[Scott Dorsey]

My local bible authority (just emmigrated to Nashville , to be closer to
god) asserts that the Haiti earthquake was a Good Thing, because Voodoo is
practiced there. And the innocents killed, mained, sickened, and living
in misery - that is evidently OK because they'll go to heaven anyway (if
they deserve).

If God really is that way, why hasn't He destroyed the Stereophile show?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2012-02-05 said:
snip

I used to work on weather radars and we had an applicant from a
school that I also had attended. His nickname was 'Tackle Box'
because of his many and odd piercings. He was a bully and a jerk in
general. When he toured the facility I keyed up on him and he let
out a hell of a girly scream. They never found out who dd it and he
never returned to that place. Haven't seen him since.

rotflmao!!! Good one! Made my coffee come out my nose
with that one. Would've liked to have seen that.



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
hank alrich wrote:
wrote:

But... 100 Hz square wave through an ATR-100 looks nearly perfect! It
is
just stunning!

Is there a reason that this would be better than a more maintainable
deck, i.e., an AG440?

There's little comparison in audio performance, though you are correct
that the 440 is more like a Dodge Powerwagon and the 100 like a Ferrari.

The ATR-100 has almost an octave more extension on the top end before it
hits the -3dB point, and less of a head bump (although it does still have
one hell of a head bump unless you put aftermarket heads in).

But the real number one difference between the 440 and the ATR-100 is
flutter. I never would have believed that such tiny amounts of flutter
would make such an audible difference.

All analog recording/playback has jitter that would be generally considered
to be monumental and unusable if included as part of the spec of a digital
audio device.

That's a great point. So what is it in the characteristics of the analog
tape recording system (I'm assuming pro grade here) that allow us to
tolerate that to a greater extent than we do with a digital system. I
agree with your statement while also knowing that I've heard some
fabulous sounding playbacks from systems so impaired.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic wrote:

Les Cargill writes:

When it comes to musical instruments, if you think there's a difference,
there *is* a difference because you are in the sound
production loop. That perception will shape your behavior.

But if the difference is purely an illusion, you could be wasting a lot of
time and effort on things that actually have no effect on your results.

And if it isn't an illusion the result is different. What Les is saying
is that from within the system one cannot discern whether or not it's an
illusion in the typical DBT approach. What I'm saying is that I have no
interest outside the system, because I will always be making decisions
from within it.

Play much guitar?

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

All analog recording/playback has jitter that would be generally considered
to be monumental and unusable if included as part of the spec of a digital
audio device.

That's a great point. So what is it in the characteristics of the analog
tape recording system (I'm assuming pro grade here) that allow us to
tolerate that to a greater extent than we do with a digital system. I
agree with your statement while also knowing that I've heard some
fabulous sounding playbacks from systems so impaired.

I think the difference is that the frequencies are so much lower with the
analogue systems... so the sidebands that result are farther away from the
original frequency.

But what is interesting is that the flutter on the analogue recorders, if
kept to fairly low levels, adds a sense of blend where the individual
instrumental parts tend to meld together. This can be useful to help add
a sense of blending and space to a recording but at the same time it can be
a pain in the neck too when you're trying to get separation.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
hank alrich wrote:
wrote:

But... 100 Hz square wave through an ATR-100 looks nearly perfect!
It
is
just stunning!

Is there a reason that this would be better than a more maintainable
deck, i.e., an AG440?

There's little comparison in audio performance, though you are correct
that the 440 is more like a Dodge Powerwagon and the 100 like a
Ferrari.

The ATR-100 has almost an octave more extension on the top end before
it
hits the -3dB point, and less of a head bump (although it does still
have
one hell of a head bump unless you put aftermarket heads in).

But the real number one difference between the 440 and the ATR-100 is
flutter. I never would have believed that such tiny amounts of flutter
would make such an audible difference.

All analog recording/playback has jitter that would be generally
considered
to be monumental and unusable if included as part of the spec of a
digital
audio device.

That's a great point. So what is it in the characteristics of the analog
tape recording system (I'm assuming pro grade here) that allow us to
tolerate that to a greater extent than we do with a digital system. I
agree with your statement while also knowing that I've heard some
fabulous sounding playbacks from systems so impaired.

I can tell you what that characteristic could be, and that would be that
jitter from analog sources always has a different distribution of
frequencies than that due to digital. Other than that, there is very little
technical difference.

Problem is, if you look at a lot of analog gear and a lot of digital gear,
the distribution of jitter frequencies mostly overlaps and intermingles.
This is particularly true of analog tape.

LP does have one kind of jitter that we just don't see much in digital land,
and that is that due to 33 rpm rotation - around 1.8 Hz. Also, we get low
order harmonics of ca. 1.8 Hz due to warps.

Tape capstans and the like spin a lot faster than LPs and as a rule their
speed variations tend to map up into the same frequency range as repetitive
variations due to data block processing in the digital domain.

The last people to take a really comprehensive look at digital jitter were
Dolby labs, and they pretty much gave it a pass.

BTW, if you really want to see jitter, check out what multipart does to
digital TV...

There is massive jitter in the data that comes right off the media in
optical disc players, but it is usually gone by the time it reaches the
output terminals. If it wasn't, the music would be pretty hard to listen to!

Jitter in the digital domain is nearly 100% correctable. Correcting jitter
is an old and well-perfected art among experienced practitioners. We've had
the problem for nearly 50 years that I have worked with it hands-on.

And now, jitter in the analog domain is significantly correctable in many
cases. Love these modern times!

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...


Well, at least William, you are paralleling what you do in audio.

As are you, Arny -- appealing to authority, without thinking things
through.

Remind me again William, when was the last time you proved
*any* of the assertions you have made about audio...

Most of William's audio claims are subjective.

Exactly.
It doesn't work for audio, and it works no better for religion.

What, then, is so "factual" about the work of theologians -- especially
when
the deliberately misread plain language?

This is rich, an anti-Christian reading the Bible as literally as any
fundamentalist.

Why should I believe anything the
say, when it's obvious that the Bible sometimes directly contradicts them?

The apparent contradictions are easily explained if you are familiar with
the context.

As is typical of you, you asked me when you had ever quoted a theologian?

No, I asked you if I had ever quoted an audio expert.

Well, you never did. But your constant references to the expertise of
theologians (et al.) is an appeal to authority.

What's wrong with relaible authorities? You make it sound like being
well-educated, well-read, and well-informed is always a serious problem.

If one does not refer to authorities, doesn't that put you off in a corner
all by yourself - trying to re-invent the wisdom of all of civilization for
yourself?

You criticize me for not reading carefully.

Actually William, its the analysis where you fall down.

Yet, among all the people I've
encountered on UseNet, you stand alone in the percentage of times you
misread what people post.

There you go William, you are now trying to excuse your errors by trying to
deflect things back at me.

I never claimed to be perfect and I will and have freely admitted my errors.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

My local bible authority (just emmigrated to Nashville , to be closer to
god) asserts that the Haiti earthquake was a Good Thing, because Voodoo
is
practiced there. And the innocents killed, mained, sickened, and living
in misery - that is evidently OK because they'll go to heaven anyway (if
they deserve).

If God really is that way, why hasn't He destroyed the Stereophile show?

LOL!

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
We could have easily won within any thirty day stretch we chose to do
so throughout the Vietnam debacle had we set aside the idiocy of
"measured response" and micromanagement from Washington-without
nuclear, chemical or biological warfare.

What it takes to win a war is basically to find your enemy and kill him.

The thing is, finding your enemy is not always an easy thing to do. When
you fail to identify the enemy, when you mistake friends for enemies, you
wind up creating new enemies faster than you can kill them.

We had the solution to the tunnels: ethane gas and Arc Light raids.
They worked.

We had the solution to penetrating and neutralizing enemy air power:
F-105 missions on the deck to take out SAM and AAA batteries. The
Thud, as heavy as a box car, could fly in at 500 KIAS at nought feet
and make a big mess out of whatever Charles cared to field.

Killing people doesn't win the war. Killing the right people very precisely
wins the war. Killing people right and left causes more people to join
the war against you. When you cannot tell friend from enemy, you have lost
the war.

I worry that the same thing can happen with the "War on Terror" as well.
Certainly the TSA is trying very hard to make me an enemy.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

hank alrich wrote:
Arny wrote:

"Scott wrote in message
...
hank wrote:
wrote:

But... 100 Hz square wave through an ATR-100 looks nearly perfect! It
is
just stunning!

Is there a reason that this would be better than a more maintainable
deck, i.e., an AG440?

There's little comparison in audio performance, though you are correct
that the 440 is more like a Dodge Powerwagon and the 100 like a Ferrari.

The ATR-100 has almost an octave more extension on the top end before it
hits the -3dB point, and less of a head bump (although it does still have
one hell of a head bump unless you put aftermarket heads in).

But the real number one difference between the 440 and the ATR-100 is
flutter. I never would have believed that such tiny amounts of flutter
would make such an audible difference.

All analog recording/playback has jitter that would be generally considered
to be monumental and unusable if included as part of the spec of a digital
audio device.

That's a great point. So what is it in the characteristics of the analog
tape recording system (I'm assuming pro grade here) that allow us to
tolerate that to a greater extent than we do with a digital system. I
agree with your statement while also knowing that I've heard some
fabulous sounding playbacks from systems so impaired.



It ain't the summed jitter that matters, it's the spectrum
of jitter.

--
Les Cargill

[Mxsmanic]

hank alrich writes:

That's a great point. So what is it in the characteristics of the analog
tape recording system (I'm assuming pro grade here) that allow us to
tolerate that to a greater extent than we do with a digital system.

Romance. It's an emotional attachment to an old system that is perceived to be
the underdog or the bohemian in today's world.

It reflects a more general division of the population into two broad
categories: engineers and artists. Artists are the ones who believe that LPs
and tubes and such are somehow "better" than more modern technologies.
Engineers are the ones who always aim for whatever technology seems to best
fit the requirements. Most people are between the two extremes, but tend to be
much closer to one than to the other.

[Mxsmanic]

hank alrich writes:

Play much guitar?

I don't play any instrument, unfortunately (unless picking out a simple melody
on a keyboard counts).

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Tue 2012-Feb-07 12:11, Scott Dorsey writes:
Killing people doesn't win the war. Killing the right people very
precisely wins the war. Killing people right and left causes more
people to join the war against you. When you cannot tell friend
from enemy, you have lost the war.

We seem to be pretty good at that in recent conflicts imho.

I worry that the same thing can happen with the "War on Terror" as
well. Certainly the TSA is trying very hard to make me an enemy.

OF course they are, the sheeple want their illusion of
safety at any cost. NOw a guy honestly plying his trade
can't carry hand tools in his luggage if he wishes to fly.
Hey he's "safer" though rotfl

Meanwhile the caterers can bring aboard the bomb in the
lunch they're going to serve him.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[hank alrich]

Mxsmanic wrote:

hank alrich writes:

That's a great point. So what is it in the characteristics of the analog
tape recording system (I'm assuming pro grade here) that allow us to
tolerate that to a greater extent than we do with a digital system.

Romance. It's an emotional attachment to an old system that is perceived to be
the underdog or the bohemian in today's world.

It reflects a more general division of the population into two broad
categories: engineers and artists. Artists are the ones who believe that LPs
and tubes and such are somehow "better" than more modern technologies.
Engineers are the ones who always aim for whatever technology seems to best
fit the requirements. Most people are between the two extremes, but tend to be
much closer to one than to the other.

Read the other answers in the thread, which bring understanding.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 9:11*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
hank alrich writes:

I now use my remaining tortoise shell picks only for recording to avoid
the cost of replacement. They give a unique sound that I often prefer,
but for practice and live perormance I'm not willing to spend the money
to replace them.

Would you be able to distinguish them from plastic in a double-blind test?

I've been playing guitar since 1959. In the studio I will run through a
series of picks, and ask the engineer and/or the producer which guitar
tone they prefer for the track, and then use the pick that they have
chosen by sound. All the picks feel and sound different, and react
differently to the strings, depending on material, shape, and thickness.

I worked at a music store that had a punch so you could make your own
picks out of whatever material you wanted. The owner made it himself
in his days as a tool and die maker. People would punch old records,
credit cards, you name it into picks.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 7, 8:12*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...









Which is why I'm against our involvement in the Middle East unless we
are reasonably certain that war is the only way to stop an existential
threat to US-not some other nation, not ANY other nation. And
ESPECIALLY not ONE CERTAIN other nation I need not mention. And IF it
really is necessary we have one and only one ACCEPTABLE goal and
proceedure -exterminate that enemy root and branch. Do to them what
Rome did to Carthage. Kill them all, every one, leave not one brick
standing on another, and salt the earth so nothing ever grows there
again.

Afghanistan is not an existential threat to the US. Iran is not an
existential threat to the US, although it's an annoyance to be sure.
Iraq isn't even a nation-it's an artificial polity that should be
broken in pieces.

After WWII we were a credible nation: not only Nagasaki and Hiroshima
but Tokyo, Dresden, Ploiesti, and a dozen other places were proof of
that. Without the failure of Vietnam, punks like Bin Laden would have
stayed just that, punks.

OK....I guess that's a RANT!

Actually, it is a murderous rant.

Very old school.

No, my point is that we should NOT murder them, we should leave them
alone.

We should stay away from over there and not let them over here.
That's not murder.

War is justified against a threat to one's national existence, just
as you are justified in shooting an intruder in your house if you
reasonably believe he is a deadly threat to yourself or family
members, and ONLY in that instance. You may not shoot a fleeing
burglar in the back. If he has your child in one arm and is kidnapping
the child you then may, in most states. When war is justified you must
ensure the enemy is no longer a threat, meaning they have been put
down hard enough they won't stage an encore. This differs from use of
deadly force in your house because after you have stopped the imminent
threat you are to call the police.When you are at war you ARE the
police.

If Japan had not surrendered after the nuclear bombings or if we had
not had those bombs, we would have effectively extirpated the Japanese
people as such. We would have lost a huge number of men and spent an
enormous amount of money doing it too, but we would have, and rightly
so. The Japanese had proven well enough that they would fight to the
very end, losing themselves as a nation. We and they were lucky for
the immense power of nuclear weapons whose use "broke the matrix" and
made the previously unthinkable thinkable, that is, surrender.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 7, 11:11*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
wrote:
We could have easily won within any thirty day stretch we chose to do
so throughout the Vietnam debacle had we set aside the idiocy of
"measured response" and micromanagement from Washington-without
nuclear, chemical or biological warfare.

What it takes to win a war is basically to find your enemy and kill him.

The thing is, finding your enemy is not always an easy thing to do. *When
you fail to identify the enemy, when you mistake friends for enemies, you
wind up creating new enemies faster than you can kill them.

We had the solution to the tunnels: ethane gas and Arc Light raids.
They worked.

We had the solution to penetrating and neutralizing enemy air power:
F-105 missions on the deck to take out SAM and AAA batteries. The
Thud, as heavy as a box car, could fly in at 500 KIAS at nought feet
and make a big mess out of whatever Charles cared to field.

Killing people doesn't win the war. *Killing the right people very precisely
wins the war. *Killing people right and left causes more people to join
the war against you. *When you cannot tell friend from enemy, you have lost
the war.

This is precisely what tools like ethane gas and Wild Weasel strikes
could do and did when the pols allowed it.

Air power was not allowed to blow up SAM sites unless they were
shooting at US aircraft nor to blow up MiG's on the ground. They might
not be enemies, was the theory.

An individual out of uniform on the ground might not be an enemy but
a tank, cannon, AAA or SAM battery or combat aircraft in enemy
territory is by definition the enemy.

Nixon should have staged a diversion to shut the press up for thirty
days and allowed his troops to fight a WAR without outside kibbitzing.
They'd have had M60 tanks rolling through downtown Hanoi, shot a few
dozen communist leaders and established victory by then.

I'm kind of opinionated on this but I have the right.

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 06:32:58 -0800, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

But the real number one difference between the 440 and the ATR-100 is
flutter. I never would have believed that such tiny amounts of flutter
would make such an audible difference.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

I agree about the ATR-100's extraordinary transport, but... god help you if
it runs across a bad splice. There are many, many CDs out there that were
mastered from an ATR-100, and have a very audible "speed bump" that somehow
got unnoticed on tape splices.

I'm not sure if Ampex or any of the third-party companies ever came up with a
fix for this. What I can remember from 20 years ago is, with tapes that had
a lot of splices, the AG-440B (or 440C), with a conventional pinch-roller,
actually did a better job with the splices.

--MFW

[hank alrich]

wrote:

On Feb 6, 9:11 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
hank alrich writes:

I now use my remaining tortoise shell picks only for recording to avoid
the cost of replacement. They give a unique sound that I often prefer,
but for practice and live perormance I'm not willing to spend the money
to replace them.

Would you be able to distinguish them from plastic in a double-blind test?

I've been playing guitar since 1959. In the studio I will run through a
series of picks, and ask the engineer and/or the producer which guitar
tone they prefer for the track, and then use the pick that they have
chosen by sound. All the picks feel and sound different, and react
differently to the strings, depending on material, shape, and thickness.

I worked at a music store that had a punch so you could make your own
picks out of whatever material you wanted. The owner made it himself
in his days as a tool and die maker. People would punch old records,
credit cards, you name it into picks.

Yeah, that can be fun. I have metal picks, stone picks, bone picks, horn
picks, and picks from quite a few different kinds of plastic, in
addition to tortoise shell.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 20:49:28 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 6, 9:11*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
hank alrich writes:

I now use my remaining tortoise shell picks only for recording to avoid
the cost of replacement. They give a unique sound that I often prefer,
but for practice and live perormance I'm not willing to spend the money
to replace them.

Would you be able to distinguish them from plastic in a double-blind test?

I've been playing guitar since 1959. In the studio I will run through a
series of picks, and ask the engineer and/or the producer which guitar
tone they prefer for the track, and then use the pick that they have
chosen by sound. All the picks feel and sound different, and react
differently to the strings, depending on material, shape, and thickness.

I worked at a music store that had a punch so you could make your own
picks out of whatever material you wanted. The owner made it himself
in his days as a tool and die maker. People would punch old records,
credit cards, you name it into picks.


Even that sounds a little high tech. Brian may uses an old British
sixpence coin as a pick.

d

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Tue 2012-Feb-07 18:17, Mxsmanic writes:
Play much guitar?

I don't play any instrument, unfortunately (unless picking out a
simple melody on a keyboard counts).

YOu know, I find it a bit curious. You don't play an
instrument, and obviously you don't do studio work for hire. IS this a new hobby you're taking up just to have something
to do?

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but just thought
you'd be interested to know that for the most part the folks who actually work in one facet of this industry or the other have logn since dropped out of the endless analog versus digital debates you've revived in this newsgroup. We've all argued whateverdecade now around these here parts g.

As you can see, it often resembles a relgious debate, or
becomes one, as it did here g.

YOu mgiht start with the faq for this newsgroup, and a bit
of reading. Everest's tomes on acoustics might be of
interest to you as well. Google that name in this group,
you'll find a complete reference, probably including an isbn number.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Mxsmanic]

Richard Webb writes:

YOu know, I find it a bit curious. You don't play an
instrument, and obviously you don't do studio work for hire.
IS this a new hobby you're taking up just to have something
to do?

I have a very large range of interests, and I rotate among them over time.
Lately I have been interested in audio. I periodically return to each interest
as time passes, but there aren't enough hours in a day to indulge all
interests at all times.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but just thought
you'd be interested to know that for the most part the folks who
actually work in one facet of this industry or the other have
logn since dropped out of the endless analog versus digital
debates you've revived in this newsgroup.

That would not surprise me.

Originally in this thread I was just curious as to when most people switched
from vinyl (or some other analog medium) to CDs. As I've said, this was one of
the very rare occasions when I was an early adopter, since there seemed to be
no obviously disadvantage to switching immediately to CDs, and many
advantages. I've never looked back.

As you can see, it often resembles a relgious debate, or
becomes one, as it did here g.

Only among people who have emotional attachments to specific technologies.

YOu mgiht start with the faq for this newsgroup, and a bit
of reading. Everest's tomes on acoustics might be of
interest to you as well. Google that name in this group,
you'll find a complete reference, probably including an isbn number.

I'm not interested in buying books. I used to be a voracious reader of
technical literature, but these days I just do not have the time (or the
money).

[Scott Dorsey]

Marc Wielage wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 06:32:58 -0800, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

But the real number one difference between the 440 and the ATR-100 is
flutter. I never would have believed that such tiny amounts of flutter
would make such an audible difference.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

I agree about the ATR-100's extraordinary transport, but... god help you if
it runs across a bad splice. There are many, many CDs out there that were
mastered from an ATR-100, and have a very audible "speed bump" that somehow
got unnoticed on tape splices.

Sure, but at least it doesn't pull bad splices apart on the air, like the
600 did!

I'm not sure if Ampex or any of the third-party companies ever came up with a
fix for this. What I can remember from 20 years ago is, with tapes that had
a lot of splices, the AG-440B (or 440C), with a conventional pinch-roller,
actually did a better job with the splices.

There is an easy fix and it involves an intern and a roll of blue tape.

If you really, really have to play something that has a lot of bad splices
and you don't care about making the azimuth wander a lot worse, you can use
the 1/2" guide rollers with 1/4" tape. I think this is a bad decision to
make, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

Marc Wielage writes:

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 06:32:58 -0800, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

But the real number one difference between the 440 and the ATR-100 is
flutter. I never would have believed that such tiny amounts of flutter
would make such an audible difference.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

I agree about the ATR-100's extraordinary transport, but... god help you if
it runs across a bad splice. There are many, many CDs out there that were
mastered from an ATR-100, and have a very audible "speed bump" that somehow
got unnoticed on tape splices.

I'm not sure if Ampex or any of the third-party companies ever came up with a
fix for this. What I can remember from 20 years ago is, with tapes that had
a lot of splices, the AG-440B (or 440C), with a conventional pinch-roller,
actually did a better job with the splices.


Really?! What kind of splicing tape? I did scores of thousands of edits on 440Bs/
440Cs, and ATR100s; sometimes a bunch of splices would be right in a row. Looked
like we were recording on splicing tape at certain times.

The method was a conventional block at 45 degrees, sometimes the more shallow angle,
using that thin, light-blue splicing tape from 3M.

Never had a problem with any of these. But once I had to use some translucent-white
stuff, which was thicker. You could see the stiffness of the splice as it traveled
through the headblock. If you dangled a piece of tape in the air with a splice made
with the white tape, there was slight inward curl at the splice. The blue stuff
didn't do this.

Perhaps this is was what you were running into. Even though tension would "flatten"
those splices, I can understand that a tendency to curl would cause a momentary
reduction in "contact tension" as such a splice moved across the heads. The
brute-force tension of the 440s might muscled through this better than the more
sensitive ATR -- but at an overall cost in performance. The ATRs were amazing
machines.

With the blue tape, the splices flowed as smoothly as unspliced tape itself. I could
be imagining it, but I have a foggy memory that the blue stuff was recommended by
Ampex for use with the ATR100.

What I don't know -- and am a little afraid to find out -- is how well those splices
have faired on 30-35 year old 456, and how well they'd survive baking.

Anyone have any comments/experience on the effects of baking on various splicing
tapes?

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

wrote in message
...

No, my point is that we should NOT murder them, we should leave them
alone.

But they in many people's judgement did represent a threat to our lives by
harboring criminals.

War is justified against a threat to one's national existence, just
as you are justified in shooting an intruder in your house if you
reasonably believe he is a deadly threat to yourself or family
members, and ONLY in that instance.

That is exactly the justification that was used for our entry into
Afghanistan.

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:
Marc Wielage writes:

I'm not sure if Ampex or any of the third-party companies ever came up with a
fix for this. What I can remember from 20 years ago is, with tapes that had
a lot of splices, the AG-440B (or 440C), with a conventional pinch-roller,
actually did a better job with the splices.

Really?! What kind of splicing tape? I did scores of thousands of edits on 440Bs/
440Cs, and ATR100s; sometimes a bunch of splices would be right in a row. Looked
like we were recording on splicing tape at certain times.

Old dried-out splicing tape. The problem is when splices start to come apart
so the edges of them are not sticking to the tape any more and they are
curling away from the tape surface.

What I don't know -- and am a little afraid to find out -- is how well those splices
have faired on 30-35 year old 456, and how well they'd survive baking.

Splices you made on the blue tape will be fine. Splices that were made with
the white tape will often dry out.

Splices made with office cellophane tape or with masking tape will be a
disaster.

Anyone have any comments/experience on the effects of baking on various splicing
tapes?

I don't really know if baking does anything to the splices that hasn't already
happened in storage anyway. The blue tape is good, but some of the cheap junk
splicing tape out there would bleed adhesive or the adhesive would dry out
after a while.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2012-02-08 said:
Richard Webb writes:
YOu know, I find it a bit curious. You don't play an
instrument, and obviously you don't do studio work for hire.
snip
I have a very large range of interests, and I rotate among them
over time. Lately I have been interested in audio. I periodically
return to each interest as time passes, but there aren't enough
hours in a day to indulge all interests at all times.
YEp, understand that one. Wish I had that luxury these
days, but ... so it goes.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but just thought
you'd be interested to know that for the most part the folks who
actually work in one facet of this industry or the other have
logn since dropped out of the endless analog versus digital
debates you've revived in this newsgroup.
That would not surprise me.
Originally in this thread I was just curious as to when most people
switched from vinyl (or some other analog medium) to CDs. As I've
said, this was one of the very rare occasions when I was an early
adopter, since there seemed to be no obviously disadvantage to
switching immediately to CDs, and many advantages. I've never
looked back.
I remained in the analog world for recording into the middle
'90's, but bought my first cd player in around '87 or so,
mainly to take advantage of a deal I got on some sound
effects disks I got at a good price believe it or not. A
lot of my leisure listening collection was still on lp or 7
inch reels of tape g.

As you can see, it often resembles a relgious debate, or
becomes one, as it did here g.
Only among people who have emotional attachments to specific
technologies.

For the most part you'd probably be right about that. Until
one crosses the street to the production world, then there
are folks choose one or the other for specific reasons.
YOu mgiht start with the faq for this newsgroup, and a bit
of reading. Everest's tomes on acoustics might be of
interest to you as well. Google that name in this group,
you'll find a complete reference, probably including an isbn
number.
I'm not interested in buying books. I used to be a voracious reader
of technical literature, but these days I just do not have the time
(or the money).

True, I think the Everest book can be had via interlibrary
loan however, and this newsgroup's faq will give you a bit
more background in the analog vs. digital thing, at least
from the production standpoint if you're interested.



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:


snips

Old dried-out splicing tape. The problem is when splices start to come apart
so the edges of them are not sticking to the tape any more and they are
curling away from the tape surface.

What I don't know -- and am a little afraid to find out -- is how well those splices
have faired on 30-35 year old 456, and how well they'd survive baking.

Splices you made on the blue tape will be fine. Splices that were made with
the white tape will often dry out.

Splices made with office cellophane tape or with masking tape will be a
disaster.

Did anyone at the professional level actually do that? (Yes, no doubt some did...
Makes me shudder to think of it.)


Anyone have any comments/experience on the effects of baking on various splicing
tapes?

I don't really know if baking does anything to the splices that hasn't already
happened in storage anyway. The blue tape is good, but some of the cheap junk
splicing tape out there would bleed adhesive or the adhesive would dry out
after a while.

Thanks, Scott. Reassuring to know.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Splices made with office cellophane tape or with masking tape will be a
disaster.

Did anyone at the professional level actually do that? (Yes, no doubt some did...
Makes me shudder to think of it.)

When I was in college and trying hard to make ends meet, I got a job at
an AM play-for-pay station. For $200/hr (and $200 was a lot of money at
the time) they would put your programming on the air. They were audible in
most of the eastern US at night.

They got programming from all over, and some folks sent in nicely made dubs
while others sent in their master tapes, sometimes master tapes that were full
of bad splices made with the worst materials ever.

This was made worse by the station management being too cheap to buy decent
tape machines so instead of a nice rack of 350s, we had Ampex 600 and PR-10s.
The 600s in master control would regularly have splices fail on the air,
partly because the tension control on those things was so bad and partly
because so many production people were using cellophane tape.

I was really floored to see the basic difference in practices between the
studio and broadcast worlds. But then, I don't think I ever saw a tape with
proper tones on it until the eighties...
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
War is justified against a threat to one's national existence, just
as you are justified in shooting an intruder in your house if you
reasonably believe he is a deadly threat to yourself or family
members, and ONLY in that instance.

That is exactly the justification that was used for our entry into
Afghanistan.

Not true, you can't legally enter another persons house to murder them just
because you believe they may be a threat to your family.

Trevor.

[geoff]

Frank Stearns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:


snips

Old dried-out splicing tape. The problem is when splices start to
come apart so the edges of them are not sticking to the tape any
more and they are curling away from the tape surface.

What I don't know -- and am a little afraid to find out -- is how
well those splices have faired on 30-35 year old 456, and how well
they'd survive baking.

Splices you made on the blue tape will be fine. Splices that were
made with the white tape will often dry out.

Don'y know how many brands of White Tape there were, but I've had some that
simply fell apart wherre a leader was spliced to the mag tape. Not even
under 'traction'.

geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

War is justified against a threat to one's national existence, just
as you are justified in shooting an intruder in your house if you
reasonably believe he is a deadly threat to yourself or family
members, and ONLY in that instance.

That is exactly the justification that was used for our entry into
Afghanistan.

Not true, you can't legally enter another person's house to murder
them just because you believe they may be a threat to your family.

No, but one /can/ go to the police, and expect them to do something.

There are no international police -- at least, not any with any power. Our
country, and others, are obliged to do things that are objectively wrong to
protect our legitimate interests.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

War is justified against a threat to one's national existence, just
as you are justified in shooting an intruder in your house if you
reasonably believe he is a deadly threat to yourself or family
members, and ONLY in that instance.

That is exactly the justification that was used for our entry into
Afghanistan.

Not true, you can't legally enter another persons house to murder them
just because you believe they may be a threat to your family.

We were talking about war, not civil law.

The idea that there are abstract rules of war is IMO pretty strange.

IME the fundamental rule of war is that you work hard to do something that
is so painful to the other guy that he stops.

[Arkansan Raider]

"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

War is justified against a threat to one's national existence, just
as you are justified in shooting an intruder in your house if you
reasonably believe he is a deadly threat to yourself or family
members, and ONLY in that instance.

That is exactly the justification that was used for our entry into
Afghanistan.

Not true, you can't legally enter another persons house to murder them
just because you believe they may be a threat to your family.

We were talking about war, not civil law.

The idea that there are abstract rules of war is IMO pretty strange.

IME the fundamental rule of war is that you work hard to do something that
is so painful to the other guy that he stops.

True enough. To my knowledge, we don't really have 'em showing up before
Biblical rulings were made. I think Sun Tsu may have made mention of Just
War concepts, but the idea of a just war governed by rules of warfare
doesn't come about until there are nations with rulers who call themselves
Christians.

I don't have any texts to base that on, that's just off the top of my head,
and I'd have to research it to make sure.

Google up "just war" and get some better answers, more than likely.

--
---Jeff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:30:53 +0000 (UTC), Arkansan Raider
wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

War is justified against a threat to one's national existence, just
as you are justified in shooting an intruder in your house if you
reasonably believe he is a deadly threat to yourself or family
members, and ONLY in that instance.

That is exactly the justification that was used for our entry into
Afghanistan.

Not true, you can't legally enter another persons house to murder them
just because you believe they may be a threat to your family.

We were talking about war, not civil law.

The idea that there are abstract rules of war is IMO pretty strange.

IME the fundamental rule of war is that you work hard to do something that
is so painful to the other guy that he stops.

True enough. To my knowledge, we don't really have 'em showing up before
Biblical rulings were made. I think Sun Tsu may have made mention of Just
War concepts, but the idea of a just war governed by rules of warfare
doesn't come about until there are nations with rulers who call themselves
Christians.

I don't have any texts to base that on, that's just off the top of my head,
and I'd have to research it to make sure.

Google up "just war" and get some better answers, more than likely.

No, the "just war" had to wait until the enlightenment and the start
of secularism. Religious inputs to war remain what they have always
been. Look at the crusades of mediaeval time - or the Balkan wars of
recent history - or any Islamic jihad today, and you will see that
remains unchanged.

d

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:30:53 +0000 (UTC), Arkansan Raider
wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

War is justified against a threat to one's national existence, just
as you are justified in shooting an intruder in your house if you
reasonably believe he is a deadly threat to yourself or family
members, and ONLY in that instance.

That is exactly the justification that was used for our entry into
Afghanistan.

Not true, you can't legally enter another persons house to murder them
just because you believe they may be a threat to your family.

We were talking about war, not civil law.

The idea that there are abstract rules of war is IMO pretty strange.

IME the fundamental rule of war is that you work hard to do something that
is so painful to the other guy that he stops.

True enough. To my knowledge, we don't really have 'em showing up before
Biblical rulings were made. I think Sun Tsu may have made mention of Just
War concepts, but the idea of a just war governed by rules of warfare
doesn't come about until there are nations with rulers who call themselves
Christians.

I don't have any texts to base that on, that's just off the top of my head,
and I'd have to research it to make sure.

Google up "just war" and get some better answers, more than likely.

No, the "just war" had to wait until the enlightenment and the start
of secularism. Religious inputs to war remain what they have always
been. Look at the crusades of mediaeval time - or the Balkan wars of
recent history - or any Islamic jihad today, and you will see that
remains unchanged.

d

Not true. It started with Augustine. He didn't put ALL of it into place,
but MUCH of it.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/40014967

Unless, of course, you think the Enlightenment started with him. ;-)

This, of course, is just a start, as there's much more to look up...

--
---Jeff

[William Sommerwerck]

You are right, though about the way of fighting. Traditional European
wars were between kings - the people really had very little to do with
them, apart from actually being able to buy tickets as spectators on
occasion. It wasn't until the American revolutionary war that we
really had an enemy whose population gave a damn about the result.
The result was never in much doubt.

Not only did the Americans "snipe" (which was, and sometimes still is,
considered immoral), but they actually had the nerve to kill officers!

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Arkansan Raider" wrote in message
...

True enough. To my knowledge, we don't really have 'em showing up before
Biblical rulings were made. I think Sun Tsu may have made mention of Just
War concepts, but the idea of a just war governed by rules of warfare
doesn't come about until there are nations with rulers who call themselves
Christians.

I don't have any texts to base that on, that's just off the top of my
head,
and I'd have to research it to make sure.

The Revolutionary War was itself a hinge point for concepts of what
constituted a just war. The British thought that if they engaged the
opposition's army and kicked their buts, that army would then wait around to
be captured and carted off to captivity and the war would be over. This is
roughly how the European armies of the day worked the game. Whole countries
would loose wars based on battles that involved what we would consider to be
microscopic armies.

The Americans, much to the frustration of the British, would head for the
hills and hide as soon as they saw the battle going against them. You'd have
to surround them to capture them, which can be tough. Then the Americans
would regroup and come back and fight the British again.

The Americans would also ambush from behind buildings and foliage if they
could, and not go out into the middle of a cleared field to fight. These
were effective force multipliers for the Americans!

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:34:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Arkansan Raider" wrote in message
...

True enough. To my knowledge, we don't really have 'em showing up before
Biblical rulings were made. I think Sun Tsu may have made mention of Just
War concepts, but the idea of a just war governed by rules of warfare
doesn't come about until there are nations with rulers who call themselves
Christians.

I don't have any texts to base that on, that's just off the top of my
head,
and I'd have to research it to make sure.

The Revolutionary War was itself a hinge point for concepts of what
constituted a just war. The British thought that if they engaged the
opposition's army and kicked their buts, that army would then wait around to
be captured and carted off to captivity and the war would be over. This is
roughly how the European armies of the day worked the game. Whole countries
would loose wars based on battles that involved what we would consider to be
microscopic armies.

The Americans, much to the frustration of the British, would head for the
hills and hide as soon as they saw the battle going against them. You'd have
to surround them to capture them, which can be tough. Then the Americans
would regroup and come back and fight the British again.

The Americans would also ambush from behind buildings and foliage if they
could, and not go out into the middle of a cleared field to fight. These
were effective force multipliers for the Americans!


The revolutionary war was more a three way than a two way affair. We
were as much up against France as America.

You are right, though about the way of fighting. Traditional European
wars were between kings - the people really had very little to do with
them, apart from actually being able to buy tickets as spectators on
occasion. It wasn't until the American revolutionary war that we
really had an enemy whose population gave a damn about the result. The
result was never in much doubt.

d

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Arkansan Raider wrote:
Don wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:30:53 +0000 (UTC), Arkansan Raider
wrote:

"Arny wrote:
wrote in message
...

"Arny wrote in message
...

War is justified against a threat to one's national existence, just
as you are justified in shooting an intruder in your house if you
reasonably believe he is a deadly threat to yourself or family
members, and ONLY in that instance.

That is exactly the justification that was used for our entry into
Afghanistan.

Not true, you can't legally enter another persons house to murder them
just because you believe they may be a threat to your family.

We were talking about war, not civil law.

The idea that there are abstract rules of war is IMO pretty strange.

IME the fundamental rule of war is that you work hard to do something that
is so painful to the other guy that he stops.

True enough. To my knowledge, we don't really have 'em showing up before
Biblical rulings were made. I think Sun Tsu may have made mention of Just
War concepts, but the idea of a just war governed by rules of warfare
doesn't come about until there are nations with rulers who call themselves
Christians.

I don't have any texts to base that on, that's just off the top of my head,
and I'd have to research it to make sure.

Google up "just war" and get some better answers, more than likely.

No, the "just war" had to wait until the enlightenment and the start
of secularism. Religious inputs to war remain what they have always
been. Look at the crusades of mediaeval time - or the Balkan wars of
recent history - or any Islamic jihad today, and you will see that
remains unchanged.

d

Not true. It started with Augustine. He didn't put ALL of it into place,
but MUCH of it.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/40014967

Unless, of course, you think the Enlightenment started with him. ;-)

This, of course, is just a start, as there's much more to look up...


If you are interested in theories of Christianity's effect on violence,
look up René Girard. His work is controversial, to say the very least.

He is at least an interesting thinker.

--
Les Cargill