Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
96 KHZ of Crapola
http://www.mediafire.com/?9ndyv1hm4iy
Are we expected to believe that in 1956 at Victoria Hall 3 Neuman Mics on the Decca Tree outside the orchestra An Ampex Deck Roy Wallace's mixer created sound that is so skewed and unnatural. Have you ever heard strings or trumpets that sounded like that? Or a hall that sounded like this. The first release of this on Weekend Classics in 44k was bad but much better than this because it was less abused by a maniac with an equalizer When are the geniuses at the record companies and the critics that rave about their products going to realize that this performance was recorded in Victoria Hall and NOT in the listener's room. Why must they use an equalizer as a panning device to bring PART of the frequency spectrum forward. And why do they use the capabilities of the digital medium to boost below 150 so badly it sounds like lumberjacks destroying cellos and basses. And why does TAS and Stereophile recommend that we buy a transport for 10 grand an a D-A for twice that when the software is such crap. Sanity PLEASE. Digital brought the consumer to a more even keel in regards to equipment than ever before. It was time for the industry to start presenting Music and not pseudo-Music. No more defensive mastering because it may be played on a one piece Rheem Califone. So what did the industry do? They used the capabilities of the digital medium to make the Music more phoney and skewed because the mastering fools were so used to pseudo-music they did not know what real Music sounded like anymore. How many times have you read in Fanfare about a CD that sounded phony? Never! The CD in question is just an example of almost every CD I have heard. Digital is harsh!!! Bull****!!!!!! Digital has no sound, it is a storage medium. Bill Inglott almost single handedly forced that crazy theory on Digital with his lack of Musical competence. How did he rise to the top of his profession? Why do critics rave about his work? Why do critics think they can judge a Classical performance with bloated bass and a veil of harmonics that do not belong, covering the Musucal nuances? Have you heard the Atlantic/Rhino Jazz cds that Inglott did? I have never heard saxophones sound like that. EVER. Even with my patents for Sax Mouthpieces stuffed in my ears, they still sound harsh Why is Music so unimportant and words like impact presence and oomph so important. The physics of the balance between the fundamentall and harmoncis and the harmonics themselves will never change despite the effort of maniacs with equalizers and the critics that allow them to continue Jeffrey "Abbedd' Powell Design, Manufacturing, Acoustical Engineer and Musician |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
96 KHZ of Crapola
On Jun 29, 1:51*pm, ansermetniac wrote:
http://www.mediafire.com/?9ndyv1hm4iy Are we expected to believe that in 1956 at Victoria Hall 3 Neuman Mics on the Decca Tree outside the orchestra An Ampex Deck Roy Wallace's mixer created sound that is so skewed and unnatural. Have you ever heard strings or trumpets that sounded like that? Or a hall that sounded like this. The first release of this on Weekend Classics in 44k was bad but much better than this because it was less abused by a *maniac with an equalizer When are the geniuses at the record companies and the critics that rave about their products going to realize that this performance was recorded in Victoria Hall and NOT in the listener's room. Why must they use an equalizer as a panning device to bring PART of the frequency spectrum forward. And why do they use the capabilities of the digital medium to boost below 150 so badly it sounds like lumberjacks destroying cellos and basses. And why does TAS and Stereophile recommend that we buy a *transport for 10 grand an a D-A for twice that when the software is such crap. Sanity PLEASE. Digital brought the consumer to a more even keel in regards to equipment than ever before. It was time for the industry to start presenting Music and not pseudo-Music. No more defensive mastering because it may be played on a one piece Rheem Califone. *So what did the industry do? They used the capabilities of the digital medium to make the Music more phoney and skewed because the mastering fools were so used to pseudo-music they did not know what real Music sounded like anymore. How many times have you read in Fanfare about a CD that sounded phony? Never! The CD in question is just an example of almost every CD I have heard. Digital is harsh!!! Bull****!!!!!! Digital has no sound, it is a storage medium. Bill Inglott almost single handedly forced that crazy theory on Digital with his lack of Musical competence. How did he rise to the top of his profession? Why do critics rave about his work? Why do critics think they can judge a Classical performance with bloated bass and a veil of harmonics that do not belong, covering the Musucal nuances? Have you heard the Atlantic/Rhino Jazz cds that Inglott did? I have never heard saxophones sound like that. EVER. Even with my patents for Sax Mouthpieces stuffed in my ears, they still sound harsh Why is Music so unimportant and words like impact presence and oomph so important. The physics of the balance between the fundamentall and harmoncis and the harmonics themselves will never change despite the effort of maniacs with equalizers and the critics that allow them to continue Jeffrey "Abbedd' Powell Design, Manufacturing, Acoustical Engineer and Musician _____________________________ First of all, put the audio file in a format that most people can open without going through more machinations than 12 drunk college students trying to play Twister by candle light because a car hit a telephone pole knocking out power to that part of campus. Then we will lend you our opinions. -CC |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
96 KHZ of Crapola
"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message
First of all, put the audio file in a format that most people can open without going through more machinations than 12 drunk college students trying to play Twister by candle light because a car hit a telephone pole knocking out power to that part of campus. Then we will lend you our opinions. FLAC is a generally-recognized file format for lossless compression. This particular file is compressed by about 50%, which saves about 20 Mbytes of download time. Flac-to-wav converters are freely available from reliable sources. When you get it all done, its a pretty good legacy recording. A little remastering and it sounds a whole lot better than the OP lets on. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
96 KHZ of Crapola
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:52:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "ChrisCoaster" wrote in message First of all, put the audio file in a format that most people can open without going through more machinations than 12 drunk college students trying to play Twister by candle light because a car hit a telephone pole knocking out power to that part of campus. Then we will lend you our opinions. FLAC is a generally-recognized file format for lossless compression. This particular file is compressed by about 50%, which saves about 20 Mbytes of download time. Flac-to-wav converters are freely available from reliable sources. When you get it all done, its a pretty good legacy recording. A little remastering and it sounds a whole lot better than the OP lets on. Have you ever heard strings or trumpets sound like that. Or a hall sound like that. Why should I have to pay for a CD and then remaster it Abbedd |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
96 KHZ of Crapola
"ansermetniac" wrote in message
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:52:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: When you get it all done, its a pretty good legacy recording. A little remastering and it sounds a whole lot better than the OP lets on. Have you ever heard strings or trumpets sound like that. Or a hall sound like that. Yes, in a lot of contemporaneous recordings. Why should I have to pay for a CD and then remaster it Because you want things your way? |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
96 KHZ of Crapola
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:36:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:52:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: When you get it all done, its a pretty good legacy recording. A little remastering and it sounds a whole lot better than the OP lets on. Have you ever heard strings or trumpets sound like that. Or a hall sound like that. Yes, in a lot of contemporaneous recordings. I am talking about in a concert hall or any other room, not recordings of pseudo-Music Remember, the reviewers in High Fidelity raved over Lenny's first stereo recordings for their sound even though they were as ant-iMusical as can be. Did Columbia engineers stay up nights trying to think of ways to screw Lenny. And why did Lenny approve such crap. Ansermet would never have not would he be happy as to what has been done on his CDS ______ Do you feel with the mechanical advances made in recording that they are all to the good ? Not always. Because in the first years when we were making stereo the microphones were placed before the orchestra and they took the whole orchestra at once. Now they place several microphones in the orchestra and that may alter the balance established by the conductor. For instance, if I conduct I make the balance between my horns, trombones, strings and woodwinds. Now if they take it with a microphone placed in the brass, they will give more value to the brass than I have given myself. That is a danger .. I think in this progress, or so-called progress) of the technique is a danger. I told our technician, 'You are trying now to make a photo- graph of the orchestra, because you place your microphones every- where. But no, you have not to take a photograph, you have to take a reproduction of the sound I produce myself with the whole orchestra.' Sometimes the orchestra has too much of a concrete presence, a sonor- ous presence, than a musical presence. At the beginning of our collaboration with Decca, our records had very good success, and after two or three years I had the opportunity of going to London to visit the Decca factory where the records are made. One of the technicians in this factory asked me, 'Can you explain to me why your records are so clean sounding ?' I told him perhaps the reason: 'You have before you a nice lady. She is of very good appearance-nice clothes, and so on-but you don't know if, under the clothes, the underwears are clean. I can tell you my effort is to make clean the underwears !' Geneva, September I968 Abbedd Why should I have to pay for a CD and then remaster it Because you want things your way? |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
96 KHZ of Crapola
On Jun 30, 8:52*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message First of all, put the audio file in a format that most people can open without going through more machinations than 12 drunk college students trying to play Twister by candle light because a car hit a telephone pole knocking out power to that part of campus. Then we will lend you our opinions. FLAC is a generally-recognized file format for lossless compression. This particular file is compressed by about 50%, which saves about 20 Mbytes of download time. Flac-to-wav converters are freely available from reliable sources. When you get it all done, its a pretty good legacy recording. A little remastering and it sounds a whole lot better than the OP lets on. I'm sure it sounds just fine. I'm just requestiong that the OP put it in a format for those of us who are *too lazy* to download .wav converters than then assign themselves unkowingly as the default player for all media on the damn machine! -CC |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
96 KHZ of Crapola
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:27:35 -0700 (PDT), ChrisCoaster
wrote: I'm sure it sounds just fine. Why? Abbedd |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
96 KHZ of Crapola
ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Jun 30, 8:52*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "ChrisCoaster" wrote in message First of all, put the audio file in a format that most people can open without going through more machinations than 12 drunk college students trying to play Twister by candle light because a car hit a telephone pole knocking out power to that part of campus. Then we will lend you our opinions. FLAC is a generally-recognized file format for lossless compression. This particular file is compressed by about 50%, which saves about 20 Mbytes of download time. Flac-to-wav converters are freely available from reliable sources. When you get it all done, its a pretty good legacy recording. A little remastering and it sounds a whole lot better than the OP lets on. I'm sure it sounds just fine. I'm just requestiong that the OP put it in a format for those of us who are *too lazy* to download .wav converters than then assign themselves unkowingly as the default player for all media on the damn machine! If he made it an mp3, someone would bitch about the lossy compression. If he keeps it as a wav, download times can be brutal. FLAC really is the closest thing to a lossless compressed standard codec these days. But because it's free, Microsoft and Apple ignore it. What's your player software? Even Windows Media Player can be made to play flacs, with an appropriate plugin. And a software player doesn't HAVE To take over as your default player. And if it does, it's easy to switch it back to what you like. -- -S Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
96 KHZ of Crapola
ansermetniac wrote:
http://www.mediafire.com/?9ndyv1hm4iy Are we expected to believe that in 1956 at Victoria Hall 3 Neuman Mics on the Decca Tree outside the orchestra An Ampex Deck Roy Wallace's mixer created sound that is so skewed and unnatural. Have you ever heard strings or trumpets that sounded like that? Or a hall that sounded like this. It is indeed most atrocious. Whomsoever did what was done has never been to a concert hall, nor recorded there. And it was obviously a fine recording until things were done. Jeffrey "Abbedd' Powell Design, Manufacturing, Acoustical Engineer and Musician Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
96 KHZ of Crapola
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 01:47:00 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote: ansermetniac wrote: http://www.mediafire.com/?9ndyv1hm4iy Are we expected to believe that in 1956 at Victoria Hall 3 Neuman Mics on the Decca Tree outside the orchestra An Ampex Deck Roy Wallace's mixer created sound that is so skewed and unnatural. Have you ever heard strings or trumpets that sounded like that? Or a hall that sounded like this. It is indeed most atrocious. Whomsoever did what was done has never been to a concert hall, nor recorded there. And it was obviously a fine recording until things were done. It is a straight rip of Deccas 96Khz release of the El Amor Brujo By Ernest Ansermet on their Originals series Abbedd Jeffrey "Abbedd' Powell Design, Manufacturing, Acoustical Engineer and Musician Kind regards Peter Larsen |