tesmusic Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Yeah, I meant among those making decisions. I can say it wasn't based on feedback on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Yes it was. They read my numerous pleas to modernize the 88-02 look. I am very persuasive. Mike 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tesmusic Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Yes it was. They read my numerous pleas to modernize the 88-02 look. I am very persuasive. Mike That must have been it, Mike! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigger2 Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I can't say I enjoy very much of the show at this point. Most of it is fine, but fine doen't appeal to me like I think drum corps should. I agree with others that the show has a strong retro vibe to it. Other than the B-flat instruments and electronics, and a few guard things, this show seems it would fit into their 1900s and early 2000s productions. The slow tempos, the jazzmatazz, the large drill forms, the segmentation, the drum line tucked in the back a lot, the uniforms, etc. The clearly have talent and I am well aware that it is early. The structural bones of the show however, seem not as stromg as they should be, even at this point of the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madcityscout Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I think it is very important to use as much of the field as possible at times. Phantom uses a lot of large drill forms. Scouts I think use a variation of small and large drill in this show. I also feel that there are moments in the show where they are moving pretty fast. Keep in mind the theme of the show is retro from the Hollywood golden era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2muchcoffeeman Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Audio physics doesn't work that way, but I'll forgive you since you're absolutely right on visual impact and coolness factor. Killjoy. . . . now you got me wondering just how much more volume are they getting out of 30% more battery? This doesn't require logarithms, does it? Because I completely don't understand logarithms. Edited June 17, 2015 by 2muchcoffeeman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamarag Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Killjoy. . . . now you got me wondering just how much more volume are they getting out of 30% more battery? This doesn't require logarithms, does it? Because I completely don't understand logarithms. In physics, an inverse-square law is any physical law stating that a specified physical quantity or intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity. Mathematically formulated: So for sound, it looks something like this: What does this all mean in layman's terms? Adding more instruments does not increase the volume in a linear fashion. So, eight snares playing is not twice as loud as four snares playing. Edited June 17, 2015 by Kamarag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2muchcoffeeman Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) It's worse than I thought. and, look, if this is too OT, feel free to nuke this response, but . . . . the inverse square law appears to this layman to be concerned with distance from a source of sound, not the absolute amount of sound (i.e., energy) produced at the sound's point of origin (source power, or P). So, are we really answering the question here? Is not the question concerning the number of drums in the line actually a question about the amount of P that is being produced? If more drums creates more P, that new amount of P remains subject to the inverse square law, I can get that, but distances being equal, a drum line of 13 will sound louder than a drum line of 10, right? So, if P is 30% bigger, would not the energy delivered (sound heard) at a given distance, as diminished as it may be according to the ISL, also be 30% bigger? Or should I just stick to what I know? Edited June 17, 2015 by 2muchcoffeeman 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamarag Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 It's worse than I thought. and, look, if this is too OT, feel free to nuke this response, but . . . . the inverse square law appears to this layman to be concerned with distance from a source of sound, not the absolute amount of sound (i.e., energy) produced at the sound's point of origin (source power, or P). So, are we really answering the question here? Is not the true question the amount of P that is being produced? Or should I just stick to what I know? You're right to ask the question, but since the original question deals with volume, it's correct. You have to be X distance away to hear Madison's snares playing. It doesn't matter what that X distance is, the rule for the volume you perceive remains the same. And you're also right, it is worse...especially for most pit techs that like to think they can run sound as the system's engineer. They understand the inverse square law even less than you do in many cases Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShouldveMarchedAgeOut Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Wow. Way more impressive in the theater. Feel better about my prediction now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.