[Frank Stearns]

But perhaps the overall damage is already done. I've been hearing
more and more of what I call a "gray" sound across a wider range of
releases.

"Gray" sound is a bit like over-spiced food. Used in excess,
super-spicing makes your mouth go "gray" such that you can no longer
discern subtleties, delicate nuance, or delightful taste surprises
hidden within the cuisine.

Something similar has happened with too many mastered projects. Even
though some mastering engineers profess the utmost care for the sound
they handle, I'm becoming convinced that sadly many have no idea what
that means.

I sent a recent project back to the mastering house *three times*,
****ing off many people in the process. (Though, to their credit,
each time the client thought "everything sounded great" they could
eventually hear what I had been complaining about as each revision came back.

In the first attempt, the wrong noise shaping had been used (way too
much with a steep curve, which exaggerated screeching all the way around -- noise
shaping can affect sonics). In revision 2, some overreaching HF screech
EQ got removed. In revision 3, approximately half of the analog signal
processing was bypassed entirely, helping to further lower the
newly-added distortion.

Finally, at least, my ears stopped bleeding.

My ongoing question to the engineer had been didn't you hear any of
these issues while you mastered???

Even after 3 tries it was not what it should have been. It
became (to the client) diminishing returns, and the mastering house
had, in their own estimation, done everything I'd asked for -- except
bring back fully the depth and sparkle that I'd sent them. They
apparently simply could not hear the difference, and the sound had
thus been "grayed". The sound had become dimensionally flat and musically
not as interesting.

The mastering gear, monitors, or ears apparently could not resolve
what the hell I was ranting about. Was I being too picky? Asking too
much from 44.1/16? Too crazy in general?

I didn't think so, as I have heard (and own) some stunning CDs with
the qualities I aspire to get in my own work. And in playing back
this recent project for laymen (but on good monitors in a good room)
they each could readily detect the before and not-so-good after.

But it's not just my current project. I'm hearing something similar
in more and more "modern" mastering jobs. Potential faults on
my end are easily taken out of the equation by periodically playing
any one of those several amazing CDs through the same system. They
continue to be good-sounding.

And, these better CDs have fairly high crest factors. With the
right mastering ear and mastering gear, an elevated level can
apparently be done without ruining too much.

So what have we wrought? What has an apparent overall lack of musical
sensitivity and aesthetic in society at large done to those who now
call themselves mastering engineers?

I'm curious as to your own experiences with your own releases. Do you feel a growing
disservice from mastering in general, or have you found a few gems
scattered among the gravel? If so, I'd love to know who you prefer to
use. (The mastering house noted above came highly recommended and had
some bigger-name clients, but I'll never go near them again.)

Thanks in advance for your comments.
rant off.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:
I sent a recent project back to the mastering house *three times*,
****ing off many people in the process. (Though, to their credit,
each time the client thought "everything sounded great" they could
eventually hear what I had been complaining about as each revision came back.

So, why weren't you at the mastering session?

Unless you absolutely know the mastering engineer and he knows exactly
what your tastes are, you really want to attend the session because
the sooner you catch things, the better.

My ongoing question to the engineer had been didn't you hear any of
these issues while you mastered???

He did, but bright and heavily limited is fashionable.

Even after 3 tries it was not what it should have been. It
became (to the client) diminishing returns, and the mastering house
had, in their own estimation, done everything I'd asked for -- except
bring back fully the depth and sparkle that I'd sent them. They
apparently simply could not hear the difference, and the sound had
thus been "grayed". The sound had become dimensionally flat and musically
not as interesting.

And you won't get that unless you can sit down with the mastering engineer
and go one step a time through the chain so you can point out exactly what
it is that you want. The mastering engineer is likely to be doing what is
fashionable right now rather than what you want, unless you're there.

I didn't think so, as I have heard (and own) some stunning CDs with
the qualities I aspire to get in my own work. And in playing back
this recent project for laymen (but on good monitors in a good room)
they each could readily detect the before and not-so-good after.

Well, find the mastering engineers that did those projects, and call them!
But even doing that, you want to attend the session.

I'm curious as to your own experiences with your own releases. Do you feel a growing
disservice from mastering in general, or have you found a few gems
scattered among the gravel? If so, I'd love to know who you prefer to
use. (The mastering house noted above came highly recommended and had
some bigger-name clients, but I'll never go near them again.)

I call Don Grossinger. It took many years of working with him before I got
to the point where I was just willing to send him a couple reels of tape and
have him do it unattended, though.

I remember being at Europadisc with him when I first got him to disable
the Neumann limiter he had in the desk....
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "He did, but bright and heavily limited is fashionable. "

It may be "fashionable" - but he's better not be doing
those things unless the client specifically ASKED FOR
IT."

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "He did, but bright and heavily limited is fashionable. "

It may be "fashionable" - but he'd better not be doing
those things unless the client specifically ASKED FOR
IT."

[geoff]

On 03/10/2015 15:17, wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: "He did, but bright and heavily limited is fashionable. "

It may be "fashionable" - but he's better not be doing
those things unless the client specifically ASKED FOR
IT."


They USUALLY DO, or complain if it's not. It's the likes of US that try
to convince them otherwise.

geoff

[geoff]

On 03/10/2015 15:19, wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: "He did, but bright and heavily limited is fashionable. "

It may be "fashionable" - but he'd better not be doing
those things unless the client specifically ASKED FOR
IT."


You said that already. Flat-line sausage Hyper-posting ?

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/2/2015 7:16 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
I sent a recent project back to the mastering house*three times*,
****ing off many people in the process. (Though, to their credit,
each time the client thought "everything sounded great" they could
eventually hear what I had been complaining about as each revision came back.

In the first attempt, the wrong noise shaping had been used (way too
much with a steep curve, which exaggerated screeching all the way around -- noise
shaping can affect sonics). In revision 2, some overreaching HF screech
EQ got removed. In revision 3, approximately half of the analog signal
processing was bypassed entirely, helping to further lower the
newly-added distortion.

Why have it mastered at all? Did it need any improvement that you
couldn't make yourself? If it sounded great before mastering, why not
just send it directly to the pressing plant and save some trouble and
money? Was there something specific that you wanted the mastering house
to do and they did something else instead?

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

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "On 10/2/2015 7:16 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
I sent a recent project back to the mastering house*three times*,
****ing off many people in the process. (Though, to their credit,
each time the client thought "everything sounded great" they could
eventually hear what I had been complaining about as each revision came back.

In the first attempt, the wrong noise shaping had been used (way too
much with a steep curve, which exaggerated screeching all the way around -- noise
shaping can affect sonics). In revision 2, some overreaching HF screech
EQ got removed. In revision 3, approximately half of the analog signal
processing was bypassed entirely, helping to further lower the
newly-added distortion.

Why have it mastered at all? Did it need any improvement that you
couldn't make yourself? If it sounded great before mastering, why not
just send it directly to the pressing plant and save some trouble and
money? Was there something specific that you wanted the mastering house
to do and they did something else instead?

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

Finally, something you and I see eye to eye on!

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/3/2015 7:00 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/2/2015 7:16 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
I sent a recent project back to the mastering house*three times*,
****ing off many people in the process. (Though, to their credit,
each time the client thought "everything sounded great" they could
eventually hear what I had been complaining about as each revision
came back.

In the first attempt, the wrong noise shaping had been used (way too
much with a steep curve, which exaggerated screeching all the way
around -- noise
shaping can affect sonics). In revision 2, some overreaching HF screech
EQ got removed. In revision 3, approximately half of the analog signal
processing was bypassed entirely, helping to further lower the
newly-added distortion.

Why have it mastered at all? Did it need any improvement that you
couldn't make yourself? If it sounded great before mastering, why not
just send it directly to the pressing plant and save some trouble and
money?

+1

This has been my practice for decades. But, one still needs to know the
chain of events at the pressing plant. The better ones will deliver a
good, unadulterated product that reflects what you sent them.

--
Best regards,

Neil

[Frank Stearns]

Mike Rivers writes:

On 10/2/2015 7:16 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
I sent a recent project back to the mastering house*three times*,
****ing off many people in the process. (Though, to their credit,
each time the client thought "everything sounded great" they could
eventually hear what I had been complaining about as each revision came back.

In the first attempt, the wrong noise shaping had been used (way too
much with a steep curve, which exaggerated screeching all the way around -- noise
shaping can affect sonics). In revision 2, some overreaching HF screech
EQ got removed. In revision 3, approximately half of the analog signal
processing was bypassed entirely, helping to further lower the
newly-added distortion.

Why have it mastered at all? Did it need any improvement that you
couldn't make yourself? If it sounded great before mastering, why not
just send it directly to the pressing plant and save some trouble and
money? Was there something specific that you wanted the mastering house
to do and they did something else instead?

Sure, good question.

A lot of stuff that I do is not mastered and I do the basics of basic mastering
in-house. However, GOOD mastering IS worth the hassle and expense.

- With the right tools, the crest can be lifted more than what I can without
doing damage.

- A good mastering engineer can pick up on things that you might have been
overlooking simply because you've been so close to the project for such a long time
-- the old "fresh set of ears" thing.

I'd probably be fine mastering my own stuff at a high mark IF I had the tools, and
if clients had 6-12 months available to step away from the project. But neither is
realistic.

A few times I've had some excellent results with mastering. I deeply regret not
using the good guy I've used in the past for this project, but it wasn't really my
call. It's a very long and boring backstory as to how that happened -- a lot having
to do with me being 1000 miles away and the other guy I'd used before not having
some of the very handy DDP tools that make long-distance mastering feasible.

But now that I've been through this most recent round, I'm hearing more and more in
general of what I heard on this project. It's almost as if mastering folks have all
recently settled on exactly the same tool set and use the same approach -- a monkey
see/monkey do kind of thing, because they don't know any better and/or haven't heard
a cross-section of musical genres. That's my concern, perhaps even a heads up for
others.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Neil wrote:
On 10/3/2015 7:00 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:

Why have it mastered at all? Did it need any improvement that you
couldn't make yourself? If it sounded great before mastering, why not
just send it directly to the pressing plant and save some trouble and
money?

This has been my practice for decades. But, one still needs to know the
chain of events at the pressing plant. The better ones will deliver a
good, unadulterated product that reflects what you sent them.

I want a second set of ears to listen to things, and I want someone else
to worry about all the subcode bits being correct and the fades flowing
properly. And I want someone else I can blame who will put up the cost
of re-pressing if that goes wrong.

Now that pressing plants can work with CD-R duping masters, and everyone
has stopped using emphasis, the number of things that can go wrong are
far fewer than they used to be. Even so, though, I like having the
insurance, and sometimes that includes someone telling me there's a
dropout somewhere that I hadn't noticed.

But I want to be there and watch what is going on, and that includes
having them line up the tape tones right in front of me if I'm supplying
an analogue master.
--scott


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

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Frank Stearns wrote:
I sent a recent project back to the mastering house *three times*,
****ing off many people in the process. (Though, to their credit,
each time the client thought "everything sounded great" they could
eventually hear what I had been complaining about as each revision came back.

So, why weren't you at the mastering session?

Normally, I would have been. But relocating to a rural setting has made such travel
awkward at best. I was in the loop remotely for another project which turned out
reasonably well -- but that mastering guy was in New York, and the clients wanted
something local to them (Portland, 2500 miles from NY, 1000 miles from me).

Besides, after several pre-project email exchanges, reviews of other projects,
testimonials, etc, confidence was high that we'd get something good.

Unless you absolutely know the mastering engineer and he knows exactly
what your tastes are, you really want to attend the session because
the sooner you catch things, the better.

That's potentially a two-edged sword. I'm not sure I want "my tastes" possibly
derailing the guy from what he supposedly does best. I'm perfectly willing to accept
something done better. My ego would not be bruised because I hadn't thought of
something. I just don't want something worse!


My ongoing question to the engineer had been didn't you hear any of
these issues while you mastered???

He did, but bright and heavily limited is fashionable.

That's true, but I do think one redeeming thing about this place was that they
didn't always do that. I think there was something in his room, monitors,
or processing methods that let this get by.

Even after 3 tries it was not what it should have been. It
became (to the client) diminishing returns, and the mastering house
had, in their own estimation, done everything I'd asked for -- except
bring back fully the depth and sparkle that I'd sent them. They
apparently simply could not hear the difference, and the sound had
thus been "grayed". The sound had become dimensionally flat and musically
not as interesting.

And you won't get that unless you can sit down with the mastering engineer
and go one step a time through the chain so you can point out exactly what
it is that you want. The mastering engineer is likely to be doing what is
fashionable right now rather than what you want, unless you're there.

Well, I'd be somewhat hesitant to start having him pull apart his chain. Who knows
-- with his room and monitors, I too might /not/ have heard these issues to begin
with while on site, and then, later, upon review in my room, the fingers start going
back and forth..."You were here, you heard it, so what's the problem?" kind of
thing.

As it was, he was willing to go through 3 iterations without additional charge.

I didn't think so, as I have heard (and own) some stunning CDs with
the qualities I aspire to get in my own work. And in playing back
this recent project for laymen (but on good monitors in a good room)
they each could readily detect the before and not-so-good after.

Well, find the mastering engineers that did those projects, and call them!
But even doing that, you want to attend the session.

Unfortunately, Doug Sax has passed; not sure of the current state of the Mastering
Lab, and I doubt my clients could have afforded them in any event.


I'm curious as to your own experiences with your own releases. Do you feel a growing
disservice from mastering in general, or have you found a few gems
scattered among the gravel? If so, I'd love to know who you prefer to
use. (The mastering house noted above came highly recommended and had
some bigger-name clients, but I'll never go near them again.)

I call Don Grossinger. It took many years of working with him before I got
to the point where I was just willing to send him a couple reels of tape and
have him do it unattended, though.

Okay, thanks.

I remember being at Europadisc with him when I first got him to disable
the Neumann limiter he had in the desk....

See, this is an underlying thing that's bothering me. If anything, the mastering
folks ought to be the supreme minimalists, hopefully understanding that even if a
piece of gear isn't actively "doing something" it will color the sound. The thinking
should be that of only adding something if really needed.

Some work that way, but a growing trend seems to be "just leave it all in the signal
path, turn it all on, and then rock-on, dude." (Shudder.)

In the later revisions of this project, the guy pulled analog and digital pieces out
of the chain. At least at that point my ears stopped hurting. I'm still incredulous
he didn't hear those issues from the beginning.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/3/2015 10:40 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
In the later revisions of this project, the guy pulled analog and digital pieces out
of the chain. At least at that point my ears stopped hurting. I'm still incredulous
he didn't hear those issues from the beginning.

I wonder if the problem was in his D/A and A/D converters. He might have
a high-falootin' precision mastering D/A converter as the final link,
but when it comes to hooking up analog processors, maybe not so hot.

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

[Frank Stearns]

Mike Rivers writes:

On 10/3/2015 10:40 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
In the later revisions of this project, the guy pulled analog and digital pieces out
of the chain. At least at that point my ears stopped hurting. I'm still incredulous
he didn't hear those issues from the beginning.

I wonder if the problem was in his D/A and A/D converters. He might have
a high-falootin' precision mastering D/A converter as the final link,
but when it comes to hooking up analog processors, maybe not so hot.

Good summation. He had Lavry Gold D-A and A-D, but then in Revision 3 one of the
devices that got yanked from the analog side was a 3-band compressor.

My guess is that the thing was chock full of TLO7x chips. They're super cheap -- so
when you need 100 of them in a design you can keep that portion of the parts budget
well under $10. Also, they take very little power, which means you can stick with a
much cheaper power supply.

But I've never been fond of the cumulative effects of TLO7x sonics, even in designs
optimized for them. Back in the analog days, I'd often replace them with something
else and be much happier (though dealing with power issues could be pain).

"I'm not really using this compressor, so I guess I'll take it out of the circuit,"
he said.

Yes, indeed. Why didn't we start there?

Sigh.

Frank
Mobile Audio


--

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:

Good summation. He had Lavry Gold D-A and A-D, but then in Revision 3 one of the
devices that got yanked from the analog side was a 3-band compressor.

Well, there's question one: why was there a 3-band compressor in the signal
path? Doing multiband compression in the analogue world is pretty difficult
and that's actually one of the things best left on the digital side, if in
fact you actually need it. But I think of multiband compression as a thing
you use to repair a badly unbalanced mix, rather than a thing you just keep
routinely in the chain.

If you're not using it, take it out. That's what the patchbay is for.

My guess is that the thing was chock full of TLO7x chips. They're super cheap -- so
when you need 100 of them in a design you can keep that portion of the parts budget
well under $10. Also, they take very little power, which means you can stick with a
much cheaper power supply.

But I've never been fond of the cumulative effects of TLO7x sonics, even in designs
optimized for them. Back in the analog days, I'd often replace them with something
else and be much happier (though dealing with power issues could be pain).

Like all monolithic op-amps, they can perform well or they can perform badly
depending on the situation. Look inside the Studer 69-series mixing consoles
and you will see the nastiest, most awful 301 op-amps... but in the end the
console actually sounds pretty good because the people that designed it were
aware of the components' limitations.

You'll find a TL074 running as a unity-gain follower is pretty transparent,
even with a thousand stages in a chain. You'll find the same TL074 set up
with 40 dB of gain just sounds horribly grainy. Like the doctor said when
a man complained that his arm hurt when he bent it hard, "don't do that."

"I'm not really using this compressor, so I guess I'll take it out of the circuit,"
he said.

Yes, indeed. Why didn't we start there?

So, what else was in the chain that he wasn't using? I would in fact expect
that to be the number one philosophy of the mastering engineer, to take things
out.

Hell, I have worked with mastering guys who used completely unbalanced
processing chains and unbalanced banana plug patch bays so that they could
remove a few balancing stages here and there.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

snips

Hell, I have worked with mastering guys who used completely unbalanced
processing chains and unbalanced banana plug patch bays so that they could
remove a few balancing stages here and there.

Exactly. It's this kind of fanatical attention to detail that I expect, especially
from mastering folks.

But this comes around to a part of my original thesis that I perhaps did not state
as clearly as I should: do we now have a generation of people so unaware of what
real instruments sound like, or what is possible to experience with really good
reproduced sound, that "mediocre" is accepted as the norm?

Unfortunately, this might too often be the case. And if you try to get someone color
blind to the color blue understand the color subtleties of the sky or an alpine
lake, and how those missing colors work with others in the scene, you might be
wasting your breath.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/4/2015 10:22 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
But this comes around to a part of my original thesis that I perhaps did not state
as clearly as I should: do we now have a generation of people so unaware of what
real instruments sound like, or what is possible to experience with really good
reproduced sound, that "mediocre" is accepted as the norm?

I think that they think they're doing the right thing. A friend of mine
sent a master tape off to a reputable mastering house, and when she
listened to the reference lacquer, it was brighter than the tape and had
a good bit more reverb. When she called and told them what they did and
why, the answer was "Oh, I always boost the highs and add reverb to
female folky country singers." Maybe that worked for Kitty Wells.


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:

But this comes around to a part of my original thesis that I perhaps did not state
as clearly as I should: do we now have a generation of people so unaware of what
real instruments sound like, or what is possible to experience with really good
reproduced sound, that "mediocre" is accepted as the norm?

That's part of it, but I don't think that's necessarily the problem here.
I think a lot of the problem is that we have a generation of engineers who
came up outside the studio system and did not have the benefit of learning
from other engineers, who learned things pretty much on their own by trial
and error.

This isn't entirely bad, but it HAS resulted in a world where any bozo off
the street can hang up a shingle and call himself a mastering engineer
without any previous experience at all.

On the other hand, some of those people have the chance to become very good
and to bring a different perspective in. But it will also take them some
time to get that way and I don't want to be paying for their time to do so.

But, it's true that in order to track, record, or master, you need to have
in your mind a vision of what the final product is supposed to sound like.
And, in the case of acoustic music, that is a very specific thing with a
common reference and it hard to argue that you want a cello to sound
different than a cello sounds.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/4/2015 3:04 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
This isn't entirely bad, but it HAS resulted in a world where any bozo off
the street can hang up a shingle and call himself a mastering engineer
without any previous experience at all.

No mics? No room? OK, you can be a Mastering Engineer.

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

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/4/2015 10:22 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
But this comes around to a part of my original thesis that I perhaps did not state
as clearly as I should: do we now have a generation of people so unaware of what
real instruments sound like, or what is possible to experience with really good
reproduced sound, that "mediocre" is accepted as the norm?

Taking a step back, let's not overlook that there has *always* been a
huge range of audio quality in recordings, regardless of the genre,
regardless of the talent, regardless of the engineers and regardless of
the equipment used. The "best" recordings are often the result of many
factors, including being lucky enough to have a good performance, good
acoustics and environmental factors such as humidity and air pressure,
all of which can alter the sound of a recording even with all other
factors being equal. Listen to a number of recordings by any single
artist (or orchestra), any single recording engineer, any single room
and so on, and there will be audible differences. So what *is* the "norm"?

It's another matter to send a recording off to someone who will be
changing that recording in some way -- i.e. mastering -- and expect to
get back something that resembles what one imagined the end result would
be. There are just too many variables one needs to be intimately
familiar with.

--
Best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Neil wrote:
It's another matter to send a recording off to someone who will be
changing that recording in some way -- i.e. mastering -- and expect to
get back something that resembles what one imagined the end result would
be. There are just too many variables one needs to be intimately
familiar with.

In the case of mastering, I think part of the problem is that it's now
possible to do so many different things to audio that were not possible
a short time ago, and so many people are tempted to do them.

Listening to some of the 7" records I cut when I was an intern, it's amazing
how good some sound. But they don't sound good because I was any good,
because I wasn't. They sound good mostly because I didn't have much in
the way of tools to make them sound bad.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: " They sound good mostly because
I didn't have much in the way of tools to make them sound bad. "

One of the most profound - and sobering - statements on here
in recent memory!

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Neil wrote:
On 10/4/2015 10:22 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
But this comes around to a part of my original thesis that I perhaps
did not state
as clearly as I should: do we now have a generation of people so
unaware of what
real instruments sound like, or what is possible to experience with
really good
reproduced sound, that "mediocre" is accepted as the norm?

Taking a step back, let's not overlook that there has *always* been a
huge range of audio quality in recordings,


+1

regardless of the genre,
regardless of the talent, regardless of the engineers and regardless of
the equipment used. The "best" recordings are often the result of many
factors, including being lucky enough to have a good performance, good
acoustics and environmental factors such as humidity and air pressure,
all of which can alter the sound of a recording even with all other
factors being equal. Listen to a number of recordings by any single
artist (or orchestra), any single recording engineer, any single room
and so on, and there will be audible differences. So what *is* the "norm"?

It's another matter to send a recording off to someone who will be
changing that recording in some way -- i.e. mastering -- and expect to
get back something that resembles what one imagined the end result would
be. There are just too many variables one needs to be intimately
familiar with.


--
Les Cargill

[Angus Kerr]

On Sunday, October 4, 2015 at 9:04:19 PM UTC+2, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Frank Stearns wrote:

But this comes around to a part of my original thesis that I perhaps did not state
as clearly as I should: do we now have a generation of people so unaware of what
real instruments sound like, or what is possible to experience with really good
reproduced sound, that "mediocre" is accepted as the norm?

That's part of it, but I don't think that's necessarily the problem here.
I think a lot of the problem is that we have a generation of engineers who
came up outside the studio system and did not have the benefit of learning
from other engineers, who learned things pretty much on their own by trial
and error.

The little that I know, was gleaned by listening, reading plenty of rec.audio.pro posts, watching others, and twisting knobs and trying to hear what they were doing to the sound.

Along the way, I realised that if I didn't understand / couldn't hear whatever the piece of gear was doing, don't use it. And don't do things that other people do just because you think it's the done thing. Your mistakes are there for anybody to listen to forever.

The other day, I was chatting to a live sound engineer who was mixing a show at a local school. Oklahoma, with Orchestra, which I was playing violin in. I was asking how they used EQ. Do you listen and then adjust the EQ? Answer, no, we know what frequencies are problems on certain instruments and what needed to be cut / boosted. My jaw dropped. But they were serious. There is a chart of frequencies and by all accounts, people mix to those charts..

For me, if there was something I was hearing that I didn't like, my approach would be to boost the EQ, and then adjust the frequency on the parametric until it was really objectionable, and then move to cut that objectionable frequency. Similarly to sweeten, or fatten whatever, sweep the parametric until the instrument is sounding better. Add to taste, cut for reference. But I would always listen to try and hear what was happening. Over the years, I suppose one gets to know what 'nasal', 'box', 'boom', 'shrill, 'shriek', 'body', 'floor', 'loose', 'air' etc. frequencies were. But I always let my ears be my guide.


This isn't entirely bad, but it HAS resulted in a world where any bozo off
the street can hang up a shingle and call himself a mastering engineer
without any previous experience at all.


Not me.
-Angus.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/5/2015 5:46 AM, Angus Kerr wrote:
The other day, I was chatting to a live sound engineer who was mixing
a show at a local school. Oklahoma, with Orchestra, which I was
playing violin in. I was asking how they used EQ. Do you listen and
then adjust the EQ? Answer, no, we know what frequencies are problems
on certain instruments and what needed to be cut / boosted. My jaw
dropped. But they were serious. There is a chart of frequencies and
by all accounts, people mix to those charts.


See how easy it is? Anyone can be a live sound engineer.

There's a certain amount of truth, though, to having some experience
with typical problems in a given situation and venue. There are some EQ
settings that are a pretty safe bet for starters, particularly if
there's no sound check. You figure that no matter where you put the
microphone, the guitar player will point the sound hole of his guitar
directly at it. You figure that if it's not an experienced rock singer
and the mic is an SM58, you'll probably need a little dip at around 2.5
kHz. You can roll off the high end of a kick drum mic or bass DI. Stuff
like that.


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

[Angus Kerr]

On 10/5/2015 5:46 AM, Angus Kerr wrote:
The other day, I was chatting to a live sound engineer who was mixing
a show at a local school. Oklahoma, with Orchestra, which I was
playing violin in. I was asking how they used EQ. Do you listen and
then adjust the EQ? Answer, no, we know what frequencies are problems
on certain instruments and what needed to be cut / boosted. My jaw
dropped. But they were serious. There is a chart of frequencies and
by all accounts, people mix to those charts.


See how easy it is? Anyone can be a live sound engineer.

There's a certain amount of truth, though, to having some experience
with typical problems in a given situation and venue. There are some EQ
settings that are a pretty safe bet for starters, particularly if
there's no sound check. You figure that no matter where you put the
microphone, the guitar player will point the sound hole of his guitar
directly at it. You figure that if it's not an experienced rock singer
and the mic is an SM58, you'll probably need a little dip at around 2.5
kHz. You can roll off the high end of a kick drum mic or bass DI. Stuff
like that.

You are right, of course, assuming you have EQ left over to do that - assuming the room and system have been equalised. I remember mixing a band in a room with a boom of about 200Hz. All the EQ I had was used to take away the boom. The end result sounded horrible. Thin, no body to the sound, and it was the best I could do.

The key word here is 'experience'. In my 'experience', 'experience' cannot be taught, it can only be gained by experience.

It makes me so mad, and I'm not talking about audio here, I'm talking my regular job, when HR types think that ten or twenty years of experience, gained through interest, self study, and making some HORRIBLE mistakes, can be passed on to someone who's not really interested in the field of study / specialisation in a space of a few weeks or month's 'fast tracking'. Hell if there was a fast track I would have taken it!

At the end of the day, I think I would rather have someone mixing my show using his ears, with the charts as reference, than the other way round. Same as if you are auditioning a musician - he may have a Phd in music, but can he play?

-Angus.

[Frank Stearns]

Neil writes:

On 10/4/2015 10:22 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
But this comes around to a part of my original thesis that I perhaps did not state
as clearly as I should: do we now have a generation of people so unaware of what
real instruments sound like, or what is possible to experience with really good
reproduced sound, that "mediocre" is accepted as the norm?

Taking a step back, let's not overlook that there has *always* been a
huge range of audio quality in recordings, regardless of the genre,
regardless of the talent, regardless of the engineers and regardless of
the equipment used. The "best" recordings are often the result of many
factors, including being lucky enough to have a good performance, good
acoustics and environmental factors such as humidity and air pressure,
all of which can alter the sound of a recording even with all other
factors being equal. Listen to a number of recordings by any single
artist (or orchestra), any single recording engineer, any single room
and so on, and there will be audible differences. So what *is* the "norm"?

It's another matter to send a recording off to someone who will be
changing that recording in some way -- i.e. mastering -- and expect to
get back something that resembles what one imagined the end result would
be. There are just too many variables one needs to be intimately
familiar with.


All good points. But this was not a case of some imagined outcome not occurring;
this was a case of sliding backwards from a known starting point.

In these threads -- both in what happened to my recent project and the "gray"
tonality I've been hearing more of in other projects (not universal, but more of it)
-- I'm pointing to a specific starting point compared to what came back, as well as
inferences of something similar apparently happening to others.

Good elements -- such as a great performance -- can mitigate some negative technical
aspects. But I want to have it all: great performances /and/ great engineering such
that you're on the edge of your seat and want to listen all the way through, the
ringing cell phone or other distractions be damned.

When I've gotten a rare project that has those performance elements, and carefully
crafted mixes have been synergistic with those performances, I'm more than a little
irritated to have taken steps backward.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/5/2015 8:24 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
Neil writes:

On 10/4/2015 10:22 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
But this comes around to a part of my original thesis that I perhaps did not state
as clearly as I should: do we now have a generation of people so unaware of what
real instruments sound like, or what is possible to experience with really good
reproduced sound, that "mediocre" is accepted as the norm?

Taking a step back, let's not overlook that there has *always* been a
huge range of audio quality in recordings, regardless of the genre,
regardless of the talent, regardless of the engineers and regardless of
the equipment used. The "best" recordings are often the result of many
factors, including being lucky enough to have a good performance, good
acoustics and environmental factors such as humidity and air pressure,
all of which can alter the sound of a recording even with all other
factors being equal. Listen to a number of recordings by any single
artist (or orchestra), any single recording engineer, any single room
and so on, and there will be audible differences. So what *is* the "norm"?

It's another matter to send a recording off to someone who will be
changing that recording in some way -- i.e. mastering -- and expect to
get back something that resembles what one imagined the end result would
be. There are just too many variables one needs to be intimately
familiar with.


All good points. But this was not a case of some imagined outcome not occurring;
this was a case of sliding backwards from a known starting point.

In these threads -- both in what happened to my recent project and the "gray"
tonality I've been hearing more of in other projects (not universal, but more of it)
-- I'm pointing to a specific starting point compared to what came back, as well as
inferences of something similar apparently happening to others.

What you've been describing sounds like what I'd call "popular
conventions", the rendering of musical instruments in a way that
professionals find pleasing. What I've been trying to convey is that the
whole process of recording is full of "grayness", those technical or
practical choices regarding how a musical event should be rendered. So,
whether things slide "backwards" or "forwards" is pretty much embedded
in one's expectations.

--
Best regards,

Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/5/2015 1:15 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:

What you've been describing sounds like what I'd call "popular
conventions", the rendering of musical instruments in a way that
professionals find pleasing. What I've been trying to convey is
that the whole process of recording is full of "grayness", those
technical or practical choices regarding how a musical event
should be rendered. So, whether things slide "backwards" or
"forwards" is pretty much embedded in one's expectations.

In the case of electronic music this is surely the case. But in the
case of an orchestra recording there is a standard reference as to
what it should sound like.

I stand by my statement, because what it "should sound like" is still
not what it *does* sound like when one is actually in the room,
regardless of genre. Furthermore, what it sounds like on a CD is a lot
different than what it sounded like on a 78. In short, popular
conventions are not necessarily a bad thing.

While we can have some discussions about whether it should sound like
the listener is in the balcony or the third row, the basic reference
for the sound remains and we can readily make a comparison between
the recording and the real thing to see if things are getting better
or worse. --scott

Perhaps, but they're still unmistakably different, and "better or worse"
is a matter of... popular conventions. ;-)

--
Best regards,

Neil

[Frank Stearns]

Neil writes:

On 10/5/2015 8:24 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
Neil writes:

On 10/4/2015 10:22 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:

snips

It's another matter to send a recording off to someone who will be
changing that recording in some way -- i.e. mastering -- and expect to
get back something that resembles what one imagined the end result would
be. There are just too many variables one needs to be intimately
familiar with.

All good points. But this was not a case of some imagined outcome not occurring;
this was a case of sliding backwards from a known starting point.

In these threads -- both in what happened to my recent project and the "gray"
tonality I've been hearing more of in other projects (not universal, but more of it)
-- I'm pointing to a specific starting point compared to what came back, as well as
inferences of something similar apparently happening to others.

What you've been describing sounds like what I'd call "popular
conventions", the rendering of musical instruments in a way that
professionals find pleasing. What I've been trying to convey is that the
whole process of recording is full of "grayness", those technical or
practical choices regarding how a musical event should be rendered. So,
whether things slide "backwards" or "forwards" is pretty much embedded
in one's expectations.

Oops. Let's not conflate two different meanings to the word "gray" here.

First, you are of course correct -- there are many "gray" /areas/ in the process of
creating any art, and many artistic decisions are made along the way. And you might
never know which decisions were "correct"; it's art, afterall.

The "gray" I'm bringing up here is not a term in the sense of a "gray area", subject
to the whims of some artistic process. "Gray" in the sense of my original post
covers an unwanted and unwarranted increase in distortion, along with a reduction in
"sparkle" or "aliveness," compared to what the mastering house had been given.

(BTW, those faults introduced at mastering should not taken as a need to jack up the
treble -- in fact, that's typically only going to make things worse, much worse. The
problem(s) are deeper than that. Some were identified and fixed, some remain.)

It's been my experience that many musicians are so conditioned to the inherent flaws
in how their recorded voice or instrument typically sound that it never occurs to
them just how good things /could/ sound.

This is likely why I got sheepish acknowledgements from the musicians (who thought
the first pass at mastering sounded great) that yes, as we fixed things, they could
then hear the difference and wound up appreciating the trouble I was causing.

In terms of what "professionals find pleasing", well, I've made a living doing this
for quite a spell now, and what went out the door was pleasing; what came back was
not.

Often what I buy to listen to just for me has been less pleasing of late, with a
"gray" tonality similar to what happened with this project.

And yet, there are many gems out there (I listed a few in another post) which
indicate to me that high sonic standards are possible, but that some in the current
engineering crop don't catch the difference. This is perhaps due to cultural
impoverishment, a bad room, a flawed approach, untruthful monitors, something else
entirely, or some combination...

Hope that clarifies,

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Frank Stearns]

Neil writes:

On 10/5/2015 1:15 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:

What you've been describing sounds like what I'd call "popular
conventions", the rendering of musical instruments in a way that
professionals find pleasing. What I've been trying to convey is
that the whole process of recording is full of "grayness", those
technical or practical choices regarding how a musical event
should be rendered. So, whether things slide "backwards" or
"forwards" is pretty much embedded in one's expectations.

In the case of electronic music this is surely the case. But in the
case of an orchestra recording there is a standard reference as to
what it should sound like.

I stand by my statement, because what it "should sound like" is still
not what it *does* sound like when one is actually in the room,
regardless of genre. Furthermore, what it sounds like on a CD is a lot
different than what it sounded like on a 78. In short, popular
conventions are not necessarily a bad thing.

While we can have some discussions about whether it should sound like
the listener is in the balcony or the third row, the basic reference
for the sound remains and we can readily make a comparison between
the recording and the real thing to see if things are getting better
or worse. --scott

Perhaps, but they're still unmistakably different, and "better or worse"
is a matter of... popular conventions. ;-)

How about "before and after"? w

Frank
Mobile Audio

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/5/2015 7:16 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Neil wrote:
On 10/5/2015 1:15 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
While we can have some discussions about whether it should sound like
the listener is in the balcony or the third row, the basic reference
for the sound remains and we can readily make a comparison between
the recording and the real thing to see if things are getting better
or worse.

Perhaps, but they're still unmistakably different, and "better or worse"
is a matter of... popular conventions. ;-)

Popular conventions change, though... and if you make recordings based
on popular conventions, they are recordings that will sound dated in a
few years, the same way ping-pong stereo sounds dated today, the same way
aggressive plate reverb on vocals sounds dated.

Listen to some of the DG classical recordings of the eighties, with aggressive
sectional miking, everything moving around all the time... does not sound very
much like an orchestra and nobody would make a recording like that today.

But the standard of hall realism stays pretty much the same.
--scott

I understand and mostly agree with what you're saying. However, "hall
realism" is also in flux, and the conventions have changed over the
decades to accommodate technology and taste. Otherwise, we wouldn't have
many solo violinists that could be heard over the orchestral
accompaniment. ;-)

--
Best regards,

Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/5/2015 5:43 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
Neil writes:

On 10/5/2015 1:15 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:

What you've been describing sounds like what I'd call "popular
conventions", the rendering of musical instruments in a way that
professionals find pleasing. What I've been trying to convey is
that the whole process of recording is full of "grayness", those
technical or practical choices regarding how a musical event
should be rendered. So, whether things slide "backwards" or
"forwards" is pretty much embedded in one's expectations.

In the case of electronic music this is surely the case. But in the
case of an orchestra recording there is a standard reference as to
what it should sound like.

I stand by my statement, because what it "should sound like" is still
not what it *does* sound like when one is actually in the room,
regardless of genre. Furthermore, what it sounds like on a CD is a lot
different than what it sounded like on a 78. In short, popular
conventions are not necessarily a bad thing.

While we can have some discussions about whether it should sound like
the listener is in the balcony or the third row, the basic reference
for the sound remains and we can readily make a comparison between
the recording and the real thing to see if things are getting better
or worse. --scott

Perhaps, but they're still unmistakably different, and "better or worse"
is a matter of... popular conventions. ;-)

How about "before and after"? w

You liked "before", and not so much "after"... so, your opinion is that
it got worse, which apparently differed from the opinion of the
mastering engineer. ;-)

--
Best regards,

Neil

[[email protected]]

Neil wrote: "- show quoted text -
You liked "before", and not so much "after"... so, your opinion is that
it got worse, which apparently differed from the opinion of the
mastering engineer. ;-)

--
Best regards,

Neil "


http://www.onmoneymaking.com/wp-cont...issing-ass.jpg a little, are we, Neil?"

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/5/2015 5:41 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
Neil writes:

On 10/5/2015 8:24 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
Neil writes:

On 10/4/2015 10:22 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:

snips

It's another matter to send a recording off to someone who will be
changing that recording in some way -- i.e. mastering -- and expect to
get back something that resembles what one imagined the end result would
be. There are just too many variables one needs to be intimately
familiar with.

All good points. But this was not a case of some imagined outcome not occurring;
this was a case of sliding backwards from a known starting point.

In these threads -- both in what happened to my recent project and the "gray"
tonality I've been hearing more of in other projects (not universal, but more of it)
-- I'm pointing to a specific starting point compared to what came back, as well as
inferences of something similar apparently happening to others.

What you've been describing sounds like what I'd call "popular
conventions", the rendering of musical instruments in a way that
professionals find pleasing. What I've been trying to convey is that the
whole process of recording is full of "grayness", those technical or
practical choices regarding how a musical event should be rendered. So,
whether things slide "backwards" or "forwards" is pretty much embedded
in one's expectations.

Oops. Let's not conflate two different meanings to the word "gray" here.

First, you are of course correct -- there are many "gray" /areas/ in the process of
creating any art, and many artistic decisions are made along the way. And you might
never know which decisions were "correct"; it's art, afterall.

The "gray" I'm bringing up here is not a term in the sense of a "gray area", subject
to the whims of some artistic process. "Gray" in the sense of my original post
covers an unwanted and unwarranted increase in distortion, along with a reduction in
"sparkle" or "aliveness," compared to what the mastering house had been given.

(BTW, those faults introduced at mastering should not taken as a need to jack up the
treble -- in fact, that's typically only going to make things worse, much worse. The
problem(s) are deeper than that. Some were identified and fixed, some remain.)

It's been my experience that many musicians are so conditioned to the inherent flaws
in how their recorded voice or instrument typically sound that it never occurs to
them just how good things /could/ sound.

This is likely why I got sheepish acknowledgements from the musicians (who thought
the first pass at mastering sounded great) that yes, as we fixed things, they could
then hear the difference and wound up appreciating the trouble I was causing.

In terms of what "professionals find pleasing", well, I've made a living doing this
for quite a spell now, and what went out the door was pleasing; what came back was
not.

Often what I buy to listen to just for me has been less pleasing of late, with a
"gray" tonality similar to what happened with this project.

And yet, there are many gems out there (I listed a few in another post) which
indicate to me that high sonic standards are possible, but that some in the current
engineering crop don't catch the difference. This is perhaps due to cultural
impoverishment, a bad room, a flawed approach, untruthful monitors, something else
entirely, or some combination...

Hope that clarifies,

Frank
Mobile Audio

Yes, I understood your meaning, and there is a multi-entendre in the use
of the term "gray" in the discussion. ;-) If I'm on track, I'd describe
the result as being "dulled" by the processing.

The point I was making is that there are just way too many variables,
even when those involved in the processing chain are removed. Speakers
are audibly different, rooms are audibly different, and even the same
speakers in the same room are audibly different when humidity and
atmospheric pressure changes. Even if one could make the hardware
perform the same, our ears don't under those conditions.

But, I do get your point, and all I can come up with is that you have to
be there to manage some of these variables.

--
Best regards,

Neil

[geoff]

On 7/10/2015 2:15 a.m., Neil wrote:


I understand and mostly agree with what you're saying. However, "hall
realism" is also in flux, and the conventions have changed over the
decades to accommodate technology and taste. Otherwise, we wouldn't have
many solo violinists that could be heard over the orchestral
accompaniment. ;-)



Violin solos never used to have a problem being heard over orchestral
backings. Maybe now the orchestral backings are not being conducted in
order to play at a correct level in those spots. Or maybe they now feel
the need to be 'hyper-compressed' and maintain full loudness at all
times ?!!!

geoff

[Angus Kerr]

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 1:16:13 AM UTC+2, Scott Dorsey wrote:
-snip-

Popular conventions change, though... and if you make recordings based
on popular conventions, they are recordings that will sound dated in a
few years, the same way ping-pong stereo sounds dated today, the same way
aggressive plate reverb on vocals sounds dated.

R&B cliche - vocals dripping in reverb and the ubiquitous wind chimes.....
The horrible reverb - gated snare of the eighties (Phil Collins in the air tonight example) - combined with those horrible cheesy keyboard sounds that sounded like a swarm of angry insects..
The cardboard sounding overmuted toms and snare of the seventies...


Listen to some of the DG classical recordings of the eighties, with aggressive
sectional miking, everything moving around all the time... does not sound very
much like an orchestra and nobody would make a recording like that today.

I've got a couple of these, care to cite an example?

But the standard of hall realism stays pretty much the same.


What is the perfect location in front of an orchestra for listening? I've had the privilege of conducting one, and the sound is pretty awesome from the podium....

I've listened to a world class Orchestra in the 3rd row in a good hall, and I could hear everything, albeit in a more blended way.

I've got an 80's recording of LSO with Sir Colin Davis ... listening to it with my eyes closed, I could hear him breathing and snorting - I liked that..

With orchestras though, I find close miking doesn't allow the sound of the instrument to develop as it should - as a violin player, I know that a lapel mike close to the bridge does not give a good sound - some screechiness, OK a LOT of screechiness and other sounds that should not be heard, like low frequency bumps on bow changes, white noise generated by the bow hairs being drawn across the string, etc., they are just not heard a few feet away. Plus then you have the added problem of balance of different player's sound where a certain player becomes dominant and you don't get the 'section sound'.

As usual, we are miles of topic now..

-Angus.

[Angus Kerr]

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 9:15:22 PM UTC+2, geoff wrote:
On 7/10/2015 2:15 a.m., Neil wrote:


I understand and mostly agree with what you're saying. However, "hall
realism" is also in flux, and the conventions have changed over the
decades to accommodate technology and taste. Otherwise, we wouldn't have
many solo violinists that could be heard over the orchestral
accompaniment. ;-)

I don't think technology has anything to do with solo violins being heard above an orchestra, unless there is amplification going on.


Violin solos never used to have a problem being heard over orchestral
backings. Maybe now the orchestral backings are not being conducted in
order to play at a correct level in those spots. Or maybe they now feel
the need to be 'hyper-compressed' and maintain full loudness at all
times ?!!!


The conductor, the arrangement of the piece, as well as the musicality of every musician in the orchestra - should ensure that the solo violin is perfectly heard. Anything else, and there's something dreadfully wrong.

HOWEVER....

Playing in many amateur orchestras, there is a distinct lack of musicianship - the loud bits are not loud enough and the soft bits are too loud, nobody listens to the soloist, and the general dynamic is mezzo forte throughout.. Players blasting out parts that are merely effect to accompany the solo, inappropriate phrasing, you name it.

In the professional orchestras, there are politics, back biting and other agendas where musicians seek to undermine another's performance. An orchestra of vengeful musicians can make a conductor and a soloist look really bad. If they're not on your side, you are in trouble in both roles. It's not supposed to happen, but seeing what happens to musicians year in year out, the love of music flies out the window most of the time. The prime reason why I chose not to become a professional violinist in an Orchestra.

-Angus.

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/6/2015 4:26 PM, Angus Kerr wrote:
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 9:15:22 PM UTC+2, geoff wrote:
On 7/10/2015 2:15 a.m., Neil wrote:


I understand and mostly agree with what you're saying. However,
"hall realism" is also in flux, and the conventions have changed
over the decades to accommodate technology and taste. Otherwise,
we wouldn't have many solo violinists that could be heard over
the orchestral accompaniment. ;-)

I don't think technology has anything to do with solo violins being
heard above an orchestra, unless there is amplification going on.

This is quite often the case today, whereas it was pretty much unheard
of in the 1960s and before. Really, all I was trying to express is that
those things that are considered "normal" and "best practices" in audio
change over time, often driven by technology.

--
Best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Neil wrote:
I understand and mostly agree with what you're saying. However, "hall
realism" is also in flux, and the conventions have changed over the
decades to accommodate technology and taste. Otherwise, we wouldn't have
many solo violinists that could be heard over the orchestral
accompaniment. ;-)

I've never heard a solo violinist who couldn't be heard over the orchestra;
it is the job of the composer and the conductor to make sure they can be
with no sound processing whatsoever.

I have, sadly, heard a lot of spotmiked soloists that sounded totally out
of perspective with the rest of the orchestra, though. But that is exactly
the sort of thing that you get when your goal is other than the hall reference.
--scott

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