[Mark]

On Apr 25, 9:44*am, "George's Pro Sound Co." wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message

...
On Apr 24, 1:12 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

m...

"Mark" wrote in message

On Apr 23, 10:13 am, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message

...

Will an older "high end" board really sound noticeably
better than a modern Behringer?

Having switched recently from the Behringer Xenyx 2442FX
to the Allen & Heath WZ 20:8:2 (the first generation of
Wizard mixers, mid-90s, good, but not quite high end),
I'd say yes, it's still a big difference. Even with the
clearly superior A&H preamps and eqs out of the
equation, just listening to a rough mix from the
multitrack recorder, using only faders and pan pots, the
notorious veil is gone. The improvement in transparency
and definition is striking.

I expect to read comments like that in the "audiophile"
groups.

Did you make ANY measurements to verify what you think
you hear?

More to the point, did he do any well-controlled listening tests?

Of course he did, Arny. It's called mixing a record. People do it all the
time. You and Mark should try it once.

Predrag

this field is a combination of science AND art...
you seem to want to ignore the science part... that's fine if it works
for you..
Mark

I trust my ears over *measured specs, a sucessful career spaning nearly 3
decades gives me security in my ability to make things sound great.
I can't tell you how often some "engineer walks up and says"you eq doesn't
LOOK right" or right here my computer says "this sounds great" when in
reality it is harsh and shrill on the verge of feedback
use measurments to design gear but by the time you are in the trenches all
that counts is what the ears say counts

George

this really is one of those "taste great" / "less filling"
arguments...

anyone that relies on measurements alone or on their ears alone is
missing at least 1/2 of the picture.

you need both...

the truth will set you free :-)

Mark

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On 25 Apr 2010 10:53:08 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

None of this has much bearing on how much trouble it's worth taking on
learning a tool.

I'd rather learn to use something that will last me a lifetime than learn
to use something that will soon get replaced.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're 65 years old. You
set up your first studio at 25. What would you still be using? Maybe
some mics? (I'll let you off the issue of what you could have
AFFORDED to buy then:-)

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:03:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Arny, it looks like you have no clue about just how
relevant the things you do have a
clue about are to music production.

Try again - not even a proper sentence.

A bit convoluted, but I don't see an actual grammatical error.

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Apr 25, 9:44 am, "George's Pro Sound Co." wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message

...
On Apr 24, 1:12 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

m...

"Mark" wrote in message

On Apr 23, 10:13 am, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message

...

Will an older "high end" board really sound noticeably
better than a modern Behringer?

Having switched recently from the Behringer Xenyx 2442FX
to the Allen & Heath WZ 20:8:2 (the first generation of
Wizard mixers, mid-90s, good, but not quite high end),
I'd say yes, it's still a big difference. Even with the
clearly superior A&H preamps and eqs out of the
equation, just listening to a rough mix from the
multitrack recorder, using only faders and pan pots, the
notorious veil is gone. The improvement in transparency
and definition is striking.

I expect to read comments like that in the "audiophile"
groups.

Did you make ANY measurements to verify what you think
you hear?

More to the point, did he do any well-controlled listening tests?

Of course he did, Arny. It's called mixing a record. People do it all
the
time. You and Mark should try it once.

Predrag

this field is a combination of science AND art...
you seem to want to ignore the science part... that's fine if it works
for you..
Mark

I trust my ears over measured specs, a sucessful career spaning nearly 3
decades gives me security in my ability to make things sound great.
I can't tell you how often some "engineer walks up and says"you eq doesn't
LOOK right" or right here my computer says "this sounds great" when in
reality it is harsh and shrill on the verge of feedback
use measurments to design gear but by the time you are in the trenches all
that counts is what the ears say counts

George

this really is one of those "taste great" / "less filling"
arguments...

anyone that relies on measurements alone or on their ears alone is
missing at least 1/2 of the picture.

you need both...

the truth will set you free :-)

Mark

I really don't need to measure THD or crosstalk, or any of thousands of
other things that can be measured, in the end it is all about sound, try to
pick a microphone from a spec sheet and let me know how that works for you
G

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

vdubreeze wrote:
On Apr 25, 9:14 am, Mike wrote:
Predrag Trpkov wrote:
Whether you treat it as expensive or not, sooner or later it will need to be
serviced and servicing a Behringer or a Mackie mixer is a nightmare. In that
sense they can all be considered disposable.

And what's wrong with that, assuming you got enough use out of it to
amortize your investment, of course? When it needs fixing, that's when
you make a decision as to whether to fix it or replace it. The people
who are bothered most by this are those with minimal budgets for
sustaining their operation - they think their $300 mixer was a lifetime
investment and can't get over the fact that not even a $100,000 mixer is
a lifetime investment for someone who is actually in business.

But don't forget that sometimes when a four year old $300 piece of
gear breaks you CAN'T get another easily. It's been replaced by the
XL or TX or DX model, which might be better, might be worse, sometimes
is fairly different somewhere, sometimes definitely is different.
Sometimes it doesn't matter but sometimes it does. And your old one
just doesn't seem to show up on craigslist right now. So you have to
go back to purchase decision mode not just replace mode. Plus, the
person who buys a $300 mixer, unlike us, doesn't realize, and is
certainly not made aware, that it can't be reasonably fixed if it
breaks. It's a surprise to them to find out.

The other aspect to the "disposable"-ness of cheap gear is that they
only stay on the product sheet in a disposable way too.



So you don't buy one - you buy two.

--
Les Cargill

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Predrag Trpkov wrote:

By the way, is the electronics in the Onyx series surface mount
technology?

Some is, some isn't. All the digital stuff is.

Sorry, I was too vague. I'm interested in the mixers only, especially the 24
channel model, the smallest one with the 100 mm faders.

Predrag

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On 25 Apr 2010 10:53:08 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

None of this has much bearing on how much trouble it's worth taking on
learning a tool.

I'd rather learn to use something that will last me a lifetime than learn
to use something that will soon get replaced.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're 65 years old. You
set up your first studio at 25. What would you still be using? Maybe
some mics? (I'll let you off the issue of what you could have
AFFORDED to buy then:-)

Well, I'm still using the Ampex that I bought thirty years ago.... and I'm
still using all of the mikes I have ever bought... and I'm still using the
same console although I'm in the process of upgrading. I've had the monitors
since 1990. I expect to keep using those monitors for another 20 years
and I might keep the old console too.

All the splitters and remote hardware is stuff I handbuilt in the late
seventies, and it's all still working just fine.

Hell, I'm still using the Prism AD-124 converters that I bought in 1990
on Gabe's recommendation. They still sound pretty good.

Not to mention all the outboard gear, all of which was unfashionable and
inexpensive when I bought it, but most of which is now "vintage" and worth
a lot more than I paid for it.

I don't have the money to waste on cheap junk that I'll just have to replace.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Predrag Trpkov wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Predrag Trpkov wrote:

By the way, is the electronics in the Onyx series surface mount
technology?

Some is, some isn't. All the digital stuff is.

Sorry, I was too vague. I'm interested in the mixers only, especially the 24
channel model, the smallest one with the 100 mm faders.

That's what I mean. All the digital electronics inside the box is SMT.
Some of the analogue stuff is SMT, some is through-hole. The mike preamps
have SMT transistors and through-hole caps, as I recall.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Sun 2038-Apr-25 09:14, Mike Rivers writes:
Whether you treat it as expensive or not, sooner or later it will need to be
serviced and servicing a Behringer or a Mackie mixer is a nightmare. In that
sense they can all be considered disposable.

And what's wrong with that, assuming you got enough use out of it to
amortize your investment, of course? When it needs fixing, that's
when you make a decision as to whether to fix it or replace it. The
people who are bothered most by this are those with minimal budgets
for sustaining their operation - they think their $300 mixer was a
lifetime investment and can't get over the fact that not even a
$100,000 mixer is a lifetime investment for someone who is actually
in business.

Would agree wtih that. Folks forget, however that many
corners get cut to achieve the desired price point and one
should take this into consideration as well.

I had no expectations of super great sound or longevity when I bought a Mackie 1202, but it was still cooking when the
after Katrina fire burned it. IT served me well. WHen I'd
run across an 8 bus and be doing a job with it I could get
the job done. As Scott says, it isn't as easy or pleasant,
but it can be done. Would I buy one, or its cousin the
Behringer? Depends on the application, and the budget. For the original poster's application maybe, but obviously he's
got the money to spend and wants better.

MR Nothing, however, can accurately predict, or hedge against
MR obsolescence. If you have the world's best analog console and the
MR only clients you have are demanding that you mix in a DAW, you need
MR to either comply or change your business model to attract the
MR "analog" clients for a while longer while planning what you're
MR going to do next.

Indeed, which is why my business model is what it is.
MIxing for live broadcast isn't going to require all the
mousable daw features as likely, and tracking sessions can
be handled and given over to the guy with the mouse for
final production.

Regards,
Richard


remote audio in the Memphis, Tn. area: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Apr 25, 9:44 am, "George's Pro Sound Co." wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message

...
On Apr 24, 1:12 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

m...

"Mark" wrote in message

On Apr 23, 10:13 am, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message

...

Will an older "high end" board really sound noticeably
better than a modern Behringer?

Having switched recently from the Behringer Xenyx 2442FX
to the Allen & Heath WZ 20:8:2 (the first generation of
Wizard mixers, mid-90s, good, but not quite high end),
I'd say yes, it's still a big difference. Even with the
clearly superior A&H preamps and eqs out of the
equation, just listening to a rough mix from the
multitrack recorder, using only faders and pan pots, the
notorious veil is gone. The improvement in transparency
and definition is striking.

I expect to read comments like that in the "audiophile"
groups.

Did you make ANY measurements to verify what you think
you hear?

More to the point, did he do any well-controlled listening tests?

Of course he did, Arny. It's called mixing a record. People do it all
the
time. You and Mark should try it once.

Predrag

this field is a combination of science AND art...
you seem to want to ignore the science part... that's fine if it works
for you..
Mark

I trust my ears over measured specs, a sucessful career spaning nearly 3
decades gives me security in my ability to make things sound great.
I can't tell you how often some "engineer walks up and says"you eq doesn't
LOOK right" or right here my computer says "this sounds great" when in
reality it is harsh and shrill on the verge of feedback
use measurments to design gear but by the time you are in the trenches all
that counts is what the ears say counts

George

this really is one of those "taste great" / "less filling"
arguments...

anyone that relies on measurements alone or on their ears alone is
missing at least 1/2 of the picture.

you need both...

the truth will set you free :-)

Mark


Just like Arny, what you've been trying to sell to a bunch of seasoned music
recording and production professionals here is a misplaced pseudo-scientific
hogwash. Inapplicable in practical terms and quite predictably
counter-productive, it indicates your complete lack of any real-life
experience in the field. In addition to that you're less knowledgeable and
yet more rude and dismissive than Arny.

Predrag

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Predrag Trpkov wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Predrag Trpkov wrote:

By the way, is the electronics in the Onyx series surface mount
technology?

Some is, some isn't. All the digital stuff is.

Sorry, I was too vague. I'm interested in the mixers only, especially the
24
channel model, the smallest one with the 100 mm faders.

That's what I mean. All the digital electronics inside the box is SMT.
Some of the analogue stuff is SMT, some is through-hole. The mike preamps
have SMT transistors and through-hole caps, as I recall.
--scott

Thanks. Do you think there's an improvement in terms of long-term
serviceability compared to the 8-Bus, for example?

The hourly rates of the techs around here are considerably lower than in the
U.S. or Germany or Britain and it's unlikely to change soon. The cost of
opening and closing the case is not my primary concern.

Predrag

[Mike Rivers]

vdubreeze wrote:

But don't forget that sometimes when a four year old $300 piece of
gear breaks you CAN'T get another easily. It's been replaced by the
XL or TX or DX model, which might be better, might be worse, sometimes
is fairly different somewhere, sometimes definitely is different.

There's no better example of this than a computer. But this is one of
the costs
of saving on the initial cost. If I had a 5 year old Behringer mixer
fail, I don't think
I'd want to replace it with another one just like it that I bought from
an unknown
eBay or Craig's List seller - hell, it probably has as many problems as
the one
I want to replace. But if I felt good about Behringer, I'd see what they
have to
offer that's functionally similar to what I need to replace. Or I might
look into a
Soundcraft, or a Yamaha, or a Mackie, or an A&H. I'd be getting what's most
likely a better mixer for about the same amount of dollars that I spent
5 years
ago, and that's a pretty good deal.

person who buys a $300 mixer, unlike us, doesn't realize, and is
certainly not made aware, that it can't be reasonably fixed if it
breaks. It's a surprise to them to find out.

That's the unfortunate part. On the other hand, there are some $300 mixers
that have been going for 10 years and are still fine. Some people who buy
$300 mixers have a tendency to abuse them, not intentionally, they just
don't
know better. Or they simply never learn how to work them properly. A $300
mixer doesn't get a $300 custom fitted road case, it gets tossed in the
back of
the van and hopefully doesn't get bashed by a speaker.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson

[Mike Rivers]

Richard Webb wrote:

I had no expectations of super great sound or longevity when I
bought a Mackie 1202, but it was still cooking when the
after Katrina fire burned it.

Sometimes you get lucky. There was a 1202 in a display case at Mackie
that had been left on the ground when the van drove away and got
run over. The mixer, excluding the faders that wouldn't move, still worked.

Last weekend at a music camp, someone showd me a Zoom H4 recorder
with a couple of holes punched in it on both sides. Seems that the guy's
rather large dog thought it was a bone or a toy and chewed on it. It still
worked, too. Wish I had a camera handy to photograph it.

But solder joints fail, ribbon cable connectors get loose, and occasionally
capacitors go south. There's nothing that can't be fixed, but you have to
know enough in order to fix them. It's not like replacing a tube in a guitar
amplifier. Surface mount construction gets some bad press, but it's not
because of the technology, it's because of the documentation. All the parts
look alike - you can't tell a capacitor from a resistor from a diode,
they're
usually not clearly marked with their value, and there aren't any reference
designations printed on the board. After all, the parts are all placed by
machine that knows what reel to take the part from and the X-Y coordinates
on the board where it goes. Untouched by human hands UNTIL it needs
repair.

So even if you find the schematic, how
are you going to know you're really replacing C29 without a picture of the
board? And because the manufactures don't expect any users to actually
fix these things, they don't publish and distribute the service
documentation.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson

[Scott Dorsey]

Predrag Trpkov wrote:

Thanks. Do you think there's an improvement in terms of long-term
serviceability compared to the 8-Bus, for example?

No. My guess is that because of the lead-free soldering, the long-term
reliability will be poorer, too. On the other hand, the solder failures
are relatively easy fixes.

The hourly rates of the techs around here are considerably lower than in the
U.S. or Germany or Britain and it's unlikely to change soon. The cost of
opening and closing the case is not my primary concern.

As long as nothing gets broken in the process...
--scott

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

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Predrag Trpkov wrote:

Thanks. Do you think there's an improvement in terms of long-term
serviceability compared to the 8-Bus, for example?

No. My guess is that because of the lead-free soldering, the long-term
reliability will be poorer, too. On the other hand, the solder failures
are relatively easy fixes.

The hourly rates of the techs around here are considerably lower than in
the
U.S. or Germany or Britain and it's unlikely to change soon. The cost of
opening and closing the case is not my primary concern.

As long as nothing gets broken in the process...


So much about the Onyx. I'll buy something modular instead.

What is your opinion on the DDA Interface? What are you upgrading to?

Predrag

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:03:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Arny, it looks like you have no clue about just how
relevant the things you do have a
clue about are to music production.
Try again - not even a proper sentence.

A bit convoluted, but I don't see an actual grammatical error.

And perhaps Mr. Krueger hasn't considered that English
may be his second language, seeing as his e-address
seems to be from Croatia. But then, what would I know...


Later...
Ron Capik
--

[[email protected]]

On 2010-04-25 (ScottDorsey) said:
Well, I'm still using the Ampex that I bought thirty years ago....
and I'm still using all of the mikes I have ever bought... and I'm
still using the same console although I'm in the process of
upgrading.
CUrious, I know you've said here which console you're using,
but must have missed it. Also curious what you're upgrading
to as I think your preferences for user interface probably
parallel mine, i.e. you like discreet channel strips and
controls.


Regards,




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
Remote audio in the Memphis, Tn. area: see www.gatasound.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Predrag Trpkov wrote:
So much about the Onyx. I'll buy something modular instead.

What is your opinion on the DDA Interface? What are you upgrading to?

The Interface isn't bad. The mike preamps are SSM2017 based, which is not
wonderful but isn't horrible, and you can upgrade them with the THAT 1510
chip. The direct outputs and the inserts are post-EQ which is annoying.
Overall sound quality is pretty good, though, and the EQ is quite respectable
and it's clean. All the aux busses sound the same, and the groups don't
have any wierd coloration when you route in and out.

I warn you, though, every Interface I have worked on has needed new caps in
the channel strips.

In the studio, I currently have an older custom console made by Studio Z.
It's all discrete and has really wonderful sounding EQ, but the preamps are
very seventies-sounding and I prefer something a lot more neutral. I don't
exactly know what I'm upgrading to yet, but I have had a couple small
consoles in. I don't do rock stuff and I don't need a million channels, but
I'd like something cleaner.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message
...

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Apr 25, 9:44 am, "George's Pro Sound Co." wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message

...
On Apr 24, 1:12 pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

m...

"Mark" wrote in message

On Apr 23, 10:13 am, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message

...

Will an older "high end" board really sound noticeably
better than a modern Behringer?

Having switched recently from the Behringer Xenyx 2442FX
to the Allen & Heath WZ 20:8:2 (the first generation of
Wizard mixers, mid-90s, good, but not quite high end),
I'd say yes, it's still a big difference. Even with the
clearly superior A&H preamps and eqs out of the
equation, just listening to a rough mix from the
multitrack recorder, using only faders and pan pots, the
notorious veil is gone. The improvement in transparency
and definition is striking.

I expect to read comments like that in the "audiophile"
groups.

Did you make ANY measurements to verify what you think
you hear?

More to the point, did he do any well-controlled listening tests?

Of course he did, Arny. It's called mixing a record. People do it all
the
time. You and Mark should try it once.

Predrag

this field is a combination of science AND art...
you seem to want to ignore the science part... that's fine if it works
for you..
Mark

I trust my ears over measured specs, a sucessful career spaning nearly 3
decades gives me security in my ability to make things sound great.
I can't tell you how often some "engineer walks up and says"you eq
doesn't
LOOK right" or right here my computer says "this sounds great" when in
reality it is harsh and shrill on the verge of feedback
use measurments to design gear but by the time you are in the trenches
all
that counts is what the ears say counts

George

this really is one of those "taste great" / "less filling"
arguments...

anyone that relies on measurements alone or on their ears alone is
missing at least 1/2 of the picture.

you need both...

the truth will set you free :-)

Mark


Just like Arny, what you've been trying to sell to a bunch of seasoned
music recording and production professionals here is a misplaced
pseudo-scientific hogwash. Inapplicable in practical terms and quite
predictably counter-productive, it indicates your complete lack of any
real-life experience in the field. In addition to that you're less
knowledgeable and yet more rude and dismissive than Arny.

Predrag

sorry you feel that way, I have nothing to prove in live audio , not to you
or anyone, be as you want, I will always trust my ears over the bull****
that measuments are
figures don't lie but liars can figure, remember that next time your buying
some wiz ban\g device based on its "measurments"
George
George

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Sun 2038-Apr-25 16:55, Mike Rivers writes:
I had no expectations of super great sound or longevity when I
bought a Mackie 1202, but it was still cooking when the
after Katrina fire burned it.

Sometimes you get lucky. There was a 1202 in a display case at
Mackie that had been left on the ground when the van drove away and
got run over. The mixer, excluding the faders that wouldn't move,
still worked.

I think I had to reseat a couple of those ribbon cable
connections, but otherwise it did waht it was supposed to,
either keyboard submixer for live gigging, or mixer for
conferences etc. at the church, and gave me some mic pres in the bargain. IT lived in my road rack mostly though. LEss
than $300 in the '90's when I bought it, in 2005 it was
still doing what it was supposed to.

But, there again, I was conservative with gain staging,
treated it kindly and didn't expect it to do anything it
couldn't. It exceeded my expectations in the longevity
department, matched them in the sonic department. WAs
basically a xmas present from my mother-in-law, Kathy and I
split the CHristmas money she sent, and that's where my half went was that little mixer because I needed something to mix all my midi modules etc. when I played out with folks.

Last weekend at a music camp, someone showd me a Zoom H4 recorder
with a couple of holes punched in it on both sides. Seems that the
guy's rather large dog thought it was a bone or a toy and chewed on
it. It still worked, too. Wish I had a camera handy to photograph
it.

I could see my Rottweiler doing that g. I try to keep
such objects out of her reach however. Although she did
trash a pair of Sony 7506's beyond repair bummer. Hadn't
used 'em that much either dammit!

But solder joints fail, ribbon cable connectors get loose, and
occasionally capacitors go south. There's nothing that can't be
fixed, but you have to know enough in order to fix them. It's not
like replacing a tube in a guitar amplifier. Surface mount
construction gets some bad press, but it's not because of the
technology, it's because of the documentation. All the parts look
Would agree, and don't even want to foll with that. I
figured if I got 1-2 years out of that little Mackie 1202 I
was doing good. BUt, like I said, I think a buddy of mine
reseated a couple of those ribbon cables for me, and it just kept cooking along. iT lived in my gigging rack for years
and never gave me any grief.


Regards,
Richard


Remote audio in the Memphis Tn. Area: SEe www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Predrag, it seems like you have no clue at all about
proper experimental controls during a listening test.

You have your "we're running some tests here" and
Predrag has his "we're mixing a record here" and tether
the inane shall they meet.

It's clear that Predrag delusionally believes that he's
the only one with a real dog in this fight.

Quit it, Arny. That reads like something right outta
Phildo's Internet Training Wheels Manual.

Hank, like Phildo, you seem to get your rocks off by jumping into other
people's fights. You were as unhelpful as they come when it came to
restoring peace to AAPLS.

[Scott Dorsey]

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

sorry you feel that way, I have nothing to prove in live audio , not to you
or anyone, be as you want, I will always trust my ears over the bull****
that measuments are
figures don't lie but liars can figure, remember that next time your buying
some wiz ban\g device based on its "measurments"

There are real measurements, and there is fake garbage that the marketing
people promote as measurements.

Today, the latter is starting to replace the former, and that's a very bad
thing and it gives measurements a bad name. But don't tolerate it. Demand
real measurements, or make your own.

If you can hear a thing, you should be able to measure it, and when you
measure it, you'll know what to do about it. Without listening, you don't
know what to measure. Without measurements, you don't know what you're hearing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

Without measurements, you don't know what you're hearing.
--scott

I disagree, being a live sound professional, I listen for and can hear
things like distortion, phase cancellation,poor dispersion, freq response
even things like slew rate(though I can not qualtify it, but I know if it is
sufficent)
if i can hear it I can identfy it, in live sound I would only need a
measurment if I needed to assign a value to it
often the exact value is not essential, just what am I hearing and what do I
do about it, knowing the value is not significant to that goal
I either make it so I don't hear it or bring it forth based on my listening,
not based on the analysis program
in the maintence I measure and log the effects of use on things like drivers
and mics so I know the best from the avarage, but when I get to the point
where am standing behind the desk, measuments are pointless, it is all
"what do I hear"
George

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Predrag, it seems like you have no clue at all about
proper experimental controls during a listening test.

You have your "we're running some tests here" and
Predrag has his "we're mixing a record here" and tether
the inane shall they meet.

It's clear that Predrag delusionally believes that he's
the only one with a real dog in this fight.

Quit it, Arny. That reads like something right outta
Phildo's Internet Training Wheels Manual.

Hank, like Phildo, you seem to get your rocks off by jumping into other
people's fights. You were as unhelpful as they come when it came to
restoring peace to AAPLS.

That you see Predrag's responses as a "fight" just underscores the
problem. There was no ****ing way to restore peace to AAPl-S with you
and Phildo so deeply in love.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/hsadharma

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 06:52:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Arny, it looks like you have no clue about just how
relevant the things you do have a
clue about are to music production.

Try again - not even a proper sentence.

A bit convoluted, but I don't see an actual grammatical
error.

Grammar isn't the only test of a sentence. It has to make sense. I guess
you haven't noticed that things can't have clues.

Read it again. It actually parses perfectly logically.

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Predrag, it seems like you have no clue at all about
proper experimental controls during a listening test.

You have your "we're running some tests here" and
Predrag has his "we're mixing a record here" and
tether the inane shall they meet.

It's clear that Predrag delusionally believes that he's
the only one with a real dog in this fight.

Quit it, Arny. That reads like something right outta
Phildo's Internet Training Wheels Manual.

Hank, like Phildo, you seem to get your rocks off by
jumping into other people's fights. You were as
unhelpful as they come when it came to restoring peace
to AAPLS.

That you see Predrag's responses as a "fight" just
underscores the problem.

Never said any such thing, Hank. You changed the topic to Phildo and AAPLS.
I was addressing the way you jumped into that one with no benefit to
anybody.

There was no ****ing way to
restore peace to AAPl-S with you and Phildo so deeply in
love.

Phildo seems to be spending his time elsewhere. AAPLS seems to be peaceful.

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 06:52:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Arny, it looks like you have no clue about just how
relevant the things you do have a
clue about are to music production.

Try again - not even a proper sentence.

A bit convoluted, but I don't see an actual grammatical
error.

Grammar isn't the only test of a sentence. It has to
make sense. I guess you haven't noticed that things
can't have clues.

Read it again.

Been there, done that, many times.

It actually parses perfectly logically.

Prove it.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 06:52:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Arny, it looks like you have no clue about just how
relevant the things you do have a
clue about are to music production.

Try again - not even a proper sentence.

A bit convoluted, but I don't see an actual grammatical
error.

Grammar isn't the only test of a sentence. It has to
make sense. I guess you haven't noticed that things
can't have clues.

Read it again.

Been there, done that, many times.

It actually parses perfectly logically.

Prove it.

ZZZzzzzzzzz

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message news
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 06:52:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Arny, it looks like you have no clue about just how
relevant the things you do have a
clue about are to music production.

Try again - not even a proper sentence.

A bit convoluted, but I don't see an actual
grammatical error.

Grammar isn't the only test of a sentence. It has to
make sense. I guess you haven't noticed that things
can't have clues.

Read it again.

Been there, done that, many times.

It actually parses perfectly logically.

Prove it.

ZZZzzzzzzzz

Right.

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message news On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 06:52:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Arny, it looks like you have no clue about just how
relevant the things you do have a
clue about are to music production.
Try again - not even a proper sentence.
A bit convoluted, but I don't see an actual
grammatical error.
Grammar isn't the only test of a sentence. It has to
make sense. I guess you haven't noticed that things
can't have clues.
Read it again.
Been there, done that, many times.

It actually parses perfectly logically.
Prove it.
ZZZzzzzzzzz

Right.


Try this: Venn diagram of

"things relevant to music production"
vs
"things you know about music production"

[1] There is an implied [highly] limited
intersection.

[2] It is implied that you don't have a
clue about said [limited] intersection.

Note: This says nothing of the volume of
the enclosed groups. [Though there may be
some speculation within this news-group. ]


Later...
Ron Capik
--

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Ron Capik" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Laurence Payne" wrote in
message news On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 06:52:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Arny, it looks like you have no clue about just how
relevant the things you do have a
clue about are to music production.
Try again - not even a proper sentence.
A bit convoluted, but I don't see an actual
grammatical error.
Grammar isn't the only test of a sentence. It has to
make sense. I guess you haven't noticed that things
can't have clues.
Read it again.
Been there, done that, many times.

It actually parses perfectly logically.
Prove it.
ZZZzzzzzzzz

Right.
Try this: Venn diagram of

"things relevant to music production"
vs
"things you know about music production"

[1] There is an implied [highly] limited
intersection.

[2] It is implied that you don't have a
clue about said [limited] intersection.

Note: This says nothing of the volume of
the enclosed groups. [Though there may be
some speculation within this news-group. ]


Later...
Ron Capik

Now really guys, do I have to start giving spelling and grammar instructions
around here? :-)
G
--

[William Sommerwerck]

Arny, it looks like you have no clue about
just how relevant the things you do have
a clue about are to music production.

Try again -- not even a proper sentence.

Au contraire, mon freres...

"Arny, it looks like you have no clue
about just HOW relevant
the things you DO have a clue about
are to music production."

Read it out loud, pausing a bit at the end of each line, and with the
indicated emphases.

Not the most elegant construction, but grammatical. And it makes sense.

[William Sommerwerck]

Now really guys, do I have to start giving spelling
and grammar instructions around here? :-)

Yes, this is UseNet.

See my untangling of the sentence in another post.

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"hank alrich" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Predrag, it seems like you have no clue at all about
proper experimental controls during a listening test.

You have your "we're running some tests here" and
Predrag has his "we're mixing a record here" and
tether the inane shall they meet.

It's clear that Predrag delusionally believes that he's
the only one with a real dog in this fight.

Quit it, Arny. That reads like something right outta
Phildo's Internet Training Wheels Manual.

Hank, like Phildo, you seem to get your rocks off by
jumping into other people's fights. You were as
unhelpful as they come when it came to restoring peace
to AAPLS.

That you see Predrag's responses as a "fight" just
underscores the problem.

Never said any such thing, Hank.


Actually, you did. See a few lines above. It certainly doesn't look like a
discussion, now that you've resorted to dissing my English instead of trying
to offer anything of substance.

As far as jumping into other people's fights, it could have ended right
there, in a humorous tone, with Mark expertly proving that the Behringer
Xenyx 2442FX and A&H Wizard 20:8:2 sound exactly the same due to my not
having done any measurements, but it was you who couldn't resist jumping in,
licking your old wounds.

I do respect your knowledge, but it's predominantly theoretical and the area
of your expertise in the field of music recording and production is rather
narrow and relatively marginal. All you keep proving here on r.a.p. is that
partial knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Predrag

[Arny Krueger]

"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"hank alrich" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Predrag, it seems like you have no clue at all
about proper experimental controls during a
listening test.

You have your "we're running some tests here" and
Predrag has his "we're mixing a record here" and
tether the inane shall they meet.

It's clear that Predrag delusionally believes that
he's the only one with a real dog in this fight.

Quit it, Arny. That reads like something right outta
Phildo's Internet Training Wheels Manual.

Hank, like Phildo, you seem to get your rocks off by
jumping into other people's fights. You were as
unhelpful as they come when it came to restoring peace
to AAPLS.

That you see Predrag's responses as a "fight" just
underscores the problem.

Never said any such thing, Hank.

Actually, you did.

Predrag, you are showing your lack of understanding of context. My comment
about fighting was clearly related to another forum where there was a great
deal of actula fighting. Hank thrust himself into it and did what he could
to make it worse than it already way.

See a few lines above.

As I just explained, the context was not this discussion on RAP, but rather
related to Hank's uncalled-for bragging about his bad behavior on another
forum. Hank can't resist the temptation to be a busybody and a gossip.

It certainly
doesn't look like a discussion, now that you've resorted
to dissing my English instead of trying to offer anything
of substance.

You had two choices Predrag - either clarify what you said or pick yet
another fight. You decided to go for the fight. Not exactly adult behavior.

As far as jumping into other people's fights, it could
have ended right there, in a humorous tone, with Mark
expertly proving that the Behringer Xenyx 2442FX and A&H
Wizard 20:8:2 sound exactly the same due to my not having
done any measurements, but it was you who couldn't resist
jumping in, licking your old wounds.

Hank is the one who introduced the past unfortunate events.

As far as Mark's opinions about measurements go, I can't agree with them
because there are a great many differences that are readily measurable, but
not the least bit audible. I didn't say much about that issue, because
Scott's comments pretty much said it all.

I do respect your knowledge, but it's predominantly
theoretical and the area of your expertise in the field
of music recording and production is rather narrow and
relatively marginal.

The very thought that you would judge my knowlege of recording and
production is really pretty laughable, Predrag.

I probably do more recording and production work by accident, and of a
varied nature, then you do on purpose. I will record and deliver for hire
individual CD recordings of somewhere between 30 and 60 musical groups by
the end of this day. Anddo that again tomorrow. Yesteday I produced a
recording that may well be part of a future JAES article. No biggle, but do
try to keep up.

All you keep proving here on r.a.p.
is that partial knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Talk is cheap! Your comments about the sound quality of mixers is just talk.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
Arny, it looks like you have no clue about
just how relevant the things you do have
a clue about are to music production.

Try again -- not even a proper sentence.

Au contraire, mon freres...

"Arny, it looks like you have no clue
about just HOW relevant
the things you DO have a clue about
are to music production."

Read it out loud, pausing a bit at the end of each line,
and with the indicated emphases.

Not the most elegant construction, but grammatical. And
it makes sense.

Doesn't matter. A mesasge that is not received is ineffective. I asked for a
clarifcation, and several people including Predrag decided to turn it into a
fight.

So we have a fight and no effective communication.

It was an insult. Well-formed insults are generally as clear as possible.

[William Sommerwerck]

Not the most elegant construction, but grammatical.
And it makes sense.

Doesn't matter. A mesasge that is not received is ineffective.
I asked for a clarifcation, and several people including Predrag
decided to turn it into a fight.

Since when did you ever seriously consider /any/ criticism, Arny, regardless
of how it was delivered?

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 06:03:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not the most elegant construction, but grammatical. And
it makes sense.

Doesn't matter. A mesasge that is not received is ineffective. I asked for a
clarifcation,

No you didn't. You criticised the grammar. You then back-pedaled a
little and claimed it didn't make sense. The grammar's fine. The
meaning is clear. Wanna play some more?
.................................................. ..........
Arny, it looks like you have no clue about just how
relevant the things you do have a
clue about are to music production.

Try again - not even a proper sentence.

A bit convoluted, but I don't see an actual grammatical
error.

Grammar isn't the only test of a sentence. It has to make sense. I
guess
you haven't noticed that things can't have clues.
.................................................. ...................

[Mark]

On Apr 26, 8:00*pm, "Predrag Trpkov"
wrote:

....

As far as jumping into other people's fights, it could have ended right
there, in a humorous tone, with Mark expertly proving that the Behringer
Xenyx 2442FX and A&H Wizard 20:8:2 sound exactly the same due to my not
having done any measurements, but it was you who couldn't resist jumping in,
licking your old wounds.

.....

Just for the record, (pun intended) that's NOT what I said..

Have a good day...

Mark

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

A mesasge that is not received is ineffective.

When the socket is packed full of **** a bad connection is not a fault
of the plug.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/hsadharma