[Scott Dorsey]

Luxey wrote:
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.

No, I am thinking it actually _is_ two different trolls here.

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.

Get the JVC XRCD issue of The Joker. It is just staggeringly well-done, no
processing to speak of.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

No, I am thinking it actually _is_ two different trolls here.


so why feed either one

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "No, you CANNOT achieve the same effect with your volume control."


Once again you misread what I wrote. By achieving the same effect I meant
making it louder over the speakers, not changing the ratio of loud to soft.

To make it loud in the format, you have to remove the loudest transients and
turn up the rest(makeup gain). To make it loud in your room, or car, you just
turn up the VOLUME.

(JackA, see what I have to put up with in here? You'd swear half these people
work for the guvuhmint..smh!)

[Phil W[_3_]]

makolber:

No, I am thinking it actually _is_ two different trolls here.

so why feed either one

exactly!

another suggestion would be a dedicated newsgroup for them and others like
them. maybe something called "rec.audio.moron"...

[[email protected]]

Phil W wrote: "
exactly!

another suggestion would be a dedicated newsgroup for them and
others like them. maybe something called "rec.audio.moron"... "

Ok, so we're 'morons' because we dislike practices that make music
sound like ****e! Better than being called a denialist!

[John Williamson]

On 28/01/2015 22:09, wrote:
Phil W wrote: "
exactly!

another suggestion would be a dedicated newsgroup for them and
others like them. maybe something called "rec.audio.moron"... "

Ok, so we're 'morons' because we dislike practices that make music
sound like ****e! Better than being called a denialist!

No, you're a moron because you keep making the same mistakes and getting
the same old dead hobby horse out of the stable over and over again,
hoping that *this* time, you might just convince someone that you know
what you're on about.

Nobody is denying that many modern recordings are highly compressed. You
are the only one that is of the opinion that the recording engineers'
clients (That is to say the record companies and artistes, and
ultimately the listeners) aren't the ones driving this. The engineers,
production staff and studio techs who post here just do what the client
asks, otherwise they don't get paid. It's as simple as that.

I've even been asked by the conductor of a symphony orchestra to
compress and apply make up gain to a performance to "Make it sound louder".

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "You
are the only one that is of the opinion that the recording engineers'
clients (That is to say the record companies and artistes, and
ultimately the listeners) aren't the ones driving this. "

Bull **** - REREAD my John Cougar Mellencamp post above
a couple more times, especially the last paragraph. If YOU
have any reading comprehension skills, you will see who I
blame in that paragraph!

I stopped blaming the engineers a long time ago, and even coached
JackA not to, either, if you would take me off killfile and actually
****ING READ what I posted!

[None]

krissi dumb****i @gmail.com wrote in message
...
Phil W wrote: "
exactly!

another suggestion would be a dedicated newsgroup for them and
others like them. maybe something called "rec.audio.moron"... "

Ok, so we're 'morons' because we dislike practices that make music
sound like ****e! Better than being called a denialist!

Nope. You're a moron because you''re a dumb ****. You seem to be the
only one denying that you're a dumb ****. So you're a denialist dumb
****.

[None]

Jersey jackass wrote in message
...
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

Complete confirmation that you're a troll, and a ****ing asshole, too.
Can't you and li'l Krissie get a room somewhere and stop pestering the
grownups?

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 2:28:17 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Luxey wrote:
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.

No, I am thinking it actually _is_ two different trolls here.

I never call anyone a troll, because sometimes trolls are more intelligent than the ones calling him or her a 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.

Get the JVC XRCD issue of The Joker. It is just staggeringly well-done, no
processing to speak of.

Are you saying that Capitol and/or Steve Miller (Sailor Music) is only offering the nice sounding CDs to the Japanese? The USA is incapable of topping the Japanese? This is the part that bugs me. I feel, as many do, that an ordinary CD is very capable of reproducing music. Any HQ media stuff is just digitally enhanced. You know Bachman Turner Overdrive, their remixes are only available out of Amazon Canada, for Surround Sound disc.

If I may, let's take a look and listen at BTO's "Not Fragile" CD. It seems most like the most recent mastering which is the loudness...


[Song] You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet!
My friend Mike allowed me to borrow his CD editions. He has the vinyl LP, too.
These are the snapshots of the waveform.
One minute audio snippets of each to follow:

From Bachman-Turner Overdrive - Not Fragile CD album
PD=Polydor (initial release)
CR= Cherry Red (UK) (two albums on one CD, Not Fragile being one)
AF=Audio Fidelity (Kevin Gray mastering using HDCD)
MC=Most recent Mercury (sold only on Amazon Canada)
PDE=Polydor CD digitally Enhanced.
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...nothing-pd.jpg
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...nothing-cr.jpg
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...nothing-af.jpg
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...nothing-mc.jpg
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...othing-pde.jpg

One minute snippets to evaluate. ALL "ripped" the same at 320kbps, ALL edited down @ 160kbps
Digital Enhancing using Goldwave software
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...nothing-pd.mp3
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...nothing-cr.mp3
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...nothing-af.mp3
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...nothing-mc.mp3
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...othing-pde.mp3

You tell me which to buy!

Jack


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

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 4:19:39 PM UTC-5, wrote:
geoff wrote: "No, you CANNOT achieve the same effect with your volume control."


Once again you misread what I wrote. By achieving the same effect I meant
making it louder over the speakers, not changing the ratio of loud to soft.

To make it loud in the format, you have to remove the loudest transients and
turn up the rest(makeup gain). To make it loud in your room, or car, you just
turn up the VOLUME.

(JackA, see what I have to put up with in here? You'd swear half these people
work for the guvuhmint..smh!)

And the names they use! Last time I checked, you could kill-filter any person you wished. Me, I don't care to call anyone a "troll", because I've seen enough trolls that were very helpful.

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA wrote:
Are you saying that Capitol and/or Steve Miller (Sailor Music) is only offe=
ring the nice sounding CDs to the Japanese? The USA is incapable of topping=
the Japanese? This is the part that bugs me. I feel, as many do, that an o=
rdinary CD is very capable of reproducing music. Any HQ media stuff is just=
digitally enhanced. You know Bachman Turner Overdrive, their remixes are o=
nly available out of Amazon Canada, for Surround Sound disc.

No. JVC put out a line of very high quality CD reissues, under license
from various record labels. That included The Joker, which interestingly
enough was one of only two rock albums they did in the series.

They did the mastering very carefully with excellent playback gear, and
the results sound good.

There is a market in Japan for very high end record releases, including
things like first generation dubs off of master tapes, and there are people
who are willing to pay for them. The majority of this market is for classic
jazz recordings but there is some rock and some classical.

That sort of thing would happen more in the US if people were willing to
pay for it, but we do have labels like Chesky Records that specialize in
doing proper high quality reissues.
--scott


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

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:09:20 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Phil W wrote: "
exactly!

another suggestion would be a dedicated newsgroup for them and
others like them. maybe something called "rec.audio.moron"... "

Ok, so we're 'morons' because we dislike practices that make music
sound like ****e! Better than being called a denialist!

I have to admit, lots of past music I like you seldom see this brick-walling mastering. The last closest one I heard was a Japanese CD with the group, The Knack, that was pretty loud! Me, I'd rather heard someone remix the multi-tracks, someone who takes real pride in their work, and doesn't really care about how much he/she gets paid.
In other words, I want a fresh master made, not one that is already close to being spent. This is where I get into several arguments, some are against remixing and believe ONLY an existing master tape should be used. You want the greatest dynamics, remix the multi-tracks. I don't care to hear more tape noise because that is all the had decades ago to mix-down to.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA: The loudness switch you speak of in reply to Geoff works along the lines
of equal loudness per frequency. Our ears are less sensitive to the bottom end,
and somewhat less sensitive to high end, at low to modest listening levels.
Pressing the Loudness button boosts those frequencies modestly, so they
are audible when listening quietly.

See: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...indos1.svg.png

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "I never call anyone a troll, because sometimes trolls
are more intelligent than the ones calling him or her a troll. "

Oohhhh snap - Good one, Jack!

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 6:49:00 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:
Are you saying that Capitol and/or Steve Miller (Sailor Music) is only offe=
ring the nice sounding CDs to the Japanese? The USA is incapable of topping=
the Japanese? This is the part that bugs me. I feel, as many do, that an o=
rdinary CD is very capable of reproducing music. Any HQ media stuff is just=
digitally enhanced. You know Bachman Turner Overdrive, their remixes are o=
nly available out of Amazon Canada, for Surround Sound disc.

No. JVC put out a line of very high quality CD reissues, under license
from various record labels. That included The Joker, which interestingly
enough was one of only two rock albums they did in the series.

They did the mastering very carefully with excellent playback gear, and
the results sound good.

There is a market in Japan for very high end record releases, including
things like first generation dubs off of master tapes, and there are people
who are willing to pay for them. The majority of this market is for classic
jazz recordings but there is some rock and some classical.

-- Or is the real reason because the Japanese own a lot in America and buying Japan CDs yields them the greatest profit. You might remember when Sony outsourced the (early) CD work to Japan, many Americans became angry, so they ceased outsourcing. I do have at least one ordinary CD by JVC, and it DOES sound good, but nothing to compare it against.


That sort of thing would happen more in the US if people were willing to
pay for it, but we do have labels like Chesky Records that specialize in
doing proper high quality reissues.

So, what costs so much money that Americans would be against "proper" high quality sound? I mean, you find Neil Young touting his Pono thing will put every audio thing to shame!

Why not "rip" a piece (snippet) of The Joker song, so I can hear it, too?

Thanks.

Jack

--scott


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

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:45:58 PM UTC-5, wrote:
John Williamson wrote: "You
are the only one that is of the opinion that the recording engineers'
clients (That is to say the record companies and artistes, and
ultimately the listeners) aren't the ones driving this. "

Bull **** - REREAD my John Cougar Mellencamp post above
a couple more times, especially the last paragraph. If YOU
have any reading comprehension skills, you will see who I
blame in that paragraph!

I stopped blaming the engineers a long time ago, and even coached
JackA not to, either, if you would take me off killfile and actually
****ING READ what I posted!

KMA, I take special interest with the names who "master" or "remaster" music. I have attempted to contact many, but they do not reply. I bought a (UK) Buddy Holly CD and listened to the audio work a UK person had done, I thought I'd give him some applause on Amazon as part of a CD review. Guess what, he was there posting! I thought, OMG, when do you ever see an "engineer" defending his audio work out in the open!!?? Most just enjoy the cash, and care little about doing their best or waiting for a better source.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "KMA, I "

Sorry, the formatting here cuts off my full handle.
It's 'thekmanrocks"! lol

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 7:31:52 PM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA wrote: "KMA, I "

Sorry, the formatting here cuts off my full handle.
It's 'thekmanrocks"! lol

LOL!!! Maybe the "regulars" see what I see, you know KMA = Kiss My A** :-)

Jack

[geoff]

On 29/01/2015 11:09 a.m., wrote:
Phil W wrote: "
exactly!

another suggestion would be a dedicated newsgroup for them and
others like them. maybe something called "rec.audio.moron"... "

Ok, so we're 'morons' because we dislike practices that make music
sound like ****e! Better than being called a denialist!



No. For refusing to attempt to comprehend actually why and how the music
is made to sound like ****.


geoff

[None]

"JackA" wrote in message
...
You can't blame me for the formatted text, blame that on the Zionist
at Google,

Here's more proof that JackAss is a troll, and also an asshole. Like
the Dumb****i troll, he can't properly format a Usenet post, and he
doesn't have the balls to take responsibility for his own post. They
blame others for their own stupidity.

Another thing they have in common ... their musical tastes never
seemed to progress much beyond junior high school.

[None]

dumb****i @ gmail.com wrote in message
...
JackA: The loudness ...

flush

Maybe you two cretins, Jersy Jerkoff (aka Tweedledunce) and Krissi
Dumb**** (aka Tweedledumb****), could just get a room where you can
molest each other's hobbyhorses in private, instead of smearing your
hobbyhorse**** all over the newsgroup.

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
No. For refusing to attempt to
comprehend actually
why and how the music
is made to sound like ****.


geoff "

I know more about the whys and hows
than some of you give me credit for.
The goal now is to get those forces
to STOP demanding it.

[hank alrich]

wrote:


No, I am thinking it actually _is_ two different trolls here.


so why feed either one

The question is the answer ,and I agree. No need to encourage global
warming.

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

[JackA]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:29:05 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/01/2015 22:09, wrote:
Phil W wrote: "
exactly!

another suggestion would be a dedicated newsgroup for them and
others like them. maybe something called "rec.audio.moron"... "

Ok, so we're 'morons' because we dislike practices that make music
sound like ****e! Better than being called a denialist!

No, you're a moron because you keep making the same mistakes and getting
the same old dead hobby horse out of the stable over and over again,
hoping that *this* time, you might just convince someone that you know
what you're on about.

Nobody is denying that many modern recordings are highly compressed. You
are the only one that is of the opinion that the recording engineers'
clients (That is to say the record companies and artistes, and
ultimately the listeners) aren't the ones driving this. The engineers,
production staff and studio techs who post here just do what the client
asks, otherwise they don't get paid. It's as simple as that.

I've even been asked by the conductor of a symphony orchestra to
compress and apply make up gain to a performance to "Make it sound louder".

You mean, you would do whatever you're told, even if it distorts the sound, just for the sake of making money? No concern of your reputation?

Just curious!!

Jack


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
You mean, you would do whatever you're told, even if it distorts the sound, just for the sake of making money? No concern of your reputation?

Just curious!!

Jack
- show quoted text -"


Ask the captain of Titanic that question. His boss, director
of the line that owned Titanic, was on that voyage. You know
the rest.

If I were captain, that ship might be a floating museum
someplace, because I'd have told my client - my 'boss' - just
who's running this bloody ship, and I don't CARE if you want
us in by fockin' Tuesday night instead of Wednesday!

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 1/29/2015 8:22 PM, JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:29:05 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/01/2015 22:09, wrote:
Phil W wrote: "
exactly!

another suggestion would be a dedicated newsgroup for them and
others like them. maybe something called "rec.audio.moron"... "

Ok, so we're 'morons' because we dislike practices that make music
sound like ****e! Better than being called a denialist!

No, you're a moron because you keep making the same mistakes and getting
the same old dead hobby horse out of the stable over and over again,
hoping that *this* time, you might just convince someone that you know
what you're on about.

Nobody is denying that many modern recordings are highly compressed. You
are the only one that is of the opinion that the recording engineers'
clients (That is to say the record companies and artistes, and
ultimately the listeners) aren't the ones driving this. The engineers,
production staff and studio techs who post here just do what the client
asks, otherwise they don't get paid. It's as simple as that.

I've even been asked by the conductor of a symphony orchestra to
compress and apply make up gain to a performance to "Make it sound louder".

You mean, you would do whatever you're told, even if it distorts the sound, just for the sake of making money? No concern of your reputation?

Just curious!!

Jack


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Wow, so you'd seriously place distortion avoidance above your well-being?
Reality check: we're talking ENTERTAINMENT industry here ...and you're
talking Top-40 kind of stuff.

==
L...
RC
--

[[email protected]]

Ron C wrote: "- show quoted text -
Wow, so you'd seriously place distortion avoidance above your well-being?
Reality check: we're talking ENTERTAINMENT industry here ...and you're
talking Top-40 kind of stuff.

==
L...
RC
--
"

Yeah, top-40 stuff, like Fleetwood Mac, disco-era Bee Gees, America,
George Benson, not much distortion in that list. Good-sounding pop.
Principles I live by.

"L...
RC" ??

[[email protected]]

Yes Ron: I'd place getting the ship safely into port
above obey Mister Ismay's orders to "light the
remaining boilers and step on it! It's call SPINE
Ron - try getting some if you're in the mastering
business.

[John Williamson]

On 30/01/2015 01:22, JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:29:05 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
I've even been asked by the conductor of a symphony orchestra to
compress and apply make up gain to a performance to "Make it sound louder".

You mean, you would do whatever you're told, even if it distorts the sound, just for the sake of making money? No concern of your reputation?

I did as I was requested to, and got paid the agreed sum. The client was
happy, I was happy, and the listeners were presumably happy, as I heard
no more about it.

It still sounded pretty good, with plenty of dynamic range, just not
quite as much as the live performance. I certainly prefer my version to
a reference copy of the same piece I downloaded to see how at least one
other mix engineer did it, which has not only been close mic'd, but has
apparently had most of the channels individually compressed and gated to
remove the low level crud in the room. I also have the uncompressed
version for annoying the neighbours when the organ comes in with all the
stops out.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 8:54:34 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Ron C wrote: "- show quoted text -
Wow, so you'd seriously place distortion avoidance above your well-being?
Reality check: we're talking ENTERTAINMENT industry here ...and you're
talking Top-40 kind of stuff.

==
L...
RC
--
"

Yeah, top-40 stuff, like Fleetwood Mac, disco-era Bee Gees, America,
George Benson, not much distortion in that list. Good-sounding pop.
Principles I live by.

"L...
RC" ??

KMA, did you ever check-out Fleetwood Mac's Rumours album, I guess, the CD Deluxe edition? I never found (song) Gold Dust Woman real interesting, but it is sort of sad how they fouled the sound with echo and stuff, the pre-fouled version sounds audiophile like!!! I guess, some people don't know when to quit.

Jack

[JackA]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 5:26:39 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 30/01/2015 01:22, JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 5:29:05 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
I've even been asked by the conductor of a symphony orchestra to
compress and apply make up gain to a performance to "Make it sound louder".

You mean, you would do whatever you're told, even if it distorts the sound, just for the sake of making money? No concern of your reputation?

I did as I was requested to, and got paid the agreed sum. The client was
happy, I was happy, and the listeners were presumably happy, as I heard
no more about it.

It still sounded pretty good, with plenty of dynamic range, just not
quite as much as the live performance. I certainly prefer my version to
a reference copy of the same piece I downloaded to see how at least one
other mix engineer did it, which has not only been close mic'd, but has
apparently had most of the channels individually compressed and gated to
remove the low level crud in the room. I also have the uncompressed
version for annoying the neighbours when the organ comes in with all the
stops out.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Okay, John, not criticizing, just wanted to better understand what happened.. Many people I chat with use the "mastering" word as if BIG record companies are still around. What I'm attempting to say is, certain terms are still used, but I feel the practices have stopped. Like, one person would "mix", another would "master", because it was too much work for any one person back in the good ol' days. I always thought remastering should include remixing. Today, I feel most do it all. Steven Wilson, I guess, out your way, has done some nice remixing of past popular songs. Others, like Steve Hoffman, claim you should not mess with a precious sounding master. Yet, I have CDs with Steve Hoffman has remixed past hits.

Thanks for sharing.

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA wrote:
Okay, John, not criticizing, just wanted to better understand what happened=
. Many people I chat with use the "mastering" word as if BIG record compani=
es are still around. What I'm attempting to say is, certain terms are still=
used, but I feel the practices have stopped. Like, one person would "mix",=
another would "master", because it was too much work for any one person ba=
ck in the good ol' days.

This is still the case. It is very rare for an engineer to do his own
mastering work. The whole point of the mastering engineer is to provide a
last check on sound quality and do have a second set of ears evaluate
everything.

Check the credits on the back of the CDs that you listen to.

Now, it is less common for the recording engineer, or the producer, to
attend the mastering session with the mastering engineer (cutting engineer).
That's definitely a problem today, because the interplay between these people
is important, and it is always interesting to get into the mastering suite
and hear things that you never heard on the studio monitors (often because
you didn't notice them until the mastering engineer pointed them out).

I always thought remastering should include remixi=
ng. Today, I feel most do it all. Steven Wilson, I guess, out your way, has=
done some nice remixing of past popular songs. Others, like Steve Hoffman,=
claim you should not mess with a precious sounding master. Yet, I have CDs=
with Steve Hoffman has remixed past hits.

Why? If it sounds good, why touch it, especially when the people doing the
remixing may have a totally different vision than the original crew?

Often today you will see attempts to remix things which are impeded by poor
quality of the originals and/or a mixing engineer who doesn't understand the
philosophy of the originals. The Hair soundtrack is a fine example of this.
Unfortunately your choice is either to get the oddly-remixed and Aphexed CD,
or the LP that has been Dynagrooved, so you're pretty much out of luck for
sound quality with either option.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 1/30/2015 2:18 PM, JackA wrote:
What I'm attempting to say is, certain terms are still used, but I
feel the practices have stopped. Like, one person would "mix",
another would "master", because it was too much work for any one
person back in the good ol' days.

In the good ol' days, the recording engineer mixed, because he was
working with a complete musical package. The band played and sang all
the parts, or the producer brought in sidemen at the appropriate times
and they did their jobs. Mixing wasn't a process or arranging a song
from a bunch of pieces that were recorded when an idea came along or a
musician was available. You always heard the final sound develop
throughout the recording process, and mixing was a matter of balancing
parts if the were on separate parts and making sure that what was
recorded could be heard.

Then it was sent off to be mastered, which meant doing the least amount
of damage so that the cutter would make a good lacquer master and the
pressing process could proceed. Big studios like those owned by major
record companies usually had a mastering department, pressing plants
sometimes had a mastering department, and some independent mastering
studios emerged. The reason why mastering was a separate process from
recording/mixing wasn't necessarily because of different skills - those
developed as with experience - it was that the equipment and skill set
were completely different from those involved with recording. It wasn't
unusual for a mastering studio to be asked to adjust levels between
songs, maybe do a touch of EQ, but their most important job was to make
a playable cut.

In the early days of CD production, the job was similar in function, but
the tools were all different, as was the technology and techniques.
Studios didn't have the tools to make the digital master that went to
the cutter, so digital mastering was born. As more people were recording
in less adequate studios, the job to fix problems like too much or too
little bass in a recording coming from a studio with inaccurate
monitoring, or just inexperienced recording.

"Make it loud" came along later when the listener stopped listening to
complete albums and started making "mix tapes" that were direct
transfers from CDs, without going through an analog chain where the one
making the compilation had the opportunity, if he cared, to adjust the
volume of each song in the assembly. Originally "making it loud" was a
pretty heavy handed process, but in later years, the mastering engineer
became the one who would put the finishing touch on a good project or
make make decent chicken salad from chicken ****.

That's why recording, mixing, and mastering is what it is today.



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

[JackA]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 9:05:35 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:
Okay, John, not criticizing, just wanted to better understand what happened=
. Many people I chat with use the "mastering" word as if BIG record compani=
es are still around. What I'm attempting to say is, certain terms are still=
used, but I feel the practices have stopped. Like, one person would "mix",=
another would "master", because it was too much work for any one person ba=
ck in the good ol' days.

This is still the case. It is very rare for an engineer to do his own
mastering work. The whole point of the mastering engineer is to provide a
last check on sound quality and do have a second set of ears evaluate
everything.

Check the credits on the back of the CDs that you listen to.

Now, it is less common for the recording engineer, or the producer, to
attend the mastering session with the mastering engineer (cutting engineer).
That's definitely a problem today, because the interplay between these people
is important, and it is always interesting to get into the mastering suite
and hear things that you never heard on the studio monitors (often because
you didn't notice them until the mastering engineer pointed them out).

I always thought remastering should include remixi=
ng. Today, I feel most do it all. Steven Wilson, I guess, out your way, has=
done some nice remixing of past popular songs. Others, like Steve Hoffman,=
claim you should not mess with a precious sounding master. Yet, I have CDs=
with Steve Hoffman has remixed past hits.

Why? If it sounds good, why touch it

Why touch it you ask? A valid question, too. People don't make master tapes just because they feel like it, they make them to USE. After some time, tapes wear (and age) and audio quality begins to degrade. Bottom line, hear me out, if YOU want the GREATEST dynamic range, you remix the song(s). Primitive man, in the past, only had noisy TAPE to mix-down to. These days, digtal remixing no longer requires a noisy tape to mix down to. Just that ALONE should be enough to desire remixing. BUT, I say, BUT what stops it? It's COST. Someone even mentioned Steven Wilson makes little money from remixing. This was also told to me by a Ron Furmanek, who's been involved in (past) CD music for a long time.

, especially when the people doing the
remixing may have a totally different vision than the original crew?

Often today you will see attempts to remix things which are impeded by poor
quality of the originals and/or a mixing engineer who doesn't understand the
philosophy of the originals. The Hair soundtrack is a fine example of this.
Unfortunately your choice is either to get the oddly-remixed and Aphexed CD,
or the LP that has been Dynagrooved, so you're pretty much out of luck for
sound quality with either option.

Scott, I am not saying remixing can sound worse than the original mix. I say listen to the original mix, maintain that as much as possible, but add to it. That's why I would seek others for their input before publishing anything.
Also, Scott, take Thin Lizzy for example. It appears an "original" master tape was overdubbed for the siren sounds on their "Jailbreak" song. The siren sounds were nowhere to be found on the multi-tracks.

I enjoyed R.E.M.s, The One I Love, song. I remixed it and now I hear a tambourine (maybe acoustic guitar work, too) that I never heard before...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps.../the1ilove.mp3

Jack

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

[Scott Dorsey]

JackA wrote:
Why touch it you ask? A valid question, too. People don't make master tapes=
just because they feel like it, they make them to USE. After some time, ta=
pes wear (and age) and audio quality begins to degrade. Bottom line, hear m=
e out, if YOU want the GREATEST dynamic range, you remix the song(s). Primi=
tive man, in the past, only had noisy TAPE to mix-down to. These days, digt=
al remixing no longer requires a noisy tape to mix down to. Just that ALONE=
should be enough to desire remixing. BUT, I say, BUT what stops it? It's C=
OST. Someone even mentioned Steven Wilson makes little money from remixing.=
This was also told to me by a Ron Furmanek, who's been involved in (past) =
CD music for a long time.

You're trading degradation of the mixdown tape for degradation of the
master tapes. The Hair album is a perfect example of this, where it was
remixed from a master tape that was falling apart, when the mixdown tape
sounded pretty good.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
KMA, did you ever check-out Fleetwood Mac's Rumours album, I guess,
the CD Deluxe edition? I never found (song) Gold Dust Woman real interesting, but it is
sort of sad how they fouled the sound with echo and stuff, the pre-fouled version sounds
audiophile like!!! I guess, some people don't know when to quit.

Jack "


I own #3010-2, the 1984 US & Europe CD release. It's the ONLY one I will ever
own, LOL! I can hear the reverb, but very faintly, and in its proper proportions.


Just for kicks I loaded it into my DAW, limited 6dB off the peaks and applied very
light compression down around -40dB. I then gained it back up to -1dbfs peak,
and yes, I heard PLENTY of reverb, so much it distracted me from hearing the
other elements of the frickin track!


Jack, please realize that engineers do not just out of the blue decide they are
going to trash a perfectly good recording like that or an existing master.
Someone is contacting them to "remaster" existing works in this fashion,
and the engineers do what they will receive payment for. That someone may
be the original artist, their producer, or very likely, the record label.


THEY are the ones we need to let know that we DON'T want our music
****ED with, and that we will spread the word to others not to buy it
in this re-imagined fashion. Not the engineers in r.a.p., on Gearslutz,
or anywhere else.


Of course a few sticks in the mud on here, whose livelihoods depend on the
occasional client request to destroy their music, still think I'm blaming them,
but that's okay, they can't handle the truth!


Kinder regards,

-The KManrocks

[JackA]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 9:58:39 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:
Why touch it you ask? A valid question, too. People don't make master tapes=
just because they feel like it, they make them to USE. After some time, ta=
pes wear (and age) and audio quality begins to degrade. Bottom line, hear m=
e out, if YOU want the GREATEST dynamic range, you remix the song(s). Primi=
tive man, in the past, only had noisy TAPE to mix-down to. These days, digt=
al remixing no longer requires a noisy tape to mix down to. Just that ALONE=
should be enough to desire remixing. BUT, I say, BUT what stops it? It's C=
OST. Someone even mentioned Steven Wilson makes little money from remixing.=
This was also told to me by a Ron Furmanek, who's been involved in (past) =
CD music for a long time.

You're trading degradation of the mixdown tape for degradation of the
master tapes. The Hair album is a perfect example of this, where it was
remixed from a master tape that was falling apart, when the mixdown tape
sounded pretty good.
--scott

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

You are probably correct! My sister had that album, and in my adjacent bedroom heard it many times, w/o asking! :-)

Not often, can't be specific, but on CDs, because of OLD technology, I heard worn mixing (linear) potentiometers in action (noise). Another reason, where possible, would rather have it digitally mixed! Led Zeppelin, boy, what I heard, tells me Jimmy Page wasn't concerned with sound quality!! Have some "boots" also well as multi's from second album.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA: I also own a vinyl of Rumours, somewhere in my basement.
I should table it up and listen to it fer real!


As for Zeppelin, there is a thoroughly disgusting suggestion going
around that the original CD release of their catalog was transferred
from CASSETTES or even vinyl. I think I first read of it in the Led
Zeppelin 2014 remasters thread on the Steve Hoffman Forums.
Sound like something Fox News would spout, seriously.


Take a gander over there - I think you'll recognize my handle in
a heartbeat(it contains the word "... Remasters!")

[JackA]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 10:19:20 AM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA wrote: "- show quoted text -
KMA, did you ever check-out Fleetwood Mac's Rumours album, I guess,
the CD Deluxe edition? I never found (song) Gold Dust Woman real interesting, but it is
sort of sad how they fouled the sound with echo and stuff, the pre-fouled version sounds
audiophile like!!! I guess, some people don't know when to quit.

Jack "


I own #3010-2, the 1984 US & Europe CD release. It's the ONLY one I will ever
own, LOL! I can hear the reverb, but very faintly, and in its proper proportions.


Just for kicks I loaded it into my DAW, limited 6dB off the peaks and applied very
light compression down around -40dB. I then gained it back up to -1dbfs peak,
and yes, I heard PLENTY of reverb, so much it distracted me from hearing the
other elements of the frickin track!


Jack, please realize that engineers do not just out of the blue decide they are
going to trash a perfectly good recording like that or an existing master..
Someone is contacting them to "remaster" existing works in this fashion,
and the engineers do what they will receive payment for. That someone may
be the original artist, their producer, or very likely, the record label.


THEY are the ones we need to let know that we DON'T want our music
****ED with, and that we will spread the word to others not to buy it
in this re-imagined fashion. Not the engineers in r.a.p., on Gearslutz,
or anywhere else.


Of course a few sticks in the mud on here, whose livelihoods depend on the
occasional client request to destroy their music, still think I'm blaming them,
but that's okay, they can't handle the truth!


Kinder regards,

-The KManrocks

KMan, do you, not from what you're often told, do you believe artists always approve of their mixes? Personally, I say, no, that is not true. They sign a contract and, I feel, that's where their control and input ends.

There's is LITTLE pride in audio work with past music. You seldom EVER find ANYONE defending their audio work on places like Amazon. If I did remastering and someone (or a few) was/were pleased with the mix or whatever, I'd get permission to send a special mix to that particular person.

Not to brag or anything like that, but because I digitally enhance songs I like on EARLY CDs, two times I was asked if I was a recording engineer. Even in (usenet) places where others would say I'm full of poop, think I was a troll, but would applaud particular audio enhancing (have some quotes on my web site).

I have attempted to contact MANY who are involved with remastering. Only twice out of MANY times, has anyone replied. They do hide well!! :-)

Jack