Note: in the following posts add a "don" in front of the "ferrario" in 
    my web addresses (as in, "www.ferrario.com/ruether/" becomes 
   "www.donferrario.com/ruether/"), if I missed changing any...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Some of these are older posts than many on "5", and most of these posts are about 
    audio and other things in addition to the photo-video of the earlier pages...]


"Sella" <a.sell@luukku.com> wrote in message news:4219f17d@newsflash.abo.fi...

> I need to record interviews, both group interviews and individual 
> interviews. The interviews are conducted in a setting with no extra 
> noise around. I am using a Sony MZ-NH700 minidisc recorder. I would need 
> to buy a microphone, but I can't choose. I know nothing about this stuff 
> and was hoping someone here could help... Please!

> These have been recommended to me:
> - Sony ECM-MS907 
> (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00001W0DT/qid=1108994303/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-0374291-8812056?v=glance&n=507846)
> - Sony ECM-DS70P 
> (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00006HOLL/qid=1108994336/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1_etk-electronics/002-0374291-8812056?v=glance&s=electronics&n=172282)

> I want the recordings to be good quality, so that they are easy to 
> transcribe. Would either of these be OK, or do I have to choose the more 
> expensive one (ECM-MS907)?

> The group interviews are conducted so, that a group of people (4-7) are 
> sitting around a table, with the microphone sitting on the table.

> What do you think?

Either is VERY inexpensive compared with "good" mics, and
both are adequate, though I would favor the slightly more
expensive 907. It is also better isolated from bumps and
vibration than the other.
Both are "MS" types, and tend to somewhat diminish the
rear sensitivity, so you may wish to use a single omni
mic instead, placed in the center of the table (it can be
pointed upward for even coverage[?]). A mono mic
signal generally appears in both channels of mini-disc
recorders, or you can use the extended record time of
mono recording...
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Rowe Rickenbacker" <rowerickenbacker@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:37upr4F5iaul9U4@individual.net...
> Rowe Rickenbacker wrote:
 
>> Very stimmy.

> PS: I haven't got a real one *yet*, but I've got a touch
> screen 2D spectrum (amp. vs freq.) on my PDA, which is now
> hooked up to my surround speakers and woofer. I'm testing
> having the PDA on the floor, so I can just randomly poke
> it with my toe while I'm on the computer. This is fun.

> Rowe
> feels like a Clanger.
> -- 
> Don't make arguements that don't make sense!

Theremins are fun! ;-) I had one once, but have misplaced it.
BTW Moog (of early synthesizer fame) began by making
theremins, and has returned to making and selling them
(I used to hear him upstairs over the factory studio
occasionally playing Beethoven's 9th on one...;-). There was
an amazing recording on LP of Clara Rockmore (the only
concert-trained thereminist, as far as I know) playing various 
pieces on an instrument designed and built by Theremin 
(Russian, using tubes, with a beautiful sound). Neat device, 
but it requires precise "spacial conceptualization"...;-)
For those who don't know what it is, it is a device that
makes sound that has two antennae, one for frequency, one
for volume - both increase with closeness of the hands. 
It is played by waving your hands around the antennae 
to get what you want (good luck!!! ;-).
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Carburo" <rombeCANCELLAQUESTO@libero.it> wrote in message news:380qtdF5iulg8U1@individual.net...

> Hi all!
> Here for the first time, from Italy.

> I would like to have some opinions about little audio problem.
> Maybe my expectations have became more sophisticate, maybe my ears are more 
> accustomed to live music, the result is that now I don't like so much the 
> way my stereo sounds.
> First of all, this is the settlement:

> cd player: TEAC CDZ5000 (aged!)
> turntable: Thorens TD 316 + Audio Technica AT440ML
> int amp: ROTEL 971 MkII
> spkrs: CHARIO Constellation Lynx (if you don't know them, take a look: 
> http://www.chario.it/principale.htm --> CONSTELLATION on the left)
> cables: Van Den Hul and Monster Cable (don't remember the names, but not 
> too expensive...)
> selfmade wood stands similar to those you see in the Chario link.

> What I don't like is such an *euphonic* setting up, and the speakers are the 
> first suspect, I suppose.
> I'm mostly listening at acoustic and electric Jazz now, although classical 
> (mostly baroque and renaissance) music is always in my cd player.
> Ancient vocal and instrumental music is a pleasure with these speakers due 
> to a perfect mid-high range reproduction, and bass, although not punchy, is 
> controlled and precise.
> What is wrong than?
> Maybe higer range.
> I cannot find the naughtiness that some recordings need.
> (see Whisper Not - Jarret-Peacock-DeJonnette, and other contemporary jazz)

> I've listened to a couple of ProAC Response 1SC, and I felt in love.
> Although I don't know the market so well to be shure they could be the best 
> for me.

> So I'm asking: where is the problem in your advice?
> Where is the *filter*? Speakers? CDplayer? Amp? Cables?

> Thanks!

At a guess, all your gear is at least decent, with the speakers
followed by the cartridge giving the most variation in the system.
*BUT*, speaker response evenness (controlled by both the
speaker itself and the room and listener placement) can affect the
result. Many would prefer euphonious sound, since that is the
least offensive and the most pleasant for most material. Rough 
speakers with peaked up top-ends can sound more "immediate",
but more tiring. Often small speakers, to balance a "shy" low
bass (better that than "boom"), have the top end rolled off
a bit. Also, some tweeters are better at producing "detail" of 
brushed cymbals, etc, without being rough (which can increase 
the noise in LPs). This also helps the sense of mid range 
quickness of transient response, even with no change in the mid 
range. Sometimes this loss of top end can be cured by aiming 
the speakers directly at the ears, with stands used (but this may
result in a loss of spaciousness in the sound). Another thing that 
will add to the feeling of "live" is a ***GOOD*** subwoofer
(most are poor, not performing anything like the ad. claims).
See: http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/Audio.html for some
large ones I have built. Also, some speaker types, like most 
electrostatics, some ribbons, and a few of the best dynamics
have such excellent transient response that the sound is very
crisp and detailed without being too bright. ***MOST*** 
important, though (assuming good gear) is room set-up. This 
is the part often ignored. With placement of speakers, good 
gear can sound bad, or poor gear can sound fairly good. Set-up 
is a long and frustrating process to optimize results. The 
speakers MUST be equal distance from, and at the same tilt 
and rotation relative to, the (single) listener (for best sound,
there is no multi-listener set-up). Ideal is equal distance from
side/back/rear wall-pairs, which should have similar characteristics,
especially in openings. Distance apart and from the listener 
plus tilt/rotation and speaker type and a good sub (well 
balanced with the speaker!) can make the most difference 
in all this. A truly flat system (impossible...), with a slightly 
rising bass as the frequency goes down, a slight roll-off 
toward the top, and a slight toe-out in speaker placement
(for spaciousness) can sound wonderful on most material.
As a last note, the speaker should be chosen by how it 
sounds in *your* room, not from reviews, or the sound in
showrooms...
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All this is more than a bit OT, but what the heck...;-)

"Rowe Rickenbacker" <rowerickenbacker@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:37uv4uF5gvhveU1@individual.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Rowe Rickenbacker wrote:
>>> Rowe Rickenbacker wrote:

>>>> Very stimmy.
 
>>> PS: I haven't got a real one *yet*, but I've got a [virtual one]

>> Theremins are fun! ;-) I had one once, but have misplaced it.

> I need to get one. I've been playing around with this virtual one,
> that has been producing some fantastic results with Tremolo added,
> but I definitely need to get a real one.

> I'm also on the lookout for some MP3s of Thereminists :)

Good luck....! ;-)

>> BTW Moog (of early synthesizer fame) began by making theremins,
>> and has returned to making and selling them

> Yes, I know. From what I've read - they're fantastic quality too.

That would be likely. All his gear was nicely made, with even
solid walnut cases for the synthesizers...

>> it is a device that makes sound that has two antennae, one for
>> frequency, one for volume - both increase with closeness of the
>> hands. It is played by waving your hands around the antennae to
>> get what you want (good luck!!! ;-).

> Bill Bailey (British comedian, I guess) has incorporated them
> into his stand-up shows, which I think is fantastic. In fact,
> they've been used in many different genres from the classic
> electro to modern dance, and even rock and industrial music.

> As David says, classical pieces have been reproduced in crazy
> (but amazing) ways with the instrument... it's rather cool.

> Rowe

Yes...
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Stephen Wilson" <sr.wilson@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:mWsSd.131$FV5.0@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> "Rowe Rickenbacker" <rowerickenbacker@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:37uohtF5iaul9U1@individual.net...

>> Very stimmy.

> Always wanted to try one! A lot of people mistakenly think the Dr Who theme 
> tune was played on a theremin. It wasn't. It was actually created with 
> signal generators, generating a tone, changing tape speeds and splicing all 
> the bits together. A painstaking, but fascinating process - and a unique end 
> result...

This process preceeded the voltage-controlled devices of Buchla
and Moog. It is sometimes called "Music Concret" (or what ever
the French word is). Pierre Henry was well known for using this
assembly process - I particularly like his "Variations for a Door
and a Sigh" (with squeaky door...;-).
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Rowe Rickenbacker" <rowerickenbacker@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:37v5keF5hklslU2@individual.net...
> Stephen Wilson wrote:
>> Rowe Rickenbacker wrote:

>>> Very stimmy.

>> Always wanted to try one! A lot of people mistakenly think the Dr Who
>> theme tune was played on a theremin. It wasn't. It was actually
>> created with signal generators, generating a tone, changing tape
>> speeds and splicing all the bits together. A painstaking, but
>> fascinating process - and a unique end result...

(see previous post [in time...] on this) 

> Mm. That reminds me to find a copy of the Dr Who theme!

> A lot of things that appear to be Theremins are actually
> played with signal generators or virtual theremins (slightly
> more advanced signal generators :-P ) but I think that actual
> "biological feel" of Theremins (that makes them sound quite
> "alien" rather than just "mechanical") is distinct, and I
> think is fairly easy to spot after listening to a few pieces.

This is the same opinion that was often expressed of
later synthesizers vs. earlier ones (the later ones permitted
more expressive control).

> Rowe
> been downloading Theremin-based MP3s for several
> hours, including a fair bit of Industrial music
> (along the lines of Covenant and Skinny Puppy)

Ah, you did find some...;-)
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"dobey the elf" <dobeygjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1109039855.611278.241510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... 
> Stephen Wilson wrote:
>> "Rowe Rickenbacker" <rowerickenbacker@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> message
>> news:37uohtF5iaul9U1@individual.net...

>> > Very stimmy.

>> Always wanted to try one! A lot of people mistakenly think the Dr Who theme
>> tune was played on a theremin. It wasn't. It was actually created with
>> signal generators, generating a tone, changing tape speeds and splicing all
>> the bits together. A painstaking, but fascinating process - and a unique end
>> result...

> I went to the Theremin world website and the picture looks like a cross
> between a record needle and a coat hanger!! How big is it and what is
> it?

Almost any size. They can be very small (but harder to play
accurately) to quite large (the original Theremin device).
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether 


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.theremin.info/info-47-_What_is_a_Theremin.html

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Hylander" <john.gagon@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1109086672.232776.217270@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> I'm good at/(and like to) *playing* with music and making it sound
> weird but not professional quality. I love listening / and it's a lot easier.
> I wish I could get a Theramin....would be fun. (also working on getting
> the tesla system)

> H

Here is some of my MIDI "music" - though with this,
the sounds depend on the sounds produced by your 
particular sound card (dunno if these are worth
converting to MP3 - and do take these as "tongue in
cheek"...;-).
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/midi.html
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Rowe Rickenbacker" <rowerickenbacker@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:380d53F5ib0i0U1@individual.net...
> Kalen wrote:
>> Rowe Rickenbacker wrote:

>>> 1. I learn how to drive. On the "wrong" side of the road...;-)

>>> 2. Get a really crappy second hand car in North America and
>>> drive it around (maybe even paint it and wreck it a bit)

Good fuel economy is good here - and Toyotas
have a good reputation for durability. Automatic
transmissions are a LOT easier to deal with, but
this is the weak area for small cars, for both finding them,
and for quality (better recently...).

> but as I said - I'm not going to hurry, and
> I am going to get as much practice in before I go. If I can,
> I'll collar my old best friend and bring him along, because
> he'd want to do this trip even more than I do. IIRC, he's
> had a licence for a couple of years now, but just having
> another person there would be lots easier than only one!

A very good idea.

>> 1. A foreign country

> Not too foreign. I've been in the USA before, and had the
> excitement of traffic signs and toll booths a-plenty
> (even if only from the passenger side)

Not too foreign, and for some reason, Americans love
a British accent...;-)

>> 2. Very long days driving

You can choose routes that provide interesting landscapes
across the entire US. Avoid the southern-most route
for this. About mid way up is good (Iowa and Nevada
are both more interesting in their middles...;-). In the Southwest
(where I hope to go this spring), almost everything is wondrous,
so the "long" drives are not. Just don't think distances are minor.
For instance, it is about a day's drive from the north to
the south rims of the Grand Canyon, or driving up from
the valley in Yosemite to the cliff edges takes far longer
than you would think possible. If you want, I can give you 
a list of highlights in the West (most of the interesting scenery
is there, but late in the spring, the cross-country trip can be
pretty. Maybe best to fly into a western location, move from 
there (after taking a peek at maybe Washington, NYC,
and the many waterfalls in Ithaca, of course! ;-). Niagara
Falls is rather spectacular, best from the Canadian side).

> That's a possible issue, but I'm not going to be hurrying.
> I will have a decent amount of time on my hands, as long
> as funds prevail.

I once lived in my car and took three months to get from
Ithaca, NY to San Fancisco (didn't then get to Northern
California, the redwoods, and Washington state - major
misses!).

>> 3. Winding mountain roads, hypnotising monotonous desert and prairie roads.
>> 4. Snow

> That I'd have to get used to, but if I *do* have problems -
> the majority of that can be cut down with a map.

Some of the more interesting areas are "4-wheel drive only"
rutted roads, not well marked on maps (I got lost on some 
of these in fogs - but my old Rambler made it through some 
back areas of Death Valley Ok, with driving on the tops of 
the ruts...;-) Best time to travel is May/June/maybe-July - high 
areas are cold, low areas are hot (need to balance these). In the 
desert areas TAKE WATER and head cover!!! I once walked
into Grand Canyon to the river and across to the ranch (about
11 miles horizontal, 1 mile vertical - but I was not well prepared
(I was lucky, but kids are often stupid - the stories I could
tell of my near misses on that trip! ;-).
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Rowe Rickenbacker" <rowerickenbacker@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:380jf4F5ifcmqU3@individual.net...

>> You'd have to go *weeks* out of your way, and miss some of the best 
>> scenery there is, to avoid the mountains.

Don't miss the mountains! Especially in the Northwest and
Jasper-Banff in Canada (the road is kept open all year,
though parts of it tend to slide down the mountain sides
rather too often...

> Mm... but it depends where I want to visit... I mean, East Canada,
> West Canada, and a lot of East and West coast American places too.
> Definitely I want to see scenery, but if mountain driving is not
> a good way to go at such an early stage, then it's something that
> *can* be sacraficed for the rest of the places I want to visit.

Late spring is OK, but may be cold. least interesting are the
eastern US and the cross-country trip in Canada (until the
Rockies, beyond which is desert, surprisingly) is excruciatingly 
boring! ;-) I would skip the east, and enjoy LOTS in the western
US, with Jasper/Banff in Canada.

>>> I know desert and prairie roads can't really be avoided,

But they can be nice...

>> They're not so much to be avoided. Easy driving. It's just that 
>> people have accidents because they are 'hypnotised' by the straight 
>> road and monotonous scenery. This would be ok with a friend who would
>> talk to you.

> Good point. Stopping when tired, and keeping something like bouncy
> music and/or some kind of conversation going to keep brains going.
> I know what you mean though... everything can become really
> repetitive and you just start phasing out........

Especially at night, or those straight roads heading straight for
a mountain, but you drive all day without the mountain getting 
any closer (but these situations can be avoided...)..

>>> and neither can a country predominantly covered with snow (Canada, 
>>> as well as Northern states)
 
>> You can avoid that by not going in winter. Even Canada thaws out in 
>> the summertime. :)

But then watch out for the huge mosquitos and horse flies
in the summer in the mountain areas...;-)

> Mm. Will take that into account :)

>>> mountainous regions can be kept to a bare minimum if a decent 
>>> detour is available. Don't need to take the direct route all the 
>>> time :)

It would be unwise to go in a straight line - the best sites
are scattered... 

>> I don't think you're quite understanding the scale...
 
> To a certain extent, no, but if I've got a non-rented vehicle,
> and the money lasts, then maybe there really would be months.

> Rowe
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Shena Delian O'Brien" <shena@darklock.com> wrote in message news:111mok18roqum90@news.supernews.com...
> Rowe Rickenbacker wrote:

>> Obviously they wouldn't if it wasn't a rental car.

> If it wasn't a rental car, I would seriously doubt its ability to drive 
> cross-country in one piece. You'd end up like those kids in Jeepers 
> Creepers, stuck in some crappy ass town in the middle of nowhere while 
> some redneck waits for the part to fix your car to get there from the 
> only other town within 50 miles.

But, that's part of the fun...;-)
Whenever I've had a breakdown in the "sticks", the response has
been kind, helpful, efficient, and cheap - what better way to meet
local people ;-)

> Seriously, bad idea. Do not do it. I have a bad feeling about this.

> Consider a train, or even the Greyhound. You'd still see a lot of 
> country, it would be cheaper than flight, and it would be safer.

If you have the money for a rental car, flying to Las Vegas, 
Phoenix, or Tuson makes sense, then wandering around that corner
of the country. (Carlsbad Caverns, Petrified Forest, Canyon de 
Chelly, Ouray-Silverton road stretch, Black Canyon of the
Gunnison, Arches National Park, Canyonlands, Capital reef,
Bryce Canyon, Zion, South Rim Grand Canyon, back to Phoenix
(only Carlsbad is out of a neat loop). From there, you could go
through Death Valley to San Francisco (then take a trip south
beyond Monterey to Point Lobos for some beautiful seascape.
Go over the mountains through beautiful grassy/redwoods/
eucalyptus areas and take the hilltop road back into SF. From
there, take RT 1 north over the Golden Gate bridge to
Sausalito and beyond up the coast of California and Oregon
to Washington, seeing the great volcanos there (Mt
Rainier is my favorite US park - take some of the high trails).
Moving up toward Jasper and Banff is fairly uninteresting, 
BUT, those are wonderful! If you see these things, you will 
never forget any of them!!! (I find Grand Tetons, Rocky 
Mountains NTs much less interesting than others do...)
I think a car is FAR preferable to a bus or train, since you
can make those little side trips easily that get you off
the tourist routes - and I could never get used to everything
being distanced by those darkened bus and train windows...
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message news:M1KSd.29209$ya6.14671@trndny01...

> If you have the money for a rental car, flying to Las Vegas,
> Phoenix, or Tuson makes sense, then wandering around that corner
> of the country. (Carlsbad Caverns, Petrified Forest, Canyon de
> Chelly, Ouray-Silverton road stretch, Black Canyon of the
> Gunnison, Arches National Park, Canyonlands, Capital reef,
> Bryce Canyon, Zion, South Rim Grand Canyon, back to Phoenix
> (only Carlsbad is out of a neat loop). From there, you could go
> through Death Valley 
[should add: then to Yosemite,]
> then to San Francisco 
[much interesting there ] 
> (then take a trip south
> beyond Monterey to Point Lobos for some beautiful seascape.
> Go over the mountains through beautiful grassy/redwoods/
> eucalyptus areas and take the hilltop road back into SF. From
> there, take RT 1 north over the Golden Gate bridge to
> Sausalito and beyond up the coast of California and Oregon
> to Washington, seeing the great volcanos there (Mt
> Rainier is my favorite US park - take some of the high trails).
> Moving up toward Jasper and Banff is fairly uninteresting,
[except for Vancouver]
> BUT, J/B are wonderful! If you see all these things, you will
> never forget any of them!!! (I find Grand Tetons, Rocky
> Mountains NTs much less interesting than others do...)
> I think a car is FAR preferable to a bus or train, since you
> can make those little side trips easily that get you off
> the tourist routes - and I could never get used to everything
> being distanced by those darkened bus and train windows...
[Car insurance prices vary a LOT from state to state, and
somewhat by your age - but there is usually a rebate of unused 
time for the insurance.] 
> --
> David Ruether
> http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


"Rowe Rickenbacker" <rowerickenbacker@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3813r4F5i5g8hU4@individual.net...
> David Ruether wrote:

>>> Rowe been downloading Theremin-based MP3s for several hours,
>>> including a fair bit of Industrial music (along the lines of
>>> Covenant and Skinny Puppy)

>> Ah, you did find some...;-)

> Yes. I found a lot of Clara's music, but I found the classical
> music mixed with Theremin to be somehow incompatible...
> it was literally mixing the natural with the supernatural,
> and just seemed very out of place. Music actually designed
> to be futuristic or supernatural in itself works well.

> Rowe

Ah, I really liked Clara's renditions of classical music
(but I would not mix them with anything but piano...),
but then I still have a soft spot in my head for the
original "Switched on Bach", done on the original
Moog synthesizer). I spent a couple of years of
occasional hours in the Moog studio when it was 
available, and finally managed to produce a piece,
but...........................;-)
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Rowe Rickenbacker" <rowerickenbacker@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3815b4F5i5g8hU6@individual.net...

[...]
> I also don't know exactly how much the flights would cost
> in total yet because they want me to provide specific dates
> and times, which I don't want to have to provide if I'm
> seriously thinking about dedicating several months to this.
[...]

As I rethink this, a car does seem impractical without 
several people involved (some with "real" money...;-).
I also think the most memorable and different scenery
from what you are familiar with is in the southwestern
US. You could fly in one "chunk" to Phoenix and make
that loop I described earlier (Phoenix Arizona back to 
Phoenix to get the return plane, without Carlsbad and 
Death Valley). There may even be a bus tour that includes
many of these locations (some of the less well-known
ones may not be included though they are spectacular - but 
these may be for another trip, perhaps......). Crossing the 
continent seems unwise to me if you are limited in time
and money - most of the time will be spent in long-distance
travel. It would be better, it seems to me, to choose a
more limited geographical area (preferably one that is
unusual for you), and explore that one more thoroughly.
Good luck!
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"dobey the elf" <dobeygjr@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1109126729.826855.12330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The autist formerly known as wrote:

> Whoops was that a mountain, oh I think I've missed it.
> I can't be sure those mountains really exist they only come into
> being when
> I am around to see them after all, and since I am not in the US I
> wonder if
> anyone is keeping them there :)

If a mountain fell in a forest and there was no one 
around to see it, would the mountain have really fallen?
In the case of Mt St Helens, which blew up near Seattle
a ways back, you sure could hear it fall (and see the ash...).
Oddly, I was near the back side of it, up wind, and was
unaware of what had happened until I heard about it
while eating dinner in Seattle(!). The empty freeway 
on the way back from the hike should have given me
a clue, though...;-) The eruption had been expected,
but the time was unknown - and the violence of it was 
not expected. Mt. Rainier is a much larger volcano,
considered active but dormant (there are steam vents, 
though), with roughly a 200 year eruption cycle (and
it is overdue). Seattle is built on a mud slide from
a former eruption, which made me a bit skittish about
living in Seattle...;-) But, then, people live around LA
and put up with the ground moving around once in a 
while. ;-) Even here, rock slides are common - so
geologic changes can be more rapid than generally
thought...
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Kalen" <news@paradox.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:381th9F5iq7nbU3@individual.net...
> David Ruether wrote:

>> As I rethink this, a car does seem impractical without
>> several people involved (some with "real" money...;-).
>> I also think the most memorable and different scenery
>> from what you are familiar with is in the southwestern
>> US.

> I would say western Canada (especially mountainous regions) is also 
> *extremely* different from the UK. The north is even more different, but 
> I don't think that was on his agenda.

> Kalen

I agree that western Canada is spectacular and different 
(as I have noted earlier), but the very *most* different
areas from what he has seen before are likely the red-rock 
parts of Arizona/Utah in the National Parks. Being there is
like being on another planet, and many very varied 
landscapes are in a compact land area. The other areas 
of north America (with much greater travel distances
between) may better wait for another, longer trip...
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


<mc7446@netzero.net> wrote in message news:1109139312.178767.104910@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> I'm looking for a subwoofer to improve the bass performance of my audio
> system. Which type of subwoofer should I choose: "front-firing" or
> "down-firing"?

While designing subwoofers, I tried both. The down-firing
woofer would seem to be better due to its faster acoustic
top-end rolloff, its omnidirectional response in its firing plane,
and its output advantage from firing near a surface. Unfortunately,
in the "real" world, this orientation provided "soggier" sound.
I suspect that this is from having too immediate a surface 
reflection, and from the harmonic distortion caused by the 
weight of the cone biasing the voice coil downward.
Whatever - I preferred the cone front-firing. The actual 
design of the system, though, can offset some disadvantages.
BTW, don't bother with a sub that can't make it much below
about 60cps (this means most, regardless of claims) - a
better integrated sound would be produced from EQing
your present speakers, if not played too loudly. Also 
BTW, power requirements are generally vastly 
overestimated - most speakers will produce a satisfying
output level with 2 watts/channel. 30/30 is more than 
sufficient for most speakers (I relearned that lesson
recently - I replaced 1800 watts for what I thought was
a VERY inefficient pair of ribbon speakers only to find
that a 60 watt back-up amp supplied plenty of power ;-).
Much of the problem you will have setting up a sub in
the system (assuming a good one and good room 
placement - not easy!) is adjusting the levels and crossover
rates and points. Without doing this, surprisingly, much
of the range of the main speaker can be degraded (I
haven't figured out a good explanation for this, since it 
can go to the highest frequencies, well beyond likely
interference effects).
Have fun!
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



If you don't like [my] prices, feel free to not
buy the gear - but some people will pay a 
premium to know that the gear is thoroughly
tested (unusual) and accurately described,
and that the "deal" is easily made, with no 
"hassle". And, as another poster suggested, 
one can always "talk price", so long as the 
potential buyer is serious (I'm not going to 
sell anything at 1/2 my listed prices...;-).
And, BTW, you can always find that "great
deal" on anything, but that does not then
represent a fair price for all similar items.
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

"Skid" <jskid22@##bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:b3vTd.384$4x6.155@fe06.lga...
> Dream on with those prices on the Nikon bodies. You can pick up 8008's for 
> under $100.00

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"The autist formerly known as" <NDA@larry-arnold.com> wrote in message news:386sviF5k75hrU1@individual.net...

>I incline to the thery that there are time portals and wormholes closer than
> we think as things are always disapearing into them with no possible
> explanation.

Ah, this explains the socks lost in the dryer...;-)
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"sam ende" <sam@sende.co.uk> wrote in message news:386v7mF5lmt23U1@individual.net...
 
> one thing i find wierd is just how many things 'break' in and around
> this house. we had to buy a new toaster yesterday because it developed
> an electrical fault overnight (or so it seems). most annoying as it was
> not a cheap toaster, nearly 30 pounds i paid for it 2 years ago because
> i wanted a decent one that did not break down so quickly. so many
> things break in this house and the garden that i almost believe in bad
> luck and jinx. 

> sammi

I "inherited" a nice old chrome toaster from a friend's mother
when she died. One day there was an odd smell while we
were toasting a couple of slices of bread. I later disassembled
the toaster and found an electrocuted mouse in the bottom.
Fortunately, I guess, I was unable to reassemble the toaster,
so regrettably, out it went...
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I forgot to add that we had eaten the toast…;-)
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Compare the sound of the Theremax, at
http://www.paia.com/theremax.htm (select
the WAV sample, part way into the page)
with the sound of the original Theremin-built
tube instrument made for the first concert 
thereminist, Clara Rockmore, in Russia in the 
1920's.Search on Amazon "classical music", "clara 
rockmore", then select the first CD and scroll 
down the page to the samples. If these 
comparisons are valid, the sounds are quite 
different (the old Theremin has a much "richer"
"singing" quality to the sound). (BTW, I 
think this CD is a reissue of an LP produced 
by Mrs. Moog, who I knew in the late 60's 
and early 70's...) For more on the Moog
Theremin, go here - www.moogmusic.com
Unfortunately, there are no sound samples
at that site.
Ah, the cyclical nature of history...;-) First
music was all-acoustic, then the Theremin
appeared (though it was little used). Then later
the hybrid assemblages of bits of recorded 
sound appeared (music concret [sp?]),
then the Moog theremin appeared and was 
popular for a time in Sci-Fi movies and the
occasional pop music piece. This was soon
followed by the early Moog and Buchla
voltage-controlled synthesizers (and from
there, MANY variations and developments).
Now we are back at theremins (though
they will not replace acoustic or synthesizer
instruments, so I guess music instrument 
history is not cyclical after all...;-)
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


"Steve" <me@you.com> wrote in message news:Xns9614EEE5073D1meyoucom@127.0.0.1...
> Hi everyone!

> I'm thinking about building my own Theremin. Does anyone know anything 
> about how good the kits are from www.thereminkits.com or from 
> www.paia.com/theremax.htm

> I'd love to buy one of the Moog Theremins, but I'm a poor college student, 
> so building one for $100 is very appealing. If anyone has experience with 
> these or other kits, I'd appreciate any input on which to buy.
>
> Thanks
> Steven Smith 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Another note --
The Theremax does appear to be a lot for the money, 
with some interesting features - and the one at
http://www.thereminkits.com/ is interesting. I guess it
would be hard to match the wonderful tonality of
the original Theremin-built instrument (though I would 
suspect that the Moog-built one would be close - he
made some of the most natural-sounding guitar amps
around in the late 70's, and he was familiar with the
sound of the theremin Clara Rockmore played).
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

"Steve" <me@you.com> wrote in message news:Xns9614EEE5073D1meyoucom@127.0.0.1...
> Hi everyone!

> I'm thinking about building my own Theremin. Does anyone know anything 
> about how good the kits are from www.thereminkits.com or from 
> www.paia.com/theremax.htm

> I'd love to buy one of the Moog Theremins, but I'm a poor college student, 
> so building one for $100 is very appealing. If anyone has experience with 
> these or other kits, I'd appreciate any input on which to buy.
>
> Thanks
> Steven Smith

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


"The Open Sourceror's Apprentice" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message news:Xns961559A74D855MorelyDotesspamblock@216.99.211.247...
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in news:kXYXd.92154$uc.4332
> @trnddc04:
[...]
>> Compare the sound of the Theremax, at
>> http://www.paia.com/theremax.htm (select
>> the WAV sample, part way into the page)
>> with the sound of the original Theremin-built
>> tube instrument made for the first concert
>> thereminist, Clara Rockmore, in Russia in the
>> 1920's.
[...]

> There's some interesting history behind the inventor of the theremin, too; 
> Leon Theremin, in addition to his musical and electronics genius, was a spy 
> for the KGB.

Oooops! Guess some (all, really...) people 
can be both good and bad...;-)
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"G4" <not@allreal.com> wrote in message news:100320051332428864%not@allreal.com...
> Question: what is the best way to store vinyl albums?
> flat or upright?

> peace

Vertically, in inner sleeves that are not folded over
in the corner(s), with the outer covers packed fairly 
tightly together so as to prevent "slumping". If the 
side pressure is sufficient, leaving the original 
shrink wrap on is OK (this will not deform the disk).
Important is storage in a fairly cool *dry* location, 
since mould loves LPs. I have LPs from the late 
60's (and newer) that are in perfect condition...
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As some of us pointed out to you before when 
you posted similarly to an earlier FS post of mine, 
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE PRICES, DON'T 
BUY THE ITEMS! There is no need for you to
comment on any post at all on this NG.

BTW, some people do appreciate that gear sold 
by me has been tested (sample variation *does* 
exist), and that it is accurately and fully described.
This can be worth paying a premium for, especially
if someone is looking for a particular item I have.
And, it is my right to ask whatever I want for any 
item I'm selling - the buyer can decide if it is worth
the price, without your "help". Also, if a buyer
doesn't like the price, a *serious* offer can be
made, and I will consider it.

In other words, your being a "busybody" here is 
not appreciated, and it serves no good purpose.
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


> "Peter" <pcklein@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:R7qdnak4m59FP83fRVn-hA@comcast.com...

>> Noel Lee used to be a manufacture's rep when he went with a friend to buy 
>> some large quatities of wire his friend had ordered from a wire 
>> manufacturer. While waiting he noticed some 12 gauge wire with clear 
>> plastic covering. He found that he could order in in 500ft. quatity. His 
>> friend asked him what he would do with all that heavy wire. Noel said that 
>> he would sell it and take orders for it at some of his accounts. When his 
>> frind asked what he would call his product. Noel didn't have a clue. His 
>> friend pointed out how huge the paired wire was and said it should be 
>> called Monster Cable. Thus, Noel Lee created a new type of audio accessory 
>> which audio dealers could make big proffit by selling to audio 
>> enthusiasts. This new category has evolved into the biggest scam in the 
>> world!
>>
>> Witness some interconnects selling for obscene money. Do electrons have 
>> eyes? Don't they follow the path of least resistance? Does Stevie Wonder 
>> buy fancy insulated, gold plug terminated interconnects? No! He can't SEE 
>> them, and he certainly cannot hear them. Audio dealers once sold a marker 
>> that, if put around the edges of a cd, would make an audible difference. 
>> When your friend spends the cost of a component on fancy interconnects, 
>> ask him what he hears soyou can listen and hear the difference he hears! 
>> Romex type insulated wire is used in the walls of every home. It connects 
>> to the duplex outlet on the wall which people plug everything electric 
>> into, like toaster ovens, vacuum cleaners, hair driers, and audio 
>> components. Some very gullible people have actually purchased two meter 
>> lengths of ultra heavy-duty insulated power cable to go from the duplex 
>> outlet on the wall to the back of their power amplifier, and actually 
>> believe that the two meter length will make a difference in the sound 
>> coming out of their speakers! Wow! Someone is smoking some serious stuff!

"housetrained" <housetrained@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:jb64e.8725$pA6.1437@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> What a great post. Did you read my earlier post re Chord speaker cable. Here 
> in England I don't know what zip wire is but......... just going to try 
> Google. Thanks for the monster cable joke - or is that true???
> -- 
> John the West Ham fan
> housetrained@hotmail.com

I laugh at the "audiomania" gullibility that leads people to spend
large amounts on interconnect wires/connectors/etc., let alone
CD weights, amplifier suspension systems, wall "polka dots",
"power conditioners", etc., but there is some basis for taking
care that amp-speaker cables are nearly the same length, and
that they match the amp-speaker combination for the desired
system frequency response. While adjusting the speaker
wire impedance results in only subtle response changes, they
are audible (unless the amp has a very low output impedance
and the speaker has a constant input impedance). Much more
important, though, and generally overlooked, is careful 
treatment of the room and careful placement of the speakers 
in it (including rotation/tilt relative to *the* listener). The
above is more important for good music reproduction than for
home theater, for which almost anything decent can serve,
I guess...;-)
(BTW, a bit on my audio system/background is on my web 
page, here: http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/Audio.html )
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hmmmm....
Taken advantage of??? 
As I pointed out earlier, there are good reasons for buying
other than for just lowest price - and some people value what
I offer in terms of accurate description, on-film testing, and
good dealing. BTW, "this guy" may just know a thing or
two about gear that you may not - drop "rpn1@cornell.edu"
into www.google.com "groups", and start reading some of
the 14,000+ entries of mine you will find there - you may 
possibly learn something...;-)

Comment on me here if you *personally* have had good 
or bad dealings with me, or if my descriptions have been 
inaccurate, but it is fully up to me to set prices, and fully up 
to a buyer to accept or not my price - it is not your place
to interfere.

And, BTW, I've long felt the 11th commandment should
have been, "Thou shalt not be self-righteous"...! ;-)
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


"Jay Davenport" <jdave11nospam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:7sw4e.2938$VH6.2257@fe06.lga...
>I just want others to know that these prices are WAY out of line. I would 
> just hate for someone who didn't know any better such as a student to be 
> taken advantage of by someone like this guy.


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi--

Anything that reduces edge contrast contrast and 
sharpness can do it - using a diffusion filter, shooting
on grey days, shooting things with little tone contrast.
With some models, "sharpness" can be reduced in menus.
With most Sony camcorders, shooting in portrait mode
forces the focus too close (along with softening the edges),
but it works very well with the TRV30, still allowing
infinity-focus. You can also try forcing the use of minimum 
or maximum lens aperture for slightly less sharp results.
Digital image is placed on a rigid pixel grid, resulting in
the stairstepping when a sharp image and material reveal it.
Analogue is more "fluid", at least in the horizontal direction...
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rico Woltz" <rico_consulting@yahoo.com>
To: <d_ruether@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 11:50 PM
Subject: STAIRSTEPPING


> HI THERE REALLY ENJOY THE SITE 
> THE INFO IS VERY HELPFUL
> REGARDING STAIRSTEPPING 
> DO YOU HAVE ANY TIPS FOR A LOW COST MECHANICAL WAY
> TO REDUCE OR REMOVE IT FROM THE IMAGE AT THE LENSE?
> FILTER PERHAPS?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<esrabb@cox.net> wrote in message news:1115854006.860725.115330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>I have just bought a 16mm Kodak Pageant 205S sound projector at a
> garage sale? Where can I buy 16mm sound camera that will work with this
> projector? Does 16mm silent film work with this projector? Does kodak
> or other film companys still make 16mm sound and silent film that will
> work with this projector?

> Thanks

It is a good projector, but supplying the "other parts" (the film
and processing, camera and lenses, editing gear, and final printing)
can be VERY expensive - especially since video (even high-quality
video) is getting cheaper (which is why many/most of the small
film production houses have converted to video). You can find
good deals on Bolex 16mm cameras (I saw one not too long ago
that was astonishing - but reality set in when all else was considered).
A local producer has Steenbeck editing tables (once quite expensive)
sitting in storage, probably available cheap. The projector will play
silent footage (turn off the sound, or the sprocket-hole playback will 
drive you nuts! ;-), but at several dollars a minute run time, 16mm 
film is not for casual shooting. Best use of the projector may be for 
playing ready-made films - there are probably some "interesting" 
old ones made for schools, etc. that would now seem funny...
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"3.1416-vert" <geriboise@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ba2ua1p68n14tm8nr82d4bg42kpqnu5gak@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 16:05:14 GMT, "David Ruether"
> <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:

>>NICE! (As are many of your other ones...! ;-)
>>
>>-- 
>>DR

> And as usualy I give you a thankyou

> By the way, I have saw and appreciate your 3D material at your web
> site and have saw that you are intrested by 3D movies. Do you know
> that the 3D effects of the last 3D film of Robert Rodriguez (Spykids
> I, II and III) "The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D" have
> been done here in Quebec by a company named "SENSIO" (specialized in
> 2D to 3D films conversions and 3D television hardware) ?

> ref: 
> http://imdb.com/title/tt0424774/
> http://www.sensio.tv/

> Serge

I was unable to see the 3-D effect in Spykids III, and anaglyphs
in general are disappointing to me for their color distortions, also.
And, my own X-eyed videos are hard to watch, too...;-)
I maybe should try again, with more attention given to framing
changes with changing focus distances. I suspect that polarized
coincidental images is the way to go, as used for "The Adventures 
of Sharkboy and Lavagirl" in Imax(?). HDTV, with its greater
detail and control over screen distortion, may open the way for 
good home-video 3-D imaging...
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Hi--

All the PC lenses have the "moustache" distortion, like
all the Nikkor reflex wides shorter than 35mm except
the 15mm f5.6 (no distortion), since the designs are based
on the other designs - and when "cropped" with the
PCs centered, the result is barrel distortion. Worse, when 
shifted, half the long edge is barrel, the other half pincushion.
But, the distortions are not bad, and with a little care
their appearance in photos can be minimized...
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Brown" <robert_brown@orchidserve.com>
To: <rpn1@cornell.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 3:29 AM
Subject: Nikon PC lenses

> Hello,

> Do you happen to know how much linear distortion the Nikon 35/2.8 PC 
> (latest version seven elements AI) and 28/4 PC have? Unfortunately 
> the earlier versions of the 35mm PC lens appear to have some barrel 
> distortion, but I don't know about the above.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Terry Jones" <terryjones@beeb.net> wrote in message 
news:9cejb1lukfs80kcef7of634jv8t5g4u8sb@4ax.com...

> Mum's looking to replace her old 110 cartridge camera with a fairly
> compact digital (and I'm half thinking about replacing my old 35 mm
> too).

> I'm not particularly asking for specific recommendations because often
> the model someone else has had for a while, has been replaced by a
> newer (and not *necessarily* better one) - But some general pointers.

> We're neither of us looking for a video function (and I can't help but
> think that if that's been added, then something else must have been
> skimped :)

> Also which memory cards to look out for - something fairly standard
> (there seem to be such a lot of different ones ATM), and not
> overpriced.

> Thanks - Terry

In general, it is a good idea to look for a camera that takes
AA batteries for power (rechargeable nickel metal hydrides
work well in these) and compact flash cards (pretty standard).
Don't go for resolutions much above 5 megapixels, especially
if the camera is tiny (too much noise in the image, with low
sensitivity). I prefer "SLR" types, where you look into an
eyepiece at an LCD (gives good prediction of exposure and
white balance, which peering at a washed-out panel on the
rear cannot give you). Last year, I would have recommended
the Sony 717 (best color, but largest) and Fuji 7000 - but
this year the $400 Panasonic has an excellent and fast 10X
lens *with a stabilizer* built in - a MOST useful feature!
Panasonic quality for both construction and image quality
tends to be very good. If you *must* go tiny, there are several
models from Canon, Sony, etc. that will make very good small 
to medium sized prints.
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Hylander" <john.gagon@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1121056680.046318.50380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> I myself am hoping to try to use samples to compose music. I need a
> similar kind of program. Any free ones you can recommend? There is one
> I used to have. Can't find it now. I'd also like to be able to compose
> via notes on standard keyboard or an interfacable keyboard.

> I had a friend who had all kinds of synthesizers, samplers etc, he had
> a very nice getup. I have another who is in a guitar band. (no keyboard
> though).

> It would be nice to become a kind of "Aphex Twin" of my own.

> :D

> John

The first sound card I bought (cheap, sold at Walmart) came with 
an excellent bit of software called MidiSoft Studio 4. I still use it.
It permits recording from a Midi keyboard input (retaining touch,
bend, sustain, etc., if the keyboard has it) and/or writing the music on
staffs directly - and the result can be edited and the lines assigned
instruments at any time. It also has a mixer. I bought MidiSoft 
Studio Recording Session later, but it is more complex (and has
more potential) - and I will probably never use it (you can go in 
and modify all the individual note characteristics). Yours for
$60 plus shipping, if you want it. BTW, the MIDI sounds you hear 
depend not only on the speakers, but on the sound fonts (or WAV
table built into the card). I've had MIDI files on my web page
for quite a while, but a change to a card other than my favorite 
(that won't work on 2000/XP, darn!), the pieces sounded terrible!
(Well, worse than usual...;-) So I recorded WAV files from the 
MIDI using the old card, then converted those to mp3s and put 
these up on the web site (at www.donferrario.com/ruether/midi.html )
(Warning - listening to these pieces can be dangerous! ;^)
With my old Turtle Beach card, it was possible to sample,
distribute the sounds, and put them on RAM on the card - something
that may have disappeared with newer cards (but more of this
stuff is now done in software, anyway...).
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi--

The problem with most digital cameras is that you must maintain
the electrical contact operation, which eliminates some excellent 
choices that I used for the bugs on my web site (look around the
picture areas for the "Bugs" category, if you haven't seen them).
Another problem is that you must have sufficient space between 
the front of the lens and the subject to shoot and light easily (I
used a TTL flash at the lens end, pointed in at the bugs - but you
must shoot many images to get a few, if the magnification is high
[and AF doesn't work here]). As for your choices -

- 60mm (too close to subject - maybe using a 2X converter +
shorter tube + 5T or 6T close-up lens, stopped down to f11
*may* work (this is a sharp *macro* [not normal-distance] lens)

- the 85 (with 4T and converter) *may* be a better choice, 
but it is expensive, as is the 200mm macro (with 6T)

-the 105 is not a bad choice, especially with a suitable 1.4X
(or maybe 2X converter, if well stopped down) and 4T 
close-up lens. Using a bellows interrupts the electrical
contacts.

None of these will get you as close as you describe, but may be 
satisfactory (especially the 105, for the price). VERY high 
magnification work requires specialized gear...
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thorn, Martin - Morgantown, WV" <Martin.Thorn@cromptoncorp.com>
To: <d_ruether@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 10:07 PM
Subject: Macro/Micro

> Hi Mr. Ruether, 

> My name is Martin Thorn and I just purchased my first digital camera, (Nikon
> D70) and kit and have taken roughly 120 pictures so far. Wow, what a lot to
> learn! I've always been very interested in Macro photography and for me,
> that means to shoot the bugs eyes or wings or see the nectar on a bees body.
> I also have an interest in shooting flowers and things like that. I've read
> so much in the past few days and I'm beginning to get even more confused. I
> really would like to stay with a Nikon lens if possible, however, if you say
> that another lenses is better for what I like, then that's what I'd go with.
> I have been reading for about one year on the www.dpreview.com website and
> have learned a lot. The lenses I have listed below are the ones I'm
> considering, however, I'm not sure which one is best used with my D70
> camera. If you could just give me your opinion, I'd really appreciate that. 

> Thanks so much!!


> 1. Nikon 60mm F2.8 AF micro 1:1with PN-11 52.5 Extension Tube
> 2. Nikon 85mm F2.8 PC Micro 
> 3. Nikon 105mm ??? Micro with short Bellows 


> PS. I'd like to keep this around $400.00 if possible. 
>

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


> David,

> From the ORION user group, here is an example of a true "Tweekophile" 
> ORION owner and an example of an "audio perfectionist" ORION owner.

> Peter

Yup, good audio is 1/3rd source quality, 1/3rd gear quality, and 1/3rd
set-up quality (tweaking - though this can easily enter the realm of
religion, as can gear-choice). How far one goes with any segment (and
some compensations can be made for some shortcomings in one with
extra care in other segments...) depends on the inclinations, skills,
and perseverance of the audiomaniac. Unfortunately, acquiring audio
"Nirvana" requires years of experience and work - which is unlikely
to be desirable (or even conceivable) for most. Fortunately, an 
acceptable level of audio quality can be had with a moderate audio
background and moderate funds so long as the moderate success
level achieved is accepted and a long trek to perfection is not triggered
by higher expectations...;-)
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi--

Not sure I can keep the following items straight, but I will try...;-)

> Audiophiles are a very small portion of the total population. My take on 
> "audiophiles" is a group of nerds with mixed interests. They are very 
> opinionated.

Yes...;-)

> If I were do a survey of all audiophiles in the US, I think the follow 
> statistics would show some validity. Your assessment will probably be much 
> different than mine. But what the heck it's only my gut feeling. Your 
> opinion is a good as mine, unless either one of us has some statistically 
> reliable data that would survive a peer review of a scientific journal.

Yes. Fun, though, to speculate...;-)

> True audiophiles: 1 in 4000 people in the US (ballpark guess. US pop is 
> about 295 million, the subscriber list of Stereophile is about 70,000)

> Divide True Audiophiles (say 70,000 in the US and this number is dropping) 
> into the following groups:

> Ratio of True tweekophiles / True audiophiles: 1/100 (David Ruether is 
> a true tweekphile, Peter Hillman isn't)

Missing out on part of that potential 1/3rd of performance optimization, 
then...;-)

> Ratio of True audio perfectionists/ True audiophiles: 1/300 (true audio 
> perfectionist, e,g, S. Linkwitz, is one whose goal is make the sound system 
> replicate the audio event with uncanny precision)

I think the number may be higher, otherwise what is the gear for,
other than to satisfy "gear-head" inclinations...? ;-) The money
and choices must be used for some end, though quite a bit of it is 
likely just for chasing the written words of the audio gurus, I 
guess - but behind those words, presumably, is the intent to improve 
the gear 1/3rd of the listening system used for achieving something 
nearer the original audio event (misguided as some of this advice 
is...;-).

> Ratio of Speaker builders / True audiophiles: 1/200 

> (speaker builders are 
> a dying breed and I won't be around that many more years)

Pshaw.....! Nonsense! ;-)

> Ratio of True Music Lovers / True audiophiles: 1/5 (a true music lover 
> cares about a conductor's interpretation of an orchestral piece and is 
> happy listening to it on mediocre equipment)

Not sure what proportion I would place here. Is someone who 
cares about the nuances of the performances and little about the
reproduction quality even definable as an audiophile? Perhaps
"music lover" is more suitable for what you describe, though one 
person can be both an audiophile and a music lover, of course
(which brings us back to the original proportioning...!). Mebbe
1/5 is about right...;-)

> Ratio of Equipment Freaks / True audiophiles: 1/3 (Kent Hubbell and Frank 
> Labonte are equipment freaks who crave McIntosh and Krell $$ gear ... the 
> more it costs the better it sounds).

I guess that proportion may be about right.......(though I would 
possibly place that proportion at something more like 6/1...;-).
People "like" their gear - even the ones who've had the same
preamp or whatever for 25 years - and we still like at least to
talk about gear, even if we are not swapping pieces of it out 
weekly...;-)

> Ratio of People who like to show off how their system sounds / audiophiles 
> who actually want to listen to it: 1/50 (both you and I like to show off 
> our gear, but many don't want to actually listen to it).

Maybe. I wonder if some of this is insecurity - people may fear
that all their effort/money has produced lesser results compared
with someone else's? Or do people just not care about what 
others have done with their systems? Too much trouble to 
go-listen/receive-listeners? Dunno. If I heard of a whiz-bang 
system, I'd be curious enough to go hear it...;-)

> Ratio of People who like to show off their $$ equipment/ audiophiles who 
> actually want to see it: 1/30 (they will also like to play their 
> equipment loudly, but really its a $$ equipment ego trip).

Yes - but the world is full of $3000 stereo components (b o r i n g ,
unless there is something sonically interesting - like SACD).

> Ratio of people who like to chat about various aspects of audio / true 
> audiophiles: 1/1 (this is why a diverse bunch of audiophiles like to get 
> together).

Yes - though it is interesting to see how the AF group splits into
those into complications (DSP, 5-6 channels, etc.), simplicity,
old-technologies, newest-technologies, totally new to field, old
hands at it, scientific-approach, hands-on approach, tweakers,
non-tweakers, musicians, etc. - all in a very small group...!;-)

> Tom Whitlow want to play CDs for the music and to chat. I suspect he is a 
> "true music lover" It's not about hearing how good his gear sounds.

I will see if I can make it - parking is a problem...

> Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger -:)
8^)

> Peter
--
David Ruether 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

> At 10:08 AM 4/24/2006, you wrote:
>>Hi--
>>
>>Thanks.
>>I will try to make it, though a crowded office seems a poor location for
>>evaluating a system. Guess no one but you and Marcus were interested in 
>>hearing my outfit - have invited several, with little response... (are most
>>audio-nurds interested only in talking about gear, and not in hearing the 
>>actual sound quality or music? ;-). BTW, I did get the recording of the
>>April first concert - and, while good, it reminded me of the hopelessness
>>of comparing the actual sound with a recording (mic selection and placement
>>makes as much difference as it does with speakers, and, while I understand
>>why the selections were made, the recording had little sense of the space 
>>and dynamics that were there in the concert). Ah, well - but still nice.
>>--
>>David Ruether
>>http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

>>>I cordially invite you to drop by my office next Tuesday between 4:30 and 
>>>6:00 to listen to my office system in 23 Plant Science. Bring a favorite 
>>>cd. I'll provide pizza.
>>>Best,
>>>Tom Whitlow
>>>thw2@cornell.edu

 

Go to:  More Posts - Seven
Go to:  More Posts Index
Go to:  Articles Index
Go to:  David Ruether Photography