Spo how do you rate YOUR skills ? [Archive]

Frank Stearns

September 22nd 15, 06:20 PM

JackA > writes:

>On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 9:59:05 AM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
>> JackA > writes:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 3:24:25 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
>> >> http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/a_handy_quiz_to_rate_your_audio_skills_knowledge_p ersonality_type/
>> >>
>> >> geoff
>>
>> >Over my head.
>>
>> It's funny as hell, if you been in both the PA and recording worlds.

>Oh, okay, nothing serious.

>Like this one...

>17) Your mix sounds amazing because...
>--You use a lot of expensive outboard gear - 7 points
>--You use a really huge mixing board - 6 points
>--You have lots and lots of inputs from stage - 7 points
>--All of the above - 0 points

>Aren't mixing boards out of date??

Uh, noooo. We still need a way to combine signals. Perhaps you're referring to
"virtual" v. "real" consoles.

I don't mind a virtual console for recording (in fact, have gotten to prefer it
for mixing, though I do sometimes miss an analog console for tracking).

But for PA, a "virtual-only" console would be a cluster-F of epic proportions.

Even Yamaha's "Stagemix" (a cute little paged virtual console app on an I-pad that
will remotely-control their big digital PA consoles) is not reliable or fast enough
for mixing a show.

It's great for walking the house during sound checks and mixing monitors while on
stage with the performers, but wireless connections tend to fail when you need them
the most -- such as when some dolt on stage points a mic at a monitor, the system
starts into oscillation, and YOU suddenly can't get to the damn virtual fader or
virtual mute button to remedy the problem.

>Do they have digital ones? Assume yes.

Yes, many years now. Some are quite good. And if set up correctly, you can be faster
on a digital console than a similarly-equipped analog console, and in a much smaller
footprint.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

Mike Rivers[_2_]

September 22nd 15, 08:58 PM

On 9/22/2015 11:54 AM, JackA wrote:

> 17) Your mix sounds amazing because...
> --You use a lot of expensive outboard gear - 7 points
> --You use a really huge mixing board - 6 points
> --You have lots and lots of inputs from stage - 7 points
> --All of the above - 0 points
>
> Aren't mixing boards out of date??

Some smaller studios and mix-only and mastering studios are built around
a DAW with not a mixing console in sight. But tracking studios that have
a lick of sense have a mixing console for flexibility and true zero
latency input monitoring.

Nearly all live sound reinforcement uses a mixing board. When you have
to react quickly you don't have time to fool with clicks and menus.

> Do they have digital ones? Assume yes.

Yes. A digital mixing console offers a number of advantages for live
mixing. Nearly all major shows and many small shows and bands who carry
their own sound equipment use a digital console these days. But there's
trouble brewing from the rise in availability of "knobless digital
mixers" that are operated from a phone, tablet, or computer. They're
cheap because they have no control surface, and when something becomes
cheap, eventually what it attempts to replace will become unavailable.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

JackA

September 22nd 15, 09:10 PM

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 3:59:04 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 9/22/2015 11:54 AM, JackA wrote:
>
> > 17) Your mix sounds amazing because...
> > --You use a lot of expensive outboard gear - 7 points
> > --You use a really huge mixing board - 6 points
> > --You have lots and lots of inputs from stage - 7 points
> > --All of the above - 0 points
> >
> > Aren't mixing boards out of date??
>
> Some smaller studios and mix-only and mastering studios are built around
> a DAW with not a mixing console in sight. But tracking studios that have
> a lick of sense have a mixing console for flexibility and true zero
> latency input monitoring.
>
> Nearly all live sound reinforcement uses a mixing board. When you have
> to react quickly you don't have time to fool with clicks and menus.
>
> > Do they have digital ones? Assume yes.
>
> Yes. A digital mixing console offers a number of advantages for live
> mixing. Nearly all major shows and many small shows and bands who carry
> their own sound equipment use a digital console these days. But there's
> trouble brewing from the rise in availability of "knobless digital
> mixers" that are operated from a phone, tablet, or computer. They're
> cheap because they have no control surface, and when something becomes
> cheap, eventually what it attempts to replace will become unavailable.
>
>
>
> --
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Mike, thanks!! I'm sure some people know one way of doing something and they wish to stay that way. Like, someone asked Alan Parson if he'd consider digital processing, he replied that he didn't know. However, in particular cases, mixing consoles allow simplicity.

Knob-less? Keep me posted if you can!!

Thanks.

Jack

Angus Kerr

September 23rd 15, 09:44 AM

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 9:59:04 PM UTC+2, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 9/22/2015 11:54 AM, JackA wrote:
>
> > 17) Your mix sounds amazing because...
> > --You use a lot of expensive outboard gear - 7 points
> > --You use a really huge mixing board - 6 points
> > --You have lots and lots of inputs from stage - 7 points
> > --All of the above - 0 points
> >
> > Aren't mixing boards out of date??
>
> Some smaller studios and mix-only and mastering studios are built around
> a DAW with not a mixing console in sight. But tracking studios that have
> a lick of sense have a mixing console for flexibility and true zero
> latency input monitoring.
>
> Nearly all live sound reinforcement uses a mixing board. When you have
> to react quickly you don't have time to fool with clicks and menus.
>
> > Do they have digital ones? Assume yes.
>
> Yes. A digital mixing console offers a number of advantages for live
> mixing. Nearly all major shows and many small shows and bands who carry
> their own sound equipment use a digital console these days. But there's
> trouble brewing from the rise in availability of "knobless digital
> mixers" that are operated from a phone, tablet, or computer. They're
> cheap because they have no control surface, and when something becomes
> cheap, eventually what it attempts to replace will become unavailable.
>
>
>
> --
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

I think one of the major advantages with digital mixers for live work, particularly festivals, is that you can save a number of scenes for each act's live settings. So after their sound check, you can save their monitor and eq settings, and then do another one and then recall the original when that band walks on stage. My experience on the performer side of the mic is that the sound engineers are too lazy to even save the settings, and when you walk on stage for your act where the monitor level was set perfectly, the monitor which was there, is now gone, and you are frantically trying to get some sound. An electric violin without a monitor CANNOT be played. If you can't hear what you are doing, you cannot pitch your notes accurately.

At a particular festival that I was playing with (electric violin) with a dear friend, who was headlining (I think he had a 1 1/2 hour slot), there was a momentary power interruption. Just 5 seconds. I know this because my day job is a power engineer and I probably set the dead time for that particular recloser on that network. Anyhow, the whole rig went out. No problem, the power was back in 5 seconds. Let's go again!

Then the stage hand comes out and says, sorry, the digital desk takes 20 minutes to reboot. We were only half way through the set, just getting ready to start ripping up the tempo for the finale. We had to abandon the show and walk off stage - it was devastating. If it had been analog, we would have just carried on. I'll take a scratchy fader over a dead digital rig anyday..

Even though I am a follower of technology, and I really enjoy it, folks don't always appreciate that a change of technology just changes your problems.. It takes the old ones away and gives you new ones you never thought of. So that sound company should have foresaw the power interruption and put at least their desk on a UPS. But that costs money, so they didn't.

With analog, we would have completed the show.

-A.

geoff

September 23rd 15, 11:12 AM

On 23/09/2015 8:44 p.m., Angus Kerr wrote:
UPS. But that
> costs money, so they didn't.
>
> With analog, we would have completed the show.

Not if a main out fader died. At least not without a panic and some
frantic workarounds.

geoff

Mike Rivers[_2_]

September 23rd 15, 12:18 PM

On 9/23/2015 4:44 AM, Angus Kerr wrote:
> I think one of the major advantages with digital mixers for live
> work, particularly festivals, is that you can save a number of scenes
> for each act's live settings. So after their sound check, you can
> save their monitor and eq settings, and then do another one and then
> recall the original when that band walks on stage.

You have festivals with sound checks? What a luxury. I can see the
value for a week long festival where you have the same acts every day,
or a weekend festival where an act may go on twice in a day. But the
real advantage is for touring bands that do the same show night after
night, or small bands that mix themselves from from the stage who have
made presets for particular songs or instrument changes.

> My experience on
> the performer side of the mic is that the sound engineers are too
> lazy to even save the settings, and when you walk on stage for your
> act where the monitor level was set perfectly, the monitor which was
> there, is now gone, and you are frantically trying to get some sound.

That's a problem that a digital console can't solve. But saving
settings, even the state of the board when the set is over, is one more
chore and one more thing to think about before you can start getting
ready for the next band. If you don't have to leave the console you can
make that part of your routine, but at nearly every change, I'm up at
the stage telling people where to put mics and monitors or plugging in
direct boxes. It's hard to find good help for what are usually
volunteer-run festivals.

> At a particular festival that I was playing with (electric violin)
> with a dear friend, who was headlining (I think he had a 1 1/2 hour
> slot), there was a momentary power interruption. Just 5 seconds.
> Then the stage hand comes out and says, sorry, the digital desk takes
> 20 minutes to reboot.

That's pretty outrageous, but even 20 or 30 seconds can seem like an
eternity when there's no sound. All modern digital consoles continually
update the settings and store them in non-volatile memory so that at
least the console powers up the way it was when power was lost. But I've
worked with more than one analog console that loses all the mute setups
when power is lost.

> Even though I am a follower of technology, and I really enjoy it,
> folks don't always appreciate that a change of technology just
> changes your problems. It takes the old ones away and gives you new
> ones you never thought of.

Exactly. But sometimes you don't get the choice to stick with your old
problems. The rental company brings out a digital console and you have
10 minutes to figure out how to get sound out of it before the band
comes on stage.

> So that sound company should have foresaw
> the power interruption and put at least their desk on a UPS. But that
> costs money, so they didn't.

When I bring my Mackie HDR24/96 out to a remote gig, I bring a small UPS
for it. The recorder writes to RAM and dumps it to the hard drive about
every 15 minutes (or when the Stop button is pressed) rather than
streaming to the drive full time (1998 design) so without being able to
do an orderly shutdown, it's possible to lose as much as the last 15
minutes of the recording.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Mike Rivers[_2_]

September 23rd 15, 12:23 PM

On 9/23/2015 6:12 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 23/09/2015 8:44 p.m., Angus Kerr wrote:
>> With analog, we would have completed the show.

> Not if a main out fader died. At least not without a panic and some
> frantic workarounds.

The thing about a digital console is that, other than failure of a mic
preamp, switch, or fader, when something goes wrong, you don't lose only
one channel or one output. If you have a few spare channels and outputs,
with an analog console you can usually get back on the air pretty
quickly, but you usually don't have that opportunity with a digital
console.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Frank Stearns

September 23rd 15, 12:42 PM

Angus Kerr > writes:

-snips-

>I think one of the major advantages with digital mixers for live work, part=
>icularly festivals, is that you can save a number of scenes for each act's =
>live settings. So after their sound check, you can save their monitor and e=
>q settings, and then do another one and then recall the original when that =

Yes, indeed, this is a handy feature of modern digital consoles.

-snip-

>Then the stage hand comes out and says, sorry, the digital desk takes 20 mi=
>nutes to reboot. We were only half way through the set, just getting ready =

20 minutes??? That would be one desk to stay away from. Do you remember what they
were using?

But beyond that, these days its negligent *not* to have a UPS in the rack to protect
and sustain (at least for a few minutes) the digital components. Too much depends on
this gear.

Many parts of the power grid world over are somewhat rickety, and 10-500 ms
brown outs or switching drop-outs are far too common.

Even when the grid is modestly newer, problems occur. I'm up in the high desert
mountains of the American Southwest; lightning hits are common and thus 20-40 ms
protection brownouts (my best guess) are common.

According to the event counters on the two larger UPS units installed here (one on
the audio gear; one on the phone and data gear), we average one such event per day.
Some stormy days it might be 6-12 events per day (storm might not even be in our
immediate area); otherwise a very calm week might go by trip-free.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

Angus Kerr

September 23rd 15, 01:11 PM

> You have festivals with sound checks? What a luxury. I can see the
> value for a week long festival where you have the same acts every day,
> or a weekend festival where an act may go on twice in a day. But the
> real advantage is for touring bands that do the same show night after
> night, or small bands that mix themselves from from the stage who have
> made presets for particular songs or instrument changes.

Agreed.

Would have been nice on a show I did with 2 3 night runs (again with electric violin - do I ever learn?) where after the sound check and the show started I had nothing. Playing in position on the violin without hearing what you are doing is like listening to a catfight. After that I dragged in my own powered monitor every day to make sure I had sound.

They were using an analogue desk. But even then, if you set a monitor level at sound check, surely all you do is mute the channel and leave the aux send as it is? Why bother to do a sound check if you're going to reset the monitor level?

>
> > My experience on
> > the performer side of the mic is that the sound engineers are too
> > lazy to even save the settings, and when you walk on stage for your
> > act where the monitor level was set perfectly, the monitor which was
> > there, is now gone, and you are frantically trying to get some sound.
>
> That's a problem that a digital console can't solve. But saving
> settings, even the state of the board when the set is over, is one more
> chore and one more thing to think about before you can start getting
> ready for the next band. If you don't have to leave the console you can
> make that part of your routine, but at nearly every change, I'm up at
> the stage telling people where to put mics and monitors or plugging in
> direct boxes. It's hard to find good help for what are usually
> volunteer-run festivals.

This festival had plenty of hands on deck, all paid. No overworked sound engineer running up to the stage and back to the console. At a volunteer festival, I would have more understanding. Plus, we only had a bodrun, acoustic, two violins and a vocal mic on stage. Not exactly high load. So I'm not knocking the engineer, I've been both sides of the mic. Sometimes you are unable to deliver good sound. I mixed sound once where I had to use all of the sweepable parametrics to get rid of a nasty low mid feedback/resonance. The Toms sounded like cardboard. The gig sounded thin and reedy. But there wasn't much I could do.

> > Then the stage hand comes out and says, sorry, the digital desk takes
> > 20 minutes to reboot.
>
> That's pretty outrageous, but even 20 or 30 seconds can seem like an
> eternity when there's no sound. All modern digital consoles continually
> update the settings and store them in non-volatile memory so that at
> least the console powers up the way it was when power was lost. But I've
> worked with more than one analog console that loses all the mute setups
> when power is lost.

>
> > Even though I am a follower of technology, and I really enjoy it,
> > folks don't always appreciate that a change of technology just
> > changes your problems. It takes the old ones away and gives you new
> > ones you never thought of.
>
> Exactly. But sometimes you don't get the choice to stick with your old
> problems. The rental company brings out a digital console and you have
> 10 minutes to figure out how to get sound out of it before the band
> comes on stage.

>
> > So that sound company should have foresaw
> > the power interruption and put at least their desk on a UPS. But that
> > costs money, so they didn't.
>
> When I bring my Mackie HDR24/96 out to a remote gig, I bring a small UPS
> for it. The recorder writes to RAM and dumps it to the hard drive about
> every 15 minutes (or when the Stop button is pressed) rather than
> streaming to the drive full time (1998 design) so without being able to
> do an orderly shutdown, it's possible to lose as much as the last 15
> minutes of the recording.

You are being proactive and responsible, not just 'taking a chance'. I'd be happy doing a performance knowing you were in control....

Angus Kerr

September 23rd 15, 01:22 PM

>
> >Then the stage hand comes out and says, sorry, the digital desk takes 20 mi=
> >nutes to reboot. We were only half way through the set, just getting ready =
>
> 20 minutes??? That would be one desk to stay away from. Do you remember what they
> were using?

No idea, but I was pretty flabbergasted. 20 minutes. But being on stage, no sound, people getting restless, you just do as you are told and get off. But I really felt for him, he was the headline act and really got kicked in the ***

>
> But beyond that, these days its negligent *not* to have a UPS in the rack to protect
> and sustain (at least for a few minutes) the digital components. Too much depends on
> this gear.

I would have thought so. But.....

>
> Many parts of the power grid world over are somewhat rickety, and 10-500 ms
> brown outs or switching drop-outs are far too common.

10 - 200ms is very good. Even half a second isn't as bad as it can get. The power supplies should tolerate modest voltage depressions.

>
> Even when the grid is modestly newer, problems occur. I'm up in the high desert
> mountains of the American Southwest; lightning hits are common and thus 20-40 ms
> protection brownouts (my best guess) are common.

This was a mountain festival. There was a thunderstorm around, and there was a strike (I presume) on the direct feeder that was feeding us. So we lost power completely.

I would say that the best possible brownout scenario where a short circuit happens on an adjacent feeder (to the one you are on) is about 100ms. That's awesome protection, 20 - 40ms, that's something else - perhaps LV circuit breakers operating. A brownout (we call it 'voltage dip') out in the rural area could last as long as 2 seconds.
>
> According to the event counters on the two larger UPS units installed here (one on
> the audio gear; one on the phone and data gear), we average one such event per day.
> Some stormy days it might be 6-12 events per day (storm might not even be in our
> immediate area);

That's cause the short circuit affects all parts of the network that are within impedance range, or the source impedance of the entire network is poor..

otherwise a very calm week might go by trip-free.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
> --
> .

Scott Dorsey

September 23rd 15, 02:40 PM

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On 9/23/2015 6:12 AM, geoff wrote:
>> On 23/09/2015 8:44 p.m., Angus Kerr wrote:
>>> With analog, we would have completed the show.
>
>> Not if a main out fader died. At least not without a panic and some
>> frantic workarounds.
>
>The thing about a digital console is that, other than failure of a mic
>preamp, switch, or fader, when something goes wrong, you don't lose only
>one channel or one output. If you have a few spare channels and outputs,
>with an analog console you can usually get back on the air pretty
>quickly, but you usually don't have that opportunity with a digital
>console.

One of my worst memories of working in the broadcast industry was
hot-plugging modules on the console while the DJ was doing a show....
we need digital gear that is designed to allow that sort of thing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

geoff

September 23rd 15, 08:58 PM

On 24/09/2015 12:22 a.m., Angus Kerr wrote:
>>
>>> Then the stage hand comes out and says, sorry, the digital desk
>>> takes 20 mi= nutes to reboot. We were only half way through the
>>> set, just getting ready =
>>
>> 20 minutes??? That would be one desk to stay away from. Do you
>> remember what they were using?

I'd say that somebody with an agenda was telling a story, or there was a
very sick d-mixer.

Haven't heard a huge buzz about d-mixers taking a long time to start up.
Or failing at all for that matter .

geoff

[email protected]

September 23rd 15, 09:41 PM

So, speaking of festivals, I have an interesting story.
This weekend, we attended an outdoor oldies festival.
As we walked toward the seating area, I heard strong deep bass, and since
I enjoy bass, I was looking forward to the show.
We found a spot to sit, set up our chairs and settled down to enjoy the show.

After a few minutes I noticed, what happened to the bass?

I got up and walked around and lo and behold, as I walked toward the direction of the sound desk, the bass was back. The bass was great in many areas of the audience, but in the area we happened to sit, it was weak.

Looking at the speakers, I see they had two flying vertical arrays, one on
each side of the stage, and under each array was a group of subs. so i see
there were two widely separated groups of subs.

My conclusion is that it is a bad idea to have 2 widely separated groups of subs because even if you wire them with the correct polarity (phasing) due to the long wavelengths, there will always be some areas of the audience where there is cancellation.

Is it common practice to have 2 groups of subs?

The acts were great and we enjoyed the show, despite the lack of bass.

Mark

Les Cargill[_4_]

September 23rd 15, 11:33 PM

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 9/23/2015 6:12 AM, geoff wrote:
>> On 23/09/2015 8:44 p.m., Angus Kerr wrote:
>>> With analog, we would have completed the show.
>
>> Not if a main out fader died. At least not without a panic and some
>> frantic workarounds.
>
> The thing about a digital console is that, other than failure of a mic
> preamp, switch, or fader, when something goes wrong, you don't lose only
> one channel or one output. If you have a few spare channels and outputs,
> with an analog console you can usually get back on the air pretty
> quickly, but you usually don't have that opportunity with a digital
> console.
>

My favorite digital console story is on a Presonus. The singer uses a
"vocal processor". When the singer would hit a certain patch
on the "vocal processor", the Presonus would tolerate it
for about fifteen seconds, then crowbar. Power-on reset.

Hilarity ensured.

--
Les Cargill

Scott Dorsey

September 23rd 15, 11:51 PM

> wrote:
>My conclusion is that it is a bad idea to have 2 widely separated groups of subs because even if you wire them with the correct polarity (phasing) due to the long wavelengths, there will always be some areas of the audience where there is cancellation.
>
>Is it common practice to have 2 groups of subs?

If this is done properly, and "properly" might mean using delays, then the
overall system efficiency is improved and leakage is dramatically reduced.
You arrange it so that the areas of cancellation are to the sides where people
are not sitting, putting all the energy into the seats and none of the energy
into the food trucks.

Now, sometimes it's impossible to do it properly, and those situations
include outdoor events in the round where people are sitting in a 180 or
even 360 degree arc around the stage. And in those situations, you bring
a different system.

>The acts were great and we enjoyed the show, despite the lack of bass.

This is why it's important for the PA guy to walk the hall. You notice
something like this, you get one of the stacks shut off. Mind you, it can
be hard to explain to the roadies how shutting speakers down will make the
bass louder...
--scott

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

Mike Rivers[_2_]

September 24th 15, 12:11 AM

On 9/23/2015 6:33 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> My favorite digital console story is on a Presonus. The singer uses a
> "vocal processor". When the singer would hit a certain patch
> on the "vocal processor", the Presonus would tolerate it
> for about fifteen seconds, then crowbar. Power-on reset.

My favorite PreSonus StudioLive console story is that when the meters
were set to display channel input levels and everything got really loud
at the same time so all the meters had all of their LEDs turned on, the
power supply took a dump. The company did the right thing once they
figured out what was happening and replaced the power supply in the
mixers that were out in the field. The power supply wasn't under-rated,
its protection was just too conservative.

It was funny, though, because after one person reported that problem on
the forum, everybody else had to try it, and the reports flooded in.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Eric Weaver

September 24th 15, 02:36 AM

On 09/23/2015 06:40 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

>
> One of my worst memories of working in the broadcast industry was
> hot-plugging modules on the console while the DJ was doing a show....

.... and putting a big "thump" in the middle of a song because I forgot
to put it on only Mono bus before switching it on...

> we need digital gear that is designed to allow that sort of thing.

There's a bit more of it lately but not enough.

Trevor

September 24th 15, 10:39 AM

On 23/09/2015 9:23 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 9/23/2015 6:12 AM, geoff wrote:
>> On 23/09/2015 8:44 p.m., Angus Kerr wrote:
>>> With analog, we would have completed the show.
>
>> Not if a main out fader died. At least not without a panic and some
>> frantic workarounds.
>
> The thing about a digital console is that, other than failure of a mic
> preamp, switch, or fader, when something goes wrong, you don't lose only
> one channel or one output. If you have a few spare channels and outputs,
> with an analog console you can usually get back on the air pretty
> quickly,

Not when the main power supply blows up, a fairly common failure mode
for some cheap mixers with switch mode supplies.

Trevor.

JackA

September 24th 15, 01:36 PM

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 4:41:21 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> So, speaking of festivals, I have an interesting story.
> This weekend, we attended an outdoor oldies festival.
> As we walked toward the seating area, I heard strong deep bass, and since
> I enjoy bass, I was looking forward to the show.
> We found a spot to sit, set up our chairs and settled down to enjoy the show.
>
> After a few minutes I noticed, what happened to the bass?
>
> I got up and walked around and lo and behold, as I walked toward the direction of the sound desk, the bass was back. The bass was great in many areas of the audience, but in the area we happened to sit, it was weak.
>
> Looking at the speakers, I see they had two flying vertical arrays, one on
> each side of the stage, and under each array was a group of subs. so i see
> there were two widely separated groups of subs.
>
> My conclusion is that it is a bad idea to have 2 widely separated groups of subs because even if you wire them with the correct polarity (phasing) due to the long wavelengths, there will always be some areas of the audience where there is cancellation.
>
> Is it common practice to have 2 groups of subs?
>
> The acts were great and we enjoyed the show, despite the lack of bass.

You should have found the sound engineers and suggested a different profession, flipping burgers! :-)

Jack
>
>
> Mark

Scott Dorsey

September 24th 15, 03:02 PM

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 23/09/2015 9:23 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 9/23/2015 6:12 AM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 23/09/2015 8:44 p.m., Angus Kerr wrote:
>>>> With analog, we would have completed the show.
>>
>>> Not if a main out fader died. At least not without a panic and some
>>> frantic workarounds.
>>
>> The thing about a digital console is that, other than failure of a mic
>> preamp, switch, or fader, when something goes wrong, you don't lose only
>> one channel or one output. If you have a few spare channels and outputs,
>> with an analog console you can usually get back on the air pretty
>> quickly,
>
>Not when the main power supply blows up, a fairly common failure mode
>for some cheap mixers with switch mode supplies.

That's why the expensive mixers come either with redundant supplies, or the
rental house ships you two Midas supplies in one rack so you can swap over
in the event of a failure.

I worked with one PA guy who liked to split everything from his console out
to the house board so that if everything went totally wrong with the console
he could mix the show from the house board in an emergency. It sure beats
mixing house sound from the monitor console.
--scott

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

Peter Larsen[_3_]

September 24th 15, 10:21 PM

On 23-09-2015 21:41, wrote

> So, speaking of festivals, I have an interesting story.
> This weekend, we attended an outdoor oldies festival.
> As we walked toward the seating area, I heard strong deep bass, and since
> I enjoy bass, I was looking forward to the show.

> We found a spot to sit, set up our chairs and settled down to enjoy the show.
> After a few minutes I noticed, what happened to the bass?

> I got up and walked around and lo and behold, as I walked toward the
> direction of the sound desk, the bass was back. The bass was great
> in many areas of the audience, but in the area we happened to sit,
> it was weak.

Multiple sources always lead to comb filtering.

> Looking at the speakers, I see they had two flying vertical arrays, one on
> each side of the stage, and under each array was a group of subs. so i see
> there were two widely separated groups of subs.

All is explained.

> My conclusion is that it is a bad idea to have 2 widely separated
> groups of subs because even if you wire them with the correct polarity
> (phasing)

Do not say phase unless you mean it, when yuo mean polarity say polarity.

> due to the long wavelengths, there will always be some areas
> of the audience where there is cancellation.

It has nothing to do with the wavelength per se. Midrange units side to
side create the most wonderful combfilters that allow the audience to
get one ear damaged and one not. What has with the wavelength to do is
the size of the loud and not so loud spots.

> Is it common practice to have 2 groups of subs?

Yes. Just as it was common practice if you had 4 2350 horns each side to
put them side by side for optimum dispersion. Which they would have had
if stacked into a twisted column. It took six years to get that message
across, eventually most setups got the stacking sensible.

> The acts were great and we enjoyed the show, despite the lack of bass.

In the scenario you describe they should have arranged the subs in one
line from stack to stack, ie. a column on its side. It causes a bit of
loss upwards, but keeps the bass reasonably uniform in the audience
area. I saw a diagram of a solution with a second row of (fewer) subs
behind the audience area time-aligned to be in opposite polarity and
aimed backwards to stop spill-over. The simulated chart was impressive
in that regard, a rectangular lawn full of bass and fairly rapid
fall-off outside it.

> Mark

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

JackA

September 24th 15, 11:05 PM

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 5:24:56 PM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote:
> On 23-09-2015 21:41, wrote
>

>
> Do not say phase unless you mean it, when yuo mean polarity say polarity.

Excuse me, but when two stereo speakers are incorrectly wired, they are known to be out of phase. Where is the problem, Peter?

Jack

>
> > due to the long wavelengths, there will always be some areas
> > of the audience where there is cancellation.
>
> It has nothing to do with the wavelength per se. Midrange units side to
> side create the most wonderful combfilters that allow the audience to
> get one ear damaged and one not. What has with the wavelength to do is
> the size of the loud and not so loud spots.
>
> > Is it common practice to have 2 groups of subs?
>
> Yes. Just as it was common practice if you had 4 2350 horns each side to
> put them side by side for optimum dispersion. Which they would have had
> if stacked into a twisted column. It took six years to get that message
> across, eventually most setups got the stacking sensible.
>
> > The acts were great and we enjoyed the show, despite the lack of bass.
>
> In the scenario you describe they should have arranged the subs in one
> line from stack to stack, ie. a column on its side. It causes a bit of
> loss upwards, but keeps the bass reasonably uniform in the audience
> area. I saw a diagram of a solution with a second row of (fewer) subs
> behind the audience area time-aligned to be in opposite polarity and
> aimed backwards to stop spill-over. The simulated chart was impressive
> in that regard, a rectangular lawn full of bass and fairly rapid
> fall-off outside it.
>
> > Mark
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

[email protected]

September 25th 15, 01:20 PM

JackA wrote: "Excuse me, but when two stereo speakers are incorrectly wired, they are known to be out of phase.
Where is the problem, Peter?

Jack
- show quoted text -"

Sorry Jack - but Larsen is correct on this matter. Polarity is reversed when the
leads to one speaker are switched. Phase is a time-related effect. The sound
of speakers wires out of polarity sounds like out-of-phase, but out-of-phase is
the wrong term.

John Williamson

September 25th 15, 03:57 PM

On 25/09/2015 13:20, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "Excuse me, but when two stereo speakers are incorrectly wired, they are known to be out of phase.
> Where is the problem, Peter?
>
> Jack
> - show quoted text -"
>
> Sorry Jack - but Larsen is correct on this matter. Polarity is reversed when the
> leads to one speaker are switched. Phase is a time-related effect. The sound
> of speakers wires out of polarity sounds like out-of-phase, but out-of-phase is
> the wrong term.
>
Maybe I'm wrong, but I when I refer to the polarity on a speaker, I
refer to it's absolute phase (Correct phasing here being the cone moving
in for negative voltage relative to the ground connection, out for
positive), while I use phase to refer to the relative output from a pair
of speakers. If both cones go in and out together, they are in phase. If
the listener is not positioned centrally between the speakers, then the
apparent relative phasing at the listening position is fouled up anyway,
hence the dead spots for bass in the auditorium at the concert.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

JackA

September 25th 15, 04:17 PM

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 10:57:35 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 25/09/2015 13:20, wrote:
> > JackA wrote: "Excuse me, but when two stereo speakers are incorrectly wired, they are known to be out of phase.
> > Where is the problem, Peter?
> >
> > Jack
> > - show quoted text -"
> >
> > Sorry Jack - but Larsen is correct on this matter. Polarity is reversed when the
> > leads to one speaker are switched. Phase is a time-related effect. The sound
> > of speakers wires out of polarity sounds like out-of-phase, but out-of-phase is
> > the wrong term.
> >
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I when I refer to the polarity on a speaker, I
> refer to it's absolute phase (Correct phasing here being the cone moving
> in for negative voltage relative to the ground connection, out for
> positive), while I use phase to refer to the relative output from a pair
> of speakers. If both cones go in and out together, they are in phase. If
> the listener is not positioned centrally between the speakers, then the
> apparent relative phasing at the listening position is fouled up anyway,
> hence the dead spots for bass in the auditorium at the concert.

We agree. If I take one stereo track and advance or retard it, I could also replicate a polarity change.

Where a polarity was not marked on speakers, I'd just use a 1.5V battery and observe the cone movement.

Jack
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

Scott Dorsey

September 25th 15, 04:24 PM

John Williamson > wrote:
>Maybe I'm wrong, but I when I refer to the polarity on a speaker, I
>refer to it's absolute phase (Correct phasing here being the cone moving
>in for negative voltage relative to the ground connection, out for
>positive), while I use phase to refer to the relative output from a pair
>of speakers.

A lot of people do this, but it is not correct.

>If both cones go in and out together, they are in phase. If
>the listener is not positioned centrally between the speakers, then the
>apparent relative phasing at the listening position is fouled up anyway,
>hence the dead spots for bass in the auditorium at the concert.

This is properly called "relative polarity." If you think about it, you
will see it really doesn't have anything to do with phase, which is in a
sense a kind of delay.

I know people throw the word "phase" around to mean a lot of things that
have little or nothing to do with phase. They refer to both absolute and
relative polarity as being "out of phase." They refer to comb filtering
as "phasing." None of this is strictly speaking correct although I have
given up on trying to correct people.

I do still correct people for saying "wire" when they mean cable and
"filming" when they mean "video recording," though.
--scott

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

JackA

September 25th 15, 04:31 PM

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 8:20:15 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "Excuse me, but when two stereo speakers are incorrectly wired, they are known to be out of phase.
> Where is the problem, Peter?
>
> Jack
> - show quoted text -"
>
> Sorry Jack - but Larsen is correct on this matter. Polarity is reversed when the
> leads to one speaker are switched. Phase is a time-related effect. The sound
> of speakers wires out of polarity sounds like out-of-phase, but out-of-phase is
> the wrong term.

Mark, as I mentioned to John, phasing can also change polarity. If I take a 30 Hz sine-wave, in stereo, and change the phasing, by advancing or retarding one of the two stereo tracks, I can also change polarity. Both are time related.

Jack

Roy W. Rising[_2_]

September 25th 15, 04:47 PM

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
[snip]
>
> I do still correct people for saying "wire" when they mean cable and
> "filming" when they mean "video recording," though.
> --scott

Throughout the era of videotape recording, I gave 'em slack. After all,
videotape is a kind of "film". Now that we've gone digital, I'm seeking a
shorter expression than "video recording". "Videoing" doesn't work for me.
Any suggestions?

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

John Williamson

September 25th 15, 04:58 PM

On 25/09/2015 16:17, JackA wrote:
> On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 10:57:35 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
>> Maybe I'm wrong, but I when I refer to the polarity on a speaker, I
>> refer to it's absolute phase (Correct phasing here being the cone moving
>> in for negative voltage relative to the ground connection, out for
>> positive), while I use phase to refer to the relative output from a pair
>> of speakers. If both cones go in and out together, they are in phase. If
>> the listener is not positioned centrally between the speakers, then the
>> apparent relative phasing at the listening position is fouled up anyway,
>> hence the dead spots for bass in the auditorium at the concert.
>
> We agree. If I take one stereo track and advance or retard it, I could also replicate a polarity change.
>
Only for a single frequency sine, triangular or square wave and only for
a delay of half the cycle time or odd multiple thereof. For any other
waveform or delay, you get comb filtering in the sound field which
varies with the position of the listener, the delay and the frequency.

Any complex wave, such as any music I've ever heard, and you get an
undesirable "phasing" sound, which some guitarists use to good effect.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Peter Larsen[_3_]

September 25th 15, 05:19 PM

On 24-09-2015 23:05, JackA wrote:

> On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 5:24:56 PM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote:
>> On 23-09-2015 21:41, wrote

>> Do not say phase unless you mean it, when yuo mean polarity say polarity.

> Excuse me, but when two stereo speakers are incorrectly wired,
> they are known to be out of phase. Where is the problem, Peter?

The proper statement is that they are wired with opposite polarity.

> Jack

- Peter Larsen

Scott Dorsey

September 25th 15, 05:21 PM

Roy W. Rising > wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>> I do still correct people for saying "wire" when they mean cable and
>> "filming" when they mean "video recording," though.
>
>Throughout the era of videotape recording, I gave 'em slack. After all,
>videotape is a kind of "film". Now that we've gone digital, I'm seeking a
>shorter expression than "video recording". "Videoing" doesn't work for me.
>Any suggestions?

If it's perforated, you're filming! If it's not perforated, you're taping!

These days, though, most folks aren't filming OR taping... I don't have a
good word but 'shooting' is sufficiently generic to be inoffensive.
--scott

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

Peter Larsen[_3_]

September 25th 15, 05:26 PM

On 25-09-2015 16:31, JackA wrote:

> On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 8:20:15 AM UTC-4, wrote:

>> JackA wrote: "Excuse me, but when two stereo speakers are incorrectly wired,
>> they are known to be out of phase.
>> Where is the problem, Peter?

>> Sorry Jack - but Larsen is correct on this matter. Polarity is reversed when the
>> leads to one speaker are switched. Phase is a time-related effect. The sound
>> of speakers wires out of polarity sounds like out-of-phase, but out-of-phase is
>> the wrong term.

> Mark, as I mentioned to John, phasing can also change polarity.

NO!. Use as sin squared pulse and get wiser. Or a sinewave with second
harmonic. Or look at the asymmetry of real world sound. No time delay
makes that change. Polarity inversion does. THAT is why it is necessary
to use the proper words.

> If I take a 30 Hz sine-wave, in stereo, and change the phasing,
> by advancing or retarding one of the two stereo tracks, I can
> also change polarity.

No. Please commence actual thinking. The polarity of the wave is defined
when it starts or via the coordinate system referenced. That definition
is not altered by delay of the wave.

> Jack

- Peter Larsen

Peter Larsen[_3_]

September 25th 15, 05:28 PM

On 25-09-2015 16:47, Roy W. Rising wrote:

> (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> [snip]

>> I do still correct people for saying "wire" when they mean cable and
>> "filming" when they mean "video recording," though.

>> --scott

> Throughout the era of videotape recording, I gave 'em slack. After all,
> videotape is a kind of "film". Now that we've gone digital, I'm seeking a
> shorter expression than "video recording". "Videoing" doesn't work for me.
> Any suggestions?

Film. Movies are digital, video is digital, there is no difference.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

John Williamson

September 25th 15, 05:40 PM

On 25/09/2015 16:24, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> John Williamson > wrote:
>> Maybe I'm wrong, but I when I refer to the polarity on a speaker, I
>> refer to it's absolute phase (Correct phasing here being the cone moving
>> in for negative voltage relative to the ground connection, out for
>> positive), while I use phase to refer to the relative output from a pair
>> of speakers.
>
> A lot of people do this, but it is not correct.
>
>> If both cones go in and out together, they are in phase. If
>> the listener is not positioned centrally between the speakers, then the
>> apparent relative phasing at the listening position is fouled up anyway,
>> hence the dead spots for bass in the auditorium at the concert.
>
> This is properly called "relative polarity." If you think about it, you
> will see it really doesn't have anything to do with phase, which is in a
> sense a kind of delay.
>
The delay from any single signal source to the listening position is a
linear function of the distance from each speaker, with a constant part
due to any delay in the electronics, which on a decent system can be
ignored, and as the listener moves round, the relative phases of the
sounds from the speakers alters, assuming the cones move in and out at
the same time. This is why I would refer to speakers correctly connected
as being in phase. If you add a delay line to one speaker, they no
longer move at the same time, so are not in phase. Changing the relative
polarity of the speakers would, to me, involve reversing the connections
on one speaker so that the cones no longer move in the same direction at
the same time when fed an identical signal, so the cone movement is 180
degrees out of phase.

> I know people throw the word "phase" around to mean a lot of things that
> have little or nothing to do with phase. They refer to both absolute and
> relative polarity as being "out of phase." They refer to comb filtering
> as "phasing." None of this is strictly speaking correct although I have
> given up on trying to correct people.
>
Inverted absolute polarity is a phase inversion from the start of the
chain to the end, starting with the varying sound pressure at the
microphone, and can matter, but I would call it inverted absolute
polarity, not being out of phase. On the other hand, where the
duplicated signals from two otherwise identical channels come out as
upside down copies of each other, then they are out of phase with each
other (In this case by 180 degrees).

When you sometimes deliberately use comb filtering as an effect, you
apply a delay to part of a signal, and mix the two parts back together,
so altering the relative phases of the two parts of the signal, and this
is why it's commonly known as phasing, but you knew that already. Now,
explain "flanging" for the same effect. ;-)

> I do still correct people for saying "wire" when they mean cable and
> "filming" when they mean "video recording," though.
>
I'm just coming round to using line to mean the thing I use to tie the
boat to the jetty, after calling it a rope for years before I bought the
boat...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

JackA

September 25th 15, 05:48 PM

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 11:58:23 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 25/09/2015 16:17, JackA wrote:
> > On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 10:57:35 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> >> Maybe I'm wrong, but I when I refer to the polarity on a speaker, I
> >> refer to it's absolute phase (Correct phasing here being the cone moving
> >> in for negative voltage relative to the ground connection, out for
> >> positive), while I use phase to refer to the relative output from a pair
> >> of speakers. If both cones go in and out together, they are in phase. If
> >> the listener is not positioned centrally between the speakers, then the
> >> apparent relative phasing at the listening position is fouled up anyway,
> >> hence the dead spots for bass in the auditorium at the concert.
> >
> > We agree. If I take one stereo track and advance or retard it, I could also replicate a polarity change.
> >
> Only for a single frequency sine, triangular or square wave and only for
> a delay of half the cycle time or odd multiple thereof. For any other
> waveform or delay, you get comb filtering in the sound field which
> varies with the position of the listener, the delay and the frequency.
>
> Any complex wave, such as any music I've ever heard, and you get an
> undesirable "phasing" sound, which some guitarists use to good effect.

Depends on what you personally feel is undesirable sound. For example, the 60's music group, Count Five, and their hit, "Psychotic Reaction" - that (stereo version) incorporated playing with the phasing as I mentioned. Sort of like people trying to sync stereo tracks to a premixed mono track. It may sound very full, then very thin, single or multiple frequencies.

Jack
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

JackA

September 25th 15, 06:57 PM

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 12:30:08 PM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote:
> On 25-09-2015 16:31, JackA wrote:
>
> > On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 8:20:15 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>
> >> JackA wrote: "Excuse me, but when two stereo speakers are incorrectly wired,
> >> they are known to be out of phase.
> >> Where is the problem, Peter?
>
> >> Sorry Jack - but Larsen is correct on this matter. Polarity is reversed when the
> >> leads to one speaker are switched. Phase is a time-related effect. The sound
> >> of speakers wires out of polarity sounds like out-of-phase, but out-of-phase is
> >> the wrong term.
>
> > Mark, as I mentioned to John, phasing can also change polarity.
>
> NO!. Use as sin squared pulse and get wiser. Or a sinewave with second
> harmonic. Or look at the asymmetry of real world sound. No time delay
> makes that change. Polarity inversion does. THAT is why it is necessary
> to use the proper words.
>
> > If I take a 30 Hz sine-wave, in stereo, and change the phasing,
> > by advancing or retarding one of the two stereo tracks, I can
> > also change polarity.
>
> No. Please commence actual thinking. The polarity of the wave is defined
> when it starts or via the coordinate system referenced. That definition
> is not altered by delay of the wave.
>
> > Jack
>
> - Peter Larsen

Don't feel DAW is appropriate, so I don't use it. Don't feel "Oldies" has an real definition, but million continually and mindlessly use it.

When Angus mention a "plate" and "heater", was he warming his dinner or referring to vacuum tubes? You didn't jump in there and correct him, it's "filament", not a "heater". Don't think I'm being a wise-a**, just TRYING to understand the need for expertise here when we all knew what Mark meant.

Jack

John Williamson

September 25th 15, 07:10 PM

On 25/09/2015 18:57, JackA wrote:
> When Angus mention a "plate" and "heater", was he warming his dinner or referring to vacuum tubes? You didn't jump in there and correct him, it's "filament", not a "heater". Don't think I'm being a wise-a**, just TRYING to understand the need for expertise here when we all knew what Mark meant.
>
No. It's a heater on both sides of the Atlantic. A filament is what's in
a light bulb, the heater in a valve (Tube to you Leftpondians) heats up
the cathode to a dull red heat to encourage it to emit electrons, Hence
"heater". Occasionally, the heater and the cathode are the same piece of
metal, but it's still not a filament.

The filament in a light bulb is the bit that glows white(ish) to make it
work.

The "plate" in a Leftpondian "tube" is what us Rightpondians call an
anode in a valve, while we all agree on grid for the grid(s) of wires
between the cathode and the anode which control the current flow.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Scott Dorsey

September 25th 15, 07:21 PM

John Williamson > wrote:
>>
>The delay from any single signal source to the listening position is a
>linear function of the distance from each speaker, with a constant part
>due to any delay in the electronics, which on a decent system can be
>ignored, and as the listener moves round, the relative phases of the
>sounds from the speakers alters, assuming the cones move in and out at
>the same time. This is why I would refer to speakers correctly connected
>as being in phase.

That does not follow.

> If you add a delay line to one speaker, they no
>longer move at the same time, so are not in phase.

Yes.

>Changing the relative
>polarity of the speakers would, to me, involve reversing the connections
>on one speaker so that the cones no longer move in the same direction at
>the same time when fed an identical signal, so the cone movement is 180
>degrees out of phase.

No, is is 180 degrees out of polarity. In the case of a sine wave, you
could think of this as being equivalent to a phase shift, but in the case
of any other waveform (like music), you cannot.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mike Rivers[_2_]

September 25th 15, 07:32 PM

On 9/25/2015 2:10 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> No. It's a heater on both sides of the Atlantic. A filament is what's in
> a light bulb, the heater in a valve

We use "filament" in tube talk here in the colonies. It's even in my RCA
Tube Manual. "Heater" is usually used when you have a directly heated
cathode, whereas "filament" is the generic term and is typically used
when the cathode is indirectly heated.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

JackA

September 25th 15, 07:40 PM

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 2:10:14 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 25/09/2015 18:57, JackA wrote:
> > When Angus mention a "plate" and "heater", was he warming his dinner or referring to vacuum tubes? You didn't jump in there and correct him, it's "filament", not a "heater". Don't think I'm being a wise-a**, just TRYING to understand the need for expertise here when we all knew what Mark meant.
> >
> No. It's a heater on both sides of the Atlantic. A filament is what's in
> a light bulb, the heater in a valve (Tube to you Leftpondians) heats up
> the cathode to a dull red heat to encourage it to emit electrons, Hence
> "heater". Occasionally, the heater and the cathode are the same piece of
> metal, but it's still not a filament.
>
> The filament in a light bulb is the bit that glows white(ish) to make it
> work.
>
> The "plate" in a Leftpondian "tube" is what us Rightpondians call an
> anode in a valve, while we all agree on grid for the grid(s) of wires
> between the cathode and the anode which control the current flow.

Wait a second, are we talking vacuum tubes or valves? Depends where you reside!!
Peter, help!!!

Yeah, electric company updating power grid. Guess control and screen are sufficient, in Tubeville.

Funny :-)

Jack

>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

John Williamson

September 25th 15, 07:44 PM

On 25/09/2015 19:32, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 9/25/2015 2:10 PM, John Williamson wrote:
>> No. It's a heater on both sides of the Atlantic. A filament is what's in
>> a light bulb, the heater in a valve
>
> We use "filament" in tube talk here in the colonies. It's even in my RCA
> Tube Manual. "Heater" is usually used when you have a directly heated
> cathode, whereas "filament" is the generic term and is typically used
> when the cathode is indirectly heated.
>
I slouch corrected.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

JackA

September 25th 15, 07:54 PM

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 2:21:53 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> John Williamson > wrote:
> >>
> >The delay from any single signal source to the listening position is a
> >linear function of the distance from each speaker, with a constant part
> >due to any delay in the electronics, which on a decent system can be
> >ignored, and as the listener moves round, the relative phases of the
> >sounds from the speakers alters, assuming the cones move in and out at
> >the same time. This is why I would refer to speakers correctly connected
> >as being in phase.
>
> That does not follow.
>
> > If you add a delay line to one speaker, they no
> >longer move at the same time, so are not in phase.
>
> Yes.
>
> >Changing the relative
> >polarity of the speakers would, to me, involve reversing the connections
> >on one speaker so that the cones no longer move in the same direction at
> >the same time when fed an identical signal, so the cone movement is 180
> >degrees out of phase.
>
> No, is is 180 degrees out of polarity. In the case of a sine wave, you
> could think of this as being equivalent to a phase shift, but in the case
> of any other waveform (like music), you cannot.

P(hase)AL vs NTSC!!! USA accepted the inferior format.

Jack

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

[email protected]

September 25th 15, 08:13 PM

Wow, I didn't intend to open this can of worms (again)

POLARITY _is_ the correct term to use refering to wiring speakers.

However the term PHASE has been (mis)used for such a long time (as in the phase inverter stage to drive the push pull outputs) that in order to communicte clearly sometimes you have to use the wrong term.

Mark

JackA

September 25th 15, 11:28 PM

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 3:14:01 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Wow, I didn't intend to open this can of worms (again)

-- Didn't Phase us at all!

Jack

>
> POLARITY _is_ the correct term to use refering to wiring speakers.
>
> However the term PHASE has been (mis)used for such a long time (as in the phase inverter stage to drive the push pull outputs) that in order to communicte clearly sometimes you have to use the wrong term.
>
> Mark

Les Cargill[_4_]

September 25th 15, 11:48 PM

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Roy W. Rising > wrote:
>> (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> I do still correct people for saying "wire" when they mean cable and
>>> "filming" when they mean "video recording," though.
>>
>> Throughout the era of videotape recording, I gave 'em slack. After all,
>> videotape is a kind of "film". Now that we've gone digital, I'm seeking a
>> shorter expression than "video recording". "Videoing" doesn't work for me.
>> Any suggestions?
>
> If it's perforated, you're filming! If it's not perforated, you're taping!
>
> These days, though, most folks aren't filming OR taping... I don't have a
> good word but 'shooting' is sufficiently generic to be inoffensive.
> --scott
>

FLASHing? No, probably too close to other uses of the word...

--
Les Cargill

Roy W. Rising[_2_]

September 26th 15, 05:12 PM

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Roy W. Rising > wrote:
> (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >[snip]
> >>
> >> I do still correct people for saying "wire" when they mean cable and
> >> "filming" when they mean "video recording," though.
> >
> >Throughout the era of videotape recording, I gave 'em slack. After all,
> >videotape is a kind of "film". Now that we've gone digital, I'm seeking
> >a shorter expression than "video recording". "Videoing" doesn't work
> >for me. Any suggestions?
>
> If it's perforated, you're filming! If it's not perforated, you're
> taping!
>
> These days, though, most folks aren't filming OR taping... I don't have a
> good word but 'shooting' is sufficiently generic to be inoffensive.
> --scott

Or, perhaps "viding".

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

Scott Dorsey

September 26th 15, 05:58 PM

Roy W. Rising > wrote:
>Or, perhaps "viding".

I would agree that a lot of the television programming today is pretty
"vide" to begin with.

Which reminds me.... Roy, have you ever seen a Port-O-Vox wireless mike?
I bought some junk from the Family Channel recently which included a box
of spare parts for the things because I am a sucker for submini tubes.
--scott

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

Les Cargill[_4_]

September 26th 15, 06:04 PM

Roy W. Rising wrote:
> (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> Roy W. Rising > wrote:
>>> (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> I do still correct people for saying "wire" when they mean cable and
>>>> "filming" when they mean "video recording," though.
>>>
>>> Throughout the era of videotape recording, I gave 'em slack. After all,
>>> videotape is a kind of "film". Now that we've gone digital, I'm seeking
>>> a shorter expression than "video recording". "Videoing" doesn't work
>>> for me. Any suggestions?
>>
>> If it's perforated, you're filming! If it's not perforated, you're
>> taping!
>>
>> These days, though, most folks aren't filming OR taping... I don't have a
>> good word but 'shooting' is sufficiently generic to be inoffensive.
>> --scott
>
> Or, perhaps "viding".
>

In NADSAT, that's "viddying", with an uncomfortable profusion of
vowels.

--
Les Cargill

Roy W. Rising[_2_]

September 26th 15, 11:43 PM

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Roy W. Rising > wrote:
> >Or, perhaps "viding".
>
> I would agree that a lot of the television programming today is pretty
> "vide" to begin with.
>
> Which reminds me.... Roy, have you ever seen a Port-O-Vox wireless mike?
> I bought some junk from the Family Channel recently which included a box
> of spare parts for the things because I am a sucker for submini tubes.
> --scott

That's new to me. The earliest ones I encountered were from Comrex. They
were used on General Hospital with RCA BK6 mics, back when tape machines
were steam powered. ;-)

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

Angus Kerr

September 27th 15, 10:07 AM

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 8:32:33 PM UTC+2, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 9/25/2015 2:10 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> > No. It's a heater on both sides of the Atlantic. A filament is what's in
> > a light bulb, the heater in a valve
>
> We use "filament" in tube talk here in the colonies. It's even in my RCA
> Tube Manual. "Heater" is usually used when you have a directly heated
> cathode, whereas "filament" is the generic term and is typically used
> when the cathode is indirectly heated.
>

In about 1981, I had a holiday (vacation) job working for David Manley, one of the most interesting characters I have met. He was restoring a bunch of Leak Williamson amplifiers, and I had the task of wiring up the harness and soldering all of the valve (tube) sockets.

I was only 16 at the time, so I did not have the capacity to understand how the tubes actually worked, but I did get to hear how beautiful valves (tubes) sound with my fresh 16 year old ears.

Wish that I actually got to own a pair of those Leaks. He did give me a Radford STA25 power amplifier, which I must have traded for some awful higher powered BJT amplifier. 16 - young, dumb, and full of ****.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, to my memory, he called the tube a valve, the filament circuit the heater circuit, the anode the plate, and the grid the grid. That's where I got the terms from.

In all my years as an electrical engineer, I have never understood what makes an anode an anode and what makes a cathode a cathode. I hate those terms - if you ask me which is which on a simple diode, I'll probably get it wrong.

-Angus.

Mike Rivers[_2_]

September 27th 15, 01:10 PM

On 9/27/2015 5:07 AM, Angus Kerr wrote:

> In about 1981, I had a holiday (vacation) job working for David
> Manley, one of the most interesting characters I have met.

> Anyway, to cut a long story short, to my memory, he called the tube a
> valve, the filament circuit the heater circuit, the anode the plate,
> and the grid the grid. That's where I got the terms from.

> In all my years as an electrical engineer, I have never understood
> what makes an anode an anode and what makes a cathode a cathode.

From a Wikipedia page:

"The word was coined in 1834 from the Greek κάθοδος (kathodos),
'descent' or 'way down', by William Whewell, who had been consulted[2]
by Michael Faraday over some new names needed to complete a paper on the
recently discovered process of electrolysis. In that paper Faraday
explained that when an electrolytic cell is oriented so that electric
current traverses the "decomposing body" (electrolyte) in a direction
"from East to West, or, which will strengthen this help to the memory,
that in which the sun appears to move", the cathode is where the current
leaves the electrolyte, on the West side: "kata downwards, `odos a way ;
the way which the sun sets".[3][4]

The use of 'West' to mean the 'out' direction (actually 'out' → 'West' →
'sunset' → 'down', i.e. 'out of view') may appear unnecessarily
contrived. Previously, as related in the first reference cited above,
Faraday had used the more straightforward term "exode" (the doorway
where the current exits). His motivation for changing it to something
meaning 'the West electrode' (other candidates had been "westode",
"occiode" and "dysiode") was to make it immune to a possible later
change in the direction convention for current, whose exact nature was
not known at the time. The reference he used to this effect was the
Earth's magnetic field direction, which at that time was believed to be
invariant. He fundamentally defined his arbitrary orientation for the
cell as being that in which the internal current would run parallel to
and in the same direction as a hypothetical magnetizing current loop
around the local line of latitude which would induce a magnetic dipole
field oriented like the Earth's. This made the internal current East to
West as previously mentioned, but in the event of a later convention
change it would have become West to East, so that the West electrode
would not have been the 'way out' any more. Therefore, "exode" would
have become inappropriate, whereas "cathode" meaning 'West electrode'
would have remained correct with respect to the unchanged direction of
the actual phenomenon underlying the current, then unknown but, he
thought, unambiguously defined by the magnetic reference. In retrospect
the name change was unfortunate, not only because the Greek roots alone
do not reveal the cathode's function any more, but more importantly
because, as we now know, the Earth's magnetic field direction on which
the "cathode" term is based is subject to reversals whereas the current
direction convention on which the "exode" term was based has no reason
to change in the future.

Since the later discovery of the electron, an easier to remember, and
more durably technically correct (although historically false),
etymology has been suggested: cathode, from the Greek kathodos, 'way
down', 'the way (down) into the cell (or other device) for electrons'."

Once you get past why a cathode is called a cathode, anode is easy. The
prefix "an" means "not," a shortened form of "not a cathode." But this
doesn't help.

As far as the diode symbol goes, that makes a lot of sense. The cathode
is the arrow that points to the line (plate in a vacuum tube) as
"(conventional) current flows in this direction."

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Scott Dorsey

September 27th 15, 02:01 PM

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>"The word was coined in 1834 from the Greek κάθοδος (kathodos),
>'descent' or 'way down', by William Whewell, who had been consulted[2]
>by Michael Faraday over some new names needed to complete a paper on the
>recently discovered process of electrolysis. In that paper Faraday

"The current, it flows from the source to the sink, from the minus to the
plus, from the cathode to the anode, from the supply to the load."
-- Dr. Ibe

Dr. Ibe said this so often in class that it became a standard recitation
stuck in everyone's head. Of course, some of that is reversed in the US
military where current and electron flow in the same direction.
--scott

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

Scott Dorsey

September 27th 15, 02:30 PM

Roy W. Rising > wrote:
>
>That's new to me. The earliest ones I encountered were from Comrex. They
>were used on General Hospital with RCA BK6 mics, back when tape machines
>were steam powered. ;-)

I came in a good bit later, with the Vega low-band VHF units. Tiny
transmitters with big antennas...
--scott

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

Roy W. Rising[_2_]

September 27th 15, 04:40 PM

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Roy W. Rising > wrote:
> >
> >That's new to me. The earliest ones I encountered were from Comrex.
> >They were used on General Hospital with RCA BK6 mics, back when tape
> >machines were steam powered. ;-)
>
> I came in a good bit later, with the Vega low-band VHF units. Tiny
> transmitters with big antennas...
> --scott

The early Vegas were a welcome step. At first they shipped with a small
dynamic mic, AKG? Then the Sony ECM50 overhauled the world. (I have a few,
if anyone likes vintage. They're huge by today's standards.) Little
Richard slipped while dancing on top of his piano. The Vega's thin
aluminum case was flattened. I asked the guys in the "lab" to find a way
to power the Sonys from the Vega Xmtr. They did it and a new technology
was launched. Sadly, the Vegas were long-pre-dual-diversity. The RF
"hits" were deadly.

One of the best steps forward was when John Nady came up with working
compansion. He holds the patent but lets everyone use it freely. That
includes MTS TV Stereo. We first tried the Nady system on Richard Dawson
for Family Feud. "Clapping" came through with no HF content. John said
"There's a capacitor value I'll change. I never contemplated wireless
drums!"

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

Peter Larsen[_3_]

September 27th 15, 06:15 PM

On 27-09-2015 10:07, Angus Kerr wrote:

> Wish that I actually got to own a pair of those Leaks. He did give me a Radford STA25 power amplifier, which I must have traded for some awful ...

There is a re-release series, ridiculously expensive. And I don't have
that kind of money. Otherwise I'd be seriously tempted even at GBP 1800
to get one again to replace the one I sold for DKK 1000 in 1982. It was
perhaps not a bad choice, it was beginning to need a major refurb,
probably even new pcbs ... they were brown and charred around the
sockets. But sometimes I still kinda want to hear something played back
on it ...

> -Angus.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Trevor

September 28th 15, 07:37 AM

On 26/09/2015 2:21 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> If it's perforated, you're filming! If it's not perforated, you're taping!

So in an attempt to be pedantic, you simply actually make up your own
definitions. What's the point? As already pointed out, magnetic tape is
simply an oxide layer deposited on plastic film.
Nothing more stupid than arguing semantics when you don't even
understand the derivation of language. "Taping" could just as easily be
applying sticky tape! :-)

Trevor.

John Williamson

September 28th 15, 09:03 AM

On 28/09/2015 07:37, Trevor wrote:
> On 26/09/2015 2:21 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> If it's perforated, you're filming! If it's not perforated, you're
>> taping!
>
> So in an attempt to be pedantic, you simply actually make up your own
> definitions. What's the point? As already pointed out, magnetic tape is
> simply an oxide layer deposited on plastic film.
> Nothing more stupid than arguing semantics when you don't even
> understand the derivation of language. "Taping" could just as easily be
> applying sticky tape! :-)
>
Common usage here seems to be "filming", "making a film" or "making a
movie" when it's for pubic consumption at the cinema or on TV, while
"videoing" denotes either an amateur making home movies or the guy at
the wedding with a video camera, who's probably also doing the stills of
the event. Videoing is also used to denote company promotional stuff and
the Chairman's speech trying to jolly up the workers...

The actual recording material used doesn't seem to matter, as the public
still assume there are massive reels of 35mm film whizzing round in the
projection booth, rather than a couple of hard drives. They also still
tend to associate video tape with home movies, even though we're all
using hard drive or flash memory based cameras now.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Angus Kerr

September 28th 15, 10:36 AM

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 7:18:27 PM UTC+2, Peter Larsen wrote:
> On 27-09-2015 10:07, Angus Kerr wrote:
>
> > Wish that I actually got to own a pair of those Leaks. He did give me a Radford STA25 power amplifier, which I must have traded for some awful ...
>
> There is a re-release series, ridiculously expensive. And I don't have
> that kind of money. Otherwise I'd be seriously tempted even at GBP 1800
> to get one again to replace the one I sold for DKK 1000 in 1982. It was
> perhaps not a bad choice, it was beginning to need a major refurb,
> probably even new pcbs ... they were brown and charred around the
> sockets. But sometimes I still kinda want to hear something played back
> on it ...

Unfortunately, mine was absolutely mint. Nothing wrong with it, just a 16 year olds messed up head.

I still don't think it sounded as good as the Leak Williamson.

Well, that ship sailed. We'll have to try to find one in a pawn shop...

-Angus.

None

September 28th 15, 01:15 PM

"Trevor" > wrote in message
...
> Nothing more stupid than arguing semantics when you don't even
> understand the derivation of language.

I think the argument is about vocabulary, not semantics; and although
the derivation may be interesting, it has little bearing on modern
usage.

None

September 28th 15, 01:16 PM

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> as the public still assume there are massive reels of 35mm film
> whizzing round in the projection booth,

Only the elderly.

[email protected]

September 28th 15, 03:08 PM

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 8:16:50 AM UTC-4, None wrote:
> "John Williamson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > as the public still assume there are massive reels of 35mm film
> > whizzing round in the projection booth,
>
> Only the elderly.

OK...so what is the technology used in a typical movie theater these days?

If it is a video projector and file server, what is the typical resolution?

Mark

Scott Dorsey

September 28th 15, 03:27 PM

Roy W. Rising > wrote:
>The early Vegas were a welcome step. At first they shipped with a small
>dynamic mic, AKG? Then the Sony ECM50 overhauled the world. (I have a few,
>if anyone likes vintage. They're huge by today's standards.) Little
>Richard slipped while dancing on top of his piano. The Vega's thin
>aluminum case was flattened. I asked the guys in the "lab" to find a way
>to power the Sonys from the Vega Xmtr. They did it and a new technology
>was launched. Sadly, the Vegas were long-pre-dual-diversity. The RF
>"hits" were deadly.

I worked on a surf movie years ago, where they were filming surfers from
the beach with some crazy long makeshift optics as well as from the water,
and someone had the idea of planting a Vega mike on the board. So we're
sitting on the beach with a Uher 4000 and one of these enormous Vega receivers
with VFO right above a reflective ocean surface and sometimes below it.
I think in two days we maybe got a couple seconds of usable audio.
--scott

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

Scott Dorsey

September 28th 15, 03:43 PM

> wrote:
>On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 8:16:50 AM UTC-4, None wrote:
>> "John Williamson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > as the public still assume there are massive reels of 35mm film
>> > whizzing round in the projection booth,
>>
>> Only the elderly.
>
>OK...so what is the technology used in a typical movie theater these days?
>
>If it is a video projector and file server, what is the typical resolution?

It is likely to be a video projector and file server with 4K resolution.
Some larger halls may have 8K but it is fairly rare.

The real issue with the digital cinema systems isn't resolution so much as
grey scale; even the better systems don't have the long tonal range of even
color film prints, let alone good B&W.

The digital systems don't look as good as a good film print, but they look
a whole lot better than a bad film print. Many years ago they would
make a dozen prints of a blockbuster and show them in LA and NYC first,
then nine months later they would have trickled down the system and the
film would be showing here in Williamsburg, VA.

But today they want to premiere the film everywhere in the country at the
same time, then drop it after a two-week run. This means making thousands
of film prints (which means those prints are several generations of interneg
and interpos down) and it means people don't take care of them because they
aren't headed to another theatre after the first run.

Consequently, the film prints your local multiplex has been getting for the
past couple decades have been pretty awful, and the digital systems are a
big step up for them. On the other hand, you go and watch a first generation
EK print at Grauman's and it's going to look a lot better than the digital
systems.
--scott
>
>Mark

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

Angus Kerr

September 28th 15, 05:32 PM

> > In all my years as an electrical engineer, I have never understood
> > what makes an anode an anode and what makes a cathode a cathode.
>
> From a Wikipedia page:
>
-long snip-
> Once you get past why a cathode is called a cathode, anode is easy. The
> prefix "an" means "not," a shortened form of "not a cathode." But this
> doesn't help.
>
> As far as the diode symbol goes, that makes a lot of sense. The cathode
> is the arrow that points to the line (plate in a vacuum tube) as
> "(conventional) current flows in this direction."
>

<jokes>Ok, so after a glass of wine, this makes perfect sense. </jokes>
I just like + and -. I also kind of like and use conventional current flow, from + to -, as the holes flow, as the diode symbol really seems daft if you are considering electron flow. I have an old US military series of videos on electrical engineering (amazing stuff), and I had to laugh as they explained all this stuff with negative electron flow. The current goes the wrong way through the diode. I am so glad I can google these days which the cathode is, because, even with the historical explanation, I've got a 50/50 chance of getting it wrong.

-A.

btw, thank you for the Wiki explanation and research.....

JackA

September 28th 15, 05:54 PM

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 12:32:54 PM UTC-4, Angus Kerr wrote:
> > > In all my years as an electrical engineer, I have never understood
> > > what makes an anode an anode and what makes a cathode a cathode.
> >
> > From a Wikipedia page:
> >
> -long snip-
> > Once you get past why a cathode is called a cathode, anode is easy. The
> > prefix "an" means "not," a shortened form of "not a cathode." But this
> > doesn't help.
> >
> > As far as the diode symbol goes, that makes a lot of sense. The cathode
> > is the arrow that points to the line (plate in a vacuum tube) as
> > "(conventional) current flows in this direction."
> >
>
> <jokes>Ok, so after a glass of wine, this makes perfect sense. </jokes>
> I just like + and -.

Then use a Selenium rectifier! :)

Jack

I also kind of like and use conventional current flow, from + to -, as the holes flow, as the diode symbol really seems daft if you are considering electron flow. I have an old US military series of videos on electrical engineering (amazing stuff), and I had to laugh as they explained all this stuff with negative electron flow. The current goes the wrong way through the diode. I am so glad I can google these days which the cathode is, because, even with the historical explanation, I've got a 50/50 chance of getting it wrong.
>
> -A.
>
> btw, thank you for the Wiki explanation and research.....

[email protected]

September 28th 15, 08:28 PM

>
> One of the best steps forward was when John Nady came up with working
> compansion. He holds the patent but lets everyone use it freely. That
> includes MTS TV Stereo. We first tried the Nady system on Richard Dawson
> for Family Feud. "Clapping" came through with no HF content. John said
> "There's a capacitor value I'll change. I never contemplated wireless
> drums!"
>
> --
> ~ Roy

I have a well known brand name wireless mic (not Nady) that is marketed for PA system work (not as stingent as network broadcast) and it includes the standard NE571 companding system. The design of this particular unit had a flaw. When the RF signal would get a little weak, the broadband noise in the recovered audio would be detected by the expander and the expander would decide that this is an audio signal and it needs to be made louder. So if the propgation path was marginal, as the speaker walks around instead of some low level hiss and a dropout now and then, there would be LOUD static and feedback as the gain was incorrectly raised. Totaly unacceptable.

I had to increase a shunt cap value in the expander to roll off the expander detectors high frequency response to solve this problem. But you are correct, the compander now does not track really well on high frequency audio material, but I decided this was the lesser of the two evils. It is fine for most spectrally balanced material.

Mark

Trevor

September 29th 15, 09:37 AM

On 28/09/2015 10:15 PM, None wrote:
> "Trevor" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Nothing more stupid than arguing semantics when you don't even
>> understand the derivation of language.
>
> I think the argument is about vocabulary, not semantics; and although
> the derivation may be interesting, it has little bearing on modern usage.

But that's the point, he is trying to narrowly define usage to suit
himself (in the parts you snipped) and "modern usage" is pretty much
anything goes. Those who don't like it should just do what THEY want,
and shut up about what others choose to do.

Trevor.

Trevor

September 29th 15, 09:45 AM

On 28/09/2015 10:16 PM, None wrote:
> "John Williamson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> as the public still assume there are massive reels of 35mm film
>> whizzing round in the projection booth,

Don't assume everyone thinks like you. The percentage would be pretty
small these days.

> Only the elderly.

How elderly do you have to be? I know 90 YO's who understand digital
cinema quite well. With so many on the internet these days I'm not
surprised either. There are a few technophobes in all age groups though.

Trevor.

Trevor

September 29th 15, 09:51 AM

On 29/09/2015 12:08 AM, wrote:
> OK...so what is the technology used in a typical movie theater these days?
>
> If it is a video projector and file server, what is the typical resolution?

4K systems (not the same as consumer UHD often referred to as 4K) is
pretty much the standard now, but these things are changing all the
time. Not simply just resolution either.

Trevor.

Trevor

September 29th 15, 10:02 AM

On 29/09/2015 12:43 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> The real issue with the digital cinema systems isn't resolution so much as
> grey scale; even the better systems don't have the long tonal range of even
> color film prints, let alone good B&W.
>
> The digital systems don't look as good as a good film print, but they look
> a whole lot better than a bad film print. Many years ago they would
> make a dozen prints of a blockbuster and show them in LA and NYC first,
> then nine months later they would have trickled down the system and the
> film would be showing here in Williamsburg, VA.
>
> But today they want to premiere the film everywhere in the country at the
> same time, then drop it after a two-week run. This means making thousands
> of film prints (which means those prints are several generations of interneg
> and interpos down) and it means people don't take care of them because they
> aren't headed to another theatre after the first run.
>
> Consequently, the film prints your local multiplex has been getting for the
> past couple decades have been pretty awful, and the digital systems are a
> big step up for them. On the other hand, you go and watch a first generation
> EK print at Grauman's and it's going to look a lot better than the digital
> systems.
> --scott

True, many years ago. Fortunately digital resolution, dynamic range,
color space, color accuracy and possible frame rates have now surpassed
the best film stock available. And superior audio of course.
Which is not to say ALL digital theatres are necessarily better than
film ones, and certainly not vice versa.

Trevor.

Trevor

September 29th 15, 10:17 AM

On 29/09/2015 2:32 AM, Angus Kerr wrote:
>>> In all my years as an electrical engineer, I have never
>>> understood what makes an anode an anode and what makes a cathode
>>> a cathode.
>>
>> From a Wikipedia page:
>>
> -long snip-
>> Once you get past why a cathode is called a cathode, anode is easy.
>> The prefix "an" means "not," a shortened form of "not a cathode."
>> But this doesn't help.
>>
>> As far as the diode symbol goes, that makes a lot of sense. The
>> cathode is the arrow that points to the line (plate in a vacuum
>> tube) as "(conventional) current flows in this direction."
>>
>
> <jokes>Ok, so after a glass of wine, this makes perfect sense.
> </jokes> I just like + and -. I also kind of like and use
> conventional current flow, from + to -, as the holes flow, as the
> diode symbol really seems daft if you are considering electron flow.
> I have an old US military series of videos on electrical engineering
> (amazing stuff), and I had to laugh as they explained all this stuff
> with negative electron flow. The current goes the wrong way through
> the diode. I am so glad I can google these days which the cathode is,
> because, even with the historical explanation, I've got a 50/50
> chance of getting it wrong.

When I did EE 40 years ago we learned both conventional and electron
flow. Far from 50/50 chance of getting it wrong, I could always work
either way.
As for the diode symbol, I just assume an arrow for conventional, or an
old fashioned blunderbuss for electron flow. :-)
In any case how hard is it to understand electron flow is simply the
reverse of conventional flow? And if you know which flows +to- and which
-to+, the rest simply follows. Since neither is an exact representation
of what is really happening, it hardly matters which you choose IMO.

Trevor.

[email protected]

September 29th 15, 12:04 PM

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 5:03:03 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:

>
> True, many years ago. Fortunately digital resolution, dynamic range,
> color space, color accuracy and possible frame rates have now surpassed
> the best film stock available. And superior audio of course.
> Which is not to say ALL digital theatres are necessarily better than
> film ones, and certainly not vice versa.
>
> Trevor.

And what scares me about video projectors in movie theaters
is they give projectionists unprecedented control over the
local picture quality(adjustments such as contrast, brightness,
color, tint, etc). I can see management of theaters trying
to drum up business by advertising "BRIGHTER, SHARPER, MORE
COLORFUL" than "ANY OTHER THEATRE IN TOWN!!!". In a theater
chain with digital projection, how can movie-goers be
guaranteed they're seeing exactly(or close to) the director
& producer's original intentions?

Previously, the only adjustment projectionists or techs had
up in the booth was Focus! And of course, scheduled
replacement of projector bulbs.

None

September 29th 15, 12:16 PM

> wrote in message
...
> And what scares me about video projectors in movie theaters
> is they give projectionists unprecedented control over the
> local picture quality(adjustments such as contrast, brightness,
> color, tint, etc). I can see management of theaters trying
> to drum up business by advertising "BRIGHTER, SHARPER, MORE
> COLORFUL" than "ANY OTHER THEATRE IN TOWN!!!". In a theater
> chain with digital projection, how can movie-goers be
> guaranteed they're seeing exactly(or close to) the director
> & producer's original intentions?

Can't you find a video group where you can flog that hobbyhorse?

[email protected]

September 29th 15, 12:20 PM

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 7:04:15 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 5:03:03 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
>
> >
> > True, many years ago. Fortunately digital resolution, dynamic range,
> > color space, color accuracy and possible frame rates have now surpassed
> > the best film stock available. And superior audio of course.
> > Which is not to say ALL digital theatres are necessarily better than
> > film ones, and certainly not vice versa.
> >
> > Trevor.
>
>
> And what scares me about video projectors in movie theaters
> is they give projectionists unprecedented control over the
> local picture quality(adjustments such as contrast, brightness,
> color, tint, etc). I can see management of theaters trying
> to drum up business by advertising "BRIGHTER, SHARPER, MORE
> COLORFUL" than "ANY OTHER THEATRE IN TOWN!!!". In a theater
> chain with digital projection, how can movie-goers be
> guaranteed they're seeing exactly(or close to) the director
> & producer's original intentions?
>
>
> Previously, the only adjustment projectionists or techs had
> up in the booth was Focus! And of course, scheduled
> replacement of projector bulbs.

Apparently someone is personally offended when I mention
any extreme processing of image or audio here. Must have
a vested economic interest in extreme distortion of
image and audio for financial gain.

Angus Kerr

September 29th 15, 08:15 PM

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 11:18:04 AM UTC+2, Trevor wrote:
-snip-
> > the diode. I am so glad I can google these days which the cathode is,
> > because, even with the historical explanation, I've got a 50/50
> > chance of getting it wrong.
>
> When I did EE 40 years ago we learned both conventional and electron
> flow. Far from 50/50 chance of getting it wrong, I could always work
> either way.
I meant being able to identify which terminal is the anode and which is the cathode.

> As for the diode symbol, I just assume an arrow for conventional, or an
> old fashioned blunderbuss for electron flow. :-)

I like that...
> In any case how hard is it to understand electron flow is simply the
> reverse of conventional flow? And if you know which flows +to- and which
> -to+, the rest simply follows. Since neither is an exact representation
> of what is really happening, it hardly matters which you choose IMO.

As far as conventional / electron current flow is concerned, it is a convention, after all. It just seems that if you think conventional, things kind of make sense, the symbols seem to be intuitive, and if you think electrons, you're pretty much swimming upstream.

>
> Trevor.

-Angus.

geoff

September 29th 15, 08:28 PM

On 29/09/2015 22:17, Trevor wrote:

>
> When I did EE 40 years ago we learned both conventional and electron
> flow. Far from 50/50 chance of getting it wrong, I could always work
> either way.
> As for the diode symbol, I just assume an arrow for conventional, or an
> old fashioned blunderbuss for electron flow. :-)
> In any case how hard is it to understand electron flow is simply the
> reverse of conventional flow? And if you know which flows +to- and which
> -to+, the rest simply follows. Since neither is an exact representation
> of what is really happening, it hardly matters which you choose IMO.

It only matters if you are doing semiconductor physics. Else anything
other that 'conventional' is an irrelevant distraction.

geoff

None

September 30th 15, 04:18 AM

< hobbyhorse**** @ shortbus.edu> wrote in message
...
>> And what scares me about video projectors in movie theaters
>> is they give projectionists unprecedented control over the
>> local picture quality(adjustments such as contrast, brightness,
>> color, tint, etc). I can see management of theaters trying
>> to drum up business by advertising "BRIGHTER, SHARPER, MORE
>> COLORFUL" than "ANY OTHER THEATRE IN TOWN!!!". In a theater
>> chain with digital projection, how can movie-goers be
>> guaranteed they're seeing exactly(or close to) the director
>> & producer's original intentions?
>>
>>
>> Previously, the only adjustment projectionists or techs had
>> up in the booth was Focus! And of course, scheduled
>> replacement of projector bulbs.

I see that your "knowledge" of film projection is down in the mudhole
with your dumb****ery about audio.

> Apparently someone is personally offended when I mention
> any extreme processing of image or audio here. Must have
> a vested economic interest in extreme distortion of
> image and audio for financial gain.

So often, when you disagree with someone, you make this bizarre
accusation that they must have a "vested economic interest" in
something related to one of your little hobbyhorses. It your mind
really so small that you can think that way? If someone says anything
about your dumb****ery, they must be part of some conspiracy to ****
up the way your audio files look when you watch them, for economic
gain.

Oh, the horror! Must have a vested economic interest in making li'l
Krissies files look like a sausage fest! (Yeah, there's big money in
making Krissie's Zeppelin mp3's look compressed. Yeah, that's the
ticket!) And video too. For chrissake, you whine about how people
should use their volume knobs more because you don't like the way your
audio files look on your monitor, but if someone touches a video
control, you freak out, as if you are somehow more qualified than
everyone else, and nobody else should be allowed to touch that dial.

Jesus, what a dumb ****.

[email protected]

September 30th 15, 04:28 AM

Hey suitcase face: Shut up - and let the
INTELLIGENT posters here comment
about my LEGITIMATE concerns regarding
futzing with digital projector settings.

Obviously my mention of "loudness" or non
standard video settings bothers you, since you
go into a Cuckoos Nest Mister Harding tirade
and name-calling every time I do. No one else
in all of rec.audio.pro stoops so low.

[email protected]

September 30th 15, 04:36 AM

Here stupidass, READ UP - mine IS a legitimate
concern, and you got NONE to say about it:

http://www.knuterikevensen.com/?p=915

It discusses standard practices and calibrations,
as well as worst cases of what happens when
theaters don't bother.

Trevor

September 30th 15, 05:29 AM

On 30/09/2015 5:28 AM, Geoff wrote:
> On 29/09/2015 22:17, Trevor wrote:
>> When I did EE 40 years ago we learned both conventional and electron
>> flow. Far from 50/50 chance of getting it wrong, I could always work
>> either way.
>> As for the diode symbol, I just assume an arrow for conventional, or an
>> old fashioned blunderbuss for electron flow. :-)
>> In any case how hard is it to understand electron flow is simply the
>> reverse of conventional flow? And if you know which flows +to- and which
>> -to+, the rest simply follows. Since neither is an exact representation
>> of what is really happening, it hardly matters which you choose IMO.
>
> It only matters if you are doing semiconductor physics. Else anything
> other that 'conventional' is an irrelevant distraction.

Once you get to the quantum mechanics level, both are irrelevant, but
never considered it a distraction. Simply never bothered me.

Trevor.

John Williamson

September 30th 15, 12:18 PM

On 30/09/2015 04:28, wrote:
> Hey suitcase face: Shut up - and let the
> INTELLIGENT posters here comment
> about my LEGITIMATE concerns regarding
> futzing with digital projector settings.
>
> Obviously my mention of "loudness" or non
> standard video settings bothers you, since you
> go into a Cuckoos Nest Mister Harding tirade
> and name-calling every time I do. No one else
> in all of rec.audio.pro stoops so low.
>
Probably because most of us mark your posts a read when we download 'em,
so never read 'em.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[email protected]

September 30th 15, 12:41 PM

John Williamson wrote: "- show quoted text -
Probably because most of us mark your posts a read when
we download 'em, so never read 'em.
- show quoted text -"

Well STOP and read them for a change.
Perhaps it's the way I word things, but I
mean only good and have valid concerns.

And things like "Non " scare off others from
contributing to the conversation and offering
insight to the challenges I pose.

So please weigh in kindly on my concerns
regarding the new digital video projectors,
and potential abuse of them, in movie
theaters.

JackA

September 30th 15, 01:25 PM

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 7:41:40 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> John Williamson wrote: "- show quoted text -
> Probably because most of us mark your posts a read when
> we download 'em, so never read 'em.
> - show quoted text -"
>
> Well STOP and read them for a change.

Settle down, you're in usenet.

My friend heard an Aerosmith song on radio. He quickly e-mailed me a said it sounded like poop. The song, "Living On The Edge" from "Get A Grip" album. You know if it was remastered, LOUD!? Sounded okay on YouTube with my ears.

Thanks.

Jack

> Perhaps it's the way I word things, but I
> mean only good and have valid concerns.
>
> And things like "Non " scare off others from
> contributing to the conversation and offering
> insight to the challenges I pose.
>
> So please weigh in kindly on my concerns
> regarding the new digital video projectors,
> and potential abuse of them, in movie
> theaters.

None

September 30th 15, 02:05 PM

< crybabdy krissie @ dumb****,shortbus.edu > wrote in message
...
> Well STOP and read them for a change.
> Perhaps it's the way I word things, but I
> mean only good and have valid concerns.

You have well-flogged hobby horses. Your "concerns" are obsessions
fueled by ignorance.

> And things like "Non " scare off others from
> contributing to the conversation and offering
> insight to the challenges I pose.

You pose no challenges. You just whine about things you don't like and
can't understand. Nobody likes you, and that's your own fault.

> So please weigh in kindly on my concerns
> regarding the new digital video projectors,
> and potential abuse of them, in movie
> theaters.

Please **** of out of here. Don't you have a projectionist to harass,
or have you been banned from your local theaters for being a
persistent dumb ****?

And aren't you supposed to be ignoring me? Or are you too much of a
dumb****?

Scott Dorsey

September 30th 15, 03:01 PM

> wrote:
>Hey suitcase face: Shut up - and let the
>INTELLIGENT posters here comment
>about my LEGITIMATE concerns regarding
>futzing with digital projector settings.

Actuallly, digital projection systems are pretty heavily locked down, and
there are automated calibration procedures.

No more misaligned gates, fingerprints on lenses, worn intermittents,
films run with the wrong aperture plate and sometimes the wrong masking.

No more focus issues from buckled prints and lazy projectionists. No more
flicker from managers trying to get every last hour out of the lamp.

For the most part, the digital systems either work or they don't work, and
they call home if they don't work. Mind you, there are a lot of systems
that were inappropriate for the room in which they were installed; we have
a local multiplex that I swear doesn't get more than 3fl on the screen. But
that's a single-time fault.

There is no way that anyone can log into the Dolby server and start fiddling
with color settings, thank God.
--scott

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

Scott Dorsey

November 6th 15, 03:02 PM

Angus Kerr > wrote:
>> > In all my years as an electrical engineer, I have never understood
>> > what makes an anode an anode and what makes a cathode a cathode.

The greek words mean "way up" and "way down." The "anode" is the "way up"
or "ascent" and is at the higher potential.

I believe this is explained in "Words of Science" by Isaac Asimov, which I
highly recommend as the best bathroom reading of all time.
--scott

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

Angus Kerr

November 16th 15, 02:01 PM

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 5:03:00 PM UTC+2, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Angus Kerr wrote:
> >> > In all my years as an electrical engineer, I have never understood
> >> > what makes an anode an anode and what makes a cathode a cathode.
>
> The greek words mean "way up" and "way down." The "anode" is the "way up"
> or "ascent" and is at the higher potential.

So how would this work for a Zener diode a opposed to a normal signal diode? I'm pretty sure that for a Zener diode the anode and cathode are not reversed, even though the potential across the diode is.

-----Just checked Wiki, and it seems that the Zener diode violates the convention.

I tried to remember cathode = negative. I don't know if this is always true though.

-Angus
>
> I believe this is explained in "Words of Science" by Isaac Asimov, which I
> highly recommend as the best bathroom reading of all time.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[email protected]

November 16th 15, 02:58 PM

>
> So how would this work for a Zener diode a opposed to a normal signal diode? I'm pretty sure that for a Zener diode the anode and cathode are not reversed, even though the potential across the diode is.
>
>
now you are really going to confuse everyone ..

A Zener diode used as a regulator normally works in the REVERSE direction. A Zener is actually a normal diode (it will also conduct in the normal direction) that is used in the reverse direction and it is dsigned to "breakdown" at a specific voltage i.e. the Zener voltage.

If you connect a Zener diode "backwards" it will conduct as a normal forward diode and will have 0.7V across it instead of the Zener voltage.

Mark

John Williamson

November 16th 15, 02:59 PM

On 16/11/2015 14:01, Angus Kerr wrote:
> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 5:03:00 PM UTC+2, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Angus Kerr wrote:
>>>>> In all my years as an electrical engineer, I have never understood
>>>>> what makes an anode an anode and what makes a cathode a cathode.
>>
>> The greek words mean "way up" and "way down." The "anode" is the "way up"
>> or "ascent" and is at the higher potential.
>
> So how would this work for a Zener diode a opposed to a normal signal diode? I'm pretty sure that for a Zener diode the anode and cathode are not reversed, even though the potential across the diode is.
>
Zeners are a special case, as they are normally operated with a reversed
polarity. As such, the real anode is often marked as the cathode, and
vice versa. They function in exactly the same way as a normal diode
(Current flow in the diagram follows the arrow) up to their quoted
reference voltage (Applied against the normal flow of current through a
diode), at which point they start to conduct. The difference between a
zener and a normal diode is that when a normal diode starts conducting
"in reverse", the breakdown is irreversible and wrecks the diode. With a
zener, the breakdown is reversible and controlled, so as long as the
current is controlled, the diode will maintain the reference voltage
across it.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

geoff

November 16th 15, 07:18 PM

On 17/11/2015 3:01 a.m., Angus Kerr wrote:
> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 5:03:00 PM UTC+2, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Angus Kerr wrote:
>>>>> In all my years as an electrical engineer, I have never understood
>>>>> what makes an anode an anode and what makes a cathode a cathode.
>>
>> The greek words mean "way up" and "way down." The "anode" is the "way up"
>> or "ascent" and is at the higher potential.
>
> So how would this work for a Zener diode a opposed to a normal signal diode? I'm pretty sure that for a Zener diode the anode and cathode are not reversed, even though the potential across the diode is.
>
> -----Just checked Wiki, and it seems that the Zener diode violates the convention.
>
> I tried to remember cathode = negative. I don't know if this is always true though.
>
> -Angus
>>
>> I believe this is explained in "Words of Science" by Isaac Asimov, which I
>> highly recommend as the best bathroom reading of all time.
>> --scott
>>
>> --
>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>

In semiconductors Current flows in direction of 'arrow' OK ! for forward
bias. Of course a zener doide operates 'zener-wise' in reverse bias.

And just to make it all clearer, electron flow is opposite to
conventional current flow !

geoff