Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Loudness Wars
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Loudness Wars
On 2/4/2015 10:40 PM, wrote:
I own plenty of commercial cassette tapes with pre-echo on them. Some very noticeable, others barely. How would that be explained? Print-through on the cassette. Just because it's minimized on the master doesn't mean that the cassette itself won't develop print-through. Tape is tape. Since most cassettes are recorded in both directions, it's hard to say what's tails-out. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Loudness Wars
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The Loudness Wars Reconsidered: | Pro Audio | |||
Yet another take on the loudness wars | Pro Audio | |||
loudness wars! | High End Audio | |||
: Clients and The Loudness Wars | Pro Audio | |||
Clients and The Loudness Wars | Pro Audio |