Parni_Valjak

Why Not Wye? When Combining Two Signals Into One Is Not A Good Idea Anything that can be hooked up wrong, will be. You-know-who said that, and she was right... March 24, 2015, by Dennis A. Bohn This article is provided by Rane Corporation. Wye-connectors (or “Y”-connectors, if you prefer) should never have been created. Anything that can be hooked up wrong, will be. You-know-who said that, and she was right. A wye-connector used to split a signal into two lines is being used properly; a wye-connector used to mix two signals into one is being abused and may even damage the equipment involved. Here is the rule: Outputs are low impedance and must only be connected to high impedance inputs—never, never tie two outputs directly together—never. If you do, then each output tries to drive the very low impedance of the other, forcing both outputs into current-limit and possible damage. As a minimum, severe signal loss results. “Monoing” Low End One of the most common examples of tying two outputs together is in “monoing” the low end of multiway active crossover systems. This combined signal is then used to drive a subwoofer system. Since low frequencies below about 100 Hz have such long wavelengths (several feet), it is very difficult to tell where they are coming from (like some of your friends). They are just there—everywhere. Due to this phenomenon, a single subwoofer system is a popular cost-effective way to add low frequency energy to small systems. So the question arises as how best to do the monoing, or summing, of the two signals? It is done very easily by tying the two low frequency outputs of your crossovers together using the resistive networks described below. You do not do it with a wye-cord. Summing Boxes Figure 1 shows the required network for sources with unbalanced outputs. Two resistors tie each input together to the junction of a third resistor, which connects to signal common. This is routed to the single output jack. Figure 1. Unbalanced Summing Box The resistor values can vary about those shown over a wide range and not change things much. As designed, the input impedance is about 1k ohms and the line driving output impedance is around 250 ohms. The output impedance is small enough that long lines may still be driven, even though this is a passive box. The input impedance is really quite low and requires 600 ohm line-driving capability from the crossover, but this should not create problems for modern active crossover units. The rings are tied to each other, as are the sleeves; however, the rings and sleeves are not tied together. Floating the output in this manner makes the box compatible with either balanced or unbalanced systems. It also makes the box ambidextrous: It is now compatible with either unbalanced (mono, 1-wire) or balanced (stereo, 2-wire) 1/4-inch cables. Using mono cables shorts the ring to the sleeve and the box acts as a normal unbalanced system; while using stereo cables takes full advantage of the floating benefits. Stereo-to-Mono Summing Box Figure 2 shows a network for combining a stereo input to a mono output. The input and output are either a 1/4-inch TRS, or a mini 1/8-inch TRS jack. The comments regarding values for Figure 1 apply equally here. Figure 2. Stereo-to-Mono Summing Box Balanced Summing Boxes Figures 3and 4 show wiring and parts for creating a balanced summing box. The design is a natural extension of that appearing in Figure 1. Figure 3. Balanced summing box using XLR connectors Figure 4. Balanced summing box using 1/4-inch TRS connectors Here both the tip (pin 2, positive) and the ring (pin 3, negative) tie together through the resistive networks shown. Use at least 1 percent matched resistors. Any mismatch between like-valued resistors degrades the common-mode rejection capability of the system. Termites In The Woodpile Life is wonderful and then you stub your toe. The corner of the dresser lurking in the night of this Note has to do with applications where you want to sum two outputs together and you want to continue to use each of these outputs separately. In other words, if all you want to do is sum two outputs together and use only the summed results (the usual application), skip this section. The problem arising from using all three outputs (the two original and the new summed output) is one of channel separation, or crosstalk. If the driving unit truly has zero output impedance, then channel separation is not degraded by using this summing box. However, when dealing with real-world units you deal with finite output impedances (ranging from a low of 47 ohms to a high of 600 ohms). Even a low output impedance of 47 ohms produces a startling channel separation spec of only 27 dB, i.e., the unwanted channel is only 27 dB below the desired signal. (Technical details: the unwanted channel, driving through the summing network, looks like 1011.3 ohms driving the 47 ohms output impedance of the desired channel, producing 27 dB of crosstalk.) Now 27 dB isn’t as bad as first imagined. To put this into perspective, remember that even the best of the old phono cartridges had channel separation specs of about this same magnitude. Therefore stereo separation is maintained at about the same level as a high-quality hi-fi home system of the 1970s. For professional systems this may not be enough. If a trade-off is acceptable, things can be improved. If you scale all the resistors up by a factor of 10, then channel separation improves from 27 dB to 46 dB. As always though, this improvement is not free. The price is paid in reduced line driving capability. The box now has high output impedance, which prevents driving long lines. Driving a maximum of 3000 pF capacitance is the realistic limit. This amounts to only 60 feet of 50 pF/foot cable, a reasonable figure. So if your system can stand a limitation of driving less than 60 feet, scaling the resistors is an option for increased channel separation. Presented with permission from Rane Corporation.

Благодаря на всички, които ме оцениха 5000 пъти! Да сте живи и здрави!

Стига с това "В предвиТ", че вече ми израстна на носа! Български език учил ли си ! Казва се ПРЕДВИД, без В и Т ! Когато пускаш тема, бъди добър да я следиш и да водиш смислен диалог с участниците в нея.Хората ти дават съвети, но ти не им отговаряш по същество и накрая няма никакъв смислен резултат! Направи това, което ти се препоръчва и дай отговор какъв е резултатът, за да може да се стигне до някакво разумно решение.

Issue 70 of TONEAudio magazine​ is now available for free download!

Като няма нищо обезпокоително, защо си обезпокоен? Че и цял форум занимаваш?

Kansas - Miracles Out of Nowhere Trailer Rock band Kansas Talks "Miracles Out of Nowhere"

Много малка е възможността за друго освен повреда в мониторите. Ако липсваше звук , имаше изкривявания или брум - по-може да се очаква нещо със свързването или кабелите. Но намалени или липсващи високи честоти, това по-скоро е проблем в озвучителните тела. Трябва да се направи една проверка, като се подаде един и същ сигнал , едновременно в двата монитора. Така ще се избегне вероятността от грешки при свързванията, или разлика в левия и десен канал на всеки елемент от веригата преди мониторите - източник, компютър и т.н. Мисля, че ще е наложителна консултация със специалист, за да се направи точна преценка.

James Clerk Maxwell and his four equations of electromagnetic fields Posted by David Herres Clicking on Google Books and typing “James Clerk Maxwell” will quickly bring you to A Treatise on Electricity And Magnetism (1873). In this awesome volume, Maxwell synthesizes and thoroughly rationalizes the work of Faraday and other researchers. True, Maxwell’s outer limits were challenged by the Michelson-Morley experiment, which failed to detect the lumeniferous aether that Maxwell’s field theory would seem to require. Albert Einstein’s later counter-intuitive interpretation and the far-out implications of quantum mechanics notwithstanding, Maxwell’s four partial differential equations still unify our understanding of light and electromagnetic radiation as phenomena that occupy a single spectrum. The first equation comes from Ampere’s law and denotes conductive current J and displacement current D induces a magnetic field. The second equation is from Faraday’s law and says the variation in the ,magnetic field induces the electrical field. The third and fourth equations are from the Gaussian Theorem for the magnetic and electrical field respectively. Maxwell admired and respected those who went before, going back as far as Thales of Miletus. His work primarily built upon experimental results obtained by Charles-Augustin Coulomb and Michael Faraday. Coulomb by chance had discovered that a magnetized needle is deflected when current passes through a nearby conductor. Faraday had built upon this observation, amassing a large amount of experimental data, which he gave to the world along with incisive interpretations that were meaningful to subsequent researchers including Maxwell. Faraday lacked the mathematical expertise as well as the inclination to conceptualize the phenomena that he described so well. Maxwell, with his unifying field theory and equations, can be seen as completing the work of his predecessors, establishing a high plateau of accurate theory, fully quantified. This line of thought began at King’s College in 1862, where Maxwell found by calculation that electromagnetic force propagates at approximately the speed of light. Maxwell reasoned that the great rate at which both entities traverse vast distances through space could not be regarded as coincidence. The logical conclusion is that light and electromagnetism are actually the same except for frequency. Maxwell was proficient in experimentation and theorization as well. This was evident in his work on the motion of gas molecules. His approach turned to statistics and probability, previously used more in the social sciences, to analyze these motions. The result was the Maxwell-Boltzmann theory of distribution of molecular energies. In connection with Maxwell’s idea of the propagation of light and electromagnetic force, Albert Einstein, who kept a portrait of Maxwell on the wall of his study, had this to say: Since Maxwell’s time, physical reality has been thought of as represented by continuous fields, and not capable of any mechanical interpretation. This change in the conception of reality is the most profound and the most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton. The old imagery of electricity as moving through wires like fluid moving through pipes, was overthrown in favor of abstract mathematical models, and this new style of thinking made possible Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and the related but not yet compatible odd notions of quantum mechanics.

Често във форума се чувствам като бащата във видеото https://fbcdn-video-e-a.akamaihd.net/hvideo-ak-xaf1/v/t42.1790-2/10992157_429885097184256_931944278_n.webm?oh=0f4df90864a2dbd7d249b760ee87348b&oe=55116852&__gda__=1427203696_2c2e78d4bca95e8524faaf1cbe3bcd1e

Unlocking the Mystery of the Greatest Loudspeaker in History: the Yamaha NS10 Ever wonder why the small Yamaha NS10 monitor is poised so confidently behind the mixing consoles of every major recording studio around the world? I have. When you explore this little loudspeaker’s list of credits, you’ll discover that no other single loudspeaker has played a greater role in your musical library than the Yamaha NS10—period! But the equation is more complex than you might think. We’ve got the most famous loudspeaker in history—a Grammy Awarded loudspeaker. And we have the world’s best sound engineers using them. But we have other engineers openly cursing these speakers: so, what gives?? Every major recording studio in the world uses these speakers and yet, if you asked someone to explain why the speakers are so valuable, no one would be able to tell you the real answer. Sound experts grapple with a real explanation of what these speakers actually do on a technological level that makes them so needed. It’s an industry mystery, and it is one that has intrigued me for years. The NS10 was originally released simply as a domestic hi-fi loudspeaker in 1978; but it did not sound good, and it was poorly received. Then, somehow, by fluke or by miracle, recording engineers began implementing them as a reference benchmark for a bad sounding speaker. Imagine: what is now the world’s most influential loudspeaker was once regarded as the worst sounding equipment on the market. However, professionals soon began to realize the NS10 had the uncanny ability to reveal shortcomings in recordings, and the rest is history. A short list of Grammy Awarded engineers known for using the Yamaha NS10 is Andy Wallace, Brendan O’Brien, Tom & Chris Lord-Alge, Charles Dye, and Dave Pensado. With these big names on board, it makes sense to say that the Yamaha NS10 is invaluable to the recording industry. Literally thousands of albums have been produced using the Yamaha NS10 or one of its production variants. We’re talking many Gold and Platinum production numbers here. Pick your top ten all-time favorite songs and albums from the last thirty years and you’ll discover the NS10 was likely used at some point in their production process. And, if you expand that top ten list of yours to movie and television recordings, you’ll soon realize that the NS10’s influence upon how and what we hear is near endless. With a pedigree like this you’d think that every engineer worth his salt would have a pair of these black and white boxes and be using them every day—but they don’t. The ultimate irony here is Yamaha literally walked away from NS10 production in 2001. They completely abandoned all production! Yamaha soon moved into the realm of wider bandwidth, more linear, and larger-sized models; a mistake in my professional opinion. In my career in the music industry, I have designed over fifty-five commercially available loudspeaker designs, but I had never been able to crack the secret of what makes the NS10 so valuable. Over the years I’ve been asked to build near-field monitors, or speakers that are used in recording studios, for audio engineers. To date, we’ve built them for some of the biggest names and artists in the industry. Intuitively, when I was first asked to produce a near-field monitor, I figured I needed to start with some homework, and the first thing I did was research the Yamaha NS10. When it came time to evaluate the NS10 frequency response, I saw something very intriguing. This loudspeaker, so highly revered by everyone, had the strangest frequency response I had ever seen. Then it hit me . . . the frequency response looked strangely familiar . . . but where . . . ? Then, the correlation was almost instant. I went straight to the ISO 226 equal-loudness contours curves and the Fletcher Munson curves—research that shows how the human ear hears sound at different frequencies. I copied a page from one of the tables, flipped it over upside down, and held the page up to my window. Through the light, I saw what looked to be the Yamaha NS10 frequency response now for the second time and located in a place where no one expected to find it. It now made perfect sense – mystery solved! My respect for Bob Clearmountain, the first sound engineer to regularly use the NS10 in a recording studio, now goes through the stratosphere! His intuitiveness, creativity, and most importantly, his ability to discern how music should sound in recordings places him in the realm of Picasso and Michelangelo. The Yamaha NS10 was an accidental inverse of the ISO 226 equal-loudness contours curves and the Fletcher Munson curves. The Yamaha NS10 becomes a successful near-field ‘mixing monitor’ when it is placed sideways with the tweeters opposed and on the outside; and placed in the near-field referenced to a level between 80-100dB. Mixing with a loudspeaker like this causes revealing midrange (harmonics and subtle details) and invites the engineer to emphasize the lower frequencies proportionally; reduce the midrange dominance, and emphasize and adjust high frequencies accordingly. Proper editing and playback on reference grade loudspeakers at levels between 80-100dB will reveal a quality end result. I’m oversimplifying all of this a bit here because this is not only pure science… it’s also art. Based on the unraveling of this mystery, I have filed for patent protection for what I term a new type of ‘conversion monitor’ for ‘mixing sound’. I am pleased to announce new loudspeakers for near-field mixing and monitoring. These will be high quality scientific electro-acoustical instruments and powerful tools in a sound engineer’s toolbox. Pre-orders are now being accepted – please email me directly. I will also make licensing available to individuals, companies, and manufacturers. I also plan to offer a Yamaha NS10 crossover modification that will hug the equal-loudness contour inversion even closer. We are excited to add to the legacy that the NS10 has already brought to the recording industry, and are proud to offer you a new industry-changing product. Eric Jay Alexander President Tekton Design LLC Yamaha NS10 Frequency Response: Further enforcing the theory: Bob Clearmountain placed tissue paper over the tweeter to further attenuate it. This too, was no accident and it takes the NS10 much closer to the 80-100dB ISO equal-loudness contour. The Fletcher Munson and Equal-Loudness Contours inverted:

>>>PART3 Figure 13 is represented by two-ply papers, illustrating only Northern (yellow), and MD Unscented (white). Enlarge View of Fig. 13 Enlarge View of Fig. 14 I almost didn't measure the effect of paper towels, because no one has ever mentioned using them. But, for the sake of science, I decided to explore new, uncharted territory. Every tested paper towel exhibited a different curve, showing no consistency for drawing conclusions. One very interesting thing was found, however: Brawney two-ply in a two-layer configuration exhibited the smoothest rolloff of any test sample, as can be seen from Figure 14. So what conclusions can we draw at this point? We can rule out color as a factor in the measurements, but cannot definitely state that two layers will cause much deeper frequency response dips than the same tissue or paper in a single layer (Figure 8). We can see that, at times, two layers of T.P. can simulate tissue curves, but cannot draw positive conclusions about the effect of ply number (Figure 11). At this point I was generally unhappy at not being able to draw more precise patterns from this experiment, and so I took another approach. Thinking that I may get a more accurate measurement of high-frequency absorption, I placed the tissue over the microphone. Imagine my surprise when the chart came out looking exactly likeFigure 3, and exhibited absolutely no deviation from the reference. This discovery led to the idea of hanging a sheet of two-ply Kleenex in front of the tweeter at distances of 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 inches; the results of these tests are depicted inFigures 15 thru 18, respectively. Interesting, dont you think? Enlarge View of Fig. 15 Enlarge View of Fig. 16 Enlarge View of Fig. 17 Enlarge View of Fig. 18 So now we have something concrete: Kleenex did not absorb any high frequencies when placed over the microphone capsule, while Figures 15 thru 18 indicate that the HF attenuation affect of tissue is position dependent. As a result, it would appear that the tissue creates the one thing that studio designers around the world try to avoid, fearing it most in their control rooms: Comb Filtering. The paper filters are not absorbing the high frequencies, but simply reflecting them back into the tweeter, thereby causing cancellation through comb filtering. Since nobody would put up with such aberrant behavior in their main control-room monitors, why should we go this route in a close-field speaker? The result is a very crude and, I would say, undesirable method for dealing with the problem of a speaker sounding a bit too bright. And, as one can see from the charts included in this article, the use of tissue layers is certainly a very uncontrollable and non-linear method of doing the job. If a little less high-end is desired, how about a simple electronic filter that could be measured and controlled in a more reliable manner than the "Tissue Fix?" END

>>>>PART2 Enlarge View of Fig. 5 Figure 5 demonstrates a smoother curve, exhibited by two samples of a single layer of two-ply represented by Kleenex Pocket Pack Facial Tissue (pink and blue). It is interesting to note that the white version of this same tissue - whose response is shown in Figure 6 - exhibited dips 1 to 2 dBs deeper than those detailed above. Enlarge View of Fig. 6 Enlarge View of Fig. 7 Enlarge View of Fig. 8 Enlarge View of Fig. 9 Now we'll look at the effect of folding the tissue to form two layers of two-ply covering the tweeter. As one would expect, there is a significant drop in level although, as you will observe, the affected frequencies remain roughly the same.Figure 7 demonstrates the sample group with a 1 dB drop at 11 kHz, and then a more severe high-end rolloff than the one-layer samples. There is also a deeper, wider dip from 3 to 10 kHz. Samples in this group were Kleenex Pocket Pack Facial Tissue (blue, yellow and pink), and Coronet Facial Tissue New Unscented (white). Figure 8 demonstrates a more extreme effect. While the 11 kHz region is hardly affected, the two dips have become more severe. Gingham Facial Tissue (white) and Nice 'n' Soft Facial Tissue Unscented (white) fit into this sample. The real surprise in this sample was that two of the one-layer brands exhibited this same curve: Kleenex Facial Tissue (white), and Kleenex Softique Lightly Scented (yellow). Figure 9 shows the most extreme effect in the two-layer tests. As can be seen, the rolloff is extremely non-linear, and the dips are quite deep with these samples. Represented here are Kleenex Softique Lightly Scented (yellow), and Kleenex Facial Tissue (white). The effect is not surprising in reference to these two tissue's performances as single layers in Figure 8. Somewhat mellower - but still extreme - were Kleenex Boutique Facial Tissue (blue) and Kleenex Pocket Pack (white). From these results I found it difficult to draw generalized conclusions based on brand, model or color, and so proceeded to measure the toilet paper samples to see what that might uncover. The T.P. samples grouped themselves into four categories, and we will look at them in order of the degree of effect they had on the reference. Enlarge View of Fig. 10 Enlarge View of Fig. 11 Enlarge View of Fig. 12 Figure 10 represents the first group, and one will notice immediately that the effect is less than that produced by any of the tissue groups. I would have to attribute the difference to the fact that these were all one-ply paper, while tissue is always two-ply. Included in this group were Charmin New Stronger Than Ever (yellow and blue), and Family Scott (white). Figure 11 demonstrates that even two-ply T.P. does not approach the 3 to 10 kHz drop caused by tissue, yet is just as effective at the dip above 11 kHz. T.P. in this group was Northern Quilted (yellow), MD Unscented (white), and - a big shocker - Scottissue one-ply (white). As some of you may already know, this latter brand is a hefty one-ply, and the result most likely due to its beefier construction. Figures 12 and 13 show the effect of using T.P. in a two-layer configuration, and these samples more closely resemble curves that one would expect from tissue paper; they exhibit the wide 3-dB holes from 3 to 10 kHz, and the deep dip after 11 kHz. Figure 12 is represented by one-ply papers: Scottissue (white), Family Scott (patterned), and Charmin New Stronger Than Ever (blue and yellow). >>>

Examining the Yamaha NS-10M “Tissue Paper Phenomenon” An Analysis of the Industry-Wide Practice of Using a Tissue-Paper Layer to Reduce High-Frequency Output Recording Engineer/Producer Magazine, February 1986 – by Bob Hodas In the past couple of years, the Yamaha NS-10M loudspeaker has become the alternative small control-room monitor. One rarely enters a studio or views a control-room photo in the trades, without seeing a pair of NS-10Ms sitting on top of the console for use as a close-field reference. I have even been in several recording situations where this monitor was the only small reference speaker available, and I was told that my well-known brand of "mini-monitors" were no longer required by most mixing engineers. This being the fact nowadays, there is no reason here to trace the history of why the NS-10M became so popular so quickly. Instead, this article is concerned with the even stranger phenomenon that has followed the rise in popularity of the NS-10M - the use of tissue paper to cover the tweeters, thus reducing the high-frequency radiation. As I can best determine, this phenomenon began on the East Coast with an engineer that was having a string of hits, and who spoke of his NS-10M monitoring technique in a number of different interviews. Other engineers then zeroed in on the technique, hoping that it would give them the secret for producing hits. And so the legend grew. This is not merely a practice restricted to the U.S., as one can observe the same occurrence in foreign studios and publications. The stimulus for writing about this phenomenon finally came when the following interesting story was told to me. It seems that a young engineer walked into the manager's office of a New York studio, and said that he was very unhappy with the monitoring situation. The engineer was using the studio's NS-10Ms, but complained that they had the "wrong" type of tissue paper covering the tweeters. Well, not wanting to appear ignorant of the latest technology, nor to risk being shunned by my peers and R-e/p readers, I decided to run comparative tests on different brands and varieties of tissue, paper towels and toilet paper. I went to the grocery store and bought about $30 worth of the above items, borrowed a pair of NS-10Ms from a studio, and proceeded with the tests. Comparative Test Procedure To ensure that the best results would be obtained, I decided to use the test facilities at Meyer Sound Labs, Berkeley, CA. Test equipment included a B&K Model 4133 half-inch free-field microphone, B&K Model 2619 pre-amp, Hewlett-Packard Model 3561A analyzer, and an Ashley FET-500 amplifier to power the NS-10M speakers. (For those interested, a complete procedural description of the measurement technique can be found in the October 1984 AES reprint 2150 (I-8), "Equalization Using Voice and Music as the Source," by John Meyer.) The test included first measuring the speaker in a two-pi position, and then in a position that would simulate their being located on top of a console. Every 20 or 30 minutes during the tests, the reference was recalled to check for fluctuations due to temperature or humidity variations, and was reset if more than a half-dB change appeared. Although only one speaker was used in the tests, we checked the pair to look for inconsistencies. The two speakers measured very similarly; in fact, the NS-10M demonstrates a very linear frequency response with respect to signal level. Enlarge View of Fig. 1 Figure 1 shows the two-pi frequency versus amplitude and phase response. The amplitude (top trace) holds pretty close to +/- 3 dB, and remains quite consistent whether measured at a distance of 12 inches (upper curve) or 24 inches (lower curve). The phase response (bottom trace) is also consistent with respect to level, but notice that between 500 Hz and 4 kHz, there is an excess delay indicating a lack of coherency. This anomaly could be caused by the NS10's crossover circuit, which centers at 2 kHz. Enlarge View of Fig. 2 Figure 2 shows the measurement taken at a distance of 24 inches using the final comparison position, simulating a top-of-console location. The curve is almost identical to Figure 1 from 900 Hz and up, but below that point things have changed. While the hole between 180 and 400 Hz has smoothed out nicely, the 500 Hz to 1 kHz region is a bit more erratic, and the bass rolloff begins at 180 Hz instead of 50 Hz. This effect was attributed to the plane of the console bridge being in line with the speaker. Enlarge View of Fig. 3 The amplitude and phase curves shown inFigure 2 were stored in the analyzer, and became a reference (essentially a straight line) for any change that would occur.Figure 3 demonstrates the calibration error that can be expected in these measurements; from the three overlays it may be noted that any deviation is typically less than 0.5 dB. It is very important to note that the remainder of the charts are not pure frequency response, but curves showing only the deviation from the reference caused by the addition of a tissue layer. The test samples came from three different groups of facial tissue (ten samples), toilet paper (six samples), and paper towels (three samples). Within each group, there were variations of brand, ply number and color, and the samples were measured in single- and double-layer formations. Since facial tissue seems to be the main choice for engineers, this was the first group to be examined. Enlarge View of Fig. 4 Figure 4 is a good representation of what happens to the frequency response when a layer of tissue is placed over the tweeter. The HF rolloff effect begins at around 3 kHz, and drops as much as 3 dB before returning to the reference level at about 11 kHz. Then another dip of about 2.5 dB occurs with a center frequency of about 16 kHz. As we shall see, this curve was fairly typical throughout the test, with amplitude variations being the primary difference. Notice that the phase response exhibits only minor fluctuations, with center frequencies being a bit lower. Tissues that exhibited such response anomalies were two-ply/one-layer versions of Kleenex Pocket Pack Facial Tissue (yellow), Gingham Facial Tissue (white), Nice 'n' Soft Unscented Tissue (white), and Coronet Facial Tissue New Unscented (white). >>>>

Да се слуша на качествено оборудване за възпроизвеждане! Bose: Art of Sound by Bose 8 videos 6,409 views Last updated on Aug 13, 2014 Play all Share Save Art of Sound: Introduction (Episode One) Bose 4:09 Art of Sound: Feeling Sound (Episode Two) Bose 3:32 Art of Sound: Aiming Sound (Episode Three) Bose 5:22 Art of Sound: Altering Sound (Episode Four) Bose 5:49 Art of Sound: Creating Sound (Episode Five) Bose 6:54 Art of Sound: Amplifying Sound (Episode Six) Bose 6:36 Art of Sound: Looping Sound (Episode Seven) Bose 4:01 Art of Sound: Experiencing Sound (Episode Eight) Bose 7:30

И тук не сме откриватели. Явно историята се повтаря, но на друго място и в друго време !

Даже има и компресор! Е, не точно, по-скоро лимитер - АРУЗ. (автоматическое регулирование уровня записи )

Prvi puta u karijeri koncert smo započeli u podne i moramo priznati da uopće nije loše - feeling fantastic.

Може да се види рекламния клип, а DVD с филма трябва да се закупи. Като се слезе надолу има разни информации, една от които е форма за заявки/запитвания: Това е което съм разбрал. Дано да не съм пропуснал и аз нещо. ПП. Рових по мрежата и торентите, но ...НИЩО. Ще следя, защото обещава да е нещо истинско. Звукът на трейлъра е впечатляващ! ПП. .

Едно приключение в друг свят, непознат и непонятен за нас. Може да го гледаме и да цъкаме с език, но повечето няма да разберат за какво става дума. За мен, който се имам за широко скроен и с много знания, преглеждането на тези 10 дълги страници ме върнаха в онези отдавна отминали юношески години, когато попивах информацията наведен над лъскавите страници на списанията, до които имаше строго ограничен достъп в Народната Библиотека "Кирил и Методи" и Централната научно-техническа библиотека. Тогава се възпитавах от това, което имаше в тях и мечтаех да мога да правя това, което се виждаше на цветните им лъскави страници. Репортажът от 2009 година за наследството на Стефан Куделски, основател на NAGRA, е един сериозен урок по мироглед, възпитание, дисциплина, отношение... а, бе всичко. Не мога да пренеса всичко на страниците на форума, въпреки огромното ми желание, по няколко причини. Защото е много информацията и защото е copyright. Престъпих последното само за да ориентирам за какво става дума с посочената.заглавна картина. Пожелавам на тези, които ще отделят време и усилия за преглед на цялата информация- визуална и текстова, да успеят да осъзнаят колко много има за учене и превъзпитаване... http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/roadtournagra/1.html http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/roadtournagra/2.html http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/roadtournagra/3.html http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/roadtournagra/4.html http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/roadtournagra/5.html http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/roadtournagra/6.html http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/roadtournagra/7.html http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/roadtournagra/8.html http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/roadtournagra/9.html http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/roadtournagra/10.html

http://forum.muzikant.org/topic/112917-%D0%BB%D1%8E%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B5-%D0%B7%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%B7%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B8/

JTC Solo Contest 2015 Nikolay Karageorgiev Entry [media]https://youtu.be/r5E_hoPiaPk[/media]