Entertainment desk
< October 25	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 26[edit]

who will voice kat's girlfriend on kid vs kat[edit]

Who will voice kat's girlfriend on kid vs kat? Will it be Jessica Kartos, who voices cat i think? 204.112.104.172 (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, Kathleen Barr voices Cat, and Googling "Jessica Kartos" returns nothing. Where are you getting her name from? Rojomoke (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

on kid vs kat wiki, at the bottom of the article on kat's girlfriend, it says that the one who voices jen on what's with andy will voice her, and that's Jessica kartos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.104.172 (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean http://kidvskat.wikia.com/wiki/Kats_girlfriend? As far as I can see, under the picture it says "Played By: Kathleen Barr" Rojomoke (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. 204.112.104.172 (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. There are Wikia sites devoted to the shows you ask all these questions about? Could you please start asking them there? Thanks. → ROUX ₪ 22:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, less of the, for want of a better word, dickish comments, Mr/Ms. Roux. Admittedly, the questions should be ones you can reference, hence, 'Reference desk', but there's no need to explain it in such a tactless way. Please WP:AGF in future.--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 20:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I keep saying this on Wikipedia. Maybe one day it will stick: it is preferable to have opinions preceded by knowledge. This IP posts between 3 and 5 questions every week about this TV show and its voice actors. (Amongst other, equally repetitive, topics). → ROUX ₪ 20:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and this behaviour does not do any harm to either you or the wiki. If you do not wish to answer these questions, ignore them. Please do not be rude to someone who is causing no disruption, and is asking questions that are at least as likely to lead to article improvement as most here. If you want, go back to the talk page and confirm, again, that this isn't a problem unless you make it a problem. 86.162.69.141 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Audio mastering for vinyl[edit]

Ever since the 80s, when CDs finally became popular, the word has always been that vinyl's sound has been superior in every way. So I was somewhat surprised to read the following sentence from the audio mastering article (in a completely unsourced section): "If the material [sound] is destined for vinyl release, additional processing, such as dynamic range reduction, frequency dependent stereo–to–mono fold-down and equalization, may be applied to compensate for the limitations of that medium." So it seems to me that vinyl is actually more compressed than CD sound. I'm therefore confused. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference I know of (and I'm sure there are more) has to do with bass frequencies. When producing a song that is to be cut to vinyl, you have to be careful about panning bass sounds too quickly back and forth. As bass cuts deeper and wider grooves, fast panning can apparently cause the needle to jump out of the track. → ROUX ₪ 06:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subject of much debate and strong feelings, I think. And no doubt some CDs are highly compressed at the expense of dynamic range. But one source on the topic. (Myths) Vinyl says that dynamic range on vinyl tends to about 80db, or under ideal conditions "perhaps" 120db. Well made CDs (noting that many CDs are not "well made") have a dynamic range around 150db. The page goes on to say that "Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD". Of course there is much more to superior sound than just dynamic range. Certainly analog methods are capable of capturing higher frequencies than 16-bit digital. And heavy compression is common in most commercial music (see Loudness war). Personally I think analog was superior to digital in the early days (the 80s and into the 90s), but the advantage has been largely overcome by improved and expanded digital methods. Of course all bets are off if most people listen to badly encoded mp3s ripped from questionable sources and played over cell phones into cheap headphones! Pfly (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both responses. Obviously convenience and portability overrules having an entire music library in 1-inch tape. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Pfly, please explain why you claim "Certainly analog methods are capable of capturing higher frequencies than 16-bit digital". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said 44,100 Hz sampling rate instead of 16-bit, but either way I meant "CD quality" digital. A 44.1 kHz digital sampling rate is limited to frequencies no higher than half that, 22.05 kHz (due to Nyquist rate issues), which is barely more than human hearing's upper limit (and some people can hear frequencies aboe 22.05 kHz). Working with high quality analogy recording, let's say you used an M50 Earthworks microphone, which can sense frequencies above 50 kHz (M50), and you recorded the results with a high quality reel-to-reel tape recorder running at a high enough speed to capture the microphone's frequency capabilities (I'm not sure on the details--it would depend on the recorder, tape, and tape speed, but let's say 30 inches per second, see Reel-to-reel audio tape recording#Tape speeds). This analog setup would be able to capture frequencies more than twice that of CD quality digital. Whether anyone could hear the high frequencies is a different question! You'd need very good loudspeakers and golden ears. And of course there are digital recording technologies superior to 16-bit 44.1 kHz. Then again, if everyone these days is listening to mp3s and other similar formats, through cheap earphones, laptop speakers, or "consumer" loudspeakers, none of this matters. Pfly (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Sheldon[edit]

Query: Please let me know how I can acquire a copy of A 3-part TV > miniseries released in 1986 based on the book "If Tomorrow Comes" a 1985 crime fiction novel by American author Sidney Sheldon - starring Madolyn Smith Osborne, > Tom Berenger, David Keith, and Liam Neeson 79.82.91.97 (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC) > Thanks in advance > Fanny K[reply]

For reference, the relevant article is If Tomorrow Comes. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 15:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google gives several likely sources with the search string '"If Tomorrow Comes" miniseries dvd' - searching for 'If Tomorrow Comes dvd' on amazon.com also gives several positive results - this series does not appear hard to obtain. Exxolon (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name of an actress[edit]

Hi. Does anyone know who this actress is: http://img263.imageshack.us/i/58830595.jpg/

I could not get a good full-body shot, but this image is from some sort of sci-fi looking show or movie. I think her character might be an android or something similar, due to those marks on her face and in the clip she replicated how people acted. 134.126.191.109 (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's Lexa Doig, probably in Andromeda (although she's been in other SF stuff too). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep,m that looks like her. I then looked at Andromeda characters and they did look like other characters I saw in the clip. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.191.109 (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, definitely her. That's from the second part of season five, she had that borg-like implant on her face for a few episodes. I just went through watching Andromeda (on merit of the "created by Gene Roddenberry" prefix) and it's ok from the start, first season, maybe second, but it just gets terrible from there on, with heaps of utter illogicalities, and I was seriously suffering by season 5. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball batting[edit]

In the American League, can the pitcher play both the pitcher and DH spots or is the team required to have another person hit? Googlemeister (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he wouldn't be playing DH, he would just be batting normally. In that case the team forfeits the right to use a designated hitter. It happens occasionally, though the pitcher never ends up batting for the whole game, and usually doesn't end up batting at all (being replaced by a pinch hitter or whatever). Designated_hitter#Forfeiting_the_right_to_a_DH has a list of these occasions. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to envision a world where Babe Ruth could hit every game, and still be a regular in the pitching rotation. Apparently it would be viable under today's rules, just not in 1927. Googlemeister (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't it have been possible under 1927 rules? As far as I know, in 1927, there were no special rules regarding pitchers, it was entirely possible for a player to pitch every fourth day, and play, say, left field on the other three days. They didn't do it because pitching, especially starting pitching, especially in 1927, when most games were complete games, is very demanding on ones body, and it would be nearly impossible for someone to be a starting pitcher AND still hit for power as Ruth did. Their body would just not take the demands. Even hitting itself is very demanding, look at what happens in the Home Run Derby every year; just participating often causes detrimental effects on the players post-All star break performance. --Jayron32 05:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As shown in Retrosheet,[1] once Ruth began to play outfield more often, he began to pitch less often. In fact, he demanded it. The wear and tear of doing both was too much. Once he went to the Yankees, he only had 5 more pitching appearances, always as kind of a stunt - and he won every one of them, so he still "had it" if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't these pro ball players practice hitting for at least an hour a day anyway? I don't see how hitting a few extra balls in a home run derby is going to effect the players long term. Googlemeister (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between batting practice and game situation is huge. Pitchers also throw "warm up" pitches before they pitch in a game. BP swings are orders of magnitude different than game-situation swings. It's like the difference between jogging a lap around the track, and sprinting a lap around the track. --Jayron32 04:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern professional pitchers rarely put in the effort to maintain good hitting fundamentals, simply because the demands of pitching take priority. Their position is so important to the game of baseball that they need to stay healthy and not wear themselves down by practicing hitting, and they need to spend more time maintaining their pitching fundamentals (e.g. pitching motion). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the National League, it's to be presumed (or hoped) that they teach pitchers how to bunt effectively. Pitchers who can hit well are relatively rare, and I have to wonder if Cliff Lee running out that double in Game 1 had an adverse affect on his pitching. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Wikipedia[edit]

Resolved

– –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this for entertainment purposes? Someone just linked an article to the Scottish version, and I went to check it out and ended up laughing out loud at how funny this is. Should I not be laughing though? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nevermind, I found the article on the Scots language/dialect. Still, one can't help picturing Mike Myers reading these words out loud. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That the notion of an entire Wikipedia purely "for entertainment purposes" even crossed your mind is quite troubling. Xenon54 (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Matt Deres (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that you use Wikipedia to insult others troubles me more. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]