year1buick Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 I'd love a sandwich update. White, rye, wheat or specialty bread? And what about condiments? Let's hear about the substance or the sandwich. This thread needs substance. :) Smoked turkey, muenster (as you may recall, I'm a big fan), honey wheat bread. Unfortunately, there just wasn't time for Target... I'm not sure if the thread needed more substance, or a gyro. ("I need a gyro. I'm holding out for a gyro 'till the morning light...") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taters Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 There were a rash of tornado outbreaks in the midwest today. Could it be related to global warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
84BDsop Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 There were a rash of tornado outbreaks in the midwest today. Could it be related to global warming? Only if it's the hot air coming out of this thread.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUMAJOR Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 Did you read the satirical post to which I was responding? There was much meaning and commentary in his satire. I was responding affirmative to that. Yup, and the final comment too. No worries. Perhaps you missed the substantive post between his and yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
year1buick Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 Yup, and the final comment too. No worries. Perhaps you missed the substantive post between his and yours. Drum corps just isn't drum corps without a spectral analyzer. (We still use atomic clocks for time-keeping, don't we?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 Yup, and the final comment too. No worries. Perhaps you missed the substantive post between his and yours. I didn't miss it. I just thought the talk about sandwiches was substantive based on where my mind was at the time. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAvery Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 (edited) Exactly. His implication is that right consists of what you can get away with. That BD got away with it is without question. Whether it was right is in contention in this forum. As for MikeDs contention about it being a mixing board phenomenon therefore legal. Someone purporting they are experienced in electronics early flatly contradicted that. He stated that modulating a voice is an "effect" and not part of the mixing board. Some other person pointed to the fact that corps which used reverb for petes sake were told to stop it! Every amplified instrument/voice is altered. Period. It may be by design or just the characteristics of the electronic system. So the OP says tht you can use a bass/treble control on an instrument/voice? What about using specific speakers? Maybe a speaker that only has a very narrow frequency? Different sound systems sound different, and none sound entirley like the original. The question becomes, how much alteration to the original sound is acceptable? Edited May 25, 2008 by DAvery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byline Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 The original thread on this topic:link Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 If it needs substance why are you posting gibberish?BTW, did anyone run a recording of the performance through a frequency analyzer to see if the voice was actually dropped 3 octaves? That's a significant frequency shift. OK, you want substance: How do you define "significant"? What if were two octaves? One octave? How much is too much? And, if changing the amplitude of a sound wave is apparently OK, then why is changing the frequency of the sound wave Not OK? That argument is completely illogical. Amplify, modulate, who cares. Once DCI let the genie out of the bottle, it's too late to split hairs IMO. And, like MikeD says, it wasn't illegal, as evidenced by lack of penalty. Unless you want to believe that after dozens and dozens of adjudications by hundreds of individual judges, not ONE of them noticed the "illegal" use of equipment. Conspiratorial thinking doesn't make it true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LAMystreaux Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 And, like MikeD says, it wasn't illegal, as evidenced by lack of penalty. Unless you want to believe that after dozens and dozens of adjudications by hundreds of individual judges, not ONE of them noticed the "illegal" use of equipment. Conspiratorial thinking doesn't make it true. And your conjecture here does not make it untrue. Lack of penalty does not equate to their being no infraction. How do you know what the judges noticed? I am betting some of the same people defending the judges/BD here in this thread were also some of the ones loudest in the outcry of Cadets not receiving a penalty at semis last year, yet thinking they should have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts