[JackA]

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 12:01:54 PM UTC-5, hank alrich wrote:
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.

If I may, why not? Two tracks is all you need for fine stereo sound. The problem is with the artists, not the number or tracks. Man, when he had more primitive recording equipment used staging, record the band, then play that and add featured vocalist, then add the final touches (tambourine, hand-clapping, etc.) with another tape. In other words, live studio recordings soon ended, because it took SO MANY Takes to get everything right = very costly. Then they had these fancy recorders (when audiophile albums began to appear) where they could just add track after track with adding a load of tape hiss noise. I was shocked at a Frank Sinatra bootleg CD, beautiful sounding recordings. Guess what, I found MFSL had later (re)issued it.

Jack


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

[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.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
JackA wrote:
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.

It would very much depend on the analogue recording - and digital one. And
the source material.

Which makes your statement meaningless.

--
*I tried to catch some fog, but I mist.*

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

[JackA]

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 5:48:26 AM UTC-5, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JackA wrote:
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.

It would very much depend on the analogue recording - and digital one. And
the source material.

Which makes your statement meaningless.

IT WAS AN IDENTICAL RECORDING, recorded simultaneously in digital and analog. As I stated, man's hearing isn't that good. I mean, just how much THD does it take before man can detect it?

Jack



--
*I tried to catch some fog, but I mist.*

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

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
"In article ,
JackA wrote:
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.

It would very much depend on the analogue recording -
and digital one. And
the source material.

Which makes your statement meaningless.

--
*I tried to catch some fog, but I mist.*
- show quoted text -"


I think JackA has got it more than you are willing
to concede.

If you put the EXACT SAME master on an
analog and on a digital playback platform and
A/B them, the probability of a study group
discerning the analog from the digital would be
around 50/50.

OTOH, if unique processing were done to
either the analog or the digital export, the
chances of telling them apart increase to
almost 100%.

[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

[Trevor]

On 30/01/2015 1:00 AM, JackA wrote:
Don't take this as an attack, but the ONLY thing that makes ANYONE a "professional" is money.

No argument there. And having some actual skills helps do that in the
longer term!

As I believe, Trevor, 15% of people can detect higher quality sound. So, maybe ONE of us can.

So statistics not your strong suit either? But you are probably right,
you should know if you can't.


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

Agreed, most professional sound engineers require no "license". :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 29/01/2015 9:46 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JackA wrote:
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.

It would very much depend on the analogue recording - and digital one. And
the source material.

Which makes your statement meaningless.

Actually no. All you need to do is take the *same* analog recording and
pass it through a unity gain A-D/D-A with a switch, and let them start
their guessing which is which. I've done it many times to people who
claimed analog was superior. Still waiting for someone to back up their
claim to be able to hear a statisticaly verifiable difference :-)

Trevor.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
JackA wrote:
On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 5:48:26 AM UTC-5, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JackA wrote:
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.

It would very much depend on the analogue recording - and digital one.
And the source material.

Which makes your statement meaningless.

IT WAS AN IDENTICAL RECORDING, recorded simultaneously in digital and
analog. As I stated, man's hearing isn't that good. I mean, just how
much THD does it take before man can detect it?

That is also meaningless.

--
*What do little birdies see when they get knocked unconscious? *

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JackA wrote:
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.

It would very much depend on the analogue recording - and digital one. And
the source material.

Which makes your statement meaningless.

It's an experiment you can make come out any way you want, depending on how
you set it up. So, I think I'd like to see a citation on that one.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA wrote:

IT WAS AN IDENTICAL RECORDING, recorded simultaneously in digital and analog.

What digital and what analogue? What source material?

As I stated, man's hearing isn't that good. I mean, just how much THD does
it take before man can detect it?

Depends on conditions and source material. You can clip a 1kc sine wave and
not hear any clipping until you get up to 2%. However, you can add 9th
harmonic distortion and you'll hear it clearly at 0.01%.

It's the job of the disc cutting engineer in the vinyl world to make the
tradeoffs so that distortion you can hear on a given material is traded for
distortion you can't hear on that material.

It's a hell of a lot easier to cut piano than harpsichord to disc without
audible distortion. On the other hand, it's a lot easier to dub a
harpsichord recording to cassette than piano without audible artifacts.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
If you put the EXACT SAME master on an
analog and on a digital playback platform and
A/B them, the probability of a study group
discerning the analog from the digital would be
around 50/50.

So, you don't think you can tell the one on the Close 'N Play?
--scott

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Trevor wrote:
On 29/01/2015 9:46 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JackA wrote:
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.

It would very much depend on the analogue recording - and digital one.
And the source material.

Which makes your statement meaningless.

Actually no. All you need to do is take the *same* analog recording and
pass it through a unity gain A-D/D-A with a switch, and let them start
their guessing which is which. I've done it many times to people who
claimed analog was superior. Still waiting for someone to back up their
claim to be able to hear a statisticaly verifiable difference :-)

That's not what was stated.

It just said 'digital recording' Which could be anything at all.

Make it a high quality digital recording and we'll likely agree.

Phones are mostly digital. Does that guarantee excellent audio quality? In
general, they're often worse these days than when analogue.

So 'digital' means precisely nothing.

--
*Why are they called apartments, when they're all stuck together? *

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JackA wrote:
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.

It would very much depend on the analogue recording - and digital one.
And the source material.

Which makes your statement meaningless.

It's an experiment you can make come out any way you want, depending on
how you set it up. So, I think I'd like to see a citation on that one.

In one.

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.

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

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

JackA wrote:

IT WAS AN IDENTICAL RECORDING, recorded simultaneously in digital and analog.

What digital and what analogue? What source material?

As I stated, man's hearing isn't that good. I mean, just how much THD does
it take before man can detect it?

Depends on conditions and source material. You can clip a 1kc sine wave and
not hear any clipping until you get up to 2%. However, you can add 9th
harmonic distortion and you'll hear it clearly at 0.01%.

It's the job of the disc cutting engineer in the vinyl world to make the
tradeoffs so that distortion you can hear on a given material is traded for
distortion you can't hear on that material.

It's a hell of a lot easier to cut piano than harpsichord to disc without
audible distortion. On the other hand, it's a lot easier to dub a
harpsichord recording to cassette than piano without audible artifacts.

+1. Thanks for noting this. Big chunks of "audibility" of some given aspect of a
recording rely on context and content.

Here's another one: I can make 1/4 dB level changes to a lead vocal in a
large, complex mix that absolutely can be heard.

But, solo that lead track, and you cannot for the life of you detect the changes.
But, put it back IN context...

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[JackA]

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 9:19:00 AM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
On 30/01/2015 1:00 AM, JackA wrote:
Don't take this as an attack, but the ONLY thing that makes ANYONE a "professional" is money.

No argument there. And having some actual skills helps do that in the
longer term!

As I believe, Trevor, 15% of people can detect higher quality sound. So, maybe ONE of us can.

So statistics not your strong suit either? But you are probably right,
you should know if you can't.


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

Agreed, most professional sound engineers require no "license". :-)

Sound engineers? We'll, I'd hope so! :-)

Jack


Trevor.

[JackA]

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 11:23:24 AM UTC-5, Frank Stearns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:

JackA wrote:

IT WAS AN IDENTICAL RECORDING, recorded simultaneously in digital and analog.

What digital and what analogue? What source material?

As I stated, man's hearing isn't that good. I mean, just how much THD does
it take before man can detect it?

Depends on conditions and source material. You can clip a 1kc sine wave and
not hear any clipping until you get up to 2%. However, you can add 9th
harmonic distortion and you'll hear it clearly at 0.01%.

It's the job of the disc cutting engineer in the vinyl world to make the
tradeoffs so that distortion you can hear on a given material is traded for
distortion you can't hear on that material.

It's a hell of a lot easier to cut piano than harpsichord to disc without
audible distortion. On the other hand, it's a lot easier to dub a
harpsichord recording to cassette than piano without audible artifacts.

+1. Thanks for noting this. Big chunks of "audibility" of some given aspect of a
recording rely on context and content.

Here's another one: I can make 1/4 dB level changes to a lead vocal in a
large, complex mix that absolutely can be heard.

But, solo that lead track, and you cannot for the life of you detect the changes.
But, put it back IN context...

I would agree there. Getting vocal to music ratio is sometime tough to judge. Make the vocals too loud and the music sounds weak; make the music too loud and the vocals sound weak. That happened to me with Bruce Springsteen's Born To Run stereo (re)mix. But, it's a poor recording and getting enough STEREO content is tough.

Jack


Frank
Mobile Audio

--
.

[JackA]

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 10:25:44 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JackA wrote:
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.

It would very much depend on the analogue recording - and digital one. And
the source material.

Which makes your statement meaningless.

It's an experiment you can make come out any way you want, depending on how
you set it up. So, I think I'd like to see a citation on that one.

You should tell us, Scott - what was the first US Top 10 hit to be digitally recorded?

But I'll see if I can find the results, been some years, televised.

Jack

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

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA wrote:

I would agree there. Getting vocal to music ratio is sometime tough to judg=
e. Make the vocals too loud and the music sounds weak; make the music too l=
oud and the vocals sound weak. That happened to me with Bruce Springsteen's=
Born To Run stereo (re)mix. But, it's a poor recording and getting enough =
STEREO content is tough.=20

Okay, stop.
Begin from the beginning. For every piece of music, there is some part
that the music is about. In the case of a song, it's usually the vocal,
for a piano concerto, it's the piano, for a jazz recording it might be
a soloist.

Back in the seventies this was usually called "the money channel" by
producers.

Your job is to bring that channel up, and build the mix around it. Bring
up other parts around it, and don't be afraid to pull those parts down when
they aren't needed.

Tracking is about adding stuff. Mixing is about removing stuff.

Do not be surprised if with something like a Springsteen recording you
find yourself making hundreds of fader moves throughout the song along
with EQ changes in order to keep separation so that the vocal remains
front and center.

Do NOT take a bunch of acoustic guitar parts that were clearly intended to
be comped together and bring them all up just because you can. Do NOT just
bring up stuff randomly and expect that because the tracks sound good in
isolation that they will fit together. With material like this you are going
to be doing a lot of subtractive EQ, a lot of fader movement, and you're
going to mostly not have to worry about leakage issues.

Now, go somewhere and practice for a while and take the other troll with
you there for a bit.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 5:19:58 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:

I would agree there. Getting vocal to music ratio is sometime tough to judg=
e. Make the vocals too loud and the music sounds weak; make the music too l=
oud and the vocals sound weak. That happened to me with Bruce Springsteen's=
Born To Run stereo (re)mix. But, it's a poor recording and getting enough =
STEREO content is tough.=20

Okay, stop.
Begin from the beginning. For every piece of music, there is some part
that the music is about. In the case of a song, it's usually the vocal,
for a piano concerto, it's the piano, for a jazz recording it might be
a soloist.

Back in the seventies this was usually called "the money channel" by
producers.

Your job is to bring that channel up, and build the mix around it. Bring
up other parts around it, and don't be afraid to pull those parts down when
they aren't needed.

Tracking is about adding stuff. Mixing is about removing stuff.

Do not be surprised if with something like a Springsteen recording you
find yourself making hundreds of fader moves throughout the song along
with EQ changes in order to keep separation so that the vocal remains
front and center.

Do NOT take a bunch of acoustic guitar parts that were clearly intended to
be comped together and bring them all up just because you can. Do NOT just
bring up stuff randomly and expect that because the tracks sound good in
isolation that they will fit together. With material like this you are going
to be doing a lot of subtractive EQ, a lot of fader movement, and you're
going to mostly not have to worry about leakage issues.

Now, go somewhere and practice for a while and take the other troll with
you there for a bit.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott, let's face it, man produced some amazing stereo recordings, early on, because they had REAL engineers working on those recordings, not just knob turners as most of the later one were. One guy was hired as a writer and ended up their recording engineer.

Right here in usenet, a "roadie" told me he became an engineer at Columbia. In other words, it didn't take much. Record companies had to find ways to cheapen productions, and if it meant hiring Billy Bob as their engineer, to keep costs down, so be it.

I didn't think much of Janis Joplin until I heard her in the studio recording
"Bobby McGee". She told the engineer what microphones weren't working. And when she asked, "Aren't you going to mention what Take this is, so we can find it later"? and the engineer, who sounded like he was stoned, replied, "We can find anything". Scott, that is why music started turning foul sounding.

Granted, while I call these "multi-tracks", they seldom are a full array of tracks. To ease transporting them (file size), instruments and vocals are often premixed. Nothing real wrong with that, but some are just not acceptable, because lead vocals are (mixed) too low. Actually, the ONE song where I didn't expect so many tracks was Foster The People, Pumped Up Kicks. 30 INDIVIDUAL TRACKS!

Most of what I mix I refer to it as "static" mixing - No mixing console used.
Don't they generally refer to the removal of recorded content "underdubbing"?

Sorry us trolls invaded your knowledge!! :-)

Jack

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "Now, go somewhere and
practice for a while and take the other troll with
you there for a bit."

BUG OFF Scott. I USED TO have respect for
you, but the last iota of that has just sailed.

You got something to say about me, address me
directly, don't say it to someone else in the
conversation.

[geoff]

On 30/01/2015 11:14 a.m., JackA wrote:


It's an experiment you can make come out any way you want, depending on how
you set it up. So, I think I'd like to see a citation on that one.

You should tell us, Scott - what was the first US Top 10 hit to be digitally recorded?

First commonly-known one must have been Little Sister , drowning in
quantisation. But some aspects of Bop Till You Drop were fantastic.

geoff

[JackA]

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 5:55:06 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: "Now, go somewhere and
practice for a while and take the other troll with
you there for a bit."

BUG OFF Scott. I USED TO have respect for
you, but the last iota of that has just sailed.

You got something to say about me, address me
directly, don't say it to someone else in the
conversation.

Ah, Scott's okay, he just fears newbies may know more than him. This is typical in usenet groups where males hang-out.

Allow me to share a story with you, Mr. KMA. To fill the void after a divorce, I became an avid record collector, mid to late '80's (earlier music). My sister had heard some vinyl "rips" I made to Sony "metal" cassettes. I gave her one or so cassettes. Her boyfriend had heard it and asked me if I could rip some Elvis LPs he had, about (8). At first, I thought they were all reissues, still in cellophane with stickers on them. But, NO, most were first pressings from the '60's, near mint condition!! A record dealer told me one was valued about $100. Elvis's "(You're The) Devil in Disguise" has yet to sound as impressive on CD!

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA wrote:

Ah, Scott's okay, he just fears newbies may know more than him. This is typ=
ical in usenet groups where males hang-out.

No, I don't like people who come into newsgroups and are deliberately
insulting. And the BOTH of you came into this group, guns blazing,
going out of your way to tell everyone here that they were all fools.

This behaviour does not win friends.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA wrote:

You should tell us, Scott - what was the first US Top 10 hit to be digitally recorded?

I have no idea. The classical world was doing digital recording years before
the pop guys touched it. You could pick up a Telarc LP with obvious
quantizing distortion and shrieky top end years before the pop guys touched
it. But the low end was amazing, there was no head bump!

In fact the pop guys were the last folks to take the jump to digital, and
many of them still haven't.

But I'll see if I can find the results, been some years, televised.

Did Flim and The BB's make a top 10 hit? I sure hope not.
--scott

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

[geoff]

On 30/01/2015 12:16 p.m., JackA wrote:
On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 5:55:06 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: "Now, go somewhere and
practice for a while and take the other troll with
you there for a bit."

BUG OFF Scott. I USED TO have respect for
you, but the last iota of that has just sailed.

You got something to say about me, address me
directly, don't say it to someone else in the
conversation.

Ah, Scott's okay, he just fears newbies may know more than him. This is typical in usenet groups where males hang-out.

Allow me to share a story with you, Mr. KMA. To fill the void after a divorce, I became an avid record collector, mid to late '80's (earlier music). My sister had heard some vinyl "rips" I made to Sony "metal" cassettes. I gave her one or so cassettes. Her boyfriend had heard it and asked me if I could rip some Elvis LPs he had, about (8). At first, I thought they were all reissues, still in cellophane with stickers on them. But, NO, most were first pressings from the '60's, near mint condition!! A record dealer told me one was valued about $100. Elvis's "(You're The) Devil in Disguise" has yet to sound as impressive on CD!

Jack



Transcribe it from the vinyl to CD , and it will sound exactly the same
as the vinyl. Unless you contrive to cock it up.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA wrote:
Scott, let's face it, man produced some amazing stereo recordings, early on=
, because they had REAL engineers working on those recordings, not just kno=
b turners as most of the later one were. One guy was hired as a writer and =
ended up their recording engineer.

What does stereo have to do with anything? I am explaining to you the basic
philosophy behind building up a mix, and you are suddenly changing the
subject to talk about how today's engineers are no good.

Right here in usenet, a "roadie" told me he became an engineer at Columbia.=
In other words, it didn't take much. Record companies had to find ways to =
cheapen productions, and if it meant hiring Billy Bob as their engineer, to=
keep costs down, so be it.

This has been going on since Edison's time, yes. It is not a new thing.

I didn't think much of Janis Joplin until I heard her in the studio recordi=
ng
"Bobby McGee". She told the engineer what microphones weren't working. And =
when she asked, "Aren't you going to mention what Take this is, so we can f=
ind it later"? and the engineer, who sounded like he was stoned, replied, "=
We can find anything". Scott, that is why music started turning foul soundi=
ng.

Music is foul sounding now? I am hearing plenty of excellent stuff being
produced right now today.

Sure, most pop music is foul, but most pop music has always been foul. That
is the nature of pop music.

Granted, while I call these "multi-tracks", they seldom are a full array of=
tracks. To ease transporting them (file size), instruments and vocals are =
often premixed. Nothing real wrong with that, but some are just not accepta=
ble, because lead vocals are (mixed) too low. Actually, the ONE song where =
I didn't expect so many tracks was Foster The People, Pumped Up Kicks. 30 I=
NDIVIDUAL TRACKS!

So, you're talking about mixing from stems, not original tracks. Believe me,
30 tracks isn't a lot these days. Used to be you hit 23 and had the decision
to either lock up a second machine and accept that horror, or to use the
last track for something else and wipe other tracks for further additions.

But just because there are 24 tracks on the tape doesn't mean they should all
go into the mix. This is why I said before that tracking is about adding,
mixing is about subtracting.

Most of what I mix I refer to it as "static" mixing - No mixing console use=
d.

Do you mean mixing in the box?

Don't they generally refer to the removal of recorded content "underdubbing=
"?

I'm not talking abut wiping the track, I am talking about subtractive EQ
and muting channels.

Sorry us trolls invaded your knowledge!! :-)

This isn't a channel about knowledge, this is a channel where working
engineers can hang out and talk. Coming in here and telling people who
mix for a living that "anyone can mix" is not going to endear you to
anyone, especially when you provide sample mixes that sound somewhat
crude. Read my last post, then think about it.
--scott

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

[JackA]

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 6:48:13 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:

You should tell us, Scott - what was the first US Top 10 hit to be digitally recorded?

I have no idea. The classical world was doing digital recording years before
the pop guys touched it. You could pick up a Telarc LP with obvious
quantizing distortion and shrieky top end years before the pop guys touched
it. But the low end was amazing, there was no head bump!

In fact the pop guys were the last folks to take the jump to digital, and
many of them still haven't.

But I'll see if I can find the results, been some years, televised.

Did Flim and The BB's make a top 10 hit? I sure hope not.
--scott

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

Not sure who Flim & The BB's are!
I do know Barbra Streisand's Stoney End album sounds like crap on CD! You'd think someone used the master tape to tie Christmas gifts with! I still haven't listened to Sony's latest and greatest. I had an opportunity to tell Sony how they are doing. Of course, no reply, no wonder they got hacked, issuing crap.

I'm guess, like multi-tracks of analog, not many had mixing consoles to mix digital recordings, SPARS DDD.

Now, Gene, President of Audioholics, believes digital recordings sound better on CD than analog recording.

Not to constantly change subject (have a habit of doing that), but I'll never trust George Martin and those who worked for him. You say that Ringo's drum tracks were distorted because of additional guitar playing, I say George Martin hired musicians after The Beatles left, to finalize the recordings and had to make it the least obviously what he did. He just seems like a seedy character. BUT, wait, before you castrate me, even Vic Flick (guitarist - UK studio musician) even witnessed this happening, maybe not with The Beatles, but still, maybe gave George the idea!!!

Anyway, sir, -- notice my professionalism

.... here's, what is it called, The Beatles - Lovely Rita(?), remixed to stereo for your and others review....

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...s/rita-rm1.mp3

Jack

[JackA]

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 7:44:08 PM UTC-5, JackA wrote:
On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 6:48:13 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:

You should tell us, Scott - what was the first US Top 10 hit to be digitally recorded?

I have no idea. The classical world was doing digital recording years before
the pop guys touched it. You could pick up a Telarc LP with obvious
quantizing distortion and shrieky top end years before the pop guys touched
it. But the low end was amazing, there was no head bump!

In fact the pop guys were the last folks to take the jump to digital, and
many of them still haven't.

But I'll see if I can find the results, been some years, televised.

Did Flim and The BB's make a top 10 hit? I sure hope not.
--scott

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

Not sure who Flim & The BB's are!
I do know Barbra Streisand's Stoney End album sounds like crap on CD! You'd think someone used the master tape to tie Christmas gifts with! I still haven't listened to Sony's latest and greatest. I had an opportunity to tell Sony how they are doing. Of course, no reply, no wonder they got hacked, issuing crap.

I'm guess, like multi-tracks of analog, not many had mixing consoles to mix digital recordings, SPARS DDD.

Now, Gene, President of Audioholics, believes digital recordings sound better on CD than analog recording.

Not to constantly change subject (have a habit of doing that), but I'll never trust George Martin and those who worked for him. You say that Ringo's drum tracks were distorted because of additional guitar playing, I say George Martin hired musicians after The Beatles left, to finalize the recordings and had to make it the least obviously what he did. He just seems like a seedy character. BUT, wait, before you castrate me, even Vic Flick (guitarist - UK studio musician) even witnessed this happening, maybe not with The Beatles, but still, maybe gave George the idea!!!

Anyway, sir, -- notice my professionalism

... here's, what is it called, The Beatles - Lovely Rita(?), remixed to stereo for your and others review....

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...s/rita-rm1.mp3

I forgot to add, please be lenient with Paul, I believe his, "Took her home and NEARLY made it", should be, "Took her home and BARELY made it". You know those Brits and how they speak!

Jack

[JackA]

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 6:55:59 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:
Scott, let's face it, man produced some amazing stereo recordings, early on=
, because they had REAL engineers working on those recordings, not just kno=
b turners as most of the later one were. One guy was hired as a writer and =
ended up their recording engineer.

What does stereo have to do with anything? I am explaining to you the basic
philosophy behind building up a mix, and you are suddenly changing the
subject to talk about how today's engineers are no good.

Right here in usenet, a "roadie" told me he became an engineer at Columbia.=
In other words, it didn't take much. Record companies had to find ways to =
cheapen productions, and if it meant hiring Billy Bob as their engineer, to=
keep costs down, so be it.

This has been going on since Edison's time, yes. It is not a new thing.

I didn't think much of Janis Joplin until I heard her in the studio recordi=
ng
"Bobby McGee". She told the engineer what microphones weren't working. And =
when she asked, "Aren't you going to mention what Take this is, so we can f=
ind it later"? and the engineer, who sounded like he was stoned, replied, "=
We can find anything". Scott, that is why music started turning foul soundi=
ng.

Music is foul sounding now? I am hearing plenty of excellent stuff being
produced right now today.

Sure, most pop music is foul, but most pop music has always been foul. That
is the nature of pop music.

Granted, while I call these "multi-tracks", they seldom are a full array of=
tracks. To ease transporting them (file size), instruments and vocals are =
often premixed. Nothing real wrong with that, but some are just not accepta=
ble, because lead vocals are (mixed) too low. Actually, the ONE song where =
I didn't expect so many tracks was Foster The People, Pumped Up Kicks. 30 I=
NDIVIDUAL TRACKS!

So, you're talking about mixing from stems, not original tracks. Believe me,
30 tracks isn't a lot these days. Used to be you hit 23 and had the decision
to either lock up a second machine and accept that horror, or to use the
last track for something else and wipe other tracks for further additions..

But just because there are 24 tracks on the tape doesn't mean they should all
go into the mix. This is why I said before that tracking is about adding,
mixing is about subtracting.

Most of what I mix I refer to it as "static" mixing - No mixing console use=
d.

Do you mean mixing in the box?

Don't they generally refer to the removal of recorded content "underdubbing=
"?

I'm not talking abut wiping the track, I am talking about subtractive EQ
and muting channels.

Sorry us trolls invaded your knowledge!! :-)

This isn't a channel about knowledge, this is a channel where working
engineers can hang out and talk. Coming in here and telling people who
mix for a living that "anyone can mix" is not going to endear you to
anyone, especially when you provide sample mixes that sound somewhat
crude. Read my last post, then think about it.

Working engineers? When can I hear THEIR work??!!

Anyway, I like to group certain instruments by their sound. In other words, I won't mix a bass guitar closely with an acoustic guitar. Like to isolate the drummer, especially cymbals and high-hat. I don't want sounds influencing other sounds, like a bass guitar modulated acoustic guitar. I've heard this modulated stuff happen one too many time and try to avoid it, even with vocals.

Anyway, Born To Run. Not at all proud of this, needs more (rainy day) work, but at the very least, you should detect panning of drums. Such a nasty recording, they added chimes to brighten the dull sound. THAT happens a LOT with music...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...rn2run-rm4.mp3


--scott

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

[JackA]

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 6:50:54 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 30/01/2015 12:16 p.m., JackA wrote:
On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 5:55:06 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: "Now, go somewhere and
practice for a while and take the other troll with
you there for a bit."

BUG OFF Scott. I USED TO have respect for
you, but the last iota of that has just sailed.

You got something to say about me, address me
directly, don't say it to someone else in the
conversation.

Ah, Scott's okay, he just fears newbies may know more than him. This is typical in usenet groups where males hang-out.

Allow me to share a story with you, Mr. KMA. To fill the void after a divorce, I became an avid record collector, mid to late '80's (earlier music). My sister had heard some vinyl "rips" I made to Sony "metal" cassettes. I gave her one or so cassettes. Her boyfriend had heard it and asked me if I could rip some Elvis LPs he had, about (8). At first, I thought they were all reissues, still in cellophane with stickers on them. But, NO, most were first pressings from the '60's, near mint condition!! A record dealer told me one was valued about $100. Elvis's "(You're The) Devil in Disguise" has yet to sound as impressive on CD!

Jack



Transcribe it from the vinyl to CD , and it will sound exactly the same
as the vinyl. Unless you contrive to cock it up.

It probably would have, but, sadly, I left my entire vinyl collection behind

Jack

geoff

[Trevor]

On 30/01/2015 2:25 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JackA wrote:
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.

It would very much depend on the analogue recording - and digital one. And
the source material.

Which makes your statement meaningless.

It's an experiment you can make come out any way you want, depending on how
you set it up. So, I think I'd like to see a citation on that one.

Well as I have said many times, there is *only* one way to do it IMO,
and that is simply take ANY analog source someone thinks is "better",
and feed that through a high quality level matched A-D/D-A as well.
Switching between the two at least 20 times in a double blind test and
applying statistical analysis to the results.
Any other method is simply a waste of time, or designed to mislead. The
latter is the usual reason for doing it wrong. The number of people who
proved they could hear a difference between *completely* different vinyl
records and CD's (in non controlled tests to boot) in the past is truly
astounding.
Well duh!!
Still ignorance is always bliss to many people.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 30/01/2015 2:30 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:
As I stated, man's hearing isn't that good. I mean, just how much THD does
it take before man can detect it?

Depends on conditions and source material. You can clip a 1kc sine wave and
not hear any clipping until you get up to 2%. However, you can add 9th
harmonic distortion and you'll hear it clearly at 0.01%.

What a contradiction. If you clip a sine wave you WILL add 9th harmonics
(as well as many others) Sure the 9th will be a LOT lower than the 3rd
but I doubt you could clip a sine wave to 2% THD and get less than 0.01%
9th harmonic without filtering it.
Must try it sometime, a pretty easy test. Want to place your bets now? :-)

In any case that sine wave with 2% THD from clipping will still sound
*crook* unless masked by other sounds, as is the case with most music.
In which case the 0.01% 9th will be well and truly masked under the same
conditions.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA wrote:

Not to constantly change subject (have a habit of doing that), but I'll nev=
er trust George Martin and those who worked for him. You say that Ringo's d=
rum tracks were distorted because of additional guitar playing, I say Georg=
e Martin hired musicians after The Beatles left, to finalize the recordings=
and had to make it the least obviously what he did. He just seems like a s=
eedy character. BUT, wait, before you castrate me, even Vic Flick (guitaris=
t - UK studio musician) even witnessed this happening, maybe not with The B=
eatles, but still, maybe gave George the idea!!!

No, that's not what I said at all.

If you don't want to listen to my discussion, get the Yamaha Sound
Reinforcement Handbook and read about comb filtering.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA wrote:
On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 6:55:59 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:

This isn't a channel about knowledge, this is a channel where working
engineers can hang out and talk. Coming in here and telling people who
mix for a living that "anyone can mix" is not going to endear you to
anyone, especially when you provide sample mixes that sound somewhat
crude. Read my last post, then think about it.

Working engineers? When can I hear THEIR work??!!

I don't think any of the compilation CD sets are available, but the older
rec.audio.pro LP is still available.

Although, if you'd like, you can turn on your radio and listen to a number
of the regulars here.
--scott

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

[None]

"JackA" wrote in message
...
Not to constantly change subject (have a habit of doing that), but
I'll never trust George Martin ...

Yeah, hop on that hobby-jackass; always try to change the subject to
one of your vapid obsessions.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
Any other method is simply a waste of time, or designed to mislead. The
latter is the usual reason for doing it wrong. The number of people who
proved they could hear a difference between *completely* different vinyl
records and CD's (in non controlled tests to boot) in the past is truly
astounding.

My absolute favorite was the Kanagawa Institute study where they found
differing brain wave patterns between people listening to music at
44.1 ksamp/sec and the same people listening to different music at 96 ksamp/sec
and concluded that perception of ultrasonics was reponsible.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
On 30/01/2015 2:30 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:
As I stated, man's hearing isn't that good. I mean, just how much THD does
it take before man can detect it?

Depends on conditions and source material. You can clip a 1kc sine wave and
not hear any clipping until you get up to 2%. However, you can add 9th
harmonic distortion and you'll hear it clearly at 0.01%.

What a contradiction. If you clip a sine wave you WILL add 9th harmonics
(as well as many others) Sure the 9th will be a LOT lower than the 3rd
but I doubt you could clip a sine wave to 2% THD and get less than 0.01%
9th harmonic without filtering it.
Must try it sometime, a pretty easy test. Want to place your bets now? :-)

I don't have to, Earl Geddes already did!

And part of the cool thing is that the lower order harmonics can mask the
perception of higher ones!

In any case that sine wave with 2% THD from clipping will still sound
*crook* unless masked by other sounds, as is the case with most music.
In which case the 0.01% 9th will be well and truly masked under the same
conditions.

In the case of musical signals, the intermodulation effects are often more
detectable than the harmonic effects.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

On 30/01/2015 12:56 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote:
Any other method is simply a waste of time, or designed to mislead. The
latter is the usual reason for doing it wrong. The number of people who
proved they could hear a difference between *completely* different vinyl
records and CD's (in non controlled tests to boot) in the past is truly
astounding.

My absolute favorite was the Kanagawa Institute study where they found
differing brain wave patterns between people listening to music at
44.1 ksamp/sec and the same people listening to different music at 96 ksamp/sec
and concluded that perception of ultrasonics was reponsible.

Yes some people can "prove" anything they want by simply subtracting all
reason. :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 30/01/2015 12:58 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote:
On 30/01/2015 2:30 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:
As I stated, man's hearing isn't that good. I mean, just how much THD does
it take before man can detect it?

Depends on conditions and source material. You can clip a 1kc sine wave and
not hear any clipping until you get up to 2%. However, you can add 9th
harmonic distortion and you'll hear it clearly at 0.01%.

What a contradiction. If you clip a sine wave you WILL add 9th harmonics
(as well as many others) Sure the 9th will be a LOT lower than the 3rd
but I doubt you could clip a sine wave to 2% THD and get less than 0.01%
9th harmonic without filtering it.
Must try it sometime, a pretty easy test. Want to place your bets now? :-)

I don't have to, Earl Geddes already did!

OK, I guess I'll go look it up since you didn't bother to share the result.


And part of the cool thing is that the lower order harmonics can mask the
perception of higher ones!

Of course, but are audible in their own right.


In any case that sine wave with 2% THD from clipping will still sound
*crook* unless masked by other sounds, as is the case with most music.
In which case the 0.01% 9th will be well and truly masked under the same
conditions.

In the case of musical signals, the intermodulation effects are often more
detectable than the harmonic effects.

Of course, it's all relative.

Trevor.