| Author |
Message |
tiglath
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:44 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
Ron(UK) wrote:
| Quote: |
Some gadgets are bling and some are useful, satnav is very useful of
course I won`t deny that. Airbags arent bling, all safety measures are
desirable but it`s got to the point now that some peoples cars are
better appointed than their homes. I`m not over impressed with Lexus,
my Bro in law has one (dunno which model offhand) and although it`s ok,
I wouldn`t want it.
|
Models matter, try the flagship LS430. I don't like its exterior look
that much, wind tunnel efficiency seems to require looking like a jelly
bean, but otherwise it has no peer at the price. I've looked for
better and didn't find it for the use described, I have no affiliation
to the brand and can be objective.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tiglath
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:51 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
Tim S Kemp wrote:
| Quote: | tiglath wrote:
I have a couple of cheap 18" JBL subs, good volume, not tight. Tops
and subs it is then. I look at specs and reviews for those. Great.
I've got some JBL SRX4718s, they seem OK to me. The turbo ones are
definitely more defined though. They're also somewhat better made - the JBLs
are glued together and poorly braced.
|
Mine are JBL JRX118sp powered subs, the size is right but they are a
bit woolly.
Do you prefer active or passive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim S Kemp
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:00 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
tiglath wrote:
| Quote: | Tim S Kemp wrote:
tiglath wrote:
I have a couple of cheap 18" JBL subs, good volume, not tight. Tops
and subs it is then. I look at specs and reviews for those. Great.
I've got some JBL SRX4718s, they seem OK to me. The turbo ones are
definitely more defined though. They're also somewhat better made -
the JBLs are glued together and poorly braced.
Mine are JBL JRX118sp powered subs, the size is right but they are a
bit woolly.
Do you prefer active or passive?
|
Generally prefer active for the foolproof nature and the fact that one amp
per speaker means that one failed amp doesn't kill your entire system.
--
All of my hate cannot be FOUND
I will not be drowned by your thoughtless scheming
so you can try to tear me down
Beat me to the ground
I will see you screaming |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Judge
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:11 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
George Gleason wrote:
| Quote: | Hey Judge where are your little blow buddies boseboy and terminator?
no posts from them since last night
whats up with that?
to bad you think your the big iron in this town
your not
your a fucking Joke and visa versa
big bad judgiepoo hiding behind a screen name
I would bet I have already kicked your ass to dallas and back several
times
why not post with your real name and a real addy your a fucking coward
here let me correct that
your a boring fucking coward
as for if I reply or not that is going to depend on if you can muster a
coherant thought or not
you are here to entertain me, what you want what you think what you do is
not now and never will be a issue
now dance monkey boy
George
|
Oh dear. Pass him the sedatives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Gleason
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:15 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
The Judge <blah@blah.com> wrote in
news:1129666233.dfecfda7f75be91443683f02fdc4d3d6@teranews:
| Quote: | George Gleason wrote:
Hey Judge where are your little blow buddies boseboy and terminator?
no posts from them since last night
whats up with that?
to bad you think your the big iron in this town
your not
your a fucking Joke and visa versa
big bad judgiepoo hiding behind a screen name
I would bet I have already kicked your ass to dallas and back several
times
why not post with your real name and a real addy your a fucking
coward
here let me correct that
your a boring fucking coward
|
| Quote: |
as for if I reply or not that is going to depend on if you can muster
a coherant thought or not
you are here to entertain me, what you want what you think what you
do is not now and never will be a issue
now dance monkey boy
George
Oh dear. Pass him the sedatives.
Dance good or I take away your fez and the tin cup |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tiglath
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:24 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
Tim S Kemp wrote:
| Quote: |
Do you prefer active or passive?
Generally prefer active for the foolproof nature and the fact that one amp
per speaker means that one failed amp doesn't kill your entire system.
|
Not for the better sound?
If I remember correctly when active systems came out they were touted
as superior mostly due to that the crossover no longer had to deal with
speaker level signals that need large capacitors, but could work with
line level currents in more sophisticated ways, hopefully translated to
better definition, clarity, etc.
Is that still so?
Passive speakers seem to have caught up, if they were ever straggling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tiglath
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:33 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
Tim S Kemp wrote:
Thank you.
"expensive clothes, cars, homes." Gee, many people spend lives chasing
after those things. Nothing wrong with it. The showing off part is in
poor taste, but the biggest risk is losing sight that: love is
everything all the rest if fill.
See what happens after you read Gleason, the sheer sentimentalism of it
is contagious. Sheesh... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim S Kemp
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:34 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
tiglath wrote:
| Quote: | If I remember correctly when active systems came out they were touted
as superior mostly due to that the crossover no longer had to deal
with speaker level signals that need large capacitors, but could work
with line level currents in more sophisticated ways, hopefully
translated to better definition, clarity, etc.
Is that still so?
Passive speakers seem to have caught up, if they were ever straggling.
|
Ahhh - no, not getting the point - when you said active I assumed you meant
self powered. DSP and multiple amps is the way to go whether speakers are
passive or active... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tiglath
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:07 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
Tim S Kemp wrote:
| Quote: | tiglath wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I take self-powered and active to be
synonymous, and that the difference between active and passive
speakers is that the passive crossover gets the amplified signal from
the power amp, while the active crossover gets the line level signal
from the preamp, splits it and sends it to tweeter and woofer where
it's individually amplified. Is that correct?
Passive speaker - no amp. May or may not have a passive crossover
Passive crossover - speaker level in, speaker levels out.
Active speaker - has amp. May have multiple amps or one amp and a passive
crossover.
|
Fair enough. Thank you kindly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiglath
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
"Tim S Kemp" <news@timkemp.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WPKdncslCdAq1sjeRVnyjw@karoo.co.uk...
| Quote: |
Mercedes S class is the best option - engines from 3.2 diesel to 6l V12,
choice of short or long wheelbase, much nicer to drive and in long
wheelbase
form much nicer to be driven in.
|
The Merc has the edge in handling over the Lexus. The Lexus feels more
isolated from the road. But a comparable Merc is 20K more, and in the
interior the Lexus has the edge. Lexus is better value. As I said if you
want the thrill of driving don't get a Luxury car get a sports car... and
see your license evaporate too...
| Quote: | BMW 7 series is the best to drive - smooth and quiet but can also be fun
on
backroads - oh yeah, america doesn't have backroads.
|
There are more BMWs traded in for Lexus than Lexus traded in for BMWs, I've
checked. I've never like BMWs, a matter of taste, althought the 740 looks
very elegant.
| Quote: | Jaguar XJ is very clever - light weight and efficient engines - remember
that fuel is damned expensive these days and an XJ6 or XJ V6 diesel is
more
economical than any of the equivalents mentioned here
Then there's Audis (the A8 is cool), VW (the Phaeton is better in every
way
than the Lexus), Volvo (S80 is smaller but is more comfortable than the
Lexus).
--
All of my hate cannot be FOUND
I will not be drowned by your thoughtless scheming
so you can try to tear me down
Beat me to the ground
I will see you screaming
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hank alrich
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:25 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
Phildo wrote:
| Quote: | "Ron(UK)" wrote...
Phildo, do you have to follow the manuscript when you engineer those big
shows on the luxury ocean liner you work on?
No, in many years of doing musicals I have never used a musical score during
a show or seen any engineer use them.
|
Maybe you ought to catch a Kronos Quartet concert, and watch FOH keeping
one eye on the _score_ in order to fire off the prerecorded portions at
the right time. This isn't reading "Mary Had A Little Lamb", either. FOH
for them is are full-on musicians, in addition to being terrific mixers.
--
ha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hank alrich
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:40 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
| Quote: | George, you present yourself around here as being some kind
of world class live sound mixer now you've admit that you
can't even read music? LOL!
|
I know of a few situations where keen reading of music is necessary for
good FOH work, and one in which it is essential. 99.97% of the time it
is irrelevant and no score will be provided FOH.
--
ha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phildo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:44 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1h4okz0.g3dg1fxy66lrN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
| Quote: | Phildo wrote:
"Ron(UK)" wrote...
Phildo, do you have to follow the manuscript when you engineer those
big
shows on the luxury ocean liner you work on?
No, in many years of doing musicals I have never used a musical score
during
a show or seen any engineer use them.
Maybe you ought to catch a Kronos Quartet concert, and watch FOH keeping
one eye on the _score_ in order to fire off the prerecorded portions at
the right time. This isn't reading "Mary Had A Little Lamb", either. FOH
for them is are full-on musicians, in addition to being terrific mixers.
They are the exception to the rule. |
In literally hundreds of different theatre shows I have never seen a sound
engineer reading sheet music. It is merely something Arny has dreamed up.
Phildo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hank alrich
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
Ron(UK) wrote:
| Quote: | Bose isnt Pro gear, get over it.
|
Which makes good sense, seeing as how Wiggy Tinkle isn't a pro musician.
Lovely post, Ron - thanks.
--
ha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hank alrich
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:43 am Post subject:
Re: Is the Yamaha AW16G Good As a Mixer? |
|
|
Tim S Kemp wrote:
| Quote: | how do you have the ignorace to do this to yourself over
and over and over agian for all the world to laugh at you
George, you present yourself around here as being some kind of world class
live sound mixer now you've admit that you can't even read music? LOL!
Many of the best musicians can't read music, secular and Christian. You need
to be careful with your words Arny, you're degenerating into petit argument.
|
And that from a soapbox on a step ladder.
--
ha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in