[JackA]

Recording:
How are electric guitars recorded? I assume the musician needs his/her amplifier to hear the electric guitar, but is there a Line-Out jack on amplifiers and that is what is tapped into to record? In the "studio" is the amplifier heard? Mainly interest in recordings of the past decades.

Mixing:
While I don't hear it much today's music, I enjoy when I hear panning of drums in a stereo mix. Having seen enough multi-tracks, I assume this panning was typically pre-processed. In other words, I'd find a recorded track with just glitches and that was used for panning (ex: left to right stereo channels). Some may have used multiple microphones, but I don't believe that would suffice for enough stereo separation. True/False?

Mono/Stereo:
While I LOVE stereo reproduction due to its purity of sound, when many multi-tracks became available in the early 70's, many songs seemed mixed more towards monophonic than stereo, Billy Joel, Bruce Springsteen etc.. Any possible reasoning for this? I do know, if music isn't well recorded, making fine stereo mixes is difficult.

Thanks!

Jack

[hank alrich]

JackA wrote:

Recording: How are electric guitars recorded? I assume the musician needs
his/her amplifier to hear the electric guitar, but is there a Line-Out
jack on amplifiers and that is what is tapped into to record? In the
"studio" is the amplifier heard? Mainly interest in recordings of the past
decades.

Whatever works in a given situation. All of the above, and more. Look up
"DI box". Look up "Reamping".

Mixing: While I don't hear it much today's music, I enjoy when I hear
panning of drums in a stereo mix. Having seen enough multi-tracks, I
assume this panning was typically pre-processed. In other words, I'd find
a recorded track with just glitches and that was used for panning (ex:
left to right stereo channels). Some may have used multiple microphones,
but I don't believe that would suffice for enough stereo separation.
True/False?

False, if the engineer wants separation and has the room and the mics
and the knowledge to get that from isolated drum tracks. Overheads are
often tracked in stereo, so there is a stereo image of the whole kit as
part of the mix. Positioning the rest of the mics via panpots should be
done very carefully if one wishes to preserve and exploit that stereo
image.

A pair mics are all that is needed for a stereo capture of drums., or
anything else.

In general, generalizations don't hold up well across the range of
techiniques.

Mono/Stereo: While I LOVE stereo reproduction due to its purity of sound,

I think I don't understand that statement. There is nothing more
relatively "pure" about stereo recording than mono recording, and
keeping purity intact while using an array of mics can be challenging.

when many multi-tracks became available in the early 70's, many songs
seemed mixed more towards monophonic than stereo, Billy Joel, Bruce
Springsteen etc.. Any possible reasoning for this?

Mono compatibility was crucial for consistent radio broadcast sound.
Most receivers, particularly in cars, default to mono when faced with
multipath distortion of the broadcast signal. If the mix doesn't hold up
in that situation, you're professionaly screwed. The sound will change,
sometimes dramatically, and always for the worse. The listener will
probably change the dial. Down to it, serious program directors and DJ's
would check for that compatibility even before giving the record or CD a
spin. No broadcaster wants listeners changing the dial.

I do know, if music isn't well recorded, making fine stereo mixes is
difficult.

It's next to impossible to get marvelous mixes out of crappy tracks,
whether mixing to stereo or monoaural.


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

[PStamler]

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 11:16:12 PM UTC-6, hank alrich wrote:

when many multi-tracks became available in the early 70's, many songs
seemed mixed more towards monophonic than stereo, Billy Joel, Bruce
Springsteen etc.. Any possible reasoning for this?

Mono compatibility was crucial for consistent radio broadcast sound.
Most receivers, particularly in cars, default to mono when faced with
multipath distortion of the broadcast signal. If the mix doesn't hold up
in that situation, you're professionaly screwed. The sound will change,
sometimes dramatically, and always for the worse. The listener will
probably change the dial. Down to it, serious program directors and DJ's
would check for that compatibility even before giving the record or CD a
spin. No broadcaster wants listeners changing the dial.

In addition to what Hank noted, there was another reason in the LP/45 era: recording with wider soundstages were harder to cut to disc.

Peace,
Paul

[geoff]

On 24/01/2015 5:15 p.m., JackA wrote:
Recording:
How are electric guitars recorded? I assume the musician needs his/her amplifier to hear the electric guitar,

Most electric guitars are recorded with a microphone on the speaker, as
the amplifier and speaker are usually a distinctive part of the desired
sound.

A guitar can also be recorded dry, then the recording played back
through an amp/speaker, or digital model f such, which gives more
possibilities to change things a little, or a lot.

But the downside of 'reamping' is that the feeling and interaction of
the guitarist with the guitar/amp/speaker combination cannot be there.


geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA wrote:

Thanks for your input. Just a bit dumfounded what I hear on multi-tracks, a=
nd how they managed to isolate the panned drum piece, that's all. Must have=
had a quick hand mixing so, generally, the floor tom-toms wouldn't pick up=
other sounds.

Depends on the style. Sometimes you'll have one overhead and that is 90%
of the drum sound. If the drums are in an isolation booth, there's nothing
but drum in the drum mikes.

Sometimes the whole drum sound comes from the spot mikes, and when that is
the case, the leakage makes up an important part of the sound.

Sometimes, especially in the eighties, the drums will have the crap gated
out of them to eliminate leakage and make them very tight and snappy. It
doesn't sound like a real drum kit, but with fake reverb added it can sound
huge and powerful.

Let's take, Steve Miller, for example and his Fly Like And Eagle song. Here=
, I will agree several microphones were used. I tried to arrange the tracks=
as a typical drum set, 30 second snippet...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...y-drums.mp3=20

It was typical in that era to spotmike drums, although if you listen to a
typical mix you'll hear a lot of overhead, a lot of kick, and a lot of snare.

As for Mono vs Stereo, don't get angry with me, but I stand by "purity" the=
ory. I wouldn't expect a acoustic guitar to sound as clear in a mono mix, m=
ixed with a bass guitar, but I would expect better, purer sound, when the t=
wo were isolated. Maybe Beatles songs, when you dissemble the typical stere=
o mixes, out comes sounds never heard before. Why is that? Not just me, Han=
k, but another who contacted me, a recording artist in Canada agrees and wa=
s amazed.

What is purity? If the tracks were recorded with the intention of being
part of a stereo mix, you can make a good stereo mix from them. If they
were not, your chances of getting realistic stereo is slim.

The Beatles "stereo mixes" from the first four albums were not stereo and
not mixes. Some of the later albums were tracked with stereo in mind and
mixed with stereo in mind.

Remember that the Beatles basically covered three generations of recording
technology.

As far as radio, FM stereo station always use gadgets to widen stereo, sinc=
e FM Stereo transmissions lack the separation that vinyl could produce. But=
, in my 15 or so years in usenet and other, I've only heard two other peopl=
e even mention what they heard on FM Stereo stations. It tells me, people d=
on't listen well.

No, the reason why some FM stations used fake stereo gadgets was for people
listening on boom boxes. I haven't seen one in years, though, because most
people today are listening in the car and attempts to exaggerate separation
can really screw with car listening. Also, of course, the more signal you
put into the stereo subcarrier, the less you can put in the main L+R carrier,
so exaggerated stereo effects pull down your overall station loudness.
--scott

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

[JackA]

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 7:41:06 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:

Thanks for your input. Just a bit dumfounded what I hear on multi-tracks, a=
nd how they managed to isolate the panned drum piece, that's all. Must have=
had a quick hand mixing so, generally, the floor tom-toms wouldn't pick up=
other sounds.

Depends on the style. Sometimes you'll have one overhead and that is 90%
of the drum sound. If the drums are in an isolation booth, there's nothing
but drum in the drum mikes.

Sometimes the whole drum sound comes from the spot mikes, and when that is
the case, the leakage makes up an important part of the sound.

Sometimes, especially in the eighties, the drums will have the crap gated
out of them to eliminate leakage and make them very tight and snappy. It
doesn't sound like a real drum kit, but with fake reverb added it can sound
huge and powerful.

Let's take, Steve Miller, for example and his Fly Like And Eagle song. Here=
, I will agree several microphones were used. I tried to arrange the tracks=
as a typical drum set, 30 second snippet...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...y-drums.mp3=20

It was typical in that era to spotmike drums, although if you listen to a
typical mix you'll hear a lot of overhead, a lot of kick, and a lot of snare.

As for Mono vs Stereo, don't get angry with me, but I stand by "purity" the=
ory. I wouldn't expect a acoustic guitar to sound as clear in a mono mix, m=
ixed with a bass guitar, but I would expect better, purer sound, when the t=
wo were isolated. Maybe Beatles songs, when you dissemble the typical stere=
o mixes, out comes sounds never heard before. Why is that? Not just me, Han=
k, but another who contacted me, a recording artist in Canada agrees and wa=
s amazed.

What is purity? If the tracks were recorded with the intention of being
part of a stereo mix, you can make a good stereo mix from them. If they
were not, your chances of getting realistic stereo is slim.

The Beatles "stereo mixes" from the first four albums were not stereo and
not mixes. Some of the later albums were tracked with stereo in mind and
mixed with stereo in mind.


You mean, when more tape tracks became available, proper stereo became a reality. It always bothered me why the Beatles, who were to the US, top dog artists, had warped or lopsided stereo, when others, way ahead of them had DECENT stereo. To make a long story short, SOMEONE mutilated Ringo's drumming. I'm guess, George Martin, so he could gain a decibel or two of loudness. You attempt to mix them in true stereo, and Ringo's drumming sounds like someone is plunging a toilet, no joke. If YOU can find out why, I'd appreciate it. if you need an example, here's one...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...vecar-drum.mp3

Why didn't you hear that in Mono? Because it was masked or concealed by other sounds.

Jack



Remember that the Beatles basically covered three generations of recording
technology.

As far as radio, FM stereo station always use gadgets to widen stereo, sinc=
e FM Stereo transmissions lack the separation that vinyl could produce. But=
, in my 15 or so years in usenet and other, I've only heard two other peopl=
e even mention what they heard on FM Stereo stations. It tells me, people d=
on't listen well.

No, the reason why some FM stations used fake stereo gadgets was for people
listening on boom boxes. I haven't seen one in years, though, because most
people today are listening in the car and attempts to exaggerate separation
can really screw with car listening. Also, of course, the more signal you
put into the stereo subcarrier, the less you can put in the main L+R carrier,
so exaggerated stereo effects pull down your overall station loudness.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA wrote:

You mean, when more tape tracks became available, proper stereo became a re=
ality. It always bothered me why the Beatles, who were to the US, top dog a=
rtists, had warped or lopsided stereo, when others, way ahead of them had D=
ECENT stereo.

No, it only takes two tape tracks to make good stereo. And that's all many
studios back then had.

But what it takes is to plan the layout out for stereo.

The early Beatles albums were recorded with the intention that those tracks
would be put into a mono mix together, but some idiot in A&R decided that
the 2-track masters could just be released as "stereo mixes." The end
result isn't stereo, and isn't a mix.

The tracks were not originally made with the intention of creating a stereo
mix from them.

Now, there are plenty of other recordings from that era that were tracked
with the intention of releasing in stereo. But the early Beatles albums
were not done with any intention of a stereo mix because there was really
no money in stereo back then.

There were also lots of bands, even into the early seventies, that would
record everything twice. Once for mono mix, once for stereo. It was not
uncommon to see 45s with the stereo version on one side and the mono version
on the other side and the performances slightly different.

To make a long story short, SOMEONE mutilated Ringo's drummin=
g. I'm guess, George Martin, so he could gain a decibel or two of loudness.=
You attempt to mix them in true stereo, and Ringo's drumming sounds like s=
omeone is plunging a toilet, no joke. If YOU can find out why, I'd apprecia=
te it. if you need an example, here's one...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...vecar-drum.mp3

This is because the leakage is appearing at different times in the
two tracks. You can try and advance or delay one of the tracks in order
to reduce the comb filtering, but this is in great part a result of the
original tracks never having been miked with a stereo mix in mind.

The only "mutilation" taking place here is the attempt to make a stereo
mix from tracks that were laid down without the intention of making a
stereo mix.

Why didn't you hear that in Mono? Because it was masked or concealed by oth=
er sounds.

Comb filtering is just a thing that you live with when you spotmike
bands that are playing together. The drums leak into the vocal mikes,
the guitars leak into the drum mikes, and they do so at different times
because they are different distances from the mikes.

The leakage can be your friend or your enemy depending on what you are
trying to do and how you're intending on laying out the mix. If you set
up mikes with the intention of mixing one way, you need to be mixing that
way. If you want isolation, you can get it, but you make big sacrifices
to have it, so if you don't need it, you won't bother with it.

These days, with nearly unlimited track counts, it's not unusual for
engineers to just record everything with absolute isolation, but that
has its own set of problems; you can wind up with recordings that have
no sense of ensemble and sound like a bunch of guys playing alone in
little boxes (which is what they are).
--scott

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

[JackA]

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 9:18:06 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:

You mean, when more tape tracks became available, proper stereo became a re=
ality. It always bothered me why the Beatles, who were to the US, top dog a=
rtists, had warped or lopsided stereo, when others, way ahead of them had D=
ECENT stereo.

No, it only takes two tape tracks to make good stereo. And that's all many
studios back then had.

But what it takes is to plan the layout out for stereo.

The early Beatles albums were recorded with the intention that those tracks
would be put into a mono mix together, but some idiot in A&R decided that
the 2-track masters could just be released as "stereo mixes." The end
result isn't stereo, and isn't a mix.

The tracks were not originally made with the intention of creating a stereo
mix from them.

Now, there are plenty of other recordings from that era that were tracked
with the intention of releasing in stereo. But the early Beatles albums
were not done with any intention of a stereo mix because there was really
no money in stereo back then.

There were also lots of bands, even into the early seventies, that would
record everything twice. Once for mono mix, once for stereo. It was not
uncommon to see 45s with the stereo version on one side and the mono version
on the other side and the performances slightly different.

To make a long story short, SOMEONE mutilated Ringo's drummin=
g. I'm guess, George Martin, so he could gain a decibel or two of loudness.=
You attempt to mix them in true stereo, and Ringo's drumming sounds like s=
omeone is plunging a toilet, no joke. If YOU can find out why, I'd apprecia=
te it. if you need an example, here's one...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...vecar-drum.mp3

This is because the leakage is appearing at different times in the
two tracks.

But ONLY ever found with The Beatles. If you can provide another group with such a mutilated drum track, I'd be grateful.



You can try and advance or delay one of the tracks in order
to reduce the comb filtering, but this is in great part a result of the
original tracks never having been miked with a stereo mix in mind.

The only "mutilation" taking place here is the attempt to make a stereo
mix from tracks that were laid down without the intention of making a
stereo mix.

I do not agree. But I appreciate your input, sir.

Jack

Why didn't you hear that in Mono? Because it was masked or concealed by oth=
er sounds.

Comb filtering is just a thing that you live with when you spotmike
bands that are playing together. The drums leak into the vocal mikes,
the guitars leak into the drum mikes, and they do so at different times
because they are different distances from the mikes.

The leakage can be your friend or your enemy depending on what you are
trying to do and how you're intending on laying out the mix. If you set
up mikes with the intention of mixing one way, you need to be mixing that
way. If you want isolation, you can get it, but you make big sacrifices
to have it, so if you don't need it, you won't bother with it.

These days, with nearly unlimited track counts, it's not unusual for
engineers to just record everything with absolute isolation, but that
has its own set of problems; you can wind up with recordings that have
no sense of ensemble and sound like a bunch of guys playing alone in
little boxes (which is what they are).
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA wrote:
On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 9:18:06 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:

This is because the leakage is appearing at different times in the
two tracks.

But ONLY ever found with The Beatles. If you can provide another group with such a mutilated drum track, I'd be grateful.

ALL of them. Any band where everything is recorded together in one room
is going to have leakage, and will have comb filtering if you just bring
all the faders up together.

It's not mutilated, it's just how life is when you record instruments
together in the same room.

You can try and advance or delay one of the tracks in order
to reduce the comb filtering, but this is in great part a result of the
original tracks never having been miked with a stereo mix in mind.

The only "mutilation" taking place here is the attempt to make a stereo
mix from tracks that were laid down without the intention of making a
stereo mix.

I do not agree. But I appreciate your input, sir.

Why are you asking questions then, if you don't want to hear the answers?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 11:00:31 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:
On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 9:18:06 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:

This is because the leakage is appearing at different times in the
two tracks.

But ONLY ever found with The Beatles. If you can provide another group with such a mutilated drum track, I'd be grateful.

ALL of them. Any band where everything is recorded together in one room
is going to have leakage, and will have comb filtering if you just bring
all the faders up together.

It's not mutilated, it's just how life is when you record instruments
together in the same room.

Thanks, Scott, that was a great help.

You can try and advance or delay one of the tracks in order
to reduce the comb filtering, but this is in great part a result of the
original tracks never having been miked with a stereo mix in mind.

The only "mutilation" taking place here is the attempt to make a stereo
mix from tracks that were laid down without the intention of making a
stereo mix.

I do not agree. But I appreciate your input, sir.

Why are you asking questions then, if you don't want to hear the answers?

You can give any answer you wish, and I'm grateful, but spare me the lame answers.

Jack

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

[Phil W[_3_]]

JackA:

Why are you asking questions then, if you don't want to hear the answers?

You can give any answer you wish, and I'm grateful, but spare me the lame
answers.

So, there´s a pretty easy formula to it:
just do *not* ask lame questions with weird speculations!

Thank you for leaving this newsgroup!

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
... Any band where everything is recorded together in one room
is going to have leakage, and will have comb filtering if you just bring
all the faders up together.

I used EV RE15s in TV orchestras *because* I was mixing leakage. Flat from
all directions, the RE15 gave me "flat" leakage.

Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rgLd6A0DWM

After hearing this, a Pro-Tools/Musician/Friend asked "How many tracks?"

He was somewhat incredulous when I answered "One".

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[JackA]

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 9:14:34 AM UTC-5, Phil W wrote:
JackA:

Why are you asking questions then, if you don't want to hear the answers?

You can give any answer you wish, and I'm grateful, but spare me the lame
answers.

So, thereæ„€ a pretty easy formula to it:
just do *not* ask lame questions with weird speculations!

Thank you for leaving this newsgroup!

Phil, I am very sorry for overloading the capacity of this group. I thought Pro meant Professional. My error.

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
Phil, I am very sorry for overloading the capacity of this group.
I thought Pro meant Professional. My error. "

Ditto. It's proDUCTION.

The only way I could sense a lack of professionalism here is
in the way certain participants react when certain topics are
brought up: You'd think we were insulting their mothers or
their system of worship the way they react!


They are also not very open to alternative scenarios as to why
certain things happened the way they did or are the way they
are. Other than that, I'm sure most participants on here are
quite professional in their particular production roles.

[Luxey]

понедељак, 26. јануар 2015. 21.51.50 UTC+1, је напи�ао/ла:
JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
Phil, I am very sorry for overloading the capacity of this group.
I thought Pro meant Professional. My error. "

Ditto. It's proDUCTION.

Talking to yourself, again? Take some meds. Nobody jumped for your "Martin ruined
Ringo's drums for loudness" crap, couple posts above, so could not hold it any more and jumped out of a closet.

Shove it up your own ass and listen yourself scream. That'd be loudness.

[[email protected]]

Luxey wrote: "понедељак, 26. јануар 2015. 21.51.50 UTC+1, је
напи�ао/ла:


Talking to yourself, again? Take some meds. Nobody jumped for your "Martin ruined
Ringo's drums for loudness" crap, couple posts above, so could not hold it any more and
jumped out of a closet.

Shove it up your own ass and listen yourself scream. That'd be loudness. "

(^ model rec.audio.pro resident...)

Look at the header of that reply - My handle is not 'JackA' - mister jackasikov!
Unlike Alrich(aka N_ne), I have no need to switch Usenet identities to make my
points.

[JackA]

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 3:51:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
Phil, I am very sorry for overloading the capacity of this group.
I thought Pro meant Professional. My error. "

Ditto. It's proDUCTION.

The only way I could sense a lack of professionalism here is
in the way certain participants react when certain topics are
brought up: You'd think we were insulting their mothers or
their system of worship the way they react!


They are also not very open to alternative scenarios as to why
certain things happened the way they did or are the way they
are. Other than that, I'm sure most participants on here are
quite professional in their particular production roles.

Ha!!! Nice to see a friendly person here!!! But, as I know, there's always a few who play King Of The Hill. I guess I insulted one by saying anyone can mix songs, maybe he took that personally, then I get PLONKED!! Oh, and if someone who is nice talks to me, they think it's me talking to myself, like a sock puppet. Thanks!

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA wrote:

Ha!!! Nice to see a friendly person here!!! But, as I know, there's always =
a few who play King Of The Hill. I guess I insulted one by saying anyone ca=
n mix songs, maybe he took that personally, then I get PLONKED!! Oh, and if=
someone who is nice talks to me, they think it's me talking to myself, lik=
e a sock puppet. Thanks!

The problem is that for some time we have had a persistent troll in this
group who is constantly railing on about the loudness wars, and what with
your coming in and obviously trolling the group, I think a few people have
confused you with the other troll. You both have bizarre formatting and
no carriage returns and excessive use of exclamation points, but since you
have not mentioned compression and limiting once, I am pretty sure that the
two of you are unrelated.
--scott

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

[Luxey]

понедељак, 26. јануар 2015. 23.17.29 UTC+1, JackA је напи�ао/ла:
On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 3:51:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
Phil, I am very sorry for overloading the capacity of this group.
I thought Pro meant Professional. My error. "

Ditto. It's proDUCTION.

The only way I could sense a lack of professionalism here is
in the way certain participants react when certain topics are
brought up: You'd think we were insulting their mothers or
their system of worship the way they react!


They are also not very open to alternative scenarios as to why
certain things happened the way they did or are the way they
are. Other than that, I'm sure most participants on here are
quite professional in their particular production roles.

Ha!!! Nice to see a friendly person here!!! But, as I know, there's always a few who play King Of The Hill. I guess I insulted one by saying anyone can mix songs, maybe he took that personally, then I get PLONKED!! Oh, and if someone who is nice talks to me, they think it's me talking to myself, like a sock puppet. Thanks!

Hey, maybe you two could start own group? With black jack and hookers ...

Just forget about this one. And if you are really two, especially thekma.
There's still hope for JackA as he seem to be.

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "The problem is that for some time we have
had a persistent troll in this group who is constantly railing on about
the loudness wars, and what with "

Hey Scott: SCREW YOU. It's related to AUDIO. If I came on
here and whined on and on about under-inflated NFL footballs,
that's off topic, and you'd be in your rights. But I didn't.

We all have our passions within this thing called sound, and mine
is combatting abuse of audio processing tools.

[geoff]

On 27/01/2015 5:23 p.m., wrote:
..

We all have our passions within this thing called sound, and mine
is combatting abuse of audio processing tools.



That's great ! Maybe you could revisit some of the posts that have bent
over backwards to try and explain where your understanding of how and
why this happens is somewhat in error.

geoff

[None]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
but since you
have not mentioned compression and limiting once

Actually, the "JackAss" troll has mentioned the loudness wars. Krissi
Dum****i didn't take the bait.

[None]

wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote: "The problem is that for some time we have
had a persistent troll in this group who is constantly railing on
about
the loudness wars, and what with "

Hey Scott: SCREW YOU. It's related to AUDIO. If I came on
here and whined on and on

Hey, what a surprise! The li'l dumb **** is back on his hobbyhorse!
..

[Phil W[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey:

The problem is that for some time we have had a persistent troll in this
group who is constantly railing on about the loudness wars, and what with
your coming in and obviously trolling the group, I think a few people have
confused you with the other troll.

That´s possible, but it might just be: we already have enough trolls with
bizarre ideas, no clue of the real facts and even more need to tell the
world about it in this newsgroup.

You both have bizarre formatting and
no carriage returns and excessive use of exclamation points, but since you
have not mentioned compression and limiting once, I am pretty sure that
the
two of you are unrelated.

There are more of them out there, if you want to believe it or not...

[JackA]

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 7:31:34 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:

Ha!!! Nice to see a friendly person here!!! But, as I know, there's always =
a few who play King Of The Hill. I guess I insulted one by saying anyone ca=
n mix songs, maybe he took that personally, then I get PLONKED!! Oh, and if=
someone who is nice talks to me, they think it's me talking to myself, lik=
e a sock puppet. Thanks!

The problem is that for some time we have had a persistent troll in this
group who is constantly railing on about the loudness wars, and what with
your coming in and obviously trolling the group, I think a few people have
confused you with the other troll. You both have bizarre formatting and
no carriage returns and excessive use of exclamation points, but since you
have not mentioned compression and limiting once, I am pretty sure that the
two of you are unrelated.


Oh, okay!! :-)

You can't blame me for the formatted text, blame that on the Zionist at Google, who, like the NSA, sees no problem spying on people. There's not a lot left to usenet to subscribe (again) to a NSP. Left EasyNews maybe two years ago. Use to fight a lot with the crew at SuperNews.

But, you should agree, a lot of usenet groups have a selected few regulars, that don't appreciate anyone new. Heck, in the Paint Shop Pro group, even an employee of JASC (Software vendor) wanted to nail me for personal information since he thought I had a pirated copy of Paint Shop Pro.

But, I look for people that can add something of value to what I know.
I just got off YouTube, because I think Neil Young is a shyster with his Pono thing (has that been talked about here?).

Peace offering:

Anyway, The Beatles, Come Together, stereo remixed. If Giles Martin didn't screw with the count-down, whoever's counting isn't a Beatle. I'm sticking to my guns with Billy Preston (he did all the keyboard work) [Wikipedia claims someone else or two].

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...ome2gether.mp3

Jack

--scott

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

[JackA]

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 8:39:43 AM UTC-5, None wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
but since you
have not mentioned compression and limiting once

Actually, the "JackAss" troll has mentioned the loudness wars. Krissi
Dum****i didn't take the bait.

Ha, JackAss! I like it. Where I used to work, I didn't take many vacation days. One day I did and when I retuned, someone wrote on the marking board near my desk, "Jack Off Today!" I would like to talk about Loudness Wars. Because I see the dipwad engineers, like Bob Ludwig, preaching how bad it is, then I hear a John Cougar CD that Bob remastered, left my ears ringing. Let alone, Bob also mixed (or mastered) Sultans of Swing with too low lead vocals - 20 bit mastering, too). Any you wonder why people want vinyl records to return!!

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "I would like to talk about Loudness Wars. Because I
see the dipwad engineers, like Bob Ludwig, preaching how bad it is, then
I hear a John Cougar CD that Bob remastered, left my ears ringing. Let
alone, Bob also mixed (or mastered) Sultans of Swing with too low lead
vocals - 20 bit mastering, too). Any you wonder why people want vinyl
records to return!! "


Jack, some protocol: *Most* mastering engineers smash the crap out
of mixes, or create wonky ones such as you described above, at the
request of artists, producers, or record labels. They are performing a
service. If a customer in a restaurant wants their steak raw or the
consistency of paleolithic coal, the chef either cooks it that way or the
customer never returns to that establishment, plus he may employ
WOM(word of mouth) in telling others not to eat there.


Our beef, therefore, should be with the record labels and with artists
signed to them. I get the feeling this is why Loudness War talk is so
unpopular on usenet groups such as here, and on moderated forums
such as GearSlutz & Steve Hoffman Forums, and Facebook groups like
"End(up to a point!) The Loudness War".

[None]

"JackA" wrote in message
...
Oh, okay!! :-)

You can't blame me for the formatted text, blame that on the Zionist
at Google, who, like the NSA, sees no problem spying on people.

So, you're just confirming that you're a troll.

[None]

"JackA" wrote in message
...
Oh, okay!! :-)

You can't blame me for the formatted text, blame that on the Zionist
at Google, who, like the NSA, sees no problem spying on people.

So, you're just confirming that you're a troll.

[None]

"JackA" wrote in message
...
Let alone, Bob also mixed (or mastered) Sultans of Swing with too
low lead vocals - 20 bit mastering, too).

So you don't know the difference between mixing and mastering. You're
another dumb****.

[None]

kdumb****i @ google-on-the-short-bus-dot.duuuuuh wrote in message
...
I get the feeling this is why Loudness War talk is so
unpopular on usenet groups such as here, and on moderated forums
such as GearSlutz & Steve Hoffman Forums, and Facebook groups like
"End(up to a point!) The Loudness War".

So everything you've been told, repeatedly, about why you're unpopular
.... that all went right over your head ... or are you just a
denialist? A denialist dumb ****, that is. Who's fond of hobbyhorse
abuse.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 7:15:23 PM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA wrote: "I would like to talk about Loudness Wars. Because I
see the dipwad engineers, like Bob Ludwig, preaching how bad it is, then
I hear a John Cougar CD that Bob remastered, left my ears ringing. Let
alone, Bob also mixed (or mastered) Sultans of Swing with too low lead
vocals - 20 bit mastering, too). Any you wonder why people want vinyl
records to return!! "


Jack, some protocol: *Most* mastering engineers smash the crap out
of mixes, or create wonky ones such as you described above, at the
request of artists, producers, or record labels. They are performing a
service. If a customer in a restaurant wants their steak raw or the
consistency of paleolithic coal, the chef either cooks it that way or the
customer never returns to that establishment, plus he may employ
WOM(word of mouth) in telling others not to eat there.


Our beef, therefore, should be with the record labels and with artists
signed to them. I get the feeling this is why Loudness War talk is so
unpopular on usenet groups such as here, and on moderated forums
such as GearSlutz & Steve Hoffman Forums, and Facebook groups like
"End(up to a point!) The Loudness War".

Are you saying you have to tread carefully as not to upset someone who may like a particular song or artist (with LOUD sound)?

I've heard one too many audiophile (vinyl) albums to know I'm not your classic audiophile. I don't mind trimming the grass (peaks) if that's what it takes to please my ears.

Yeah, as others, (I, too) was banned (IP blocked, too) from Steve Hoffman's forum. He is as close to an audiophile as I am to being the next Einstein.

Thanks for the info!

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "I don't mind trimming the grass (peaks) if that's what it takes to please my ears. "

Well, we will just have to 'agree to disagree' on that point.

[JackA]

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 7:53:00 PM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:
понедељак, 26. јануар 2015. 23.17.29 UTC+1, JackA је напи�ао/ла:
On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 3:51:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
Phil, I am very sorry for overloading the capacity of this group.
I thought Pro meant Professional. My error. "

Ditto. It's proDUCTION.

The only way I could sense a lack of professionalism here is
in the way certain participants react when certain topics are
brought up: You'd think we were insulting their mothers or
their system of worship the way they react!


They are also not very open to alternative scenarios as to why
certain things happened the way they did or are the way they
are. Other than that, I'm sure most participants on here are
quite professional in their particular production roles.

Ha!!! Nice to see a friendly person here!!! But, as I know, there's always a few who play King Of The Hill. I guess I insulted one by saying anyone can mix songs, maybe he took that personally, then I get PLONKED!! Oh, and if someone who is nice talks to me, they think it's me talking to myself, like a sock puppet. Thanks!

Hey, maybe you two could start own group? With black jack and hookers ...

Just forget about this one. And if you are really two, especially thekma.
There's still hope for JackA as he seem to be.

I feel partly humanoid again!

I do have an array of aliases, because it's dangerous out there! No, not because stolen identity, not because of terrorist, but because of the US Government!

The older gents may chuckle at that, while the youngins say - Where's my iPhone!?

Jack

[geoff]

On 28/01/2015 12:57 p.m., JackA wrote:


Ha, JackAss! I like it. Where I used to work, I didn't take many
vacation days. One day I did and when I retuned, someone wrote on the
marking board near my desk, "Jack Off Today!" I would like to talk
about Loudness Wars. Because I see the dipwad engineers, like Bob
Ludwig, preaching how bad it is, then I hear a John Cougar CD that
Bob remastered, left my ears ringing. Let alone, Bob also mixed (or
mastered) Sultans of Swing with too low lead vocals - 20 bit
mastering, too). Any you wonder why people want vinyl records to
return!!

Jack


Even 16-bit exceeds vinyl in every aspect.

Lead vocals too quiet is nothing to do with mastering and Bob didn't mix it.

A mix you don't agree with, or mastering you don't agree with will only
sound 'better' on vinyl because something is being lost or masked, or it
was done badly on early digital equipment.

geoff

[Luxey]

Wow, what enormous qquantity of bull**** and ignorance got spilled on our collective head, in previous couple of posts, by both personalities of this troll.

BTW, Come Together was much better mixed than The Joker, it sounded coherent if nothing, but it was so overcompressed, totally unpleasaant for listening (again),
my ears bled. Maybe the 3rd time you get lucky.

[Luxey]

One more thing, I finally listened to Drive Car drum track above and
appart from sounding wonderfully musical as it is, with all the artefacts of
whaatever, to me it sounded as a taambourine only track, ment to be HP filtered
and mixed with whatever else there is. We know nothing about the origin of this
track except what JackA is telling, so we don't know how it was aacheived. It's
well possible it was made not too long ago, for some remixing attempt, where
whole drum set recording was filtered, side chained, gated ... to make pseudo
individual percussion tracks for to mix them "better than the real thing" way.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 3:24:40 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 28/01/2015 12:57 p.m., JackA wrote:


Ha, JackAss! I like it. Where I used to work, I didn't take many
vacation days. One day I did and when I retuned, someone wrote on the
marking board near my desk, "Jack Off Today!" I would like to talk
about Loudness Wars. Because I see the dipwad engineers, like Bob
Ludwig, preaching how bad it is, then I hear a John Cougar CD that
Bob remastered, left my ears ringing. Let alone, Bob also mixed (or
mastered) Sultans of Swing with too low lead vocals - 20 bit
mastering, too). Any you wonder why people want vinyl records to
return!!

Jack


Even 16-bit exceeds vinyl in every aspect.

Lead vocals too quiet is nothing to do with mastering and Bob didn't mix it.

A mix you don't agree with, or mastering you don't agree with will only
sound 'better' on vinyl because something is being lost or masked, or it
was done badly on early digital equipment.

geoff

Geoff,

If it were only myself, then you could say I'm a bit too picky. However, not only did I claim the vocals were too low (THAT IS BOB LUDWIG'S FAULT), but others on Amazon (VIA REVIEWS) heard what I heard. Bob is like many others, he'll master from any source you wish just to make a buck! No wonder why he joined AES, to make him "appear" decent.

Jack

[hank alrich]

If it were only myself, then you could say I'm a bit too picky. However,
not only did I claim the vocals were too low (THAT IS BOB LUDWIG'S FAULT),
but others on Amazon (VIA REVIEWS) heard what I heard. Bob is like many
others, he'll master from any source you wish just to make a buck! No
wonder why he joined AES, to make him "appear" decent.

Jack

Note to the forum: if anythiung this this blowhard clown ever posted to
show his incredibly dumbass trolling attempts it is this. Last round for
me, but honestly, folks, don't even bother to **** on him. Basta!

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

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 1:43:04 PM UTC-5, hank alrich wrote:
If it were only myself, then you could say I'm a bit too picky. However,
not only did I claim the vocals were too low (THAT IS BOB LUDWIG'S FAULT),
but others on Amazon (VIA REVIEWS) heard what I heard. Bob is like many
others, he'll master from any source you wish just to make a buck! No
wonder why he joined AES, to make him "appear" decent.

Jack

Note to the forum: if anythiung this this blowhard clown ever posted to
show his incredibly dumbass trolling attempts it is this. Last round for
me, but honestly, folks, don't even bother to **** on him. Basta!

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

Boy, you guitar players aren't very nice! Feel the need to advertise, Hank?

I don't ask people to agree with me, though ...KMA seems to know what side of the fence I'm on with (re)mastering.

Be well, and stifle the childish name calling.

Jack