Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
On 9/22/2014 8:08 PM, hank alrich wrote:
Sean Conolly wrote: "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... "hank alrich" wrote in message ... Gary Eickmeier wrote: "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... So how does anyone know which album he is talking about? I went to Amazon and there are 2 "Carry Me Back" albums in there. Gary Eickmeier ...and 7 "Carry Me Home"s. Gary Think carefully about this deep quandry, Gary. Now, how in the world do you think you would find a link to this product? See any URL's around here? Or, I dunno, maybe grok some name associated with it. Or, look at my .sig. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic How obvious! Silly me.Why should he post any information about the album when all we have to do is look up one of your posts, see if there is a URL to your site, and find out there. OK so I did that, got nowhere on your site, went to CD Baby and they wanted me to sell my music to them (but I get mailings from them all the time - and buy many of their unique offerings), so I went to Amazon and found out why I couldn't find it there before - it's an MP3 album! I was looking for CD & Vinyl and typed in as much info as Bill gave us, and your album didn't show up. I would get it if it were offered in CD. Maybe I will download a few of the cuts and put them on CD so I can play them out front in the music room. OK, you have to click through a couple of links from Hank's site, but here it is: http://antonesrecordshop.com/content...hp?name=alrich Sean It's also right on the homepage, below the image of the CD cover, with the prompt to buy the product. Then, over at another of my sites, on the music page, are links to sources for both digital downloads and hard product. [We try to make things difficult. ;-) ] http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/music-more/ "Purchase Hank & Shaidri's CD Carry Me Home from Antone's Record Shop." "Preview tracks and purchase downloads or CD's from CD Baby." "Preview tracks and purchase downloads from iTunes." Each line in that quote is hyperlinked to the product. http://antonesrecordshop.com/content...hp?name=alrich http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/hsadharman https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/ca...-harman/id3580 14532 AKA: http://tinyurl.com/pwus3oc Yo Hank, For what it's worth, I totally love and greatly respect your support of local business. [Hey, and your music ain't half bad too. ;-) ] == Later... Ron Capik -- |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
li'l krissie krybaby @gmail.com wrote in message
... Hey Lux, ever hear of brickwall limiting, combined with compression & make-up FLUSH That rotting corpse of a hobby horse you're riding gets stinkier and stinkier the longer you ride it, and harder you flog it. How can you stand the stench? |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
"Luxey" wrote in message
... уторак, 23. септембар 2014. 01.03.52 UTC+2, је написао/ла: Luxey wrote: "понедељак, 22. септембар 2014. 03.31.38 UTC+2, the hobby је написао/ла: What a ****in? moron you must be to write something like that?" Ok, I see, you're not a moron, you're just an uneducated fool. An uneducated fool, yes but you were also right the first time, he's a ****ing moron. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
Hey, Thek, have you actually heard Hank & Shaidri's recording? Because it isn't squashed, at all. I know this is a bugaboo with you (hey, it is for most of us, though you don't seem to realize that), but attacking a record you haven't heard which isn't squashed for being squashed is sort of like heaing about how dry the Atlantic is, from somebody who lives in Nebraska.
Peace, Paul |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
Luxey wrote:
So Gary, apart from being an inovator and builder of the bestests speakers in the world, your music is soo good CD Baby won't give you any rest before you decide to sell through them? Whish I was that genious. You're almost as smart as that thekma moronic creature. Huh? I don't make music. What you talkin about? Wait - we may need None to chime in here - always amusing. Gary |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
уторак, 23. септембар 2014. 07.47.51 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier је написао/ла:
Huh? I don't make music. What you talkin about? Wait - we may need None to chime in here - always amusing. Gary So Gary, either you did not write the following, or they did not want you to sell your music? понедељак, 22. септембар 2014. 21.07.52 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier је написао/ла: ... went to CD Baby and they wanted me to sell my music to them (but I get mailings from them all the time - and buy many of their unique offerings), ... Gary |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
When I pressed the Antoine's button on your link in your sig, I kept getting This Web Site not Available. Call me silly call me crazy, but I just cannot get your disc as of this writing. I wouldn't know what to call you seeing as how I've hit the Antone's site threee times today and every time, it came up. People buy the product regularly via those very links. We know this because we get checks. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
On 23/09/2014 00:08, Luxey wrote:
уторак, 23. септембар 2014. 01.03.52 UTC+2, је написао/ла: Luxey-Putin's bootlicker wrote: "понедељак, 22. септембар 2014. 03.31.38 UTC+2, је написао/ла: The music itself could be awesome, groundbreaking, original, emotionally gripping - until processing is applied. What a ****in? moron you must be to write something like that?" Hey Lux, ever hear of brickwall limiting, combined with compression & make-up gain? I know most clients demand LOUD AS POSSIBLE, but I'd love to see a few engineers spine up and stand up for what sounds good for once instead of just counting the $ signs. I've already contacted a few managers to hear pre-masters of their artists' works, might be am eye-opener to hear unsquashed versions. Tell your boy to keep out of Ukraine and Eastern Europe, Komrade. Ok, I see, you're not a moron, you're just an uneducated fool. The two are not mutually exclusive. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
On Monday, September 22, 2014 1:33:05 PM UTC-4, hank alrich wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote: "Ron C" wrote in message ... The music itself could be awesome, groundbreaking, original, emotionally gripping - until processing is applied. So you've heard the tracks and agree with Mr. Sommerwerck ....? Whoops, whoops, whoops. You're misreading. I was commenting solely on the sound quality of Mr Alrich's recording, and nothing else. Mr Alrich's earlier statements had suggested he made recordings with natural-sounding acoustics. I do not hear these in this recording. I hear multi-miked sound, with the performers sufficiently distanced that it doesn't sound is the mics have been shoved down their throats. But there is no real ambience. The closely-placed mics _are_ much "shoved down our throats". What leads you to think you hear otherwise is the _real ambience of *that* room_. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic I don't care how it was recorded, but musically that album is first rate. the guitar playing, vocals and arrangements are really impressive. Hope you sell a lot of copies! |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
Luxey wrote:
??????, 23. ????????? 2014. 07.47.51 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier ?? ???????/??: Huh? I don't make music. What you talkin about? Wait - we may need None to chime in here - always amusing. Gary So Gary, either you did not write the following, or they did not want you to sell your music? ?????????, 22. ????????? 2014. 21.07.52 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier ?? ???????/??: ... went to CD Baby and they wanted me to sell my music to them (but I get mailings from them all the time - and buy many of their unique offerings), ... Gary Apparently CD Baby is a site that can publish or sell your music as well as sell you their inventory of CDs. I stumbled upon the buy part by accident. Never knew about that. Maybe Hank can fill us in. Gary |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Luxey wrote: ??????, 23. ????????? 2014. 07.47.51 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier ?? ???????/??: Huh? I don't make music. What you talkin about? Wait - we may need None to chime in here - always amusing. Gary So Gary, either you did not write the following, or they did not want you to sell your music? ?????????, 22. ????????? 2014. 21.07.52 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier ?? ???????/??: ... went to CD Baby and they wanted me to sell my music to them (but I get mailings from them all the time - and buy many of their unique offerings), ... Gary Apparently CD Baby is a site that can publish or sell your music as well as sell you their inventory of CDs. I stumbled upon the buy part by accident. Never knew about that. Maybe Hank can fill us in. Gary They make their money several ways. One of them is to sell you the music of others. And since everybody and their neighbor's pet gerbil can now make a recording in their kitchen, they will suggest to everyone that shows up that CDBaby is the avenue to your music sales success. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
уторак, 23. септембар 2014. 15.46.26 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier је написао/ла:
Luxey wrote: ??????, 23. ????????? 2014. 07.47.51 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier ?? ???????/??: Huh? I don't make music. What you talkin about? Wait - we may need None to chime in here - always amusing. Gary So Gary, either you did not write the following, or they did not want you to sell your music? ?????????, 22. ????????? 2014. 21.07.52 UTC+2, Gary Eickmeier ?? ???????/??: ... went to CD Baby and they wanted me to sell my music to them (but I get mailings from them all the time - and buy many of their unique offerings), ... Gary Apparently CD Baby is a site that can publish or sell your music as well as sell you their inventory of CDs. I stumbled upon the buy part by accident.. Never knew about that. Maybe Hank can fill us in. Gary Thank you Gary, I'd never guess what CD baby was about without your guidance. So, it was not that they "wanted you to sell your music to them", but hypothetically offered distribution services, should you had some music "for sale". Big difference. |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
This thread was in response to what I perceived as Hank Alrich's claim that
his recordings were made with minimal processing, and represented "natural" acoustics. The following will be my final thoughts on the subject. Mr Alrich and I do not see eye-to-eye on what "natural acoustics" are. My own recording experiences convinced me that it is essentially impossible to accurately capture and reproduce the acoustics of a performance space with only two channels and two speakers. A conventional stereo recording does not "hear" space the way the ears and brain do, obliging recording engineers to compromise. Over the history of sound recording, this compromise has become not only standard practice (which is understandable), but the //desirable// way to make a recording. The idea that recorded sound should resemble live sound has been all-but discarded. Rather, the original should be dissected, then reassembled into whatever the engineer/producer/performers find pleasing. This is not necessarily "wrong". My objection is that it has become the raison dêtre of recording -- that a "good" recording engineer is someone whose "product" (and I mean the word in a derogatory way) can, should, and must deviate as much as possible from anything that resembles what one might hear "live". (Yes, I'm a crank.) If I understand Mr Alrich, "Carry Me Home" was made using separate mics on himself and his daughter, and a stereo pair above them with Mr Harman centered. I don't understand how this is supposed to (more or less) accurately capture the room acoustics * -- of which I hear little in the recording. ** I'm reminded of the use a hall synthesizer when playing mono recordings. Through separate side speakers, the synthesizer provides lateral sound in the listening room, giving the illusion of stereo spread to the mono sound coming from the front. However, in "Carry Me Home", the sounds which should be coming from the sides are instead coming from the front, reducing their effectiveness in creating a sense of space. "Carry Me Home" sounds like a tasteful multi-mike recording with an occasional faint sense of ambience struggling to be heard. I don't object to Mr Alrich feeling this is the best way to present his performance. I do object to his claiming that it sounds "natural". For this listener, it does not sound as if I'm seated in front of three musicians and hearing them live. HOW ELSE would you define "natural"? * Mr Alrich's statement that the mics //were// virtually jammed down the performers' throats -- to get the effect they were at a reasonable distance from the mics -- exactly confirms my own experiences. ** I listened with Apogee Divas and STAX Lambda Signatures. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Mr Alrich and I do not see eye-to-eye on what "natural acoustics" are. My own recording experiences convinced me that it is essentially impossible to accurately capture and reproduce the acoustics of a performance space with only two channels and two speakers. A conventional stereo recording does not "hear" space the way the ears and brain do, obliging recording engineers to compromise. There's another big issue he there are a thousand different kinds of natural acoustic. The room you'd want to have a bluegrass band in is very different than the room you'd want to have a chamber orchestra in, which is still different than the room you'd want to have a concert orchestra in. And a solo guitar would want to be in a still different kind of room. There are a lot of albums out there that have a sense of space, but it might not be the kind of space you might prefer while still being realistic. It might also be appropriate, and it might not, but that's what makes production an art and not a science. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
On 9/25/2014 8:04 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
[...] My own recording experiences convinced me that it is essentially impossible to accurately capture and reproduce the acoustics of a performance space with only two channels and two speakers. A conventional stereo recording does not "hear" space the way the ears and brain do, obliging recording engineers to compromise. I agree that it is essentially impossible to accurately and reproduce performance space, but I don't care how many channels or speakers one uses; compromises are unavoidable. Over the history of sound recording, this compromise has become not only standard practice (which is understandable), but the //desirable// way to make a recording. The idea that recorded sound should resemble live sound has been all-but discarded. Rather, the original should be dissected, then reassembled into whatever the engineer/producer/performers find pleasing. This is not necessarily "wrong". My objection is that it has become the raison dêtre of recording -- that a "good" recording engineer is someone whose "product" (and I mean the word in a derogatory way) can, should, and must deviate as much as possible from anything that resembles what one might hear "live". Certainly, one must attempt to make their "product" (and I mean it in a complimentary way) pleasing, or they will likely suffer insufficient sales to justify any effort to present the music. Who is going to buy a repulsively accurate depiction of a musical event, other than the occasional oddball (such as myself) who would rather listen to a bad recording of good music than a perfectly accurate reproduction of mediocrity? Unfortunately, we are few. There are also forms of recorded music that have nothing to do with what one might hear "live"; music is considered to be an art. Musicians have always tried to create sounds that do not naturally occur because *music is an artistic expression* (a fun read that covers some of these attempts can be found in "Treatise on Instrumentation" by Hector Berlioz and Richard Strauss). Most recorded material regards the recording process as an extension of musical instrumentation. It may be delusional to consider the process to be otherwise, as one would have to ignore the limitations of every tool that is used. -- best regards, Neil |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
On 9/25/2014 8:04 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
This thread was in response to what I perceived as Hank Alrich's claim that his recordings were made with minimal processing, and represented "natural" acoustics. Mr Alrich and I do not see eye-to-eye on what "natural acoustics" are. That may or may not be true. I think that what you disagree about is Hank's use of "natural acoustics" to describe what else is present in the recording in addition to the sound of closely miked instruments. As so often when people get cranky here, the discussion is more about semantics than about engineering or physics. In this context, "natural acoustics" means that the ambient sound is captured by additional microphones in the room that are far enough from the instruments and voices so that they're in the reverberant field. "Un-natural acoustics" would be processing the close mics through reverbs and delays in an attempt to emulate the sound of a room - which may not be the room in which the recording is made. This is typical of studio recordings from the mid 1970s onward until recent years where studio designs have incorporated architectural properties that the designer thinks sound good and are worth using in lieu, or in addition to any artificial processing that the recordist chooses to use - because he thinks it makes the music sound good as opposed to sounding natural. My own recording experiences convinced me that it is essentially impossible to accurately capture and reproduce the acoustics of a performance space with only two channels and two speakers. A conventional stereo recording does not "hear" space the way the ears and brain do, obliging recording engineers to compromise. Many well respected acousticians agree about the inability of a single pair of speakers to accurately reproduce reflections coming from all directions. Sure, you'll hear reflections from the sides and back of a listening room that isn't completely dead, but those are reflections from the speakers, not from the instruments, and not from the surfaces of the room in which they were recorded. With multiple channels and multiple speakers, you still won't get completely accurate reproduction unless your listening room is dead. This really limits your ability to listen to widely available material with "natural acoustics." Over the history of sound recording, this compromise has become not only standard practice (which is understandable), but the //desirable// way to make a recording. The idea that recorded sound should resemble live sound has been all-but discarded. Rather, the original should be dissected, then reassembled into whatever the engineer/producer/performers find pleasing. There two things that influence the use of this process, though they're tied together by one strong force: Economics. One is simply that a lot of music that's recorded for public consumption isn't all played at once because all the players aren't together at the same time. Another is that one size doesn't fit all. If you only record one orchestra in one venue, that's one thing, but if you're a working studio that takes on a lot of different projects, you can only afford to build so many rooms with acoustical characteristics that are realistic for the type of music being played. You might record a bluegrass band singing a four part hymn in a church, but the band playing a fast banjo tune just wouldn't sound right in there - neither for performance or recording. My objection is that it has become the raison dêtre of recording -- that a "good" recording engineer is someone whose "product" (and I mean the word in a derogatory way) can, should, and must deviate as much as possible from anything that resembles what one might hear "live". I don't think that this is the intent at all. It just works out that way economically. If your arrangement calls for eight background vocals or a string quartet, you can bring in those musicians for a recording session, but you can't always afford to take them on tour. So, yes, at least in the pop music world, live music and recordings are different, because they're performed differently. Concert orchestras are a different world. String quartets are somewhere in between. Contemporary classical music is full of non-classical instruments and processing techniques, Those folks do try to take the tricks with them when they perform live, in the same way as an electrical guitarist would plug in a pedal or three. It's not natural either. If I understand Mr Alrich, "Carry Me Home" was made using separate mics on himself and his daughter, and a stereo pair above them with Mr Harman centered. I don't understand how this is supposed to (more or less) accurately capture the room acoustics * -- of which I hear little in the recording. ** And, for this kind of music, that's the way it's supposed to be. It's intimate, you want to feel as if you're sitting close to the musicians, not half way back in an in a large, empty room. There's a little bit of room sound, and that, in Hank's judgment, is enough. If you don't like it, send it back. I'm sure he'll cheerfully refund your money. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Mr Alrich and I do not see eye-to-eye on what "natural acoustics" are. Mr. Alrich has the supreme advantage in that he was in the room in question. This is a simple thing: you want a bigger room. No big deal, but that's the essence of your complaint, whether or not you realize that. I have no problem with your preference. I note, again, that for all your alleged ability to perecive what is what, I have fooled you outrightly into thinking the close mics were not right up against the sources, and I did so without recourse to artifical reverberation. You have stated this more than once, appartently without realizing the obvious implications of what you are admitting you have not heard. I would suggest as a matter of pedagogy that you seriously return to listening until you can hear what is what in the recording. You have been fooled, Perfectly, apparently, and when I get fooled, I start studying. You ought to hear what Bob Smith can hear over all of his playback systems. He's in your area, is an AES member of stature, and a former poster to RAP. I now engage him on Facebook. He is doing very interesting work in the field of audio communications for medical facilities, approaching retirement, and looking forward to that. I have enjoyed, and am enjoying this conversation immensely. If I get time I may do a brief rundown of what we did, and why I chose to do it that way, and what I aim to do next time, which is to build on this process. I have reasons for recording us this way, and in the end, an enginerr of considerable repute found the process fascinating and fun. I hope to work with Fred Remmert again. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote: Mr Alrich and I do not see eye-to-eye on what "natural acoustics" are. My own recording experiences convinced me that it is essentially impossible to accurately capture and reproduce the acoustics of a performance space with only two channels and two speakers. A conventional stereo recording does not "hear" space the way the ears and brain do, obliging recording engineers to compromise. There's another big issue he there are a thousand different kinds of natural acoustic. The room you'd want to have a bluegrass band in is very different than the room you'd want to have a chamber orchestra in, which is still different than the room you'd want to have a concert orchestra in. And a solo guitar would want to be in a still different kind of room. There are a lot of albums out there that have a sense of space, but it might not be the kind of space you might prefer while still being realistic. It might also be appropriate, and it might not, but that's what makes production an art and not a science. --scott The actual acoustics of the room, in this case, are all over the sound, whether or not Bill can hear that over his system. I have communciations from skilled listeners detailing their experiences listening to the album, and every single one of then remarks on the the natural reverberation. I hope to work in a bigger room next time. But we are neither a symphony nor a rock band, and large revererant venues are not to our liking, so I fully expect the next issue to fall short of Bill's desires, too. What I did resulted in something that plays well everywhere and broadcasts well, a very important aspect. Several times in cars I have followed strings of other albums from artists well known in the "Americana" field with ours to see how we hold up, particularly relative to apparent loudness. Every one of the preceding albums auditiioned is pretty mashed. Our album jumps out of the car radio bigtime, and sounds louder than the squished stuff. There is no point in making an album if you can't get it exposed, can't sell enough to recoup. (We're not here yet, but we are nicely into our second pressing of a thousand, and many in our genre who do not play every night never get the closet cleared of the first pressing.) With nobody working radio we succeeded in attracting spins all over the world. So many factors to consider, so little money to put it all in play. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
William Sommerwerck wrote:
My objection is that it has become the raison d'tre of recording -- that a "good" recording engineer is someone whose "product" (and I mean the word in a derogatory way) can, should, and must deviate as much as possible from anything that resembles what one might hear "live". The most common comment from casual, non-audio-pro listeners is that they feel like we are playing in their livingroom. You haven't heard us live. Many of those people have heard us live, often many times. I think you project a lot of stuff that has little to do with music in the real world. Of course a recording is and must be a product, unless you are in for vanity issues and you have the means to support that. This is a business. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote: Mr Alrich and I do not see eye-to-eye on what "natural acoustics" are. My own recording experiences convinced me that it is essentially impossible to accurately capture and reproduce the acoustics of a performance space with only two channels and two speakers. A conventional stereo recording does not "hear" space the way the ears and brain do, obliging recording engineers to compromise. There's another big issue he there are a thousand different kinds of natural acoustic. The room you'd want to have a bluegrass band in is very different than the room you'd want to have a chamber orchestra in, which is still different than the room you'd want to have a concert orchestra in. And a solo guitar would want to be in a still different kind of room. There are a lot of albums out there that have a sense of space, but it might not be the kind of space you might prefer while still being realistic. It might also be appropriate, and it might not, but that's what makes production an art and not a science. Absolutely. As you and I discussed several weeks ago, what sounds "natural" is at least partly subjective. What sounds "right" to one person may not to another. |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
"hank alrich" wrote in message
... The actual acoustics of the room, in this case, are all over the sound, whether or not Bill can hear that over his system. I have communciations from skilled listeners detailing their experiences listening to the album, and every single one of then remarks on the the natural reverberation. After listening on the Apogees, I listened through the STAX headphones. Headphone listening exaggerates ambience, but I did not hear a recording with "the actual acoustics of the room ... are all over the sound." It still seemed lacking in what I consider "plausible space". I hate when people aren't able sit down together and listen on the same equipment. I hope to work in a bigger room next time. But we are neither a symphony nor a rock band, and large revererant venues are not to our liking, so I fully expect the next issue to fall short of Bill's desires, too. Why would I want to hear three musicians in an inappropriately large room? There's a particular type of close-up recording in which the performers appear to be in a large reverberant space, without the reverberation messing with the direct sound. (That is, the ambience appears to be a distant "cloud".) You sometimes hear this in string-quartet recordings. I heard one recently, but don't remember which recording it was. I would very much like to hear an Ambisonic recording of you, your daughter, and Mr Harman. I'm sure it would be "educational" for all of us. What I did resulted in something that plays well everywhere and broadcasts well, a very important aspect. Several times in cars I have followed strings of other albums from artists well known in the "Americana" field with ours to see how we hold up, particularly relative to apparent loudness. Every one of the preceding albums auditiioned is pretty mashed. Our album jumps out of the car radio bigtime, and sounds louder than the squished stuff. There is no point in making an album if you can't get it exposed, can't sell enough to recoup. (We're not here yet, but we are nicely into our second pressing of a thousand, and many in our genre who do not play every night never get the closet cleared of the first pressing.) With nobody working radio we succeeded in attracting spins all over the world. No argument with any of this. So many factors to consider, so little money to put it all in play. What else is new? grin |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
"Neil" wrote in message ...
On 9/25/2014 8:04 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote: My own recording experiences convinced me that it is essentially impossible to accurately capture and reproduce the acoustics of a performance space with only two channels and two speakers. A conventional stereo recording does not "hear" space the way the ears and brain do, obliging recording engineers to compromise. I agree that it is essentially impossible to accurately and reproduce performance space, but I don't care how many channels or speakers one uses; compromises are unavoidable. Not if the listener has Ambisonic playback. Which is the Impossible Dream. Certainly, one must attempt to make their "product" (and I mean it in a complimentary way) pleasing, or they will likely suffer insufficient sales to justify any effort to present the music. Who is going to buy a repulsively accurate depiction of a musical event, other than the occasional oddball (such as myself) who would rather listen to a bad recording of good music than a perfectly accurate reproduction of mediocrity? Unfortunately, we are few. You are restating Holt's Law: Great performances are rarely recorded well, and vice-versa. There are also forms of recorded music that have nothing to do with what one might hear "live"; music is considered to be an art. Musicians have always tried to create sounds that do not naturally occur because *music is an artistic expression* (a fun read that covers some of these attempts can be found in "Treatise on Instrumentation" by Hector Berlioz and Richard Strauss). Most recorded material regards the recording process as an extension of musical instrumentation. It may be delusional to consider the process to be otherwise, as one would have to ignore the limitations of every tool that is used. The latter is what bothers me, when it's done "arbitrarily", rather than as a conscious attempt to produce a musically meaningful effect. |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
"hank alrich" wrote in message
... William Sommerwerck wrote: Mr Alrich and I do not see eye-to-eye on what "natural acoustics" are. Mr. Alrich has the supreme advantage in that he was in the room in question. This is a simple thing: you want a bigger room. No big deal, but that's the essence of your complaint, whether or not you realize that. I have no problem with your preference. I don't want a bigger room. I want the illusion OF a room, which I don't seem to be hearing. interesting stuff snipped I have enjoyed, and am enjoying this conversation immensely. If I get time I may do a brief rundown of what we did, and why I chose to do it that way, and what I aim to do next time, which is to build on this process. I have reasons for recording us this way, and in the end, an engineer of considerable repute found the process fascinating and fun. I hope to work with Fred Remmert again. I would very much like to hear the details, if you have time. Additionally... Are you free over the weekend? Would you be willing to spend a half hour on the phone? |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message ... On 9/25/2014 8:04 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote: My own recording experiences convinced me that it is essentially impossible to accurately capture and reproduce the acoustics of a performance space with only two channels and two speakers. A conventional stereo recording does not "hear" space the way the ears and brain do, obliging recording engineers to compromise. I agree that it is essentially impossible to accurately and reproduce performance space, but I don't care how many channels or speakers one uses; compromises are unavoidable. Not if the listener has Ambisonic playback. Which is the Impossible Dream. I'd call it the latest delusion that really is no more than just another special effect. Since it does NOTHING at all to address the many issues involved in the recording process there are very few opportunities to validate the results during playback. In other words, if one isn't intimately familiar with the acoustics of the recording space, the only thing that they can determine is whether the "product" is pleasing to them. OTOH, if one *is* intimately familiar with the recording environment, they won't have any problem determining whether it's live or Memorex. ;-) There are also forms of recorded music that have nothing to do with what one might hear "live"; music is considered to be an art. Musicians have always tried to create sounds that do not naturally occur because *music is an artistic expression* (a fun read that covers some of these attempts can be found in "Treatise on Instrumentation" by Hector Berlioz and Richard Strauss). Most recorded material regards the recording process as an extension of musical instrumentation. It may be delusional to consider the process to be otherwise, as one would have to ignore the limitations of every tool that is used. The latter is what bothers me, when it's done "arbitrarily", rather than as a conscious attempt to produce a musically meaningful effect. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I could agree if the term "arbitrarily" was changed to "incompetently", because after all only the producer would know if their decisions were arbitrary. That doesn't change the fact that someone had a concept that they're trying to present, and some listeners will "get it", others not, and even some of those who "get it" may not care for it. Personal taste is a valid assessment tool, but is far from objective. -- best regards, Neil |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
Neil Gould wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote: Not if the listener has Ambisonic playback. Which is the Impossible Dream. I'd call it the latest delusion that really is no more than just another special effect. Since it does NOTHING at all to address the many issues involved in the recording process there are very few opportunities to validate the results during playback. In other words, if one isn't intimately familiar with the acoustics of the recording space, the only thing that they can determine is whether the "product" is pleasing to them. Ambisonics gives you a step toward being able to have real validation, but it doesn't get you all the way there. On the other hand, binaural recording _does_ give you real validation and a simultaneous binaural recording can be used to validate stereo, ambisonic, --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
Neil Gould wrote: William Sommerwerck wrote: Not if the listener has Ambisonic playback. Which is the Impossible Dream. I'd call it the latest delusion that really is no more than just another special effect. Since it does NOTHING at all to address the many issues involved in the recording process there are very few opportunities to validate the results during playback. In other words, if one isn't intimately familiar with the acoustics of the recording space, the only thing that they can determine is whether the "product" is pleasing to them. Ambisonics gives you a step toward being able to have real validation, but it doesn't get you all the way there. On the other hand, binaural recording _does_ give you real validation and a simultaneous binaural recording can be used to validate stereo, Ambisonic. If, by validation, you mean a reference that closely approximates the original acoustics, I don't see where binaural has the advantage. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote: William Sommerwerck wrote: Not if the listener has Ambisonic playback. Which is the Impossible Dream. I'd call it the latest delusion that really is no more than just another special effect. Since it does NOTHING at all to address the many issues involved in the recording process there are very few opportunities to validate the results during playback. In other words, if one isn't intimately familiar with the acoustics of the recording space, the only thing that they can determine is whether the "product" is pleasing to them. Ambisonics gives you a step toward being able to have real validation, but it doesn't get you all the way there. On the other hand, binaural recording _does_ give you real validation and a simultaneous binaural recording can be used to validate stereo, ambisonic, --scott Of course, the point of my comment is lost by lopping off the last sentence of the paragraph: "OTOH, if one is intimately familiar with the recording environment, they won't have any problem determining whether it's live or Memorex. " In other words, "validation" is acheived by perfect replication of the live acoustic experience, which isn't likely for many reasons that the experienced recording engineer understands. The context was in addressing the necessity to compromise in order to create a "product" that the listener will appreciate. My opinion is that many recording techniques from mono to ambisonics can achieve this objective, but none will be mistaken for the actual live experience by the critical listener. -- best regards, Neil |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
In other words, "validation" is acheived by perfect replication of the live acoustic experience, which isn't likely for many reasons that the experienced recording engineer understands. The context was in addressing the necessity to compromise in order to create a "product" that the listener will appreciate. My opinion is that many recording techniques from mono to Ambisonics can achieve this objective, but none will be mistaken for the actual live experience by the critical listener. That wasn't what I was talking about. It was whether "Carry Me Home" had any sense of acoustic space at all, accurate or not. It is my /opinion/ that an Ambisonic recording, played through plasma speakers, could come pretty close to sounding like "the real thing". Of course, the sheer impracticality of this is used as an excuse for making recordings that are merely "pleasing". I find it easy to "suspend disbelief" with the better multi-ch recordings. Whether what I hear is truly an accurate rendition of the original is another matter. But such recordings give an illusion of reality. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
Neil Gould wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: Neil Gould wrote: William Sommerwerck wrote: Not if the listener has Ambisonic playback. Which is the Impossible Dream. I'd call it the latest delusion that really is no more than just another special effect. Since it does NOTHING at all to address the many issues involved in the recording process there are very few opportunities to validate the results during playback. In other words, if one isn't intimately familiar with the acoustics of the recording space, the only thing that they can determine is whether the "product" is pleasing to them. Ambisonics gives you a step toward being able to have real validation, but it doesn't get you all the way there. On the other hand, binaural recording _does_ give you real validation and a simultaneous binaural recording can be used to validate stereo, ambisonic, --scott Of course, the point of my comment is lost by lopping off the last sentence of the paragraph: "OTOH, if one is intimately familiar with the recording environment, they won't have any problem determining whether it's live or Memorex. " In other words, "validation" is acheived by perfect replication of the live acoustic experience, which isn't likely for many reasons that the experienced recording engineer understands. No, no, no. Validation is the process by which we evaluate whether the replication of the acoustic experience is perfect or not, and to what degree it is perfect. The context was in addressing the necessity to compromise in order to create a "product" that the listener will appreciate. My opinion is that many recording techniques from mono to ambisonics can achieve this objective, but none will be mistaken for the actual live experience by the critical listener. Some of them might be under some circumstances, though. The problem is that with all the sights, smells, proprioceptive cues, and so forth gone, it's very hard to tell just how close to the original experience you are. That is where the notion of validation comes in. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
The naiive audiophile thinks that all recordings are "sonic pictures" of a
real performance that the mikes captured somewhere, and the object is to accurately relay that original sound to you so that it sounds like you are there. Most of us realize that it ain't so simple. Several complications to this rosy scenario overlap to complicate things enough to falsify that impression. 1. You can't get there from here. The recording and reproduction process has the unfortunate result of changing the spatial nature of the original to that of a combination of the original and your playback system, including the room. 2. The process might be considered a point along a continuum between total "you are there" and "they are here." Some techniques are dedicated to miking naturally all of the sounds arriving, including the room effects if it is in a great hall. Some are done by multi-tracking with closer miking techniques, then placing all sounds as desired, with or without a touch of ambience mixed in. Closer miking of small groups such as Hank's or a piano trio or string quartet is fine, and in fact the closer you get the better for realism, because it sounds more like they are playing right there in your room in front of you. 3. There wasn't necessarily a "there" there. The recording can be considered a work in and of itself, with no need for a reference to a live event that actually happened anywhere.. 4. The result of all this is that "It isn't a recording until it gets played back." In other words, you cannot say what your recording effort sounds like in order for William to tell Hank or vice versa. Each of us hears a different result of that same recording because it happens anew in each of our systems. The recording problem is one of creating a "product" that will convey the producer's intent to the intended audience on the most probable systems that it will get played back on. The playback problem is constructing a system that can play the most recordings with the greatest sense of realism and feeling. There should be enough overlap between the two to get pretty close every time. A statement such as William's that there is no "ambience" or such in the recording is a red flag that something is missing at one end or the other. I suspect it is at the playback end, because in a good system ANY recording you play back will have SOME ambience, even if it is just that of your playback room. It should sound very real and very satisfying, giving the impression that they are right there playing and singing for you at home. If this fails to happen, then you are doing something to make it sound "speakery" instead of making a natural acoustic sound in the room. Not critiquing William's system, because I have never heard it. But if he is playing back on his Ambisonics system a recording that has no such sound then he may be criticizing the wrong end of the process. I will know soon when I get my copy. Gary Eickmeier |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
Neil Gould wrote:
In other words, "validation" is acheived by perfect replication of the live acoustic experience, which isn't likely for many reasons that the experienced recording engineer understands. The context was in addressing the necessity to compromise in order to create a "product" that the listener will appreciate. My opinion is that many recording techniques from mono to ambisonics can achieve this objective, but none will be mistaken for the actual live experience by the critical listener. Agreed. But that's why there is LSD. g -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
On 9/27/2014 10:26 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
After a wholesome, manly breakfast of six-years-outdated Hillshire Turkey Kielbasa, Albertson's Potato Rounds, and a can of V8, I listened to "Carry Me Home" again, on both the Apogees and the STAX. This was at 6:45 AM, when my ears are rested, and there's little disturbance from cars, people, etc. I still don't hear much, if any, sense of Raumklang. After that breakfast, I'd probably barf. Have some Raisin Bran, take a three mile walk, and then listen again. Seriously, I'm getting tired of reading this blather, but it's like passing a nasty car wreck - I just have to look. I'm really sorry that you obsess so about realism when you listen to music. I appreciate that you're able to dissect what you're hearing, but geez, can't you just sit back and enjoy the music? I swear, this is getting to sound like Flanders & Swann's "A Song of Reproduction." www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fJmmDkvQyc -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
"Mike Rivers" skrev i en meddelelse
... On 9/27/2014 10:26 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote: After a wholesome, manly breakfast of six-years-outdated Hillshire Turkey Kielbasa, Albertson's Potato Rounds, and a can of V8, I listened to "Carry Me Home" again, on both the Apogees and the STAX. This was at 6:45 AM, when my ears are rested, and there's little disturbance from cars, people, etc. I still don't hear much, if any, sense of Raumklang. After that breakfast, I'd probably barf. Have some Raisin Bran, take a three mile walk, and then listen again. Seriously, I'm getting tired of reading this blather, but it's like passing a nasty car wreck - I just have to look. I'm really sorry that you obsess so about realism when you listen to music. I appreciate that you're able to dissect what you're hearing, but geez, can't you just sit back and enjoy the music? I haven't heard the recording this is about, but the talk sounds to me like this: William gets a recording without fake verb and misses it. Small rooms do not have concert hall sound. Kind regards Peter Larsen I swear, this is getting to sound like Flanders & Swann's "A Song of Reproduction." www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fJmmDkvQyc -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...
On 9/27/2014 10:26 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote: After a wholesome, manly breakfast of six-years-outdated Hillshire Turkey Kielbasa, Albertson's Potato Rounds, and a can of V8, I listened to "Carry Me Home" again, on both the Apogees and the STAX. This was at 6:45 AM, when my ears are rested, and there's little disturbance from cars, people, etc. I still don't hear much, if any, sense of Raumklang. Seriously, I'm getting tired of reading this blather, but it's like passing a nasty car wreck - I just have to look. I'm really sorry that you obsess so about realism when you listen to music. I appreciate that you're able to dissect what you're hearing, but geez, can't you just sit back and enjoy the music? I've been known to break into tears listening to music on the car radio -- and that's hardly realistic reproduction, The "problem" is that I'm an audiophile, and I find that the better the reproduction, the greater the emotional involvement. I wish recording engineers what take what they do a little more seriously. The principal reason sound recording & playback have gotten so good, is because there are music-loving engineers who wanted to make it better and better. I swear, this is getting to sound like Flanders & Swann's "A Song of Reproduction." www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fJmmDkvQyc "With a tone control, at a single touch, Bel canto sounds like Double Dutch. Still, I never did care for music, much -- It's the high fidelity!" |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
web.com... I haven't heard the recording this is about, but the talk sounds to me like this: William gets a recording without fake verb and misses it. Small rooms do not have concert hall sound. That's backwards, Peter. "William gets a recording without a recognizable sense of room sound, and objects because the musicians creating it consider that "natural" sound." As I said in another post, the real problem is that this recording doesn't appear to be real stereo. |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
On 9/27/2014 2:13 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"William gets a recording without a recognizable sense of room sound, and objects because the musicians creating it consider that "natural" sound." As I said in another post, the real problem is that this recording doesn't appear to be real stereo. It's not possible to record "real stereo" if you use multiple close mics. If you want more detail or clarity, or control over balance among the sources than a single ambient mic setup can provide, they you need to bring in spot mics, and that's the end of the game. Many producers feel that there are more important things to present to the listener than the sound of the performance in a room, and they do what's necessary to do what they think will appeal to the typical listener. It's not that they're doing it because they can, or because they're lazy, they're doing it because that's how they want it to sound. Your model of the ideal recording doesn't fit all genres. I suppose that the notion (and product) of recording a symphony orchestra with 20 or 30 spot mics in addition to room mics drives you nuts. There's a lot of that been going around for the last 10-15 years. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
I suppose that the notion (and product) of recording a symphony orchestra with 20 or 30 spot mics in addition to room mics drives you nuts. There's a lot of that been going around for the last 10-15 years. Well, I tell a story. Last month, I worked a pops event where the orchestra was supposed to sound like a film soundtrack. It was aggressively spotmiked and the sound in the hall with the PA up was totally, totally different than the live sound of the orchestra. It was so exaggerated, so larger than life, and so close, it was almost a cartoon of the real orchestral sound. At the interval, people came by and asked me if the PA was on. People told me how natural it sounded when I told them the PA was in use. One reviewer afterward said that it wasn't loud enough and he wished we had used sound reinforcement. I'm watching this sort of befuddled since my job is to make the orchestra sound as unrealistic as possible and people don't get what is going on. But, that's how it is. People lose sense of how things really sound unless they are constantly listening to them day in and day out. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
"William Sommerwerck" skrev i en meddelelse
... "Peter Larsen" wrote in message web.com... I haven't heard the recording this is about, but the talk sounds to me like this: William gets a recording without fake verb and misses it. Small rooms do not have concert hall sound. That's backwards, Peter. "William gets a recording without a recognizable sense of room sound, and objects because the musicians creating it consider that "natural" sound." As I said in another post, the real problem is that this recording doesn't appear to be real stereo. Tell you what, I will record Hank and whatever ensemble available if possible and if allowed. Currently I don't see how it would be, but having contingency plans for the unexpected is wise ... there is a songwriter festival in Copenhagen in late august btw ... see: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Cope...tival/?fref=ts Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... In article , Mike Rivers wrote: I suppose that the notion (and product) of recording a symphony orchestra with 20 or 30 spot mics in addition to room mics drives you nuts. There's a lot of that been going around for the last 10-15 years. Well, I tell a story. Last month, I worked a pops event where the orchestra was supposed to sound like a film soundtrack. It was aggressively spotmiked and the sound in the hall with the PA up was totally, totally different than the live sound of the orchestra. It was so exaggerated, so larger than life, and so close, it was almost a cartoon of the real orchestral sound. At the interval, people came by and asked me if the PA was on. People told me how natural it sounded when I told them the PA was in use. One reviewer afterward said that it wasn't loud enough and he wished we had used sound reinforcement. I'm watching this sort of befuddled since my job is to make the orchestra sound as unrealistic as possible and people don't get what is going on. But, that's how it is. People lose sense of how things really sound unless they are constantly listening to them day in and day out. --scott I still say that good SR isn't noticable until it's turned off. I also think that the best place to hear the orchestra is from the stage, since I've played a lot more concerts than I've listened to. Sean |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Carry Me Back" sound evaluation
William Sommerwerck wrote:
* Am I the only one who's noticed that Shaidri's level varies from track to track, as well as her positioning? In some cases she appears to be more or less centered, while her guitar remains to the left! On purpose where she is carrying a lead vocal that needs to come out of both sides of a car system with equal intensity. This work is not only about your living room. We needed her voice in the middle for effective delivery _of the song_, whereas we did not want her guitar centered, we wished to keep the two guitars _about where the stereo pair heard them_. ** In a true stereo recording, both Hank and Shaidri's voices would occupy an identifiable acoustic space, because they would be recorded by at least two mics. I suppose this is my ultimate criticism of "Carry Me Home" -- it isn't /really/ stereo (to the extent I can judge). Each of our voices was captured by three microphones, close vocal mic, plus left and right of the Schoeps stereo pair. For most of the singing the panned positions align well with those of the stereo pair. Where that varies it is by decision, a necessary compromise in my mind to get the playback I needed across the widest range of rigs. Airplay in ten countries and twenty+ states/provinces, with nobody working radio, no PR campaign, a simple poorly planned swiftly executed mailing of a couple hundred copies, around the world. This record plays well against far more costly competition. This approach works and if I live long enough I'll get to refine it next time. I will agree that from an absolutely ideal standpoint it would be great if such success could be had that one could do whatever the hell one wished, this issue for the DJ's, that one for the vinyl freaks, a few cassettes for the insane, and a whole seperate recording for the audiophiles, on top of what we already do. In reality I am faced with a budget, time constraints, a product in a single physical form, and the need to have it communicate the songs, not the sound, across as many different systems and settings as possible. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Microphones: "High SPL" - Test and Noise Floor Evaluation | Pro Audio | |||
Volume Level of "Tuner" vs that of "CD" "Tape" or "Phono" on my homestereo, boombox, or car receiver | Tech | |||
comments on the sound of "Snow White" and "Wizard of Oz" | Pro Audio | |||
"Triangle" sample for evaluation | Audio Opinions |