spud wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Nate Najar wrote:
i've never heard guitars that out of tune before!

Okay, first of all, you have a band consisting of people who are profoundly
deaf, after many years in front of monitors blasting over huge backlines.

Secondly, these people spent decades taking every possible psychoactive
drug available, scraping their brains down to the rind.

This is a waltzing bear. The fact that they aren't performing well is
irrelevant. The fact that they can, after all this, still actually get
up on stage without being gaffer-taped into position is amazing.

Mic: Windy isn't it?
Keith: No, I think it's thursday,..
Charlie: So am I, lets go off for a pint!

These are the two most entertaining posts so far in '06, and together
they mix very well.

--
ha

Lorin David Schultz wrote:

Don't get me started...

Speaking of "just the TV I was watching" I'm wondering if anyone else
noticed these two things:

1. A nasty crackling on the left channel. Constant, not intermittent.
I was listening to ABC's HD feed, straight off the bird. If it was in
surround, what I got in my booth was a two-channel downmix.

2. A really, really weird phase thing on the crowd noise right after the
Stones finished. The line on the scope turned 90 degrees, which would
suggest that one side was polarity inverted, but it sounded MUCH
stranger than that. It wasn't subtle.


Yup, during the national anthem. I had headphones on. The crackling was
horrible.

Nate Najar wrote:

i've never heard guitars that out of tune before!

I have, but not in front of so many people

Brian wrote:

I thought it was pretty bad, but then again I have NEVER seen a
superbowl halftime performance that didn't suck.


Last year? Paul McCartney?

Malachi wrote:

You want perfect? Wrong band.


Perfect?

How about something even resembling a cover band made up of 14 year olds?

Lines: 55
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling
X-Trace: pcpocbcnbdmdhgfgdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcbobo mmmaomoojpabgjpfmccjkoflfalkaiiajbkmcdaoeibigddppp okikbfpopnnkcdgbiolplalinkmgakcooaklelcnnmeahbfbbg dbemghfool
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 10:55:49 EST
Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:55:49 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.audio.pro:1224963


On 2006-02-06 said:
I was listening to ABC's HD feed, straight off the
bird. If it was in surround, what I got in my booth was a
two-channel downmix.
2. A really, really weird phase thing on the crowd noise right
after the Stones finished. The line on the scope turned 90 degrees,
which would suggest that one side was polarity inverted, but it
sounded MUCH stranger than that. It wasn't subtle.
Maybe you can explain this so that this old blind man's
comprehending. HOwever nobody else can.

wHat is it with these networks thinking that the play by
play announcer needs to be buried in noise? IF they're not
burying him in the crowd noise from the stadium they're
burying the poor guy in weird swoosh noises when they switch
from replay back to live shots etc.

IT's gotten to the point that I almost refuse to listen to a
game on television if I can't get good radio audio.

Do any of you guys out there in TV land realize that some
folks may not be "viewing" as well as listening?

Speaking of which David:

About two decades ago I raised seven different colors of it
with the CBS affiliate in des MOines Iowa until they quit
with the "sports scores on a roll" or the scrolling weather
info.
sInce my wife at the tim was as blind as I am we didn't
own an actual television but used a little am/fm receiver
with vhf TV band receive capability. wHen all three local
network affiliates started with the sports score on the roll
crappola during baseball season we both got on their cases
really bad. Other blind folks joined us until the CBS and
ABC affiliates went back to actually using the human voice
to tell us the baseball scores.

iS ****ty audio a part of big network production in TV land
by design these days for some reason?





Richard WEbb,
Electric SPider Productions
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.



Great audio is never heard by the average person, but bad
audio is heard by everyone.

Malachi wrote:
You want perfect? Wrong band.

I didn't think it was particularly horrible. Most of the
out-of-tunacity which bothered me came from the slide guitar, which is
somewhat inherent to slide, unless it's played really meticulously.
Which of course ain't the Stones.
On the other hand it wasn't particularly great either, like for example
that duet Mick sang with Tina Turner a few years ago. Now that was a
performance!
I thought the Superbowl version of "Satisfaction" was moderately
satisfying though.
Rick.

Dr. Dolittle wrote:

Malachi wrote:

You want perfect? Wrong band.

Perfect?

How about something even resembling a cover band made up of 14 year olds?

Jump into their shoes and show everybody how it's supposed to be done.
This ain't a music show, it's a semi-gladiator spectacle. The musician's
stage working conditions, except for the pay, probably suck about as
heftily as can be.

--
ha

well said

"Dr. Dolittle" wrote in message
...


Brian wrote:

I thought it was pretty bad, but then again I have NEVER seen a
superbowl halftime performance that didn't suck.

Last year? Paul McCartney?

While I agree, there is no reason for out of tune anything, the guitar not
being on, or any of a host of issues that have been discussed here.
McCartney did it pretty well last year as someone else pointed out.


"hank alrich" wrote in message
.. .
Dr. Dolittle wrote:

Malachi wrote:

You want perfect? Wrong band.

Perfect?

How about something even resembling a cover band made up of 14 year olds?

Jump into their shoes and show everybody how it's supposed to be done.
This ain't a music show, it's a semi-gladiator spectacle. The musician's
stage working conditions, except for the pay, probably suck about as
heftily as can be.

--
ha

hank alrich wrote:

Jump into their shoes and show everybody how it's supposed to be done.

What the **** does my abilities have to do with it? There are a thousand
other bands that could do exactly that and sound WAY better then the
Stones sounded.





This ain't a music show, it's a semi-gladiator spectacle. The musician's
stage working conditions, except for the pay, probably suck about as
heftily as can be.


They were paid MILLIONS for one 10 minute show. You would think they
could have given a better performance than they did.

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:05:38 GMT, "Lorin David Schultz"
wrote:

Speaking of "just the TV I was watching" I'm wondering if anyone else
noticed these two things:

2. A really, really weird phase thing on the crowd noise right after the
Stones finished. The line on the scope turned 90 degrees, which would
suggest that one side was polarity inverted, but it sounded MUCH
stranger than that. It wasn't subtle.

Oh man. He watches football games with a scope on the sound. My
nomination for Most Gone Soundgeek.

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 02:06:32 GMT, "Dr. Dolittle"
wrote:

There are a thousand other bands that could do
exactly that and sound WAY better then the
Stones sounded.

Didn't see it, but, you've got to admit, this
will sound pretty funny to a lot of folks.

Good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 18:17:50 GMT, "Malachi"
trained 100 monkeys to jump on
the keyboard and write:

I didn't think it was as bad as all that, taking into account that the
monitor sound on stage probably was horrible, setup time was practically
nil, the whole set was barely long enough for even a young, spry artist to
warm up.

And taking into account that this is the STONES. They ain't pretty, they
don't sing or play well or even in tune, but they are raw, ranuchy and rock
'n roll.

I wasn't expecting a perfectly in tune performance (though it would
have been nice to be a bit closer).

I *was* expecting a competent job of mixing and keeping track of which
channels to have on. These guys are legend, and should be treated as
such on stage.

You reckon they got enough hearing left to use in ear monitors?

--
jtougas

"listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go" - e.e. cummings

They were paid MILLIONS for one 10 minute show. You would think they
could have given a better performance than they did.

If you're a legend like the Rolling Stones, I bet the "pride in your
work" and "giving people their money's worth" motivations go out the
window after people starting bidding thousands of dollars to buy your
feces on Ebay. (this is just an example, I sure hope this hasn't
happened)

Willie K. Yee, MD wrote:
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:05:38 GMT, "Lorin David Schultz"
wrote:

Speaking of "just the TV I was watching" I'm wondering if anyone else
noticed these two things:

2. A really, really weird phase thing on the crowd noise right after the
Stones finished. The line on the scope turned 90 degrees, which would
suggest that one side was polarity inverted, but it sounded MUCH
stranger than that. It wasn't subtle.

Oh man. He watches football games with a scope on the sound. My
nomination for Most Gone Soundgeek.

Betcha $5 Lorin was watching the game at his TV job, where they have
audio scopes and you're theoretically actually supposed to be able to
read them.

FWIW today about 4 of us audio guys asked he who was assigned the
game Sunday "Hey Dennis, the audio really sucked on the Stones!" "Hey
it was a package" he shrugged, "...it came in that way...." My guess
is that maybe someone setting up on the field patched the wrong fiber
cables together, which put everything on the wrong mix channels and
threw all pregame mix setup to hell. As for the out of tuneness,
maybe try to take a warm guitar out into 40 degree weather and see what
happens! (or vice versa.) Last time I went to rehearsal after letting
my Gibson get cold in the van, it took 40 minutes before it would stay
in tune...

To me Mick's perfomance was kinda reminiscent of how he dragged a
demoralized and damaged Stones thru the filming of their "Rock and Roll
Circus" project... You gotta give the man his leadership moxie.
MacCartney did kick their butts though.

Will MIho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

There are a thousand other bands that could do
exactly that and sound WAY better then the
Stones sounded.


Didn't see it, but, you've got to admit, this
will sound pretty funny to a lot of folks.

Yup, it happens.

I watched that INXS thing on the tube, and when they finally played a
couple toons, they blew chunks compared to the house band that had been
imitating them for weeks.

I dont buy the guitar in the cold thing - sorry but I would think those
items had been in the temperature controlled environment for at least a day
or so. - And its very possible someone connected the wrong cable somewhere,
anything is possible


"WillStG" wrote in message
oups.com...
Willie K. Yee, MD wrote:
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:05:38 GMT, "Lorin David Schultz"
wrote:

Speaking of "just the TV I was watching" I'm wondering if anyone else
noticed these two things:

2. A really, really weird phase thing on the crowd noise right after the
Stones finished. The line on the scope turned 90 degrees, which would
suggest that one side was polarity inverted, but it sounded MUCH
stranger than that. It wasn't subtle.

Oh man. He watches football games with a scope on the sound. My
nomination for Most Gone Soundgeek.

Betcha $5 Lorin was watching the game at his TV job, where they have
audio scopes and you're theoretically actually supposed to be able to
read them.

FWIW today about 4 of us audio guys asked he who was assigned the
game Sunday "Hey Dennis, the audio really sucked on the Stones!" "Hey
it was a package" he shrugged, "...it came in that way...." My guess
is that maybe someone setting up on the field patched the wrong fiber
cables together, which put everything on the wrong mix channels and
threw all pregame mix setup to hell. As for the out of tuneness,
maybe try to take a warm guitar out into 40 degree weather and see what
happens! (or vice versa.) Last time I went to rehearsal after letting
my Gibson get cold in the van, it took 40 minutes before it would stay
in tune...

To me Mick's perfomance was kinda reminiscent of how he dragged a
demoralized and damaged Stones thru the filming of their "Rock and Roll
Circus" project... You gotta give the man his leadership moxie.
MacCartney did kick their butts though.

Will MIho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

elecbanana wrote:

They were paid MILLIONS for one 10 minute show. You would think they
could have given a better performance than they did.


If you're a legend like the Rolling Stones, I bet the "pride in your
work" and "giving people their money's worth" motivations go out the
window after people starting bidding thousands of dollars to buy your
feces on Ebay. (this is just an example, I sure hope this hasn't
happened)

Some legends have more class. Pink Floyd for instance.

WillStG wrote:


As for the out of tuneness, maybe try to take a warm guitar out into
40 degree weather and see what happens! (or vice versa.) Last time I
went to rehearsal after letting my Gibson get cold in the van, it
took 40 minutes before it would stay in tune...


Umm, they were playing indoors. Geez, any more excuses for that half
assed guitar playing?

Dr. Dolittle wrote:
WillStG wrote:


As for the out of tuneness, maybe try to take a warm guitar out into
40 degree weather and see what happens! (or vice versa.) Last time I
went to rehearsal after letting my Gibson get cold in the van, it
took 40 minutes before it would stay in tune...


Umm, they were playing indoors. Geez, any more excuses for that half
assed guitar playing?

Not making excuses, just trying to speculate on the cause. You
think the Stones were just incompetent? Fine, but personally I bet
Mick was pretty ****ed off after the gig.

Will MIho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

I think that the on field refes should no longer be allowed to make instant
calls. If something questionable happens they must review ALL video footage
and discuss with no less than three refs before making the call. Partially
because the video footage seems to be more accurate and partially because I
want to see the refs reprimanded! ;-) And hey, I realize it's a tough job,
but it's high time the solid evidence of the replays is considered before
making the call.

John L Rice

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Well, I am legally blind. ;-) It's like looking through a soda straw. But
if that was contact, gee wiz ;-( a light touch on the side? I've been
roughed up a lot worse by toddlers during playtime. Yes it will be
interesting to see what takes place these next couple of days, yet I
didn't "see" any favoritism. I don't root for either team during season
and the seahawks were a pick only because I thought they could do it.
Turns out they didn't.
Next year they might tho. we shall "see" (there's THAT word again;-( )


"John L Rice" wrote in message
...
Did you even watch the game? How's your eye sight? Just wondering. ;-)

--
John L Rice


"Jim" wrote in message
...
Pull yer head out of your ass! I went into this game calling the
seahawks by seven, even tho they was the underdog. the first quarter
there was a fumble that was called "incomplete" the seahawks kept
posession even tho they couldda lost the damn game right there. The only
thing I can say about the whole deal was defense on both sides was right
on! the offense tho was a bit lop sided, now who gets the blame for
that? The LOSERS.
Mind you before ya blow a gasket, I wanted Seattle to win.


"John L Rice" wrote in message
...
"greggery peccary" .@. wrote in message
...
The Stones have had major tonal issues at least since I saw them in
'83 and
could barely decipher what songs they were playing... not as
disappointing
as that game tho, what a farse!

Being from Seattle it's obvious I'm going to have issues with some of
those calls. I think is that the refs may have been 'strongly
encouraged' by people in power to favor the Steelers. If one of the
Seahawks had been tackled with the ball and was face down inches from
that goal line, and then shoved the ball over the goal line after the
fact, and it had been called good, I think there would of been some
serious riots if the Seahawks had won the game.

Official score 21 to 10 Steelers. Correct score 17 to 14 Seahawks!

John L Rice

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:05:38 GMT, "Lorin David Schultz"
wrote:

"elecbanana" wrote:

Maybe it just the tv I was watching, but does nobody care about
syncing the audio and video anymore?



Don't get me started...

Speaking of "just the TV I was watching" I'm wondering if anyone else
noticed these two things:

1. A nasty crackling on the left channel. Constant, not intermittent.
I was listening to ABC's HD feed, straight off the bird. If it was in
surround, what I got in my booth was a two-channel downmix.

2. A really, really weird phase thing on the crowd noise right after the
Stones finished. The line on the scope turned 90 degrees, which would
suggest that one side was polarity inverted, but it sounded MUCH
stranger than that. It wasn't subtle.


I heard the popping / crackling sound and at times it was so loud I
ended up turning the volume WAY down. Like most of you, I thought the
TV mix was pretty crappy. My girlfriend has no sense of what is good
or bad audio normally and she commented on how bad it sounded. As far
as the performance, hell it's The Stones......I thought it was pretty
typical of their live shows. I still enjoyed it except for the
annoying snap, crackle, and pop. (Seemed to me to be on both channels,
but like I said, I turned the audio way down after a minute or so). As
far as the phase thing, I did hear a swooshing sound between songs but
only for a few seconds. It seemed to stop when the audio level picked
up.

joe

On 6 Feb 2006 20:51:37 -0800, "WillStG" wrote:

Willie K. Yee, MD wrote:
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:05:38 GMT, "Lorin David Schultz"
wrote:
2. A really, really weird phase thing on the crowd noise right after the
Stones finished. The line on the scope turned 90 degrees, which would
suggest that one side was polarity inverted, but it sounded MUCH
stranger than that. It wasn't subtle.
Oh man. He watches football games with a scope on the sound. My
nomination for Most Gone Soundgeek.

Betcha $5 Lorin was watching the game at his TV job, where they have
audio scopes and you're theoretically actually supposed to be able to
read them.

Oh. I forgot that we still actually have pros on this newsgroup.

"JN" wrote in message
...

I heard the popping / crackling sound and at times it was so loud I
ended up turning the volume WAY down.

To my ears listening from the Dolby Digital signal in surround it seemed
that the crowd mics were picking up the flapping of towels as I only heard
it from the surrounds with more coming from the right surround channel. It
seemed pretty realistic to me but I can imagine it would have been more
disconcerting when added/downconverted to a 2 track stereo mix.

The money? later, ron


fredlloyd wrote:
Thank f**k someone knows what it's all about
wrote in message
oups.com...
The Mix was very crappy at times. The Stones, however, are all about
imperfection and emotion. I've seen them twice, live. That's what they
do.They got balls, They have fun. They were theSex Pistols, The
Ramones, Nirvana, Metallica, Pearl Jam, the Green Day and the Kaiser
Chiefs of the 60sThey are the bridge between Muddy Waters and
everything rough and rockin' that has existed for 40 years. They rocked
before electronic tuners existed and I have to balance my John Mayer
records with the Rolling Stones just to keep from wanting to marry an
English Teacher.

hank alrich wrote:
david correia wrote:
The game was almost as bad as the Stones' TV mix.

Who handled SR for the halftime show? Was it folks who'd ordinarliy be
providing that for the Stones, or some OB folks?

I think it proves that TV guys only notice sound when it is missing.
The Star Spangled Banner was full of clipping with occasional pops (not
vocal pops, either).

I don't care for the Stones, but if you ignore their being out of tune,
it was still terrible. I normally expect music to be louder than
speaking, but I had to turn them up to hear them; then discovered just
how much I turned them up when it ended and had to turn the talking
heads back down about 12 db.

Austin

Ah...... The Rolling Stones..................
Saw them at the garden in '69, they were FANTASTIC!
Might be the best R&R show I have ever experienced.
Today, I'm still amazed the roof stayed on the place, not because of the
volume, but the energy of the Stones and the crowd. That was then and this
is SAD!
If someone was throwing multimillions at me......well, and they still love
it, so why not. That said, let's be real.
They sucked, the sound sucked, and at this point to me at least, they look
like a parody.......of a parody!
I guess that's entertaining too, if you push mute and close your eyes.Grace
Slick, someone else might want to listen to you, as I think we have reached
the tipping point, in this situation.
This opinion has NOTHING to do with the fact that about 25 years ago, Mick
and I almost came to blows on 73rd st. and Central Park West. Hey, maybe it
was my fault, because I said, "Hi Mick. Ooops on me.
Well, he went nuts, got in my face and started screaming.
My jaw dropped, and no words came out of my mouth, but right before Jerry
Hall grabbed his arm and pulled him away, I think I said, "Come on hit me,
you pussy, Hit me".
Too bad for me he didn't, if you know what I mean. ;-)

Tom








"AustinMN" wrote in message
oups.com...
hank alrich wrote:
david correia wrote:
The game was almost as bad as the Stones' TV mix.

Who handled SR for the halftime show? Was it folks who'd ordinarliy be
providing that for the Stones, or some OB folks?

I think it proves that TV guys only notice sound when it is missing.
The Star Spangled Banner was full of clipping with occasional pops (not
vocal pops, either).

I don't care for the Stones, but if you ignore their being out of tune,
it was still terrible. I normally expect music to be louder than
speaking, but I had to turn them up to hear them; then discovered just
how much I turned them up when it ended and had to turn the talking
heads back down about 12 db.

Austin

In article . net,
"Tommy B" wrote:

Ah...... The Rolling Stones..................
Saw them at the garden in '69, they were FANTASTIC!
Might be the best R&R show I have ever experienced.
Today, I'm still amazed the roof stayed on the place, not because of the
volume, but the energy of the Stones and the crowd. That was then and this
is SAD!
If someone was throwing multimillions at me......well, and they still love
it, so why not. That said, let's be real.
They sucked, the sound sucked, and at this point to me at least, they look
like a parody.......of a parody!
I guess that's entertaining too, if you push mute and close your eyes.Grace
Slick, someone else might want to listen to you, as I think we have reached
the tipping point, in this situation.
This opinion has NOTHING to do with the fact that about 25 years ago, Mick
and I almost came to blows on 73rd st. and Central Park West. Hey, maybe it
was my fault, because I said, "Hi Mick. Ooops on me.
Well, he went nuts, got in my face and started screaming.
My jaw dropped, and no words came out of my mouth, but right before Jerry
Hall grabbed his arm and pulled him away, I think I said, "Come on hit me,
you pussy, Hit me".
Too bad for me he didn't, if you know what I mean. ;-)

Tom


I first saw them in '65 at the Cow Palace. They've never been known for
consistency and I've never seen a technically great live performance from them.
But that's not what they're about. This show reminded me of the '60s big time.
Same lack of good sound, same lack of great performance. Same old Rolling
Stones. On some level I was gratified, if only because it made me feel better
about the Stones cover band I played with on and off for 40 years. We were a
lot closer to the real thing than I thought. (Fortunately I never met Mick but
our drummer shook his hand at Altamont...)

As far as Grace Slick, perhaps she and others that burned their candles at both
ends have nothing left. (In her case, she's a pretty good graphic artist these
days.) But there are plenty of musicians of that generation that still perform
well and even create new and interesting music on occasion.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

Here's a joke.:
Why do I call Mick and Keith, "Renaissance Men" ?
Because they look about five hundred years old!
Ba-dum!

I hope everyone there had a great time, I was hoping I would have too, Paul
sounded fine last year, so I guess,
The Curse of the TV Sound Beast strikes again.
Since they were in Detroit, it might have sounded better, if they mixed it
like an old Motown track. ;-)
Tom










"Jay Kadis" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Tommy B" wrote:

Ah...... The Rolling Stones..................
Saw them at the garden in '69, they were FANTASTIC!
Might be the best R&R show I have ever experienced.
Today, I'm still amazed the roof stayed on the place, not because of the
volume, but the energy of the Stones and the crowd. That was then and
this
is SAD!
If someone was throwing multimillions at me......well, and they still
love
it, so why not. That said, let's be real.
They sucked, the sound sucked, and at this point to me at least, they
look
like a parody.......of a parody!
I guess that's entertaining too, if you push mute and close your
eyes.Grace
Slick, someone else might want to listen to you, as I think we have
reached
the tipping point, in this situation.
This opinion has NOTHING to do with the fact that about 25 years ago,
Mick
and I almost came to blows on 73rd st. and Central Park West. Hey, maybe
it
was my fault, because I said, "Hi Mick. Ooops on me.
Well, he went nuts, got in my face and started screaming.
My jaw dropped, and no words came out of my mouth, but right before Jerry
Hall grabbed his arm and pulled him away, I think I said, "Come on hit
me,
you pussy, Hit me".
Too bad for me he didn't, if you know what I mean. ;-)

Tom


I first saw them in '65 at the Cow Palace. They've never been known for
consistency and I've never seen a technically great live performance from
them.
But that's not what they're about. This show reminded me of the '60s big
time.
Same lack of good sound, same lack of great performance. Same old Rolling
Stones. On some level I was gratified, if only because it made me feel
better
about the Stones cover band I played with on and off for 40 years. We
were a
lot closer to the real thing than I thought. (Fortunately I never met
Mick but
our drummer shook his hand at Altamont...)

As far as Grace Slick, perhaps she and others that burned their candles at
both
ends have nothing left. (In her case, she's a pretty good graphic artist
these
days.) But there are plenty of musicians of that generation that still
perform
well and even create new and interesting music on occasion.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

In article . net,
"Tommy B" wrote:

Here's a joke.:
Why do I call Mick and Keith, "Renaissance Men" ?
Because they look about five hundred years old!
Ba-dum!


But it makes me feel better about looking in the mirror...

I hope everyone there had a great time, I was hoping I would have too, Paul
sounded fine last year, so I guess,
The Curse of the TV Sound Beast strikes again.
Since they were in Detroit, it might have sounded better, if they mixed it
like an old Motown track. ;-)
Tom


I read they pre-recorded Aretha and Aaron doing the national anthem. To me
that's sacrilege. Especially in Detroit. And the sound still wasn't that good.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

I am a little of both. I am vision impaired. dont get to "see" all the
action and rely heavialy upon the announcers. The noise in most broadcasts
today is a problem. thank god for tivo.


wrote in message
...

On 2006-02-06 said:
I was listening to ABC's HD feed, straight off the
bird. If it was in surround, what I got in my booth was a
two-channel downmix.
2. A really, really weird phase thing on the crowd noise right
after the Stones finished. The line on the scope turned 90 degrees,
which would suggest that one side was polarity inverted, but it
sounded MUCH stranger than that. It wasn't subtle.
Maybe you can explain this so that this old blind man's
comprehending. HOwever nobody else can.

wHat is it with these networks thinking that the play by
play announcer needs to be buried in noise? IF they're not
burying him in the crowd noise from the stadium they're
burying the poor guy in weird swoosh noises when they switch
from replay back to live shots etc.

IT's gotten to the point that I almost refuse to listen to a
game on television if I can't get good radio audio.

Do any of you guys out there in TV land realize that some
folks may not be "viewing" as well as listening?

Speaking of which David:

About two decades ago I raised seven different colors of it
with the CBS affiliate in des MOines Iowa until they quit
with the "sports scores on a roll" or the scrolling weather
info.
sInce my wife at the tim was as blind as I am we didn't
own an actual television but used a little am/fm receiver
with vhf TV band receive capability. wHen all three local
network affiliates started with the sports score on the roll
crappola during baseball season we both got on their cases
really bad. Other blind folks joined us until the CBS and
ABC affiliates went back to actually using the human voice
to tell us the baseball scores.

iS ****ty audio a part of big network production in TV land
by design these days for some reason?





Richard WEbb,
Electric SPider Productions
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.



Great audio is never heard by the average person, but bad
audio is heard by everyone.

Jay Kadis writes:
I read they pre-recorded Aretha and Aaron doing the national anthem. To me
that's sacrilege. Especially in Detroit. And the sound still wasn't that good.

Local rags are saying that they *did* pre-record a safety, but that they
went with the live anthem performance. Aaron Neville's parts definitely sounded
live to me. Aretha (IMO) sounded so good, it was harder to tell if it was
live or memorex, but I think that's just a tribute to her talent.

Some clown from NC wrote the Free Press today complaining about Aretha's
"ridiculous rendition" of the anthem. I think maybe this guy
needs a soul transplant.

Phillip wrote:
: I would agree. That performance was hideous!

I was amazed that at their age they (esp. Mick) could run around like
that and not even be breathing heavily. Regardless of how they sounded,
I have to admire his physical fitness and boundless energy.

Scott

Iain Fraser wrote:
i inderstand your point - but that doesnt explain why the guitar was OFF for
the 1st half of the 1st song!!!


If I was mixing a band with Ron Wood I'd keep him off for the first
half of the whole gig.

In article , wrote:
Phillip wrote:
: I would agree. That performance was hideous!

I was amazed that at their age they (esp. Mick) could run around like
that and not even be breathing heavily. Regardless of how they sounded,
I have to admire his physical fitness and boundless energy.

Scott


I was thinking that. The crudness of it all, made it enjoyable, and if
someone were to guess the age of the band members by this viewing
alone, what would that age be?

greg

In article , (GregS) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Phillip wrote:
: I would agree. That performance was hideous!

I was amazed that at their age they (esp. Mick) could run around like
that and not even be breathing heavily. Regardless of how they sounded,
I have to admire his physical fitness and boundless energy.

Scott


I was thinking that. The crudness of it all, made it enjoyable, and if
someone were to guess the age of the band members by this viewing
alone, what would that age be?

I guess what I hate most, is a bunch of people jumping up and down with their hands
up in the air in front of a band.

greg

"AustinMN" wrote in message

I normally expect music to be louder than
speaking, but I had to turn them up to hear them; then discovered just
how much I turned them up when it ended and had to turn the talking
heads back down about 12 db.

They were just scared Mick would change his mind say "cock".

Scott Dorsey wrote:

This is a waltzing bear. The fact that they aren't performing well is
irrelevant. The fact that they can, after all this, still actually get
up on stage without being gaffer-taped into position is amazing.



I watched the halftime show with six other people: 1 other professional
recording engineer, 1 professional musician, 2 diehard music fans w/
3000 CDs in their collections, & a couple spouses.

Not *one* of us mentioned their being out-of-tune, & no one complained
about the quality of their performance. But every single one of us
commented on how amazing it was that the Stones could get up and do
this at their ages.

And, being not so far from that age ourselves, every one of us was
grateful!

WillStG wrote:

As for the out of tuneness,
maybe try to take a warm guitar out into 40 degree weather and see what
happens! (or vice versa.) Last time I went to rehearsal after letting
my Gibson get cold in the van, it took 40 minutes before it would stay
in tune...

Amen.

--
ha