On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:09:54 -0500, Doug Payne
wrote:

On 18/01/2007 12:27 PM, Robatoy wrote:

I always thought a flashlight was just that. Now I'm finding out that
some flashlights will show the molecular structure of moose-snot in the
middle of the night! (-----that is a Canadian thing..try not to read
too much into that..*G*)

Hey, I'm from up here too, and I've been close enough to check out that
structure; it ain't purty (neither is Bea Arthur :-)

Too much information.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:49:30 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

"Look" not any significant improvement in signal quality.

You just brought a smile to an old Shure Brother engineering tech.

Want to berate Dr. Bose please do.

Mark
(sixoneeight) = 618

Markem wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:49:30 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

"Look" not any significant improvement in signal quality.

You just brought a smile to an old Shure Brother engineering tech.

Want to berate Dr. Bose please do.


As a former touring sound guy with buddies employed by Mark Levinson /
Madrigal (well, formerly sin JBL came along...) and Sennheiser, looking
at stats and lab measurements, I can also try to berate Dr. Bose all day
long. As pro gear goes, "No highs, no lows, must be Bose!" G

However!

1.) NOTHING works and is as durable and all-day comfortable as their
pilot's ANR headsets. Nada! Pilots who actually try them in flight
still willingly plunk down $900+ bucks for them. "Bose Killers" come
and go with the seasons in flying magazines.

2.) I still haven't found anything that sounds as good to a
non-audiophile, with similar performance in a similar package, as those
overpriced Wave table radio / cd players. Is the bass muddy? Yeah.
Can you vary the tone? No. But so many LIKE them!

I know more people who are simply "music lovers", who don't know what
SPL or THD or "Q" mean (and don't want to), who absolutely love the
sound and the size of those things. I've got to admit that they're
plenty listenable in the right room with an Ipod or CD, and it's the
size of a clock radio. My wife has one particular CD, a Krishna Das w/
Walter Becker "chanting" disc that actually sounds incredibly clear and
full on it, while playing rather loud. The spec reader in me didn't
_want_ to like it, but I do. G

"B A R R Y" wrote in message

full on it, while playing rather loud. The spec reader in me didn't
_want_ to like it, but I do. G

As you know: Well known phenomenon in the studio control room - listen long
enough over a set of speakers and, aurally speaking, anything sounds "good".

What the silly audiophile industry (fueled by those of a remarkable
condescending nature in pursuit of what they are being duped into imagining
is the ultimate (at the moment) of "recorded sound", and perpetuated by
marketing geniuses who wouldn't know a hertz from a rental car) has NEVER
taken into account is the simple fact that:

ANYONE who wasn't in that SPECIFIC control room, and listening to the
subject mix over that SPECIFIC set of speakers, has absolutely NO earthly
idea of what ANY recording is intended to sound like!

I guarantee that that is a _infu*&kingarguable FACT that can be put in their
respective pipes and smoked 'til Roger Nichols and Steely Dan can't be
uttered in the same breath.

There ... I feel better already.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07

What the silly audiophile industry (fueled by those of a remarkable
condescending nature in pursuit of what they are being duped into imagining
is the ultimate (at the moment) of "recorded sound", and perpetuated by
marketing geniuses who wouldn't know a hertz from a rental car) has NEVER
taken into account is the simple fact that:

For just a brief minute there I thought I was reading rec.audio.* back
in the '80s :-)

"Doug Payne" wrote in message
What the silly audiophile industry (fueled by those of a remarkable
condescending nature in pursuit of what they are being duped into
imagining
is the ultimate (at the moment) of "recorded sound", and perpetuated by
marketing geniuses who wouldn't know a hertz from a rental car) has
NEVER
taken into account is the simple fact that:

For just a brief minute there I thought I was reading rec.audio.* back
in the '80s :-)

.... and I too was there. Even Fletcher had a hard time keeping up in those
days.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07

Swingman wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

, and perpetuated by
marketing geniuses who wouldn't know a hertz from a rental car) has NEVER
taken into account is the simple fact that:

At the NRC in Ottawa we used: "he can't tell a door bell from a
decibel"
Transducers fall under the EE side of research and consequently
psycho-acoustics.
My mentor at the time, Dr. Floyd Toole, went on to Harman International
where he applied the NRC's findings to JBL's research.
One time, early on, it dawned on me that the recording process is like
a stack of glass panes, where each pane represents a component in the
audio chain. From Ella's vocal chords to my ears is a loooong series of
components, mics, wires, transistors, tubes, interconnects, wires, 'a
recording engineer's idea of what is right' amplifiers, speakers, Rob's
ears. Rob's ears in Rob's room, NOT the ballroom where Ella sang...MY
room.

If each and every one of those panes of glass (let's say 50 of them?)
was perfectly clean/flat.. even 50 would cloud the original view. ONE
dirty pane and it no longer matters how clean the others are. If the
studio monitors are bass shy, the engineer jacks up the low-end and the
original picture is thereby NO LONGER ORIGINAL. He has added an opinion
and a compensation.


ANYONE who wasn't in that SPECIFIC control room, and listening to the
subject mix over that SPECIFIC set of speakers, has absolutely NO earthly
idea of what ANY recording is intended to sound like!

The magic word here is INTENDED. That's what we're doing now, we create
illusions/sounds in such a way that they are pleasing. Computer
controlled voice/pitch compensation (without which Celine would suck
even worse)
We are Photoshopping for the ears. Ear Candy. We love **** that lies,
Kodachrome 'enhanced' yellows and red, we loved it!
Karl Rove should have been a recording engineer. (Sorry..too funny to
pass up.)

Alan Parsons, as an example from a list of hundreds, 'created' Abbey
Road, Dark Side Of The Moon, as we got to know it.
Recording engineers are best when they are musicians themselves. Now
they are also recoding [sic] engineers.

Now, having said all this ****, one of my favourite DVD's these days,
is a bootleg from Live At The Summit. Mid-70's. 3/4" video tape. Two
stationary cameras, sound straight out of the board to the VTR...bad
dynamic range, high distortion, lousy video.
The Who (with Moon) at their best...fu*cking glorious!!! I don't need
no stinking candy.. I like my sound raw....well..I also have a CD where
Larry Carlton makes some sweet candy-like noises.. at least he does it
at instrument level. (Keep your shirts on folks, just an example.)

I guarantee that that is a _infu*&kingarguable FACT that can be put in their
respective pipes and smoked 'til Roger Nichols and Steely Dan can't be
uttered in the same breath.

There ... I feel better already.

Amen brother Swing, will there be a collection plate? *G* I have heard
the Light!
Do I like music? Is my play-room warm because of high amplifier idling
currents?

You know what's weird about all this? I listen to my XM via a Milwaukee
contruction-site radio at my shop, and I'm pretty frickin' content.

*slaps self* "It's the music, stupid!"

Doug Payne wrote:
What the silly audiophile industry (fueled by those of a remarkable
condescending nature in pursuit of what they are being duped into imagining
is the ultimate (at the moment) of "recorded sound", and perpetuated by
marketing geniuses who wouldn't know a hertz from a rental car) has NEVER
taken into account is the simple fact that:

For just a brief minute there I thought I was reading rec.audio.* back
in the '80s :-)

Can I take my CD player out of the box filled with green sand now?

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
. net...

Snip


I know more people who are simply "music lovers", who don't know what SPL
or THD or "Q" mean (and don't want to), who absolutely love the sound and
the size of those things. I've got to admit that they're plenty
listenable in the right room with an Ipod or CD, and it's the size of a
clock radio.

Not to discredit those people but probably few of them have ever been in a
music hall with fine acustics to know that there are sounds that are created
that the CD or Ipod will never reproduce.

"Robatoy" wrote in message

*slaps self* "It's the music, stupid!"


or ... I would rather listen to a bad recording of a good song, than a good
recording of a bad song!

fini, EOF.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07

"Swingman" wrote in message
"B A R R Y" wrote in message

full on it, while playing rather loud. The spec reader in me didn't
_want_ to like it, but I do. G

As you know: Well known phenomenon in the studio control room - listen
long
enough over a set of speakers and, aurally speaking, anything sounds
"good".

What the silly audiophile industry (fueled by those of a remarkable
condescending nature in pursuit of what they are being duped into
imagining
is the ultimate (at the moment) of "recorded sound", and perpetuated by
marketing geniuses who wouldn't know a hertz from a rental car) has NEVER
taken into account is the simple fact that:

ANYONE who wasn't in that SPECIFIC control room, and listening to the
subject mix over that SPECIFIC set of speakers, has absolutely NO earthly
idea of what ANY recording is intended to sound like!


All this recording stuff brings back memories. I used to be a recording
techie and produced voice only programs.

My favorite story is about some JBL monitors I installed in my studio. They
were the AM radio ones so they had no high end. Which was fine for me
because I was recording voice only material.

I would put on some music now and then. People would walk into the studio
and immediately exclaim that these were wonderful speakers that had a
crystal clear high end. And nothing I said would sway them from that
position. I would show them the frequency response test chart that came with
the speakers when I bought them. I would scream, "See, there is no high end.
These are AM monitor speakers. Which means that they have the same
frequency range as an AM radio."

Nothing I said mattered. They were unimpressed with the chart. It sounded
clear, so they created a nice high end for something that had no high end. A
total psycho-acoustic effect.

"Leon" wrote in message
. net...

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
. net...

Snip


I know more people who are simply "music lovers", who don't know what
SPL
or THD or "Q" mean (and don't want to), who absolutely love the sound
and
the size of those things. I've got to admit that they're plenty
listenable in the right room with an Ipod or CD, and it's the size of a
clock radio.

Not to discredit those people but probably few of them have ever been in a
music hall with fine acustics to know that there are sounds that are
created
that the CD or Ipod will never reproduce.

Or mics to pick them up in the first place, or speakers to reproduce them
before they get to the final judge - the psychoacoustic properties of the
individual human ear.

But to me what is really interesting/intriguing, and that anyone who has
ever spent much time *mixing" in the studio can attest to, is the fact that
there are often things you may hear in a mix/audience that are not actually
recorded/played, but come from a combination of recorded/played
sounds/instruments.

Indeed, there are some symphonies that intentionally have "ghost" parts that
are "heard" by the audience, despite the fact that no one is actually
playing that part.

I love that!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07

"Lee Michaels" wrote in message

crystal clear high end. And nothing I said would sway them from that
position.
^^^^^
Key word!

As you well know, and despite the best efforts of acoustic engineers, all
rooms have areas (sometimes quite small, so small that the simple turn of
your head will bring it into play) where a particular frequency combines, or
cancels, to create a standing wave "node". If you happen to be in that node
(position), then what you hear therein is often startlingly not even close
to the original.

IOW, there are areas in a room where highs that aren't in the original may
indeed be accentuated, or the bass or mids attenuated, to the point of
fooling the ear.

IME, and in keeping with Murphy ... particularly in a strange control room,
there are generally one or two of these nodes _right_ where the mix engineer
sits to mix, and just waiting to bite him in the butt. DAMHIKT.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

Or mics to pick them up in the first place, or speakers to reproduce them
before they get to the final judge - the psychoacoustic properties of the
individual human ear.

But to me what is really interesting/intriguing, and that anyone who has
ever spent much time *mixing" in the studio can attest to, is the fact
that
there are often things you may hear in a mix/audience that are not
actually
recorded/played, but come from a combination of recorded/played
sounds/instruments.

Exactly. It was a long time ago but when I was still in school and in the
choir, our instructor would record our practice sessions. Very low tech but
it always sounded different to us. We were not looking for a quality
playback so much as sounds that we would improve upon in a particualr hall.
We could not hear the sounds when singing but the recorder would let us hear
the problems.

Indeed, there are some symphonies that intentionally have "ghost" parts
that
are "heard" by the audience, despite the fact that no one is actually
playing that part.

I love that!

Exactly! There is nothing like live and no electronics.

Lee Michaels wrote:


Nothing I said mattered. They were unimpressed with the chart. It sounded
clear, so they created a nice high end for something that had no high end. A
total psycho-acoustic effect.

If the speaker put out meaningful soundpressure at 8K, and had enemic
LF output, the illusion of 'highs' would be there.
Next question would be who/how the charts were created. Was it a
composite including off-axis response as well?

"Robatoy" wrote in message

If the speaker put out meaningful soundpressure at 8K, and had enemic
LF output, the illusion of 'highs' would be there.
Next question would be who/how the charts were created. Was it a
composite including off-axis response as well?

Hush now ... you're bringing back bad memories.

At one time it was required knowledge to even walk into a studio control
room, and I learned/knew it cold, well enough to eventually own/run a
commercial recording studio (still do, but no longer operate, or even
participate, unless at the point of a gun).

But now it's so nice to be able to just sit back and LISTEN, without all the
analytical details that are absolutely necessary into creating a modern
commercial recording, no matter how "golden eared" you are!

I never thought that getting older, no longer having that quality, and
actually knowing when to quit, could be so pleasant. I wonder how Bruce
(Swieden) still does it?

(Actually, I do know/understand the psychoacoustic "why" of "how" he does
it, but like your quote above, it makes me tired thinking about it!)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07

Swingman wrote:
If you happen to be in that node
(position), then what you hear therein is often startlingly not even close
to the original.

Don't you just love those guys who are trying to fit a 30 Hz wave (38
feet long) into
7-foot car? (Even a 1/4 wave is still almost 10 feet long.)
A goofball, in his riced-out Civic was beside me at the lights a few
days ago, windows up (it's cold) must been some loud in there as *MY*
review mirror was vibrating.
As he looked around, he saw me looking at him and he had such a vacuous
look, that I burst out laughing. When the light turned green, he
retaliated by accelerating away making all kinds of racket...and I blew
his doors off....with my van.
I guess it wasn't his day.

Mythbusters disproved the existence of The Brown Note.

"Robatoy" wrote in message

Mythbusters disproved the existence of The Brown Note.

But bass players (young one's, that is) routinely prove the existence of The
Pink Note.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07

Leon wrote:


Not to discredit those people but probably few of them have ever been in a
music hall with fine acustics to know that there are sounds that are created
that the CD or Ipod will never reproduce.

I wife has heard the identical performance in both a 30 seat room and a
"real" concert hall.

Robatoy wrote:

Mythbusters disproved the existence of The Brown Note.

That episode reminded me of Servodrive's late 80's AES demos where they
blew out candles. G

Robatoy wrote:

*slaps self* "It's the music, stupid!"


I hear that! G

Swingman wrote:

As you well know, and despite the best efforts of acoustic engineers, all
rooms have areas (sometimes quite small, so small that the simple turn of
your head will bring it into play) where a particular frequency combines, or
cancels, to create a standing wave "node". If you happen to be in that node
(position), then what you hear therein is often startlingly not even close
to the original.

Swingman,

Think about that, and this:

Negotiating night after night to place the console in a spot where those
standing wave and comb filtered areas are favorably used to create the
best possible product for the audience. Remember...

1.) You've never been in the room before, so you have little time to try
to locate them. By the time power can be applied, it's too late to
move. Your main tool is an Anvil briefcase you can have dropped on the
floor and listen to the returns and decay as you move around.
2.) The house management might not be so thrilled at your solution.
3.) Last night was a wonderful sounding 5000 seat theater, tonight is a
brick and glass university "field house" designed for basketball and
indoor football practice, and tomorrow is a former bowling alley,
department store, airplane hanger, you name it. G

It's all even more interesting if you flew into town this morning in a
pressurized aircraft.

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
Swingman wrote:

As you well know, and despite the best efforts of acoustic engineers,
all
rooms have areas (sometimes quite small, so small that the simple turn
of
your head will bring it into play) where a particular frequency
combines, or
cancels, to create a standing wave "node". If you happen to be in that
node
(position), then what you hear therein is often startlingly not even
close
to the original.

Swingman,

Think about that, and this:

It's all even more interesting if you flew into town this morning in a
pressurized aircraft.

My sincerest sympathies ... I hope you've been able to recover and, except
for the wooddorker part, lead a normal life?

Like a good little musikian/recording engineer, in the earlier days I
supplemented my income with live sound gigs. Not stadium size events like
you, but a few well known traveling acts in the larger local clubs and at
festivals, so I can definitely feel your pain, to a limited extent.

For the most part I hated it! ... particularly when the drunk fans/lead
singer's GF/Lead guitar players GF, etc, could actually get to you at the
mixing console ... my hats off to you and you have my undying respect and
sympathy.

The latter because you might actually need therapy later in life to deal
with the PTD!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/06/07

I have several of these flashlights...and I do agree with the review.

Good flashlight.

Great design.

TMT

J. Clarke wrote:
On 17 Jan 2007 06:15:51 -0800, "Bill Leonhardt"
wrote:

Any body got one of these?

I received the Stanley Tripod Flashlight (model 95-112) as a late
holiday president and fired it up yesterday for the first time. It has
6 LED bulbs and uses up to 9 AA batteries. You can switch on 1, 2 or
all 6 lamps.

Well I put in the 9 batteries (all new), stood in the dark and switched
on all 6 lamps. In my opinion, the light output is pitiful. Most of
my ordinary flashlights are better.

So, is it just me, or did I get a bad one? Does anyone else have one
of these? What is your opinion/experience?

There's a review of it at
http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/stanley_max-t.htm. There
are comparison charts on that site--with all six LEDs going on fresh
batteries it should be more or less comparable to a mini-maglite.

LED flashlights generally aren't bright--their strengths are the
evenness of the illumination, longevity, and battery life--with 9
batteries in it that Stanley should run for days on one LED.

Use it for a while and I think it will grow on you--first time I tried
an LED flashlight I was hooked, but I still keep a fairly powerful
incandescent for those situations in which I really need brightness or
a long reach.

Thanks,

Bill Leonhardt