Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tobiah Tobiah is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 666
Default Loudness Wars

This is unrelated really, but I remember listening to LP's, and hearing
a foreshadowing of each song during the gap between songs. I realized that
the 'silent' portion of the groove was being slightly altered by the loud
part adjacent to it. You could even watch as the record spun, and the song
started at the same rotation position as the foreshadowing started.



On 01/23/2015 08:36 PM, JackA wrote:
While I hear a lot of "today's" music is purposely made loud, or as
the say, Brick Walled, I feel it started long ago, way back when.
After a divorce in the 80's, I began collecting vinyl records of past
(Pop) music. I'd listen to the "hit" 45 vinyl single. I'd listen to
the fade-out and always wondered why the audio became cleaner, not
always, but enough to remember. I assume, digital audio editors (I
think you may call the DAWs?) brought about current loudness wars,
since you can better control sound in a digital world than analog.

Also, I tend to think of loudness in more than one way. In other
words, many artists added instrument after instrument to create a
greater dense sound. This density I feel is a form of loudness, since
you don't have to have greater amounts of amplitude, just less quiet
spots.

Your input greatly appreciated.

Sorry for all the question!

Best, Jack


  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Loudness Wars

In article , Tobiah wrote:
This is unrelated really, but I remember listening to LP's, and hearing
a foreshadowing of each song during the gap between songs. I realized that
the 'silent' portion of the groove was being slightly altered by the loud
part adjacent to it. You could even watch as the record spun, and the song
started at the same rotation position as the foreshadowing started.


Yes, it is a massive pain in the neck for the cutting engineer.

I once cut a morse code practice record. Very loud tones, with a very quiet
background. It took several test cuts to figure out how tight a pitch we
could get away with. Then we got the test pressing back and found out it
was not even that tight. At first I blamed it on print-through on the
master but I was totally wrong.
--scott




On 01/23/2015 08:36 PM, JackA wrote:
While I hear a lot of "today's" music is purposely made loud, or as
the say, Brick Walled, I feel it started long ago, way back when.
After a divorce in the 80's, I began collecting vinyl records of past
(Pop) music. I'd listen to the "hit" 45 vinyl single. I'd listen to
the fade-out and always wondered why the audio became cleaner, not
always, but enough to remember. I assume, digital audio editors (I
think you may call the DAWs?) brought about current loudness wars,
since you can better control sound in a digital world than analog.

Also, I tend to think of loudness in more than one way. In other
words, many artists added instrument after instrument to create a
greater dense sound. This density I feel is a form of loudness, since
you don't have to have greater amounts of amplitude, just less quiet
spots.

Your input greatly appreciated.

Sorry for all the question!

Best, Jack




--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default Loudness Wars

Tobiah wrote:

This is unrelated really, but I remember listening to LP's, and hearing
a foreshadowing of each song during the gap between songs. I realized that
the 'silent' portion of the groove was being slightly altered by the loud
part adjacent to it. You could even watch as the record spun, and the song
started at the same rotation position as the foreshadowing started.


"Pre-echo" - slight physical distortion of the groove adjacent to the
the very quiet lead-in groove.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic
  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Loudness Wars

On 5/02/2015 5:44 a.m., Tobiah wrote:
This is unrelated really, but I remember listening to LP's, and hearing
a foreshadowing of each song during the gap between songs. I realized that
the 'silent' portion of the groove was being slightly altered by the loud
part adjacent to it. You could even watch as the record spun, and the song
started at the same rotation position as the foreshadowing started.


That's a cutting error rather than tape print-through.

geoff

  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Loudness Wars

On 2/4/2015 5:44 PM, Tobiah wrote:
This is unrelated really, but I remember listening to LP's, and hearing
a foreshadowing of each song during the gap between songs. I realized that
the 'silent' portion of the groove was being slightly altered by the loud
part adjacent to it. You could even watch as the record spun, and the song
started at the same rotation position as the foreshadowing started.


Yes, it's known as "groove echo." You actually remove material from the
lacquer master when cutting, so that doesn't have the problem, at least
not as much as a pressing. But when pressing records, the plastic flows
a bit as it's cooling and you get a light impression of the adjacent
groove. Actually it's present all through the record, but it's masked by
the music so you only hear it on the lead-in groove and bands between
songs.

THIS IS NOT A REASON WHY VINYL SOUNDS BETTER THAN A CD. (you really
don't need twice as much music)



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Loudness Wars

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 3:03:50 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 5/02/2015 5:44 a.m., Tobiah wrote:
This is unrelated really, but I remember listening to LP's, and hearing
a foreshadowing of each song during the gap between songs. I realized that
the 'silent' portion of the groove was being slightly altered by the loud
part adjacent to it. You could even watch as the record spun, and the song
started at the same rotation position as the foreshadowing started.


That's a cutting error rather than tape print-through.


How do YOU know the difference?

Jack

geoff


  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Loudness Wars

JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 3:03:50 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 5/02/2015 5:44 a.m., Tobiah wrote:
This is unrelated really, but I remember listening to LP's, and hearing
a foreshadowing of each song during the gap between songs. I realized that
the 'silent' portion of the groove was being slightly altered by the loud
part adjacent to it. You could even watch as the record spun, and the song
started at the same rotation position as the foreshadowing started.


That's a cutting error rather than tape print-through.


How do YOU know the difference?


If it's print-through on the master, it will be synchronized with the
rotation rate of the supply reel, not with the rotation rate of the LP.

Also, if the master is properly wound-tails out, print-through causes mostly
post-echo while groove deformation causes mostly pre-echo.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Loudness Wars

Scott Dorsey wrote: "Also, if the master is properly
wound-tails out, print-through causes mostly
post-echo while groove deformation causes mostly
pre-echo.
--scott "


I don't know - I own plenty of commercial cassette
tapes with pre-echo on them. Some very noticeable,
others barely. How would that be explained?


  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default Loudness Wars

short-busser @ gmail.com wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote: "Also, if the master is properly
wound-tails out, print-through causes mostly
post-echo while groove deformation causes mostly
pre-echo.
--scott "


I don't know - I own plenty of commercial cassette
tapes with pre-echo on them. Some very noticeable,
others barely. How would that be explained?


The dumb****ery continues!

  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Loudness Wars

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 4:40:56 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: "Also, if the master is properly
wound-tails out, print-through causes mostly
post-echo while groove deformation causes mostly
pre-echo.
--scott "


I don't know - I own plenty of commercial cassette
tapes with pre-echo on them. Some very noticeable,
others barely. How would that be explained?


Only ever heard it on CDs, early songs!!
But, at 1-7/8 IPS you might get half the song echoed!! :-)

Jack

  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default Loudness Wars

On 04/02/2015 22:39, Scott Dorsey wrote:
God, how I hated cassettes.

Me too. Even 128 kbps mp3 is preferable.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Luxey Luxey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Loudness Wars

четвртак, 05. фебруар 2015. 00.03.44 UTC+1, John Williamson је напиÑао/ла:
On 04/02/2015 22:39, Scott Dorsey wrote:
God, how I hated cassettes.

Me too. Even 128 kbps mp3 is preferable.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.


Believe it or not, just today I've connected caassete deck and DAT back into
system, for some backing up of old cassettes and DATs. I'll use the oportunity
to copy some of mine, too, while machines are still "On".

BTW, I love(d) cassettes. They gave us freedom. I was bouncing from one deck to
another while overdubbing, on a double deck ghreto blaster, also from deck to
VCR and back, long before I got Fostex 4 track. Then btw 4tr. and DAT ...
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Loudness Wars

On 5/02/2015 9:46 a.m., JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 3:03:50 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 5/02/2015 5:44 a.m., Tobiah wrote:
This is unrelated really, but I remember listening to LP's, and hearing
a foreshadowing of each song during the gap between songs. I realized that
the 'silent' portion of the groove was being slightly altered by the loud
part adjacent to it. You could even watch as the record spun, and the song
started at the same rotation position as the foreshadowing started.


That's a cutting error rather than tape print-through.


How do YOU know the difference?


Because it is physically synchronised to the groove position, you claimed.


geoff

  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Loudness Wars

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 6:03:44 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 04/02/2015 22:39, Scott Dorsey wrote:
God, how I hated cassettes.

Me too. Even 128 kbps mp3 is preferable.


Hated cassettes? Maybe just prerecorded? When I used to rip "vinyl" songs to them, I only used Sony "Metal" cassettes. Very impressive fidelity! Their trick was common shaped particles aligned in such was way to maximize coverage.

Jack



--
Tciao for Now!

John.




  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default Loudness Wars

On 05/02/2015 02:48, JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 6:03:44 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 04/02/2015 22:39, Scott Dorsey wrote:
God, how I hated cassettes.

Me too. Even 128 kbps mp3 is preferable.


Hated cassettes? Maybe just prerecorded? When I used to rip "vinyl" songs to them, I only used Sony "Metal" cassettes. Very impressive fidelity! Their trick was common shaped particles aligned in such was way to maximize coverage.

When I started using cassettes, I had the choice of BASF ferric or a
different make of ferric cassettes, and C-60 or C-90. They hadn't even
invented the CrO2 version, and as for metal tapes, they had to wait
until the glass heads came along, due to the abrasive nature of the
coating. BASF were the most reliable, and most of those lasted quite
well. In all the time I was using them, the only halfway decent recorder
I found was the Sony Walkman Pro, which still change hands for good
money 20 years after they stopped making them. They gave just about
passable results if you used the specified Sony tape. I still have an
original Philips EL3300 recorder, which still works, just about, if you
clean the head every hour or so.

All through their service history, they were unreliable, either jamming
or snapping if you looked at them wrong, we all learnt how to use a
pencil to pretension them before playing, and I very quickly learnt to
buy only the types that were held together by screws, as once the welded
ones failed, you lost whatever was on the tape, and I learnt to avoid
C-120s like the plague. I had to keep spare shells handy all the time.

And that's before we start talking about the azimuth errors which
changed during playback, the problem of getting the bias set for best
performance, and the other problems which went with a format that was
originally designed to replace a dictaphone which used open reel tape.

We're well rid of them. They were handy, but they were never good
quality. Their only two good points were that they were smaller and
sounded slightly better than 8 track cartridges.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Loudness Wars

On 2/5/2015 3:48 AM, JackA wrote:
When I used to rip "vinyl" songs to them, I only used Sony "Metal"
cassettes. Very impressive fidelity! Their trick was common shaped
particles aligned in such was way to maximize coverage.


The tape is fine, it's the tape path that's flawed. The smaller you make
a tape player, the worse the tape path will be.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Loudness Wars

On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 7:03:03 AM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/5/2015 3:48 AM, JackA wrote:
When I used to rip "vinyl" songs to them, I only used Sony "Metal"
cassettes. Very impressive fidelity! Their trick was common shaped
particles aligned in such was way to maximize coverage.


The tape is fine, it's the tape path that's flawed. The smaller you make
a tape player, the worse the tape path will be.


Can't really say. But, who was it that used dual capstans, Denon? You think that helped? All I know, cassette kicked 4 & 8 Track's behind!

Thanks.

Jack

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


  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Loudness Wars

On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 5:26:38 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 05/02/2015 02:48, JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 6:03:44 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 04/02/2015 22:39, Scott Dorsey wrote:
God, how I hated cassettes.

Me too. Even 128 kbps mp3 is preferable.


Hated cassettes? Maybe just prerecorded? When I used to rip "vinyl" songs to them, I only used Sony "Metal" cassettes. Very impressive fidelity! Their trick was common shaped particles aligned in such was way to maximize coverage.

When I started using cassettes, I had the choice of BASF ferric or a
different make of ferric cassettes, and C-60 or C-90. They hadn't even
invented the CrO2 version, and as for metal tapes, they had to wait
until the glass heads came along, due to the abrasive nature of the
coating. BASF were the most reliable, and most of those lasted quite
well. In all the time I was using them, the only halfway decent recorder
I found was the Sony Walkman Pro, which still change hands for good
money 20 years after they stopped making them. They gave just about
passable results if you used the specified Sony tape. I still have an
original Philips EL3300 recorder, which still works, just about, if you
clean the head every hour or so.

All through their service history, they were unreliable, either jamming
or snapping if you looked at them wrong, we all learnt how to use a
pencil to pretension them before playing, and I very quickly learnt to
buy only the types that were held together by screws, as once the welded
ones failed, you lost whatever was on the tape, and I learnt to avoid
C-120s like the plague. I had to keep spare shells handy all the time.

And that's before we start talking about the azimuth errors which
changed during playback, the problem of getting the bias set for best
performance, and the other problems which went with a format that was
originally designed to replace a dictaphone which used open reel tape.

We're well rid of them. They were handy, but they were never good
quality. Their only two good points were that they were smaller and
sounded slightly better than 8 track cartridges.


Whoa,we agree!!

Thanks for sharing your experience!

Azimuth errors, eh? Reminds me of the time I purchased a nice Pioneer cassette deck, it was marked down, 1/2 price - factory remanufactured. It didn't take long for me to realize where the engineering and/or manufacturing blunder occurred. They used springs to secure azimuth adjustments. Problem was, the chromed steel post holding the spring was just pressed in to a soft cast piece and vibration from shipping caused the spring to pull the post out!! Remanufactured, huh? Krazy glue fixed her up, I went and bought a companion unit, fixed it, too.

Like Philips!

Jack



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Loudness Wars

JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 6:03:44 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 04/02/2015 22:39, Scott Dorsey wrote:
God, how I hated cassettes.

Me too. Even 128 kbps mp3 is preferable.


Hated cassettes? Maybe just prerecorded? When I used to rip "vinyl" songs to them, I only used Sony "Metal" cassettes. Very impressive fidelity! Their trick was common shaped particles aligned in such was way to maximize coverage.


Try solo piano. Listen to how the notes tail off.
The flutter, even on the Dragon, is way too audible.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Loudness Wars

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/5/2015 3:48 AM, JackA wrote:
When I used to rip "vinyl" songs to them, I only used Sony "Metal"
cassettes. Very impressive fidelity! Their trick was common shaped
particles aligned in such was way to maximize coverage.


The tape is fine, it's the tape path that's flawed. The smaller you make
a tape player, the worse the tape path will be.


In the case of a cassette, though, half of the transport is in the cartridge,
which has to be made cheaply. This is not a recipe for quality. Mind you
the broadcast cart is even worse...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Loudness Wars

On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 8:40:12 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 6:03:44 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 04/02/2015 22:39, Scott Dorsey wrote:
God, how I hated cassettes.

Me too. Even 128 kbps mp3 is preferable.


Hated cassettes? Maybe just prerecorded? When I used to rip "vinyl" songs to them, I only used Sony "Metal" cassettes. Very impressive fidelity! Their trick was common shaped particles aligned in such was way to maximize coverage.


Try solo piano. Listen to how the notes tail off.
The flutter, even on the Dragon, is way too audible.


My feelings: I was pleased with cassettes; consider myself a picky listener.. I read, BRING BACK VINYL; I read, REMASTERING IS THE PROBLEM - CDs ARE FINE. I read; BUY THE SACD, DSD, SHM MEDIA. Then, when that's all done, I read, NEIL YOUNG'S PONO IS THE WAY TO GO! In other words, you can't rely on the opinions of others - everyone is all over the map.

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


  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default Loudness Wars

On 05/02/2015 17:30, JackA wrote:
On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 8:40:12 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 6:03:44 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 04/02/2015 22:39, Scott Dorsey wrote:
God, how I hated cassettes.

Me too. Even 128 kbps mp3 is preferable.

Hated cassettes? Maybe just prerecorded? When I used to rip "vinyl" songs to them, I only used Sony "Metal" cassettes. Very impressive fidelity! Their trick was common shaped particles aligned in such was way to maximize coverage.


Try solo piano. Listen to how the notes tail off.
The flutter, even on the Dragon, is way too audible.


My feelings: I was pleased with cassettes; consider myself a picky listener. I read, BRING BACK VINYL; I read, REMASTERING IS THE PROBLEM - CDs ARE FINE. I read; BUY THE SACD, DSD, SHM MEDIA. Then, when that's all done, I read, NEIL YOUNG'S PONO IS THE WAY TO GO! In other words, you can't rely on the opinions of others - everyone is all over the map.

You say you consider yourself a picky listener, and in the same
sentence, you say you were pleased with cassettes. You can't be both,
I'm afraid.

I'm a picky listener, and I also record stuff. I can hear the difference
between a performer standing in front of me and the same performance
through even the best studio monitors and reproduction chain, because I
know what it sounded like live. Same with concerts, I can tell when a
choir is using sound reinforcement from outside the room, and not just
by the volume.

Cassette has never and can never sound anywhere near as good as even the
cheapest professional equipment, although it does have its uses in some
professional circumstances, usually when there's no way to get anything
better than a Walkman pro into a situation, or there's a good chance
that the recorder is going to get trashed in a stunt for a movie, and
they live with the compromise, then replace that vocal track with one
recorded in a studio, using the cassette as a guide. The modern version
of that is a Zoom H2 or equivalent, with a 50/50 chance of actually
getting some usable audio.

Part of the problem with some new people here is that the people on this
group mostly spend days and weeks listening to live bands and then the
recordings of those bands through speakers which cost more than a lot of
decent cars. You're starting from the old banger side of the lot if you
are using just about any type or make of consumer grade equipment. The
worst speaker you used to find in a professional studio was the Yamaha
NS-10, and they were used solely to check that the mix sounded
acceptable on the average car stereo. Part of this check was to actually
look at the speaker cone to watch how badly it was distorting the bass.
Most people in domestic circumstances reckoned them to be a perfectly
good speaker for a small room.

Most of the people posting here will use the same 4 or 5 makes of
recording equipment and consoles, about half a dozen different makes of
monitor speaker, and if they buy a Pono, it'll only be for checking the
final result before release. They also tend to agree on things like
compression and what sounds right, but they have to earn a living and
what the client wants, the client gets. I've even known stuff leave the
recording studio sounding absolutely pristine, with a full dynamic
range, then go for mastering in a record company facility and come out
sounding like an amateur hour show, because that's what the marketing
droids think the public want.

If you want to hear a good analogue recording, Paul Simon's track
Diamonds on the Soles of her Shoes is the best I've ever heard. Even the
studio engineers in the demo room with me agreed that it is as close to
perfect as could be managed at the time, just before digital started
taking over. I did, however, first hear it on a speaker that cost about
the same as my flat at the time, while my trousers were almost flapping
in the deep bass, my chest was resonating to the voices, and it sounded
almost as if I was in the room with the band. If your ears and
reproduction system are good enough, you might even hear the
interference from a CRT monitor sitting on the desk at about 16 kHz, but
it's buried way down in the mix.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Loudness Wars

On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 1:58:00 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 05/02/2015 17:30, JackA wrote:
On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 8:40:12 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 6:03:44 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 04/02/2015 22:39, Scott Dorsey wrote:
God, how I hated cassettes.

Me too. Even 128 kbps mp3 is preferable.

Hated cassettes? Maybe just prerecorded? When I used to rip "vinyl" songs to them, I only used Sony "Metal" cassettes. Very impressive fidelity! Their trick was common shaped particles aligned in such was way to maximize coverage.

Try solo piano. Listen to how the notes tail off.
The flutter, even on the Dragon, is way too audible.


My feelings: I was pleased with cassettes; consider myself a picky listener. I read, BRING BACK VINYL; I read, REMASTERING IS THE PROBLEM - CDs ARE FINE. I read; BUY THE SACD, DSD, SHM MEDIA. Then, when that's all done, I read, NEIL YOUNG'S PONO IS THE WAY TO GO! In other words, you can't rely on the opinions of others - everyone is all over the map.

You say you consider yourself a picky listener, and in the same
sentence, you say you were pleased with cassettes. You can't be both,
I'm afraid.

I'm a picky listener, and I also record stuff. I can hear the difference
between a performer standing in front of me and the same performance
through even the best studio monitors and reproduction chain, because I
know what it sounded like live. Same with concerts, I can tell when a
choir is using sound reinforcement from outside the room, and not just
by the volume.

Cassette has never and can never sound anywhere near as good as even the
cheapest professional equipment, although it does have its uses in some
professional circumstances, usually when there's no way to get anything
better than a Walkman pro into a situation, or there's a good chance
that the recorder is going to get trashed in a stunt for a movie, and
they live with the compromise, then replace that vocal track with one
recorded in a studio, using the cassette as a guide. The modern version
of that is a Zoom H2 or equivalent, with a 50/50 chance of actually
getting some usable audio.

Part of the problem with some new people here is that the people on this
group mostly spend days and weeks listening to live bands and then the
recordings of those bands through speakers which cost more than a lot of
decent cars. You're starting from the old banger side of the lot if you
are using just about any type or make of consumer grade equipment. The
worst speaker you used to find in a professional studio was the Yamaha
NS-10, and they were used solely to check that the mix sounded
acceptable on the average car stereo. Part of this check was to actually
look at the speaker cone to watch how badly it was distorting the bass.
Most people in domestic circumstances reckoned them to be a perfectly
good speaker for a small room.

Most of the people posting here will use the same 4 or 5 makes of
recording equipment and consoles, about half a dozen different makes of
monitor speaker, and if they buy a Pono, it'll only be for checking the
final result before release. They also tend to agree on things like
compression and what sounds right, but they have to earn a living and
what the client wants, the client gets. I've even known stuff leave the
recording studio sounding absolutely pristine, with a full dynamic
range, then go for mastering in a record company facility and come out
sounding like an amateur hour show, because that's what the marketing
droids think the public want.

If you want to hear a good analogue recording, Paul Simon's track
Diamonds on the Soles of her Shoes is the best I've ever heard. Even the
studio engineers in the demo room with me agreed that it is as close to
perfect as could be managed at the time, just before digital started
taking over. I did, however, first hear it on a speaker that cost about
the same as my flat at the time, while my trousers were almost flapping
in the deep bass, my chest was resonating to the voices, and it sounded
almost as if I was in the room with the band. If your ears and
reproduction system are good enough, you might even hear the
interference from a CRT monitor sitting on the desk at about 16 kHz, but
it's buried way down in the mix.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.


Thanks, John. I do not believe you have to have a profession as a recording engineer to understand impressive sound. I don't waste my money on high price equipment, and nice sounding recording will sound nice on the cheapest equipment.

When I mixing my poor man's multi-tracks, I use headphones, most "pros" use speakers. I believe you can hear the greatest detailed sound only via headphones. Can't say I'd compete well when mixing a song I never heard before, so I focus on songs I know, I remember what I heard, I recreate that, then add to it. But, as I know, not many are "into" HQ sound, that's just a given fact of life. My rule figure is 15%, 15% of the time I'm well pleased with remastering, and/or remixing. 15% of the time, you may find someone commenting about sound quality during a CD review, especially reissued material.. Twice, I was asked if I were a recording engineer, because I'd digitally enhance material I'd find on CD to what I remember it sounding like on LP/45. Even here, not to brag, and he probably regrets writing it, but Mark felt some of my mixes sounded better than what was officially released. I know if I impress myself, others should be, too.

As far as cassettes, who knows, maybe I was fortunate to have a superior cassette deck. Frequency range is beyond my hearing...

http://www.ant-audio.co.uk/Tape_Reco...Bias_Under.gif

It wasn't until I had a small Lafayette Radio(?) tube amplifier that had 10% THD, it proved me it takes a fair amount of distortion before it becomes noticeable.

Anyway, it is good you're a picky listener (too) :-)

Jack
p.s. And if you see Neil Young, tell him to stick his PONO up his behind. I can't believe how much he lies.
  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Loudness Wars

On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 7:35:13 PM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:
петак, 06. фебруар 2015. 00.34.58 UTC+1, JackA је напиÑао/ла:

John.


Thanks, John. I do not believe you have to have a profession as a recording
engineer to understand impressive sound. I don't waste my money on high price equipment, and nice sounding recording will sound nice on the cheapest
equipment.


Hopefully, I won't regret saying this, but I agree on above 2 sentences.


When I mixing my poor man's multi-tracks,


Could you give straight ahead answer, what exactly did you mix"
Track No.1 was ...
Track No.2 was ...
Track No.3 ... and so on.


Mark found them.


I use headphones, most "pros" use speakers.


Now I'm sorry I did not ask you about it when I wanted to. I pretty much was
sure you did it on headphones.

I believe you can hear the greatest detailed sound only via headphones.


Some details are not meant to be heard. They are supposed to be burried,
sometimes down to the border of inaudiability, for artistic reasons. Revealing
too many detaails may prove to be counterproductive, as I think is the
case with majority of the "mixes" you posted to this group. Also, some parts
were recorded with final media in mind, compensating for and counting on the
flaws of that media.
Not knowing the songs is not an excuse. When you reveal the detail, you should
know if it is OK, or not to be heard in full. I don't want to hear poorly
played guitar just because it is there, more so if people who played and
recorded it meant to use it as a mere background sound pad and never had an
idea it would be brought forward by some enthusisat.

Further, you should really learn some facts and definitions, like what is mix,
multitrack, overdub, bouncing, ... to the mastering, because the way
you talk, you just make fun of yourself. You want to say something, but
something of entirely different meaning comes out of your keyboard.

That is when you don't troll on purpose, which is totally wrong and
unacceptable, If there are such moments, at all, which I doubt. Actually,
I think you don't care about what you are saying because your only wish is
to troll and you know it's not important what's being said, as long as there's
a chaance for the next post, where you can turn everything upsside down and
inside out and this being unmoderated group, there is always a chance.


So, you are in favor of noise, instruments recorded JUST to add volume? Not me. There are some who are great at mixing, there are some who are rotten at it. Just rearranging (placement of tracks) on a stereo mix a bit can make a lot of difference in what is heard. Let's face it, a "mix" NEVER sold a song. We get to hear ONE mix and it's generally never a live recording. I was very disappointment how much overdubbing went into Pop music. It kept getting worse - nowadays, you no longer have musicians to admire, most "music" is computer generated. Sad that America is turning towards the end, I feel.

And if the people here record and/or (re)mix a particular song, are they out on the firing line at places like Amazon. Heck, no, people do audio work solely for MONEY. Only once did a find a UK person on Amazon defending his (CD) audio work, I admired that! The others just go hide looking for another sucker to dish them some $$$ work.

And, yes, I enjoy laughing just like anyone else. Hank's "fish X-Ray" made me LOL! Sort of like Geoff's - BTW it's KHz!!!
Even after a heated argument, name calling and all, I'd extend my hand out to shake.

Oh, yeah, and since many want vinyl to return, disappointed by CDs, I DID NOT CAUSE THAT!!! But, at least I have a small chance to change mixes, for that small group of people who enjoy hearing something different than hearing the same ol' [spent] master tape "REMASTERED".

I have no more to say your honor!!!

Jack




  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default Loudness Wars

"JackA" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 7:35:13 PM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:
Could you give straight ahead answer, what exactly did you mix"
Track No.1 was ...
Track No.2 was ...
Track No.3 ... and so on.


Of course he won't.

Mark found them.


QED.

  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Loudness Wars

On 6/02/2015 12:34 p.m., JackA wrote:

Anyway, it is good you're a picky listener (too) :-)


"Too" ?!!!!


Jack p.s. And if you see Neil Young, tell him to stick his PONO up
his behind. I can't believe how much he lies.



He doesn't "lie" - he believes what he says, and the Pono is probably
actually very very good. But his opinions, though well-intended, appear
based on ignorance as profound as several people who have recently
appeared here.

geoff
  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Loudness Wars

On 6/02/2015 2:27 p.m., JackA wrote:


Oh, yeah, and since many want vinyl to return, disappointed by CDs, I
DID NOT CAUSE THAT!!! But, at least I have a small chance to change
mixes, for that small group of people who enjoy hearing something
different than hearing the same ol' [spent] master tape
"REMASTERED".

I have no more to say your honor!!!


I doubt that.

You "did not cause that", but you wish to perpetuate and promote the
ignorance that drives it.


geoff
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Luxey Luxey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Loudness Wars

On Friday, 6 February 2015 02:27:37 UTC+1, JackA wrote:

Mark found them.


I don't know who Mark is and what he have found.
I was at your site and judged by what is there you mixed nothing.
So, I ask you to pick one of your "mixes" and give the list of individual
tracks, if any, that went into mix.
Also, it would be nice if you'd include the source of individual tracks.

Here's why I ask:
I already know, the most of your "mixes" are no more than rips of commercial
CD releases with alternate takes, as often thrown into "The Best Of XYZ"
compilations, with addition of originally discarded takes from cheapo
supermarket collections of "The Best Of '50s, '60s ...." kind(BTW, I love those
collections, side by side one can find the most amusing and absolutely
unlistenable versions there). Supposedly by you, if at all, those were somewhat
EQed and compressed, say excited, but it's a far cry to refer to that as to "mixing", or "re-mixing". It's hardly even "re-mastering".

I also know your individual tracks, where and if used at all, came from
some PC game of Guitar Hero type, where they apply extreme filtering to
extract individual instruments from original mixes. With catastrophic results, I will add, judged by that, supposedly, The Beatles' drum track you've posted.

So, based on what I know and on what you have claimed, I can conclude
you're combination of pathological liar and delusional ignorant.
Initially, possibly unconsciously, or due ignorance, you made false clams about
your work. However, after your surrounding figured out what you did and
provided you facts, so you acquired enough knowledge to understand how
erroneous your claims were, you continued like nothing happened.
That is lying. Also, it is delusional to know you can not expect to fool
anybody any more, but still be persistent in attempt to do so.
Also, it proves you did not acquire enough of knowledge, so you're still pretty
ignorant.

Easy peasy.

Regarding the rest of your post, readers will appreciate it for what it's worth.
  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Loudness Wars

On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 11:05:15 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 6/02/2015 12:34 p.m., JackA wrote:

Anyway, it is good you're a picky listener (too) :-)


"Too" ?!!!!


Jack p.s. And if you see Neil Young, tell him to stick his PONO up
his behind. I can't believe how much he lies.



He doesn't "lie" - he believes what he says, and the Pono is probably
actually very very good. But his opinions, though well-intended, appear
based on ignorance as profound as several people who have recently
appeared here.

geoff


If Neil Young doesn't lie, then should I believe every person in TV ads that they are telling the truth, too? No, I do not. People will say anything, even lie, for money. Neil doesn't go up against any audio expert, you just find him blabbering to dumb talk show hosts.
And, no, I'm not saying PONO doesn't sound good, but you find his FRIENDS climbing out of a car, bragging how great the songs sounded w/o mentioning what they were listening to. Maybe you need a $2000 amplifier and $1000 worth of speakers for PONO to sound impressive in a car.


Jack


  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] thekmanrocks@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,742
Default Loudness Wars

JackA wrote: " Maybe you need a $2000 amplifier and $1000 worth of speakers for PONO to sound impressive in a car. "

No.

All you need is well-written and arranged, well-recorded, well-mixed, and well mastered MUSIC. Stuff that breathes, ebbs and flows, and just sounds great. Bit-depth, sampling rate, lossless vs lossy are all secondary to those attributes.

Oh - and upgrade from those thin-shelled plastic speakers with the huge 200Hz resonance on your shelves!
  #37   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Loudness Wars

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 6:14:41 AM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:
On Friday, 6 February 2015 02:27:37 UTC+1, JackA wrote:

Mark found them.


I don't know who Mark is and what he have found.
I was at your site and judged by what is there you mixed nothing.



Oh, I can understand your confusion, since you don't know songs well enough to know if they are remixed. That is very common. So, please point me to the CD that contains this full session version of Steve Miller's (Band) - Rock 'N Me, from 1974...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...ocknme-rm6.mp3

And when you done with that, maybe you can ask Steve Miller why he only offered his Joker album, remastered, to Apple, Inc. You know, Apple, not The Beatles label, but the foul American business who evades paying US taxes. During the Congressional hearing, John McCain should have yelled, "Get out of here, you low-life scum".

Anyway, thank you for your time!!

Jack

So, I ask you to pick one of your "mixes" and give the list of individual
tracks, if any, that went into mix.
Also, it would be nice if you'd include the source of individual tracks.

Here's why I ask:
I already know, the most of your "mixes" are no more than rips of commercial
CD releases with alternate takes, as often thrown into "The Best Of XYZ"
compilations, with addition of originally discarded takes from cheapo
supermarket collections of "The Best Of '50s, '60s ...." kind(BTW, I love those
collections, side by side one can find the most amusing and absolutely
unlistenable versions there). Supposedly by you, if at all, those were somewhat
EQed and compressed, say excited, but it's a far cry to refer to that as to "mixing", or "re-mixing". It's hardly even "re-mastering".

I also know your individual tracks, where and if used at all, came from
some PC game of Guitar Hero type, where they apply extreme filtering to
extract individual instruments from original mixes. With catastrophic results, I will add, judged by that, supposedly, The Beatles' drum track you've posted.

So, based on what I know and on what you have claimed, I can conclude
you're combination of pathological liar and delusional ignorant.
Initially, possibly unconsciously, or due ignorance, you made false clams about
your work. However, after your surrounding figured out what you did and
provided you facts, so you acquired enough knowledge to understand how
erroneous your claims were, you continued like nothing happened.
That is lying. Also, it is delusional to know you can not expect to fool
anybody any more, but still be persistent in attempt to do so.
Also, it proves you did not acquire enough of knowledge, so you're still pretty
ignorant.

Easy peasy.

Regarding the rest of your post, readers will appreciate it for what it's worth.


  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Luxey Luxey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Loudness Wars

Ok, you can not tell. That is because you do not know. That is because you did
not do anything. You're a liar.
  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Loudness Wars

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 8:24:34 AM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA wrote: " Maybe you need a $2000 amplifier and $1000 worth of speakers for PONO to sound impressive in a car. "

No.

All you need is well-written and arranged, well-recorded, well-mixed, and well mastered MUSIC. Stuff that breathes, ebbs and flows, and just sounds great. Bit-depth, sampling rate, lossless vs lossy are all secondary to those attributes.

Oh - and upgrade from those thin-shelled plastic speakers with the huge 200Hz resonance on your shelves!


LOL!! Not to worry, Radio Shack declared bankruptcy!!

I see nothing that was exclusively remastered for PONO, that's what bothers me.
[OT comment]. People [YouTube etc.] tell me Jimmy Page needs no money, but you could find him out as far as Japan bragging about his Led Zeppelin remastered albums, promoting them. Jimmy's probably responsible for sending free copies to radio stations, and who knows, maybe a bit of Payola as well.

Jack
  #40   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Loudness Wars

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 8:35:29 AM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:
Ok, you can not tell. That is because you do not know. That is because you did
not do anything. You're a liar.


Liar, Liar, pants on fire.

Jack
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Loudness Wars Reconsidered: ChrisCoaster Pro Audio 9 January 17th 12 11:40 PM
Yet another take on the loudness wars jwvm Pro Audio 26 January 7th 08 04:35 PM
loudness wars! jwvm High End Audio 0 June 29th 07 11:48 PM
: Clients and The Loudness Wars Chevdo Pro Audio 16 June 28th 06 01:57 AM
Clients and The Loudness Wars J.C. Scott Pro Audio 137 June 24th 06 04:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:38 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"