Re: New Telefunkens
- From: "Kevin Aylward" <seemywebsite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 13:15:44 -0000
"John Williamson" wrote in message news:8oa3p3Fhe8U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 01/01/2011 18:33, Kevin Aylward wrote:
My conduct has, essentially, amounted to presenting an irrefutable
argument that $9000 mics are, in general, a waste of money. That's it
Period. End of story. I have made one point regarding audio. What part
of this are you incapable of understanding?
Nobody is denying that *for the use you make of your equipment* it would be, indeed, a waste of your money.
I am claiming that for the overwhelming majority of recorded music on this planet, $9k mics are a waste of money. It is not restricted to my personal use of such items.
There are 6 billion on this planet. Lets say there are that 1B of them that actually pay in some way for recorded music.
Hands up any of those that will claim 10% of them, i.e. 100M will notice that a $9000 mike was used.
I wager that you won't find a 1M that will notice.
Many people who subscribe to this newsgroup have found that, in their experience, equipment of this type is *not* a waste of money.
They are either not relevant, deluded, mistaken or lying because they they do not want to admit that they were wrong.
The people subscribing to this ng, apparently claim to be affiliated to the view of "pro recording studios". As I have previously noted in another post, this particular group of recorders form only a small minority of all recorders, so their experience is not at all significant. Please see my other post to you on this matter for more details.
Who is more likely to be right? The one person who admits to not needing such equipment or being able to tell if it has been used, or the many who all agree that it or similar items are, at times, an essential tool of their trade?
I have made no statements whatsoever as to whether or not I, personally, can detect whether such mics have been used or not. I have been very specific in what I claim and do not claim. I do note that many here do appear to have a habit of fabricating extensions to my posts.
Allegations of subjective, non provable opinions, of which audio is subject to, should be given the same credibility as all other no provable, subjective opinions. For example, "the lord personally spoke to me last night".
I don't recall anyone actually claiming that a $9000 mic was an "essential tool of their trade". My understanding is that, some, allege that they might find such a tool cost effective.
In other words, are you the only sensible, logical person in the World?
Not at all. We have a handful of posters here, with no qualifications in science, and have subsequently shown that they do not understand simple logic. We also have posters that have trouble in understanding the exact details of what was wrote, versus non logical fabricated extrapolations from those words.
By the way "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics" is an old quote which survives in the public mind because it contains rather more than a grain of truth. By careful selection from the raw data, and manipulating it in an apparently correct and logical manner, the same data can often support both sides of a statistical argument.
Sure, by lying, one can often allege that statistical data supports more than one conclusion. This is of course, irrelevant. The assumption in the scientific application of statistics is that it is open and applied correctly and honestly. When done in this manner, statistics is a very powerful tool that can be used to determine truth from falsity.
"I was never told that the evidence for WMD in Iraq was fabricated"
No, but he read it in a report 3 months before the invasion.
Check out "Yes Minister" for the state of the art in mistruths. http://www.yes-minister.com/episodes.htm
"To issue a clarification, is not to make things more clear, it is to put one in the clear"
Kevin Aylward B.Sc.
"Live Long And Prosper \V/"
- Re: New Telefunkens
- From: Doug McDonald
- Re: New Telefunkens
- Prev by Date: Re: New Telefunkens
- Next by Date: Re: New Telefunkens
- Previous by thread: Re: New Telefunkens
- Next by thread: Re: New Telefunkens