[Andre Jute]

On Oct 28, 6:53 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro. None of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott

Scott, the problem is that Graham Stevenson, a.k.a. "Eeyore" doesn't
belong in rec.audio.tubes

I belong there every bit as much as you do you slimy toad.

Not when you claim that a Class A device never ceases conducting
"under any signal condition."

Looks like I know more about tubes than you do for sure.

Maybe you could make a living as comedian. I'll throw you a few one-
liners to start you off:

Poopie: I'm an electronics engineer.

Poopie: I understand cirkew-- you know, those electric thingies.

Poopie: I'm cleverer than you.

Graham

LOL.

Unsigned for the usual reason
That too

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro. None of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott

Scott, the problem is that Graham Stevenson, a.k.a. "Eeyore" doesn't
belong in rec.audio.tubes

I belong there every bit as much as you do you slimy toad.

Looks like I know more about tubes than you do for sure.

That may very well be true, but so far you haven't shown us any evidence
to suggest that it is actually true. Why don't you start by describing
some of your tube projects, then we can better judge. Don't hold back,
your descriptions don't have to be up to Patrick's high standards.

Even if you do know more about tubes than I do, that doesn't foreclose
the possibility that there are a few things I know about tubes that you
don't, which would seem to be the relevant issue here.

Here's an examplehttp://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=17015752379...

All right, Poopie, it's a guitar amp.

So, what does either a guitar amp or you have to do with high fidelity
sound reproduction?

Or are we supposed once more to read something between the lines of
your obscure low-rent soundbites?

High fidelity is not in any of the the group names, even the irrelevant one (and one you were
asked not to post to ) that you ADDED.

If you want hi-fi, the last thing you want are TOOBS. TOOBS have poor linearity and any attempt
to make a hi-fi amp with them is a struggle with their many limitations.

Tubes are a near irrelevance to accurate sound reproduction.

However tubes do distort the sound in an 'artistic' way which makes them very suitable for
instrument amplification and 'sound efffects'.

Graham

[John Byrns]

In article om,
Andre Jute wrote:

On Oct 28, 8:18 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro.
None of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott

Scott, the problem is that Graham Stevenson, a.k.a. "Eeyore" doesn't
belong in rec.audio.tubes

I belong there every bit as much as you do you slimy toad.

Looks like I know more about tubes than you do for sure.

That may very well be true, but so far you haven't shown us any evidence
to suggest that it is actually true. Why don't you start by describing
some of your tube projects, then we can better judge. Don't hold back,
your descriptions don't have to be up to Patrick's high standards.

Even if you do know more about tubes than I do, that doesn't foreclose
the possibility that there are a few things I know about tubes that you
don't, which would seem to be the relevant issue here.

Here's an
examplehttp://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=17015752379
...

Graham

All right, Poopie, it's a guitar amp.

So, what does either a guitar amp or you have to do with high fidelity
sound reproduction?

Or are we supposed once more to read something between the lines of
your obscure low-rent soundbites?

I don't know about Eeyore's "low-rent soundbites" beyond the fact that
they are annoying, but the rec.audio.tbues charter, which I posted a
couple of days ago, includes guitar amps, as well as high fidelity
amplifiers, and even radios which some one was complaining about, which
was the reason I posted the charter. So cut Eeyore some slack on the
guitar amp bit, but keep "helping" him change his habit of using those
irritating "low-rent soundbites".


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 28, 2:48 pm, Sander deWaal wrote:
Andre Jute said:

But all right, Mijnheer van Gennip, you want to be a slim jannie --and
in English too! So show us how you would design an amplfier either
Class A or with substantial Class A output (i.e. Class AB) in which
"the output device(s)never cease conducting under any signal
condition". Note the important qualification "under any signal
condition". That means exactly what it says in plain English: you
design the amplifier, I choose the signal level to be vastly larger
than the specified bias, then you prove it still operates in Class A.

May you have Pinkerton's Luck. By all means call on the Three Stooges
for help.

I'm just a simple Dutch techie, but this schematic does things fairly
well.

I'll leave it up to you educated guys to determine whether this is
class A, AB or class T(rash).
Ra-a = 7 kohm. Vb = 440V.

Raw schematic:http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/1751/wkschemod0.jpg

Prototype (slightly modified, double PS tranny, some changes in
component values, softstart added) :http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/3475/wkmz5.jpg

Production version, fresh from China (note the different phase
splitter and driver tubes) :http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/755/yarlandwkau6.jpg

On demo with some DIY friends:http://members.home.nl/m.pekel/Beets...g/PA130754.JPG

--

- Maggies are an addiction for life. -

Will you hate me, Sander, for saying,
`I love the driftwood
On the Chinese kay tee eightee eight,
so much better than the poli-ali
of the prototype!'

Is that an amp you designed for Chinese manufacture and local sale?
Who sells it and how much?

(And how do I get an appointment with hairdresser of the guy with the
blond streak in his hair...)

Okay, now for the tough question:

Is this circuit an entry into the challenge to show design that has
Class A output "under any signal condition"? In other words a design
that can in no way be driven to cutoff?

Or are you just throwing it in to lighten up the atmosphere?

Welcome back.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 28, 10:52 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro. None of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott

Scott, the problem is that Graham Stevenson, a.k.a. "Eeyore" doesn't
belong in rec.audio.tubes

I belong there every bit as much as you do you slimy toad.

Looks like I know more about tubes than you do for sure.

That may very well be true, but so far you haven't shown us any evidence
to suggest that it is actually true. Why don't you start by describing
some of your tube projects, then we can better judge. Don't hold back,
your descriptions don't have to be up to Patrick's high standards.

Even if you do know more about tubes than I do, that doesn't foreclose
the possibility that there are a few things I know about tubes that you
don't, which would seem to be the relevant issue here.

Here's an examplehttp://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=17015752379...

All right, Poopie, it's a guitar amp.

So, what does either a guitar amp or you have to do with high fidelity
sound reproduction?

Or are we supposed once more to read something between the lines of
your obscure low-rent soundbites?

High fidelity is not in any of the the group names, even the irrelevant one (and one you were
asked not to post to ) that you ADDED.

Are you illiterate as well as stupid, Poopie? John Byrns published the
by-laws precisely for your edification. They include high fidelity
applications, tube radios, even guitar amps.

The rest of this crap is only your crudely uninformed opinion, which
on civilized newsgroups has zero Credibility Quotient.

Anyway, I'm bored with you wriggling like demented worm on a hook.

Flick.

Unsigned out of contempt


If you want hi-fi, the last thing you want are TOOBS. TOOBS have poor linearity and any attempt
to make a hi-fi amp with them is a struggle with their many limitations.

Tubes are a near irrelevance to accurate sound reproduction.

However tubes do distort the sound in an 'artistic' way which makes them very suitable for
instrument amplification and 'sound efffects'.

Graham

[Clyde Slick]

On 28 Oct, 20:24, Andre Jute wrote:



(And how do I get an appointment with hairdresser of the guy with the
blond streak in his hair...)

maybe that is Mr De Waal!!!
which one is Sander?

whatever, these guys need to take better care of their disks.

[Andre Jute]

On Oct 28, 11:31 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article om,
Andre Jute wrote:



On Oct 28, 8:18 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro.
None of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott

Scott, the problem is that Graham Stevenson, a.k.a. "Eeyore" doesn't
belong in rec.audio.tubes

I belong there every bit as much as you do you slimy toad.

Looks like I know more about tubes than you do for sure.

That may very well be true, but so far you haven't shown us any evidence
to suggest that it is actually true. Why don't you start by describing
some of your tube projects, then we can better judge. Don't hold back,
your descriptions don't have to be up to Patrick's high standards.

Even if you do know more about tubes than I do, that doesn't foreclose
the possibility that there are a few things I know about tubes that you
don't, which would seem to be the relevant issue here.

Here's an
examplehttp://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=17015752379
...

Graham

All right, Poopie, it's a guitar amp.

So, what does either a guitar amp or you have to do with high fidelity
sound reproduction?

Or are we supposed once more to read something between the lines of
your obscure low-rent soundbites?

I don't know about Eeyore's "low-rent soundbites" beyond the fact that
they are annoying, but the rec.audio.tbues charter, which I posted a
couple of days ago, includes guitar amps, as well as high fidelity
amplifiers, and even radios which some one was complaining about, which
was the reason I posted the charter. So cut Eeyore some slack on the
guitar amp bit, but keep "helping" him change his habit of using those
irritating "low-rent soundbites".

Regards,

John Byrns

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

I have no problem with guitar amps. One of the first amps I ever built
from scratch was a guitar amp out of Aspen Pitman's book -- I chose it
because I had a few of the right tubes in a stash an old ham gave me,
and a chassis out of a wrecked radio a local collector gave me because
it had the right sockets and holes on it. It had a delicious sound. I
sold it for 600 Irish pounds, about a thousand dollars, to a local
audiophile who fell in love with its sound -- and hardly a month goes
by that I don't think of it and regret selling that crude little amp.

My question was about whether Poopie Stevenson has any connection to
high fidelity. He has since admitted he has no interest in high
fidelity. Which is what we knew already.

I suppose Poopie might be on RAT for the "toobed" guitar amps, but
apparently he hates tubes too.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Mr.T]

"Laurence Payne" NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote in message
...
Are we anti-gay here? I mean, obviously the Australians will be.

And why would any sane person say that?

But the rest of us, with non-criminal ancestries?

Are just bigots?

MrT.

[Phread]

"Eeyore" wrote in message ...


Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro. None of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott

Scott, the problem is that Graham Stevenson, a.k.a. "Eeyore" doesn't
belong in rec.audio.tubes

I belong there every bit as much as you do you slimy toad.

Looks like I know more about tubes than you do for sure.

That may very well be true, but so far you haven't shown us any evidence
to suggest that it is actually true. Why don't you start by describing
some of your tube projects, then we can better judge. Don't hold back,
your descriptions don't have to be up to Patrick's high standards.

Even if you do know more about tubes than I do, that doesn't foreclose
the possibility that there are a few things I know about tubes that you
don't, which would seem to be the relevant issue here.

Here's an examplehttp://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=17015752379...

All right, Poopie, it's a guitar amp.

So, what does either a guitar amp or you have to do with high fidelity
sound reproduction?

Or are we supposed once more to read something between the lines of
your obscure low-rent soundbites?

High fidelity is not in any of the the group names, even the irrelevant one (and one you were
asked not to post to ) that you ADDED.

If you want hi-fi, the last thing you want are TOOBS. TOOBS have poor linearity and any attempt
to make a hi-fi amp with them is a struggle with their many limitations.

Tubes are a near irrelevance to accurate sound reproduction.

That would be why many if not most of the world's most desired microphones use them, right?

You appear to be in competition with Andre for the horse's ass award, spewing horse****
like that.

However tubes do distort the sound in an 'artistic' way which makes them very suitable for
instrument amplification and 'sound efffects'.

Graham

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Phread wrote:

Tubes are a near irrelevance to accurate sound reproduction.

That would be why many if not most of the world's most desired
microphones use them, right?

You misrepresent the facts of the actual market. A few vintage microphones
use them and are in high regard for all kinds of reasons, including the
roll-off caused by their transformers and the specific way their capsules
have decayed. Those are the "worlds most desired" ones and there are also a
few small capsule mics that are in very high regard.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mr.T]

"Phread" wrote in message
...
Tubes are a near irrelevance to accurate sound reproduction.

That would be why many if not most of the world's most desired microphones
use them, right?

Exactly!
"Accurate" sound reproduction of many vocalists is the last thing they want.
Warm and fuzzy is often more desirable :-)

MrT.

[Phread]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message ...

"Phread" wrote in message
...
Tubes are a near irrelevance to accurate sound reproduction.

That would be why many if not most of the world's most desired microphones
use them, right?

Exactly!
"Accurate" sound reproduction of many vocalists is the last thing they want.
Warm and fuzzy is often more desirable :-)

MrT.

Go tell that to the people on RAP who use these mics every day, MrT.

Naw, ferget it, I'm not going to send you on a suicide mission.

Fred

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:24:03 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

Are we anti-gay here? I mean, obviously the Australians will be.

And why would any sane person say that?

But the rest of us, with non-criminal ancestries?

Are just bigots?

Is your irony detector broken?

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:11:30 -0700, "Phread"
wrote:

Tubes are a near irrelevance to accurate sound reproduction.

That would be why many if not most of the world's most desired microphones use them, right?

Not the ones that strive for accuracy.

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 01:33:56 -0700, "Phread"
wrote:

"Accurate" sound reproduction of many vocalists is the last thing they want.
Warm and fuzzy is often more desirable :-)

MrT.

Go tell that to the people on RAP who use these mics every day, MrT.

They'll agree, though they might baulk at "fuzzy".

[Mr.T]

"Laurence Payne" NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote in message
...
Are we anti-gay here? I mean, obviously the Australians will be.

And why would any sane person say that?

But the rest of us, with non-criminal ancestries?

Are just bigots?

Is your irony detector broken?

Not at all. Is yours?

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Laurence Payne" NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote in message
...
"Accurate" sound reproduction of many vocalists is the last thing they
want.
Warm and fuzzy is often more desirable :-)

Go tell that to the people on RAP who use these mics every day, MrT.

They'll agree, though they might baulk at "fuzzy".

Hence the smiley!
But any good sound engineer sure knows you don't use them to "improve
accuracy".

MrT.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Phread" wrote in message
...
Tubes are a near irrelevance to accurate sound reproduction.

That would be why many if not most of the world's most desired
microphones
use them, right?

Exactly!
"Accurate" sound reproduction of many vocalists is the last thing they
want.
Warm and fuzzy is often more desirable :-)

MrT.


The Neumann M47, M49 and M50 tube mics are still used by major
classical recording companies. Many of those that were converted to
FET in the 1970s have been converted back again.

Iain

[Mr.T]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...
The Neumann M47, M49 and M50 tube mics are still used by major
classical recording companies. Many of those that were converted to
FET in the 1970s have been converted back again.

But I can't think of one measurement mic that uses tubes.
Have you ever considered accuracy is not always what the sound engineer is
after?

MrT.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

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

The Neumann M47, M49 and M50 tube mics are still used by major
classical recording companies. Many of those that were converted to
FET in the 1970s have been converted back again.

But I can't think of one measurement mic that uses tubes.
Have you ever considered accuracy is not always what the sound engineer is
after?


The difference is that we are not *measuring* anything but (to quote
Otto Klemperer) "capturing music as a 3D illusion"

In addition, we do not do this in an anechoic chamber.

[Arny Krueger]

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

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Phread" wrote in message
...
Tubes are a near irrelevance to accurate sound reproduction.

That would be why many if not most of the world's most desired
microphones
use them, right?

Exactly!
"Accurate" sound reproduction of many vocalists is the last thing they
want.
Warm and fuzzy is often more desirable :-)

MrT.


The Neumann M47, M49 and M50 tube mics are still used by major
classical recording companies.

As EFX devices.

Many of those that were converted to
FET in the 1970s have been converted back again.

Something about fashion over performance.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

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

The Neumann M47, M49 and M50 tube mics are still used by major
classical recording companies.

As EFX devices.

First of all, Arny, please get the mnemonic right. It is FX or SFX
The BBC, and publishers such as Philips, Sound Ideas and Zomba
Music Group have huge catalogues of effects (FX) or sound effects
(SFX)

But, regarding the Neumann tube mics. As a producer with
whom I have worked often says "The only people who don't like
Neumann tube mics are the people who can't afford them!" Is
that the reason for your aversion??

However, Arny, you could be right. Perhaps they are indeed
awful. That would explain why you have so many audio awards
and gold discs on the wall, while companies like Decca,
DGG and Sony Classical have none:-)

Many of those that were converted to
FET in the 1970s have been converted back again.

Something about fashion over performance.

No. Something about wisdom after the event. Luckily
the change was reversible. Deutsche Gramofon, one of the
most highly respected record companies in Europe was the
first. There are a number of small firms in Germany and
the UK that specialise in the restoration of these classic mics.

The Neumann M47 tube mic is back in production. The
reason is, of course, there is absolutely no demand:-) LOL

Best regards

Iain

[Arny Krueger]

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

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

The Neumann M47, M49 and M50 tube mics are still used
by major classical recording companies.

As EFX devices.

First of all, Arny, please get the mnemonic right.

You might try finding a cure for your galloping pedantism, Iain.

You knew what I meant.

It is FX or SFX The BBC, and publishers such as Philips, Sound
Ideas and Zomba Music Group have huge catalogues of
effects (FX) or sound effects (SFX)

in certain narrow contexts...

But, regarding the Neumann tube mics. As a producer with
whom I have worked often says "The only people who don't
like Neumann tube mics are the people who can't afford
them!" Is that the reason for your aversion??

I've heard the same phrase used w/r/t to just about everything from $500,000
cars to $50 prophylactics. What's your point other than sheer snobbishness?

However, Arny, you could be right. Perhaps they are indeed
awful. That would explain why you have so many audio awards and gold discs
on the wall, while companies like Decca,
DGG and Sony Classical have none:-)

Inability to see the difference between megabuck corporations and a
struggling recordist noted.

Many of those that were converted to
FET in the 1970s have been converted back again.

Something about fashion over performance.

No. Something about wisdom after the event. Luckily
the change was reversible. Deutsche Gramofon, one of the
most highly respected record companies in Europe was the
first. There are a number of small firms in Germany and
the UK that specialise in the restoration of these
classic mics.

So what? There are a number of small firms that specialize in making
codpieces. Does that mean that they are the next big thing?

The Neumann M47 tube mic is back in production. The
reason is, of course, there is absolutely no demand:-)

They are boutique items. Fine for their market, irrelevant to the
mainstream.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

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

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

The Neumann M47, M49 and M50 tube mics are still used
by major classical recording companies.

As EFX devices.

First of all, Arny, please get the mnemonic right.

You might try finding a cure for your galloping pedantism, Iain.

Not at all. You were showing off to someone who had not
the faintest idea what you were talking about. If you must use a
term, then get it right, and then others that hear it from you will
also learn to use the correct term in the correct sense.
You will be talking abut "saxafones" next:-)

I've heard the same phrase used w/r/t to just about everything from
$500,000 cars to $50 prophylactics. What's your point other than sheer
snobbishness?

Listen to a classical recording from the Decca catalogue,
or the catalogue of any classical label of high reputation.
The point will be obvious.

However, Arny, you could be right. Perhaps they are indeed
awful. That would explain why you have so many audio awards and gold
discs on the wall, while companies like Decca,
DGG and Sony Classical have none:-)

Inability to see the difference between megabuck corporations and a
struggling recordist noted.

Perhaps you are struggling because you are not very good?

Iain

[Arny Krueger]

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

The Neumann M47, M49 and M50 tube mics are still used
by major classical recording companies.

As EFX devices.

First of all, Arny, please get the mnemonic right.

You might try finding a cure for your galloping
pedantism, Iain.

Not at all. You were showing off to someone who had not
the faintest idea what you were talking about. If you
must use a term, then get it right, and then others that
hear it from you will also learn to use the correct term
in the correct sense. You will be talking abut "saxafones" next:-)

I've heard the same phrase used w/r/t to just about
everything from $500,000 cars to $50 prophylactics.
What's your point other than sheer snobbishness?

Listen to a classical recording from the Decca catalogue,
or the catalogue of any classical label of high
reputation. The point will be obvious.

However, Arny, you could be right. Perhaps they are
indeed awful. That would explain why you have so many audio
awards and gold discs on the wall, while companies like
Decca, DGG and Sony Classical have none:-)

Inability to see the difference between megabuck
corporations and a struggling recordist noted.

Perhaps you are struggling because you are not very good?

Iain, perhaps you waste bandwidth making ludicrous and malevelolent posts
like this because you have a poor self-image, once all the bluster and pomp
is stripped away?

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

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

The Neumann M47, M49 and M50 tube mics are still used
by major classical recording companies.

As EFX devices.

First of all, Arny, please get the mnemonic right.

You might try finding a cure for your galloping
pedantism, Iain.

Not at all. You were showing off to someone who had not
the faintest idea what you were talking about. If you
must use a term, then get it right, and then others that
hear it from you will also learn to use the correct term
in the correct sense. You will be talking abut "saxafones" next:-)

I've heard the same phrase used w/r/t to just about
everything from $500,000 cars to $50 prophylactics.
What's your point other than sheer snobbishness?

Listen to a classical recording from the Decca catalogue,
or the catalogue of any classical label of high
reputation. The point will be obvious.

However, Arny, you could be right. Perhaps they are
indeed awful. That would explain why you have so many audio
awards and gold discs on the wall, while companies like
Decca, DGG and Sony Classical have none:-)

Inability to see the difference between megabuck
corporations and a struggling recordist noted.

Perhaps you are struggling because you are not very good?

Iain, perhaps you waste bandwidth making ludicrous and malevelolent posts
like this because you have a poor self-image, once all the bluster and
pomp is stripped away?

Don't let yourself be distracted from the point, Arny. Listen to some
good classical recordings, made with the mics I have mentioned. You
will probably not be able to fault them. Then compare these to
your own work. It's the only way to learn.

Iain

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

The Neumann M47, M49 and M50 tube mics are still used
by major classical recording companies.

As EFX devices.

First of all, Arny, please get the mnemonic right.

You might try finding a cure for your galloping
pedantism, Iain.

Not at all. You were showing off to someone who had not
the faintest idea what you were talking about. If you
must use a term, then get it right, and then others that
hear it from you will also learn to use the correct term
in the correct sense. You will be talking abut "saxafones" next:-)

I've heard the same phrase used w/r/t to just about
everything from $500,000 cars to $50 prophylactics.
What's your point other than sheer snobbishness?

Listen to a classical recording from the Decca catalogue,
or the catalogue of any classical label of high
reputation. The point will be obvious.

However, Arny, you could be right. Perhaps they are
indeed awful. That would explain why you have so many audio
awards and gold discs on the wall, while companies like
Decca, DGG and Sony Classical have none:-)

Inability to see the difference between megabuck
corporations and a struggling recordist noted.

Perhaps you are struggling because you are not very good?

Iain, perhaps you waste bandwidth making ludicrous and malevelolent posts like this because you have a poor self-image, once all
the bluster and pomp is stripped away?

Don't let yourself be distracted from the point, Arny. Listen to some
good classical recordings, made with the mics I have mentioned. You
will probably not be able to fault them. Then compare these to
your own work. It's the only way to learn.

Huh? Where'd you get the idea that Arny could learn anything? Huh?

Sheesh, what a silly idea!

Regards,

Huh?

Iain

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

The Neumann M47, M49 and M50 tube mics are still
used by major classical recording companies.

As EFX devices.

First of all, Arny, please get the mnemonic right.

You might try finding a cure for your galloping
pedantism, Iain.

Not at all. You were showing off to someone who had not
the faintest idea what you were talking about. If you
must use a term, then get it right, and then others that
hear it from you will also learn to use the correct term
in the correct sense. You will be talking abut
"saxafones" next:-)

I've heard the same phrase used w/r/t to just about
everything from $500,000 cars to $50 prophylactics.
What's your point other than sheer snobbishness?

Listen to a classical recording from the Decca
catalogue, or the catalogue of any classical label of high
reputation. The point will be obvious.

However, Arny, you could be right. Perhaps they are
indeed awful. That would explain why you have so many
audio awards and gold discs on the wall, while
companies like Decca, DGG and Sony Classical have
none:-)

Inability to see the difference between megabuck
corporations and a struggling recordist noted.

Perhaps you are struggling because you are not very
good?

Iain, perhaps you waste bandwidth making ludicrous and
malevelolent posts like this because you have a poor
self-image, once all the bluster and pomp is stripped
away?

Don't let yourself be distracted from the point, Arny.

No, all I have to do is wait for 10 seconds or less Iain, and you'll attempt
to do it all by yourself.


Listen to some good classical recordings, made with the
mics I have mentioned.

Typical of your pomp and arrogance, Iain. You seriously think that I need
to listen to more recordings than I have to know what good musicians,
recorded in good rooms, with expensive equipment sounds like?

LOL!

You will probably not be able to fault them.

Iain, there are very few recordings that are perfect to a well-practiced
ear.

Then compare these to your own work. It's the only way to learn.

What I learn Iain is the obvious and generally agreed-upon by all but you.
The core of any good-sounding recording is good musicians, recorded in good
rooms. Been there, done that but not all the time. Giood musicans and good
rooms are luxury that not all of us have at our disposal all of the time.
You lived your life on the gravy train. Enjoy! But you are unwise to not
accept that fact, and you are being malevolent and childish when you use
that in a vain attempt to lord it over others.

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

The Neumann M47, M49 and M50 tube mics are still
used by major classical recording companies.

As EFX devices.

First of all, Arny, please get the mnemonic right.

You might try finding a cure for your galloping
pedantism, Iain.

Not at all. You were showing off to someone who had not
the faintest idea what you were talking about. If you
must use a term, then get it right, and then others that
hear it from you will also learn to use the correct term
in the correct sense. You will be talking abut
"saxafones" next:-)

I've heard the same phrase used w/r/t to just about
everything from $500,000 cars to $50 prophylactics.
What's your point other than sheer snobbishness?

Listen to a classical recording from the Decca
catalogue, or the catalogue of any classical label of high
reputation. The point will be obvious.

However, Arny, you could be right. Perhaps they are
indeed awful. That would explain why you have so many
audio awards and gold discs on the wall, while
companies like Decca, DGG and Sony Classical have
none:-)

Inability to see the difference between megabuck
corporations and a struggling recordist noted.

Perhaps you are struggling because you are not very
good?

Iain, perhaps you waste bandwidth making ludicrous and
malevelolent posts like this because you have a poor
self-image, once all the bluster and pomp is stripped
away?

Don't let yourself be distracted from the point, Arny.

No, all I have to do is wait for 10 seconds or less Iain, and you'll
attempt to do it all by yourself.

Can't we discuss this matter in a sensible way?

Listen to some good classical recordings, made with the
mics I have mentioned.

Typical of your pomp and arrogance, Iain. You seriously think that I need
to listen to more recordings than I have to know what good musicians,
recorded in good rooms, with expensive equipment sounds like?

I am asking you to listen to recordings make with mics which you described
as suitable for EFX :-) Having done so, I am sure you will agree that the
there is a very good reason why these mics are so highly regarded.

You will probably not be able to fault them.

Iain, there are very few recordings that are perfect to a well-practiced
ear.

I won't make the obvious comment:-)

Then compare these to your own work. It's the only way to learn.

What I learn Iain is the obvious and generally agreed-upon by all but you.
The core of any good-sounding recording is good musicians, recorded in
good rooms. Been there, done that but not all the time.

That's only half the story. Production/engineering skills are the other
half. If not, any fool could sit there and "twiddle" as Pinky used
to call it:-) Recording skills are only gained by listening to other
people work, their strengths and their weaknesses, and
learning by them. The same applies to musical skills. Until I
began to discuss recording with you, I never came upon a single
person who ever used the expression, "Been there. Done That"
Every single project is a new experience, a challenge from which
something can be learned.

Good musicans and good rooms are luxury that not all of us have at our
disposal all of the time.

Agreed.

You lived your life on the gravy train. Enjoy! But you are unwise to not
accept that fact.

It has taken years of study, and very hard work.

and you are being malevolent and childish when you use that in a vain
attempt to lord it over others.

Me? malevolent? I am your greatest fan, Arny:-)
I am attempting to hold a friendly discussion with you
about music recording. No more no less.

Regards
Iain