LS9/16 - not the desk for me
in [Live Sound]
|
From: Joe Kotroczo on 28 Nov 2008 18:27 On 25/11/08 18:32, in article 492C44D0.E6E941F2(a)hotmail.com, "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: (...) >> And the desk in question a 15 year old AMS-Neve Logic 2, recently replaced by >> a DFC Gemini? > > Not actually replaced. It's a module swap plus some processing cards into the > same frame. I'm astonished they still use the same frame they used 15 years ago. -- Joe Kotroczo kotroczo(a)mac.com
From: Joe Kotroczo on 28 Nov 2008 18:59 On 26/11/08 6:30, in article 492CECE8.D015699B(a)hotmail.com, "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Phildo wrote: > >> "British EQ" is nothing but marketing bullshit. > > Shows how little you know. > > No surprise though. And no, I won't tell you how because then every Chinese > rip-off company could do it too. "Recently, the term "British EQ" has popped up in our vocabulary. The British equalizers that I have used are all so radically different-sounding that this is, at best, an erroneous term. Let's clue the marketing departments that there is as much of a British EQ sound as there is a British compression sound, as there is a British mic placement sound...ad nauseam." says Fletcher. http://www.prosoundweb.com/recording/articles/fletch/part3_2.shtml -- Joe Kotroczo kotroczo(a)mac.com
From: Joe Kotroczo on 28 Nov 2008 19:09 On 26/11/08 10:53, in article 492D2AB4.CC6CDA9E(a)hotmail.com, "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Phildo wrote: >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >>> Phildo wrote: >>>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >>>>> Phildo wrote: >>>>>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We were talking about the EQ >>>>>> >>>>>> on a LIVE SOUND newsgroup. >>>>> >>>>> And why NOT ? Or doesn't live sound use EQ ? >>>> >>>> Of course it does. >>> >>> So why WHINE like a silly schoolgirl ? Got your period have you ? >> >> Yet again you just don't get it. You made a stupid statement, tried to use >> an obscure example from a studio to justify it > > There is NOTHING obscure about a STUDIO. The same EQ algorithms can be used in > both Studio and Live kit. > > Except you're too stupid (along with King George) to understand that. > > HOW MANY EQ ALGORITHMS HAVE *YOU* WRITTEN ? Haaang on. I think I get it now. It must be the EQ algorithm that Graham's written that has him thinking digital EQ sounds crappy... Well, if the algorithm is crappy... ;-) (Hey, you asked for it.) -- Joe Kotroczo kotroczo(a)mac.com
From: Joe Kotroczo on 28 Nov 2008 19:13 On 28/11/08 13:15, in article 492FEEEA.9BE64B08(a)hotmail.com, "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > liquidator wrote: > >> Whatever..I don't really care much about your standards as i don't work with >> them... > > You will soon. > > The USA is the ONLY country seriously out of line. Err... sadly no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WorldMap_Voltage%26Frequency.png -- Joe Kotroczo kotroczo(a)mac.com
From: Joe Kotroczo on 28 Nov 2008 19:17
On 28/11/08 14:20, in article o6TXk.1679$Et1.695(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Bob Howes" <bob.howes(a)bee-tee-internet.com> wrote: (...) > > Finally, I've only mixed on a Cadac a couple of times but can tell you > they're brilliant. They make even Midas seem agricultural. However, > whether the market will pay for brilliance, I'm far less sure these days The part of the market that still can afford brilliance is probably looking very hard at consoles such as the Stagetec Aurus. -- Joe Kotroczo kotroczo(a)mac.com |