HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike_d@tfsquad.mn.org (mike diack)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Woodstock PA
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:37:11 GMT
Organization: The Firing Squad public access - mail and news (+1 612 291 2632)

Well its almost 25 years since the event, and ive read numerous
books, seen the movie a few times, and studied the record cover
and i'm still none the wiser - 
Q : What sort of PA system did they have at woodstock ?
Stage photos all seem to miss it , as does the movie
Back then, locals were using 4560s+D130s and 375s+ 90deg flares
wondering of they had anything different ?
cheers. Mike.

---
mike_d@tfsquad.mn.org (mike diack)
The Firing Squad BBS, public access Usenet mail site. +1 612 291 2632
Saint Paul, Minnesota
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: mskogmo@nmsu.edu (SKOGMO)
Subject: DOD 1642 MIXER?
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: rec.audio.pro
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:41:09 GMT



Hello,
  I am on a strict college budget, and have been looking for a new
mixer for quite some time.  Currently, I have a 8ch. RAMSA mixer.  I
like it alot, but have outgrown it.  I was shopping around for a new
mixer when I saw an ad in the back of Pro Sound News featuring the DOD
1642.  I wrote DOD and asked for specs.  When I got them, I was
impressed!  All of the #'s seem quite good.  Has anyone out there used
one?  What are the draw backs--other than since it is rack mount it
must be kind of crowded.  Thanks for any other information anyone can
provide.


Thanks in advance,
Matt
mskogmo@dante.nmsu.edu
From: mike_d@tfsquad.mn.org (mike diack)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Soundcards
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 08:46:36 CST
Organization: The Firing Squad public access - mail and news (+1 612 291 2632)

Ocasionally, when doing audiovisual productions, i have had the 
requirement to play short segments of sound , randomly accessed
through the PA (eg 10 seconds of crowing rooster, mooing cow or
squawking goose - depending on who hit their button first) - now in the 
case of 3 sounds, a Teac 133 on auto rewind, with a relay track selection
device and timer did the trick, albeit messily. It occured to me that
computerisation was the way to go - IGNORING the issues of programming
(i can work that out) - whats the best soundcard around for the PC
8 bits dont cut it through a good quality PA, so forget Soundblasters
The options seem to be
1 : Mediavision pro audio 16 @ $200
2 : Turtle beach @ $500
both having 44.1 k stereo 16 bit linear sampling
Q : why does 2 cost so much more than 1
Q : are there any other options
ideas, folks
Mike

---
mike_d@tfsquad.mn.org (mike diack)
The Firing Squad BBS, public access Usenet mail site. +1 612 291 2632
Saint Paul, Minnesota
From: cullen@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Systems, Riders, ad infinitum.
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:48:44 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

I thought since the discussion turned to riders and various types
of equipment preferred and provided, I'd post both my usual system,
and excerpts from Blue Rodeo's tech rider, that I happen to have,
because I'm sure some don't know the type of things we're talking about.

My usual, week in, week out system for a 270 limit club with 8 ft
ceiling.
8-Bose 802
4-Bose 302
6-QSC MX1500 (total power about 5000W).
1-Yamaha PM1200x16 w 2 stereo inputs.
1-Yamaha PM916 16 ch used as monitor board (4 mixes)
16 split snake
2-Urei 5340(?) 31 band CUT ONLY EQs (the mindfuck eqs).
1-DBX 166 stereo comp.
1-Valley Gatex quad gate
2-Yamaha SPX-900 digital effects processors.
1-Alesis Microverb, because we have it
3-EV 1202FM monitors
2-Martin LE200 monitors
2-Yamaha Q2031a 31x2 eqs for monitors
2-Yamaha 2002 power amps for monitors
4-SM58
4-SM57
2-421
1-509
4-Active DIs
Canare Star Quad 900 Mic Cable.

I know, the system doesn't make much sense, but things like the cut
only EQs were bought years ago, and they sound really great.
This is really my minimum standard, although I'd move to a 24, run
2 mon mixes from foh.

Blue Rodeo is a pretty major canadian recording act, although I don't
know what popularity they enjoy in the States.
They actually provided their own production for their shows at Dal.

The first line is "Please adhere to the following. Changes or deletions
to this rider are not acceptable without consent."

40 ch main console- Soundcraft Series 4 or PM3000 or Midas XL3
2 Klark 31 Graphs
3 Digital reverbs-1 lexicon r200 or PCM70
                  1 LXP5 or Yamaha Rev5
                  1 Rev5
2 Digital Delays-Lexicon SPT or SDE 3000 or Yamaha D1500
6 channels gating BSS or Drawmer
8 channels comps BSS or Drawmer
Cassette Deck
CD player
Crossover at front of house
4 way active speaker system power=15W per head per side.
ie 1000 people= 30,000W
Double Speakers and amps for outdoor venues
1 32 or 40ch monitor console w 8 mixes
10 biamped wedges
1 listen
1 RE20
1 Beta 57
4 451
3 421
4 509
3 Beta 58
9 DIs
Opener doesn't share mics, stands, or channels.

They had it all when they showed up, 8 Clair S4, 16 Clair S2, PM3000,
and a Soundcraft 500 for the opening act.

						Mur
						Cullen@ac.dal.ca
						Cullen@ug.cs.dal.ca
I'm offline from Dec 19 to Dec 27, so say it now, or mail me! 8-)
From: jrusby@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Jim T. Rusby)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: The merits of Power amps!  was: Peavey, etc!
Date: 16 Dec 1992 16:46:57 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: darkwing.uoregon.edu

In article <1992Dec15.213730.21250@cs.yale.edu> nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu writes:
>
>This statement seems to be the essence of your argument, if I
>understand correctly.  The answer is, I care, because different mics
>do indeed affect the sound differently.  Even within the realm of mics
>that are "good enough to do the job", their may well still be enough
>difference between the contenders to make an "artistic" decision
>with the choice.
>
>To me, there is much more to live sound than just "getting the job done".
>
>My experience has been with small clubs in this area for the most part,
>and I often get strange looks from house soundfolks when I want to use a
>different mic on our female vocalist.  Why do I insist on using an EV 
>ND/757 on her voice rather than a SM58?  The answer is, with no flames
>intended, that if I have to explain it to you you just wouldn't get it.
>One either hears the difference, or not: crisp high end vs. no high end.

Do I infer correctly that you are speaking from the perspective of a band
member or sound engineer for a band?   If so , your preference may be a
result of working with the same person night after night.  You have made a
legitimate artistic decision.  I think most of us would "get it" because
it gives you (and your client/coworkers) the sound you want.

Time after time artists tell me they ask for SM58's because they know what
to expect, not that it is necessarily the best choice.    Go figure.....


>It's hard for us to argue this point, because it may just be that if I had
>the chance to personally hear your system with it's 12 band hifi eq I
>would think it was the greatest, but intellectually, and based upon my
>own experience, I would be highly surprised. 

This is a great statement!   It also applies to discussions of analog vs.
digital,  spaced omni vs. coincident miking for recording,  a/d
converters,  tubes vs solid state etc etc....   Sometimes,  a visiting
performer rep will come up to me and ask questions about whats in the rack
etc.   I usually counter with  "Hows it sound, answer mine and I'll answer
yours"  .    ( Since I am now in a house tech situation, I can get away
with this impertinent attitude- couldnt do it when I was for hire)

Likewise , I like to listen to other systems before examining  their gear.
I always feel embarassed to have actually enjoyed listening to name brands
that I never took seriously.  

Still, we all are obligated to give our clients and employers the benefit
of our experiences and the biases that have subsequently developed.  

jr

Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Good place to buy mic stands?
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:16:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.175322.6779@tc.fluke.COM> strong@tc.fluke.COM (Norm Strong) writes:
>
>I'm also looking for a mike stand--that goes up more than 15'.  20'
>would be nice.  I have a 15' one from Shure, but it's still not tall
>enough.  

I've taken to using Manfrotto highboy photographic stands.  They're light,
portable, and go up significantly higher than any other mic stand I've
ever used.  They certainly are not as sturdy as regular microphone stands
(and this is tough, as I often put the Schoeps Sphere on it, and the sphere
is NOT light).  You absolutely *must* decouple them from the floor and tape
the whole thing down with gaffer's tape, but for getting a rig up very 
high, you can't beat them.  



--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: mow@hpwin052.uksr.hp.com (Mark Payne)
Subject: Re: Monitor System Peaks
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:27:40 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Response Centre, England
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Sorry about my last post.. me and vi flipped out for a bit..

>BTW: anybody got a good way to figure out the peaks in a monitor system
>(with out a spectrum anylizer:):)
>Jack Van Breen (standard disclaimer, these are my own ...)

My 93 Canford catalogue (Big UK gear distributor) just came through and 
in it is an "automatic feedback eliminator". I have only scanned the info 
on this but it has 9 different notch filters which it adjusts and assigns 
to the unstable frequencies that it detects. It works inline.. all the while.

I need to check this out more because it sounds like a real lazy tool to have
in the front monitor mix. I can't imagine how shuch a thing could work reliably
.. I wonder what happens if the vocalist holds a note for any length of time..
:-)

I'll let you know..


--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Mark Payne | Mail: mow@hpwin052.uksr.hp.com | 
___________|________________________________|_________________________________
Hewlett Packard, Amen Corner, Cain Road, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 1HN

I think you will find that HP are not, in any way involved in, influenced by
or responsible for opinions that I express here.... I think....
From: jvb@wyse.wyse.com (Jack Van Breen x2666 dept220)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: The merits of Power amps!  was: Peavey, etc!
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:54:48 GMT
Organization: Wyse Technologies San Jose, Ca

In article <1gnmi1INNmfl@pith.uoregon.edu> jrusby@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Jim T. Rusby) writes:
>
>Likewise , I like to listen to other systems before examining  their gear.
>I always feel embarassed to have actually enjoyed listening to name brands
>that I never took seriously.  
>

Actually, I don't get embarresed any more:)

One of the BEST sounding systems I've heard in a LONG time was all
Peavey:):() (No REaLLY:):)  It was at a locals stores anniversery party in
the parking lot.  They were using the Peavey Mark VII (psudeo studio board)
and the HDH1(2???)(the big 3 way processed jobs:) Anyway, Very Clean, Clear
and Punchy ('till one bands soundman decided to mix in the red:):) I was
impressed to the point that if I ever get to write a 'rider' I'd spec it
as my system of choice;)

(See Chris, there ARe other's who like peavey:):)

-- 
Jack Van Breen (standard disclaimer, these are my own ...)
Product Support, Wyse Technology, San Jose, CA
...!uunet!wyse!jvb
jvb@wyse.com
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: kilroy@acme.gen.nz (earthbound misfit, I)
Subject: Re: Monitor System Peaks
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 03:30:11 GMT
Organization: ACME BBS - Public Access Usenet, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Reply-To: kilroy@acme.gen.nz (earthbound misfit, I)

jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) writes:

> [...EQing a PA...]
> 
> 	As an alternate method, I often flatten the graph, turn the monitors
> up until before feedback, back them off a bit, then check the mike,
> while listening both for tone, and peaks. This can give you a really
> good sounding monitor that will cut for the vocalist through the stage
> sound.

This is interesting, because I've noticed something similar. Possibly it's my
inexperience, but when I'm adjusting the monitor EQs I find that just standing
at the desk and adjusting for howls will not sufficiently flatten the
response, it seems fine with plenty of headroom in the monitors before things
will start to feedback until someone uses a mic, when it quickly becomes
apparent that things are still ringing. I've found it's important to get up on
stage by the main vocal mics and listen to the reponse through the monitors
and adjust for that.

						- k
-- 
Craig Harding            kilroy@acme.gen.nz             ACME BBS +64 6 3551342
"Jub'er lbh pnyyvat n obmb?"
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: limit on line-level cable lengths?
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 04:04:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.220531.16843@ultb.isc.rit.edu> cms2839@ultb.isc.rit.edu (a.stranger) writes:
>solution of all would probably to use a single amp with two , selectable
>sets of speaker outputs . the only problem is how to control the volume
>while in the second room . if the amp has a remote control , you can get
>some infrared relay stations ( which pick up the IR signal from the
>remote and transmit it to the second room ) which would solve this
>rather neatly . 

Another would be to feed both sets of speakers with the amp providing 
a substantial amount of gain, and regulate the volume of each pair of 
speakers with an in-line volume control.


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: gw214790@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Galen Watts)
Subject: Monitor System Peaks
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:04:32 GMT
Organization: Colorado Concert Sound

>BTW: anybody got a good way to figure out the peaks in a monitor system
>(with out a spectrum anylizer:):)
>Jack Van Breen (standard disclaimer, these are my own ...)

Yes, we do it all the time with a readily available acoustic measuring system:
Our Ears.
You need to FLATTEN the eq, turn it up until it squeals at ONE frequency, then
pull down the band on the eq.  The first time is trial and error, so maybe you
shouldn't do it at a gig.  If the band you pull down doesn't affect the squeal,
try the one above or the one below.
Until you get to the point where you can tell what band by the sound, it's 
going to be hunt and dip, but once you know where your monitors have peaks,
you know which ones to dip first.

One thing that really bugs me is monitor engineers who use the 31 band eq's
for tone shaping, like when they grab 500-2400 Hz and pull it all down so the
"curve" on the sliders looks good.  31 band eq's were meant to NOTCH out peaks,
not as a Bass-Mid-Treble device.  
You cannot boost and you cannot cut more than 6dB without changing the response
of the EQ outside of the band your adjusting.

I've been at it a few years and I've found techniques that work consistently,
and most of the time people say "that won't work" and then I have great fun
showing just how full of Fertilizer they are.

Galen Watts.
From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: limit on line-level cable lengths?
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:57:34 GMT

In article <8155@news.duke.edu> jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead) writes:
>
>What is the practical length limit on a standard home-audio line-level
>cable?  

In determining cable lengths, there are three things that factor into the
equation (quite literally).  They are:

	The output impedance of the component feeding the line.
	The input impedance of the component being fed.
	The capacitance of the line.

There is also the resistance of the actual cable run itself, but until you
get into the many-hundreds-of-feet arena, that isn't really a consideration.

Here's how you work the math.   To make sure you don't lose your high end,
your input impedance for the next stage must be at least 10X the output
impedance of the previous stage.  This usually isn't a problem until you
add a nice long cable run which acts as a LP filter in the transfer 
function.

Anyway, the idea is that you work it out like this:  First, find out the
capacitance (C) per foot, and multiply it by the length of the run.  
Capacitance is additive.  Next, get the output impedance (Zo) of the stage 
that's feeding the chain, and the input impedance (Zi) of the next stage.
Now.  You compute T, the time-costant of the system by doing the
following:

		Zi * Zo
	   T =	-------  *  C
		Zi + Zo

Now that you have the time constant, your next goal is to compute
what we call the "3 dB downpoint."  That is, at what frequency are
you starting to lose significant amount of signal?  Well, since you
have T (actually Tau), you need only do the following to get Fc, the
corner frequency of the transfer function:

			1
		Fc = ------
		     2*pi*T

Hopefully this frequency is significantly higher than 20 kHz.  If it isn't,
it becomes a question of how much high-end you can afford to lose.  Up to
you.

>Can I just get a standard Radio Shack 50-foot 18-gauge zip cord to run
>from my studio to my room's amp, and have it work ok?  

NO!  You absolutely must use shielded cable if you're going to do this
at all.  One doesn't send audio over zip cord...not at -10 dBv line level
anyway.  Speaker level, maybe.

>It doesn't have to be recording studio quality sound, but I do have a 
>fairly nice system and don't want to have any excessive interference 
>or noise.

You send line-level audio over 50 feet of zip-cord and you'll give "excessive
interference or noise" a new meaning.


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
From: dnwangus@flash.LakeheadU.Ca (Dave Angus)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Citronic ?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 09:26:46 GMT
Organization: Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ont., Canada

Is Citronic still around?

I'd like to get a schematic for my SMP505A mixer; it works pretty
well but seems a little noisy, and the Cue lights don't do
anything.  It worked a whole lot worse before I soldered a couple
of connections that had been left unsoldered by the factory.
Apart from that little QC oversight, it looks like a nicely built
piece of gear, worth keeping going if not enhancing a little.
I'm thinking of swapping in quieter op amps for the 748s it
currently has.

regards,
--
Dave Angus                                   "Kundalini wants his hand back"
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
From: jay@ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Jay Kadis)
Subject: Re: Monitor System Peaks
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 19:35:58 GMT

This discussion reminds me of the time we played a club in North Beach that was  
known for featuring new local acts.  Their PA was the usual hodge-podge of old  
Peavey gear with a well-worn Biamp board.  The sound man was having a hard time  
getting the house sound EQ'ed, so I glanced over his shoulder to see the MXR  
10-band graphic that served the house feed:  all the faders were in the full  
cut position.  I asked him why: "I like to use the mixer EQ" was his answer.   
No wonder nothing ever sounded good. I introduced him to a little equalizer  
theory (you know...overlapping bands, comb filters, etc.).  While the sound  
didn't improve dramatically, at least we didn't sound like we were singing  
through a vocoder.  The monitor system there was hopeless...side fills with  
torn cones (!!) that you could see flapping in the breeze...so we actually  
relied on the slap-back to get an idea what was getting out to the audience.
Builds character.

Jay
jay@ccrma.stanford.edu
From: jvb@wyse.wyse.com (Jack Van Breen x2666 dept220)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: The merits of Power amps!  was: Peavey, etc!
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:39:19 GMT
Organization: Wyse Technologies San Jose, Ca


And right after I had posted how nicely this discussion was going:):)


In article <1992Dec14.210722.9568@ac.dal.ca> cullen@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>There, I've gotten through the whole post without being rude or obnoxious,
>even though Mark is infering that I am an ignorant prejudiced asshole.
>Prejudiced maybe (who isn't about something), asshole sometimes, but
>not ignorant by a long shot.
>						Mur
> 

Actually, I don't believe he EVER refered to you.. He was actualy refering
to the folks he has had to work with (unless he has worked for you:):) who
seem to ask for the ridiculas just because they can:):)

I realize that it's hard to keep our emotions out of something that we love
to do (as you obviously do) but sometimes we have to take two steps back
and re-read a post, to be sure we have been slammed:):)  I don't think that
Mark ever ment to imply that you didn't know what you were doing, just that
he has had to work with those who dont' (just as you have also:)

Still this has been an enlightening series.  Hope to see more.

BTW: anybody got a good way to figure out the peaks in a monitor system
(with out a spectrum anylizer:):)


-- 
Jack Van Breen (standard disclaimer, these are my own ...)
Product Support, Wyse Technology, San Jose, CA
...!uunet!wyse!jvb
jvb@wyse.com
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: slr3e@Virginia.EDU ("Stacy Lee Roach")
Subject: Integrated Amplifiers
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:27:58 GMT

I'm looking to buy a integrated amplifier with a decent amount
of power ( about 100 watts ) for somewhere under $500.  I want
something that is very clean sounding with almost no extra's.
I would really like something that is simple but sounds
excellent.  I will be driving a pair of NHT 1.8's with it.  By
the way if you haven't heard a pair of NHT's yet do yourself a favor and
go listen to them.  They are one of the best pair of speakers
that I have heard and are not extremely expensive.  If you have
any ideas about a clean integrated amplifier of a pair of
separates let me know.
				slr3e.virginia.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio