My apologies then.
--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

"Roger W. Norman" wrote:

When Phildo starts actually answering questions,

I've seen him answer plenty.

and you, Pooh Bear, start
being more involved with the group as a group as opposed to your
personal
expression of your own mission,

Pardon ? What mission ? is that meant to be ?

I'm employed in audio design engineeering and naturally wish to make any
member
of aapls or rap aware of the products that my clients may offer but I
don't IMHO
do that more than rarely and only in context. I also offer otherwise
unobtainable service advice on their older products that are no longer
officially supported.

I've spent quite some time too as a live sound engineer ( and to a minor
degree
in recording as well ) and can talk from the perspective of both the user
and
the designer.

More recently I've been closely involved with the evolution of a local
night
club dedicated to live bands and have played a significant part in
equipment
selection and installation and can offer my experience of these issues and
my
assessment of the results.

Is that not enough 'involvement ' ?


Graham

Lines: 77
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling
X-Trace: ldjgbllpbapjglppdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcbohm fpiljnanogpckopeiphjjefhhdbmabpcbkbdhgeenpejkpljfg fhblpipfahopgahfahiidcgejhaiakjlbbaelojkgfkbfhhchn hocjabfggo
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 01:18:42 EDT
Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 05:18:42 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.audio.pro.live-sound:151742 rec.audio.pro:1177051


On 2005-06-01 said:
I don't know what the "visually impaired" do. Can they actually
read messages better because they are at the bottom of a post?
Beats me. --
Don't know either because the visually impaired are those who are
helped with glasses. DOn't happen to be "visually impaired" I'm a
blind man. For other than reading email and usenet my primary method
of reading is braille.
NOw that we've defined terms instead of been politically correct, in
most cases yes I find I spend more time reading the content of a post
when the old net conventions are followed than when somebody posts one
or two lines at the top of a bunch of quoted text they're too lazy to
trim. FIrst consider that using synthesized speech it can talk no
faster than you can understand speech, about 100 words per minute or
so, where a good reader can read at possibly tripple that speed. (I
know I can achieve much higher rates of reading and comprehending
using braille than speech or books on tape.)

COnsider also that to get to the meat of one's top post I've got to
wade through about a dozen lines of header in most cases, the lines
which tell me who originated the message, the path of which servers it
took, what to do with abuse complaints and software brag lines. IN a
long thread where a few posters are generating most of the traffic
I'll spend more wasted time reading these same lines unless I tell the
machine to shut up. THen I find myself sitting at the bottom of the
first screen.

At that point, use the reading cursor, look up a couple lines, listen
to what they're telling me. IF it's quoted text I've read before move
on with the appropriate keystroke to the next page and hopefully we're
into what the reply is.
WEre I using one of the new gui based operating systems and their
screen access I wouldn't have the reading cursor and reading online
would mean that I'd miss most of the post using the shut up button.
THis is because scren access developers have had to develop
alternatives to double click right click and all this other happy bs.

Many of the one line nimrods get filtered out because I don't have
time to chase through the text looking for their one or two lines of
text so I just killfile them and move on. HOwever usually I take the
time to read Roger as he's usually got something lucid to say.

Having said that it was sometimes difficult in those long political
discussions on rap where Roger was replying point by point to
something but rarely took the time to place his replies under the
points to which he was replying. OFten had he done that his debates
with WIll and some others would have been much more fun g.

Been too busy to hang on usenet much the last few days so got into
this thread kinda late on this topic. AFter all trying to hold down a
volunteer gig training emergency communicators to help out a hospital
if disaster strikes and it's hurricane season here in NEw ORleans.
Trying to keep my gig going and hopefuly get moved into suitable
quarters where I can once again set up the studio. Means I'll be
spending more time doing other things as the place needs some work
before we can move, gotta fix the leaky roof and rebuild the carport,
clean up the trash in the storage sheds, trim back the trees so ham
radio antennas can go up, etc. etc. etc.
Also my lady spends too much damned time at hospitals as we're trying
to save a foot that has troubles due to diabetes. Btw Roger she can't
enjoy corn on the cob either thanks to false teeth and other foods are
difficult as well g. I find myself fortunate at 50 years old to
still have mine.




Richard Webb,
Electric SPider Productions, New Orleans, La.
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--



Braille: support true literacy for the blind!

Lines: 57
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling
X-Trace: npbhgpngjbkmjfegdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcboog oochahndegpbalalcpdfdfhdacgfjahiafbanepjdnjigjcmin edjmjemeieancgjhijfjaoffaekhpllbpcnbfjcpgfffbdbcii hmobjcnbmn
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 17:11:09 EDT
Organization: BellSouth Internet Service
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 21:11:09 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.audio.pro.live-sound:151791 rec.audio.pro:1177253


On 2005-06-03 said:
Newsgroups: alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.pro
wrote in message...
NOw that we've defined terms instead of been politically correct,
in most cases, yes, I find I spend more time reading the content
of a post when the old net conventions are followed than when
somebody posts one or two lines at the top of a bunch of quoted
text they're too lazy to trim.
Your sentence above makes it sound as if top posting is a good
thing for you. However, the following lines make it sound as if
top posting is a pain...
Consider also that to get to the meat of one's top post, I've got
to wade through about a dozen lines of header in most cases
So, which is it my brother... top, bottom, or interspersed? ;-)
HOwever usually I take the
time to read Roger as he's usually got something lucid to say.
Let us simply say that he's not really the kind of person which
deserves to be put in the bozo-bin for such a mild idiosyncracy.
I don't top post unless I've trimmed the entire mess that preceeded,
but now I'm wondering if the format I've used here is the easiest
for you to wade through.
WOrks fine, little header to wade through and comments interspersed
allow one to follow the flow of the conversation.
AS an example, in this thread Roger's, "My apologies" as a one liner
at the top of Pooh bear's post was a nothing, as in apologies for
what. Had read the thread recently enough that once I saw the quoting
of pooh bear I kind of had an idea whta he was talking about. However
after two or three days of being two busy reading usenet I would have
not bothered to find out waht he was apologizing for g.
mOst conversations don't go on enough where that many comments are
interspersed, but on some long threads where one raises multiple
points that the person replying wishes to comment on interspersing
one's comments within the quoted text allows one to follow the flow.
Otherwise I find that usually bottom posting wastes less time for me.
Others mileage seems to vary, depending on how long one's been exposed
to usenet fidonet and the other forms of computerized discourse.
SOrry if I wasn't clear last evening when I wrote that, been a long
day which started at 7:00 A.M. and was finally wrapping up around 1
with me reading some usenet while waiting for the dog to digest her
dinner and want to go for a walk around the neighborhood one last time
g.

REgards,



Richard Webb,
Electric SPider Productions, New Orleans, La.
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--



if its supposed to move but doesn't, use wd40
if it moves but shouldn't use duct tape

Phildo wrote:

This Roger **** seems to be a very angry and troubled guy. The fact that he
can't make a bit of effort to help those less fortunate than himself says a
hell of a lot about his character.

If you've ever read **** all about Roger and his history, your own
political views would find a very strong ally, one much more deeply
informed than yourself. And Roger has offered plenty of help vis a vis
recording and live sound and computer assistance in rec.audio.pro. He
has been a valuable contributor in r.a.p. for quite a while.

He top posts. We've chewed his ass about it. He won't change that. I
wish he would. But his contributions and friendship mean more to me than
whether or not I can get him to post as I do.

--
ha

SSJVCmag wrote:

You could've lead with the simple educational 'why' card instead of the
'shoulder chip' card.

But then Phildo would have needed a full deck.

--
ha

Roger W. Norman wrote:

I don't know what the "visually impaired" do. Can they actually read
messages better because they are at the bottom of a post? Beats me.

Just put this in audio terms, Roger: you are blind and your computer
talks to you, reading to you what is on the screen. Now look at a screen
and read like a computer.

You have no context of that which has gone before. If you enter a thread
mid-stream and the upstream stuff is already placed downstream, you
can't just glance down the screeen and quickly grab context.

Now consider editing. You can't speed-read anything. It all has to be
spoken. I'll put Scott Dorsey up as a model of Usenet efficiency, and I
know he got that way via running his own server and paying for every bit
transported. He has streamlined his communication to deliver all the
necessary information without spending an extra penny.

What does this all mean? It means that if I am blind I am more than a
little assisted if the conversations on my computer's screen are
presented concisely and chronologically.

You are a man of considerable compassion. I have been surprised more
than once that this hasn't yet made enough sense for you to invoke it.

--
ha

Phildo wrote:

That has already been done and he still refused. Therefore he does not
deserve to be read or replied to and is indeed a ****wit.

And if his live sound and simultaneous recording chops exceed your own,
does that make you but some percentage of one good ****wit?

--
ha

hank alrich wrote:

snip

He top posts. We've chewed his ass about it. He won't change that. I
wish he would.

Considering now simple it is to bottom post what exactly *is* his problem with it
? It comes over as some kind of quasi-religious obsession with him !

But his contributions and friendship mean more to me than whether or not I can
get him to post as I do.

Fair enough.

Graham

Lines: 40
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling
X-Trace: ofjmidbaofeaohdodbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcboim kfhfdkehapnkcohboeneagdmedomkfibmhaafjhkajcjlkkeng gcopcoobjfcogahfahiidcgejhaipggilocgfnbhhplccaaibd ilgclgdhoj
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 00:44:03 EDT
Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 04:44:03 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.audio.pro.live-sound:151851 rec.audio.pro:1177598


On 2005-06-04 (hankalrich) said:
If you've ever read **** all about Roger and his history, your own
political views would find a very strong ally, one much more deeply
informed than yourself. And Roger has offered plenty of help vis a
vis recording and live sound and computer assistance in rec.audio.
pro. He has been a valuable contributor in r.a.p. for quite a while.
He top posts. We've chewed his ass about it. He won't change that. I
wish he would. But his contributions and friendship mean more to me
than whether or not I can get him to post as I do.
I followed the discussions Hank mentions above and don't believe I
jumped into the fray on that one. OFtentimes I still read his posts
as he has something to say worth reading. FOr those who don't who
don't follow the net conventions I usually just drop their posts into
the big ol' bit bucket and am done with it. tWould be nice if many
folks on the net learned the conventions and followed them, but often
one can't change the fact that folks will do as they will.

Often on his lengthier posts I find that ROger gives me enough
discussion by himself that I don't have to play with the page up and
down keys to find out waht he's talking about, but occasionally during
the seemingly endless political threads it wouold have been real handy
had he interspersed his comments in with quoted text just for reasons
of the flow of the discussion. IN other words, if a person is lucid
enough and might add to my store of knowledge they're worth reading
even if I find their posting style a bit of a pita. THose who don't
find my killfile easily as I don't read usenet and all these different
email lists just for entertainment. IF I want to entertain myself
I"ll listen to some music or chase dx on my ham rig for awhile.




Richard Webb,
Electric SPider Productions, New Orleans, La.
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--

Pooh Bear wrote:

hank alrich wrote:

snip

He top posts. We've chewed his ass about it. He won't change that. I
wish he would.

Considering now simple it is to bottom post what exactly *is* his problem
with it ?

Given the difficulty of trying to explain that which one does not
understand, I pass. g

It comes over as some kind of quasi-religious obsession with him !

A funny aspect of it is that Roger is an extremely articulate person,
very nicely literate.

But his contributions and friendship mean more to me than whether or not
I can get him to post as I do.

Fair enough.

But I ain't saying I've given up, though I doubt calling him a **** over
it will further my progress, even if ****s are among the toughest stuff.

And note the ease with which he quickly apologized for his errant
assessment of your own contributions, which was most appropriate.

--
ha

Pooh Bear wrote:
Anyone not considerate enough to modify their posting style to help the
visually impaired doesn't deserve a reply.

Uhm. Remember that it isn't obvious we've got a visually impaired
participant until someone mentions something.

(Top-posting vs. bottom-posting, and just how much to trim quotes, is a
long-standing Religious Schism which will probably never be settled, no
matter what arguments are advanced, especially since some other
mail/discussion systems actually do work better in top-posting mode. I
suspect that better tooling will have to be the answer in the long run,
using the angle-bracket characters or some other mark to intelligently
distinguish quotes from new text and shuffle them to suit the reader's
preferences.)

This argument is pretty much limited to guitarists as far as I can
tell, and also doesn't really have a definitive answer. I have never
heard any engineer (although there may be someone here who will prove
me wrong...:-) that prefers to have back line for half the PA, and a
mix for the rest. Partly because anyone who works with bands regularly
has a fair idea what some guitarists are like (not all though - there
are some good ones). Of all band members, guitarists tend to be the
most precious about "their" sound. All well and good when the guitarist
is really good at what he does, and knows how to make the best use of
his sound in reference to the rest of the band (see the post about real
musicians - which I agree with... It is a wonderful experience to work
with musicians who know their sound, and how it works best with the
other group members).

Trouble is, too few musicians are that good. Again not a problem when
they are willing to listen to their engineer, and have a decent
dialogue about making it all fit. Major problem when they won't. (I
once had 2 guitarists make their drummer almost sick, and gave him a
screaming headache because they had set their stacks up in an alcove
right behind him, one on each side. Oh, and refused to let anybody
alter the sound from the stacks. Making that sound passable FOH, with
only half the band in the PA mix was a nightmare, and seeing the
drummer come down with his eyeballs playing tennis was the only thing
that made me decide somebody had had a worse night than me).

For a band with guitarists that are not Prima Donna's though, there is
no pressing reason not to use back line - as long as the mix sounds
good FOH it's not a problem.

PA mix makes it far easier to get a good sound though - due to the
ability to set EQ's, levels, adding bus effects, Stereo image (turning
a pan control is far easier than having to move a hulking great
Marshall stack), and do it all from a good position FOH - as opposed to
running back and forth between stacks on stage and the position the
audience will be listening from.

Numbers wise, if you do use back line, I would put the break point at
between 25%-35% capacity for the venue. At this point, the number of
bodies in the space will begin to drastically alter the overall sound,
and because you don't know in advance how many will be there, the sound
will need to alter to compensate (plus equipment will have gone from
cold to warm state which will also require re equalising). I say a
percentage, as obviously 200 people in a 200 person venue will alter it
more than 200 people in a 1500 person venue.

This is only IMO though, and there will likely be many other opinions
here. Like I say, no real definitive answer. The best advice is if you
can make it sound good FOH for the audience, and they keep coming back,
that is really what matters. Perfect linearity in reproduction of the
music is currently impossible with both methods, so the only real test
is the listeners .If you want to get a good idea of their opinion, you
could try both methods on different nights, and give out a small
questionaire to fill in - make it a prize draw for a case of beer for
the first completed ticket drawn from the hat at the end of the night
to give incentive to fill them in - and draw a few extra
listeners....;-)

Otherwise, rely on good old fashioned ear work - no matter how much
equipment there is, they are still the sound engineers best friend.

Good luck,

Leo

Closest to that which I've seen -- just as a rehearsal gag -- was a
slight delay in the monitors. Get the timing right and it becomes hard
to _speak_ coherently, never mind sing.

The only time I've run into the "we're gonna run over and you can't stop
us" has been in festival settings... and in that sort of situation I've
decided I'm perfectly willing to just fade them out if I must... then,
if they don't get the clue, walk out on stage and start moving mikes go
get set up for the next set. Do this a few times and folks start taking
the five-minutes signal more seriously.

hank alrich wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

hank alrich wrote:

snip

He top posts. We've chewed his ass about it. He won't change that. I
wish he would.

Considering now simple it is to bottom post what exactly *is* his problem
with it ?

Given the difficulty of trying to explain that which one does not
understand, I pass. g

You're as much in the dark as the rest of us then ?


It comes over as some kind of quasi-religious obsession with him !

A funny aspect of it is that Roger is an extremely articulate person,
very nicely literate.

Indeed, that comes over in his posts. But why can't he post them appropriately ?
That's especially so relevant when it makes sense to intersperse comments in
amongst the original text so as to add continuity to the thread of ideas.


But his contributions and friendship mean more to me than whether or not
I can get him to post as I do.

Fair enough.

But I ain't saying I've given up, though I doubt calling him a **** over
it will further my progress, even if ****s are among the toughest stuff.

Well.... funnily enough in another ng we got a new contributor who was an
arrogant top-poster. Finally ( and this isn't my norm ) I posted a thread saying
'X is a top-posting f*wit'. I got lambasted for it - but X changed his ways when
he saw how unpopular his style was.

And note the ease with which he quickly apologized for his errant
assessment of your own contributions, which was most appropriate.

Yes, it hadn't escaped my attention. Had it not been top-posted I would most
likely have replied in kind.

Graham