[[email protected]]

If you're familiar with them any opinions on them? Fantastic? Adequate? Appropriate for self-monitoring while doing vocals?

Thanks


https://i.ibb.co/6YcWnvw/Dana-Headphones.jpg

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 16:41:10 -0800 (PST), wrote:

If you're familiar with them any opinions on them? Fantastic? Adequate? Appropriate for self-monitoring while doing vocals?

Thanks


https://i.ibb.co/6YcWnvw/Dana-Headphones.j

I'm more concerned by the string of fairy lights made from 12-bore
cartridge cases. What on earth is that all about? A statement?

The phones...Oh, no. No idea - sorry.

d

[[email protected]]

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 3:47:43 AM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:

I'm more concerned by the string of fairy lights made from 12-bore
cartridge cases. What on earth is that all about? A statement?


That's Dana Loesch (pron. like Lash) - conservative commentator and adamant pro 2nd Amendment advocate. One of her books is titled "Hands Off My Gun", an excellent read. The wall of her Youtube studio is adorned with various firearms.

She's pretty well known in the US - are you from across the pond?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:43:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 3:47:43 AM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:

I'm more concerned by the string of fairy lights made from 12-bore
cartridge cases. What on earth is that all about? A statement?


That's Dana Loesch (pron. like Lash) - conservative commentator and adamant pro 2nd Amendment advocate. One of her books is titled "Hands Off My Gun", an excellent read. The wall of her Youtube studio is adorned with various firearms.

She's pretty well known in the US - are you from across the pond?


I am.

d

[Dieter Michel]

These look for me like Sony noise-cancelling headphones,
like e.g. the MDR-1000X.

Best,

Dieter Michel

[[email protected]]

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 7:02:57 PM UTC-5, Dieter Michel wrote:
These look for me like Sony noise-cancelling headphones,
like e.g. the MDR-1000X.

Best,

Dieter Michel


Someone else on another forum came up with Sony's but the ones in the pic appear to be wired and all the MDR-1000X phones I find are wireless. Or is that wire going into hers possibly something else?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:43:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 3:47:43 AM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:

I'm more concerned by the string of fairy lights made from 12-bore
cartridge cases. What on earth is that all about? A statement?


That's Dana Loesch (pron. like Lash) - conservative commentator and adamant pro 2nd Amendment advocate. One of her books is titled "Hands Off My Gun", an excellent read. The wall of her Youtube studio is adorned with various firearms.

She's pretty well known in the US - are you from across the pond?


I've looked at her position, and she appears not to be a second
amendment advocate. She only advocates the second half of the second
amendment. No respect for someone who thinks the constitution is some
sort of a-la-carte menu.

d

[Dieter Michel]

Hi ,

These look for me like Sony noise-cancelling headphones,
like e.g. the MDR-1000X.

Someone else on another forum came up with Sony's but the
ones in the pic appear to be wired and all the MDR-1000X
phones I find are wireless.

I'm not familiar with this line of Sony headphones
but I presume that you can also operate them wired,
e.g. when the battery is empty or you just want a
safer connection to your audio source.

I don't know why that headphone is used in the
situation depicted in the link you provided.
Is it a TV show or a YouTube video?

In TV, I would expect some kind of in-ear-monitoring
to be used, so that there would not be a visible
headphone and still be some sound insulation due to
the ear mold.

So maybe the phones are used here just because the
talent likes the sound or for some reason needs the
extra sound cancelling an active-noise-cancelling headphone
would provide?

Best regards,

Dieter

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/21/2019 8:37 AM, Dieter Michel wrote:
So maybe the phones are used here just because the
talent likes the sound or for some reason needs the
extra sound cancelling an active-noise-cancelling headphone
would provide?

Or maybe they're just a prop for the photo. It could be the lighting,
but the microphone looks a bit prop-like, too. Most studio quality mics
aren't that shiny.

I've never heard of Dana Loesch either, but I'm not a follower of social
media politics. I'm curious as to why you're (muzician21) you're curious
about the headphones? You think you'd like what she likes? Or you just
don't recognize them and figure that a somewhat-celebrity would use some
really great headphones?

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

[[email protected]]

wrote:

That's Dana Loesch (pron. like Lash) - conservative commentator and adamant pro 2nd
Amendment advocate. One of her books is titled "Hands Off My Gun", an excellent read.
The wall of her Youtube studio is adorned with various firearms.

She's pretty well known in the US - are you from across the pond?
______________

Strange - most of the African Americans I know at least vote Democratic. The only issue
they are even more conservative than whites on is LGBTQ.

Then there's the 5% of blacks - like Loesch - whom I simply don't get. Some even deny
there is a race problem in the U.S., and go "I don't play the race card". smh!

[[email protected]]

As far as her cans, they look like a hardwired version of these:

https://www.amazon.com/WH-1000XM3-Wi...a-631446624901

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 2:43:23 AM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:43:16 -0800 (PST), muzician21 wrote:

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 3:47:43 AM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:

I'm more concerned by the string of fairy lights made from 12-bore
cartridge cases. What on earth is that all about? A statement?


That's Dana Loesch (pron. like Lash) - conservative commentator and adamant pro 2nd Amendment advocate. One of her books is titled "Hands Off My Gun", an excellent read. The wall of her Youtube studio is adorned with various firearms.

She's pretty well known in the US - are you from across the pond?


I've looked at her position, and she appears not to be a second
amendment advocate. She only advocates the second half of the second
amendment. No respect for someone who thinks the constitution is some
sort of a-la-carte menu.

d

She supports the entire amendment as intended by those who wrote it. You're making a common error of interpretation. There are issues of context, history and meaning that won't be obvious to 21st century eyes - and through a particular misguided bias. It doesn't say "people may possess arms only as members of a government militia" which is how many want to interpret it. Any argument you might against this has been made and is wrong and been officially declared as such by the SCOTUS.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 11:27:12 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 2:43:23 AM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:43:16 -0800 (PST), muzician21 wrote:

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 3:47:43 AM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:

I'm more concerned by the string of fairy lights made from 12-bore
cartridge cases. What on earth is that all about? A statement?


That's Dana Loesch (pron. like Lash) - conservative commentator and adamant pro 2nd Amendment advocate. One of her books is titled "Hands Off My Gun", an excellent read. The wall of her Youtube studio is adorned with various firearms.

She's pretty well known in the US - are you from across the pond?


I've looked at her position, and she appears not to be a second
amendment advocate. She only advocates the second half of the second
amendment. No respect for someone who thinks the constitution is some
sort of a-la-carte menu.

d

She supports the entire amendment as intended by those who wrote it. You're making a common error of interpretation. There are issues of context, history and meaning that won't be obvious to 21st century eyes - and through a particular misguided bias. It doesn't say "people may possess arms only as members of a government militia" which is how many want to interpret it. Any argument you might against this has been made and is wrong and been officially declared as such by the SCOTUS.

That ruling was made under pressure from the gun lobby, and is not an
interpretation of the first part, it is flat out ignoring it. So less
of the bull**** please.

d

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 10:28:52 AM UTC-5, wrote:
wrote:

That's Dana Loesch (pron. like Lash) - conservative commentator and adamant pro 2nd
Amendment advocate. One of her books is titled "Hands Off My Gun", an excellent read.
The wall of her Youtube studio is adorned with various firearms.

She's pretty well known in the US - are you from across the pond?
______________

Strange - most of the African Americans I know at least vote Democratic. The only issue
they are even more conservative than whites on is LGBTQ.

Then there's the 5% of blacks - like Loesch - whom I simply don't get. Some even deny
there is a race problem in the U.S., and go "I don't play the race card". smh!

?

Dana isn't black. She believes she has a bit of Indian but otherwise she's a white girl.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 9:09:52 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/21/2019 8:37 AM, Dieter Michel wrote:
So maybe the phones are used here just because the
talent likes the sound or for some reason needs the
extra sound cancelling an active-noise-cancelling headphone
would provide?

Or maybe they're just a prop for the photo. It could be the lighting,
but the microphone looks a bit prop-like, too. Most studio quality mics
aren't that shiny.

I've never heard of Dana Loesch either, but I'm not a follower of social
media politics. I'm curious as to why you're (muzician21) you're curious
about the headphones? You think you'd like what she likes? Or you just
don't recognize them and figure that a somewhat-celebrity would use some
really great headphones?

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

They came across my field of consciousness so thought I'd inquire about them.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 3:03:09 PM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 11:27:12 -0800 (PST), muzician21 wrote:

I've looked at her position, and she appears not to be a second
amendment advocate. She only advocates the second half of the second
amendment. No respect for someone who thinks the constitution is some
sort of a-la-carte menu.

d

She supports the entire amendment as intended by those who wrote it. You're making a common error of interpretation. There are issues of context, history and meaning that won't be obvious to 21st century eyes - and through a particular misguided bias. It doesn't say "people may possess arms only as members of a government militia" which is how many want to interpret it. Any argument you might against this has been made and is wrong and been officially declared as such by the SCOTUS.

That ruling was made under pressure from the gun lobby, and is not an
interpretation of the first part, it is flat out ignoring it. So less
of the bull**** please.

d


I applaud your knowledge regarding audio, I sense you've spent more time in this thread than you've spent examining the facts when it comes to the 2A. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Were you to debate Dana on the subject on stage she'd cut you to ribbons.

[James[_7_]]

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 9:09:52 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:

Or maybe they're just a prop for the photo. It could be the lighting,
but the microphone looks a bit prop-like, too. Most studio quality mics
aren't that shiny.


It's a screenshot from a YouTube video - that's the gear she uses.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:
If you're familiar with them any opinions on them? Fantastic? Adequate? Appropriate for self-monitoring while doing vocals?

Thanks


https://i.ibb.co/6YcWnvw/Dana-Headphones.jpg

Looks like an MDR-Z7 in a funny color scheme.

The microphone is an RE-320 that somebody has chromed.

MDR-Z7 is more or less like the MDR-V6.. peaky top end, boomy bass, great
for editing work. Kind of fatiguing for monitoring, but some people like it.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 11:27:12 -0800 (PST), wrote:

She supports the entire amendment as intended by those who wrote it. You're making a common error of interpretation. There are issues of context, history and meaning that won't be obvious to 21st century eyes - and through a particular misguided bias. It doesn't say "people may possess arms only as members of a government militia" which is how many want to interpret it. Any argument you might against this has been made and is wrong and been officially declared as such by the SCOTUS.

That ruling was made under pressure from the gun lobby, and is not an
interpretation of the first part, it is flat out ignoring it. So less
of the bull**** please.

The initial intention of the second amendment was to preserve the ability
to have a revolution; that is, it exists to protect the right to form an
independent militia. As such, it really shouldn't apply at all to handguns,
which are of little military use, and it should instead protect your right
to own tanks, bomber aircraft, and nuclear weapons, which are the current
state of the art military hardware in much the way that guns were in 1789.

The thing is, modern military hardware can make asymmetric warfare very very
effective, and there are some good arguments why one might not want to allow
private ownership of nuclear weapons, for instance.

So we are kind of stuck in a difficult place that was never really forseen
by the founding fathers, and which people on both sides of the aisle today
persist in ignoring.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

The initial intention of the second amendment was to preserve the ability
to have a revolution; that is, it exists to protect the right to form an
independent militia. As such, it really shouldn't apply at all to handguns,
which are of little military use, and it should instead protect your right
to own tanks, bomber aircraft, and nuclear weapons, which are the current
state of the art military hardware in much the way that guns were in 1789.

The thing is, modern military hardware can make asymmetric warfare very very
effective, and there are some good arguments why one might not want to allow
private ownership of nuclear weapons, for instance.

So we are kind of stuck in a difficult place that was never really forseen
by the founding fathers, and which people on both sides of the aisle today
persist in ignoring.


Which in essence is why the thing is sorely in need of a rewrite - or outright repeal! lol

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 11:27:12 -0800 (PST), wrote:

She supports the entire amendment as intended by those who wrote it. You're making a common error of interpretation. There are issues of context, history and meaning that won't be obvious to 21st century eyes - and through a particular misguided bias. It doesn't say "people may possess arms only as members of a government militia" which is how many want to interpret it. Any argument you might against this has been made and is wrong and been officially declared as such by the SCOTUS.

That ruling was made under pressure from the gun lobby, and is not an
interpretation of the first part, it is flat out ignoring it. So less
of the bull**** please.

The initial intention of the second amendment was to preserve the ability
to have a revolution; that is, it exists to protect the right to form an
independent militia. As such, it really shouldn't apply at all to handguns,
which are of little military use,

Oh, c'mon. Randolph Scott demonstrated clearly that handguns were to be
used to shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand.

and it should instead protect your right
to own tanks, bomber aircraft, and nuclear weapons, which are the current
state of the art military hardware in much the way that guns were in 1789.

The thing is, modern military hardware can make asymmetric warfare very very
effective, and there are some good arguments why one might not want to allow
private ownership of nuclear weapons, for instance.

So we are kind of stuck in a difficult place that was never really forseen
by the founding fathers, and which people on both sides of the aisle today
persist in ignoring.
--scott


--
Les Cargill

[James[_7_]]

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 9:10:47 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:

The initial intention of the second amendment was to preserve the ability
to have a revolution; that is, it exists to protect the right to form an
independent militia. As such, it really shouldn't apply at all to handguns,
which are of little military use, and it should instead protect your right
to own tanks, bomber aircraft, and nuclear weapons, which are the current
state of the art military hardware in much the way that guns were in 1789..

The thing is, modern military hardware can make asymmetric warfare very very
effective, and there are some good arguments why one might not want to allow
private ownership of nuclear weapons, for instance.

So we are kind of stuck in a difficult place that was never really forseen
by the founding fathers, and which people on both sides of the aisle today
persist in ignoring.
--scott


It's not just to preserve the ability to form a militia. When the 2A was written firearm ownership was ubiquitous. People used them for hunting for food and for recreation, for self-defense. I.e. basically the same reasons they own them today. Sure, resistance against tyranny was also part of it - the British made efforts to confiscate arms and ammunition to maintain control over the population. Dictatorships are famous for confiscating firearms.

True, today most people don't have to hunt for food, and there aren't many indian raids these days but there are plenty of criminals and clowns like Eric Swalwell and Beto O'Rourke around to remind us there are those happy to usurp our rights.

It was also made clear that the 2A didn't grant people a right, it was explicitly acknowledging a natural right. The correct answer to "why do you need a gun?" is "it's none of your damned business" if someone doesn't have a history of behaving criminally, isn't mentally deranged. And by criminally I mean robbery, murder, etc. I don't mean because a government has criminalized firearms.

[Scott Dorsey]

James wrote:
On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 9:10:47 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
=20
The initial intention of the second amendment was to preserve the ability=
=20
to have a revolution; that is, it exists to protect the right to form an
independent militia. As such, it really shouldn't apply at all to handgu=
ns,
which are of little military use, and it should instead protect your righ=
t
to own tanks, bomber aircraft, and nuclear weapons, which are the current
state of the art military hardware in much the way that guns were in 1789=
.
=20
The thing is, modern military hardware can make asymmetric warfare very v=
ery
effective, and there are some good arguments why one might not want to al=
low
private ownership of nuclear weapons, for instance.
=20
So we are kind of stuck in a difficult place that was never really forsee=
n
by the founding fathers, and which people on both sides of the aisle toda=
y
persist in ignoring.

It's not just to preserve the ability to form a militia. When the 2A was wr=
itten firearm ownership was ubiquitous. People used them for hunting for fo=
od and for recreation, for self-defense. I.e. basically the same reasons th=
ey own them today. Sure, resistance against tyranny was also part of it - t=
he British made efforts to confiscate arms and ammunition to maintain contr=
ol over the population. Dictatorships are famous for confiscating firearms.=

It doesn't actually say that, though. What it says is that because citizens
have a right to resist, therefore they have an inherent right to have arms.

All of that stuff about hunting, recreation, and self defense isn't actually
written on the paper. Much of it has been inferred by the courts, but court
interpretations change.

It was also made clear that the 2A didn't grant people a right, it was expl=
icitly acknowledging a natural right. The correct answer to "why do you nee=
d a gun?" is "it's none of your damned business" if someone doesn't have a =
history of behaving criminally, isn't mentally deranged. And by criminally =
I mean robbery, murder, etc. I don't mean because a government has criminal=
ized firearms.

Yes, but that's how the constitution works. Right in the preamble, it points
out that all rights are natural, and that rights cannot be granted by a
document, only taken away.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[James[_7_]]

On Thursday, December 26, 2019 at 8:31:19 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
James wrote:

It's not just to preserve the ability to form a militia. When the 2A was wr=
itten firearm ownership was ubiquitous. People used them for hunting for fo=
od and for recreation, for self-defense. I.e. basically the same reasons th=
ey own them today. Sure, resistance against tyranny was also part of it - t=
he British made efforts to confiscate arms and ammunition to maintain contr=
ol over the population. Dictatorships are famous for confiscating firearms.=

It doesn't actually say that, though. What it says is that because citizens
have a right to resist, therefore they have an inherent right to have arms.


Yup, they have a right to resist unlawful force - whether it's the gov't overstepping their bounds or someone breaking into your home or trying to attack you on the street.



All of that stuff about hunting, recreation, and self defense isn't actually
written on the paper.


It doesn't need to be. It's already been established that it doesn't restrict firearm possession to participating in a gov't militia. You've acknowledged the point that people have the right to resist - the gov't confiscating firearms deprived people of a capacity to obtain food, to defend themselves.

Ergo "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.

[nickbatz]

Who cares what headphones a terrorist spokesperson poses with.

"The only issue
they are even more conservative than whites on is LGBTQ. "

The canard that black people are homophobic is just that. And while only self-loathing black people vote for conservatives, black people are not all the same person. Either are white people, nor are we all conservative.