[ansermetniac]

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

[ChrisCoaster]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[ansermetniac]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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?

[ansermetniac]

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?

[ChrisCoaster]

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

[ansermetniac]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:27:35 -0700 (PDT), ChrisCoaster
wrote:

I'm sure it sounds just fine.

Why?

Abbedd

[Steven Sullivan]

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.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

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

[ansermetniac]

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