[Peter Wieck]

On Mar 13, 11:04*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Stuff....

I dunno... a simple google search on "US Recording Studio Directory"
showed (at least)many hundreds of studios, in nearly every state, a
goodly number stating that they had both analog and digital equipment,
more than a few stating they provide some instruments and cater to
special needs, or will do remote set-up work, and a few seemed to take
great pride in their selection of recording equipment (analog and
digital), microphones and so forth. Any large city or musical venue
(Nashville, TN, for example) had many options.

All anecdotal, of course. But it appears to to be far less bleak than
Arny contends, if not as wide-open as Iain would like.

We need to keep in mind that mostly all of Europe would fit into the
US east of the Mississippi, so distances are far less daunting than
they are here and Europeans in general are happier to wait for what
they want rather than settle for what they can get quickly.

That, as much as anything else, might explain the disconnect. If Arny
trains his clients not to expect much and they believe him - they
won't get much, and they will still be happy in their ignorance. If
Iain trains his clients to expect a great deal and have some choices -
but it will cost and possibly take time - that is an entirely
different mind-set. Of course, for a club or garage band, anything
with a glass door and lots-O-blinking lights will make them think they
are getting state of the art if that is what they are told and it is
within their pocketbook. It ain't necessarily so.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

Ahem. The majority of good studio-quality guitar amps
are tube! Young musicians are well-acquainted with tubes.

Wrong. Yes, there are still such things as tubed guitar amps in use and even
sold as new product, but they ain't the majority of nuttin'.

You are extravagantly out of touch with reality there Arny.

Tubed guitar amps are the norm for most *serious* guitarists on account of their
characteristic distortions and indeed the gentle onset of distortion unlike the
hard transition to clipping that transistor or IC amps give.

Yes, entry level guitar amps that get packaged with a guitar as a starter for
kids are likely to be IC based in order to be cheap.

The Marshall company for one still does very nicely from selling tubed amps.

Graham

[keithr]

"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message
...
in article , keithr at
wrote
on 3/12/08 4:29 PM:

. . . . . a lot of peole in the
graphics industry having learned the Mac do not want to move from it, in
fact a lot of them are still living 10 years in the past when the Mac was
the only option for them.

It is notable that when Adobe, originally a purely Mac developer,
developed
their CS3 suite for the PC first and only made a Mac version months
later.

Keith


Consider this analogy, in an attempt to stay within the range of our
subject
topic:

When transistors appeared on the horizon, a lot of people said, "Great!
These can do the same thing that tubes can, but with many advantages."

I've listened to both tube and SS, and my general preference is for tubes.
I guess that means that I'm living maybe 50 years in the past . . .

Just because a legacy Mac user doesn't want to switch to Windows, doesn't
necessarily mean they "are still living 10 years in the past." They
simply
refer one to the other.

When given a opportunity to use both platforms for the same tasks, MANY
end
up preferring the Mac platform. Every once in awhile, we'll see a legacy
Mac user switch to Windows, especially after a bad experience. But mostly
the opposite happens.

Jon

Inertia is one of the strongest forces in the universe, there is still a lot
of people who given the opportunity to use the Mac, the PC or one of the
implemetations of X-windows would still rather stick to the arcane world of
*nix shell command line. We tend to make our choices early on and only
change either when we have to or when the advantages are so great that we
cannot ignore them. I never used the Mac because back in the day when they
did have advantages, I couldn't justify the extra expense over building a PC
from bits. Now I don't see any advantage in using one, all of the software
that was unique to the Mac is now available for the PC.

I mean even here in the 21st century there are people who prefer the 1920s
technology of single ended class A directly heated triodes, and thats
getting things almost back on topic

Keith

[keithr]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...

Read the warning again, dear Arny: "Both facts are true but one is
also a red herring to lead you around by the nose, dear Poopie."
You've already been led by the nose, dear Arny, into proving that you
are too dumb to hold two different non-exclusive ideas in your head at
the same time. Sure, I was a student. Sure I owned a big computer that
used tubes. And, just to confuse you further, the computer was housed
in the basement of the main admin block, and was tended by white-
coated techs (they called themselves "engineers" but I didn't think
so) paid by the university.

I suppose that if you have a rich daddy, having him endow the university
with a computer would be an easy way to get an undeserved degree. Mind you
at the time when you would have been at university a tubed computer would
have been no bargain, the cost of the manpower to maintain it alone would
have been more than the lease price of a more up to date piece of equipment,
not to mention the power and cooling costs. All this leads to some doubt of
the truth of the story, and leads one to believe that it is a typical piece
of jute posing.

Remenber saying this?

Ugh. I had a computer of my own when they still had tubes and lived
humidity-controlled lives behind air locks. At the time you could
write to all the computer owners in the world because there was a list
of them and it was only a few hundred names.

The days when there were only a few hundred computers in the world would
have been before you were 10 years old, did you really go to uni at that
age?

Keith

Adre Jute - such an experienced constructor that he is proud of building a
multimeter from a kit

[Peter Wieck]

On Mar 13, 6:33*pm, "keithr" wrote:

The days when there were only a few hundred computers in the world would
have been before you were 10 years old, did you really go to uni at that

Andre has crammed the imagined experiences of several life-times in
his 63 years. So, it is no stretch at all to imagine him at University
at 10. Given the results as manifest here, no surprise either.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Nick Gorham]

keithr wrote:
"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message
...

in article , keithr at
wrote
on 3/12/08 4:29 PM:

. . . . . a lot of peole in the

graphics industry having learned the Mac do not want to move from it, in
fact a lot of them are still living 10 years in the past when the Mac was
the only option for them.

It is notable that when Adobe, originally a purely Mac developer,
developed
their CS3 suite for the PC first and only made a Mac version months
later.

Keith


Consider this analogy, in an attempt to stay within the range of our
subject
topic:

When transistors appeared on the horizon, a lot of people said, "Great!
These can do the same thing that tubes can, but with many advantages."

I've listened to both tube and SS, and my general preference is for tubes.
I guess that means that I'm living maybe 50 years in the past . . .

Just because a legacy Mac user doesn't want to switch to Windows, doesn't
necessarily mean they "are still living 10 years in the past." They
simply
refer one to the other.

When given a opportunity to use both platforms for the same tasks, MANY
end
up preferring the Mac platform. Every once in awhile, we'll see a legacy
Mac user switch to Windows, especially after a bad experience. But mostly
the opposite happens.

Jon


Inertia is one of the strongest forces in the universe, there is still a lot
of people who given the opportunity to use the Mac, the PC or one of the
implemetations of X-windows would still rather stick to the arcane world of
*nix shell command line. We tend to make our choices early on and only
change either when we have to or when the advantages are so great that we
cannot ignore them. I never used the Mac because back in the day when they
did have advantages, I couldn't justify the extra expense over building a PC
from bits. Now I don't see any advantage in using one, all of the software
that was unique to the Mac is now available for the PC.


Well, having developed software on the Mac using xcode (and something
unspeakably nasty on a 68000 mac), most thing from turbo pascal to
visual studio on Windows, I can still turn out better code in less time
using the old standard tools, vi, make, cc, etc. YMMV.

--
Nick

[keithr]

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:13:54 +1100, "keithr"
wrote:

Inertia is one of the strongest forces in the universe, there is still a
lot
of people who given the opportunity to use the Mac, the PC or one of the
implemetations of X-windows would still rather stick to the arcane world
of
*nix shell command line.

There's a reason for that other than an 'early on choice'. For those
familiar with and who can remember the commands a command line is
faster than navigating menus, wizards, dialog boxes, check fields and
the like.

Btw, I'm not one of them, at least not any more.


Personally, I never had the energy to learn them. I did a C course back in
1990, we had to use SCO unix on 386 machines. I hated vi (the only editor to
make edlin look good), and the instructor was a unix fanatic. I rather upset
him by changing my prompt to C:\ and aliasing the ls -l comand to dir. I
use *nix when I have to but find it about as user friendly as a cornered
rat.

I have set my system up for use with gui interfaces. I have a 4 button
trackball with the buttons programmed for all the normal presses, and a
scroll ring, I can do all the giu stuff by barely moving a finger (it also
stops anybody else from using my machine)

Keith

[Fred[_8_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message ...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

Ahem. The majority of good studio-quality guitar amps
are tube! Young musicians are well-acquainted with tubes.

Wrong. Yes, there are still such things as tubed guitar amps in use and even
sold as new product, but they ain't the majority of nuttin'.

You are extravagantly out of touch with reality there Arny.

Tubed guitar amps are the norm for most *serious* guitarists on account of their
characteristic distortions and indeed the gentle onset of distortion unlike the
hard transition to clipping that transistor or IC amps give.

Yes, entry level guitar amps that get packaged with a guitar as a starter for
kids are likely to be IC based in order to be cheap.

The Marshall company for one still does very nicely from selling tubed amps.

And Fender, Mesa Boogie, Vox and a whole bunch more.

Fred

Graham

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

Ahem. The majority of good studio-quality guitar amps
are tube! Young musicians are well-acquainted with tubes.

Wrong. Yes, there are still such things as tubed guitar amps in use and
even
sold as new product, but they ain't the majority of nuttin'.

You are extravagantly out of touch with reality there Arny.

Indeed. Nothing new:-)

Tubed guitar amps are the norm for most *serious* guitarists on account of
their
characteristic distortions and indeed the gentle onset of distortion
unlike the
hard transition to clipping that transistor or IC amps give.

Yes, entry level guitar amps that get packaged with a guitar as a starter
for
kids are likely to be IC based in order to be cheap.

The Marshall company for one still does very nicely from selling tubed
amps.

Yes indeed. The first name that comes to mind.

There are also a number of first class hand-crafted
amps. I share a workshop with a chap who builds
about 20 a year, tailor made to the client's requirements
including the tone stack (everyone has different needs)

This is another good example of "quality" (a word which
Arny does not seem to have in his vocabulary:-) There
are still discerning people who are happy to pay for
something which is exactly what they require.

Graham. Try a HiWatt for a good example of a British
valve/tube guitar amp. ´The sound and the build quality
will impress you both as a player and as an audio engineer.
The DG-103 (built for Dave Gilmour of Pink Floyd) is
especially good.

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Ian Iveson" wrote in
message
.uk
Arny Krueger wrote

Any studio of worth will set up a monitoring system to
suit the client's requirements. If he asks for
Lockwoods and
a tube amp, then they will certainly oblige.

Certainly not the policy in the US. The recording
studio biz is very competitive, including
price-competitive. A huge fraction of the recording
studios that existed 20 years ago are completely gone.
Customers pretty well have to take what is offered.

In the US, tubed studio monitor amplifiers have pretty
well disappeared over the past 40 years.

Surely there is a contradiction between "competitive"
and "customers pretty well have to take what is
offered"?

No. It is all about price. That's why the genre is
dying off so fast. You also have to remember that most customers of
recording studios are young, and probably wouldn't know
a tube amp from a warm hole in the ground.

Ahem. The majority of good studio-quality guitar amps
are tube! Young musicians are well-acquainted with tubes.

Wrong. Yes, there are still such things as tubed guitar amps in use and
even sold as new product, but they ain't the majority of nuttin'.

Arny. I share a workshop with several guys who are by
profession guitar amp builders/repairers. The majority
of good guitar amps are tube amplifiers. Why?
Just play a Stratocaster through a HiWatt or a 50W
Marshall, and all will be revealed. Oops.- Sorry,
I forgot, you don't play do you?

Arny. Your ignorance is remarkable:-)

Amazing Iain how you know so much about places you've never been.


You seem to think that your cultural backwater of Detroit is
the centre of the universe. Boy, have I got news for you!!

Visit Grosse Pointe - a Bosendorfer-free zone:-))))

Iain

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

Ahem. The majority of good studio-quality guitar amps
are tube! Young musicians are well-acquainted with
tubes.

Wrong. Yes, there are still such things as tubed guitar
amps in use and even sold as new product, but they ain't
the majority of nuttin'.

Majority means more than 50%. Even well-informed tubed amp advocates put
the sales of tubed guitar amps in the US at far less than that. Might be
20-30% if you ignore the entry level stuff that is 100% SS.

You are extravagantly out of touch with reality there
Arny.

One of us is. I'm always amused by Brits who feel they need to tell me about
the details of everyday life in the US. ;-)

Tubed guitar amps are the norm for most *serious*
guitarists on account of their characteristic distortions
and indeed the gentle onset of distortion unlike the hard
transition to clipping that transistor or IC amps give.

OK Graham, so you define serious guitarist as someone who has to have a
tubed guitar amp. That's fine, but it is not mainstream life in the US.

Yes, entry level guitar amps that get packaged with a
guitar as a starter for kids are likely to be IC based in
order to be cheap.

Ignoring the fact that people have buiilding SS circuits that simulate that
sort of thing for about 40 years.

The Marshall company for one still does very nicely from
selling tubed amps.

But, Marshall also sell plenty of SS amps, and not just at the entry level.

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Ian Iveson" wrote in
message
.uk
Arny Krueger wrote

Any studio of worth will set up a monitoring system
to suit the client's requirements. If he asks for
Lockwoods and
a tube amp, then they will certainly oblige.

Certainly not the policy in the US. The recording
studio biz is very competitive, including
price-competitive. A huge fraction of the recording
studios that existed 20 years ago are completely
gone. Customers pretty well have to take what is
offered.

In the US, tubed studio monitor amplifiers have
pretty well disappeared over the past 40 years.

Surely there is a contradiction between "competitive"
and "customers pretty well have to take what is
offered"?

No. It is all about price. That's why the genre is
dying off so fast. You also have to remember that most
customers of recording studios are young, and probably
wouldn't know a tube amp from a warm hole in the ground.

Ahem. The majority of good studio-quality guitar amps
are tube! Young musicians are well-acquainted with
tubes.

Wrong. Yes, there are still such things as tubed guitar
amps in use and even sold as new product, but they ain't
the majority of nuttin'.

Arny. I share a workshop with several guys who are by
profession guitar amp builders/repairers. The majority
of good guitar amps are tube amplifiers. Why?
Just play a Stratocaster through a HiWatt or a 50W
Marshall, and all will be revealed. Oops.- Sorry,
I forgot, you don't play do you?

Arny. Your ignorance is remarkable:-)

Amazing Iain how you know so much about places you've
never been.

You seem to think that your cultural backwater of Detroit
is the centre of the universe.

Not hardly.

However, the Detroit metro area includes Oakland County which is one of the
richest counties in the US. I suspect there are several Bosendorfer pianos
in it.

Boy, have I got news for you!!

Only in your mind, Iain.

Visit Grosse Pointe - a Bosendorfer-free zone:-))))

There is probably at least one in the Grosse Pointes. You need to look at
the demographics of Grosse Pointe Shores before you next speak, Iain.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

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

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

Ahem. The majority of good studio-quality guitar amps
are tube! Young musicians are well-acquainted with
tubes.

Wrong. Yes, there are still such things as tubed guitar
amps in use and even sold as new product, but they ain't
the majority of nuttin'.

Majority means more than 50%. Even well-informed tubed amp advocates put
the sales of tubed guitar amps in the US at far less than that. Might be
20-30% if you ignore the entry level stuff that is 100% SS.

Arny. Your poor comprehension of English lets you down
once again. Please re-read the first paragraph above in this post.
You can move your lips if you like, we won't laugh. It says,
"good studio-quality amplifiers" Apart from bass players
and some jazz guitarists, most studio players prefer a tube amp.


Tubed guitar amps are the norm for most *serious*
guitarists on account of their characteristic distortions
and indeed the gentle onset of distortion unlike the hard
transition to clipping that transistor or IC amps give.

OK Graham, so you define serious guitarist as someone who has to have a
tubed guitar amp. That's fine, but it is not mainstream life in the US.

It looks as your concept of mainstream life anywhere is
pretty inaccurate. How many "serious" guitarists have you
worked with? How many do you know personally?
Fewer than one?


Yes, entry level guitar amps that get packaged with a
guitar as a starter for kids are likely to be IC based in
order to be cheap.

Ignoring the fact that people have buiilding SS circuits that simulate
that sort of thing for about 40 years.

And never succeeded. But the Pignose is great fun:-)

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
You seem to think that your cultural backwater of Detroit
is the centre of the universe.

Not hardly.

Translation please.

I refer in another reply to you to an interesting article in the daily
newspaper The European, about education and literacy in the US
as published by the American National Institution for Literacy
(NIL) Detroit gets a special mention, of having one of the poorest
rates of literacy in the US: 47%. You are the living proof:-)

However, the Detroit metro area includes Oakland County which is one of
the richest counties in the US. I suspect there are several Bosendorfer
pianos in it.

Now you totally contradict your previous statement.
Suddenly Bosendorfers are springing up like mushrooms:-)

Visit Grosse Pointe - a Bosendorfer-free zone:-))))

There is probably at least one in the Grosse Pointes.

One? Gosh! Should we be impressed?

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi

Any studio of worth will set up a monitoring system to
suit the client's requirements. If he asks for
Lockwoods and a tube amp, then they will certainly
oblige.

Certainly not the policy in the US. The recording
studio biz is very competitive, including
price-competitive. A huge fraction of the recording
studios that existed 20 years ago are completely gone.

Probably due to their lack of flexibility, to give the
client what he/she needs.

Customers pretty well have to take what is offered.

Which rather contradicts your earlier statement about
them being competitive.

Not at all. It's all about price.

No. It's about quality, objectives and giving the client
what he requires.

So what's your point?

It is the hallmark of a good hotel,
a good restaurant and also a good studio.

You don't build a new hotel for the next everyday client who walks in off
the street for a 1 night stay, no matter what his preferences are. Ditto
for resturants.

If you had ever worked in such a studio, Arny, (either as client
or member of staff) you would know this.

You're talking out the back of your neck again, Iain.

No I am talking from experience, as both a
member of staff and also as a client in such
studios. This is experience, which as a
handcart recordist, you clearly lack.


Talking with you about quality recording is like
discussing haute gastronomie with a fast food waiter.

Shows how little you know about mainstream life, Iain. There ain't no such
thing as a fast food waiter - its all self-serve.

Now I am sure that fast-food really is something that
you know about. I have never eaten in a fast-food bar.
If that's your idea of mainstream life, then you do indeed
have my sympathy.


In the US, tubed studio monitor amplifiers have pretty
well disappeared over the past 40 years.

Together with analogue multitracks, Dolby A and
Dolby SR, tube monitor amps can be obtained
from hire companies if the studio cannot supply
one from their own inventory.

It would be the exceptional hire company that had old
junk like that.

So what does Iain come up with - a market survey proving his point?

Nahh, just more of the same old proof by assertion:

Arny. A Studer A800 with Dolby SR commands a
higher short term rental rate than a 24 track digital
system. It probably earns more in a month than you do:-)

The market for such things is very thin, in the US today.

It looks to me as though you don't have the faintest
idea about what is or is not in demand. You know
nothing about professional recording. That's clear:-(



Right, the client asks for a good sounding recording, he
is happy when he gets one.

How naive you are! It is a lot more specific than that.
Never underestimate the client. People ask for vocal mics
like the U47, a Bosendorfer grand or an EMT plate. If
you cannot be bothered to meet their needs, they go
elsewhere.

In much of the US, there ain't no such place to go to.
Remember, people have lives, they want service now.

Your lack of understanding let's you down badly. Arny.
Every single commercial recording project needs
planning and logistics and a carefully calculated budget.
Two years is not a long time in planning. I know of several
classical projects that took ten years to complete.

Remember, people have lives, they want service now.

Not long ago I worked on a project which included the
Sibelius Violin Concerto D minor. Op 47. The soloist
asked for three months to polish her execution of this
demanding work. She was given all the time she needed.


I recently worked on a Baroque project where two of
the instruments, A Ruckers harpsichord built in 1648
and a baroque cello (Tecchler made in1710) were
both especially hired and transported half way
across Europe.

Sounds like an everyday gig. An everyday gig in dream land. :-(

Not an everyday gig by any stretch of the imagination, but a
very nice inernational project to be associated with. You
should have studied and practised harder Arny to make
the dream a reality:-)

First you have to find a studio that is large enough to hold a concert
grand that is still in business. :-(

Probably none in the culture wasteland which you seem
to inhabit. Come to London, Paris or Stockholm. There
are studios that will make your jaw drop to the floor.

In the US virtually all recording of symphonys and symphony artsts happens
in concert venues where the musical infrastructure is already in place.

The plural is symphonies, Arny, symphonies.
And who or what are "symphony artsts " (sic) ?

It was interesting to see a recent article in The European
on the subject of US illiteracy copied straight from the US
source, which itself contained spelling and syntax errors.

http://www.geocities.com/lsysusan017...cy_in_amer.htm

The actual NIL report puts the figures much higher.

It was interesting also to read that in the state of Michigan, (isn't
that where you live, Arny?) :

"" 18 percent of adults, nearly one in five, were functionally illiterate.
Detroit had the one of the highest illiteracy rates in the country, with
47 percent of its residents, nearly one out of two, scoring at Level I
in the NIL survey.""

Now I can see why you talk about "condensor" mics, and struggle
with the plural of the noun "symphony", Arny.

Discussion with you is pointless, Arny My cat knows more
about music than you do. Just like the legendary "Maurice
Dolby" at the old Island Studios in London, he sits central
between the speakers, and seems to enjoy Ellington. His
nickname is "Anderson" I will leave you to ponder why.

Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 13, 11:04 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Stuff....

I dunno... a simple google search on "US Recording Studio Directory"
showed (at least)many hundreds of studios, in nearly every state, a
goodly number stating that they had both analog and digital equipment,
more than a few stating they provide some instruments and cater to
special needs, or will do remote set-up work, and a few seemed to take
great pride in their selection of recording equipment (analog and
digital), microphones and so forth. Any large city or musical venue
(Nashville, TN, for example) had many options.

I am sure you are right Peter. A producer I know in the UK
was looking for an American crew for a recording in Royce Hall. LA.
There were several very good local teams to choose from.

Don't expect Arny to know anything about the recording scene
either in the US or the EU - he is computer repairman by trade,
and an amateur recordists at his church on Sundays.

All anecdotal, of course. But it appears to to be far less bleak than
Arny contends, if not as wide-open as Iain would like.

The US studio business is probably very similar to the situation to
which I am accustomed here in the EU.

We need to keep in mind that mostly all of Europe would fit into the
US east of the Mississippi, so distances are far less daunting than
they are here and Europeans in general are happier to wait for what
they want rather than settle for what they can get quickly.

As an economic and cultural market, the EU is larger than the US
I believe.

Many classical records with which I have been associated were
plannned eighteen months to two years ahead. Much time was
spent scouting for studios or locations and negotiating with artists
The EU cultural foundations fund many international projects,
with composers, conductors and players brought together from
twenty five countries.

That, as much as anything else, might explain the disconnect. If Arny
trains his clients not to expect much and they believe him - they
won't get much, and they will still be happy in their ignorance.

Arny has no clients, and not a single published recording.
Don't be fooled Peter. He records as a volunteer at his church.
His efforts are slap-dash and absolutely awful, but he is
probably the best they can get for free.

The "been there done that" mentality is not the way to learn.
Recording is an art, that has to be studied dilligently like any
other if you wish to make it your profession. There are a lot
of very talented and highly qualified people competing for very
few places.

Whatever your technical or musical qualifications,
you need to start humbly as an indentured junior with a
professional crew.. A major record company is the place to
do this. Once you have "learned to fly" you can spread
your wings and move on, work as a freelance or set up on
your own with a location crew. This transisition usually takes
many years. Some people choose to stay put. Two of my
best pals have been at the BBC all their lives.

As Harry Carney (baritone saxophone player with the
Duke Ellington orchestra for 46 years) said: "Once you
have been in an outfit like this, there is nowhere else to
go"


If Iain trains his clients to expect a great deal and have some choices -
but it will cost and possibly take time - that is an entirely
different mind-set.

Without this essential background and formal training,
you keep on making the same mistakes over, and over,
and over and over again, as Arny has done. That is
permanent mediocrity.

A classical recording that may stay in catalogue for the next
thirty or forty years, and take several years to pay for itself,
does not appear on the shelf overnight.

The clients invariably have a clear detailed plan of the
production. Most are seasoned professionals. Many
of the people I work with now, I have known for thirty
years. They seldom fail to rebook.

Of course, for a club or garage band, anything
with a glass door and lots-O-blinking lights will make them think they
are getting state of the art if that is what they are told and it is
within their pocketbook. It ain't necessarily so.

Indeed. In such a case, the acrylic cello with the internal
neon illumination (which I suggested might suit Arny) is the
gold standard:-)))

Regards
Iain

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Iain Churches wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote
"Iain Churches" wrote
"Arny Krueger" wrote

In the US, tubed studio monitor amplifiers have pretty
well disappeared over the past 40 years.

Together with analogue multitracks, Dolby A and
Dolby SR, tube monitor amps can be obtained
from hire companies if the studio cannot supply
one from their own inventory.

It would be the exceptional hire company that had old
junk like that.

Arny. A Studer A800 with Dolby SR commands a
higher short term rental rate than a 24 track digital
system. It probably earns more in a month than you do:-)
It's all a question of supply and demand.

That's probably becasue there is ZERO demand AFAIK for
digital multitracks.

Right. Virtually all new digital multitrack recordings are done with
computers.

Incorrect. Digital consoles with hard disc recorders are
the current technology.

Your Yamaha and toyshop mics on a handcart are
a world away from proper professionals recording.

Iain

[WindsorFox[_3_]]

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:48:58 +1100, "keithr"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:13:54 +1100, "keithr"
wrote:

Inertia is one of the strongest forces in the universe, there is still a
lot
of people who given the opportunity to use the Mac, the PC or one of the
implemetations of X-windows would still rather stick to the arcane world
of
*nix shell command line.
There's a reason for that other than an 'early on choice'. For those
familiar with and who can remember the commands a command line is
faster than navigating menus, wizards, dialog boxes, check fields and
the like.

Btw, I'm not one of them, at least not any more.

Personally, I never had the energy to learn them. I did a C course back in
1990, we had to use SCO unix on 386 machines. I hated vi (the only editor to
make edlin look good), and the instructor was a unix fanatic. I rather upset
him by changing my prompt to C:\ and aliasing the ls -l comand to dir. I
use *nix when I have to but find it about as user friendly as a cornered
rat.

Hehe. Yeah, I'm sure you irritated him no end with making it emulate
what Unix folks invariably called a "toy" (not really a) operating
system (just a 'program loader').

As for 'user friendly', it depends on how you define 'user'.

Democracy: a government "of the people, by the people, for the
people."

Unix: an operating system "of the programmer, by the programmer, for
the programmer."


I will say one thing, if the more popular versions of Linux made it
as easy to install upgrades and new software as OSX and Win, including
WINE and/or other Windows emulator/converters, I would have hopped a lot
harder and a long time ago.

--

h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842

[Nick Gorham]

WindsorFoxSS wrote:
flipper wrote:

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:48:58 +1100, "keithr"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:13:54 +1100, "keithr"
wrote:

Inertia is one of the strongest forces in the universe, there is
still a lot
of people who given the opportunity to use the Mac, the PC or one
of the
implemetations of X-windows would still rather stick to the arcane
world of
*nix shell command line.

There's a reason for that other than an 'early on choice'. For those
familiar with and who can remember the commands a command line is
faster than navigating menus, wizards, dialog boxes, check fields and
the like.

Btw, I'm not one of them, at least not any more.

Personally, I never had the energy to learn them. I did a C course
back in 1990, we had to use SCO unix on 386 machines. I hated vi (the
only editor to make edlin look good), and the instructor was a unix
fanatic. I rather upset him by changing my prompt to C:\ and
aliasing the ls -l comand to dir. I use *nix when I have to but find
it about as user friendly as a cornered rat.


Hehe. Yeah, I'm sure you irritated him no end with making it emulate
what Unix folks invariably called a "toy" (not really a) operating
system (just a 'program loader').

As for 'user friendly', it depends on how you define 'user'.

Democracy: a government "of the people, by the people, for the
people."

Unix: an operating system "of the programmer, by the programmer, for
the programmer."


I will say one thing, if the more popular versions of Linux made it
as easy to install upgrades and new software as OSX and Win, including
WINE and/or other Windows emulator/converters, I would have hopped a lot
harder and a long time ago.


Try a Debian based distrib, apt-get and its decendents make installing
amd upgrading more than simple.

Have you tried Ubuntu?

--
Nick

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi

I refer in another reply to you to an interesting article
in the daily newspaper The European, about education and
literacy in the US as published by the American National Institution for
Literacy (NIL) Detroit gets a special mention, of having
one of the poorest rates of literacy in the US: 47%.

Here's a news flash Iain, I don't live in Detroit.

If you bothered to complete your studies, you would find that there are
tremendous differences between the demographics of the City of Detroit and
its suburbs, even suburbs that are immediately adjacent to it.

For example, the City of Detroit has about 400 murders per million per year,
and most of its suburbs have something like 1 per million or less.

The City of Detroit is a sad study in racial flight and de facto
segregation.

When I was growing up, it had one of the finest public school systems in the
US. That was about a half century ago.

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Eeyore" wrote
in message
Iain Churches wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote
"Iain Churches" wrote
"Arny Krueger" wrote

In the US, tubed studio monitor amplifiers have
pretty well disappeared over the past 40 years.

Together with analogue multitracks, Dolby A and
Dolby SR, tube monitor amps can be obtained
from hire companies if the studio cannot supply
one from their own inventory.

It would be the exceptional hire company that had old
junk like that.

Arny. A Studer A800 with Dolby SR commands a
higher short term rental rate than a 24 track digital
system. It probably earns more in a month than you
do:-) It's all a question of supply and demand.

That's probably becasue there is ZERO demand AFAIK for
digital multitracks.

Right. Virtually all new digital multitrack recordings
are done with computers.

Incorrect. Digital consoles with hard disc recorders are
the current technology.

I don't know of any Digital consoles with built-in hard disc recorders. Can
you name one?

Your Yamaha and toyshop mics on a handcart are
a world away from proper professionals recording.

Ignorant talk is cheap, Iain.

[Peter Wieck]

On Mar 16, 10:09*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I don't know of any Digital consoles with built-in hard disc recorders. Can
you name one?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._Recorder.html

That only took a simple google search using your parameters. Less than
a minute.

If I can find one that fast, it cannot be a unique phenomenon. Or are
you going to re-define your terms?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

I don't know of any Digital consoles with built-in hard disc recorders

I am sure you don't:-)

They are not hand-cart systems!

Can you name one?

Take a look at the recent article in Studio Sound.
Three are mentioned. There are, without doubt, others.

Iain

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

On Mar 16, 10:09 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I don't know of any Digital consoles with built-in hard
disc recorders. Can you name one?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._Recorder.html

That only took a simple google search using your
parameters. Less than
a minute.

It's not a professional grade console. It's a digital recorder with built-in
mic preamps.

When I say "console" in this context, I mean something like this:

http://www.yamahaproaudio.com/produc...7cl/index.html

With all due respect, you'd have to know much more about audio production to
be sensibly involved in this discussion, Peter.

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

I don't know of any Digital consoles with built-in hard
disc recorders

I am sure you don't:-)

They are not hand-cart systems!

Can you name one?

Take a look at the recent article in Studio Sound.
Three are mentioned. There are, without doubt, others.

Sorry Iain, I'm not going to do your research for you. Post a valid URL or
give it up!

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news
Your Yamaha and toyshop mics on a handcart are
a world away from proper professionals recording.

Shows how ignorant you are of mainstream recording gear, Iain.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news
Your Yamaha and toyshop mics on a handcart are
a world away from proper professionals recording.

Shows how ignorant you are of mainstream recording gear, Iain.

It looks to me like he nailed you.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[keithr]

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...
WindsorFoxSS wrote:
flipper wrote:

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:48:58 +1100, "keithr"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:13:54 +1100, "keithr"
wrote:

Inertia is one of the strongest forces in the universe, there is
still a lot
of people who given the opportunity to use the Mac, the PC or one of
the
implemetations of X-windows would still rather stick to the arcane
world of
*nix shell command line.

There's a reason for that other than an 'early on choice'. For those
familiar with and who can remember the commands a command line is
faster than navigating menus, wizards, dialog boxes, check fields and
the like.

Btw, I'm not one of them, at least not any more.

Personally, I never had the energy to learn them. I did a C course back
in 1990, we had to use SCO unix on 386 machines. I hated vi (the only
editor to make edlin look good), and the instructor was a unix fanatic.
I rather upset him by changing my prompt to C:\ and aliasing the ls -l
comand to dir. I use *nix when I have to but find it about as user
friendly as a cornered rat.


Hehe. Yeah, I'm sure you irritated him no end with making it emulate
what Unix folks invariably called a "toy" (not really a) operating
system (just a 'program loader').

As for 'user friendly', it depends on how you define 'user'.

Democracy: a government "of the people, by the people, for the
people."

Unix: an operating system "of the programmer, by the programmer, for
the programmer."


I will say one thing, if the more popular versions of Linux made it as
easy to install upgrades and new software as OSX and Win, including WINE
and/or other Windows emulator/converters, I would have hopped a lot
harder and a long time ago.


Try a Debian based distrib, apt-get and its decendents make installing amd
upgrading more than simple.

Have you tried Ubuntu?

--
Nick

I have installed it but haven't done much with it, my favourite distro is
SUSE.

Keith

[Ian Thompson-Bell[_3_]]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Mar 16, 10:09 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I don't know of any Digital consoles with built-in hard disc recorders. Can
you name one?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._Recorder.html

That only took a simple google search using your parameters. Less than
a minute.

If I can find one that fast, it cannot be a unique phenomenon. Or are
you going to re-define your terms?


Crikey, I have had three in the last decade; the AKAI DPS12, then the
DPS16 (which I still have) and now the DPS24 which is the most amazing
recorder/mixer i have ever owned.

Cheers

Ian

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news
Your Yamaha and toyshop mics on a handcart are
a world away from proper professional recording.

Shows how ignorant you are of mainstream recording gear, Iain.

Toyshop is toyshop. Trying to call it "mainstream"
won't make it any better.

[WindsorFox[_3_]]

keithr wrote:
"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...
WindsorFoxSS wrote:
flipper wrote:

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:48:58 +1100, "keithr"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:13:54 +1100, "keithr"
wrote:

Inertia is one of the strongest forces in the universe, there is
still a lot
of people who given the opportunity to use the Mac, the PC or one of
the
implemetations of X-windows would still rather stick to the arcane
world of
*nix shell command line.
There's a reason for that other than an 'early on choice'. For those
familiar with and who can remember the commands a command line is
faster than navigating menus, wizards, dialog boxes, check fields and
the like.

Btw, I'm not one of them, at least not any more.

Personally, I never had the energy to learn them. I did a C course back
in 1990, we had to use SCO unix on 386 machines. I hated vi (the only
editor to make edlin look good), and the instructor was a unix fanatic.
I rather upset him by changing my prompt to C:\ and aliasing the ls -l
comand to dir. I use *nix when I have to but find it about as user
friendly as a cornered rat.

Hehe. Yeah, I'm sure you irritated him no end with making it emulate
what Unix folks invariably called a "toy" (not really a) operating
system (just a 'program loader').

As for 'user friendly', it depends on how you define 'user'.

Democracy: a government "of the people, by the people, for the
people."

Unix: an operating system "of the programmer, by the programmer, for
the programmer."

I will say one thing, if the more popular versions of Linux made it as
easy to install upgrades and new software as OSX and Win, including WINE
and/or other Windows emulator/converters, I would have hopped a lot
harder and a long time ago.

Try a Debian based distrib, apt-get and its decendents make installing amd
upgrading more than simple.

Have you tried Ubuntu?

--
Nick

I have installed it but haven't done much with it, my favourite distro is
SUSE.

Keith



Trying to update the Firefox that came with the SuSE download was
the most recent frustration to cause me to put that shoebox in the corner.

--

h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842

[WindsorFox[_3_]]

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:36:30 -0500, "WindsorFoxSS"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:48:58 +1100, "keithr"
wrote:

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:13:54 +1100, "keithr"
wrote:

Inertia is one of the strongest forces in the universe, there is still a
lot
of people who given the opportunity to use the Mac, the PC or one of the
implemetations of X-windows would still rather stick to the arcane world
of
*nix shell command line.
There's a reason for that other than an 'early on choice'. For those
familiar with and who can remember the commands a command line is
faster than navigating menus, wizards, dialog boxes, check fields and
the like.

Btw, I'm not one of them, at least not any more.

Personally, I never had the energy to learn them. I did a C course back in
1990, we had to use SCO unix on 386 machines. I hated vi (the only editor to
make edlin look good), and the instructor was a unix fanatic. I rather upset
him by changing my prompt to C:\ and aliasing the ls -l comand to dir. I
use *nix when I have to but find it about as user friendly as a cornered
rat.
Hehe. Yeah, I'm sure you irritated him no end with making it emulate
what Unix folks invariably called a "toy" (not really a) operating
system (just a 'program loader').

As for 'user friendly', it depends on how you define 'user'.

Democracy: a government "of the people, by the people, for the
people."

Unix: an operating system "of the programmer, by the programmer, for
the programmer."

I will say one thing, if the more popular versions of Linux made it
as easy to install upgrades and new software as OSX and Win, including
WINE and/or other Windows emulator/converters, I would have hopped a lot
harder and a long time ago.

Yeah. The Linux community has been slow to recognize the concept of
'user friendly', with 'user' defined as Jack and Jill Average, and the
fragmented, inconsistent, nature of the O.S. exacerbates the problem.

Yabut, I'm no Jack when it comes to computers. I work with them all
day everyday and have figured many things out on my own. You would think
that someone with my ability, even with next to no Linux experience
could muddle through installing Firefox on SuSE

--

h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842

[Ian Thompson-Bell[_3_]]

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:36:30 -0500, "WindsorFoxSS"
wrote:
I will say one thing, if the more popular versions of Linux made it
as easy to install upgrades and new software as OSX and Win, including
WINE and/or other Windows emulator/converters, I would have hopped a lot
harder and a long time ago.

Yeah. The Linux community has been slow to recognize the concept of
'user friendly', with 'user' defined as Jack and Jill Average, and the
fragmented, inconsistent, nature of the O.S. exacerbates the problem.

I think it is a misconception to assume the 'Linux community' has any
special desire to make the OS/apps friendly to Jack and Jill average
users. Certainly some distro providers have this aim but most have
financial motives for it and they are only a small part of the
'community'. Most community members are happy with the diversity offered
by Linux. Small distros, large ones, command line based ones GUI based
ones, ones aimed at media etc etc. I stated out over ten years ago using
RedHat then moved on to Mandrake then Slackware as my skills and needs
changed. Now I use Ubuntu

Cheers

Ian

[Ian Thompson-Bell[_3_]]

WindsorFoxSS wrote:
Yabut, I'm no Jack when it comes to computers. I work with them all
day everyday and have figured many things out on my own. You would think
that someone with my ability, even with next to no Linux experience
could muddle through installing Firefox on SuSE


Doesn't SUSE come with Firefox already installed??

Cheers

Ian

[WindsorFox[_3_]]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
WindsorFoxSS wrote:
Yabut, I'm no Jack when it comes to computers. I work with them all
day everyday and have figured many things out on my own. You would
think that someone with my ability, even with next to no Linux
experience could muddle through installing Firefox on SuSE


Doesn't SUSE come with Firefox already installed??

Cheers

Ian

Yes, but it was an old version.

--

h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842

[Ian Thompson-Bell[_3_]]

WindsorFoxSS wrote:
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
WindsorFoxSS wrote:
Yabut, I'm no Jack when it comes to computers. I work with them all
day everyday and have figured many things out on my own. You would
think that someone with my ability, even with next to no Linux
experience could muddle through installing Firefox on SuSE


Doesn't SUSE come with Firefox already installed??

Cheers

Ian

Yes, but it was an old version.


Doesn't SUSE include a system for regular online updates of its apps? If
it doesn't perhaps you should try Ubuntu or Kubuntu both of which do.

Cheers

Ian

[WindsorFox[_3_]]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
WindsorFoxSS wrote:
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
WindsorFoxSS wrote:
Yabut, I'm no Jack when it comes to computers. I work with them
all day everyday and have figured many things out on my own. You
would think that someone with my ability, even with next to no Linux
experience could muddle through installing Firefox on SuSE


Doesn't SUSE come with Firefox already installed??

Cheers

Ian

Yes, but it was an old version.


Doesn't SUSE include a system for regular online updates of its apps? If
it doesn't perhaps you should try Ubuntu or Kubuntu both of which do.

Cheers

Ian

You can't "update from FF 1.xx to FF 2. You have to DL and install
new. I DLed a number of files but was not able to get anything to work.

--

h4x0r5 0n teh yu0r pC??
OH NOS!!! Yu0r MEGAHURTZ HAEV BEEN ST0LED!!!!11!
Clicks h3re 4 hlep!

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

WindsorFoxSS wrote:
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
WindsorFoxSS wrote:
Yabut, I'm no Jack when it comes to computers. I work with them all
day everyday and have figured many things out on my own. You would
think that someone with my ability, even with next to no Linux
experience could muddle through installing Firefox on SuSE


Doesn't SUSE come with Firefox already installed??

Cheers

Ian

Yes, but it was an old version.


AAn old version of Firefox or SUSE or both?

Cheers

Ian

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

WindsorFoxSS wrote:
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
WindsorFoxSS wrote:
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
WindsorFoxSS wrote:
Yabut, I'm no Jack when it comes to computers. I work with them
all day everyday and have figured many things out on my own. You
would think that someone with my ability, even with next to no
Linux experience could muddle through installing Firefox on SuSE


Doesn't SUSE come with Firefox already installed??

Cheers

Ian

Yes, but it was an old version.


Doesn't SUSE include a system for regular online updates of its apps?
If it doesn't perhaps you should try Ubuntu or Kubuntu both of which do.

Cheers

Ian

You can't "update from FF 1.xx to FF 2. You have to DL and install
new. I DLed a number of files but was not able to get anything to work.



Strange, I thought Yast was supposed to care care of that sort of think
but I have never been a fan of SUSE. Which version of SUS is this?

Cheers

Ian

[WindsorFox[_3_]]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
WindsorFoxSS wrote:
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
WindsorFoxSS wrote:
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
WindsorFoxSS wrote:
Yabut, I'm no Jack when it comes to computers. I work with them
all day everyday and have figured many things out on my own. You
would think that someone with my ability, even with next to no
Linux experience could muddle through installing Firefox on SuSE


Doesn't SUSE come with Firefox already installed??

Cheers

Ian

Yes, but it was an old version.


Doesn't SUSE include a system for regular online updates of its apps?
If it doesn't perhaps you should try Ubuntu or Kubuntu both of which do.

Cheers

Ian

You can't "update from FF 1.xx to FF 2. You have to DL and install
new. I DLed a number of files but was not able to get anything to work.



Strange, I thought Yast was supposed to care care of that sort of think
but I have never been a fan of SUSE. Which version of SUS is this?

Cheers

Ian

I don't remember, it's been a year ago. The only thing distro I'm
wrestling with at the moment is IP in order to try to get a reasonably
priced fire wall with more than 100 rules. Seems like it was 10?

--


"I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges?" -- TazAMD