Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ralph Barone[_2_] Ralph Barone[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default Questions

Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:

Ah, Scott's okay, he just fears newbies may know more than him. This is typ=
ical in usenet groups where males hang-out.


No, I don't like people who come into newsgroups and are deliberately
insulting. And the BOTH of you came into this group, guns blazing,
going out of your way to tell everyone here that they were all fools.

This behaviour does not win friends.
--scott



Well Jack, I've been lurking here for a number of years, and about the only
person posting here who might stand a chance of appearing to know as much
as Scott is Roy Rising, and he's not quite what you would call a newbie.
So, nice try but no cigar.
  #82   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] makolber@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 614
Default Questions



Depends on conditions and source material. You can clip a 1kc sine wave and
not hear any clipping until you get up to 2%. However, you can add 9th
harmonic distortion and you'll hear it clearly at 0.01%.


What a contradiction. If you clip a sine wave you WILL add 9th harmonics
(as well as many others) Sure the 9th will be a LOT lower than the 3rd
but I doubt you could clip a sine wave to 2% THD and get less than 0.01%
9th harmonic without filtering it.
Must try it sometime, a pretty easy test. Want to place your bets now? :-)


you are correct for hard clipping,

but hard clipping is not the only way to create distortion

electronics (or mechanical devices) with more gradual non-linearities in their transfer function can produce low order distortion products while adding very very little high order distortion products. A loudspeaker is a good example of such a device.

Mark

  #83   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Questions

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 10:20:29 PM UTC-5, Ralph Barone wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:

Ah, Scott's okay, he just fears newbies may know more than him. This is typ=
ical in usenet groups where males hang-out.


No, I don't like people who come into newsgroups and are deliberately
insulting. And the BOTH of you came into this group, guns blazing,
going out of your way to tell everyone here that they were all fools.

This behaviour does not win friends.
--scott



Well Jack, I've been lurking here for a number of years, and about the only
person posting here who might stand a chance of appearing to know as much
as Scott is Roy Rising, and he's not quite what you would call a newbie.
So, nice try but no cigar.


Actually, I was JOKING when I mentioned I've been lurking here.

Scott wrote, "No, I don't like people who come into newsgroups and are deliberately insulting", but, yet, I see foul language used, and then I'M accused of being a sock-puppet. A warm and fuzzy welcome. I value anyone's input, but Scott's lame answer with Ringo's obliterated drumming, just proved newbies are not welcome and valid answers are seldom offered. I valued KMA's waveform of a John Cougar song. I'm guessing he is considered a "troll" here, because of his beliefs.

Now, lead me to your head Klansman! :-)

Jack

  #84   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Questions

JackA wrote:

Scott wrote, "No, I don't like people who come into newsgroups and are deli=
berately insulting", but, yet, I see foul language used, and then I'M accus=
ed of being a sock-puppet. A warm and fuzzy welcome. I value anyone's input=
, but Scott's lame answer with Ringo's obliterated drumming, just proved ne=
wbies are not welcome and valid answers are seldom offered. I valued KMA's =
waveform of a John Cougar song. I'm guessing he is considered a "troll" her=
e, because of his beliefs.


Did you listen to my answer about comb filtering on drumming?

Let me explain this to you again: when a band is tracked together, one
instrument may appear in multiple microphones. Because the distances between
the instrument the various microphones are different, the signals will appear
at different times in each channel.

Here is a vocal track from a band that is tracking together. This is a
very tight pattern Neumann KMS105 vocal mike positioned to reduce leakage
as much as possible, but still, there is extreme leakage because the band
is very loud:

http://www.panix.com/~kludge/kate.mp3

This is not a mix, this is JUST the vocal microphone. And you can hear an
awful lot of drums in that vocal feed.

Now, when you bring this channel up along with the drum overhead, there is
destructive interference between them, which causes comb filtering and that
is where the hollow sound on the drum comes from.

This is just how life is. You can retrack the vocals in isolation (which was
usually not possible in the early Beatles era since there were few tracks).
You can time-align everything to reduce the filtering (which was not possible
until the 1980s with the coming of digital delays). Or you can move mikes
around so that the effect is not audible or offensive in the mix.

But if you THEN change the mix, it will change the audibility of the comb
filtering. That is, the tracks were laid down with a particular mix in
mind, and attempts to do other things with them may not be successful.

This is kindergarten stuff, here. You might want to purchase a good
introduction to audio production or maybe read the charter for this group.
Because this group does not exist for people to explain things to you.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #85   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Questions

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 9:56:15 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:

Scott wrote, "No, I don't like people who come into newsgroups and are deli=
berately insulting", but, yet, I see foul language used, and then I'M accus=
ed of being a sock-puppet. A warm and fuzzy welcome. I value anyone's input=
, but Scott's lame answer with Ringo's obliterated drumming, just proved ne=
wbies are not welcome and valid answers are seldom offered. I valued KMA's =
waveform of a John Cougar song. I'm guessing he is considered a "troll" her=
e, because of his beliefs.


Did you listen to my answer about comb filtering on drumming?

Let me explain this to you again: when a band is tracked together, one
instrument may appear in multiple microphones. Because the distances between
the instrument the various microphones are different, the signals will appear
at different times in each channel.

Here is a vocal track from a band that is tracking together. This is a
very tight pattern Neumann KMS105 vocal mike positioned to reduce leakage
as much as possible, but still, there is extreme leakage because the band
is very loud:

http://www.panix.com/~kludge/kate.mp3

This is not a mix, this is JUST the vocal microphone. And you can hear an
awful lot of drums in that vocal feed.

Now, when you bring this channel up along with the drum overhead, there is
destructive interference between them, which causes comb filtering and that
is where the hollow sound on the drum comes from.

This is just how life is. You can retrack the vocals in isolation (which was
usually not possible in the early Beatles era since there were few tracks).
You can time-align everything to reduce the filtering (which was not possible
until the 1980s with the coming of digital delays). Or you can move mikes
around so that the effect is not audible or offensive in the mix.

But if you THEN change the mix, it will change the audibility of the comb
filtering. That is, the tracks were laid down with a particular mix in
mind, and attempts to do other things with them may not be successful.

This is kindergarten stuff, here. You might want to purchase a good
introduction to audio production or maybe read the charter for this group..
Because this group does not exist for people to explain things to you.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


Scott, thanks for the clip (sounds okay), but that is FAR from what mutilation exists on Ringo's drum tracks! You claim use some comb filter (weren't comb filters used with VCR technology!!??) With Ringo's obliterated drumming, don't think a cast-iron rake, or even a backhoe would help it!! I'm not here to ask for help, just decent input. I mean, you claim you're not here to help, but someone applauded a 5 year old (bad transformer) thread and how many helped and it was still going!!!

Jack


  #86   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Questions

JackA wrote:
Scott, thanks for the clip (sounds okay), but that is FAR from what mutilat=
ion exists on Ringo's drum tracks! You claim use some comb filter (weren't =
comb filters used with VCR technology!!??)


NO!
The clip I gave is ONLY an example so you can understand how much leakage
can be in typical tracks.

The clip does NOT sound okay, it has extreme leakage.

IF that leakage is combined with the drum overhead, the end result will be
comb filtering.

The comb filter is not a "thing you use," it is an inadvertent side effect
caused by summing two channels with the same signal displaced in time.

Stop right now and read that sentence again. Read it several times if you
have to.

This is an important basic concept that you need to understand in order to
understand one of the most fundamental decisions made during tracking.

With Ringo's obliterated drum=
ming, don't think a cast-iron rake, or even a backhoe would help it!! I'm n=
ot here to ask for help, just decent input. I mean, you claim you're not he=
re to help, but someone applauded a 5 year old (bad transformer) thread and=
how many helped and it was still going!!!


Yes, that is because the drum track had comb filtering on it because it
was mixed with some other track that contained drum leakage. You need to
understand this concept. You bring tracks up together and when there is
leakage, they interact with one another. It is the job of the mixing
engineer to understand and control that interaction.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #87   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Questions

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:
Scott, thanks for the clip (sounds okay), but that is FAR from what mutilat=
ion exists on Ringo's drum tracks! You claim use some comb filter (weren't =
comb filters used with VCR technology!!??)


NO!
The clip I gave is ONLY an example so you can understand how much leakage
can be in typical tracks.


Are you talking crosstalk of tape tracks??


The clip does NOT sound okay, it has extreme leakage.


- Find a better recording engineer, I say.


IF that leakage is combined with the drum overhead, the end result will be
comb filtering.

The comb filter is not a "thing you use," it is an inadvertent side effect
caused by summing two channels with the same signal displaced in time.


-- Okay, but that is not what happened with Ringo's drum tracks.

Stop right now and read that sentence again. Read it several times if you
have to.


-- Why, for the life of me, can't agree with me that someone obliterated Ringo's drumming and THAT is why decent stereo mixes will never be?!


This is an important basic concept that you need to understand in order to
understand one of the most fundamental decisions made during tracking.


-- Maybe because I'm not a recording engineer, but piece things together what my ears tell me.

Jack

With Ringo's obliterated drum=
ming, don't think a cast-iron rake, or even a backhoe would help it!! I'm n=
ot here to ask for help, just decent input. I mean, you claim you're not he=
re to help, but someone applauded a 5 year old (bad transformer) thread and=
how many helped and it was still going!!!


Yes, that is because the drum track had comb filtering on it because it
was mixed with some other track that contained drum leakage. You need to
understand this concept. You bring tracks up together and when there is
leakage, they interact with one another. It is the job of the mixing
engineer to understand and control that interaction.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


  #88   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default Questions

On 30/01/2015 17:45, JackA wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:
Scott, thanks for the clip (sounds okay), but that is FAR from what mutilat=
ion exists on Ringo's drum tracks! You claim use some comb filter (weren't =
comb filters used with VCR technology!!??)


NO!
The clip I gave is ONLY an example so you can understand how much leakage
can be in typical tracks.


Are you talking crosstalk of tape tracks??

In the case of the clip posted, no. He's talking about the whole band
being very audible in the vocal microphone signal. The instrument sounds
are mixed in with the vocal even before the signal gets to the mixing
desk, and nothing the engineer can do will ever reduce that level.
That's the problem with the Beatles old mono recordings, there weren't
enough tracks in the studio to mic everything up as a modern engineer
would, keeping everything isolated until the final mix, so you get time
delayed versions of Ringo on all the other tracks, as well as vice
versa, and these give rise to the bad effects you hear when you try and
remix for stereo reproduction. They can be reduced, but not eliminated
altogether.

In a modern studio, just the drums would have more microphones on them
than there were being used in the Abbey Road studio when the Beatles
were there, just to prevent problems with leakage between channels.


The clip does NOT sound okay, it has extreme leakage.


- Find a better recording engineer, I say.

Or, more effectively, get a better room to record in. It sounds as
though the recording engineer has done well considering the room and
layout of the band. Of course, if the effect of the band hearing this
clip was for them to re-arrange themselves to reduce unwanted leakage of
sounds between the microphones, that's all for the better.

This is an important basic concept that you need to understand in order to
understand one of the most fundamental decisions made during tracking.


-- Maybe because I'm not a recording engineer, but piece things together what my ears tell me.

I'd politely suggest that with proper training and some practice with
real musicians playing and a decent room to record in, you could begin
to understand why some apparently strange decisions are made by the
engineer when recording and mixing.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #89   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Questions

JackA wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:
Scott, thanks for the clip (sounds okay), but that is FAR from what mutilat=
ion exists on Ringo's drum tracks! You claim use some comb filter (weren't =
comb filters used with VCR technology!!??)


NO!
The clip I gave is ONLY an example so you can understand how much leakage
can be in typical tracks.


Are you talking crosstalk of tape tracks??


NO! I am talking about acoustic leakage.

The clip does NOT sound okay, it has extreme leakage.


- Find a better recording engineer, I say.


Sigh. You don't get it, do you? I use this track as an example of the
sort of leakage that is typical when a band records as an ensemble.

IF that leakage is combined with the drum overhead, the end result will be
comb filtering.

The comb filter is not a "thing you use," it is an inadvertent side effect
caused by summing two channels with the same signal displaced in time.


-- Okay, but that is not what happened with Ringo's drum tracks.

Stop right now and read that sentence again. Read it several times if you
have to.


-- Why, for the life of me, can't agree with me that someone obliterated Ringo's drumming and THAT is why decent stereo mixes will never be?!


Because in order to make decent stereo mixes, you need to start out with
tracks that are made to be mixed to stereo.

Go back and read my description again.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #90   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Questions

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 1:50:25 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:
Scott, thanks for the clip (sounds okay), but that is FAR from what mutilat=
ion exists on Ringo's drum tracks! You claim use some comb filter (weren't =
comb filters used with VCR technology!!??)

NO!
The clip I gave is ONLY an example so you can understand how much leakage
can be in typical tracks.


Are you talking crosstalk of tape tracks??


NO! I am talking about acoustic leakage.

The clip does NOT sound okay, it has extreme leakage.


- Find a better recording engineer, I say.


Sigh. You don't get it, do you? I use this track as an example of the
sort of leakage that is typical when a band records as an ensemble.



So, isolate the drummer in some room, give him a pair of headphones to follow the rest of the band. Screwing around with poorly recorded music never made anyone famous.


IF that leakage is combined with the drum overhead, the end result will be
comb filtering.

The comb filter is not a "thing you use," it is an inadvertent side effect
caused by summing two channels with the same signal displaced in time.


-- Okay, but that is not what happened with Ringo's drum tracks.

Stop right now and read that sentence again. Read it several times if you
have to.


-- Why, for the life of me, can't agree with me that someone obliterated Ringo's drumming and THAT is why decent stereo mixes will never be?!


Because in order to make decent stereo mixes, you need to start out with
tracks that are made to be mixed to stereo.


-- Gee, sounds like what I said, too!!

Go back and read my description again.


-- I think I shouldn't because we'll never agree.


Jack
--scott

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




  #91   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Questions

On 1/30/2015 9:10 PM, JackA wrote:
So, isolate the drummer in some room, give him a pair of headphones
to follow the rest of the band.


This is the way it's done sometimes, but not all bands like to record
that way. Often the vocalist is isolated (have you ever heard the term
"vocal booth?") or the vocalist sings live while the rhythm section is
recording, but that track, the one that has the whole band recorded
through the vocal mic along with the singer, is replaced with an
isolated track later on. The singer isn't going to leak into the drum
mics because it's must quieter than the drums, but the drums will leak
into the vocal (or acoustic guitar or sax or piano) mics because they're
much louder than the source.

Multitrack recordings that are made one track at a time, or with the
mics acoustically isolated from one another don't have leakage problems,
but it's no fun playing like that. The tradeoff of eliminating leakage
is that some leakage adds a sense of space to the mix that you lose with
isolated tracks.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #92   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Questions

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 4:00:24 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 1/30/2015 9:10 PM, JackA wrote:
So, isolate the drummer in some room, give him a pair of headphones
to follow the rest of the band.


This is the way it's done sometimes, but not all bands like to record
that way. Often the vocalist is isolated (have you ever heard the term
"vocal booth?") or the vocalist sings live while the rhythm section is
recording, but that track, the one that has the whole band recorded
through the vocal mic along with the singer, is replaced with an
isolated track later on. The singer isn't going to leak into the drum
mics because it's must quieter than the drums, but the drums will leak
into the vocal (or acoustic guitar or sax or piano) mics because they're
much louder than the source.

Multitrack recordings that are made one track at a time, or with the
mics acoustically isolated from one another don't have leakage problems,
but it's no fun playing like that. The tradeoff of eliminating leakage
is that some leakage adds a sense of space to the mix that you lose with
isolated tracks.


Most groups haven't a clue what they want to record, so track by track recording is sometimes a dream. I feel it would be difficult to build a song track-by-track. Tom Dowd (engineer - RIP) wanted "live" recordings while less professionals, like Al Kooper didn't care about overdubbing. You heard of The Knack, I'm sure. Their leader (RIP) wanted to sounds as good live as in the studio, so he/they kept any overdubbing to a minimum! PLUS, early on, many real times recordings cost a fortune, getting everything correct from singing to sound recording more or less forced the industry to overdub! This stereo separation problem sounds like an afterthought!!

Jack




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


  #93   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Questions

JackA wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 1:50:25 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Sigh. You don't get it, do you? I use this track as an example of the
sort of leakage that is typical when a band records as an ensemble.


So, isolate the drummer in some room, give him a pair of headphones to follow the rest of the band. Screwing around with poorly recorded music never made anyone famous.


Not in 1964. By the mid-seventies, people were obsessed with isolation and
studios were getting to be dead and everybody was in an isolation booth (and
that leads to a whole other bunch of crappiness). But in 1964 the Beatles were
all playing together in a room.

-- Why, for the life of me, can't agree with me that someone obliterated Ringo's drumming and THAT is why decent stereo mixes will never be?!


Because in order to make decent stereo mixes, you need to start out with
tracks that are made to be mixed to stereo.


-- Gee, sounds like what I said, too!!


If you believe that, then you should just ignore the foolish Beatles "stereo"
mixes which were never intended to be made in the first place.

Go back and read my description again.


-- I think I shouldn't because we'll never agree.


Hey, you come in here asking questions. Don't blame us if you don't like
the answers, or deliberately can't understand them.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #94   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Questions

On 1/30/2015 11:19 PM, JackA wrote:
Most groups haven't a clue what they want to record


And that's exactly what's wrong with much of today's music. No vision,
just throwing paint against the canvas, eeping the ones that look OK and
throwing the others out. Or, with unused recording, to be saved and
issued as "lost takes" or "remixes" when the musician gets famous.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #95   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Questions

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 5:55:12 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 1/30/2015 11:19 PM, JackA wrote:
Most groups haven't a clue what they want to record


And that's exactly what's wrong with much of today's music. No vision,
just throwing paint against the canvas, eeping the ones that look OK and
throwing the others out. Or, with unused recording, to be saved and
issued as "lost takes" or "remixes" when the musician gets famous.

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


No, Mike, what is wrong with today's music is, you need no talent, everything is created with the aid of a computer. At the next Grammies, they'll nominate and applaud some Dell computer!! Me, I want someone to admire, a great singer, a great guitar fill, a great drummer. But today's Pop music gets worse and worse. Give me the Big Bands back!!

Jack


  #96   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Questions

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 5:51:37 PM UTC-5, None wrote:
"JackA" wrote in message
...
Not to constantly change subject (have a habit of doing that), but
I'll never trust George Martin ...


Yeah, hop on that hobby-jackass; always try to change the subject to
one of your vapid obsessions.


Oh, boy, a regular in disguise, how cute!

Jack
  #97   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Questions

JackA:


I have more issue with how today's music sounds than
with how it originates, to be frank. There are some good
acts yet on the pop front: Mars, Cold Play, Adele, Sam
Smith, to name a few.


If the labels really are driving most of this LOUD-AT-ANY
-COST(as compared to artists themselves), it's not
'serving the song' in any meaningful way.
  #98   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Questions

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 6:36:13 PM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA:


I have more issue with how today's music sounds than
with how it originates, to be frank. There are some good
acts yet on the pop front: Mars, Cold Play, Adele, Sam
Smith, to name a few.


Okay. Don't follow much current music, but most of it (Pop) sounds like old clothes washers with an out of balance load, just constant thumping! Even the electric guitar seems to be quickly fading from Pop music. However, I can understand that, just like Big Bands are no longer wanted, the electric guitar has seen its better days, if you follow me.



If the labels really are driving most of this LOUD-AT-ANY
-COST(as compared to artists themselves), it's not
'serving the song' in any meaningful way.


Maybe a trend that will soon die. I mean, you don't see anyone dancing to music these days!!

Jack

  #99   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Luxey Luxey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Questions

петак, 30. јануар 2015. 18.45.44 UTC+1, JackA је написао/ла:
-- Why, for the life of me, can't agree with me that someone obliterated
Ringo's drumming and THAT is why decent stereo mixes will never be?!


Because that's not what happened. Because Ringo's drums do not sound like that in original recordings. In original recordings you can hear all the parts missing from that track, like a dot in a kick and stuff,
The track you presented sound as it does for couple of possible reasons, but two are the most appealing to me

1. Missing parts of drum's sound are spreaad over other tracks.
Actually, although counterintuitive, that is similar to what Scot says,
only observed from the other end of the deed done, as proposed in ...
2. One who mutilated the mix to make pseudo individual tracks out of it
relayed too much on artificial intelligence and not enough on ears and
knowledge.

Inspite parts of the sound missing, as if it was passed, at the same time,
through both Alesis compressor with gate and Sound Forge noise removal plug in,
one from 15 years ago, set at max, so the only full sounding percussion is
tambourine, drumming still sound extremly musical. That's because whoever did
the drumming was extremly musical person. You say it was Ringo, or you say it
wasn't Ringo, in that trak you posted?

In the end, there's always a possibility you are right in your claim, but then
there should be more drum tracks of this same song? Are there more tracks?
Before I hear them, I'll stay at my position thaat someone screwed it
up there at the place offering these trackss to public.

  #100   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default Questions

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
That's the problem with the Beatles old mono recordings, there weren't
enough tracks in the studio to mic everything up as a modern engineer
would, keeping everything isolated until the final mix, so you get time
delayed versions of Ringo on all the other tracks, as well as vice
versa, and these give rise to the bad effects you hear when you try and
remix for stereo reproduction. They can be reduced, but not eliminated
altogether.


Separation has nothing to do with the number of tracks available.
It's perfectly possible to have excellent separation recording to one
track in mono.

--
*Save a tree, eat a beaver*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.


  #101   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Questions

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 7:32:15 PM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:
петак, 30. јануар 2015. 18.45.44 UTC+1, JackA је написао/ла:
-- Why, for the life of me, can't agree with me that someone obliterated
Ringo's drumming and THAT is why decent stereo mixes will never be?!


Because that's not what happened. Because Ringo's drums do not sound like that in original recordings. In original recordings you can hear all the parts missing from that track, like a dot in a kick and stuff,
The track you presented sound as it does for couple of possible reasons, but two are the most appealing to me

1. Missing parts of drum's sound are spreaad over other tracks.
Actually, although counterintuitive, that is similar to what Scot says,
only observed from the other end of the deed done, as proposed in ...
2. One who mutilated the mix to make pseudo individual tracks out of it
relayed too much on artificial intelligence and not enough on ears and
knowledge.

Inspite parts of the sound missing, as if it was passed, at the same time,
through both Alesis compressor with gate and Sound Forge noise removal plug in,
one from 15 years ago, set at max, so the only full sounding percussion is
tambourine, drumming still sound extremly musical. That's because whoever did
the drumming was extremly musical person. You say it was Ringo, or you say it
wasn't Ringo, in that trak you posted?

In the end, there's always a possibility you are right in your claim, but then
there should be more drum tracks of this same song? Are there more tracks?
Before I hear them, I'll stay at my position thaat someone screwed it
up there at the place offering these trackss to public.


Mr. (assumed) Luxey, I value your input. Yes, I have MANY examples of the same thing. My theory, it was done to add body to the sound (made it denser or louder). These are EARLY Beatles recordings, not many tape tracks to record an array of drums, one would do. Ringo's drumming generally had reverb added. Also, if the stereo mixes had the music crammed in one stereo channel, why spread anything? It just make no sense to me. As I feel, you can "hide" or "conceal" what obliteration was done, and that, sir, is why Beatles stereo mixes are the way they are, I call them lopsided stereo mixes. No one else was doing it! George Martin had money coming out his behind for his Beatles Boys, probably could afford the latest and greatest recording equipment for them.

And that is why I feel there's more to The Beatles story that has yet been told.

Thanks!

Jack



  #102   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Luxey Luxey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Questions

субота, 31. јануар 2015. 01.52.45 UTC+1, JackA је написао/ла:
Mr. (assumed) Luxey, I value your input. Yes, I have MANY examples of the same thing.


I strongly believe you did not understand me. I was not talking about more examples of the same audio effect. No.

You posted a track of drums for "Drive my car" and claim various things based on it.

I say it is not the track that was used on original commercial release, or if it is, there must be more drum tracks used in the same commercial release, because this one is not what is heard there.
Either that, or someone used original 2 track release mix ("2 track mix" is
very different from "stereo mix") and filtered it to death in rder to give
wannabies chance to play gods. In the process, that instance who made that offer, could not do better but offer tracks with ruined sound.
  #103   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Luxey Luxey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Questions

I forgot to add, whole your post was utter bull****. You really never heard any other recordings, but these from The Beatless spread this way? You really need to listen more.
  #104   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] makolber@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 614
Default Questions

Jack
I have no interest in your discussion, but i am curious about where you
Got the isolated stem tracks of these commercial recordings?

Mark

  #106   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default Questions

In article ,
JackA wrote:
These are EARLY Beatles recordings, not many tape tracks to record an
array of drums, one would do.


Could you please name one? So I can have a listen to what you claim?

I have pretty well all the Beatles stuff - on original issue LPs and CDs,
as well as some re-issue stuff.

--
*Don't squat with your spurs on *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #107   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default Questions

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Not in 1964. By the mid-seventies, people were obsessed with isolation
and studios were getting to be dead and everybody was in an isolation
booth (and that leads to a whole other bunch of crappiness). But in
1964 the Beatles were all playing together in a room.


The effects of spill were well known long before that. And you'd
automatically take steps to screen things to minimise this even on a quick
session with everything recorded at once.

--
*The best cure for sea sickness, is to sit under a tree.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #108   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Questions

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Not in 1964. By the mid-seventies, people were obsessed with isolation
and studios were getting to be dead and everybody was in an isolation
booth (and that leads to a whole other bunch of crappiness). But in
1964 the Beatles were all playing together in a room.


The effects of spill were well known long before that. And you'd
automatically take steps to screen things to minimise this even on a quick
session with everything recorded at once.


Yes, precisely, as I detailed earlier in this thread.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #109   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Questions

Luxey wrote:
=D1=81=D1=83=D0=B1=D0=BE=D1=82=D0=B0, 31. =D1=98=D0=B0=D0=BD=D1=83=D0=B0=D1=
=80 2015. 01.52.45 UTC+1, JackA =D1=98=D0=B5 =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=
=D0=B0=D0=BE/=D0=BB=D0=B0:
Mr. (assumed) Luxey, I value your input. Yes, I have MANY examples of the=

same thing.

I strongly believe you did not understand me. I was not talking about more =
examples of the same audio effect. No.

You posted a track of drums for "Drive my car" and claim various things bas=
ed on it.

I say it is not the track that was used on original commercial release, or =
if it is, there must be more drum tracks used in the same commercial releas=
e, because this one is not what is heard there.
Either that, or someone used original 2 track release mix ("2 track mix" is
very different from "stereo mix") and filtered it to death in rder to give
wannabies chance to play gods. In the process, that instance who made that =
offer, could not do better but offer tracks with ruined sound.


Hmm, I had not heard this. I was assuming he was talking about the
fake "stereo mixes" of the first four albums since that's what he keeps
saying.

Rubber Soul is a little more interesting in that it was the first album
they did directly to 4-track... but the drums were not isolated very much.

Rubber Soul was also issued as a fake "stereo mix" with the instruments on
one side and the vocals on the other side, which is a little weird since
with the 4-track it might have been possible to actually make something
approaching actual stereo with it had the label and the engineers been
interested in doing so.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #110   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] makolber@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 614
Default Questions

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 8:42:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Jack
I have no interest in your discussion, but i am curious about where you
Got the isolated stem tracks of these commercial recordings?

Mark


OK I'll answer my own question.
look like the "alternate mixes" came from here;

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/

some are just (dynamic range) squashed versions of the originals

Mark


  #111   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default Questions

wrote in message
...
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 8:42:55 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
Jack
I have no interest in your discussion, but i am curious about where
you
Got the isolated stem tracks of these commercial recordings?

Mark


OK I'll answer my own question.
look like the "alternate mixes" came from here;

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/

some are just (dynamic range) squashed versions of the originals

Mark


Isn't that Jersey JackAss's website?


  #112   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] makolber@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 614
Default Questions

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 4:20:11 PM UTC-5, None wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 8:42:55 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
Jack
I have no interest in your discussion, but i am curious about where
you
Got the isolated stem tracks of these commercial recordings?

Mark


OK I'll answer my own question.
look like the "alternate mixes" came from here;

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/

some are just (dynamic range) squashed versions of the originals

Mark


Isn't that Jersey JackAss's website?


I don't know, but I have to agree, some of these sound GREAT compared to the released versions. The first few I listened to were nothing great, but I've been sampling all the other material and some of it is wonderful.


WHERE DID THIS STUFF COME FROM?

Mark
  #113   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Nil[_2_] Nil[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Questions

On 31 Jan 2015, Luxey wrote in rec.audio.pro:

Seams I did not understand what JackA was doing. I still do not.
I thought he had access to (quasi) multitracks and was making his
own mixes from scratch. Now, from what I read at that site, seems
he uses wrong terminology and he actually did not (re) mix
anything, but rather is collecting rare versions for different
markets, somewhat enhancing them in gold wave editor.

But then, he posted isolated and mutilated drum track for Drive my
car? Where did that one come from?


He's been foisting these monstrosities for years on the newsgroup
rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1960s where he goes by the name "Uni". Many are
all standard versions that he has manipulated with his audio editor by
applying EQ, noise reduction, compression, etc. Others are made from
the fake "multitracks" that have been going around the internet for the
past several years - these "stems" are really derived from the Rock
Band and Guitar Hero games. He obviously has no idea what he's doing,
he just plays with them with his digital toys until he thinks they are
"improved."

People should also be aware that he was largely responsible a few years
ago by ruining the comp.graphics.apps.paint-shop-pro group by driving
out all the knowledgeable participants with his incessant obnoxious
behavior. By giving him a toehold hear we're inviting similar strife.
  #114   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Nil[_2_] Nil[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Questions

On 31 Jan 2015, Luxey wrote in rec.audio.pro:

But then, he posted isolated and mutilated drum track for Drive my
car? Where did that one come from?


It came from Rock Band. They can digitally extract some elements from a
mixed track using some kind of magic filtering tricks. The single
element usually sounds horrible on its own, but when mixed back in with
the rest of the track it sounds more or less normal.
  #115   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Luxey Luxey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Questions

недеља, 01. фебруар 2015. 01.49.29 UTC+1, Nil је написао/ла:
On 31 Jan 2015, Luxey wrote in rec.audio.pro:

But then, he posted isolated and mutilated drum track for Drive my
car? Where did that one come from?


It came from Rock Band. They can digitally extract some elements from a
mixed track using some kind of magic filtering tricks. The single
element usually sounds horrible on its own, but when mixed back in with
the rest of the track it sounds more or less normal.


Ah cool. Almost exactly as I figured and proposed in one of my previous post. Thank you Nil for making this as straight as possible.


  #116   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Questions

On 31/01/2015 11:19 a.m., JackA wrote:



Most groups haven't a clue what they want to record, so track by
track recording is sometimes a dream. I feel it would be difficult to
build a song track-by-track. Tom Dowd (engineer - RIP) wanted "live"
recordings while less professionals, like Al Kooper didn't care about
overdubbing. You heard of The Knack, I'm sure. Their leader (RIP)
wanted to sounds as good live as in the studio, so he/they kept any
overdubbing to a minimum! PLUS, early on, many real times recordings
cost a fortune, getting everything correct from singing to sound
recording more or less forced the industry to overdub! This stereo
separation problem sounds like an afterthought!!


You also don't appear to understand the difference between overdubbing
and muli-tracking.

geoff

  #117   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Questions

On 31/01/2015 12:18 p.m., JackA wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 5:55:12 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 1/30/2015 11:19 PM, JackA wrote:
Most groups haven't a clue what they want to record


And that's exactly what's wrong with much of today's music. No
vision, just throwing paint against the canvas, eeping the ones
that look OK and throwing the others out. Or, with unused
recording, to be saved and issued as "lost takes" or "remixes" when
the musician gets famous.

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


No, Mike, what is wrong with today's music is, you need no talent,
everything is created with the aid of a computer. At the next
Grammies, they'll nominate and applaud some Dell computer!! Me, I
want someone to admire, a great singer, a great guitar fill, a great
drummer. But today's Pop music gets worse and worse. Give me the Big
Bands back!!

Jack


Name any recent fantastic sounding album (yes, there are plenty) from
the last 10 years, any style , and it was most likely done on a
computer. Don't blame the tool.


geoff
  #118   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Questions

On 31/01/2015 1:03 p.m., JackA wrote:


Okay. Don't follow much current music, but most of it (Pop) sounds
like old clothes washers with an out of balance load, just constant
thumping!



Make up your mind. You don't follow much current music, but you appear
to know how it all sounds !!??


geoff
  #119   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Questions

On 31/01/2015 1:52 p.m., JackA wrote:
I call them lopsided stereo mixes. No one else was
doing it! George Martin had money coming out his behind for his
Beatles Boys, probably could afford the latest and greatest recording
equipment for them.


Are you equating the ping-pong early stuff 'stereoised' with the later
ablums ?!!

Or does 'one boot fits all' also apply here.

geoff
  #120   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Questions

On 30/01/2015 3:26 a.m., Trevor wrote:
On 29/01/2015 9:46 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JackA wrote:
Man's hearing is a joke, really. In an independent study, only 50% of
the time could people (men and women) detect a difference between a
digital recording from a current analog recording (identical songs). In
other words, they just guessed.


It would very much depend on the analogue recording - and digital one.
And
the source material.

Which makes your statement meaningless.


Actually no. All you need to do is take the *same* analog recording and
pass it through a unity gain A-D/D-A with a switch, and let them start
their guessing which is which. I've done it many times to people who
claimed analog was superior. Still waiting for someone to back up their
claim to be able to hear a statisticaly verifiable difference :-)

Trevor.




I can't remember who did it (Linn maybe ?), but I do recall a
double-blind test with live versus 10 daisy-chained AD-DAs .

geoff
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Reason 3.0 Install Questions, questions... awespishus Pro Audio 2 April 3rd 09 08:29 PM
Jolida 502a ----Chassis is missing C7.....Questions questions..... powerdoc Vacuum Tubes 10 November 20th 06 08:47 PM
Sub Box Questions WebLord Car Audio 3 May 7th 06 10:47 PM
UAD-1 Questions Analogeezer Pro Audio 7 December 15th 03 09:27 PM
Seven Questions + Sandman Audio Opinions 0 November 29th 03 11:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:13 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"