Parni_Valjak

Така вече става!

Ооох, Има тема, забодена, в началото на раздел "Изработка и ремонт ... ", Интересни и полезни теми из раздела ама ... да не продължавам, че пак ще има защитници на %№%№$$% ! За ламповите усилватели и високоговорителите за тях А сега познайте кой е автора. И дали той е виновен, че никой не чете.

How It's Made Master and Vinyl Records

Record Manufacturing "Command Performance" 1942 RCA Stamping Records Milton Cross Making phonograph records, from wax masters to shellac 78s. Narrated by Milton Cross, author of "Milton Cross' Encyclopedia of the Great Composers and Their Music." Public domain film from the Library of Congress Prelinger Archive, slightly cropped to remove uneven edges, with the aspect ratio corrected, and mild video noise reduction applied. The soundtrack was also processed with volume normalization, noise reduction, clipping reduction, and equalization. For the first several decades of disc record manufacturing, sound was recorded directly on to the master disc .. A record cutter would engrave the grooves into the master disc. Early versions of these master discs were soft wax, and later a harder lacquer was used... Mass producing The soft master known as a lacquer would then be silvered using the same process as the silvering of mirrors... This silver coating provided the conductive layer to carry the current for the subsequent nickel plating electroplated with a metal, commonly a nickel alloy... Most factories transferred the Master Matrix after an initial flash of Nickel in a slow warm nickel electroplating bath... This and all subsequent metal copies were known as matrices. When this metal master was removed from the lacquer (master), it would be a negative master or Master Matrix, since it was a negative copy of the lacquer. (In the UK, this was called the master; note the difference from soft master/lacquer disc above). In the earliest days the negative master was used as a mold to press records sold to the public, but as demand for mass production of records grew, another step was added to the process. After removing the silver deposit and passifing, the metal master was then electroplated (electroformed) to create metal positive matrices, or "mothers". From these positives, stampers (negative) would be formed. Producing mothers was similar to electroforming Masters, except the time allowed to turn-up to full current was much shorter and the heavier Mothers could be produced in as little as one hour and stampers (145 grams) could be made in 45 minutes. Prior to plating either the Nickel Master or Nickel Mother it needed to be passified to prevent the next matrix adhering to the previous matrix. There were several methods used, EMI favoured the fairly difficult Albumin soaking method where as CBS Records and Phillips used the Electrolytic method. Soaking in a di-chromate solution was another popular method, however this method risked contaminating the Nickel solution with chrome. The electrolytic method was similar to the standard electrolytic cleaning method except the cycles were reversed finishing the process with Matrix as the anode. This also cleaned the surface of the matrix about to be copied. After separating from the Master a new mother was polished with a fine abrasive to remove or at least round-off the microscopic "horns" at the top of the grooves, produced by the cutting lathe. This allowed the vinyl to flow better in the pressing stage and reduced the non-fill problem. Stampers produced from the mothers after separating were chrome plated to provide a hard stain-free surface. Each stamper was next centre punched, methods used included aligning the final locked groove over three pins or tapping the edge while rotating under the punch until the grooves could be seen (through a microscope) to move constantly towards the centre. Either method was quite skilled and took much effort to learn. The centre punch not only punched a hole but formed a lip which would be used to secure the stamper into the press. The stamper was next trimmed to size and the back sanded smooth to ensure a smooth finish to the mouldings and improve contact between the stamper and the press die. The edge was then pressed hydraulically to form another lip to clamp the edge down on the press. The stampers would be used in hydraulic presses to mould the LP discs. The advantages of this system over the earlier more direct system included ability to make a large number of records quickly by using multiple stampers. Also, more records could be produced from each master since stampers would eventually get damaged but rarely wear out. Since the master was the unique source of the positive, made to produce the stampers, it was considered a library item. Accordingly, copy positives, required to replace worn positives, were made from unused early stampers. These were known as copy shells and were the physical equivalent of the first positive. The "pedigree" of any record can be traced through the positive/stamper identities used, by reading the lettering found on the record run-out area...

Abbey Road Studios, 1960 The Swinging Blue Jeans perform The Hippy Hippy Shake in a mocked-up session recording for the cameras. This was almost certainly made in Spring 1964, just after the Blue Jeans actually taped their version of the 1959 hit song. The scene appears to have been filmed inside Studio Three, with engineering legend Norman Smith at the recording desk. Smith, of course, powered a great many of the Beatles' recording sessions. The clip also shows us a rare colour glimpse of the Ready Steady Go television studio. The Making Of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band ( Full ) Documentary on the making of The Beatles Album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. http://youtu.be/0irqVH031UI

Robert Pease е стълб в историята на аналоговата техника. Специалист, учител, забележителен човек. Липсата му се усеща от нас, които се учихме от него. Нека да си спомним с уважение за господин Пииз. "My favourite programming language is solder", R. Pease TI celebrates accomplishments of the company's legendary design engineer Bob Pease, who died on June 18. During his 33-year career at TI, Bob received 21 patents and designed more than 20 integrated circuits. Some of his circuits reached Mt Everest and the moon and his knowledge and kindness touched a multitude of engineers. Bob Pease is a hero of the analog world.

Г-н Neve казва за неговата компания, "Ние сме посветени на овладяване на скритите сили на човешкото творчество в областта на електрониката, магнетизма и звука, за да може музиката да обхване Земята с хармония и радост." Rupert Neve Designs recently earned two TEC Awards at WinterNAMM for both the Portico II: Master Buss Processor and the 5059 Satellite 16_2+2 Summing Mixer, as well as a Pro Sound Network "Best of Show" award for one of the newly-announced 500-series pieces, the 542 Tape Emulator with Texture.

Малей...много сериозна работа се вихри!

Chat From The Past: Talking With Rupert Neve November 15, 2012, by PSW Staff From 2002, the transcript of a ProSoundWeb live chat session with industry legend Rupert Neve, designer of professional audio recording equipment and credited as the inventor of the recording console. Fletcher: Well, this man really needs no introduction. Pretty much anyone who is involved with audio production seems to say his name a few times a day in relation to something. Be it consoles we would like to work on, or individual modules we would like to own, or equipment that is used as a point of reference for our industry. I’m probably asked 10-15 times a day if “it sounds like a Neve” [the point of this ‘chat’ is to try to get a bit better definition of just what that means]. So here’s an opportunity to have somewhat of a conversation with the first name we think of when it comes to outstanding sounding audio equipment, a man I am rather proud to call a friend… Mr. Rupert Neve. Good evening Rupert. Rupert Neve: Good evening… Fletcher: Here we go… chrissugar: In the early days [1073], the use of the output transformer was a technical necessity or you used it to achieve a special sound… Rupert Neve: This question goes to the heart of my original designs. I used transformers because in those days it was the only professional way of interconnecting equipment. We used balanced lines by default, if you like. Everything was balanced and worked between 600 ohms termination. This meant that the modules which you are familiar with today would be reconnected, recycled endlessly without the problem of ground loops and so on…. When they sell old modules if doesn’t benefit me in my old age trying to build a retirement fund. chrissugar: What do you think about the new designs with op-amps [5532] compared to the old transistor designs? Rupert Neve: Well, to answer these I would start by saying how long have you got? One of the qualities of the original designs is that they were all single ended. This meant that there was no crossover distortion. Every IC, or maybe I should say almost every IC, includes the push-pull output stage and of course, it has very small power capability. Such a stage will produce small amounts, maybe some of them not so small, of crossover distortion. Which is to say that there are high order harmonics present which are not in the original music—and I’m even incorrect calling them harmonics. They are spikes, which occur at the repetition rate of the signal frequency. And, although small in nature, it can be perceived not only by the trained ear, but even by, shall we say, “Joe Public.” The way he would notice it is that it produces sensation of frustration as he listens to music. Fletcher: How does the “Transformer Like Amplifier” (did I get the name right?) behave in terms of “crossover distortion?” Rupert Neve: I think the first thing to say is the transformer like amplifier can be configured with discrete transistors and it would be if it were important. In my 9098 console there are, I believe, last count, some 64 buses. I use transformers on all the main signal buses but, entirely due to space and weight, I use the TLA transformer like amplifier or auxiliary (auxiliaries) which are not as demanding as the main buses. However, I also use a technique which offsets the DC at the output of the integrated circuits and so removes that crossover distortion from the zero line and places it at a higher level, usually around 0 dBu. That makes a huge difference to the percentage of distortion. Tom Borthwick: I have a 5106 console and on an Audio Precision test it goes from 5 Hz to over 150 Hz. This extended bandwidth, was it a concerted effort or just the result of good design? Rupert Neve: Good question. Well Tom, I’m guessing what you meant was 150 kHz not Hz. The transformers and all the amplifiers in these designs were of that order. The console mentioned, if I remember correctly, was a broadcast console, one of the later ones. We were paying particular attention to bandwidth. Incidentally, that console was designed by Geoff Watts, one of my earliest colleagues on my design team. Fletcher: There has been some measure of debate about bandwidth including frequencies above 20 kHz, can we hear them, do they make a difference, etc. Rupert Neve: OK, Fletch, pin your ears back… In 1977, just after I had sold the company, George Martin called me to say that Air Studios had taken delivery of a Neve console, which did not seem to be giving satisfaction to Geoff Emerick. In fact, he said that Geoff is unhappy…. engineers from the company, bear in mind that at this point I was not primarily involved, had visited the studio and reported that nothing was wrong. They said that the customer is mad and that the problem will go away if we ignore it long enough. Well I visited the studio and after careful listening with Geoff, I agreed with him that three panels on this 48 panel console sounded slightly different. We discovered that there was a 3 dB peak at 54 kHz Geoff’s golden ears had perceived that there was a difference. We found that 3 transformers had been incorrectly wired and it was a matter of minutes to correct this. After which Geoff was happy. And I mean that he relaxed and there was a big smile on his face. As you can imagine a lot of theories were put forward, but even today I couldn’t tell you how an experienced listener can perceive frequencies of the normal range of hearing. And following on from this, I was visiting Japan and was invited to the laboratories of Professor Oohashi. He had discovered that when filters were applied to an audio signal cutting off frequencies of 20 kHz, the brain started to emit electric signals which can be measured and quantified. These signals were at the frequencies and of the pattern which are associated with frustration and anger. Clearly we discussed this at some length and I also would forward the idea that any frequencies which were not part of the original music, such as quantizing noise produced by compact discs and other digital sources, also produced similar brain waves. Fletcher: What about frequencies below 20 Hz (theoretically, the low-end of the human range of hearing)... how do they affect the tone? Rupert Neve: OK Fletch, now we get down to the meat and potatoes… I believe it is necessary to not only maintain the frequency response, to well below 20 Hz, but to keep the phase integrity. Failure to do this produces a slight muddiness and again, it is very difficult to quantify. All of my designs are kept within a phase shift of between 2 and 5 degrees down to 10 Hz Bink: What are the most important measurement specifications, in your opinion? What specs can be thought of as less important than the resultant ‘sound’? Rupert Neve: This is almost impossible to answer… because it depends on the function of a particular circuit. I suppose the most significant measurement is to establish that there is virtually no crossover distortion. We currently in the Pure Path design for harmonics measured on an Audio Precision System 2 less than 130 dB down. This also applies an extremely low noise floor I’m sorry, I meant implies…. and for example, the 9098 console was measured at unity gain has a dynamic range of about 126 dB. This of course is 6 dB better than any digital system can yet deliver. These two measurements are probably the most significant. Of course, when digital comes of age, we have circuits on the bench now which will deliver better than 140 dB of dynamic range! Ronny: Speaking of keeping phase shift between 2 and 5 degrees. Do you have any views on linear phase EQ? Rupert Neve: Ronny, this is a perpetual question we get asked all the time. I take it you would be referring to equalizer and filters. When you apply equalization to an audio signal you are enhancing or depleting a portion of the spectrum. And, phase shift will always accompany that correction of equalization in the analog domain This is part of nature. You can experience it by simply cupping your hands around your mouth and your voice will immediately change frequency response due to the resonator you have now applied. If you did something similar with a musical instrument the same would hold true. The acoustic resonator which you are applying is following laws of nature that include a lot of phase shift. It sounds sweet and natural of course, some people’s voices benefit more than others!! loudist: Please excuse me if this was already asked but… regarding phase shift, isn’t this one of the reasons tubes (valves) sound better to most is that the phase shift of tubes is minimal compared to solid state amplification? Rupert Neve: This is not something I would agree with… Tubes sound better because, for the most part, they are used in single sided configurations or if they are used in push-pull the crossover point is already biased well away from zero. Solid state amplifiers are much easier to design with extremely low phase shift. Not specifically due to tubes vs. solid state but because the impedances necessary to use in tube circuits make them somewhat more limited. Harvey: What’s your opinion of “euphonic” (even order) distortion products? Rupert Neve: Harvey, this is another big subject. Many years ago I listened to a lecture by Dr. James Moire at the British Institute of Radio Engineers, who had researched human sensitivity to the different orders of harmonics. Odd harmonics are much more readily perceived and are usually destructive to listening pleasure. Whereas even harmonics tend to be benign I did some work on this a few years ago and constructed a chart based on James Moire’s findings and of many friends in the industry, which chose that human sensitivity to harmonics is proportional to the frequency. In fact it is hard to put into words but if I could show you this chart…. I would be happy to publish it. The important point here is once again the incredible sensitivity of humans to small distortions or restrictions in amplifier performance which result in pleasure or frustration. chrissugar: Considering that people like the classic Neve sound, do you have any plans to remake these devices? Rupert Neve: No designer wants to put the clock back and indeed, there were many subtle differences in these old designs depending upon the year that they were made and the available components I regard many of these now as “effects units.” I have concentrated on pure designs which will be, or I should say, which are totally transparent. I have seen many studios use the old classics in this way to enhance the performance of, shall we say, less satisfactory designs… But, yes, we are expecting in the next 12 months to issue a range of units which will have a behavior similar to the old classics. The size and price of these is significantly lower than the originals so if you’re thinking of buying any more of my old modules wait and see what is announced in the next few months. dbock: I believe that the 1081 (class AB, four bands + shelves) modules came after the 1073’s (class A, fewer features). I’ve long wondered if the dramatic changes that occurred when moving from the 73 to the 81 were primarily engineering driven, market driven (and if it was market driven, what was causing engineers of the time to demand such a very class AB sound), or some combination of the two? Rupert Neve: Let’s see. Well ,the engineers did not demand an AB sound but there was more component density and consoles were getting bigger all the time, so we had to reduce the current that was drawn by the original circuits. There did not seem to be, at that time, any reason for not doing it. And, you know, this is progress. We now know what the effect of making those changes is and all I can say is, please, in the next few months, contribute to my pension fund, by purchasing the new stuff which will have taken care of these criticisms, I hope. jjjj: Is there any advantage in digital audio through a DA and into the AMEK Purepath processed and then out the digital I/O? There has been some discussion that digital recorded samples will benefit from the AMEK processing and re-sampling. What are your thoughts? Rupert Neve: I’m not quite certain what you mean here. What has been established is that if you mix in the analog domain the integrity of your mixed signals is far more accurate than trying to mix in the digital domain. The AMEK DIB, which is a driver in a box, incorporates balanced mixing buses. Studios that have used this unit as an analog mixer have been amazed at the way in which the sound comes to life and attains a performance and space which is not available with a digital mix. Any D/A or A/D places some restrictions on audio performance. One of the significant things that happen when you connect an AMEK Purepath or even one of my old modules (which are transformer modules) is the sonic improvement that seems to be applied to a digital signal. I’m not sure if that answers the question but at any rate you have given me a platform for my opinion. loudist: Mr. Neve, I wanted to thank you for your discussion on the web regarding the sampling ‘stairstep’ corner distortions in present day A/D converters. What would be a solution to this anomaly? Rupert Neve: OK, simple answer. Higher sampling rates. Bink: How much do you think IC manufacturers’ unilateral decisions to pull chips out of production will affect your future designs? How do you design in a safety net for these caprices? Rupert Neve: Bink—you are trying to scare me! All I can say is that solid state devices including very early transistors which were manufactured 30 or 40 years ago are still available. Provided that they continue to be available for the next 25 years, it doesn’t actually worry me. I’ll then be over 100 years old and maybe able to retire. Fletcher: A little bird mentioned that you were planning on doing some work with “iz Technologies”... anything you’d care to talk about? Rupert Neve: The problem is a straight commercial one. There are a number of clients whom we are currently building relationships with and designing products which will be available within the next few months. Until they are ready to make public announcements I can only tickle your sensitivities by speaking mysteriously. One clue I can give you is that any digital device - and there are some very good ones, now - benefit from extremely high quality analog amplifiers both before and after the digital. In the case of iz, they do have a remarkable hard disc recorder. I have listened to material recorded on Radar and other hard disk machines and it is now possible to hear imperfections which are caused by inadequate mic or line pres. I won’t mention names but we now have to be very meticulous about the analog source. RPhilbeck: Mr. Neve, when you say, “we”, are you referring to AMEK? Rupert Neve: Mr. R Philbeck, AMEK has been my faithful client and friend for about 13 years. And most of what I am saying applies to my relationship with them. But, I do have other clients; one which you might find of interest, is not even in the pro audio business. Taylor Guitars commissioned me to produce a totally new pickup and amplifier. We collaborated and closed on their implementation of a beautiful linear pickup. We have produced a range of guitars and equalizers which will be shown the first time at the NAMM show in January. So these, too, will be come the “we” I am talking about. My various clients and I. Life gets more and more interesting as people become more and more aware of the need for a very high quality. Lee: Do you have an opinion as to why it is so much more imperative to have high quality amplifiers when recording to digital than tape? Rupert Neve: Lee, we are going back to the recorder. You mention tape. Now let’s bear in mind that even the best of our lovely old tape machines had amplifiers in them which did not measure up to the performance we can achieve today. The tape medium imposed severe restrictions on the dynamic range and on the frequency response. There was also a great deal of 3rd harmonic distortion which sounded great with some material but you can have too much of a good thing. The tape machine would mask imperfections in the source material whereas even CD quality digital can produce dynamic range of 90 dB and a frequency response which may well be greater or at least more reliable than the old tape machine Therefore you can see that although the distortions inherent in the low-grade digital are extremely distressing one still has to be very careful to maintain accurate source materials. I’ve expressed that rather badly but I hope I’ve conveyed my feelings about it. Fletcher: OK… a couple more, and we’ll let Mr. Neve have the rest of the evening off… jason fee: Throughout your career what’s been the best advice that anyone’s ever given you? Rupert Neve:Probably the best advice came from an old friend now deceased who was our accountant in the early days of the Neve company. When he showed me that we are, as humans, created and designed, if you like, in the image of our creator - God. His creativity is in a sense available to us and we recognize it and use it responsibly. Hopefully. So what we do is beyond ourselves. Perhaps another way of putting it is that we strive, strive, strive knowing that we will never reach the state of perfection in our designs. There is always another step waiting, to be explored. We could say that there is always room at the top. See you at the top! Harvey: Would you care to comment on your friendship with Mark McQuilken? Rupert Neve: Harvey—yes, I first met Mark some years ago when Evelyn and I came to live in Wimberly He is a brilliant designer who has helped me from time to time especially to understand the mysteries of the digital domain. I hold Mark and his family high on my list of friends. Harvey: Thank you for a delightful evening. Rupert Neve: Well, thank you folks, too. I’m sure that having corresponded with several with you that may have tuned in. I hope that it has been as interesting for you as it has been for me. Fletcher: On behalf of the entire PSW crew, I’d like to thank Rupert for sharing his time and knowledge with us.

Geoff Emerick The legendary Beatles engineer discusses facing, and overcoming, technical limitations at Abbey Road studios while creating some of the greatest moments in pop music history. Interview: Geoff Emerick Interview: Geoff Emerick pt. 2 Interview: Geoff Emerick pt. 3 Recording the Beatles: Geoff Emerick Speaks — Feb 8th 2007 By James Marcus Engineer and producer Geoff Emerick began his career in 1962, when he joined the staff at EMI's Abbey Road Studios at the tender age of 15. In the decades since, he has worked with everybody from Judy Garland to Elvis Costello, and won four Grammys for his various feats of technical wizardry. Emerick's greatest claim to fame, however, is probably his long collaboration with the Beatles, which got underway with Revolver and ended with Abbey Road. (For the record, he did take a breather during the rancorousWhite Album sessions.) Last year Emerick recounted his own version of the Fab Era inHere, There and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of The Beatles. With the paperback release just a week away, he sat down with Netscape's James Marcus to discuss music, technology, and the night they dubbed the orchestra onto "A Day in the Life." Netscape: Even before the Beatles make their entrance, your book gives a funny and vivid picture of the early Sixties atmosphere at EMI. It's very starchy and old-fashioned, with the engineering staff in white lab coats. Emerick: That was the corporate way, I guess. You found the same thing at the BBC in those days: even the guys who read the news on the radio every evening had to wear a tux. Amazing! At times it made me very frustrated. Netscape: Your early sonic experiments with the Beatles--for example, running John Lennon's voice through a Leslie speaker on "Tomorrow Never Knows"--were conducted on the sly, as if you were worried about getting caught. Emerick: And antagonizing the rest of the staff! I was just a young upstart, you see, and they had been doing things their own way for many years. Netscape: That was the age of analogue recording and magnetic tape. Compared to today's digital technology, it was primitive stuff. Yet it did encourage a certain kind of creative tinkering. Emerick: Yes, that's gone. The PC platform is just brilliant: you've got high resolution, you've got great software, and it's fairly cheap. But when the Beatles were in the studio, those sounds came out of their heads. Now it's just the click of a button. It's not something that's being created organically by a person. It's not a unique sound any more. Netscape: Because everybody is pushing the same buttons. Emerick: Exactly. It sounds really, really good, but it's like painting by numbers. You keep waiting for that magic brush stroke. Netscape: In the book, you write, "I still love the art of recording just as much as I did when I was a teenager, but the process is simply not as much fun as it was in those days." Emerick: Oh, sure. I mean, it was hard work. But after we had done it, the feeling of achievement was just enormous. When we were working on the Sgt. Pepper album, we knew that when we finished a track, it was 100 percent perfect. There was no way you could really better it. It was a great feeling. Netscape: Technically speaking, the Beatles seemed to go through phases. First they were infatuated with double-tracking, then backwards recording, then varispeed, then tape loops, and so forth. Emerick: I was thinking about that the other day. Our approach was: once we did something, we wouldn't do it again. Netscape: How about techniques used by other musicians? Same deal? Emerick: Sure. The idea of phasing--that sort of swishy sound--often came up, but people had already done it, so we never used it. I don't think it occurs on a single Beatles record. Netscape: Yet you had your own technical infatuations. In Howard Massey's Behind The Glass, you recall: "I just fell in love with Fairchild 660 limiters." Without denying the charms of those American-made compression devices, I have to say that I've never encountered that statement anywhere else. Emerick: I fell in love with those devices because of what they sounded like, not for their technical value. I always talk about sounds in visual terms. If you put a vocal through the Fairchild, it was as if the voice came six feet nearer to you. The same thing with guitars. Suddenly they were smack right up in your face. Netscape: Did the Beatles talk to you in these visual terms? Did they find it hard to convey the sort of sounds they wanted? Emerick: Apart from Paul, who knew a little about what was going on technically, the others just weren't interested. They would say, we don't want the guitar to sound like a guitar--and we would start scratching our heads, playing with the EQ or the echo. They challenged us all the time. Which was great! Netscape: Is there one Beatles track that stands out in particular for you? Emerick: Well, there's a couple. "Tomorrow Never Knows," of course, because it was the first track I ever engineered for them. But I'd have to say "A Day in the Life." The shivers ran down our backs the first time we heard John singing it, with that echo in his cans [headphones]. He used to like recording that way. He didn't like the sound of his voice straight. I don't know why. Netscape: I've read that before, and always found it incredibly ironic. Emerick: That was John. Anyway, the night we dubbed in the orchestra on "A Day in the Life," there was a kind of party in the studio. I set up a rough monitor mix to play for everybody, and Ron Richards, who was the producer for the Hollies, was in the control room. When I played back the rough mix, Ron just put his head in his hands. And he was serious. There was silence after we finished playing it back. Netscape: Because the impact was so overwhelming? Emerick: Right. It was like you were watching a black-and-white film, and suddenly there was color and Cinemascope. The feeling in that control room was just amazing. Nobody had ever heard anything like it in their lives. Netscape: And which song presented the biggest technical challenge? Emerick: "Strawberry Fields," I guess. Netscape: Because you had to combine two versions at different speeds and in different keys? Emerick: That's right. We speeded up one piece of tape and slowed down the other. Netscape: Your book gives a fascinating glimpse of how the Beatles evolved as personalities and artists. Who do you think changed the most? Emerick: As an artist, I would say George. He felt terribly challenged at the beginning. But he persevered, and found his niche in Eastern music, and ended up as a great songwriter and a terrific guitar player. Netscape: Given the other guys in the band, he had a lot of catching up to do. Emerick: Some people think I was a bit hard on him in the book. But there's a separate little ongoing story in there: the story of George. Netscape: Let's jump ahead to the present for a moment. You live in Los Angeles now. When did you relocate to the U.S.? Emerick: In 1984, basically. Netscape: Are you nostalgic for England? Emerick: I hate England. Netscape: Do you really? Emerick: Oh, yeah, sure. Netscape: What is it you hate in particular about England? Emerick: [Laughs] It's great to be a tourist in England. The problem is the infrastructure. My impression is that the place is gradually falling apart. Netscape: Are you still engineering and producing? Emerick: Oh yes. My approach is still to work with real artists. I can't manufacture a record in the control room, and I still try to work analogue when I can. Netscape: What are some recent projects you've done? Emerick: The last record I made was with Nellie McKay--that was about two years ago. As far I'm concerned, she's just oozing with talent: it was great. Netscape: And what else have you been up to? Emerick: I did a television commercial in England for the Automobile Association, which is the equivalent of the AAA in this country. It included the Carole King song, "You've Got A Friend," and the first problem was getting the verse and chorus into just 57 seconds. Also, we had to record the music live, and the people singing were amateur singers. Sometimes they would even start in the wrong key. I ended up overdubbing a symphony orchestra and some choral parts--at Abbey Road, in fact. So I still like a challenge. Netscape: Back to the Beatles again. I've heard rumors that EMI is about to remaster all the records and make them available via digital download. Are you involved in that? Emerick: No. It would be nice to be asked, but they never do. I don't know why. I do know that when I meet Beatles fans, many of them say, "When are you going to remaster the records?" They don't want generic versions. It's as simple as that. Netscape: Were you involved with the original transfer of the records to CD in 1987? Emerick: Not at all. I find them unlistenable, to be honest with you. Netscape: Some of them do sound terrible. Emerick: They sound nothing like the records they were supposed to be. Netscape: How about the recently issued Love? Any thoughts on the mix-and-match approach to the Beatles catalog? Emerick: I won't listen to it. Netscape: Not a single note? Emerick: People have told me about it. Look, the four artists were present when we did the mono mixes of the original records. And the recordings were fresh in our minds when we did the stereo mixes: even if the Beatles weren't present, they were involved. It's their record--and now it's been messed around with. Netscape: So you can live without the mash-ups and recombinant mixes. Emerick: The original records are iconic, they're pieces of art. Would you go and repaint the Sistine Chapel? You don't. Just leave it alone. Netscape: Do you still listen to Beatles records? Emerick: Yes, I do. Netscape: Do you take the purist route and listen to the mono mixes? Emerick: Oh, no. I don't have them. Most of my vinyl is still back in England, so I'm forced to listen to the CDs. Netscape: Finally, will there ever be another Beatles? Emerick: No. The Beatles are the exception to the rule. Netscape: And why is that? Emerick: For one thing, the focus is gone. The only entertainment we had back in those days was the TV, the radio, and gramophone records. Now there's video, computer games, and so forth. People don't really listen to music the way they used to. Back then, you put on an album and listened to it all the way through. Then you put it on again! These days, there are probably two tracks on an album worth listening to. Netscape: I have a 13-year-old son, and although he loves music, he hardly ever buys a CD. He buys a track here, a track there. Emerick: Yes, it's a shame. And now, with an iPod, you can just randomly play the tracks on an album, which is totally wrong. The way I was brought up, a record was a complete piece of entertainment, and it was presented as such. You wouldn't put a Shakespeare play on your iPod and then decide to put all the scenes in a different order! Netscape: I wouldn't, no. Emerick: There's a reason why we sequenced each album in a particular way: it's a piece of art! Also, the Beatles were in the right place at the right time. There was an anti-Establishment thing in the air, and everybody was looking for a youthful leader to latch onto. Everything came together. It just happened, really. And I could never see that happening again.

You are not alone in this case! "Be calm! Pass me the ball" D.B...v

Ако има добро, ще го видим. Ако няма - няма да се правим че го има. Да не забравяме, че добро и лошо са библейски понятия. Сега сме много далеч от обективните преценки.

Влагоустойчивият шперплат е много добро попадение за определени акустични дейности. Преди 35 години правихме едни озвучителни тела с точно такъв, какъвто виждам на снимките. Не можеха да се вдигнат, но пък нямаха разтрептявания при висока мощност и свиреха много добре. Ако имаш достатъчно от него, би бил много подходящ за екраните на мониторите! Дори да е на парчета, може да се съединят в подходяща конструкция за целта.

^^ Бих направил конструкцията с фрезоване на канали за преградите и сглобките. Така би станало по-лесно и по-точно. Силиконът не е за работа с дърво. Не че не може, но е еластичен и не стават здрави свързванията. Когато има еластичност, компонентите имат степен на свобода, която не е допустима. Особено в конструкции предназначени за акустични цели. Разбирам, че с винтовете се компенсира това, но както се разбира, е било доста тегаво сглобяването и натъкмяването. Дървени дибли и ПВА са къде, къде по-удачни. Освен това, с фреза може да се направят удачни врязвания са "потъване" на външни елементи, като клапите например. Това са моите виждания, понеже съм фен на работата с фреза ПП. Като гледам материалът не е ПДЧ, а си е хубав водоустойчив шперплат!

Подкрепям!

C205 ( R ) няма място в схемата. Поне не там, където е сега.

Да обясня пак - във въздушна междина няма триене и енергията не спада. Когато има примерно вата, когато вълната преминава през нея, част от енегията се превръща в топлина...

Говоря за вертикалните стени. Нали е стая в стаята?

Тогава какво ще осигури стабилност на конструкцията? Как ще върви адиабатен процес за преобразуване на енергията в топлина? ... Няма значение, давай както си решил.

Не видях изолацията към стените?

Работя за храна... Омари, Дом Периньон, Белуга, Хенеси...