| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Stereo from Mono
|
|
#82
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On 08/09/2015 21:51, JackA wrote:
Even though off topic, I care to share what I discover. Everyone tells me the artist MUST approve of recording and mixes, spreads like wildfire. Fine. Then I hear Paul Simon refuses to release S&G single "hit" versions, since he doesn't like them. Same with a soon to be published Buckinghams compilation, and Carl G. of the group does not like the stereo mixes. So, who's telling me fibs? The ones that say the performer has no right to stop you publishing their performance. You may perform the music subject only to paying the legally set fee, either per live show or per unit sold, but to publish a performance, even (Especially?)after you have modified it, requires the performer's permission. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
|
#83
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
John Williamson wrote:
The ones that say the performer has no right to stop you publishing their performance. You may perform the music subject only to paying the legally set fee, either per live show or per unit sold, but to publish a performance, even (Especially?)after you have modified it, requires the performer's permission. This is true in the US and in the UK, but it's not true in Italy, where live performances are treated very differently than studio recordings by the copyright law. It's also not true of US recordings made before 1928. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#84
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On 08/09/2015 23:37, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Williamson wrote: The ones that say the performer has no right to stop you publishing their performance. You may perform the music subject only to paying the legally set fee, either per live show or per unit sold, but to publish a performance, even (Especially?)after you have modified it, requires the performer's permission. This is true in the US and in the UK, but it's not true in Italy, where live performances are treated very differently than studio recordings by the copyright law. It's also not true of US recordings made before 1928. Thanks for the clarification. Also, any recording older than 50 years is now out of performers' copyright in the UK, although the written music is still in copyright until 70 years after the death of the last of its composers. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
|
#85
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 5:10:32 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 08/09/2015 15:46, wrote: What are the copyright legal issues of publishing a re-mix of copyrighted material like this? The performance is subject to copyright, as is the written music. To publish, even for free, you need permission from the copyright holder. If you don't get this permission, you are liable to pay damages and penalties as set by a court. I believe that in the USA, there is a fair use provision Ah, the ol' "Fair Use" phrase, that I'm told is just someone's fallacy. Take 29 seconds of a Beatles song and us it in a TV commercial, let me know how far you get. Jack that lets you publish a short, edited part of the work as part of a review or educational project. This does not apply in the UK, even for your own entertainment, though at the moment the record companies don't bother suing if you don't take the mickey. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
|
#86
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote: John Williamson wrote: The ones that say the performer has no right to stop you publishing their performance. You may perform the music subject only to paying the legally set fee, either per live show or per unit sold, but to publish a performance, even (Especially?)after you have modified it, requires the performer's permission. This is true in the US and in the UK, but it's not true in Italy, where live performances are treated very differently than studio recordings by the copyright law. It's also not true of US recordings made before 1928. And JackA will probably find the original multi-tracks from then so he can issue decent stereo re-mixes... -- *Be more or less specific * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
|
#87
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
John Williamson wrote:
On 08/09/2015 23:37, Scott Dorsey wrote: John Williamson wrote: The ones that say the performer has no right to stop you publishing their performance. You may perform the music subject only to paying the legally set fee, either per live show or per unit sold, but to publish a performance, even (Especially?)after you have modified it, requires the performer's permission. This is true in the US and in the UK, but it's not true in Italy, where live performances are treated very differently than studio recordings by the copyright law. It's also not true of US recordings made before 1928. Thanks for the clarification. Also, any recording older than 50 years is now out of performers' copyright in the UK, although the written music is still in copyright until 70 years after the death of the last of its composers. And this, in short, is why lawyers exist. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#88
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 8:34:49 AM UTC-4, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Scott Dorsey wrote: John Williamson wrote: The ones that say the performer has no right to stop you publishing their performance. You may perform the music subject only to paying the legally set fee, either per live show or per unit sold, but to publish a performance, even (Especially?)after you have modified it, requires the performer's permission. This is true in the US and in the UK, but it's not true in Italy, where live performances are treated very differently than studio recordings by the copyright law. It's also not true of US recordings made before 1928. And JackA will probably find the original multi-tracks from then so he can issue decent stereo re-mixes... -- Not really funny, David!!! But I'd take a crack at it!!  -- You should hear Ozzie Nelson sing "Dream A Little Dream Of Me" (1931), a later hit for Mama Cass!! -- Don't think Gmeoff's three dozen pairs of headphones could make it sound good! Jack -- *Be more or less specific * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
|
#89
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 04:36:18 -0700 (PDT), JackA
wrote: Ah, the ol' "Fair Use" phrase, that I'm told is just someone's fallacy. Take 29 seconds of a Beatles song and us it in a TV commercial, let me know how far you get. Jack Taking anything recognizable and using it for commercial purposes has never been considered "fair use." Rick Ruskin Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA http://liondogmusic.com |
|
#90
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
-- Don't think Gmeoff's three dozen pairs of headphones could make it sound good! Jack, you seem hung up on the fact that a guy in the recording biz has many headphones. Look at these pictures to understand why. https://www.google.com/search?q=reco...2EWgXz&dpr=1.2 Mark |
|
#91
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On 09/09/2015 12:36, JackA wrote:
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 5:10:32 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote: I believe that in the USA, there is a fair use provision Ah, the ol' "Fair Use" phrase, that I'm told is just someone's fallacy. Take 29 seconds of a Beatles song and us it in a TV commercial, let me know how far you get. As that can't under any circumstances be considered fair use, what is your point? Fair use is defined as quoting part of the work in an essay or project at school, or making a point in a magazine article, not commercial use, no matter how short the excerpt is. Record companies employ listeners and lawyers to spot and sue over the use of even a single note of one of their records used in such a way, say by sampling a note and using it in your own record without acknowledgement and permission. There are people making good money by imitating just one note or chord and supplying that imitation to a performer for their use. Although that's not so common now the record companies have seen sense and reduced their fees for using such samples from extortionate to merely very expensive. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
|
#92
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 10:23:16 AM UTC-4, wrote:
-- Don't think Gmeoff's three dozen pairs of headphones could make it sound good! Jack, you seem hung up on the fact that a guy in the recording biz has many headphones. Look at these pictures to understand why. https://www.google.com/search?q=reco...2EWgXz&dpr=1.2 You MAY agree with me and my theory about nice sound quality and only, maybe 15% can detect it. So, it makes sense there are so many different headphones, since the MAJORITY can't tell the bad from good. Thanks. Jack Mark |
|
#93
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 10:43:43 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 09/09/2015 12:36, JackA wrote: On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 5:10:32 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote: I believe that in the USA, there is a fair use provision Ah, the ol' "Fair Use" phrase, that I'm told is just someone's fallacy. Take 29 seconds of a Beatles song and us it in a TV commercial, let me know how far you get. As that can't under any circumstances be considered fair use, what is your point? Fair use is defined as quoting part of the work in an essay or project at school, or making a point in a magazine article, not commercial use, no matter how short the excerpt is. Record companies employ listeners and lawyers to spot and sue over the use of even a single note of one of their records used in such a way, say by sampling a note and using it in your own record without acknowledgement and permission. There are people making good money by imitating just one note or chord and supplying that imitation to a performer for their use. Although that's not so common now the record companies have seen sense and reduced their fees for using such samples from extortionate to merely very expensive. Okay, an example. A web site opens and uses some Led Zeppelin snippets, though they are selling Heavy Metal music and they gain a ton of money. Do you think Jimmy Page would just wish them well or would act upon it and want some of the doe that was gained? So, what, as long as a profit isn't being made it's "fair"? Ask Joel Whitburn why he isn't busted - tons of snippets on his PAY site. Jack -- Tciao for Now! John. |
|
#94
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 12:49:12 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 10:23:16 AM UTC-4, wrote: -- Don't think Gmeoff's three dozen pairs of headphones could make it sound good! Jack, you seem hung up on the fact that a guy in the recording biz has many headphones. Look at these pictures to understand why. https://www.google.com/search?q=reco...2EWgXz&dpr=1.2 You MAY agree with me and my theory about nice sound quality and only, maybe 15% can detect it. So, it makes sense there are so many different headphones, since the MAJORITY can't tell the bad from good. Thanks. Jack Mark No you didn't get my point Many sets of headphones are needed in a recording studio becasue many people may be there that need to wear them ___at the same time.___ over and out Mark |
|
#95
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:56:18 -0700 (PDT), JackA
wrote: On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 10:43:43 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote: On 09/09/2015 12:36, JackA wrote: On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 5:10:32 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote: I believe that in the USA, there is a fair use provision Ah, the ol' "Fair Use" phrase, that I'm told is just someone's fallacy. Take 29 seconds of a Beatles song and us it in a TV commercial, let me know how far you get. As that can't under any circumstances be considered fair use, what is your point? Fair use is defined as quoting part of the work in an essay or project at school, or making a point in a magazine article, not commercial use, no matter how short the excerpt is. Record companies employ listeners and lawyers to spot and sue over the use of even a single note of one of their records used in such a way, say by sampling a note and using it in your own record without acknowledgement and permission. There are people making good money by imitating just one note or chord and supplying that imitation to a performer for their use. Although that's not so common now the record companies have seen sense and reduced their fees for using such samples from extortionate to merely very expensive. Okay, an example. A web site opens and uses some Led Zeppelin snippets, though they are selling Heavy Metal music and they gain a ton of money. Do you think Jimmy Page would just wish them well or would act upon it and want some of the doe that was gained? So, what, as long as a profit isn't being made it's "fair"? Ask Joel Whitburn why he isn't busted - tons of snippets on his PAY site. Jack Just because it's done doesn't make it legal. Jimmy Page or anyone connected to the copyrighted material being used without permission can go after any and all infringers. Whether they care to or not is totally up to them. Making money via infringement is not the issue. You could still be liable for payment of "statuatory damages.' Plaintiffs who can show willful infringement may be entitled to damages up to $150,000. Are you willing to risk getting stung for that amount? RR Rick Ruskin Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA http://liondogmusic.com |
|
#96
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
|
|
#97
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 2:05:40 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 12:49:12 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote: On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 10:23:16 AM UTC-4, wrote: -- Don't think Gmeoff's three dozen pairs of headphones could make it sound good! Jack, you seem hung up on the fact that a guy in the recording biz has many headphones. Look at these pictures to understand why. https://www.google.com/search?q=reco...2EWgXz&dpr=1.2 You MAY agree with me and my theory about nice sound quality and only, maybe 15% can detect it. So, it makes sense there are so many different headphones, since the MAJORITY can't tell the bad from good. Thanks. Jack Mark No you didn't get my point Many sets of headphones are needed in a recording studio becasue many people may be there that need to wear them ___at the same time.___ over and out Roger. But ALL the same KIND of headphones. I took at quick look at YouTube, some recording person has a post titled "The Best Headphones For Studio Use". Turns out, he mentioned (5) different pairs/brands, not one. Jack Mark |
|
#98
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On 09/09/2015 17:56, JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 10:43:43 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote: On 09/09/2015 12:36, JackA wrote: On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 5:10:32 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote: I believe that in the USA, there is a fair use provision Ah, the ol' "Fair Use" phrase, that I'm told is just someone's fallacy. Take 29 seconds of a Beatles song and us it in a TV commercial, let me know how far you get. As that can't under any circumstances be considered fair use, what is your point? Fair use is defined as quoting part of the work in an essay or project at school, or making a point in a magazine article, not commercial use, no matter how short the excerpt is. Record companies employ listeners and lawyers to spot and sue over the use of even a single note of one of their records used in such a way, say by sampling a note and using it in your own record without acknowledgement and permission. There are people making good money by imitating just one note or chord and supplying that imitation to a performer for their use. Although that's not so common now the record companies have seen sense and reduced their fees for using such samples from extortionate to merely very expensive. Okay, an example. A web site opens and uses some Led Zeppelin snippets, though they are selling Heavy Metal music and they gain a ton of money. Do you think Jimmy Page would just wish them well or would act upon it and want some of the doe that was gained? If he didn't get paid via the royalties on tracks of his that are being sold on the site, he could sue for quite a large amount of money. It is his option (Via his agent if appropriate) whether to permit that outlet to use his music for promotion, even if it is being used to promote his recordings, and if that consent is not sought and given, the site owner is in for a load of grief. So, what, as long as a profit isn't being made it's "fair"? Ask Joel Whitburn why he isn't busted - tons of snippets on his PAY site. The situation is complicated. A review of a book in a paid for magazine may contain a paragraph or two from the book, and that has always been considered fair use. An analogy for a music review site is to include a short snippet of the track being reviewed. The complication is the reason lawyers exist and charge so much. Remixing a track that you have found the multitrack files for on line and publishing it on the web, by the way, as you seem to enjoy doing, needs *explicit* permission from all the performers or their agents, and any one of those people who object could sue you for a large amount in damages, especially if the offending item is not removed from *all* publicly available sources on request, including those who have copied the file from your server with or without your consent. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
|
#99
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 2:58:37 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 09/09/2015 19:05, wrote: On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 12:49:12 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote: You MAY agree with me and my theory about nice sound quality and only, maybe 15% can detect it. So, it makes sense there are so many different headphones, since the MAJORITY can't tell the bad from good. Thanks. Jack No you didn't get my point He is incapable of hearing the difference, so for him, it can't exist. This is why he is so proud of his $25 Philips rubbish with the 3kHz notch. Excuse me, Johnboy, but it was I that noticed the 3kHz improvement, not you wasteful people who spend twelve times more on your fancy headphones and still can't hear the difference!! He can't tell the difference between those and a set of Sony HD7605's or a pair of Beyer DT100's. -- I can tell the difference. Yeah, the amount of money I have saved in the bank!! Jack Many sets of headphones are needed in a recording studio becasue many people may be there that need to wear them ___at the same time.___ over and out And different folk need to hear the sound differently, with a set that emphasises the treble for a flautist needing to hear what they are playing being very little use to the bass player or drummer. All of which has been explained to it many times, and goes completely over its tiny, pointy little head. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
|
#100
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 3:17:07 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 09/09/2015 17:56, JackA wrote: On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 10:43:43 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote: On 09/09/2015 12:36, JackA wrote: On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 5:10:32 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote: I believe that in the USA, there is a fair use provision Ah, the ol' "Fair Use" phrase, that I'm told is just someone's fallacy. Take 29 seconds of a Beatles song and us it in a TV commercial, let me know how far you get. As that can't under any circumstances be considered fair use, what is your point? Fair use is defined as quoting part of the work in an essay or project at school, or making a point in a magazine article, not commercial use, no matter how short the excerpt is. Record companies employ listeners and lawyers to spot and sue over the use of even a single note of one of their records used in such a way, say by sampling a note and using it in your own record without acknowledgement and permission. There are people making good money by imitating just one note or chord and supplying that imitation to a performer for their use. Although that's not so common now the record companies have seen sense and reduced their fees for using such samples from extortionate to merely very expensive. Okay, an example. A web site opens and uses some Led Zeppelin snippets, though they are selling Heavy Metal music and they gain a ton of money. Do you think Jimmy Page would just wish them well or would act upon it and want some of the doe that was gained? If he didn't get paid via the royalties on tracks of his that are being sold on the site, he could sue for quite a large amount of money. It is his option (Via his agent if appropriate) whether to permit that outlet to use his music for promotion, even if it is being used to promote his recordings, and if that consent is not sought and given, the site owner is in for a load of grief. So, what, as long as a profit isn't being made it's "fair"? Ask Joel Whitburn why he isn't busted - tons of snippets on his PAY site. The situation is complicated. A review of a book in a paid for magazine may contain a paragraph or two from the book, and that has always been considered fair use. An analogy for a music review site is to include a short snippet of the track being reviewed. The complication is the reason lawyers exist and charge so much. Remixing a track that you have found the multitrack files for on line and publishing it on the web, by the way, as you seem to enjoy doing, needs *explicit* permission from all the performers Oh, boy, here we go again!!! Show me a recording contract where that is stated!! You people dream!! Maybe too much hallucinogens!!! Jack or their agents, and any one of those people who object could sue you for a large amount in damages, especially if the offending item is not removed from *all* publicly available sources on request, including those who have copied the file from your server with or without your consent. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
|
#101
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On 09 Sep 2015, Rick Ruskin wrote in
rec.audio.pro: What you don't know about the music business could fill a library. Radio stations pays performance royalties for the material they air. Ever notice that clown's MO? He tells a bald-faced lie, then crows about how he alone knows the truth behind the lie. He does it in almost every post he makes. I used to wonder whether he knew it was a lie or if it was just his ignorance showing, but he does it so constantly that I have to conclude it's intentional. Nobody could really be that clueless... could they??? |
|
#102
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
Nil wrote:
Ever notice that clown's MO? He tells a bald-faced lie, then crows about how he alone knows the truth behind the lie. He does it in almost every post he makes. I used to wonder whether he knew it was a lie or if it was just his ignorance showing, but he does it so constantly that I have to conclude it's intentional. Nobody could really be that clueless... could they??? I don't think so. I think he is deliberately trolling. He hasn't actually seen inside a recording studio but is convinced he knows everything that goes on in a recording session? He's convinced that some label added additional tracks in the mastering room? I don't think so. He's deliberately pretending to be that clueless just to get your goat. The killfile fixes the problem nicely. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#103
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 4:40:46 PM UTC-4, Nil wrote:
On 09 Sep 2015, Rick Ruskin wrote in rec.audio.pro: What you don't know about the music business could fill a library. Radio stations pays performance royalties for the material they air. Ever notice that clown's MO? He tells a bald-faced lie, then crows about how he alone knows the truth behind the lie. He does it in almost every post he makes. I used to wonder whether he knew it was a lie or if it was just his ignorance showing, but he does it so constantly that I have to conclude it's intentional. Nobody could really be that clueless... could they??? Clueless? Probably why Scott ignores me now, because I found the answer I was looking for that I though HE would know. He DID have something, but nothing definitive. Probably what he selects only clueless people to respond to.. Mark was is same way with Mike. Mike just ignored answering - fearing an incorrect answer. I see the GAME here. People continually tell me artists must approve mixes, mono/stereo whatever.. If that isn't the largest crock of bull-poop!! I gave two examples, but, no, people STILL believe what some numskull told them from Fairyland Recording Studios! Jack |
|
#104
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
|
|
#105
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 2:05:40 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 12:49:12 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote: On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 10:23:16 AM UTC-4, wrote: -- Don't think Gmeoff's three dozen pairs of headphones could make it sound good! Jack, you seem hung up on the fact that a guy in the recording biz has many headphones. Look at these pictures to understand why. https://www.google.com/search?q=reco...2EWgXz&dpr=1.2 You MAY agree with me and my theory about nice sound quality and only, maybe 15% can detect it. So, it makes sense there are so many different headphones, since the MAJORITY can't tell the bad from good. Thanks. Jack Mark No you didn't get my point Many sets of headphones are needed in a recording studio becasue many people may be there that need to wear them ___at the same time.___ over and out Mark Mark, my comment was JUST a return to Geoff who plants his little digs (3kHz, Philips, etc.), nothing more. Thanks. Jack |
|
#106
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 2:58:37 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 09/09/2015 19:05, wrote: On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 12:49:12 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote: You MAY agree with me and my theory about nice sound quality and only, maybe 15% can detect it. So, it makes sense there are so many different headphones, since the MAJORITY can't tell the bad from good. Thanks. Jack No you didn't get my point He is incapable of hearing the difference, so for him, it can't exist. This is why he is so proud of his $25 Philips rubbish with the 3kHz notch. Face it, I knew there was something particular about 3kHz, though I did not know why. It just seemed to HELP past recordings. I'm SURE, unless you can prove me wrong, that it was NEVER mentioned in this particular newsgroup. It took a video about Digital audio ( Neil Young's Pono), where IT was mentioned (2-4 kHz). Someone on YouTube gave an in-depth explanation why. So, there, with "rubbish" I was able to detect this when most people missed it with far more expensive headphones. Obviously, no one here remasters music of the past. Thank you for your PROFESSIONAL opinion. Jack He can't tell the difference between those and a set of Sony HD7605's or a pair of Beyer DT100's. Many sets of headphones are needed in a recording studio becasue many people may be there that need to wear them ___at the same time.___ over and out And different folk need to hear the sound differently, with a set that emphasises the treble for a flautist needing to hear what they are playing being very little use to the bass player or drummer. All of which has been explained to it many times, and goes completely over its tiny, pointy little head. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
|
#107
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On 10-09-2015 15:50, JackA wrote:
He is incapable of hearing the difference, so for him, it can't exist. This is why he is so proud of his $25 Philips rubbish with the 3kHz notch. Face it, I knew there was something particular about 3kHz, though I did not know why. It just seemed to HELP past recordings. I'm SURE, unless you can prove me wrong, that it was NEVER mentioned in this particular newsgroup. It took a video about Digital audio ( Neil Young's Pono), where IT was mentioned (2-4 kHz). Please explain. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
|
#108
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On 11/09/2015 2:30 p.m., Peter Larsen wrote:
On 10-09-2015 15:50, JackA wrote: He is incapable of hearing the difference, so for him, it can't exist. This is why he is so proud of his $25 Philips rubbish with the 3kHz notch. Face it, I knew there was something particular about 3kHz, though I did not know why. It just seemed to HELP past recordings. I'm SURE, unless you can prove me wrong, that it was NEVER mentioned in this particular newsgroup. It took a video about Digital audio ( Neil Young's Pono), where IT was mentioned (2-4 kHz). Please explain. Kind regards Peter Larsen Naa. Please don't ! Isn't it odd that the whole recording industry and musical community for decades has been totally oblivious to an unmeasurable (and inaudible to all, almost) lack of 3kHz ? But, alone, our JackAss has figured it out and made everything sound better ? - Radio Newsflash - "There are reports of one idiot car driving down the freeway on the wrong side of the road". - Our favorite JackAss, driving down the freeway - " It's not just one car - they ALL are !". geoff |
|
#109
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 11:05:51 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 11/09/2015 2:30 p.m., Peter Larsen wrote: On 10-09-2015 15:50, JackA wrote: He is incapable of hearing the difference, so for him, it can't exist.. This is why he is so proud of his $25 Philips rubbish with the 3kHz notch. Face it, I knew there was something particular about 3kHz, though I did not know why. It just seemed to HELP past recordings. I'm SURE, unless you can prove me wrong, that it was NEVER mentioned in this particular newsgroup. It took a video about Digital audio ( Neil Young's Pono), where IT was mentioned (2-4 kHz). Please explain. Kind regards Peter Larsen Naa. Please don't ! Isn't it odd that the whole recording industry and musical community for decades has been totally oblivious to an unmeasurable (and inaudible to all, almost) lack of 3kHz ? But, alone, our JackAss has figured it out and made everything sound better ? Excuse me a second, Peter, while I clean up this mess someone made. What is odd is that vinyl records made a come-back, since few actually knew how to remaster music of audio CD. Forget me, but this 2-4kHz issue was never mentioned here. You may claim it's idiotic, that's your prerogative, but since others mentioned it, it obviously is important to know. Mess cleaned. Jack - Radio Newsflash - "There are reports of one idiot car driving down the freeway on the wrong side of the road". - Our favorite JackAss, driving down the freeway - " It's not just one car - they ALL are !". geoff |
|
#110
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 10:33:22 PM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote:
On 10-09-2015 15:50, JackA wrote: He is incapable of hearing the difference, so for him, it can't exist. This is why he is so proud of his $25 Philips rubbish with the 3kHz notch. Face it, I knew there was something particular about 3kHz, though I did not know why. It just seemed to HELP past recordings. I'm SURE, unless you can prove me wrong, that it was NEVER mentioned in this particular newsgroup. It took a video about Digital audio ( Neil Young's Pono), where IT was mentioned (2-4 kHz). Please explain. I'll see if I can find the video ( Pono) where I initially hear it mentioned, but it's mentioned here... http://www.yamahaproaudio.com/global...udio_universe/ I enjoy tweaking audio for a more impressive sound. I'd play the song in WinAmp (audio player) that contains an Equalizer. It has a frequency band at 3kHz. Adjusting the equalizer gave me an idea where to focus attention in Goldwave (audio software). I'd make my audio corrections and play it again in WinAmp. During this iteration, I wasn't sure where to stop with 3kHz, it helped both music and vocals, I wasn't sure why. Believe it has to do with the wavelength of the ear canal. That's all. Try it sometime. People make fun of me here over this discovery, but that's okay, I get some nice, "Great work!" compliments elsewhere. Jack Kind regards Peter Larsen |
|
#111
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
JackA:
Study up on "equal loudness": http://www.cochlea.eu/var/plain_site...sosoniques.jpg 2-4kHz is where human hearing is MOST sensitive. The rest of that graph indicates how loud sounds at other frequencies must be to sound as loud as the 2-4kHz region. |
|
#112
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 10:33:22 PM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote:
On 10-09-2015 15:50, JackA wrote: He is incapable of hearing the difference, so for him, it can't exist. This is why he is so proud of his $25 Philips rubbish with the 3kHz notch. Face it, I knew there was something particular about 3kHz, though I did not know why. It just seemed to HELP past recordings. I'm SURE, unless you can prove me wrong, that it was NEVER mentioned in this particular newsgroup. It took a video about Digital audio ( Neil Young's Pono), where IT was mentioned (2-4 kHz). Please explain. Kind regards Peter Larsen Actually, Peter, this claims 5kHz, but I feel they are close, just not precise... http://music.tutsplus.com/tutorials/...em--audio-9724 Jack |
|
#113
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 9:45:29 AM UTC-4, wrote:
JackA: Study up on "equal loudness": http://www.cochlea.eu/var/plain_site...sosoniques.jpg 2-4kHz is where human hearing is MOST sensitive. The rest of that graph indicates how loud sounds at other frequencies must be to sound as loud as the 2-4kHz region. .... and your point? Look here... "Whether you need to put some make-up on a dull vocal or bring out the bite on the electric guitar, 5 kHz just really makes it all shine". Very close to 3kHz!!! I know you prefer dull sounding music Jack |
|
#114
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
JackA:
Does the phrase "It is better to cut than to boost" mean anything to you? But you just go right on ahead, boost the heck out of between 2-4K all you want. We'll just file the results under "Dentist Drill" collection. |
|
#115
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 1:30:47 PM UTC-4, wrote:
JackA: Does the phrase "It is better to cut than to boost" mean anything to you? But you just go right on ahead, boost the heck out of between 2-4K all you want. We'll just file the results under "Dentist Drill" collection. See here, now the Best include girlies. Obviously, not the BEST! The Mastering men gets their buttocks kicked. http://mcrow.net/5-best-mastering-engineers-pro-blog/ But you do have a valid point. Like the one John Cougar CD that Bob Ludwig mastered too loud, backing down on selected frequencies made it listenable. But, it's just simpler to boost than lower every other frequency!! So, any audiophile reviews of your Thomas Edison sounding CDs? Jack |
|
#116
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
JackA writes:
On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 9:45:29 AM UTC-4, wrote: JackA: Study up on "equal loudness": http://www.cochlea.eu/var/plain_site...sosoniques.jpg 2-4kHz is where human hearing is MOST sensitive. The rest of that graph indicates how loud sounds at other frequencies must be to sound as loud as the 2-4kHz region. ... and your point? Look here... "Whether you need to put some make-up on a dull vocal or bring out the bite on the electric guitar, 5 kHz just really makes it all shine". Very close to 3kHz!!! I know you prefer dull sounding music You're like some artist with 6 months of experience telling folks like Rembrandt, "Splash a little bit of blue - that always helps the painting!" -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
|
#117
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:48:30 -0400, Randy Yates
wrote: JackA writes: On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 9:45:29 AM UTC-4, wrote: JackA: Study up on "equal loudness": http://www.cochlea.eu/var/plain_site...sosoniques.jpg 2-4kHz is where human hearing is MOST sensitive. The rest of that graph indicates how loud sounds at other frequencies must be to sound as loud as the 2-4kHz region. ... and your point? Look here... "Whether you need to put some make-up on a dull vocal or bring out the bite on the electric guitar, 5 kHz just really makes it all shine". Very close to 3kHz!!! I know you prefer dull sounding music You're like some artist with 6 months of experience telling folks like Rembrandt, "Splash a little bit of blue - that always helps the painting!" He's like Hellen Keller trying to mix and master. Rick Ruskin Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA http://liondogmusic.com |
|
#118
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 4:48:36 PM UTC-4, Randy Yates wrote:
JackA writes: On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 9:45:29 AM UTC-4, wrote: JackA: Study up on "equal loudness": http://www.cochlea.eu/var/plain_site...sosoniques.jpg 2-4kHz is where human hearing is MOST sensitive. The rest of that graph indicates how loud sounds at other frequencies must be to sound as loud as the 2-4kHz region. ... and your point? Look here... "Whether you need to put some make-up on a dull vocal or bring out the bite on the electric guitar, 5 kHz just really makes it all shine". Very close to 3kHz!!! I know you prefer dull sounding music You're like some artist with 6 months of experience telling folks like Rembrandt, "Splash a little bit of blue - that always helps the painting!" About the year, maybe 2000, a young friend in Wisconsin told us (in a AIM chat thing), about MP3s. We had no idea what he was talking about. He told me about WinAmp (digital player), Goldwave (audio software) and I found a DOS based MP3 encoder. Not that I've been constantly enhancing audio, it's been about 15 years since I became familiar with digital and what it offers. For example, Goldwave has a "Light Dynamic" increase tool. I found THAT a blessing for early CDs made them sound more like the vinyl I was collecting shortly before CDs appeared. And that MAY be a reason why early CDs failed to please critics, because those involved in mastering CDs didn't have the electronic equipment that their predecessors had. I, for one, do not believe music is always ideally mastered. I do not believe EVERYONE who mastered vinyl records was an audio expert. It's like ANY profession, there are good, there are fair, and there are poor (individual)results. Luckily, not often mentioned here, people aren't really concerned with audio quality. Me, I'm not an audiophile, I know that (had share of audiophile material), but I enjoy vibrant audio. So, I alter CDs to make music sound like I want it to sound. In another newsgroup, others claimed you can't remaster from CD. Recently, a site visitor sent me some rare vinyl LP songs, about 10. He wanted me to do the impossible. Though I could fix as he wished, I gave one a quick Light Dynamic boost, and he was PLEASED "Good Job!". Am I on the wrong track? I know people here will treat me like an audio show-off, since it's a profession to them and just a hobby to me. Take care. Jack .. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
|
#119
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 5:57:29 PM UTC-4, Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:48:30 -0400, Randy Yates wrote: JackA writes: On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 9:45:29 AM UTC-4, wrote: JackA: Study up on "equal loudness": http://www.cochlea.eu/var/plain_site...sosoniques.jpg 2-4kHz is where human hearing is MOST sensitive. The rest of that graph indicates how loud sounds at other frequencies must be to sound as loud as the 2-4kHz region. ... and your point? Look here... "Whether you need to put some make-up on a dull vocal or bring out the bite on the electric guitar, 5 kHz just really makes it all shine". Very close to 3kHz!!! I know you prefer dull sounding music You're like some artist with 6 months of experience telling folks like Rembrandt, "Splash a little bit of blue - that always helps the painting!" He's like Hellen Keller trying to mix and master. Rick, I wish to stay on good terms with the Audio Pros here. Who knows, maybe someone will ask me to master songs for toddlers to fall asleep to, and the Pros here have that sound down to a science!! Jack Rick Ruskin Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA http://liondogmusic.com |
|
#120
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereo from Mono
On 11-09-2015 21:48, Randy Yates wrote:
JackA writes: ..... lotsa stuff skipped ... I know you prefer dull sounding music You're like some artist with 6 months of experience telling folks like Rembrandt, "Splash a little bit of blue - that always helps the painting!" This is perplexing. Truly. Boosting the high midrange veils the real treble. Next there is zero grasp of when the EQ is done, EQ is done via mic placement first and mic choice next. Also the focus for the processing advice linked to omits any mentioning of perceived room, the room the instrument is rendered as being in, whether virtual or real. Learn to listen too all layers of the sonic image conveyed instead of only the front layer. Document and tune your playback environments, so that you know that what you think needs to be fixed is not just an error made by your playback systems. The plural is intentional. It is much like the advice the religion teacher, a classical philologist, gave: you don't need one Bible, you need three Bibles in different translations, then you have a chance for getting a glimpse of the words behind all the alterations and errors. Similarly to hear the recording rather than the playback you need to listen via several playback systems. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Stereo or Mono audio track when digitizing a mono record in PT? | Pro Audio | |||
| Two Mono into One Stereo | Pro Audio | |||
| stereo vs mono piano | Pro Audio | |||
| mono/stereo/dif.... | Pro Audio | |||
| mono/stereo/dif.... | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
