[JackA]

Though I've participated in usenet since around Y2k, I'm curious what this group is about? Anything and everything related to Audio? If so, why the "pro"?

Me, I enjoy music, mainly past music as far back as the '50's. I enjoy finding the highest quality sound. I began digitally enhancing older CDs, because I felt it made the sound more like the vinyl records sounded. I feel man was too quick to master audio CDs, think digital audio apps really help with sound detailing. Computers were too slow to be of aid with mastering back in the later '80's. Agree?

Not too long ago, since I'm VERY interested in the "uncommon" aspect of US Top 40 music, I found multi-tracks to remix. Granted, they generally aren't a full array of taped tracks, but enough to change the stereo sound. Besides, some of the renditions aren't edited and have never been officially released. You might find me on places like YouTube, where they debate over vinyl vs CD, same with Loudness wars. Your feelings?

I'm a firm believer that sound quality doesn't sell music. I've heard enough foul (audio) sounding songs that made US Top 10. I'd like your input if you feel differently.

I enjoy talking about sound masking (a term I use). Even though I listened to many involved in music (YouTube, etc.), I never heard this term, or similar. In other words, when (stereo) mixing, I attempt to uncover sounds that were typically masked by other sounds. It sort of makes you believe the instrument(s) are new to the song, but they were toned down or (stereo) mixed with other instruments.

Though I don't concentrate on it, used to enjoy electronics, and computer programming. But, today, I focus mainly on US Top 40 music, mainly past music, since radio missed so much, I didn't get to hear.

Regards,
Jack

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

JackA wrote:
Though I've participated in usenet since around Y2k, I'm curious what
this group is about? Anything and everything related to Audio? If so,
why the "pro"?


Pro is for production. Y'say you've been here since 2000? Hmmmm....

Thought you woulda caught that by now.

There used to be other audio newsgroups. They're gone.


snip

Regards, Jack


--
Les Cargill

[JackA]

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 11:02:26 PM UTC-5, Les Cargill wrote:
JackA wrote:
Though I've participated in usenet since around Y2k, I'm curious what
this group is about? Anything and everything related to Audio? If so,
why the "pro"?


Pro is for production. Y'say you've been here since 2000? Hmmmm....

Thought you woulda caught that by now.

There used to be other audio newsgroups. They're gone.

-- Hi Les,

Yeah, usenet seems to by dying, sadly.

I'm a professional lurker! No, I mean I've been participating in usenet since Y2K! Used to use Supernews and Easynews. Today, I just use Google.
Thanks for the "pro" info!

Jack



snip

Regards, Jack


--
Les Cargill

[geoff]

On 24/01/2015 5:20 p.m., JackA wrote:
.. Today, I just use Google.

That will be why your posts are so ****ed up then - each paragraph being
a single line 100s of characters long.


Don't use Goggle Groups - get a real USENET client.


geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 1/24/2015 6:28 AM, geoff wrote:
That will be why your posts are so ****ed up then - each paragraph being
a single line 100s of characters long.

Get a reader that knows how to wrap lines. I have no problems reading
his messages using Thunderbird. Throw away your iPhone!

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[geoff]

On 25/01/2015 2:40 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 1/24/2015 6:28 AM, geoff wrote:
That will be why your posts are so ****ed up then - each paragraph being
a single line 100s of characters long.

Get a reader that knows how to wrap lines. I have no problems reading
his messages using Thunderbird. Throw away your iPhone!

Um, Sorry Mike , I haven't got an iPhone.

I *am* using Thunderbird, which copes with pretty much everybody elses'
posts just fine.


geoff

[geoff]

On 24/01/2015 4:33 p.m., JackA wrote:
Computers were too slow to be of aid with mastering back in the later '80's. Agree?

No. The A-D and D-A converters, and the bit-depths achievable in those
days was a limiting factor.


Your feelings?

Vinyl v. CD has little to do with sound quality. More 'nostalgia. Record
vinyl critcally to CD, and the CD playback will sound pretty much
identical to the vinyl.

I'm a firm believer that sound quality doesn't sell music.
I've heard enough foul (audio) sounding songs that made US Top 10.

Sound quality, or for that matter musical quality, has little to do with
the US Top Ten.


geoff

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
geoff wrote:
Vinyl v. CD has little to do with sound quality. More 'nostalgia. Record
vinyl critcally to CD, and the CD playback will sound pretty much
identical to the vinyl.

Quite. Do the reverse, and the resulting LP no longer sounds like the CD.

It's something every single engineer knew from the first days of digital.
If not, doesn't deserve the title of engineer.

--
*Errors have been made. Others will be blamed.

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
geoff wrote:
Vinyl v. CD has little to do with sound quality. More 'nostalgia. Record
vinyl critcally to CD, and the CD playback will sound pretty much
identical to the vinyl.

Quite. Do the reverse, and the resulting LP no longer sounds like the CD.

It's something every single engineer knew from the first days of digital.
If not, doesn't deserve the title of engineer.

Sadly, in the first days of digital, it wasn't the case. How quickly people
forget just how far we have come.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
geoff wrote:
Vinyl v. CD has little to do with sound quality. More 'nostalgia. Record
vinyl critcally to CD, and the CD playback will sound pretty much
identical to the vinyl.

Quite. Do the reverse, and the resulting LP no longer sounds like the
CD.

It's something every single engineer knew from the first days of
digital. If not, doesn't deserve the title of engineer.

Sadly, in the first days of digital, it wasn't the case. How quickly
people forget just how far we have come. --scott

Perhaps I should have said from when digital was first used as a recording
method in my industry.

Didn't mean to suggest it was the universal panacea some think of it
today.

Working in broadcasting I tended only to see products which were already
proved, rather than new technology at its onset.

--
*When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty*

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

[Trevor]

On 25/01/2015 5:23 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
geoff wrote:
Vinyl v. CD has little to do with sound quality. More 'nostalgia. Record
vinyl critcally to CD, and the CD playback will sound pretty much
identical to the vinyl.

Quite. Do the reverse, and the resulting LP no longer sounds like the CD.

It's something every single engineer knew from the first days of digital.
If not, doesn't deserve the title of engineer.

Sadly, in the first days of digital, it wasn't the case. How quickly people
forget just how far we have come.

So right, in the early days of CD we just lost most of the analog noise,
distortion, wow, flutter, ticks, pops and rumble, but sometimes gained a
much smaller amount of digital noise and distortion instead. Now we
don't have to worry about the latter either, just poor mastering
decisions :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 24/01/2015 10:26 PM, geoff wrote:
On 24/01/2015 4:33 p.m., JackA wrote:
Computers were too slow to be of aid with mastering back in the later
'80's. Agree?

No. The A-D and D-A converters, and the bit-depths achievable in those
days was a limiting factor.


Your feelings?

Vinyl v. CD has little to do with sound quality. More 'nostalgia. Record
vinyl critcally to CD, and the CD playback will sound pretty much
identical to the vinyl.

"pretty much"? Hell it's absolutely trivial these days to send a vinyl
record output through a A-D/D-A process such that the vinyl fan boys
can't pick which is which, I know I've done it many times! ;-)

Many of the more sensible ones now acknowledge that and the debate has
moved on to real difference in commercial copies, the mastering differences.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 27/01/2015 6:28 p.m., Trevor wrote:


Many of the more sensible ones now acknowledge that and the debate has
moved on to real difference in commercial copies, the mastering
differences.

The general public are being sold, and appear to largely believe, a
different story by vinylholics.

Many (increasingly ?) also equate 'digital' as being MP3, and CD being
similarly quaity-compromised.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 27/01/2015 5:45 PM, geoff wrote:
On 27/01/2015 6:28 p.m., Trevor wrote:
Many of the more sensible ones now acknowledge that and the debate has
moved on to real difference in commercial copies, the mastering
differences.

The general public are being sold, and appear to largely believe, a
different story by vinylholics.

Even some of the musicians I work with still think vinyl is technically
superior, rather than simply a personal preference. Others simply
acknowledge there is a market they would like to tap into rather than fight.


Many (increasingly ?) also equate 'digital' as being MP3, and CD being
similarly quaity-compromised.

Even worse, we once had a local Hifi mag editor claim MP3 was *superior*
to CD when MP3 first came on the scene. He quickly recanted and now
disavows he ever said it! :-)

Trevor.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 3:24:51 AM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
On 27/01/2015 5:45 PM, geoff wrote:
On 27/01/2015 6:28 p.m., Trevor wrote:
Many of the more sensible ones now acknowledge that and the debate has
moved on to real difference in commercial copies, the mastering
differences.

The general public are being sold, and appear to largely believe, a
different story by vinylholics.

Even some of the musicians I work with still think vinyl is technically
superior, rather than simply a personal preference. Others simply
acknowledge there is a market they would like to tap into rather than fight.

If I may interject here. Sure, some songs sounded better on vinyl than on CD. That's what made me believe in digitally enhancing analog recorded songs, because I managed to make the CD version sound like the album/LP. Also, a lot was lost to time, so the next best source was used for CD. Also, I still claim, MP3 can't handle distortion well, if the source is distorted (the distortion people can't actually pinpoint) the MP3 will sound foul.

Man's hearing is a joke, really. In an independent study, only 50% of the time could people (men and women) detect a difference between a digital recording from a current analog recording (identical songs). In other words, they just guessed.

Jack


Many (increasingly ?) also equate 'digital' as being MP3, and CD being
similarly quaity-compromised.

Even worse, we once had a local Hifi mag editor claim MP3 was *superior*
to CD when MP3 first came on the scene. He quickly recanted and now
disavows he ever said it! :-)

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "Many of the more sensible ones now acknowledge
that and the debate has moved on to real difference in commercial copies,
the mastering differences. "

^ +1!!!!!!
Including me! But certain individuals seem to have a personal
problem with me, that when I say what you said above, I get
branded a "troll" or "dumb****" for it.

Can't win, Charlie Brown..

[None]

krissie dumb****i @ september-simpleton-dot-com wrote in message
...
Trevor wrote: "Many of the more sensible ones now acknowledge
that and the debate has moved on to real difference in commercial
copies,
the mastering differences. "

^ +1!!!!!!
Including me! But certain individuals seem to have a personal
problem with me, that when I say what you said above, I get
branded a "troll" or "dumb****" for it.

You've never said what he said, you trolling dumb****.

[Trevor]

On 28/01/2015 4:07 AM, wrote:
Trevor wrote: "Many of the more sensible ones now acknowledge
that and the debate has moved on to real difference in commercial copies,
the mastering differences. "

^ +1!!!!!!
Including me! But certain individuals seem to have a personal
problem with me, that when I say what you said above, I get
branded a "troll" or "dumb****" for it.

Can't win, Charlie Brown..

What you don't seem to get is that the professionals here understand far
better than you what is happening, and take issue with you continually
trying to point out what they already know, but without their technical
comprehension. They just wish you'd shut up about it since all of us try
to improve things whenever we can, but often without success. Your
continual tirades here have *ZERO* affect on the people who control the
money.

Trevor.

[JackA]

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 5:04:54 AM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
On 28/01/2015 4:07 AM, wrote:
Trevor wrote: "Many of the more sensible ones now acknowledge
that and the debate has moved on to real difference in commercial copies,
the mastering differences. "

^ +1!!!!!!
Including me! But certain individuals seem to have a personal
problem with me, that when I say what you said above, I get
branded a "troll" or "dumb****" for it.

Can't win, Charlie Brown..

What you don't seem to get is that the professionals here understand far
better than you what is happening, and take issue with you continually
trying to point out what they already know, but without their technical
comprehension. They just wish you'd shut up about it since all of us try
to improve things whenever we can, but often without success. Your
continual tirades here have *ZERO* affect on the people who control the
money.

Trevor.

Don't take this as an attack, but the ONLY thing that makes ANYONE a "professional" is money. As I believe, Trevor, 15% of people can detect higher quality sound. So, maybe ONE of us can.

It would be different if licensed professional engineers hung out here, but I strongly doubt that.

Thank you.

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA wrote:
Though I've participated in usenet since around Y2k, I'm curious what this =
group is about? Anything and everything related to Audio? If so, why the "=
pro"?

This is discussed in the charter. This is a group about audio production.

It is NOT a group for discussing everything related to audio, even though
some newcomers seem to believe it is.

There was a time when pretty much everyone in the group was regularly
involved in the audio production business, either sound recording or
reinforcement, but like most of Usenet the group has fallen on hard times.

Me, I enjoy music, mainly past music as far back as the '50's. I enjoy find=
ing the highest quality sound. I began digitally enhancing older CDs, becau=
se I felt it made the sound more like the vinyl records sounded. I feel man=
was too quick to master audio CDs, think digital audio apps really help wi=
th sound detailing. Computers were too slow to be of aid with mastering bac=
k in the later '80's. Agree?

What the hell is sound detailing?

Back in the late eighties mastering houses were all using Sonic workstations
and they worked just fine. Nobody did their processing in the box, but then
again most mastering houses still don't.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 7:19:16 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:
Though I've participated in usenet since around Y2k, I'm curious what this =
group is about? Anything and everything related to Audio? If so, why the "=
pro"?

This is discussed in the charter. This is a group about audio production..

It is NOT a group for discussing everything related to audio, even though
some newcomers seem to believe it is.

There was a time when pretty much everyone in the group was regularly
involved in the audio production business, either sound recording or
reinforcement, but like most of Usenet the group has fallen on hard times..

Me, I enjoy music, mainly past music as far back as the '50's. I enjoy find=
ing the highest quality sound. I began digitally enhancing older CDs, becau=
se I felt it made the sound more like the vinyl records sounded. I feel man=
was too quick to master audio CDs, think digital audio apps really help wi=
th sound detailing. Computers were too slow to be of aid with mastering bac=
k in the later '80's. Agree?

What the hell is sound detailing?

Back in the late eighties mastering houses were all using Sonic workstations
and they worked just fine. Nobody did their processing in the box, but then
again most mastering houses still don't.

Scott,

Thank you. What is sound detailing? As I feel, ANYONE can mix music, it doesn't take any rocket scientist. Do you believe there is ONLY one way to mix music, and whatever was the "hit" version, that's the way it should stay mixed forever? I don't, but some other do. For the sake of what sound detailing is, where the heck were all these acoustic guitars in Steve Miller's - Joker song?...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/joke3.mp3

A crummy original stereo mix perhaps? This portion sounds okay, but on CD, the longer album version sounds like crap. Just my Opinion.

Jack





--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

What are these clips you have posted?
Mark

[JackA]

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 8:35:16 PM UTC-5, wrote:
What are these clips you have posted?
Mark


Mark, I'm HEAVILY into the Uncommon aspect of US Top 40. I attempt to find anything and everything that is odd about any song rendition, audio quality, unedited, stereo, count-off, you name it. A friend at work, who knows I'm heavily into this habit told me about some multi-tracks by the rolling Stones on YouTube. Sure enough, they were. When him and I went to find the YouTube post, it was deleted, I assume by request of ABKCO Records.

Anyway, I wondered where these multi-tracks were coming from. Long story short, about 2008, someone had a nifty idea for an interactive video game. You participate by playing a certain instrument or even sing. You just remove whatever you are replacing. However, it requires multi-tracks. I went internet hunting and found a bunch, lots of unreleased (US Top 40) versions etc.., right up my alley. They requiring mixing, so that what I do, mix them, not to sound like the same ol' version, but something new. I say, Paul McCartney's (Wings) Band On The Run stereo version could have been more stereo appetizing!! Bonus mix was a joke on his Deluxe CD album version.

Jack

[Luxey]

The joker thing he posted must be a joke. It just plain sucks for listening, while having the finest sound quality. It does not even sound as a mix.

If it is a mix, it's just about the lamest possible one, made from tracks
recorded at just about the highest possible level and staandard.

Whoever did it, if any mixing was aactually done, should not do it again.
Should better stay at comfortable home studio level, there recording, producing
and mixing manny hours of fine amateurism, to everyones joy.

[hank alrich]

wrote:

What are these clips you have posted?
Mark

Don't feed the troll€¦

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

[JackA]

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 9:20:36 PM UTC-5, hank alrich wrote:
wrote:

What are these clips you have posted?
Mark

Don't feed the troll...

Yeah, Mark, Hank knows a heck more than I. Anyone who disagrees with Hank is well worth plonking. I face this everywhere, Hank's type is nothing new.


Jack

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

[hank alrich]

JackA wrote:

Scott,

Thank you. What is sound detailing? As I feel, ANYONE can mix music, it
doesn't take any rocket scientist. Do you believe there is ONLY one way
to mix music, and whatever was the "hit" version, th


OK, we got another one. I like to track in stereo with a pair of Ford
Fenders, if you catch my farout meaning, to borrow from Mister Natural

The answer to many questions lately could have been

PLONK

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

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA wrote:
On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 7:19:16 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
What the hell is sound detailing?

Thank you. What is sound detailing? As I feel, ANYONE can mix music, it doe=
sn't take any rocket scientist. Do you believe there is ONLY one way to mix=
music, and whatever was the "hit" version, that's the way it should stay m=
ixed forever? I don't, but some other do. For the sake of what sound detail=
ing is, where the heck were all these acoustic guitars in Steve Miller's - =
Joker song?...

That's all very nice, but... what the hell is sound detailing?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."