Hi everyone!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Just to let you know, I apologize for posting
large documents here and will refrain from
it in the future.
For those that are interested in some of my
recording techniques (yes it's only my opinion)
Pleasse go to

http://groups-beta.google.com/grou [...] Techniques

Wishing you all the best

Kevin Doyle

Ps I would love to hear what some of you are doing

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Terry <qazterkel@operamail.com> wrote:

>kevindoylemusic@rogers.com wrote:
>
>> For those that are interested in some of my
>> recording techniques (yes it's only my opinion)

>Amusingly, some of the regular pos(t)ers seem to think that beginners will
>not understand this. (the idea that its only your opinion).
>
>They obviously must think that 'beginners' in this subject are also
>beginners in life.
>Now is that stupidity or just the expected arrogance that is part of the
>bundle you get with these sort of people?
>
>Some have said that what you have posted is "entry level" stuff.
>So I would like to ask if anyone would like to post a few examples of
>'advanced' stuff? (just to give an indication of what is NOT 'entry level')

Terry,

May I suggest you visit:

http://www.recaudiopro.net/rapcds/vol_5/index.htm

and order the current five disc r.a.p. set, which includes a number of
examples from various members of our little group. Each disc runs about
78 minutes in length. You can look at the liner notes, which have a
fair amount of information about the recording, and the contributor.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Terry <qazterkel@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>Some have said that what you have posted is "entry level" stuff.
>So I would like to ask if anyone would like to post a few examples of
>'advanced' stuff? (just to give an indication of what is NOT 'entry level')

Look at the archives of the pro-audio list. Back when the Eternal September
began, most of the serious design folks left r.a.p for the pro-audio list
and the discussion there is much more technically 'advanced.'

But for the most part, this really isn't the place to post articles of any
sort. This is a discussion group. It's for discussions, not for hit and
run articles.

Also, some of the material in the articles is, well, sort of alarming, and
it has the basic tone of "this is how you do this, this is how you do that."
I think teaching that to students is a horrible mistake. I'd much rather
show "this is how this works, this is how that works" and let kids figure
out what to do with the individual techniques themselves.

I mean, if you memorize "the way to record a guitar" and "the way to record
drums," what do you do when someone sits down with a bandoneon? Why not
learn how to listen? If you learn to listen to how things sound, and how
they fit into an arrangement, you can record anything at all with a little
bit of fiddling.
--scott

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

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <Xns95FE2B80D4BABqazterkeloperamailco@193.252.117.183> qazterkel@operamail.com writes:

> Amusingly, some of the regular pos(t)ers seem to think that beginners will
> not understand this. (the idea that its only your opinion).
>
> They obviously must think that 'beginners' in this subject are also
> beginners in life.
> Now is that stupidity or just the expected arrogance that is part of the
> bundle you get with these sort of people?

Beginners at recording, by nature, are impatient. They've spent what
they think is a professional amount of money for professional
equipment and they want professional results - RIGHT NOW!. What they
don't understand is that any suggested procedure is what worked for
the writer under a certain set of conditions, and is just a suggestion
for a starting point.

If he doesn't have a C414, he needs to understand that it's OK for him
to try to follow the instructions using his $49 "LDC" and listen to
what he gets. Then experiment to see if he can improve it. He may end
up right back where he started, but unless he tries some variations,
he may miss something very important. And recording isn't just about
setting up gear and letting fly with the notes, it's about trying to
learn what variations are available and finding creative ways to use
them. This means that the CD isn't going to be finished by Saturday.

> Some have said that what you have posted is "entry level" stuff.
> So I would like to ask if anyone would like to post a few examples of
> 'advanced' stuff? (just to give an indication of what is NOT 'entry level')

Most "advanced stuff" is along the lines of what has worked in a
specific instance - just something to get you thinking about what else
you could try. On the other hand, some people think that listening
with two different monitors in the same room is "advanced stuff."

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

S O'Neill <nopsam@nospam.net> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> I mean, if you memorize "the way to record a guitar" and "the way to record
>> drums," what do you do when someone sits down with a bandoneon? Why not
>> learn how to listen?
>
>I can guarantee that if you open a studio, by the time you've been open
>a year you will have recorded things you didn't even know made noise,
>much less be played artistically.

Sure, anyone can record a lawnmower. But can they do it well?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Joe Sensor wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Sure, anyone can record a lawnmower. But can they do it well?
>
>
> I'd tip it up a bit, like a piano top. Don't use your good microphone
> though, flying debris can be a bitch.

Use a pop filter; it's pretty much like vocals after lunch.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David Morgan wrote:

> I'd probably use an omni dynamic to capture
> fleeing birds and small anmals

I use a double-barreled .410 shotgun for those.

--
ha

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
news:cusuak$jbu$1@panix2.panix.com:

> Terry <qazterkel@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Some have said that what you have posted is "entry level" stuff.
>>So I would like to ask if anyone would like to post a few examples of
>>'advanced' stuff? (just to give an indication of what is NOT 'entry
>>level')
>
> Look at the archives of the pro-audio list. Back when the Eternal
> September began, most of the serious design folks left r.a.p for the
> pro-audio list and the discussion there is much more technically
> 'advanced.'
>
> But for the most part, this really isn't the place to post articles of
> any sort. This is a discussion group. It's for discussions, not for
> hit and run articles.



Thanks, Scott. To be honest, I think you're right that RAP is not the
most apropriate place for those articles - I think I just reacted to the
bad reception some people gave him. I had just skimmed over his stuff, and
it seemed useful to anybody looking for that sort of material.

> Also, some of the material in the articles is, well, sort of alarming,
> and it has the basic tone of "this is how you do this, this is how you
> do that."

I know what your saying, although I didn't personally get that slant from
it - I imagined most people would just pick out what they wanted from it.
I think maybe we Brits (or Limeys as you say) are generally not quite as
'paint by numbers' as you Americans! (although the BBC sometimes had pretty
'narrow' ways of doing things)
I remember years ago reading some American Playboy magazines, and guys were
writing in to the mag, asking what tie they should wear, or which wine
they should drink! LOL. I think I probably got a certain impression of
Americans from that but I know, one shouldn't gereralize!


Regards,

Terry

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

S O'Neill <nopsam@nospam.net> wrote in
news:FuednTsxpvJVFYzfRVn-uA@omsoft.com:

> http://recaudiopro.net/faq/index.htm
>
> Hang out here and you'll see URLs pointing to the most amazing stuff.
> Material you've probably never thought about.
>
> Here's an example: Dan LaVry (http://www.lavryengineering.com/)
> managed to singlehandedly stand up against all the hyper-technoids and
> actually convince most of them of that Fs=192kHz is actually inferior
> to Fs=96kHz (until they change the laws of physics).

Thanks, I followed all the original threads on that one. Also, on the
Samplitude ng, we just had a big fight between Dan and another guy on that
same subject.

Regards,

Terry

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Terry wrote:

> Thanks, I followed all the original threads on that one. Also, on the
> Samplitude ng, we just had a big fight between Dan and another guy on that
> same subject.

Who won?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hank alrich wrote:

> (In his day he used it for everything from quail and dove to ducks and
> geese, but these days nobody makes steel shot for it because, obviously,
> a .410 isn't big enough to kill a goose... even though grandpa nearly
> always made his bag limit every time he went hunting. It's just like
> recording: everybody must have mo' tracks. <g> )

Steel shot!? I've bitten into enough of my lead in birds to
absolutely shudder at that thought. :-(


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I promise to go back under my rock & behave. I expected to be
somewhat deservedly chastized for that post, Terry. You're too
kind for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

"Terry" <qazterkel@operamail.com> wrote in message news:Xns95FF327A2F2C0qazterkeloperamailco@193.252.117.183...
> "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in
> news:QciQd.21597$uc.18256@trnddc02:

> I don't think even kids will interpret his article in
> that way. They CAN think, you know!

You're quite right... but I think you see both sides of the point, with clarity.

> > Just like you want some audio specifics, because you have the gaul to
>
> Gaul (gall?) good one! (I do live in France but I'm not french, I'm english)

You're going to let me off? <g> It may have ended as apt, but it was
indeed an issue for the spelling police initially.

> There are one or two main arseholes, plus several 'brown-nosers'(is that
> what they're called?) (sycophants make me cringe) who seem to take
> pleasure in belittling some other posters.

I've been know to sycophantize in my day, but I hope I'm not one of the
arses, at least not for any longer than it takes to make a quick fool of
myself.

> mostly on the Samp/Sequoia forum

Well then, I'm surprised Hank didn't kick my yankee arse right away.

> Anyway so what, it's more about truth than experience, don't you agree?

I think you've been in the people business before. ;-) It has to be about
both of those things.

DM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 06:45:19 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
<pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:

>
>"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
>news:cuukvb1s45@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>
>> Steel shot!? I've bitten into enough of my lead in birds to
>> absolutely shudder at that thought. :-(
>
>You prefer biting into lead?

Lead is certainly much kinder to your teeth. However, if you swallow
it, it's much less kind to your central nervous system, at least that
is how it has been reported.

Steel is much kinder to the predatory critters that end up eating the
one that got away. But lead deforms on contact much better, which
leads to less game getting away when a pot shot is taken.

Decisions, decisions....


====================
Tracy Wintermute
arrgh@greenapple.com
Rushcreek Ranch
====================

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Tracy Wintermute wrote:

> Lead is certainly much kinder to your teeth. However, if you swallow
> it, it's much less kind to your central nervous system, at least that
> is how it has been reported.

Is that true of elemental lead for the short time it is in
your system? I thought the heavy metals were only really
problematic in compounds where their ions can get loose in
solution and react with other things.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
news:cuuknm0s45@enews2.newsguy.com:

>
>
> Terry wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I followed all the original threads on that one. Also, on the
>> Samplitude ng, we just had a big fight between Dan and another guy on
>> that same subject.
>
> Who won?
>
>
> Bob



Nobody won. It got a bit petty from one poster, and he was chastised by
the guy who sort of runs the ng...

Regards,

Terry

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Terry wrote:
> Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
> news:cuuknm0s45@enews2.newsguy.com:
>
>
>
>> Terry wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, I followed all the original threads on that one. Also, on the
>>> Samplitude ng, we just had a big fight between Dan and another guy on
>>> that same subject.
>>
>> Who won?
>
>
>
> Nobody won. It got a bit petty from one poster, and he was chastised by
> the guy who sort of runs the ng...


After several members complained privately to me, I posted a little etiquette reminder.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> "Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote
>>Steel shot!? I've bitten into enough of my lead in birds to
>>absolutely shudder at that thought. :-(

Paul Stamler wrote:
> You prefer biting into lead?

Gold would be safer both ways, and the birds would be flattered.

Be thankful it's not depleted uranium shot.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Stamler wrote:

> Given the list of effects, I think I prefer to get my birds from the
> butcher, thank you.

You could spit out the metal chunks, but what will you do with the
antibiotics and hormones in the commercial meat? Chew faster to raise
the temperature? Yodel?

--
ha

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain wrote:

> Gidney and Cloyd wrote:

> > Be thankful it's not depleted uranium shot.

> Actually, I was thinking about possibly marketing that on a
> small scale. I think it has definite redneck appeal.

And you could even fake the stuff and it'd still sell bigtime.

BTW, if you need guitar strings:

http://www.knucklehead.com

--
ha

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Stamler wrote:
> "hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
> news:1gs3ng6.1sk16b7vwyncmN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
>
>>Paul Stamler wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Given the list of effects, I think I prefer to get my birds from the
>>>butcher, thank you.
>>
>>You could spit out the metal chunks, but what will you do with the
>>antibiotics and hormones in the commercial meat? Chew faster to raise
>>the temperature? Yodel?
>
>
> Well, there's that. When I'm feeling flush, I get organic chicken.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
>
what exactly would a inorganic chicken be composed of?
George

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

George Gleason wrote:
> Paul Stamler wrote:
>
>> "hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
>> news:1gs3ng6.1sk16b7vwyncmN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
>>
>>> Paul Stamler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Given the list of effects, I think I prefer to get my birds from the
>>>> butcher, thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>> You could spit out the metal chunks, but what will you do with the
>>> antibiotics and hormones in the commercial meat? Chew faster to raise
>>> the temperature? Yodel?
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, there's that. When I'm feeling flush, I get organic chicken.
>>
>> Peace,
>> Paul
>
>
> what exactly would a inorganic chicken be composed of?

You really don't want to know.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

S O'Neill wrote:
> George Gleason wrote:
>> Paul Stamler wrote:
>>> "hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1gs3ng6.1sk16b7vwyncmN%walkinay@thegrid.net...

>>>> You could spit out the metal chunks, but what will you do with the
>>>> antibiotics and hormones in the commercial meat?

>>> Well, there's that. When I'm feeling flush, I get organic chicken.

>> what exactly would a inorganic chicken be composed of?

> I thought they were all inorganic; are they *really* composed of
> hydrocarbons?

They're composed of lots of things, but most of it (except for
the water!!) is some kind of organic compound.

Muscle is largely protein, and proteins are big chains (polymers)
of amino acids. An amino acid has a carbon atom at the center.
They have an NH2 group, a COOH group, and some other thing (just
what depends on the particular amino acid) branching off the
central carbon atom. Often the other thing has lots of carbon
atoms in it, and most of the carbon atoms in the whole thing
have mostly hydrogen hanging off them.

So, no, not exclusively hydrocarbons, but then organic chemistry
isn't only about hydrocarbons.

- Logan, who prefers natural foods, since supernatural ones
make him nervous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Stamler wrote:

>>what exactly would a inorganic chicken be composed of?
>
>
> Elemental lead, of course. Which brings us full circle.



Lead in Environment Causing Violent Crime - Study
http://today.reuters.com/news/news [...] EAD-DC.XML