[John Williamson]

On 14/09/2015 08:13, Peter Larsen wrote:

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.


Unfortunately, you are wasting your time. JackAss is proud that he has
found the perfect way to make his remixes sound good to him on a pair of
thrift shop headphones that only cost 25 bucks new. He doesn't believe
that *any* playback system can possibly sound better than his bargain
basement junk, and anyone claiming that this is not true is motivated
purely by jealousy and worry about the way they've spent (Or, as he
thinks, wasted) thousands on stuff he's bought for pennies.

He also thinks that individual instruments and voices chopped out of a
mono mix by software using equalisation and a few other tricks make a
good basis for a new, improved, stereo mix.

Many people have tried and failed to educate him about the shortcomings
of his mixes and playback system, with no result. In his mind, he is the
best sound mixer in the world bar none, and ain't *nobody* gonna
convince him otherwise. Oh, and all recording engineers are a waste of
space, which is why he has to remix every track he hears.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 14/09/2015 7:44 p.m., John Williamson wrote:

Many people have tried and failed to educate him about the shortcomings
of his mixes and playback system, with no result. In his mind, he is the
best sound mixer in the world bar none, and ain't *nobody* gonna
convince him otherwise. Oh, and all recording engineers are a waste of
space, which is why he has to remix every track he hears.


Now, the whole problem would be fixed if luthiers, piano-makers, and all
other instrument-makers, not to mention voices, could be modified to
sound already with that same frequency boost, then none of this fiddling
would be necessary, and everything would then sound as it 'should' !

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
On 14/09/2015 7:44 p.m., John Williamson wrote:

Many people have tried and failed to educate him about the shortcomings
of his mixes and playback system, with no result. In his mind, he is the
best sound mixer in the world bar none, and ain't *nobody* gonna
convince him otherwise. Oh, and all recording engineers are a waste of
space, which is why he has to remix every track he hears.

Now, the whole problem would be fixed if luthiers, piano-makers, and all
other instrument-makers, not to mention voices, could be modified to
sound already with that same frequency boost, then none of this fiddling
would be necessary, and everything would then sound as it 'should' !

In some way, that was part of the point of the Stroh violin. Of course,
it sounds awful but it sure does have presence and cut through.
--scott

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 14-09-2015 08:44, John Williamson wrote:

Unfortunately, you are wasting your time. JackAss is proud that he has

I am well aware of that. My concern is with the innocent bystanders O;-)

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[John Williamson]

On 14/09/2015 14:25, Peter Larsen wrote:
On 14-09-2015 08:44, John Williamson wrote:

Unfortunately, you are wasting your time. JackAss is proud that he has

I am well aware of that. My concern is with the innocent bystanders O;-)

Who are you calling innocent? O;-)



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 14-09-2015 15:46, John Williamson wrote:
On 14/09/2015 14:25, Peter Larsen wrote:
On 14-09-2015 08:44, John Williamson wrote:

Unfortunately, you are wasting your time. JackAss is proud that he has

I am well aware of that. My concern is with the innocent bystanders O;-)

Who are you calling innocent? O;-)

Whomsoever reads here later.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Nil[_2_]]

On 14 Sep 2015, Peter Larsen wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

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.

Don't forget that he's admitted that many of the "enhancements" he has
done were made out of MP3s.

[JackA]

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 3:16:01 AM UTC-4, Peter Larsen wrote:
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.

Maybe this explain why remaster after remaster had to be done, by a so called "mastering" person. I'm told stories that blow my mind. If so much time had to be spent mastering songs, I'd quickly terminate the person who mixes them.

Few, if any, even had equalizers to finely tune early CDs.


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.

That, I try to do. Unlike others here claim, it's difficult to detect out-of-phase conditions with headphones.


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.

So, you being an audio person should be able to detect nice sound quality. The hit song sounded okay on radio, but when I found "True", by Spandau Ballet on a UK CD, it certainly sounded better than radio played, or what you typically received on some various artists CD. I'll post the example later.

Thanks.

Jack




Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[JackA]

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 2:56:18 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 12:37:39 PM UTC-4, Chuck wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT), JackA
wrote:

A good friend finds these tunes for me and every once in a while I get excited over believable stereo. To make a long story short, Wikipedia states multi-tracks for Love Me Do were overwritten - I'm certain that is a "official" excuse. I've heard my share of Mono to Stereo creations, some sound decent, some sound even better when some backing tracks are utilized/synced. But, we are talking The Beatles here. This (below), to me, sounds like a true stereo mix. Everything remains stable, unlike fabricated stereo mixes..

Some use the word "Spectral mix", even Audacity software now has some of that included. But, could it be the real story is that they were in a rush to issue this Beatles first (mono) single record (1962, UK), and someone lifted the multi-tracks that were left behind? I think the (stereo) song runs a bit longer and you may hear. As I've heard in other true stereo mixes, lead vocal pieces become eve that were masked in mono. True Stereo or Fake Stereo (if Fake, how done?). Your opinion valued...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...ovemedo-rs.mp3

I was recently contacted by the individual who claims to have made this stereo mix. He wants me to credit him on my site. However, I question this so called "spectral editing", it's too much for me to believe. He made this and the Winchester Cathedral stereo mix. Odd thing about Winchester Cathedral, is it sounds like material was added (mixed-in, synced) to the mono mix, unlike "Love Me Do".

Jack




Jack


The Beatles with Tony Sheridan had a top 10 hit in Germany titled "My
Bonnie" in 1961. The recording, on the 45 I have, is pretty bad.

I have it (too) somewhere.

But, to be honest, I feel Pete Best got canned due to jealousy of other Beatles.
Martin wasn't really interested in a great drummer (musician), even claimed Ringo was "adequate". Not really sure what Martin's goals were.

Thanks.

Jack

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

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

"JackA" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 2:56:18 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 12:37:39 PM UTC-4, Chuck wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT), JackA
wrote:

A good friend finds these tunes for me and every once in a while I get
excited over believable stereo. To make a long story short, Wikipedia
states multi-tracks for Love Me Do were overwritten - I'm certain that
is a "official" excuse. I've heard my share of Mono to Stereo
creations, some sound decent, some sound even better when some backing
tracks are utilized/synced. But, we are talking The Beatles here. This
(below), to me, sounds like a true stereo mix. Everything remains
stable, unlike fabricated stereo mixes.

Some use the word "Spectral mix", even Audacity software now has some
of that included. But, could it be the real story is that they were in
a rush to issue this Beatles first (mono) single record (1962, UK),
and someone lifted the multi-tracks that were left behind? I think the
(stereo) song runs a bit longer and you may hear. As I've heard in
other true stereo mixes, lead vocal pieces become eve that were masked
in mono. True Stereo or Fake Stereo (if Fake, how done?). Your opinion
valued...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...ovemedo-rs.mp3

I was recently contacted by the individual who claims to have made this
stereo mix. He wants me to credit him on my site. However, I question this
so called "spectral editing", it's too much for me to believe. He made this
and the Winchester Cathedral stereo mix. Odd thing about Winchester
Cathedral, is it sounds like material was added (mixed-in, synced) to the
mono mix, unlike "Love Me Do".

Jack



My observation:

Paul NcCartney panned hard centre, John Lennon hard right.

Except McCarntneys vocals have no Bass, and Lennon's have it is spades, so
the treble frequencies are panned.

It is noticable that when McCarntney sings solo, all his bass miraculously
appears again.


Also from 1.50 onwards, something a bit weird happens with the vocals.
Not sure, but I don't think the vocals are following the reverb properly,
and they seem to be ducking the backing track somewhat, which they were not
doing at the beginning of the song.



Gareth.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 6:32:54 PM UTC-5, gareth magennis wrote:
"JackA" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 2:56:18 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 12:37:39 PM UTC-4, Chuck wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT), JackA
wrote:

A good friend finds these tunes for me and every once in a while I get
excited over believable stereo. To make a long story short, Wikipedia
states multi-tracks for Love Me Do were overwritten - I'm certain that
is a "official" excuse. I've heard my share of Mono to Stereo
creations, some sound decent, some sound even better when some backing
tracks are utilized/synced. But, we are talking The Beatles here. This
(below), to me, sounds like a true stereo mix. Everything remains
stable, unlike fabricated stereo mixes.

Some use the word "Spectral mix", even Audacity software now has some
of that included. But, could it be the real story is that they were in
a rush to issue this Beatles first (mono) single record (1962, UK),
and someone lifted the multi-tracks that were left behind? I think the
(stereo) song runs a bit longer and you may hear. As I've heard in
other true stereo mixes, lead vocal pieces become eve that were masked
in mono. True Stereo or Fake Stereo (if Fake, how done?). Your opinion
valued...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...ovemedo-rs.mp3

I was recently contacted by the individual who claims to have made this
stereo mix. He wants me to credit him on my site. However, I question this
so called "spectral editing", it's too much for me to believe. He made this
and the Winchester Cathedral stereo mix. Odd thing about Winchester
Cathedral, is it sounds like material was added (mixed-in, synced) to the
mono mix, unlike "Love Me Do".

Jack



My observation:

Paul NcCartney panned hard centre, John Lennon hard right.

Except McCarntneys vocals have no Bass, and Lennon's have it is spades, so
the treble frequencies are panned.

It is noticable that when McCarntney sings solo, all his bass miraculously
appears again.


Also from 1.50 onwards, something a bit weird happens with the vocals.
Not sure, but I don't think the vocals are following the reverb properly,
and they seem to be ducking the backing track somewhat, which they were not
doing at the beginning of the song.

Gareth, thanks for your honest input.

Not sure you are familiar with others who create Stereo from Mono. The first name that comes to mind is Mark Mathews. You can find him doing this for Eric Records, who I personally despise. Mark created The Game Of Love (Wayne Fontana & The Mindbenders) in electronic stereo. I noticed it lacked punch of the Mono rendition and added a lot of bass and posted a snippet to usenet. There I was greeted by Randy Price (who you can find credited by Eric Records. Randy said/wrote to me ANYONE can boost bass. I questioned why Mark didn't.

I found Mark also working with Ron Furmanek, who did a lot of EMI reissues for EMI. Ron needed Mark for a recent Bear Family (Germany) Herman's Hermits compilation, in "Stereo". I guess Mark was needed to fabricate a stereo background from a mono source. Though nice, the compilation lacks the luster of true stereo mixes.

Anyway, this person who contacted be wants me to use a nickname rather than a real first name. Odd, especially if you're seeking future audio work. Why I question most everything when it comes to fabricated stereo.

Jack

p.s. As usual, Bill Buster (Eric Records) must have been snooping on my site (again), since he, finally, issued "Yeh, Yeh", by Georgie Fame, in stereo, that is on my site. It was issued on a past Jazz related (2) CD UK compilation. That is a "live" recording. You can easily tell since a foreign lyric version had to be recreated/rerecorded.



Gareth.

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

"JackA" wrote in message
...

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 6:32:54 PM UTC-5, gareth magennis wrote:
"JackA" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 2:56:18 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 12:37:39 PM UTC-4, Chuck wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:26:05 -0700 (PDT), JackA
wrote:

A good friend finds these tunes for me and every once in a while I
get
excited over believable stereo. To make a long story short, Wikipedia
states multi-tracks for Love Me Do were overwritten - I'm certain
that
is a "official" excuse. I've heard my share of Mono to Stereo
creations, some sound decent, some sound even better when some
backing
tracks are utilized/synced. But, we are talking The Beatles here.
This
(below), to me, sounds like a true stereo mix. Everything remains
stable, unlike fabricated stereo mixes.

Some use the word "Spectral mix", even Audacity software now has
some
of that included. But, could it be the real story is that they were
in
a rush to issue this Beatles first (mono) single record (1962, UK),
and someone lifted the multi-tracks that were left behind? I think
the
(stereo) song runs a bit longer and you may hear. As I've heard in
other true stereo mixes, lead vocal pieces become eve that were
masked
in mono. True Stereo or Fake Stereo (if Fake, how done?). Your
opinion
valued...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...ovemedo-rs.mp3

I was recently contacted by the individual who claims to have made this
stereo mix. He wants me to credit him on my site. However, I question this
so called "spectral editing", it's too much for me to believe. He made
this
and the Winchester Cathedral stereo mix. Odd thing about Winchester
Cathedral, is it sounds like material was added (mixed-in, synced) to the
mono mix, unlike "Love Me Do".

Jack



My observation:

Paul NcCartney panned hard centre, John Lennon hard right.

Except McCarntneys vocals have no Bass, and Lennon's have it is spades, so
the treble frequencies are panned.

It is noticable that when McCarntney sings solo, all his bass miraculously
appears again.


Also from 1.50 onwards, something a bit weird happens with the vocals.
Not sure, but I don't think the vocals are following the reverb properly,
and they seem to be ducking the backing track somewhat, which they were
not
doing at the beginning of the song.

Gareth, thanks for your honest input.

Not sure you are familiar with others who create Stereo from Mono. The first
name that comes to mind is Mark Mathews. You can find him doing this for
Eric Records, who I personally despise. Mark created The Game Of Love (Wayne
Fontana & The Mindbenders) in electronic stereo. I noticed it lacked punch
of the Mono rendition and added a lot of bass and posted a snippet to
usenet. There I was greeted by Randy Price (who you can find credited by
Eric Records. Randy said/wrote to me ANYONE can boost bass. I questioned why
Mark didn't.

I found Mark also working with Ron Furmanek, who





yeah yeah yeah.


And also, Ringo sounds like he's trying out his Chad Valley drum kit he got
for Christmas.



Gareth.

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

OK, I need to correct myself here.


That recording does not have Ringo playing the drums.

In fact Ringo is playing the Tambourine, and it is Andy White who sounds
like a kid playing My First Drum Kit.


Faced with this, you can see why George Martin decided to take this a whole
step further.

Genius.




Gareth.