Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

So, they whine because I digitally enhance audio, and make THIER CDs sound bland. THEY whine about 3kHz, because I was the first to notice it, not them. No wonder why they need fancy and expensive headphones, hoping they will help their sound.

Anyway, here is what THEIR CD sounds like; the dull AM Radio sound; like riding a little pony...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...untmein-so.mp3

Here is what my CD sounds like; the thrill of HQ HD Radio; buckle up, we're breaking the sound barrier!...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...untmein-so.mp3

No wonder why the world is decaying, with so many silly people involved in audio, when flipping burgers at a fast food joint is more their style! :-)

Want to win a Granny, listen to them.
Want to win a Grammy, listen to me!

Thank you for your time.

Jack - Unsurpassed in Audio Restoration

  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gareth Magennis[_3_] Gareth Magennis[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default Impressive Audio Restoration



"JackA" wrote in message
...

So, they whine because I digitally enhance audio, and make THIER CDs sound
bland. THEY whine about 3kHz, because I was the first to notice it, not
them.





So, lets get this straight.

You digitally enhance audio, particularly around 3kHz, because you *THINK*
CD's sound bland.

Then people who DON'T actually think CD's sound bland whine because of the
amount of 3kHz that has been unnecessarily added?




I think you will find that your posts on at least this Newsgroup raised some
eyebrows precisely because you posted mixed that were unnaturally enhanced
with those frequencies around 3kHz that very few people on this planet like
very much.

Apart from yourself, it would seem.


Have you ever considered you might actually have a problem here?



And I have to ask this - do you have Asperger's or some other similar
condition?



Gareth.




  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 5:29:27 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
"JackA" wrote in message
...

So, they whine because I digitally enhance audio, and make THIER CDs sound
bland. THEY whine about 3kHz, because I was the first to notice it, not
them.





So, lets get this straight.

You digitally enhance audio, particularly around 3kHz, because you *THINK*
CD's sound bland.

Then people who DON'T actually think CD's sound bland whine because of the
amount of 3kHz that has been unnecessarily added?




I think you will find that your posts on at least this Newsgroup raised some
eyebrows precisely because you posted mixed that were unnaturally enhanced
with those frequencies around 3kHz that very few people on this planet like
very much.

Apart from yourself, it would seem.


Have you ever considered you might actually have a problem here?



And I have to ask this - do you have Asperger's or some other similar
condition?


Let's rewind the hands of time. It wasn't YOU, nor John W., nor KMA dude, not Scott Dorsey, not even Mike Rivers, who Mark (participant) here suggesting doing mixing, it was I!

Enjoy your audio to impress toddlers.

Jack



Gareth.


  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gareth Magennis[_3_] Gareth Magennis[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default Impressive Audio Restoration



"JackA" wrote in message
...

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 5:29:27 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
"JackA" wrote in message
...

So, they whine because I digitally enhance audio, and make THIER CDs sound
bland. THEY whine about 3kHz, because I was the first to notice it, not
them.





So, lets get this straight.

You digitally enhance audio, particularly around 3kHz, because you
*THINK*
CD's sound bland.

Then people who DON'T actually think CD's sound bland whine because of the
amount of 3kHz that has been unnecessarily added?




I think you will find that your posts on at least this Newsgroup raised
some
eyebrows precisely because you posted mixed that were unnaturally enhanced
with those frequencies around 3kHz that very few people on this planet
like
very much.

Apart from yourself, it would seem.


Have you ever considered you might actually have a problem here?



And I have to ask this - do you have Asperger's or some other similar
condition?


Let's rewind the hands of time. It wasn't YOU, nor John W., nor KMA dude,
not Scott Dorsey, not even Mike Rivers, who Mark (participant) here
suggesting doing mixing, it was I!

Enjoy your audio to impress toddlers.

Jack



Gareth.




Hmm, I'll take that as a yes, then.



Cheers,


Gareth.

  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 8:19:33 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
"JackA" wrote in message
...

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 5:29:27 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
"JackA" wrote in message
...

So, they whine because I digitally enhance audio, and make THIER CDs sound
bland. THEY whine about 3kHz, because I was the first to notice it, not
them.





So, lets get this straight.

You digitally enhance audio, particularly around 3kHz, because you
*THINK*
CD's sound bland.

Then people who DON'T actually think CD's sound bland whine because of the
amount of 3kHz that has been unnecessarily added?




I think you will find that your posts on at least this Newsgroup raised
some
eyebrows precisely because you posted mixed that were unnaturally enhanced
with those frequencies around 3kHz that very few people on this planet
like
very much.

Apart from yourself, it would seem.


Have you ever considered you might actually have a problem here?



And I have to ask this - do you have Asperger's or some other similar
condition?


Let's rewind the hands of time. It wasn't YOU, nor John W., nor KMA dude,
not Scott Dorsey, not even Mike Rivers, who Mark (participant) here
suggesting doing mixing, it was I!

Enjoy your audio to impress toddlers.

Jack



Gareth.




Hmm, I'll take that as a yes, then.


What, you want me to admit my hearing is shot or I have potatoes growing in my ears?

I offer to have an audio enhancing contest, but no one wants to take me up on it, even with your fancy DAWs!

Thank you as always for your fine comments!

Jack



Cheers,


Gareth.




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

Garth,
Notice no one else is responding.
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Garth,
Notice no one else is responding.


As I mentioned 1000 Times, maybe 15% of society can detect HQ sound. Remember, a participant here mentioned a Professor training people to detect HQ sound.

I don't expect a lot of applause in this near dead group.

Jack
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On 01/04/2016 00:29, JackA wrote:

Enjoy your audio to impress toddlers.

Our mixes impress our clients enough for them to pay us. Your mixes
impress you, and I doubt you or anyone else pays to hear them.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On 01/04/2016 04:12, JackA wrote:
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Garth,
Notice no one else is responding.


As I mentioned 1000 Times, maybe 15% of society can detect HQ sound. Remember, a participant here mentioned a Professor training people to detect HQ sound.

Detecting HQ sound is being able to detect the difference between
otherwise identical recordings on different formats, such as CD, DVD
audio, 24 bit at high sample rates and so on.

Detecting HQ sound is *not* about having to boost the most unpleasant
frequency range in a recording to painful levels as you do.

I don't expect a lot of applause in this near dead group.

Oddly enough, your threads are not the only ones getting a response on
the group. However, most people here don't see your posts as you are in
their kill files due to the twaddle you continually post.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:10:56 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 01/04/2016 00:29, JackA wrote:

Enjoy your audio to impress toddlers.

Our mixes impress our clients enough for them to pay us. Your mixes
impress you, and I doubt you or anyone else pays to hear them.


Our clients? From when, a few decades ago?
You have no clients, you spend too much time here.

Jack



--
Tciao for Now!

John.




  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:19:26 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 01/04/2016 04:12, JackA wrote:
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Garth,
Notice no one else is responding.


As I mentioned 1000 Times, maybe 15% of society can detect HQ sound. Remember, a participant here mentioned a Professor training people to detect HQ sound.

Detecting HQ sound is being able to detect the difference between
otherwise identical recordings on different formats, such as CD, DVD
audio, 24 bit at high sample rates and so on.


See here, you automatically bring digital into the equation for unknown reasons. Maybe you were raised on digital only.
When I'm impressed with a (HQ) recording, I don't ask how it was recorded, my main concern is it was recorded well. I pride myself for being able to detect when a particular recording was made (by sound). Can you?

Jack



Detecting HQ sound is *not* about having to boost the most unpleasant
frequency range in a recording to painful levels as you do.

I don't expect a lot of applause in this near dead group.

Oddly enough, your threads are not the only ones getting a response on
the group. However, most people here don't see your posts as you are in
their kill files due to the twaddle you continually post.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.


  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] tomalwayspaul@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:12:08 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Garth,
Notice no one else is responding.


I had to log in because I am so sick of Jack A.

Jack, you are an asshole. Why do you hang around here and bother these good people? If you have to tell everyone how great you are, well, you aren't so great. If you posted material that people loved, they would praise you. You have not.

You are just a really weird ****ing dude. Go away.


  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 9:54:44 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:12:08 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Garth,
Notice no one else is responding.


I had to log in because I am so sick of Jack A.

Jack, you are an asshole. Why do you hang around here and bother these good people?


Okay, I'm stumped. Just where are these "good" people? Lurking?
Did you listen to may latest a-hole audio creation? Your opinion of it, not me, please!!

Thank you!

Notice, I'm about the only one that Thanks or Welcomes, gives you a good idea of the quality of people here!

Jack


If you have to tell everyone how great you are, well, you aren't so great. If you posted material that people loved, they would praise you. You have not.

You are just a really weird ****ing dude. Go away.


  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On 01/04/2016 14:37, JackA wrote:
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:19:26 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 01/04/2016 04:12, JackA wrote:
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Garth,
Notice no one else is responding.

As I mentioned 1000 Times, maybe 15% of society can detect HQ sound. Remember, a participant here mentioned a Professor training people to detect HQ sound.

Detecting HQ sound is being able to detect the difference between
otherwise identical recordings on different formats, such as CD, DVD
audio, 24 bit at high sample rates and so on.


See here, you automatically bring digital into the equation for unknown reasons. Maybe you were raised on digital only.
When I'm impressed with a (HQ) recording, I don't ask how it was recorded, my main concern is it was recorded well. I pride myself for being able to detect when a particular recording was made (by sound). Can you?

I started with a portable tape recorder in the 1960s. I graduated from
my first one to an Akai X-IV, which for its time was very advanced, and
produced some very nice recordings, even being able to almost reproduce
later virtual head results, if the microphones were carefully placed.
The gear has improved over the decades, as have the results. Hpwever,
the first relatively affordable high quality equipment that held out the
promise of near perfect sound in the home was digital.

I had a friend on the 1960s who used to let my Dad record the first
playback of any LP he bought on Dad's equipment, as the recording on our
home equipment was noticeably better than the second and subsequent
plays on a normal turntable.

As for guessing when a recording was made, there is a lot of variation
due to fashions in mic placements and processing, though the microphones
have noticeably improved through the years, as has the rest of the
chain. Even so, a first generation recording of a jazz band in the 1950s
can sound remarkably good even by modern standards.

You might be able to guess when a particular recording could first have
been made, but that sound can be and has been emulated at later dates,
if necessary by digging the old gear out of the cupboard. Some modern
pop stuff uses 1950s microphones, for example. Many modern engineers use
old valve preamps, and some companies are now producing replicas which
sound exactly the same as many old preamps and effects units.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Kuschel Richard Kuschel is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 299
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 2:05:44 PM UTC-6, JackA wrote:
So, they whine because I digitally enhance audio, and make THIER CDs sound bland. THEY whine about 3kHz, because I was the first to notice it, not them. No wonder why they need fancy and expensive headphones, hoping they will help their sound.

Anyway, here is what THEIR CD sounds like; the dull AM Radio sound; like riding a little pony...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...untmein-so.mp3

Here is what my CD sounds like; the thrill of HQ HD Radio; buckle up, we're breaking the sound barrier!...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...untmein-so.mp3

No wonder why the world is decaying, with so many silly people involved in audio, when flipping burgers at a fast food joint is more their style! :-)

Want to win a Granny, listen to them.
Want to win a Grammy, listen to me!

Thank you for your time.

Jack - Unsurpassed in Audio Restoration


I think that this is an April Fool Joke.

Those are the same file. No difference. I dropped them into a DAW and inverted polarity- Total null!
If you are hearing a difference, it is total imagination.


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:15:05 PM UTC-4, Richard Kuschel wrote:
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 2:05:44 PM UTC-6, JackA wrote:
So, they whine because I digitally enhance audio, and make THIER CDs sound bland. THEY whine about 3kHz, because I was the first to notice it, not them. No wonder why they need fancy and expensive headphones, hoping they will help their sound.

Anyway, here is what THEIR CD sounds like; the dull AM Radio sound; like riding a little pony...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...untmein-so.mp3

Here is what my CD sounds like; the thrill of HQ HD Radio; buckle up, we're breaking the sound barrier!...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...untmein-so.mp3

No wonder why the world is decaying, with so many silly people involved in audio, when flipping burgers at a fast food joint is more their style! :-)

Want to win a Granny, listen to them.
Want to win a Grammy, listen to me!

Thank you for your time.

Jack - Unsurpassed in Audio Restoration


I think that this is an April Fool Joke.

Those are the same file. No difference. I dropped them into a DAW and inverted polarity- Total null!
If you are hearing a difference, it is total imagination.



Yo, Rich, please keep quiet! You know, NULL!

I like how the call my (non exiting) audio enhancements trash, when they are just criticizing other Professionals!!


Jack
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 01/04/2016 14:37, JackA wrote:
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:19:26 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 01/04/2016 04:12, JackA wrote:
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Garth,
Notice no one else is responding.

As I mentioned 1000 Times, maybe 15% of society can detect HQ sound. Remember, a participant here mentioned a Professor training people to detect HQ sound.

Detecting HQ sound is being able to detect the difference between
otherwise identical recordings on different formats, such as CD, DVD
audio, 24 bit at high sample rates and so on.


See here, you automatically bring digital into the equation for unknown reasons. Maybe you were raised on digital only.
When I'm impressed with a (HQ) recording, I don't ask how it was recorded, my main concern is it was recorded well. I pride myself for being able to detect when a particular recording was made (by sound). Can you?

I started with a portable tape recorder in the 1960s. I graduated from
my first one to an Akai X-IV, which for its time was very advanced, and
produced some very nice recordings, even being able to almost reproduce
later virtual head results, if the microphones were carefully placed.
The gear has improved over the decades, as have the results. Hpwever,
the first relatively affordable high quality equipment that held out the
promise of near perfect sound in the home was digital.

I had a friend on the 1960s who used to let my Dad record the first
playback of any LP he bought on Dad's equipment, as the recording on our
home equipment was noticeably better than the second and subsequent
plays on a normal turntable.

As for guessing when a recording was made, there is a lot of variation
due to fashions in mic placements and processing, though the microphones
have noticeably improved through the years, as has the rest of the
chain. Even so, a first generation recording of a jazz band in the 1950s
can sound remarkably good even by modern standards.

You might be able to guess when a particular recording could first have
been made, but that sound can be and has been emulated at later dates,
if necessary by digging the old gear out of the cupboard. Some modern
pop stuff uses 1950s microphones, for example. Many modern engineers use
old valve preamps, and some companies are now producing replicas which
sound exactly the same as many old preamps and effects units.


Do you actually believe valves (vacuum tube technology) can't be totally replicated by solid-state? I know some swear by valves, but I can't personally tell the difference.

And, you mention, Jazz. Boy, Jazz sounds the same today as it did decades ago. Though I'm not a collector of it, sound quality is impressive!

Before switching to CD, I was listening to vinyl records. I found the sound quality impressive, but hated ticks and pops. While I value CDs, they just didn't match what I (audio) experienced with vinyl. Hear me out, please...

I do believe what Scott Dorsey mentions, he calls them tape jockies. Maybe they remixed, but it seems what others did in the past was forgotten with CDs. My guess, in vinyl days, they had a lot more equipment to work with, equalizers, compressors, you name it, and with the absence of it, made CDs sound lifeless.

Even the I don't think much of Steve Hoffman's mastering, I know he stuck and equalizer in-line, and that was a GOOD choice. I still believe the best choice for CD audio is a decent DAW. One heck of a lot cheaper than electronic analogue gear. I do have one or two CDs that used tube (valve) gear for mastering, but my ears weren't excited.

Thanks, John, for the story.

Jack


--
Tciao for Now!

John.


  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On 01/04/2016 12:58, JackA wrote:
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:10:56 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 01/04/2016 00:29, JackA wrote:

Enjoy your audio to impress toddlers.

Our mixes impress our clients enough for them to pay us. Your mixes
impress you, and I doubt you or anyone else pays to hear them.


Our clients? From when, a few decades ago?
You have no clients, you spend too much time here.

I produced a CD last week. The clients were very happy with it.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Garth,
Notice no one else is responding.


Sorry, Mark, they're still chiming in!

Jack
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 5:20:15 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 01/04/2016 12:58, JackA wrote:
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:10:56 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 01/04/2016 00:29, JackA wrote:

Enjoy your audio to impress toddlers.

Our mixes impress our clients enough for them to pay us. Your mixes
impress you, and I doubt you or anyone else pays to hear them.


Our clients? From when, a few decades ago?
You have no clients, you spend too much time here.

I produced a CD last week. The clients were very happy with it.


Name? So I can purchase and listen??? Don't be shy

Thanks!

Jack

--
Tciao for Now!

John.


  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 9:54:44 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:12:08 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Garth,
Notice no one else is responding.


I had to log in because I am so sick of Jack A.

Jack, you are an asshole. Why do you hang around here and bother these good people? If you have to tell everyone how great you are, well, you aren't so great. If you posted material that people loved, they would praise you. You have not.

You are just a really weird ****ing dude. Go away.


And, Tom, we are adults here. Maybe you're into the Professional Audio side of Rap music, but can't you keep the profanity at home?

Thanks.

Jack
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On 01/04/2016 22:51, JackA wrote:
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 5:20:15 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
I produced a CD last week. The clients were very happy with it.


Name? So I can purchase and listen??? Don't be shy

Only available for internal use by the clients, sorry. I do not have
permission to release the recording. The same with most of the previous
ones, and the publicly available ones have all sold out.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 6:15:57 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
On 01/04/2016 22:51, JackA wrote:
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 5:20:15 PM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
I produced a CD last week. The clients were very happy with it.


Name? So I can purchase and listen??? Don't be shy

Only available for internal use by the clients, sorry. I do not have
permission to release the recording. The same with most of the previous
ones, and the publicly available ones have all sold out.


Well, when you find a client who is willing to publish something, let me know!

Thanks.

Jack


--
Tciao for Now!

John.




  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On 1/04/2016 7:19 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 01/04/2016 04:12, JackA wrote:
I don't expect a lot of applause in this near dead group.

Oddly enough, your threads are not the only ones getting a response on
the group. However, most people here don't see your posts as you are in
their kill files due to the twaddle you continually post.


But strangely there are still a few who haven't, and even more strangely
see a need to respond to him. Why?

Trevor.


  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On 2/04/2016 6:10 AM, John Williamson wrote:
I started with a portable tape recorder in the 1960s. I graduated from
my first one to an Akai X-IV, which for its time was very advanced, .


I had an X-V as a portable when a Nagra was out of my reach.


produced some very nice recordings, even being able to almost reproduce
later virtual head results, if the microphones were carefully placed.
The gear has improved over the decades, as have the results. Hpwever,
the first relatively affordable high quality equipment that held out the
promise of near perfect sound in the home was digital.


Of course, since even the most expensive pro analog gear cannot match
todays cheap digital for "near perfect sound". Some still prefer the
analog distortions of course, and they always will, but that is another
matter entirely.


I had a friend on the 1960s who used to let my Dad record the first
playback of any LP he bought on Dad's equipment, as the recording on our
home equipment was noticeably better than the second and subsequent
plays on a normal turntable.


Sadly true for what many called a "normal turntable". (sadly remember
people using pennies on their tone arms to stop them skipping :-(
Certainly not for any quality turntable/cartridge combination.

Trevor.



  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 9:25:39 PM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 1/04/2016 7:19 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 01/04/2016 04:12, JackA wrote:
I don't expect a lot of applause in this near dead group.

Oddly enough, your threads are not the only ones getting a response on
the group. However, most people here don't see your posts as you are in
their kill files due to the twaddle you continually post.


But strangely there are still a few who haven't, and even more strangely
see a need to respond to him. Why?

Trevor.



And, you, Trevor, telling me that Stone Poneys song (album/LP mix) wasn't a different Stereo mix? That how I can tell people don't actually listen and memorize music, maybe just lyrics.

So, you best killfile me since you were in error. I heard no apology.

Thank you.

Jack
  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 4:05:44 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:
So, they whine because I digitally enhance audio, and make THIER CDs sound bland. THEY whine about 3kHz, because I was the first to notice it, not them. No wonder why they need fancy and expensive headphones, hoping they will help their sound.

Anyway, here is what THEIR CD sounds like; the dull AM Radio sound; like riding a little pony...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...untmein-so.mp3

Here is what my CD sounds like; the thrill of HQ HD Radio; buckle up, we're breaking the sound barrier!...



Richard K. was correct! Silly me for copy/pasting links forgetting to change MP3 name!! Try this, Rich...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...ountmein-s.mp3

Jack


No wonder why the world is decaying, with so many silly people involved in audio, when flipping burgers at a fast food joint is more their style! :-)

Want to win a Granny, listen to them.
Want to win a Grammy, listen to me!

Thank you for your time.

Jack - Unsurpassed in Audio Restoration


  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:15:05 PM UTC-4, Richard Kuschel wrote:
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 2:05:44 PM UTC-6, JackA wrote:
So, they whine because I digitally enhance audio, and make THIER CDs sound bland. THEY whine about 3kHz, because I was the first to notice it, not them. No wonder why they need fancy and expensive headphones, hoping they will help their sound.

Anyway, here is what THEIR CD sounds like; the dull AM Radio sound; like riding a little pony...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...untmein-so.mp3

Here is what my CD sounds like; the thrill of HQ HD Radio; buckle up, we're breaking the sound barrier!...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...untmein-so.mp3

No wonder why the world is decaying, with so many silly people involved in audio, when flipping burgers at a fast food joint is more their style! :-)

Want to win a Granny, listen to them.
Want to win a Grammy, listen to me!

Thank you for your time.

Jack - Unsurpassed in Audio Restoration


I think that this is an April Fool Joke.

Those are the same file. No difference. I dropped them into a DAW and inverted polarity- Total null!
If you are hearing a difference, it is total imagination.


I apologize for MY screw-up!!!

Jack

  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Impressive Audio Restoration

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:53:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Garth,
Notice no one else is responding.


Garth disappointed me, he didn't even listen.

Many thanks to Richard K. for pointing out I made an error!

Jack
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
Impressive varmint whackin' Bret L Audio Opinions 5 November 10th 09 01:57 AM
Audio restoration MiNe 109 Audio Opinions 2 February 10th 07 01:45 AM
Impressive DIY Project Michael McKelvy Audio Opinions 0 September 16th 04 11:12 PM
Audio Restoration Donald Jardine Tech 0 August 27th 04 04:24 PM
CEDAR audio restoration... Graham Newton Marketplace 0 September 21st 03 04:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:14 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"