[JackA]

On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 12:10:56 PM UTC-4, Roy W. Rising wrote:
JackA wrote:
On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 8:54:08 AM UTC-4, wrote:
OK time to inject some real electronics here...
=20
there is a fundamental difference between overdriving an amplifier
stage =
vs overdriving tape.
=20
and that difference is due to negative feedback.
=20
An amplifier stage with negative feedback (as any modern design will
have=
) will remain essentially linear up to the clipping point. This is true
fo= r both low level stages and power amps. The negative feedback keeps
it ver= y linear until there just is no more swing.
=20
In contrast, tape has no negative feedback and will become
progressivly =
more non linear as you drive it harder. =20

But, Mark, human hearing is highly non linear!! :-)

Mark

Non sequitur, Jack.

It's it Roy Rising or Roy Falling?...

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...ghly-nonlinear

'Time to let this thread die. Please!

Your request has been taken into consideration!!

Jack :-)

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Frank Stearns]

JackA writes:

On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 8:54:08 AM UTC-4, wrote:
OK time to inject some real electronics here...
=20
there is a fundamental difference between overdriving an amplifier stage =
vs overdriving tape.
=20
and that difference is due to negative feedback.
=20
An amplifier stage with negative feedback (as any modern design will have=
) will remain essentially linear up to the clipping point. This is true fo=
r both low level stages and power amps. The negative feedback keeps it ver=
y linear until there just is no more swing.
=20
In contrast, tape has no negative feedback and will become progressivly =
more non linear as you drive it harder. =20

But, Mark, human hearing is highly non linear!! :-)

True - but for hi-fi sound the idea is to minimize non-linearities /outside/ that
system. For the most "natural" experience, we want our recording and playback
systems to be transparent.

Now, for "artistic" reasons we might intentionally alter certain things along
the way, but that's another discussion.

Purely as a "capture-store-transmit/recreate" system the less alterations the
better.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Frank Stearns]

JackA writes:

Frank wrote: Get some well-recorded symphonic percussion material, sophisti=
cated jazz drumming and the like played back in a good room with good monit=
ors. I mean, really well-recorded source tracks, with NO dynamics processin=
g...."

Let's take Take 5 by Dave Brubeck. Was that such a good recording, or was i=
t all the echo that made it sound vibrant? Echo adds density to sound, why =
it gets used on many singers, the echo needs not be any greater in amplitud=
e, it's the duration the counts.

Agree?

I just pulled this album off the rack and took a quick listen and re-read the
liner notes.

You're overlooking a much larger universe...

- great players for what they did

- recorded at the 30th St. Studios in NYC -- big room (30' ceilings, IIRC), great
proportions, truly one of the magical rooms that sadly has been lost.

- recorded at 30ips. Back in those pre-ATR100 days, the diff between 15 and 30 was
stark. This has that shimmering clarity that in those days was only possible at 30,
and with a machine that was perfectly set up for running at 30. Not sure if it would
have been an Ampex 350 series; might have been a Studer. In England and Europe those
old Studers turned out some amazing classical recordings of that era; don't know of
Studer's USA market penetration in those days. But, this album almost has that kind
of sound.

But those were high-budget productions, given all the associated costs of the day
running at 30. This is where a lot of the vibrancy is coming from on this recording.


- the echo timbre is lovely, but it's only a mono chamber returned in the center.
Makes the whole reverb field seem a little odd that it's not stereo. (And in 1959,
you can bet this was a real chamber, mic and speaker in a highly reflective room
dedicated to the task. Might well have been the only echo chamber they had
available. Too bad someone hadn't played with using two mics in the chamber -- but
they might have been worried about mono compatibility, which was a very big deal
back then.)

As far as playing with this as a source to see what limiting does, I suppose you
could, though it's a ways from a well-done modern recording. A fair amount of peak
energy has already been shaved by transformers and tape heads. Don't get me wrong,
given that this was done more than a 1/2 century ago using "bear skins and stone
knives" (to quote Mr. Spock from "The City on the Edge of Tomorrow"), it's a helluva
recording. But in some ways it shows its age (like that mono echo and some
horrifically obvious edits -- cuts were made between takes that had different mic
placements. I bet more than once the production guys winced as these edits went by
and wished the hell they'd left the microphones alone. Also, the sax tone is
borderline. Needs some surgical EQ in the midrange, IMO.)

But, just to be clear, while good reverb can do a lot to help a recording, reverb
alone won't add complete vibrancy or make for an engaging listening experience. It's
that plus all of the above, and more.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
An amplifier stage with negative feedback (as any modern design will have) =
will remain essentially linear up to the clipping point. This is true for =
both low level stages and power amps. The negative feedback keeps it very =
linear until there just is no more swing.

This is true for most modern designs, but you will still see stuff that
becomes nonlinear at some point below clipping. Feedback can help this,
but there's only so much that feedback can do.

Even worse you will see designs with low level issues due to crossover
distortion, where the distortion drops as the level increases, until you
get to clipping.

Add a transformer and everything changes, too.

In contrast, tape has no negative feedback and will become progressivly mo=
re non linear as you drive it harder. =20

Yes, and this effect is far more dramatic.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/24/2015 9:29 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
That happens sometimes with badly designed equipment. The Mackie 1604 is
the best example I can think of; it sounds much better if you keep buss levels
20 dB below the "nominal" mark on the meter.

That's a clipping problem, not saturation (I differentiate between the
two by what happens as the maximum output level is approached). the
problem with the Mackies, acutally up through the VLZ series, was that
the summing bus didn't have enough headroom to accommodate the sum of 16
channels even when each one was adjusted so that it peaked at 0 on the
meter when soloed. That was the "Mackie Level Setting Procedure" and
most people didn't follow it, but just turned the channel input gains up
so the the clip light only came on occasionally.

Hmm... that is odd. So you're saying that the issue is that the buss
isn't just a simple summing buss and therefore knowing the output level
of the buss amps doesn't necessarily tell you that the buss isn't clipping
somewhere along the line with all those summing stages?

Even with one channel up and nothing else, it still sounds better to have
the levels reduced, which is why I was thinking that was in the end a
nonlinearity issue.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 1:58:23 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
JackA writes:

Frank wrote: Get some well-recorded symphonic percussion material, sophisti=
cated jazz drumming and the like played back in a good room with good monit=
ors. I mean, really well-recorded source tracks, with NO dynamics processin=
g...."

Let's take Take 5 by Dave Brubeck. Was that such a good recording, or was i=
t all the echo that made it sound vibrant? Echo adds density to sound, why =
it gets used on many singers, the echo needs not be any greater in amplitud=
e, it's the duration the counts.

Agree?

I just pulled this album off the rack and took a quick listen and re-read the
liner notes.

You're overlooking a much larger universe...

- great players for what they did

- recorded at the 30th St. Studios in NYC -- big room (30' ceilings, IIRC), great
proportions, truly one of the magical rooms that sadly has been lost.

- recorded at 30ips. Back in those pre-ATR100 days, the diff between 15 and 30 was
stark. This has that shimmering clarity that in those days was only possible at 30,
and with a machine that was perfectly set up for running at 30. Not sure if it would
have been an Ampex 350 series; might have been a Studer. In England and Europe those
old Studers turned out some amazing classical recordings of that era; don't know of
Studer's USA market penetration in those days. But, this album almost has that kind
of sound.

But those were high-budget productions, given all the associated costs of the day
running at 30. This is where a lot of the vibrancy is coming from on this recording.


- the echo timbre is lovely, but it's only a mono chamber returned in the center.
Makes the whole reverb field seem a little odd that it's not stereo. (And in 1959,
you can bet this was a real chamber, mic and speaker in a highly reflective room
dedicated to the task. Might well have been the only echo chamber they had
available. Too bad someone hadn't played with using two mics in the chamber -- but
they might have been worried about mono compatibility, which was a very big deal
back then.)

As far as playing with this as a source to see what limiting does, I suppose you
could, though it's a ways from a well-done modern recording. A fair amount of peak
energy has already been shaved by transformers and tape heads. Don't get me wrong,
given that this was done more than a 1/2 century ago using "bear skins and stone
knives" (to quote Mr. Spock from "The City on the Edge of Tomorrow"), it's a helluva
recording. But in some ways it shows its age (like that mono echo and some
horrifically obvious edits -- cuts were made between takes that had different mic
placements. I bet more than once the production guys winced as these edits went by
and wished the hell they'd left the microphones alone. Also, the sax tone is
borderline. Needs some surgical EQ in the midrange, IMO.)

But, just to be clear, while good reverb can do a lot to help a recording, reverb
alone won't add complete vibrancy or make for an engaging listening experience. It's
that plus all of the above, and more.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--
.

Frank, thanks.

First off, I THOUGHT it was a Capitol recording, not Columbia!

Second, 30 ISP in 1959??!! That blows my mind! I THOUGHT 30 ISP was something new about 1969!

Still feel an admirable recording, especially for 1959!!

Jack

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 2:09:12 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
An amplifier stage with negative feedback (as any modern design will have) =
will remain essentially linear up to the clipping point. This is true for =
both low level stages and power amps. The negative feedback keeps it very =
linear until there just is no more swing.

This is true for most modern designs, but you will still see stuff that
becomes nonlinear at some point below clipping. Feedback can help this,
but there's only so much that feedback can do.

Even worse you will see designs with low level issues due to crossover
distortion, where the distortion drops as the level increases, until you
get to clipping.

Add a transformer and everything changes, too.

-- Or a flux capacitor!!

-- Things I learn, smaller recording head gap, less fringing, less penetration of magnetic field.
-- Metal tape, maybe once layered, had to avoid metal particles touching each other, would drive eddy current loss high (circulating currents), like a short circuit to a tape head.

Jack


In contrast, tape has no negative feedback and will become progressivly mo=
re non linear as you drive it harder. =20

Yes, and this effect is far more dramatic.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

JackA writes:


snips

Frank, thanks.

First off, I THOUGHT it was a Capitol recording, not Columbia!

Brubeck probably did do some stuff with Capitol, but the "Time Out" album on which
you'll find "Take Five" was indeed Columbia.


Second, 30 ISP in 1959??!! That blows my mind! I THOUGHT 30 ISP was something new
about 1969!

Actually, if memory serves, the first WWII German Magnetophons (or whatever they
were called) ran at 30 -- or many machines of the immediate post-war era ran at 30.
It was needed to get acceptable quality given all the other limits of such primitive
systems. (I have a vague memory that a few of the early experimental machines ran at
60, but can't say for sure. 60 IPS would have played havoc with the low end.)

But building a stable transport that could run at 30 and handle the delicate tapes
of those days during fast winds, stops, and starts was fringe (and expensive)
engineering. (Some tapes were paper-backed and broke easily; some were early
plastics that either stretched or broke nearly as easily as the paper stuff.) 15
became more acceptable as the basic system quality improved. And, your tape costs
halved and you didn't have to worry about breakage quite as much.

Still feel an admirable recording, especially for 1959!!

Yes, it's pretty good. And, it's a great practical lesson that leakage in the studio
can be your friend.

There are Vanguard recordings of that era done at 30 with a pair of Sony C-37s that
sound remarkable, not to mention various offerings from the UK and Europe around the
same time.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/25/2015 2:17 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
So you're saying that the issue is that the buss
isn't just a simple summing buss and therefore knowing the output level
of the buss amps doesn't necessarily tell you that the buss isn't clipping
somewhere along the line with all those summing stages?

Even with one channel up and nothing else, it still sounds better to have
the levels reduced, which is why I was thinking that was in the end a
nonlinearity issue.

I don't have any Mackies here that are old enough to have this problem,
so I can't make any measurements to confirm what's happening. I'm just
going on what a couple of engineers at Mackie told me when I was there
in 1999-2000, the VLZ-Pro was just being introduced, and sloppy users
who were still having problems with distortion were advised to back off
on the input level, mix with the main fader at its design center ("unity
gain") position, and turn up their power amps' gain to get it loud
enough. I think that the problem mostly was that the maximum output of
the summing bus was (for the sake of discussion) +20 dBu. There's gain
ahead of it, so if you're summing a few channels that are also peaking
(and maybe themselves clipping) at +20 dBu, you're going to run out of
volts that the output can swing.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 4:08:15 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
JackA writes:


snips

Frank, thanks.

First off, I THOUGHT it was a Capitol recording, not Columbia!

Brubeck probably did do some stuff with Capitol, but the "Time Out" album on which
you'll find "Take Five" was indeed Columbia.


Second, 30 ISP in 1959??!! That blows my mind! I THOUGHT 30 ISP was something new
about 1969!

Actually, if memory serves, the first WWII German Magnetophons (or whatever they
were called) ran at 30 -- or many machines of the immediate post-war era ran at 30.
It was needed to get acceptable quality given all the other limits of such primitive
systems. (I have a vague memory that a few of the early experimental machines ran at
60, but can't say for sure. 60 IPS would have played havoc with the low end.)

But building a stable transport that could run at 30 and handle the delicate tapes
of those days during fast winds, stops, and starts was fringe (and expensive)
engineering. (Some tapes were paper-backed and broke easily; some were early
plastics that either stretched or broke nearly as easily as the paper stuff.) 15
became more acceptable as the basic system quality improved. And, your tape costs
halved and you didn't have to worry about breakage quite as much.

Still feel an admirable recording, especially for 1959!!

Yes, it's pretty good. And, it's a great practical lesson that leakage in the studio
can be your friend.

There are Vanguard recordings of that era done at 30 with a pair of Sony C-37s that
sound remarkable, not to mention various offerings from the UK and Europe around the
same time.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--
.

Frank, exactly! I THOUGHT it was 30 IPS that had the low end problems, probably due to resonance, but it had to be 60 IPS I was reading about!!

Answered another question: - German Magnetophons

Okay on Vanguard!

Thanks!!

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/25/2015 6:14 PM, JackA wrote:
Frank, exactly! I THOUGHT it was 30 IPS that had the low end
problems, probably due to resonance, but it had to be 60 IPS I was
reading about!!

It's not about resonance, it's about gap length of the head relative to
the wavelength of the recorded sound. Another thing that's related to
the track geometry is the "head bump," a low frequency boost of a couple
of dB that, for most heads, is around 50 Hz at 15 ips and an octave
higher at 30 ips. Bass players love 30 ips, drummers prefer 15 ips. Or
something like that.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[JackA]

On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 4:08:15 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
JackA writes:


snips

Frank, thanks.

First off, I THOUGHT it was a Capitol recording, not Columbia!

Brubeck probably did do some stuff with Capitol, but the "Time Out" album on which
you'll find "Take Five" was indeed Columbia.


Second, 30 ISP in 1959??!! That blows my mind! I THOUGHT 30 ISP was something new
about 1969!

Actually, if memory serves, the first WWII German Magnetophons (or whatever they
were called) ran at 30 -- or many machines of the immediate post-war era ran at 30.
It was needed to get acceptable quality given all the other limits of such primitive
systems. (I have a vague memory that a few of the early experimental machines ran at
60, but can't say for sure. 60 IPS would have played havoc with the low end.)

But building a stable transport that could run at 30 and handle the delicate tapes
of those days during fast winds, stops, and starts was fringe (and expensive)
engineering. (Some tapes were paper-backed and broke easily; some were early
plastics that either stretched or broke nearly as easily as the paper stuff.) 15
became more acceptable as the basic system quality improved. And, your tape costs
halved and you didn't have to worry about breakage quite as much.

Still feel an admirable recording, especially for 1959!!

Yes, it's pretty good. And, it's a great practical lesson that leakage in the studio
can be your friend.

There are Vanguard recordings of that era done at 30 with a pair of Sony C-37s that
sound remarkable, not to mention various offerings from the UK and Europe around the
same time.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--
.

This is very interesting - 1949, 30 IPS!!??
Not sure when and where this Dolby or DBX stuff was used, never liked it myself.
Assume used during mixing or maybe even sound on sound?....

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high...come-30-a.html

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/26/2015 10:34 AM, JackA wrote:
Not sure when and where this Dolby or DBX stuff was used, never liked it myself.
Assume used during mixing or maybe even sound on sound?....

Dolby A was from 1968 or thereabouts and it's probably been used on many
recordings that you've heard. DBX was a little later, and there was
another noise reduction system, Telcom, from Telefunken, that never
really took off.

Dolby noise reduction, for studio work, was generally used throughout
the whole process, tracking overdubbing, and the mix was almost always
to tape using Dolby. You say you never liked it yourself, but that may
be that they only exposure you've had to it where you could evaluate
what it did to a recording was the Dolby B or C that was used with
cassettes. That traded off reduced noise for wonky dynamics since there
wasn't a well adhered-to standard for tape level on cassettes that there
was for reel-to-reel Dolby tapes. Dolby S attempted to solve that, but
it was really too late coming to the market and cassettes were already
on they way out when it was just coming in.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

JackA wrote:
On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 4:08:15 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
JackA writes:

snips

This is very interesting - 1949, 30 IPS!!??
Not sure when and where this Dolby or DBX stuff was used, never liked it
myself. Assume used during mixing or maybe even sound on sound?....

Jack

A very revealing statement about yourself! Thanks.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[JackA]

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 12:01:40 PM UTC-4, Roy W. Rising wrote:
JackA wrote:
On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 4:08:15 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
JackA writes:

snips

This is very interesting - 1949, 30 IPS!!??
Not sure when and where this Dolby or DBX stuff was used, never liked it
myself. Assume used during mixing or maybe even sound on sound?....

Jack

A very revealing statement about yourself! Thanks.

-- I give credit where credit is due....

-- Good one, Roy!!!

Jack


--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[JackA]

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 11:53:42 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/26/2015 10:34 AM, JackA wrote:
Not sure when and where this Dolby or DBX stuff was used, never liked it myself.
Assume used during mixing or maybe even sound on sound?....

Dolby A was from 1968 or thereabouts and it's probably been used on many
recordings that you've heard. DBX was a little later, and there was
another noise reduction system, Telcom, from Telefunken, that never
really took off.

Dolby noise reduction, for studio work, was generally used throughout
the whole process, tracking overdubbing, and the mix was almost always
to tape using Dolby. You say you never liked it yourself, but that may
be that they only exposure you've had to it where you could evaluate
what it did to a recording was the Dolby B or C that was used with
cassettes. That traded off reduced noise for wonky dynamics since there
wasn't a well adhered-to standard for tape level on cassettes that there
was for reel-to-reel Dolby tapes. Dolby S attempted to solve that, but
it was really too late coming to the market and cassettes were already
on they way out when it was just coming in.

Let me get something straight. Let's take the Ampex MM-1000 recorder. I am guessing, you could record on track, rewind the tape, and play that prerecorded track, while recording on a fresh new track, etc., etc., etc.. Would there be ANY reason to use noise reduction there, other than, maybe inferior noisy tape? I thought that was the primary reason why 70's songs sounded better, because you weren't summing the noise, like when they only had a handful of recording tracks and were forced to "stage" recordings.

Jack




--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/26/2015 12:29 PM, JackA wrote:
Let me get something straight. Let's take the Ampex MM-1000 recorder.
I am guessing, you could record on track, rewind the tape, and play
that prerecorded track, while recording on a fresh new track, etc.,
etc., etc..

Yup. I see that you have a total grasp of the multitrack recording process.

Would there be ANY reason to use noise reduction there,
other than, maybe inferior noisy tape?

Well, let's not be too harsh here. There is hiss. That comes from the
tape. Dolby invented his noise reduction process to reduce the
audibility of the tape hiss. It doesn't fix your mic preamps or
microphones or the producer. But, yes, the reason why it became the norm
for multitrack recordings was that the noise goes into the mix like
everything else and they wanted the multitrack recordings not to sound
noisier than the direct-to-mono or stereo recordings of years past. But
the artists and producers wanted to use that newfangled multitrack
thing, so they needed a solution to the tape noise.

I thought that was the primary
reason why 70's songs sounded better, because you weren't summing the
noise, like when they only had a handful of recording tracks and were
forced to "stage" recordings.

If your problem with multitrack recordings is excessive tape noise,
then, yes, noise reduction can help. But honestly, I think that the
reason why some recordings that were made in a single pass sounded
better than multitracked recordings is that the music just felt better
because everyone was playing together. And either they didn't make any
mistakes, they made a mistake that still fit with the music so it went
through, or they did another take.

In the '70s through the '90s, we learned a lot about how to overcome
both the technical and musical problems with multitracking. Today some
of those techniques have been overridden by the DAW process where you
aren't limited by the hardware to a specific number of tracks, and you
can stack as many as you can stand without adding system noise. In one
sense, it's led to laziness in recording.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[JackA]

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 4:40:37 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/26/2015 12:29 PM, JackA wrote:
Let me get something straight. Let's take the Ampex MM-1000 recorder.
I am guessing, you could record on track, rewind the tape, and play
that prerecorded track, while recording on a fresh new track, etc.,
etc., etc..

Yup. I see that you have a total grasp of the multitrack recording process.

Would there be ANY reason to use noise reduction there,
other than, maybe inferior noisy tape?

Well, let's not be too harsh here. There is hiss. That comes from the
tape. Dolby invented his noise reduction process to reduce the
audibility of the tape hiss. It doesn't fix your mic preamps or
microphones or the producer. But, yes, the reason why it became the norm
for multitrack recordings was that the noise goes into the mix like
everything else and they wanted the multitrack recordings not to sound
noisier than the direct-to-mono or stereo recordings of years past. But
the artists and producers wanted to use that newfangled multitrack
thing, so they needed a solution to the tape noise.

I thought that was the primary
reason why 70's songs sounded better, because you weren't summing the
noise, like when they only had a handful of recording tracks and were
forced to "stage" recordings.

If your problem with multitrack recordings is excessive tape noise,
then, yes, noise reduction can help. But honestly, I think that the
reason why some recordings that were made in a single pass sounded
better than multitracked recordings is that the music just felt better
because everyone was playing together. And either they didn't make any
mistakes, they made a mistake that still fit with the music so it went
through, or they did another take.

Or, maybe, tape tracks were wider initially?

Swinging (Take) 22. You can hear a musician quietly ask, "Is this the same thing?". So, while you could record live, many songs were developed in studios and paying for studio time and all the musicians cost a fortune. Things had to change to compete, since small record companies had their own methods of cost reduction (overdubbing).

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/tower.mp3


In the '70s through the '90s, we learned a lot about how to overcome
both the technical and musical problems with multitracking. Today some
of those techniques have been overridden by the DAW process where you
aren't limited by the hardware to a specific number of tracks, and you
can stack as many as you can stand without adding system noise. In one
sense, it's led to laziness in recording.

Understood. But as I mentioned, the wide stereo of the 50s and 60s disappeared in the 70's. I have to agree with one of the participants here that mentioned it was common to fix the center and a single stereo channel and just provide some stereo content in the other. As I feel, you harm recordings the closer they are mixed to mono. If it weren't for the (superior) clarity of instruments and/or singing, Stereo would have died quickly.

Anyway, who preferred real-time recordings? - Tom Dowd
Who didn't mind overdubbing? - Al Kooper

Forget sound quality, it was MUCH easier to score hits in the 50s and 60s than later. Why? My guess, radio rid the Big Band music and singers of our parents, and it was time for a LOT of new variety. I was amazed to find recording studios, even one not too far from me, popping up! Some catered to drug use and gained them clients. Granted, we lowered the standard, and anyone and their mother could "sing".

Sorry for rambling.

Jack



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/26/2015 5:47 PM, JackA wrote:
Forget sound quality, it was MUCH easier to score hits in the 50s and 60s than later. Why?

Less competition and more dedicated and faithful listeners. Sound
quality doesn't make hits. Good material, well arranged and performed
does. Also, a vast majority of recordings in that period came from major
labels, so they had the money to do the job right, and the ability to
promote it.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[JackA]

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 6:15:53 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/26/2015 5:47 PM, JackA wrote:
Forget sound quality, it was MUCH easier to score hits in the 50s and 60s than later. Why?

Less competition and more dedicated and faithful listeners. Sound
quality doesn't make hits. Good material, well arranged and performed
does. Also, a vast majority of recordings in that period came from major
labels, so they had the money to do the job right, and the ability to
promote it.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Mike, we totally agree one on thing. Yes, sound quality on its own NEVER, EVER sold music.

Like, early on, I heard Pumped Up Kicks, 2011, (Mark) Foster The People. Not even close to what I'd call a great audio sounding tune, but there was a mystery sound to it that intrigued me, and I was right, it charted very well.

I may have shared this story before...

I have multi-tracks to Billy Joel's "Piano Man". I was AMAZED what I heard, had to listen MANY times to absorb it all (instruments). Even gentle cymbal taps by the drummer, like they published half the recording.

Later, a co-worker and I were chatting about Billy Joel. He began reciting lyrics like he wrote them!! I was AMAZED, because I have great difficulty deciphering lyrics. Maybe my mind just phases them out to hear the music, not really sure.

I allowed him to hear my "Piano Man" mix and asked him what was different. After, he said, Billy's vocals sound a little different, and that was it.

Anyway, before the multi-tracks, I purchased some MasterSound gold CDs, one or so of Billy Joel's albums. I (and a friend) were able to decipher some unknown lyrics. Was it due to better sound quality? Maybe a bit, but the thing is, the song was remixed (wider stereo)! So, so much to "Master" sound. Anyway, here's Vic that did the MasterSound CD. You think he's honest?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_udPy2KuXwM

Jack

[geoff]

On 27/06/2015 8:40 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:

Well, let's not be too harsh here. There is hiss. That comes from the
tape.

And that is nothing to do with JackAss's supposed 'Inferior Tape'.

geoff

[geoff]

On 27/06/2015 10:46 a.m., JackA wrote:

Later, a co-worker and I were chatting about Billy Joel. He began
reciting lyrics like he wrote them!! I was AMAZED, because I have
great difficulty deciphering lyrics.\

Get better headphones. or ears.

geoff

[JackA]

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 7:56:57 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 27/06/2015 8:40 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:

Well, let's not be too harsh here. There is hiss. That comes from the
tape.

And that is nothing to do with JackAss's supposed 'Inferior Tape'.

Look, I'm the one here with the Grammy Award winning ears, and I say it does!!

Jack :-)

geoff

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: " Forget sound quality"

'The **** kinda statement is that?! That's exactly the kind of ****
young aspiring recording artists DON'T need to be reading when
lurking here.


"Sound quality doesn't make hits." Huh??? Rumours was
one of Fleetwood Mac's best albums ever, as well as a hit
generator, and I happen to think it sounds very good. Ditto
Rush's Moving Pictures, Jackson's Off The Wall & Thriller.


"Good material, well arranged and performed.."
No argument there.

[JackA]

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 10:43:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: " Forget sound quality"

'The **** kinda statement is that?! That's exactly the kind of ****
young aspiring recording artists DON'T need to be reading when
lurking here.

You, not I, said sound quality doesn't make hits!!! So, you best make up YOUR mind.


"Sound quality doesn't make hits." Huh??? Rumours was
one of Fleetwood Mac's best albums ever, as well as a hit
generator, and I happen to think it sounds very good. Ditto
Rush's Moving Pictures, Jackson's Off The Wall & Thriller.

So, YOU think Rumours was great sounding. I say, they f'd it up. Should have stopped while ahead. But, no, sound quality was fouled. I will make sure to post what gained me a nice compliment on my site over an album cut. And, just like Heart, it was the addition of a female or females that fans liked, not sound quality.

Jack


"Good material, well arranged and performed.."
No argument there.

[Rick Ruskin]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:29:31 -0700 (PDT), JackA
wrote:

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 7:56:57 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
snip

Look, I'm the one here with the Grammy Award winning ears, and I say it does!!

Jack :-)

"Grammy Award winning ears?" For what?



Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

[JackA]

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 11:45:32 PM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:29:31 -0700 (PDT), JackA
wrote:

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 7:56:57 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
snip

Look, I'm the one here with the Grammy Award winning ears, and I say it does!!

Jack :-)

"Grammy Award winning ears?" For what?

So, Rick, I see you are in support of Compressor/Limiter equipment, since there's one or more featured on YOUR site.

Just an observation, nothing more.

Jack




Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

[Trevor]

On 27/06/2015 9:56 AM, geoff wrote:
On 27/06/2015 8:40 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:

Well, let's not be too harsh here. There is hiss. That comes from the
tape.

And that is nothing to do with JackAss's supposed 'Inferior Tape'.

Well all analog tape was relatively inferior, which is why all noise
reduction schemes were invented in the first place. Not to mention the
necessity for simple record/playback EQ to help reduce noise to even a
minimally acceptable level.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/26/2015 10:29 PM, JackA wrote:
Look, I'm the one here with the Grammy Award winning ears

I didn't know they gave a Grammy for ears

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "You, not I, said sound quality doesn't make hits!!! So, you best make up YOUR mind. "

YOU need to learn to read who I was quoting.
RIVERS made the statement about sound
quality not mattering, and I challenged him.

Don't end up like firefighter Cook from Texas,
Jack.

[Rick Ruskin]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 21:38:49 -0700 (PDT), JackA
wrote:

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 11:45:32 PM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:29:31 -0700 (PDT), JackA
wrote:

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 7:56:57 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
snip

Look, I'm the one here with the Grammy Award winning ears, and I say it does!!

Jack :-)

"Grammy Award winning ears?" For what?

So, Rick, I see you are in support of Compressor/Limiter equipment, since there's one or more featured on YOUR site.

Just an observation, nothing more.

Jack

I also sell mic preamps, eq's, and guitars. What do the things listed
on my site have to do with the fact that you have not answered my
question?



Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

[None]

whineybrat @ gmail.com wrote in message
...
Mike Rivers wrote: " Forget sound quality"

'The **** kinda statement is that?! That's exactly the kind of ****

Isn't that what's known as "filthy diatribe" in dumb****speak? The
next time you whine about "foul language", you can expect to be
reminded of your double-standard hypocrisy, Dumb****.

[JackA]

On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 11:03:17 AM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 21:38:49 -0700 (PDT), JackA
wrote:

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 11:45:32 PM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:29:31 -0700 (PDT), JackA
wrote:

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 7:56:57 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
snip

Look, I'm the one here with the Grammy Award winning ears, and I say it does!!

Jack :-)

"Grammy Award winning ears?" For what?

So, Rick, I see you are in support of Compressor/Limiter equipment, since there's one or more featured on YOUR site.

Just an observation, nothing more.

Jack

I also sell mic preamps, eq's, and guitars. What do the things listed
on my site have to do with the fact that you have not answered my
question?

Well, I know, "Cry Me A River", by Joe Cocker, was remixed. There's one GOOD clue that gives it away. Most likely fouled since day one!! Everyone can mix! Someone fixed what I knew sounded wrong. Isn't that worth a Grammy? :-)

Jack



Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

[Rick Ruskin]

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 18:01:44 -0700 (PDT), JackA
wrote:

On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 11:03:17 AM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 21:38:49 -0700 (PDT), JackA
wrote:

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 11:45:32 PM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:29:31 -0700 (PDT), JackA
wrote:

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 7:56:57 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
snip

Look, I'm the one here with the Grammy Award winning ears, and I say it does!!

Jack :-)

"Grammy Award winning ears?" For what?

So, Rick, I see you are in support of Compressor/Limiter equipment, since there's one or more featured on YOUR site.

Just an observation, nothing more.

Jack

I also sell mic preamps, eq's, and guitars. What do the things listed
on my site have to do with the fact that you have not answered my
question?

Well, I know, "Cry Me A River", by Joe Cocker, was remixed. There's one GOOD clue that gives it away. Most likely fouled since day one!! Everyone can mix! Someone fixed what I knew sounded wrong. Isn't that worth a Grammy? :-)

Jack


Not only NOT worth a Grammy but not worth anymore of my time.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

[JackA]

On Sunday, June 28, 2015 at 11:07:05 PM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 18:01:44 -0700 (PDT), JackA
wrote:

On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 11:03:17 AM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 21:38:49 -0700 (PDT), JackA
wrote:

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 11:45:32 PM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:29:31 -0700 (PDT), JackA
wrote:

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 7:56:57 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
snip

Look, I'm the one here with the Grammy Award winning ears, and I say it does!!

Jack :-)

"Grammy Award winning ears?" For what?

So, Rick, I see you are in support of Compressor/Limiter equipment, since there's one or more featured on YOUR site.

Just an observation, nothing more.

Jack

I also sell mic preamps, eq's, and guitars. What do the things listed
on my site have to do with the fact that you have not answered my
question?

Well, I know, "Cry Me A River", by Joe Cocker, was remixed. There's one GOOD clue that gives it away. Most likely fouled since day one!! Everyone can mix! Someone fixed what I knew sounded wrong. Isn't that worth a Grammy? :-)

Jack


Not only NOT worth a Grammy but not worth anymore of my time.

Rick, meet Jason!!!

See you later, alligator.

Jack


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

[JackA]

On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 5:54:29 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/26/2015 10:29 PM, JackA wrote:
Look, I'm the one here with the Grammy Award winning ears

I didn't know they gave a Grammy for ears

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Here's your Rumours album, featuring Gold Dust Woman. A decent song, but when I heard WMGK-FM play the "official" version (even though I had it), I nearly vomited. Someone should have slapped Mick Fleetwood on the back of the head, yelling, "ENOUGH!" and let this version fly. Very nice dynamics, clean vocals...

Snippet:
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...s/golddust.mp3

Andrea Gardner at WMGK-FM tells me it was also on a bootleg compilation, but inferior sound.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA: You heard it played over a RADIO STATION???

Ave Maria! No wonder it sounded dreck to you. Try finding
an original release Rumours CD and then tell us how it sounds.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/30/2015 7:23 PM, JackA wrote:
Here's your Rumours album, featuring Gold Dust Woman.

Why are you bothering me with this? I have no interest in this music,
regardless of how much you love or hate the recording.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

9:03 PMMike Rivers wrote:
"On 6/30/2015 7:23 PM, JackA wrote:
Here's your Rumours album, featuring Gold Dust Woman.

Why are you bothering me with this? I have no interest in this music,
regardless of how much you love or hate the recording.
- show quoted text -"


Mike, I WAS the one who breached Rumours. Apparently
JackA didn't make that clear.


Lemme ask you something Mike - seriously: Name at least 3
artists and a song or album by each of them that you actually
like! And in the mean time, give Rumours a spin(or download).
It's mellow, not gangsta, and you might come to enjoy it.

[None]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
Why are you bothering me with this?

You respond to him. You feed him the attention he craves. You get what
you ask for. Scrape him off your boot on the edge of the curb and get
on with whatever else you'd be doing if you weren't dancing to his
tune.