Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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 |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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 |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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 |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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 |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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 |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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." |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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 |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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." |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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 |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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." |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
What are these clips you have posted?
Mark |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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 |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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 |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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 |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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 |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
Ok, the multitracks are interesting.
The early Beatles "stereo" were made before consoles Had pan pots so they are not really mixes as Scott mentioned. I happen to like that style but it is a matter of opinion. Mark |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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." |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
In article ,
wrote: Ok, the multitracks are interesting. The early Beatles "stereo" were made before consoles Had pan pots so they are not really mixes as Scott mentioned. I happen to like that style but it is a matter of opinion. Even if pan pots had existed, they'd still not have been made in 'stereo'. Not enough multi-track tracks. -- *Born free - taxed to death * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 10:34:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Ok, the multitracks are interesting. The early Beatles "stereo" were made before consoles Had pan pots so they are not really mixes as Scott mentioned. I happen to like that style but it is a matter of opinion. Mark I'm talking of the times when The Shadows were BIG in the UK. They have decent stereo! I know many could record multi-track, but couldn't mix it to stereo. Atlantic Records was that way, before Tom Down (RIP) fixed things. I know The Beatles overdubbed a lot, that is what destroyed any hope for decent stereo. Thanks. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , wrote: Ok, the multitracks are interesting. The early Beatles "stereo" were made before consoles Had pan pots so they are not really mixes as Scott mentioned. I happen to like that style but it is a matter of opinion. Even if pan pots had existed, they'd still not have been made in 'stereo'. Not enough multi-track tracks. It only takes two to make stereo, you just have to use them right. It sure is nice to have two tracks for a mono release, though, so you can record the band and then use the second track to overdub the vocals. When we got a 4-track Scully 280 we had so many tracks we didn't know what to do with all of them. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
On 26/01/2015 14:28, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , wrote: Ok, the multitracks are interesting. The early Beatles "stereo" were made before consoles Had pan pots so they are not really mixes as Scott mentioned. I happen to like that style but it is a matter of opinion. Even if pan pots had existed, they'd still not have been made in 'stereo'. Not enough multi-track tracks. It only takes two to make stereo, you just have to use them right. It sure is nice to have two tracks for a mono release, though, so you can record the band and then use the second track to overdub the vocals. When we got a 4-track Scully 280 we had so many tracks we didn't know what to do with all of them. --scott I remember when the Portastudio 4 track cassette units first came out, they wrote tutorials for all the magazines telling how to mix ten performances to get a stereo master with only at most two bounces per performance. Start with the bass and drums on 1,2 and 3, bounce them to track four, overwrite tracks one two and three with guitars and vocals, and so on. Some terribly recorded good music came out of those. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , wrote: Ok, the multitracks are interesting. The early Beatles "stereo" were made before consoles Had pan pots so they are not really mixes as Scott mentioned. I happen to like that style but it is a matter of opinion. Even if pan pots had existed, they'd still not have been made in 'stereo'. Not enough multi-track tracks. It only takes two to make stereo, you just have to use them right. Are you saying you'd have made a better job of the early Beatles stuff using the equipment they had? ;-) It sure is nice to have two tracks for a mono release, though, so you can record the band and then use the second track to overdub the vocals. Quite. When we got a 4-track Scully 280 we had so many tracks we didn't know what to do with all of them. First multi-track we had was a Scully 8 track. Working only in mono. Still not enough. -- *If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving definitely isn't for you * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , wrote: Ok, the multitracks are interesting. The early Beatles "stereo" were made before consoles Had pan pots so they are not really mixes as Scott mentioned. I happen to like that style but it is a matter of opinion. Even if pan pots had existed, they'd still not have been made in 'stereo'. Not enough multi-track tracks. It only takes two to make stereo, you just have to use them right. Are you saying you'd have made a better job of the early Beatles stuff using the equipment they had? ;-) I'm saying that if the label had wanted stereo mixes, they'd have made stereo mixes. But nobody cared about stereo mixes, so they didn't make them and didn't track with them in mind. And, to my mind, that's perfectly fine because the mono mixes sound great. The fact that, a decade later, stereo became very important was not something anyone at any of the labels was expecting. The fact that, a decade later, there was still a demand for ten-year-old Beatles records wasn't something anyone at EMI was expecting either. They weren't tracked and mixed with the future in mind, because they were pop music. And that's fine too, because the mono mixes sounded great. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 3:18:44 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , wrote: Ok, the multitracks are interesting. The early Beatles "stereo" were made before consoles Had pan pots so they are not really mixes as Scott mentioned. I happen to like that style but it is a matter of opinion. Even if pan pots had existed, they'd still not have been made in 'stereo'. Not enough multi-track tracks. It only takes two to make stereo, you just have to use them right. Are you saying you'd have made a better job of the early Beatles stuff using the equipment they had? ;-) I'm saying that if the label had wanted stereo mixes, they'd have made stereo mixes. But nobody cared about stereo mixes, so they didn't make them and didn't track with them in mind. And, to my mind, that's perfectly fine because the mono mixes sound great. The fact that, a decade later, stereo became very important was not something anyone at any of the labels was expecting. The fact that, a decade later, there was still a demand for ten-year-old Beatles records wasn't something anyone at EMI was expecting either. They weren't tracked and mixed with the future in mind, because they were pop music. And that's fine too, because the mono mixes sounded great. I'll pass. When will the remixes occur? When George Martin passes. That who I see holding things back. Ever notice George is only the one ever doing the remixed, like Yellow Submarine on the Love thing. Oh, and I wish to revisit purity of sound. What would exceed stereo? Surround Sound with four or more discrete channels. I'm guessing that's the next Beatles phase, Surround Sound. It'll never end. Thanks, Scott. Jack --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 3:56:38 PM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:
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. Luxey, I never said it sounded great. I posted it because I wanted others to hear how you can hide and uncover sound, in this case, acoustic guitars, that's all. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
JackA wrote:
On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 3:56:38 PM UTC-5, Luxey wrote: 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. Luxey, I never said it sounded great. I posted it because I wanted others to hear how you can hide and uncover sound, in this case, acoustic guitars, that's all. And this, in short, is why I will never, ever release multitrack masters to the general public. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , wrote: Ok, the multitracks are interesting. The early Beatles "stereo" were made before consoles Had pan pots so they are not really mixes as Scott mentioned. I happen to like that style but it is a matter of opinion. Even if pan pots had existed, they'd still not have been made in 'stereo'. Not enough multi-track tracks. It only takes two to make stereo, you just have to use them right. Are you saying you'd have made a better job of the early Beatles stuff using the equipment they had? ;-) I'm saying that if the label had wanted stereo mixes, they'd have made stereo mixes. But nobody cared about stereo mixes, so they didn't make them and didn't track with them in mind. The marketing department did 'care' about stereo. That's why some of the early stuff was released in it against Martin's wishes. And, to my mind, that's perfectly fine because the mono mixes sound great. Quite. And no one can be certain they'd have sounded as good if multi-tracks that allowed stereo existed then. The fact that, a decade later, stereo became very important was not something anyone at any of the labels was expecting. The fact that, a decade later, there was still a demand for ten-year-old Beatles records wasn't something anyone at EMI was expecting either. They weren't tracked and mixed with the future in mind, because they were pop music. And that's fine too, because the mono mixes sounded great. I also doubt anyone knew then that so many would want to replace their original vinyl with CD (or any other format). It was a pretty unique event for this sort of thing. -- *The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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 |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
"JackA" skrev i en meddelelse
... On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 9:20:36 PM UTC-5, hank alrich wrote: Yeah, Mark, Hank knows a heck more than I. Correct. Jack Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
skrev i en meddelelse
... Ok, the multitracks are interesting. The early Beatles "stereo" were made before consoles Had pan pots so they are not really mixes as Scott mentioned. I happen to like that style but it is a matter of opinion. They are not stereo, they are two track multitracks released sans mixdown because of a (too late) business decision to go for the stereo fad that they had thought wouldn't take off and thuse not built studios to make popular style recordins for. Mark Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
Peter Larsen wrote:
skrev i en meddelelse ... Ok, the multitracks are interesting. The early Beatles "stereo" were made before consoles Had pan pots so they are not really mixes as Scott mentioned. I happen to like that style but it is a matter of opinion. They are not stereo, they are two track multitracks released sans mixdown because of a (too late) business decision to go for the stereo fad that they had thought wouldn't take off and thuse not built studios to make popular style recordins for. This, so often overlooked in the blather about "stereo". All you need for stereo is two track, but two tracks do not guarantee stereo. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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.. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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****. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Questions
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Reason 3.0 Install Questions, questions... | Pro Audio | |||
Jolida 502a ----Chassis is missing C7.....Questions questions..... | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Sub Box Questions | Car Audio | |||
UAD-1 Questions | Pro Audio | |||
Seven Questions + | Audio Opinions |