[Frank Stearns]

We all know about the "loudness wars" and how, every now and then, a
few producers and engineers are saying "no" (or at least opting for
"less crush").

But perhaps the overall damage is already done. I've been hearing
more and more of what I call a "gray" sound across a wider range of
releases.

"Gray" sound is a bit like over-spiced food. Used in excess,
super-spicing makes your mouth go "gray" such that you can no longer
discern subtleties, delicate nuance, or delightful taste surprises
hidden deep within the cuisine.

Something similar has happened with too many mastered projects. Even
though some mastering engineers profess the utmost care for the sound
they handle, I'm becoming convinced that sadly many have no idea what
that means.

I sent a recent project back to the mastering house *three times*,
****ing off many people in the process. (Though, to their credit,
each time the client thought "everything sounded great" they could
eventually hear what I had been complaining about as each revision came back.

In the first attempt, the wrong noise shaping had been used (way too
much, which exaggerated screeching all the way around -- noise
shaping can affect sonics). In revision 2, some overreaching screech
EQ got removed. In revision 3, approximately half the signal
processing was bypassed entirely, helping to further lower the
newly-added distortion.

Finally, at least, my ears stopped bleeding.

My ongoing question had been, didn't you hear any of these issues while you
mastered???

Still, even after 3 tries it was not what it should have been. It
became (to the client) diminishing returns, and the mastering house
had, in their own estimation, done everything I'd asked for -- except
bring back fully the depth and sparkle that I'd sent them. They
apparently simply could not hear the difference, and the sound had
thus been "grayed". The sound had become dimensionally flat and musically
not as interesting.

The mastering gear, monitors, or ears apparently could not resolve
what the hell I was ranting about. Was I being too picky? Asking too
much from 44.1/16? Too crazy in general?

I didn't think so, as I have heard (and own) some stunning CDs with
the qualities I aspire to get in my own work. And in playing back
this recent project for laymen (but on good monitors in a good room)
they each could readily detect the before and not-so-good after.

But it's not just my current project. I'm hearing something similar
in more and more "modern" mastering jobs. Is it my old man ears or
older electronics? No, that's easily taken out of the equation by
periodically playing any one of those several amazing CDs through the
same system.

And, these better CDs have fairly high crest factors. With the
right mastering ear and mastering gear, an elevated level can
apparently be done without ruining too much.

So what have we wrought? What has an apparent overall lack of musical
sensitivity and aesthetic in society at large done to those now
calling themselves mastering engineers?

I'm curious as to your own experiences with your own releases. Do you feel a growing
disservice from mastering in general, or have you found a few gems
scattered among the gravel? If so, I'd love to know who you prefer to
use. (The mastering house noted above came highly recommended and had
some bigger-name clients, but I'll never go near them again.)

Thanks in advance for your comments.
rant off.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Paul Babiak]

snip

But it's not just my current project. I'm hearing something similar
in more and more "modern" mastering jobs. Is it my old man ears or
older electronics? No, that's easily taken out of the equation by
periodically playing any one of those several amazing CDs through the
same system.

And, these better CDs have fairly high crest factors. With the
right mastering ear and mastering gear, an elevated level can
apparently be done without ruining too much.

ship

Frank,
Could you list your reference CD's?

Thanks, Paul

[JackA]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 7:26:42 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
We all know about the "loudness wars" and how, every now and then, a
few producers and engineers are saying "no" (or at least opting for
"less crush").

But perhaps the overall damage is already done. I've been hearing
more and more of what I call a "gray" sound across a wider range of
releases.

"Gray" sound is a bit like over-spiced food. Used in excess,
super-spicing makes your mouth go "gray" such that you can no longer
discern subtleties, delicate nuance, or delightful taste surprises
hidden deep within the cuisine.

Something similar has happened with too many mastered projects. Even
though some mastering engineers profess the utmost care for the sound
they handle, I'm becoming convinced that sadly many have no idea what
that means.

I sent a recent project back to the mastering house *three times*,
****ing off many people in the process. (Though, to their credit,
each time the client thought "everything sounded great" they could
eventually hear what I had been complaining about as each revision came back.

In the first attempt, the wrong noise shaping had been used (way too
much, which exaggerated screeching all the way around -- noise
shaping can affect sonics). In revision 2, some overreaching screech
EQ got removed. In revision 3, approximately half the signal
processing was bypassed entirely, helping to further lower the
newly-added distortion.

Finally, at least, my ears stopped bleeding.

My ongoing question had been, didn't you hear any of these issues while you
mastered???

Still, even after 3 tries it was not what it should have been. It
became (to the client) diminishing returns, and the mastering house
had, in their own estimation, done everything I'd asked for -- except
bring back fully the depth and sparkle that I'd sent them. They
apparently simply could not hear the difference, and the sound had
thus been "grayed". The sound had become dimensionally flat and musically
not as interesting.

The mastering gear, monitors, or ears apparently could not resolve
what the hell I was ranting about. Was I being too picky? Asking too
much from 44.1/16? Too crazy in general?

I didn't think so, as I have heard (and own) some stunning CDs with
the qualities I aspire to get in my own work. And in playing back
this recent project for laymen (but on good monitors in a good room)
they each could readily detect the before and not-so-good after.

But it's not just my current project. I'm hearing something similar
in more and more "modern" mastering jobs. Is it my old man ears or
older electronics? No, that's easily taken out of the equation by
periodically playing any one of those several amazing CDs through the
same system.

And, these better CDs have fairly high crest factors. With the
right mastering ear and mastering gear, an elevated level can
apparently be done without ruining too much.

So what have we wrought? What has an apparent overall lack of musical
sensitivity and aesthetic in society at large done to those now
calling themselves mastering engineers?

I'm curious as to your own experiences with your own releases. Do you feel a growing
disservice from mastering in general, or have you found a few gems
scattered among the gravel? If so, I'd love to know who you prefer to
use. (The mastering house noted above came highly recommended and had
some bigger-name clients, but I'll never go near them again.)

Thanks in advance for your comments.
rant off.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--
.

Nice post. Would have been nice to hear, even as snippets, what you liked/disliked. As far as I'm concerned, Loudness has always been an issue, in the analog world. It tells me the majority of people HEAR music but don't actually don't LISTEN to it.

Look at Bob Ludwig, you can find him ranting about Loudness Wars on YoeTube and elsewhere, then I purchase a John Cougar CD he "remastered" and my ears said ENOUGH!! People like Bob are just trying to drum-up business, since most anyone, with software, can mix/master their own songs.

There have been NUMEROUS (past) hit records that sound ill to me, but that didn't stop them from charting. I feel CONTENT is more important than audio quality.

I'm not sure what you mean by "depth". Is it making the singer louder/softer and the opposite with the music? Maybe lack of detailed sound? Like I mentioned, an example would have helped.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: " Look at Bob Ludwig, you can find him ranting about Loudness Wars on YoeTube and elsewhere,
then I purchase a John Cougar CD he "remastered" and my ears said ENOUGH!! People like Bob are just trying
to drum-up business, since most anyone, with software, can mix/master their own songs. "


You know, I committed the same misunderstanding several
years ago that you did above. In the vast majority of these
"remastered" cases, the engineers'(mixing and mastering)
hands are bound - by their client.


The client may be the record label, the producer, the A&R,
or the artist themself. Either the engineer fulfill the most
sonically egregious wishes of the client, or they lose the
project or their job(if internally hired).


As a chef in a well-known restaurant, you would NEVER
intentionally cook a choice steak to the consistency of
charcoal. But if a regular customer, part of who's tab
pays your salary, wants it that way, well you had better
do so - or you'll be heading out the door with a dumpster
parked next to it, in search of another job.


You and I might object to tracks from Imagine Dragons,
such as "Radioactive", with 30%THD(total harmonic
distortion), so loud you can hear them with the volume
at ONE, but if that's what they want, gotta give it to them.


Or, you can go into your own Mastering business, where
you can choose and reject projects as they come,
choosing those who value quality and fidelity, and rejecting
thise who just wand LOUD!

[JackA]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 10:02:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:
JackA wrote: " Look at Bob Ludwig, you can find him ranting about Loudness Wars on YoeTube and elsewhere,
then I purchase a John Cougar CD he "remastered" and my ears said ENOUGH!! People like Bob are just trying
to drum-up business, since most anyone, with software, can mix/master their own songs. "


You know, I committed the same misunderstanding several
years ago that you did above. In the vast majority of these
"remastered" cases, the engineers'(mixing and mastering)
hands are bound - by their client.


The client may be the record label, the producer, the A&R,
or the artist themself. Either the engineer fulfill the most
sonically egregious wishes of the client, or they lose the
project or their job(if internally hired).


As a chef in a well-known restaurant, you would NEVER
intentionally cook a choice steak to the consistency of
charcoal. But if a regular customer, part of who's tab
pays your salary, wants it that way, well you had better
do so - or you'll be heading out the door with a dumpster
parked next to it, in search of another job.


You and I might object to tracks from Imagine Dragons,
such as "Radioactive", with 30%THD(total harmonic
distortion), so loud you can hear them with the volume
at ONE, but if that's what they want, gotta give it to them.


Or, you can go into your own Mastering business, where
you can choose and reject projects as they come,
choosing those who value quality and fidelity, and rejecting
thise who just wand LOUD!

Let's talk LOUDNESS. Many listen to streamed radio at work at low volume. Can you make out the lyrics with weak or STRONG audio?

I lost count, but how many time did you get into someone's car and the radio was blasting?? Why did they prefer LOUD music?

I'm not really sure why you don't prefer remixed songs you like, not EXTREME, but subtle changes. If it's a spent sounding master tape, should it stay that way on audio CD?

Jack

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA:


The music in the car in your example is "loud" because the driver
turned up the volume, not because the recording is necessarily
consistently loud(although that is mostly the case with pop
and most country and hip hop of the last 10 years).


I have no problem listening to the relatively more dynamic pop
and rock music from the 1970s or '80s in my car. In fact, that
dynamic range makes me WANT crank it. And I have no problem
understanding the vocals in it, compared to a modern pop song
by Drake or One Direction which is all squashed and everything
on the track is as loud as everything else - from lead vocals to
back-up to the drums to the guitars to the synths. Something
like that makes me want to yank the CD out of my deck and
chuck it out the car window!!

[JackA]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 10:37:15 PM UTC-4, wrote:
JackA:


The music in the car in your example is "loud" because the driver
turned up the volume, not because the recording is necessarily
consistently loud(although that is mostly the case with pop
and most country and hip hop of the last 10 years).


I have no problem listening to the relatively more dynamic pop
and rock music from the 1970s or '80s in my car. In fact, that
dynamic range makes me WANT crank it. And I have no problem
understanding the vocals in it, compared to a modern pop song
by Drake or One Direction which is all squashed and everything
on the track is as loud as everything else - from lead vocals to
back-up to the drums to the guitars to the synths. Something
like that makes me want to yank the CD out of my deck and
chuck it out the car window!!

From my experience with music I personally mixed, some are just interested in lyrical value. In my mind, there is no "proper" loudness music should be played or mastered at. Yes, I get upset, after Bob Irwin (working for Sony) mentioned some multi-tracks (featured CD songs) didn't exists in Columbia/Sony's vault, then I find that particular favorite song ( by Chi Coltrane), remixed abroad, but a bit too loud for me to cheerlead remixing.

I had/have my share of audiophile material, but it didn't phase me as fantastic. Besides, most radio stations do not play audiophile material, because it lacks luster of the more aggressive sound.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "I had/have my share of audiophile material, but it didn't phase me as fantastic. Besides, most radio
stations do not play audiophile material, because it lacks luster of the more aggressive sound. "


I would not consider Billy Joel's "The Stranger" or Rush's "Moving Pictures"
to be 'audiophile'. But they sound damn good!


And read up on "radio ready" - it's a myth! Most stations' processing
chains create that aggressive sound without needing to master a
song or album so.

[Mat Nieuwenhoven]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 20:01:14 -0400, Paul Babiak wrote:

snip

But it's not just my current project. I'm hearing something similar
in more and more "modern" mastering jobs. Is it my old man ears or
older electronics? No, that's easily taken out of the equation by
periodically playing any one of those several amazing CDs through the
same system.

And, these better CDs have fairly high crest factors. With the
right mastering ear and mastering gear, an elevated level can
apparently be done without ruining too much.

ship

Frank,
Could you list your reference CD's?

It's not polular music, but the Manger CD for evaluation loudspeakers
has very good dynamics.

Mat Nieuwenhoven

[geoff]

On 03/10/2015 15:37, wrote:
JackA:


The music in the car in your example is "loud" because the driver
turned up the volume, not because the recording is necessarily
consistently loud(although that is mostly the case with pop
and most country and hip hop of the last 10 years).


I have no problem listening to the relatively more dynamic pop
and rock music from the 1970s or '80s in my car. In fact, that
dynamic range makes me WANT crank it. And I have no problem
understanding the vocals in it, compared to a modern pop song
by Drake or One Direction which is all squashed and everything
on the track is as loud as everything else - from lead vocals to
back-up to the drums to the guitars to the synths. Something
like that makes me want to yank the CD out of my deck and
chuck it out the car window!!



Get a small sub. Then you don't need to crank it up.

You really can't use the vaguaries of car audio systems to judge
anything by, because they are usually heavily compromised in most areas.

geoff

[Frank Stearns]

Paul Babiak writes:

snip
Frank,
Could you list your reference CD's?

Su

Regarding my post about the state of mastering, Paul and Jack asked for
a list of "good sounding" CDs, as I hear them.

Here's a very short list.

By the way, these are /specific/ titles. Often the same artists have
released other CDs that don't sound nearly so good. Nickel Creek is
an extreme example of this, going from sublime to awful in a
relatively short amount of time -- always good playing, though, just
moving from excellent to poor engineering.

1. Steve Martin and the Steep Canyon Rangers "Rare Bird Alert", 2011
Engineered by Gary Paczosa; Mastered by Doug Sax with Sangwook Nam

2. Nickel Creek, "Nickel Creek" (Debut album, 2000)
Engineered by Gary Paczosa; Mastered by Doug Sax

3. Allison Krause, "Forget About It" (1999)
Engineered by Gary Paczosa; Mastered by Doug Sax
(In an interview earlier this year, Paczosa indicated he was working
on a remix of this album. He's one of the most self-critical engineers
I've heard about. He keeps himself on his own toes!)

4. Sarah Jarosz, "Follow Me Down" (2011)
Engineered by Gary Paczosa; Mastered by Doug Sax with Sangwook Nam

5. Shawna Colvin, "Steady On" (1898)
Many different studios and engineers are credited. Mastered by Bob
Ludwig
There are several flaws with this recording (including the higher
distortion and scrape flutter in some of the analog sources), but it
gets high marks for such a wide dynamic range and wonderful depth. I
imagine that were it remastered today, it'd be squished to death.

6. Donnel Lunny, "The Best of Donnel Lunny" (Various, 1980s-1990s)
This 2 CD set pulls tracks from several different albums; the
consistently good sound is in itself a remarkable engineering
achievement. Compilation Engineer: Philip Begley, mastered by Robyn
Robbins.

7. Yo Yo Ma. Stuart Duncan, Edgar Meyer & Chris Thile, "The Goat
Rodeo Sessions" (2012)
Engineered by Richard King; mastering is not credited. DPA Omni
microphones are credited, however. This recording is quite good, and
uniquely features way more room sound (or an excellent room
simulation reverb) than you'd typically find.

8. YES, "Talk" (1994)
Engineered by Michael Jay and Trevor Rabin; mastered by Steven
Marcussen
Generally, not my main musical interest but there is something unique
about this album. Sonically, it's delightfully clean -- and huge. The
album even includes a "caution" about the wide dynamic range.

A number of classical titles are omitted because the likelihood of
finding any of those is slim, but I'll point to one of mine:

http://www.mars-mobile.com/clips/Cantata192.mp3

It's an MP3, but at 320 Kbps, a reasonably good one. Done with 6
microphones (2 stereo pairs, 2 solo mics, recorded live, not "mastered"
as such)


GENERAL DEFINITIONS:

"Depth" - the illusion that your speakers really aren't there, that
you could get up out of your chair and walk right on into the sound
stage in front of you.

"Dimensionality" - related to depth, this is the illusion that you
can reach out and let your fingertips traverse the 3D contours of a
singer's haed. You can also "touch" and "feel" the strings of a guitar or
violin, and hear the wood of a cello or bass, even "see" the grain.

These illusions are made possible by good monitors in a treated room,
along with accurate resolution of fine detail. This detail can be
destroyed or obscured by over-compression, jitter, or other
abberations in signal processing, digital or analog. The 44.1K/16-bit
format is capable of carrying this fine detail; it's a little tougher
with MP3s.

Such illusions are difficult if not impossible to convey with
headphones.

Hope that helps.
Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Angus Kerr]

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 1:26:42 AM UTC+2, Frank Stearns wrote:
We all know about the "loudness wars" and how, every now and then, a
few producers and engineers are saying "no" (or at least opting for
"less crush").

But perhaps the overall damage is already done. I've been hearing
more and more of what I call a "gray" sound across a wider range of
releases.

"Gray" sound is a bit like over-spiced food. Used in excess,
super-spicing makes your mouth go "gray" such that you can no longer
discern subtleties, delicate nuance, or delightful taste surprises
hidden deep within the cuisine.

Something similar has happened with too many mastered projects. Even
though some mastering engineers profess the utmost care for the sound
they handle, I'm becoming convinced that sadly many have no idea what
that means.

I sent a recent project back to the mastering house *three times*,
****ing off many people in the process. (Though, to their credit,
each time the client thought "everything sounded great" they could
eventually hear what I had been complaining about as each revision came back.

-snip-
My ongoing question had been, didn't you hear any of these issues while you
mastered???


-snip-
They
apparently simply could not hear the difference, and the sound had
thus been "grayed". The sound had become dimensionally flat and musically
not as interesting.

Listening to some pop stuff these days is quite amusing. Take for example a song just starting with acoustic guitar intro, then vocals, then bass then drums, then everything - it's like there's a sonic box available of a certain size. When the acoustic guitar starts, it's as loud as the chorus with everything in it, then the voice gets in the box, so the relative level of the guitar goes to half, then when the bass comes in, there's a third of the box, when the drums, there's a quarter for everything. By the time the chorus is happening, you can hardly hear the acoustic guitar that almost split your ears in the intro of the song. Then commercial radio squashes it even more!

Why have gear with huge dynamic ranges when at the end, you are only going to use 6dB?

The mastering gear, monitors, or ears apparently could not resolve
what the hell I was ranting about. Was I being too picky? Asking too
much from 44.1/16? Too crazy in general?

Who exactly could not hear what they were doing? Why were they doing mastering - I thought experienced ears were what was needed for mastering. I thought the objective was to give sonic polish to the project, so that it has a continuity sonically, and that it sounds good on any system it's played on.. It should sound better than what you sent them. But these ultra loud sonic maximisers seem to be the objective now.

I didn't think so, as I have heard (and own) some stunning CDs with
the qualities I aspire to get in my own work. And in playing back
this recent project for laymen (but on good monitors in a good room)
they each could readily detect the before and not-so-good after.

-snip-
But it's not just my current project. I'm hearing something similar
in more and more "modern" mastering jobs. Is it my old man ears or
older electronics? No, that's easily taken out of the equation by
periodically playing any one of those several amazing CDs through the
same system.


And, these better CDs have fairly high crest factors. With the
right mastering ear and mastering gear, an elevated level can
apparently be done without ruining too much.

So what have we wrought? What has an apparent overall lack of musical
sensitivity and aesthetic in society at large done to those now
calling themselves mastering engineers?

Sadly, I am out of the industry as regards modern experience, but I think it depends on the genre of music and the target audience.

The last job I sent to a mastering engineer, I got a severe tongue lashing for running the mix through a compressor which the mastering guy could hear, and me, with my inexperience and less than stellar monitors, could not.

-snip-
(The mastering house noted above came highly recommended and had
some bigger-name clients, but I'll never go near them again.)

Sadly, audio quality has fallen by the wayside because of commercial radio, mp3 and ipods. That's the benchmark, and I've met many people who can't tell the difference between raw audio and mp3.

It seems, the volume knob on an audio device is now irrelevant.

-Angus

[[email protected]]

Angus Kerr wrote: "Listening to some pop stuff these days is quite amusing. Take for example a song just starting with acoustic
guitar intro, then vocals, then bass then drums, then everything - it's like there's a sonic box available of a certain size. When the
acoustic guitar starts, it's as loud as the chorus with everything in it, then the voice gets in the box, so the relative level of the
guitar goes to half, then when the bass comes in, there's a third of the box, when the drums, there's a quarter for everything. By
the time the chorus is happening, you can hardly hear the acoustic guitar that almost split your ears in the intro of the song. Then
commercial radio squashes it even more!

Why have gear with huge dynamic ranges when at the end, you are only going to use 6dB?

The mastering gear, monitors, or ears apparently could not resolve
what the hell I was ranting about. Was I being too picky? Asking too
much from 44.1/16? Too crazy in general?

Who exactly could not hear what they were doing? Why were they doing mastering - I thought experienced ears were what
was needed for mastering. I thought the objective was to give sonic polish to the project, so that it has a continuity sonically, and
that it sounds
good on any system it's played on. It should sound better than what you sent them. But these ultra loud
sonic maximisers seem to be the objective now.

I didn't think so, as I have heard (and own) some stunning CDs with
the qualities I aspire to get in my own work. And in playing back
this recent project for laymen (but on good monitors in a good room)
they each could readily detect the before and not-so-good after.
"


All stuff that I have already brought up on here but have
gotten lambasted by members of the good-ol-boys club
that is R.A.Pro. It's as if we are exposing some industry
secret that the public shouldn't know about.


Watch out for a real tongue lashing by "Nil" and "Non "
for what you have breached. Fair warning.

[None]

wrote in message
...

All stuff that I have already brought up on here but have
gotten lambasted by members of the good-ol-boys club
that is R.A.Pro. It's as if we are exposing some industry
secret that the public shouldn't know about.

Watch out for a real tongue lashing by "Nil" and "Non "
for what you have breached. Fair warning.

Of course, there's a big difference between Angus Kerr's post, and
your incessant obsessive hobby-horsing about a similar subject.

There's also the fact that by all indications, he understands the
technical and musical issues, and he listens carefully. All you do is
watch audio files on your computer and throw tantrums about a sausage
fest. Whenever someone tries to explain the technical, musical, and
business issues involved, you jump on your hobbyhorse and throw more
tantrums. You seem to be more interested in whining about being a
victim, so you keep riding that dead hobbyhorse that you've beaten to
death.

And anybody who challenges you in any way must have some "vested
economic interest" in something that ****es you off, which gives you
something more to whine about, all the while refusing to learn a
single thing about audio production. You're just here to throw
tantrums, and play the victim. Actually understanding audio production
is something you have no interest in.

[[email protected]]

Hey ****HEAD:

STOP CRASHING GOOD CONVERSATIONS
WHEN YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY CONTRIBUTED
NOTHING BUT HATRED AND FILTHY NAMES!!!

Just WATCH what happens on here the next time you
have a technical challenge.


Others: Please continue.

[None]

wrote in message
...
Hey ****HEAD:

STOP CRASHING GOOD CONVERSATIONS
WHEN YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY CONTRIBUTED
NOTHING BUT HATRED AND FILTHY NAMES!!!

Is that what you call ignoring me, li'l buddy? Do you really consider
your incessant whining to be "good conversations"? Conversations about
your pet hobbyhorses, and why nobody wants to hear them? Gee, ignoring
me in bellowing caps lock. That's an ignorant way for an ignoramus to
ignore, isn't it?

Just WATCH what happens on here the next time you
have a technical challenge.

Oooohhh. I'm scared. What about your "technical challenge" consisting
of being afraid of audio files that look like a sausages on your
monitor.

Others: Please continue.

You're not the moderator. As you know, if there were a moderator here,
you would have been banned. As you know all too well.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

Others: Please continue.

He's got a point, because Frank's problem seems to have nothing to do with
loudness, merely with carelessness.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, October 4, 2015 at 3:05:03 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:

com wrote:

Others: Please continue.

He's got a point, because Frank's problem seems to have nothing to do with
loudness, merely with carelessness.
--scott

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


Again Scott, like Trump in the Republican presidential
race, you are slowly losing the lead - in credibility
and respect, mind you - by defending someTHING that has
spewed acidic venom and vomit into this newsgroup, and
nothing else of remotely any worth.


As I said, when IT needs help with something that is
broken, or assistance with a process, let's see just
how much help participants in the newsgroup are
wise enough to withhold.


If you read back through the replies Scott, you will
see, in this particular thread, that I was neither
the first nor only contributor to mention loudness,
loudness war, or related items.

[geoff]

On 5/10/2015 1:43 a.m., wrote:

All stuff that I have already brought up on here but have
gotten lambasted by members of the good-ol-boys club
that is R.A.Pro. It's as if we are exposing some industry
secret that the public shouldn't know about.


Watch out for a real tongue lashing by "Nil" and "Non "
for what you have breached. Fair warning.

No rocketman. You are lambasted for your apparent inability to
understand that pretty much everybody here finds the current trend of
hyper-compression objectionable.

The only problems are your inability to take that on board, as well as
your initial reluctance to come to terms with straightforward technical
descriptions.

geoff

[None]

thik-skull-rock @ dumb**** . shortbus . edu wrote in message
...
Again Scott, like Trump in the Republican presidential
race, you are slowly losing the lead - in credibility
and respect, mind you -

Are you actually claiming that Scott Dorsey is losing credibility and
respect? Isn't that pretty much incontrovertible evidence that you're
a dumb****?

[[email protected]]

geoff:


#1: What "straightforward" technical descriptions can
you recite that I allegedly "refused to come to grips with"?


#2: YOU explain what you think "none"s major mal-
function is. Because I'm tired of it's disrupting normal
adult conversation in here. Yes, I'm actually inviting you -
and other R.A.P. posters - to engage in dialogue about
"none".

[Scott Dorsey]

None wrote:
thik-skull-rock @ dumb**** . shortbus . edu wrote in message
...
Again Scott, like Trump in the Republican presidential
race, you are slowly losing the lead - in credibility
and respect, mind you -

Are you actually claiming that Scott Dorsey is losing credibility and
respect? Isn't that pretty much incontrovertible evidence that you're
a dumb****?

Oh, I lost credibility and respect from my wife _years_ ago.
--scott





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

[Luxey]

Whould you just **** off, please.

[[email protected]]

Luxey wrote: "Whould you just **** off, please. "


Make me.


You just can't stand anyone who brings
up challenging issues, can you?

[None]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
None wrote:
thik-skull-rock @ dumb**** . shortbus . edu wrote in message
...
Again Scott, like Trump in the Republican presidential
race, you are slowly losing the lead - in credibility
and respect, mind you -

Are you actually claiming that Scott Dorsey is losing credibility
and
respect? Isn't that pretty much incontrovertible evidence that
you're
a dumb****?

Oh, I lost credibility and respect from my wife _years_ ago.
--scott
rimshot

[Luxey]

You are challenged, that much is true.

[[email protected]]

Luxey wrote: "You are challenged, that much is true. "

You know nothing about me.

[Luxey]

понедељак, 05. октобар 2015. 01.44.56 UTC+2, је напи�ао/ла:

Luxey wrote: "You are challenged, that much is true. "

You know nothing about me.


Right, except for a fact I know you're an idiotic troll.

[[email protected]]

Luxey wrote: "Right, except for a fact I know you're an idiotic troll."


Why don't you STEP BACK and SHUT UP and let the
rest of us discuss the issues intelligently.

[JackA]

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 10:13:23 AM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
Paul Babiak writes:

snip
Frank,
Could you list your reference CD's?

Su

Regarding my post about the state of mastering, Paul and Jack asked for
a list of "good sounding" CDs, as I hear them.

Here's a very short list.

By the way, these are /specific/ titles. Often the same artists have
released other CDs that don't sound nearly so good. Nickel Creek is
an extreme example of this, going from sublime to awful in a
relatively short amount of time -- always good playing, though, just
moving from excellent to poor engineering.

1. Steve Martin and the Steep Canyon Rangers "Rare Bird Alert", 2011
Engineered by Gary Paczosa; Mastered by Doug Sax with Sangwook Nam

-- Heard him "live" I think on a local station, sounding good!

2. Nickel Creek, "Nickel Creek" (Debut album, 2000)
Engineered by Gary Paczosa; Mastered by Doug Sax

3. Allison Krause, "Forget About It" (1999)
Engineered by Gary Paczosa; Mastered by Doug Sax
(In an interview earlier this year, Paczosa indicated he was working
on a remix of this album. He's one of the most self-critical engineers
I've heard about. He keeps himself on his own toes!)

-- Doug Sax is good, did a very nice job on Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon album!

4. Sarah Jarosz, "Follow Me Down" (2011)
Engineered by Gary Paczosa; Mastered by Doug Sax with Sangwook Nam

-- Again, Doug!


5. Shawna Colvin, "Steady On" (1898)
Many different studios and engineers are credited. Mastered by Bob
Ludwig
There are several flaws with this recording (including the higher
distortion and scrape flutter in some of the analog sources), but it
gets high marks for such a wide dynamic range and wonderful depth. I
imagine that were it remastered today, it'd be squished to death.

-- With Bob Ludwig, you'd never know!! :-)
-- Has yet to audio impress me.


6. Donnel Lunny, "The Best of Donnel Lunny" (Various, 1980s-1990s)
This 2 CD set pulls tracks from several different albums; the
consistently good sound is in itself a remarkable engineering
achievement. Compilation Engineer: Philip Begley, mastered by Robyn
Robbins.

7. Yo Yo Ma. Stuart Duncan, Edgar Meyer & Chris Thile, "The Goat
Rodeo Sessions" (2012)
Engineered by Richard King; mastering is not credited. DPA Omni
microphones are credited, however. This recording is quite good, and
uniquely features way more room sound (or an excellent room
simulation reverb) than you'd typically find.

8. YES, "Talk" (1994)
Engineered by Michael Jay and Trevor Rabin; mastered by Steven
Marcussen
Generally, not my main musical interest but there is something unique
about this album. Sonically, it's delightfully clean -- and huge. The
album even includes a "caution" about the wide dynamic range.

-- Apparently, Steven Wilson (UK) Remixed one or more Yes albums. Fans want more from him.


A number of classical titles are omitted because the likelihood of
finding any of those is slim, but I'll point to one of mine:

http://www.mars-mobile.com/clips/Cantata192.mp3

It's an MP3, but at 320 Kbps, a reasonably good one. Done with 6
microphones (2 stereo pairs, 2 solo mics, recorded live, not "mastered"
as such)

-- Will listen later!!

Thanks! :-)

Jack


GENERAL DEFINITIONS:

"Depth" - the illusion that your speakers really aren't there, that
you could get up out of your chair and walk right on into the sound
stage in front of you.

"Dimensionality" - related to depth, this is the illusion that you
can reach out and let your fingertips traverse the 3D contours of a
singer's haed. You can also "touch" and "feel" the strings of a guitar or
violin, and hear the wood of a cello or bass, even "see" the grain.

These illusions are made possible by good monitors in a treated room,
along with accurate resolution of fine detail. This detail can be
destroyed or obscured by over-compression, jitter, or other
abberations in signal processing, digital or analog. The 44.1K/16-bit
format is capable of carrying this fine detail; it's a little tougher
with MP3s.

Such illusions are difficult if not impossible to convey with
headphones.

Hope that helps.
Frank
Mobile Audio
--
.

[Gray_Wolf]

On 10/4/2015 8:02 PM, wrote:
Luxey wrote: "Right, except for a fact I know you're an idiotic troll."


Why don't you STEP BACK and SHUT UP and let the
rest of us discuss the issues intelligently.


You can start your own yahoo group on any subject you desire.
Then you'll be free to discuss everything with those that join you.
As the group owner you can control everything and boot any undesirables from the
group

[Nil[_2_]]

On 04 Oct 2015, gray_wolf wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

You can start your own yahoo group on any subject you desire.
Then you'll be free to discuss everything with those that join
you. As the group owner you can control everything and boot any
undesirables from the group

That will leave him with a group of precisely one.

[Gray_Wolf]

On 10/4/2015 11:23 PM, Nil wrote:
On 04 Oct 2015, gray_wolf wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

You can start your own yahoo group on any subject you desire.
Then you'll be free to discuss everything with those that join
you. As the group owner you can control everything and boot any
undesirables from the group

That will leave him with a group of precisely one.


grin :-) :-)

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 04-10-2015 22:36, None wrote:

thik-skull-rock @ dumb**** . shortbus . edu wrote in message
...
Again Scott, like Trump in the Republican presidential
race, you are slowly losing the lead - in credibility
and respect, mind you -

Are you actually claiming that Scott Dorsey is losing credibility and
respect? Isn't that pretty much incontrovertible evidence that you're a
dumb****?

You have never been in the lead as diplomat, however you are quite often
reasonably right in your statements.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 05-10-2015 02:03, JackA wrote:

Frank Stearns quoted:

GENERAL DEFINITIONS:

"Depth" - the illusion that your speakers really aren't there, that
you could get up out of your chair and walk right on into the sound
stage in front of you.

"Dimensionality" - related to depth, this is the illusion that you
can reach out and let your fingertips traverse the 3D contours of a
singer's haed. You can also "touch" and "feel" the strings of a guitar or
violin, and hear the wood of a cello or bass, even "see" the grain.

These illusions are made possible by good monitors in a treated room,
along with accurate resolution of fine detail. This detail can be
destroyed or obscured by over-compression, jitter, or other
abberations in signal processing, digital or analog. The 44.1K/16-bit
format is capable of carrying this fine detail; it's a little tougher
with MP3s.

Such illusions are difficult if not impossible to convey with
headphones.

No. Stax. HD25, costly as well as cheap, its virtue is imaging.

Hope that helps.
Frank
Mobile Audio

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, October 4, 2015 at 11:33:00 PM UTC-4, gray_wolf wrote:
On 10/4/2015 8:02 Pom wrote:
Luxey wrote: "Right, except for a fact I know you're an idiotic troll."


Why don't you STEP BACK and SHUT UP and let the
rest of us discuss the issues intelligently.


You can start your own yahoo group on any subject you desire.
Then you'll be free to discuss everything with those that join you.
As the group owner you can control everything and boot any undesirables from the
group

Listen up: You guys CLAIM you can't stand
the overcompression of music today(see geoff
a few posts back), yet you sure CAN'T STAND IT
when someone brings it up!

Bipolar group if you ask me...

[None]

krybaby krissie @ shortbus . dumb**** . com wrote in message
...
Listen up:

STFU.

You guys CLAIM you can't stand
the overcompression of music today(see geoff
a few posts back), yet you sure CAN'T STAND IT
when someone brings it up!

Most of the criticism comes when one particular "someone", a shortbus
dumb**** known as"thick-skull-rock", whines about how nobody likes
him, and nobody likes his obsessive gibbering about his hobbyhorse. Of
course, that dumb**** is you, li'l Krissie. And you're right, nobody
likes you. Whining about that is not discussing any issue relevant to
audio production. It's just the trolling tantrum of a microcephalic
crybaby; you.

Bipolar group if you ask me...

Nobody asked you, dumb****. Put on your hockey helmet and get back on
the short bus.

[[email protected]]

I'm not interested enough to keep track of who likes what here..

but to those of you whining about hyper-compression, I hate it too.....

but instead of whining about it, I got myself a Dolby dynamic range expander.

Or you can create expanded mixes in a DAW using a software plugin.

Or you can invent such a plug in and get rich.

If you hate it so much, make your own re-mixes, maybe Jack can help you.

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen wrote:

Such illusions are difficult if not impossible to convey with
headphones.

No. Stax. HD25, costly as well as cheap, its virtue is imaging.

The imaging is good, and Stax has worked hard to make it more like speakers,
but it's still not like a speaker in a room, and anything that images well
on speakers is not going to image well on headphones and vice-versa. A
shuffler can help but the sense of perspective and depth is not the same.
--scott


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

[Gray_Wolf]

On 10/5/2015 7:34 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, October 4, 2015 at 11:33:00 PM UTC-4, gray_wolf wrote:
On 10/4/2015 8:02 Pom wrote:
Luxey wrote: "Right, except for a fact I know you're an idiotic troll."


Why don't you STEP BACK and SHUT UP and let the
rest of us discuss the issues intelligently.


You can start your own yahoo group on any subject you desire.
Then you'll be free to discuss everything with those that join you.
As the group owner you can control everything and boot any undesirables from the
group

Listen up: You guys CLAIM you can't stand
the overcompression of music today(see geoff
a few posts back), yet you sure CAN'T STAND IT
when someone brings it up!

Bipolar group if you ask me...


Scott won't give you a refund?