mcsnare wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 11:55 |
Adding eq and compression at the recording stage is standard operating procedure and not would I refer to as pre-mixing. Dave |
h2o2 wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 14:10 | ||
Alright, Compression is often done at recording to save time. I believe adding EQ at recording time, apart from EQ controls of guitar cab or lowcut is not that common practice however. Regardless it is common or not, this pre-processing is detrimental to IMP idea. |
grantis wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 14:18 | ||||
Common to EQ to tape over here. And I'm struggling with the idea that cutting EQ to tape is detrimental to this exercise. Please explain. |
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 08:34 | ||||||
In case of struggle it is good to ask yourself questions and develop logical thinking. For example: why it is not allowed to submit early? which reason? I believe non-destructive editing did bet destructive one? |
h2o2 wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 15:34 | ||||||
In case of struggle it is good to ask yourself questions and develop logical thinking. For example: why it is not allowed to submit early? which reason? I believe non-destructive editing did bet destructive one? |
Gio wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 20:45 |
I'm in this time around too. Missed the last one...... And pardon me for butting in, but i think the point of this is to mix what we are given, processed or not, and make the best of it, much as happens in the real world. We don't always get to track everything we mix, do we? I'll have fun with it, at least..... |
h2o2 wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 12:10 | ||
Alright, Compression is often done at recording to save time. I believe adding EQ at recording time, apart from EQ controls of guitar cab or lowcut is not that common practice however. Regardless it is common or not, this pre-processing is detrimental to IMP idea. |
Greg Dixon wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 16:55 | ||||||||
One reason for not submitting mixes early is so that people aren't copying each others mixes. Getting the sounds 'right' while recording, is definitely the ideal. Leaving decisions until the mix, is something to be avoided in general. Yes, it has become common practice to not eq and compress until the mix, but that's a recent trend and just makes it harder to get a great mix. Having the sounds close to the way they'll be in the final mix, makes adding overdubs much easier, as you know right away if the new sound is working in the track. I'm very grateful that I started recording on 4 and 8 tracks and spent the first 8 years professionally recording to 16 tracks. I started with a fairly small number of quality mics, great monitors, decent desk, a pair of reverbs and delays and one dual channel compressor. You have to learn to get things right as you go. Lots of decisions to make like, which tracks get the compressors while tracking and which ones in the mix. |
h2o2 wrote on Mon, 08 March 2010 23:14 | ||||||||||
Unfortunately mixing is much more complicated matter since there are more then a single mixing strategy and sweet spot in each track. You certainly would like to make that decision during mixing and not in a hurry during recording. |
NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 03:58 |
EQ, compression, gating, etc. are all fair game during tracking. Experienced engineers know when and how to use these tools without tying their hands at mix time. There are wildly differing philosophies on how much is too much etc, but your philosophy of abstinence is not the professional norm. In a sense, there really is no 'norm' so go ahead and knock yourself out. But I'd be wary of any single, proscribed way of working. |
NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 05:58 | ||||||||||||
Sure, one must be judicious. But you're talking in absolutes, and I know for a fact that there are professionals who do not adhere to your tenets. EQ, compression, gating, etc. are all fair game during tracking. Experienced engineers know when and how to use these tools without tying their hands at mix time. There are wildly differing philosophies on how much is too much etc, but your philosophy of abstinence is not the professional norm. In a sense, there really is no 'norm' so go ahead and knock yourself out. But I'd be wary of any single, proscribed way of working. |
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 08:23 |
And you are talking .. you are just talking, since this is not backed by any single argument or even thought. |
Daniel Farris wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 10:35 | ||
Actually it is. Committing EQ and compression to tape is pretty much the accepted way of doing things and goes back to engineers trying to maximize levels while minimizing saturation and noise on tape. It isn't an arbitrary decision. It's been done that way for decades for a very good reason. DF |
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 08:54 |
Also EQ to compensate tape frequency response is not the same as artistic/tonal EQ we are talking about here. |
mafigi wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 10:50 |
I agree, optimize the sound recording, just enough, without distorting the choices made by the sounds of instruments and microphones, is a normal operation, is certainly not a premix. |
j.hall wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 11:32 |
h2o2..... first off, i'd certainly like to know (in a non threatening way), how long you have been recording? are you doing it full time, or as a hobby? i legitimately want the answer to those questions. they will add much insight to the conversation. secondly, i've been doing this for 12 years, 7.5 of which have been full time, day in day out...... speaking from my own personal experience i can assure you that EQ compression, FX, etc... get printed "to tape" on a daily basis. this would be by myself, and while i'm engineering for producers. perhaps experience is a huge difference in your mindset vs. mine. perhaps not. but i will say that this practice happens widely, daily, and i'm a willing participant in doing it. further more, i'm not interested in convincing anyone to change their work habits, especially if, A. what they are doing works for them, and B. if i have nothing personal involved. i can tell you this, a number of the people discussing this with you are "vets", have significant credits (which only adds legitimacy) and years of experience doing this at a pro level. |
KB_S1 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:09 |
I can Now, I don't usually add eq when recording but I will spend time working on mic choice and placement, instrument/room placement and many other things to achieve the tonal balance that I or the client is looking for. |
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 08:23 | ||||||||||||||
And you are talking .. you are just talking, since this is not backed by any single argument or even thought. Just to express variety of approaches is costing nothing. You shouldn't be wary of proscribed ways if they are backed by good reasoning and you understand what you are doing and what you are trying to achieve. |
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 10:20 |
While years of experience usually impress western world and this is by far most used argument in discussions (and usually the only one), in the eastern world we still adhering to logic and strength/number of arguments in discussions. |
Quote: |
I believe IMP results submitted for this imp will give better weight |
NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35 |
seem to think we're having a debate. Rather than trying to prove anything to you, I'm simply suggesting that what you accept to be "the right way to do things," might be a minority opinion. Majority opinions, I realize, are not necessarily more valid. However, I've improved my craft tremendously by learning who to filter out here, who to listen to, and how to benefit from seemingly contradictory information: trying things for myself. To be blunt, my thoughts and reasoning were more focused on not getting into heated arguments with possibly unstable internet cranks. Not that you're necessarily that person, but 'they' are certainly out there, aren't they? Anecdotally, I had the pleasure of meeting an Abbey Road trained engineer (now a producer) at Cello one time, as he was producing my friend's band. Unlike you, that producer uses EQ and compression during tracking. If we presume for a moment, that you and this producer/engineer have the exact same skill level and experience, then you've cancelled each other's 'vote' out in the grand debate over great audio. I guess that makes me the tie breaker. |
NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35 |
seem to think we're having a debate. |
NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35 |
Rather than trying to prove anything to you, I'm simply suggesting that what you accept to be "the right way to do things," might be a minority opinion. |
NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35 |
To be blunt, my thoughts and reasoning were more focused on not getting into heated arguments with possibly unstable internet cranks. |
NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35 |
Anecdotally, I had the pleasure of meeting an Abbey Road trained engineer (now a producer) at Cello one time, as he was producing my friend's band. Unlike you, that producer uses EQ and compression during tracking. If we presume for a moment, that you and this producer/engineer have the exact same skill level and experience, then you've cancelled each other's 'vote' out in the grand debate over great audio. |
NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35 |
you've cancelled each other's 'vote' |
dconstruction wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 13:11 |
I am not a vet or a pro, but I've worked with J. and some others on this board, and had the distinct pleasure of providing three songs for previous IMP sessions. I'm not going to comment on dogma, which I find uninteresting. Also, I don't own many outboard compressors or EQs, so don't regularly process to "tape" anyway. However, if I did own them, I would CERTAINLY use them. Here's why: 1.) Monitoring the sounds with effects applied helps the performers, and helps the engineer (me) to get a feel for what's really being done. Those sounds are part of the emotion, and that emotion is part of the performance. It's good, immediate feedback. 2.) I hate choices. Limits and constraints make me more creative, not less. I have a studio partner who feels the exact opposite and regularly uses as many mics and channels as possible. I hate opening up one of his projects - too much f'ing stuff. I just mute tracks indiscriminately and move forward, applying my own brand of oblique strategies, I suppose, which are all limits and constrictions, anyway. L |
Daniel Farris wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:48 | ||
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/30735/3686/ |
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:20 |
I'm sorry but i don't like to tell you my personal info. This might be because of sexism, racism, agism, or any other "ism" currently popular in US. While years of experience usually impress western world and this is by far most used argument in discussions (and usually the only one), in the eastern world we still adhering to logic and strength/number of arguments in discussions. |
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:20 |
I believe IMP results submitted for this imp will give better weight then a number of years of experience which does not correlate usually. |
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:20 |
Saying that I do compress vocals before tape and use some lowcut eq etc before tape. But my reasonings don't include "it's common in the industry" my reasoning is primarily saving of time and compressing vocal with 1:4 ratio is de-facto standard and you very rarely want different. But I would be very careful to what i choose to compress during recording because you simply lock yourself and your decisions and producing mixes which are awfully the same and not improving. |
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:20 |
I'm sorry but i don't like to tell you my personal info. This might be because of sexism, racism, agism, or any other "ism" currently popular in US. While years of experience usually impress western world and this is by far most used argument in discussions (and usually the only one), in the eastern world we still adhering to logic and strength/number of arguments in discussions. |
grantis wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 15:21 |
Sounds like you just hate America. |
grantis wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 15:21 |
Ever consider that there's a reason these practices are standard? If was NOT an ideal way to work, the vast majority of professionals wouldn't be working that way. |
Podgorny wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 15:26 | ||
Well for all of their logic, I would contend that for the most part, the eastern world makes miserable recordings. Oops. There I go feeding trolls again. |
DarinK wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 16:05 |
Reasons & logic are great for some things. For creating art (which is what we are doing), they can be helpful but are certainly not necessary. Reasons have been given, and rejected. The best reason (already given repeatedly) is that committing to sounds early on makes it easier to know what is working & what isn't. It is easier to know if more overdubs would help or hurt. It is easier to decide which overdubs could help, and what they should sound like. The recording artists absolutely respond to what they are hearing. If these sounds are not committed to tape, there can be a disconnect in the mix between the performance and the final sound. (For example, singers will sing differently depending on the reverb they're hearing.) The second best reason is that quick decisions are very often the best decisions, especially in creative work. I believe many more recordings have been damaged by over-thinking than by making quick decisions. Ultimately of course it's not about philosophy or logic, it's about using the techniques that yield the results which you desire. It is logical to seek out the techniques used by those that have results which one finds favorable. For me, the vast majority of my favorite recordings have been done by people working quickly and committing to sounds early on. My personality is more one of nitpicking & taking my time & avoiding commitment, but working for years in a low-budget studio forced me to learn how to work & commit quickly. In my own work, my favorite recordings are those where I've committed early to sounds. So that's the way I do it. -Darin |
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 05:20 |
I'm sorry but i don't like to tell you my personal info. This might be because of sexism, racism, agism, or any other "ism" currently popular in US. |
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 05:20 |
While years of experience usually impress western world and this is by far most used argument in discussions (and usually the only one), in the eastern world we still adhering to logic and strength/number of arguments in discussions. I believe IMP results submitted for this imp will give better weight then a number of years of experience which does not correlate usually. |
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 05:20 |
Saying that I do compress vocals before tape and use some lowcut eq etc before tape. But my reasonings don't include "it's common in the industry" my reasoning is primarily saving of time and compressing vocal with 1:4 ratio is de-facto standard and you very rarely want different. But I would be very careful to what i choose to compress during recording because you simply lock yourself and your decisions and producing mixes which are awfully the same and not improving. |
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 08:46 | ||
If there are reasons it might be a good time to mention a couple. Nowdays there are so many myths around and absolutely no gravity you cannot take anything as granted:) |
Greg Dixon wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 16:24 |
Obviously experience alone is no proof of competence, but it is a start. There are very few people working in the industry long term, who aren't good at what they do. I also believe it is foolish not to learn from those that have been making great records for years. |
Greg Dixon wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 16:24 |
ou seem to be dismissing the logic and strength of the arguments offered by others members of this forum |
Greg Dixon wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 16:24 |
However if I can hear something that's still not right, I don't hesitate to add eq or compression as needed. |
Greg Dixon wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 16:24 |
If you know what you're wanting, why would you wait until the mix to get that sound? |
Greg Dixon wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 16:24 |
I was recently given some songs to mix that had 80 tracks of audio. It was like wading through mud, just getting started. Thinks like multiple guitar parts, each recorded with 3 mics on 3 tracks. If they'd committed to bussing each part to a single track while tracking, it would have made the mix much quicker and taken very little extra time while recording. |
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 09:53 |
UPD: i dont agree on bussing idea obviously. because this is a good example of crucial decision made too early. Yes it is difficult to decide strategy and proportions of the mics to use during mixing. But doing that in recording is completely blind call! |
Greg Dixon wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 17:11 | ||
Why is it a blind call? If you know what you're trying to achieve, it isn't a blind call, it's an educated decision. |
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 15:52 |
This is true, because sound quality is not a primary concern for us. |
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 18:52 |
Guitar layering is very complicated thing it might involve experementation alot. I doubt if there is the quick and best strategy here. It often a matter of difficult compromises. For example bussing 3 mics together without EQ-ing low-mids and selecting bites would be no go decision for me. And if you will start to EQ them during tracking it would be very time consuming. And you also have other tracks which might affect your decision. What if your bite frequency will compet with vocal? |
mcsnare wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 19:53 |
Reasoning and logic doesn't have a lot to do with why experienced engineers record processed tracks. It goes like this: In the old days ... I guess the scenario is different these days. ... Y'all get the picture.... I think it's a bit telling of the times that so many, including myself, have remarked at how well the tracking was done on this IMP 24 tune. Back in the day I would have considered it a workable but not particularly impressive recording. Just my perspective. Dave |
h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 11:59 | ||||||||||||
I think is just a matter of professionalism to provide good argumentation in comment in professional community.
I can accept however is difficult to check representatively and more or less objectively.
What harm can this make? While not entering discussion you are not doing any impact and effectiveness of the discussion is close to zero. While everybody is happy this is purely "false safety" thing and a big deal of hypocrisy.
Here comes the catch... You make decisions without listening to argumentation from both sides. Constructive discussions are usually made by exchanging series of arguments by both parties. You are absolutely right that at the end it is personal decision of everyone to take whichever party they want. But it is important not to forget that doing this without listening to argumentation is a very narrow decision.
Cancelling may occur only in case we will have a dilema, this is in a case when number of arguments is more or less equal and they have the same strength. But the guy could just have told you: I never really thought why I am doing it like this, maybe it might be a good idea to try the other way around. in case of dilema, if you dont find argument which is closer to you you might consider using weight. |
meverylame wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 15:55 | ||
Hmm... on the other end of the spectrum.... Why not just turn 2 mics off? If I have 3 mics on an amp AND I'm worried about EQ, I'm not doing something right. |
Greg Dixon wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 16:24 | ||
j.hall seems more tolerant of this than the other moderators on PSW, but it's usual practice around here to have your real name in your profile. The discussions are usual more civil when people have to actually 'own' what they say, rather than being anonymous. |
mcsnare wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 19:53 |
I think it's a bit telling of the times that so many, including myself, have remarked at how well the tracking was done on this IMP 24 tune. Back in the day I would have considered it a workable but not particularly impressive recording. Just my perspective. Dave |
j.hall wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 12:31 |
you can not possibly think that a person just starting out making records is worthy of considering themselves a "peer" with 20+ year vet..... |
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 14:18 | ||
Just like i mentioned before all this experience very loosely correlates with records quality. Of cause there are limits, but lets say even 3+ years of experience is enough to re-qualify from related area for a talented inidividual. Having 10+ 20+ 30+ 40+ 50+ does not mean anything. Majority of the ppl could have bean 10 or 20 years in the business this is not something you should be granted a medal for. That could just mean: 1) Local market don't have enough competition and there is a room for everyone who wants. 2) You are successful marketer and found your target segment (while producing for example cheap and bad recordings) 3) You are a nepotist (like you don't hesitate to show here regularly) and you are part of certain friend community which is off basis and considers themselves pro and competent while could be in fact non-pro and incompetent and producing very average records. Should I even mention that profits and ROI are not the best measurment unit for the talant? Personally I saw so many sound engineers who just DO NOT GROW after certain point. Or it can simply depend on personality: some ppl are just ignorant while others are curios, some got absolute hearing and other didn't. Music is a very complicated art and you cannot simplify all this and measure primarily with a number of years. Have a nice day. |
Gabriel F wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 14:48 |
Maybe you belong to that group of persons believing that they are more talented or experienced than they really are. |
Gabriel F wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 14:48 |
Dont take it as an attack, but you said that the tracking was good and you sounded surprised because the tracks sounds almost finished for you? because they are processed. Reading you i assume your threshold of quality is pretty high, so its confusing that you said the tracking was good while for others is just above average. So maybe you aint that good or experienced to discern a good tracking from an average one. |
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 20:18 |
Having 10+ 20+ 30+ 40+ 50+ does not mean anything. Majority of the ppl could have bean 10 or 20 years in the business this is not something you should be granted a medal for. That could just mean: 1) Local market don't have enough competition and there is a room for everyone who wants. 2) You are successful marketer and found your target segment (while producing for example cheap and bad recordings) 3) You are a nepotist (like you don't hesitate to show here regularly) and you are part of certain friend community which is off basis and considers themselves pro and competent while could be in fact non-pro and incompetent and producing very average records. |
Gabriel F wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 15:08 |
"I didnt like the snare" sounds like a highly subjective opinion and without any fundaments about why you dont like it. While you were arguing the whole time trying to make music production an objective science, and asking for fundaments about our opinions. You didnt like the snare because is badly tracked? Or because you believe other snare sound may fit better? Do you believe the problem is at the source (the snare), do you believe that processsing to tape, or summing 2 snare microphones to tape would have made a significant change for worse?. Would you have make a better mix if the snare wasnt processed? What if the bass would have been processed to sound the way you like, would you have complained about having to work less to make sound right? Saying that we cant know for shure if anyone is a good enginner because is a personal obsevation, is admitting that this businness isnt as objective and exact like you said before. But i believe we can tell a good enginner from a bad one no matter how subjective our opinions may be. if we could not then there is no point in doing this IMP, there is no point in trying to get better and imporve because we could not apreciate what differences makes a good enginner. |
Gabriel F wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 15:08 |
" You didnt like the snare because is badly tracked? Or because you believe other snare sound may fit better? Do you believe the problem is at the source (the snare), do you believe that processsing to tape, or summing 2 snare microphones to tape would have made a significant change for worse?. Would you have make a better mix if the snare wasnt processed? What if the bass would have been processed to sound the way you like, would you have complained about having to work less to make sound right? |
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 15:48 |
Blending two snare mics in recording is very bad idea, because there will be no nudging and no phase reverse. |
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 15:48 |
We are not motivated by money here and don't hesitate to work more, we are nation of principals and ideals:) |
grantis wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 16:00 | ||||
Check the phase before printing. That's a FUNDAMENTAL skill of recording.
Boy i tell ya, if strict principles and ideals made good records, a lot of (legendary) rock bands wouldn't exist. Money drives progress in all facets of life. Period. Science, Medicine, Recording, Technology. EVERYTHING. Enjoy your nation of mediocrity. Wherever it is, I hope you have good beer there. Doesn't seem like there's much else to do. (Well and troll on the internet I suppose). |
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 16:25 |
Ouch you are so dogmatic... You don't even see besic possibilities and logic. |
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 16:25 |
1) Nudging of tracks is not done for phase only. You may want to add pre-delay to bottom snare mic to separate attack of top mic from sustain of bottom. |
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 16:25 |
2) I just wonder how many reasonable ppl are checking phase of botton vs top snare mic before recording? they are using phazoscope for that? maybe cancellation test or the ropes? |
grantis wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 16:36 |
Are you implying that when you place snare samples to supplement the original track, you don't sample align them? |
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 16:47 | ||
I sample align them on the first wave positive peak. If i use multiple sample i can pre-delay couple of them to achieve richer sustain and less cluttering. I try to make them still aligned more or less on the consequent peaks. |
Gabriel F wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 17:14 |
No, but you cant do it if you dont use samples. Unless you gate every drum hit and them pitch shift, and creating a phase mess. Not to mention the ugly artifacts of pitch shifting and streching algorithms. And its not a common practice among good enginners. They usually get good sounds at tracking so they dont need to do complicated and unnecesary processing wich creates weird artifacts at mix time. one thing i like is to record all the songs at 120 bmp, and then choose the righ tempo streching the audio at mix time. Its way too complicated to decide wich tempo the song workd best at tracking time. . |
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 13:27 |
You are trying (just like many others here) to throw everything in the same basket, which creates a mess... So please be careful and separate the questions of art from purely practical questions (like taping with effects)... |
Gabriel F wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 17:42 |
No mmater what algoritm you use you will get phase problems if you strech drums tracks with bleed. Fuck it i am out you are either an idiot or having fun with us. |
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 15:51 | ||
the fact that you could just make an insult at the end point out that you are certainly someone not very clever, you may consider removing yourself from the internet alltogether. |
DarinK wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 17:46 | ||
Taping with effects IS a question of art, not a "purely practical question." |
Gabriel F wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 17:56 |
Maybe i should give up on this thing called the internet, but you should give audio production, you dont understand basic concepts. Fuck you, you get mad because i said a bad word. But you are insulting us, disrespecting us. You even are insulting your country or the whole eastern culture by making stupid stereotipycal comments. So fuck you once again. |
Gabriel F wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 18:13 |
You just insulted your country (by the way you can see wich country i am from, And you can see my name too) But you keep talking shit hidding your glorious, pacifist, highly inteleectual country you are proud of and your name too). |
h2o2 wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 10:51 | ||
the fact that you could just make an insult at the end point out that you are certainly someone not very clever, you may consider removing yourself from the internet alltogether. |
Podgorny wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 19:39 |
J, Would you mind consolidating all of hydrogen peroxide's posts into one thread and making it a sticky? It would brighten my day... Every day. |
Podgorny wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 19:39 |
J, Would you mind consolidating all of hydrogen peroxide's posts into one thread and making it a sticky? It would brighten my day... Every day. |
h2o2 wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 18:28 |
Sane ppl are not proud of their culture or their country name. t and in eastern Europe is usually viewed as a sign of bad form. |
j.hall wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 14:31 | ||
i just can't take my eyes off this............... greg, don't worry about it man. tomorrow is submission day. |
Greg Dixon wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 22:38 |
No not worried. More like bemused. I wonder why IMP brings out the worst in some people? |
j.hall wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 15:52 | ||
yeah, well, here i thought it was an educational tool......i guess i'm the idiot... at least Lloyd isn't my avatar...... |
j.hall wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 20:52 | ||
yeah, well, here i thought it was an educational tool......i guess i'm the idiot... at least Lloyd isn't my avatar...... |
Greg Dixon wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 00:22 |
I'll be very disappointed if H2o2 doesn't submit a mix after all this. |
rsquared wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 19:27 |
perhaps then, you should limit your posting to eastern european forums. Everybody wins! |
DarinK wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 17:56 |
Okay, I'm done too. That "ignore" button is a very handy feature. |
Hallams wrote on Wed, 10 March 2010 23:29 |
Maybe a wikipedia definition might help?.... Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is a very pale blue liquid, slightly more viscous than water, that appears colorless in dilute solution. It is a weak acid, has strong oxidizing properties, and is a powerful bleaching agent. It is used as a disinfectant, antiseptic, oxidizer, and in rocketry as a propellant.[2] The oxidizing capacity of hydrogen peroxide is so strong that it is considered a highly reactive oxygen species. Hydrogen peroxide is naturally produced in organisms as a byproduct of oxygen metabolism. Nearly all living things (specifically, all obligate and facultative aerobes) possess enzymes known as peroxidases, which harmlessly and catalytically decompose low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen. |
h2o2 wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 22:01 | ||
I believe more or less educated ppl dont need pediwiki for this kind of thing? do they? everybody knows Hydrogen peroxide? |
Hallams wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 07:20 | ||||
Posting this for a bit of a laugh.... i'll point out the funny bits as i see them just in case you don't get my obscure humour: hydrogen peroxide is so strong that it is considered a highly reactive oxygen species. ...you know the highly reactive bit...sort of applicable? and... enzymes known as peroxidases, harmlessly and catalytically decompose low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen. .....living in hope |
h2o2 wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 06:51 | ||||||
I understood your banal humor even without any pediwiki and this is my point - you don't need pediwiki for this... And if you want some humor, here it goes.. This is how ausies make fun of usa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISB6Cs8aqlE |
h2o2 wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 02:42 |
Oh yeah sure. And you just take out all your toilet paper (dollars) and your "values" and military contingents OUT of Europe. |
johnR wrote on Thu, 11 March 2010 09:05 |
The trouble with allowing anonymous idiots to lower the signal-to-noise ratio is that it reduces the credibility of the forum as a source of professional advice. |
h2o2 wrote on Fri, 12 March 2010 01:51 | ||||||
I understood your banal humor even without any pediwiki and this is my point - you don't need pediwiki for this... And if you want some humor, here it goes.. This is how ausies make fun of usa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISB6Cs8aqlE |