Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
After I got approval of the mix, I realized I could not find original .wav(s). Maybe I even rendered directly to mp3.
I was to lazy to actually do it again, load all virtual synths and blah blah,.. so I ran mp3(s) through exciter, just to have something moving above 16K on the scope, and now it's all on a commercial CD. Nobody noticed anything. In my defence, It was lousy money and ****ty music first place. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
"Luxey" wrote in message
... After I got approval of the mix, I realized I could not find original .wav(s). Maybe I even rendered directly to mp3. I was to lazy too actually do it again, load all virtual synths and blah blah... So I ran mp3(s) through exciter, just to have something moving above 16K on the scope, and now it's all on a commercial CD. Nobody noticed anything. In my defence, It was lousy money and ****ty music first place. Did you consider looking at from the "every cloud has a silver lining" perspective...? If the pay was poor and music the lousy, you could have told them what happened and returned their money. This would have prevented another bad album from being sold! |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
you know the list that starts out...
lyrics music performance room acoustics etc... the exact upper high roll-off frequency is quite low down on that list... if you helped your client capture lyrics / music/ performance etc that they consider good, then you did not cheat them Mark |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
On 6/22/2014 6:59 PM, Luxey wrote:
After I got approval of the mix, I realized I could not find original .wav(s). Maybe I even rendered directly to mp3. I was to lazy to actually do it again, load all virtual synths and blah blah,.. so I ran mp3(s) through exciter, just to have something moving above 16K on the scope, and now it's all on a commercial CD. On an analog multitrack recorder, I once punched in on a vocal track by accident and erased a line. The singer was from out of town and wasn't around to fix it right up, so the guitarist who was doing overdubs that day re-sang the line. He sounded enough like the original singer that we didn't tell him what had happened., Nobody noticed. It helped that neither one was a very great singer, though it was a good song and a good production. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
On Monday, 23 June 2014 14:00:23 UTC+2, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Luxey" wrote in message ... After I got approval of the mix, I realized I could not find original .wav(s). Maybe I even rendered directly to mp3. I was to lazy too actually do it again, load all virtual synths and blah blah... So I ran mp3(s) through exciter, just to have something moving above 16K on the scope, and now it's all on a commercial CD. Nobody noticed anything. In my defence, It was lousy money and ****ty music first place. Did you consider looking at from the "every cloud has a silver lining" perspective...? If the pay was poor and music the lousy, you could have told them what happened and returned their money. This would have prevented another bad album from being sold! I think album will be great, for what it is. We are talking synths and noises here, not some acoustics and esoteria. BTW the question was for studio people, if they ever did something like that. Armchair know it all cross posters from RAO and elsewhere can just as well keep quiet, for the matter. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 15:59:40 -0700 (PDT), Luxey
wrote: After I got approval of the mix, I realized I could not find original .wav(s). Maybe I even rendered directly to mp3. I was to lazy to actually do it again, load all virtual synths and blah blah,.. so I ran mp3(s) through exciter, just to have something moving above 16K on the scope, and now it's all on a commercial CD. Nobody noticed anything. Hve you ever had a case where the customer liked the lower quality version better? In my defence, It was lousy money and ****ty music first place. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
понедељак, 23. јун 2014. 16.36.30 UTC+2, Gray_Wolf је написао/ла:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 15:59:40 -0700 (PDT), Luxey wrote: After I got approval of the mix, I realized I could not find original .wav(s). Maybe I even rendered directly to mp3. I was to lazy to actually do it again, load all virtual synths and blah blah,.. so I ran mp3(s) through exciter, just to have something moving above 16K on the scope, and now it's all on a commercial CD. Nobody noticed anything. Hve you ever had a case where the customer liked the lower quality version better? In my defence, It was lousy money and ****ty music first place. Actually, in the early days of mp3, some 15 years ago, I witnessed people prefered mp3s to full resolution. I attributed it to novelty hype and missunderstanding, not to listening. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
On 6/23/2014 4:13 PM, Luxey wrote:
Actually, in the early days of mp3, some 15 years ago, I witnessed people prefered mp3s to full resolution. I attributed it to novelty hype and missunderstanding, not to listening. Fraunhofer did some recent studies, within the last 5 years or so, and found that a good percentage of listeners preferred an MP3 (bit rate unspecified) over an unbuggered file. They concluded that it was what the listeners were accustomed to hearing. Many were young enough to have never seriously listened to good CDs or even phonograph records. This is part of the problem. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
On 6/23/2014 9:09 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/23/2014 4:13 PM, Luxey wrote: Actually, in the early days of mp3, some 15 years ago, I witnessed people prefered mp3s to full resolution. I attributed it to novelty hype and missunderstanding, not to listening. Fraunhofer did some recent studies, within the last 5 years or so, and found that a good percentage of listeners preferred an MP3 (bit rate unspecified) over an unbuggered file. They concluded that it was what the listeners were accustomed to hearing. Many were young enough to have never seriously listened to good CDs or even phonograph records. This is part of the problem. Totally goes to the point of education/re-education running in the " Windows Media Audio Vs. MP3 Vs. WAV" thread. == Later... Ron Capik -- |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
Fraunhofer did some recent studies, within the last 5 years or so, and found that a good percentage of listeners preferred an MP3 (bit rate unspecified) over an unbuggered file. They concluded that it was what the listeners were accustomed to hearing. Many were young enough to have never seriously listened to good CDs or even phonograph records. This is part of the problem. To put it a bit differently... Jazz and classical listeners (the latter, especially) judge the "quality" of the recording against live sound -- not other recordings. An article in a 1958 issue of "Tape Recording" told how an engineer discovered that some engineers preferred recordings made on wax disks to tape. His conclusion was that they liked what they were familiar with. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
Luxey wrote:
BTW the question was for studio people, if they ever did something like that. Armchair know it all cross posters from RAO and elsewhere can just as well keep quiet, for the matter. I never did anything like that without telling my customer. I admit that at times I may have described the issue in the best possible light. For example, if the digital recorder was giving hash, you can offer the customer a free upgrade to the analogue (safety) recording. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/23/2014 4:13 PM, Luxey wrote: Actually, in the early days of mp3, some 15 years ago, I witnessed people prefered mp3s to full resolution. I attributed it to novelty hype and missunderstanding, not to listening. Fraunhofer did some recent studies, within the last 5 years or so, and found that a good percentage of listeners preferred an MP3 (bit rate unspecified) over an unbuggered file. They concluded that it was what the listeners were accustomed to hearing. Many were young enough to have never seriously listened to good CDs or even phonograph records. This is part of the problem. I would say it is 100% of the problem. Well, centrally the problem is that people haven't listened to live acoustic music.... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
On Wednesday, 25 June 2014 14:16:44 UTC+2, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Luxey wrote: BTW the question was for studio people, if they ever did something like that. Armchair know it all cross posters from RAO and elsewhere can just as well keep quiet, for the matter. I never did anything like that without telling my customer. I admit that at times I may have described the issue in the best possible light. For example, if the digital recorder was giving hash, you can offer the customer a free upgrade to the analogue (safety) recording. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." You are right, if it was the issue I would do that, but this was not a damaged recording, or lost copy. It was all in the DAW, all saved and recallable. However, I was quite sure the difference was minimal, if audiable at all, and really thought another 2-3 hours of loading, rechecking/ listening and rendering for something I already have, almost certainly nobody will have a clue, would be too much for my health and quality of my family life. They are not all .mp3s, though. It's about 50/50 ratio btw 256kbit 44.1Khz joint stereo mp3s and 44.1khz 16bit WAWs. However, no question, I am guilty and morally challenged. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
In article ,
Mike Rivers wrote: On 6/23/2014 4:13 PM, Luxey wrote: Actually, in the early days of mp3, some 15 years ago, I witnessed people prefered mp3s to full resolution. I attributed it to novelty hype and missunderstanding, not to listening. Fraunhofer did some recent studies, within the last 5 years or so, and found that a good percentage of listeners preferred an MP3 (bit rate unspecified) over an unbuggered file. They concluded that it was what the listeners were accustomed to hearing. Many were young enough to have never seriously listened to good CDs or even phonograph records. This is part of the problem. I know of several 'professionals' in the TV industry who prefer the sound of a personal mic to a boom for dialogue. Usually picture editors or producers. And they seem to have had their wish granted. -- * I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Mike Rivers wrote: On 6/23/2014 4:13 PM, Luxey wrote: Actually, in the early days of mp3, some 15 years ago, I witnessed people prefered mp3s to full resolution. I attributed it to novelty hype and missunderstanding, not to listening. Fraunhofer did some recent studies, within the last 5 years or so, and found that a good percentage of listeners preferred an MP3 (bit rate unspecified) over an unbuggered file. They concluded that it was what the listeners were accustomed to hearing. Many were young enough to have never seriously listened to good CDs or even phonograph records. This is part of the problem. I would say it is 100% of the problem. Well, centrally the problem is that people haven't listened to live acoustic music.... --scott Whoa. Too many variables here. Were the MP3 files recordings of live acoustic music (I'd doubt it)? Were these younger listeners accustomed to hearing anything *other* than low-fidelity recordings (that would make them modern-day equivalents to cassette and 45 rpm record listeners of the past)? Is that "unbuggered file" a full-spectrum punk rock recording (I, too, would probably prefer an MP3 of that material, since it might filter the shrieks to make them a bit more mellow)? -- best regards, Neil |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 8:17:35 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
I would say it is 100% of the problem. Well, centrally the problem is that people haven't listened to live acoustic music.... --scott people don't know what music sounds like unless it's coming out of a speaker. I'm amazed when , in many small, casual situations, people insist on amplifying acoustic instruments and their voices through very marginal gear when a completely acoustic event is both sufficient and has superior sound. It also occurs in major venues. Some of the *major* jazz venues I've worked in around the world insist on miking the drums and amplifying the bass..... for me who plays the second quietest instrument in the world it makes it that much more difficult to amplify. And unnecessary- do you really think the people won't be able to hear the cymbals unless you mike them? mike the guitar, let the rums and bass come off the stand, and have an easy night. The public also has unrealistic expectations of volume levels used on the fact that recorded/reproduced/amplified music is the norm. See my post above- they want it loud. because of this, when i'm working in a venue where this will work, I always play a solo selection or two completely unamplified so the audience can hear the real sound of the guitar..... |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 6:59:40 PM UTC-4, Luxey wrote:
In my defence, It was lousy money and ****ty music first place. Unless it was specified you were going to provide audio that followed a specific production chain is it cheating the customer if they got a product they were satisfied with? |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
On 6/25/2014 11:11 AM, Nate Najar wrote:
people don't know what music sounds like unless it's coming out of a speaker. I'm amazed when , in many small, casual situations, people insist on amplifying acoustic instruments and their voices through very marginal gear when a completely acoustic event is both sufficient and has superior sound. It also occurs in major venues. Some of the*major* jazz venues I've worked in around the world insist on miking the drums and amplifying the bass.... for me who plays the second quietest instrument in the world it makes it that much more difficult to amplify. And unnecessary- do you really think the people won't be able to hear the cymbals unless you mike them? mike the guitar, let the rums and bass come off the stand, and have an easy night. I've been seeing this at folk festivals for about the past 20 years. Back into the early 1970s (with exception of such folks as Bob Dylan) a "workshop" at the Newport Folk Festival was a spot on the grounds with a post holding up a sign with a number. No stage, no sound system, and a dozen interested guitarists like me could sit around Merle Travis or Maybelle Carter or Reverend Gary Davis, listen to some songs, ask how to play a lick, or hear some great stories. But when they played on the main stage for 20,000 people, of course they were amplified. And it was the main stage performances that brought in the money that allowed those people to be booked at the festival. Today we have house concerts (some of which, sadly, have PA systems) but put more than about 150 people in a room with a performer up front and the "Can't hear you"s will start making everyone uncomfortable. Some of this is due to the fact that the performers don't learn to perform without a sound system. They don't sing like they're singing to the back row, they only know how to sing to a microphone (if even that). Pete Seeger could sing to 1500 people without a sound system (I've heard him do that). Taylor Swift, probably not. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:45:14 -0700, docsavage20 wrote:
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 6:59:40 PM UTC-4, Luxey wrote: In my defence, It was lousy money and ****ty music first place. Unless it was specified you were going to provide audio that followed a specific production chain is it cheating the customer if they got a product they were satisfied with? So, was this "cheating the customer"? A client with a deserved reputation for micro-managing voice actors with word-by-word direction spent two hours in the studio recording six 60-second radio spots. She then spent the next 12 hours 'editing' these spots using the 20 or 30 takes of each spot as source material, a phrase from this take, a word from that take, the ending 't' sound from one take, the breath from another. You get the picture. All of this on analogue 1/4-inch tape. Finally, after midnight, the client left. The engineer had strung together the six spots,but had not put leaders between the 'hero' takes. In cleaning up he thought he was cutting some tape off the scrap reel. It was in fact the edited master now in hundreds of pieces in a waste basket. I get a call at 2 a.m. with the bad news. I go to the studio. Realizing that there was no way to put humpty dumpty together again, I suggested we use the last take of each spot, add the music track, and copy to a 7 1/2 ips reference copy for the producer and the agency. We deliver the reel and wait to see what happens. Nothing. Just a call with an order for a couple hundred radio station reels. The producer had no idea that we hadn't used all of her word-by-word edited finals. We charged for all tracking, editing, and copying hours. Were we wrong;-)? |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/25/2014 11:11 AM, Nate Najar wrote: people don't know what music sounds like unless it's coming out of a speaker. I'm amazed when , in many small, casual situations, people insist on amplifying acoustic instruments and their voices through very marginal gear when a completely acoustic event is both sufficient and has superior sound. It also occurs in major venues. Some of the*major* jazz venues I've worked in around the world insist on miking the drums and amplifying the bass.... for me who plays the second quietest instrument in the world it makes it that much more difficult to amplify. And unnecessary- do you really think the people won't be able to hear the cymbals unless you mike them? mike the guitar, let the rums and bass come off the stand, and have an easy night. I've been seeing this at folk festivals for about the past 20 years. Back into the early 1970s (with exception of such folks as Bob Dylan) a "workshop" at the Newport Folk Festival was a spot on the grounds with a post holding up a sign with a number. No stage, no sound system, and a dozen interested guitarists like me could sit around Merle Travis or Maybelle Carter or Reverend Gary Davis, listen to some songs, ask how to play a lick, or hear some great stories. But when they played on the main stage for 20,000 people, of course they were amplified. And it was the main stage performances that brought in the money that allowed those people to be booked at the festival. Today we have house concerts (some of which, sadly, have PA systems) but put more than about 150 people in a room with a performer up front and the "Can't hear you"s will start making everyone uncomfortable. Some of this is due to the fact that the performers don't learn to perform without a sound system. They don't sing like they're singing to the back row, they only know how to sing to a microphone (if even that). Pete Seeger could sing to 1500 people without a sound system (I've heard him do that). Taylor Swift, probably not. I partially blame recording industry practices over the last 50 years for this. Before most studios had equipment capable of more than 4 tracks, mic techniques were quite different. Musicians and vocalists were area mic'd and live-mixed to 2 tracks (or less). Since the late '60s, multi-tracks have encouraged "close-mic" techniques, which create an entirely different sound. That sound became the "norm" for all forms of music, to the point that even live orchestras use sound reinforcement so that they can "sound like the record" to the audience. I can't wait for them to start including pitch-bending so that they can do some Stockhausen pieces. ;-P -- best regards, Neil |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
Mike Rivers wrote:
Today we have house concerts (some of which, sadly, have PA systems) but put more than about 150 people in a room with a performer up front and the "Can't hear you"s will start making everyone uncomfortable. Some of this is due to the fact that the performers don't learn to perform without a sound system. So much depends on the room. In some cases we can easily perform without sound, and in others, even in a smaller room, no way. Acoustics and floorplan matter. There is also the question of the change of vocal quality when one must push to fill space, instead of dealing with the lyrics and emotion of the song without that need to push. Alison Kraus has not a powerful voice, in terms of SPL. In terms of emotional delivery, we haven't many contemporary popular singers capable of matching her. In my world, vocal histrionics don't count. That's not emotion. It's a circus act. When we must use sound reinforcement I am most pleased when my friend and long-time associate Fletcher Clark mixes us. You will see a sound system, and it will be contributing, but you won't hear _it_. He either puts it just under our own natural SPL coming from the stage, or right at the point where it equals out output. The result is great room coverage without a sense of listening to a sound system instead of listening to musicians. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
S. King wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:45:14 -0700, docsavage20 wrote: On Sunday, June 22, 2014 6:59:40 PM UTC-4, Luxey wrote: In my defence, It was lousy money and ****ty music first place. Unless it was specified you were going to provide audio that followed a specific production chain is it cheating the customer if they got a product they were satisfied with? So, was this "cheating the customer"? A client with a deserved reputation for micro-managing voice actors with word-by-word direction spent two hours in the studio recording six 60-second radio spots. She then spent the next 12 hours 'editing' these spots using the 20 or 30 takes of each spot as source material, a phrase from this take, a word from that take, the ending 't' sound from one take, the breath from another. You get the picture. All of this on analogue 1/4-inch tape. Finally, after midnight, the client left. The engineer had strung together the six spots,but had not put leaders between the 'hero' takes. In cleaning up he thought he was cutting some tape off the scrap reel. It was in fact the edited master now in hundreds of pieces in a waste basket. I get a call at 2 a.m. with the bad news. I go to the studio. Realizing that there was no way to put humpty dumpty together again, I suggested we use the last take of each spot, add the music track, and copy to a 7 1/2 ips reference copy for the producer and the agency. We deliver the reel and wait to see what happens. Nothing. Just a call with an order for a couple hundred radio station reels. The producer had no idea that we hadn't used all of her word-by-word edited finals. We charged for all tracking, editing, and copying hours. Were we wrong;-)? No. You were unheralded world champions. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Guilty of cheating your custommer?
On 6/26/2014 10:14 PM, hank alrich wrote:
So much depends on the room. In some cases we can easily perform without sound, and in others, even in a smaller room, no way. Acoustics and floorplan matter. So does venue policy and attentiveness of the audience. Concert venues are usually pretty good and many could indeed work without sound reinforcement with the right audience. Bars where there's no "Shut up when someone's on stage" policy always require sound reinforcement if even just for those who do shut up and listen. There is also the question of the change of vocal quality when one must push to fill space, instead of dealing with the lyrics and emotion of the song without that need to push. Alison Kraus has not a powerful voice, in terms of SPL. In terms of emotional delivery, we haven't many contemporary popular singers capable of matching her. In my world, vocal histrionics don't count. That's not emotion. It's a circus act. Alison Kraus should (and does) play concerts, not noisy venues where she has to impose her sound on those in attendance. Or else, make records (which she also does). Amplifying her to get above a talkative bar audience wouldn't help anyone who really wants to hear her. But for some, a "circus act" is good, and it's part of the show. Of course not every performer should be like every other performer. When we must use sound reinforcement I am most pleased when my friend and long-time associate Fletcher Clark mixes us. You will see a sound system, and it will be contributing, but you won't hear_it_. He either puts it just under our own natural SPL coming from the stage, or right at the point where it equals out output. The result is great room coverage without a sense of listening to a sound system instead of listening to musicians. You have the good sense to play in places where this works. It probably wouldn't if you were on next at a bluegrass festival with 10,000 people screaming for more as Steve Martin with the Steep Canyon Rangers were leaving the stage. But the pay probably would be great. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Phil Spector GUILTY | Pro Audio | |||
So who beside GOIA and those guilty of crimes... | Audio Opinions | |||
Is this considered cheating? | Pro Audio | |||
Andre Jute Pleads guilty | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Brian L. McCarty Guilty of Copyright Infringement | Marketplace |