Amy wants attention and have all the nasty soothed away....
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

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

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

Making evaluations and comparisons isn't about some
gimmicky "test",

Tell that to the AES, who firmly stand behind ABX and
have put my name on it. Tell it again to the AES who
have incorporated some of my comments on testing
procedures into their standards.
it's about having a real understanding
what you are doing and closely controlling the
variables.

Clearly Dave you are talking out of the back of your
neck. Like Iain and Kitty, you're driven by blind hatred
and want me to hurt.

Er, no - nothing of the sort, Amy....

note that Kitty then proceeds to demonstrate his blind hatred and desire
to hurt with the following melt down:

I know your ego won't allow you to consider this but,
nevertheless, it is almost certainly a fact that the
great majority of people on this planet/in this newsgroup
probably don't give a mosquito's fart whether you
continue to breath or not, let alone bother to summon up
enough energy to actually *hate* you - what you are
suffering from here (and now) is the backlash of a
million and one of your smartarse/snide comments, unkind
personal remarks and general ****-slinging to various
people in this group over the years.

Kitty, if you had any self-consciousness at all, you'd realize that the
above paragraph is excellent evidence illustrating exactly the point that
I made.


Not at all - read again:

what you are
suffering from here (and now) is the backlash of a
million and one of your smartarse/snide comments, unkind
personal remarks and general ****-slinging to various
people in this group over the years.


And it should all fall into place - no?

If it helps (I'm Old School Brit - we don't normally do 'soothing' and/or
'touchy/feely', so please excuse me if I'm not too good at it), I don't
hate you Amy, I think you're a **** - it's not quite the same thing. Ask
anybody.

Now, forget all that ad hom and read/skim this surprisingly crumpled
brochure (for free, no fees will be paid) referring to one of the 'dodgy
mics' I've got on Fleabay atm:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GAP01.jpg

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GAP02.jpg


If I publish those links on the auction do you think it would:

A) Make people more inclined to buy the mic.

B) Make people more inclined to bugger off and buy a different mic on
another auction?



Of course, if you have no clue Amy (as I suspect) it will be perfectly OK
for you not to say so here and just shuffle off and make more your usual
smartarse/snide comments elsewhere....

Iain would have been a better bet to ask - real (not imagined) experience
for starters and Golden Age being a Swedish company:

http://www.mamut.net/goldenagemusic/


In fact IIRC correrctly - you expound Rode mics do you not? :-)

Saw them (NT-1 ?) described as being 'strangely simultaneously peaky yet
dull' (or very similar) by someone, somewhere not long ago - possibly in a
Sound On Sound review...???

LOL!!

Amy wants attention and have all the nasty soothed away....
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
In fact IIRC correrctly - you expound Rode mics do you not? :-)

Saw them (NT-1 ?) described as being 'strangely simultaneously peaky yet
dull' (or very similar) by someone, somewhere not long ago - possibly
in a Sound On Sound review...???

If you knew the first thing about using mics, you'd know they are rarely
used 'flat'. One such that hardly ever is - the u87. One of the industry
standards.

Sound on Sound is just a typical comic like Hi-Fi News.

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet.

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

Amy wants attention and have all the nasty soothed away....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
In fact IIRC correrctly - you expound Rode mics do you
not? :-)

Saw them (NT-1 ?) described as being 'strangely
simultaneously peaky yet dull' (or very similar) by
someone, somewhere not long ago - possibly in a Sound On
Sound review...???

If you knew the first thing about using mics, you'd know
they are rarely used 'flat'. One such that hardly ever is
- the u87. One of the industry standards.

Sound on Sound is just a typical comic like Hi-Fi News.

No need to be snowed by Kitty's line of BS and out-and-out lying.

Here's what SOS *really* said:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may0...les/rodent.htm

"
I tested both these mics side by side and found that the sound in cardioid
mode was quite similar — there was a wonderful sense of high-end detail, but
without the sound becoming thin or harsh. In fact I'd say both models
produce what you'd expect from a well-designed transformerless FET mic, but
with rather lower background noise than most of the competition. The
somewhat constricted character that most cardioid mics exhibit to some
degree seems less noticeable in these new Rode designs, but when you switch
the NT2000 to its omni pattern, you quickly realise that omni-pattern mics
still sound more open and natural than cardioids. The same is true of the
figure-of-eight mode, which sounds very clean and pure.
Of course many people buy large-diaphragm mics because of their character,
and some models have much more of a 'sound' than others. To me, these new
Rode designs are characterised by a very open and detailed high end, which
is nevertheless properly balanced by the low end. There's nothing thin or
edgy about the sound and, because there's no excessive inherent coloration,
they respond well to EQ — you're not constantly trying to fight

Rode's new designs have really increased expectations of what can be
achieved in microphones at this UK price, particularly when it comes to
circuit noise — they are typically 6-10dB quieter than most of the
competition. You don't get the fudgy warmth of a tube mic or even a
transformer-coupled model, but to my ears this makes it easier to place the
vocals at the front of a mix without using excessive volume.

Despite its low cost, the NT1A delivers professional performance, both for
vocal recording and for general instrument use. The lack of any heavy-handed
presence boost makes the sound well suited for use with a range of singers
and vocal styles and makes it's also easy to fine-tune using modest amounts
of EQ. At the same time, the high end is as open and detailed as you could
wish for, so if you like a vocal sound with a modern breathy quality, you
can achieve it using little or no EQ.

"

Amy wants attention and have all the nasty soothed away....
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
In fact IIRC correrctly - you expound Rode mics do you
not? :-)

Saw them (NT-1 ?) described as being 'strangely
simultaneously peaky yet dull' (or very similar) by
someone, somewhere not long ago - possibly in a Sound On
Sound review...???

If you knew the first thing about using mics, you'd know
they are rarely used 'flat'. One such that hardly ever is
- the u87. One of the industry standards.

Sound on Sound is just a typical comic like Hi-Fi News.

No need to be snowed by Kitty's line of BS and out-and-out lying.

Here's what SOS *really* said:



Forget the cheesey 'cut & paste' BS, Amy - it doesn't work on me, I said
*possibly* in SOS as in:

"Saw them (NT-1 ?) described as being 'strangely simultaneously peaky yet
dull' (or very similar) by someone, somewhere not long ago - possibly in a
Sound On Sound review...???"


I definitely saw it (or summat very like it) somewhere - it'll come up
again, I expect.

Amy wants attention and have all the nasty soothed away....
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
In fact IIRC correrctly - you expound Rode mics do you
not? :-)

Saw them (NT-1 ?) described as being 'strangely
simultaneously peaky yet dull' (or very similar) by
someone, somewhere not long ago - possibly in a Sound
On Sound review...???

Let us not mention the inconvenient fact that the NT-1 has been obsolete for
about half a decade...

If you knew the first thing about using mics, you'd know
they are rarely used 'flat'. One such that hardly ever
is - the u87. One of the industry standards.

Sound on Sound is just a typical comic like Hi-Fi News.

No need to be snowed by Kitty's line of BS and
out-and-out lying.

Here's what SOS *really* said:

Forget the cheesey 'cut & paste' BS, Amy - it doesn't
work on me,

Right Kitty, the cut and paste is what is known in the trade as reliable
information - an area of polite discussion that you never pollute with your
smelly back-pedaling presence. To you, any inconvenient fact is *cheesy*.
We saw that in your dissembling and false discussion of 3.5 mm phone jacks,
and any number of previous discussions.

Amy wants attention and have all the nasty soothed away....
 

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
In fact IIRC correrctly - you expound Rode mics do you
not? :-)

Saw them (NT-1 ?) described as being 'strangely
simultaneously peaky yet dull' (or very similar) by
someone, somewhere not long ago - possibly in a Sound
On Sound review...???

Let us not mention the inconvenient fact that the NT-1 has been obsolete
for about half a decade...

If you knew the first thing about using mics, you'd know
they are rarely used 'flat'. One such that hardly ever
is - the u87. One of the industry standards.

Sound on Sound is just a typical comic like Hi-Fi News.

No need to be snowed by Kitty's line of BS and
out-and-out lying.

Here's what SOS *really* said:

Forget the cheesey 'cut & paste' BS, Amy - it doesn't
work on me,

Right Kitty, the cut and paste is what is known in the trade


What trade?


as reliable
information


Sez who - you?


- an area of polite discussion that you never pollute with your
smelly back-pedaling presence.


There's two 'l's in 'back-pedalling'....

Listen, thickness. I have given you multiple opportunities to go back in my
****ter for the greater peace in here (working fine with the other ****s)
or, better yet, I've said several times just say the word and I'll climb in
the ****ter and you can have it all to yourself in here.

So far you haven't had the balls to pull the trigger!

LOL!


To you, any inconvenient fact is *cheesy*.


Don't talk like a ****. What do you know?

Cut and paste is how we in the UK are seeing an ever-increasing annual
outpouring of spearchuckers who say 'dis fing' and 'dat fing' and 'innit'
and yet have all got ****ing *degrees* would you believe!

Note I rely little on cut and paste myself (and never without attribution,
in any case) but rather I post links to sites and to pix - which may not be
quite as safe as they used to be, but are still a lot more open than the
'cut & past' yap....



We


'We' ? - Still got your little invisible friend in bed with you, there?



saw that in your dissembling and false discussion of 3.5 mm phone jacks,
and any number of previous discussions.




You say, do you? Care to point me to an example or just admit it's another
calumny from Audio Usenet's meanest, nastiest little *religious bigot* who,
through Grace, believes he will be saved ...??

LMAO!!!

Amy wants attention and have all the nasty soothed away....
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote



Right Kitty, the cut and paste is what is known in the trade as reliable
information


How would someone (like you) who is not 'in the trade' know? Why don't you
just stop *bull****ting*?

Amy is a sad old **** who does a bit of freebie recording work for his
church and still tries to draw a 'pro cloak' about himself despite having
run through over and over again by the only true *industry professional*
here!!

Easy enough to resist *forever* with a keyboard I suppose, but if he had
been in the ring, he would be lying in a bloody heap next to the fire
extinguishers by now!!

LOL!

Amy wants attention and have all the nasty soothed away....
 

"Keith G" wrote in message


despite having run through over and over
again by the only true *industry professional* here!!

Citing as an authority someone who can't read a spec sheet and correctly
idenify the size of the headphone jack when it is listed twice as being 3.5
mm seems pretty strange. How many corrections and retries did we give Iain?
3? He never did get it right, now did he!

Good job Amy doesn't do circumcising at his church....
 

Heldensnipper "Amy Krueger" hacked my post to within an
inch of its life and wrote:



"Keith G" wrote in message


despite having run through over and over
again by the only true *industry professional* here!!

Citing as an authority someone who can't read a spec sheet and correctly
idenify the size of the headphone jack when it is listed twice as being
3.5 mm seems pretty strange. How many corrections and retries did we give
Iain? 3? He never did get it right, now did he!



No idea, I wasn't following that thread too closely (it wasn't that
interesting) - but I would say you are somewhat desperately clutching at
straws here!

Btw, you didn't train as a *barber* at any point, did you?

:-))

Rode mic
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
In fact IIRC correrctly - you expound Rode mics do you
not? :-)

Saw them (NT-1 ?) described as being 'strangely
simultaneously peaky yet dull' (or very similar) by
someone, somewhere not long ago - possibly in a Sound On
Sound review...???

If you knew the first thing about using mics, you'd know
they are rarely used 'flat'. One such that hardly ever is
- the u87. One of the industry standards.

Sound on Sound is just a typical comic like Hi-Fi News.

No need to be snowed by Kitty's line of BS and out-and-out lying.

Here's what SOS *really* said:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may0...les/rodent.htm

"


Snip.

That's a fine review......

But one thing bothers me, Arny.
If it is such a good mic, and you use it, why
do you get such poor results?

Iain