[JackA]

You'll never hear me claim that! Actually, this Take #5 is VERY interesting (sound quality). Not sure how and why they mutilated the audio of the hit version, but it still became a hit! The Five Satins - Down The Aisle (1957)...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...theaisle-5.mp3

Amazing!

Jack

[[email protected]]

"HQ" sound is a marketing gimmick.

I can turn out "HQ" sound with the
compressor or hard limiter in Audacity!

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/5/2016 8:41 PM, wrote:
"HQ" sound is a marketing gimmick.

I can turn out "HQ" sound with the
compressor or hard limiter in Audacity!

And I can turn out HQ sound by turning the compressor and limiter off.


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

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 4/5/2016 9:11 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/5/2016 8:41 PM, wrote:
"HQ" sound is a marketing gimmick.

I can turn out "HQ" sound with the
compressor or hard limiter in Audacity!

And I can turn out HQ sound by turning the compressor and limiter off.


I keep going back to that old saw that an OK recording
of a great performance trumps a prefect recording of a
mediocre performance.

In other words, it's all about the music at the moment.

Put another way, hundreds of mixes of OK performances
may exist .. and all may be OK
[Kind of a corollary of polishing a turd.]

YMMV (or YMMD ... or ... )
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Trevor]

On 6/04/2016 11:32 AM, Ron C wrote:
Put another way, hundreds of mixes of OK performances
may exist .. and all may be OK
[Kind of a corollary of polishing a turd.]

But the guys at Mythbusters proved you CAN polish a turd :-)

Trevor.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:38:19 +1000, Trevor wrote:

On 6/04/2016 11:32 AM, Ron C wrote:
Put another way, hundreds of mixes of OK performances
may exist .. and all may be OK
[Kind of a corollary of polishing a turd.]

But the guys at Mythbusters proved you CAN polish a turd :-)

Trevor.


The point of the motto was never that you couldn't polish a turd, it
was that you shouldn't because all you will get is a shiny turd.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Trevor]

On 6/04/2016 6:18 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
The point of the motto was never that you couldn't polish a turd, it
was that you shouldn't because all you will get is a shiny turd.

Why else would you polish a turd?

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "- show quoted text -
And I can turn out HQ sound by turning the compressor and limiter off.


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

You and I know that - but does the public at large,
buying stuff MARKETED as "HQ" know that - the
less processing the better, the more care taken
with regard to room, mic technique, the compostion
itself?

[geoff]

On 6/04/2016 11:00 PM, wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: "- show quoted text -
And I can turn out HQ sound by turning the compressor and limiter off.




Do you still actually think that 'mastering' necessarily involves
compressing the **** out of everything ?


geoff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 19:52:12 +1000, Trevor wrote:

On 6/04/2016 6:18 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
The point of the motto was never that you couldn't polish a turd, it
was that you shouldn't because all you will get is a shiny turd.

Why else would you polish a turd?

Because you mistakenly believe that if you polish it enough, it will
become a jewel.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "On 6/04/2016 11:00 PM, wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: "- show quoted text -
And I can turn out HQ sound by turning the compressor and limiter off.




Do you still actually think that 'mastering' necessarily involves
compressing the **** out of everything ?


geoff "


If that's what the label or customer wants!
Gotta give it to 'em.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/6/2016 7:00 AM, wrote:
You and I know that - but does the public at large,
buying stuff MARKETED as "HQ" know that - the
less processing the better, the more care taken
with regard to room, mic technique, the compostion
itself?

Sadly, I don't think that the bulk of the general public knows good
music from bad, much less appropriate signal processing, miking, or
studio techniques. The majority of music sales is a result of publicity
(which today often involves social media).

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

[JackA]

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 9:11:54 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/5/2016 8:41 PM, wrote:
"HQ" sound is a marketing gimmick.

I can turn out "HQ" sound with the
compressor or hard limiter in Audacity!

And I can turn out HQ sound by turning the compressor and limiter off.

True, but it could sound bland. There's a very good reason for loudness.

Jack



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

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: "- show quoted text -
And I can turn out HQ sound by turning the compressor and limiter off.

You and I know that - but does the public at large,
buying stuff MARKETED as "HQ" know that - the
less processing the better, the more care taken
with regard to room, mic technique, the compostion
itself?

The public at large doesn't buy audio marketed as high quality for the most
part. Aside from the issue that the marketing has little to do with the
quality of the actual product, you should know that there is a small but
lucrative market out there being served by labels like M-A Recordings,
Chesky, and the like.

It's a hard business to be in, so many of those labels have come and gone.
Pope Music is long gone and MFSL is a pale shadow of what it once was. Even
the JVC XRCD operation seems to have shut down.

But it's a big enough market to have a few labels, it's just not a big enough
one to keep them.
--scott

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

[JackA]

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 9:32:33 PM UTC-4, Ron C wrote:
On 4/5/2016 9:11 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 4/5/2016 8:41 PM, wrote:
"HQ" sound is a marketing gimmick.

I can turn out "HQ" sound with the
compressor or hard limiter in Audacity!

And I can turn out HQ sound by turning the compressor and limiter off.


I keep going back to that old saw that an OK recording
of a great performance trumps a prefect recording of a
mediocre performance.

In other words, it's all about the music at the moment.

Put another way, hundreds of mixes of OK performances
may exist .. and all may be OK
[Kind of a corollary of polishing a turd.]

YMMV (or YMMD ... or ... )
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

Years back, after applauding a UK record reissue company, and mentioning how much I like a particular song, I was given the two track [stereo] remnants of the regional hit song. They didn't care to publish it, it sounded like Beatles songs, lopsided.

It amazed me, because before someone mutilated the sound, it sounded very nice with a crisp sounding tambourine. What went out the door sadly sounded like it was mixed in the bottom of a garbage can, only available in Mono.

Jack

[JackA]

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 8:41:20 PM UTC-4, wrote:
"HQ" sound is a marketing gimmick.

I can turn out "HQ" sound with the
compressor or hard limiter in Audacity!

As others here won't tell you, man was initially unprepared to master audio for CD. Why they had to reissue reissues. Even on Amazon, a remaster Year is specified, and never is it prior to Y2k.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "True, but it could sound bland. There's a very good reason for loudness. "

Are you saying stuff like this to get attention -
or do you actually believe what you're saying?

Material subject to just enough compression,
and no more, at the right thresholds and ratios,
hardly sounds 'bland'. Listen to some Telarc
releases from the '80s or '90s, or Chesky, as Dorsey
mentioned and I own a couple of, and tell us how
bland you think they are. And please don't post
any "3.15kHz"-loaded remasters of them! Just give us
your thoughts on listening to the CDs themselves.

[Frank Stearns]

Mike Rivers writes:

On 4/6/2016 7:00 AM, wrote:
You and I know that - but does the public at large,
buying stuff MARKETED as "HQ" know that - the
less processing the better, the more care taken
with regard to room, mic technique, the compostion
itself?

Sadly, I don't think that the bulk of the general public knows good
music from bad, much less appropriate signal processing, miking, or
studio techniques. The majority of music sales is a result of publicity
(which today often involves social media).

Unfortunately, this is too true. The question is why -- what has happened over the
last 10-20 years such that the overall emotional experience of music has become a
faint shadow of what it once was, even in that relatively short amount of time.

You can argue the relative artistic merits of one musical genre over another, but it
seems things are now even more removed than that. For some people, "flipping on some
tunes" has about the same depth of experience (and value) as flipping on the hall
lights in the later afternoon because it's slightly darker outside.

So for a lot of people, pulsed white noise is on equal footing with a Bach Fugue.
Artistic content is ignored, sound is just there to push away any silence.
And you don't need art, performance, or even minimal fidelity to accomplish that.

So how did we get to this point? What caused such a culture shift? I have my own
ideas, but am curious to hear what others think about this... Certainly, there are
pockets of good music that's appreciated (keeps me motivated and in business); I'm
asking more about broader cultural trends and how you think they came to be.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/6/2016 11:56 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
Mike Rivers writes:
Sadly, I don't think that the bulk of the general public knows good
music from bad

Unfortunately, this is too true. The question is why -- what has happened over the
last 10-20 years such that the overall emotional experience of music has become a
faint shadow of what it once was, even in that relatively short amount of time.

I'm certain that the public is exposed to too much music, or what passes
for it, so it has less value. 40 years ago, you bought a record because
you knew the music and knew you'd enjoy hearing it again and again. It
was worth what you paid for it. Today, you download a song for pennies
and if you don't like it, it's no great loss. And even if you do like
it, it goes into your digital library of 20,000 other songs, soon to be
forgotten.

So for a lot of people, pulsed white noise is on equal footing with a Bach Fugue.

Probably better. You can dance to pulsed white noise.



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

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:

So for a lot of people, pulsed white noise is on equal footing with a Bach Fugue.
Artistic content is ignored, sound is just there to push away any silence.
And you don't need art, performance, or even minimal fidelity to accomplish that.

That's EXACTLY what my parents said about the Beatles.

So how did we get to this point? What caused such a culture shift? I have my own
ideas, but am curious to hear what others think about this... Certainly, there are
pockets of good music that's appreciated (keeps me motivated and in business); I'm
asking more about broader cultural trends and how you think they came to be.

I don't think there is a real trend, I don't think things have ever been
much different. Kids listen to music because their parents hate it. Some
people make music for the sake of art. Some people make music for commercial
utility. Most music is crap, but 92% of everything is crap.
--scott

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

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Frank Stearns wrote:

So for a lot of people, pulsed white noise is on equal footing with a Bach Fugue.
Artistic content is ignored, sound is just there to push away any silence.
And you don't need art, performance, or even minimal fidelity to accomplish that.

That's EXACTLY what my parents said about the Beatles.

Right - I understand that old saw (and it's true). And even in some of the "worst"
music (in terms of one generation shaking its head at another) at some point you
*could* find something redeeming from an art point of view -- if you took the time
to look.

What's different -- and at times disheartning -- is how the music, regardless of
form or genre, is "consumed." Its purpose seems to have shifted from simply annoying
the 'rents to placing putty in the gaps of silence; content or presentation doesn't
really matter. And if the putty doesn't stick or falls to the ground so what? Just
random-shuffle to another 60KbPS MP3.

So how did we get to this point? What caused such a culture shift? I have my own
ideas, but am curious to hear what others think about this... Certainly, there are
pockets of good music that's appreciated (keeps me motivated and in business); I'm
asking more about broader cultural trends and how you think they came to be.

I don't think there is a real trend, I don't think things have ever been
much different. Kids listen to music because their parents hate it. Some
people make music for the sake of art. Some people make music for commercial
utility. Most music is crap, but 92% of everything is crap.

Indeed, that's the good ole Sturgeon's Law (from the SF writer who coined the phrase
long ago. echoing Kipling's "Four-fifths of everybody's work must be bad, but the
remnant is worth the trouble").

Kipling was far too generous, though. Things have perhaps shifted to 98% of
everything is crap. Sigh.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[geoff]

On 6/04/2016 11:28 p.m., Don Pearce wrote:
.
Why else would you polish a turd?

Because you mistakenly believe that if you polish it enough, it will
become a jewel.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


If you store under enough pressure for long enough, it will (_)@(_) !

geoff

[JackA]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 11:56:21 AM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
Mike Rivers writes:

On 4/6/2016 7:00 AM, wrote:
You and I know that - but does the public at large,
buying stuff MARKETED as "HQ" know that - the
less processing the better, the more care taken
with regard to room, mic technique, the compostion
itself?

Sadly, I don't think that the bulk of the general public knows good
music from bad, much less appropriate signal processing, miking, or
studio techniques. The majority of music sales is a result of publicity
(which today often involves social media).

Unfortunately, this is too true. The question is why -- what has happened over the
last 10-20 years such that the overall emotional experience of music has become a
faint shadow of what it once was, even in that relatively short amount of time.

You can argue the relative artistic merits of one musical genre over another, but it
seems things are now even more removed than that. For some people, "flipping on some
tunes" has about the same depth of experience (and value) as flipping on the hall
lights in the later afternoon because it's slightly darker outside.

So for a lot of people, pulsed white noise is on equal footing with a Bach Fugue.
Artistic content is ignored, sound is just there to push away any silence.
And you don't need art, performance, or even minimal fidelity to accomplish that.

So how did we get to this point?

Because they knew how others cheated in the past. First it was LIVE recordings. That became too expensive, so they tried overdubbing to save cost and time (sacrificing sound quality).
Later, studio cost became high, so some, like John Cougar, recorded in a barn.
Later, with technology, you no longer needed live musicians, a sophisticated keyboard could provide any sound you needed, even horns. That, and a drum machine, you could create music. For me, the "electronic" sound became too much about the '80's.
Nothing has changed but time.

Jack

Jack

What caused such a culture shift? I have my own
ideas, but am curious to hear what others think about this... Certainly, there are
pockets of good music that's appreciated (keeps me motivated and in business); I'm
asking more about broader cultural trends and how you think they came to be.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--
.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 8:28:24 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: "- show quoted text -
And I can turn out HQ sound by turning the compressor and limiter off.

You and I know that - but does the public at large,
buying stuff MARKETED as "HQ" know that - the
less processing the better, the more care taken
with regard to room, mic technique, the compostion
itself?

The public at large doesn't buy audio marketed as high quality for the most
part. Aside from the issue that the marketing has little to do with the
quality of the actual product, you should know that there is a small but
lucrative market out there being served by labels like M-A Recordings,
Chesky, and the like.

It's a hard business to be in, so many of those labels have come and gone..
Pope Music is long gone and MFSL is a pale shadow of what it once was.

The original MFSL probably seen the writing on the wall that multi-tracks were soon to be remixed, excelling beyond a half spent Master tape. I had to chuckle when I saw the NEW MFSL offering the group, The Raspberries, on vinyl. Even KMA Rock dude knows w/o compression the Raspberries tunes would put you to sleep. Yeah, compression, such a bad thing.

Jack


Even
the JVC XRCD operation seems to have shut down.

But it's a big enough market to have a few labels, it's just not a big enough
one to keep them.
--scott

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

[Gray_Wolf]

On 4/6/2016 12:41 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Frank Stearns wrote:

So for a lot of people, pulsed white noise is on equal footing with a Bach Fugue.
Artistic content is ignored, sound is just there to push away any silence.
And you don't need art, performance, or even minimal fidelity to accomplish that.

That's EXACTLY what my parents said about the Beatles.

So how did we get to this point? What caused such a culture shift? I have my own
ideas, but am curious to hear what others think about this... Certainly, there are
pockets of good music that's appreciated (keeps me motivated and in business); I'm
asking more about broader cultural trends and how you think they came to be.

I don't think there is a real trend, I don't think things have ever been
much different. Kids listen to music because their parents hate it. Some
people make music for the sake of art. Some people make music for commercial
utility. Most music is crap, but 92% of everything is crap.
--scott


Scott, I totally agree.
I was playing a high school gig back in the late 60's with a county/rock band.
Had a really nice student crowd. Some even helped carry our equipment out.

I was talking to a girl about her musical tastes and asked if her parents liked
her music. She said "Oh they hate it." I asked her what if her parents liked it.
She said she probably wouldn't like it then.

l talked with several others after we'd finished. Some were saying they liked
some of songs we played that they hadn't heard before. They said that they
limited their music to certain genres. Apparently it was a social sin to listen
to some types of music. I replied that there was music I liked and music I
didn't and I didn't care about the genre. A few agreed with my point of view.

[Trevor]

On 6/04/2016 9:28 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 19:52:12 +1000, Trevor wrote:
On 6/04/2016 6:18 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
The point of the motto was never that you couldn't polish a turd, it
was that you shouldn't because all you will get is a shiny turd.

Why else would you polish a turd?

Because you mistakenly believe that if you polish it enough, it will
become a jewel.

Now that WOULD be stupid!!!

Trevor

[Scott Dorsey]

gray_wolf wrote:

l talked with several others after we'd finished. Some were saying they liked
some of songs we played that they hadn't heard before. They said that they
limited their music to certain genres. Apparently it was a social sin to listen
to some types of music. I replied that there was music I liked and music I
didn't and I didn't care about the genre. A few agreed with my point of view.

This was very much the case in the sixties and seventies, and it's still
the case today, but I'm seeing more and more young kids who are listening to
a wide variety of music.

I think inherently this is a good thing but on the other hand it means that
your classical recording is competing with (and may well be played soon after)
a hard rock recording. This makes things a bit confusing for marketing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 9:16:09 AM UTC-4, wrote:
JackA wrote: "True, but it could sound bland. There's a very good reason for loudness. "

Are you saying stuff like this to get attention -
or do you actually believe what you're saying?

Material subject to just enough compression,
and no more, at the right thresholds and ratios,
hardly sounds 'bland'. Listen to some Telarc
releases from the '80s or '90s, or Chesky, as Dorsey
mentioned and I own a couple of, and tell us how
bland you think they are. And please don't post
any "3.15kHz"-loaded remasters of them! Just give us
your thoughts on listening to the CDs themselves.

I see, compare Apples (Classical Music) to Oranges (Pop music).

http://www.concordmusicgroup.com/labels/telarc/

Now, I do have this CD (admired the drummer)...

http://www.amazon.com/Dear-Mr-Sinatr...ohn+Pizzarelli

But, for Big Band sound, it wasn't impressive. So, Telarc is just like the others, publish anything since they thrive on money, not HQ sound.

Jack