TRS (tip, ring, sleeve) implies it carries a stereo signal. TS would be mono.

Tip-sleeve is one channel
ring-sleeve is the other channel
TS cables are generally used for mono, unbalanced signals. ¼” TS cables are commonly called guitar cables because they’re mostly used to connect a guitar to an amplifier. TS connectors have two contact points separated by an insulator ring: tip (T) and sleeve (S). The audio signal travels over the tip while the ground uses the sleeve. That means T is positive and S is ground.

Does your "cheapo patchbay" have configurations for TS and TRS?

I'm not sure TS rather than TRS (or vice-versa) would invite noise. If you have a mono signal, you just don't use the other conductor in a TRS cable. Someone else will clarify further.

CHAD

TRS cables can be used to carry stereo or balanced mono signals.

Your RNC probably uses them to provide balanced IO: it may be designed to work correctly with balanced TRS cables or unbalanced TS (like my little Mackie mixer), but best to check the manual if in doubt..

TRS is balanced.

TS is unbalanced.

The ONLY pro-audio oriented device that I'm aware of that uses a TRS configured plug for stereo is a pair of Headphones. No Pro-Audio device uses it for stereo.

The TS can invite in additional noise as the unbalanced cable is not actively shielded/grounded. As well, balanced and unbalanced signal levels are different. They are not always compatible.

As for the FMR, you must enter the unit with an unbalanced signal and leave with an unbalanced signal. Or, in the case of an insert (TRS - Tip=Send, Ring=Return) you can simply patch a standard TRS patchcable between the insert and the input of the RNC as their inputs also provide output across a TRS cable.

If you go into your patchbay balanced but come out unbalanced into your FMR, you are actually doing the right thing. This will unbalance the signal prior to sending it to the FMR and then you can bring it back to the patchbay and then patch back out as either balanced or unbalanced.

Hope this helps.

J.

Cucco wrote:

If you go into your patchbay balanced but come out unbalanced into your FMR, you are actually doing the right thing. This will unbalance the signal prior to sending it to the FMR and then you can bring it back to the patchbay and then patch back out as either balanced or unbalanced.

.

I'm pretty sure this is not correct.

Once you unbalance the signal, running it back through the patchbay will not make it balanced again, even if you use a TRS cable. The only way to "re-balance" it, for lack of a better word, is to run it through an active circuit or a transformer.

43hertz wrote: [quote=Cucco]

If you go into your patchbay balanced but come out unbalanced into your FMR, you are actually doing the right thing. This will unbalance the signal prior to sending it to the FMR and then you can bring it back to the patchbay and then patch back out as either balanced or unbalanced.

.

I'm pretty sure this is not correct.

Once you unbalance the signal, running it back through the patchbay will not make it balanced again, even if you use a TRS cable. The only way to "re-balance" it, for lack of a better word, is to run it through an active circuit or a transformer.

Sorry - lack of wording on my part.

You're correct - you cannot make an unbalanced signal balanced except through a balancing device. I simply left this out - if you come directly out of the patchbay, even over a TRS, you're still unbalanced (in level that is) - however, if you choose to, you can re-balance the signal. (Aphex makes a great device to do this with and it's not expensive. Of course, chat with Kev for 5 minutes and he'll sell you on the merits of making your own...)

Thanks for catching that!

J.

Cucco wrote: [quote=43hertz][quote=Cucco]

If you go into your patchbay balanced but come out unbalanced into your FMR, you are actually doing the right thing. This will unbalance the signal prior to sending it to the FMR and then you can bring it back to the patchbay and then patch back out as either balanced or unbalanced.

.

I'm pretty sure this is not correct.

Once you unbalance the signal, running it back through the patchbay will not make it balanced again, even if you use a TRS cable. The only way to "re-balance" it, for lack of a better word, is to run it through an active circuit or a transformer.

Sorry - lack of wording on my part.

You're correct - you cannot make an unbalanced signal balanced except through a balancing device. I simply left this out - if you come directly out of the patchbay, even over a TRS, you're still unbalanced (in level that is) - however, if you choose to, you can re-balance the signal. (Aphex makes a great device to do this with and it's not expensive. Of course, chat with Kev for 5 minutes and he'll sell you on the merits of making your own...)

Thanks for catching that!

J.

No offense, Cucco, but balanced or unbalanced has bigger consequences than loss of level. Balanced cables use seperate hot, cold, and ground connectors versus unbalanced that only use hot and ground. If you come into a balanced patchbay with an unbalanced cable and back out with a balanced cable you've not only lost the level but you've lost all the benefits of noise reduction that a balanced signal provides. That's my biggest gripe about the RNC. It is otherwise a pretty cool peice of gear, but I refuse, strictly on principal, to patch it into an otherwise balanced signal chain.

No offense taken. I also referenced the noise issue with unbalanced vs. balanced in my first post. However, in a racked situation where cable runs are short and compressors are often patched as inserts anyway, the RNC does a fine job. I have 2 of them myself and haven't ever had any problems with excess noise.

Would I say it's the finest compressor on the planet? No, of course not, but it is quite nice on several things. Regardless of balanced/unbalanced, it's still nice.

J.

Cucco wrote: TRS is balanced.

TS is unbalanced.

erm...no. TRS CAN be balanced, and TS is ALWAYS unbalanced, but TRS can certainly be unbalanced as well, and often is.

The ONLY pro-audio oriented device that I'm aware of that uses a TRS configured plug for stereo is a pair of Headphones. No Pro-Audio device uses it for stereo.

dangerous assumption. would you stake your dinner on it?

The TS can invite in additional noise as the unbalanced cable is not actively shielded/grounded. As well, balanced and unbalanced signal levels are different. They are not always compatible.

oh, my goodness, how PREPOSTEROUS! "TS cables" are most CERTAINLY shielded/grounded! balanced/unbalanced has NOTHING to do with signal levels!!!!

Hope this helps.

J.

actually, I think it helped very little. Perhaps a little refresher on just what "balanced" means would be in order? Great:

A "balanced line" is merely a transmission configuration that consists of two signal-carrying lines, and a shield. The shield carries NO INFORMATION. The two "hot" signal carrying lines exhibit the exact same impedance referenced to shield. Typically, the shield is connected at both ends to earth, but might only be connected at one end.

At the input of a balanced line, a differential amplifier amplifies the DIFFERENCE between the two lines. Since noise such as RFI and hum typically manifests the same on both lines (because the impedance WRT ground is exactly the same), then the "common mode" signal...the signal that is the same on both lines, is rejected.

A balanced line makes no distinction whether the signal is passing on one line, or the other, or both...as long as there is a differential, then it works.

A "true balanced" line typically has a signal on one line, and the inverse signal on the other line. When passed through a differential amplifier, the resulting signal is 3db higher than what one leg or the other are separately.

A "psuedo-balanced or electronically" balanced line typically has signal on only one side, and both sides are tied to ground through resistors, so both sides "see" the same impedance to ground, so the common-mode rejection works.

There is no requirement about signal level. it can be mic level, line level, speaker level, whatever.

Again, the main benefit to balanced line, is that it allows for COMMON-MODE rejection of noise that may be induced on the connecting line.

dwoz

dwoz wrote: [quote=Cucco]TRS is balanced.

TS is unbalanced.

erm...no. TRS CAN be balanced, and TS is ALWAYS unbalanced, but TRS can certainly be unbalanced as well, and often is.
erm...uh - now you're just picking small semantics battles. This is ridiculous. Of course you could run an unbalanced signal over a balanced cable. This is the old "a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square" game.

The ONLY pro-audio oriented device that I'm aware of that uses a TRS configured plug for stereo is a pair of Headphones. No Pro-Audio device uses it for stereo.

dangerous assumption. would you stake your dinner on it?

Yeah, in most cases I would. Very few components actually use a TRS as a stereo output. Even fewer make it into a standard studio.

The TS can invite in additional noise as the unbalanced cable is not actively shielded/grounded. As well, balanced and unbalanced signal levels are different. They are not always compatible.

oh, my goodness, how PREPOSTEROUS! "TS cables" are most CERTAINLY shielded/grounded! balanced/unbalanced has NOTHING to do with signal levels!!!!

Well, I'm referencing construction of the cable and its two-pole nature, not the design of a balanced or unbalanced circuit. Notice, the question pertains to TS vs TRS - not balanced vs. unbalanced circuits.

Hope this helps.

J.

actually, I think it helped very little. Perhaps a little refresher on just what "balanced" means would be in order? Great:

A "balanced line" is merely a transmission configuration that consists of two signal-carrying lines, and a shield. The shield carries NO INFORMATION. The two "hot" signal carrying lines exhibit the exact same impedance referenced to shield. Typically, the shield is connected at both ends to earth, but might only be connected at one end.

At the input of a balanced line, a differential amplifier amplifies the DIFFERENCE between the two lines. Since noise such as RFI and hum typically manifests the same on both lines (because the impedance WRT ground is exactly the same), then the "common mode" signal...the signal that is the same on both lines, is rejected.

A balanced line makes no distinction whether the signal is passing on one line, or the other, or both...as long as there is a differential, then it works.

A "true balanced" line typically has a signal on one line, and the inverse signal on the other line. When passed through a differential amplifier, the resulting signal is 3db higher than what one leg or the other are separately.

A "psuedo-balanced or electronically" balanced line typically has signal on only one side, and both sides are tied to ground through resistors, so both sides "see" the same impedance to ground, so the common-mode rejection works.

There is no requirement about signal level. it can be mic level, line level, speaker level, whatever.

Again, the main benefit to balanced line, is that it allows for COMMON-MODE rejection of noise that may be induced on the connecting line.

dwoz

Okay, great, you know how a balanced circuit works. Congratulations. Now, one of these days you'll acquire some personal skills and instead of being a grade A a$$hole to answer a question, you'll simply answer it. As for my reference to level, I'm simply referring to the common practice amongst manufacturers to differ the output levels of balanced versus unbalanced signals. A practice which is rather standard.

If you feel like being a DICK on the internet, do it somewhere else. If you would like to contribute not just answers but a meaning to something resembling a society, then fix your attitude.

Now, before you feel like you have to reply and be an even BIGGER Dick - ask yourself, is it worth it? Frankly, I'm sick and tired of a$$holes like you coming around here insulting folks acting like you have something to prove. Go do it somewhere else.

Oh, and by the way, before you come around here insulting individuals or telling people they don't know what the hell they're talking about, why don't you post some

F&$^ING CREDENTIALS
Like a Web-site or some of your clients or ANYTHING that tells us who the hell you are. I'm afraid no one can be taken seriously if all they do is insult others and not even tell us what kind of background they have.

J.

Cucco, to me its very simple.

You were very definitely implying that TRS MEANS balanced and TS MEANS unshielded and TRS vs. TS MEANS particular signal levels, and these thing simply aren't true.

As far as I can tell, the sort of person who posts questions like this about cables, would not be the sort of person who would be able to parse all the "mixed metaphors" you're putting down.

A "naive" reader coming away from your post could very well assume that BECAUSE they plug a stereo plug into the hole, it is balanced. Clearly, such a misconception wouldn't get them killed, but it certainly wouldn't serve them well. They could also EASILY assume that their guitar cable is unshielded, and again this wouldn't get them killed, but it could easily make them the "brunt of the joke" in situations where they decide to show off their knowlege.

Unfortunately, it is very different to say "TRS is balanced" rather than "balanced is TRS". Not a trivial semantic exercise. It confuses the "causality" behind the statement.

I said, "oh my goodness, that's preposterous". and you take personal offense? oh my goodness, that truly IS preposterous. I believe the way this "all went down" is that I posted a correction to your post, accusing you of being imprecise at best, inaccurate at worst, and you in turn posted a rebuttal accusing me of being an asshole.

I can understand how you don't like being corrected "in your own house". That, however, would be your problem, not mine. Feel free to debate the accuracy of anything I say in here. Over in my own forum on PSW, I just recently had to eat a big spoonful of poo that was handed to me by John Hardy, after I had said something rather inaccurate about his M-1 pre. Its all good.

So, is it this:

One GREAT positive effect ... is that we have picked up a lot of new passengers. Some are forum legends from the Marsh (Shotgun, Dwoz and others)

or is it this:

Oh, and by the way, before you come around here insulting individuals or telling people they don't know what the hell they're talking about, why don't you post some

F&$^ING CREDENTIALS
Like a Web-site

All the best!

dwoz

I have no problem being corrected. My problem comes when someone not only corrects, but attempts to discredit.

My answer regarding cable construction is legitimate and correct.

A TRS Cable is a Balanced cable. Period. Can you send unbalanced over it? Yes.

As for shielding - I didn't say that the TRS is unshielded. That, in fact, would be preposterous. What I stated was a VERY oversimplified view of how a balanced cable works in relation. I used the term "active shielding/grounding." What I'm referring to here is the physical connection and the use of the shield to determine common mode rejection. The only difference is, I didn't launch into a dissertation about how a balanced circuit works.

Seeing as how the question asked was...

What is the difference between TRS cables and TS cables??

I felt only the need to describe, minimalistically, the difference.

Simple, eh? Well, I do try to stay as simple as humanly possible. If the gent in question here wanted to know more about how a balanced signal works, then fine - I could have provided that information (and you did - thanks for the post.)

My problem is not that you try to explain how things work, it's that it appears that you try to get folks to eat spoonfulls of POO rather than elaborating or assisting.

My point is, try to leave egos out - were not interested in them.

As for my post regarding the welcome - I fully stand by my original post. However, just because you are a "legend" over in PSW (fully acknowledging that's MY quote) doesn't mean you have any credentials here. Post them. If not, don't expect a lot of credence.

J.

TRS is 'balanced' and CAN carry 'balanced' and 'unbalanced' signals.

TS is NOT 'balanced' and CANNOT carry a 'balanced' signal.

And for the record the original question was quite simple and didnt (at least to me) seem to require a total complex and in-depth answer. If anyone wants and in-depth answer about something either google it or goto the library there are plenty of books on this stuff. :)

Ok, I'll try this one more time.

I posted a little bit about balanced lines, so that the guy posting his original question would have some background, and be able to decide for himself just exactly what it was about the whole system that made something "balanced" and what made something "unbalanced". Yes, I could have sent him out to google, or to http://www.rane.com (where he should go anyway!!!!!) But does anyone really resent that it was presented here?

If you want to break it down to the simplest explanation, you HAVE to say "TRS" has three connectors/conductors, and "TS" has two.

Now, as we all know, you can use the three conductors for lots of things...for balanced connections, for stereo connections, for inserts...and clearly, once you understand what balanced lines are all about, you can see intuitively that the two conductors in a cable with a TS connector cannot support balanced connections.

saying that a "TRS cable is balanced" is FLAT OUT WRONG on the face of it. Saying it perpetuates a misconception that is NOT doing ANYONE any favors.

A cable becomes balanced or unbalanced depending on what SYSTEM it is part of. "A TRS cable is a three conductor cable" is ALWAYS true, and "A TRS cable can make balanced connections" is always true.

A cable with a TRS connector on it that is plugged into an unbalanced connection is then NOT a balanced cable, because the impedance to shield is not the same for both conductors. I suppose if you wanted to get pedantic, you CAN say that the same cable sitting unused in a storage box IS balanced, because both conductors "see" equal, infinite impedance to shield...

....So, I guess ya got me there.

As far as Mr. Nice's complaint that I'm making this simple subject so complicated, I'll tell a little story. My kids (age 4,7,9) think that money comes from my wallet. I mean, it just magically appears there or grows there. In the context of their needs, which is for me to remove money from my wallet to pay for a sweet or a little treat, the fact that money comes from my wallet is all they need to know. There's no need to bother them with the whole big thing about working/wages/economy/banking system/markets. Someday, when they ask me to cough up more money than happens to BE in my wallet, then we have to start getting into some of the deeper background. But today, all they need to know is that money comes from my wallet.

Our illustrious thread creator, has asked a question that shows he is now beyond the "money comes from my wallet" stage, and has to begin to delve into the more subtle intricacies.

so...how about them SOX, eh?

dwoz

I see your really getting into semantics too much with this, he asked a simple question on what is the "difference" between the 2 cables. And it is quite difficult to give him an answer that takes in all the contingencies of using 'balanced' and 'unbalanced' cables.

There was no reason for you to say:

A cable with a TRS connector on it that is plugged into an unbalanced connection is then NOT a balanced cable

It is STILL a 'balanced' cable it just wont carry a 'balanced' signal. It goes without saying that the whole chain should be 'balanced' from source to your speakers for maximum effect. But some mixers, soundcards dont have 'balanced' connections. TRS cables are more expensive so to use them in conjunction with some unblalanced connections might not be justified, it wont hurt but it certainly might not help.

You are going to confuse the poor guy by thinking that if he plugs a TRS cable into a TS connection that the TRS cable is no longer a 'balanced' cable. A balanced cable is a balanced cable period.

I am sure you know quite a bit about the dynamics of a balanced and unblanaced circuit but this thread isnt the place to start explaining it. He asked a simple question and I think Cucco explained rather well, and I wasnt going to jump in here and repeat things that other people said but then you jumped in and started to add intricacies to an already confusing matter for the original thread starter.

Lets not get into a text brawl over this.... That is un-ethical and ridiculous.

you're right, Mr. Nice, let's cut all the crap, just read this:

http://www.rane.com/note110.html

that's got all the info you'll ever need on the topic.

Over in my own forum on PSW, I just recently had to eat a big spoonful of poo that was handed to me by John Hardy, after I had said something rather inaccurate about his M-1 pre. Its all good.

You were at least a couple of levels away from poo-time. If I recall, you just had some model numbers a bit scrambled. In fact, I liked the way you put it later ("filtered through several years of buzzword bingo model numbers...").

But I would still love to see a picture with the kilts.

John Hardy
The John Hardy Co.
http://www.johnhardyco.com

Mr-Nice wrote:
Lets not get into a text brawl over this.... That is un-ethical and ridiculous.

You got the right idea, from the wrong direction my friend. The fact of the matter is, things like this SHOULD be a text brawl.

You folks need to first realize what kind of power the Internet and forums like this have. The guy asking the question is honestly looking to you people as EXPERTS in this field and to provide expert answers. Cucco's answer was the type of thing somebody would get from reading someone ELSE on a similar forum saying the same thing. That's how imprecise information gets transmitted, and the fact that anybody thinks it's ok shouldn't be giving OUT information.

See, what you have to remember is that this little practice of commiting sound to tape (disk, whatever) is called audio engineering not "audio approximating" or "audio close-enough-for-rock-and-rolling" or "audio I don't understand how it works but I plug shit in and say big words-ing". Of course, we have to expect this kind of crap from Cucco because he's a mook that doesn't understand the difference between "free" and "you have to pay me back later". How COULD we expect him to understand the difference between balanced and unbalanced?

However, anybody else should strive to understand their craft to the utmost of their ability and then have the maturity and humility to defer to greater knowlege when theirs runs out. Bully for trying to help the kid out, that is, but when it comes to things that you only understand generally, then saying "well, I don't NEED to understand it any better" is not a valid excuse for giving imprecise and incorrect information. Would you feel good if you went and read a civil engineering message board and some guy was asking about moment connections and another "engineer" replied with "well, if you put 12 bolts in, it's a moment connection, but if you only put 11 it's not. Doesn't matter how big they are or what the pattern is though"? Would that make you feel good about driving over a bridge? Obviously, like Dwoz said, this balanced/unbalanced thing isn't going to kill anybody, but there's no sense sending this guy off with wrong information so that he gets made fun of AND doesn't know how to patch his gear together.

Bottom line...never trust Cucco on technical or financial matters, always be as precise as you can and never miss an opportunity to shut up when somebody knows more than you. These three things will take you far in audio engineering.

Love,
Shotgun

PS--
Mookboy, I've heard Dwoz' "credentials" and I've seen your website. Don't ask him for credentials. Or, if you must, wear a belt because you may find your pants at your ankles.

TheRealShotgun wrote: [quote=Mr-Nice]
Lets not get into a text brawl over this.... That is un-ethical and ridiculous.

You got the right idea, from the wrong direction my friend. The fact of the matter is, things like this SHOULD be a text brawl.

You folks need to first realize what kind of power the Internet and forums like this have. The guy asking the question is honestly looking to you people as EXPERTS in this field and to provide expert answers. Cucco's answer was the type of thing somebody would get from reading someone ELSE on a similar forum saying the same thing. That's how imprecise information gets transmitted, and the fact that anybody thinks it's ok shouldn't be giving OUT information.

See, what you have to remember is that this little practice of commiting sound to tape (disk, whatever) is called audio engineering not "audio approximating" or "audio close-enough-for-rock-and-rolling" or "audio I don't understand how it works but I plug shit in and say big words-ing". Of course, we have to expect this kind of crap from Cucco because he's a mook that doesn't understand the difference between "free" and "you have to pay me back later". How COULD we expect him to understand the difference between balanced and unbalanced?

However, anybody else should strive to understand their craft to the utmost of their ability and then have the maturity and humility to defer to greater knowlege when theirs runs out. Bully for trying to help the kid out, that is, but when it comes to things that you only understand generally, then saying "well, I don't NEED to understand it any better" is not a valid excuse for giving imprecise and incorrect information. Would you feel good if you went and read a civil engineering message board and some guy was asking about moment connections and another "engineer" replied with "well, if you put 12 bolts in, it's a moment connection, but if you only put 11 it's not. Doesn't matter how big they are or what the pattern is though"? Would that make you feel good about driving over a bridge? Obviously, like Dwoz said, this balanced/unbalanced thing isn't going to kill anybody, but there's no sense sending this guy off with wrong information so that he gets made fun of AND doesn't know how to patch his gear together.

Bottom line...never trust Cucco on technical or financial matters, always be as precise as you can and never miss an opportunity to shut up when somebody knows more than you. These three things will take you far in audio engineering.

Love,
Shotgun

PS--
Mookboy, I've heard Dwoz' "credentials" and I've seen your website. Don't ask him for credentials. Or, if you must, wear a belt because you may find your pants at your ankles.

Okay, so I normally don't reply when someone becomes an OVERT dick like this but okay, here goes:

Dwoz -
I concede that, yes, I should have actually worded my statement better in that TRS is not necessarily balanced, as it can carry ANYTHING. That is in fact a correct statement. My statement(s) simply were to answer the original question and to make it clear that TRS is NOT in fact a "stereo" plug as was stated. I used more simple terms in referencing the balanced circuit, and you did in fact very accurately and consicely describe a balanced circuit.

IOW - no beef here.

Shotgun -

WHAT the F*CK is your problem? Why attack me and state:

Bottom line...never trust Cucco on technical or financial matters, always be as precise as you can and never miss an opportunity to shut up when somebody knows more than you.

What the hell motivated that attack?

Where the hell do you get off attacking my credentials? I have no doubt that Dwoz does have good credentials. That's not my point. If you're going to use a psuedonym, the least you could do is fill out your profile enough to let us know who you really are. It's really friggin easy to hide behind anonymity, all I'm asking is tell us who you are.

BTW - I never said -

"well, I don't NEED to understand it any better"

So, where ever the hell you pulled that from, I have no clue. In fact, I have provided several lengthy and VERY in-depth (and accurate too) explanations of many things physics and math related. The fact is, I do understand how audio and sound work and when appropriate, I do defer to those with more knowledge. For things digital, I definitely defer to Nika on this site. For things acoustic, I defer to many of the gentlemen on this site.

And also, where the hell are you getting this:

Of course, we have to expect this kind of crap from Cucco because he's a mook that doesn't understand the difference between "free" and "you have to pay me back later".

I don't even understand what you're saying! How do I not understand this?

Where the hell is your hostility coming from?

I have a question (or three).

Who the hell are you?
Where are you from?
Does anyone here actually know you? (I mean, have they met you, do they know OF you, have they seen your face?)

How can ANYONE take you seriously when they don't even know who you are?

You may feel free to attack my credibility all you'd like. The fact is, you are one of a small handful of people who will. I can name 4, including yourself, on this board who would do so. Just because I devote a lot of time to recording schools and the like, I must be a Mook? Is that it? Because I don't do a lot of work with snot-nosed bands who do nothing but beat on their instruments, I must be worthless?

How about this - I volunteer in the school systems on a weekly basis. I go to local schools and help the band/orchestra/choir directors by working with their students, volunteering at school functions and YES, recording schools for no charge (but selling their discs to make profit). Oh, and all this work I do (which I proudly display on my website) I do for FREE! (Not "pay me back later!")

Something I've done has obviously hit a nerve with you. Either tell me what it is that I may apologize or I'll have to assume that you're simply an ass and that there is no cure/solution.

Jeremy

Cucco wrote:
Who the hell are you?
Where are you from?
Does anyone here actually know you? (I mean, have they met you, do they know OF you, have they seen your face?)

How can ANYONE take you seriously when they don't even know who you are?

The answer to your question is exactly my point, sir. The fact of the matter is, you don't NEED to know who I am. You don't NEED to know what albums I've worked on or what bands I've worked with or anything of that sort. If I told you my name was Alex DeLarge, would you know any more than you do now? I certainly don't know any more about you knowing your name is Jeremy.

What we are judged on in forums like this, and what we *should* be judged on, is the accuracy, usefulness and verifiability of the information we give. That is, anonymity does not, as you seem to feel, provide mystery, it in fact provides a level playing field upon which no one can flaunt a credit or resume bullet point as support for a point of fact. That's the beauty of this type of exchange.

So, what would eventually happen is that the person asking the question would eventually get corroboration on Dwoz' information from either a book, or a trusted source, or whatever and you'd wind up looking like a jabberwocky. Doesn't matter how much time you donate to the South-East Virginia School of the Arts for Left-Handed Lesbian Eskimoes. Your answer was JUST as incorrect regardless of what you know or don't know or what you do or don't do. So, when the guy comes back looking for more information, he's going to be less likely to trust yours. His thought will be "That Cucco mook was pretty shaky on what balanced and unbalanced was, he may not have what I need on -10/+4."

So if you're so knowlegeable on math and physics, why is it you seemed so confused? And why, if you did know the complete and correct answer, would you give such a confusing mish-mash as you did? Quite honestly, if I had asked that question I'd feel insulted that you felt like I wasn't "technically adept" enough to be able to stomach the real answser rather than the boiled down version, as you claim. In short: I *can* handle the truth, and so can this thread's originator. Or, at least if he can't, give him the chance to say "hey guys, back off on the technobabble, just say "do it this way" please".

Cucco wrote:
And also, where the hell are you getting this:

Of course, we have to expect this kind of crap from Cucco because he's a mook that doesn't understand the difference between "free" and "you have to pay me back later".

That'd be from this thread:
(Dead Link Removed)

Where you first said:

Cucco wrote: I signed her to a deal on the spot and now her recording is free of charge to her.

Then you said:

Cucco wrote: [quote=TheRealShotgun][quote=Cucco] I signed her to a deal on the spot and now her recording is free of charge to her.

No shit? That's a hell of a deal. No recoup at all?

~S

Well, I didn't say no recoup, did I?? I just didn't put all the details of my contract in the post. Of course I make money on her. I engineer her album with one of my staff producers, then I farm it out to the ME of my choice. Then I pay for replication and then I take a sizable portion of the proceeds. After all, I am providing thousands of dollars worth of services at no charge to her.

TheRealShotgun wrote: [quote=Cucco]
Who the hell are you?
Where are you from?
Does anyone here actually know you? (I mean, have they met you, do they know OF you, have they seen your face?)

How can ANYONE take you seriously when they don't even know who you are?

The answer to your question is exactly my point, sir. The fact of the matter is, you don't NEED to know who I am. You don't NEED to know what albums I've worked on or what bands I've worked with or anything of that sort. If I told you my name was Alex DeLarge, would you know any more than you do now? I certainly don't know any more about you knowing your name is Jeremy.

What we are judged on in forums like this, and what we *should* be judged on, is the accuracy, usefulness and verifiability of the information we give. That is, anonymity does not, as you seem to feel, provide mystery, it in fact provides a level playing field upon which no one can flaunt a credit or resume bullet point as support for a point of fact. That's the beauty of this type of exchange.

So, what would eventually happen is that the person asking the question would eventually get corroboration on Dwoz' information from either a book, or a trusted source, or whatever and you'd wind up looking like a jabberwocky. Doesn't matter how much time you donate to the South-East Virginia School of the Arts for Left-Handed Lesbian Eskimoes. Your answer was JUST as incorrect regardless of what you know or don't know or what you do or don't do. So, when the guy comes back looking for more information, he's going to be less likely to trust yours. His thought will be "That Cucco mook was pretty shaky on what balanced and unbalanced was, he may not have what I need on -10/+4."

So if you're so knowlegeable on math and physics, why is it you seemed so confused? And why, if you did know the complete and correct answer, would you give such a confusing mish-mash as you did? Quite honestly, if I had asked that question I'd feel insulted that you felt like I wasn't "technically adept" enough to be able to stomach the real answser rather than the boiled down version, as you claim. In short: I *can* handle the truth, and so can this thread's originator. Or, at least if he can't, give him the chance to say "hey guys, back off on the technobabble, just say "do it this way" please".

Fine, if we're to be judged by our previous statements and work, check mine out. I have made a lot of posts here and while some of them counter folks' opinions, in general, they're accepted and have merit. If that WEREN'T the case, why would people on this forum address their questions DIRECTLY towards me?

As for my answer to this post, I still feel as though it were an accurate answer to the poster's question. If he had wanted to know what a balanced circuit was, he would have asked that.

How is it in your mind that I sound "confused" about this answer. I was short and simple - as was the question. No information that I gave was technically incorrect, though I agree the wording could have been better. 43Hz was able to point out my mis-wordings without being an a$$hole and he helped to clarify my answer further.

I wish that I could easily go back and fix the minor mis-wordings (other than "editing" the post, which would make this whole thread silly and hard to follow).

When you go to the store and look at the packaging on a TRS audio cable, it is often labeled "Balanced Audio Cable." True, it CAN carry unbalanced, however, it is the cable of choice (along with XLR) for carrying balanced signals. Perhaps my answer WOULD have been more correct if I had stated:

TRS = Balanced cable, but it CAN carry unbalanced signals too
TS = Unbalanced, 2-pole cable.

Cucco wrote:
And also, where the hell are you getting this:

Of course, we have to expect this kind of crap from Cucco because he's a mook that doesn't understand the difference between "free" and "you have to pay me back later".

That'd be from this thread:
(Dead Link Removed)

Where you first said:

Cucco wrote: I signed her to a deal on the spot and now her recording is free of charge to her.

Then you said:

Cucco wrote: [quote=TheRealShotgun][quote=Cucco] I signed her to a deal on the spot and now her recording is free of charge to her.

No shit? That's a hell of a deal. No recoup at all?

~S

Well, I didn't say no recoup, did I?? I just didn't put all the details of my contract in the post. Of course I make money on her. I engineer her album with one of my staff producers, then I farm it out to the ME of my choice. Then I pay for replication and then I take a sizable portion of the proceeds. After all, I am providing thousands of dollars worth of services at no charge to her.

How the hell is this "Free" vs. "You have to pay me back later?"

She still gets the recording at NO charge. I get my costs recouped on the back end. That is I get the costs back for my services and for the duplication.

The fact is, she doesn't have the money to pay for my services - in this case, she get's them and instead of paying for them directly, I get recouped out of the sale of the discs. In other words, I make her a product which SHE WOULD NOT HAVE otherwise and give her the profits from that product. She does not have to PAY one friggin cent.

Yes, she technically does pay because the money comes out of the profit, but considering the fact that, without me, there wouldn't be profit, I still submit that this is of NO CHARGE to her! Would you feel happier if I said no "UPFRONT" charge? In that case, I still state that she wouldn't have this product if it were not for my providing this service at no initial cost.

OH, and by the way - the contract states that she is NOT responsible for making up additional costs if the unit does NOT sell as predicted. In other words, if I don't sell 1 copy, she doesn't owe me 1 cent. In more simple words, for your amusement -
FFFFFRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I could answer this question correctly from the start it would be -

A TRS Cable is by definition, a balanced cable. However, if the device you are plugging it into is unbalanced, the signal will be transmitted as unbalanced over the cable.

A TS cable is unbalanced.

By going into a patchbay with a TRS/Balanced line and exiting with a TS/Unbalanced line, you are unbalancing the cable. This is fine.

By coming back to the patchbay with a TS cable and patching it out to your DAW/Recorder, you will remain unbalanced, regardless of cable choice. You may choose to enter a balancing device for the purpose of balancing the signals.

Many(most) devices are configured to provide different signal levels over balanced vs unbalanced lines. Most gear is fine with this but many lower-quality pieces do not play well with gear providing significantly louder levels than they are expecting.

The FMR RNC can handle any sane, producable level that you can throw at it however, so feel free to use it how you like.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Does this help fix any of my "short answers" or "mis-wordings?"

J.

(BTW Shotgun -

TheRealShotgun wrote:
If I told you my name was Alex DeLarge...

That says an awful lot. Your profile name, this name - it displays your propensity for violence and lack of respect for civility in general. Thank YOU for helping me make MY point.

Cucco wrote:

How the hell is this "Free" vs. "You have to pay me back later?"

She still gets the recording at NO charge. I get my costs recouped on the back end. That is I get the costs back for my services and for the duplication.

The fact is, she doesn't have the money to pay for my services - in this case, she get's them and instead of paying for them directly, I get recouped out of the sale of the discs. In other words, I make her a product which SHE WOULD NOT HAVE otherwise and give her the profits from that product. She does not have to PAY one friggin cent.

Yes, she technically does pay because the money comes out of the profit, but considering the fact that, without me, there wouldn't be profit, I still submit that this is of NO CHARGE to her! Would you feel happier if I said no "UPFRONT" charge? In that case, I still state that she wouldn't have this product if it were not for my providing this service at no initial cost.

OH, and by the way - the contract states that she is NOT responsible for making up additional costs if the unit does NOT sell as predicted. In other words, if I don't sell 1 copy, she doesn't owe me 1 cent. In more simple words, for your amusement -
FFFFFRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

See, kids, here's a perfect example of what's wrong with music today, and what to look out for when you're shopping for that first "deal".

The artist would have absolutely nothing were it not for your golden-hearted charity, would she Cucco?

Hold I need to make a phone call....

Hello? Is this BS? Yeah, it's about this Cucco mook...

yeah? You know him? I figured...ok, see ya.

Ok then. Here's what you did, Cucco. You didn't give away anything for "free". What you did, like any other label would, is provide an unsecured loan. Instead of loaning actual cash in the form of an advance check, though, what you did was loan services. You're basically a credit card with a given limit. The terms of your deal are that your services get paid for after the product is finished. And, to be fair, most recording contracts (apparently yours included) provide that if not enough product is sold to recoup the loan, the rest is forgiven after a certain time period. Unless, of course, you get into one of those deals where the second release's sales apply to the first release's recoup amount. In which case said artist is fucked beyond all recognition.

But make no mistake, you haven't done a goddamn thing for free.

You're loaning, not giving.

Giving is free. Loaning is not.

And a fuckin mook that thinks an artist would not have a product were it not for him is a self-righteous bastard.

Let me qualify that. Unless you wrote all those songs, you're a self-righteous bastard.

If you did write them, more power to ya.

Let me also say that I in no way malign the record industry for being loan sharks. Obviously somebody needs to front the money for recording projects and somebody needs to handle the details of duplication and distribution. These jobs are much better handled by a business such as a label rather than the artist. It's a much better deal all around. However, let's not try dressing a sow up in a ballgown and calling it princess. What you do is still a loan, not a gift and it is NOT free by any stretch of the definition of the word.

God bless the small labels for giving a shit about an upcoming artist and putting their cash on the line for something they believe in.

But fuck anybody that thinks they're anything but a support player to where the real art is being created. If you don't want to say it that way when you've got somebody poised over a contract with a pen, that's your deal. But don't try and pass it off around here as some act of selfless giving.

And to answer your other question, no, you can't go back and re-word your answer after you saw everybody else's.

Love ya,
Shotgun

Jesus Friggin Christ!

The only reason I say she would not have a product if it weren't for me is because SHE said this!!! SHE can't afford to purchase the product. I am sticking my nuts on the line - if she doesn't sell anything, than I don't get anything! Yet I'm purchasing the replication, mastering and providing the recording/mixing.

Yes, I understand that this is a loan. However, most deals are structured that the engineer gets his/her piece, the mastering engineer gets theirs, the replication gets theirs and then the label gets theirs.

Well, I get paid for my services by MY selling of the disc. As for a label cut, I get nothing. In other words - she keeps 100% of the profits!!! Profit = all procedes above and beyond the cost of the product itself. My "sizeable portion of the proceeds" simply cover the $2000 for replication, $900 for mastering and an agreed upon amount (in advance) for the cost of my services as an engineer. Which, btw, are being priced out far lower than my actual going rate!

In that case, I am giving her a freebie. I could also say that I get a 50% cut of the profits since I am the label in this case! Don't you get the distinction between a studio and a label?

Yes, she's paying for me to record and paying Airshow to master and paying Oasis to replicate, but NOTHING for distribution, advertising, promotion. IN OTHERWORDS:

FREE.

I know GODDAMNED well that my job is to push buttons and move faders. I know that all I am is the support player. THAT's why I'm covering EVERYTHING else out of my pocket!

I am about as sick and tired of your fucking attitude on this board as I've ever been. Your sarcasm, bitter answers and attacks may be welcome somewhere else, but if you can't be constructive -

GET THE FUCK OFF OF RO!

I am done with you.

Feel free to reply all you want. Call me all the names you want -
"Mook," "Self-Righteous Bastard," I simply don't care. Why do you feel the need to insult everyone to whom you reply? Do you win friends this way?

Fuck you!
Jeremy

Cucco wrote:
Why do you feel the need to insult everyone to whom you reply?

Jeremy

Because they (dwoz & shotgun) are gods and we are ants. Didn't they clarify that with you? :wink:

Seriously, ya'll come off like a couple of bully ay-wholes most times. Can't you, I dunno, pretend to be pleasant? Keep the humor, though. I can dig that.
Lay off the Cucco, eh?

Reggie wrote: [quote=Cucco]
Why do you feel the need to insult everyone to whom you reply?

Jeremy

Because they (dwoz & shotgun) are gods and we are ants. Didn't they clarify that with you? :wink:

FINALLY someone that GETS IT! Seriously though, I know Dwoz, and I, sir, am no Dwoz. But thanks for thinkin so.

Reggie wrote:
Seriously, ya'll come off like a couple of bully ay-wholes most times. Can't you, I dunno, pretend to be pleasant? Keep the humor, though. I can dig that.
Lay off the Cucco, eh?

But ya learned somethin every time didn't ya?

On an unrelated note, Cucco...I know you're probably ignoring me and hugging your teddy right now, but I was curious...I looked over at your credentials, like we discussed...

...Which Canadian Brass album did you guys release?

I may have it laying around.

~S

TheRealShotgun wrote: [quote=Mr-Nice]
Lets not get into a text brawl over this.... That is un-ethical and ridiculous.

You got the right idea, from the wrong direction my friend. The fact of the matter is, things like this SHOULD be a text brawl.

Why? To act like assholes and basically throw insults back and forth? Skip that BS, the guy asked a simple question about the difference between 'balanced' and 'unbalanced' cables. He didnt ask for anyone to explain advanced nuclear physics. And if he wanted an "in-depth" answer he should of been alot more specific with his question. Nobody can help you if you arent specific. You cant go into a restaurant and ask for food and not be specific. :roll: Apply that philosophy in this case.

Mr-Nice wrote: [quote=TheRealShotgun][quote=Mr-Nice]
Lets not get into a text brawl over this.... That is un-ethical and ridiculous.

You got the right idea, from the wrong direction my friend. The fact of the matter is, things like this SHOULD be a text brawl.

Why? To act like assholes and basically throw insults back and forth? Skip that BS, the guy asked a simple question about the difference between 'balanced' and 'unbalanced' cables. He didnt ask for anyone to explain advanced nuclear physics. And if he wanted an "in-depth" answer he should of been alot more specific with his question. Nobody can help you if you arent specific. You cant go into a restaurant and ask for food and not be specific. :roll: Apply that philosophy in this case.

The question was plenty specific enough. And that you'd more or less say "well, wunz got three wires and the udderz got two, werd" to "what is the difference between balanced and unbalanced cabling" means you really shouldn't be calling yourself an "engineer".

My analogy is much more apt than yours. The guy didn't ask for "food" he asked a specific question and got some specific and some not so specific answers. Plain and simple. Whether or not you think I'm an asshole doesn't change the answer to the question or its correctness.

I think you guys are all just pissed because 43 and Dwoz had better answers than y'all could come up with.

Engineers...pah.

~S

Alright - I'll bite once more.

I can put my teddy down long enough to reply, but only cuz you laid off all the swear words Shotgun.

As for the canadian brass thing, I doubt you have my disc laying around, but in case you want a sample, it's from a live recording that I did for them earlier this year:

(Dead Link Removed)

One side note - I did study F Horn with Marty Hackleman for a while. (Former hornist of Canadian Brass, Vancouver Symphony, National Symphony). It's not like just anyone can study with him, he is rather selective. I guess as a musician, I can't be that bad. That goes a long way towards making one a better recordist.

Oh, and you got my number - I am jealous - 100%

As a matter of fact, I go around making up incomplete answers just so I can bask in the momentary glory of those that can correct me. It makes me feel special by association.

J.

TheRealShotgun wrote: The question was plenty specific enough.

No it wasnt... Moving on...

And that you'd more or less say "well, wunz got three wires and the udderz got two, werd" to "what is the difference between balanced and unbalanced cabling" means you really shouldn't be calling yourself an "engineer".

My post in here was to reinforce the debate about TRS and TS cables. And there was a slight debate if you bothered to read the thread from the beginning.

My analogy is much more apt than yours.

I am sooooooooooo proud of you right now. Would you like the lifetime engineers award for that? Do you feel like more of a man because your answer was more "apt" than mine? Do you feel that your engineering career would skyrocket now since you were able to answer the question in more detail? Yeah all the major pro studios are gonna burn up your phone line trying to hire you since your answer was more "apt" than mine. whooopty fuckin doooo! :roll:

The guy didn't ask for "food" he asked a specific question and got some specific and some not so specific answers. Plain and simple.

The whole restaurant thing was an analogy, in laymens terms a comparison. We all know he didnt ask for food king brainiac!

(now see what I mean by insulting each other in a text brawl, even I cant resist the temptation.)

Whether or not you think I'm an asshole doesn't change the answer to the question or its correctness.

I dont think you are an asshole I just think your a bit obnoxious and rude, this whole thread you were shit-talking on Cucco when he did give some postive feedback on the original question. And your insults definitely dont make you pro sounding. It just makes you look retarded.

I think you guys are all just pissed because 43 and Dwoz had better answers than y'all could come up with.

I am not pissed nor do I even give a shit. I am very proud that these 2 gentleman actually found the time to sit and type a lucid and in depth explanation of the original question. If you read my quote that also applies to me writing posts as well. Which reminds me that I am way beyond my time curve on this and I wont even respond back at you. Heck I might not even read it if you direct your next post at me. Especially in an un-ethical manner.

Engineers...pah.

Yeah this I have to address...

WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS IF YOU SAY THIS? LET ME HEAR YOUR BEST WORK! When you own/operate a $400 per/hr facility that records major label (only) artist on the regular, then i'll keep my fuckin mouth closed and listen to whatever you throw at me. And believe me if that is the case your ass wouldnt have time to be fucking around with us in a forum.

Have a nice and pleasant evening!

Mr-Nice wrote: [quote=TheRealShotgun]Engineers...pah.

Yeah this I have to address...

WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS IF YOU SAY THIS? LET ME HEAR YOUR BEST WORK! When you own/operate a $400 per/hr facility that records major label (only) artist on the regular, then i'll keep my fuckin mouth closed and listen to whatever you throw at me. And believe me if that is the case your ass wouldnt have time to be fucking around with us in a forum.

Have a nice and pleasant evening!

LMFBO, I personally know of several high- ticket engineers and studio operators who spend WAY too much time fucking around on audio message boards... Not naming any names, you know who you are. And I'm glad that they do it! ;)

Anyhoo, that's gotta be the worst of all of Mr. Niece's retarded arguments. :lol:

Anyway gents, this has been an entertaining read. How Shotgun can play circles around you guys even standing on one hand with a carrot in his nostrils is thoroughly amusing indeed... :D

(Oh, hi yall. I'm Skidoo, from Finland and an AE. And almost an alcoholic. I mix well but I'm mostly deaf. Cheers!)

Skwaidu wrote: [quote=Mr-Nice][quote=TheRealShotgun]Engineers...pah.

Yeah this I have to address...

WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS IF YOU SAY THIS? LET ME HEAR YOUR BEST WORK! When you own/operate a $400 per/hr facility that records major label (only) artist on the regular, then i'll keep my fuckin mouth closed and listen to whatever you throw at me. And believe me if that is the case your ass wouldnt have time to be fucking around with us in a forum.

Have a nice and pleasant evening!

LMFBO, I personally know of several high- ticket engineers and studio operators who spend WAY too much time fucking around on audio message boards... Not naming any names, you know who you are. And I'm glad that they do it! ;)

Yeah okaaaaaaaaaaaay duh! If your not going to name them please dont announce that you know of them.

Anyhoo, that's gotta be the worst of all of Mr. Niece's retarded arguments. :lol:

Hahahahahaha that was truly a corny attempt at being funny?!? (I am laughing at you not with you trust me).

How Shotgun can play circles around you guys even standing on one hand with a carrot in his nostrils is thoroughly amusing indeed... :D

The term is "run circles" not "play circles". At least have the intelligence to use correct terminology if your gonna try to be funny!

Oh yeah I better hide now... He just "ran circles" around me with his more "apt" answer! Your another bonehead!

Hahahahahaha (continuing to laugh at you)

Skwaidu wrote: LMFBO, I personally know of several high- ticket engineers and studio operators who spend WAY too much time fucking around on audio message boards... Not naming any names, you know who you are. And I'm glad that they do it! ;)

Hmm... well I know some too and they're right here on these boards.

For one, there's Scott Sedillo, Hudson Fair, Alex Kosiorek, Rich Mays, Ben Maas not to mention some of the heavy weights like John Hardy and so on.

The difference is, they'll answer questions and point out inaccuracies without being dicks. In general, these guys are VERY helpful and usually leave their egos out of it. And that's saying a lot, cuz I've had disagreements with a couple of these folks on and off forum. The difference, I will always respect them.

So, while you may think that Shotgun is being clever by somehow turning this into a game, some people are here to have a good read and gain information and leave all of the piss-poor attitude and language behind.

If that's your cup of tea, enjoy the marsh. You'll see that the majority of the stuff discussed over there has absolutely nothing to do with recording. As such, battles of wit and swears are welcome additions. Here, they're annoyances at best.

If Shotgun is running circles around us piss-ant engineers, please, by all means, post some samples. I have and I have nothing to hide - name, location, reputation - nothing to hide at all.

Jeremy

Mr-Dumbass wrote:

The term is "run circles" not "play circles". At least have the intelligence to use correct terminology if your gonna try to be funny!

Oh yeah I better hide now... He just "ran circles" around me with his more "apt" answer! Your another bonehead!

Hahahahahaha (continuing to laugh at you)

Ah! My bad. Shall we switch the conversation to Finnish so I can *run* circles around your dim intellect unhidered? This is my third language after all... Even a retard like yourself might take notice that laughing at a foreigners limited linguistical capacity is a little lame... Is it not? :evil:

And no, I was not trying to be too funny. Just wanted to voice the fact that Shotgun indeed made you look like fools while being simultaneously very entertaining and informative. And Dwoz before him... :P

Cucco wrote: [quote=Skwaidu]LMFBO, I personally know of several high- ticket engineers and studio operators who spend WAY too much time fucking around on audio message boards... Not naming any names, you know who you are. And I'm glad that they do it! ;)

Hmm... well I know some too and they're right here on these boards.

For one, there's Scott Sedillo, Hudson Fair, Alex Kosiorek, Rich Mays, Ben Maas not to mention some of the heavy weights like John Hardy and so on.

The difference is, they'll answer questions and point out inaccuracies without being dicks. In general, these guys are VERY helpful and usually leave their egos out of it. And that's saying a lot, cuz I've had disagreements with a couple of these folks on and off forum. The difference, I will always respect them.

So, while you may think that Shotgun is being clever by somehow turning this into a game, some people are here to have a good read and gain information and leave all of the piss-poor attitude and language behind.

If that's your cup of tea, enjoy the marsh. You'll see that the majority of the stuff discussed over there has absolutely nothing to do with recording. As such, battles of wit and swears are welcome additions. Here, they're annoyances at best.

If Shotgun is running circles around us piss-ant engineers, please, by all means, post some samples. I have and I have nothing to hide - name, location, reputation - nothing to hide at all.

Jeremy

Bigger names... And being "dicks" anonymously on occasion too!

...If that's your term for calling a spade a spade that is. :D

(Well, most of the time these folks are being *incredibly* helpful though. But obviously I cannot out them, sorry...)

Yes, I enjoy the MARSH, thank you. Some of you guys should stop by the rec 101 forum there btw. Dwoz and several other folks are answering these kinds of formative audio questions with accuracy AND wit down there... And most of the time nobody is being a "dick"! :shock:

For those of you trying to sort out this horror show of a thread, let me try and help:

- TS are unbalanced...TRS can be balanced or unbalanced, depending on application and connector usage.
- Unbalanced cables are fine for short connection runs; anything longer than a foot or two I tend to use balanced for its shielding/noise reduction capabilities
- People who poise themselves as platinum or well known engineers without offering a their real names, site link, studio affiliations, credential lists, etc, are often (not always, so be careful!!!) wannabes that simply regurgitate what they have read on other sites, and try to invent themselves as an internet Goeff Emerick or Randy Scruggs....
- Said posers often resort to attack mode, as they have no other resourse...
- Pissing contests on the net are a waste of time, and often result in an exodus of people who actually DO this stuff for a living

FWIW: I like Cucco...nice fellow...we don't always agree on everything, but that's no reason to get on his case or egg him on, is it (unless of course Cucco's opponents have so little to do in their own studio....)

Another FWIW and then you may return to this fiasco: There are lots of resources on the net for just about anything audio...if you don't like or don't agree with what is being said about a topic, then say so if you wish and move on...and find some other source that suits you or gives you the information being sought...This back and forth is inane, childish, and frankly, insulting to those who actually wish to participate in a relavent topic....

Midlandmorgan wrote: For those of you trying to sort out this horror show of a thread, let me try and help:

Gosh, thanks Midland Morgan, you're a doll.

Midlandmorgan wrote:
- TS are unbalanced...TRS can be balanced or unbalanced, depending on application and connector usage.

True enough, good work soldier.

Midlandmorgan wrote:
- Unbalanced cables are fine for short connection runs; anything longer than a foot or two I tend to use balanced for its shielding/noise reduction capabilities

tsk tsk. Re-read Dwoz' post. Single conductor ("unbalanced") and dual-conductor ("balanced" and we're ignoring for the time being things like Canare star-quad which has 4 conductors instead of 2) are both shielded in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. So, if you say "I will use a balanced cable because of its shielding" then you are, in fact, a moron...and I don't care what your real name is or what you have to do in your studio today. And it's just that kind of loose inaccuracy that I'm trying to point out to you twits is dangerous. If you want to be an educator, fine, be one, but get your shit straight before you step to the head of the class.

Midlandmorgan wrote:
- People who poise themselves as platinum or well known engineers without offering a their real names, site link, studio affiliations, credential lists, etc, are often (not always, so be careful!!!) wannabes that simply regurgitate what they have read on other sites, and try to invent themselves as an internet Goeff Emerick or Randy Scruggs....

I never poised myself as anything. In fact, that's my entire point with NOT telling you who I am. Because it doesn't matter. Goeff Emerick is wrong about shit from time to time, and I'm right sometimes. But those facts have nothing to do with our names. I keep saying, but nobody listens, that your value as an anonymous poster is based on the verifiability of the information you give. That is, if you advise someone and what you tell them works out to be good info, then you now have credibility. If it does NOT work out, your credibility is gone. Doesn't matter who you are. And that's the beauty of it.

Midlandmorgan wrote:
- Said posers often resort to attack mode, as they have no other resourse...

I'm not in "attack" mode yet buddy...trust me, you'll know it if I am. All I'm really doing is pointing out the weaknesses of others so that lesser experienced readers won't automatically accept their words as gospel, even though they try to affect a certain level of credibility BY posting some pretty lame, low-level "credentials" and then denouncing anyone else who doesn't do the same.

And if that sounded confusing, let me just stop NOT naming names and lay it out. Cucco's little website of his "record label" and "studio" is not any kind of credential. It's just not, sorry. It seems impressive to some folks, and he works real hard to MAKE it seem impressive..."Oh well *I* have nothing to hide! I let you see MY real name and accomplishments!" So what? Those accomplishments, while just dandy for Cucco and his handful of clients and 1 actual release are, in the grand scheme of things, not really any better than MY credentials. And in fact, they're not really a whole lot better than almost ANYBODY'S credentials. And I'm sure Cucco, deep in his heart, knows he's not anywhere near "big time". So, bully on you guys for layin it all out there, but just don't expect it to impress me, ok? No, I'm not saying that you would have heard of me, or anything I've recorded...I'm just saying that I've been around this carnival for a number of years and I've run into enough guys at y'alls level that it's really not impressive or awe-inspiring to me. Simply put, your "credentials" mean jack shit to me so you might as well have kept it a secret for all the good it does you.

Midlandmorgan wrote:
- Pissing contests on the net are a waste of time, and often result in an exodus of people who actually DO this stuff for a living

Not even close to true. On the contrary, as that hard-drinking but still youthfully beautiful Finn Skidoo pointed out, you'd be pretty surprised at the guys around here (and at the MARSH) who laugh like hell at you during breaks from recording major-label releases. You'd also be surprised to know how many of them are gay, but that's an entirely different thread.

But the important thing that happens during these "pissing contests" as you call them is that the general population sees that the first post isn't always the right post. And that people who ACT like experts can sometimes be taken to school by people who ARE experts. And that's valuable education.

Midlandmorgan wrote:
FWIW: I like Cucco...nice fellow...we don't always agree on everything, but that's no reason to get on his case or egg him on, is it (unless of course Cucco's opponents have so little to do in their own studio....)

I'm sorry to say that currently, I do not. But, whatever you and Cucco do on your own time is your own business. It's the 00's and I'm a modern guy, so I see nothing wrong with the beautiful love that a man can only share with another man. It just ain't my thing, you dig?

However, what I'd like to clear up is that I'm not Cucco's "opponent". What I am is a PROponent of the pure, unadulterated truth and the God-given right of calling a duck anything that waddles and quacks. And I shall continue to do that so long as I can type.

Midlandmorgan wrote:
Another FWIW and then you may return to this fiasco: There are lots of resources on the net for just about anything audio...if you don't like or don't agree with what is being said about a topic, then say so if you wish and move on...and find some other source that suits you or gives you the information being sought...This back and forth is inane, childish, and frankly, insulting to those who actually wish to participate in a relavent topic....

Several people have said this. So, what is RO's policy here..."We'll give you whatever information we THINK is correct and if you don't like it go somewhere else"? That's helpful. And by "...actually wish to participate in a relavent topic" do you mean "...be quiet and let the blowhards talk so they'll feel important even if they're wrong"? Because that's plain silly.

Midland Morgan ole buddy...don't hate me because I'm beautiful, hate me because your boyfriend does.

Love Always,
Shotgun

Jesus Christ Shotgun! (and no, that's not a salutation)

First - we shit-canned JP22 from this site for homosexual bashing and racism. Add a couple racist jokes and you're no better than the almighty JP22.

Second - I never said I was big-time. I don't promote myself that way either. I'm glad you like my website! As for my "first release" try again. It is Sublyme Records' first release. I have operated for several years under the name Sight and Sound Studios. It wasn't until May of this year that I became a Limited Liability Corporation and therefore changed my compnany's name as well as began new associations.

As for credentials, I simply mean a name and a location. Even if you want to specify a region of a country, that's fine. I'm not asking for a resume. Credentials, by definition are only items which identify who you are NOT what you've done. Many of the forums on the site which you normally participate REQUIRE this information. Those forums are run by some of the best in the biz.

Third - Since we're talking about WRONG INFORMATION -
Starquad and similar designs use 4 individual cable components inside the shield, but in reality it is only 2 conductors. Since, of course, the 4 wires are grouped into pairs and the same signal is sent over a pair of wires. Thus, 2 conductors.

The use of the word shield and shielding are different and used in different contexts.

A shield is the device around the dialectric and cable components which physically shields the internal components from stray noise.

Shielding implies an action (as most verbs usually do). It may simply mean the act of shielding a cables internal components or being part of a greater action, as described quite nicely by DWOZ. When the shield is called into action, it is now ACTIVE SHIELDING.

See, now here's the difference between you and a gentleman.

Ken and I have disagreed and he doesn't hesitate to tell me when he thinks I'm wrong. The difference is, he doesn't resort to childish behavior such as name calling and foul language.

I hope you realize that, by acting the way that you have, you are lessening your credibility. You are acting like a 13 year old boy. (That's an insult to all 13 year old boys too. Most of them would have the decency to stop beating the dead horse with more insults, name-calling and swearing.)

As for my credibility, I'm fairly certain it's still in tact. I have never made pretend that I am something I'm not.

Here's what I am - (this is for you and for ANYONE else who wasn't ever sure and THINKS I'm a "big-time" engineer)

Jeremy Cucco
Occupation:
Day-time-
Biometrics Engineer, Senior Scientist, VP Marketing (DSCI) and the US Army's Liaison to the DoD Biometrics Management Office
Evening-
Studio owner - focusing on recording orchestras, choirs, concert bands of all quality levels and sizes.
Horn Player - F horn - played with Washington Symphony Orchestra, Old Bridge Chamber Orchestra, Reston Chamber Orchestra, Fort Smith Symphony, Northeast Arkansas Symphony, Pine Bluff Symphony, Rappahannock POPS Orchestra, Piedmont Regional Orchestra and have sub-ed with a few bigger orchestras.
Horn Teacher - Currently have 6 students.
Private Life
New father of a little boy
Married for 9 1/2 years
Wine afficianado
Amatuer Photographer

Training:
Music - Studied at Arkansas State and Tech Universities in Music Performance on f horn. Studied with Peter Landgren at Peabody Conservatory.
Studied recording under Ken Futterer in Arkansas and started my own meager studio in 1998. Since then, I have done my best to learn from folks like Ben Maas, who are consistently helpful and knowledgable and damned good engineers.

Science - All self-trained. I keep technical manuals and text books on that backs of my toilets all throughout my house. I can't be too much of a slouch though, or the 3-Star General that I support in the Pentagon would probably have canned me years ago.

So, there you have it.

There's my entire background and history.

I don't hide behind anything.

I don't pretend to be anything I'm not.

I don't profess to being a "big-time" engineer.

I work hard, I read, I practice my horn and my engineering skills all while trying to be a good husband and father so that my wife still loves me and that my son doesn't grow up to be someone like you.

Again, I submit that I must have personally offended you somehow to cause this kind of wrath. What have I done to you? Can I apologize for it somehow?

If you can't answer the above questions, please simply leave. It appears that people are getting tired of you. Notice, the only folks that are jumping in to your defense are those coming from the Marsh.

J.

Shotgun...hate to tell ya this, but I don't hate you...I really could not care less about you, personally, professionally, or otherwise, other than the fact you are a fellow human being, and as such, will treat you with a certain level of dignity.

Try it sometime...and with that, I'm outta here.

Cucco wrote: Jesus Christ Shotgun! (and no, that's not a salutation)

First - we shit-canned JP22 from this site for homosexual bashing and racism. Add a couple racist jokes and you're no better than the almighty JP22.

[...]

Ken and I have disagreed and he doesn't hesitate to tell me when he thinks I'm wrong. The difference is, he doesn't resort to childish behavior such as name calling and foul language.

[...]

Another Marshian here lured over by the Jp22 show (which was very entertaining, BTW; that guy is the Troll King)...

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I've read this whole escalating flamefest, and if memory serves (and checking the thread again appears to back it up), the first shot fired in the name-calling arena was yours.

As you were... ;^)

ggunn wrote: if memory serves (and checking the thread again appears to back it up), the first shot fired in the name-calling arena was yours.

As you were... ;^)

Touche'

ggunn wrote: [quote=Cucco]Jesus Christ Shotgun! (and no, that's not a salutation)

First - we shit-canned JP22 from this site for homosexual bashing and racism. Add a couple racist jokes and you're no better than the almighty JP22.

[...]

Ken and I have disagreed and he doesn't hesitate to tell me when he thinks I'm wrong. The difference is, he doesn't resort to childish behavior such as name calling and foul language.

[...]

Another Marshian here lured over by the Jp22 show (which was very entertaining, BTW; that guy is the Troll King)...

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I've read this whole escalating flamefest, and if memory serves (and checking the thread again appears to back it up), the first shot fired in the name-calling arena was yours.

As you were... ;^)

That would be this, just for the record...

Cucco wrote:
If you feel like being a DICK on the internet, do it somewhere else. If you would like to contribute not just answers but a meaning to something resembling a society, then fix your attitude.

heh heh.

~S

dwoz, post: 174103 wrote:
Over in my own forum on PSW, ""

Wow...as I'm doing some daily moderating I stumbled upon this old topic. This thread reveals why Cucco and other members were being attacked during this time when PSW was trying to get more members over there. Wish you would have notified me of this, Cucco. We could have created a forum just for PSW trolls. lol
I should delete most of this crap but its always nice to look back in history and go... hmmmm...:sneaky: > PSW internet trolls at work here.
A good title for this would be: The things people do to get business.