Post by: Guest on March 05, 2008, 01:12:26 PM
Hey guys, my name is Joshua Hamilton and I own and operate a recording studio in Middletown, Ohio called Joshua Recording Studios. You can check out some demos of my work at http://myspace.com/joshuarecordingstudios .
I am writing this article to maybe help some of you out there with questions you may have about pro recording and how the crap they get such awesome sounds and why your stuff doesn’t sound as good.
Just a little about me, I didn’t go to school for engineering, but I did learn from some of the greats which I think may count for something a little more than a piece of paper. I have been in the recording industry for the past 11 years asking my self the same questions everyone else does when they begin recording bands and such.
This will be part 1 of a 6 part tutorial on how I approach recording.
1. CLICK TRACK
First things first, you need to record to a click track! If you do not record to a click then you are setting your self up for disaster down the road if not immediately. I usually start by having the guitar player play the song and use tap tempo to figure out the tempo of the song, input that in to your tempo track and have the band follow along with it to make sure it feels right to everyone, including the producer if he’s there. In some cases you may have a tempo change at one point in the song, you’ll need to edit that in the tempo track at the exact point in measure where the tempo change takes place, just because there is a tempo change doesn’t mean you don’t have to use a click.
2. GUITAR SCRATCH TRACKS
Once you have the tempo mapped out with correct tempo’s and tempo changes you’ll need to record guitar to the click track. I usually double the guitar scratch tracks to get extra volume in the head phones for the drummer and because it just sounds better, you’ll be hearing these scratch tracks for a while so you might as well make them sound decent! Usually you’ll come across something that isn’t right if you made tempo changes in your tempo track, fix that and then proceed with the guitar scratch tracks. Once you have the guitar scratch tracks recorded and double up panned left and right sounding pretty, you’ll want the band to take one more final listen to the entire song to make sure it sounds the way they intended. Here you are looking for a thumbs up from everyone EVERYONE in the group!
3. DRUM TRACKING
You need to have the drummer set up in a different room than where your main mix speakers are (the control room) so that you can hear what’s coming out of the speakers and not what’s coming from the drums. Once the drummer is set up and ready to go you can start placing your mics or triggers to begin tracking. If you are using microphones make sure and mic the drums in way that mostly only that drum will be heard when its hit and if you are using triggers just make sure you have at least one overhead set up so that you can hear all of the cymbals. NOTE: you need at least one overhead to hear the cymbals, you’ll see why in a bit. After you get the mics or triggers placed have the drummer play the kit and make sure nothing is in his way, for your sake and his, last thing you want is some guy you don’t even know to be banging up your microphones. Here you are looking for a thumbs up from him and once you get it, you need to do a level check. The level check is pretty important for your later editing. You need to have each drum wave look like a spike, but not clipping. This would look like a vertical line from top to bottom, it doesn’t have to be a really thin line but for the most part an up and down line. Once you have all of the levels have the drummer play the whole kit and then readjust all of your levels accordingly, because usually in level checking the drummer wont strike the drums as hard as when he’s actually playing, so you need to make sure and get proper levels no matter how hard he hits the drums and make sure that it never clips.
Now you need to play the click and guitar scratch tracks through the headphones for the drummer to make sure he’s got a good mix and that he can hear it while he plays. You are once again looking for a thumbs up; don’t move forward unless he can hear what he needs to. Also, you need to hear what is happening in the recording so make sure you can hear a decent mix of the drummer playing along to the scratch and click. A talk back mic is crucial because the drummer is going to need your suggestion or command on punch INS.
From here, you just need to have the drummer play for the most part to the click track. This can be achieved by punching in section by section. It’s not necessary for your drummer to play the song from beginning to end, most of them cant. An example would be to play only the intro of the song, listen to it back and make sure its close to the click and its what the drummer intended to play. Through and through you want to get a thumbs up from everyone in the band and mostly the drummer that the parts are recorded correctly. Proceed with the same steps until you have recorded the entire song. At this point you will need to cross fade your punch ins so you don’t get cuts in the sounds and so that the song plays like a song, not a section. Once you have that done, have the drummer listen back to the entire performance and make sure he’s happy with it. And whala drum tracking is done.
4. DRUM EDITING
This part of the process can be the most time consuming and the most important part of the recording. Have you ever asked the question, why is every song I hear on the radio flawless in timing? Surely not every single drummer in a signed band is perfect at timing, right? Well, the answer is no , they aren’t perfect at all. Granted most of them are great at timing, but none of them are perfect!
So what we need here is perfect timing on the drums! There are several ways to achieve this, but I have been using different methods for years and I will reveal the method I use right now! Things you will need in order to do this, a recording program that has a drum editor used for midi notation. (I use cubase, but nuendo, protools, logic and others will work) You need a registered copy of drumagog 4.0 platinum preferably with some nice sounding gog files (I use the Andy Sneap gog files) and you will also need toon tracks ez drummer or superior drummer. Don’t worry at the end of this tutorial I will list links where you can purchase everything you need.
First things first, you need to open drumagog on all of your drum channels as a vst insert. The trick here is that you don’t want double triggers or false triggers to occur. You want the track to play back as intended, once you have that then move on to the next step.
Second you will need to turn on the midi out function on the drumagog, you can find this feature under the advanced tab. Set the midi notes to different notes, an examples would setting you kick to c3 and your snare to c3#. You want your drums to play different notes.
Third, you need to create a midi track for every drum track you have. Assign the the drumagog to each midi track so that you get the kick on midi track 1 , the snare on midi track 2 and so on.
Fourth, record a segment of the song to the newly added midi tracks to make sure you are getting a midi note recorded for every drum hit on every midi track you created. Once you got that, record the entire song to the midi tracks.
After you have recorded all of your drum tracks to the midi tracks you can now delete the original audio drum tracks, or you can keep them if this scares you, but I trash them as soon as I have the midi on my new tracks.
At this point you will need to open ez drummer or superior drummer to hear the play back of your midi tracks as drums. Go to your midi tracks and select the output to go to ez drummer or superior drummer. You might need to create your own drum map to better suit your needs for drum placement and editing.
If you are lost at this point and you cant get it to work, go back through the steps until you get it right, a suggestion might be to create a copy of the entire project and use the copy to figure this out on, that way you don’t loose anything important.
Once you have your drums playing back on ez drummer, you’ll need to edit them to perfect timing. Note: your overhead mics should be turned off at this point! This part requires a little bit of timing theory, you must know what 4/4 is and 3/4 is, also 8th notes, 16th notes, 32nd notes and so on. Open the drum editor for the midi tracks that are playing your drums. Here you can see a grid to tell if the drum hits are on time and off time. You’ll need to quantize the drum hits accordingly to the timing quantize grid. An example would be if you have a kick snare back and fourth on a 4/4 beat at 120 beats per minute, you’d be able to use 8th notes quantizing to move the note to the grid where it should have been in the first place. If you are in doubt what so ever about where a drum should be on the grid , have the drummer help you, he probably knows a thing or to about timing and will be able to assist you.
Once you have all of the drums edited and they sound perfectly on time there are other functions that midi will allow you to do that audio tracks wont. Typically on a snare track you’d use compression ,a noise gate, and a limiter to achieve optimal striking of the drum. In a midi track all you have to do is select the fixed velocity feature and bam your snare hits the exact same level every time. You may not want it to hit the exact same on a snare roll for example, so get out your pencil and draw in the velocity curve so that it plays back the way it was played or intended to be played.
Once you can set back and listen to the drums and not hear anything that sounds off or out of time or dynamically wrong like volume builds, you can move on to the cymbals.
At this point your overheads are so out of whack, it sounds like noise if you play back your perfectly edited drums along with the original overheads, right? So what you need to do is, bring up the overhead track by its self along with drum editor and start placing your cymbals in the midi editor. That’s right; you’re using sampling for cymbals also. This is the part where the drummer doesn’t mind at all to set there and tell you what they like and don’t like as far as hitting cymbals go. Once you have all your cymbals placed where they need to be, you don’t need your over head audio track anymore, so you can trash it or leave it, it’s up to you, but I would defiantly mute it, lol.
So, now you have perfectly timed drums that sound great and is exactly what the drummer wanted, if not go back and fix it. You should be able to set back and listen to the start of a great song at this point and not hear anything that is out of whack, your guitar scratch tracks might sound a little off at points , but remember those are getting scratched and the drums are there to stay.
Links:
Cubase 4
http://www.steinberg.net/983_1.html
Drumagog
http://www.drumagog.com/
Ez Drummer
http://www.toontrack.com/ezdrummer.asp
Superior Drummer
http://www.toontrack.com/s20.asp
I hope you guys got some questions answered out of this tutorial. Please feel free to ask me any questions you may have along the way. You are now one step closer to recording like a PRO!
Sincerely,
Joshua Hamilton
http://myspace.com/joshuarecordingstudios
Post by: ShakesTheClown on March 05, 2008, 01:14:26 PM
Post by: Larrchild on March 05, 2008, 01:18:45 PM
Thank you for your generosity and concern for our recording techniques. It is people like you who have made the industry what is is today. And for that, we thank you.
Post by: McAllister on March 05, 2008, 01:20:34 PM
M
Post by: Jay Kadis on March 05, 2008, 01:23:28 PM
Post by: scottoliphant on March 05, 2008, 01:23:32 PM
anyone want to start a pool on whether or not we get to part tutorial part 2 of 6?
Post by: Larrchild on March 05, 2008, 01:25:07 PM
Post by: amorris on March 05, 2008, 01:26:13 PM
Post by: Jay Kadis on March 05, 2008, 01:30:13 PM
Post by: Steve Hudson on March 05, 2008, 01:30:31 PM
| joshuarecordingstudios wrote on Wed, 05 March 2008 12:12 |
I did learn from some of the greats which I think may count for something a little more than a piece of paper. http://myspace.com/joshuarecordingstudios |
Just wondering if you'd share "some of the greats" who mentored you.
Post by: Jay Kadis on March 05, 2008, 01:33:38 PM
Post by: RSettee on March 05, 2008, 01:38:08 PM
Post by: Tom L on March 05, 2008, 01:39:11 PM
Post by: phantom309 on March 05, 2008, 01:39:51 PM
Post by: doug mix on March 05, 2008, 01:41:05 PM
Post by: Larrchild on March 05, 2008, 01:41:12 PM
Sometimes, you just walk through the wrong door, lol.
I'd seriously consider another site to spam.
Really, you still have time to admit that you have made a grave mistake by choosing us, and quietly move on.
The alternative won't work to your advantage as an educator once Google snarfs this post up.
Please consider my suggestion.
Post by: RSettee on March 05, 2008, 01:43:56 PM
Post by: KB_S1 on March 05, 2008, 01:46:15 PM
Lets record some spikes!
Post by: rankus on March 05, 2008, 01:53:26 PM
Post by: bigbone on March 05, 2008, 02:01:37 PM
Post by: bblackwood on March 05, 2008, 02:10:01 PM
p.s. - cross-posting stuff like this typically gets one banned, but I'm in a good mood today...
Post by: trock on March 05, 2008, 02:12:20 PM
son of a .....THATS what i have been missing, no wonder my levels are so low!
Post by: ktownson on March 05, 2008, 02:58:02 PM
I'm sorry to see this post leave WW...the comic potential of the musings jumping off the keyboards of our stable of witty and erudite contributors would be priceless.
Post by: PRobb on March 05, 2008, 03:27:33 PM
| trock wrote on Wed, 05 March 2008 14:12 |
If you are using microphones son of a .....THATS what i have been missing, no wonder my levels are so low! |
DAMN- it's so obvious! I've been trying to figure out how to get a MIDI cable to plug into that hole in the snare drum.
Post by: Larrchild on March 05, 2008, 03:42:01 PM
Secrets are just that..Secrets.
This is a closed guild, where these things are whispered and passed from Father to Son, as to keep interlopers from peering into our secretive and private society.
Now that you have 'Spilled the Beans" and made it so that just anyone can know these things, what are we to think?
Next, you will probably describe the different "Levels" that we achieve through rigid mind-control and the use of the "VU" meter to show the participant's progress by attempting to move it with no more than sheer electrons. Stuff that should not be disseminated to common humans.
You have betrayed us and our Leaders. I hope you are happy.
Post by: grantis on March 05, 2008, 03:43:08 PM
| Quote: |
..I think Tad has been dethroned...off to Expert Village you go.... |
i dunno, Tad's tough to beat
Post by: Jay Kadis on March 05, 2008, 03:44:22 PM
| Larrchild wrote on Wed, 05 March 2008 12:42 |
I'm concerned at this leak. Secrets are just that..Secrets. |
Post by: studiojimi on March 05, 2008, 03:51:12 PM
God has truly put His hand on us all today to find such a plethora of info like this.
I'll be tithing double this week at church.
Joahua thanks so much man!
Just what we all needed in here and right on time.
I needed this stuff 40 years ago.....I might have "made it big"
I guess as long as i keep it under 300 lbs..i can escape diabetes
but i digress
Post by: Berolzheimer on March 05, 2008, 03:54:03 PM
Post by: Nick Sevilla on March 05, 2008, 04:58:00 PM
Just, Wow.
No wonder records sound the way they do nowadays.
Post by: fiasco ( P.M.DuMont ) on March 05, 2008, 04:58:51 PM
Post by: RSettee on March 05, 2008, 05:01:59 PM
Post by: Nick Sevilla on March 05, 2008, 05:02:07 PM
I bet the drummer will never be able to play your "From This Tower" sequenced drums.
And I bet the singer's throat will literally crawl out from his throat and die.
This is too funny.
Post by: Hallams on March 05, 2008, 05:08:19 PM
Post by: Steve Hudson on March 05, 2008, 05:11:47 PM
| joshuarecordingstudios wrote on Wed, 05 March 2008 12:12 |
1. CLICK TRACK First things first, you need to record to a click track! If you do not record to a click then you are setting your self up for disaster down the road if not immediately. I usually start by having the guitar player play the song and use tap tempo to figure out the tempo of the song, input that in to your tempo track and have the band follow along with it to make sure it feels right to everyone, including the producer if he’s there. |
I always consider it optional to invite the producer to a project's initial tracking session. Why distract him/her from really important work, like working on some other client's project?
Post by: Revolution on March 05, 2008, 05:14:08 PM
.Well I guess were all still learning,in fact life is just one big lesson.
Post by: Hallams on March 05, 2008, 05:17:31 PM
| Hallams wrote on Thu, 06 March 2008 09:08 |
This is the perfect example of why some people should never be allowed to own a gun |
Of course i don't own a gun....."they" won't let me have one.
Post by: RSettee on March 05, 2008, 05:21:23 PM
| Steve Hudson wrote on Wed, 05 March 2008 16:11 | ||
I always consider it optional to invite the producer to a project's initial tracking session. Why distract him/her from really important work, like working on some other client's project? |
Hahaa--it can happen! That reminds me of a story in the Lemmy "White Line Fever" book where he said that Jimmy Miller was really coked up and kept falling asleep at the console, and then would occasionally wake up and start pushing around faders and make it look like he was doing something.
Post by: Larrchild on March 05, 2008, 05:30:52 PM
*or*
You could ask the Moderator to dump this thread, say "sorry, all" and in a few months, Google cache will probably clear this off their drives and people won't think you are less than capable and avoid you when they see it.
Then, please join our lively group without spamming us and converse.
All will be forgotten.
Up to you.
Post by: Revolution on March 05, 2008, 05:48:12 PM
| joshuarecordingstudios wrote on Thu, 06 March 2008 05:12 |
I did learn from some of the greats |
I think he's refering to this guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4QzLOpJ6EE&NR=1
Post by: Larrchild on March 05, 2008, 05:53:59 PM
"Those who can't do, teach.
Those that can't teach, teach Phys Ed." ~Woody Allen
Post by: Greg Dixon on March 05, 2008, 06:09:10 PM
| Quote: |
Drums to Vocals Recording guitars and vocals to off time drums is like building a house on a foundation that's about to fall. In order to have a strong recording you must have a solid foundation, DRUMS! I am talking 100% perfectly in time, yes you can have tempo changes, but your drums should be played in time with the current tempo! Drums are a real reflection of the complete recording. With out the right drum tones you won't get good guitar tones, bass, vocals sitting well in the mix and all sorts of other problems! Joshua Recording Studios specializes in the drums department because we understand just how much this can affect your mix! Leave it to us if you are less than average drummer with a less than average drum kit with less than average heads with less than average cymbals, I think I have made our point! We will make your drums sound amazing! -Joshua |
The tracks on myspace are certainly LOUD.
Post by: PRobb on March 05, 2008, 06:25:07 PM
Just curious- Secrets of the Pro's what?
Unless he meant Pros, as in more than one pro.
Post by: RSettee on March 05, 2008, 06:33:36 PM
Post by: studiojimi on March 05, 2008, 07:34:47 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Wed, 05 March 2008 11:10 |
p.s. - cross-posting stuff like this typically gets one banned, but I'm in a good mood today... |
so crusifixes are ok?
Post by: MI on March 05, 2008, 07:56:12 PM
MI
Post by: T. Mueller on March 05, 2008, 09:19:45 PM
Awesome. Simply AWESOME.
Post by: Bill_Urick on March 05, 2008, 09:25:17 PM
I'm in tears. In which forums was this initially posted?
Post by: Guest on March 05, 2008, 09:51:52 PM
Post by: Bill Mueller on March 05, 2008, 09:56:41 PM
I followed you here from Whatever Works. Why, I'm not quite sure. I have driven 2500 miles in the last five days, so I am a bit cranky at the moment. Please forgive me if this comes off a bit harsh.
While you seem to have mastered the Guitar Center level of music computer software, your fundamental understanding of, and affinity for MUSIC seems sorely missing. Anyone following your "instructions" will inevitably create the same soulless, lifeless, automaton sounding drivel that I heard on your My Space page.
Sir, do yourself and your future clients a favor and immerse yourself for thirty days in listening to and studying Rock, Blues and Jazz music recorded between 1955 and 1977. Please DO NOT listen to ANYTHING recorded after 1977.
If after that time, you still throw away your drum tracks after transferring them to drumagog.......please consider another field.
Best Regards,
Bill
Post by: tom eaton on March 05, 2008, 10:18:55 PM
I am sorry you have had a bad day. I, for one, have spent at least the last 20 minutes listening to music from the time period you suggested and find the music entirely unlistenable. There are clearly moments when the drums are out of time and instruments and vocals are obviously out of tune. It amazes me that the listening public accepted this stuff as "professional" product. The tools we have today allow even the novice to remove all such flaws from even the poorest playing, and, as it would be a shame to allow subpar musicians to release subpar recordings, it becomes the job, nay, duty of the recording engineer to improve upon the wonkings of those sad, silly musicians.
I'll try one more time to listen to that old stuff. I just think that listeners today don't want to hear actual people actually playing.
I anticipate using many of Joshua's suggestions in my next recording session when things get a little too serious.
Post by: Podgorny on March 05, 2008, 10:19:48 PM
I have not driven more than 25 miles in the last five days, and am not in the least bit cranky.
And I totally agree with Bill.
Post by: Guest on March 05, 2008, 10:26:49 PM
Post by: Hallams on March 05, 2008, 10:29:08 PM
| tom eaton wrote on Thu, 06 March 2008 14:18 |
Bill, I am sorry you have had a bad day. I, for one, have spent at least the last 20 minutes listening to music from the time period you suggested and find the music entirely unlistenable. There are clearly moments when the drums are out of time and instruments and vocals are obviously out of tune. It amazes me that the listening public accepted this stuff as "professional" product. The tools we have today allow even the novice to remove all such flaws from even the poorest playing, and, as it would be a shame to allow subpar musicians to release subpar recordings, it becomes the job, nay, duty of the recording engineer to improve upon the wonkings of those sad, silly musicians. I'll try one more time to listen to that old stuff. I just think that listeners today don't want to hear actual people actually playing. I anticipate using many of Joshua's suggestions in my next recording session when things get a little too serious. |
..............A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on.
John F. Kennedy
Post by: tom eaton on March 05, 2008, 10:29:36 PM
While you're doing Bill's listening homework, browse around the PSW forum.
Whatever Works and the Massenburg forum in particular.
You will find many professional engineers keeping no secrets.
-tom
Post by: Larrchild on March 05, 2008, 10:30:52 PM
What would become of us and our big Neve G-Series desks?
yeah do some reading here.
We have more Grammy's per IP address than the other popular sites.
Grammy, hell, it's like a whole 8-ball!
Seriously...read.
Post by: tom eaton on March 05, 2008, 10:33:58 PM
Post by: Bill Mueller on March 05, 2008, 10:36:31 PM
| joshuarecordingstudios wrote on Wed, 05 March 2008 22:26 |
I guess I'm learning why the pro's keep it a secret then, its because the amateurs wont understand, I say good day to you sir! |
Joshua,
Please return to Whatever Works with an open mind and use the search button to explore to your heart's content. You will find that there are a number of extremely acomplished engineers, producers and musicians who regularly share their hard won "secrets" with anyone willing to learn. I myself have started a number of threads there for this very purpose.
I can almost guarantee that your recordings will improve in depth and feel. Your clients will appreciate you more and your love of music will bloom with a deeper understanding of the emotional processes that bring it forth.
Don't forget the thirty days though.
Best Regards,
Bill
Post by: Guest on March 05, 2008, 10:48:04 PM
Thanks
Post by: CCC on March 05, 2008, 11:54:20 PM
Winning friends and influencing people all over the internut.
Post by: danickstr on March 06, 2008, 12:15:14 AM
Post by: Guest on March 06, 2008, 02:07:27 AM
Somebody please let me know what the new topic is, cause I want in.
Blessings,
Joshua
Post by: RSettee on March 06, 2008, 02:10:56 AM
I think that the Rick James song was caught well--the acoustic sounded good, I think it does well for what it is. The metal stuff was about what i've come to expect from metal recordings these days--I generally have a gripe with most of them, anyways, and have resigned myself to an "eh....I guess that's just the way bands want to sound nowadays" sorta thing. Maybe i'm just outta the loop on that one. Fat Wreck and Ryan Greene have been doing that for over 15 years now.....
Really though, give the guy a chance--I mean, I think of how many times I messed up with a completely inane post (here= daily
), but I think that we're all here to learn about what good sound is and how to work with artists and musicians to get the best out of them. I actually disagree with the end results of most people's work here--even some of the bigger engineers (ALL of whom I can count one or two or a few records that I don't think that they made the wisest sound decisions on), so one thing that I think that we all can agree on is that very few of us will agree on each other's work, but we can still agree in theory that we all want to achieve a great sounding product, as we also all have things that we need to work on.Otherwise we would not be here.
My .02. All the humour and funning aside that I even doled out in here, if someone wants to learn sometimes and give advice sometimes, that's cool with me.
Post by: Greg Dixon on March 06, 2008, 06:14:09 AM
| joshuarecordingstudios wrote on Thu, 06 March 2008 18:07 |
Hey guys I have an idea, why dont we start over! Lets just drop the whole topic and forget I mentioned it, please. I think you guys are very knowledgable and I would like to talk to you guys in stead of talking at you. So please forgive me for the strife I've cause and lets move on. Somebody please let me know what the new topic is, cause I want in. Blessings, Joshua |
I'd say go back to where you started at Whatever Works and read through the topics. Only post if you have something to contribute. There's a huge wealth of knowledge here already and you really will learn from some of the best in the industry.
Post by: trock on March 06, 2008, 06:51:51 AM
in all seriousness it seems you have a good sense of humor here, you didn't get mad at all the ribbing, which i think is good. i would just suggest you go take a look at alot of the articles, posts and advice that are around this forum, then peruse who is making them and see their body of work and i think you will realize the amount of incredible guys/pro's that are here is amazing.
or we could just go with the next part of the series...
anyway, check some of the stuff out that is here and have fun
Post by: MDM, on March 06, 2008, 08:47:22 AM
| Bill Mueller wrote on Wed, 05 March 2008 20:56 |
Joshua, ... 1955 and 1977. Please DO NOT listen to ANYTHING recorded after 1977. ..., Bill |
Post by: Guest on March 06, 2008, 09:39:02 AM
Glory to God,
Joshua
Post by: PRobb on March 06, 2008, 11:55:17 AM
| joshuarecordingstudios wrote on Thu, 06 March 2008 09:39 |
I knew you guys didn't hate me, lol! Why cant we all just get along? hahaha, I am here for the same reasons everyone else is, thats to learn when I can and help when I can. May the glory be given to my person savior Jesus Christ and not to me in anything I do! Glory to God, Joshua |
Hey Jimi- I think he's one of yours!
Post by: Tomas Danko on March 06, 2008, 11:56:20 AM
| Jay Kadis wrote on Wed, 05 March 2008 18:33 |
And cross-posted to boot! |
That is another Pro Secret.
Everyone knows cross talk between channels on an analogue desk or 2" deck makes it sound more Pro than digital.
It just made the post sound more analogue and Pro.
Post by: Larrchild on March 06, 2008, 01:14:31 PM
The day before your post in Whatever Works, I saw the moderators send some other spam to the briny depths of the forum by locking the threads within minutes of their arrival. But for reasons unknown, you were spared. Perhaps to give the cats here a fresh mouse to play with...perhaps to make you see that it was bad judgment in a deriding but polite manner.
I'm glad we got our point across without the usual internet etiquette.
*Evangelist Voice* (20:1 ratio, full clipping).
I can see you will be Redeemed-a!
You have seen the error of your ways-a!
You realize that you have less to teach and more to learn-a!
Amen-a.
Post by: phantom309 on March 06, 2008, 02:54:36 PM
| Larrchild wrote on Thu, 06 March 2008 11:14 |
Joshua, The day before your post in Whatever Works, I saw the moderators send some other spam to the briny depths of the forum by locking the threads within minutes of their arrival. But for reasons unknown, you were spared. Perhaps to give the cats here a fresh mouse to play with...perhaps to make you see that it was bad judgment in a deriding but polite manner. I'm glad we got our point across without the usual internet etiquette. *Evangelist Voice* (20:1 ratio, full clipping). I can see you will be Redeemed-a! You have seen the error of your ways-a! You realize that you have less to teach and more to learn-a! Amen-a. |
Larry...
You're scaring me now.
d.
Post by: studiojimi on March 06, 2008, 03:18:40 PM
| Greg Dixon wrote on Thu, 06 March 2008 03:14 |
I'd say go back to where you started at Whatever Works and read through the topics. Only post if you have something to contribute. There's a huge wealth of knowledge here already and you really will learn from some of the best in the industry. |
is there a list of the cool people with all the right answers and experience so we can weed out the riff raff
also
is there a list of has beens so we can discount those as we want to be current.
finally is there a list of the members who are atheists and agnostics and a list which details who are humble or arrogant so we can be certain who is spiritually grounded or spiteful and sinful.
it's getting like sparticus
or a stoning down in here.
then probb saith:
| Quote: |
Hey Jimi- I think he's one of yours! Rolling Eyes Very Happy |
not sure about that
but the Father and I are ONE!
all that the Father has is MINE!
yippeeeeee
and you can quote me on that
Post by: Guest on March 06, 2008, 03:25:20 PM
You guys are right! I hope to stick around and get to know all of you guys, seriously! Thanks
Post by: Guest on March 06, 2008, 03:27:05 PM
Let me know,
Thanks
Also, WARNING WARNING ( I AM NOT A PRO )
Post by: Guest on March 06, 2008, 03:29:52 PM
Bill , what are you trying to say bro?
I'm just kidding I know what you meant by it!
Later
Post by: studiojimi on March 06, 2008, 03:53:20 PM
| joshuarecordingstudios wrote on Thu, 06 March 2008 12:27 |
I had more secrets from the pro's , but judging by the first part , you guys dont want to hear anymore right? Let me know, Thanks Also, WARNING WARNING ( I AM NOT A PRO ) |
MORE MORE MORE please please PLEASE
can't get enough of that stuff
| Quote: |
I just thought of something funny, Bill told me not to listen to anything after 1977, but I was born in 79'. |
Bill lost his hearing after that. It's a point of reference thing Since then he has been here all he has done is dwell in the "good old days". We humor him as we know Jesus would want us to love him with the love of the LORD. So we let him pontificate and schpiel.
It's good for his present state of inner silence.
Post by: Bill Mueller on March 06, 2008, 04:11:38 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Thu, 06 March 2008 15:53 | ||||
MORE MORE MORE please please PLEASE can't get enough of that stuff
Bill lost his hearing after that. It's a point of reference thing Since then he has been here all he has done is dwell in the "good old days". We humor him as we know Jesus would want us to love him with the love of the LORD. So we let him pontificate and schpiel. It's good for his present state of inner silence. |
Jimmy,
Since I don't know you from Adam, I can't tell just whose leg you are pulling. Maybe your own.
Best Regards,
Bill
Post by: John Ivan on March 06, 2008, 04:45:28 PM
As for the 1977 thing, I think we can move it to 1979 and maybe later, but we sure need to be selective
..There has been some nice stuff recorded over the last couple decades but Bills' advise IS instructive in that back then, people pretty much played as a band and while there were certain things subjectively "Wrong" with some of those recordings from a tech standpoint, they feel amazing. When the feel of the band AND the tech stuff came together? Those records represent what moved people so much in the first place.. They have the ever elusive "IT" happening..
I've spent most of my time trying to get through tunes so that people don't have to edit me. I think this is the way to do it...Do the editing with the instrument in your hand..
Ivan...............
Post by: PRobb on March 06, 2008, 04:56:21 PM
| Larrchild wrote on Thu, 06 March 2008 13:14 |
Joshua, The day before your post in Whatever Works, I saw the moderators send some other spam to the briny depths of the forum by locking the threads within minutes of their arrival. But for reasons unknown, you were spared. Perhaps to give the cats here a fresh mouse to play with...perhaps to make you see that it was bad judgment in a deriding but polite manner. I'm glad we got our point across without the usual internet etiquette. *Evangelist Voice* (20:1 ratio, full clipping). I can see you will be Redeemed-a! You have seen the error of your ways-a! You realize that you have less to teach and more to learn-a! Amen-a. |
Hey Larry- as one of the more clever writers here, perhaps you could share a few secrets of the prose with us.
Post by: Larrchild on March 06, 2008, 04:57:44 PM
Post by: Larrchild on March 06, 2008, 05:05:12 PM
| Quote: |
Hey Larry- as one of the more clever writers here, perhaps you could share a few secrets of the prose with us. |
PRobb, I take Prose-ac.
Post by: RSettee on March 06, 2008, 06:40:08 PM
Post by: danickstr on March 06, 2008, 10:12:04 PM
| studiojimi wrote on Thu, 06 March 2008 15:18 |
finally is there a list of the members who are atheists and agnostics and a list which details who are humble or arrogant so we can be certain who is spiritually grounded or spiteful and sinful. |
Jimi I am a secular humanist. In your opinion does that make me arrogant and spiteful as well as (of course) sinful? Just curious, since your modifiers were unclear.
Post by: MDM, on March 07, 2008, 05:47:12 AM
some stuff made it 'til 1980..
after 1980 the 'modern' era of knob-twiddling, musician-substitution, overall cheapness of gear was on it's way..
my record collection is proof enough..
I think Pete Townshend's empty glass was post 1977 but the spirit and the sound is still pre-star-wars mixing.
Post by: PP on March 08, 2008, 07:39:37 AM
Post by: studiojimi on March 08, 2008, 11:06:01 AM
| danickstr wrote on Thu, 06 March 2008 19:12 | ||
Jimi I am a secular humanist. In your opinion does that make me arrogant and spiteful as well as (of course) sinful? Just curious, since your modifiers were unclear. |
we all land on one list or another
pick your list
it's not up to me which list you choose to attach yourself to
i was just asking to be shown the lists.
Post by: PRobb on March 08, 2008, 11:38:11 AM
| Larrchild wrote on Thu, 06 March 2008 17:05 | ||
PRobb, I take Prose-ac. |
Aha! I've been relying on prose-dc.
Post by: studiojimi on March 08, 2008, 12:05:32 PM
| PRobb wrote on Sat, 08 March 2008 08:38 | ||||
Aha! I've been relying on prose-dc. |
"interesting"
i didn't know you swung that way.
Post by: MDM, on March 08, 2008, 01:04:54 PM
...roll.........................
get the most successful band/artist, who get a full house to cheer even by singing and playing without amplification if needed and , and stick 3 or 4 (tops) of these mics at a distance of a few feet from the sound sources:
U47 m7 working
coles 4038
rca 44/77
M49
c12
make sure he/they play in a large room, where first reflections arrive at least 20 ms after the sound is generated. Possibly a room designed with no budget restraints.
use gobos where needed. and perhaps some spot mics mixed in at a low level.
record everything at once, and get someone with a great artistic and arrangement skills to work with the band to find out if, when and what edit/overdubs may be needed.
use tube if you use distant mics only, and tube or solid-state discrete if you use both distant and spot mics.
if the artists and songs are great you will have beautiful music.
otherwise it's back to pushing buttons, clicks, editing and all the other zombie-religion.
Post by: ssltech on March 08, 2008, 01:54:50 PM
| PP wrote: |
floccinaucinihilipilificatious |
Brilliant.
But I don't think it's worth quite that much...
Keef
Post by: maxim on March 08, 2008, 05:31:40 PM
massimo, i'm afraid your list is missing the only thing you NEED to make a perfect record:
the song
"So a huge Army of people, marching in step after thundering step, every day, day after day after day, round and around the great walls of Jericho, then finally, violently assailing them with great blasts of trumpets, horns, and huge shouts, would have facilitated a pronounced weakening of the City walls foundations."
interesting hypothesis, but, in my reading of history, it takes something like an earthquake or a few hefty cannonballs to bring down city walls
i doubt that joshua's post could do the job
"I have a personal theory that many native inhabitants of these violent regions would inevitably have eventually died from Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis."
interesting hypothesis
deaths from pulmontary infiltration by microscopic particles usually occur because of the specific nature of the particles, like asbestos being both inert and just the "wrong" size (pretty rare in nature..)
it is a leap to assume that volcanic microdebris may have the same power
nevertheless, an idea worth investigating, imo...
Post by: Bill Mueller on March 08, 2008, 05:43:00 PM
| PP wrote on Sat, 08 March 2008 07:39 |
I wish SAE at Oxford every possible success. Thus, I’m expecting in the future, with considerable trepidation, to become rather more Saint like myself. Long overdue I’m sure, but I have a good role model.... P |
Peter,
You are too kind. Thank you.
If I read this part of your post correctly, it bodes well for British students of the audio arts! Good news. Please keep us informed.
Best Regards,
Bill
Post by: Bill Mueller on March 08, 2008, 07:28:04 PM
| John Ivan wrote on Thu, 06 March 2008 16:45 |
As for the 1977 thing, I think we can move it to 1979 and maybe later, but we sure need to be selective ..There has been some nice stuff recorded over the last couple decades but Bills' advise IS instructive in that back then, people pretty much played as a band and while there were certain things subjectively "Wrong" with some of those recordings from a tech standpoint, they feel amazing. When the feel of the band AND the tech stuff came together? Those records represent what moved people so much in the first place.. They have the ever elusive "IT" happening.. I've spent most of my time trying to get through tunes so that people don't have to edit me. I think this is the way to do it...Do the editing with the instrument in your hand.. Ivan............... |
John,
Thanks for your observation. My post to Joshua was not an indictment of all music recorded after 1977. On the contrary, there is a huge library of high quality music recorded since then.
My point to Joshua was in response to his wildly skewed view of recording. The idea that you MUST replace and quantize all drum tracks as a matter of course, is just wrong and worse, an insult to real musicians. I felt he needed to immerse himself in excellent examples of real musicians playing real music, to help him understand the more important elements of capturing the spiritual transfer of intent, that is music.
It is true that some of us are a bit sensitive to getting our chains yanked at Whatever Works, but Joshua, you are welcome to join and contribute.
Best Regards,
Bill
Post by: studiojimi on March 08, 2008, 09:44:21 PM
i live and work in situations where i use great players that often get it right the first time
but on other days...i have to bleed it out
there is a smuggness that permeates this forum occasionally
who is the moistest pro with the largest rooster
huh
only the IRS knows for show but i would not trust them either
some of you grew up in generations that had music programs in school systems and musicians actually evolved to levels of vituosity that rarely exists in the youngsters today
we had basements or garages to practice in til our parents came home and we all had to have dinner together
we had no play stations or internet to distract us from our chosen present available passions
today 2008
it's a whole different scene and whether you like it or not it is their future
we have become our musical fathers in jaded attitude many of us and some of us in fear of become obsolete grab postures that preach inclusivity but practice quite the opposite
just like the big band cats used to say rock wasn't music...from the top of the hill its easy to roll a few boulders down to slow the young climbers who are climbing up with fresh muscles and new ways of doing things
Post by: tom eaton on March 08, 2008, 10:45:07 PM
I think that there are a bunch of older folks on this forum (probably a LOT fewer 20 somethings than GearSlutz) and so this forum takes on a bit of an edge just simply because most of the questions that get posted here have been answered before (sometimes brilliantly) in past posts. The search function is every newcomer's dream here, and yet so many folks start by asking their specific mic or instrument questions without seeing the big picture of what's available here.
The newcomer that starts by telling all the professionals how to do it right is bound for a difficult reception... and that's just as it would be if he had walked into my studio, or any other studio. And we all like to blow off a little steam sometimes.
-tom
Post by: ssltech on March 08, 2008, 10:49:27 PM
| studiojimi wrote |
who is the moistest pro with the largest rooster |
Ha!!!
Game over.
This is me with my enormous...
...
...rooster.
Keef
Post by: studiojimi on March 08, 2008, 11:19:01 PM
| ssltech wrote on Sat, 08 March 2008 19:49 | ||
Ha!!! Game over. This is me with my enormous... ... ...rooster. Keef |
that's my rooster mutha
Post by: danickstr on March 09, 2008, 12:29:08 AM
Post by: Bill Mueller on March 09, 2008, 12:44:55 AM
I don't want to be presumptuous and assume you might be talking about me. It seems your shotgun approach indicts anyone who might have a "rooster" (This is the FIRST time I have ever read being experienced was actually presented as a fault!)
However, you would be wrong to believe that your circumstances are different from anyone else on Whatever Works. We all see newbies in our studios all the time and when we are producing, our job is to get the best performance from them possible. I am recording two young artists at the moment, and while one is an excellent musician and the other an excellent song writer and singer, neither are experienced in the studio.
It is just that my approach differs from Joshua's somewhat. Before I autotune, quantize, sample and edit, I go to extremes to understand the artist, to understand the song, to create an environment in which they can trust, to BELIEVE IN THEM, and to be the servant of their vision.
When those things are in sync, the drums can be a bit out of sync and their songs will still be excellent.
Best Regards,
Bill
Post by: studiojimi on March 09, 2008, 01:45:10 AM
Post by: John Ivan on March 09, 2008, 03:51:13 AM
I would like to say welcome to Joshua.. After all, I do believe he was trying to do something positive.. I just hope you, Joshua if you're reading along, will take all this to heart..
I don't believe that the mere existence of all these new tool's means that their abuse is inevitable. While I understand Jimis' point about how we who are a bit older grew up with different habits as it relates to the use of our time, I can name a good number of young people who really get the bit about "Spirit" and "Intent".. and they work their asses off on their instruments too..
I really was one of those guys who felt a little sick the first time I heard a drum machine. It just felt wrong to me.. It wasn't believable. I couldn't relate to how "it felt" when "it" played. There was no exchange between the player and myself and I swear to you, I knew that right away and didn't like it at all.
Joshua, I'm glad your excited. I'm glad you're here and willing to learn from those who came before you.. I learn from anyone I can, young or old.
The biggest most important piece of advise I can give you is this:
Seek out people who can really really play their asses off. Only Auto tune or sound replace as the very last resort after an extensive effort to "get it from their hands, to the listeners ear" as untouched as possible..
Nothing will ever replace what happens in the human soul when people are really playing music and there are others available to hear it. This IS what it's all about. It always has been about Humans connecting to one another in the most organic way possible. There comes a point where it's NOT music any more. It's simulated Music. It has some musical attributes but the ones that make us cry, Laugh, relate, love it, hate and so on, are missing. Sometimes I'll hear a machine driven piece of music and not be moved at ALL. I wont like it, I wont Hate it either. I'll feel indifferent instead. I don't like that feeling..
Ivan...............
Post by: maxim on March 09, 2008, 06:12:57 AM
i would add: seek out people who LOVE to play their asses off
they'll give you something no machine ever can
sense of awe...
Post by: bblackwood on March 09, 2008, 08:32:03 AM
There's a reason the S/N ratio here is so good compared to the rest...
Post by: tom eaton on March 09, 2008, 10:15:24 AM
| bblackwood wrote on Sun, 09 March 2008 08:32 |
There's a reason the S/N ratio here is so good compared to the rest... |
Thanks, Brad and co. for making this the best place to hang on the interwebs.
t
Post by: bblackwood on March 09, 2008, 10:39:13 AM
Post by: PP on March 09, 2008, 04:31:10 PM
Post by: maxim on March 09, 2008, 07:13:11 PM
You appear not have read the preceding material at all.
It illustrates from Geological Science, that in this Region Earthquakes were indeed commonplace, and that a Major Fault Line actually ran through the City of Jericho itself."
i get the earthquake theory
i don't get the marching army, let alone the trumpets
i also don't get why it's so important that it be true...
"I have a personal theory that many native inhabitants of these violent regions would inevitably have eventually died from Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis."
interesting hypothesis
deaths from pulmontary infiltration by microscopic particles usually occur because of the specific nature of the particles, like asbestos being both inert and just the "wrong" size (pretty rare in nature..)
it is a leap to assume that volcanic microdebris may have the same power
nevertheless, an idea worth investigating, imo...”
Again, with respect...
‘Silicosis (also known as Grinder's disease and Potter's rot) is a form of occupational lung disease - caused by inhalation of crystalline silica dust, and is marked by inflammation and scarring in forms of nodular lesions in the upper lobes of the lungs.
Silicosis (especially the acute form) is characterized by shortness of breath, fever, and cyanosis (bluish skin). It may often be misdiagnosed as pulmonary edema (fluid in the lungs), pneumonia, or tuberculosis.
This respiratory disease was first recognized in 1705 by Ramazzini who noticed sand-like substances in the lungs of stonecutters. The name silicosis (from the Latin silex or flint) was attributed to Visconti in 1870.
The full name for this disease when caused by the specific exposure to fine silica dust found in volcanoes is pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, and at 45 letters it is the longest word in any of the major English dictionaries."
i'm well aware of silicosis and other respiratory illnesses, such as suffered by the miners in your country and popcorn factory workers in the us of a
the point is they don't really KILL you, they just make your life not worth living
asbestosis is RARE in that it can actually KILL you rather than just clog up your lungs (through causing a mesothelioma, a particularly nasty sort of cancer)
uranium is another one (as described by aboriginal people in their paintings of "sickness country": depictions of women having miscarriages and people with "lumpy" bones)
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&am p;q=kakadu&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=38.199664, 71.015625&ie=UTF8&ll=-12.675113,132.917179&spn=0 .005108,0.008669&t=h&z=17
from noel coward, a songwriter of great renown
"Laura: “You were saying about the coal mines…”
Alec: “Oh yes, the inhalation of coal dust…That’s one specific form of the disease. It’s called anthracosis.”
Laura [Tenderly]: “What are the others?”
Alec: “Chalicosis. That comes from metal dust. Steel works, you know…”
Laura [Breathlessly]: “Yes, of course… Steel works…”
Alec: “And silicosis… That’s stone dust… Gold mines…”
Laura [Almost swooning]: “I see…”
Bell rings
Laura: “There’s your train.”
Alec: “Yes.”
Laura: “You mustn’t miss it.”
Alec: “No.”"
Post by: PP on March 09, 2008, 07:22:24 PM
Post by: Bill Mueller on March 09, 2008, 07:56:30 PM
I have no business entering this discussion, other than the fact that my Grandfather was an English coal miner who died of black lung. But, what the hell.
Average life expectancy has risen from 35 years to almost 70 years in only the last 100 years of human history and only in the "developed" world. We now enjoy the ability to save the weakest of our society in heroic ways never before possible. We even legislate the design of buildings to allow habitation by people who, just a few years ago would never have been able to access them at all, and a few years before that would have died from bed sores.
However, before our current age of modern enlightenment, and even now in undeveloped parts of the world, even the slightest flaw is a death sentence. A cataract in India is a death sentence. I have two lovely friends who travel there and perform thousands of surgeries in just a few weeks a year. In the Arctic, slipping into a cold stream in the wrong time of the year is a death sentence. My father writes about these kinds of survival stories for Outdoor Life magazine. Being a rape victim in Africa is a death sentence. Not from the rapist, but from your own family. Same thing for a woman who experiences colorectal injuries giving birth. Being Muslim, female and unwilling to submit to an imposed marriage is a death sentence. I'm sure both you and Peter can name many more fatal threats to our otherwise perfectly healthy existence.
My point is that a very small deviance from perfect conditions can spell death for an individual or even a society (Don't be a Jew in 1939 Germany). Under these conditions it is not unreasonable to conjecture that the presence of even slight airborn contaminants could mean death of an entire population at a given time in history, that would present not the slightest threat today.
My Grandfather lived into his 70's with black lung, but had he lived at the time of my Great Grandfather might have died at 30.
What do you think?
Best Regards,
Bill
Post by: maxim on March 09, 2008, 08:18:25 PM
i think that by making your lungs more susceptible to infection, before the days of penicillin, it would increase your chances of not making it past 30
but the entire population?
the rich always had ways of protecting themselves, the poor, as you say, are still abandoned to their fate
i question pp's desire to prove that certain biblical events were TRUE
after all, troy existed, but athena never did...
Post by: PP on March 09, 2008, 09:12:49 PM
Post by: Bill Mueller on March 09, 2008, 09:21:46 PM
| maxim wrote on Sun, 09 March 2008 20:18 |
i question pp's desire to prove that certain biblical events were TRUE after all, troy existed, but athena never did... |
Max,
So this is a philosophical, and not strictly medical discussion? I missed that.
Setting aside the philosophical positions for a moment, would you not agree that individual life, even many societies, exist on the thinest of margins, and it takes very little to upset the balance and create mass exterminations or at the least cause one society to move entirely from an area.
One of the things we have studied over the years is NASA's pursuit of a viable mini ecosystem in space. There is just about NOTHING more difficult than keeping life alive in a hostile environment. It makes building rocket ships look easy.
Best Regards,
Bill
Post by: maxim on March 09, 2008, 09:44:35 PM
"...would you not agree that individual life, even many societies, exist on the thinest of margins, and it takes very little to upset the balance and create mass exterminations or at the least cause one society to move entirely from an area"
once that life is established, i would say that it takes a CATASTROPHIC event to wipe out an ENTIRE society
the drying out of the sahara may have been one of those, but even there, a handful of humans survived and went on to conquer the rest of the world
humans are nothing if not resilient
"mass extermination" seems to happen mainly at the hands of other humans
pp wrote:
"It is none the less, always worthy of note when solid scientific evidence.
Is entirely supportive making an incredibly powerful Biblical story, entirely conceivable."
the fault line is solid scientific evidence
the "sonic boom" of the trumpets and "harmonic vibrations" of the marching armies are mere suppositions
the websites you quoted all confirm what bill just told us anecdotally, silicosis is a CHRONIC DEBILITATING condition and not an old testament parlour trick...
"Noel Coward by the way was a great personal favourite of The Queen mothers and that’s how Princess Margaret learnt the many words of his songs from him by heart, at an early age."
As you mentioned him, I presumed this may be of interest to you."
i am interested in noel coward
i am less interested in princess margaret or the queen mum...
nevertheless, i appreciate greatly your accounts and experiences
thank you for sharing them!
Post by: danickstr on March 10, 2008, 01:24:26 AM
I met a guy in LA that had a RR, but he was strange.
Post by: ssltech on March 10, 2008, 09:53:03 AM
| PP wrote |
“floccinaucinihilipilificatious Brilliant.” It's actually an aggregate of Latin forms. I’m open to correction, but historically, I believe it’s a word invented by an Eton student of Latin. |
That essentially tallies with my own understanding.
Actually, my sainted mother appeared as a contestant on Mastermind once (back in the old Magnus Magnusson days), and I seem to recall that we have a video somewhere of her giving the word "floccinaucinihilipilification" as an answer...
Keith
Post by: maxim on March 10, 2008, 09:35:27 PM
It is entirely conceivable that following the constant pressure of an Army marching continually around it, and combined with the tremendously powerful blast of sound pressure levels finally emitted straight at it, that a catastrophic demolition would inevitably result."
i don't find it entirely conceivable
in fact, i think it's highly dubious
i'm well aware of the tacoma bridge and the "marching orders"
however, that is NOT the same situation
the entire structure must be able to oscillate before this phenomenon could occur
while that's conceivable in case of a bridge, your hypothesis presumes that the entire city wall will be affected by INDIRECT transmission of the soldiers feet around it
i have to put it into the "highly improbable" pile
as for the "tremendously powerful blast", what do you estimate would have to be the power of the blast to have that effect?
Post by: PRobb on March 10, 2008, 09:53:11 PM
| ssltech wrote on Mon, 10 March 2008 09:53 |
That essentially tallies with my own understanding. Actually, my sainted mother appeared as a contestant on Mastermind once (back in the old Magnus Magnusson days), and I seem to recall that we have a video somewhere of her giving the word "floccinaucinihilipilification" as an answer... Keith |
She must have ben quite the sesquipedalian!
Post by: Bill Mueller on March 10, 2008, 11:07:21 PM
| maxim wrote on Mon, 10 March 2008 21:35 |
"...being able to prove that not only did Earthquakes occur, but a dramatic Fault in the Earths Teutonic Plate’s ran directly under the City. It is entirely conceivable that following the constant pressure of an Army marching continually around it, and combined with the tremendously powerful blast of sound pressure levels finally emitted straight at it, that a catastrophic demolition would inevitably result." i don't find it entirely conceivable in fact, i think it's highly dubious i'm well aware of the tacoma bridge and the "marching orders" however, that is NOT the same situation the entire structure must be able to oscillate before this phenomenon could occur while that's conceivable in case of a bridge, your hypothesis presumes that the entire city wall will be affected by INDIRECT transmission of the soldiers feet around it i have to put it into the "highly improbable" pile as for the "tremendously powerful blast", what do you estimate would have to be the power of the blast to have that effect? |
Max,
You have clearly been tweaked by Peter's postulations. However, I can sense that the argument has little to do with earthquakes and trumpets and more to do with theology.
It's a little like using a dog to beat a horse.
Best Regards,
Bill
Post by: maxim on March 10, 2008, 11:59:21 PM
thanks, bill, for the reality check
you are a neverending source of inspiration
have you thought of running for president? (terry is a superdelegate, you know...)
Post by: MDM, on March 11, 2008, 09:05:48 AM
Post by: MagnetoSound on March 11, 2008, 10:11:54 AM
I just caught up
with this thread
from a few pages back,
when it seemed to be
quite good-natured.
| Quote: |
I thought I might |
POST A REPLY
| Quote: |
but then I thought |
it might seem
A BIT POMPOUS.
Post by: tom eaton on March 11, 2008, 10:38:10 AM
t
Post by: RSettee on March 12, 2008, 04:15:15 PM
Post by: ssltech on March 12, 2008, 04:16:15 PM
| tom eaton wrote on Tue, 11 March 2008 10:38 |
You'll come to appreciate PP's posts...and maybe even learn something from them! |
I do.
I must confess that there was some mental recalibration required to get my brain around some of the formatting...
...But once the wrapper's open, the lolly within is most satisfying
"Peter Poyser posts a pack of pukka proverbs."
Keith
Post by: RSettee on March 12, 2008, 04:18:28 PM
| ssltech wrote on Wed, 12 March 2008 15:16 |
"Peter Poyser posts a pack of pukka proverbs." Keith |
As in proverbs?
Post by: PP on March 15, 2008, 03:53:24 AM
Post by: MagnetoSound on March 15, 2008, 07:40:56 AM
Appreciative, that is, of the sycophants who have clearly been cowed into the acceptance of your bombastic (if you don't accept pompous) posts.
I think it has been established that the first post in this thread was a source of astonishment, and amusement, to most of us here.
The instigator (I do so hope I have chosen the right word!) had been subjected to a succession of responses that had done the job of humbling him very effectively. All made, as I pointed out before, with good humour (the English spelling, as I am native to Great Britain, by the way) and some of them particularly willing to show forgiveness for, as you rightly describe it, the faux pas that had been committed.
Joshua had, at this point, made several humble apologies and was asking, repeatedly, for forgiveness and expressing a willingness to atone for his sins most eloquently.
Did you really feel it necessary, at the point in the thread at which you entered, to belittle the guy even more, with your condescending attitude, your frothy prose (lecturing the guy in latin for Christ's sake!) and your rather unnecessarily lengthy representation on behalf of Terry Manning?
The fact that Joshua has not made a single post since your intervention suggests to me that you did an exceptionally good job of sending him away with his tail between his legs, rather than welcoming him to the forum as a reformed character, as the other contributors had shown they were willing to do. If you did not do this intentionally, I hope you are feeling pretty bad about it now.
I wrote my previous post in disgust at this heavy-handed (and not 'humorous', as you might claim) treatment of a person who had shown humility in the face of overwhelming criticism and had stuck around to put things right.
| Quote: |
Can you think of a single instance in any post of mine, where I have ever asked a question or sought advice? |
How very revealing. I gather from this admission that you either prefer to lurk silently, harvesting whatever information as may prove useful to you without revealing that you do so, or that you are convinced that you have absolutely nothing to learn from any of the other esteemed individuals who freely converse in order to share information and advice between themselves on this most respected forum. I wonder which it is.
| Quote: |
No Name. |
Likewise, whoever you are.
(I make this point succinctly, in order to spare others the tedium of reading through lines and lines of self-important lecture, written for the sake of inflating my own ego.)
| Quote: |
Based upon the written evidence of your enigmatic post, have no doubt. The collected genius of the greatest investigative minds Would readily conclude that The Queens English. Is indeed your fifth or sixth language. Whilst this wide linguistic vocabulary is an accomplishment of note, the revealing adage of ‘being a Jack of all Trades and Master of None’ readily springs to mind. You are to be congratulated then, if as all the available evidence clearly suggests, The Queens English is your fifth or sixth language, on the robust excellence of your choice of word. You have undoubtedly, like Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry character, another complete Detective collection on my shelf, made someone’s day! Or was it actually a revealing display of complete and utter, absolute ignorance? |
Is that the best you can do - more of the same? What a BIG man you are!
As you say yourself, 'it is a big mistake to presume things'.
Once again, your condescension is in evidence.
Your comment, with regard to your own posts, that
'everything is deliberately written so that the very simplest mind can follow it'
is not only condescending,
it is disingenuous in the extreme.
Clearly, everything is deliberately written to impress those around you.
Just so you know, no amount of useful (or otherwise) information will impress me, if it is unashamed self-aggrandizement that seeps from between the lines.
I sign off fully, with respect,
Dan Sansom
Magneto Sound (UK)
Post by: cerberus on March 15, 2008, 08:15:44 AM
| PP wrote on Sat, 15 March 2008 03:53 |
I?m extremely grateful to Governor Schwarzenegger for his terrific reception, manly ploughing ahead taking on certain giants industries eyeball to eyeball, and his continuing support for building a Hydrogen Highway in California. |
since hydrogen, unlike petroleum can be found in great abundance everywhere,
it seems intuitive to suppose that the most efficient methods for the
extraction and storage of hydrogen for fuel may not involve
much of a 20th century-style infrastructure.
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/owning/home-energy- station/
as the technology accelerates, the future may present opportunities
to dispense with petroluem based fuels entirely. so perhaps the
present energy infrastructure may not need to exist either.
jeff dinces
Post by: PP on March 15, 2008, 11:18:44 AM
Post by: Jon Hodgson on March 15, 2008, 11:32:19 AM
Post by: PP on March 15, 2008, 11:37:08 AM
Post by: Jon Hodgson on March 15, 2008, 11:43:48 AM
| PP wrote on Sat, 15 March 2008 15:18 |
To confirm, my earlier points regarding the quality of your English. The Oxford English Dictionary definition bombast, noun. M16. [Var. of BOMBACE.] 1. Raw cotton; cotton wool, esp. as padding. Adjective - bombastic. This is the correctly, proper, original meaning of the word. |
In your obvious love affair with the Oxford English Dictionary you must surely have become aware that it is descriptive, not prescriptive. It does not set the meaning of words, it merely reports the words as they are used in language, including the change of use of various words through history (many have changed in their recognized meaning over time). Language evolves, the dictionary reflects that.
To point at an original meaning of a word and insist that it is the "correct" meaning when the word is used today is to ignore what the writers of the dictionary themselves recognize.
I am sure that if you were to post the whole of that entry it would be shown fairly clearly that the definition you chose to quote is basically obsolete today, and the modern use of bombast refers to speech too pompous for an occasion, or pretentious words.
| Quote: |
Thank You for so graciously illustrating and validating my earlier points. |
Personally I'd say he wasn't the one doing the illustrating and validating in that particular exchange.
Post by: PP on March 15, 2008, 12:43:00 PM
Post by: MagnetoSound on March 15, 2008, 01:04:32 PM
Much as I find your obsession with syntax mildly irritating ....
From my own Concise Oxford Dictionary:
bombast n. Pompous and grandiloquent language. [C16: < OF, < Med. L bombax cotton.]
.... I think we can agree on a split meaning here, no need to split hairs?
As for my grasp of the English language, I do not think that your adhesion to obsolete meanings of particular words does you any favours.
I do have a distinction in English Language composition, although I do not generally feel it is appropriate to show off about it on what is, as you rightly point out, a professional recording forum.
If you want to be honest about it, there are very many words that have multiple meanings, that may or may not vary with context, and that may or may not utilise (sic) different spellings accordingly, not least across the water.
I am not in the habit of keeping either dictionary or thesaurus to hand while I post on the internet, and I do not think that most people do, either.
The point I am making here is simply that your profound grasp of the English language does not give you a right to bully people for the way they write, in order to justify what you have written about other people.
Furthermore, you really must stop accusing us all of failing to read your posts properly. It is beginning to look desperate.
As to the issues regarding Joshua's thread ....
OK, you have obviously taken the time to pursue him around the internet and follow his actions, whereas I have not.
That in itself says a lot about you, doesn't it?
However, I am perfectly willing to accept what you say regarding his dubious practices if you have done so much research into the matter and are willing to stand by that.
'discommodated' .... love it.
The only vague definition I can find says 'disgraced, a pariah'. Certainly a rather arcane term.
I do not feel disgraced.
If you speak to people normally, they will understand you, I promise.
| Quote: |
.... your own hurt pride in reality .... |
I find this type of response to be wholly defensive, really. Although in combat strategy, the best form of defence is attack, it is important to keep things in perspective, and to react proportionately to whatever the perceived threat may be. I mean you no harm either, for what it's worth.
Neither did I mean to denigrate anyone else on this forum for 'appreciating' your posts. If any offence was taken, then, for that, I apologize sincerely to those concerned.
Dan
PS - Don't even get me started on your punctuation!
Post by: Jon Hodgson on March 15, 2008, 01:18:11 PM
| PP wrote on Sat, 15 March 2008 16:43 |
You’re no good with Computers either, obviously..... |
Anyone who knows me is probably pissing themselves laughing at this one.
It merely illustrates your tendency to jump to erroneous conclusions.
| Quote: |
What I wrote, was, what my Dictionary tells me. It is completely different to the Dictionary you use. In that it reveals the Historic Development of the Evolution of the Word. |
As part of your supposed proof of the other poster's command of English you quoted the original definition of the word, and as you just confirmed, stated
“This is the correctly, proper, original meaning of the word.”
Now I assume that you actually meant correct rather than correctly, however let us examine the grammar of that sentence, and the context in which it was written.
You stated that it was the correct, proper and original meaning... you did not acknowledge that there were any other correct and proper meanings, and in using it as a supposed illustration of the original poster's poor command of English you were also implying that his use of the word was incorrect and improper.
Your dictionary as you say shows the historic development of the word in chronological order, which would mean that the definition at the END of the list is the correct and proper one today, the original meaning might or might not be correct in modern speech, depending on its history.
| Quote: |
It shows what the word originally, properly meant! Which is pretty close to what I wrote.... “This is the correctly, proper, original meaning of the word.” That is the absolute truth. It is where the word comes from. That is an absolutely undeniable, objective fact! To argue the opposite, is to make your self look a completely and utterly foolish! |
And at no point did I say that it was not the original meaning of the word, in fact I confirmed that, I said that it was not the correct modern use of the word (or at least not the only correct modern use), which is an absolutely undeniable objective fact. Your attempt to use that cherry picked definition as supporting evidence that the original poster had a poor command of English was either dishonest or was to make yourself look completely and utterly foolish.
| Quote: |
When are you going to find a Topic, you know something about Jon? Oh! Of course, I forgot, you simply enjoy arguing don’t you? |
No, I just enjoy showing pompous idiots up for what they are. I also have a love of facts, truth, science, engineering and logic.
| Quote: |
Get a Life Old Man. For I truly feel sorry for you. When I see the huge amount of time. You spend in The Saloon. Arguing with better More Wholesome People. |
Oh, such hurtful comments from such an insightful individual, how will I possibly recover?
Post by: bblackwood on March 15, 2008, 02:03:05 PM
It's threads like this one that make me regret opening the Saloon...
Post by: studiojimi on March 15, 2008, 04:52:46 PM
but to comment on how much time someone else spends here
kinda shows you are clocking others too much IMveryHO
Post by: cerberus on March 15, 2008, 05:12:03 PM
| PP wrote on Sat, 15 March 2008 11:18 |
This is a terrific post Jeff! Thanks for that, I have been involved with Honda for between 10 to 15 years in various ways, and as I said, have had them come over again to see me in just the last month or so along with a gaggle of other manufacturers. When American, Japanese, German and other Countries Engineers come to see me I usually end up making them laugh a great deal. And they usually go away, with a warm sense of immense personal growth, as well as an enlarged vocabulary, in addition to what came for. The Hydrogen infrastructure is required at the point you approach the limits of the range of the vehicle involved. Now in the coming years there are going to be a large number of confusingly different energy solutions put forward, to fill the infra structural void, and great competition too. Naturally, some of these will come from Oil Companies themselves, as they have huge vested interests in keeping things as close to the status quo as possible, but I believe all of them will be ultimately found to be complete distractions from choosing the best solution, which I believe, has already been determined by experts that have scrutinised all the possible available alternatives. My major concern is that as in so many other fields of commerce, the very best solution will fail to be implemented because of ?skewing? factors. The tremendous advantages that accrue from correctly determining the best solution initially and deploying a universally accepted, globally adopted standard are quite beyond telling. I?m not sure if you saw the earlier post where I spoke of the newly emerged solution that enables you to fill up your car with Water. This system allows you to enact the conversion within the vehicle itself, but it requires a tiny degree of petroleum to combine at the point of injection into the combustion chamber. The ?Honda Hydrogen Home Station? is a proposed implementation of the very technology that Terry Manning so wisely propounded himself in a much earlier post, elsewhere. Basically the energy for the conversion process comes from the Sun. |
paragraph regarding a new hydrogen system in development by honda. it was
sandwiched between links to visually powerful photographs. the point is not
lost on me. but i am totally un-informed regarding this new technology.
though it seems very interesting to me, internal combustion engines
may have a more visceral appeal than electric motors. imo, this
emotional appeal and it's connection to our cultural heritage
(which your pictures imply does not need to be severed)
could be a factor for automotive consumers.
jeff dinces
Post by: tom eaton on March 15, 2008, 05:54:37 PM
Post by: cerberus on March 15, 2008, 06:12:06 PM
fantastical. but removed that comment so as to avoid getting dragged into
the theology area of this thread.
jeff dinces
Post by: tom eaton on March 15, 2008, 06:28:57 PM
| cerberus wrote on Sat, 15 March 2008 18:12 |
i think you mean "how to burn water". |
Will that make my snare sound really crackle?
Post by: maxim on March 15, 2008, 06:29:16 PM
Post by: maxim on March 15, 2008, 06:45:32 PM
agreed
"have you ever seen a Brandy warmer Max? "
i am intimately familiar with this object
peter, i apologise if i come across as disagreeable, but i am still not convinced by your arguments regarding the biblical catastrophes
the earthquake, sure
but the sound pressure???
has there ever been any documented structural damage from the VERY LOUD concerts that have been put on in the last century?
if there were, i will accept your theory
otherwise, i find it difficult to believe
as regards pneumoconiosis, i do not mean to belittle this condition, and it can, most certainly, lead to increased infections, which can, in turn, cause premature death
however, it is UNLIKELY to have a genocidal effect, as its effects kick in AFTER reproduction has occured
Post by: cerberus on March 15, 2008, 06:47:01 PM
| tom eaton wrote on Sat, 15 March 2008 18:28 | ||
Will that make my snare sound really crackle? |
| pp wrote: |
"Seek out people who can really really play their asses off." I would question the dubious benefits of this approach? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatulist http://www.mrmethane.com/live-fart-show/ To my mind, ears and nose it is far better to utilise performers who can play actual instruments. |
| danickstr wrote on Sat, 22 December 2007 13:06 |
methane is a gas used to crack hydrogen from water |
different thread. interesting connection.
jeff dinces
Post by: Bill Mueller on March 15, 2008, 07:39:19 PM
While I cannot comment on the power of trumpets, I did once have a friend who owned an old theater in a tiny town in Pennsylvania. He had this massive pipe organ in there, (his pride and joy) and one day while we were testing the 32' pipes (3' square!), he shook the ceiling loose from the structure! I thought we were going to die. The building was deemed unsafe by a safety inspector and the entire ceiling had to be rebuilt.
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Best Regards,
Bill
Post by: tom eaton on March 15, 2008, 08:24:34 PM
| Bill Mueller wrote on Sat, 15 March 2008 19:39 |
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! |
Yes! Yes! THAT'S what I want the snare to sound like!! Forget that burning water stuff.
Post by: Jay Kadis on March 15, 2008, 08:35:23 PM
| tom eaton wrote on Sat, 15 March 2008 17:24 | ||
Yes! Yes! THAT'S what I want the snare to sound like!! Forget that burning water stuff. |
Post by: tom eaton on March 15, 2008, 08:40:04 PM
Post by: maxim on March 15, 2008, 08:43:18 PM
"testing the 32' pipes (3' square!)"
i wonder what frequency that would be?
i read somewhere that a building has to oscillate at approximately 1hz in order to collapse
Post by: studiojimi on March 15, 2008, 10:04:47 PM
whatever mountain got in your way can be conquered because you are a son of God of whom he has entrusted the breath of life
pick your calamity
if your stay fixed on it...it will continue to manifest and grow until you can't take anymore
but if you put your faith to work..be still and know the He hears you when you pray.....you will rise again
then the bible says
"it came to pass"
it is all over the bible
whatever comes up .....always comes to pass and Gods will of absolute good prevails and is always available in abundance
you can can joke about it all you want but i'm gonna ride the good wave////and no edits needed LOL
Post by: ssltech on March 16, 2008, 09:42:00 AM
| Bill Mueller wrote |
one day while we were testing the 32' pipes (3' square) |
Ah... acoustic pipe resonance is a fantastic thing!
I used to work in Liverpool City Centre, about a quarter-mile from the Anglican Cathedral. The Anglican cathedral is (IIRC) the largest structure in the British Isles, and the pipe organ inside it is either the largest in the world, or the second largest... depending on where you look to your information.
They have (I believe) Eight sixty-four-foot banks (and LOTS of others which "only" go down to thirty-two feet!) and to hear it booming away at full-chat is quite the experience! -The building is made from sandstone, quarried mainly at Woolton quarry IIRC (about 8-10 miles away) and took sixty-four years to build. -I was fortunate enough to play at the opening ceremony, and -as luck would have it- I played trumpet at that event.
Whether the fact that the Anglican Cathedral is still standing is a damnation of my abilities or testament to its massive strength, I've yet to fathom; but lunchtimes spent listening to organ and choral music there were NEVER wasted lunchtimes. RIGHT next door to it is the Liverpool Institute for the Performing Arts (LIPA) which is (famously) also Paul McCartney's former school, and 'saved' from the wrecking ball by a coalition of donors including Paul himself and other significances including HRH Queen Elizabeth II.
Students interested in acoustics and music at LIPA who are sufficiently interested to regularly take in the wealth which lies at their doorstep, are exactly the very sort of people whom I'd expect to have quite a future...
Keith
Post by: MagnetoSound on March 16, 2008, 10:19:48 AM
| ssltech wrote on Sun, 16 March 2008 13:42 | ||
Ah... acoustic pipe resonance is a fantastic thing! |
It certainly is.
| Quote: |
They have (I believe) Eight sixty-four-foot banks (and LOTS of others which "only" go down to thirty-two feet!) and to hear it booming away at full-chat is quite the experience! -The building is made from sandstone, quarried mainly at Woolton quarry IIRC (about 8-10 miles away) and took sixty-four years to build. -I was fortunate enough to play at the opening ceremony, and -as luck would have it- I played trumpet at that event. |
Keith, that paints a beautiful picture.
I live close to Rochester cathedral - it's one of the most moving experiences at Christmas time to hear the organ at the carol service.
Dan
Post by: Jesse Allain on March 17, 2008, 09:19:17 AM
Post by: PP on March 19, 2008, 04:38:56 AM
Post by: Jon Hodgson on March 19, 2008, 11:48:53 AM
| PP wrote on Wed, 19 March 2008 08:38 |
Jon. |
PP,
I had been going to leave this thread alone, in deference to Brad, so my apologies to him but I feel I have to respond to your comments.
Firstly I would like to point out that including your comments addressed to me, or any other individual, in a long post also addressed to others is really not conducive to proper discussion, since it would be easy for the individual you were addressing to completely miss that part since they did not want to read through your very wordy comments to others. And having not seen them they would not reply, thus giving others to perhaps incorrect impression that they have no response.
So I would suggest that it would be a courtesy of you to take the usual approach on the net, especially with long posts, of one post for one subject or addressee.
Incidentally, please don't bother with your dictionary quotations if I happen to get a word not precisely correct, I think that in most cases my meaning can be assertained from context. Throwing a dictionary definition at me might seem amusing and witty the first time, but doing it repeatedly is neither big, nor clever.
| Quote: |
Your past records reveals you to be a highly biased individual who has chosen to discuss subjects, you openly confess, you know absolutely nothing whatever about. |
Now that is a complete misrepresentation of what I have said and done in the past. I don't know if you are saying it because you have misunderstood me, or because you find it humurous to wind me up, and quite frankly I don't care. The first time you said it was irritating, repeating it is a personal insult and a challenge to my integrity.
I have never as you claim openly confessed to discussing subjects I know nothing about, the closest I have come to that in our previous discussion was to admit there were areas in which my knowledge was weak, but they were ancillary to the actual point of contention anyway.
If I did know nothing about a subject, I would be asking questions, not making statements.
| Quote: |
Fervently arguing, against those that that have listened for decades, to the greatest, most knowledgeable and experienced authorities, on these matters in the entire world. |
To listen is not neccessarily to understand. I am well aware that there is much I do not know, which is one of the reasons I spend so much time debating and discussing. Not only do I learn things from people here directly, but I spend a great deal of time researching the subjects.
I may appear arrogant at times, in fact I probably am arrogant at times, but when I'm not sure I say I'm not sure and when I know I've got it wrong I say I've got it wrong, and live with the embarassment.
| Quote: |
Treating the knowledge and understanding they have sought to share with utter contempt. |
In our one previous exchange I expressly and publically apologized for what appeared to be a misunderstanding on my part of your original post. And here I do so again, from your later comments it would appear that what I took to be a claim by you that the bible was proven accurate in its detail (by which I mean to the level that one might expect a textbook to be) you actually meant that it was a good and useful guide to history, geology, geography etc.
However the point that I was trying to make was I think pretty obvious from my first post, and certainly from the subsequent ones... something which Nathan picked up on and commented on... but rather than simply correcting me as to my misunderstanding of your original meaning you continued to argue a different point to the one I was making... in a sequence of posts I was quite obviously talking about accuracy of content, you simply kept repeating your proof of accuracy of transmission, and calling me an idiot when I pointed out that what you were posting did not prove what I was talking about.
Since my meaning was obvious to others reading the thread, and you pride yourself on your reading comprehension, why did you not simply correct my error rather than repeatedly state something which I had acknowledged and had no bearing on what I was arguing about?
My initial error was it appears in misinterpreting your meaning, but I long ago acnowledged that and apologized for it. Rather than taking my apology in good grace at the time, or since, you chose to repeatedly make accusations about my honesty and character.
| Quote: |
In a Forum such as this we have privileges and responsibilities. |
Yes we do.
| Quote: |
Abusing such a privilege however inevitably means that you must bear a responsibility. Thus, you yourself are responsible, if you find that your standing is diminished, as others are no longer are willing to take whatever you say seriously. |
This works both ways.
Personally I don't give a damn what you think about me, though I do care what you post about me. The reason I don't care about your opinion is that your posts to myself and others haven't given me any reason to feel that your judgement of my character is worth a damn.
Someone who I respect on here has told me that you are an authority on classical recording, so I would read anything you had to say on that subject with genuine interest and true respect, you have also shown yourself to be well read, so you are an interesting source of informstion... however so far I see little sign that your extrapolations from that information indicate any great intellect, and your attitude to others, even those you agree with, is in my opinion pompous and condescending in the extreme.
That you have the affection and respect of others on this forum who's opinion I would consider to be very worthy of consideration makes me wonder, and hope, that there is more to you than I have seen so far. But in all honesty what I have said so far is what you have shown me.
| Quote: |
And choose to dress you in the laughing stock robes, that befit the role you have chosen to play. |
I have more faith in the other forum members here than you do it seems. I trust them to understand who and what I am, and although I am by no means perfect, I feel no shame in either.
| Quote: |
“Anyone who knows me is probably pissing themselves laughing at this one." That is precisely why I wrote it, as it directly relates to your background. |
Well I'm sorry I didn't get the joke, but considering our history and your very direct insults, it is perhaps understandable.
It is precisely because intonation and facial expressions do not transmit with the typed word that smileys and emoticons came into existence and became a recognized form of "netiquette" (has that one made it into the OED yet?)
So when you say something that could be reasonably interpreted in multiple ways, but was meant as a joke, a simple
makes your meaning clear and prevents offence.| Quote: |
But the fact is, and I want to say this in a friendly way. You entirely failed to see the obvious intent Of humour in the statement. That you were Meant to Laugh. |
Yes I did... but then that would be because the "obvious intent" was not obvious to the person who it was addressed to... and I would say understandably so.
| Quote: |
“It merely illustrates your tendency to jump to erroneous conclusions.” No! That’s your exactly your problem, for that is what you’ve done. |
Well in that I have to agree
| Quote: |
And your failure to discern, perfectly obvious humour |
Well it was obviously not perfectly obvious was it?
| Quote: |
Differentiating from someone being serious. |
Smileys, emoticons, the rest of us have been using them for a decade, are you just above all that?
| Quote: |
You just can’t see it, because You are too serious Altogether Yourself! |
Have you considered that the pseudo-intellectual overly pompous turn of phrase and choice of words that you use might tend to make people who don't know you assume that you're being serious all the time... and certainly that it is practically impossible to distinguish your attempts at humour from the serious elements of your post?
Well you should, because they do. You may well be a hilarious individual face to face, but it doesn't translate well to the typed word.
| Quote: |
“You stated that it was the correct, proper and original meaning... No! What I actually wrote was.. “This is the correctly, proper, original meaning of the word.” |
Ah, ok, I think I understand now....
Did you mean "correctly proper"? I leave it to any English teachers here to correct me but I believe that comma makes all the difference. I'm sure that someone who loves language as much as you would acknowledge that words do not live in isolation and that proper punctuation can be vital.
| Quote: |
The Grammar Checker checks out the line as completely o.k. here.... It doesn't flag up any problem at all, and I can live with that. |
Well either I or your grammar checker are incorrect here, it would be interesting to know which, but I freely acknowledge that it could be me, I am fairly certain I regularly use commas in the wrong places... hmmm, like you apparantly did.
| Quote: |
I wrote it exactly, how I would say it, I try to do that. In a written conversation. |
So you would say
"this is the correctly" [pause] "proper" [pause] "and original meaning" ?
I'd misunderstand you in speech too then, due to that pause between correctly and proper.
| Quote: |
Why would I? Do you think I am a Dictionary? |
You make a good impression of one. I've never seen anyone so quick to reach for the OED.
| Quote: |
With due respect, your suppositions are just that, and nothing more. They relate to ‘implication’ and ‘might’ it’s complete and utter flummadiddle. |
When implications are obvious from content and context most people would have the sense and courtesy to clarify their meaning, in order to avoid misunderstanding and offence. I and pretty much everybody else takes that effort, that you do not would suggest either a lack of consideration of the effects of what you say, or that you actual intended the implication, but when challenged on it then go "hey, that's not exactly what I wrote"
| Quote: |
What I actually wrote is the only salient point that honestly needs to be considered in this matter at all. |
Do your sentences exist devoid of any context? If so then that is not conversational writing.
The orginal sequence in your orginal post was, in effect (I can't be bothered to cut and paste the exact words)
"As far as your understanding of English goes"
[dictionary quotation of obsolete form of Bombast]
"thank you for proving my point"
Now those three parts make absolutely no sense in isolation, so either your randomly writing stuff down (which would be more like mad ranting than conversational writing), or you meant that the use of the word bombast by magnetosound combined with the meaning you quoted from the dictionary somehow proved your previous claims about his understanding of English (his fourth or fifth language I think was the claim).
Now quite obviously it does nothing of the sort, which makes it either a really bad joke, a serious but really bad application of logic, or a failed and dishonest attempt to score cheap points.
Going by your history on humour I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt when you post bollocks like this in future and just assume it's a really bad joke.
| Quote: |
It is either an entirely correct statement in itself, or it is not. And if it’s correct, accept it. |
Now you know that language and conversation don't work like that, it's disingenuous of you to retreat to that defence.
| Quote: |
But as you seem inordinately interested in these things... The Grammar Checker tells me you should have a comma after “Your dictionary, in your reply.” I trust that is a sensational help to you.... |
Well not sensational, but definately a help, thanks. I told you I put commas in the wrong places sometimes.
| Quote: |
Look! The actual answer to this is as follows. I’ve found it’s greatly helpful to keep posts as short, and concise, as one possibly can. |
Ok, this is you being funny right? I mean there's no way you can be saying this seriously, considering the length of this post.
ROFLMAO!
| Quote: |
“And at no point did I say that it was not the original meaning of the word, in fact I confirmed that” “I said that it was not the correct modern use of the word (or at least not the only correct modern use), which is an absolutely undeniable objective fact.” You seem to have run out of words, and are now, posting my own lines almost phrase for phrase. |
Maybe I should have put a smiley on there to make the intended humour in that last part obvious, but it didn't seem appropriate ocnsidering the mood of the rest of the paragraph.
| Quote: |
Never the less, I’m sure you can agree with me that nowhere in my post Did I make any comment whatever concerning Anything other than the original Use of the word. To help you, that is a fact you've already confirmed as true! |
Yes, but since I've already shown that the only way your original post makes sense in conversational writing would be if that meaning somehow demonstrated magnetosounds poor understanding of english, my point was clear and correct.
It is fairly obvious from anyone reading my statements that I at no time argued about the original meaning, what I pointed out was the complete bollocks of your apparant attempt to use that meaning as evidence that magnetosound did not understand English.
I wasn't saying you got the meaning wrong, I was saying that your argument (and the insult to magnetosound contained therein) was bollocks.
Like I said, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and put it down to a really bad joke on your part.
| Quote: |
No! It was neither. But it was rather amusing. It’s well known, that I like humour. And that I’ve always found it rather funny. |
I'm sorry to have to break thiis to you, since it seems that humour is one of your great loves... but you're really not very good at it.. at least not online. Maybe you're a hoot in person, but on here... it fails.
| Quote: |
The gentleman chose to combatively berate me unnecessarily. |
After you'd chosen to write an unnecessarily pompous and offensive post, so as my mum would say, "six to one and half a dozen to the other"
| Quote: |
So I amused myself, and plenty of others, at his expense, as an appreciation. |
I may be wrong, people can be unpredictable, but I suspect most of the laughter you heard was your own.
| Quote: |
Although somewhat out of character, I have made the exception, of doing the same to you. |
It remains to be seen how out of character it is
| Quote: |
Again, with respect, you appear to have run out of words, and are simply regurgitating what I have already written about you. |
I don't know whether this is you trying to be funny, or just an illustration that you don't get my humour any more than I get yours.
| Quote: |
“I just enjoy showing pompous idiots up for what they are. I also have a love of facts, truth, science, engineering and logic.” Well, you are using a lot of insulting words towards me, that don’t require the type of highly imaginative, creative input, I have humorous deployed at your expense. |
Ah, so insults are ok if you judge them to be humourous, imaginative and creative?
| Quote: |
There surely must be something to learn from this banal display regarding the limitations of your capabilities. |
As there is to be learned from your repeated retreats into removing statements from context in an attempt to show that you never said "x".
| Quote: |
Why do you enjoy showing people up? |
Generally I don't, but bringing pompous idiots down to earth with a bang is always a pleasure. You appear to feel the same way, going by the lengths to which you respond to my posts, we just have different opinions as to which of us is the pompous idiot.
Perhaps we are both right in that respect.
| Quote: |
Are you compensating, for a deep seated inner lack within? Do you have a very low sense of self-esteem, an inferiority complex? Thus by showing others up ameliorate the deepest, darkest moments that haunt your innermost void? |
Right back atcha on that one
(and yes, I know that's not in the bloody OED)
| Quote: |
Jon with the best possible good will, consider this, because essentially you have made the same mistake Joshua has. |
PP, you have not shown me any goodwill to date, so it's completely disingenous of you to say that. When faced with what you later claimed to be my misunderstanding of your position, you chose insults over clarification, when presented with my public apology, you chose more insults over acceptance. When I explained in all honesty what I meant by certain statements, you chose to throw dictionary definitions of the words I had used at me and claim that they showed that my meaning was quite different, and obvious (a complete non sequiteur by the way).. thus in effect calling me a liar and challenging my personal integrity.
You may have thought you were being funny, you may not have meant any great insult, people on here who I like and respect seem to like you, so I have to believe that there is a nice guy in there... but that is not how you presented it nor how it was interpreted, and you made no attempt to resolve any such misinterpretation if it indeed occured, prefering to continue with your insults.
| Quote: |
You talk of a love of facts and truth... In reality, in this Forum, you have appeared to make yourself, The Absolute Judge of Truth. The Arbiter Elegantiarum of what is veridical, accurate and authoritative. You entirely dismiss the profoundly deep experience of others. Whose life view does not accord with your own. |
No, not at all. I present verifiable facts as such, I attempt to explain the logic of my reasoning from anything I derive from those facts, and opinions and conjecture are generally presented as such.
| Quote: |
Of course, what little knowledge of facts and truth you possess, is strictly limited to your own diminutive personal understanding. |
Diminutive in respect to what? All the knowledge in the world? Most definately... in respect to yours? hmmm, there are things you know more about than I do, no question, but overall... I see no proof of it and certain evidence to the contrary.
Of course that is my opinion based on incomplete evidence, not an absolute verifiable fact.
| Quote: |
But Truth is genuinely greater, far more expansive, than your personal understanding of it. |
If we're goiug to go into philosophy then you're right... that's why I generally stick to things which are verifiable. Science, history, mathematics, engineering.
| Quote: |
Whilst you may strive to grasp a specific facet of a particular truth. Others may already grasp a different facet altogether. Of the same Truth, in reality. |
Ah yes, we are getting into airy fairy philosophy now aren't we?
Like i said, that's why I like to keep myself in the world of 2+2=4, and when I wander beyond it into conjecture or opinion I freely admit it to be such.
| Quote: |
Truth is so much more than you are willing to consider. |
Who are you to know what I am willing to consider?
| Quote: |
You have repeatedly placed yourself upon a very high pedestal from which you denigrate the Truth others have experienced and shared. |
And where have I done that? What "Truth" have I denigrated? My discussions on here have with little exception been about things which are either verifiable or logical deductions from things that are verifiable.
| Quote: |
You have over stretched yourself, and adopted a mandate, you do not, in fact, possess. You have usurped a high and loftily position, from which to utterly fall. |
I do fall on occasion, I get things wrong, it happens. When it does I try to swallow the embarassment, admit my mistakes, fulfill my responsibilities, and carry on in the best way I know how.
| Quote: |
It is no secret, that... It is my profound belief, that your whole outlook of life is fundamentally based upon a lie. |
Funnily enough, that's exactly what I think about yours.
| Quote: |
An attempt to use a pseudo intellectual approach to justify your musings. |
ditto.
| Quote: |
But you will ultimately, find, that the unbelievably Thin shell of the ego sphere you live in Is extremely easily shattered By the awesomely Dramatic Events Of Life. |
You might be right at that... but then it's a danger we all face, just some of us are perhaps too busy telling others to notice their own predicament.
| Quote: |
“Oh, such hurtful comments from such an insightful individual, how will I possibly recover?” This appears to the very type of childish reaction that Brad has complained of. My comments are not, as it happens, intended to be hurtful. |
Well if they are not then I have to point out that your choice of language sucks, because they are hurtful.
| Quote: |
But they are correctional and an acute observation. You are habitually to be found. In the Saloon. |
Yeah, I like it here. I learn a lot from the discussions and have fun with the jokes... seems like a good place to me
| Quote: |
Seriously in conflict With someone or other, quite regularly |
And if I was in the same pub as those individuals we'd probably in equal confict at times, but I'd still be buying beers.
| Quote: |
That’s why I was pulling your leg, so much, Jon. |
Try building up a relationship with someone before you start "pulling their leg". What between people who know each other is merely a bit of humour, can be insulting and deeply hurtful between people who do not.
| Quote: |
In spite of all these matters, I trust that you will appreciate that despite my profound directness. In reality I have no ill will toward you whatever. And hope that you will come, to realise this. As you deeply meditate and reflect. Upon these things. |
And perhaps you could meditate on this...
Whatever your intent, whether or not you consider yourself to be intellectually, educational or morally superior to others, whether you are itentionally hurtful and insulting or it is an attempt at humour...
It may be that people who know you get to understand and appreciate your ways, and it's ok for you to converse with them in your normal way.
But I say with all honesty that to someone who does not know you...
what you say and how you say it does you no favours, and gives te impression that you consider yourself to be intellectually, educationally and morally superior to others and that you are intentionally hurtful and insulting.
So if that isn't your meaning, and I hope it is not, then I recommend you consider what you say more carefully in future... as must I.
Post by: MagnetoSound on March 19, 2008, 12:28:29 PM
There is nothing I could add, that could not
rightly be deemed to be superfluous.
(Except for one thing, though.)
Those last three words,
of your last post,
might just be
superfluous.
Dan
Post by: PP on April 04, 2008, 04:43:54 AM
Post by: Jon Hodgson on April 04, 2008, 07:48:11 AM
It is rather hard to establish exactly what PP said in our previous discussion, since it appears all his posts have been wiped, the only parts still readable to me are those quoted in my posts, but I have no reason to doubt him on the accuracy of his previous statement.
Therefore I would like to publically apologize for saying that he called me an idiot in that conversation. What I should have said was that I felt that he intimated that I was an idiot whilst simultaneously displaying a lack of reading comprehension and/or logical debating ability, but at no time did he use the actual word "idiot".
Just in case anybody got the wrong impression from my previous post I would also like to apologize if anyone got the impression that at any time PP actually called me a liar, he merely repeated several times that I was arguing merely to be contrarian or playing devil's advocate after I had clearly and unambiguously stated that it was an honest disagreement based on what appeared to be a misunderstanding of his original claim (I said appeared because I never got what was to my mind an unambiguous clarification of his original claim, despite asking for it)... thus only implying that I was a liar.
Post by: Bill Mueller on April 04, 2008, 03:04:44 PM
| Jon Hodgson wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 07:48 |
Ok, I'll keep this simple, and address it to the whole forum... It is rather hard to establish exactly what PP said in our previous discussion, since it appears all his posts have been wiped, the only parts still readable to me are those quoted in my posts, but I have no reason to doubt him on the accuracy of his previous statement. Therefore I would like to publically apologize for saying that he called me an idiot in that conversation. What I should have said was that I felt that he intimated that I was an idiot whilst simultaneously displaying a lack of reading comprehension and/or logical debating ability, but at no time did he use the actual word "idiot". Just in case anybody got the wrong impression from my previous post I would also like to apologize if anyone got the impression that at any time PP actually called me a liar, he merely repeated several times that I was arguing merely to be contrarian or playing devil's advocate after I had clearly and unambiguously stated that it was an honest disagreement based on what appeared to be a misunderstanding of his original claim (I said appeared because I never got what was to my mind an unambiguous clarification of his original claim, despite asking for it)... thus only implying that I was a liar. |
Well this sucks.
PP, I regularly go back to your posts when I have the time and reread and reread them to get the full meaning and nuance. I am very saddened that you have pulled them from the forum. We are very much worse off for it.
There are MANY of us who cherish your long winded, exquisitely crafted, deeply opinionated posts. I would not trade one of your posts for a thousand sarcastic quips that we are subjected to by many others on this sometimes serious/sometimes not forum.
Please do not let this be a harbinger of the future.
Best Regards,
Bill
Post by: studiojimi on April 04, 2008, 03:10:58 PM
| Bill Mueller wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 12:04 |
There are MANY of us who cherish your long winded, exquisitely crafted, deeply opinionated posts. I would not trade one of your posts for a thousand sarcastic quips that we are subjected to by many others on this sometimes serious/sometimes not forum. Please do not let this be a harbinger of the future. Best Regards, Bill |
what's a little sucking between colleagues and peers.
Post by: Barkley McKay on April 04, 2008, 03:19:07 PM
| Bill Mueller wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 20:04 |
Well this sucks. PP, I regularly go back to your posts when I have the time and reread and reread them to get the full meaning and nuance. I am very saddened that you have pulled them from the forum. We are very much worse off for it. There are MANY of us who cherish your long winded, exquisitely crafted, deeply opinionated posts. I would not trade one of your posts for a thousand sarcastic quips that we are subjected to by many others on this sometimes serious/sometimes not forum. Please do not let this be a harbinger of the future. Best Regards, Bill |
I too enjoy them and find them informative, educating and entertaining. Great to have a cup of tea with first thing in the morning.
It seems every single post has been deleted on other threads too as if they have a limited shelf life.
Very sad.
regards
Barkley
Post by: maxim on April 04, 2008, 06:19:52 PM
very secretive, this pp...
Post by: rankus on April 05, 2008, 01:27:37 PM
Yes Peter, please don't punish everyone for the rudeness of one two individuals. I too, hold your input in high regard, and it's painful to see the posts pulled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 05, 2008, 01:31:02 PM
Post by: Jon Hodgson on April 05, 2008, 02:27:26 PM
| rankus wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 18:27 |
Yes Peter, please don't punish everyone for the rudeness of one two individuals. I too, hold your input in high regard, and it's painful to see the posts pulled. |
I think I should point out that a large portion of PP's older posts (in other threads) were already deleted when I looked weeks ago, it was those posts that I was referring to in my previous post. So this seems to be a pattern, not a one off reaction to things said in this thread.
The posts in this thread were only removed after my last post, which dissappoints me as much as you, but for a different reason.
Post by: compasspnt on April 07, 2008, 07:48:24 AM
Post by: dcollins on April 07, 2008, 03:44:01 PM
| compasspnt wrote on Mon, 07 April 2008 04:48 |
Miss you P. |
As soon as we see a PP post just quote the whole thing back. For "posterity."
DC
Post by: compasspnt on April 08, 2008, 12:09:50 AM
Post by: i dig music on April 08, 2008, 01:29:51 AM
I to have enjoyed his extrapolations, but at times questioned his writing "style" and implications. I have been told to "read between the lines" of PP, which is quite funny when you think about it.
And yes, I have seen others, besides myself, question and wonder about PP's eccentric ways and demeanor, but with absolutely know reference or knowledge to where or why his musings exist..... or come from, how should one who is not vetted respond............. when they are feeling indifferent?
This is unfair to basic forum decorum, and I find it quite amazing that the "many" would like to blame the "few"........ and for what? If anyone here, known or unknown, began to delete their entire post body every time they get upset due to a difference of opinion, or because their content or thought process was challenged, they'd be banned in a blink of an eye for that sort of continuous behavior.
I understand there are times and reasons ones privacy needs to be protected, but if your going to step out into the real world, don't expect anyone, to NOT question words and opinions which are hidden behind a mysterious visage. Plus, as Bill M. recently suggested in a post on another thread to a new member, the original idea of this forum was to use your real name to avoid bullshit like this.
But, if the moderators conclude some are exempt from the rules, we can certainly respect their judgement because of what they offer and contribute to this forum, and because of who they are and what we know of them. I just feel that the special privileges of anonymity, makes it to easy for anyone to feel emboldened or entitled. Sorry if this offends anyone, it is not my intention at all, but I do feel that it pertains.
Post by: studiojimi on April 08, 2008, 01:58:44 AM
Aren't you glad you picked up on this pre-freshened perfectly primed post, a plenty low priced but piss-powerful, pretty pack o' pretentious pulp to pulverize your passionate potential precisely programmed and peppered for your preoccupied perception?
Post by: Bill Mueller on April 08, 2008, 09:19:43 AM
There have been a couple of people on Whatever Works that the moderators have chosen to allow to hide their real names. At the moment Bigaudioblowhard is the only one that I know of. As far as I know, PP is Peter Poyser. We have known Peter for many years on Terry's forums, GM's Reason in Audio and other forums before that. So he is not unknown.
I'm sure that you would agree that the vast majority of forum posts, even on Whatever Works, are just casual comments, with little research and factual foundation. They are OPINIONS. As far as that goes, it is ok. Others are infantile blabbering, like studiojimi's post below, designed just for school yard taunting. Useless in an attempted exchange between adults.
However, (and I try hard to contribute when possible) some people are here to actually exchange KNOWLEDGE. Peter was one of them. I could actually LEARN SOMETHING reading his posts. Yes, he appears eccentric and opinionated, but he always contributed knowledge and most times deep wisdom.
Now, the last series of exchanges on this forum were really unfortunate. Unfortunate for everyone, because some of my favorite forum members got into pissing matches unnecessarily. Peter too, became mean spirited and could have backed out but chose not to.
I really do hope he comes back and contributes more. I'm not done learning.
Best Regards,
Bill
Post by: MagnetoSound on April 08, 2008, 09:39:13 AM
It is, as Jon points out, interesting that Peter's posts began to disappear a while ago. I noticed it too - a process which seemed to start with the oldest first and then work forwards in time to the most recent. In fact, he was still posting on some topics as these deletions were taking place! Therefore, as Jon suggests, this seems to be a premeditated act on Peter's behalf.
Now, if the fact that Peter has decided to remove all of his content from this site is, indeed, due to the skirmish that has taken place in this thread - then perhaps this act is nothing more than a petulant display of pique, procured to protract personal patronage and promulgate persecution.
Or, just maybe, he feels that his pearls of wisdom have been cast before (one or two) swine.
I am willing to bet that it is neither.
While I fully support Jon's comments regarding Peter's inability to get his humour across, I do not feel that Peter is by any means a vindictive person by nature - rather, that he is in fact a little too susceptible to taking any criticism of his communication skills too much to heart.
I will state for the record that I too have found Peter's contributions, in general, very enjoyable reading and immensely informative - not only in areas in which I may have little or no experience (his recent contribution on conducting in the arrangement thread, for example), but also in those areas in which I feel experienced enough to express an opinion (the pop shield thread, where we happened to find ourselves in some agreement) - and I will be one of those who will miss them if they do not return.
I am not one of those who takes exception to somebody's writing style purely for the sake of it, or because I find it difficult reading.
My original post in this thread (it is still there if you wish to find it) was intended to be nothing more than a mildly ironic criticism of Peter's first post, which I felt was unnecessarily unkind towards another individual - something for which I have no time, and no stomach. I also wanted to highlight the difference in tone between his post and every other, and the fact that it completely altered the tone of the entire thread thereafter.
Peter subsequently claimed that I had missed the irony in it. Perhaps I did, but no more than he missed the irony in my initial post, too.
All I did was to call it a pompous post.
There was no personal criticism attached - I did not call him, for example, 'a pompous man'.
And had I not received a tirade of personal invective in retaliation, the matter would have blown over quite easily, and with a minimum of disturbance.
While this, and later retorts, may have been made with some attempt at humour, I - and others - did not find it discernable, and this point has been made well by Jon.
I sincerely hope that Peter will return to this forum and that, when he does, this minor shortcoming in his truly tremendous writing style will have been given some consideration.
I trust that he will.
Best regards to all,
Dan
Post by: studiojimi on April 08, 2008, 01:34:29 PM
is a cool cat in my book
i hope he returns and drops some more love on us.
and i wish he received PMs as i'd love to talk to the cat.
Post by: ssltech on April 08, 2008, 04:29:03 PM
Nobody's keeping you from talking to the cat.
Meanwhile, I'll see if I can talk Peter into accepting PM's.
Keef