dbx Driverack 260 and gain structure
Gene Sweeny
have it all figured out save one peice of gear.
I have a dbx Driverack 260 and I'm confused as how to determine its
input and output gain settings.
If you look at the manual for the 260
(http://www.dbxpro.com/manuals.htm) in section A.3 page 67 it lists the
maximum input and output gain as +20dBu. Since my mixer is +22dBu then
I know I need to put a 2dBu pad on the input of the drive rack.
However, this is what confused the situation. Look in section A.9 on
page 73. The manual discusses setting the input and output level via
jumpers. Values are selectable between +14, +22 and +30 dBu. I
haven't opened the unit up yet to see what the default is. Or
experimented to see how this affects the number from the specifications
(+20dBu). The meters on the front panel are all +22dBu and changing
the jumpers will affect the calibration of these meters according to
the manual, so I'm assuming the default is +22dBu. Why is the spec
listed as +20dBu then?
To make matters even more unclear, look at section 5.1.6 page 46. It
says, "The Utility menu of the 260 DriveRack also provides you with the
option of changing the output levels jumpers from 14dB, 22dB and 30dB
from the front panel via the Utility menu."
Does that mean: A) I can choose to set the output levels via the
jumpers OR the utility menu? B) I have to make this setting in the
utility menu match the jumpers? C) This is something else entirely.
Also, what about the input gain setting. I can only do that from the
jumpers? Not the utility menu?
Any one have any insight on this?
--
8k rules
Walter Harley
news:1109865624.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> If you look at the manual for the 260
> (http://www.dbxpro.com/manuals.htm) in section A.3 page 67 it lists the
> maximum input and output gain as +20dBu. Since my mixer is +22dBu then
> I know I need to put a 2dBu pad on the input of the drive rack.
Respectfully: there is no point in obsessing about 2dB. It just doesn't
make a difference.
The only thing that getting that extra 2dB would do for you is let you push
your noise floor 2dB lower, right? But first off, devices that late in the
chain shouldn't be adding substantially to the noise floor anyway; second
off, pads themselves add noise, because of the laws of physics; and third
off, 2dB is a very small increment.
So just set the 260's input structure up so that the mixer's maximum signal
doesn't cause the 260 to clip, and stop worrying about a dB here or there.
As an aside: trying to optimize gain structure on the basis of headroom
specs is futile. Use your ears, or a distortion analyzer or an
oscilloscope, to decide. The numbers in the manual are either conservative
estimates (for some manufacturers) or lies (otherwise); they are not
measurements.
Gene Sweeny
Walter Harley wrote:
> "Gene Sweeny" <goo1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1109865624.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > If you look at the manual for the 260
> > (http://www.dbxpro.com/manuals.htm) in section A.3 page 67 it lists
the
> > maximum input and output gain as +20dBu. Since my mixer is +22dBu
then
> > I know I need to put a 2dBu pad on the input of the drive rack.
>
> Respectfully: there is no point in obsessing about 2dB. It just
doesn't
> make a difference.
Thanks for the pep talk there bud. Not what I was looking for. If you
would have read my post I wanted to know more about what the driveracks
input and output actually are.... 14 22 or 30 dBu. If my mixer is 22
and the DR is actually set to 14... that's a big difference. Also,
knowing how all the settings interact are important... the meters might
not actually be telling me the truth.
> The only thing that getting that extra 2dB would do for you is let
you push
> your noise floor 2dB lower, right? But first off, devices that late
in the
> chain shouldn't be adding substantially to the noise floor anyway;
second
> off, pads themselves add noise, because of the laws of physics; and
third
> off, 2dB is a very small increment.
I realize 2db is small, but it's not the point. The pad is built into
the DR on the input section of the software. Since the driverack is a
digital processor, it's probably ADCed on input and then the
attenuation is done in software. So I higly doubt it adds much noise.
>
> So just set the 260's input structure up so that the mixer's maximum
signal
> doesn't cause the 260 to clip, and stop worrying about a dB here or
there.
Yes, that is a practical way of doing it. However, I like to prove
things on paper first, then implement them. I'm an engineer... so sue
me.
> As an aside: trying to optimize gain structure on the basis of
headroom
> specs is futile. Use your ears, or a distortion analyzer or an
> oscilloscope, to decide.
If I had access to that type of equipment I would have done that
thanks. Still, it's about proving it on paper first. That way when I
implement it, and something goes awry, I can debug better. It's called
engineering... look into it.
Next time you have nothing to offer, please don't even bother.
John Halliburton
> If I had access to that type of equipment I would have done that
> thanks. Still, it's about proving it on paper first. That way when I
> implement it, and something goes awry, I can debug better. It's called
> engineering... look into it.
Hmmm, where I come from, "engineering" by definition means you have access
to "that type" of equipment, and know how to use it. ;>)
JHH
Gene Sweeny
John Halliburton wrote:
>
> Hmmm, where I come from, "engineering" by definition means you have
access
> to "that type" of equipment, and know how to use it. ;>)
So you're telling me to be an engineer you must have access to all the
equipment that is optimal and makes your life easy? Tell that to the
guys that designed the Hoover Dam or the Golden Gate Bridge with their
slide rules and drafting boards.
Where I come from engineering involves research, math, and making do
with what you have.
George Gleason
I can't think of any other bunch of folks can call themselves
"engineers" or what they do "engineering" with no formal training,
formal education, standards testing, peer review, or professional
accountability.
sure there are Acoustical engineers
but might be one out of a thousand who fancy themselves "sound
engineers" who can legitmatly hang a "engineer" shingle on their wall
George
Gene Sweeny
George Gleason wrote:
>
> I can't think of any other bunch of folks can call themselves
> "engineers" or what they do "engineering" with no formal training,
> formal education, standards testing, peer review, or professional
> accountability.
>
> sure there are Acoustical engineers
> but might be one out of a thousand who fancy themselves "sound
> engineers" who can legitmatly hang a "engineer" shingle on their
wall
> George
Not sure what you're getting at here George... I'm a Hardware/Software
Engineer first... Pro audio guy on the side. I'll send you a copy of
degree and resume if you want. In any case, I think Walter and John
need to get over themselves. I was just hoping someone else had
figured out dbx's crappy ass manual, not looking for a lesson on if 2dB
was worth worrying about or that I should go spend my money on an
oscilloscope. Oh well, you get what you pay for I guess.
George Gleason
I dumped my dbx stuff , that was one of the reasons, the other was its
unreliability
To determine clipping reserch the "clip-cop" it is a peizo transducer
that resonates at clipping
for audio it is close enough
I am getting at
way too many audio people think what they do is rocket science when it
is really closer to cooking hamburgers
btw one can not be a "pro audio guy" on the side
you are a pro hardware/software engineer with a dedicated hobby of audio
just as I am not a pro motorcycle mechanic"on the side
even though there is nothing I can not tune or repair on any motorcycle
ever made
Gene Sweeny
George Gleason wrote:
>
> I dumped my dbx stuff , that was one of the reasons, the other was
its
> unreliability
> To determine clipping reserch the "clip-cop" it is a peizo transducer
> that resonates at clipping
> for audio it is close enough
Thanks George... I'll look into that.
> I am getting at
> way too many audio people think what they do is rocket science when
it
> is really closer to cooking hamburgers
ehhh... It's not easy work, more to remember, stress about, and learn.
I find it very enjoyable though.
> btw one can not be a "pro audio guy" on the side
> you are a pro hardware/software engineer with a dedicated hobby of
audio
I meant pro audio in the "loose" way like pro audio vs. consumer audio.
1/4" XLR and speakon vs RCA and speaker spring clips. :-) Didn't mean
to offend any of you true pro's that do this for a living.
> just as I am not a pro motorcycle mechanic"on the side
> even though there is nothing I can not tune or repair on any
motorcycle
> ever made
Do you ride?
--
8k rules
George Gleason
>>just as I am not a pro motorcycle mechanic"on the side
>>even though there is nothing I can not tune or repair on any
>
> motorcycle
>
>>ever made
>
>
> Do you ride?
>
> --
> 8k rules
>
been riding since I was 8
I have worked as a pro mechanic at both Harley and Honda dealerships
prior to my life as a sound guy
my current ride is a 1982 suzuki gs1100g
George
George Gleason
> George Gleason wrote:
>
>>I dumped my dbx stuff , that was one of the reasons, the other was
>
> its
>
>>unreliability
>>To determine clipping reserch the "clip-cop" it is a peizo transducer
>
>
>>that resonates at clipping
>>for audio it is close enough
>
>
> Thanks George... I'll look into that.
>
>
here is a good link
http://www.vizear.com/Clipcop.htm
george
Chad Wahls
> even though there is nothing I can not tune or repair on any motorcycle
> ever made
Cool, learn something new every day about people, that's cool George!
Chad
Chad Wahls
"George Gleason" <g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:a5_Vd.323603$w62.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Did you get the last letter of "clip" correct? :) :) :)
Chad
Gene Sweeny
George Gleason wrote:
>
> been riding since I was 8
> I have worked as a pro mechanic at both Harley and Honda dealerships
> prior to my life as a sound guy
> my current ride is a 1982 suzuki gs1100g
> George
I just started a little while ago. I bought a 2004 Suzuki Volusia 800
last summer. I love it.
I looked at some used gs1100s when I was hunting for a bike. Almost
bought a buddy's 1983 gs650 fully dressed. Looks similar to the 1100g.
George Gleason
used car salesman on the respect ladder as a motorcycle mechanic, but
your proly still above sound company owner
lol
george
John Halliburton
In any case, I think Walter and John
> need to get over themselves.
Gene,
Criminy, it was humorous jab(check for emoticon). In all seriousness, I
know two people, one was my grandfather, another a well known speaker
designer, who are self taught engineers-believe me, I understand what is
involved, in spite of state university education for myself. ;>)
As far as your question, the handiest tool is the piezo driver, but an
O'scope and signal generator are very useful tools-the meters on most gear
are relative-ish. On the new A&H2200 mixer, I was very impressed with how
hard you can drive the gain through there before hitting the rails.
Best regards,
John
Rupert
John Halliburton wrote:
> As far as your question, the handiest tool is the piezo driver, but
an
> O'scope and signal generator are very useful tools-the meters on most
gear
> are relative-ish. On the new A&H2200 mixer, I was very impressed
with how
> hard you can drive the gain through there before hitting the rails.
>
> Best regards,
>
> John
John, what do you mean by new? Has A&H changed something on the 2200? I
have one that's around 4 years old. I've never had the problems with
"headroom" some people complain about with that board.
Thanks,
Rupert
Chad Wahls
I've never dabbled in motorcycle mechanical work but have built many-o-drag
cars. I have a ATV and it goes to a tech, I just don't have the balls to
mess it up. I have the utmost of respect for my mechanic, he's a flippin
genius, and a helluva guy to boot!
Chad
jimb...@yahoo.com
guys are the ones that do it for a living.
There are some exceptions...
I know that in the music field, there are "professional" musicians who
do it for a living. But, there are alot of musicians that play on the
side who are way better than the "professional" ones that do it for a
living.
I also know "professional" software programmers with degrees and I also
know hobbiest that do it on the side who are way more talented than
professionals.
There is a sound company near me amd the guy who owns it does it for a
living but I think he is terrible at it.
Many professional olympic athletes have day jobs as well. I would
definately consider an olympic weight lifter a professional even though
he probably does not lift weights for a living.
It seems like a pro audio guy is one that does it for a living AND has
a clue as well. If I quite my day job and do pro audio for my sole
source of income, that is not going to make me a professional over
night.
I do not claim to be a professional audio guy but I don't think simply
doing something for a living makes you a professional. To me one's
professionalism is based on talent, skills, and experience.
John Halliburton
> John, what do you mean by new?
Sorry, that should probably read "my" new 2200. And I agree, no headroom
problems on that board, you can slam it pretty hard.
Best regards,
John
John Halliburton
> been riding since I was 8
> I have worked as a pro mechanic at both Harley and Honda dealerships
> prior to my life as a sound guy
> my current ride is a 1982 suzuki gs1100g
yeah, but can you work on whitworth equipped bikes? :>) For some reason I'm
surrounded by throttle twisters, and one of the guys is an old
BSA/Triumph/Norton fan. One of the others is a "need for speed" road
racer-Yamaha R6, and that little ol loudspeaker designer I know has a nice
afliction for vintage Ducatis'.
My two wheeling involves cranks and pedals, just never had time/money for
motorized versions.
John
Mike
> time/money for motorized versions.
I stick to 4 wheels.... Give me a diesel powered 4x4 truck. =)
Mike Borkhuis
Rupert
Ironically, there is a certain group of bozo's out there that feel it
doesn't have a lot of headroom. I tend to find that stems from lack of
knowledge of what good gain structure is. Truth be told, the mic pre's
on most modern mixers, even a lot of the cheapies, have a fine amount
of headroom. I find the more lacking headroom issue to be mix buss
related more then anything. One feature I would like to see on more
consoles would be adjustable group buss pads, such as the Yamaha
PM5000. That would make it very simple to compensate when you're mixing
a little too hot to the sub groups, which I find myself doing from time
to time. That warrants backing off on the individual channel fader to
fix it, which isn't nearly as convenient has having a pad knob on the
sub group...
Rupert
George Gleason
otoh I got so I could replace the timing chain in a honda 350 in about
20 minutes, including engine remolval and reinstal time
G
George Gleason
> In a general sense I would agree with you that the professional sound
> guys are the ones that do it for a living.
>
> There are some exceptions...
>
> I know that in the music field, there are "professional" musicians who
> do it for a living. But, there are alot of musicians that play on the
> side who are way better than the "professional" ones that do it for a
> living.
> I also know "professional" software programmers with degrees and I also
> know hobbiest that do it on the side who are way more talented than
> professionals.
so they do it to professional standards, until they make it their main
source of income they are not a professionalmusician
> There is a sound company near me amd the guy who owns it does it for a
> living but I think he is terrible at it.
just because one is a professional doesnt mean jack
some professionals have to prove their skills
not in sound
>
> Many professional olympic athletes have day jobs as well.
sorry I know nothing about sports, but I though the olympics was
STRICTLY amature compitition, no professionals allowed
I would
> definately consider an olympic weight lifter a professional even though
> he probably does not lift weights for a living.
I would not, I might consider him "world class" but unless that is how
he feeds his family he is something else
>
> It seems like a pro audio guy is one that does it for a living AND has
> a clue as well. If I quite my day job and do pro audio for my sole
> source of income, that is not going to make me a professional over
> night.
yes it will
but you may not be able to meet professional standards , and then you
will need to find a new profession
> I do not claim to be a professional audio guy but I don't think simply
> doing something for a living makes you a professional. To me one's
> professionalism is based on talent, skills, and experience.
I disagree
if it is your sole source of income
you are a professional
you might be a hack and that will limit your ability to earn enough more
to remain in the pro audio industry
If someone asks you"so what do you do" and you answer
I am a audio professional
then there is a good chance you are
but if someone asks you
"so what do you do" and you answer, I'm a middle school phys ed teacher
plus I run sound when I can
then your a middle school phys ed teacher who has a hobby of sound
G
>
George Gleason
I can (and have ) rebuilt the transmissions in the old 650's BSA's
that was a challenge
I also rebuilt benillis including a six
and hundreds of their stupid mini bikes
I rebuilt crankshafts on montessas and ossas
only worked on one desmo though
George
George Gleason
George
Joel Farris
>> "George Gleason" <g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>>
>>geez a browser search for the clip cop sent me into porn clip hell
>>here is a good link
>>http://www.vizear.com/Clipcop.htm
>>george
>
>
> Did you get the last letter of "clip" correct? :) :) :)
>
> Chad
Whew! I can't breathe! That was a good one!
--
Joel Farris | AIM: FarrisJoel
** Their Web. Your Way. http://getfirefox.com **
Joel Farris
> I disagree
> if it is your sole source of income
> you are a professional
> you might be a hack and that will limit your ability to earn enough more
> to remain in the pro audio industry
>
> If someone asks you"so what do you do" and you answer
> I am a audio professional
> then there is a good chance you are
> but if someone asks you
> "so what do you do" and you answer, I'm a middle school phys ed teacher
> plus I run sound when I can
> then your a middle school phys ed teacher who has a hobby of sound
> G
I will add to George's comments that you can be considered an expert on a
subject or in a field without being a professional. The very word
professional denotes a profession, which is something that you get paid to do.
Gene Sweeny
Joel Farris wrote:
>
> I will add to George's comments that you can be considered an expert
on a
> subject or in a field without being a professional. The very word
> professional denotes a profession, which is something that you get
paid to do.
> --
Holy Crap.... I didn't want to do this butt I was forced.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=professional
There are 4 definitions for the adjective form and 3 for the noun form.
1 in each fits with jimb6...@yahoo.com's.
Deal with it. You can be a professional with out earning pay. You can
do a "professional" job just by being an expert and not earning a
living at it.
Dictionary says so. Period.
George Gleason
it aint gonna make you sherrif
words are how they are used in circulation not what some book says
they are
period.
George
Gene Sweeny
George Gleason wrote:
> >
> so you found a toy store that sells you tin stars
> it aint gonna make you sherrif
In some counties down south it might. ;-)
Also, just cause you wear a real sherrif star doesn't mean you are if
no one in your town respects you.
> words are how they are used in circulation not what some book says
> they are
> period.
> George
I think we can all agree on what the dictionary says. Many words are
misused in American English. I believe this is a case where a proper
use is overlooked.
--
8k rules
Blind Johnny
My first ride was a Suzuki 250 2 stroke..worked for about 15 miles
before the transmission fluid the local Yamaha dealer put in my crank
case turned to skim milk and locked up the tranny..sending me down a 20
ft. bank..nice first experience. I then had a single cylinder Harly
350..which I sold to buy a brand new 1975 850 Norton Commando..the last
with the infamous Lucas electronics...hit a bump with a passenger on
board about 3 month's in and fried the whole wiring harness.
ted
"Walter Harley" <wal...@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:NbydnbBnO8X...@speakeasy.net...
> "Gene Sweeny" <goo1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1109865624.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > If you look at the manual for the 260
> > (http://www.dbxpro.com/manuals.htm) in section A.3 page 67 it lists the
> > maximum input and output gain as +20dBu. Since my mixer is +22dBu then
> > I know I need to put a 2dBu pad on the input of the drive rack.
only if you were running the desk at +22dBu - you planning on that?!
u might as well miss the amplifier stage all together and go straight in the
speakers!
Gene Sweeny
> only if you were running the desk at +22dBu - you planning on that?!
> u might as well miss the amplifier stage all together and go straight
in the
> speakers!
Thanks there Johnny come lately. Big help. Oh, and you embarassed me
in front of everyone too. *blush*
Posts like this are stupid and unnecessary. Go away.
ted
Look at you on the defence!
Theres no need to feel embarassed - You have to learn at some point - It
might as well be here so we can all have a good chuckle!
Gene Sweeny
> Look at you on the defence!
That would have been funnier if you had spelled it correctly... Or are
you from the UK?
> Theres no need to feel embarassed - You have to learn at some point
Learn from you. I think not. I have nothing to learn here... Just
trying to decipher the awful collection of writing and pictures that
dbx calls a manual.
> It might as well be here so we can all have a good chuckle!
Great.
So let's recap. I ask about the driverack and what the heck the manual
is talking about with respect to it's input and output gain and these
jumper settings that I guess change that.
I get a smart a** answer telling me not to obsess about 2dB. Cause it
doesn't matter. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my entire
life.
Hey dork! 2dB here, 2dB there... soon enough, *maybe* you can scrape
together 10 dB more of dynamic range out of your system. Ever think of
that!? Its all about noise performance and dynamic range. That's our
business. And if you don't want to worry about 2dB, or do your
calculations on paper first, then fine by me. But don't go butting in
to a a topic just to get off.
I've said it before, I'll say it again... get over yourself. It's
really "unprofessional." If you don't have anything constructive to
offer just go away.
Chad Wahls
... Just
> trying to decipher the awful collection of writing and pictures that
> dbx calls a manual.
Ah, the voice of reason, you mean you are not well versed in hieroglyphics?
I TRIED to read am manual for a 480 ONCE, never could find a straight
answer, but many answers in fact that did not match up.
Chad
Walter Harley
> I have nothing to learn here...
Yes, that's become quite evident.
Gene Sweeny
Taken out of context that's almost clever.
Let me take a crack at it...
Walter Harley wrote:
> there is no point in obsessing about 2dB. It just doesn't
> make a difference.
Your advice was so full of wisdom. Forget about 2dB. Just fahgetabaht
it.
All I can say is brilliant. You my friend have offered so much for me
to learn "oh ye of great knowledge."
I know what gain structure is you twit. I know how to set up a system
from mic preamp to poweramp for unity gain. Any half wit that can read
can find that stuff out from about a million and one sources.
The original question was with respect to the settings offered by the
DR 260 and the contradictions in the manual. You offered nothing
except disdain for my concern. My demands are simple...
Just go away.
ted
At least Phil Allisons arrogance is tolerable because he is actually very
knowledgeable
Whats your excuse Gene ?
Gene Sweeny
At least trolls have a use.
What's your excuse, ted.
audiopyle
Gene Sweeny wrote:
>
> To make matters even more unclear, look at section 5.1.6 page 46. It
> says, "The Utility menu of the 260 DriveRack also provides you with
the
> option of changing the output levels jumpers from 14dB, 22dB and 30dB
> from the front panel via the Utility menu."
>
> Does that mean: A) I can choose to set the output levels via the
> jumpers OR the utility menu? B) I have to make this setting in the
> utility menu match the jumpers? C) This is something else entirely.
>
> Also, what about the input gain setting. I can only do that from the
> jumpers? Not the utility menu?
>
> Any one have any insight on this?
The Utility level settings referred to in the Driverack manual do not
exist, it is an error acknowledged by DBX. Why they continue to print
the manual with this misinformation is anyone's guess.
The only way to change the output level is to physically move the
jumpers. Doing so will alter the calibration of the level meters.
Mike
Gene Sweeny
audiopyle wrote:
>
> The Utility level settings referred to in the Driverack manual do not
> exist, it is an error acknowledged by DBX. Why they continue to print
> the manual with this misinformation is anyone's guess.
>
> The only way to change the output level is to physically move the
> jumpers. Doing so will alter the calibration of the level meters.
>
> Mike
Thanks Mike. After trying to go through the menu's I also noticed
that.
Can you give any insight into what the jumpers really do? I mean. The
dbx has a certain noise performance. If I select +14dBu on the jumpers
am I essentially chopping of 8dB of dynamic range from the default of
+22? Or does this just shift the noise floor down 8dB? On the flip
side, going to +30dBu, again is this increasing noise performance, or
just shifting the noise floor up?
Just like to say thanks again. Nice to see someone can answer a
question with out a bunch of baggage.
Phildo
> ted wrote:
>> Look at you on the defence!
>
> That would have been funnier if you had spelled it correctly... Or are
> you from the UK?
>
septics just bastardised it because you can't spell ;-)
Phildo
Joe Kotroczo
<Ph...@phildo.net> wrote:
>>> Look at you on the defence!
>>
>> That would have been funnier if you had spelled it correctly... Or are
>> you from the UK?
>>
> That is the correct spelling. Remember, we invented the language, you
> septics just bastardised it because you can't spell ;-)
To anybody interested in the development of the english language, I warmly
recommend the Baroque trilogy by Neal Stephenson. Shows nicely the
connection beween defence and fencing. Or defencing, as they said back then.
(Is it fensing in american english?)
Joe
--
Joe Kotroczo kotr...@mac.com
reese thomas
>>
> That is the correct spelling. Remember, we invented the language,
And we perfected it (grin)
George Gleason
>>That is the correct spelling. Remember, we invented the language,
>
>
> And we perfected it (grin)
i am on the cutting edge I guess:-)
George
Gavin Ramsay
> i am on the edge I guess:-)
> George
I'll do the cutting, lol
Gavin
George Gleason
> of the original English into something that both continents can agree to
> marvel at!
how come Phonics is not spelled foneticaly
George
Joel Farris
George Gleason is in the process of re-styling the Americanized version of
the original English into something that both continents can agree to
marvel at!
Joe Kotroczo
"Gavin Ramsay" <g...@herringbone.org> wrote:
>> To anybody interested in the development of the english language, I warmly
>> recommend the Baroque trilogy by Neal Stephenson.
>
> Great taste, Joe ;)
>
> Everything by Neal Stephenson is worth reading - even the website he put
> up a few years ago telling people to stop asking when his next book was
> coming out, lol. I haven't read the two since Cryptonomicon yet - thanks
> for the reminder!
It's 3 books since Cryptonomicon, by the way. As in "a trilogy". Bring some
time, they are 1000 pages each.
Gavin Ramsay
> On 10/03/05 12:12, in article 1gt7gcj.pbwjcp1xm4hmiN%g...@herringbone.org,
> "Gavin Ramsay" <g...@herringbone.org> wrote:
>
> >>>> Neal Stephenson
> >>
> >> It's 3 books since Cryptonomicon, by the way. As in "a trilogy". Bring some
> >> time, they are 1000 pages each.
> >
> > I'm glad you spelled it out for me ;) I can do "one... TWO..." and then
> > it all goes fuzzy.
> >
> > I've just bought Quicksilver (which is weird, since it's also about the
> > last thing I installed here...)
> >
> > See you in a week!
>
> Err... Do you mean you'll finish the book in a week, or are you coming to
> the wonderfull Grand-Duchy again?
>
The former.
Gavin Ramsay
> >> Neal Stephenson
>
> It's 3 books since Cryptonomicon, by the way. As in "a trilogy". Bring some
> time, they are 1000 pages each.
I'm glad you spelled it out for me ;) I can do "one... TWO..." and then
it all goes fuzzy.
I've just bought Quicksilver (which is weird, since it's also about the
last thing I installed here...)
See you in a week!
Gavin
Phildo
> At least trolls have a use.
No they don't. They are troublemakers, nothing more and only serve to
disrupt the newsgroup and stop other people enjoying or using it.
Phildo
Phildo
"ted" <t...@nomorespam.com> wrote in message
news:b2sXd.23692$y25....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> hang on a mo....
>
> At least Phil Allisons arrogance is tolerable because he is actually very
> knowledgeable
>
Phildo
Joe L
>
> Joel Farris wrote:
> >
> > I will add to George's comments that you can be considered an expert
> on a
> > subject or in a field without being a professional. The very word
> > professional denotes a profession, which is something that you get
> paid to do.
> > --
>
>
> Holy Crap.... I didn't want to do this butt I was forced.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=professional
>
> There are 4 definitions for the adjective form and 3 for the noun form.
> 1 in each fits with jimb6...@yahoo.com's.
>
> Deal with it. You can be a professional with out earning pay. You can
> do a "professional" job just by being an expert and not earning a
> living at it.
>
> Dictionary says so. Period.
>
Tell that to the tax department. They seem to have very definite definitions
of professional.
JL
bigamps
> "Gene Sweeny" <goo1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1110169734....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Joel Farris wrote:
>>
>>>I will add to George's comments that you can be considered an expert
>>>on a subject or in a field without being a professional. The very word
>>>professional denotes a profession, which is something that you get
>>>paid to do.
>>
>>
>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=professional
>>
>>There are 4 definitions for the adjective form and 3 for the noun form.
>> 1 in each fits with jimb6...@yahoo.com's.
>>
>>Deal with it. You can be a professional with out earning pay. You can
>>do a "professional" job just by being an expert and not earning a
>>living at it.
>>
>>Dictionary says so. Period.
>
> Tell that to the tax department. They seem to have very definite definitions
> of professional.
All they care about is how much money changes hands, competency has nothing to
do with what your tax classification is.