Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
I had a concert with my trio in a local room where I work a few times a year. It's a very dry room that seats about 200 and is a listening room. Hard ticket sale. They have good production, some pro series JBL something or another and an avid venue rig. The production manager knows what he is doing so the sound guys he has working for him usually do a good job.
They are used to me using a little DPA lav clipped to the soundhole of my guitar, but since I got the re15 I brought it to try on this gig. It worked fabulously. i received numerous comments about how good my amplified sound was and the FOH guy told me he has never had an easier time getting a good miked sound from me. And it's small enough to fit in my guitar case. I even did some recordings at home for testing purposes of placements and I cannot believe how nice this mic sounds. I picked up 2 more for general use. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
Nate Najar wrote:
I had a concert with my trio in a local room where I work a few times a yea= r. It's a very dry room that seats about 200 and is a listening room. Har= d ticket sale. They have good production, some pro series JBL something or= another and an avid venue rig. The production manager knows what he is do= ing so the sound guys he has working for him usually do a good job. =20 They are used to me using a little DPA lav clipped to the soundhole of my g= uitar, but since I got the re15 I brought it to try on this gig. It worked= fabulously. i received numerous comments about how good my amplified soun= d was and the FOH guy told me he has never had an easier time getting a goo= d miked sound from me. =20 And it's small enough to fit in my guitar case. =20 I even did some recordings at home for testing purposes of placements and I= cannot believe how nice this mic sounds. I picked up 2 more for general u= se. Congratulations and welcome to the RE15 fan base! It is nice to start with something that is essentially flat from all directions. I found that it told the truth about the room, sometimes a little too much in lesser venues. Still, it is a terrific "starting point". I think you will find many places for the trio of mics. -- ~ Roy "If you notice the sound, it's wrong!" |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
Hi Nate,
[...] since I got the re15 I brought it to try on this gig. It worked fabulously. i received numerous comments about how good my amplified sound was and the FOH guy told me he has never had an easier time getting a good miked sound from me. [...] I cannot believe how nice this mic sounds. I think there is no real reason why a dynamic mic should not sound good when it's designed well. There's a number of them - the RE15 being one of them - that are really good mics. Sometimes I have the impression that the fact that one can buy condenser mics for - say - $250 (and less of course) makes many people (explicitly not you!) not recognize - and even less consider buy - dynamic mics beyond the price of an SM58. In the sense of: "Why should I spend $350 for a dynamic mic, when I can get a condenser for that money?" In fact, a colleague told me a story (funny or sad?) about a fellow (amateur) musician who owned a dynamic mic from a renowned manufacturer in the said price range ($250). One of this guys band-colleagues told the mic-owner that he had been ripped-off by the dealer because you could buy five SM58-lookalikes for that money and he'd be best off if sold his mic to retrieve at least some of his money. Just my 2cts & best regards Dieter Michel |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
Dieter Michel wrote:
In fact, a colleague told me a story (funny or sad?) about a fellow (amateur) musician who owned a dynamic mic from a renowned manufacturer in the said price range ($250). One of this guys band-colleagues told the mic-owner that he had been ripped-off by the dealer because you could buy five SM58-lookalikes for that money and he'd be best off if sold his mic to retrieve at least some of his money. And this, in one sentence, describes everything wrong with the audio market today. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
I agree completely. I am finding so many uses for dynamics and ribbons where they are much more appropriate than a capacitor mic for the situation. It is making my concerts and recordings sound much better too!
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
Nate Najar wrote:
I agree completely. I am finding so many uses for dynamics and ribbons where they are much more appropriate than a capacitor mic for the situation. It is making my concerts and recordings sound much better too! Permit me to again refer everyone to a 1970 Tom Jones performance that was almost totally RE15 recorded. Only the violins were miked with then-new Sony ECM-50s on the instruments, combined through an 8x1 "mult box". One comment suggested it was lip-sync to the commercial recording. It was not, I know ... I mixed it and have the quarter-inch mono master to confirm it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rgLd6A0DWM -- ~ Roy "If you notice the sound, it's wrong!" |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
On 5/31/2013 4:00 PM, Roy W. Rising wrote:
Nate Najar wrote: I agree completely. I am finding so many uses for dynamics and ribbons where they are much more appropriate than a capacitor mic for the situation. It is making my concerts and recordings sound much better too! Permit me to again refer everyone to a 1970 Tom Jones performance that was almost totally RE15 recorded. Only the violins were miked with then-new Sony ECM-50s on the instruments, combined through an 8x1 "mult box". One comment suggested it was lip-sync to the commercial recording. It was not, I know ... I mixed it and have the quarter-inch mono master to confirm it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rgLd6A0DWM I know ... I mixed it and have the quarter-inch mono master to confirm it. Prove it. I have a quarter inch reel to reel here to verify and it is part of my rock and roll museum just catching dust. Very finely mixed. You are a rising star Roy W. Rising. Should have one a Grammy or something on that one. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
On 5/31/2013 4:45 PM, HIO wrote:
On 5/31/2013 4:00 PM, Roy W. Rising wrote: Nate Najar wrote: I agree completely. I am finding so many uses for dynamics and ribbons where they are much more appropriate than a capacitor mic for the situation. It is making my concerts and recordings sound much better too! Permit me to again refer everyone to a 1970 Tom Jones performance that was almost totally RE15 recorded. Only the violins were miked with then-new Sony ECM-50s on the instruments, combined through an 8x1 "mult box". One comment suggested it was lip-sync to the commercial recording. It was not, I know ... I mixed it and have the quarter-inch mono master to confirm it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rgLd6A0DWM I know ... I mixed it and have the quarter-inch mono master to confirm it. Prove it. I have a quarter inch reel to reel here to verify and it is part of my rock and roll museum just catching dust. Very finely mixed. You are a rising star Roy W. Rising. Should have one a Grammy or something on that one. Prove it. I have a quarter inch reel to reel here to verify and it is part of my rock and roll museum just catching dust. Strike that. It is a quarter inch 8 track reel to reel. Tascam Studio 8 388 and in mint condition. Just waiting for somebody who needs to rent it for some old recordings they cannot play. Loving my Mozilla Thunderbird so you better plonk me now. Seen a difference in my posting style? Now I know why everyone hated me before. Wishful thinking I know. Your friend, Here In Oregon and not California |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
Roy W. Rising writes:
Nate Najar wrote: I agree completely. I am finding so many uses for dynamics and ribbons where they are much more appropriate than a capacitor mic for the situation. It is making my concerts and recordings sound much better too! Permit me to again refer everyone to a 1970 Tom Jones performance that was almost totally RE15 recorded. Only the violins were miked with then-new Sony ECM-50s on the instruments, combined through an 8x1 "mult box". One comment suggested it was lip-sync to the commercial recording. It was not, I know ... I mixed it and have the quarter-inch mono master to confirm it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rgLd6A0DWM What's the vocal mic? Does not appear to be an RE15... Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
Roy,
That sounds incredible. What a great mix. Of course the orchestration and performance are top notch as well. How many channels and what did you have to mix on back then? What was he singing into? Man what pipes. N |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
Nate Najar wrote:
Roy, That sounds incredible. What a great mix. Of course the orchestration and performance are top notch as well. How many channels and what did you have to mix on back then? What was he singing into? Man what pipes. N Thanks. The board was a custom-built monster from McCurdy Radio of Canada. It had three 10x4 premix groups feeding into 12 submasters. There were six additional "subs" for playback sources. Three masters handled Vocals, Orchestra and Rhythm, combining down to the mono output. Tom's hand mic was a dynamic from AKG, I think, I don't recall the model number. I used EV 635As for other singing guests. -- ~ Roy "If you notice the sound, it's wrong!" |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
Roy W. Rising writes:
Nate Najar wrote: Roy, That sounds incredible. What a great mix. Of course the orchestration and performance are top notch as well. How many channels and what did you have to mix on back then? What was he singing into? Man what pipes. N Thanks. The board was a custom-built monster from McCurdy Radio of Canada. It had three 10x4 premix groups feeding into 12 submasters. There were six Hi Roy - Interesting configuration. If I read this right, you had 30 inputs in three groups of 10. Not clear how the sub assigns were done... Was it something like input group A could feed subs 1-4; while input group B could go to 5-8, then group C to 9-12? Or am I missing something? additional "subs" for playback sources. Three masters handled Vocals, Orchestra and Rhythm, combining down to the mono output. Tom's hand mic was a dynamic from AKG, I think, I don't recall the model number. I used Interesting. I've always wondered if that mic wasn't a KM54 or KM56, that small diaphragm Nuemann (nuvistor perhaps) that was the ancestor of the KM80 series... But you said dynamic so perhaps not. Maybe there was one of those little lunchbox power supplies? Seems like Jones always used this microphone, and it was unique at the time, so I assume his people always brought it along, whatever it was... Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
Frank Stearns wrote:
Roy W. Rising writes: Nate Najar wrote: Roy, That sounds incredible. What a great mix. Of course the orchestration and performance are top notch as well. How many channels and what did you have to mix on back then? What was he singing into? Man what pipes. N Thanks. The board was a custom-built monster from McCurdy Radio of Canada. It had three 10x4 premix groups feeding into 12 submasters. There were six Hi Roy - Interesting configuration. If I read this right, you had 30 inputs in three groups of 10. Hi, Frank. Correct. Not clear how the sub assigns were done... Was it something like input group A could feed subs 1-4; while input group B could go to 5-8, then group C to 9-12? Or am I missing something? Each group had four patchable outputs. The subs, which also could take mic level, were patched as needed to the groups' outputs. The subs' outputs were assignable to the L-C-R master channels. A fourth 'Bypass' assignment could be used for direct feeds, to the Mono mix for example. Premix group 1 was on the main deck, to the left of the subs, which were in the center. It was commonly used for all of the vocal mics, plus booms, etc. The three masters were to the right of the subs, and the Applause master was to the right of these. The six playback subs were to the right of the Appl master. The other premix groups were vertically mounted on the splash/meter panel just beyond the main deck. Everything was within easy reach. Also, all of the subs had reverb-send to a common buss. I was shown how best to use this system by the late Bob Buck, its designer. He put it on paper over a weekend when sent to New York on a Friday with instructions to present on Monday. Used as intended, the results could be marvelous. In the early '80s I held the pencil for the Mixer/Engineers to develop the last analog successor to the McCurdy boards. The resulting 32x16x4+L,M,R built for ABC by Ward-Beck could replicate the mixing practices that worked so well on the McCurdys. That, plus many more exceedingly flexible options. additional "subs" for playback sources. Three masters handled Vocals, Orchestra and Rhythm, combining down to the mono output. Tom's hand mic was a dynamic from AKG, I think, I don't recall the model number. I used Interesting. I've always wondered if that mic wasn't a KM54 or KM56, that small diaphragm Nuemann (nuvistor perhaps) that was the ancestor of the KM80 series... But you said dynamic so perhaps not. Maybe there was one of those little lunchbox power supplies? Seems like Jones always used this microphone, and it was unique at the time, so I assume his people always brought it along, whatever it was... It definitely was a dynamic, perhaps not from AKG. I dug up the info several years ago and can't find it right now. Indeed, Tom's people provided it. They agreed that it was pop-prone, but Tom knew how to work it. The "gold" model was used for the Hollywood tapings in '69 and '70. Most of the England shows used the stock "silver" version. Frank Mobile Audio -- ~ Roy "If you notice the sound, it's wrong!" |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
On 6/2/2013 12:35 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote: Jeff Henig wrote: Dang, Roy. What *don't* you remember? I have a hard time remembering why I walked into the room, and you could remember if you picked your nose on a specific date twenty years ago, and which nostril, and whether it was soft or clumpy. You're impressive, man! Thanks, Jeff. As with the exact details of Tom Jones' hand mic, I don't really remember *everything*. When I first graduated from sound as a hobby into the subsequent career, I thought that the more I knew about what I was doing, the better job I could do. I soaked up all things audio like a sponge. Much of it remains intact. It carried me through many challenges and left me with some good stories. However, along the way I saw that being filled with information was not required. I watched many mechanics moving the faders and getting by OK. They could not answer probing questions very well, but they stayed in the chair. I would not trade their approach for mine, I couldn't take the fear of being found out. I continue to think extensive knowledge is the most important tool in the bag of tricks and recommend continuing curiosity as its catalyst. This is the kind of approach, and you're the kind of guy, that I want running my sound and my studio if I should ever be blessed enough to perform and release recordings at a truly professional level. You rock. Yep, Roy rocks! +2 and don't forget Junior and his awesome and ergonomic mobile mixing all in one earth unit. I am kind of jello-us. I could spill coffee, walk around the studio while getting exercise, eating and mixing at the same time........ |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
On 6/2/2013 12:05 PM, Roy W. Rising wrote:
Jeff Henig wrote: Dang, Roy. What *don't* you remember? I have a hard time remembering why I walked into the room, and you could remember if you picked your nose on a specific date twenty years ago, and which nostril, and whether it was soft or clumpy. You're impressive, man! Thanks, Jeff. As with the exact details of Tom Jones' hand mic, I don't really remember *everything*. When I first graduated from sound as a hobby into the subsequent career, I thought that the more I knew about what I was doing, the better job I could do. I soaked up all things audio like a sponge. Much of it remains intact. It carried me through many challenges and left me with some good stories. However, along the way I saw that being filled with information was not required. I watched many mechanics moving the faders and getting by OK. They could not answer probing questions very well, but they stayed in the chair. I would not trade their approach for mine, I couldn't take the fear of being found out. I continue to think extensive knowledge is the most important tool in the bag of tricks and recommend continuing curiosity as its catalyst. I'm still waiting for the book. Roy, just do it! |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
david gourley wrote:
mcp6453 said...news:- I'm still waiting for the book. Roy, just do it! +1 david Thanks, guys. Indeed, I probably could write "The Book on TV Sound" a.k.a. "TV Sound for Dummies". My problem is overcoming inertia while there are so many other projects deferred by too many long hours at the TV grindstone. The good news is that there IS life after television. ;-) I did manage from 1985 to 2000 to write a monthly column "Sound Ideas" for Video Systems Magazine. The publication is the non-broadcast companion to Broadcasting Magazine. I covered a lot of territory. If there is a particular topic of interest, contact me directly and I'll try to send a copy of my submission file ... assuming I wrote something on your subject. -- ~ Roy "If you notice the sound, it's wrong!" |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 01:08:53 +0000, Roy W. Rising wrote:
david gourley wrote: mcp6453 said...news:- I'm still waiting for the book. Roy, just do it! +1 david Thanks, guys. Indeed, I probably could write "The Book on TV Sound" a.k.a. "TV Sound for Dummies". My problem is overcoming inertia while there are so many other projects deferred by too many long hours at the TV grindstone. The good news is that there IS life after television. ;-) I did manage from 1985 to 2000 to write a monthly column "Sound Ideas" for Video Systems Magazine. The publication is the non-broadcast companion to Broadcasting Magazine. I covered a lot of territory. If there is a particular topic of interest, contact me directly and I'll try to send a copy of my submission file ... assuming I wrote something on your subject. Roy, that's a collection of some 60 articles. If there isn't a book in there I'd be surprised. Who owns the copyright? Steve King |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
S. King wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 01:08:53 +0000, Roy W. Rising wrote: david gourley wrote: mcp6453 said...news:- I'm still waiting for the book. Roy, just do it! +1 david Thanks, guys. Indeed, I probably could write "The Book on TV Sound" a.k.a. "TV Sound for Dummies". My problem is overcoming inertia while there are so many other projects deferred by too many long hours at the TV grindstone. The good news is that there IS life after television. ;-) I did manage from 1985 to 2000 to write a monthly column "Sound Ideas" for Video Systems Magazine. The publication is the non-broadcast companion to Broadcasting Magazine. I covered a lot of territory. If there is a particular topic of interest, contact me directly and I'll try to send a copy of my submission file ... assuming I wrote something on your subject. Roy, that's a collection of some 60 articles. If there isn't a book in there I'd be surprised. Who owns the copyright? Steve King +2 -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
hank alrich wrote:
S. King wrote: On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 01:08:53 +0000, Roy W. Rising wrote: david gourley wrote: mcp6453 said...news:- I'm still waiting for the book. Roy, just do it! +1 david Thanks, guys. Indeed, I probably could write "The Book on TV Sound" a.k.a. "TV Sound for Dummies". My problem is overcoming inertia while there are so many other projects deferred by too many long hours at the TV grindstone. The good news is that there IS life after television. ;-) I did manage from 1985 to 2000 to write a monthly column "Sound Ideas" for Video Systems Magazine. The publication is the non-broadcast companion to Broadcasting Magazine. I covered a lot of territory. If there is a particular topic of interest, contact me directly and I'll try to send a copy of my submission file ... assuming I wrote something on your subject. Roy, that's a collection of some 60 articles. If there isn't a book in there I'd be surprised. Who owns the copyright? Steve King +2 +3 -- Peter Larsen Langeås 20 4281 Gørlev 3582 1612 |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
Peter Larsen wrote:
Roy, that's a collection of some 60 articles. If there isn't a book in there I'd be surprised. Who owns the copyright? Steve King +2 +3 & example shows on youtube -- Peter Larsen Langeås 20 4281 Gørlev 3582 1612 |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
"Peter Larsen" wrote:
hank alrich wrote: S. King wrote: On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 01:08:53 +0000, Roy W. Rising wrote: david gourley wrote: mcp6453 said...news:- I'm still waiting for the book. Roy, just do it! +1 david Thanks, guys. Indeed, I probably could write "The Book on TV Sound" a.k.a. "TV Sound for Dummies". My problem is overcoming inertia while there are so many other projects deferred by too many long hours at the TV grindstone. The good news is that there IS life after television. ;-) I did manage from 1985 to 2000 to write a monthly column "Sound Ideas" for Video Systems Magazine. The publication is the non-broadcast companion to Broadcasting Magazine. I covered a lot of territory. If there is a particular topic of interest, contact me directly and I'll try to send a copy of my submission file ... assuming I wrote something on your subject. Roy, that's a collection of some 60 articles. If there isn't a book in there I'd be surprised. Who owns the copyright? Steve King +2 +3 Thanks, Steve, Hank and Peter. I'm pretty sure my work is owned by Intertec Publishing. The total is somewhat less than 180 (15x12) because I was encouraged to dust off and update some previous columns. By the way ~ Nate started a thread over at Gearslutz titled "Remote mic'ing". It was spawned by this thread. Within it Rolo 46 of the UK revealed that Tom Jones' hand mic was a Sennheiser MD211. Thanks. I'll write it down this time. -- ~ Roy "If you notice the sound, it's wrong!" |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
"Peter Larsen" wrote:
Peter Larsen wrote: Roy, that's a collection of some 60 articles. If there isn't a book in there I'd be surprised. Who owns the copyright? Steve King +2 +3 & example shows on youtube Another Tom Jones clip is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSajFnkUxQY. It was the very first one I did for the show in 1969. That year I also mixed The Music Scene, which featured most of the acts from that Summer's Woodstock Festival. There's a DVD of it and I'll have to look for clips on YouTube. -- ~ Roy "If you notice the sound, it's wrong!" |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
S. King wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 01:08:53 +0000, Roy W. Rising wrote: david gourley wrote: mcp6453 said...news:- I'm still waiting for the book. Roy, just do it! +1 david Thanks, guys. Indeed, I probably could write "The Book on TV Sound" a.k.a. "TV Sound for Dummies". My problem is overcoming inertia while there are so many other projects deferred by too many long hours at the TV grindstone. The good news is that there IS life after television. ;-) I did manage from 1985 to 2000 to write a monthly column "Sound Ideas" for Video Systems Magazine. The publication is the non-broadcast companion to Broadcasting Magazine. I covered a lot of territory. If there is a particular topic of interest, contact me directly and I'll try to send a copy of my submission file ... assuming I wrote something on your subject. Roy, that's a collection of some 60 articles. If there isn't a book in there I'd be surprised. Who owns the copyright? Steve King Probably somebody that has no idea it exists. -- Les Cargill |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
How about this? Why not write an eBook (easy and cheap), and I'll pay $100 in
advance for the first copy. On 6/5/2013 11:43 AM, Roy W. Rising wrote: "Peter Larsen" wrote: hank alrich wrote: S. King wrote: On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 01:08:53 +0000, Roy W. Rising wrote: david gourley wrote: mcp6453 said...news:- I'm still waiting for the book. Roy, just do it! +1 david Thanks, guys. Indeed, I probably could write "The Book on TV Sound" a.k.a. "TV Sound for Dummies". My problem is overcoming inertia while there are so many other projects deferred by too many long hours at the TV grindstone. The good news is that there IS life after television. ;-) I did manage from 1985 to 2000 to write a monthly column "Sound Ideas" for Video Systems Magazine. The publication is the non-broadcast companion to Broadcasting Magazine. I covered a lot of territory. If there is a particular topic of interest, contact me directly and I'll try to send a copy of my submission file ... assuming I wrote something on your subject. Roy, that's a collection of some 60 articles. If there isn't a book in there I'd be surprised. Who owns the copyright? Steve King +2 +3 Thanks, Steve, Hank and Peter. I'm pretty sure my work is owned by Intertec Publishing. The total is somewhat less than 180 (15x12) because I was encouraged to dust off and update some previous columns. By the way ~ Nate started a thread over at Gearslutz titled "Remote mic'ing". It was spawned by this thread. Within it Rolo 46 of the UK revealed that Tom Jones' hand mic was a Sennheiser MD211. Thanks. I'll write it down this time. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
mcp6453 wrote:
How about this? Why not write an eBook (easy and cheap), and I'll pay $100 in advance for the first copy. Hmmm. "write an eBook" still contains the word "write". Maybe I could package the columns' contents in a form that would be like "basement tapes" used to be. With one exception, all of my submissions were changed before publication. Perhaps the originals could be offered. Does anyone know more about these matters? -- ~ Roy "If you notice the sound, it's wrong!" |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
On 6/5/2013 7:57 PM, Roy W. Rising wrote:
mcp6453 wrote: How about this? Why not write an eBook (easy and cheap), and I'll pay $100 in advance for the first copy. Hmmm. "write an eBook" still contains the word "write". Maybe I could package the columns' contents in a form that would be like "basement tapes" used to be. With one exception, all of my submissions were changed before publication. Perhaps the originals could be offered. Does anyone know more about these matters? If you assigned the copyrights to the articles, the assignee may be willing to release them back to you. It's worth asking. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
On 6/5/2013 7:57 PM, Roy W. Rising wrote:
Hmmm. "write an eBook" still contains the word "write". And also, the lower case letter "e." Maybe I could package the columns' contents in a form that would be like "basement tapes" used to be. With one exception, all of my submissions were changed before publication. Perhaps the originals could be offered. Does anyone know more about these matters? I set up my web site to keep some of the articles and reviews that I'd written for magazines available to those who weren't around 10 or 16 years ago when magazines were still publishing (and paying for) this sort of content. I asked the publishers if they'd sue me if I posted my original submissions and they all said I was welcome to do it. The copyright (at least in the US) belongs to me and all they want is an "exclusive" for a relatively short period of time so that people will buy the magazine. But they don't care about anything that's long out of print. Perhaps it's the same with the magazine(s) you wrote for. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
Mike Rivers writes:
On 6/5/2013 7:57 PM, Roy W. Rising wrote: Hmmm. "write an eBook" still contains the word "write". And also, the lower case letter "e." Maybe I could package the columns' contents in a form that would be like "basement tapes" used to be. With one exception, all of my submissions were changed before publication. Perhaps the originals could be offered. Does anyone know more about these matters? I set up my web site to keep some of the articles and reviews that I'd written for magazines available to those who weren't around 10 or 16 years ago when magazines were still publishing (and paying for) this sort of content. I asked the publishers if they'd sue me if I posted my original submissions and they all said I was welcome to do it. The copyright (at least in the US) belongs to me and all they want is an "exclusive" for a relatively short period of time so that people will buy the magazine. But they don't care about anything that's long out of print. Perhaps it's the same with the magazine(s) you wrote for. This is likely the case. I think it was once upon a time called "first serial rights" or something like that... Unless you did "writing for hire", the magazine bought the right to publish your work the first time, and maybe in one additional form (like an anthology or "best of"), but they did NOT own the work -- you did, and you were able to do something else with it at some future time (like "now", for example w). This is all murky in my mind, but no doubt there is an online resource for non-fiction publishing that would explain the rights typically retained by the author in such situations. Would be fun to BUY and read your work, Roy. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
Frank Stearns wrote:
to do it. The copyright (at least in the US) belongs to me and all they want is an "exclusive" for a relatively short period of time so that people will buy the magazine. But they don't care about anything that's long out of print. Perhaps it's the same with the magazine(s) you wrote for. This is likely the case. I think it was once upon a time called "first serial rights" or something like that... Unless you did "writing for hire", the magazine bought the right to publish your work the first time, and maybe in one additional form (like an anthology or "best of"), but they did NOT own the work -- you did, and you were able to do something else with it at some future time (like "now", for example w). Ambiguity is not an ingredient in any good contract so this should be spelled out unmistakingly clear in the original contract. The common sense approach is that they bought the right to publish in their magazine, not all rights for all time. If this is unclear, then a look at how much they paid could assist in interpretation, all rights for all time cost more than the right to a single print run. If all else fails: ask a lawyer what the contract actually means when translated to a humanly understandable version of english. Kind regards Peter Larsen This is all murky in my mind, but no doubt there is an online resource for non-fiction publishing that would explain the rights typically retained by the author in such situations. Would be fun to BUY and read your work, Roy. Frank Mobile Audio -- Peter Larsen Langeås 20 4281 Gørlev 3582 1612 |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
Peter, Frank, Mike and mcp6453 ~ Thanks for the ideas. I'll try to dig up
my contract and/or contact Intertec Publishing. They used to put some of my columns on the web but have ceased to do so. Maybe I'm in the clear. Don't hold your breath(s). -- ~ Roy "If you notice the sound, it's wrong!" |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
On 6/5/2013 11:53 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
Ambiguity is not an ingredient in any good contract so this should be spelled out unmistakingly clear in the original contract. Contract? I never got a contract to write for a magazine. I suppose it's a good thing I never got screwed or sued. A couple of magazines that I've written for have a standard fee for an article, one pays by word count after they edit it to fit. Writing magazine articles never paid close enough to live on, but when I could count on about an article a month, it paid for my habit of going to trade shows and occasionally buying a piece of gear. The shows are where I find things to write about so it sort of feeds itself. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:10:17 +0000, Roy W. Rising wrote:
Peter, Frank, Mike and mcp6453 ~ Thanks for the ideas. I'll try to dig up my contract and/or contact Intertec Publishing. They used to put some of my columns on the web but have ceased to do so. Maybe I'm in the clear. Don't hold your breath(s). For what its worth... A Friend of mine wrote a book for voice people about setting up home studios. An outfit called Course Technology in Boston helped him with design and editing. He's been very successful with the book, selling through his own web site (www.harlanhogan.com) as well as through Amazon. The DVD he and his co-author made as a companion to the book has been even more successful. I asked him if it was worth all the effort, and he said that he was very satisfied. It has been a nice revenue stream for him since it was published in 2009. Sales seem to be steady. Steve King |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
"S. King" wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:10:17 +0000, Roy W. Rising wrote: Peter, Frank, Mike and mcp6453 ~ Thanks for the ideas. I'll try to dig up my contract and/or contact Intertec Publishing. They used to put some of my columns on the web but have ceased to do so. Maybe I'm in the clear. Don't hold your breath(s). For what its worth... A Friend of mine wrote a book for voice people about setting up home studios. An outfit called Course Technology in Boston helped him with design and editing. He's been very successful with the book, selling through his own web site (www.harlanhogan.com) as well as through Amazon. The DVD he and his co-author made as a companion to the book has been even more successful. I asked him if it was worth all the effort, and he said that he was very satisfied. It has been a nice revenue stream for him since it was published in 2009. Sales seem to be steady. Steve King Nice to know. Thanks, Steve. I'll keep your input in mind. -- ~ Roy "If you notice the sound, it's wrong!" |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
re15 is a winner
On 6/6/2013 6:10 AM, Roy W. Rising wrote:
Peter, Frank, Mike and mcp6453 ~ Thanks for the ideas. I'll try to dig up my contract and/or contact Intertec Publishing. They used to put some of my columns on the web but have ceased to do so. Maybe I'm in the clear. Don't hold your breath(s). We're still waiting with anxious anticipation..... |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
WTB EV RE15 | Pro Audio | |||
.....And the winner is..... | Audio Opinions | |||
*And The Winner is...* | Vacuum Tubes | |||
6x9 and the winner is... | Car Audio | |||
And the winner is . . . | Pro Audio |