Post by: Garrett H on July 17, 2010, 07:21:02 PM
You see, not only does a high pass allow highs to pass, but mids, low mids, and some lows pass as well.
So, why don't we call it a LOW CUT filter (BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT IS!)
Seriously.
If someone can explain why my logic is faulty, I'll hear you out. I might even apologize. But as of now, its seems that Mackie is one of the few in the "Vanguard of Accuracy" in this regard. And I don't think any of us use their gear in our chain.
So, to those of you out there that like this terminology, I'm serious, you're wrong, inaccurate, and annoying.
We now return to our regular programming.
Post by: masterhse on July 17, 2010, 07:49:57 PM
Post by: dcollins on July 17, 2010, 08:36:22 PM
| Garrett H wrote on Sat, 17 July 2010 16:21 |
I don't know if this is the forum or not, but I want to go out and say that people who call a high pass a high pass deserve a beating about the head and shoulders with a pointed stick. You see, not only does a high pass allow highs to pass, but mids, low mids, and some lows pass as well. So, why don't we call it a LOW CUT filter (BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT IS!) Seriously. If someone can explain why my logic is faulty, I'll hear you out. I might even apologize. But as of now, its seems that Mackie is one of the few in the "Vanguard of Accuracy" in this regard. And I don't think any of us use their gear in our chain. So, to those of you out there that like this terminology, I'm serious, you're wrong, inaccurate, and annoying. We now return to our regular programming. |
Are you OK?
DC
Post by: Herbeck on July 17, 2010, 09:30:21 PM
| Garrett H wrote on Sat, 17 July 2010 18:21 |
If someone can explain why my logic is faulty, I'll hear you out. I might even apologize. |
If you use terminology like "low cut filter" even a musician would understand it.
And then you'll have a hard time trying to convince them, that what you're doing is very complicated and way over their heads.
All the best
Herbeck
Post by: Barry Hufker on July 17, 2010, 10:08:40 PM
Barry
Post by: Jerry Tubb on July 17, 2010, 10:25:33 PM
| masterhse wrote on Sat, 17 July 2010 18:49 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4UfAL9f74I&feature=youtu be_gdata |
One of my fave scenes ever.
all freqs higher than the cutoff... pass.
six of one...
JT
Post by: Viitalahde on July 18, 2010, 08:27:55 AM
Post by: Herbeck on July 18, 2010, 08:54:18 AM
| Viitalahde wrote on Sun, 18 July 2010 07:27 |
But I've used high pass, band pass and low pass filters in analog syhths for ages! |
Well, I was referring to musicians playing real instruments.=)
All the best
Herbeck
Post by: YZ on July 18, 2010, 09:27:34 AM
| Viitalahde wrote on Sun, 18 July 2010 09:27 |
But I've used high pass, band pass and low pass filters in analog syhths for ages! |
and I thought that a 'band pass' filter was used to remove sounds NOT made by the band...
perhaps we need Mackie to come up with an alternate terminology for that one so laypeople won't get confused.
Post by: urm eric on July 18, 2010, 03:50:15 PM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Sat, 17 July 2010 21:25 |
all freqs higher than the cutoff... pass. JT |
Exactly. It names a division, not an absolute. So what would the peeved call a low-cut filter at 500Hz?
Cheers!
Eric
Post by: Fenris Wulf on July 19, 2010, 01:42:58 AM
Post by: JSam on July 19, 2010, 02:12:59 AM
| masterhse wrote on Sat, 17 July 2010 16:49 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4UfAL9f74I&feature=youtu be_gdata |
Don't you mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690
Post by: subvertbeats on July 19, 2010, 09:47:34 AM
Post by: Garrett H on July 19, 2010, 12:07:51 PM
| Fenris Wulf wrote on Mon, 19 July 2010 01:42 |
"Low cut" means a bell or shelf filter. That's why. |
Could you elaborate? This sounds like it could shut me up. But isn't a high pass filter a shelf with a different Q?
Thanks to all who chimed in.
Post by: masterhse on July 19, 2010, 02:29:58 PM
| JSam wrote on Mon, 19 July 2010 02:12 | ||
Don't you mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690 |
Another piece of classic cinema!
Post by: Greg Youngman on July 19, 2010, 08:55:05 PM
Post by: dcollins on July 19, 2010, 10:53:37 PM
| Fenris Wulf wrote on Sun, 18 July 2010 22:42 |
"Low cut" means a bell or shelf filter. That's why. |
Are you OK?
DC
Post by: mastermind on July 21, 2010, 06:11:12 PM
| Garrett H wrote on Sat, 17 July 2010 18:21 |
I'm serious, you're wrong, inaccurate, and annoying. |
Hey buddy.
Let's meet in Milwaukee, go to The Palamino (remember that place!) - where, "If it's good, it's better fried"... eat some food that will be glorious but surely cut years off our lives, drink a LOT of beer, interspersed with shots of booze... and THEN discuss this in that elevated state of mind.
What do you think?
t
Post by: Garrett H on July 21, 2010, 08:51:20 PM
| urm eric wrote on Sun, 18 July 2010 15:50 |
So what would the peeved call a low-cut filter at 500Hz? Cheers! Eric |
Mine don't go that high. You must have a newer, upgraded model.
Post by: Fenris Wulf on July 23, 2010, 02:52:53 AM
| Garrett H wrote on Mon, 19 July 2010 17:07 |
But isn't a high pass filter a shelf with a different Q? |
No. It's different type of filter. The attentuation increases with frequency.
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on July 23, 2010, 06:16:51 AM
| Fenris Wulf wrote on Fri, 23 July 2010 02:52 | ||
No. It's different type of filter. The attentuation increases with frequency. |
Well, not to be daft, but technically, the attenuation increases inversely with frequency...as it's a hp.
Reminds me of the warning about pyramiding one's assets. That just stacks the money up to a vanishing point. Better inversely to pyramid one's assets, I always say. (; Like a cutterhead mogul?
Cheers,
Andrew
Post by: Macc on July 23, 2010, 12:00:43 PM
| Fenris Wulf wrote on Fri, 23 July 2010 07:52 | ||
No. It's different type of filter. The attentuation increases with frequency. |
'with decreasing frequency', I assume you mean. Just being pedantic, as we're being pedantic.
Post by: PP on July 23, 2010, 01:27:59 PM
What!
Manner of man are you?
In my world, it could only ever mean a blouse or a supporting garment beneath.
So if your subconscious is bringing up 'bells' and 'shelves' it's very clear where your mind is actually going. Get a grip!
Quote: "we're being pedantic."
Quite!
Quote: "You see, not only does a high pass allow highs to pass, but mids, low mids, and some lows pass as well."
- Snipped For Shortness -
Quote: "If someone can explain why my logic is faulty, I'll hear you out. I might even apologize."
'Mids,
Low Mids, and some Lows' will pass.
Only if they are 'higher' than the threshold of the 'High Pass Filter'.
The real point is..
That the truly important content of the Audio, (the greater part you will hear) is 'high passed' on to the listener.
The bit you attenuate, cut off or dump, (and possibly cannot hear) is entirely irrelevant to the listener, as it is of little good use, if any at all. It isn't wanted, that's why its 'cut off'.
As a consequence, to suggest that you name the Filter, singularly in honour of the attenuated content you have cut and are going to dispose of, content which is completely irrelevant and unwanted, is actually to turn genuine logic entirely on its head.
The part of the Filtered Audio Material which is absolutely essential to the Production, is clearly, the actual desirable Musical content of primary aesthetic importance, and properly deserving for the action of the Filter to be named after.
This is clear, factual, and furthermore makes perfect sense designating and demarcating what is the overidingly preeminant issue of transcending vital importance.
When Mastering Music, it is the Artistic Musical Content that is always of uttermost relevance and significance.
It's essential to think like that, I believe.
Of course.
It's entirely possible.
That the majority of those creating what passes for Music today.
Have got things completely the wrong way around, and been dumping the good high content, and Mastering the low rubbish.
Presumably, being unable to properly differentiate between the two, even utilising the superb Monitoring, commonly available today, in even the more modest Facilities.
This would indeed explain a great deal about the state of the Recording Industry, the reluctance of the Public to buy C.D.'s, and as a consequence, the phenomenon of ever declining sales.
Certainly, it would explain the predominance of Bass in certain genres.
If I may say so.
I really think you should try to 'rise above' becoming annoyed quite so easily by such matters.
I take the view, that a man is only really as big inside as the things external to his life that can truly annoy him.
If you are annoyed by something that low. Well... I think you should really cut it out.
But I'll let it pass.
However.
Passing onward to altogether higher things .
Quote: "Could you elaborate?"
Indubitably.
There are times.
When we find ourselves not properly able to grasp something.
Therefore, it can be hugely helpful to go back to around about the time, whatever we can't understand occurred, or somewhat before, so we can better grasp the context and circumstance surrounding its emergence.
Those born into the former colonies, in nations with extremely limited historical roots, lacking inherent tap roots, and living on the surface roots of their emerging history as it were, are naturally less cognisant with the instinctive tendency to derive primary foundational knowledge from the unfathomable depths of the past.
But clearly, though limited in number they may be, in the former colonies there are those indeed that have travelled to Europe for longer than a week's traverse to absorb the combined cultures of the entire Continent; and furthermore, to both the Oriental and European mind alike, this concept is easily appreciable in regard to the development of all the history of humankind. Closely aligned to that endlessly unravelling saga, is of course, the continual development of language.
So if we want understand how and why a word is used in the particular way it is, or was, returning to the period in which it first appeared, or very commonly, the first time it appeared in published literature, and thus became more widely utilised in that singular manner, can be the most helpful thing to do.
Failing that, bringing the matter up on Brad Blackwood's Forum, will usually secure a correct understanding.
At times,
I have confessed to long term colleagues and friends that feel I am a Gulliver, in a world of Lilliputians. This is because I utterly deplore the modern rise of the bureaucrat, administrator, bean-counter and the more slimy variety of lawyer.
It's because I really believe that in well run countries, businesses and in the world at large, we need truly competent leaders and managers, people with proper sense of values with a good overall perspective that can run things well, and wield tremendous power responsibly, without abusing it. People that are clearly focussed on the right things, that can really make things happen, and get things done.
The bureaucrat, administrator, bean-counter and slimy variety of lawyer however, all conspire with the minority interests of political correctness zealots, to blind our clear sense of vision, clip our widely outstretching wings, and prevent us from rising up in flight to be all that we have potential to be.
They are a complete irrelevance to all that is natural and right in real life, as it truly should be lived in all its glorious fullness.
For instance, they are the ones that would instinctively wish to fine and imprison, the inventor of Napster.
When someone with genuine vision really ought.
To have hired him to work for them.
They should.
Have instinctively recognised, he had a genuine grasp of a future they couldn't begin to comprehend.
And actively used his skills, to create and shape the future for the better.
Instead of doing nothing and leaving that future.
Completely up for grabs.
And.
Thus.. Passing on.
It is the Irish Clergyman.
Jonathon Swift to whom we should be indebted to, for our answer.
Gullivers Travels "The common size of the natives is somewhat under six inches high."
For here, in his use of the word 'high', it powerfully engages our imaginations to vividly comprehend the nature and characteristics of 'that' which is of 'another order below'.
The people he is describing that are in reality, somewhat less than the span of any real man's hand.
He is using satire to describe a 'type of person' that is commonly found in this world.
They seem to have bred inexorably since his time.
T. Hardy.
Continued the trend Swift began
"The granary..stood on stone staddles, high enough for persons to walk under."
The point about the height of the stone saddles.
Was that their height enabled a separate space or room to exist clearly dividing what was important above, from what was necessarily below.
Presumably to assist in promoting an active air flow, and helpfully preventing the grain above from slowly rotting on the ground, as well as aiding the flow of its sale, packing and despatch from convenient points beneath.
By analogy, in Audio Recording & Mastering, keeping 'The Grain of the Music' clearly above many 'ground related pests' like frost damage, rats and mice, prevents the many issues and difficulties that can otherwise be encountered, which I trust we are all, only too well aware of.
The paramount advantages.
Of this renowned cardinal concept.
Appertaining to 'differentiating and separating' 'various elements' of the 'total flow' of local traffic.
Is helpfully illustrated by viewing the regular driving habits of the average British Public Transport Employees.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/8678680.stm
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_02/BusCrash2NAT_800 x524.jpg
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/evening-chron icle-news/2008/12/31/double-decker-bus-roof-ripped-off-in-wa llsend-72703-22582236/
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Double-Decker-Bus-C arrying-Children-Has-Roof-Ripped-Off-During-Crash-With-Bridg e-In-Leicester/Article/200912215498101
So when a 'High Pass Filter' is named as such.
The implementers of this useage are merely being faithful to the truly genuine sense of the original word as it was first used as a mater of historical fact, and also in accordance with its first use in wider published literature.
"As the OED is a historical dictionary, its entry structure is very different from that of a dictionary of current English, in which only present-day senses are covered, and in which the most common meanings or senses are described first. For each word in the OED, the various groupings of senses are dealt with in chronological order according to the quotation evidence, i.e. the senses with the earliest quotations appear first, and the senses which have developed more recently appear further down the entry. In a complex entry with many strands, the development over time can be seen in a structure with several 'branches'."
high-pass
adjective (Electronics) designating a filter that attenuates only those components with a frequency lower than some cut-off frequency.
high, adjective, adverb, & noun.
/hVI/
[Old English hUah (hUag-) = Old Frisian hQch, Old Saxon, Old High German hZh (Dutch hoog, German hoch), Old Norse h
Post by: urm eric on July 24, 2010, 08:49:43 AM
| PP wrote on Fri, 23 July 2010 12:27 |
Thus.. Passing on. It is the Irish Clergyman. Jonathon Swift to whom we should be indebted to, for our answer. I would just like to add. That although many people all over the world know Oxford High St. as 'The High', no-one actually born in Oxford would call it anything other than 'High St'. Sadly, lives in Suffolk. P |
There's no way I'm going to let Macc pip me on the pedanticism and so:
ANGLO/Irish clergyman (that qualification made a huge difference in the early 18th century)
JonathAn Swift
I lived in Oxford for nearly a decade and both townies and gownies I knew called it The High (and some, the other option). I lived at 104A High Street (above the estate agents) for a while and so tended to use `Street'. However, it was the barman at the Kings Head (born in Headington, lived in Iffley) who told me the joke about the Church of England being like Turl St (a.k.a The Turl): "Runs from the Broad to the High with Jesus somewhere in the middle".
I'll give you the Sadly in Suffolk - that's where Macc lives.
Not sure what the rest of your post was all about, but I'll leave it to DC to perhaps ask thrice the question so far asked twice.
I did enjoy reading it though!
Post by: masterhse on July 24, 2010, 09:44:57 AM
Post by: PP on July 26, 2010, 02:11:30 AM
Quote: "gownies"
Hi Eric!
Great to 'meet you' as it were.
Sorry to have to point this out.
Especially on so short an acquaintance.
But "gownies" is not a word you will find in a Dictionary of the English Language.
I only mention it because you have made so clear, your absolute delight in rampant pendantocracy.
The best you can hope for with "gownies" I fear, is a slang term recently emerging on the internet, not in wide enough common usage to be recognised as a proper word by any respectable English Dictionaries at all.
And as this transudatory "gownies" concerns itself with sales of attractively becoming Maternity Night Attire for pregnant women, I'm sure you will naturally concede the fact, that that it was not a correct word for the subject you intended to elaborate upon during your discourse.
I know this.
Because a friend of mine.
Is a compiler of the 'new word section' of the O.E.D.
You may have.
Difficulty in understanding my post.
But at least, if honest, you are compelled to admit.
It is actually written utilising English you will find in a Dictionary.
You might need an exceptionally good Dictionary indeed, but you will actually find the words there.
Should you ever care to properly look.
This is by design.
A quite deliberate policy.
Pursued over a long period, initially inspired by the methods of American P.G. Wodehouse.
Whereby the occasional word completely unfamiliar to a readership, encourages them to 'check it out', and thereby gradually increases their vocabulary considerably.
Utilising inchoate words, that don't actually exist in the English Dictionary, is therefore, singularly unhelpful to American Readers, who particularly struggle with language, (even their own words created in North America as I have amply demonstrated in the past), as are amorphous words to the general readership at large.
Quote: "ANGLO/Irish clergyman"
I have a relative.
Who was born in mid flight across the Atlantic.
That has dual nationality from birth being both American and British.
Was Swift born mid Irish Sea perhaps?
The Isle of Man even?
No!
He was born in Dublin.
Ireland.
To me.
(I am a simple man).
This is clear evidence he was actually an Irishman.
This differentiation you bring up, has nothing to do with his actual place of birth at all.
It is a social and political class distinction, of a type I sincerely hope, has been completely swept away.
And I remain fully persuaded in my innermost depths, that Swift himself, would heartily echo, an extremely similar view.
Quote: (that qualification made a huge difference in the early 18th century)
Indeed.
I see that as a very great abuse.
And not something to ever be regarded as acceptable, acknowledged or celebrated.
Not that I am inferring, that it was your actual intention to imply something to be rejoiced.
It marks him out as part of the Protestant Elite that brought a great abuse of power and poverty to Ireland.
Where Irish natives were not allowed many routine aspects of daily life, any normal person today would think it utterly barbaric to deny someone.
The roots of centuries.
Of misery and strife, violence and conflict lie therein.
So although it is true that Swift was born of Irish & English parents.
And brought up as part of that Elite Protestant Society that displaced the natural Irish Aristocracy.
I would argue that Swift himself, in his innermost soul was a reasonably Godly Man that despised the evil constupration enacted upon the indigenous people of Ireland. His own people.
Furthermore, I would definitely take the view that many deeper aspects of his writings are strongly directed against the worst excesses of the English Ruling Classes with which you are attempting to closely identify him.
Of course!
He grew up into that Protestant Elite, that is not in question.
Was this something Swift was truly proud of, and would have been particularly anxious to convey? I think not.
Perhaps in the youthful glow of promise, and the heat of driving ambition, following his formative years, but not as time went on, and the golden years transmogrified to utter dross.
For it seems to me, that Swift essentially rejected the corruption and virulent evils perpetrated by The English upon the Irish people.
In a large part because, he was by point of immutable truth, born in Ireland himself.
Which is why I wrote it, and made that clear.
He was in fact.
An Irishman.
The question.
I would put is this.
Can we believe that personally given the absolute choice.
It is with such detonative abuse of power, that Swift himself would have consented with all his soul, to be closely identified with, and an intrinsic part of?
His writings, place Swift a profoundly clear distance, from them.
In point of fact, he brilliantly utilised his gifts and priveledged position within that society, to question, challenge and undermine it. But with abundant care, due prudence, and great subtleness and sagacity.
I am.
A True.
Englishman.
Root and Bough.
A Living Oak of my own generation.
But remain utterly ashamed of the many atrocities instituted in the name of the British Empire.
And am fully possessed of the belief this makes me, all the more greatly a True Englishman of Noble Blood.
My language, is the language of Shelly, Keats and Shakespeare.
And.
Englishmen.
Born in Dublin.
And your "gownies".
Whatever creatures they are.
Indubitably represent, something else entirely.
P
Post by: urm eric on July 26, 2010, 06:18:28 AM
| PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 01:11 |
1 Quote: "gownies" Hi Eric! Great to 'meet you' as it were. P |
Ditto
Forgive me: I have neologized - I think it's an acceptable parallel construction with `townie' (which is in the dictionary) though?
I liked your post very much, thoroughly enjoyed reading this one too: I'd love to respond but I don't want to test the patience of the public forum - and I'm a tad too busy this week to enjoy myself.
But just one (swift) rejoinder - yes: Anglo-Irish was (is?) a political construction, but Swift both embraced and exploited it. He called living in Ireland being in exile:
In Exile, with a steady Heart,
He spent his Life’s declining Part;
Where, Folly, Pride, and Faction sway,
Remote from St. John, Pope, and Gay.
(“Verses on the Death of Dr Swift”)
Cheers,
Eric
Post by: PP on July 26, 2010, 02:42:50 PM
Quote: "In Exile, with a steady Heart,
- Snipped for Shortness -
Remote from St. John, Pope, and Gay."
No-one.
Exiled Swift.
From England.
Swift.
Allowed certain indiscretions.
To be included in the memoirs of Sir William Temple.
This created a great deal of heated animosity within and amongst Temples powerful family and high ranking offical friends. Who then made it their business to ensure that they subsequently exacted a heavy price for the unwanted revelations. I know guys like that, they sound just like all my best friends.
Swift was thus actively blocked from high office as Bishop of Hereford as a consequence, a post he believed he had been promised. Furthermore, Swift suffered from an inflated view of the power of his own influence.
And it heralded a great fall from privileged favour, of the type of powerful patronage on which he had long since come to rely.
From then on, the ruling classes simply messed him around, promising him an excellent position.
Drawing him to Ireland, and dropping him like a stone when he got there.
They do very much like to stick together.
Swift enjoyed.
The company and privileges afforded by highly influential friends.
So he was, at a very high level, effectively blocked, and it would have felt a sort of exile if you greatly stretch the point, (but conversely, from the many frustrated opportunities he would otherwise have had expectations of in England), to Ireland, where he eventually accepted a position at St Patrick's in Dublin, after lots of shenanigans by his superiors.
And it was from there that a miserable, disillusioned and embittered Swift, wrote his satire on the corrupt English establishment. Writing in support of Irish causes, against rife abuses that abounded.
On many occasions throughout his life, the movement from one country to the other, was accompanied by if not because of, the changing winds of enormous political events.
As you can see there's a complexity of different levels, and sub texts to his life, that you need to follow the chain of, and especially so.
Regarding his dalliances with the opposite sex.
Earlier.
To one of which.
He promised to leave Ireland.
Forever, and never return, if she refused to marry him.
I believe an historic letter is in existence attesting to that fact, to prove the point.
As Marriage would have consolidated his abode in what was already the land of his birth.
It's extremely difficult to see these words, as from a man who would have readily felt, in any way at all, exiled in Ireland. However, she didn't marry him, and so he returned to England.
It's worth signing this off, with the point that Swift wrote the quoted poem, following the death of a Lady dearly beloved to him. Henceforth death would become a common theme in his writings.
The last line of the quoted poem refers to the London publishing friends he is heart broken, missing, whose company he found so refreshing, and who earlier ensured his literary success.
Their later deaths similarly devastated him, and by the time this poem was published.
He was actually declared insane.
The point.
I am leading up to is this.
That when the closest, most preciously beloved ones in a person's life die.
That individual can experience such a profoundly deep sense of loss, that it could rightly be described as a genuine sense of alienation from the seemingly emasculated world that now remains behind.
They become in a very real sense, deeply exiled within, spiritually.
Cut adrift from all that was once essentially vital to them.
And that which always seemed so very important.
Is inconsequential flotsam and jetsam.
At that point in a person's life.
They experience Exile.
Wherever they are.
In this world.
It's worth reflecting.
On the fact, that Swift had a certain quality of Godliness, about his life, despite his many failings.
One third of his income was donated to Charity. Another third, enabled the establishment of St Patricks Hospital for Imbeciles.
Whenever he was able to wield any political influence, he exploited his position wherever he could, to advance the causes of people in tremendously great need.
Perhaps if we are to take anything from Swifts life, it really should be this.
P
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on July 27, 2010, 03:13:10 AM
| PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11 |
1 Quote: "gownies" Sorry to have to point this out. Especially on so short an acquaintance. But "gownies" is not a word you will find in a Dictionary of the English Language. |
Good Heavens!
Must there be a mandatory adherence to the dictionary?| PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11 |
I only mention it because you have made so clear, your absolute delight in rampant pendantocracy. |
Government by medalists wearing pendants, or by pedants wearing medals?
(Avoid bombast and tergidity.) Pedantry will suffice.
| PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11 |
The best you can hope for with "gownies" I fear, is a slang term recently emerging on the internet, not in wide enough common usage to be recognised as a proper word by any respectable English Dictionaries at all. |
___ Save the O. E. D.
I've found my cap, now, where did I put the gown?
"http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gowny"
| PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11 |
And as this transudatory "gownies" concerns itself with sales of attractively becoming Maternity Night Attire for pregnant women, I'm sure you will naturally concede the fact, that that it was not a correct word for the subject you intended to elaborate upon during your discourse. |
"that that?"
Correctness is becoming.
| PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11 |
I know this. Because a friend of mine. Is a compiler of the 'new word section' of the O.E.D. |
He should get back to work.
| PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11 |
You may have. Difficulty in understanding my post. But at least, if honest, you are compelled to admit. It is actually written utilising English you will find in a Dictionary. |
...and punctuation and typesetting as one might find in a book of Haiku verse, although the meter is closer to dactylic hexameter.
| PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11 |
You might need an exceptionally good Dictionary indeed, but you will actually find the words there. |
Having the right words is one thing. Stringing them together in an intelligible chain of utterables is something else. Interestingly, or not, a linguist will tell you that s/he can't tell you what a word is. Orthography doesn't suffice. Intelligibility might not, either. At some point, one must leap, with faith (into something - even Belief, itself).
| PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11 |
Should you ever care to properly look. |
...into the eyes of a split infinitive...?
| PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11 |
This is by design. A quite deliberate policy. |
Quite, as in "very," or quite as in, "almost (i.e., 'not quite')?" We, here, may strive to form a "more perfect union," but the truth is that if it had already been perfect, it would have been ne plus ultra-ly so, as are most things "deliberate."
| PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11 |
Pursued over a long period, initially inspired by the methods of American P.G. Wodehouse. Whereby the occasional word completely unfamiliar to a readership, encourages them to 'check it out', and thereby gradually increases their vocabulary considerably. Utilising inchoate words, that don't actually exist in the English Dictionary, is therefore, singularly unhelpful to American Readers, who particularly struggle with language, (even their own words created in North America as I have amply demonstrated in the past), as are amorphous words to the general readership at large. |
Alright, you've now gone from cheeky to mean. If there are any readers left in the Americas, I doubt they struggle with the American English they read. Yea, though I wish they would. To reap the words that are sown, one must caress every serif. One must crack the bone, saith Hugo, in order to, you know, suck out da marrow...):
Most people here say "for free," when they actually mean, simply, "Free..." Many say, "of't ten times," when they actually mean, "Often..." No one can talk, in fact, anymore. Yet everyone seems to know what is being said.
In Japanese, for one, there is no future tense. The subject is also routinely omitted from dialog, as it is often, like the verb's tense, already understood.
If you can't find a word I'm using in the dictionary, you might want to check a Funk & Wagnalls. (j/k) Barring that, there's always Urbandictionary.com, where you can learn the difference between a rusty trombone and a Cincinnati bow tie, for one.
| PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11 |
Quote: "ANGLO/Irish clergyman" I have a relative. Who was born in mid flight across the Atlantic. That has dual nationality from birth being both American and British. |
Reads as if your relative is merely an
Post by: PP on July 27, 2010, 03:23:11 AM
Quote: "I lived in Oxford for nearly a decade and both townies and gownies I knew called it The High"
Such.
A limited fraternization.
Is too narrow from which to form a reliable opinion.
To have lived there for ten years, but only know these two people.
But then, perhaps you actually knew two of each, amassing double the social circle.
Irregardless, I believe that both or indeed, all four of the people you came to know over the period, were incorrectly informed about this issue.
I'm
Wondering.
Whether you do your work.
In a large barn in the middle of no-where?
Whether you are ever reprimanded if you leave a door open?
And wonder whether, The Child Jesus was similarly reprimanded at times.
His Mother telling him to "shut the door", and inquiring of him "were you born in a Barn?"
Quote: "I lived at 104A High Street (above the estate agents) for a while and so tended to use `Street'."
Ah!
Yes.
I know it.
A Print Shop.
My friend Humphrey.
Whose son Graham and wife Betty, I bumped into the other day.
Bought a large block of land just along the road from your home, the section that the Huge Stately National Westminster Bank to the left stands on, the many adjoining buildings down Blue Boar St. What used to be Russell Acotts a quite large store, and the many concomitant boutique shops scattered all around about it further towards Carfax.
So they all have had to pay him rent, all these years. Many people have whisperingly commented to me over the decades, that he owned half The High Street as if I had no idea.
But I laugh inwardly, strongly believing this to be complete and utter exaggeration, because I know that a large part of it, belongs to a number of Colleges, as well.
But perhaps you too, can see the ironic humour, in someone attempting to correct or advise someone, whose best pal, owns a decent chunk.
The other day.
I was talking with the Managing Director of a shop I expect you know, Shepherd and Woodwards.
I buy aftershave, hats and clothes from there, and used to get my hair cut in the basement hairdressers.
It is very close by to where you once lived, and possibly may be where you got your own hair cut at times. Years ago, I would often look in at Morris the photographic shop, to the other side of your home, but it now has now sadly gone, because of competition from Jessops.
Nowadays, the hairdressers have all moved to Walters in Turl St. So that is where I get my hair cut, still by the same person for very many decades, and whose husband is in the Music Industry, travelling the world, still working, for various very well known International Artists.
I would imagine that from the rear of the building in which you lived for a short while, at No. 104, you could see the black fire escapes at the rear of the buildings in St. Edmunds St.
Sometimes, friends I knew years ago, would take Pianos up those very fire escapes, up to the very top flats.
It was an extremely precarious business.
I am led to understand.
Quote: "I lived at 104A High Street"
- snipped for shortness -
"and so tended to use `Street'."
Thank You!
For validating my essential point.
Quite naturally, when you lived there.
You called your former residence 104A High Street.
And still do to this day, referring to it in the same way, on this very Forum.
Because when you lived there, you repeatedly needed to give your PROPER POSTAL ADDRESS to all the people that required you to give it.
You did NOT give your address as '104A The High' simply because that was NOT your address.
For with the wrong address, your post, may well have not ever have been delivered.
And wouldn't have been, by most of the postmen that I have known for years.
For.
Your correct postal address was 104A High Street.
Which is why you used the words 'High Street' during that time of residence.
Again.
(I am a simple man).
It is an immutable truth.
That the proper name of a place.
Is normally to be found in its postal address.
Almost.
Opposite.
Your former home.
Is the glorious building.
Of the University Church.
http://www.university-church.ox.ac.uk/index.html
It's correct postal address is.
University Church of St. Mary the Virgin
High Street, Oxford
OX1 4BJ
You will.
No doubt notice.
The address does not.
Contain the term 'The High'.
But rather the 'normal' High Street.
Can you.
See my point?
I fully appreciate.
You lived in Oxford.
For a few happy years.
The information I shared.
In my earlier post, was based upon.
Six entire decades of daily observation.
And having discussed this issue at length.
With individuals, among Oxfords oldest residents.
I do believe it remains the case, that people born in Oxford.
That have, all their lives, to use the proper postal address of a given place.
Know it, as the correct official postal address, clearly defines it, because that address.
Reflects their personal daily experience, of relating to, with and sharing that address, amongst the wider population.
But people.
From outside Oxford.
That settle here, absorbed into the community.
And people that come to Lecture or to Study in the Academic World.
Naturally take their cue for such things, from others they meet, they look up and listen to.
And thus, ascribe and attribute to them, a latent knowledge of the area, that in point of fact, they often, simply don't possess.
This.
Is an entirely forgivable.
Extremely normal, human fallacy.
But somewhat reprehensible in Academia.
Don't you think?
To.
The multitudes of students.
That flock here every year, Oxford is a very special place.
It lifts them up upon a platform, that sets them fair for life's future challenges.
And everything about the place, even the architecture and the friends they make, can have a golden glow.
Thus to ascribe a special term, for a very special place, is entirely understandable, and easily handed down, through generations.
But does that make it right, correct or proper?
To be honest.
I could tell whether or not someone was born in Oxford.
Simply by the manner in which they pronounced the names of certain streets. Magdalen is a dead giveaway.
I strongly believe you might be well assisted by Professor Henry Higgins, or Colonel Hugh Pickering, both experts in this field.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAYUuspQ6BY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Doz5w2W-jAY&feature=relat ed
The following.
Is a general observation.
And not in any way whatever.
Directed at any individual personally.
But.
Because someone.
That is supposed to be clever.
Says something, it doesn't actually make it correct.
Speaking as an Oxford man, I expect people that study at Oxford.
To be somewhat smarter, and today such, would probably not even pass the entrance exam.
To observe generation after generation of youngsters parrot the same myths, initiated and perpetuated by the ' affected' is purely to observe a 'device' of human weakness .
It is my understanding, and remains my sincere hope.
We help people to understand about things.
I truly think that's good.
P
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on July 27, 2010, 04:00:11 AM
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 03:23 |
2 Quote: "I lived in Oxford for nearly a decade and both townies and gownies I knew called it The High" Such. A limited fraternization. Is too narrow from which to form a reliable opinion. To have lived there for ten years, but only know these two people. |
Has to be at least four, because he wrote, "...both townies and gownies..." Had he written, "...both townie and gowny..."
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 03:23 |
But then, perhaps you actually knew two of each, amassing double the social circle. |
At minimum.
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 03:23 |
Irregardless... |
? With irregard to my disdain for diction, I must ask you what dictionary contains the word, "irregardless?"
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 03:23 |
..., I believe that both or indeed, all four of the people you came to know over the period, were incorrectly informed about this issue. |
Did he write that he didn't know several hundred Dubliners? Not that he did...
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 03:23 |
I'm Wondering. Whether you do your work. In a large barn in the middle of no-where? |
...an ideal locale for a mastering studio, second only to a freshly plowed field. (Yank spelling)
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 03:23 |
Whether you are ever reprimanded if you leave a door open? And wonder whether, The Child Jesus was similarly reprimanded at times. His Mother telling him to "shut the door", and inquiring of him "were you born in a Barn?" |
His answer would have been, "You have said it, yourself."
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 03:23 |
Quote: "I lived at 104A High Street (above the estate agents) for a while and so tended to use `Street'." Ah! Yes. I know it. A Print Shop. -snipped- The other day. I was talking with the Managing Director of a shop I expect you know, Shepherd and Woodwards. I buy aftershave, hats and clothes from there, and used to get my hair cut in the basement hairdressers. It is very close by to where you once lived, and possibly may be where you got your own hair cut at times. Years ago, I would often look in at Morris the photographic shop, to the other side of your home, but it now has now sadly gone, because of competition from Jessops. |
You now have now repeated yourself, guvnuh.
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 03:23 |
-snipped- Quote: "I lived at 104A High Street" - snipped for shortness - "and so tended to use `Street'." Thank You! For validating my essential point. Quite naturally, when you lived there. You called your former residence 104A High Street. And still do to this day, referring to it in the same way, on this very Forum. Because when you lived there, you repeatedly needed to give your PROPER POSTAL ADDRESS to all the people that required you to give it. You did NOT give your address as '104A The High' simply because that was NOT your address. For with the wrong address, your post, may well have not ever have been delivered. And wouldn't have been, by most of the postmen that I have known for years. For. Your correct postal address was 104A High Street. Which is why you used the words 'High Street' during that time of residence. |
How about different terms for different uses?
I live in the High. Please mail this to my flat at 104A High St.
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 03:23 |
Again. (I am a simple man). It is an immutable truth. That the proper name of a place. Is normally to be found in its postal address. |
Don't get many visitors to the City of Bronx. However, that's what the postal address would read. |<:
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 03:23 |
Almost. Opposite. Your former home. Is the glorious building. Of the University Church. http://www.university-church.ox.ac.uk/index.html It's correct postal address is. University Church of St. Mary the Virgin High Street, Oxford OX1 4BJ You will. No doubt notice. The address does not. Contain the term 'The High'. But rather the 'normal' High Street. |
Are you, Sir, not even a little bit high?
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 03:23 |
Can you. See my point? I fully appreciate. You lived in Oxford. For a few happy years. The information I shared. In my earlier post, was based upon. Six entire decades of daily observation. And have discussed this very issue at length. With individuals, among Oxfords oldest residents. I do believe it remains the case, that people born in Oxford. That have, all their lives, to use the proper postal address of a given place. Know it, as the correct official postal address, clearly defines it, because that address. Reflects their personal daily experience, of relating to, with and sharing that address, amongst the wider population. |
With all due disrespect, is it not possible that after 12 five-year periods of life in Oxford, you have started to slip into dementia? Or have quite forgotten yourself, utterly? What, what.
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 03:23 |
But people. -snipped- To be honest. I could tell whether or not someone was born in Oxford. Simply by the manner in which they pronounced the names of certain streets. Magdalen is a dead giveaway. |
Spotting outsiders is something canines are good at, too.
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 03:23 |
The following. Is a general observation. And not in any way whatever. Directed at any individual personally. But. Because someone. That is supposed to be clever. Says something, it doesn't actually make it correct. Speaking as an Oxford man, I expect people that study at Oxford. To be somewhat smarter, and today such, would probably not even pass the entrance exam. To observe generation after generation of youngsters parrot the same myths, initiated and perpetuated by the ' affected' is purely to observe a 'device' of human weakness . It is my understanding, and remains my sincere hope. We help people to understand about things. I truly think that's good. P |
If I could only understand things, I mightn't be standing about, so.
Cheers,
Andrew
Post by: PP on July 27, 2010, 06:14:16 AM
Quote: "Toodle-pip"
Hi Andrew!
Thanks for the Trolling.
As a fan of American, Wodehouse.
I am delighted to have provoked thought.
And hope it is symptomatic of far more, overall.
I appreciate the tremendous effort it may have required.
For many American friends have intimated, it to be greatly needed.
In Ohio, the particular vicinity you reside!
And it's a reputation across the world.
You are heartily reinforcing.
Furthermore.
In regard to provoking thought.
I have an 'Historically Important Recording' here to Master.
But find whoever recorded it, recorded the String Bass in such a way as to glaringly capture all the artefacts.
These include some 'plucking and fingering artefacts' that I regard as far too intrusive, I also find the Bass booms rather terribly.
Although I have brought that 'over dynamism' almost fully under control using a couple of methods I don't intend to disclose, a narrow E.Q. dip of 4 Db at 80Hz, another much further along of 6.5 Db and a gentle roll of at 20 Hz have helped considerably, to alleviate the situation.
The problem is.
To be honest, I simply don't like the Bass sound itself on this recording.
So what I'm think of doing is to use a special Bass Mic I have had for a long time, put it in front of a Bass Amp I have had for a long time, and record A Precision Bass, to replace the Bass part originally recorded on the Multi-Track.
Although it seems a 'wrong thing' to do for this genre of Music, I have an 'instinctive hunch' that it will do wonders for the whole recording, and bring it warmly alive in a special way, particularly so, with the 'Classy Guy' who will be recreating the Bass part.
Do you think this is a bad thing to do to someone's Recording, especially when it is one of 'significant' and 'historic' importance?
I'm not attempting to be provocative here, I simply want to do the best thing for the material.
People know that there are real problems, and even have made helpful suggestions.
But this, is what I feel, really needs to be done for the best.
I wonder, if that is very naughty?
People
Have given recordings.
For me to Master before .
And where necessary, I have replaced bits I didn't think were good enough, (especially in regard to timing), on the original recording, purely as a matter of course.
But only if I know I can pull it off, recreating the original successfully. (They can always 'fall back' to their Original Recording which will be Processed Normally as a safety).
So people are thus, astounded and often totally amazed, at how much better the new Master sounds than the Original Recording, they brought in.
And simply don't know how I do it, as I don't disclose it.
But I am a bit worried, that someday.
Someone, might cotton on to it.
Could this be my conscience.
Is it really a bad thing.
To do to someone?
You will, as I.
Have regularly read posts.
Written by your Cleveland neighbours.
That have discussed the difficulties and conflicts.
Involved when you are listening to someone's prized recording.
And you know, there are certain problems, that should have rightly been addressed.
At the Multi-Track Stage, before ever, the Recording was Mixed Down.
And subsequently had the misfortune, to fall upon your Ears.
But this method I have outlined, entirely overcomes.
All the inner stress of facing those problems.
And at the level of true Musicianship.
Currently in Vogue today.
This is very often.
The easiest.
Thing.
To do.
P
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on July 27, 2010, 07:36:01 AM
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 06:14 |
1 (B) Quote: "Toodle-pip" Hi Andrew! Thanks for the Trolling. |
Au contraire, Monsieur Poyser. 'Twas _your_ Ancient Yule Tide Caroling to which I hearkened.
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 06:14 |
As a fan of American, Wodehouse. I am delighted to have provoked thought. And hope it is symptomatic of far more, overall. I appreciate the tremendous effort it may have required. For many American friends have intimated, it to be greatly needed. |
Thought, or effort? My posts are uniformly devoid of the latter.
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 06:14 |
In Ohio, the particular vicinity you reside! |
It would take a long time and much material to reside the particular vicinity in Ohio where I presently find myself.
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 06:14 |
And it's a reputation across the world. You are heartily reinforcing. |
Likewise, I'm sure. Just be sure you're on the business end of that bow tie. (rim+sizzle)
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 06:14 |
Furthermore. In regard to provoking thought. I have an 'Historically Important Recording' here I have to Master. But find whoever recorded it, recorded the String Bass in such a way as to glaringly capture all the artefacts. -snipped- The problem is. To be honest, I simply don't like the Bass sound itself on this recording. So what I'm think of doing is to use a special Bass Mic I have had for a long time, put it in front of a Bass Amp I have had for a long time, and record A Precision Bass, to replace the Bass part originally recorded on the Multi-Track. Although it seems a 'wrong thing' to do for this genre of Music, I have an 'instinctive hunch' that it will do wonders for the whole recording, and bring it warmly alive in a special way, particularly so, with the 'Classy Guy' who will be recreating the Bass part. Do you think this is a bad thing to do to someone's Recording, especially when it is one of 'significant' and 'historic' importance? |
I think, yes. (Though it's a bit of a trick question.) Where will the objectivity be once you have finished tracking and remixing and try then to evaluate with fresh ears the gestalt, remembering each take's and or rehearsal's distractions and vanquished / vanished goals? Quite possibly you _will_ be able to make a better NEW record by retracking the bass part and remixing the song accordingly and then mastering that. However, you will not be doing your job, which is to master the EXISTING production master. If you put on another hat, neither will fit well. You will do more good to the past by mastering what is already there. You may well do more good to the future by rerecording everything. But this is not mastering. This is overdubbing/remixing.
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 06:14 |
I'm not attempting to be provocative here, I simply want to do the best thing for the material. |
There are two potential goals. Which team are you on? Brighton want the recording not to be changed - only improved on, without changing the provenance of any part. Manchester, however, are keen to have Stanley Clarke redo the bass part. However, someone who is as good as Mr. Clarke at bass playing can not be an equally good mastering engineer. Specialization is the only way to achieve high performance. If you fancy yourself a Renaissance Man, you might pull it off. But they are quite rare. Even Steveland Morris hired people like Mr. St. Croix to mix his albums. He allowed JVC to do the glass mastering. Even if you are exceptional at diverse arts, chances are that the mastering engineer in you will eschew such brute force measures as reproducing the part of an instrument, or the folly of mastering a song that he has himself tracked on and remixed.
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 06:14 |
People know that there are real problems, and even have made helpful suggestions. But this, is what I feel, really needs to be done for the best. I wonder, if that is very naughty? |
Does its potential naughtiness excite your creativity? I'm told that excitement is normally our guide to proceed, provided it's aligned with our belief systems. Perhaps you do not want to be the type of mastering engineer who won't retrack a bass (on the sly!).
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 06:14 |
People Have given recordings. For me to Master before . And where necessary, I have replaced bits I didn't think were good enough, (especially in regard to timing), on the original recording, purely as a matter of course. But only if I know I can pull it off, recreating the original successfully. (They can always 'fall back' to their Original Recording which will be Processed Normally as a safety). So people are thus, astounded and often totally amazed, at how much better the new Master sounds than the Original Recording, they brought in. |
It's called a fraud, over here. If you tell them what you're actually doing, it's called remixing. The mastering session has succumbed to a quite creepy degree mission creep, iuam (aitud).
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 06:14 |
And simply don't know how I do it, as I don't disclose it. But I am a bit worried, that someday. Someone, might cotton on to it. Could this be my conscience. Is it really a bad thing. To do to someone? |
I pity your conundrum. Flee, as if all has been discovered, already. Better than to await the arrival on your doorstep of Jimmy Bananas.
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 06:14 |
You will, as I. Have regularly read posts. Written by your Cleveland neighbours. That have discussed the difficulties and conflicts. Involved when you are listening to someone's prized recording. And you know, there are certain problems, that should have rightly been addressed. At the Multi-Track Stage, before ever, the Recording was Mixed Down. And subsequently had the misfortune, to fall upon your Ears. But this method I have outlined, entirely overcomes. All the inner stress of facing those problems. And at the level of true Musicianship. Currently in Vogue today. This is very often. The easiest. Thing. To do. P |
If you are selling someone mastering, but with remixing with rerecorded bass parts secretly bundled in and they haven't figured it out yet, I encourage you to retain counsel.
Andrew, of Camberwell (Vicarage Grove)
Post by: PP on July 27, 2010, 01:50:48 PM
Are not a problem to me.
But when I first wrote the brief reply to Eric.
I thought it perhaps a trifle long to post, in just one single go.
So divided it up into roughly equal parts, eking out over a few days, for easy reading.
But don't want the sense and continuity to be lost, in all this Trolling, so here is the entire original read.
1
Quote: "gownies"
Hi Eric!
Great to 'meet you' as it were.
Sorry to have to point this out.
Especially on so short an acquaintance.
But "gownies" is not a word you will find in a Dictionary of the English Language.
I only mention it because you have made so clear, your absolute delight in rampant pendantocracy.
The best you can hope for with "gownies" I fear, is a slang term recently emerging on the internet, not in wide enough common usage to be recognised as a proper word by any respectable English Dictionaries at all.
And as this transudatory "gownies" concerns itself with sales of attractively becoming Maternity Night Attire for pregnant women, I'm sure you will naturally concede the fact, that that it was not a correct word for the subject you intended to elaborate upon during your discourse.
I know this.
Because a friend of mine.
Is a compiler of the 'new word section' of the O.E.D.
You may have.
Difficulty in appreciating my post.
But at least, if honest, you are compelled to admit.
It is actually written utilising English you will find in a Dictionary.
You might need an exceptionally good Dictionary indeed, but you will actually find the words there.
Should you ever care to properly look.
This is by design.
A quite deliberate policy.
Pursued over a long period, initially inspired by the methods of American P.G. Wodehouse.
Whereby the occasional word completely unfamiliar to a readership, encourages them to 'check it out', and thereby gradually increases their vocabulary considerably.
Utilising inchoate words, that don't actually exist in the English Dictionary, is therefore, singularly unhelpful to American Readers, who particularly struggle with language, (even their own words created in North America as I have amply demonstrated in the past), as are amorphous words to the general readership at large.
Quote: "ANGLO/Irish clergyman"
I have a relative.
Who was born in mid flight across the Atlantic.
That has dual nationality from birth being both American and British.
Was Swift born mid Irish Sea perhaps?
The Isle of Man even?
No!
He was born in Dublin.
Ireland.
To me.
(I am a simple man).
This is clear evidence he was actually an Irishman.
This differentiation you bring up, has nothing to do with his actual place of birth at all.
It is a social and political class distinction, of a type I sincerely hope, has been completely swept away.
And I remain fully persuaded in my innermost depths, that Swift himself, would heartily echo, an extremely similar view.
Quote: (that qualification made a huge difference in the early 18th century)
Indeed.
I see that as a very great abuse.
And not something to ever be regarded as acceptable, acknowledged or celebrated.
Not that I am inferring, that it was your actual intention to imply something to be rejoiced.
It marks him out as part of the Protestant Elite that brought a great abuse of power and poverty to Ireland.
Where Irish natives were not allowed many routine aspects of daily life, any normal person today would think it utterly barbaric to deny someone.
The roots of centuries.
Of misery and strife, violence and conflict lie therein.
So although it is true that Swift was born of Irish & English parents.
And brought up as part of that Elite Protestant Society that displaced the natural Irish Aristocracy.
I would argue that Swift himself, in his innermost soul was a reasonably Godly Man that despised the evil constupration enacted upon the indigenous people of Ireland. His own people.
Furthermore, I would definitely take the view that many deeper aspects of his writings are strongly directed against the worst excesses of the English Ruling Classes with which you are attempting to closely identify him.
Of course!
He grew up into that Protestant Elite, that is not in question.
Was this something Swift was truly proud of, and would have been particularly anxious to convey? I think not.
Perhaps in the youthful glow of promise, and the heat of driving ambition, following his formative years, but not as time went on, and the golden years transmogrified to utter dross.
For it seems to me, that Swift essentially rejected the corruption and virulent evils perpetrated by The English upon the Irish people.
In a large part because, he was by point of immutable truth, born in Ireland himself.
Which is why I wrote it, and made that clear.
He was in fact.
An Irishman.
The question.
I would put is this.
Can we believe that personally given the absolute choice.
It is with such detonative abuse of power, that Swift himself would have consented with all his soul, to be closely identified with, and an intrinsic part of?
His writings, place Swift a profoundly clear distance, from them.
In point of fact, he brilliantly utilised his gifts and priveledged position within that society, to question, challenge and undermine it. But with abundant care, due prudence, and great subtleness and sagacity.
I am.
A True.
Englishman.
Root and Bough.
A Living Oak of my own generation.
But remain utterly ashamed of the many atrocities instituted in the name of the British Empire.
And am fully possessed of the belief this makes me, all the more greatly a True Englishman of Noble Blood.
My language, is the language of Shelly, Keats and Shakespeare.
And.
Englishmen.
Born in Dublin.
And your "gownies".
Whatever creatures they are.
Indubitably represent, something else entirely.
P
Post by: PP on July 27, 2010, 01:51:51 PM
Quote: "I lived in Oxford for nearly a decade and both townies and gownies I knew called it The High"
Such.
A limited fraternization.
Is too narrow from which to form a reliable opinion.
To have lived there for ten years, but only know these two people.
But then, perhaps you actually knew two of each, amassing double the social circle.
Irregardless, I believe that both or indeed, all four of the people you came to know over the period, were incorrectly informed about this issue.
I'm
Wondering.
Whether you do your work.
In a large barn in the middle of no-where?
Whether you are ever reprimanded if you leave a door open?
And wonder whether, The Child Jesus was similarly reprimanded at times.
His Mother telling him to "shut the door", and inquiring of him "were you born in a Barn?"
Quote: "I lived at 104A High Street (above the estate agents) for a while and so tended to use `Street'."
Ah!
Yes.
I know it.
A Print Shop.
My friend Humphrey.
Whose son Graham and wife Betty, I bumped into the other day.
Bought a large block of land just along the road from your home, the section that the Huge Stately National Westminster Bank to the left stands on, the many adjoining buildings down Blue Boar St. What used to be Russell Acotts a quite large store, and the many concomitant boutique shops scattered all around about it, further towards Carfax, many of which, you will no doubt recall.
So they all have had to pay him rent, all these years. Many people have whisperingly commented to me over the decades, that he owned 'half The High Street' as if I had no idea.
But I laugh inwardly, strongly believing this to be complete and utter exaggeration, because I know that a large part of it, belongs to a number of Colleges, as well.
And perhaps you too, can see the ironic humour, in someone attempting to quietly advise or correct someone, whose best pal, owns a decent chunk of it.
You will.
I am sure, be familiar with The Mitre.
And around the back of the building in Turl St. will have noticed the cobbled, stoned way, that leads to a Bar within the rear of the establishment.
Not many people seem to be aware, that in the olden days of Coach & Horse travel, it was to the rear of the establishment that the Coach headed, when they arrived.
In those days, about 25 miles travel, staged the journey between many destinations and The Mitre was a place where wealthy travellers could sojourn in comfort overnight.
William Shakespeare was one of those that did, although his normal sleeping place was just along a little, in what is now an office, with an alcove still, where his bed once was.
Anyway, the point is, that in those days the Coach and Horses would retire to the rear of the building down the cobbled path, and into what was then, an expanding area underneath The Mitre, that acted as a form of large Stable.
Here, the horses could be fed and watered, groomed, and looked after having a well deserved, good night's rest etc. The passengers suit cases and trunks could be unloaded, and the Coachmen find refreshment after their journey.
Very Well!
Now.
Few people.
Know what I am about to tell you.
Though it is well known, that there are a great many tunnels in Oxford, for a whole variety of reasons.
It is less well known, that there were once many tunnels that ran across The High St. that is the subject of our discussion.
And very, very few indeed know that once upon a time, an area was hewn out below ground and a tunnel ran from The Mitre, to the establishment directly opposite on the other side of The High St.
In fact, were you to go below ground in the building opposite, not only will you find a huge area below ground level, but also right at the end that faces towards The High St., a huge lockage Iron Door that leads to a tunnel, which once went all the way across the road.
Even fewer know, that along this secret tunnel, there is another large Compartment, to the side of the tunnel, hidden behind another huge and very heavy Iron Door. This is a 'super secure' lockable area, where all the suit cases and trunks belonging to the travellers from The Coaches, could have all their valuables, and luggage that was not required for immediate use, stored away for the night in complete safety, whilst the Coachmen all got a good night's sleep.
I know this because I've been down all these tunnels at some time and into these vaults, because my friend, owned so very much of the area we are presently discussing.
Because the luggage and valuables were at the far end of a tunnel, in a vault displaced sideways, and nearer to another building, on the other side of the road.
No-one visiting thief, with an opportunistic flair, viewing the site from outside, would ever logically think of looking for them in such a very obscure area.
And the tunnels Iron Doors, were strong and locked, and very easy to guard, with in any case, various employees attendant, day and night at work.
But I trust you can appreciate the absolute organisational beauty of this entire arrangement for the Travellers, Coachmen, Coach & Horses alike?
And it's something that hardly anyone seems to know about, or understand the original purpose of.
But here in Brad Blackwood's Forum you often find out.
Things you simply can't anywhere else.
The other day.
I was talking with the Managing Director of a shop I expect you know, Shepherd and Woodwards.
I buy aftershave, hats and clothes from there, and used to get my hair cut in the basement hairdressers.
It is very close by to where you once lived, and possibly may be where you got your own hair cut at times. Years ago, I would often look in at Morris the photographic shop, to the other side of your home, but it now has now sadly gone, because of competition from Jessops.
Nowadays, the hairdressers have all moved to Walters in Turl St. So that is where I get my hair cut, still by the same person for very many decades, and whose husband is in the Music Industry, travelling the world, still working, for various very well known International Artists.
I would imagine that from the rear of the building in which you lived for a short while, at No. 104, you could see the black fire escapes at the rear of the buildings in St. Edmunds St.
Sometimes, friends I knew years ago, would take Pianos up those very fire escapes, up to the very top flats.
It was an extremely precarious business.
I am led to understand.
Quote: "I lived at 104A High Street"
- snipped for shortness -
"and so tended to use `Street'."
Thank You!
For validating my essential point.
Quite naturally, when you lived there.
You called your former residence 104A High Street.
And still do to this day, referring to it in the same way, on this very Forum.
Because when you lived there, you repeatedly needed to give your PROPER POSTAL ADDRESS to all the people that required you to give it.
You did NOT give your address as '104A The High' simply because that was NOT your address.
For with the wrong address, your post, may well have not ever have been delivered.
And wouldn't have been, by most of the postmen that I have known for years.
For.
Your correct postal address was 104A High Street.
Which is why you used the words 'High Street' during that time of residence.
Again.
(I am a simple man).
It is an immutable truth.
That the proper name of a place.
Is normally to be found in its postal address.
Almost.
Opposite.
Your former home.
Is the glorious building.
Of the University Church.
http://www.university-church.ox.ac.uk/index.html
It's correct postal address is.
University Church of St. Mary the Virgin
High Street, Oxford
OX1 4BJ
You will.
No doubt notice.
The address does not.
Contain the term 'The High'.
But rather the 'normal' High Street.
Can you.
See my point?
I fully appreciate.
You lived in Oxford.
For a few happy years.
The information I shared.
In my earlier post, was based upon.
Six entire decades of daily observation.
And having discussed this issue at length.
With individuals, among Oxfords oldest residents.
I do believe it remains the case, that people born in Oxford.
That have, all their lives, to use the proper postal address of a given place.
Know it, as the correct official postal address, clearly defines it, because that address.
Reflects their personal daily experience, of relating to, with and sharing that address, amongst the wider population.
But people.
From outside Oxford.
That settle here, absorbed into the community.
And people that come to Lecture or to Study in the Academic World.
Naturally take their cue for such things, from others they meet, they look up and listen to.
And thus, ascribe and attribute to them, a latent knowledge of the area, that in point of fact, they often, simply don't possess.
This.
Is an entirely forgivable.
Extremely normal, human fallacy.
But somewhat reprehensible in Academia.
Don't you think?
To.
The multitudes of students.
That flock here every year, Oxford is a very special place.
It lifts them up upon a platform, that sets them fair for life's future challenges.
And everything about the place, even the architecture and the friends they make, can have a golden glow.
Thus to ascribe a special term, for a very special place, is entirely understandable, and easily handed down, through generations.
But does that make it right, correct or proper?
To be honest.
I could tell whether or not someone was born in Oxford.
Simply by the manner in which they pronounced the names of certain streets. Magdalen is a dead giveaway.
I strongly believe you might be well assisted by Professor Henry Higgins, or Colonel Hugh Pickering, both experts in this field.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAYUuspQ6BY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Doz5w2W-jAY&feature=relat ed
The following.
Is a general observation.
And not in any way whatever.
Directed at any individual personally.
But.
Because someone.
That is supposed to be clever.
Says something, it doesn't actually make it correct.
Speaking as an Oxford man, I expect people that study at Oxford.
To be somewhat smarter, and today such, would probably not even pass the entrance exam.
To observe generation after generation of youngsters parrot the same myths, initiated and perpetuated by the ' affected' is purely to observe a 'device' of human weakness .
It is my understanding, and remains my sincere hope.
We help people to understand about things.
I truly think that's good.
P
Post by: PP on July 27, 2010, 01:53:17 PM
In the past.
Directly opposite.
Your formative home.
Such riotous individuals as Oscar Wilde.
Have been known to walk Lobster down the High St. on a leash.
We had to do something.
By now you should be asking yourself.
Why is this particularly important?
What is the significance here?
Why emphasise?
This address?
It's because.
It's symptomatic of a singular mind set, that is not true to Oxfords greatest core values at their highest.
These are best exemplified by the Dreaming Spire's adjacent to your former residence, that continually beckoned you to elevate the level of your vision, to lift your eyes high above the limitations of your surroundings, and aspire upwardly to that which is beyond.
But this "affected" behaviour I wrote of so briefly in my initial post, is part of the very superficial values of deeply flawed individuals, that have been so regularly superimposed upon Oxfords cultural mind set, from outside that are foreign to it.
Perhaps I can explain what I mean, by telling you that years ago, a hundred yards or so from your home here, a club was formed in a small upper room in a building on the opposite side of St. Edmunds Street.
It was 'An Elite Society' that supposed existed in praise and pursuit of 'Elitism'. It was of course all complete B.S. and a founder member, was that master of B.S. Jeffery Archer.
That had no legitimate right to even be connected to Oxford University Life.
A bounder to be sure.
A cheat and trickster, that manipulated and played on the natural desire and ego drives all have that truly wish to fulfil their potential. His utter downfall was entirely predictable, to those with eyes to see the man for what he genuinely was.
Yet it is the 'soil' of this 'superficial' mind set; I wrote of, that creates a place for the weeds of such evil men to put down root, grow and flower, and spread their insidious seeds of abuse.
Like a crevice high up in a mountain that has retained the nutrients of a just a little earth, they give place for far worse tendencies to develop slowly over a long period of time.
Creating out of thin air, 'special names' for places, is but the thinnest end of an incredibly long wedge, the full weight of whose thickest end belies adequate description.
There was once.
A Turkey that lived in a field.
And spanning the edge of this field, a mighty tree.
With widely outspreading branches that beckoned upward affording the potential of a magnificent view beyond.
How the Turkey longed, to enjoy that view, but couldn't because his wings had insufficient power to even carry him to the first branch.
One day, a Great Bull that also shared the field, saw him despondently wandering about talking to himself, and asked him, "whatever was wrong".
"O I would so much like to climb that tree and see the view from the top" the Turkey told him. Well this Great Bull, was an extremely wise sage of a Bull.
And strongly advised him, "although this might seem strange and unappealing at first, if you were to nibble a little of my dung heap, you would find that because of all the protein that's in it, you would soon develop the power you need to take flight."
He didn't really fancy it, but after thinking it through, the Turkey decided he had really nothing at all to lose, so he had a little nibble of the Bull's Dung, (there were liberal heaps of it all around the field) and then with a great run up and flap of his wings soared up onto the first branch.
He was elated, quite beyond himself, and over a period of days and weeks, consumed an ever growing amount of the Bulls Dung at every available opportunity. Gradually, branch by branch he rose higher and higher, until finally he came to accomplish his long desired goal and stood right at the top of the tree.
Gobbling away in ecstatic pleasure.
Enjoying the view as it unravelled before him for mile after mile, in all its glorious splendour.
As he stood atop the great Tree, noisily attracting admiring gazes from all the many animals in the surrounding fields.
Suddenly, there was the sound of a single gunshot, and he plummeted towards the ground at an equally high velocity.
And the gamekeeper took him home, where he provided a very tasty meal for his wife to lovingly prepare for their family.
The Moral.
Of the Story is.
B.S. may help you move up in life.
It may even enable you to rise to the very top of the tree.
But.
You won't.
Be there for very long.
Now!
I don't have a problem with a person trying to completely fulfil their entire potential. To struggling to attain and become the very best they can be.
I don't even have a problem with a person, believing that they are truly the best there is, and wanting to prove that to the world, through the things that they accomplish in life. Perhaps it may be a lamentable, but necessary prerequisite for certain people.
I don't even have a problem with a person, clearly being a genius, rather than a grey man, and love people like Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo, etc. I think we need these type of people, to give insight to what human beings can be capable of at their highest and best, in many areas of art, maths and science.
Because people can place such inward limitations upon themselves.
What.
I have a problem with.
Is the innate belief that some appear to carry within.
That they are of intrinsically more value than others, by some happy accident of birth.
The sense that they are entitled to enjoy every privilege life can afford, whilst avoiding all the appurtenant responsibilities of position.
The inner conviction that they are in point of fact, better in quality and calibre, innately of more worth, than other human beings around them.
This is.
A sliding scale.
That at one thin end.
Has extremely good people making up special names.
For a place that is special to them, but of course they, by implication are very special too. This is an egocentrism, a human frailty we can all easily fall prey to.
But at the other thick end, has extremely bad people, that are deeply convicted inwardly that they are destined for leadership and greatness, that they, and those that support and follow them, are more deserving and better than everyone else.
Of course, inevitably, the world would be a far better place altogether, if those that are not of their group, especially those whose very existence could eventually provide a challenge to them, were as quickly as possible, stripped of every possible influence and potential power; ultimately, to be eliminated completely.
Today.
They call 'The High Street', 'The High'.
Tomorrow, they may be actively working to create a culture primed to enact a Holocaust, a statement not in any way far fetched.
For these things don't just happen, they are caused by an immense variety of complex factors, both great and infinitely small, that combine together and violently combust at a given time.
We think these things can't occur anywhere near us in the same way now, but just think of the horrors enacted close by in Europe not long ago, and such evil atrocities, are occurring in places all over the world, still today, even as I write.
This is why.
I take the trouble to point such things out.
In the hope, it might encourage us to all the more deeply reflect.
On what we say and do ourselves, and on the ideas and notions, we all too easily assimilate into our thinking and lives.
Because that's where all these evils first start, in the way people think, which influences the way people speak, and then these eventually govern the way people act.
If you are able to do this, I will feel the effort has been worthwhile.
In contrast.
Anyone that knew me, could tell you that, for instance, whenever I visit Factories, (which I am often invited to do) it wouldn't matter whether I was talking to the Chairman of the Company or the very lowliest Cleaner on the shop floor.
I would deliberately treat both in completely the same way, to create an example for others, giving utter respect as though they both were equals, and of equal importance, essential to the operation, in their unique tasks.
I will want to talk with the ordinary guys on the shop floor, and will give time to listen to their concerns, and hear about their frustrations and problems.
Furthermore, after listening, I will actually do something about the problem they have, or rather, actuate an immediate positive response.
By someone with the power to make things happen, in a very decisive manner.
Now.
Many Directors.
Have openly expressed to me.
That these egalitarian qualities are extremely laudable.
I'm not attempting to suggest they are, but rather, conveying a life viewpoint.
You see.
I remain possessed of the belief.
That all humankind, however brilliant or frail, is equal in the sight of God.
Of equal value, of equal worth, and that every human being has in their own way, an entirely unique contribution to make.
That we need them to fully make the commitment to that contribution, and that failure to give of themselves.
Beggars and bankrupts the immediate society around them, is a loss to the greater world at large.
And perhaps, most significantly, eats away and leaves the innermost core of their being.
Open and exposed to every wayward influence, with a tendency to corrupt.
I want people.
To do better for themselves.
And for the greater good of the world.
And with a little help and encouragement.
Even the most humble of us, (I would say like me).
Are infinitely capable of achieving extraordinary excellence.
P
Post by: PP on July 27, 2010, 01:55:27 PM
Quote: "the barman at the Kings Head".
I'm afraid.
I am unfamiliar with any such establishment in Oxford.
The nearest 'Kings Head' to Oxford, you see, is exactly halfway to Stratford upon Avon.
Oxford was a 'Royalist' centre, loyal to the King, and although this is not commonly known, 'The University Parks' with which I assume you are familiar, were first named a 'Park', I understand, because this was where the Kings Troops and The Armoury were 'parked' at a time of civil conflict.
If you study the origins of this word, you will find it refers to an area of land, usually enclosed for a very specific purpose, certainly used for such, and indeed it was a term used to describe the area of a Military Encampment reserved for the Artillery, Tools, Stores etc.
If you are familiar with Oxford, you will realise that from a Strategic Military viewpoint, The University 'Park' is the best vantage point from which to barrack and deploy troops and defences to safeguard the city.
With a straight line of river providing ready supply of easy to obtain water for drinking and cooking, and a shallow area downstream for regular ablutions, you can see it was ideal, for such a large encampment.
It's general flatness, and squared demarcation lines, preserved by the intersecting paths, echo its former Military use, in ages long gone by.
King Charles II is reputed to have regularly walked his dog there, so would have been very familiar with the area.
To deploy from Christ Church Meadows for instance, would necessitate an uphill journey.
In any case, at times the river is fast flowing and deep with undercurrents thereabouts.
Where the Cherwell adjoins it, the route is windy and blocked with trees.
To deploy from South Park would have meant great vulnerability.
A poor shallow water supply, and crossing a narrow bridge.
A pub.
Called the Kings Head?
Not in Oxford, me thinks!
I presume.
That you actually mean.
"The Kings Arms" located on the same road.
Just along a little from the nearby University Park.
I trust that you can follow the history in the name of places.
That a short distance from the "Park" where the Kings Armoury was.
Is to be found a Tavern loyally heralding the title "The Kings Arms."
This establishment would be of very great interest to Brad Blackwood.
Not because he is predisposed to drinking beer, but because of who met there.
As he is a great admirer, of the notable Lecturer, Author and Speaker C.S. Lewis.
He too was an Irishman, born in Belfast. Ireland. So perhaps I will next be told, he was British.
It is an infallible law of English Society, that if you are from another Region entirely, but successful.
We will not fail to endue upon you, the dubious privilege of being absorbed via some device, into our wider Society.
And when I was younger, met many 'English-Indians', having one friend born there, who had been a Bicycle Riding Policeman.
For you, attending this popular pub would have simply meant crossing the road a short distance from your accommodation, through a short alley, past the Radcliffe Camera, etc., and its directly to your right. I suspect this to be the pub you actually mean.
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://web2.comlab.ox. ac.uk/oucl/conferences/TPHOLs2005/bodleian-library-large.jpg &imgrefurl=http://web2.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/conferences/ TPHOLs2005/bid.html&h=580&w=912&sz=57&tbnid= 2tAou-MIr5e_9M:&tbnh=93&tbnw=147&prev=/images%3F q%3Dpicture%2Bof%2Boxford%2Bbodleian&hl=en&usg=__OX5 F8d2FBCvllU9hVUV-YckgJuc=&sa=X&ei=Ea9LTPvNC46M0gTBt_ 2ECw&ved=0CCMQ9QEwAg
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.panoramio.c om/photos/original/25449227.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.pan oramio.com/photo/25449227&usg=__rmBmkNgu0M_QHaW5I_hQsBcA wck=&h=584&w=693&sz=192&hl=en&start=13&a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;itbs=1&tbnid=Gax8ftCTT_v7qM:&tbnh=117&tbnw=13 9&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpicture%2Bthe%2Bkings%2Barms%2Boxfo rd%26hl%3Den%26tbs%3Disch:1
Quote: "lived in Iffley"
My.
Son lives a very short distance from Iffley Lock.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davehamster/364732486/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/browniebear/4653392835/
Quote: "the joke about the Church of England being like Turl St (a.k.a The Turl): "Runs from the Broad to the High with Jesus somewhere in the middle"."
My.
Late Father.
Was a Jesus Man.
A trusted confidant.
And faithful sounding board.
To those at the very Top of the University.
I.
Appreciate that you.
Like other posters on P.S.W.
Are not entirely without humour.
Thus, have a true story about Turl St. for you.
An Oxford.
Visionary of practical joking.
Once observed a couple of young workmen pulling flagstones at the corner of Turl Street.
Now during this time, as for most of my formative life, a policeman was always on permanent station in front of Carfax Tower, to gain experience in the hub of things, a few hundred yards away.
This gave the plot for the subsequent formulations, deep within his devious mind. And he walked over to the workmen and said, "excuse me sir, may I speak with you two gentlemen for a moment".
"Yes son, we'll be glad for a breather" they replied and began to roll their cigarettes.
"It's like this" the young student explained, you are possibly aware that this week is the University Rag Week?
"Well I wasn't to be honest son".
"The thing is sir, some of my fellow students go a bit too far, and it's come to my attention that they are going to attempt to pull a fast one on you two good workmen going about your daily tasks."
"Hmm, what are they planning to do?"
"Well you'll understand my very great concern, that these fellows have gone too far when I tell you that they have procured a policeman's uniform, and intend disguising themselves as such and making an arrest, purely for the hell of it."
"It's quite beyond the pale."
"Hmm, I get cha", one replied " you are saying that someone is going to try and arrest us."
"Yes they are going to suggest that you are breaking the law by removing paving stones putting the public in danger, and use that as a pretext to arrest you, and dump you, locking you in a room on the way to St. Aldate's Police Station."
"I thought I should tell you, because if you know what's going to happen, this is the best way to avoid the trouble this young man is going to get himself into, for impersonating an officer of the law."
"You can diffuse the problem however you see fit."
"Either simply ignore him if you like, or tell him off, but if he gets assertive, knocking his helmet off the top of his head and giving him a clipped ear should certainly do the trick, I'm afraid this chap does get a bit above himself, and a good hard knock is probably the only language that will get actually through to him".
"Well thanks son, we'll keep an eye out for him, and don't worry, we can handle ourselves pretty well, there ain't no fear of that"
And off he went.
Walking towards Carfax.
Where he approached the young policeman on station.
"Excuse me Constable", he asked politely, "may I speak with you a moment".
"Yes Sir" the policeman replied, " How can I help you?"
"Well it's like this, you may be aware that this week is the 'University Rag Week' when all the students full of high spirits, are getting up to all sorts of pranks."
"To be honest, I didn't Sir, but I am glad to be made aware of that fact."
"The thing is Constable, I felt I should talk with someone responsible in authority, and that's why I'm speaking to you, because of my concern having heard that a couple of young students, intend dressing up as workmen and pulling up flagstones all over town."
"This will be a real danger to the public, as well as causing a lot of civic cost, it's going to create friction with the town, and shop owners will be angry"
"To be honest, they are stupid, and taking this practical joking far too far, they need to be brought down a peg or two with a real bump, in fact, probably the only thing that will get through to them is a spell in St. Aldate's Jail."
"Right Sir, you'll have to leave all that with me, thank you for your concern, and I'll be sure to keep my eyes open, and deal with them if they turn up."
"But Constable, they have already begun pulling up flagstones, and they are at the corner of Turl Street right now pulling up more."
"Right O leave this to me", and off the Constable stomped to Turl Street, where after a short, ever louder controversy, the policeman had his helmet knocked off, a powerful struggle ensued, and the good Constable eventually received a solid belt about the head. A whistle blew, reinforcements arrived, handcuffs came out, and the whole sorry group, headed towards The Police Station at St. Aldates.
All watched, and heartily enjoyed from a sublime vantage point, hidden behind the glass entrance to Acotts, across the other side of the road.
The best of it is, it's a completely true story!
P
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on July 27, 2010, 09:32:18 PM
| PP wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 13:50 |
Trolls. Are not a problem to me. |
Are you ____ ______?
Ta,
Andrew
Post by: mastermind on July 27, 2010, 10:24:03 PM
t
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on July 28, 2010, 06:08:51 AM
| mastermind wrote on Tue, 27 July 2010 22:24 |
This thread went downhill in a hurry.... t |
Must have been the high pass filter allowing the thread to reach a new low.
Andrew
Post by: ssltech on July 28, 2010, 10:01:52 AM
First, the original poster is missing the point in no small manner, and what he suggests in terms of 'renaming' the filter based on what part of the accepted musical spectrum would in fact be MOST confusing, if it were given just a little more thought.
Consider a simple 2-way active loudspeaker crossover. It has two outputs, one to lower frequency drive unit, and one to the high. This crossover may happen as low as 1kHz, for horn driver type configurations.
What would you call the filter types used for splitting the spectrum if we were to follow the suggested convention of the original post?
"Low-and-some-of-the-mid-pass filter"? -"High-and-some-of-the-mid-pass filter"?
No, that would plainly be foolish.
An important clue here is that you don't hear people referring to a 'mid-pass' filter. Think about it.
The use of 'low' and 'high' explained in the original post (low meaning the bass region, high meaning the treble region) is a complete misunderstanding by the original poster.
The important information with ANY simple filter type is what appears at the output. -It is for this reason that there are Low-pass, high-pass, band-pass and all-pass filters.
For the uninitiated, an all-pass filter is NOT simply a piece of wire... complicated phase response modifiers such as those used in the Orban Optimod -for example- are filters which do not block the passage of any part of the spectrum. -They merely 're-arrange the spectral furniture' in time, without 'throwing out the sofa', so to speak.
Here's another thought regarding the notion that we should refer to filters according to 'what part of the musical spectrum they reject': -What would you call a band-pass filter?
The name "low-cut-and-high-cut filter" seems awfully clumsy to me.
So the simple convention for naming filters according to what they output has been decided upon. -On the whole, it makes rather more sense than naming a filter after what it DOESN'T output.
There is also a bandstop filter, of course.
'Bell-curve' responses are one thing. 'Shelving' responses are another.
| Garrett H wrote on Mon, 19 July 2010 17:07 |
But isn't a high pass filter a shelf with a different Q? |
Absolutely not.
A high-pass or low-pass filter has NO 'flat part' beyond the corner frequency.
A shelf (whether on a wall or in a cabinet) would be decidedly useless without a flat part, and it is after THIS characteristic aspect that a 'shelving' response is named.
A low-pass or high-pass filter typically just KEEPS GOING downward (there are exceptions... look up Butterworth, Chebyshev type I, Chebyshev type II, Bessel etc. if you want the decimal-point explanations) so it has NO 'cut-or-boost' control. A shelving-response filter not only has a 'degree-of-cut' control, it also commonly has the ability to BOOST.
It seems that the original poster lacks a fundamental grasp of a number of MOST important aspects of filter behaviour. -I would suggest -for example- that he investigates to what 'Q' refers.
With that in mind, I feel inclined to suggest that I do not deserve to be beaten around the head and neck with a pointed stick, but instead that a little study on the subject might prove illuminating, specially before making such alarming pronouncements.
Sorry, it's been a long, rambling post and I'm in a mixed mood at the moment. However, I've tried to provide some explanation according to my (admittedly far-from-complete) understanding. -I welcome and hope that I can absorb correction and further illumination.
Keith
Post by: MoreSpaceEcho on July 28, 2010, 05:04:13 PM
| ssltech wrote on Wed, 28 July 2010 15:01 |
it's been a long, rambling post |
pffffft. it's a model of brevity compared to some...
Post by: Garrett H on July 28, 2010, 05:09:06 PM
I hope you’re feeling better. I asked a simple question, based upon the context with my mastering equalizers.
If the high pass filters range from 22 Hz to 220 Hz, they’re cutting lows, why call it a high pass filter? I also mentioned that Mackie calls the same filters low-cut on their gear.
I think its fair to ask a logical semantic question. (Its no different than asking why some traffic signs read “Right Turn Only” while others say “No Left Turn”)
I also asked for someone to explain the original reasoning behind the choice of high pass vs. low cut. (A reason that was not articulated until your post).
Your response could have been professional, and to the point. Specifically:
| ssltech wrote on Wed, 28 July 2010 10:01 |
The important information with ANY simple filter type is what appears at the output. |
That would have been wonderful. People searching for this answer could have found it quickly.
Sorrowfully, I doubt any one would bother to find your reply. For it seems to be buried within ramblings about live sound gear, broadcast conventions, and personal insults leveled “the original poster.” (Seriously, pulling out the Orban Optimod? Did you want to advance the discussion or draw attention to your vast and superior knowledge of the fascinating world of broadcast technology? Or when you beg we consider a 2-way loudspeaker crossover… fascinating, simply fascinating...at what point can we put down the pocket protector answer the fundamental question?)
I brought this to a professional forum seeking professional advice and decorum, not the nerd rage and condescension.
| ssltech wrote on Wed, 28 July 2010 10:01 |
I would suggest -for example- that he investigates to what 'Q' refers. |
For some one so informed you fail to mention cut filters can be 1st or 2nd order, and 2nd order filters have a Q adjustment which can create so-called resonant filters characteristics and specially steep filters if cascading several of them – hence morphing a shelf into a filter – as is seen in several, if not scores of contemporary audio plug-ins – where changing the Q in the GUI changes the band from shelf to filter - precipitating my second question regarding the blurring of the lines of filter vs. shelf in the minds of thousands of up-and-coming engineers.
Let me put it another way: I asked a question. You felt the need to (try) to belittle me, misrepresent my postion, and assert that I am a moron.
I hope you're feeling better.
Post by: Kris on July 28, 2010, 05:15:29 PM
| Garrett H wrote on Sat, 17 July 2010 19:21 |
I don't know if this is the forum or not, but I want to go out and say that people who call a high pass a high pass deserve a beating about the head and shoulders with a pointed stick. You see, not only does a high pass allow highs to pass, but mids, low mids, and some lows pass as well. So, why don't we call it a LOW CUT filter (BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT IS!) Seriously. If someone can explain why my logic is faulty, I'll hear you out. I might even apologize. But as of now, its seems that Mackie is one of the few in the "Vanguard of Accuracy" in this regard. And I don't think any of us use their gear in our chain. So, to those of you out there that like this terminology, I'm serious, you're wrong, inaccurate, and annoying. We now return to our regular programming. |
Didn't you start out by calling virtually everyone who reads your post annoying, and deserving of a beating about the head and shoulders with a pointed stick.?
Hard to tell when you state you are serious, but I guess we should all 'know' you were just kidding.
Post by: ssltech on July 28, 2010, 05:36:01 PM
| Garrett H wrote on Wed, 28 July 2010 17:09 |
Let me put it another way: I asked a question. You felt the need to (try) to belittle me, misrepresent my postion, and assert that I am a moron. |
I disagree most strongly. -Unless:
| Quote: |
I don't know if this is the forum or not, but I want to go out and say that people who call a high pass a high pass deserve a beating about the head and shoulders with a pointed stick. |
Counts as a question.
As for my asserting your status as a moron, I don't believe that I used that word or made that assertion.
However, you asked whether shelving-response equalisers were not essentially the same as bandstop filters.
They are not, and to make the suggestion shows a significant gap in understanding. -I believe I did point that out.
I didn't have time to write a comprehensive lecture getting into multi-pole details. It wasn't necessary, and your raising the issue is not germane to the original post, nor -I believe- is it relevant at this later stage.
I seem to recall that I even apologized for my somewhat grumpy demeanour.
-So please reconsider your indignation. You apparently started by belittling others, and offered no apology which I can recall.
As for condescension; 'cast out the mote'...
By all means live long and prosper, but please don't condescend to others and then complain when replied in kind.
Kindly stop telling me not to shorten my replies excessively, just because it suits you. I'm just not in the mood.
Have a nice day.
Post by: KB_S1 on July 28, 2010, 07:21:43 PM
As usual they were informative and challenging.
I failed to detect contempt or disparaging intent with them.
Sometimes replies take a bit of explaining to remain accurate.
I do find it worrying that on several occasions lately criticism has been levelled at a poster for displaying a higher level of knowledge and technical insight than someone asking a question.
The reason I use this site is because it is full of people that know more than me.
Otherwise I would want paid to be here.
Post by: Edvaard on July 29, 2010, 01:52:40 PM
| Quote: |
The bureaucrat, administrator, bean-counter and slimy variety of lawyer however, all conspire with the minority interests of political correctness zealots, to blind our clear sense of vision, clip our widely outstretching wings, and prevent us from rising up in flight to be all that we have potential to be. |
I enjoyed the philosophical tangent of high pass and low pass filtering as conveyed by innovation vs. bureaucratic lack of forbearance.
But the bureaucrats are just tools, placed where they are by a society that fears different thinking and for whom "not understood" equates to "different".
In any case I think I might relabel my high pass filters as Zarathustra and the low pass filters as Calvin.
Post by: Bill_Urick on July 29, 2010, 07:13:07 PM
Post by: PP on July 30, 2010, 03:57:47 AM
The original poster is in error regarding a whole swathe of factors.
1. The technical answer to his query has been delivered on numerous occasions within this thread with great verve and aplomb, by a diverse range of highly experienced voices.
2. As his query, is primary concerned with the use of words, an authoritative literary answer has also, additionally been given to further illuminate, the origin and truth of the matter.
Thus, his question has been completely, authoritatively, resoundingly answered, for a very considerable time.
Quote: "Seriously. If someone can explain why my logic is faulty, I'll hear you out. I might even apologize."
Many will take the view, that that time, has now come.
To apologise, will do no discredit at all.
On the contrary, it gives kudos.
And you are not alone.
Either.
When.
I utilise the phrase "The original poster" I do so.
To depersonalise the discussion, so as not to direct toward or cause singular offence, to any individual.
It's genuinely meant as a way to avoid causing friction, and thus produce Light instead of Heat, for we all have need of greater understanding, and the true Light of this World.
Quote: "I doubt any one would bother to find your reply."
"For it seems to be buried within ramblings about live sound gear, broadcast conventions, and personal insults leveled “the original poster.” (Seriously, pulling out the Orban Optimod? Did you want to advance the discussion or draw attention to your vast and superior knowledge of the fascinating world of broadcast technology?"
I respectfully disagree.
(Levelled of course contains three lll's).
The depth and quality of Keith's immense experience.
Literally shines, shimmering like white heat off a waiting aeroplane wing.
Those anticipating the exhilaration of an uplifting flight will all too readily climb on board.
Although its going back a bit, and technology will have inevitably moved forward a great deal. I remember Michael Gerzon discussing pass filters, and the fact that if you placed one (then) as low as 5Hz, that it would inevitably cause a slightly woolly quality in the lower mid's.
Probably you would feel that an extremely safe place to roll off from, but in those days, many felt that the most significant difference between a Recording and a Live Performance, was the fact that there were no pass-filters attenuating the enormity of the experience, in the Live Performance.
Talk about buried within Ramblings. The Ramblings of this 'Historic Genius' of the Audio World, would have held you spellbound, and would have continued on as you approached the door to leave his flat, and probably accompanied you, down the corridor and out of the building, your head reeling with information.
Keith would appear to be in tremendously good Company then, sharing such a quality with Michael Gerzon, Known for Ambisonics, Soundfield microphone, Noise-shaped dither, Trifield, Meridian Lossless Packing, and in many ways completing the work of Alan Blumlein, another Genius, with awards such as an AES Fellowship, an AES Gold Medal and an AES Publications Award.
Having personally known people of such a calibre, I do regard them as literally 'Recording Royalty', and you will normally find a liberal vein of Pure Gold within in them. Nuggets of Gold that are too easily found, are usually deceptively false.
Thus it's an extremely wise teacher indeed, that refuses to directly supply 'easy' answers. But allows the students to uncover 'the truth' for themselves, by working somewhat, to discover it.
You can never forget something you personally discover, all on your own, in that way.
It's a tremendous way to teach.
And even more so.
To Learn.
To chide.
Such people for the immense knowledge they carry 'ready to wear', is like deliberately shooting yourself in the foot with a 12 bore shotgun.
Then carefully lining up the unused barrel with the remaining foot on which you are precariously stood.
And explosively blowing it off for good dramatic measure.
So the question that really remains is.
Are we ourselves teachable?
Some.
Of us may not be.
And if someone asks a question.
Is given the answer, but rails against the truthful solution.
This may be an important clue to identifying such for what they are.
3. Any mature person.
Knows that in every field there are proper protocols that have to be followed for reasons of safety, quite apart from anything else.
The original poster has chosen to deliberately place aside, the internationally recognised long established protocols and conventions that have been in existence throughout Recording History.
When we really could do with a new Business Model, or a new Quality Audio Format, a Revolutionary Design of Studio for Small Producers, or a brilliantly innovative form of Attention Grabbing Musical Instrument.
Rather than another name, for a High - Pass Filter.
4. Quote: "people who call a high pass a high pass deserve a beating about the head and shoulders with a pointed stick."
What.
Is the.
Essential point.
About a pointed stick?
It surely is meant to dig in.
To be provocatively thrust forward.
To prick and stab and poke about freely with.
Clearly.
It is not designed.
To be used with side strokes.
Implied by the phrase 'beating about'.
Which in any case are extremely dangerous.
Potentially to the Brain, and likely to cause permanent damage.
It is another symptom, of confused thinking, along with the matter of Filters.
I recall.
Pointing out to Bob Katz.
Which he no doubt, greatly appreciated.
For he was right here lecturing, just the other day.
And it was really great, to see him, enjoying such tremendous health.
That it is an infallible law of the human personality, part of it's innate weakness if you like.
That individuals point out faults and criticise in others, the personal aspects, that they subconsciously, most dislike, about their own selves.
Quote: "I asked a question. You felt the need to (try) to belittle me, misrepresent my postion, and assert that I am a moron."
Leaving aside.
The important truth that 'position' has two ii's.
What seems belittling, is to instigate this thread with these words.
Quote: "I want to go out and say that people who call a high pass a high pass deserve a beating about the head and shoulders with a pointed stick."
Quote: "to those of you out there that like this terminology, I'm serious, you're wrong, inaccurate, and annoying."
For you yourself appear to be belittling others, misrepresenting their position, and asserting that they are morons.
As I don't think anyone likes or dislikes the terminology, but simply accept an established protocol.
But it's breathtakingly neat, the way a humans subconscious works.
A veritable marvel for one to wonderingly behold.
That never ceases to astound and amaze.
Isn't it?
Quote: "Kindly stop telling me not to shorten my replies excessively, just because it suits you."
An important point! One all posters, would do well to hearken and adhere to.
For instance, I have around eight times, the material posted already.
But as I explained, at the top of an earlier page.
I temper my replies into extremely short.
Very easy to absorb, snippets.
For every modern mind.
Has a very severely.
Disadvantaged.
Attention.
Span.
In Audio.
As in life in general,
A proper sense of perspective.
Can serve one well, in order to see things as they really are.
In proper proportion, to not lose one's sense of equanimity and balance.
Sat in the car today, waiting for the Chauffer to start the engine, a young man walked by.
A simple smile given, afforded me the same in return, with obvious, heartfelt, acknowledgement and respect.
Drive on!
Good fellows all.
Be well with this Life.
And all those you encounter.
However they may attempt to frustrate.
Rise
Above.
To become.
A True Gulliver.
Of this Great World.
Rather than a Lilliputian.
P
P.S.
Allow me.
To give a helpfully practical example of what I mean.
Earlier, I could have responded to a Troll, but chose instead, to entirely outflank him altogether.
Thus!
I refused, to post this response..
Troll Quote: "I must ask you what dictionary contains the word, "irregardless?""
A seemingly sensible question.
To a fly on a Spider Web.
I can't believe.
You fell for.
This.
Clearly!
You should read.
PSW far more often than you do.
I commend it to you, as a great source of reliable information.
The word.
Was created in North America, by North Americans.
Since you are in North America, I am amazed at the lack of awareness of your own culture.
It is what I would call a 'corruption'.
But is in point of fact a 'contraction' of two separate words that mean similar things.
Those.
Words are.
"Regardless."
And "Irrespective."
And in North America the words have commonly become fused together into 'Irregardless'.
As they have become fused together by common usage, there are particular methods of monitoring and gauging such use, and thus determining the point when a word is sufficiently widespread across the English Speaking Population of the Globe, or a large part of it, for that word to be regarded as a legitimate, recognised word.
At that point, it will be forwarded to the compilers for inclusion in the new word sections of Dictionaries, and eventually make it way into all good Dictionaries.
But you must appreciate that English is taught and spoken all around the World, so you have to have someone, somewhere governing references.
'Irregardless'.
Thus appears in the O.E.D.
And it means the same as 'Regardless'.
Because.
Someone 'makes up' a word.
And thinks it means something in particular.
That does not mean that that word actually forms a proper part of the English Language, nor means the same to others, which is the essential point.
And I hope that without implied censure, or criticism, we can all readily appreciate that within the very confines of this thread, we have witnessed a prime example, of this happening before our very eyes.
Whether.
A word is genuinely acceptable, is determined by 'time' and 'pace' of 'use' to 'width of spread'.
This is why some words are recognised, and others rejected, perhaps if over time they spread more widely, and in use in literature.
They may become acceptable, but an incredible amount is continually rejected, because it is born of the same processes, we have witnessed earlier.
If.
You don't like this word 'Irregardless'.
Or find it questionable or objectionable in some way.
Then you only have yourself, and your fellow countrymen, to complain of, and to.
Because you yourselves, have created the very word that you now are raising such questions about.
Thanks Again for Playing The Troll!
But you are just too easy.
To Be Seriously.
'Regarded'.
I chose.
By act of will.
To deliberately avoid.
Posting this response, altogether.
For all the excellent reasons given above.
So if you are tempted to retaliate, to provocation.
Please remember this fine exemplification, illustrating pure restraint, as a prime example.
And!
Become.
A True Gulliver.
Of this Great World.
Rather than a Lilliputian.
P
P.P.S.
Above all!
Retain inwardly.
An Ardent Sense of Humour.
For it affords one an ample opportunity.
To approach the necessities of life generously, with Class.
Bringing Winsomeness with Wisdom, Elegance with Experience and all surpassing, Good Grace.
For the beginning of True Wisdom, is to deeply and fully recognise, our complete and utter dependency, on Grace!
P
Post by: ssltech on July 30, 2010, 09:19:58 AM
Gosh.
-Michael Gerzon by the way, is a person whom I have come to honestly wish I could have known.
Having owned three Soundfield microphones at one time, having become completely enthralled at their capability, having been stunned at the sheer genius of the man, I found myself compelled to try and make my own investigations. -I designed and built a couple of B-format decoders, and eventually a 'native B-Format' Large-diameter condenser microphone. -I've spent a measurable number of hours following up on my own findings; usually to eventually discover that Michael had predicted the result and moved on.
And having learned a small (tiny though it is) amount about him over the years, I feel that I can in no way accept any comparison with the great man. -'Clever' I may be; 'fascinated'? -you may be sure.
Alas, I fear too close a comparison would be flattery. The man was a glowing beacon. -Do I understand correctly that you spent time in his company, Peter?
Gosh.
Keith
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on July 30, 2010, 09:56:16 AM
| PP wrote on Fri, 30 July 2010 03:57 |
P.S. Allow me. To give a helpfully practical example of what I mean. Earlier, I could have responded to a Trojan, but chose instead, to entirely be outflanked by him altogether. |
With another split infinitive. Charming.
You are a legend in your own mind, to be sure.
| PP wrote on Fri, 30 July 2010 03:57 |
Thus! I refused, to post this response.. |
But you just couldn't leave well enough alone...
| PP wrote on Fri, 30 July 2010 03:57 |
Trojan Quote: "I must ask you what dictionary contains the word, "irregardless?"" The word. Was created in North America, by North Americans. Since you are in North America, I am amazed at the lack of awareness of your own culture. |
I am aware that in my culture, it is a sign of ignorance to use this word. This has been my education, Stateside. The more likely origin of the misspeaking is that there _is_ a word, "irregard," which confuses speakers into adding an unwanted "-less."
One can say, quite rightly, that my interlocutor has posted with irregard to his reputation. He has reposted insults to everyone in the thread, as well as all Americans, regardless of his forumnal inflammability (which, is the same as his professional flammability, of course)
| PP wrote on Fri, 30 July 2010 03:57 |
'Irregardless'. Thus appears in the O.E.D. .... |
...as a Yankee howler! Both non-standard and illogical. Less logical than "gowny," by a nautical mile.
| PP wrote on Fri, 30 July 2010 03:57 |
Because. Someone 'makes up' a word. And thinks it means something in particular. That does not mean that that word actually forms a proper part of the English Language, nor means the same to others, which is the essential point. |
Thank you. "What good is the law'r if the law'r is a ass?"
| PP wrote on Fri, 30 July 2010 03:57 |
Thanks Again for Playing The Trojan! But you are just too easy. To Be Seriously. 'Regarded'. |
And you, Sir, are almost clever. You have the right degree of crotchety pomposity, without the precision or command wanted to convey your jousts convincingly. Have you taken your tea, today?
Andrew
Post by: PP on July 30, 2010, 01:00:22 PM
Having owned three Soundfield microphones at one time, having become completely enthralled at their capability, having been stunned at the sheer genius of the man, I found myself compelled to try and make my own investigations. -I designed and built a couple of B-format decoders, and eventually a 'native B-Format' Large-diameter condenser microphone. -I've spent a measurable number of hours following up on my own findings; usually to eventually discover that Michael had predicted the result and moved on.
And having learned a small (tiny though it is) amount about him over the years, I feel that I can in no way accept any comparison with the great man. -'Clever' I may be; 'fascinated'? -you may be sure.
Alas, I fear too close a comparison would be flattery. The man was a glowing beacon. -Do I understand correctly that you spent time in his company, Peter?"
Yes.
Indeed.
Michael was.
A contemporary.
Of mine at Oxford.
I always.
Found him very much to be.
An extremely attractive personality.
Highly animated, excited even discussing Audio.
A King in his realm, he cut a genuinely charismatic figure.
Though sadly, not always enjoying, the very best of health at times.
He was one.
With leadership.
That drew others along.
Into and towards whatever.
He was doing, and that was always.
Something extremely interesting indeed.
He had a definate gift, beyond mere intelligence.
Typically, with no focus whatever, on the humdrum and mundane.
I.
was working.
In related fields.
In The High Street Oxford.
In a building, owned by my pal.
And Michael was naturally interested.
Not least in the vast array of equipment I had.
And so at times, came in to see me, and would look about.
However.
My main memories.
Concern a wonderful person.
For there were was always a lot.
Of animated intelligent conversation.
That followed Michael wherever he went.
Because regularly, a group of likeminded fellows.
Accompanied him, and especially so, when I saw him.
I expect they were all having a discrete gander at my gear.
Most of all.
I glowingly remember.
The tremendous amount of laughter.
That seemed to be generated by his active mind.
And the manner in which he interrelated to others, at least, where I was concerned.
It all seemed to be, at one and the same time, a complete obsession and absolutely pure unadulterated fun.
I suppose.
This is what I meant.
Earlier when I wrote of Leonardo.
There are some people who are true Geniuses.
Rather than the 'grey men' who have to work so hard.
To the true Genius, this 'work' is the pure stuff of Life and Living.
And it appears, that there is an 'effortlessness' involved.
It's like watching an Eagle outstretching its wings.
And launching into the thermals wafting around.
Soaring up, efficiently and well at ease.
With the situation they are in.
High and Lofty though.
It always be.
His early experiments.
With Soundfield prototypes.
In The University Church St. Mary's.
That proved my essential earlier point.
Concerning the naming of The High Street.
Were just along the road from me, although.
His experiments concerning Quadraphonic Sound.
Were mainly performed in Pusey House a little further away.
I had.
Somewhere.
At my disposal.
Most, if not all the equipment.
That Michael was predisposed to use.
Except of course the prototypes they manufactured.
And an awful lot more, that he didn't have, or necessarily need.
So I trust you can see, that keeping an eye on what was going on around.
Would have been an entirely natural thing for them to do.
He had.
All the theoretical Maths.
Based at The Mathematical Institute.
But he also had extensive practical experience, and the ear, that's so important.
Its worth writing that his pals like Peter, and others, were a tremedous compliment to his redoubtable talents.
Keith.
I am sure your students.
Feel heaven blessed, to have such an experienced.
'Safe pair of hands' from which to learn both the theoretical and practical.
It's usually when these elements are too long seperated, one from the other, that people go astray.
P
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Troll Quote:" I am aware that in my culture, it is a sign of ignorance to use this word."
"Irregardless" is a word.
That appears in The Oxford English Dictionary.
It might not be considered as particularly good English.
But that point, could be made about any number of words today.
Vitally it is indeed a recognised word, by the Top Authority in the World.
And is clearly indicated to be North American in origin, and mainly in use thereabouts.
Your original question was.
Troll Quote: "I must ask you what dictionary contains the word, "irregardless?""
And the answer is The Oxford English Dictionary.
But!
Your original question.
Indicates you did not recognise this word.
Indeed, you are so sure that it doesn't even exist.
That you challenge me to show A Dictionary Reference to it.
Later, you seem at last to have done a modicum of homework on the matter.
Troll Quote: "I am aware that in my culture, it is a sign of ignorance to use this word."
Why else.
Would you have previously required.
A Dictionary Reference for a word that you now.
Grudgingly, had no option, but to accept the existence of?
You!
Have been trapped.
By your very own words themselves.
I'm afraid.
It is very clear
To all and sundry.
You are hopelessly out of your depth.
Playing for 'prides sake' alone, when you really know.
That the game has been over and lost, a very long time ago.
Troll Quote: "The more likely origin of the misspeaking is that there _is_ a word, "irregard," which confuses speakers into adding an unwanted "-less.""
You.
Are to be sure.
Making all this up.
From the top of your head.
And desperately doing so as you go along.
For there is no such word at all as "Irregard" in the English Language.
And it is not to be found anywhere at all in the Prime Reference of the Oxford English Dictionary.
However.
Should you require further proof than my word, on the matter.
Help yourself to the education, you clearly like to pretend to possess.
I have the entire origins of "Irregardless" at my very fingertips at this moment.
But here.
Is a resource of quality available to all.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/?attempted=true
I invite all readers of this thread, should they wish to, to use Copy/Paste to insert the words.
Irregard
&
Irregardless
Into the Oxford Dictionary above.
To prove the truth of this.
For themselves.
Though I doubt if anyone will, because most know here, I wouldn't write anything, I couldn't prove to be true.
And that concludes the matter.
Putting it beyond debate.
You have been hoist, with your own petard.
You have been weighed, in the balance, and found wanting.
And the inevitable piffle, that will endlessly follow, in a fruitless attempt.
To obfuscate and diffuse the clear evidence, of your deplorable pretentiousness.
Cannot save you now!
The adage come to mind.
"When you are digging a hole for yourself. Stop Digging."
And of course, demonstrates why I wrote earlier, at the top of the page.
"Thanks Again for Playing The Troll!
But you are just too easy.
To Be Seriously.
'Regarded'."
And so.
You have.
Proved yourself.
Once again unable.
To absorb something.
Any Cat or Dog at all.
Wild or domestic, would.
Have easily learnt by now.
If you.
Question this.
And are in any doubt at all.
That there are many brighter Cats and Dogs.
That appear to be far more responsively intelligent.
I refer you to an earlier thread concerning a related subject on P.S.W.
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/31799/0/32 /2437/
For your much needed further enlightenment!
P
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on July 30, 2010, 02:20:05 PM
| PP wrote on Fri, 30 July 2010 13:00 |
Trop Beaux Quote:" I am aware that in my culture, it is a sign of ignorance to use this word. This has been my education, Stateside." None the less. "Irregardless" is a word. That appears in The Oxford English Dictionary. It might not be considered as particularly good English. But it is indeed a recognised word, by the Top Authority in the World. |
Your Bri'ish English, Lord Undertroll, is not recognized/sed by Brad's spell-checker, either. Bollocks to the O. E. D. Bollocks to spell-checkers. I am impressed that your word made it to a dictionary. However, the reasons for my asking remain the same. I have been taught not only of its existence as a bar sinister sort of word, but that it should be eschewed for alternate, more logical constructions. And since it is mentioned in the OED as even tolerated, why, then, care about the dictionary? It doesn't contain "gowny," and now we learn that it doesn't even contain good, old, "irregard?" Shakespeare wrote perfectly well without consulting a dictionary. It is a refuge only for those who lay snares in their posts, intent on nothing more than parlor tricks which fail to supersede their erstwhile toppling...
And show me, O, Muse, the logic, then, in "ir-" plus "-less" = "-less"? That "-ir," dear Vincent, is invisible and, therefore, unwanted. I have never liked the word, wreckless, for the same reason. It sounds desirable.
Whereas, a simple google produced this random excerpt of actual written communication on the web with this very word, "irregard," most logically invoked.:
"3)Yes to the special discount when buying property - the government actually pays some people to move into the land that was taken away from the minority group. Forced the indigenous people from their land, built 'cities' for them with _irregard_ to their customs and life styles and don't allow them to elect their own city officials. (they are allowed to vote in national elections, but local officials are appointed in many of the minority cities)..."
| PP wrote on Fri, 30 July 2010 13:00 |
And is clearly indicated to be North American in origin, and mainly in use thereabouts. Your original question was. Trop Beaux Quote: "I must ask you what dictionary contains the word, "irregardless?"" -snipped- -more- Your original question. Indicates you did not recognise this word. Indeed, you challenge me to show A Dictionary Reference. Later, you seem at last to have done a modicum of homework on the matter. |
Challenge...? Homework! I didn't ask you to show me the page it's on. I asked what dictionary it were in, guvnuh. Full stop. You read in the page rage that you felt. But don't pin a grammar match on me, PP. You're way outta your league.
| PP wrote on Fri, 30 July 2010 13:00 |
Trop Beaux : "I am aware that in my culture, it is a sign of ignorance to use this word." Why else. Would you have previously required. A Dictionary Reference for a word that you. Grudgingly had no option but to accept the existence of? |
This is how the vulgar declines the Classical. I was aware of its existence, so I bear you no grudge. But I didn't know it had sunk so low as to be in a dictionary - least of all, the O. E. D.
Alas, Today's casual wear is tomorrow's formal wear.
Here's something that's in a dictionary:
"Main Entry: word
Pronunciation: \ˈwərd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German wort word, Latin verbum, Greek eirein to say, speak, Hittite weriya- to call, name
Date: before 12th century
1 a : something that is said b plural (1) : talk, discourse <putting one's feelings into words> (2) : the text of a vocal musical composition c : a brief remark or conversation <would like to have a word with you>
2 a (1) : a speech sound or series of speech sounds that symbolizes and communicates a meaning usually without being divisible into smaller units capable of independent use (2) : the entire set of linguistic forms produced by combining a single base with various inflectional elements without change in the part of speech elements b (1) : a written or printed character or combination of characters representing a spoken word <the number of words to a line> —sometimes used with the first letter of a real or pretended taboo word prefixed as an often humorous euphemism <the first man to utter the f word on British TV — Time> <we were not afraid to use the d word and talk about death — Erma Bombeck> (2) : any segment of written or printed discourse ordinarily appearing between spaces or between a space and a punctuation mark c : a number of bytes processed as a unit and conveying a quantum of information in communication and computer work
3 : order, command <don't move till I give the word>
4 often capitalized a : logos b : gospel 1a c : the expressed or manifested mind and will of God
5 a : news, information <sent word that he would be late> b : rumor
6 : the act of speaking or of making verbal communication
7 : saying, proverb
8 : promise, declaration <kept her word>
9 : a quarrelsome utterance or conversation —usually used in plural <they had words and parted>
10 : a verbal signal : password
11 slang —used interjectionally to express agreement
— good word 1 : a favorable statement <put in a good word for me>
2 : good news <what's the good word>
— in a word : in short
— in so many words 1 : in exactly those terms <implied that such actions were criminal but did not say so in so many words>
2 : in plain forthright language <in so many words, she wasn't fit to be seen — Jean Stafford>
— of few words : not inclined to say more than is necessary : laconic <a man of few words>
— of one's word : that can be relied on to keep a promise —used only after man or woman <a man of his word>
— upon my word : with my assurance : indeed, assuredly <upon my word, I've never heard of such a thing>"
So, a word is at least some part of anything written or said. Therefore, "gownies" be a word, dictionary, or no. As is, "irregard." The word is in - the dictionary is out.
Checkmate.
| PP wrote on Fri, 30 July 2010 13:00 |
You! Have been trapped. By your very own words themselves. |
Oh, noe you doant. You halve tried to trap mee with words, but I have always slipped through your grasp, like unto a pantheon - outflanking the saxon.
| PP wrote on Fri, 30 July 2010 13:00 |
I'm afraid. It is very clear To all and sundry. You are hopelessly out of your depth. Playing for 'prides sake' alone, when you really know. That the game has been over and lost, a very long time ago. |
Game playing, are you? The troll-caller is the trouble-maker, after all.
| PP wrote on Fri, 30 July 2010 13:00 |
Troll Quote: "The more likely origin of the misspeaking is that there _is_ a word, "irregard," which confuses speakers into adding an unwanted "-less."" You. Are to be sure. Making all this up. From the top of your head. And desperately doing so as you go along. |
Desperately, I should hope to kiss a pig - not.
And my sentence reads better than I had remembered. Read it, again, sudden rake, and weep the stingy drops of brine that should your cheek give a telling trace of your white lie.
"The more likely origin of the misspeaking is that there _is_ a word, "irregard," which confuses speakers into adding an unwanted "-less.""
It was, and _is_, more likely, in spite of what you have replied with, because it remains the logical construction of the prefix and the root. Whereas your now-accepted 20th-Century bar-sinister slang-word from, Indiana, was it?, makes as much sense as, "pro-active," or "for free."
| PP wrote on Fri, 30 July 2010 13:00 |
Help yourself to the education, you clearly like to pretend to possess. |
You fail to grasp the valueless state of the word "education," when not modified with some sort of context or adjective. Had yours been better, you would have caught that and not let yourself be carried away, so. No one pretends to possess his education. It may or may not be paltry, but one can only pretend to have a good, or bad, education. Get me?
| PP wrote on Fri, 30 July 2010 13:00 |
I have the entire origins of "Irregardless" at my very fingertips at this moment. |
Perhaps that is too much information for this forum.
| PP wrote on Fri, 30 July 2010 13:00 |
That concludes the matter. |
Hardly? (;
| PP wrote on Fri, 30 July 2010 13:00 |
The adage come to mind. "When you are digging a hole for yourself. Stop Digging." |
Words you would do well to ingest, Mr. Po(y)ser
| PP wrote on Fri, 30 July 2010 13:00 |
And of course, demonstrates why I wrote earlier, at the top of the page. "Thanks Again for Playing The Trojan! But you are just too easy. To Be Seriously. 'Regarded'." |
You are dyslexic? You surely meant to type, "But you are just too serious to be easily regarded..."
| PP wrote on Fri, 30 July 2010 13:00 |
And so. Prove once again. Something, any Cat at all. Wild or domestic, would have learnt. By now. If you. Question this. And are in any doubt at all. That there are many brighter Cats and Dogs. That appear to be more responsively intelligent. I refer you to an earlier thread concerning a related subject on P.S.W. http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/31799/0/32 /2437/ For your further enlightenment! |
Don't worry about the past. You will be rewarded for your bravery. As for your attitude, you can see where it's gotten you.
With irregard to the OED and its PP,
Andrew
Post by: ssltech on July 30, 2010, 03:24:22 PM
I recall that this particular accidental corruption was fathered at least once by the former US commander-in-chief.
Perhaps another would-be resident of Pennsylvania Avenue could 'Refudiate'...?
Post by: Fenris Wulf on July 30, 2010, 06:00:29 PM
PP is James Joyce.
Or will someday have a neurological condition named after him.
No, scratch that. PP is Alfred Bester.
On a bender.
Posting via laptop from a Tilt-A-Whirl.
Where he resides 24/7.
Because he believes the relativistic effects will keep him eternally young.
He's too knackered to realize the Tilt-A-Whirl is no longer operational and the amusement park closed in 1968.
Actually, he doesn't have a laptop. His missives are written on lambskin with a quill pen and hand-delivered to the nearest telegraph office by street urchins.
He is now delving into his Oxford Compendium of Ultimate Precision so he can prove that I used the term "operational" incorrectly.
Unfortunately, Volume 126 (Open thru Operator) was eaten by rats, and he considers the CD-ROM version to be less than canonical.
He will have to content himself with yelling at the street urchins.
"Boy! You there! What year is it? What do you mean, it's only 2010? This damn thing isn't going fast enough!"
Post by: ssltech on July 30, 2010, 06:49:00 PM
| PP wrote |
...the theoretical and practical. It's usually when these elements are too long seperated, one from the other, that people go astray. |
I'm going to write that down and contemplate it for a while.
Keith
Post by: Gio on July 30, 2010, 09:59:08 PM
that which keeps me from participating more often.
Carry on......
Post by: Laarsø on July 31, 2010, 02:08:34 AM
Laars
Post by: RMoore on August 01, 2010, 10:23:24 AM
| ssltech wrote on Sat, 31 July 2010 00:49 | ||
I'm going to write that down and contemplate it for a while. Keith |
Definitely food for thought
Post by: Barkley McKay on August 01, 2010, 12:21:31 PM
| RMoore wrote on Sun, 01 August 2010 15:23 | ||||
Definitely food for thought |
just realised how hungry I am!
Post by: Garrett H on August 01, 2010, 10:53:46 PM
I asked for explanations, and got them, including bonus Gandalf footage.
No one wants to answer the CONTEXT. The Mackie Example. Or the mastering EQ example. Or, a third example: I pull my NS-10 speaker out of its cabinet, wire it to a 1/4 connector. Placing it in front of a bass drum its now a microphone. Minutes before it was a speaker. Both transducers, but no one would call it a speaker in front of the kick drum, and no one would call it a microphone set up in its cab on top of my console and no one should call a filter that only goes to 250 Hz a HIGH PASS FILTER ... but I am tilting windmills with this audience.
I meant to beat manufacturers and silk screeners about the head and shoulders with pointed (and/or blunt sticks, maces, flails, cudgels, morning stars, Bohemian ear spoons, etc.), not any of YOU gentle contributors. Again, I very well was misleading in my first (admittedly vague) missive, for which I apologize a THIRD time.
Lord in Heaven. Bethel has over 9,957,084 posts suggesting audio engineers commit immediate mass suicide (spanning multiple boards and eras) and I ask a single question... I can't even write what I want to write for decency's sake......
Where for art thou Gin/Vodka/Scotch...
You people are mean and make me sad.
Post by: ssltech on August 02, 2010, 12:27:39 AM
Much of what you disparage as the "bonus Gandalf footage" is in fact context.
I brought up the 'Optimod' not to disport any superior knowledge, but rather to illustrate why very useful filters may not fit into your narrower definitions. Additional information is frequently stimulative and informative to the fertile mind.
You strike me as someone who came not so much to seek enlightenment as to propose bending convention to suit you.
Additionally, your reply regarding cascading shelving filters still illustrates more than one error in comprehension, by the way.
And "wherefore" is a single word, and ends with an 'e'. -Also, unless I misunderstand your use of the fords "where" and "for", you also appear to have misunderstood the meaning of "wherefore". -It does not mean 'where' as in 'whither', it means "for what reason" or "why".
I'm in a rather better mood now, but I do feel that you're still rather wide of the mark in your comprehension. -It makes me hope that your contributions to 'Tape Op' are reviewed by a competent editor.
Keith
Post by: Fenris Wulf on August 02, 2010, 06:13:47 AM
| Garrett H wrote on Mon, 02 August 2010 03:53 |
No one wants to answer the CONTEXT. |
The terms "low cut" and "high cut" are not used because they are too general. They apply to a LPF or HPF, but they ALSO apply to a bell or a shelf. "Below pass filter" and "above pass filter" are technically correct, but are a grammatical nightmare.
"High" and "low" are relative terms. "High" does NOT mean "treble," it just means "higher than some other frequency." Therefore, the terms HPF and LPF are perfectly correct. To a broadcast engineer, anything below the megahertz range is "low." To a seismologist, anything above the subsonic range is "high." Filters are used in many different fields, and they are not ALL going to change their terminology just because it confuses you.
If "high" meant "treble," then a LPF that filters out RF interference would simultaneously be a HPF, because it lets through the treble. This is obviously nonsense.
Get a book on EQ design and learn how 3 simple components form the building blocks of all EQ's. A capacitor is a high-pass filter. But if it's connected in shunt, it acts as a low-pass filter. An inductor is the reverse.