[Anahata]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:56:53 +1000, Robert Morein's poor impostor wrote:

They actually stole the
idea from me

Yeah, right.

[Anahata]

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:14:30 -0500, anahata wrote:

I will definitely check the cable shielding carefully.

It turns out, on the one that failed recently, that the cable had a small
cut in it. It's now working fine as two shorter cables. Also it's
labelled "Canford Audio" which is a name I'd certainly trust, and it's a
fairly standard mic cable with helical shielding and cotton filler.

I may have been wrong about the conductive plastic on that one, but the
other two, which looked similar on the outside and also had an ultra-
flexible feel to them, had a thin conductive plastic layer round the
insulation on each inner conductor. I remember testing this and finding
it noisy with P48 switched on, even after I'd made sure the conductive
plastic layer wasn't contacting a signal conductor.

--
Anahata
==//== 01638 720444

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


The thing is... folks did it on Broadway for most of a
century without any amplification at all and it sounded
JUST FINE. Usually a hell of a lot better than it sounds
today, that's for sure. --scott

As you probably know, training a person to have a loud voice takes time and
effort, and also results in a speaking or singing voice with a certain
characteristic sound.

Amplification shortened the learning curve for performers, and also
increased the range of vocal styles that gave acceptable results.

[Arny Krueger]

"anahata" wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:56:53 +1000, Robert Morein's poor
impostor wrote:

They actually stole the
idea from me

Yeah, right.

I didn't have to even look at the post's headers to know that it was the
product of the buzzardnews forger, not the *real* Bob.

[[email protected]]

ROn writes:
big snip
I wouldn't either, but the worst is the student or volunteer
theater organization that wants to do a broadway style
production in their little theater with all that wireless.
Whatever wireless systems you choose, you still have the
advantage, a church is not a touring show. FOr them the
headaches are many.
Having been to Broadway before wireless mic's I tend
to feel ripped off now when everyone is mic'ed.
Damn, I'm feeling so old school at times.
I guess that's a bit of why I avoid high SPL electric gigs.

Yah me too, and it really gets me when the amateurs start
thinking it's supposed to sound that way.

HIgh spl gigs is one reason I"m in the remote truck
business. I can always turn the damned volume down to
reasonable g.

Regards,



Richard webb,

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

[[email protected]]

On 2010-06-09 (ScottDorsey) said:
Understood, but I've encountered more people who went to a
broadway production or other show where they saw all these
cast members with their wireless and do the "why can't we do
that?" to me.
The answer is, "sure, we can do that, you'll have to pay $10k for
frequency coordination, $65k for renting the Lectros..... What do
you mean that's too much? The Broadway folks don't have any
problem with that..."

Yep, and I've explained to a couple of groups why they
didn't want to do this.

The thing is... folks did it on Broadway for most of a century
without any amplification at all and it sounded JUST FINE. Usually
a hell of a lot better than it sounds today, that's for sure.
OF course it did, the actors actually projected, the musos
controlled their volume and played with appropriate
dynamics.





Richard webb,

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , wrote:
On 2010-06-09 (ScottDorsey) said:
Understood, but I've encountered more people who went to a
broadway production or other show where they saw all these
cast members with their wireless and do the "why can't we do
that?" to me.
The answer is, "sure, we can do that, you'll have to pay $10k for
frequency coordination, $65k for renting the Lectros..... What do
you mean that's too much? The Broadway folks don't have any
problem with that..."

Yep, and I've explained to a couple of groups why they
didn't want to do this.

Oh, if they want to do it, that's just fine... they just need to be prepared
to write a lot of really, really big checks, starting with the check for the
frequency survey.

Usually being given an estimate of the costs to do it right will cause folks
to take a big step back and decide to do it some other way. Not always,
though. Sometimes they just pony up a lot of money.

The thing is... folks did it on Broadway for most of a century
without any amplification at all and it sounded JUST FINE. Usually
a hell of a lot better than it sounds today, that's for sure.

OF course it did, the actors actually projected, the musos
controlled their volume and played with appropriate
dynamics.

Isn't that their job?
--scott

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

[hank alrich]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"anahata" wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:56:53 +1000, Robert Morein's poor
impostor wrote:

They actually stole the
idea from me

Yeah, right.

I didn't have to even look at the post's headers to know that it was the
product of the buzzardnews forger, not the *real* Bob.
Arny, thank you.

BTW, it seems likely that Brian L. McCarty is the principle owner and
operator of Buzzard News. De-peering Buzzard would eliminate a good part of
the problem.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Excellent idea!

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[[email protected]]

On 2010-06-10 (ScottDorsey) said:
The answer is, "sure, we can do that, you'll have to pay $10k
for frequency coordination, $65k for renting the Lectros.....
What do you mean that's too much? The Broadway folks don't
have any problem with that..."
Yep, and I've explained to a couple of groups why they
didn't want to do this.
Oh, if they want to do it, that's just fine... they just need to be
prepared to write a lot of really, really big checks, starting with
the check for the frequency survey.
Usually being given an estimate of the costs to do it right will
cause folks to take a big step back and decide to do it some other
way. Not always, though. Sometimes they just pony up a lot of
money.
OF course, but most folks take a look and rethink their
plan. FIlm sound guys who don't have the money to do this
every new location teach themselves how ot use frequency
sniffing equipment etc. and then still takes hits while
shooting form interference.

The thing is... folks did it on Broadway for most of a century
without any amplification at all and it sounded JUST FINE.
Usually a hell of a lot better than it sounds today, that's
for sure.
OF course it did, the actors actually projected, the musos
controlled their volume and played with appropriate
dynamics.
Isn't that their job?

I always thought so, but these days a lot of folks don't
think that's part of the job, or learning to do it even
relevant.





Richard webb,

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

[Sean Conolly]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

hank alrich wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Old news. The one thing that I have done in the past 3
years that has curbed my repair/replacement program for
on-stage mic cables has been the transition to wireless
mics. If you use mic cables frequently, they will fail.
Obtaining better cables will make them fail less, but
no matter what mic cables are permanently on the
endangered list.

Wireless systems are not infallible.

Wireless systems are my worst nightmare.

YMMV.

I can think of worse things. But wireless mics are clearly way up there in
the constellation of PITA audio items.

I can't believe that anybody would interpret what I said as a statement
that wireless systems are infallible.

It remains true however, that mic cables that are not being used rarely if
ever cause system failures. ;-)


Which sort of contradicts the statement "no matter what mic cables are
permanently on the endangered list".

At least by my reading.

Sean

[Arny Krueger]

"Sean Conolly" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

hank alrich wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Old news. The one thing that I have done in the past 3
years that has curbed my repair/replacement program
for on-stage mic cables has been the transition to
wireless mics. If you use mic cables frequently, they
will fail. Obtaining better cables will make them
fail less, but no matter what mic cables are
permanently on the endangered list.

Wireless systems are not infallible.

Wireless systems are my worst nightmare.

YMMV.

I can think of worse things. But wireless mics are
clearly way up there in the constellation of PITA audio
items. I can't believe that anybody would interpret what I said
as a statement that wireless systems are infallible.

It remains true however, that mic cables that are not
being used rarely if ever cause system failures. ;-)


Which sort of contradicts the statement "no matter what
mic cables are permanently on the endangered list".

At least by my reading.

Note the smiley emoticon on the end of my comment. That signifies humourous
intent.

So, you read its literal meaning, but not its intended meaning.

[Mike Rivers]

Arny Krueger wrote:

As you probably know, training a person to have a loud voice takes time and
effort, and also results in a speaking or singing voice with a certain
characteristic sound.

Amplification shortened the learning curve for performers, and also
increased the range of vocal styles that gave acceptable results.

Sort of like how MIDI and home DAWs gave acceptable results
to so many people who decided to learn how to use a computer
(which they find to be relatively easy) rather than how to
sing or compose (which takes really hard work).


--
"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

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

As you probably know, training a person to have a loud
voice takes time and effort, and also results in a
speaking or singing voice with a certain characteristic
sound. Amplification shortened the learning curve for
performers, and also increased the range of vocal styles
that gave acceptable results.

Sort of like how MIDI and home DAWs gave acceptable
results to so many people who decided to learn how to use
a computer (which they find to be relatively easy) rather
than how to sing or compose (which takes really hard
work).

I don't know if an overly broad brush is being swung here.

People hardly have to learn how to sing casually. Learning how to use DAW
software casually doesn't take a lot of work either.

How many people sing really well? How many people can really do audio
production well?

Of the things you mentioned, it seems like learning how to compose music is
the one that could take serious work. OTOH, I know people who have little
formal training who can write acceptable music. However, I also know two
people who have spent years training themselves to be composers and
arrangers.

[Les Cargill[_3_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

As you probably know, training a person to have a loud voice takes
time and effort, and also results in a speaking or singing voice with
a certain characteristic sound.

Amplification shortened the learning curve for performers, and also
increased the range of vocal styles that gave acceptable results.

Sort of like how MIDI and home DAWs gave acceptable results to so many
people who decided to learn how to use a computer (which they find to be
relatively easy) rather than how to sing or compose (which takes really
hard work).



MIDI is much harder than just playing the parts. And with respect to
composition, MIDI is a "how" thing..... and I still don't
have a MIDI module, VST plugin or Soundfont that can replace a singer...
enhance, yes, but somebody still has to sing....

--
Les Cargill

[Hank[_4_]]

In article ,
Mike Rivers wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

As you probably know, training a person to have a loud voice takes time and
effort, and also results in a speaking or singing voice with a certain
characteristic sound.

Amplification shortened the learning curve for performers, and also
increased the range of vocal styles that gave acceptable results.

Sort of like how MIDI and home DAWs gave acceptable results
to so many people who decided to learn how to use a computer
(which they find to be relatively easy) rather than how to
sing or compose (which takes really hard work).

You're talking about two different things here. Arny's point is that
vocal amplification allows more range of vocal styles.

But there isn't any substitute for basic musicianship. Using things
like Autotune to correct out-of-tune performance makes something of a
joke out of "music." Solfeggio exercises still have their place for
anyone who wants to claim ability to sing.

And I've had more than a few stout arguments with people who believe in
electronic tuning aids for tuning pianos and harpsichords. I still feel
strongly that if you are going to tune a piano, clavichord, harpsichord,
or pipe organ, you'd better be able to do it by ear---some of those
instruments may satisfy an electronic device, but sound awful, probably
because the sound mixes that come out of them are foxing the electronic
device.

Hank

[Mike Rivers]

On 6/13/2010 12:19 AM, Hank wrote:

You're talking about two different things here. Arny's point is that
vocal amplification allows more range of vocal styles.

Let's let Arny speakt on his own point. My point is that amplification
allows people without the skills to perform to a given audience can now
at least be heard by that audience. There are some vocal styles that
never really evolved (at least within the general populace) until they
could be amplified. Unamplified throat singing was good enough for the
Mongolians for thousands of years, but it wasn't until amplification
(and a clever producer) that they started performing their temple and
down home music in stadiums in front of 20,000 pop music fans.

If that was Arny's point, I concur.

And I've had more than a few stout arguments with people who believe in
electronic tuning aids for tuning pianos and harpsichords. I still feel
strongly that if you are going to tune a piano, clavichord, harpsichord,
or pipe organ, you'd better be able to do it by ear

How about tuning a guitar or a banjo? At the music camps I've been
attending over the past several years, those Intellitouch clamp-on
tuners are almost like an integral part of the instrument. Although it
didn't make the final cut, for the last Banjo Camp North, Mac Benford
proposed a workshop entitled "Throw away your tuner."




--
"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

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 07:19:27 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote:

Let's let Arny speakt on his own point. My point is that amplification
allows people without the skills to perform to a given audience can now
at least be heard by that audience. There are some vocal styles that
never really evolved (at least within the general populace) until they
could be amplified. Unamplified throat singing was good enough for the
Mongolians for thousands of years, but it wasn't until amplification
(and a clever producer) that they started performing their temple and
down home music in stadiums in front of 20,000 pop music fans.

Ah, the old Mongolian throat singing argument! Always a clincher,
that one.

You really feel that any vocal style that relies on a microphone
displays a lack of skill?

[Jay Ts[_2_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Hank wrote:
And I've had more than a few stout arguments with people who believe in
electronic tuning aids for tuning pianos and harpsichords. I still
feel strongly that if you are going to tune a piano, clavichord,
harpsichord, or pipe organ, you'd better be able to do it by ear

How about tuning a guitar or a banjo?

I don't know about keyboard instruments, or how others relate
to guitars and such, but I know about myself.

To my ears, my guitar sounds best when tuned spot on using
the most accurate electronic tuner I can find. The one I
use nowadays is a VST plugin called GTune:

http://www.gvst.co.uk/gtune_manual.htm

(Freeware, in case you'd like to try it.)

It reports the tuning error in cents, and it is more precise
than the hardware Sabine tuners I'd previously used. I try to keep
each string tuned within a few cents of the others; if a string
wanders more (say, 7-10 cents), it is likely to annoy me, or
more likely, cause subtle problems in my ability to play. As
far as I know, I am sensitive only to relative errors, and not
absolute tuning errors (i.e., off of 440 Hz as the reference).

Now that's me, and I assume other people are different.
(If experience is any indicator, a lot different!)

I've been tuning my guitar and bass this way for almost
as long as I can remember, and maybe by now my neurons
are just programmed to hear my instruments sounding exactly
this one specific way.

I suspect if someone who always tunes their instrument by
ear tried to play my guitar, he/she would immediately feel
a need to "tune it properly". And when I got it back, I would
need to retune it for myself.

At the music camps I've been
attending over the past several years, those Intellitouch clamp-on
tuners are almost like an integral part of the instrument. Although it
didn't make the final cut, for the last Banjo Camp North, Mac Benford
proposed a workshop entitled "Throw away your tuner."

I will not throw away my tuner, and you shouldn't try to
take it from me, either! But I I think that workshop would
be a good idea, and I'd like to take it, at least just to
be exposed to how other people do things.

Jay Ts

[Mike Rivers]

Laurence Payne wrote:

You really feel that any vocal style that relies on a microphone
displays a lack of skill?

Who said that? Not me. But I think any vocal style that
relies on a micorphone is something different than what most
people would consider a vocal style, something special, and
relies on special skills that aren't necessarily those that
are developed from what we're born with.

When you take a straightforward singer and put him in front
of 20.000 screaming fans, he's not singing in the
traditional sense any longer, he's performing in front of a
microphone. Put a trained singer in front of a theater
audience of 1000 and they'll be able to hear him without a
microphone. Put a singer who never sang in front of an
audience without a microphone in the same situation and it's
likely that he won't be heard by a good bit of the audience.

--
"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

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

On 6/13/2010 12:19 AM, Hank wrote:

You're talking about two different things here. Arny's
point is that vocal amplification allows more range of
vocal styles.

That's a fair summary of part of what I said.

Let's let Arny speakt on his own point. My point is that
amplification allows people without the skills to perform
to a given audience can now at least be heard by that
audience.

That's also a fair summary of part of what I said.

There are some vocal styles that never really
evolved (at least within the general populace) until they
could be amplified.

That's one of the two directions my comments were headed.

Unamplified throat singing was good
enough for the Mongolians for thousands of years, but it
wasn't until amplification (and a clever producer) that
they started performing their temple and down home music
in stadiums in front of 20,000 pop music fans.

Interesting example.

If that was Arny's point, I concur.

Definately one of the directions that I was trying to communicate.

snip interesting comments on instrument tuning, just to keep the bandwidth
down and the issues simple

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

How about tuning a guitar or a banjo? At the music camps I've been
attending over the past several years, those Intellitouch clamp-on
tuners are almost like an integral part of the instrument. Although it
didn't make the final cut, for the last Banjo Camp North, Mac Benford
proposed a workshop entitled "Throw away your tuner."

Tuners are very helpful in situations where background racket makes
trouble for hearing pitches precisely. How many banjos were there? g

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman