On Sunday 13 January 2008, Tim wrote: >On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 21:14 -0700, Craig White wrote: >> using a professional headset to listen to compressed/lossy music is >> sort of absurd to begin with isn't it? > >Yes and no. > >Merely what I have, some comfy headphones, and some robust headphones >(those Beyers can have a thirty year life span, even with hamfisted >users). That wasn't my experience, even with heavy duty maintenance, maybe 18 months average for the Beyer intercom headsets ($395 ea at the time) at wdtv. People get up to go rescue a miss-behaving tape and forget to peel it and the cable clip off before they run around the console, ripping out the cords by the roots, repeat as required till there is nothing left to fix. One TD ripped the mouthpiece boom out by the roots trying to use it as a handle to take it off as he got up cuz the cord was under the casters of his chair. Took about 4 sq inches of plastic out of the back of the earmuff pad. It was a week old, I blew up as only I can do. Not a pretty sight. He got the message though when his dept manager made him buy another unless he wanted to quit. >I work in television production, it can involve wearing >headphones a lot, and I hate crappy headphones, so I go for the better >than average ones all the time. I'm not about to switch over and wear >crappy headphones just because I'm listening to an ogg instead of my >original CDs. > >There's no point in *deliberately* using crap gear, just because you >think it's redundant. Every poor link in the chain makes things >*worse*. > >I mentioned the point of listening through good aparatus to point out >that I do have the gear to notice whether the ogg/MP3 can sound good. One of the better headsets except for the longevity of the foam and cabling, was the Rat Shack Pro-60's. One of the few phones I could hear the 25hz trigger tones of an automation music tape, which are typically recorded at about -30 db. >TV and recorded video isn't very good, much of it looks bad (in one way >or another) on sets bigger than 34 cm screens. In a lot of cases, on >the larger screen, you just get a bigger blur, not a higher resolution >image. But that doesn't stop us watching on large screen sets. That all boils down to only being able to shove 4.1 megahertz of bandwidth through a Never Twice Same Color channel. And that can only make a so-so sharp picture regardless of the screen size. -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) In Seattle, Washington, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon that is over six feet in length.
