of dryness and soreness of the front of my eyes. I think it may
be due to evaporation when my eyes are exposed to significant heat sources.
e.g. when making toast in the morning even though the flames of the grill
aren't directly visible.


If you sense IR at all it is only because of the warming effect it has
on the skin.

And, in my experience on the eyes.

OTOH you can be aware of air-borne infra-bass because the
air-movements are detected by the eardrum. Certainly the sensation is
quite different from normal hearing, but then we don't know what it
"sounds" like to a pigeon either :-)

Indeed. Mind you, I don't know what music "sounds like" to *you*, either!
;-

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?
 

"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article
, bcoombes

BTW Pigeons can hear frequencies as low as .1 Hz, or
one vibration every ten seconds, so if any of the peeps
reading this is a pigeon that statement is miles out.

BTW Humans can also 'hear' "frequencies as low as 0.1
Hz". All this requires is for the pressure variations to
be large enough

I guess that's why the Lord Mayor of Hiroshima said "What
the f**k was that".

That's an exact quote - you're sure about it?

A little research suggests that there may not have even been such a person
in 1945. That he exists now is questionable evidence since the city and
country were so profoundly reorgainzed after WW2 and back-to-back near-total
destruction by both The Bomb and a massive hurricane.

BTW2 Can you give me a reference for what you say about
pigeons? I can check my own observation from having
sensed such changes. But I'm not a pigeon. (Honest!) :-)

Tis here, it's a really interesting page.[I thought,
maybe I'm easily entertained].
http://www.philtulga.com/MSSActivities.html
Above said, it isn't clear to me what relevance it would
have for something like recordings or broadcasts of
music/speech.

Non whatsoever, that I can think of...but there are more
things under heaven and earth etc..

I was thinking that not-infrequent generators of strong subsonic waves
could include improperly designed or operated petroleum processing plants...
:-(

Is this too mellow?
 

In article ,
bcoombes
bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
bcoombes

BTW Pigeons can hear frequencies as low as .1 Hz, or one vibration
every ten seconds, so if any of the peeps reading this is a pigeon
that statement is miles out.

BTW Humans can also 'hear' "frequencies as low as 0.1 Hz". All this
requires is for the pressure variations to be large enough

I guess that's why the Lord Mayor of Hiroshima said "What the f**k was
that".

I suspect he didn't get to the end of the sentence!

However any 'bang' near the explosion would have been a blast wave, so
contained a wide range of frequencies, not just ULF. That said, such waves
do tend to be dispersive so tend to be more like LF at large distances.

I can recall having some pressure sensors at my old Uni (QMC as was) that
used to show a gentle variation in air pressure a few times per day. Was
eventually identified as the remains of the shockwave of Concorde flying
across the Atlantic. Much quieter than the noise it made over the NPL,
though. :-)

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.

BTW2 Can you give me a reference for what you say about pigeons? I can
check my own observation from having sensed such changes. But I'm not
a pigeon. (Honest!) :-)

Tis here, it's a really interesting page.[I thought, maybe I'm easily
entertained]. http://www.philtulga.com/MSSActivities.html

Ta.

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?
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:32:21 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I've got one of these, and find it makes rather boring
recordings, (if that's understandable :-) Is it a
favourite of yours?
Let's put it this way, for me the NT4 is a tool of
commerce.
Well, at least you're doing SOME paying work :-)

I'd love to hear some short examples.
I've said what I'm going to say about that until there's
real change around here.
I don't think there will be, until you display some
results to back up all your opinions.

The ability of certain members of this forum to ignore reliable references
is well-known. Since they have backed up many of my opinons in the past, the
futility of expecting any real change around here is pretty obvious.

You ain't my daddies, Laurence, Kitty, Iain.





Do we have to provide DNA samples to have that officialised...??

Is this too mellow?
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:26:28 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

With the level of musicians that I work, I would suspect that less than a
third of the adults and almost none of the children know what Grove's is.

Wake up, Arny! You're not talking to them, you're talking to us.
Appropriate language gets your meaning across in both cases.

It's been too easy for Arny - pulling the wool over the
eyes of the goodly Baptist bretheren for a very long
time. He preys upon their lack of knowledge and
experience

It doesn't work in the real world:-)

Is this too mellow?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message


It's been too easy for Arny - pulling the wool over the
eyes of the goodly Baptist brethren for a very long
time.

No wool-pulling required.

He preys upon their lack of knowledge and
experience

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

It doesn't work in the real world:-)

I wouldn't know since I'm not doing that you're talking about Iain. But,
what I do does work in the real world.

Is this too mellow?
 

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.

Is this too mellow?
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
But I'm not a pigeon. (Honest!) :-)


Coo!

--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grove_D..._and_Musicians

Grove's Dictionary
It was first published as A Dictionary of Music and Musicians in four
volumes (1878, 1880, 1883, 1899) edited by Sir George Grove with an
Appendix edited by J. A. Fuller Maitland and an Index edited by Mrs.
Edmund Wodehouse.

LOL!

He's got no ****ing idea has he? Wot a bull****ter!!

Speaking in the vernacular around here is a ton of fun.

Wot a great way to bait the local pedants!

LOL!


Nice try Amy - keep wriggling if you want, but it isn't working...

Nice try? I think it's very sad:-(

True story: The day I heard Stanley Sadie (ed. New Grove) had died I won
a Sadies cd at a wine-tasting.

Stephen

Is this too mellow?
 

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. 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.

--
Bill Coombes

Is this too mellow?
 

MiNe 109 said...

True story: The day I heard Stanley Sadie (ed. New Grove) had died I won
a Sadies cd at a wine-tasting.

In the "Most bottles sampled with least use of spittoon." category?

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

Is this too mellow?
 

In article ,
UnsteadyKen wrote:

MiNe 109 said...

True story: The day I heard Stanley Sadie (ed. New Grove) had died I won
a Sadies cd at a wine-tasting.

In the "Most bottles sampled with least use of spittoon." category?

They didn't even have a spittoon! I had to sneak to the men's to dispose
of a particularly vile vintage.

I won for a trivia question I've now forgotten, but the answer was
"Gershwin." Give it try at your next quiz!

It was also the day I first heard the phrase, "cat's pee on a gooseberry
bush," used to describe New Zealand sauvignon blanc.

Stephen

Is this too mellow?
 

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.

The loudest sound I've experienced was when I worked in a Basic Oxygen
Steel-making plant, 80 tons of molten iron is tipped into a large
vessel and pure oxygen is blown into it at supersonic velocity through
a 70/80 foot lance, occasionally a resonance starts in the lance and if
the operator doesn't catch it quickly enough it builds to the most
monstrous subsonic bone shaking and disorientating sound, it really
makes you feel strange, nothing exists but the noise.

Not quite as loud but much more musical was Neil Young at Finsbury park
in 93 who was measured by elf and save tea at 118db from outside the
park railings about 300 yards from the speaker stack according to the
Evening Standard. He's probably saving up to pay the £25 fine.



--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

Is this too mellow?
 

"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.

David.

Is this too mellow?
 

In article , 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.

I worked at the NPL for a while and most people used to abandon any
conversations when the morning flight came over. :-)

I suspect it was even louder at Tolouse as they used to park on the apron
outside the hanger and 'warm up'. For longer tests they went to a more
distant spot, but even then it was very loud. I guess the French had zero
'elf and safety'. As supported by them agreeing to us making a hole in the
roof to fit a new window (Quartz). The UK people threw us out when we asked
to do this with their prototype. But the French said it was OK if we signed
a blood chit that it was our problem if we got killed.

Much nicer inside at altitude and Mach 2. Like a magic carpet. Main
exception with 001 used to be at take off as it had 'military style'
backward facing passenger seats for people working on the plane. Hanging
from these as it rotated and accellerated was quite unlike normal passanger
travel. More like a fairground ride. :-)

Even more like a ride, was one flight when the pilots decided to waggle
about a bit whilst I was trying to unscrew some panels. At one point they
pushed the stick forwards and instead of the screw rotating *I* did as my
feet left the deck! I then did an 8th turn in the air and fell down when
they pulled back again. :-)

Long time ago, now. Different world.

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?
 

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