[[email protected]]

It all starts with good writing & composition, great authors as one guy pointed out to me, and rehearsal, rehearsal, rehearsal(!) But how much of a role does the engineering side play in producing something that wins Grammys, or at least, becomes a standard for decades on?

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

wrote:
It all starts with good writing & composition,

.... whatever that means, We know it when we see it, sometimes.

I expect "Under Pressure" by Queen is "great", but it's really
only seven notes. "Wish You Were Here" and we're down to
four.

Hooks. It's hooks. Er, it usedta be. Prolly still is; the hooks
are just not necessarily all musical cues now.

Of course, I am talking the sort of big selling album music
I grew up on . Folk will be different, as will jazz, as will
other genres.

great authors as one
guy pointed out to me, and rehearsal, rehearsal, rehearsal(!)

.... or not. This *really* varies a lot; I'd kinda hate to record
something after dogging it for a year on the road because after about a
month you can play it in your sleep.

But
how much of a role does the engineering side play in producing
something that wins Grammys, or at least, becomes a standard for
decades on?


Almost zilch. Except for the appropriate technical Grammies.

soapbox

The first CD I ever bought was "Hotel California". I thought it
was a bad pressing all those years. Nope. All the ugly
was apparently *tracked* that way.

/soapbox


--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

On 4/12/2014 10:55 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
The first CD I ever bought was "Hotel California". I thought it
was a bad pressing all those years. Nope. All the ugly
was apparently *tracked* that way.

Er bad pressings were common in the days of vinyl. But you actually
thought a CD that managed to play properly was a "bad pressing" because
it sounded off?

I will admit however to thinking some of my vinyl were bad pressings
because of very high distortion, until I got CD copies that were the
same :-(

Trevor.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:
On 4/12/2014 10:55 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
The first CD I ever bought was "Hotel California". I thought it
was a bad pressing all those years. Nope. All the ugly
was apparently *tracked* that way.

Er bad pressings were common in the days of vinyl. But you actually
thought a CD that managed to play properly was a "bad pressing" because
it sounded off?


I had heard it only on vinyl up to that point, and thought that the CD
was going to sound significantly different.

It didn't. Of course you lost all the surface noise and such.

I will admit however to thinking some of my vinyl were bad pressings
because of very high distortion, until I got CD copies that were the
same :-(


Exactly.

Trevor.


--
Les Cargill

[[email protected]]

Les Cargil wrote: "I had heard it only on vinyl up to that point, and thought that the CD
was going to sound significantly different.

It didn't. Of course you lost all the surface noise and such. "

It didn't because they used the same/existing source as for vinyl - as was the case many time during the early CD days.

They could have made some changes, like not summing the bass end to mono(for vinyl), but they were probably in a rush to get the catalog out on these new shiny contraptions.

[Trevor]

On 5/12/2014 12:13 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
Trevor wrote:
On 4/12/2014 10:55 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
The first CD I ever bought was "Hotel California". I thought it
was a bad pressing all those years. Nope. All the ugly
was apparently *tracked* that way.

Er bad pressings were common in the days of vinyl. But you actually
thought a CD that managed to play properly was a "bad pressing" because
it sounded off?


I had heard it only on vinyl up to that point, and thought that the CD
was going to sound significantly different.

It didn't. Of course you lost all the surface noise and such.

I will admit however to thinking some of my vinyl were bad pressings
because of very high distortion, until I got CD copies that were the
same :-(


Exactly.

Right, two different things. Bad CD pressings usually don't play
properly. Bad vinyl pressings can be noisy, distorted, warp wow, skip
etc. If a CD simply sounds crook, it's almost certainly not the pressing
as you originally thought.

Trevor.
\

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, December 4, 2014 9:23:54 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
On 5/12/2014 12:13 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
Trevor wrote:
On 4/12/2014 10:55 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
The first CD I ever bought was "Hotel California". I thought it
was a bad pressing all those years. Nope. All the ugly
was apparently *tracked* that way.

Er bad pressings were common in the days of vinyl. But you actually
thought a CD that managed to play properly was a "bad pressing" because
it sounded off?


I had heard it only on vinyl up to that point, and thought that the CD
was going to sound significantly different.

It didn't. Of course you lost all the surface noise and such.

I will admit however to thinking some of my vinyl were bad pressings
because of very high distortion, until I got CD copies that were the
same :-(


Exactly.

Right, two different things. Bad CD pressings usually don't play
properly. Bad vinyl pressings can be noisy, distorted, warp wow, skip
etc. If a CD simply sounds crook, it's almost certainly not the pressing
as you originally thought.

Trevor.
\
__________
True - it could be the mastering.

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill wrote:

The first CD I ever bought was "Hotel California". I thought it
was a bad pressing all those years. Nope. All the ugly
was apparently *tracked* that way.

The top end was knocked down a bit on the LP, which made it much more
listenable, but the harshness of the PCM1610 just made the early CD
release even more screechy than the original.

This is a classic "cocaine mix" and you will find the same tonal issues on
a lot of major releases from that era for the same substance-related reasons.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 12/4/2014 10:09 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

The first CD I ever bought was "Hotel California". I thought it
was a bad pressing all those years. Nope. All the ugly
was apparently *tracked* that way.

The top end was knocked down a bit on the LP, which made it much more
listenable, but the harshness of the PCM1610 just made the early CD
release even more screechy than the original.

This is a classic "cocaine mix" and you will find the same tonal issues on
a lot of major releases from that era for the same substance-related reasons.
--scott


What's a cocaine mix? What is it about cocaine that causes the problem?

[hank alrich]

mcp6453 wrote:

On 12/4/2014 10:09 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

The first CD I ever bought was "Hotel California". I thought it
was a bad pressing all those years. Nope. All the ugly
was apparently *tracked* that way.

The top end was knocked down a bit on the LP, which made it much more
listenable, but the harshness of the PCM1610 just made the early CD
release even more screechy than the original.

This is a classic "cocaine mix" and you will find the same tonal issues
on a lot of major releases from that era for the same substance-related
reasons. --scott


What's a cocaine mix? What is it about cocaine that causes the problem?

How it messes up your perception of high frequencies. You will want
MORE, just like you "need" more cocaine.

I have been in the studio with famous producer-engineers who broke out
the blow at the start of mixdown and referred to it as "mixing powder".
The end result is almost always ugly.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Klay Anderson[_2_]]

On Thursday, December 4, 2014 12:46:17 PM UTC-7, hank alrich wrote:

I have been in the studio with famous producer-engineers who broke out
the blow at the start of mixdown and referred to it as "mixing powder".
The end result is almost always ugly.

That's what I used to call a "balanced line". Half the producer and half for me.

Yours truly,
Mr. Klay Anderson, D.A.,Q.B.E.

[Rick Ruskin]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 14:36:30 -0500, mcp6453 wrote:

On 12/4/2014 10:09 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:


The top end was knocked down a bit on the LP, which made it much more
listenable, but the harshness of the PCM1610 just made the early CD
release even more screechy than the original.


I maintain that the reason early CD's sounded so bad wasn't so much
because of the converters but because the eq'd safety masters made
when the original laquers were cut got used for the CD masters instead
of the original master reels. I'm assuming ignorance on the part of
some individual(s) for these errors becaue it happened more than once.

[Scott Dorsey]

Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 14:36:30 -0500, mcp6453 wrote:

On 12/4/2014 10:09 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

The top end was knocked down a bit on the LP, which made it much more
listenable, but the harshness of the PCM1610 just made the early CD
release even more screechy than the original.

I maintain that the reason early CD's sounded so bad wasn't so much
because of the converters but because the eq'd safety masters made
when the original laquers were cut got used for the CD masters instead
of the original master reels. I'm assuming ignorance on the part of
some individual(s) for these errors becaue it happened more than once.

There were a LOT of reasons why early CDs sounded bad, and that was one
of them. But the original converters were pretty dreadful too. And
all the cocaine didn't help either... remember the CD was introduced at
about the same time crack did....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Rick Ruskin wrote:
I maintain that the reason early CD's sounded so bad wasn't so much
because of the converters but because the eq'd safety masters made
when the original laquers were cut got used for the CD masters instead
of the original master reels. I'm assuming ignorance on the part of
some individual(s) for these errors becaue it happened more than once.

I have loads of superb sounding early CDs. Compared to the LPs of the same
material, that is.

--
*Elephants are the only mammals that can't jump *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

The first CD I ever bought was "Hotel California". I thought it
was a bad pressing all those years. Nope. All the ugly
was apparently *tracked* that way.

The top end was knocked down a bit on the LP, which made it much more
listenable, but the harshness of the PCM1610 just made the early CD
release even more screechy than the original.

This is a classic "cocaine mix"

.... so I found out later. Some of it sounds like it was just badly
overloaded tape in tracking.

and you will find the same tonal issues on
a lot of major releases from that era for the same substance-related reasons.


Not to recommend it, but the most egregikous example I know of is Don
Felder's solo album. Holy cow.

--scott



--
Les Cargill

[[email protected]]

Les Cargill:

Your's(the first reply to this thread) remains the best and most relevant answer.

But as opposed to zilch, I think engineering plays a significant role in conveying the meaning of a piece of music into a playable form.

And over engineering is an issue.

[PStamler]

This potential confusion between mS and ms is why I wish the Powers that Are had stuck with mho.

Peace,
Paul

PS Not to mention the fact that undergraduates giggle when you say millisiemens".

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/22/2014 6:34 AM, PStamler wrote:
This potential confusion between mS and ms is why I wish the Powers that Are had stuck with mho.

But isn't that transconductance?

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/22/2014 6:34 AM, PStamler wrote:
This potential confusion between mS and ms is why I wish the Powers that Are had stuck with mho.

But isn't that transconductance?

It could be any kind of conductance. But now we use siemens instead of mho
and hertz instead of cycles. And really, it doesn't make any difference
except for confusing people. It's bad enough that I have to explain MFD
instead of uF...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[None]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Rivers
wrote:
On 12/22/2014 6:34 AM, PStamler wrote:
This potential confusion between mS and ms is why I wish the
Powers that Are had stuck with mho.

But isn't that transconductance?

It could be any kind of conductance. But now we use siemens instead
of mho
and hertz instead of cycles. And really, it doesn't make any
difference
except for confusing people. It's bad enough that I have to explain
MFD
instead of uF...
--scott

Sloppy use of long-obsolete terminology is probably more confusing
than using hertz, which shouldn't be confusing to any professional or
academic or technician.

[Trevor]

On 23/12/2014 1:57 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's bad enough that I have to explain MFD
instead of uF...

Why would you have to explain Metro Fire Department Vs micro Farad?

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/24/2014 5:27 AM, Trevor wrote:

Why would you have to explain Metro Fire Department Vs micro Farad?

To most people, DMV stands for Division of Motor Vehicles. Every state
has one. But around here in the Washington DC area, people too lazy to
write "Washington Metropolitan Area" use DMV, meanomg District,
Maryland, and Virginia. No concern that there are parts of Virginia and
Maryland that are more than 200 miles from Washington DC.

We have WMATA - Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Agency - that
operates the airports and subway system, and they make their area of
coverage clear. But why would i eat at a restaurant where I go to renew
my driver's license (OK, I can do that on line now)?

And wasn't there some concern about the confusion between The Beatles'
Apple record label and Apple Computers? After all, both involve music.
If The Beatles wasn't so big, they would have lost that battle.

But it's possible that you might have occasion to write "The 2000 MFD
capacitor blew up and I had to call the MFD when the flames got too big."


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[None]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
It's bad enough that I have to explain MFD instead of uF...

Maybe you shouldn't insist on using obsolete and non-standard
terminology. When you insist on avoiding the standards, the confusion
is obviously the fault of you, and you alone.

[Scott Dorsey]

None wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
It's bad enough that I have to explain MFD instead of uF...

Maybe you shouldn't insist on using obsolete and non-standard
terminology. When you insist on avoiding the standards, the confusion
is obviously the fault of you, and you alone.

It's my perogative as an old fart.
It's not MY fault they keep changing the standards.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[PStamler]

Yeah, but using Hz won't get you very far if you're talking about conductance, which is what Siemens is the unit for.

Peace,
Paul

PS Another annoyance: what's the plural of Siemens? Siemenses? Siemensen?

[geoff]

On 23/12/2014 2:24 p.m., PStamler wrote:
Yeah, but using Hz won't get you very far if you're talking about conductance, which is what Siemens is the unit for.

Peace,
Paul

PS Another annoyance: what's the plural of Siemens? Siemenses? Siemensen?



Dunno, but 'semen' is inherently plural ;-)

geoff

PS Common usage would seem to support 'Siemens' being used for both the
singular and plural.